Terry Nichols - a lifetime in prison ... and then Redemption?

[Leo Volont]

What are the *criteria* for
1. not having a sufficient IQ,
2. being an emotional cripple?

What if someone has a sufficient IQ, but is an emotional cripple; or what if someone doesn't have a sufficient IQ, but is not an emotional cripple? Are they, according to you, absolved of moral responsibility? Or are only those who both lack the sufficient IQ and are emotional cripples as well, absolved of moral responsibility?

What are the criteria for being significant?

It is a matter of discernment. MOST people are not morally responsible. Why do you suppose that Christ called everybody Sheep and supposed they needed a Shepherd?

Look at Modern Political Theory and the practices of Market Street Advertising. It is simply assumed that the Great Masses of the People can be swayed and manipulated with unsubstantiated Propaganda. It is a horrible and cynical assumption, but the results bear out the claims.

Before, in History, Democracy was a stage in government that was understood to be a prelude to Collapse. And then, in this Modern Age, Democracy has been instituted by those who DO desire the Collapse of Government. The Transition between Civilized Order under the Rule of Kings with their Bureaucracies of Assigned Merit, and the Triumph of Barbarism and the Dark Ages, is Democracy. It is because the majority of People are not responsible moral entities. Baaaa.

I suppose you could devise a test which could weed out the great majority of those who are beneath the level of Moral Responsiblity. And then another Test to determine between those of Good Morality and those of a Conviction for Evil.

I would rather believe in The Faculty of True Discernment. Some People simply have the Gift. They can look in a person's eye and know the heart. It is really not that difficult to see what they are looking at. Try it. Look people in the eyes. Do you see a Nobleman looking back at you, or just some sly monkey? Terry Nichols had the eyes of an obedient dog abandoned by its Master.

 

[water]

It is really not that difficult to see what they are looking at. Try it. Look people in the eyes. Do you see a Nobleman looking back at you, or just some sly monkey?

But -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Doesn't the same go for nobility or slyness? Aren't they too in the eye of the beholder?

 

[Leo Volont]

But -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Doesn't the same go for nobility or slyness? Aren't they too in the eye of the beholder?

The Blessed Virgin once came to me in a Vision and told me that the
Faculty most worth cultivating is the Faculty of True Discernment. Yes, most people see what they want to see, or project onto others what is merely stirred from within themselves. But a True Sage must see what is Really there. True Discernment must see what is Real.

There is an interesting episode in the first Chapters of Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables". The Emperor Napoleon, who was never a very Religious Man, happens upon a priest who quite obviously hated him. But Bonaparte looks into the Priests eyes, and once back to Paris issues orders to have the Priest raised up to the rank of Bishop. And, of course, as the book progresses we find that this Bishop, once poor priest, is a veritable Saint. So, yes, while most of us can look into another person's eyes and come up with some opinion, there are Masters of the Art who can look into the face of another and know his Soul. That is the Faculty of True Discernment.

 

[Jenyar]

The idea marvelously fits into my theory that time isn't linear, and that it is just the traditional conceptualization of time that time is linear.

I've long held the notion that time is an eternally valid *now*. Neither linear nor circular.

 

[Leo Volont]

I've long held the notion that time is an eternally valid *now*. Neither linear nor circular.

Time is just the perception of rate. Linear perception would perceive the recording of rate as linear. If you can Table Rate in non-linear terms, then you can tell everybody that time can be seen as non-linear. But as far as real things are concerned, we have a Universe where things move at various speeds.

 

[the preacher]

A True Sage must see what is Really there. True Discernment must see what is Real.

just like you a leo. (sarcasm)

 

[scombridae1969]

Assuming the note was real (and so taken literally) and admitting my reply is, for the most speculative (in contrast to any real knowldedge of what is going on in Nichols' mind)...

As some may have already responded, from the perspective of Evangelical doctrine, Nichols' may have gone through all the right motions in terms of securing salvation from a forensic perspective (within the conext of Christin doctrine, that is)...

But there are things about the note which I find rather unnerving:

1) Nichols seems to equate physical death, or the lack thereof, as proof of providential invovlement. He then seems to equate that as way of affirming that he was indeed not of the same mindset and intent as that of Timothy McVeigh and thus he feels, in some sense, vindicated for those who might criticize that he too was not given the death penalty. This alone is rather strange, but...

2)What is more strange, to me at least, is that he seems to place a lot emphasis on his earthly existence - something that is considered temporary and tainted from a Protestant Christian perspective. Why use this life as centerpin for celebrating salvation (as so inversely, would death negate this renewed status with God?).

3)Even more strange, is that in using his dodging of the death penalty as a way of affriming salvation seems to completely ignore that fact that he was still involved with the murder and harming of so many innocent victims. Where is Nichol's remorse? I am not saying I am for the death penalty. But I would assume someone who has apprehended the true gravity of actions, such as those in the case of Nichols, would be able to accept grace and redemption of God, on the one hand, while accepting the penalty that must be paid to society as an ethical requirement for the sake of justice at the same time. One can be forgiven and still uphold his/her debt to society - a dynamic that is poignantly outlined in the story of Zaccheus (Luke, ch.19).

MC
=====================================

Not Perfect, Just Forgiven
Terry Nichols speaks

Where might one begin?

I don't know quite what to quote. Let's try this. But the statement is pretty much full of this kind of ... uh ... excrement. Try the link at the bottom.



I'm appalled. But hey, that's not my problem, right? All's forgiven, or else ... what might the Lord have to say?

Really, I'm curious. Because forgiveness and faith is all well and fine, but ... No.

Faith or works? John 3.16 or Matthew 25? The words of Jesus, or the letters of Paul? The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out, but where Terry goes someday is still in doubt.

Of course, he has the rest of his God-given life remaining to grovel, so who knows what he can pull off in that time?
____________________

• Associated Press. "Text of Terry Nichols' statement." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 9, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Nichols Sentence Text