This is beyond all comprehension. Makes you wonder about people in this country/world.
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Murders of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp)

Horrific. Even a bleeding heart liberal like me has to reconsider my position on the death penalty.

Let me go one further...Torture for years on end sounds pretty reasonable to me

And people are basically good at heart, right Tim?

This is absolutely horrific.

Glad to see I'm not the only one that uses snopes, btw! I love that site.

This is beyond all comprehension. Makes you wonder about people in this country/world.
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Murders of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp)
I agree. This is beyond all comprehension. Leaves me sick to my stomach.

And people are basically good at heart, right Tim?
Did he say that, jbrown? I didn't see that anywhere in his post. Is this just another unprovoked preemptive attack?

He said it in the "Does Hell Exist" thread.

he's dredging up posts from another thread. And yes, jbrown, I believe people are inherently good. For a guy who claims to be a Christian you sure are angry!

*******

Where did I display anger? I'm just using this to back up my argument from the other thread.

It sounded like an attack to me, but I could be wrong. Anybody?

Well I guess those guys could just use the Satan made me do it defense...Not sure why that isn't a valid defense in our Christian society...Should someone even be punished if they simply couldn't withstand the sheer power of Satan?

I never said anything about Satan.

Human nature.

Oooohhh...I like it! I'm gonna try that one on my wife next time I do something stupid!

I also never said it was an excuse. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Did not sound like an attack to me. Sounded like an effective counterpunch to a previously offered argument.

Keep in mind that the same hideous, incomprehensible evil that manifested itself in this circumstance is the same one that overtook Cho at Virginia Tech, McVeigh in OKC, the murderers at Columbine....

Rest assured that some sociopathic attorney will defend these monsters, and try to explain away their evil in light of a "terrible childhood" or a "psychological problem." That's all it takes these days.

And no, we are absolutely not all "good at heart." That's because the heart of man is fundamentally corrupt and unable to comprehend "good." And just between you, me, and the grand piano, our mutual definition of "good" is really just nothing more than being better than the "least bad" we see anywhere else.

When we combine that into a single definition, being "good" doesn't mean a thing. That's why saying "people are good" is a hideous, misguided trap.

-soonerdave

Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth jbrown..That's why I didn't quote you

Just wonder why that can't be a valid defense for these guys since Satan obviously had to be involved in...Or is that only in certain instances?

It sounded like an attack to me, but I could be wrong. Anybody?
That was my initial impression as well, which is why I said something. Now that I look at the other thread and re-read the comments here, I stand by my original objection.

There's no way that I can equate what these animals did to "human nature". There are - obviously - evil people in the world, but I don't think people are generally evil by nature. I think ones upbringing has a lot more to do with it.

Since we are dragging other threads into this one. I wonder if it would have made any difference if one or both of these two poor kids had a concealed weapon? They may have died anyway, but it would seem to be better to go down fighting than to just meekly submit and put your fate into the hands of animals.

Nice try. Not gonna take the bait.

Sorry Monk, I'm not gonna bite either. I already feel bad about helping jbrown hijack your thread!

What's sad is Snopes had to be the reference point for this story. It is so little-known that people don't know if it's an urban legend or not. Sad. But, to report is as it should be would be called "racist." The point of the email that circulated with this story is, to me, valid on all counts. Had it been reversed and a nice, young black couple were out on a dinner date and four white men and a white woman committed these horrific crimes, there is no question it would have been headline news and yes, Reverend Al and Jesse would have been calling for new laws to protect minorities from hate crimes. The simple fact is, and I know this is not politically correct, BUT, white people are victims of black perps in such numbers, that it simply isn't news; it couldn't be or there would be nothing left to report. I refer any and all skeptics to the "Color of Crime (http://www.scribd.com/doc/47561/The-Color-Of-Crime)" report, which has been discussed before in this forum. It is accurate and it is the truth. We, as a nation, cannot deal with problems unless we are willing to honestly discuss them.

By the way, I found a place where the report, linked to above, can be viewed online in "Flash Paper" or in HTML. It can also be downloaded as a .pdf, .txt .doc or even listened to as an mp3 (text to speech, but it works). I encourage everyone to read at least the first few summary pages.

