The man was drunk driving! Who cares what he siad he is one man and this is America what he siad isnt agianst the law what he did was agianst the law.
Printable View
The man was drunk driving! Who cares what he siad he is one man and this is America what he siad isnt agianst the law what he did was agianst the law.
I think the drunk driving punishement goes without saying, SFTS. Although, along those lines, I was startled to learn out of all of this that California has pushed their excessively drunk limit down to 0.12.
For our European friends....
Back in the mid '80s, when we first started treating drunk driving as a serious crime, almost all states set the limit for impairment at 0.10, which I believe to be a fairly reasonable limit.
Soon, states began adopting what they referred to as 'excessively drunk' statutes. In other words, if you got picked up on your first offense, but you were beyond this limit (usually 0.20), you got either 1) a felony charge instead of a misdemeanor or 2) it counted as your 2nd offense the first time. I could argue this, but for the most part, there is logic to be found here.
Well, time goes by, and Americans actually learn. Drunk driving fatalities go down. Alcohol involved accidents go down. Arrests go down. One that a DUI arrest does, beyond anything else, is generate a LOT of money for the local municipality (typically on the order of $2500 US, including court costs). Well, the municipalities noticed the river of cash reducing to a stream, and finally a brook. So, in the mid to late 90's, there was a big movement afoot to reduce the impairment levels. Very few actually use 0.10 any more. Most are now at 0.80 (as was California when Mel got picked up). Some are at 0.07, some 0.05 and some consider any positive reading as impairment (no kidding).
What I hadn't realized was that they had brought down the excessively drunk charge limit down along with it. To give folks an idea of what 0.08 is, go visit one of the online blood alcohol calculators. To get a number of 0.05, even though I weigh over 200lbs, it would only take me 2 glasses of wine (and I'm pretty darned sure I'm not in the least impaired at that point).
Anyway, my point is, it would seem as with all laws American... started for a good reason, but in time, the logic degrades and it becomes yet one more way for the State to put a boot on the neck of the people.... :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I see that creating some serious problems....
A couple of years ago there was a debate about lowering the acceptable alchool level here in Portugal.......and one of the things that was discussed was that you can actually have a positive reading without drinking ANY alchool.
This could be caused by situations like eating fruit and the fruit fermenting slighty during the digestive process.....and in this case if you had a low legal limit people could be injustly charged.
Now...if the legal limit is ZERO.......:dizzy2:
In Britain the rule of thumb is "One Pint" which is.....
0.08 in US terms apparently. Doctors want it lowered to 0.05. As far as I'm concerened any alcohol is a bad thing, but as Ronin says, a 0 limit has its own problems.
Wigferth Ironwall, we will always disagree. You accepted the world of the Christian Church, I don’t. I don’t BELIEVE that a Colonial Power like the Romans will give the power to their salves to give justice… I am not a specialist in antic history, but it is the only time they would have… So, for me, all this is a big lie to exonerate the Romans of the crime…
In doing that they (the Fathers of the Christian Religion) reject the blame on the Jews, as you rightly noticed “quote: So you see the priests were the root cause of his cucifixtion, though the Romans come off badly as well“ therefore, the all Gospels are anti-Semitic, as it was proved by history and the persecution of the Jews in all the Christianity, but as well in the Muslim world (even if in less bloody), because they were the Christ murderers… You can’t deny that, can you?
“It was in a state of unrest, not rebellion, as was Britain”: After the Rebellion of Bouddica, all was quiet along the Thames, same in Gaulle after Vercingetorix… No, Judea was a particularly violent territory, scene of unrest and rebellions which will drive to Jerusalem destruction…
“Jesus was a popular and legitimate claiment to the throne of Isreal”: According to?...
“Since you don't seem to want to look this up, I shall provide you with the pertinant passages”: What passages of Bible have to do with the Holocaust? Can you explain me why the events which happened (allegedly) to Christ when in the Temple have a link wit the Anti-Semitism of Gibson Snr?
