The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Stripe]

Relying on witnesses when forensic evidence is available...

You're deliberately conflating a term that has been explained to you.

Why would you do that?

Saying people are dishonest for disagreeing with you, which is what that reduces to, is a bad idea.

Nope.

You are dishonest because you will not engage honestly. You ignore the law and assert your own. You won't even acknowledge the words that are right in front of you.

Barbarian inferred something much less certain and more arguable and got tossed for it.

He said we want people murdered.

Rather, I've said that for its day you couldn't really do much better. But we can expect more now.

This is to conflate process with progress. The process we endorse is independent of progress.

We can't "do more today" to improve the process. Capital criminals should be executed.

The system we have in place doesn't tend to acquit murderers.

Of course it does.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[eider]

To be fair, JR believes in a painful method of execution as well as a swift one so that's nothing new on his part.

It's all just totally shocking......

It seems like reversing various bible verses as required into a careless, callous and crazy theocracy.

I perceive a World with some kind of twisted Christianity which has discarded humanity. :idunno:

It looks like it's all quite unhinged.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's all just totally shocking......

It seems like reversing various bible verses as required into a careless, callous and crazy theocracy.

I perceive a World with some kind of twisted Christianity which has discarded humanity. :idunno:

It looks like it's all quite unhinged.

Well, when it comes to executing the mentally disabled it kinda says it all. There's no humanity or empathy with these hard line attitudes. It's just cold legalism at its "finest". The good news is that such garbage wouldn't come into being and just the minority opinion of certain zealots.

 

[Stripe]

It's all just totally shocking.

Probably because you've never read the Bible.

It seems like reversing various bible verses as required into a careless, callous and crazy theocracy.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name. And if the people of the land should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives some of his descendants to Molech, and they do not kill him, then I will set My face against that man and against his family; and I will cut him off from his people, and all who prostitute themselves with him to commit harlotry with Molech.
Leviticus 20:1-‬5 NKJV​

I perceive a World with some kind of twisted Christianity which has discarded humanity. :idunno:

News flash: You live in a world with a murder epidemic.

Tolerating that is unhinged.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

You're deliberately conflating a term that has been explained to you.

No idea why you think that or say half of what you do.

You are dishonest because you will not engage honestly.

Messenger, messenger, messenger. Why oh why would that be the near singular note in your symphony...also, that's just you saying I'm dishonest because you think I behave dishonestly. It's an attempt to make a thing that should get you a ban (if that's part of the new standard) look a little like an argument when it isn't anything more than name calling.

You ignore the law and assert your own.

No, for the who knows how many times now for the reasons given prior.

He said we want people murdered.

Quote him so we can have the context. I don't believe anyone here wants someone murdered, though I do think we can do a better job at making the killing of innocent people less likely. We can even improve on the current system by taking the DP off the boards entirely.

This is to conflate process with progress.

No, it's to note that we can do a much better job of being certain that justice is done than anyone relying on a couple of witnesses could, because witnesses can collude and lie, simply get it wrong, or fail to be present when evidence of a more substantial nature can literally identify the person responsible for a crime, a person who wouldn't be charged if we required the witness rule.

We can't "do more today" to improve the process.

We not only can, I've told you how. By changing what is required by that process, for one.

Capital criminals should be executed.

We differ. And I think Christ differs for the reasons given prior. You disagree. You think God disagrees and sides with you.

And there it stands.

 

[eider]

Straw man. And a common one at that.

Do you actually understand what a straw-man is, and how it's used?

I don't advocate theocracy. I'm a monarchist.

Laugh...... you might like to think you're a monarchist, but clearly you don't want to obey, but just subject the World to your own distorted ideas about what your monarch wants.

No......... you get the Eider badge of 'theocratic in denial'.

Nope. No reward for the wicked.


I'm surprised it took you this long to notice.


There it is. :yawn:

Matthew {9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

This coming from someone who thinks I advocate a theocracy and not a monarchy... :think:

You ooze of theocracy, and your own subjective view of, and selection of the verses that suit you, imo.

Eider, see question 2 above in my post addressed to AB.

If you want to ask me a question, please bother to copy/paste it.

Only if they've committed a capital crime.

Only if they've committed a capital crime.

The streets of your town centres would be running in blood if you publicly executed all those on your list of Capital crimes.
Sharia Law at it's worst.

Not surprising, considering that those who live in the dark hate the light.

That sentence could be turned back upon you.

So then you deny that Jesus is God? Because, being God, He commanded that those guilty of capital crimes should be put to death.

Or have you forgotten what was said in the Old Testament?

But you have forgotten those verses from the Old Testament which you wish to ignore, true?

 

[Stripe]

No idea why you think that or say half of what you do.

Because it has been explained numerous times that when we say "witness," we do not necessarily mean "eyewitness."

However, you chide us as if we place testimony above physical evidence.

You need a hobby. Take a course. Learn how to argue without the messenger tap dance you rely on overly much.

:AMR:

What?

No, for the who knows how many times now for the reasons given prior.

Waving your hands about and stamping your feet isn't good reason.

Quote him.

Nah.

Read the report.

We can even improve on the current system by taking the DP off the boards entirely.

Or we could discuss the issue, instead of asserting the truth of our agenda.

We differ. And I think Christ differs for the reasons given prior. You disagree. You think God disagrees and sides with you.

And there it stands.

No. It doesn't stand there. We have the accounts and we have the law. They say what they say, and they contradict your opinions.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[eider]

Well, when it comes to executing the mentally disabled it kinda says it all. There's no humanity or empathy with these hard line attitudes. It's just cold legalism at its "finest". The good news is that such garbage wouldn't come into being and just the minority opinion of certain zealots.

It's unhinged.
I wonder what the age of criminal responsibility is? At what age can these zealots execute criminals?

 

[eider]

Probably because you've never read the Bible.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name. And if the people of the land should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives some of his descendants to Molech, and they do not kill him, then I will set My face against that man and against his family; and I will cut him off from his people, and all who prostitute themselves with him to commit harlotry with Molech.
Leviticus 20:1-‬5 NKJV​

Clearly you've got the above wrong?
I've been told by other zealots that where God instructs 'Israel' that it doesn't extend to the gentiles.

Or is that wrong? Do all commands (except sacrificial ones) extend to all people?

Waiting.............

 

[Town Heretic]

Because it has been explained numerous times that when we say "witness," we do not necessarily mean "eyewitness."

I haven't read much in this thread outside of what I've responded to. I don't recall that in what I have read. What do you necessarily mean? Because if it isn't particular it's not very applicable.

Waving your hands about and stamping your feet isn't good reason.

Noting a thing has been answered numerous times prior isn't that.

Nah.

Then don't bother telling me what you believe he said. Eyewitness accounts even made by people who mean to report fairly are notoriously problematic and frequently unreliable.

No. It doesn't stand there.

Sure it does. The rest is just the sound of your feet, ironically enough.

We have the accounts and we have the law. They say what they say, and they conduct your opinions.

You meant to write contradict, I hope, wrong as it is for the reasons given prior.

You and many people like you seem determined to live under the law. Well, good luck with that, but it's a terrible idea. It was meant to be.

Absent anything new I'm just going to let you stamp about and declare how right you are and whatnot. :e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's unhinged.
I wonder what the age of criminal responsibility is? At what age can these zealots execute criminals?

Who knows? Advocating the execution of people who are in no way in control of their faculties is just sick all ends up. How anyone can think that the Lennie character in "Of Mice And Men" would deserve to be executed is just mind boggling.

 

[Stripe]

I've been told by other zealots that where God instructs 'Israel' that it doesn't extend to the gentiles.

Depends.

If you're talking about salvation, you can't look to the law. If you're talking about governance, you have to look to the law.

Either way, the Bible does instruct a very painful and public form of capital punishment.

So you might want to lay off the mock horror.

Waiting.............

Yeah. We'll see. lain:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I haven't read much in this thread outside of what I've responded to.

Well, you responded — poorly — to a discussion about witnesses.

What do you necessarily mean? Because if it isn't particular it's not very applicable.

We mean what we said. It's applicable as I stated it. Your responses have been off target. You need to adjust and respond to what we actually say, not what you wish we would say.

Noting a thing has been answered numerous times prior isn't that.

Your answers ignore the issue. God established the law. You say He disestablished it and you invent a replacement.

Then don't bother telling me what you believe he said. Eyewitness accounts even made by people who mean to report fairly are notoriously problematic and frequently unreliable.

Then don't bother telling us your gripes.

Sure it does.

Nope.

You meant to write contradict.

Yip. And that's exactly what I did. :up:

You and many people like you seem determined to live under the law. Well, good luck with that, but it's a terrible idea. It was meant to be.

You think you're above the law? Aren't you the one who advocates mandatory "life" sentences for murder?

Absent anything new I'm just going to let you stamp about and declare how right you are and whatnot. :e4e:

:yawn:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

Because it has been explained numerous times that when we say "witness," we do not necessarily mean "eyewitness."

What is it you (plural) mean by the word "witness".

 

[JudgeRightly]

What is it you (plural) mean by the word "witness".

Try the actual definition of "witness":

1 : attestation of a fact or event : testimony
2 : one that gives evidence; specifically : one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal
3 : one asked to be present at a transaction so as to be able to testify to its having taken place
4 : one who has personal knowledge of something
5 a : something serving as evidence or proof : sign
b : public affirmation by word or example of usually religious faith or conviction

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, you responded — poorly — to a discussion about witnesses.

I'm about as interested in your critique of my efficacy as you would be in a friend request from Obama.

We mean what we said. It's applicable as I stated it.

Which I haven't read and which is then as helpful as you tend to be, and as clear.

Your responses have been off target.

All evidence to the contrary. I've hit the mark I meant. The one you avoid through misstatement and concentration on the messenger.

You need to adjust and respond to what we actually say, not what you wish we would say.

I need to do what suits me in advancing the argument and addressing the points I find actually set before me, as I have done and continue to do.

Your answers ignore the issue.

Not the issue I mean to address and do. So, no.

God established the law. You say He disestablished it and you invent a replacement.

No, I didn't. But it's like you to keep repeating it in the face of a clear rebuttal. I won't make the mistake of revisiting it in this, because I know the working definition of insanity is continuing to make a point someone is determined not to understand.

You think you're above the law?

I think you're beyond reason. Now do something childish and I'll just write you off again.

:yawn:

That'll do.

 

[Stripe]

I'm as interested in your self-serving evaluations as you would be in a friend request from Obama.

Who? :idunno:

It's not an evaluation. You've clearly missed a key ingredient of a conversation you're trying to be part of.

Which I haven't read and which is then as helpful as you tend to be, and as clear.

It's right there.

All evidence to the contrary.I need to do what suits me in advancing the argument and addressing the points I find actually set before me, as I have done and continue to do.Not the issue I mean to address and do. So, no.No, I didn't. But it's like you to keep repeating it in the face of a clear rebuttal. I won't make the mistake of revisiting it in this, because I know the working definition of insanity is continuing to make a point someone is determined not to understand.

Lots of assertions. Not a lot of explanation.

I think you're beyond reason. Now do something childish and I'll just write you off again.That'll do.

Bye. Again. :loser:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

You and many people like you seem determined to live under the law. Well, good luck with that, but it's a terrible idea. It was meant to be.

This is just bizarre. What sane person does not want to live under the law? Why is it a terrible idea?

Did Town misspeak?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[glorydaz]

This is just bizarre. What sane person does not want to live under the law? Why is it a terrible idea?

Did Town misspeak?

Since there are so many evil people in this world, we need the law. Rules of conduct are never a bad thing. Are you all talking about the same thing? How could anyone not want to live under the law?

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,​

 

[Stripe]

Since there are so many evil people in this world, we need the law. Rules of conduct are never a bad thing.

Right. The law is required.

Are you all talking about the same thing?

I hope not.

:noid:

However, the topic is adultery and murder. It's difficult to fathom how one could not want laws against those.

How could anyone not want to live under the law?

I suspect Town is appealing to the idea that salvation does not come through the law. However, that is an entirely different concept, which is betrayed by the fact that he endorses rules all the time. From in this thread advocating a mandatory "life" sentence for every murderer to his favored gun-control regulations — everything he says is contrary to the idea that life under the law is "terrible."

Not to mention that the Bible teaches we are subject to the government.

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,​

The law is a tutor. At its best, it lights the way to Christ, our saviour. At worst, it sends those determined to reject Him promptly into His hand.

And to be clear, at its worst, it is one of the best things in the universe.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk