by nature boy » Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:40 am
that's the thing, i don't think we can judge either way. the fact of the matter is that we don't know the facts. the jury did what the jury was supposed to do: look at the evidence and condemn if the evidence points to it, or acquit if the evidence fails to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. the jury could be angry too, they could possibly hate her, but their job isn't to judge based on emotion but on fact.
did she do it? maybe, i dunno. did oj do it? maybe, i dunno. does it mean that we should judge them more harshly than we've been judged? i think we like to downplay the grace that we've received and think that no one else should get it.
shaun, i think it's true that we should be honest with God with where we are, but at the same time we should be wondering within ourselves why we are where we are. why do we need to believe in a literal hell (when the bible doesn't specifically say that there is one, yet many christians hold fast to that scare tactic). and most importantly, why are we angry with the verdict?
i think the media played a fast one on everyone with this case. there has been more articles about how the media portrayed this case than the case itself.