“So, again, how can the Passion be anti-Semetic if Jesus was a Jew?” That is casuistic… I had some Arabs friends saying that to be anti-Semitic is to be against Arabs because they are Semite. Technically right but it is absolute distortion. In the case of the Jews and Christianity, it is the same story. Christians were (and some still are) anti-Semitic, even if Jesus was Jew (and his wife, his father, his brothers, friends and followers). BECAUSE when Jesus became Christ he became Christian…
So I was dreaming when some Sicilians prosecuted their governor (Veres) in the Roman courts, admittedly that was during the Republic but the system of government was fundamentally the same at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
All those Sagucies and Pharacies would likely have been Roman citizens, as was Paul. As such they enjoyed the same rites and privilages as a man born in Rome. Your big conspiracy theory falls flat because copies of the Gospels have been found which predate the formation of the Church by as much as two hundred years. They all match up in terms of the arc of the story. Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane.
Bottom line, they weren't slaves.
Here you show a lack of knowledge, NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified, one reason for building Hadrian's Wall was to split the terretory in half and make it easier to control the tribesmen.Quote:
“It was in a state of unrest, not rebellion, as was Britain”: After the Rebellion of Bouddica, all was quiet along the Thames, same in Gaulle after Vercingetorix… No, Judea was a particularly violent territory, scene of unrest and rebellions which will drive to Jerusalem destruction…
The Bible, but if the Bible was full of blatent lies it wouldn't have caught on. The same goes for the Gospels, there were plenty of people who would have met Jesus and still been alive in 70 AD.Quote:
“Jesus was a popular and legitimate claiment to the throne of Isreal”: According to?...
Nothing, it has to do with the Passion not being anti-Semetic and therefore Gibson's film not being anti-Semetic.Quote:
“Since you don't seem to want to look this up, I shall provide you with the pertinant passages”: What passages of Bible have to do with the Holocaust? Can you explain me why the events which happened (allegedly) to Christ when in the Temple have a link wit the Anti-Semitism of Gibson Snr?
Okay, here's the part you need to wrap your head around. When Jesus came along there were those who followered him and those who didn't, the Christians persecuted the Jews because they did not follow Jesus and had him killed, the proof of this was that they were still Jewish.Quote:
“So, again, how can the Passion be anti-Semetic if Jesus was a Jew?” That is casuistic… I had some Arabs friends saying that to be anti-Semitic is to be against Arabs because they are Semite. Technically right but it is absolute distortion. In the case of the Jews and Christianity, it is the same story. Christians were (and some still are) anti-Semitic, even if Jesus was Jew (and his wife, his father, his brothers, friends and followers). BECAUSE when Jesus became Christ he became Christian…
If all the Jews had followed Jesus they would all be Christian now.
So, yes, you have half the arguement there, the bit you have missing is that Jesus would not have wanted his followers to persecute anyone on his behalf. The Passion is the fulfilment of prophecy, it had to happen according to the Bible.
The persecution of Jews was because of their religion, we had wars with Muslims because they didn't except Jesus either
You have a point Brenus, but you have taken it too far. Wigferth's description:
is pretty close to the Gospel accounts, although they also give some blame to the crowd, who demanded Jesus's crucifixion. (Mt 27:15-26, Mk 15: 6-15 Lk 23:13-25, Jn 19: 12-16). However the accounts (apart from Matthew) are muddled as to whether it is the chief priests or the Jewish crowd that are making the demand for cruxifiction. The Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different. Whether the account is true or not is irrelevant. It can only be described as anti Semitic if extra things are added to make it anti-Semitic or if the accounts are anti-Semitic themselves.Quote:
Jesus was arrested by Temple Guards, having been betrayed by Judas.
He was accused by the priests, they condemmed and beat him.
He was then taken before the Roman judge, where the priests put the case before Pilate.
He was exucuted under Roman law. (my addition - by Romans)
I am not sure I agree that all the Gospels were written by Jews, and they were written at a time when it was wise to play down the role of the Romans in the events and must be read with that in mind. Even so, they are not anti-Semitic, after all, almost everyone in the account are is a Jew (Pilate is the only one who is not) but I would have to admit that they have been used as a justification for anti-Semitism. To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself. Certainly Jesus and all the apostles would have called themselves Jews.
There is a shameful history of anti-Semitism running through Christianity although I could not give any examples in the first millenium, but that does not mean that the Gospels are anti-Semitic.
Thankyou, regardless of whether the Gospels were actually written by Jews or not they were not written by the Roman establishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
For the record I would not deny the history of anti-Semetism, it seems to have started when living memory of Jesus ended. The problem with Christianity it is its an "all or nothing" deal. Either you're out or you're in.
Actually, I have a different theory about anti-semitism. It's worthwhile to remember that some people have been actively hating the Jews for most of recorded history, so don't go pinning it on Christians personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
My theory: Even when Jews live in another culture, they remain Jews. This creates a bit of separateness, and the weak-minded will turn that into fear, suspicion and hatred. Much the same problem, historically, for Gypsies and Sikhs. Any group that does not integrate fully into the dominant culture will inspire a certain amount of hatred.
What do you think, is this my worst theory ever? Or just a runner-up to my "evolutionary role of gayness" theory?
The Jews have been labelled as "Deicides" and "Christ-killers" throughout Christian history and many still believe it, inspired by:
Matthew 27:25,
"His blood be on us and on our children"
John 8:14
"Ye are of your father the devil."
The rot really set in when Christians came to power in C4 after their adoption by Constantine and his successors.
St John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the AD 300s:
"The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them."
These views are echoed by many of the Church Fathers, from Origen to Ambrose. Ironically, no wonder the Jews welcomed the Muslims with open arms.
There is a special history of hatred towards the Jews by Christians, and it is not merely 'just because they are different religions'.
Not at all. It applies to groups other than Jews - Catholics were treated with suspicion in Reformation England and later because they were seen as both other and having allegiance to another power - the Pope. Most societies need an 'Other' to blame and demonise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Jews seem to have been very dedicated to keeping their beliefs and culture unpolluted (a dedication I am much in admiration of) despite their travails for two thousand years. The more enemies they made, the more they seem to have clung on to traditions. Extraordinary. :bow:
But as Red Peasant notes, there is a special hatred from Christians for the alleged 'Christ-killing' - which is absurd. Whatever happened to the forgiveness bit?
I think you have a point, but you're not the first person I've heard articulate it. The thing is, you have to have a critical mass for the dominant culture to perceive you as a threat. A single black family in a small town in Idaho experiences much less discrimination then they would in a town where they're 30% of the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The other unique problem that Judaism itself proposes is that not only are they required to live apart, they are required by the tenets of their religion to discriminate against non-believers. Orthodox practioners will not touch, share food with, enter the dwelling of, allow into their own dwelling, or frequently even speak to non-Jews. Whether they wrote religious creeds to justify bigotry is a chicken/egg argument to me, the point remains it's very off-putting to non Jews to be told that they're filthy animals and not worthy of acknowledgement.
Waaah, waah. The carpenter is dead. Does it matter who killed him? It wasn't me and it wasn't you. The body doesn't even stink anymore. There is nothing here worth discussing.
“Sicilians”: Roman citizens…
“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.
“Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane” WHAT??? In which parallel world are you living? Rape, murders, slaughter, plunders, extermination, a society based on massive slavery, Emperors killing their relatives, murdering their mother: that was ROME… Civil war after civil war...
“NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified”: Right, Adrian decided it wasn’t worth to invade the North. He built a wall. End of story… No up-raising, no major fear of invasion, when the tribes tried once, they were crush with the usual Roman war machine efficiency.
“Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different.” It is exactly what I am saying. Gibson followed the Gospel. The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…
“To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself.” No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.
