Capital Punishment: Should a Christian Support State-Sponsored Executions?
When it comes to the lands of the land, do we accept it decisions with questions? Please consider the questions below confronting Christians around the world:
- What does the Bible teach on this subject, if any?
- Could a Christian work as a warden where executions are carried out?
- Should teenagers be put to death for crimes?
- Does it make a difference how a person is put to death that makes it a State-Sponsored Execution?
- What necessitates the state to put a man to death when he wants to live and possess the health to do so?
- Do supporters of Capital Punishment shares in any shame, blame or guilt for Supporting State-Sponsored Executions?
- What is your personal view or position?
Know before you vote...CM
Comments
-
Yes, the Bible supports it. God commanded it.
- Yes
- Murder? Yes.
- Yes, as quick as possible I think.
- Murder, possibly more.
- No
- Favor it.
-
I believe in separation of Church and State as a New Covenant biblical principle. Along with separation of Christian and State. That is, the magistrate has his God appointed role as does the Christian. But the two are not compatible with each other.
Jesus did not support the execution of the adulterous woman under OT Law. God forgave David of two sins punishable by death. God placed a mark on Cain after he killed Abel so nobody would kill him. But God instituted the death penalty in Genesis and under the New Covenant placed into the hands of the civil magistrate.
-
@Dave_L said:
I believe in separation of Church and State as a New Covenant biblical principle. Along with separation of Christian and State. That is, the magistrate has his God appointed role as does the Christian. But the two are not compatible with each other.Of course there is no Scriptural backing for that.
Jesus did not support the execution of the adulterous woman under OT Law. God forgave David of two sins punishable by death. God placed a mark on Cain after he killed Abel so nobody would kill him. But God instituted the death penalty in Genesis and under the New Covenant placed into the hands of the civil magistrate.
We are talking about the Civil Magistrate and so was Genesis.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
I believe in separation of Church and State as a New Covenant biblical principle. Along with separation of Christian and State. That is, the magistrate has his God appointed role as does the Christian. But the two are not compatible with each other.Of course there is no Scriptural backing for that.
Jesus did not support the execution of the adulterous woman under OT Law. God forgave David of two sins punishable by death. God placed a mark on Cain after he killed Abel so nobody would kill him. But God instituted the death penalty in Genesis and under the New Covenant placed into the hands of the civil magistrate.
We are talking about the Civil Magistrate and so was Genesis.
How do we love enemies and kill them too?
-
Bill, defined capital punishment as "society-sanctioned, government-sponsored "intentional killing", as I recall years ago. Is this still his position today?
The context of Deut 17:6, 7 specifies that the capital punishment is for those who sacrifice an imperfect animal (v. 1), transgress the covenant (v. 2), or worship idols (vv. 3-5); however, it is not God who brings sinners to judgment but other human beings (vv. 6, 7). Is the state empowered to enforce religious dogmas?
Has anyone seen the article by Ross Douthat in the New York Times? I heard a little about it. What is it all about? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Bill, defined capital punishment as "society-sanctioned, government-sponsored "intentional killing", as I recall years ago. Is this still his position today?CM, you're remembering a post of mine from the good 'ol days of the original version of ChristianDiscourse.com. Thanks for the memories!
My views about capital punishment have not changed. I contend that it IS state-sponsored and intentional killing.
We require the government's imprimatur on every execution - from arrest to trial and conviction, from sentencing to the appeal process, and finally a state governor's refusal of clemency and a prison staff's carrying out the sentence. Capital punishment is legal in 31 states because 31 state legislatures and governors have enacted and maintained laws making it legal.
Society's sanction of capital punishment is reflected, I believe, by it continued existence.
Put more bluntly, my view is that capital punishment is society's killing its own in order to show that the killing its own is wrong.
The context of Deut 17:6, 7 specifies that the capital punishment is for those who sacrifice an imperfect animal (v. 1), transgress the covenant (v. 2), or worship idols (vv. 3-5); however, it is not God who brings sinners to judgment but other human beings (vv. 6, 7). Is the state empowered to enforce religious dogmas?
It's not clear to me that Deut 17.1 commands death for sick or defective sacrifices, but it's certainly possible. The chapter clearly commands death for those who worship gods other than YHWH.
You offer what I think is an interesting possibility regarding humans as those "who (bring) sinners to judgment." I agree that in the process defined in the chapter, humans serve as investigators, witnesses, and executioners. But those roles merely implement the policy set by God. In essence, In Deut 17, humans are law enforcement personnel - they don't decide what the law is; they decide how best to enforce it. The law comes from God.
So who is responsible for the deaths of those killed in accordance with Deuteronomy17.2-7? Well, who's responsible for the death of an inmate killed by lethal injection at a state prison? The technicians who establish the pic lines? The warden who commands the drugs to flow through those lines? The governor who didn't grant clemency to the inmate? The state legislature who passed and have not repealed capital punishment in their state? The population of the state for not demanding change in the law? Or is it a conspiracy? Are they ALL responsible?
I contend that in the power relationship of Deut 17, God is primarily responsible for the deaths of those executed because God establishes the law and has sole authority to do so. It's a big stretch to expect the Israelites to overrule God in the matter presented to them.
One other note: It can be argued that the people executed put themselves at risk of execution by their conduct contrary to God's law. I agree. But it is God, not the offenders, who, according to Deuteronomy, decided they should die.
Has anyone seen the article by Ross Douthat in the New York Times? I heard a little about it. What is it all about? CM
Douthat has recently multiple times about the death penalty. Do you have a specific instance in mind?
-
Funny. I don't recall C_M_ being anywhere around back then. Apparently, he was. Is this Monobillism? Bibillism? Tribillism? PolyBillism?
-
@GaoLu said:
Funny. I don't recall C_M_ being anywhere around back then. Apparently, he was. Is this Monobillism? Bibillism? Tribillism? PolyBillism?Had you completed the most basic of searches, using the tool provided at the top of this and every other page of THIS EDITION of ChristianDiscourse, you would have discovered that my response to CM in this thread reported my FIRST-EVER comments about capital punishment IN THIS EDITION of ChristianDiscourse. Therefore, his reference to my past commentary on the subject of capital punishment MUST have come from my posts IN THE PREVIOUS EDITION of ChristianDiscourse - what you call "back then." And of course, THAT means CM MUST have been "anywhere around back then." (And for the record, I have a clear recollection of CM's active presence in the previous edition of ChristianDiscourse.)
As for the tin foil hat element of your post, Gao Lu - your long-lived conspiracy theorist obsession that I have created and posted under the cover of alter ego CD identities - well, it's that kind of content in your responses to me that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.
-
Slick Bill. Wish I could believe you. But, you own words witness against you of the lie.
CM, you're remembering a post of mine from the good 'ol days of the original version of ChristianDiscourse.com.
On the other hand, I don't doubt at all that the "essence" of Bill / C_M_ was indeed present way back then--whatever monikers were used.
Bad try, Bill. Epic fail.
-
@GaoLu said:
Slick Bill. Wish I could believe you. But, you own words witness against you of the lie.CM, you're remembering a post of mine from the good 'ol days of the original version of ChristianDiscourse.com.
On the other hand, I don't doubt at all that the "essence" of Bill / C_M_ was indeed present way back then--whatever monikers were used.
Bad try, Bill. Epic fail.
Bill has multiple personas here? Interesting....
-
@GaoLu said:
Slick Bill. Wish I could believe you. But, you own words witness against you of the lie.CM, you're remembering a post of mine from the good 'ol days of the original version of ChristianDiscourse.com.
Perhaps @Wolfgang will be willing to attest to your claim from "back then" that HE was one of my alter ego CD identities (or that I was one of his???) Wolfgang?
On the other hand, I don't doubt at all that the "essence" of Bill / C_M_ was indeed present way back then--whatever monikers were used.
Bad try, Bill. Epic fail.
Now back to our story.... It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.
-
@reformed said:
@GaoLu said:
Slick Bill. Wish I could believe you. But, you own words witness against you of the lie.CM, you're remembering a post of mine from the good 'ol days of the original version of ChristianDiscourse.com.
On the other hand, I don't doubt at all that the "essence" of Bill / C_M_ was indeed present way back then--whatever monikers were used.
Bad try, Bill. Epic fail.
Bill has multiple personas here? Interesting....
I have multiple personas, David, but one wish: That you respond directly to the questions I posed to you in THIS POST, my reply to your baseless suggestions that Adam Schiff's response to a prank call from people pretending to be Russians was analogous to the 2016 Trump campaign's connections with Russians, and evidence of Democrats' being what you called "more in bed with foreign governments than anyone." Said post - which you have evaded for four days now - included four bullet points, the last of which was this:
You refuse to comment on the substance of my showing that Adam Schiff did exactly what he should have done when contacted by those pranksters (people he likely did not know were pranksters when he took their call): He said his staff would follow up with them so that the matter could be taken up by his congressional committee and the FBI. If that's proof of... whatever your point is...
- Please tell us what you think Adam Schiff should have done with that call that he didn't do.
- Please also tell us in what way(s) the Trump campaign's handling of its contacts with Russians was better than Schiff's handling of the prankster call.
All of my personas wish/hope/ask/and request that you respond directly to that bullet point, or the entire post from which it came.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
So who is responsible for the deaths of those killed in accordance with Deuteronomy17.2-7? Well, who's responsible for the death of an inmate killed by lethal injection at a state prison? The technicians who establish the pic lines? The warden who commands the drugs to flow through those lines? The governor who didn't grant clemency to the inmate? The state legislature who passed and have not repealed capital punishment in their state? The population of the state for not demanding change in the law? Or is it a conspiracy? Are they ALL responsible?What is the reason that you do not mention the ONE who commits a crime knowing what penalty it carries?
I contend that in the power relationship of Deut 17, God is primarily responsible for the deaths of those executed because God establishes the law and has sole authority to do so. It's a big stretch to expect the Israelites to overrule God in the matter presented to them.
If that were so, I suppose you will blame God Himself to be responsible for people committing sins by overstepping His commandments/law??
Hmn ... in my position of authority as parent of my children, or as the master of my home, I have made certain rules/laws that carry various consequences/penalties IF someone does not adhere to them .... You smoke in my home when knowing that smoking is not allowed, you will be excused from my home ... so I suppose it is all my fault and I am to be blamed for escorting someone out the front door after having learned that the person smoked in my home?
Your take on the matter is rather strange and false ... for reasons, see above
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@GaoLu said:
Slick Bill. Wish I could believe you. But, you own words witness against you of the lie.CM, you're remembering a post of mine from the good 'ol days of the original version of ChristianDiscourse.com.
On the other hand, I don't doubt at all that the "essence" of Bill / C_M_ was indeed present way back then--whatever monikers were used.
Bad try, Bill. Epic fail.
Bill has multiple personas here? Interesting....
I have multiple personas, David, but one wish: That you respond directly to the questions I posed to you in THIS POST, my reply to your baseless suggestions that Adam Schiff's response to a prank call from people pretending to be Russians was analogous to the 2016 Trump campaign's connections with Russians, and evidence of Democrats' being what you called "more in bed with foreign governments than anyone." Said post - which you have evaded for four days now - included four bullet points, the last of which was this:
You refuse to comment on the substance of my showing that Adam Schiff did exactly what he should have done when contacted by those pranksters (people he likely did not know were pranksters when he took their call): He said his staff would follow up with them so that the matter could be taken up by his congressional committee and the FBI. If that's proof of... whatever your point is...
- Please tell us what you think Adam Schiff should have done with that call that he didn't do.
- Please also tell us in what way(s) the Trump campaign's handling of its contacts with Russians was better than Schiff's handling of the prankster call.
All of my personas wish/hope/ask/and request that you respond directly to that bullet point, or the entire post from which it came.
Let's not Hijack a thread Bill. Besides, you should not accuse me of being David Taylor. Harass much?
-
@Wolfgang said:
What is the reason that you do not mention the ONE who commits a crime knowing what penalty it carries?I intended to mention the "ONE who commits a crime knowing what penalty is carries" when in the post to which you respond I wrote this...
@Bill_Coley said:
One other note: It can be argued that the people executed put themselves at risk of execution by their conduct contrary to God's law. I agree. But it is God, not the offenders, who, according to Deuteronomy, decided they should die..
