Stanely "Tookie" Williams

[Thomas Rogers]

Dale Carter says:

The Hebrew word used in the Commandments is more closely translated to our word of murder. If the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill".

So something is killing vs. murder based on a technicality. Killing someone as punishment is okay because it isn't murder. That sounds like a technicality. Kind of like the technicality often used by abortion advocates that say abortion is neither killing nor murder because a fetus isn't a person. These are the contradictions I spoke of, and the only way to be truly Christ-like (IMHO), the only true high road to take here is NO KILLING, NO MURDER, of any kind. Wouldn't that be best?



As for people who are incarcerated that kill, that is a breakdown in the prison system, IMHO.



And, with regards to your point about not finding one example of innocent people executed on Google, I didn't even look. I have nothing to prove as if there were no CP, then there would be NO CHANCE of this happening. With CP there is a chance. That's just a fact.



But, here is a link below:



Since 1973, 125 people have been released from death row with prove of their innocence. Clearly that means innocent people have been sent to death row, and I am not not so optimistic to think that ALL are being found innocent later...



Again, I used to think JUST like you, but I have had a change of heart.



TJR

 

[Dale Carter]

TJR - So you are telling me that you don't understand the difference between killing and murder? You are kidding right? My point is that there are points on the continuum between right and wrong and those points are defined by circumstances. You murder forty-seen people, you get the death penalty. A cop kills a person in the act of raping your 10 year old daughter, he doesn't go to jail. Circumstances. Or would you call THAT a "technicality". Is seld defense a "technicality?



Murders in prison are a breakdown in the prison system, but you can't prevent killing. My point was that lifetime incarceration does not prevent additional crimes.



Your link provides seven people who have "possible innocence" and have been executed. Only one is presented in a manner that leads me to believe they were probably innocent. Yes, it is reasonable to think that an innocent person has been executed, but, given that 125 death sentences have been overturned, there should be many airtight (not possible) examples of improper executions. Can anyone in this thread guide me to them?

the only true high road to take here is NO KILLING, NO MURDER, of any kind. Wouldn't that be best?

Your right let's just make murder illegal.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Here is a story of a man locked up for 8 years for a crime he did not commit. If he would have been given the death penalty and the execution was performed, an innocent man would have lost his life.



8 years in prison. That is 8 years of life he will never get back. He was fortunate he did not get the death penalty. Then again, if he would have gotten the death penalty, the truth would not have ever came out.





Tom

 

[Dale Carter]

But he didn't get the death penalty because the burden of proof was not met. No physical evidence and a traumatized six year old eye witness don't get you a death sentence. The difference is in reasonable doubt vs. no doubt. Ddifferent erms in different jurisdictions, but the same concept..



Wrongful imprisonment is awful. A man here in Georgia was just released after 18 years! That man can never ve compensated.



If... but... woulda should coulda we all know the rhymes.



I will agree that innocent people go to jail. I know a man in jail for child abuse who is innocent. I agree that it is possible that an innocent man has been put to death, but it has not been proven to happen. I don't think the chance is enough to stop using the death penalty. It is so incredibly hard to get a death sentence today, evidence has improved so much and juries are so much more reluctant to convict, that I think the odds of wrongfully sentencing someone to death have gone way down.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Cayment, *exactly* about those that get the death penalty and thus the truth never gets out. Has there been many...probably not. Has there been ANY...probably.



Dale Carter asks: "So you are telling me that you don't understand the difference between killing and murder? You are kidding right?"



Please don't insult me, Dale, of course I know that there is a difference. But both, IMHO, mean the death of a person at the hands of another. You can twist those words if you want, but basically killing is killing, and murder is just one more malicious version of killing while CP and abortion are more accepted forms of killing.



Dale you assume that no wrongfully accused person has ever been put to death. That's a very naive assumption, IMHO. And, I suspect that you won't LET yourself believe it has happened because it threatens your stance on CP. If you removed your viewpoint from the discussion and used logic, I suspect you would agree that it probably has happened.



DNA evidence alone has helped to free so many people. How many people got put to death before it was available that MIGHT have been cleared by it? You yourself said getting a death conviction is hard these days and the burden of proof is great; but it wasn't always like that; which means to me an admission that mistakes were probably made in the past; and no system is foolproof.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Please remember, I am not against the death penalty. I do not feel it is right to lock a person up for the rest of his life while I have to pay for it. Guilty a murder, you should die.



Unfortunatly, the chance of an innocent man being put to death is great of a risk. Willingly admit to the murder, say where the bodies are, DNA evidence, etc. Sure, put the man down.



I do think lethal injection is too easy.







Tom

 

[Dale Carter]

Please don't insult me, Dale, of course I know that there is a difference. But both, IMHO, mean the death of a person at the hands of another. You can twist those words if you want, but basically killing is killing, and murder is just one more malicious version of killing while CP and abortion are more accepted forms of killing.

"So something is killing vs. murder based on a technicality. Killing someone as punishment is okay because it isn't murder. That sounds like a technicality."

If you know the difference, you should have said so. Your words say that you see no REAL difference, just a "technicality". "Technicalty" brings to mind the cases of murderers who got off because they weren't Mirandized or the cops didn't have probable cause, so the blood soaked clothes, murder weapon and confession were thrown out of court. They were guilty, but they got off on a "technicality".



I didn't insult you, I asked you to clarify your OWN strange statement. If you read incredulity in my tone, you were correct.



Then you said

Dale you assume that no wrongfully accused person has ever been put to death. That's a very naive assumption, IMHO"

Allow me to quote myself so that you can re-read and understand what I SAID, not what YOU read.

I will agree that innocent people go to jail. I know a man in jail for child abuse who is innocent. I agree that it is possible that an innocent man has been put to death, but it has not been proven to happen. I don't think the chance is enough to stop using the death penalty. It is so incredibly hard to get a death sentence today, evidence has improved so much and juries are so much more reluctant to convict, that I think the odds of wrongfully sentencing someone to death have gone way down.

How you got that I assume no one has been wrongfully killed is beyond me. Notice the emphasized words. I agree innocent people go to jail, I believe it is possible an innocent man has been executed, I still think CP is a good idea. It is "possible" until it is proven.The benefits outweigh the costs, IMHO. Your argument that my "naive" assumption threatens my stance is falacious. I have thought about this a great deal over my lifetime (and criminal justice classes in college and about a dozen books on BOTH sides of the sbject).



You get insulted by a simple question and then you write

"If you removed your viewpoint from the discussion and used logic, I suspect you would agree that it probably has happened.

Now THAT is insulting. My viewpoint is the result of logic. Beside the fact that you didn't comprehend that I have already stipulated that it is possible that it has happened. I will even head off your next argument and agree that it is probable, even though it is unproven.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

First, Dale, let me say I am sorry if I insulted you.



Obviously I did miss where you agreed that some people have probably been put to death that were innocent. Of course I missed that and having missed that my line of discussion had a certain set of assumptions and tone. Thanks for clearing that up, but you could have done so without saying I had "comprehension" problems or that I was making "strange statements". I respect you and your opinions and welcome a discussion, I would hope you can reciprocate that.



As I said, it isn't a "comprehension" problem, but no doubt instead caused by the fact that I do read lengthy posts rather quickly and tend to skim things. Sorry, too much swine and not enough pearls on this board sometimes (no offense as that's not directed to you). I probably was "half cocked" there and for that I apologize, especially in light of my recent admonishments on that very subject. You sensed that I missed that point by you, I did and I thank you for bringing it up.



With that said, the whole idea that "the benefits outweigh the costs", when you say it is likely that innocent people are being put to death just doesn't sit well with me. One's life is the ultimate cost, and it seems as if you imply the innocently executed are some sort of "collateral damage". There is an old saying "it is better that 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted" (or worse, put to death). Of course, I am not advocating anyone goes free if guiltiy, but life in prison at least allows for punishment as well as the opportunity that IF mistakes are made in conviction they can be corrected. Your comments about Miranda and technicalities clearly make the point of your opinion on such things. I used to be a staunch conservative on such things, and when comments about "fruit of the poisoned tree", or the "slippery slope" were used I too shuddered. I shudder less these days.



Maybe I shouldn't discuss an emotional subject like the death penalty with people?



As I said before (and I feel that one has really challenged) CP seems to mostly serve as a form of vengence, and vengence is an emotional thing. I don't think it's a good form of punishment, and I don't think its a true "societal" deterent, and no tangible proof has been given that it is either of those things, IMHO.



