Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Would you do away with "diminished responsibility"? Bear in mind that you've acknowledged that the Lennie character in Of Mice And Men wasn't a murderer.
The Left has become dangerously unhinged.
- Thread starter glorydaz
- Start date
Would you do away with "diminished responsibility"? Bear in mind that you've acknowledged that the Lennie character in Of Mice And Men wasn't a murderer.
genuineoriginal
New member
I am not in favour (favor) of abortion or any other form of killing the innocents.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'm English so I use proper English dude. Nobody was arguing about abortion so that's a sidebar. If you're in favour of killing people who have the mental capacity of a child then you most certainly are in favour of executing people as murderers who are 'adult' in physical form only.
genuineoriginal
New member
I am American, so I use proper English. :chuckle:
| How Americans preserved British English The Great Vowel Shift that ended soon after Shakespeare’s time is one reason that English spellings and pronunciations can be so inconsistent now. So what’s popularly believed to be the classic British English accent isn’t actually so classic. In fact, British accents have undergone more change in the last few centuries than American accents have – partly because London, and its orbit of influence, was historically at the forefront of linguistic change in English. As a result, although there are plenty of variations, modern American pronunciation is generally more akin to at least the 18th-Century British kind than modern British pronunciation. |
I am in favor of killing the guilty and keeping the innocent alive.
Liberals tend to favour killing the innocent and keeping the guilty alive.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Funny link...nothing to do with spelling but still funny. :chuckle:
Your latter isn't, it's just ignorant and if you're going to kill people with severely reduced mental capacity then you might as well support executing children. As sick and simple as that.
Not to me, or not to me before I wrote that. Also, if you want to talk to me don't bury it in the middle of an inordinately long response to a couple of three people.
And I went with the reading because I was speaking to the fulfillment of the law and Christ in relation to the woman. The Biblical standard would be two actual witnesses and not whatever you've morphed it into.
Not if you're rational, no. I'm responsible for what you say to me and I answer that. What you say to someone else is something I may but often won't read.
Nah. I'm speaking to the Biblical standard and I spoke to Christ fulfilling the law among other considerations. I'll stick to that. You run down any rabbit hole that suits you, but it's not my conversation.
How about this...See: Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:13. We are not slaves to the law. We are slaves to grace that instructs us. Titus 2:11-12 It doesn't follow that, freed from the former that we should live lives without regard for sinful practice, but that we should use it to love and care for one another. Galatians 5:13 Romans 8:1-2
Of course, there's always the law that the state, under the authority noted in Romans, provides. And in our system we can speak to its alteration, being inheritors of a kingdom, after our fashion.
What a presumptive, sorry thing to hear one professed Christian speak of another professed Christian.
And you were wrong then too. I'm also not accountable for things you think but forget to write, or anything on your end table that you've been meaning to read.
lain:So you're saying you have ways to go yet before you can get at that remedy.
I kept hearing godly this and that, so I addressed that and, more to the point, advanced my position (and managed to do it directly to anyone I was speaking to).
No, but that's declarative, which is sort of funny.
Rather, you appear determined not put it before me. Because what you have I've answered.
Last edited:
Still equivocating. Fulfillment does not mean eradication.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=Witness&t=NKJV#s=s_primary_0_1
But you want us to live under the regulations you invent.
Town is excellent at declaratives, which is sort of funny.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Still confusing declarations with argument?
I set out exactly what I think it meant. You should try that instead.
I haven't invented any regulations. And you can do what pleases you if you have the majority and a democracy where you call home.
The "No" of course actually following a JR declaration of an unillustrated "That's ironic," on his part.
Or, another Stripe rough parroting job without all the argument and reason, or contextual grasp that makes it meaningful.
Sadly, it's still his best work.
lain:
Nope. Reasons, remember?
You should have figured that out; you attempted a defense, here:
Your idea is that Jesus "fulfilled" the law by applying it. Your idea is that the law He used should not apply today. You want it eradicated, but you use the word fulfilled.
Clear-cut equivocation.
Sure, you did.
Every murderer should get a "life" sentence. You made that one up.
No thanks. But that doesn't stop you endorsing mob rule.
So he did it and you did it. :idunno:
And, by the way, when are you going to concede that witness in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean eyewitness?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
The far-left is truly INSANE, you know?
No. I've written out, more than once, what my understanding is on the point. It wasn't unclear and it wasn't that.
Make up your minds.
I sometimes forget that you're a foreigner who doesn't really know that much about the law here. No, I didn't make that up. JR knows better, I think. You two should talk more before whoever is going to take up a largely unresponsive part posts it.