If that were so [that God is "primarily responsible" for the deaths of those executed because God establishes the law" commanding those executions] , I suppose you will blame God Himself to be responsible for people committing sins by overstepping His commandments/law??
Not at all. Each person is responsible for his or her actions. In that same vein I ask who is responsible for the establishment of the law that, according to Deuteronomy 17, those who worship and serve gods other than YHWH will be executed? Does the text say Israel commanded that law into existence? or that violators of that law commanded it into existence? I contend the text says God did.
Hmn ... in my position of authority as parent of my children, or as the master of my home, I have made certain rules/laws that carry various consequences/penalties IF someone does not adhere to them .... You smoke in my home when knowing that smoking is not allowed, you will be excused from my home ... so I suppose it is all my fault and I am to be blamed for escorting someone out the front door after having learned that the person smoked in my home?
- Remember the language I used to describe God's responsibility for the execution of law breakers in Deuteronomy 17 was "primarily responsible," NOT that it was "all God's fault."
- In your example, you are clearly not responsible for the choices to smoke visitors make, and you are well within your rights to implement a policy of removal from the house of those who do smoke even though they know you don't allow smoking. BUT you ARE responsible for the fact that in your home, the policy is the removal of those who smoke when knowing you don't allow smoking. THAT'S A PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE POLICY!!!! But the policy's reasonableness does not change the fact that YOU are responsible for the fact that such is the policy in YOUR home.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Not at all. Each person is responsible for his or her actions. In that same vein I ask who is responsible for the establishment of the law that, according to Deuteronomy 17, those who worship and serve gods other than YHWH will be executed? Does the text say Israel commanded that law into existence? or that violators of that law commanded it into existence? I contend the text says God did.you appear to be beating around the bush here in making it seem to many that God is responsible for an offender receiving the penalty for his offense, while leaving the impression that the offender should either not have been punished or should have been punished differently, and therefore it almost sounds that the blame for the offense/crime is not with the offender but with the law giver/rule maker.
Hmn ... in my position of authority as parent of my children, or as the master of my home, I have made certain rules/laws that carry various consequences/penalties IF someone does not adhere to them .... You smoke in my home when knowing that smoking is not allowed, you will be excused from my home ... so I suppose it is all my fault and I am to be blamed for escorting someone out the front door after having learned that the person smoked in my home?
1. Remember the language I used to describe God's responsibility for the execution of law breakers in Deuteronomy 17 was "primarily responsible," NOT that it was "all God's fault."
It was NONE of God's FAULT ... or should now those who desire to offend and break rules and laws have a say in making the rules and laws in the first place???
- In your example, you are clearly not responsible for the choices to smoke visitors make, and you are well within your rights to implement a policy of removal from the house of those who do smoke even though they know you don't allow smoking. BUT you ARE responsible for the fact that in your home, the policy is the removal of those who smoke when knowing you don't allow smoking.
Of course, I am responsible for the rules I make for my house ... BUT I am never not even in part responsible for an offense and thus consequences to be borne by an offender. It is solely and all the offenders responsibility.
The person knows ... the person decides to disobey and do contrary to what he/she knows and therefore brings upon themselves any consequences attached to such disobedience.THAT'S A PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE POLICY!!!! But the policy's reasonableness does not change the fact that YOU are responsible for the fact that such is the policy in YOUR home.
Indeed ... so what ??? As once can easily see from the example, responsibility does NOT at all equal or mean "blame" or "guilt". I am completely innocent and have no guilt or blame of wrong doing in showing the offender the door and escorting them out.
-
@Wolfgang said:
you appear to be beating around the bush here in making it seem to many that God is responsible for an offender receiving the penalty for his offense, while leaving the impression that the offender should either not have been punished or should have been punished differently, and therefore it almost sounds that the blame for the offense/crime is not with the offender but with the law giver/rule maker.No bush beating on my part, Wolfgang.
In Deut 17, God is NOT responsible for offenses/crime committed. But God IS responsible for the fact that death is the punishment for certain offenses/crimes. The punishment for those crimes COULD HAVE BEEN removal from the community, either permanently or a defined period of time, or some other punishment. But it wasn't; it was death. And the reason it was death, according to the text, is that God chose it to be death.
Hmn ... in my position of authority as parent of my children, or as the master of my home, I have made certain rules/laws that carry various consequences/penalties IF someone does not adhere to them .... You smoke in my home when knowing that smoking is not allowed, you will be excused from my home ... so I suppose it is all my fault and I am to be blamed for escorting someone out the front door after having learned that the person smoked in my home?
Again, and in keeping with my reply just offered, you are NOT responsible for the fact that someone who knows your rule smokes in your house. You ARE responsible, however, for the consequences you decide to impose on a person who so smokes.
THAT'S NOT A BAD THING! You have every right to establish your house as a no smoking zone, and to remove from your house those who violate your policy. My ONLY point is that you are RESPONSIBLE for the rules and consequences you establish.
In your reply, you use the language of "blame." I don't!! "Blame" sounds like guilt of wrongdoing. "Responsibility" sounds like causation, not necessarily guilt. To be clear, when I say you're responsible for the rules of your home, I am NOT saying that's a bad thing! I'm NOT saying you're "to blame." I'm simply saying you're the one who created those rules.
Back to Deut 17 and capital punishment. Notice the word choice of my initial post on the subject: (emphasis added)
@Bill_Coley said:
"So who is responsible for the deaths of those killed in accordance with Deuteronomy17.2-7?"I didn't ask "Who is to blame?" I simply asked who created the penalties that resulted in offenders' deaths?
It was NONE of God's FAULT ... or should now those who desire to offend and break rules and laws have a say in making the rules and laws in the first place???
"Fault" means pretty much the same thing as "blame." And for the third time I remind you that I wrote about responsibility, NOT "fault" or "blame."
Of course, I am responsible for the rules I make for my house ... BUT I am never not even in part responsible for an offense and thus consequences to be borne by an offender. It is solely and all the offenders responsibility.
You are NOT responsible for the offenses. But you ARE responsible (NOT "to blame"!!) for the punishments... unless you contend that you have no choice when it comes to the rules set in your house, that the rules of your house are imposed on you against your will.
Indeed ... so what ??? As once can easily see from the example, responsibility does NOT at all equal or mean "blame" or "guilt". I am completely innocent and have no guilt or blame of wrong doing in showing the offender the door and escorting them out.
"Responsibility does NOT at all equal or mean 'blame' or 'guilt.'" EXACTLY!!!! As I have made clear throughout this post.
p.s. I would appreciate your response to the request I made of you earlier in this thread, a request I now pose in the form of a simple "yes" or "no" question: Is it true that there was a time in the previous version of the CD forums that Gao Lu suggested and/or insinuated that you and I were the same person, posing under different CD identities? Again, I ask for NOTHING other than your honest "yes" or "no" response.
-
> @reformed said:
> Let's not Hijack a thread Bill. Besides, you should not accuse me of being David Taylor. Harass much?
Makes sense to me. So please directly address the two requests of the bullet point I quoted, but do so in its original thread. -
Brethren, In keeping with the OP, please consider these points:
When Leviticus dealt with laws concerning homoerotic activity:
- “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (18:22-ESV).
- “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (20:13-ESV).
Leviticus 18:22 is a prohibition addressed to the Israelite male regarding an action that he (the subject) should not do to another male (as a direct object). Following this prohibition is an expression of the Lord’s assessment of the act: “it is an abomination.” This prohibition is viewed as a Apodictic Law. It pertains to the body of law, "presented in the imperative form; that is, words and commandments spoken by God in direct address to the Israelites."
Leviticus 20:13 expresses the same idea, specifying that both men who (voluntarily) engage in this—the giving and receiving partners—have committed an abomination, and adding the penalty of capital punishment under Israelite theocratic jurisprudence. Those who execute them are blameless because the sexual partners bear their own bloodguilt—that is, responsibility for their own deaths. This expression unlike the passage above is Casuistic Law. This law pertains to, "case law which was a part of the common heritage shared with the Canaanites and other Near Eastern peoples.