Dale, you say the "benefits outweigh the costs", do you care to give some real tangible benefits? If you don't want to that's fine too. I respect your opinion and feel you are entitled to it, and in no way think less of you for it. I just wanted to share MY opinion and discuss it, and that I have done.



But as for benefits or proof, maybe a comparision of murder rates per capita between countries that do and don't have the death penalty might be interesting?



My personal opinion on the death penalty can pretty much be made by the following quote, which I have used often: "If someone killed a member of my family then I would want to kill them myself. But luckily our society won't allow me to do that, and if I can't kill them, then why should someone else be able to, and what purpose would their death serve then?"



Good talking with you.



And, as I said before, I am not shedding a tear for Tookie.



TJR

 

[Terry Schultz]

In our justice system today - what difference does it make. FACTS go away when trials start; then it starts with the lawyers ( opinion ) of the facts. Then "CRIES" start at the time of JUSTICE.



Tookie needed to go ( without this hoopla! ).



Terry

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yeah, you're right there TSSS. We see murders with money (O.J., Robert Blake) walk and penniless murders go to death row.



But that's a different problem.

 

[Dale Carter]

TJR - it is a deeply rooted subject because life and death is the deepest primal fear, second only to public speaking Message boards tend to lose the nuance of inflection and tone, which is why I ask for explanations of statements and try so hard to read others words accurately. I get it wrong sometimes.

Dale, you say the "benefits outweigh the costs", do you care to give some real tangible benefits? If you don't want to that's fine too. I respect your opinion and feel you are entitled to it, and in no way think less of you for it. I just wanted to share MY opinion and discuss it, and that I have done.



But as for benefits or proof, maybe a comparision of murder rates per capita between countries that do and don't have the death penalty might be interesting?

One tangible benefit is that the cost of incarceration of a multiple murder goes away at the time of the execution. As stated earlier in this thread, the whole "cost of CP is higher than incaceration" is smoke and mirrors accounting. Keep in mind that I only advocate CP for the worst of the worst, not simple murderers or rapists. I am talking the multiple murderers or multiple child rapists.



Another is the statement that is made to the criminals that we value innocent life over that of a murderer. I think this is one factor in the coarsening of our society and the resulting rise in violent crime caused by the cheapening of life. Abortion is another factor in the cheapening of life. Animal rights advocates are another ( i.e. a dog is a mouse is a boy).



Comparisons of other countries are not valid becasue no other country has the diversity of population, degree of personal freedom and opportunity to commit crime that we have in the US.

"it is better that 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted"

An old saying and, however enlightened sounding, a wrong one. We can adjust the parameters of our justice system so that there is no chance of convicting an innocent person, but that would mean, literally, that thousands of guilty ones would go free. In the cold, hard,rational analysis, is that what we REALLY want? A hundred guilty criminals roaming the streets to save one inncocent? I don't want that and I doubt many other people do either.

If someone killed a member of my family then I would want to kill them myself. But luckily our society won't allow me to do that, and if I can't kill them, then why should someone else be able to, and what purpose would their death serve then?"

Society prevents individuals from engaging in vigilante justice to prevent wrongful executions and "heat of passion" acts that later prove to be wrong. Society intervenes on your behalf to inject, hopefully, rational thought and justice into the process and prevent the wrongful terminations of life which we hav ebeen discussing. CP is primarily punishment for horrendous acts, not revenge but vengeance is a component of all legal punsihments, includingimprisonment. "He got what he deserved"...."Lock him up and throw away the key..." Some (not you I don't think) have said that they are against CP because life imprisonment is "worse". If that is the case, is there not a component of revenge in their thinking?





This has been a great debate and I look forward to another. This keeps our minds sharp so we all don't get Alzheimers and forgot our Tracs. Rememebr, Alzheimers isn't forgetting where your keys are, it's forgetting what they do.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Dale,



I don't think the current higher cost of CP vs lifetime sentencing is "smoke and mirrors accounting", but moreso factual and due to the lengthy, multiple appeals allowed and provided for most deathrow inmates. If you can show a study that says the "books have been cooked" I would be glad to read it. I do think that justice should be more swift in these matters.



Regarding the benefit that CP gives tby sending the message that "we value innocent life over that of a murderer", I counter with shouldn't we value all life? Further, I am a little confused as to how killing a murderer raises the value of an innocent life, exactly, but I do see how those that have lost a loved one want to end the life of the murderer as an act of vengence. I believe that compassion and grace and not more bloodshed are a more of a fitting remembrance for those that have been murdered; you disagree, and I respect that.



It was a good debate. Both sides have aired their beliefs. Thanks for the discussion.



TJR

 

[Jim Johnson]

I thought this article by writer Jeff Jacoby was instructive:



"No passage in the Bible—Old or New Testament—disapproves of the death penalty... The penalty for those who violate 'You shall not murder' (Exodus 20:13) is made explicit just a few lines later: 'Whoever strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death' (Exodus 21:12). The text goes on to specify that this applies only to deliberate murder, not unintentional killing.



Accidents are not capital crimes. But for a willful killer, there can be no sanctuary: 'Take him even from My altar and put him death' (Exodus 21:14). Similar declarations appear in all five books of Moses, nowhere more dramatically or universally than in Genesis. Speaking to Noah after the Flood, God enjoins him—and through him, all of human society—to affirm the sanctity of human life by making murderers pay the ultimate price for their crime. 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has man been made' (Genesis 9:6)... Scripture could hardly be more explicit... When murderers keep their lives, human blood is cheapened. That is why reverence for life and capital punishment belong to the same ethical tradition. Civilized communities have not only the right but the responsibility to execute murderers. It may be a difficult responsibility to carry out. It may involve an assertion of moral authority that modern thinkers condemn. But easy or not, popular or not, the duty is ours to perform. The protection of human life is a grave obligation—never more so than when it involves taking a life away."

 

[Wes Davis]

Jim Johnson, what do the evolusionalists say about this?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JJ, Bible quotes can be used for both sides of almost any debate (homosexuality and the death penalty are two such issues) as the Bible is vague, open to interpretation and contradicts itself on many issues. Besides, the Bible isn't meant as our law book, for if it were, women would still be possessions and slavery allowed.



Go ahead, throw darts at a fellow Christian now!



TJR

 

[Dale Carter]

I don't think the current higher cost of CP vs lifetime sentencing is "smoke and mirrors accounting", but moreso factual and due to the lengthy, multiple appeals allowed and provided for most deathrow inmates. If you can show a study that says the "books have been cooked" I would be glad to read it. I do think that justice should be more swift in these matters.

It is factual in that it costs more to defend a death row convict for 25 years or more worth of appeals. What I mean by smoke and mirrors is that the cost is in the endless appeals, not the actual execution. As CP opponents have managed to engorge the process to this point they can now say "Look, it costs more to kill them". With the level of proof that we have, along with the class of crimiinals which I have defined, there should not be appeals so long that the lawyer has grandchildren by the time it is over. I am for a balance somewhere on the continuum between our system and China's where they (probabaly an urban legend) supposedly kill you later that week and bill your family for the bullet.

Regarding the benefit that CP gives tby sending the message that "we value innocent life over that of a murderer", I counter with shouldn't we value all life?

I don't agree. Some have proven, through their own heinous acts and knowledge of the punishment, that they are willing to forfeit their lives for the sick benefit of their crimes.

Further, I am a little confused as to how killing a murderer raises the value of an innocent life, exactly

By establishing a value to life. You took multiple lives, you value your most precious possesion, your own life. Allowing them to live otu their lives removes the value of the murdered. Now fro a somewhat tangential rant ---- I don't think it is coincidence that, as CP has declined and abortion has mushroomed, that we have teenagers so dulled to the value of life that they will discard their newborn babie in a trashcan at a high school dance. Yes, that actually happened. We can allow something as barbaric as partial birth abortion because of this same insensitivity. Apologies for the rant which could spawn it's own thread. BTW, I NEVER argue abortion. I will never change anyones mind and I doubt they will ever change mine, the level of thought and emotion is simply to high and people tend to devolve into sound-bite whack-jobs on both sides..

I believe that compassion and grace and not more bloodshed are a more of a fitting remembrance for those that have been murdered; you disagree, and I respect that.

I am not in the least bit concerned with providing a fitting remembrance of those individuals who were killed. I understand and respect your position, but it is the job of the loved ones left behind to honor the legacy of the dead, it is the job of the law to administer justice in a way that punishes and deters. I am interested in punishing multiple murderers and sending a message to the others who value their own lives.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Regarding the costs of CP, you make it sound as if CP opponents are the cause of the endless appeals and thus the steep costs of death row inmates. Our legal system is what it is, and the right to appeal is a part of our legal system. Or, are you saying there wouldn't be appeals (or as many of them) without the opponents?