--------------------

Nice try. Not gonna take the bait.


Sorry Monk, I'm not gonna bite either. I already feel bad about helping jbrown hijack your thread!

Meh, we'll save it for another day (or another hijacked thread). :D

Gracias! Thanks again for posting the article.

Did not sound like an attack to me. Sounded like an effective counterpunch to a previously offered argument.

Keep in mind that the same hideous, incomprehensible evil that manifested itself in this circumstance is the same one that overtook Cho at Virginia Tech, McVeigh in OKC, the murderers at Columbine....

Rest assured that some sociopathic attorney will defend these monsters, and try to explain away their evil in light of a "terrible childhood" or a "psychological problem." That's all it takes these days.

And no, we are absolutely not all "good at heart." That's because the heart of man is fundamentally corrupt and unable to comprehend "good." And just between you, me, and the grand piano, our mutual definition of "good" is really just nothing more than being better than the "least bad" we see anywhere else.

When we combine that into a single definition, being "good" doesn't mean a thing. That's why saying "people are good" is a hideous, misguided trap.

-soonerdave

Well said Dave.


I did not mean to take this off topic, although this is a lot closer to topic than a lot of threads.


When you do something bad, like lie to your boss or say something rude to a coworker, is it because of the way your momma raised you or is it an instinctive move of self-preservation?

"Hideous, misguided trap"? Bit harsh there Dave. If I'm understanding what you are both trying to communicate to me, (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) the nature of man is evil, and that good behavior only comes with acceptance of your religous beliefs. Bad behaviour is to be blamed on a "hideous, incomprehensible evil" which I assume would be Satan.
To answer your question, I believe that lying and rudeness are learned behaviors, just like politeness and gentility are taugh.

Gotta agree with Tim again...Lying is definitely learned...See others get away with it and go unpunished and follow suit...One of the easier behaviors to pick up is why it starts so young

You are misunderstanding.

Not all "evil" is "hideous and incomprehensible". Dave was referring to the particular drive that led the people he mentioned to do such heinous things. There are those who do hardly anything wrong, and there are mass murderers. But everyone, despite their religion, does wrong. Satan need not be involved (although I believe he is in such drastic cases). One simply has to fall prey to their own instinctive, subconscious desire for self preservation and self centeredness.

I am not saying that accepting my religious beliefs (or anyone's for that matter) is required for one to learn "good behavior". There are many non-religious people who do far more good deeds than bad ones.

But you have to admit that what is considered good and bad is based historically on religious ideals.

Gotta agree with Tim again...Lying is definitely learned...See others get away with it and go unpunished and follow suit...One of the easier behaviors to pick up is why it starts so young

The actual practice of lying is learned, yes, but it is a manafestation of our true nature.


If you can imagine the most primitive culture imaginable, do you think they would be closer to Bono or closer to these barbarians that killed, raped, tortured, etc? There's a reason for this.

The actual practice of lying is learned, yes, but it is a manafestation of our true nature.
I wonder. As a Christian, how do you reconcile this statement with the knowledge that we are created by God in His image?

The actual practice of lying is learned, yes, but it is a manafestation of our true nature.


If you can imagine the most primitive culture imaginable, do you think they would be closer to Bono or closer to these barbarians that killed, raped, tortured, etc? There's a reason for this.

I have no doubt in my mind that even back in primitive civilizations there were a good amount of Bono's running around

This exact same discussion has transpired over 2000 years. I doubt if it will be resolved on OKCTalk.

-----------

I wonder. As a Christian, how do you reconcile this statement with the knowledge that we are created by God in His image?

It simply means that unlike animals and plants, humans have the ability to think rationally and learn right from wrong.

So God created beings that are inherently evil?

Yes, but only so he could recieve glory by providing a way for them to be saved.

I had read this story before in the media, but it still sickens me.

I agree with Writterranger.. I was thinking about the Duke rape case.. 4 white guys 'rape' a black woman.... you had Sharpton, Jackson and everyone else all over it... pretty much ruined these kids lives .. over a lie. They were on every TV program known to man...

This is the truth and they have evidence and a dead body to prove it.. but where is the outrage? Where is the marching and TV appearances?

