The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Stripe]

For an example of how to use the ignore function:

Grosnick!

Yeah. You.

:banned:





:chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Nah, they're never going to do that for you.

It wouldn't be for me.

And you are lying.

Not once. Which is why you'll never bear a meaningful witness on the point.

Your words previously did not match your words subsequently

That's how you waffle. Make a specific claim but back it with an uncited generality that rests in your judgment.

And should I report you for calling me a liar?

Quote me when you do it so I can note why you're wrong again and do it with specifics and reason you routinely fail to produce.

Speaking of...

He's POMPOUS enough to believe that they will.

Hey, you got the grammar right on that one. Look at you.

Actually, I think something has been put in place regarding his difficulties with another poster.

I'm certain you know exactly what and why. I also suspect that's why you're a bit more active these days with going after my attention.

Thanks. That's helpful. A mistake on your part, but helpful.

:e4e:

Now, if gen or glory have a point on the actual topic, I'll be back to look in.

 

[Stripe]

It wouldn't be for me.

:darwinsm:

Are you just going to say anything as long as you're disagreeing?

Not once.

Numerous times.

That's how you waffle. Make a specific claim but back it with an uncited generality that rests in your judgment.

Specifics. The law says "both people."
You characterize that as a "technicality," but want to pin the discrepancy on those of us who quoted the law.

Quote me when you do it so I can note why you're wrong again and do it with specifics and reason you routinely fail to produce.

Oh, so now you think I haven't lied.

OK. :chuckle:

I'm certain you know exactly what and why. I also suspect that's why you're a bit more active these days with going after my attention. Thanks. That's helpful. A mistake on your part, but helpful.

Sounds like some kind of grand conspiracy. :chuckle:

Now, if gen or glory have a point on the actual topic, I'll be back to look in.

Bye. :wave2:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Specifics. The law says "both people."
You characterize that as a "technicality," but want to pin the discrepancy on those of us who quoted the law.

I actually addressed that one head on. No lie in it.

Oh, so now you think I haven't lied.

I don't hold onto most of what you write, Stripe. I don't make signature lines out of it, let alone commit it to memory. You rarely write something particular enough to stick.

So I don't know if I've called you a liar. Doesn't sound like the sort of thing I'd do, except in response and noting an actual fabrication, something observably true. Feel free to quote me and I'll go from there.

Sounds like some kind of grand conspiracy.

Nah, just a confederacy of some sort.

Bye. :wave2:

Like that...if parroting is ever in the Olympics you're going to medal. But you still blew it and I appreciate that. Makes everything that follows different and enjoyable.

Play on. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

I actually addressed that one head on.

Really?

The law says "both." You say we make Jesus into the worst sort of lawyer, one seeking "technicalities," when we quote the law.

Is that not exactly how it went down?

Note how specific I have been. :up:

No lie in it.

This whole thing about you lying is boring.

The lie isn't in your story about what Jesus did, it's when you say you didn't call the law a technicality.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Really?

Really. If memory serves it was along the lines of, "If three men commit a murder and you only catch one it's just that the one you caught be punished for his/her part." That sort of thing.

The law says "both." You say we make Jesus into the worst sort of lawyer, one seeking "technicalities," when we quote the law.

What I've actually said is that Christ could have addressed their insufficiency at law, but that the law serves justice, not the other way around. She was guilty and deserving of her punishment. He could have said that and also instructed them on their failure in executing the law.

Having Christ more concerned with the letter than the spirit and purpose of the law is making him the worst sort of lawyer, the sort most of you taking that approach would decry in any actual courtroom if it saw someone guilty go free. The usual association, hue and cry on that point is that the defendant was freed on a technicality.

This whole thing about you lying is boring.

Then stop laying the charge. You'll look better, more rational, and honest.

The lie isn't in your story about what Jesus did, it's when you say you didn't call the law a technicality.

Again, actually quote me and we'll go from there. The law isn't a technicality, but technicalities can impact its execution and do.

 

[Stripe]

Really. If memory serves it was along the lines of, "If three men commit a murder and you only catch one it's just that the one you caught be punished for his/her part." That sort of thing.

Oh.

You thought that was a good argument. :chuckle:

You've forgotten that the "both" was written into law by God. If you think it's a bad law, tell Him.

What I've actually said is that Christ could have addressed their insufficiency at law, but that the law serves justice, not the other way around.

Argument from silence. He might well have presented the law and the story gives specific space for it.

And even if He didn't, the law still says what it says. She was still not in any danger of being rightly convicted in that setting.

She was guilty and deserving of her punishment.

Not according to the law.

Having Christ more concerned with the letter than the spirit and purpose of the law is making him the worst sort of lawyer, the sort most of you taking that approach would decry in any actual courtroom if it saw someone guilty go free. The usual association, hue and cry on that point is that the defendant was freed on a technicality.

