Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[glorydaz]

Was judging generally a folly in the case of howells and vaisey?

You're not still bloviating about those two little boys are you?

 

[ok doser]

You've found something that provokes an emotional response. It's all the rage these days to judge molesters.

they weren't just molesters - they were serial molesters who kidnapped the two amish girls and planned to kill them when they were done torturing them and recording it

and as far as an emotional response goes - that's on you - I used no language designed to manipulate your emotions

 

[ok doser]

You're not still bloviating about those two little boys are you?

no, howells and vaisey were the local couple who kidnapped the two amish girls

 

[JudgeRightly]

i prefer a broadsword to an épée when bashing through dishonest argumentation from those who wish to enable perversion

:rotfl:

 

[ok doser]

Put them to death....yet the law did none of these things.
Why is that the case, ok doser? .

because NYS, that bastion of "progressive"/liberal thinking, does not have the death penalty

 

[Crucifer]

because NYS, that bastion of "progressive"/liberal thinking, does not have the death penalty

Murder, treason, and desertion are pretty much the only things we've put people to death for in the last couple centuries. The reason being is because people have become more receptive to thinking that doesn't involve death for every felonious act. It has little to do with modern progressives and more to do with society naturally evolving to explore more humane options.
In fact, this is something that gradually happened through all of history- I hear some of you always evoking the Old Law as if you would actually go a week under that vice without ruing the day you ever thought it was a good idea. It's not something that you want in your society, you just think that you do.

 

[glorydaz]

no, howells and vaisey were the local couple who kidnapped the two amish girls

Oh sorry. I don't know that case.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The fear of losing one's freedom is an effective deterrent against crime.

Oh it is?

Then why is the crime rate so high currently?

If you look back 100 years ago, the crime rate was a fraction of what it is today, and that was BEFORE we removed the death penalty (among other punishments) from the lawbooks.

Today, however, while yes, crime is down from a couple decades ago, it's still way higher than it was prior.

However the death penalty is not- where's there's plenty of evidence to show that incarceration for criminals maintain general order, the death penalty has no evidence of doing anything at all.

Oh, so then Solomon was wrong when he wrote Ecclesiastes 8:11?

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

Crucifer, are prison sentences swift punishments?

Even by the Islamic standard who's punishments are relatively draconian, they're decreased crime rate is hardly justification for it. There's still nonetheless a lot of rape, murder, and so on.

So... in other words you're trying to belittle God's commandments and standards of morality by comparing them to Islam's?

Who's side are you on, anyways?

Murder isn't always so black and white.

Sure it is.

"Do not murder."

See, simple.

There's incidental murder (2nd degree), premeditated murder (1st degree), there's manslaughter, crime-of-passion, etc.

This is circular reasoning.

You're assuming the premise of your argument to defend the premise of your argument.

God, who is completely objective, says: "do not murder" and "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" and "life for life."

He says:

“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. - Exodus 21:12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:12&version=NKJV

There's different motives and intents, not all of which can all be equated to the same punishment.

So what?

God says:

“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. - Exodus 21:12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:12&version=NKJV

That's pretty clear cut.

Secular law has a pretty decent grasp on these things:
-Incidental murder = 15-25 years
-Premeditated murder = 25 years to life
-Manslaughter = 7-15 years

It's interesting how you go straight to fallible man's laws for punishments instead of first seeing what God has to say.

So on and so forth.

:blabla:

I don't see too much a problem with these things,

That much is obvious...

as it is what democracy

A wicked thing.

The majority are evil.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. - Matthew 7:13-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:13-14&version=NKJV

God hates democracy, as it goes against Him, and against the natural flow of authority, from God, to government, to fathers, to the mother, to the kids, and even the kid can kick the cat off the couch.

Democracy says no, we don't like that, we the people are over the government.

has determined

ALL HAIL DEMOCRACY! We don't need God, we just need a majority!

:mock:

:vomit:

and what is considered just by those who study legal philosophy.

Why not get the opinion of the One who, quite literally, wrote the BOOK on what is good and evil?

Not once have you even hinted at any scripture to support your beliefs.

Again, who's side are you even on?

Because if you're not on God's side, then you'll be one of the one's standing with the crowd going "Lord, Lord" to which Christ will say "Depart from Me, for I never knew you."

What separates these things from the death penalty is that they

... are drawn up by men who either A) don't know God personally, and so come up with their own ideas of justice, or B) do know God but who haven't bothered to read what He thinks of justice, dismissing His thoughts before even finding out what they are.

are near-universal notions regardless of the state or country you live in.

And this is an appeal to popularity.

Doing what one thinks is right is often wickedness.

That's why we should find out what IS right, and do that.

If it's so against God's will

Most of what man does is against His will.

then surely this would be a bit different,

This is question begging.

And don't call me Shirley.

but apparently God has chosen not to influence it in the way you say it should be.

:blabla:

Feminism is the reason why adultery is no longer punished the way it used to be. Few states have adultery laws and fewer enforce them.

Duh.

In today's world the adulterer rather just gets on the losing end of the court proceedings regarding any civil or financial thing attached to said marriage.

:blabla:

So in a way there is often punishment for an adulterer, but 1st World philosophy has seemed to dictate that it's not good form for governments to get involved so much that it's putting people in jail over it.

So... in other words, you don't think there should be a punishment?

Because you didn't answer my question of "what should the punishment be for these crimes...

Bestiality

Incest

:blabla:

Still not providing what I asked for, which is this:

What SHOULD the punishment be for these crimes?

Rape is such a convoluted subject.

Says who?

God says it's straightforward.

It's become tantamount to murder

Rape != murder

:idunno:

[QUOTE}out of the sheer obsessive talk of it over time. It should be treated the same exact way as misdemeanor or felonious assault depending on the circumstance and that's that, because that's all it ultimately is.[/QUOTE]

:vomit:

You apparently have no concern or respect for women at all, or you wouldn't have said such a disgusting thing.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Israel has a decent stance on abortion,

Israel has rejected God. They are the most wicked nation on earth. (Yes, even before America.)

But I'm not asking about what Israel thinks.

I'm asking what YOU think the punishment should be for the murder of innocent children in what should be the safest place on earth, a mother's womb.

even though it's probably not followed like it should be. They only allow abortion in the circumstance of rape or if the woman's life is in danger.

Neither of which are valid reasons to kill the baby in the womb.

These are also the cases where a woman is mostly likely to perform an abortion themselves, so it's necessary to have a clinical option there.

Which is the worst kind of murder, the murder of an innocent baby.

As far as abortion being 'murder'?
Meh.No matter how you paint that picture, you're just dealing in technicalities.

God's word is a technicality?

No wonder you're so far out in left field...

If you call a fetus life, it is a life that doesn't recognize it's own existence and hasn't experienced anything.

No?

King David disagrees.

The reason why abortion was considered so mortally sinful in the past was

... that people had far more respect for innocent life than they do today.

It is (yes, "is," not "was") still against God's law.

because there was no reason for you to not want a child unless there was just something very wrong with you- children were important.

:blabla:

As well, the odds of having a successful birth and otherwise healthy children were very lacking,

So why, in this medically advanced society we live in today, where the birth rate is far higher and the likelihood of having a successful birth and healthy children is approaching 100%, do women want to kill their children?

I mean, if it was evil then, why not more so now?

so aborting a child outright was simply considered Hell-tier evil.

:think:

I noted the things on the list that I feel matter the most, I'd be here all day if went through all of it.

Yet you didn't answer my question, which was:

What SHOULD the punishments be for the above crimes.

The bottom line is that this world has become so populated

Overpopulation is a popular leftist lie.

The poorest countries in the world usually have the lowest population densities, whereas the richest have the highest.

and advanced so much that evoking the Old Law is like putting a wagon wheel on your car-it's just can't work that way.

So, you're calling God's law "barbaric?"

:mock:

Even with the Old Law itself, it's not as if was practiced even all through biblical history, the Jews weren't stoning people for every little thing even in David's time,

Probably because they didn't have to, because people had a healthy fear of the law...

:idunno:

the OL was more used as a tyranny against those society particularly hated and who's cases were sensationalized.

:AMR:

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, for society altogether.

Uh, no, I said for the wicked. And meant it.

The last thing we need is some moral inquisition.

Who said anything about an inquisition?

What is the punishment for perjury (aka bearing false witness)? Do you know?

Or do we just ignore those thousand years of persecuting everything that wasn't definitively saintly.

No idea what you're talking about here.

Right, because God's judgement and damnation

... will not happen until Christ returns.

Until then, I'd like to preserve the morality of society as much as possible, if not improve it.

Maybe you've heard the saying...

"The world is in a minecart headed off the cliff and I'm the only one pulling on the brake lever"? (or something along those lines...)

isn't enough, you have to squeeze in your two cents to confirm your alleged holiness amiright?

:AMR:

I have never claimed to be holy. Only God is holy.

You would do well to not bear false witness.

That's the futility of judging,

Neither Paul nor Jesus think that judging is futile.

So who should I believe?

some random person on the internet named Crucifer who says judging is futile

OR

Jesus, who says "do not judge based on appearances, but judge with righteous judgment," and Paul, who says "Do you not know you will judge the angels? Do you not know you will judge the world? are you incapable of judging the least matters? GET JUDGING!" (paraphrasing mine)

Sorry, Crucifer, I'm gonna stick with what Jesus and Paul say over what you say.

you can cherry pick the scriptures all you want

You can call it cherry picking all you want. That doesn't make it cherry picking.

but there's more verses than otherwise that really just point to the fact that judging is generally a folly.

Such as?

Let me guess, you'll throw a few verses out (I believe there are a few in Proverbs that could be used here for your side...) that instead of proving your case, will actually support my position...

Oh wait, that's right, you don't use scripture, you rely on manmade doctrines and Hillary's favorite verse "don't judge".

:mock:

 

[WizardofOz]

Then why is the crime rate so high currently?

If you look back 100 years ago, the crime rate was a fraction of what it is today, and that was BEFORE we removed the death penalty (among other punishments) from the lawbooks.

What data are you using?

Also, while I do personally support capital punishment for certain heinous crimes we should try to determine why States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates

 

[JudgeRightly]

I believe we've been over this before.

What data are you using?

JRSA

I'm on mobile, so I can't seem to give you a link. Just Google: "crime rate from 1900 to now" and scroll to the JSRA PDF link.

Also, while I do personally support capital punishment for certain heinous crimes

Which is just another way of saying I don't support capital punishment for all the crimes that God says deserve capital punishment.

:idunno:

we should try to determine why States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates

I have said before, and I'll say it again, that there are more variables than just "is the death penalty on the books." Which means that on that basis alone, it's not enough to say that the death penalty is or is not effective.

There's a few other things to consider that my position asserts besides "we need the death penalty, because it is the most effective way to deter capital crimes."

We want a swiftly and painfully enforced death penalty, within 24 hours of conviction, where law enforcement is able to get on a case as soon as it's reported, with a trial where there's a judge, the accused, the victim (if applicable), the evidence (witnesses) and eyewitnesses (also witnesses), and the rest of the nation watching on national TV, where the accused are questioned directly by judges, and are convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

See the above PDF that I shared (in a previous post) titled "America's Criminal Code" for more requirements.

 

[Crucifer]

We want a swiftly and painfully enforced death penalty, within 24 hours of conviction, where law enforcement is able to get on a case as soon as it's reported, with a trial where there's a judge, the accused, the victim (if applicable), the evidence (witnesses) and eyewitnesses (also witnesses), and the rest of the nation watching on national TV, where the accused are questioned directly by judges, and are convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

For starts, that's a definitively fascist notion. Not that this hasn't been my suspicion from the start and therefore wouldn't be all that surprising, but it seems like you have a sort of Hitler-meets-Pharisee complex when it comes to judgement and condemnation.

It shouldn't even have to be explained why what you're suggesting is a horrible idea.

 

[JudgeRightly]

For starts, that's a definitively fascist notion. Not that this hasn't been my suspicion from the start and therefore wouldn't be all that surprising, but it seems like you have a sort of Hitler-meets-Pharisee complex when it comes to judgement and condemnation.

It shouldn't even have to be explained why what you're suggesting is a horrible idea.

Apparently, to you, God is a fascist.

:think:

Why do you kick against the prod?

Go read your Bible. Specifically the whole thing.

 

[Crucifer]

Then why is the crime rate so high currently?

If you look back 100 years ago, the crime rate was a fraction of what it is today, and that was BEFORE we removed the death penalty (among other punishments) from the lawbooks.[/QUOTE]

A hundred years ago, people weren't being prosecuted for touching someone's shirt sleeve or looking at someone the wrong way.
We live in an age where it's rare for a person to not see a courtroom for something. Courtrooms have become a part of life for society because everything from a simple altercation to rearing a fart in the wind is prosecuted.

So... in other words you're trying to belittle God's commandments and standards of morality by comparing them to Islam's?

If you want the Old Law so badly, you ought to be loving Islam because that's what they are all about. Death is their most favored way of dealing with a myriad of crimes whether it involves murder or not.
Sort of the irony here- they don't believe Christ died for anything, and so they are as Pharisaic in nature as the one's who put him on the cross.



As far as everything else you've stated, it's just a mashup of hubris, accusation, and misinterpretation. I don't rebuke what basically rebukes itself.

 

[WizardofOz]

I believe we've been over this before.

Who is "we"? You and I have not that I recall. :idunno:

JRSA

I'm on mobile, so I can't seem to give you a link. Just Google: "crime rate from 1900 to now" and scroll to the JSRA PDF link.

Are you referring to This?

Which is just another way of saying I don't support capital punishment for all the crimes that God says deserve capital punishment.

:idunno:

We're not Israel. We don't live in a theocracy. How would you convince the atheist or the secular Jew living in the US that we should base our laws on biblical laws?

The Islamic fundamentalists are likely the only ones you could get on board with executing adulterers or homosexuals. Strange bedfellows that.

I have said before, and I'll say it again, that there are more variables than just "is the death penalty on the books." Which means that on that basis alone, it's not enough to say that the death penalty is or is not effective.

Was it effective 100 years ago?

There's a few other things to consider that my position asserts besides "we need the death penalty, because it is the most effective way to deter capital crimes."

We want a swiftly and painfully enforced death penalty, within 24 hours of conviction, where law enforcement is able to get on a case as soon as it's reported, with a trial where there's a judge, the accused, the victim (if applicable), the evidence (witnesses) and eyewitnesses (also witnesses), and the rest of the nation watching on national TV, where the accused are questioned directly by judges, and are convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Again, who is we?

Now that you mention this, perhaps we have touched on some this before. If I recall correctly, you were OK with a man falsely accused of rape of being executed. Is that accurate or should I find that thread?

See the above PDF that I shared (in a previous post) titled "America's Criminal Code" for more requirements.

Enyart's shadowgov is a joke. Why isn't the shadowgov constitution still on the website? :think:

 

[JudgeRightly]

A hundred years ago, people weren't being prosecuted for touching someone's shirt sleeve or looking at someone the wrong way.

I wonder why....

:think:

Maybe it's because we had stricter laws and harsher punishments back then? :idunno:

Thanks for proving my point though.

We live in an age where it's rare for a person to not see a courtroom for something. Courtrooms have become a part of life for society because everything from a simple altercation to rearing a fart in the wind is prosecuted.

And our laws have multiplied, currently numbered in the millions, so inefficient that nothing can be done and no one knows what the laws are anymore.

If you want the Old Law so badly,

If by "Old Law" you mean the Mosaic Law, no, I do not want it.

I want laws for OUR society that reflect GOD's law.

you ought to be loving Islam because that's what they are all about. Death is their most favored way of dealing with a myriad of crimes whether it involves murder or not.

Laws of Islam are unjust.

God's ways are just.

There is no comparison.

Please stop mocking God, and accusing Him of being unjust.

Sort of the irony here- they don't believe Christ died for anything, and so they are as Pharisaic in nature as the one's who put him on the cross.

Good thing I don't propose sharia law, then.

:AMR:

As far as everything else you've stated, it's just a mashup of hubris, accusation, and misinterpretation. I don't rebuke what basically rebukes itself.

:blabla:

Sounds like you're unwilling to defend your position.

If you're just here to proselytize, then I recommend you leave now.

If you're here to defend your beliefs using scripture, then why are you holding back on the scripture?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Who is "we"? You and I have not that I recall. :idunno:

Oh, then I apologise. Maybe it was Artie, then...

[QUOTE}Are you referring to This?[/QUOTE]

Yup.

We're not Israel.

Israel was and is a nation.

We are a nation.

Nations have laws that regulate society.

So what's your point?

We don't live in a theocracy.

So what?

We still need laws.

And what better to base (key word here) our laws on than God's standard of morality?

How would you convince the atheist or the secular Jew living in the US that we should base our laws on biblical laws?

Perhaps something like how Ray Comfort does it.

You should watch his videos, he's very good at witnessing to people on the street.

The Islamic fundamentalists are likely the only ones you could get on board with executing adulterers or homosexuals.

Again with the association with Islam.

Why?

I oppose Sharia law because it is unjust, just as I oppose our current legal just-a-system because it is unjust.

God is just, therefore HIS law is just, not some perversion of His law.

Strange bedfellows that.

Please don't make this association again.

I oppose Sharia.

I support God's law.

They are NOT the same.

Was it effective 100 years ago?

Overall, that would depend on how (if at all) it was enforced.

Though, looking at the graphs in that pdf, I would say, judging by the fact that crime was much lower 100 years ago than it is today, I would say that it was more effective then than it is today, all things considered.

Not as effective as it could be, but more effective then.

Again, who is we?

Now that you mention this, perhaps we have touched on some this before. If I recall correctly, you were OK with a man falsely accused of rape of being executed. Is that accurate or should I find that thread?

Don't know which thread you're talking about, but at the very least that is a misrepresentation of my position.

What judge in all of history has judged that a man is innocent and then sentenced him to death?

Only one, and his name was Pilate, and the One he sent to death was Jesus.

If a man is accused of rape, and there are two or three witnesses that support that accusation, then he should be put to death.

If he is later found to be innocent, and wrongly convicted, then the judge loses his standing as a judge, and the one who accused the innocent man who was wrongly convicted is put to death.

Enyart's shadowgov is a joke.

This is defamation. Please stop.

Why isn't the shadowgov constitution still on the website? :think:

They only put it up every five years, then take it down.

It's 2018, they'll probably put it back up in 2020.

:idunno:

 

[ok doser]

For starts, that's a definitively fascist notion.

swift and sure justice is a fascist notion? :freak:

do you ever bother to stop and think about what you're writing?

 

[ok doser]

A hundred years ago, people weren't being prosecuted for touching someone's shirt sleeve or looking at someone the wrong way.

:think:

my spidey senses are tingling

perhaps this noob is a familiar face?




hey "crucifer" - what do you think about modern feminism?

 

[WizardofOz]

Oh, then I apologise. Maybe it was Artie, then...

Are you referring to This?

Yup.

Israel was and is a nation.

We are a nation.

Nations have laws that regulate society.

So what's your point?

So what?

We still need laws.

And what better to base (key word here) our laws on than God's standard of morality?

How do you see your particular laws actually becoming reality in the United States? Could you give me a few of the most important steps describing the process of the implementation of these laws?

Again with the association with Islam.

Why?

You and fundamental Islamists would like to see adulterers, homosexuals, fornicators, etc, etc executed. What other group has this in common? It's not a stretch at all to see the relation.

I oppose Sharia law because it is unjust

Please explain why you feel it is unjust? Your legal ideals have more in common than you do with the current US Constitution.

God is just, therefore HIS law is just, not some perversion of His law.

The shadowgov constitution is a perversion of His Law. That's my point. It's a cherry-picked, jumbled mess.

Please don't make this association again.

I oppose Sharia.

I support God's law.

They are NOT the same.

Let's get into greater detail and discuss the similarities and differences.

Overall, that would depend on how (if at all) it was enforced.

Though, looking at the graphs in that pdf, I would say, judging by the fact that crime was much lower 100 years ago than it is today, I would say that it was more effective then than it is today, all things considered.

Not as effective as it could be, but more effective then.

How was it more effective? What about the law was more just then?

Don't know which thread you're talking about, but at the very least that is a misrepresentation of my position.

Here

Herman Atkins was innocent. Yet, you still said...

He should have been executed, not put in prison.

since Atkins would have been executed (justly, as there were more than enough witnesses to convict), the rest of the article is moot.

Atkins's execution would be a deterrent to the next would-be rapist that if he is caught, he would be executed, and so innocent people would be spared.

If evidence later came to light that Atkins was wrongfully convicted, then the judge would be held responsible for the wrongful conviction.

What judge in all of history has judged that a man is innocent and then sentenced him to death?

What did Atkins do that deserved execution?

If a man is accused of rape, and there are two or three witnesses that support that accusation, then he should be put to death.

If he is later found to be innocent, and wrongly convicted, then the judge loses his standing as a judge, and the one who accused the innocent man who was wrongly convicted is put to death.

Now, under your system, an innocent man and a judge are executed. That doesn't raise any red flags for you? You even conceded that there were more than the required 3 witnesses. Would you have also sentenced Atkins to death were you the presiding judge?

Cause, then we would have to execute you too. You wouldn't even survive your own legal system.

This is defamation. Please stop.

No, it's my opinion. I debated it in that thread. Start with post 82

They only put it up every five years, then take it down.

It's 2018, they'll probably put it back up in 2020.

I may be mistaken but it seems to have been down since 2008.