I'm going to email the snopes story to Mr Sharpton.. if I can find his email.. anyone know where to get it? I'm sure he is public.. everyone else knows how to get ahold of him when they feel 'abused'.

It is a pathetic and horrible commentary on our society.

I wonder. As a Christian, how do you reconcile this statement with the knowledge that we are created by God in His image?

And Man is a fallen creature, fallen from the ideal of that Godly image through sin. As a result of that fall, we all cursed with what is described as a "sin nature." To do right in His eyes is not our instinct. That's why the notion of human "goodness" is fallacious.



If I'm understanding what you are both trying to communicate to me, (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) the nature of man is evil, and that good behavior only comes with acceptance of your religous beliefs. Bad behaviour is to be blamed on a "hideous, incomprehensible evil" which I assume would be Satan.

Tim, the problem with how you've restated the position is that you've walked back into the "good behavior" trap. Man is evil, and has an inherently sinful, erring nature. "Good behavior" isn't the right measure, for the reasons I stated earlier. There's no magic formula that says accepting what you describe "my" religious beliefs will lead to "good" behavior. As a Christian, I acknowledge that sinful and evil nature, and wage a daily battle to live as God desires and as Christ demonstrated - that's the whole battle of "putting on the new man," as the New Testament describes it. It's a daily effort. I make no holier-than-thou assertions that I'm "better" or more of a "good" person than anyone else, because I have no business making such assertions. I can only hope to be more of the person Christ wants me to be today than I was the day before. And I promise I don't even achieve that goal.

If, at the other extreme, there is no recognition (or fundamental rejection) of that evil nature, an individual leaves themselves prone, defenseless, and increasingly hardened to the compromises that nature exposes to them. It leaves smoldering a fire of self-centeredness, wherein your own desires, lusts, whims, and angers are transformed into a personal sense of manifest destiny.

As I roll into a third paragraph, I'm going to stop, because I feel like I've hijacked the thread without meaning to, and I guess I have to blame it on my previous response. My apologies.

-soonerdave

I see some of you STILL think this two thousand year old argument can be solved in this forum. Is there anyway someone can start a thread in "Faith and Values" and continue it there? This topic, from the original OP, is important and deserves discussion. These religious tit-for-tats can go on forever - with nobody's mind being changed. Throw in the other faiths around the world and it's no wonder there are religious wars that have gone on for thousands of years and will continue as long as people believe THEY know the truth. It gets so old (understatement considering the age of religious superstition).

-------------------------

And Man is a fallen creature, fallen from the ideal of that Godly image through sin. As a result of that fall, we all cursed with what is described as a "sin nature." To do right in His eyes is not our instinct. That's why the notion of human "goodness" is fallacious.




Tim, the problem with how you've restated the position is that you've walked back into the "good behavior" trap. Man is evil, and has an inherently sinful, erring nature. "Good behavior" isn't the right measure, for the reasons I stated earlier. There's no magic formula that says accepting what you describe "my" religious beliefs will lead to "good" behavior. As a Christian, I acknowledge that sinful and evil nature, and wage a daily battle to live as God desires and as Christ demonstrated - that's the whole battle of "putting on the new man," as the New Testament describes it. It's a daily effort. I make no holier-than-thou assertions that I'm "better" or more of a "good" person than anyone else, because I have no business making such assertions. I can only hope to be more of the person Christ wants me to be today than I was the day before. And I promise I don't even achieve that goal.

If, at the other extreme, there is no recognition (or fundamental rejection) of that evil nature, an individual leaves themselves prone, defenseless, and increasingly hardened to the compromises that nature exposes to them. It leaves smoldering a fire of self-centeredness, wherein your own desires, lusts, whims, and angers are transformed into a personal sense of manifest destiny.

As I roll into a third paragraph, I'm going to stop, because I feel like I've hijacked the thread without meaning to, and I guess I have to blame it on my previous response. My apologies.

-soonerdave
Thank you for your response. That's been one of the more rational, respectful posts by you that I've read. I understand and respect your general position. Where I would diverge is in the semantics: As a Christian, I believe that we are indeed born with a sinful nature into a sinful world; however, I would stop short of saying we are inherently evil. We are created in the image of God, supernaturally designed for love, holiness and an inherent yearning for communing with Him; yet, because of sin in the world, we are born with a sinful nature that corrupts the original design. Through relationship with Him and His Son, we are driven and enabled to pursue the realization our original design — which is not inherently evil, but inherently good and holy.

Such horrendous evil behavior that leads to horrific and tragic circumstances like the story in the original post is the product of: an unchecked sinful nature; an unchecked sinful environment (that fosters such hatred and callous disregard for human life and suffering) within a sinful society (that has glorified violence and fostered a low regard for the suffering and lives of people different from ourselves) and a sinful world; and the willful, personal choices of very messed up individuals.

Such acts shock the conscience of the average person, who (in their inherent, God-created goodness) are horrified, sickened and outraged by such evil, sinful behavior. It's easy to attribute acts like this tragic story to inherent evil in mankind because it absolves us of any responsibility to examine what part our society plays into the life development of these individuals. What kind of environment did these people grow up in that would strip them of their basic humanity to commit such brutal torture and murder against complete strangers?

The reality is that, as a society, it happened on our watch; do we, as a society, have any culpability?

I see some of you STILL think this two thousand year old argument can be solved in this forum. Is there anyway someone can start a thread in "Faith and Values" and continue it there? This topic, from the original OP, is important and deserves discussion. These religious tit-for-tats can go on forever - with nobody's mind being changed. Throw in the other faiths around the world and it's no wonder there are religious wars that have gone on for thousands of years and will continue as long as people believe THEY know the truth. It gets so old (understatement considering the age of religious superstition).

-------------------------
So what's stopping you from discussing the original topic?

PUG, you got it right when you said it's coming down to semantics here. You say sinful nature, we say inherently evil. We essentially are saying the same thing, just in a different way. The point being that only through God can we attempt to escape sin.

The point being that only through God can we attempt to escape sin.

Something I'm thinking about .. there are a lot of non-Christians who don't rape, kill and torture people. Why?

Madmonk posted something after the Katrina debacle about the looting, criminal activity and 'tribes' .. this incident reminded me of it.

I wish I could find it.

Here you go. :)
Eject! Eject! Eject!: TRIBES (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000129.html)

Something I'm thinking about .. there are a lot of non-Christians who don't rape, kill and torture people. Why?

I should rephrase that.

Only through God can we escape the eternal consequences of sin. I said earlier in the thread that many non-Christians are "good people".

Thanks Madmonk..... I think about that article all the time.. it makes sense to me and most of it resonates with how I feel about racism in general.

So what's stopping you from discussing the original topic?


Pug, Maybe you missed it. (http://www.okctalk.com/current-events/9953-newsom-christian-murders.html#post98090) (post 23)

------------------

Pug, Maybe you missed it. (http://www.okctalk.com/current-events/9953-newsom-christian-murders.html#post98090) (post 23)

------------------
I didn't miss it. And my question still applies.

Since we are dragging other threads into this one. I wonder if it would have made any difference if one or both of these two poor kids had a concealed weapon?


I don't want to hijack the thread either but just think if the criminals didn't have a gun in the first place..

Hard to carjack with a knife especially if the windows were up and the doors were locked.

Not to mention, after torturing these two poor kids, they were killed by a gun.. shot multiple times.

Anyway, I just thought it was ironic that the original crime started ( as it often does) with a gun.

I emailed Sharpton.. and asked


'Where's the outrage?' I doubt I'll get an answer.

I imagine if a bunch of caucasion guys acted 'outraged' (in Sharpton, Jackson fashion) , the race card would be utilized.

It's such a horrible crime....and it's such a sad double standard. We should be outraged.

Anyone have a website for these victims?

I didn't miss it. And my question still applies.

I guess I don't understand. I addressed the original topic. There were more than three dozen posts that did not - and you have a problem with my two posts suggesting the religious issue won't be solved - and maybe those who think it can be take it to another thread? The purpose was to get comment on the posts that did address the original topic. How does your question still apply if your question was what was keeping me from posting about the thread topic after I gave you the link to where I was posting about the original topic? So, you still want to know why I'm not posting about the original topic? You've confused me. But, what's new? There seems to be a free-for-all on religion going on and I'm confused as to why its allowed to continue in threads about crime. In theory, you could bring religion into any thread and justify it one way or another. I, for one, am tired of all the religious arguments on this board. Maybe I'm in the minority. If so, fight on.

