The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[JudgeRightly]

Sounds like someone (AB) has some real undealt with anger issues. If you so desire, you may PM 'Old GM' and he'll try to help you work them out?

It's interesting...

My posts aren't NEARLY as long as some of the BR posts, which DON'T EVEN USE the quote function, and yet there's WAY more content to them.

I'm an amateur poster compared to them. :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

The context is that the scribes and Pharisees (experts in the law of Moses) were testing what Jesus taught against what was written in the law.

I've already answered you on this. Ill go through some of it again then.

The scribes and Pharisees broke several of the commandments by their actions.

How many and what were they? I'm taking that you mean procedural faults. I agree. And if that was the point for Christ he could have corrected them and instructed them with a scolding. That's not what he did though.

Jesus did not break any of the commandments by His actions.

God can set and alter the relationship of the law to man. He did it on the cross. Before that, Jesus did it as he wrote in the sand.

After the accusers had left, there were none of the "two or three witnesses" left that were required by the law for condemning the woman.

The point of witnesses and the operation of law was to assure justice. Again, Christ didn't correct their form to see justice done. He sent them away by giving them insight into their unworthiness, that none were fit to judge her. But He was. Jesus didn't need witnesses to know the truth. And the truth was that she could be justly condemned. He acknowledges this with the command for her to go and sin no more. To stop doing that for which she could have been condemned.

Something important happened there, in foreshadowing a larger change in our relation to God and the law. And you missed it.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It's interesting...

My posts aren't NEARLY as long as some of the BR posts, which DON'T EVEN USE the quote function, and yet there's WAY more content to them.

I'm an amateur poster compared to them. :think:

That's what happens around here when one poster doesn't like another poster they get their revenge by being picayune and start griping, bellyaching, and complaining. AB is a good example of that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sounds like someone (AB) has some real undealt with anger issues. If you so desire, you may PM 'Old GM' and he'll try to help you work them out?

Nope, if I did I'd probably go around serially neg repping folk saying "Hi" or go "tattling to teacher" each time someone made a post I didn't like..

lain:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Nope, if I did I'd probably go around serially neg repping folk saying "Hi" or go "tattling to teacher" each time someone made a post I didn't like..

lain:

It's 'hi' not 'Hi.' It's NEVER capitalized. Remember that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's what happens around here when one poster doesn't like another poster they get their revenge by being picayune and start griping, bellyaching, and complaining. AB is a good example of that.

Um, no, it has nothing to do with "dislike" or "revenge"?! It's unnecessary and it's annoying. Eh, show me the last time I reported someone as well GM, not my style dude even though others around here make it a hobby.

 

[genuineoriginal]

How many and what were they? I'm taking that you mean procedural faults. I agree.

The first one is not taking the man caught in adultery.
The second one is taking the woman to Jesus instead of to the Sanhedrin (the elders of the city).
I am sure there are more, but those two violations of the law are sufficient.

And if that was the point for Christ he could have corrected them and instructed them with a scolding. That's not what he did though.

No, Jesus was a lot wiser than that.
Your supposition is that you know better than Jesus on what He should have done.

Too many people think that the law of Moses is harsh and unmerciful, but Jesus was able to show mercy through strict adherence to the law of Moses.

God can set and alter the relationship of the law to man. He did it on the cross. Before that, Jesus did it as he wrote in the sand.

Jesus did nothing to alter the law nor its relationship to man when He was confronted with the woman caught in adultery.

The point of witnesses and the operation of law was to assure justice. Again, Christ didn't correct their form to see justice done.

Does anyone know what Jesus wrote in the sand and whether that had anything to do with the accusers being convicted by their own conscience?
We don't know.
All we do know is what is written in the law of Moses and the words and actions of Jesus.

Your supposition is that Jesus overruled the law of Moses.
I can show that what Jesus did was completely in accord with the law of Moses.

