The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[The Barbarian]

Genuine Original, continues to call for rapid executions, even after learning that over a hundred innocent people, wrongly condemned, used the appeals process to save themselves.

Barbarian observes:
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.

(G.O. doesn't like it.)

If you don't like it, don't advocate something that would have killed over a hundred innocent people.

 

[Stripe]

:blabla:

Did you do your homework, Blablatroll?

Did you did a little deeper than your initially unsourced graph — which you only linked to after being severely embarrassed — went to? Did you want something more to your (quote-unquote) "argument" than a correlation-means-causation assertion?

It looks like you didn't. That's no surprise to most, but perhaps the uninitiated need a heads up. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[genuineoriginal]

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

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.

 

[Stripe]

Blablatroll (redundant comma) continues to call for murderers to be sent on their way with a simple "sin no more."

He hates innocent people.

He wants them murdered.

Stupid, stupid Blablabla.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Blablabla will go "blablabla" all day, unless he is embarrassed into providing something useful. It takes a lot to shame him into acting as if he has integrity. A lot more than it used to.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[glorydaz]

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

lain:

Nice to hear you're anti-abortion. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Nice to hear you're anti-abortion. :thumb:

If it was abortion, the assertion that state-sanctioned killings prompt murder would hold water.

Instead, Blablablablatroll thinks none or a handful of cases of justice delayed by a decade or more is worse than babies being torn apart.

He's an evil man, and little hope remains for him.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

It's bizarre. Normally the stupid thing blocks access to the entire forum but this time it disabled replying to specific posts. What is going on with this "Succuri" thing is anyone's guess...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nice to hear you're anti-abortion. :thumb:

I was never pro abort to begin with.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If it was abortion, the assertion that state-sanctioned killings prompt murder would hold water.

Instead, Blablablablatroll thinks none or a handful of cases of justice delayed by a decade or more is worse than babies being torn apart.

He's an evil man, and little hope remains for him.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Barbarian has never been pro abortion to start with and you calling him an "evil man" is beyond pathetic. Given your past record and your insidious and contemptible remarks made to me when I revealed the rape of a family member you'd be better off keeping your pompous little lying trap shut frankly. Remember that charming little thing you said to me and your one and only ban because of it?

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Blablatroll (redundant comma) continues to call for murderers to be sent on their way with a simple "sin no more."

He hates innocent people.

He wants them murdered.

Stupid, stupid Blablabla.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You really are just unhinged aren't you?

:AMR:

 

[Town Heretic]

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.

I didn't say the men were following the law. I've said the woman was guilty and Christ knew that she was, and that knowing he didn't correct them, but instead forgave her.

No, Jesus was a lot wiser than that.

It's not a question of being wise. It's a question of understanding what he could have done, as when he instructed in taxes, or doing something else. Doing something else means something different and that's what I'm addressing.

Your supposition is that you know better than Jesus on what He should have done.

No, my position remains that he knew exactly what he was doing, but you don't appear to.

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.

No, that's not what he did. By your lights he let the woman escape her just reward on a legal technicality. That's not what happened at all.

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

He did for her, but that was foreshadowing of the cross, as I mentioned in my prior.

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.

I think you're missing something important when Jesus writes in the dirt. It relates to Moses and the law he wrote in stone. It's a help for those who are paying attention to what's happening in that moment.

Your supposition is that Jesus overruled the law of Moses.

No, my assertion is that he foreshadowed its fulfillment.

 

[Stripe]

My assertion is that he foreshadowed its fulfillment.

Which would be what? Apply your standards as our justice system? Tell murderers to "go and sin no more"?

You have no respect for or knowledge of the law.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Which would be what? Apply your standards as our justice system? Tell murderers to "go and sin no more"?

Not at all. I would incarcerate any murderer without the possibility of parole.

You have no respect for or knowledge of the law.

Not true in any part, but like you to say it. Goof. And if that's your meat today I'm going vegetarian.

 

[Stripe]

Not at all. I would incarcerate any murderer without the possibility of parole.

So you establish your system by rejecting God's, then chide us for not following along.

Not true in any part.

Declaration in spite of your words. God says execute, you say incarcerate. Who should we trust as the lawgiver?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I would incarcerate.

So you think Jesus should have locked up the woman?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

This is why one should never approach a lawyer regarding matters of the law. Not only do they consider themselves indispensable, they make stuff up to suit themselves.

A trained monkey could spot how the law was unmolested by Jesus' actions, but not a lawyer.

They think they provide the law.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[drbrumley]

This is why one should never approach a lawyer regarding matters of the law. Not only do they consider themselves indispensable, they make stuff up to suit themselves.

A trained monkey could spot how the law was unmolested by Jesus'actions, but not a lawyer.

They think they provide the law.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

:up:

"Dont monkey this up"

 

[Sherman]

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.

Edited out the name warping please see this announcement.

 

[The Barbarian]

No.

I'm saying the case brought against her would have failed if the law had been applied.

God says:
John 8:1 And Jesus went unto mount Olivet. [2] And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them. [3] And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, [4] And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

Do you even care what God says?