The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian chuckles:
That's not what "peers" mean. Maybe you should go and find out?

(Genuine Original goes to find out)

Good. The first one is pretty close to the way the courts have defined it:

jury of one's peers

n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1079

This is from common law, not the Constitution, which does not even mention a jury of one's peers.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Do you find anything except circumstantial evidence in this conviction?

Conviction: Murder in Suburbia review – a perplexing new case for true-crime fans

the case of Glyn Razzell, who was convicted of killing his estranged wife Linda, even though her body was never found. The most damning evidence was the blood – her blood – found in the boot of the car he had been driving. Glyn points out that the blood was found only on the third time of searching, and asks how the police could have missed so many spots on two previous searches. He says the blood could have been planted, and that Linda staged her own disappearance. For the past 15 years he has maintained his innocence.


I asked you to cite that most convictions happen by circumstantial evidence alone. Try again.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Jesus only said that after there were no longer any eye witnesses to fulfill the commandments by casting the first stones.
Here's the problem with that attempt, it turns Jesus into a legalist and the law into a shell game. He didn't have to guess at her guilt. The point of witnesses was to assure justice. God doesn't need witnesses and that's who they brought her to.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
[MENTION=1077]drbrumley[/MENTION]

Spoiler
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:3-11&version=NKJV


First of all, Note that God had forgiven adulterers before...

Spoiler
Then the Lord said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the Lord for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans. ” - Hosea 3:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea3:1&version=NKJV


... but He still required men to obey His laws.

Spoiler
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. - Hosea 4:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea4:6&version=NKJV


King David committed adultery and murder...

Spoiler
It happened in the spring of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the people of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem.Then it happened one evening that David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king’s house. And from the roof he saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to behold.So David sent and inquired about the woman. And someone said, “ Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?”Then David sent messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and he lay with her, for she was cleansed from her impurity; and she returned to her house.And the woman conceived; so she sent and told David, and said, “I am with child.”Then David sent to Joab, saying, “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” And Joab sent Uriah to David.When Uriah had come to him, David asked how Joab was doing, and how the people were doing, and how the war prospered.And David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house and wash your feet.” So Uriah departed from the king’s house, and a gift of food from the king followed him.But Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house.So when they told David, saying, “Uriah did not go down to his house,” David said to Uriah, “Did you not come from a journey? Why did you not go down to your house?”And Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in tents, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go to my house to eat and drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.”Then David said to Uriah, “Wait here today also, and tomorrow I will let you depart.” So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next.Now when David called him, he ate and drank before him; and he made him drunk. And at evening he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but he did not go down to his house.In the morning it happened that David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah.And he wrote in the letter, saying, “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retreat from him, that he may be struck down and die.”So it was, while Joab besieged the city, that he assigned Uriah to a place where he knew there were valiant men.Then the men of the city came out and fought with Joab. And some of the people of the servants of David fell; and Uriah the Hittite died also.Then Joab sent and told David all the things concerning the war,and charged the messenger, saying, “When you have finished telling the matters of the war to the king,if it happens that the king’s wrath rises, and he says to you: ‘Why did you approach so near to the city when you fought? Did you not know that they would shoot from the wall?Who struck Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? Was it not a woman who cast a piece of a millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you go near the wall?’—then you shall say, ‘Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.’ ”So the messenger went, and came and told David all that Joab had sent by him.And the messenger said to David, “Surely the men prevailed against us and came out to us in the field; then we drove them back as far as the entrance of the gate.The archers shot from the wall at your servants; and some of the king’s servants are dead, and your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.”Then David said to the messenger, “Thus you shall say to Joab: ‘Do not let this thing displease you, for the sword devours one as well as another. Strengthen your attack against the city, and overthrow it.’ So encourage him.”When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband.And when her mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. - 2 Samuel 11:1-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Samuel11:1-27&version=NKJV


... yet God forgave Him.

Spoiler
Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit.When I kept silent, my bones grew old Through my groaning all the day long.For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; My vitality was turned into the drought of summer. SelahI acknowledged my sin to You, And my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” And You forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah - Psalm 32:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm32:1-5&version=NKJV


It was a conscious decision on God's part not to execute David. As Nathan said to David:

Spoiler
So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” - 2 Samuel 12:13-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Samuel12:13-14&version=NKJV


Still, God's law remained in effect.

Spoiler
But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. - Psalm 1:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm1:2&version=NKJV

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; - Psalm 19:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm19:7&version=NKJV

Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children;That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children,That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments;And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God. - Psalm 78:1,5-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm78:1,5-8&version=NKJV

“If his sons forsake My law And do not walk in My judgments,If they break My statutes And do not keep My commandments,Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes. - Psalm 89:30-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm89:30-32&version=NKJV

And Psalm 119 (too long to quote here).


God forgave the New Testament adulterer just as He forgave Old Testament adulterers, in neither instance revoking His law. God has all authority to forgive the criminal and disregard temporal punishment. Contrariwise, Men must obey God and cannot ignore punishment.

In addition to all of that, the Pharisees wanted to accuse Jesus of rebelling against the Roman Empire:

Spoiler
This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. - John 8:6a http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:6&version=NKJV


Rome had revoked the Jews' authority to put a criminal to death.

Spoiler
Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,” - John 18:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John18:31&version=NKJV


A straight-forward answer to the Pharisees would have brought Jesus into premature conflict with Rome before His “hour had come.” Jesus solved this problem stating, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first”.

Spoiler
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” - John 8:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:7&version=NKJV


Christ often frustrated the Pharisees giving clever answers that thwarted their wicked intentions (Mat. 22:15-22; 21:21-27; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26).
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Here's the problem with that attempt, it turns Jesus into a legalist and the law into a shell game. He didn't have to guess at her guilt. The point of witnesses was to assure justice. God doesn't need witnesses and that's who they brought her to.
You don't know what the law says.

If you quoted the law, your assertion that Jesus ignored it would vanish.

Is that why you won't quote it?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You don't know what the law says.
Sure I do. I just don't answer to you and you declaring that I don't know while declaring you do and not making any particular case just doesn't warrant an answer.

If you quoted the law, your assertion that Jesus ignored it would vanish.
It has never been my proffer that Jesus ignored the law.

See, your ignorance about my actual position is as profound as your declaration on it wasn't.

And that's why I didn't bother with your shtick.

As to the problem of resting on witnesses, I've addressed it prior in answering gen.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sure I do.
I know. You've been through this conversation numerous times and know what the law says, but you still peddle the same nonsense about Jesus usurping the law when you want to undermine justice by arguing against the death penalty.

I just don't answer to you and you declaring that I don't know while declaring you do and not making any particular case just doesn't warrant an answer.
The case against you was: You don't know the law.
The case now is: You hate the law.

Here it is:

The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:10-11 NKJV​

It has never been my proffer that Jesus ignored the law.
Which is why you're either ignorant or lying. And you're not ignorant. We've been through this conversation numerous times.

In any case, the law is right there, quoted for you. Do you think Jesus knew it? How did He not ignore it if your version of events is all there is to the story?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
No, they would never have been convicted if I had my way.

If you had your way, they'd be dead.

Yes, it is better for murderers to go free when there are no eyewitnesses than for innocent to be found guilty on nothing more than circumstantial evidence.

So your way would have the guilty go free and any wrongly convicted people die. Not a good idea. Do you not realize that eyewitness testimony has been shown to be often wrong?

Over the past quarter-century, more than 1,400 people convicted of serious crimes have been proved innocent, according to the University of Michigan Law School’s National Registry of Exonerations. But why were these people wrongly convicted? In a great many cases, one significant factor was faulty eyewitness identifications.
https://www.twincities.com/2015/02/20/albright-rakoff-see-minus-the-trouble-with-eyewitnesses/
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I know. You've been through this conversation numerous times and know what the law says, but you still peddle the same nonsense about Jesus usurping the law when you want to undermine justice by arguing against the death penalty.
It's not nonsense and it's about what the law was meant to accomplish and what it never was.

The case against you was: You don't know the law.
The case now is: You hate the law.
And as with the first charge the second is equally errant.

Which is why you're either ignorant or lying.
No, that's just you declaring a thing that suits your heart and the bruised ego you're nursing. It's no more true than the first was and it's in no part fueled by righteousness or reason.

And you're not ignorant. We've been through this conversation numerous times. In any case, the law is right there, quoted for you. Do you think Jesus knew it? How did He not ignore it if your version of events is all there is to the story?
I've never said Jesus didn't know his own law. What I have said is that people like you don't appear to understand its nature and point.

God knew and knows those he pardons are pardoned without merit.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
God knew and knows those he pardons are pardoned without merit.

This is nothing but empty platitude, ie, you aren't addressing the law.

And for good reason. If you applied the law, your implication that the DP is off the table because Jesus did not convict the woman would be exposed as the fluff it is.

God installed the DP. God never revoked the DP. The DP is justice for murderers and rapists.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
So we come to the usual impasse.

One side cites the evidence and shows the consequences of a particular policy.

The other side says "I don't care, my new interpretation of scripture would work better", while refusing to look at the documented consequences.

Another day at TOL. And Grosnick, if you want to see the data source, just read the thread. It's in there. Not that it hasn't been shown here time and time again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
This is nothing but empty platitude, ie, you aren't addressing the law.
I've already done that, as you know.


So we come to the usual impasse.

One side cites the evidence and shows the consequences of a particular policy.

The other side says "I don't care, my new interpretation of scripture would work better", while refusing to look at the documented consequences.

Another day at TOL. And Grossnik, if you want to see the data source, just read the thread. It's in there. Not that it hasn't been shown here time and time again.
That's about it.

It's darn peculiar how many of the people who rail against lawyers and demand a plain sort of justice turn into lawyers to explain away the actions of Christ with a woman who merited death under the law absent his actions.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So we come to the usual impasse: One side cites the evidence and shows the consequences of a particular policy, while the other side says: "I don't care, my new interpretation of scripture would work better" and refuses to look at the consequences.

Another day at TOL. And GM, if you want to see the data source, just read the thread. It's in there.

But only by Blablablablaman after the shame became too much.

I've already done that, as you know.
Nope. You haven't even acknowledged it. You think the woman's exoneration required Jesus to usurp the law. It didn't. You think the people trying to trap Jesus had a legitimate case. They didn't.

That's about it.
:darwinsm:

Anyone who thinks Blablablaian's ravings have any credibility is insane.

It's darn peculiar how many of the people who rail against lawyers and demand a plain sort of justice turn into lawyers to explain away the actions of Christ with a woman who merited death under the law absent his actions.

Nope.

It is a hindrance to turn to a lawyer when it is time to examine the law. As we've seen, you ignore it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Top