The Hebrew word "to‘ebah", translated as “abomination” in these passages, can refer to a wide variety of evils that are abhorrent to the Lord. On this Hebrew term and its semantic range, H. D. Preuss summarizes:
- “Within the OT, then, tô‘ēbâ refers to something in the human realm that is ethically abhorrent, either as an idea or as an action; above all it is irreconcilable with Yahweh, contrary to his character and his will as an expression of that character, an ethical and cultic taboo. To call something tô‘ēbâ is to characterize it as chaotic and alien, and therefore dangerous, within the cosmic and social order... Because the noun (as well as the verb) enjoys such a wide range of usage in the OT, it is difficult to arrive at a single root significance of everything characterized as tô‘ēbâ. Sapiential and legal material stand side by side with cultic material in the great majority of instances” (See sources).
In view of the above findings, it appears one should not single out homoerotic activity as if it were the only abomination. Mainly because, in Leviticus 18, the same word in the plural (to‘ebot) characterizes all of the offenses prohibited earlier in the chapter (vs. 26, 27, 29, 30), the only individual case labeled as an “abomination” (to‘ebah) is male homosexual activity (v. 22). Also, only this kind of activity is called an “abomination” in Leviticus 20 (v. 13).
Leviticus 18 and 20, simply forbidden to engage in a homosexual act, regardless of one’s intentions. Obviously, the death penalty that applied under the Israelite theocracy, which no longer exists, cannot be enforced on the authority of Leviticus in a secular state. However, this penalty indicated God’s attitude toward the act, which was to be entirely excluded from the community of His people.
Furthermore, those who deliberately violate any of the laws in Leviticus 18 are additionally condemned to the divinely inflicted punishment of “cutting off” (v. 29), which God Himself can carry out anytime and anywhere. One who is “cut off” loses his afterlife, which can occur through extirpation of his line of descendants. What says ye? Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCES:
-- Samuel Greengus, "Law," The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:245.
-- H. D. Preuss, “tô‘ēbâ; t‘b,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry; transl. David E. Green; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 15:591–604.
-- Jacob Milgrom. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 3; New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), 457–460.
-- Baruch Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 13 -
@Bill_Coley said:
p.s. I would appreciate your response to the request I made of you earlier in this thread, a request I now pose in the form of a simple "yes" or "no" question: Is it true that there was a time in the previous version of the CD forums that Gao Lu suggested and/or insinuated that you and I were the same person, posing under different CD identities? Again, I ask for NOTHING other than your honest "yes" or "no" response.GaoLu sits in shorts on his lawn chair, wearing a sombrero and sunglasses, sipping lemonade, white teeth glimmering, grinning from ear to auricle.
C'mom Wolfgang! Yes or no! [This could get really fun]
*Billium, you are hosed, dude. You blew it. Why don't you just abandon this name in shame and make yet another? [snicker]
-
@GaoLu said:
GaoLu sits in shorts on his lawn chair, wearing a sombrero and sunglasses, sipping lemonade, white teeth glimmering, grinning from ear to auricle.C'mom Wolfgang! Yes or no! [This could get really fun]
*Billium, you are hosed, dude. You blew it. Why don't you just abandon this name in shame and make yet another? [snicker]
It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.
-
No matter what name you use, we know you too Bill. Oh, you probably fool a few people, at least for a while. I hope, someday someone writes the book on this place. Hmmm. Maybe I should do that.
-
@GaoLu said:
No matter what name you use, we know you too Bill. Oh, you probably fool a few people, at least for a while. I hope, someday someone writes the book on this place. Hmmm. Maybe I should do that.It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.
-
I wonder if you will say it again. Or if you are filling space hoping people won't read what is revealed about your identity above.
Billium, you are hosed, dude. You blew it. You got caught in your own web of untruth. Why don't you just abandon this name in shame and make yet another?
-
@GaoLu said:
I wonder if you will say it again. Or if you are filling space hoping people won't read what is revealed about your identity above.Billium, you are hosed, dude. You blew it. You got caught in your own web of untruth. Why don't you just abandon this name in shame and make yet another?
It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.
-
Bill/GaoLu,
Please end this "multiple personas" nonsense. Remember, the OP? There is so much truth to be mined on this topic. Please brethren, don't allow this thread to go the way of the unimportance and the nebulous. Don't forget about its purpose and the silent readers. Let's step. CM -
@Bill_Coley said:
p.s. I would appreciate your response to the request I made of you earlier in this thread, a request I now pose in the form of a simple "yes" or "no" question: Is it true that there was a time in the previous version of the CD forums that Gao Lu suggested and/or insinuated that you and I were the same person, posing under different CD identities? Again, I ask for NOTHING other than your honest "yes" or "no" response.yes
Seems like a rather long time ago on the former CD forums ... I think it had to do with threads on the "Trinity" topic that sparked the suspicion he had at the time
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Bill_Coley said:
p.s. I would appreciate your response to the request I made of you earlier in this thread, a request I now pose in the form of a simple "yes" or "no" question: Is it true that there was a time in the previous version of the CD forums that Gao Lu suggested and/or insinuated that you and I were the same person, posing under different CD identities? Again, I ask for NOTHING other than your honest "yes" or "no" response.yes
Seems like a rather long time ago on the former CD forums ... I think it had to do with threads on the "Trinity" topic that sparked the suspicion he had at the time
Thank you, Wolfgang.
FYI, back in the day, when I mistakenly allowed Gao Lu's tin foil hat trolling on this craziness to annoy me greatly, I created posts about the subject in word processor files before pasting them over to a CD thread. Because I saved those files, I can quote from a post I created, and in so doing capture two of his comments about the matter: (I'm confident I posted this in 2016, but I do not have the thread's ID details. The topic and post #s for the post from Gao Lu, however, would check out were we able to get back to the original CD forums)
In early November 2015, when Wolfgang and I returned to the forums at about the same time following our respective absences, Gao Lu posted this...
quote="Gao_Lu, post:21, topic:1245, full:true"
"Curious, Bill and Wolfgang reappear at the same time after both having a long absence."And finally, after Wolfgang posted the other day that he might step back from posting in the forums, Gao Lu offered this to me via a private message thread he titled “Multiple Personalities” [quoted without a link because it’s from a PM; send me a PM if you want a screen grab to authenticate this quotation]....
“Wow...there we go again. Will be expecting a new one or so [CD alter-egos] soon.”
Enough said on this matter, Wolfgang. It probably doesn't deserve as much e-ink as I've already given it, but your confirmation of the basic truth of my claim provides a good place for me to stop.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
p.s. I would appreciate your response to the request I made of you earlier in this thread, a request I now pose in the form of a simple "yes" or "no" question: Is it true that there was a time in the previous version of the CD forums that Gao Lu suggested and/or insinuated that you and I were the same person, posing under different CD identities? Again, I ask for NOTHING other than your honest "yes" or "no" response.yes
Seems like a rather long time ago on the former CD forums ... I think it had to do with threads on the "Trinity" topic that sparked the suspicion he had at the time
Back then it seemed like a remote possibility that Bill was faking being Wolfgang, but the notion came up, since Bill seemed to have multiple proliferating identities at that time. Soon after confrontation, most of the fakes disappeared. And boy was Bill defensive about the obvious! It got so funny and sad to see the frenzied and frightened scurry. In the end, we knew that "Wolfgang" was one of the identities Bill probably did not fake. It is entirely possible there were others.
So, Bill, it is understandable that you use the one and only moniker that you could possibly use as a flimsy escape. That's OK. You make regular blind exposures of yourself, usually small subtle ones, and sometimes huge glaring ones like your obviously fake impossibly anachronistic reference to C_M_. Just too many lies and deceptions to cover. Might want to start over. But, we will still know who and what you are.
-
@GaoLu said:
Back then it seemed like a remote possibility that Bill was faking being Wolfgang, but the notion came up, since Bill seemed to have multiple proliferating identities at that time. Soon after confrontation, most of the fakes disappeared. And boy was Bill defensive about the obvious! It got so funny and sad to see the frenzied and frightened scurry. In the end, we knew that "Wolfgang" was one of the identities Bill probably did not fake. It is entirely possible there were others.You are successful in utterly confusing me as to what you are actually trying to say with the above ....
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)