-------------

I don't want to hijack the thread either but just think if the criminals didn't have a gun in the first place..

Hard to carjack with a knife especially if the windows were up and the doors were locked.

Not to mention, after torturing these two poor kids, they were killed by a gun.. shot multiple times.

Anyway, I just thought it was ironic that the original crime started ( as it often does) with a gun.

I emailed Sharpton.. and asked


'Where's the outrage?' I doubt I'll get an answer.

I imagine if a bunch of caucasion guys acted 'outraged' (in Sharpton, Jackson fashion) , the race card would be utilized.

It's such a horrible crime....and it's such a sad double standard. We should be outraged.

Anyone have a website for these victims?

Karrie, I did the same. I found his link at the National Action Network. This IS an outrage. You are right, of course, that to be outraged will in itself be turned around to be racist. Whew.

--------

I guess I don't understand. I addressed the original topic. There were more than a dozen posts that did not - and you have a problem with my two posts suggesting the religious issue won't be solved - and maybe those who think it can be take it to another thread? The purpose was to get comment on the posts that did address the original topic. How does your question still apply if your question was what was keeping me from posting about the thread topic? I gave you the link to where I was posting about the original topic. So, you still want to know why I'm not posting about the original topic? You've confused me. But, what's new? There seems to be a free-for-all on religion going on and I'm confused as to why its allowed to continue in threads about crime. In theory, you could bring religion into any thread and justify it one way or another. I, for one, am tired of all the religious arguments on this board. Maybe I'm in the minority. If so, fight on.

-------------

While we are on the subject of getting tired of....I'm sick of many of the threads on here somehow bringing Oklahoma City into the subject at hand....I mean come on people move on from it...It's getting tired

Well, this topic was started in Current Events... where we discuss thing outside of OKC... but I think I see your point.. the board is OKCTalk... but within we have a community forum to discuss other issues.

If we only talked about OKC.. we wouldn't have a whole lot to talk about some days.

Forgot my usual smiley on the end of it karried...Joke must have bombed

As for your requested response from Mr Sharpton...Wonder what mathematically is the closest number possible to zero...Throw a % sign after that and that is my prediction of him getting back to you

Man only comes out to play a few times a year and is definitely still exhausted from the Imus debacle

nah, I got it.. cuz I know you.... I knew you were kidding..:kicking:

I guess I don't understand. I addressed the original topic. There were more than three dozen posts that did not - and you have a problem with my two posts suggesting the religious issue won't be solved - and maybe those who think it can be take it to another thread? The purpose was to get comment on the posts that did address the original topic. How does your question still apply if your question was what was keeping me from posting about the thread topic after I gave you the link to where I was posting about the original topic? So, you still want to know why I'm not posting about the original topic? You've confused me. But, what's new? There seems to be a free-for-all on religion going on and I'm confused as to why its allowed to continue in threads about crime. In theory, you could bring religion into any thread and justify it one way or another. I, for one, am tired of all the religious arguments on this board. Maybe I'm in the minority. If so, fight on.

-------------
My point was simply if you don't like where the discussion is going steer it back to the original topic. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from discussing the original topic. However, unlike you, I did not see the religious arguments as wholly unrelated to the original topic. But, even if I did, nothing would stop me or you or anyone else from commenting on the original topic.

My point was simply if you don't like where the discussion is going steer it back to the original topic. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from discussing the original topic. However, unlike you, I did not see the religious arguments as wholly unrelated to the original topic. But, even if I did, nothing would stop me or you or anyone else from commenting on the original topic.

This thread is pretty much shot anyway, so I'll respond.

I see your point, I really do. I'm just really frustrated with all the religious flame-wars and took the opportunity to point out that this was all off-topic, or at least had veered away from the original intent of the poster - which is what I was also trying to discuss with my first post.

We can move on. Like I said, this thread is pretty much shot anyway.

Have a good day!

------------------------