That's not what I've done either, you poor devil.
He did it and, wanting either reason in support or a prima facie charge, I was only obligated to note it was funny, which actually was established prima facie.
That's not the point of contention. You can give witness to salvation, by way of illustrating.
Now the woman brought before Jesus was caught in the very act of committing adultery. And Jesus knew her to be guilty. And so my answers and proffer, which you and anyone are free to read and which were presented plainly enough, more than once.
And we've written out responses. Your stance has not been explained in any significant way that alleviates the direct contradictions it has to scripture.
:darwinsm:
No state or federal law mandates "life" imprisonment for every murderer.
Of course it's the point of contention. We are disagreeing with you on this very point.
Why would you think nobody disagree with you?
The Bible requires two witnesses. Those are not necessarily people who saw what happened.
Except that's not what the Bible teaches.
Why would you say otherwise?
And yet, you won't quote the law.
We know why.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
It's the name of a book. The least you could do is capitalize it's title...
No, I don't think God is happy when innocent people are killed. But I also think that He's less unhappy when a mistake is made in the process of enforcing justice than He is when people are just processed through a system where there is little to no justice at all being dealt to criminals, because at least with the former, His statutes are being upheld, whereas with the latter, His statutes are completely ignored, and "everyone does what is right in his own eyes."
God wants as few innocent people killed as possible. If the system is regularly allowing criminals to go free on technicalities or through loopholes or because there aren't enough resources to actually determine who the criminal is let alone catch him, then the system is inherently broken, and should not be fixed, but instead replaced with one that does work and works well, at least well enough that crime is not as prevalent.
And yet, the article I provided says otherwise. Would you like me to show you the FBI data on how many criminals are let go or acquitted due to various reasons? It's probably a lot higher than 0-5%.
Which just means you support it to some extent.
I oppose the system entirely, I don't support it at all. It should be replaced completely because it is inherently broken. You can't put new wine in old wineskins.
So then why support it at all?
So what makes your standards for punishments better than God's? Are you trying to be nicer than He is?
You're right. I was being too generous with my estimates.
Crime would drop to virtually zero overnight.
And my system would reduce crime because it would deter criminals, not try to prevent their crimes.
Restitution is a deterrent. Corporal punishment is a deterrent. (Eg, caning in Singapore.) Execution is a strong deterrent when enforced properly. (Here in America, it's not a deterrent because it's not enforced quickly, and even when criminals are executed, the people have long since forgotten what crime he committed to deserve such a punishment.
Because it's an argument against your position.
I don't just brush off your arguments, could you extend the same courtesy to me and not brush off mine?
Those who have been exonerated or let go after being put in prison for their punishment, how many of them really did commit the crime and were able to be freed based on technicalities or lack of evidence (which is only an issue in an "absolute/irrefutable proof" system, I might point out), or even because he made a convincing argument to the one he appeals to? How long did it take?
What about those truly innocent people who made a deal or settled when they should have maintained that they were innocent? (This is an important question that I address below.)
I don't expect any answers to those questions, but in my system, the criminal (if he isn't executed for the crime) is punished swiftly and painfully, and then it's over with, and he can move on with his life, and not waste his time locked up in some cell in some giant building out in the middle of nowhere. Instead of being a burden on society, forcing them to pay for his internment, he's a productive member of society again.
Now, this question I would like answered:
How many of the people who were exonerated after the sentence had been handed down would not have been even considered had there been more resources available to look for evidence or the real criminal, and/or if there had been more evidence available at the time of the trial, would have been deemed innocent at the time of the trial, and not been punished for something they didn't do in the first place?
Either way, evidence is evidence. And all evidence is a witness, just as eyewitnesses are witnesses. And since two or three witnesses is the standard for determining something according to God, who is just and righteous (and is Himself triune (which makes Him three strong witnesses)), therefore if the authorities gather enough witnesses (evidence), it should be able to be determined who the criminal is, even though man is fallible.
Correct. Which means that he would have fled to a city of refuge established by a righteous government.
But just because we determined that Lennie wasn't a murderer does not mean that that is true for every case. That's a hasty generalization based on a sample size of, so far in this conversation, 1.
I do remember asking, and within my last 3 posts.
So you're saying that it's too much effort to look it up? Why should I bother then?
This is another major flaw with the current law systems. . . There's TOO MANY LAWS! No one knows what the law is anymore, except for the lawyers.
But you don't know what the common law penalty for it is?
Ok, let me ask you this then.
What does God say, in the Bible, the penalty for perjury should be? (Hint: I've already provided it, if you were paying thorough attention.)
That would be an avenge killing. That is not murder, nor does God consider it murder, or He would have demanded that such people be executed for murder.
But if the manslayer [JR's note: or in AB's example, the adulterer who slept with the man's wife] at any time goes outside the limits of the city of refuge where he fled,and the avenger of blood finds him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood, - Numbers 35:26-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers35:26-27&version=NKJV
"he shall not be guilty of blood" is referring to "the avenger of blood (or in this case, marriage)."
Judges will fully punish those convicted of perjury, false confession, credible threat, conspiracy, abetting, or attempted crime, as though they had personally committed the crime; will flog and impose restitution on those convicted of slander, shall not grant nor have special immunity from prosecution; shall not give more lenient punishment to minors; shall not give special recognition to lawyers or experts in the law; shall not accept no-contest pleas or bargains; shall punish criminals for all collateral damage; and shall show no mercy to the guilty.
Does that answer your question?
Let me know if you want me to answer these. I feel like I addressed all your major points, but if there's anything else, let me know.
And yet, I quoted multiple scriptures that say "by two or three witnesses" a matter is established.
It's not my fault you weren't paying attention.
So then it would still be a good way to fellowship with him, if he is.
I honestly don't see why you would think it would be a problem for me or Stripe to get a friend request from Obama...
And you were wrong then to. I'm also not accountable for things you think but forget to write, or anything on your end table that you've been meaning to read.
Everything I've pointed to that you have made straw man arguments against has been said either by me or by Stripe, and you have ignored our points.
This is us, calling you out on things you SHOULD be accountable for.
I have put it before you, and you have not addressed it, not even in this post.
My argument is that God's standard for evidence is "two or three witnesses," and that "witnesses" includes physical and circumstantial evidence, as well as "eyewitness" accounts.
Speak English, please. As far as I'm aware, no one here speaks Latin.
Just fyi, it's "two or three" witnesses, not just two.
Completely untrue, but about what I expected.
That's just you playing with goal posts, again. It's misleading. By way of, in Florida a conviction for 1st degree murder has one of two possible outcomes, either the DP or life without the possibility of parole. Even juveniles can receive a life without parole sentence in a number of states. So it's not my idea, though it is a good one and one that won't result in the execution of the innocent, allowing for some recourse, etc.
That's not clear in Deut, but it wouldn't alter anything regarding my point on the actual case considered and what I note as a result of it. Keep trying to throw sand in the air and tell everyone it's smoke though.
Meanwhile, in the case at hand the woman had been caught in the act. And Jesus knew her to be guilty, etc.
This is all very nice. However, it has nothing to do with your idea that I referenced.
Notice how you prefaced this with "I would."
Then, suddenly, when I say it was your idea, you flail your arms around as if I've uttered some grave insult.
And you accuse me of moving the goalposts. :chuckle:
You're good at these declaratives, huh?
And yet, the law was applied.
We know why you won't quote it.
It's in Leviticus.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Right. So two would be enough. Three would be better. Did someone say otherwise?
I don't tend to pay that much attention to other people's conversations. If you're having it with me and don't note it that's on you, though it doesn't actually change what I wrote about Jesus and the woman or what it leads to, unless you want to, again, reduce the Son of God to the sort of lawyer most people sneer at when they condemn the way our law functions anecdotally.
I spoke to what you said, not what you're now amending. Amend the desire, assumption, and approach and you amend my response.
lain:That speaks volumes. Thanks.
You can't make the case that what I'm saying rests on a straw man argument. It doesn't. It doesn't have anything to do with any attempt to transform the narrative of the woman to the above noted idea of Christ as a lawyer letting someone off on a technicality, a thing at odds with justice.
Complete fabrication.
No, that's your side-bar. I'm not chasing rabbits down holes to keep you from dealing with what I actually advanced, more than once, while you and Stripe try a bit desperately to make this about something other and else. Now I haven't seen scripture that defines the two or more witnesses to a thing as physical evidence and if you're saying that's the case I believe the Bible, especially Deut. contradicts you. But it still has no bearing on my argument about Christ in his treatment of the woman and its implications.
It was English. If you're reading level isn't up for it let me know where and I'll happily break the confusing portion into more easily digestible parts.
Right. And I would.
Now back at the start of this side-bar:
I didn't invent the idea or legal fact of life without parole. Even the notion of applying it to every case of murder wouldn't be a novel idea, one coined by me.
I omit your ongoing, empty notion that the law is problematic for me. It isn't for the reason given prior in the case made and set out by me more than once before this ongoing side-bar industry began.