All types of cases go up on appeal...criminal, murder, wrong-doing. Or, would you do away with appeals in general?



TJR

 

[Jim Johnson]

TJR:



Apparently, my response is going to be too long to fit in one message, so I'll have to post it in multiple parts.

===========



12/13:

<I>...and before you label me a liberal, recognize I am the typical

"Christian Conservative" on almost all other issues."</I>



Looks like a false claim to me -- the "Conservative" part, that is. See my

response below to your assertion that the Bible contracdicts itself. You are by

no means the "typical" Christian conservative. Your repeated use of the

"right-winger" epithet betrays the fact that you are not the conservative that

you claim to be, and that you probably know it.





<I>". . .right-winger conservative Christian types cheer for this guy to die in

a very unJesus-like fashion, and call for an end to abortion."</I>



Since Jesus is not on record as having spoken on the issue of capital

punishment, you are asserting something something that you can't back up. Since

Jesus <I>is</I> on record supporting the Ten Commandments and other Old

Testament Scripture, and is nowhere on record condemning the death penalty for

murderers as established in the Old Testament, exegetically, one cannot

conclude that Jesus is/was against it. An example of Jesus supporting the Ten

Commandments (including the proscription against murder) from Matthew 19:16-19:



Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get

eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is

good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not

give false testimony,honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as

yourself.'"





12/14:

<I>"I used to say the same thing; that CP most definately is a deterent as it

deters at LEAST one person at a time, the person put to death."



"And studies show it doesn't deter others."</I>



History and other studies show that it <B>does</B>, in fact, deter others.

In New York state, the murder rate dropped dramatically after Gov. Pataki

re-activated the death penalty, which Gov. Cuomo had reinstated but never

carried out. How dramatically? By 22 percent in the first year. Violent crime

overall declined by 11%. Or is that just a "technicality"?



In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich's analysis showed that for every inmate who was executed,

7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar

results have been produced by others in follow-up studies.



Releasing convicted murders who should have been put to death has terrible

consequences. For example, Arthur Shawcross was paroled after serving 15 years

for the brutal rape and murder of two children in upstate New York. In a

subsequent 21 month killing spree, he took 11 more lives before being caught.

Serial killer Nathaniel White triggered this outburst from the mother of one of

his victims: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White's

mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." Had such ruthless

killers been executed, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to be released for

"good behavior" and these additional innocent victims wouldn't have been

murdered.





<I>"the Bible says: "Thou shalt not kill""</I>



Actually, that is an unfortunate -- and historically recent -- misunderstanding

of the King James version of the Bible. The Hebrew word translated as "kill"

in the KJV actually means "murder." In King James' time, the passage was

correctly understood, but the nuances of the English language have changed since

then. Most modern translations more precisely render the word as "murder,"

e.g.: Exodus 20:13 (New International Version):

 

[Jim Johnson]

On 12/17 TJR wrote:



<I>"Dale Carter asks: "So you are telling me that you don't understand the

difference between killing and murder? You are kidding right?"



Please don't insult me, Dale, of course I know that there is a difference. But

both, IMHO, mean the death of a person at the hands of another. "</I>



Again, you disingenuously attempt to impose a moral equivalence on the two

actions. Theologically, legally and socially, capital punishment and murder

historically have never been accepted as being morally equivalent. It has

only been with the rise of Marxism/socialism/liberalism that this type of moral

relativism has become prominent. And it is strictly a left-wing phenomenon. No

conservative believes this crap, which again belies your protestations that you

are any type of conservative.





12/19:

<I>" JJ, Bible quotes can be used for both sides of almost any debate

(homosexuality and the death penalty are two such issues) as the Bible is vague,

open to interpretation and contradicts itself on many issues."</I>



This, perhaps is the clearest betrayal of the fact that you are not a

"conservative" Christian (you may be a nominal Christian, but you are clearly

neither a conservative one nor a Bible-believing one).



So, you consider yourself to be a Christian, yet you obviously have no faith in

the ability of the God in whom you profess belief to see that his Word is

accurately written and preserved. This conveniently leaves you without a

reliable objective standard after which to pattern your faith, leaving you free

in your own mind to interpret everything as you see fit -- exactly the opposite

of conservative, particularly as used in the phrase "conservative Christian." It

is, however, sadly consistent with the watered-down, feel-good teachings of

today's liberal churches (one of which I left after 38 years, although it didn't

start out that way). After all, if the Bible is full of errors and

contradictions and isn't meant to apply to us today, then you can believe

and practice pretty much anything you want, can't you?



Would you please be so kind as to give a specific example or two of the

contradictions you had in mind when you wrote the above paragraph?





<I>"Besides, the Bible isn't meant as our law book, for if it were, women would

still be possessions and slavery allowed."</I>



That statement is simply ridiculous. Perhaps you haven't read these:



Matthew 5:17-19 (NIV) [Jesus speaking]:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not

come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven

and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,

will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to

do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices

and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV):

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting

and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped

for every good work.





<I>"Go ahead, throw darts at a fellow Christian now!"</I>



If by "throw darts" you mean "debunk my misconceptions about my own faith", then

thanks -- I'll try. ;-) Unfortunately, the problem runs deep, even to distrust

of the very Word of God. Most Christians get into this mindset because they do not

bother -- or do not know how -- to study the Bible and understand it as a whole,

as opposed to forming one's theology by picking selected verses out of

context. And by "context" I don't just mean immediate context, but how someth

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Thanks for the reply JJ. I welcome "discussing" (not debating) this topic with you.



You shared the definitions of "murder" and "kill"' and given the definitions you state we should be able to agree that: murder is killing, but killing is not murder. Regardless, both murder and killing mean to put to death, e.g. "to kill".



My hope is that one day we stop the killing, regardless the purpose.



I guess I am a dreamer.



Also, JJ says:

So, you consider yourself to be a Christian, yet you obviously have no faith in the ability of the God in whom you profess belief to see that his Word is

accurately written and preserved.

JJ, You seem to sound like an Evangelical Christian or Christian Fundamentalist who believes that every word in the Bible is transcribed by man as communicated by God and is accurate and truth. I just don't believe that. It doesn't mean I have no faith in God, nor does it make me a lesser Christian (IMHO). It just means that I think there are many of God's truths in the Bible, but a lot of it was "fill in the blanks" by man.



My belief is that the Bible was written by man and is filled with parable and truth inspired by the word of God. My rational behind this is the fact that there are so many seeming contradictions within and the fact many of the so-called "TRUTHS" have changed over time. I believe it is what it is, a good book with many truths that can be used to help lead a good life; but not ALL 100% "the word".



As for the contradictions, again, take CP, or homosexuality: people on both sides of these debates credibly quote scripture as evidence in their argument, so yes, I have question as to the accurate portrayal of God's word in the Bible. Given all the contradictions and ambiquities either God made mistakes or created less than perfect work (which I don't believe) or man did...I'll assume the latter; even if that means in the translation of God's word man made mistakes or just couldn't understand the meaning of everything he was being told/shown...either way, its not the unadulterated word of God. I know you said that it takes lengthy study of the entire Bible and an understanding of the times and places the stories occurred in order to recognize the acurrate "word of God". But frankly, that seems to make my point that its not a clear-cut, easy to understand, unambiquous "Word of God".



And to that I ask have you considered the following:



1. Have you heard of the Dead sea scroll? Did you ever hear claim that many were translated, yet some (in part or completely) were not because they didn't tell the biblical story that man, at that time, wanted to be told? Many still debate if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were wed and/or had children, for example. Another debate among some Evangelical Christians and some Catholics (who some Evangelical Christians claim are NOT Christians) is the divine and idolatric nature of the Mother Mary (read the following for an understanding of both sides of that debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_the_mother_of_Jesus). Sure, a lot of this comes down to differences in religious doctrine and not Bible truths, but different doctrine are often based on to very different interpretations of the Bible. Clearly there is no singular correct intereptation of the entire Bible held by any singular group.



2. Is the Jewish Bible a more or less accurate recording of the word of God than the Holy Bible? They both share the same origin, from an Old Testament perspective.



3. You also said:

On matters to which the Bible speaks, it speaks clearly and unequivocally. All you have to do is to be willing to put in the time and research necessary to have more than a surface knowledge of a few scattered passages.

Yes, the Bible speaks clearly and unequivocally on many things, yes. Yet for centuries theologians and biblical scholars have debated as to t