Matthew 5:17-18 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.​

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Um, no, it has nothing to do with "dislike" or "revenge"?! It's unnecessary and it's annoying. Eh, show me the last time I reported someone as well GM, not my style dude even though others around here make it a hobby.

See what I mean about your 'anger issues?'

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's interesting...

My posts aren't NEARLY as long as some of the BR posts, which DON'T EVEN USE the quote function, and yet there's WAY more content to them.

I'm an amateur poster compared to them. :think:

Battle Royales have always been an exception and it's obvious why or at least it should be. What you do is simply unnecessary and you could simply do what most people do and answer folk individually or multi quote with shorter replies. Ain't difficult.

 

[Arthur Brain]

See what I mean about your 'anger issues?'

You seem to be back to the passive aggressive shtick again. Not interested thanks.

:e4e:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Battle Royales have always been an exception and it's obvious why or at least it should be. What you do is simply unnecessary and you could simply do what most people do and answer folk individually or multi quote with shorter replies. Ain't difficult.

:baby:

You seem to be back to the passive aggressive shtick again. Not interested thanks.

:e4e:

:baby:

 

[Stripe]

How many and what were they? I'm taking that you mean procedural faults. I agree. And if that was the point for Christ he could have corrected them and instructed them with a scolding. That's not what he did though.

This is an argument from silence. And He may well have conveyed the law.

God can set and alter the relationship of the law to man.

Making things up to add to the story is not the way to go.

He did it on the cross.

Except that He said explicitly: I did not change the law.

Before that, Jesus did it as he wrote in the sand.

Making things up is not convincing.

How do you know what He wrote in the sand?

She could be justly condemned.

Not if you read the law. But you hate the law.

Something important happened there, in foreshadowing a larger change in our relation to God and the law. And you missed it.

You made it up.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think he's saddened when justice is not upheld.

What's your point?

If God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then I'd wager He's a bit more than "saddened" when innocent people are put to death because certain folk don't think absolute proof is that big a deal before "flipping the switch"...

lain:

I should hope not. :think:

Shoulda already been obvious.

Arguing for a system (given by God, no less) that, due to man's inherent fallen nature, results in innocent people being unintentionally killed by mistake IS NOT the same as arguing for a system that intentionally kills the innocent just to make sure that no criminals go free.

Your straw man against my position is that I promote a system that intentionally kills the innocent. I do not. I promote a system that, because it inherently involves man, is not perfect, and recognize that there will be mistakes made BECAUSE it is not perfect due to man's inherent involvement.

You can dress it up any which way you like, you are tolerant of innocent people being killed in a system where the yardstick of guilt isn't proven 100%. I'm not arguing that you favour a system that intentionally kills the innocent and never have. I'm saying you're okay with a percentage of people being wrongfully convicted and executed because you are. You admit yourself that any system would make mistakes so don't try to change my argument into something it never was.

You should too.

Already have. I've never said the current system is perfect because it isn't.

Not on purpose.

In the current system, innocent people ARE executed, on purpose, by the criminals who are not punished appropriately, and it's because the system is unable to provide justice reliably.

So what if it's "not on purpose"? Scant consolation to the wrongfully accused victim and their family where all you could offer is a posthumous pardon. If you're on about offenders being let out to re-offend then I've already addressed concerns in that area and there does need to be something done about technicalities and loopholes where this happens.

You fail to comprehend that watertight convictions are made regularly, and the criminal STILL goes free due to some technicality. Your standard is not good enough.

It's not as regular as you seem to be arguing but as above, still needs addressing.

God's standard is two or three witnesses. :deadhorse:

That standard is there because even strong circumstantial evidence is enough to convict.

Oh please. If you're going to live in the OT then there's no reasoning with you. Do you not think that with the advent of advancements in technology and police procedures that God wouldn't support proper evidence to convict besides eyewitness testimony? You do realize how notoriously unreliable that is in of itself right?

:AMR:

It's not that it is not perfect (and it isn't). It's that it's a system of law, not justice.

Um, yeah, nice soundbite.

lain:

Death penalty and flogging and restitution solve those issues.

Well no, not when innocent people are killed because of the former and you really were born two thousand years or so "ahead" of your time...

Any determined criminal is able to break out of a man-made prison. So why not put the criminals into a prison made by God, where there is no escape.

Yeah, you do realize that "The Shawshank Redemption" was a story right? (Oh, and yes I know the protagonist was wrongfully convicted) Otherwise get a grip. By your reasoning Death Row would be constantly evacuated...

lain:

By deterring criminals from committing crimes. That's how. You protect the innocent by punishing the guilty.

It's impossible to prevent all crime. That's why it's better to deter criminals, so that they WON'T WANT to commit crimes.

You don't protect the innocent by having a system in place that would still convict and kill them. Under yours the innocent wouldn't even have the chance to appeal a faulty conviction because they'd be carted off to a hangman or whatever before they could consult any other option. You're yet another armchair legalist.

That's why Barbarian's accusation against my position, that the death penalty "devalues" life, is a bad argument. Because at some point, those who have not committed murder, but want to, will realize that the government isn't going to let up on executing murderers, that it'll be all but guaranteed that if they murder, they will be executed, and they'll sit back and reconsider committing the crime, because they'll realize they value their life more than they want to commit a crime. Those who do not fear the government will obviously not respect the law, because currently there's nothing to fear. But when justice is swift and painful, criminals are deterred, because, whereas before they could murder and are practically guaranteed to live, in a justice system that enforces the death penalty, murderers are guaranteed to be executed, and not live.

Well no, Barb and TH have schooled you on the subject but like most armchair experts you won't listen to the faulty reasoning in your argument. You parrot on and assert things without any real fact and TH especially took you apart on this very subject some pages back.

No, it wouldn't.

Because, and since you haven't provided the common law punishment for perjury, I'm going to just assume you don't know or don't care, of the BIBLICAL punishment for bearing false witness, which is, whatever punishment is at stake in the trial, that is what is applied to the perjurer.

If someone wrongly accuses someone of theft, the accuser pays restitution.

If someone wrongly accuses someone of assault, the accuser is corporally punished.

If someone wrongly accuses someone of murder, or other capital crime, then the accuser will be put to death.

Since most criminals would rather save their own skins than face punishment for their crime, they would be deterred from committing the crime in the first place if punishment for their commission of a crime is all but guaranteed (barring them committing suicide before they're caught).

But bearing false witness goes beyond just mere accusations against the innocent. It also applies to those who are suspect trying to pass off blame for a crime.

Perjury should be a very serious crime and anyone caught wrongfully accusing someone or deliberately giving false and incriminating evidence should be severely punished. None of this has any bearing on innocent people being convicted and executed under your system, something you'll gladly tolerate.

And how often do the criminals in those cases STILL go unpunished? There's no guarantee of justice in the current systems. Any justice (to use a soundbite) is a random event in a mindless system.

The current system is not "mindless". It has it's faults but it's still better than your ill thought out "improvements".

God's standard of justice has remained the same since the world began. Stop trying to make it seem like He went to counseling and is nicer now. :mock:

God's standard of justice doesn't include innocent people being sent to their deaths when such could be avoided unless you think God doesn't abhor the shedding of innocent blood? The fact that you're using childish smileys and don't seem to think it's a big deal says a lot about you.

Of course there was. Maybe not the technology we have, nor the knowledge of things that were then unknown, but saying there was "no forensic evidence" is at best a straw man, at worst a lie.

Forensic:
Adjective - relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.
Noun - scientific tests or techniques used in connection with the detection of crime.

There were certainly methods for determining guilt back then, and even more so today. In fact, the technology we have today gives us NO EXCUSE for any injustice, as even without such technology, guilt can be determined easily.

Well, if there's no excuse for any injustice today then there's no excuse for anyone being executed without a hundred percent proof of guilt then is there? That is, if you don't want innocent blood to be shed?

:think:

So you think justice can only be meted out with modern techniques? :dunce:

No, but it's far more reliable than eyewitness testimony alone, something you seem to be happy enough with.

Justice is simple. Someone steals, the punishment is restitution. Someone harms someone physically, corporal punishment equal to the harm caused. Someone commits a capital crime, the punishment is execution. There is no crime that cannot be punished that would not fall into those categories.

There's also no guarantee that you'll punish the right person if you're okay with eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence alone.

I'll answer your question with questions of my own:

Do you think God (who abhors innocent being killed AND guilty being let go) is okay with people being killed by criminals who were let go instead of being punished according to His laws? Do you think that He is okay with the government making up their own punishments, instead of using His? Do you think that God, who knows what's best for criminals and innocent alike, did not consider all the possibilities when He gave His law?

No, I don't think "God is okay" when a violent offender is released to commit further crimes and I've already admitted the current system has its flaws in that regard and things need changing where it comes to technicalities etc.

Then quit complaining. I made my response, I'm not about to repost it just for you. Again, it's not my problem you refuse to



Then you should righfully report it.

By not reporting it, you forfeit your right to complain about it, and all you're doing at this point is trying to derail the thread.



And yet, not a single moderator has said anything to me about it.



:baby: :mock:



:baby: :mock:

I honestly don't care either way if you respond. My only objective is to spread truth.



:baby: :mock:

Quit yer whinin' if ya ain't gonna report me.

I post the way I post because it's easier.

Oh grow up kid. I'm not some "tattle tale" who goes whinging to the mods over any given thing so save your little smileys for yourself.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:baby::baby:

They kinda suit you.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's 'hi' not 'Hi.' It's NEVER capitalized. Remember that.

delete, not worth it.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to have missed this fact:

The fact you missed is that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. Why you would want higher murder rates is beyond me.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether a state has the death penalty,

As you just learned, it matters a lot.

Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
just because they have the death penalty doesn't mean it's enforced, let alone in any reasonable amount of time, and only after months of trials, appeals, and even just waiting to be executed.

If the people on death row are not actually being put to death, then that removes all the deterrent effect from having a death penalty.

In other words, you'd be willing to abridge the very appeals system that over a hundred innocent people used to stay alive long enough to prove their innocence. Again, I find that enthusiasm for taking innocent lives incomprehensible.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The fact you missed is that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. Why you would want higher murder rates is beyond me.



As you just learned, it matters a lot.






In other words, you'd be willing to abridge the very appeals system that over a hundred innocent people used to stay alive long enough to prove their innocence. Again, I find that enthusiasm for taking innocent lives incomprehensible.

Same here. It seems the shedding of innocent blood isn't that big a deal for some.

lain:

 

[genuineoriginal]

The fact you missed is that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates.

You seem to assume that one causes the other.
It is more reasonable to assume that a state would institute the death penalty in response to high murder rates than to assume that having the death penalty would result in a higher murder rate.

Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

​

You are adding assumptions in order to support your unsupportable hypotheses that it is the death penalty that causes higher murder rates.

Why you would want higher murder rates is beyond me.

I don't want higher murder rates, you wicked man.

If the people on death row are not actually being put to death, then that removes all the deterrent effect from having a death penalty.

In other words, you'd be willing to abridge the very appeals system that over a hundred innocent people used to stay alive long enough to prove their innocence. Again, I find that enthusiasm for taking innocent lives incomprehensible.

This conversation is starting to feel familiar somehow.

 

[Stripe]

The fact you missed is that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. Why you would want higher murder rates is beyond me.

As you know, you hate justice.

As you just learned, it matters a lot.

You'd be willing to see innocent people murdered. I find that enthusiasm for taking innocent lives evil.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Kit the Coyote]

for some reason Succuri is blocking my attempts to reply to your post so I'm going to respond without quoting.

I've been having this problem with the firewall here too. Remove any web links in the text, particularly links to posts on the site and that seems to solve it.