You don't understand the law or what it's for.

There can be no appeal to the spirit of the law if you ignore the letter.

And this is all academic anyway. The letter says "both," which returns a "do not convict." Why you want to get to "do not convict" by means other than the law is beyond me.

And again, it is not us making Jesus take up a technicality. He wrote the law.

Your charge is not against us; all we did was read His word.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Oh.

You thought that was a good argument.

You've forgotten that the "both" was written into law by God. If you think it's a bad law, tell Him.

Answered prior. Next.

Argument from silence.

Declaration without connection or offer of proof. Next.

He might well have presented the law and the story gives specific space for it.

And even if He didn't, the law still says what it says. She was still not in any danger of being rightly convicted in that setting.

I've addressed that prior. Next.

You don't understand the law or what it's for.

Blah, blah, blah. Next.

There can be no appeal to the spirit of the law if you ignore the letter.

I didn't suggest the letter be ignored. Next.

And this is all academic anyway. The letter says "both," which returns a "do not convict." Why you want to get to "do not convict" by means other than the law is beyond me.

I'll add it to the list. Next.

And again, it is not us making Jesus take up a technicality. He wrote the law.

For men, who could not know what He knows. The procedure is meant to serve justice. You're like the priests complaining about the wheat. And you're just as wrong. Next.

Your charge is not against us; all we did was read His word.

I don't have a "charge" I have an argument and a reading and a reasoning that is contrary to your own, not to Him. That you confuse that is part of the problem with your approach.

Next.

 

[Stripe]

Answered prior. Next.

It wasn't a question.

You characterize the law as a "technicality."

The law says "both."

You criticize us for saying the law applied.

It's obvious why you want to move on, but the challenge remains in front of you.

Blah, blah, blah. Next.

:chuckle:

I didn't suggest the letter be ignored. Next.

No, not next. This one.

You don't suggest that the letter be ignored as in you say it outright. You suggest it in that you say Jesus "fulfilled" the law and He didn't need the "technicality."

You want this story to be understood without having to look at the law. And that's just silly.

1. The legalists brought a legal challenge. They wouldn't have been deterred by "he without sin." That would have made the law of no effect.

2. The law is plain for anyone to read and it says "both." Even if Jesus did not write it in the sand, it is still a fact that the woman could never have been justly convicted by the law in that setting.

These two points eviscerate your ideas that started with your response to Jerry.

Jerry said the death penalty is good, as per scripture.
You said "or" and "he without sin."

Now, call me insane, but that looks very much like you think the law has been eradicated, that the death penalty has been overturned.

We know there's nothing in the Bible that says the law has passed away. Heck, Jesus Himself says explicitly that it has not. Also, the DP gets defended after Jesus ascends.

So it seems like you're defending an anti-DP stance with a — shall we say — extremely liberal reading of John.

And notice, this is a detailed and substantive post.

So let's compare:

I'll add it to the list. Next.

:chuckle:

For men, who could not know what He knows.

Yes, the law is for men. Therefore... something. :idunno:

It says "both," you know? Was that "for men"?

The procedure is meant to serve justice.

Yes, the law is meant to serve justice. Therefore... something. :idunno:

It says "both," you know? Was that meant to serve justice?

This is key. The law says what it says. The woman was never in danger of being justly convicted by it in that setting.

Now here's the bit you can focus on so you don't have to deal with the substantive points made:

You're like the priests complaining about the wheat. And you're just as wrong. Next.

I don't have a "charge" I have an argument and a reading and a reasoning that is contrary to your own, not to Him. That you confuse that is part of the problem with your approach.

You spend paragraphs on waffle. You do indeed have a charge against us. You say we "turn Jesus into a lawyer." That's a pretty serious charge.

Next.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Skipping most of the repetition.

1. The legalists brought a legal challenge. They wouldn't have been deterred by "he without sin." That would have made the law of no effect.

I believe you believe that, and yet he didn't speak to the law and they were deterred.

Even if Jesus did not write it in the sand, it is still a fact that the woman could never have been justly convicted by the law in that setting.

I don't believe that's necessarily true or accept that your reading of the requirement makes that so, but it doesn't help you, given it would make Christ's potential instruction in the law sufficient to defeat the crowd and sustain what you want sustained. I think something else happened and I've set out why.

I'm not interested in your declarative critique, so as much fun as it is to keep seeing the same things I've spoken to you and others about and answered set out as if novel or unanswerable...

Back to the Alabama and Arkansas game then.

Gen, if you have something new to offer or want to talk over something else I'll be back after the game. :cheers:

 

[Stripe]

Skipping most of the repetition.

I believe you believe that, and yet he didn't speak to the law and they were deterred.

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

This is also irrelevant. The law still says what it says. The woman was never in danger of being rightly convicted.

I don't believe that's necessarily true.

The law says what it says regardless of what you believe.

I think something else happened and I've set out why.

Something else probably did happen.

That doesn't change what is written.

Notice how my post set out reasons and scripture, while with you we have to rely on what you believe and things you've said prior.

I'm not interested in your declarative critique.

As much fun as it is to keep seeing the same things I've spoken to you and others about and answered set out as if novel or unanswerable.

It is unanswerable. That's why you keep replying with your beliefs, arguments from silence and "priors."

The law says what it says. The woman could never have been convicted.

Back to the New Zealand-Argentina game then.

Gen, if you have something new to offer or want to talk over something else, I'll be back after the Blackness win.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Skipping most of the repetition.

I'm going to have to stock up on crackers. If only you'd stock up on argument.

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

No, it isn't an argument from silence. Now if someone reads a text and says that it's about Bill and you notice that nowhere in the text is anyone mentioning Bill, that would be an empirical observation.

The argument is different, but I've set that out prior.

The law says what it says regardless of what you believe.

The argument isn't over what the law says.

Notice how my post set out reasons

Not so much.

and scripture

Saying the word isn't setting it out.

while with you we have to rely on what you believe and things you've said prior.

We're both relying on our reading, only yours doesn't really make a great deal of sense for the reasons noted prior.

 

[Stripe]

No, it isn't an argument from silence.

Sure, it is. He could have presented the law. You are not justified in insisting that he couldn't have.

And even if He didn't, the law still says what it says. The woman was in no danger.

Now if someone reads a text and says that it's about Bill and you notice that nowhere in the text is anyone mentioning Bill, that would be an empirical observation.

:chuckle:

You obviously don't know the mechanics of an argument from silence. It's not that the law isn't mentioned. It is.

Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”
John 8:5 NKJV​

It's that you conclude from your observation that something didn't happen. Jesus might well have presented the law. The Bible says that He wrote something. That could have been the law.

Your insistence that the law was not mentioned is an argument from silence. A logical fallacy.

And even if you could prove that Jesus never brought up the law, the law still says what it says. She was to be exonerated.

The argument is different, but I've set that out prior.

Prior, prior, prior.

The argument isn't over what the law says.

That's nice.

Our disagreement is that you insist Jesus "fulfilled" the law (read: "eradicated"), while you criticize us for showing that the law did not convict her.

We're both relying on our reading.

Nope.

The law says "both." That isn't a reading; that's what it says.

Yours doesn't really make a great deal of sense for the reasons noted prior.

Prior, prior, prior.

The law says what it says. Waffling on about priors doesn't change that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure, it is. He could have presented the law. You are not justified in insisting that he couldn't have.

Going by the text is the opposite of an argument from silence.

And even if He didn't, the law still says what it says. The woman was in no danger.

Still missing the point.

You obviously don't know the mechanics of an argument from silence. It's not that the law isn't mentioned. It is.

Not by Jesus.

It's that you conclude from your observation that something didn't happen.

No, I note that he didn't do what seems important to those who believe the point of the narrative was defeating a legalistic trap.

Jesus might well have presented the law.

Might as in could have, but he didn't.

The Bible says that He wrote something.

In the dirt. Sure. I talked about that. But he didn't address the crowd with it.

That could have been the law.

I think it was about the law, but we don't know and it didn't reach his discourse with those present, to whom he presented a different standard. I think that's important and I've said why prior.

Your insistence that the law was not mentioned is an argument from silence. A logical fallacy.

No, it still isn't.

And even if you could prove that Jesus never brought up the law, the law still says what it says. She was to be exonerated.

I know you believe it. Doesn't really impact my point, but I think you're wrong on it.

Our disagreement is that you insist Jesus "fulfilled" the law (read: "eradicated"),

Fulfilled, yes. Eradicated is your bit, not mine.

while you criticize us for showing that the law did not convict her.

No, I disagree with those of you who proffer an argument I find unconvincing for the reasons offered prior.

The law says both should be brought, not that the absence of one means "Lucky you!" for the one that didn't get away.

The law says what it says. Waffling on about priors doesn't change that.

Still not doing that.

 

[Stripe]

Going by the text is the opposite of an argument from silence.

:rotfl:

Exactly. It's not an argument from silence.

Still missing the point.

But you won't explain. Declaratives like this just break up the conversation and provide no insight into how you might be responding to the challenges you face.

My analysis of the law as it pertained to the case was a response to you saying your evidence "isn't an argument from silence." What point was I missing? That it's not an argument from silence? You've shown no capacity to even understand the mechanics of the logical fallacy, let alone done anything to rectify a broken argument.

You are not justified in insisting that Jesus did not present the law. He may well have.

Not by Jesus.

And yet, that was the nature of the test that was presented to Him. The law was the subject. He had to respond with more than "he without sin," which would make the law of no effect.

No, I note that he didn't do what seems important to those who believe the point of the narrative was defeating a legalistic trap.

There are two main logical fallacies in this sentence:

1. "He didn't do" is an argument from silence. He might well have presented the law.
2. "The point of the narrative was defeating a legalistic trap" is a straw man. We might not provide this as the point of the story. What has happened is that you introduced this story as an apparent counter to Jerry's justification of the DP. You apparently believe this story overturns the law. We have been showing you how it does not. We have not been discussing what we think is the story's main point.

So, an argument from silence and a straw man. And the argument from silence was what you were trying to defend.

It's like logical fallacy Inception. :chuckle:

Might as in could have.

No. Might have as in might have. He might have.

He "could have" indicates that He didn't. We don't have enough information to declare that as certain. "He might have" is certainly true.

In the dirt. Sure. I talked about that. But he didn't address the crowd with it.

He didn't address the crowd with it, therefore, something... :idunno:

You talked about this. Great.

Town talked about it.

Argument over. lain:

I think it was about the law, but we don't know and it didn't reach his discourse with those present, to whom he presented a different standard. I think that's important and I've said why prior.

You think it was about the law. Could it have been the law? "It didn't reach his discourse with those present"? What does that mean? They didn't see what He wrote? The details weren't recorded in the Bible? "He presented a different standard"? No, He didn't. He said: "Him without sin." That's not a legal standard. That would make the law of no effect.

No, it still isn't.

Yes, it still is.

I know you believe it. Doesn't really impact my point, but I think you're wrong on it.

What's to believe? I'm quoting the law. The law says what it says. That's not a belief. That's what the words on the page say. The law says "both." This is not an opinion. This is not a belief. This is what the law says. The law made it impossible for the woman to be rightly convicted in that setting.

Fulfilled, yes. Eradicated is your bit, not mine.

:idunno:

It's difficult to think you meant anything else when you responded to Jerry's defense of the DP with the story of the woman caught in adultery. The law says "execute both." You say: "Or go and sin no more." How is that a fulfillment of the law? How is it not an eradication of it?

No, I disagree with those of you who proffer an argument I find unconvincing for the reasons offered prior.

Yes. You criticize us, saying we turn Jesus into a lawyer.

The law says both should be brought, not that the absence of one means "Lucky you!" for the one that didn't get away.

Ah hah!

The law says both should be brought. From your very lips! The law. Do you see now that she could not have been justly convicted in that setting?

That "lucky you" part is irrelevant. The law says what it says. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Author.

Still not doing that.

Yes, you do waffle. You fragment posts so they are impenetrable and talk about things you've said. You take silly little snippets of posts and build entire paragraphs around them. You delete the questions you are asked that show how thin your position is.

For example:

Town: "For men, who could not know what He knows."
Yes, the law is for men. So what?
It says "both," you know? Was that "for men"?

Town: "The procedure is meant to serve justice."
Yes, the law is meant to serve justice. So what?
It says "both," you know? Was that meant to serve justice?

 

[JudgeRightly]

If God abhors the shedding of innocent blood

:deadhorse:

I'm pretty sure we've agreed and established He does. So you can stop using the "if" word here.

then why put a 'grading system' on it?

You mean, "why strive to be perfect, even if perfection is unattainable?"

Because righteousness is a worthy goal. If a system is inherently corrupt, and a better alternative is available, then one should stop using the corrupt system and switch to using the better system.

You think God would be less unhappy if someone's wrongfully executed where their innocence could have been established through appeal?

God would rather have justice executed swiftly, than risk a criminal dragging out the process unnecessarily.

The system isn't "inherently broken" your hyperbole notwithstanding.

Saying it isn't inherently broken doesn't make it so.

I have shown you how it is, in that it regularly acquits criminals who should have been punished.

Sure, it's not like people are arrested on a whim and the police are the equivalent of the keystone cops.

I don't understand the reference...

Like any system it's not perfect and I support certain changes but you make it sound like it's useless and there's nothing to support that on any objective level.

A system that regularly acquits murderers IS useless, because it is unable to punish those who deserve to be punished.

To use an example I saw recently (if not on this thread, but on another thread on TOL), if I have a hard drive that has a damaged sector and I'm unable to repair it, then I consider the whole drive to be completely useless, even though the rest of the parts might be working fine.

If I have a bowl of soup, and someone puts rat poison in it, the entire bowl of soup is now inedible.

If I have a parachute that has a hole it, then that entire parachute is useless (until it can be fixed, if it can).

In the same way, if you a system that is supposed to bring justice to criminals, and yet regularly acquits criminals for various reasons, then the system is broken, and should not be used.

I'm not an OT legalist for a start

Neither am I. I'm a theonomist, which means that I think that man's laws should be a reflection of God's laws.

and the primary reason is to avoid innocent people being wrongfully convicted and put to death.

So if you oppose such a position, in that you oppose punishing the innocent for crimes they didn't commit, then why do you support the current system, which punishes innocent people for crimes they did not commit?

You are now just impossible to take even remotely seriously.

Not my problem.

Crime wouldn't drop to virtually zero overnight,

Sure it would.

If we (America) implemented the death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes, as well as corporal punishment and restitution, at 0600 EST, and put to death all inmates on death row, and started trying, convicting, and punishing criminals according to their crimes, the crime rate would drop to nearly 0% by the next morning.

Why? Because everyone would be deterred by the idea of paying restitution, being flogged, or being executed because they broke the law, and they would realize that now they can no longer commit a crime and get away with it (which is the case currently, because the current system, while able to catch criminals, is quite often unable to actually punish them for their crime due to various reasons).

the following fortnight or ten years down the line. You simply don't live in the real world.

Sure I do. I assert that the one denying reality here is you, because you deny that God knows justice better than anyone else.

You think prison is an incentive?

I think prison isn't enough of a deterrent for crime, just as time-out isn't enough of a punishment for children. But that's another topic for another thread.

It wasn't an argument, it was just yet more subjective, hot air in lieu of support.

No, they were arguments based on reality.

I'd appreciate it if you could at least humor me and address them.

· Appellate judges have a tendency to reverse convictions to demonstrate their own importance.

Is is not a fact that judges have a tendency to reverse convictions when appeals are made?

· A speedy trial and swift sentence are critical to the deterrence of crime.

In what way or ways is this not true?

· The delays inherent in an appellate system destroy the deterrent effect of swift justice.

In what way or ways is this not true?

· Criminals favor having an appeal process, which encourages crime.

Is this not true? If not, why?

· Appeals delay punishment and extend the suffering of the victim’s family.

Do appeals not delay punishment? Do they not extend the suffering of the victim's family?

· An appellate option makes it more difficult for criminals to respect the authority of a judge.

If a criminal knows he can appeal his case, and perhaps get a reversal, how can he possibly respect the authority?

· Appeals enable criminals to shop for gullible judges.

This goes back to the first point, if a judge feels like it would boost his reputation to overturn an earlier conviction, then criminals can use that to their advantage and escape punishment.

· Appeals increase crime; denying appeals reduces crime, the caseload, and thus, judicial errors.

If you have a bigger caseload, more resources are used up trying to punish criminals. A smaller caseload frees up those resources, and so fewer errors will be made.

If people have been exonerated of a crime they've been convicted of then I wager it's generally because evidence has come to light that proves their innocence.

In my system, they would have never been convicted in the first place. So what's your point?

Courts aren't in the habit of overturning verdicts for a laugh. Under your "system" that couldn't happen because they'd be dead.

Nope. They wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. :deadhorse:

Dude, it's not like there's a dearth of police or resources available.

And what's available currently is being used inefficiently, to the point where the authorities are unable to do what they're supposed to.

The fact is that mistakes can be made and in cases there's evidence that points to guilt that can later turn out to be falsified when further evidence comes to light.

We agree. But how much more evidence can initially be brought to light if the system can be used far more efficiently?

That's gonna happen under any system

Agreed, but even less so in God's system.

and if you're going to speed up the trial and conviction process then even more so.

Nope, not at all.

A speedy trial (which right doesn't belong to the criminal, but to the people) where two or three witnesses (God's standard; not limited to "eyewitnesses") are brought against the accused (who, while guilty as soon as they commit a crime, is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court) deters criminals from committing crimes because it instills the fear of being caught and punished into them (a righteous man does not fear a righteous government, but a wicked man does; today there is no fear of the authorities, and cities have become warzones).

It's because man is fallible that the only way to prevent the innocent being executed is to establish absolute guilt.

You keep asserting this, but have not provided any good reasoning as to why your standard is better than God's (if you have, please point me to the post where you did, so that I may address it).

If God originally required two or three witnesses for all crimes committed, regardless of their severity, and He never changed that requirement, what makes you think that absolute proof is necessary today? Why would forensics mean that the standard has changed? It just means that better evidence would be available to be used in court against a criminal, and since two or three witnesses is enough to convict (according to God), then "absolute proof" is unnecessary. More below.

More so when you're going to cart them off to the hangman without an appeal...

Accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. If a person cannot be proven guilty based on two or three witnesses, then they cannot be punished for a crime.

The judge examines the evidence and questions the accused directly. If the accused maintains that he is innocent, and the evidence fits his defence, then it's likely that he's innocent, and he would not be charged with a crime.

However, if he maintains that he is innocent, yet the two or three witnesses do not fit his defence, then it's likely that he's lying, which is an indicator of guilt (to at least some extent).

There's very little room for error at all, yet still enough give to prevent what you keep saying will happen in my system.

Lennie's character wouldn't be able to flee to the nearest farm.

The term is "city of refuge." It's an actual city, not a farm.

And are you asserting that George couldn't take him?

Well if you're so bothered about it then look it up.

I'm asking to see if you know what it is. Do you know?

As for perjury I've already given my position. A serious crime that should carry a stiff penalty. Please don't bother with the inevitable DP blather...

And what should the penalty be, in your opinion?

See above.

Again, I'm asking to find out if you know what the Biblical death penalty is. Do you know? If not, I recommend you find out.

Someone who commits adultery is not a 'manslayer'.

Duh.

Yet both are capital crimes.

Someone who kills with premeditation is a murderer. Simple as that.

:AMR:

No, do you think children should be executed given the bit about minors?

I think that all are equal under the law.

So, you are as ignorant and pie in the sky as JR then to make such silly prognostications then. "Good to know".

(more face palms)

Correlation does not equal causation.

You of all people should know that.

Was Vlad a wicked man? Most likely. Were his methods of execution unecessarily violent? Sure.

Is his swift punishment of criminals

Who said 'always'? You did.

Nope. You did. Here's where:

Right. So two would be enough. Three would be better. Did someone say otherwise?

Emphasis mine.

Had you said "two would usually be enough" or even "two would be enough most of the time," I wouldn't have pointed out your error. But you said "two would be enough." Which is not the same as "two or three witnesses."

The Bible says "two or three," which means that the evidence should be weighed each case, to determine whether only two witnesses are necessary and enough, or if three are necessary, due to insufficient evidence if only two.

And only you, to apparently make the 'no' appear reasonable or connected when neither is the case.

It has everything to do with my proffer, which is what I've been talking about. And you mean I'm not paying attention to what you say to another, which is true. I'm also not reading whatever is on your end table. lain:

Even I at least skim through the posts in the threads that I'm subscribed to, to see if there's anything that needs to be addressed.

I'm telling you that I don't. An admission sounds like a fault, which it wouldn't be evidence of.

An admission is appropriate, especially since you're at fault of not paying attention to what has been said multiple times on this thread.

When you don't pay attention to a conversation, you WILL miss important points that are made.

Intentionally ignoring those points, especially after being called out on missing them, is just bad form.

Within the context of our conversation.

I've addressed everything you say to me. Nothing you've said to me makes your case

How do you know? You can't assert that with any certainty because you might have missed a point that I or someone else was building on in another post that WAS NOT addressed to you, which you admit you don't pay attention to.

that Christ is more concerned with the jot and tittle of process than he is in punishing someone whose actions merit that punishment.

Christ was evading a trap set by people who wanted to trap Him, which, if triggered, would have brought Him into premature conflict with the Roman government, while still upholding the law.

The woman was not in any danger of being executed, because the Scribes and Pharisees did not bring BOTH her and her supposed lover before the Sanhedrin. Instead, they brought just the adulteress before Jesus, who had no authority (yes, He's God, but while on Earth, He subjected Himself to the government) to condemn or acquit any criminal.

Nothing in what you've said to me reconciles his silence on the process you believe and advance is the soul of his response.

That sort of thing.

Therefore... Something... :idunno:

His claim, which I note, as I note your own. And yes, you've amended your position, which was: "I would love a friend request from Obama. Would give me a chance to have a nice chat with him about where he'll exist for the rest of eternity."

Considering that that is still my position whether he is or is not a Christian... Therefore my position has not changed. I would still love a friend request from Obama, which would still give me a chance to talk about where he'll exist for all of eternity.

:AMR:

The more benign redrafting in approach had a different tone and point. But good on you for adopting it at any rate. It's an improvement.[/COLOR]

:AMR:

No, that didn't do it. My argument doesn't rest on the liberality or focus of your use of witness. In the case of the woman the witnesses would have been two people offering testimony. I don't know if those two were present or not, because Christ doesn't ask for witnesses. Instead, he proffers a different litmus, one no one in the mob will attempt to meet before him. I've told you why I believe he did that.

Christ knew that the woman couldn't be executed under the law because only she had been brought, instead of BOTH her and her supposed lover.

Had both been brought, they might have had a case. But you think it's a technicality she got off on...

I literally just got through telling you that it is immaterial to the point. It's also hard to miss the large section about witness that I've put into this thread. And given your belief that you should be on top of whatever someone writes here...

I have shown using scripture that "witness" means more than just "eyewitness."

But we know your opinions about what scripture says.

No, but you're bearing false witness for God knows what reason. You wrote that I said God's law was a technicality. I never did.

Yes, you did.

Here is where you did.

The technicality was to promote justice among men, who aren't privy to our hearts.

I said that your reading makes Christ the worst sort of lawyer. And I told you why.

No, it makes him capable of disarming a trap made by lawyers which were designed to bring him into a premature conflict with the Roman government.

Stop being emotional and a slave to your malice. In the meantime you're on ignore.

Well we know how long that lasted.

Nah nah! I'm calling YOUR idea of law 'Sharia Law'.

Since everything I have said so far comes from God's word, which contains HIS LAW, not my ideas of it, yes, yes you are calling HIS LAW 'Sharia law.'

And that's just about the only way you could win a debate here...... :idunno:

:darwinism:

Because your ideas seem unhinged.

Says the one who's can't even provide any semblance of a criminal code.

Again, why should I listen to what you have to say about what the laws should be when you don't even know yourself?

Look, since the OP (and you?) reckon that the left is dangerously unhinged, all of it (?) that suggests that about half the population of the USA is mentally disabled, just because of their political opinions. Right?

No. I'd say about 90-99% of the population has become or is in the process of becoming "unhinged." And the only way to "re-hinge" them is to re-establish laws that reflect God's laws.

So now let's look at those who would wish to cherry pick capital offences from the OT whilst ignoring the actual words and actions of Jesus........

Begging the question. Jesus never repealed any of the laws given in the OT, He only corrected what people had turned them into.

In your world you would want to hunt down and either painfully execute or beat LGBTs, adulterers, polygamists, polyamorists, children who curse their parents,

Those who are adults, in other words, know the difference between right and wrong, and who have resisted correction, yes. If you're referring to the verse I'm thinking you're thinking of, then I would like to point out that the word used that has been translated as "child(ren)" means "young man."

and more, and all these in addition to assaulters, robbers, burglars, manslaughterers, murderers, defraudsters, deception fraudsters, bilkers, tax evaders (!!!) and more......... and some of you actually think that your World would soon be a nice one?

I think it would be a world void or almost void of people who would commit those crimes.

And you actually think that executing crimes

You can't "execute" a crime...

of murder and manslaughter would reduce such crimes?

Yes. Because the death penalty IS a deterrent.

That's unhinged, because what would most certainly happen is that once a person has killed, or any of the above offences, then they'll not consider giving themselves up for a slow painful death.... to stay free and alive they'll kill again and again.... and again.

Because you say so?

No, criminals would be deterred from committing those crimes because they would fear being caught, tried, and publicly put to death.

Your idea of a Christian World wouldn't be a Christian World at all......

Sure it would.

not by Jesus's words and action it wouldn't.......

Because you apparently know Jesus better than Christians do. Isn't that right?

very dangerous, very unhinged......

Saying it doesn't make it so.

a theocratic nightmare.

Again with this nonsense.

Theocracy is rule by God.

Monarchy is rule by one man.

I'm a monarchist, I want a rule by one man.

I believe the word you're looking for is "theonomy," which is the advocation that man's laws should reflect God's laws.

And I wonder who would police your World? eh?

The police. Duh atrol: :dunce:

There you are, glued, chained, bolted and screwed down to just a few of the old laws of the Old Testament, just a few of them, wishing to totally ignore hundreds of the others whilst clinging to about twenty that you've become fanatical about.

Right, because you've given us better laws for us to live by. NOT! :mock:

And please don't hide behind the sacrificial laws because Jesus excluded those himself, already. There are 507 laws for your scrutiny, and you can start by adapting the poor laws to this modern World.

What other laws should we adhere to? :think:

You haven't really supplied any.

You seem to be in a Limbo between Christianity and the old Israelite laws, frankly........

"Theonomy" :think:

Do you honestly think that Jesus would wish to have anything to do with your theocratic world?

:deadhorse:

You do realise that you would be executing and beating people in almost the same way as fanatical Muslims, don't you?

Plenty of fallacies in this statement.

And you think that 'the left' is unhinged........ Wow!

And you think God is unhinged. WOW!

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is the other correlations that are more relevant, the teacher drew the two examples specifically as part of a discussion on the importance of civil and criminal rights in legal systems. They both did not or only paid lip service to protecting the rights of minorities and providing safeguards to protect the innocent wrongly accused. Thus almost all criminals were punished but many innocents suffered as well at the hands of the state.

The point I was making was that swift and painful punishments result in low crime rates.

The innocent people suffering is a result of the government being wicked, and aside from being what happened, has little to do with my point.

On the other paw,

:AMR:

if you require absolute proof of guilt you will almost never convict anyone.

Pretty sure we agree on this...

Which is why God says "two or three witnesses" are required for a conviction.

Justice in any legal system run by Humans, as was seen in contrasting these examples with systems that do provide such protections, is finding the right balance.

And since God made man, and knows how we work, knows that balance, and put it in stone.

So much for the presumption of innocence? :shocked:

:rotfl:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:deadhorse:

I'm pretty sure we've agreed and established He does. So you can stop using the "if" word here.

Fine, so innocent people being executed isn't going to fly then.

You mean, "why strive to be perfect, even if perfection is unattainable?"

Because righteousness is a worthy goal. If a system is inherently corrupt, and a better alternative is available, then one should stop using the corrupt system and switch to using the better system.

Nope, striving for perfection in order to get the best possible system isn't a bad thing. Talking nonsense about the current system being broken beyond repair and denying people any sort of appeal is no solution.

God would rather have justice executed swiftly, than risk a criminal dragging out the process unnecessarily.

Um, you're not a spokesperson and wrongfully executing people is the shedding of innocent blood.

Saying it isn't inherently broken doesn't make it so.

I have shown you how it is, in that it regularly acquits criminals who should have been punished.

Asserting that it is with bluster doesn't make anything so either. You haven't "shown anything" besides hot air and rhetoric.

I don't understand the reference...

Never mind.

A system that regularly acquits murderers IS useless, because it is unable to punish those who deserve to be punished.

Which the current system doesn't do.

To use an example I saw recently (if not on this thread, but on another thread on TOL), if I have a hard drive that has a damaged sector and I'm unable to repair it, then I consider the whole drive to be completely useless, even though the rest of the parts might be working fine.

If I have a bowl of soup, and someone puts rat poison in it, the entire bowl of soup is now inedible.

If I have a parachute that has a hole it, then that entire parachute is useless (until it can be fixed, if it can).

In the same way, if you a system that is supposed to bring justice to criminals, and yet regularly acquits criminals for various reasons, then the system is broken, and should not be used.

Or, and to use a rather more apt analogy, if you have a car with a flat tyre you don't scrap the vehicle, you repair the tyre.

Neither am I. I'm a theonomist, which means that I think that man's laws should be a reflection of God's laws.

Precious little difference.

So if you oppose such a position, in that you oppose punishing the innocent for crimes they didn't commit, then why do you support the current system, which punishes innocent people for crimes they did not commit?

Any system is going to make mistakes no matter what measures are in place to reduce the amount. That's simply being realistic on the matter. I don't want to see innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit but at least they can be compensated upon exoneration, well, as long as they haven't being executed that is...

Not my problem.

Sure ain't anyone else's.

Sure it would.

If we (America) implemented the death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes, as well as corporal punishment and restitution, at 0600 EST, and put to death all inmates on death row, and started trying, convicting, and punishing criminals according to their crimes, the crime rate would drop to nearly 0% by the next morning.

Why? Because everyone would be deterred by the idea of paying restitution, being flogged, or being executed because they broke the law, and they would realize that now they can no longer commit a crime and get away with it (which is the case currently, because the current system, while able to catch criminals, is quite often unable to actually punish them for their crime due to various reasons).

Sure dude, everyone would suddenly all step into line. People could leave their doors unlocked and it would be sunshine and lollipops...

:cloud9:

You need a serious reality check.

Sure I do. I assert that the one denying reality here is you, because you deny that God knows justice better than anyone else.

What you advocate isn't "justice" it's legalism ran amok.

I think prison isn't enough of a deterrent for crime, just as time-out isn't enough of a punishment for children. But that's another topic for another thread.

Hardly an incentive though, is it? There's no way I'd like to spend any time in one.

No, they were arguments based on reality.

I'd appreciate it if you could at least humor me and address them.

No they weren't. It was just another hot air opinion piece.

· Appellate judges have a tendency to reverse convictions to demonstrate their own importance.

Is is not a fact that judges have a tendency to reverse convictions when appeals are made?

It is not a fact.

· A speedy trial and swift sentence are critical to the deterrence of crime.

In what way or ways is this not true?

In lots of cases a trial is swift and sentence is carried out. You do realize that the appeals procedure doesn't prevent people from being locked up while the process is underway, right? It's not like the convicted person is allowed to go back home while the appeal is heard?

· The delays inherent in an appellate system destroy the deterrent effect of swift justice.

In what way or ways is this not true?

See above.

· Criminals favor having an appeal process, which encourages crime.

Is this not true? If not, why?

Again, see above. If you're convicted of a crime that warrants jail time then you start serving that sentence upon conviction. The appeals process doesn't affect that.

· Appeals delay punishment and extend the suffering of the victim’s family.

Do appeals not delay punishment? Do they not extend the suffering of the victim's family?

Once again, see above. Also, do you think the victim's family would be happy if the wrong person was behind bars or with the regards to the DP, wrongfully executed? Think that would make them feel better?

· An appellate option makes it more difficult for criminals to respect the authority of a judge.

If a criminal knows he can appeal his case, and perhaps get a reversal, how can he possibly respect the authority?

Just more hot air. Whoever wrote this garbage seems to "think" the appeals process just lets people off on any old whim or that most judges are inclined to award a reversal or some such. It's baloney all ends up.

· