Arthur Brain
Well-known member
They are if they choose to lie and/or lack understanding. Anyone who accuses me of wanting to see murderers and rapists go free is one or both of those things. Simple as that.
Properly Enforcing the Death Penalty
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Your loss.
Because it allows me to thoroughly dismantle bad arguments such as yours.
Good for you.
It was so obvious, I'm not sure how you got to the point where you denied that the ancients had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic.
Typical Arty. Doubles down when he's shown to be wrong.
Genesis 4:22
1) It wasn't JUST to ancient Israel, else Paul would not have reinforced it in his letters to other nations.
2) Why do you assume modern forensics are a necessary part of determining guilt?
3) Quit appealing to novelty.
I expect you to consider evidence contrary to yours.
We do.
What makes you think I haven't already, and determined that God's ways are better than anything I could ever come up with?
The fact that you can't tell the difference between "guaranteeing something will happen in a system" and "acknowledging what will indeed happen regardless of how good the system is" shows your lack of discernment.
No one said there was.
Duh. No one said otherwise.
Thinking you can improve on a system God designed is not only arrogant, but evil.
That makes you evil, Arty.
When the alternative is that people have to wait years or even decades to see justice, I would much prefer a system that has some innocents accidentally put to death, and some guilty accidentally set free, but where the majority of cases are rightly judged. How you think that's a step backwards from this is beyond me.
On the contrary, yes I am.
And you don't.
Why do you disagree with God when He says that "two or three witnesses" is enough to establish a matter?
No, you haven't, or else I wouldn't be asking.
And many more would be released after a quick punishment, or released due to lack of evidence, and people would be able to move on with their lives.
Under the current system, and the one you advocate, more and more people will be locked up because "they might not be guilty."
You, Arthur, are incapable of judging rightly, which is why you can't accept God's standard of righteousness.
And yet, no one is held accountable for the mistakes made, not to any noticeable extent. Hmmm. Oh wait, they can't be, because they're all completely anonymous, or legally exempt from any real repercussions of their decisions.
Under my preferred system, judges would be held accountable for their bad judgements, oversights, malpractices, and general wickedness.
And you're the sole determiner of that?
What was that about one witness not being sufficient to establish a matter again?
Oh, right!
“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:15-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15-21&version=NKJV
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'll live with such a 'loss' quite gladly thanks and if you could actually dismantle an argument then needless parsing would hardly be a requirement. In your initial OP your opponent was right on the money. Using bronze age methods or rigidly literal parameters as you insist upon would only result in more people being wrongfully convicted and put to death without even a chance to appeal. We don't live in such times and it is not evil to use every measure available to determine the guilt of someone before putting them to death when we have those available. If you truly believe that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then some basic common sense should tell you that.
You, frankly, are in no position to tell me or anyone else that they're incapable of judging rightly so once again, get off that silly little high horse of yours.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Find any post of mine that posits that I would want to see murderers and rapists go free or that I have an agenda where I support that happening.
Good luck although you'd need way more than that.
If you and others can't defend your position without recourse to flat out lying or being mind numbingly obtuse then that's on you. It's pathetic but it's still on you.
Redirection. Stay focused.
Genesis 4:22
"Two or three witnesses" is not a rigid parameter, Arthur. How many times do we have to tell you that until we beat it through your thick skull?
No, it wouldn't, as explained previously.
Judges alone are the only ones who have the right to appeal a case. Questioning a judge's decision inherently undermines his authority, and is wrong.
God's standard of "two or three witnesses" is absolute. Meaning it is ALWAYS applicable.
Please quote one person in this thread who says otherwise.
Supra.
Yes, quite frankly, I am.
You, Arthur Brain, do not know right from wrong.
Every post you have made in this thread so far does so, as explained in posts 44, 47, and 49.
No luck needed. I have the thread and everyone who has posted in it as my witnesses.
How is that any different than what I said in my post?
Why?
Is not two or three witnesses, as God requires, enough to convict?
In other words, are you calling God a liar?
I'M ALL FOR THAT!
Not needed. One fallible human is enough, better even, than multiple.
Of course, if he wants to consult with his peers (aka other judges), there's nothing wrong with that. But jurors? Not needed.
Why does the standard of the quality of evidence have to be raised?
Why should the judge be limited to an arbitrary standard, and not simply just consider ALL evidence his investigation uncovers? And then make a decision based on that?
Why wouldn't that just be a normal part of the investigation, overseen by the judge? If he determines that, based on the evidence he uncovers in the investigation, the accuser is a false accuser, then that determination means that the false accuser should be punished with whatever punishment he sought to bring upon the falsely accused.
And then the false accuser is punished, and everyone who survived goes back to their lives. End of story.
And if the judge determines that the accuser, even though his witness (ie, his testimony) is sloppy or biased, was correct, and not guilty of a crime himself, and finds corroborating evidence to support his claim, then the judgement is passed, and the wrongdoer is punished, and everyone who survived goes back to their lives. End of story.
And if the judge determines instead that even though the accuser's witness is sloppy or biased, but correct, the witness is also guilty of something, then, based on two or three witnesses, as with all of the above scenarios, he is also punished according to his crimes. And everyone who survived goes back to their lives. End of story.
Why make it more complicated than that?
Don't forget to confiscate the money too! Because it can be used for crime too! Especially by the government... Oh wait...
Right Divider
Body part
"We need the government to track all financial transactions, so that no funny business can go on there."
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Already was and am. Your opponent in your own OP made a direct and salient point and one that holds merit.
Regurgitating the same verse isn't helping you or anyone any...
It would absolutely and it's utterly naive for you to state otherwise. You can't have your bread buttered on both sides on this JR. Either the most stringent methods to determine guilt are utilized or they aren't. If you reduce those to two or three 'witnesses' whatever form they happen to take today would result in evidence being disallowed to the judge under your system, or else what? He can't have half a dozen or more before making his determination?
I can quite easily quote one person who says or argues otherwise - you - here. You would have laws that don't determine absolute guilt.
No, quite frankly, you aren't. I know enough right from wrong to know that holding five year old children as accountable for their actions as adults is unsupportable on any level, from basic common sense to a basic understanding of science where it applies to neurology along with morality on the score and the Bible itself. The Bible does not support your posit on the score and you will never find a verse that will, not without twisting one to fit a twisted notion in itself. Nobody who advocates the execution of minors has any room to lecture on morality JR, not by a long shot.
No post of mine on this thread or anywhere else on this forum endorses or advocates the likes of what you feebly posit or support. Those who have some semblance of honesty and intellectual acumen know fine well that I'm not advocating that murderers and rapists be let free or want to see such in any way, shape or form. Truly pathetic already and if you maintain that then even more so.
Last edited:
Genesis 4:22.
Also, Exodus 22:13.
Don't forget, you believe that nothing good arose from Jesus' death on the cross.
False dichotomy.
Name names. Who is it that said the most stringent methods cannot be used?
Oh! I see your confusion. You think there's an upper limit to the number of witnesses.
Lol.
What a stupid thing to believe.
Laws don't determine guilt. Evidence does. Laws don't make make judgements. People do.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, you've got another bone to chew now?
You want murderers and rapists to go free.
No, you're not.
Then you should have addressed that when you first came here.
Neither is you making the same straw man against ancient Israel.
You regurgitating the same claim as if that settles the matter isn't helping you or anyone.
Hey, leave bread out of this!
Please quote anyone who says they shouldn't be.
Why do you assume that more than two or three witnesses could not be brought against someone?
"Two or three" is the MINIMUM needed to establish guilt, not the minimum and maximum.
How do you not get that?
God said:
“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:15-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15-21&version=NKJV
He wasn't giving an upper limit, He was giving a LOWER limit. ONE is not enough. He never stated that more could not be used! TWO OR THREE is sufficient as a minimum, and He said "OR" because He expects the one judging to weigh the evidence. Do you know what "weighing the evidence" means? It means that one uses discernment, reasoning, logic, to consider the evidence that is presented, in order to make the best decision.
Please quote anyone who has stated otherwise.
Then please do so. Because I have never said that we should not "use every measure available to determine the guilt of someone before putting them to death when we have those available."
As Stripe said, laws don't determine guilt. Evidence does. People make judgements, and by the testimony of two or three witnesses, a matter, such as guilt for a crime, is established. That's the guarantee God gives us.
Yes, I am. Having fun yet?
No, you don't.
Hmmm... Seems like you need a reminder:
Do you WANT to be banned?
You want criminals to be let go, because you feel it will vindicate you from being violating God's laws.
But you do. No matter how much you deny it, that's what you're advocating for.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Any time you reject a proper solution for an improper one means that you support murderers and rapists going free. If the creator of the universe days the evil will not be inhibited without the measures for justice He has given, and you reject those, you are supporting freeing rapists and murderers SO THAT they will rape and murder some more, because that is what they do.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, now it's all okay to have way more than two or three witnesses to establish guilt and use the utmost stringency before sentencing someone to death? They are just the minimum required all of a sudden?
You can judge all you like but it's hardly right when you claim that I want criminals to be set free, that's asinine and unsupportable. Find a post of mine that expressly or in any way supports that with any degree of honesty on your part. You won;t find any such thing.
I'll start a new thread in regards to children and the DP if you care to address it there then, or not.
Right Divider
Body part
They always were a minimum. Please QUOTE someone saying otherwise. If you thought that it was a maximum, you are really dense.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If that's the case then nobody should have had any problem with my counter argument to start with and go read back through the thread.
Right Divider
Body part
I've read the entire thread and you've been constantly confused. Nobody is surprised.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Meh, predictable as ever.
Right Divider
Body part
We're both predictable. I tell the truth; you lie.