“they were not written by the Roman establishment.” They were translated and recorded to serve the purpose of a ROMAN Emperor (Constantine) in Nicea (Council of, 325 AD). By the way, who recorded what happened in the cells, and in the Court? All the texts you show, who was there with Jesus? No answer…?
"The body doesn't even stink anymore." No body was found... Are you sure a crime was committed? Perhaps it was a Roman decoy to devide the Jews? he he he...
Not in the first century AD, one of Veres' crimes was executing Roman citizens and non citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Why would anyone mention one Pharasy among hundreds?Quote:
“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.
Law, Order, Public Health, Security, a Legal Code and administrative system which forms the basis for modern Europe, Emperors that used their personnal private fortune to relieve starved provinces... Nothing is black and white, Rome was usually fair, if you crossed them you died. Mercy was not a Roman concept.Quote:
“Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane” WHAT??? In which parallel world are you living? Rape, murders, slaughter, plunders, extermination, a society based on massive slavery, Emperors killing their relatives, murdering their mother: that was ROME… Civil war after civil war...
Here you demonstrate ignorance. Agricola secured all of lower Scotland and the North West Coast, Hadrian was forced to withdraw the troops to consolidate what is now Northumbria, no Roman Emperor was ever able to hold anything beyond the Tyne-Solway line for more than twenty years. There were 2 Legions in Northern Britain, when the Legions were withdrawn in the fourth Century law and order broke down in the province. Britain had the largest garrison in the Empire, when Rome finally left it decended into anarchyQuote:
“NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified”: Right, Adrian decided it wasn’t worth to invade the North. He built a wall. End of story… No up-raising, no major fear of invasion, when the tribes tried once, they were crush with the usual Roman war machine efficiency.
Despite the fact that I posted the pertinant passages you continue to ignore the part the Romans played, the ridicule of the soldiers or the callus indifference of Pilate which, in a way, was worse.Quote:
“Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different.” It is exactly what I am saying. Gibson followed the Gospel. The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…
Not until Paul did Christian doctrine deviate from Jewish, Paul was the one that abandoned the Torah to make the religion more palatable.Quote:
“To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself.” No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.
The Gospels can be traced back beyond that, we have texts beyond that date, they agree. The Bible was not doctored, it was edited. That is to say bits were left out but nothing was actually changed, they wouldn't have dared. The Romans were amazingly suspicious.Quote:
“they were not written by the Roman establishment.” They were translated and recorded to serve the purpose of a ROMAN Emperor (Constantine) in Nicea (Council of, 325 AD). By the way, who recorded what happened in the cells, and in the Court? All the texts you show, who was there with Jesus? No answer…?
The Passion is an integral part of the Gospel and the Gospel teaches tollerance and forgiveness.
I never said Yeshua's execution was a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Body or no body, a certain group of people have been blamed for the death for 2,000 years, with horrific consequences. I think that that is worth discussing, as it touches upon our common humanity - or lack of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
If this death were not supposedly important, the matter would cease to exist.
This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it? For example "the English were responsible for the Irish potato famine" is not necessarily true, but it isn't anti-English either. It is an expression of opinion. If you say "I always spit at English people because they were responsible for the potato famine" then that is anti-English. In any case they Gospels don't apportion responsibility. They give an account of events. In one version, Pilate tries to shift responsibility and the crowd accept it, but there is no comment from the author about whether responsibility really lies with the crowd. Of course many people on reading the account have interpreted it as blaming the Jews and used this as an excuse for anti-Semitism, but the original authors would be horrified at this view.Quote:
The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…
If you arbritrarily reject the evidence that he did exist then there is no evidence that he did exist. A more rational approach would be to accept that since we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote and he is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, he probably did exist.Quote:
“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.
Not if your religion insists that you follow a person rather than a set of rules laid down by a person. Christianity is an example of such a religion.Quote:
No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.
The DUI limit in the state of california is .08% or 80 mg/dL (blood).
Per CVC 23152 (b): It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
I wish that it was so. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Then make it so.
Yeah, but can they determine how much alcohol it takes to turn a person into a rabid Jew-hater? Mel could then blame it on Budweiser (it must have some kind of effect!! :laugh4: ) or JD or some other Yankee concoction, and sue their asses! :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
Then take up my holy sandal brother Gorebag and follow me to enlightenment!Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
'Always look on the bright side of life, de de ...'
“The Passion is an integral part of the Gospel and the Gospel teaches tollerance and forgiveness”: That is your opinion, not mine.
“we have texts beyond that date, they agree”: We have the text in Aramaic? The Bible we have today is coming from a translation in Greek (the Bible of the Septente). It is a translation of a translation…
And, of course they agree… That was the PURPOSE of the Council of Nicea to make one religion with one doctrine…
“Why would anyone mention one Pharasy among hundreds?” Yes, why?
You still avoid to answer question: Who recorded what happened (according to the Gospels) in the cell? Who did it during the Court Proceeding? Where are the Roman Documents?
About the Roman Empire, believe what you want to believe. It was so much order than the Emperors feared the crowd, so much laws that corruption was the common way to resolve problems, plague never happened in Rome due to the superb health system, and security so good that one Emperor decide to put legion in Rome.
History of Rome is history of continuing violence… Not different from the rest of the world, no problem with that, but this idealist view you have on it…
“This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it”: Well, no, but it what happened to the Jews… Not the Romans, the Jews… Why? Because the Christians decided to carry on this absurd accusation in order to relieve the Roman of the crime…
“They give an account of events.” Again, I agree, they give THEIR account of events. And because we have only what they say, it doesn’t make we have to accept it as the entire truth…
“we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote” Have we? In which language?
Don't confuse the Septuagint with the New Testament, the former being a work of c. C3-C2 BC, long before the gospels were written (NT).
The earliest extant manuscripts (MSS) for the latter are from C3 AD, with John's being possibly earliest c. AD 200 of only three texts; most MSS are from the fourth and fifth centuries AD. Therefore, these MSS themselves are not contemporaneous with Jesus' life as you say, but then we have extremely few MSS of any kind from this period or earlier.
Hence, there is essentially a blank period in Christian history, from the mid-1st century till about AD 200, of which we know virtually nothing of the development of Christian writings and how they came to be written.
To be fair, I will note that the gospels and other writings in the NT are so full of contradictions, and so stylistically different, that they were not only written by various hands but that there was no attempt or homogenize the 'message' contained within them at a later date when the canonical works were authorised. If it was conspiracy, then it was a particularly inept one.
Just because something is a translation of a translation does not mean it is not reliable. My understanding is that the Council of Nicea clarified and unified doctrine be drawing up the Nicene creed. I don't think the biblical canon was on the agenda. The biblical canon developed over a much longer period. I don't know if any biblical scholars suggest editting of texts to achieve conformity as you seem to be claiming, though of course some texts were omitted because they did not confirm.Quote:
“we have texts beyond that date, they agree”: We have the text in Aramaic? The Bible we have today is coming from a translation in Greek (the Bible of the Septente). It is a translation of a translation…
And, of course they agree… That was the PURPOSE of the Council of Nicea to make one religion with one doctrine…
So many Christians are or have been anti-Semitic, but the Gospels are not. My position exactly.Quote:
“This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it”: Well, no, but it what happened to the Jews… Not the Romans, the Jews… Why? Because the Christians decided to carry on this absurd accusation in order to relieve the Roman of the crime…
I thought we were discussing whether they were anti-Semitic, not whether they were true. They can't be completely true because they are not consistent.Quote:
“They give an account of events.” Again, I agree, they give THEIR account of events. And because we have only what they say, it doesn’t make we have to accept it as the entire truth…
Ancient Greek.Quote:
“we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote” Have we? In which language?
However, the comments in Matthew and John, already quoted, were certainly interpreted as anti-Semitic, and so formed an influential scriptural prescription for persecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester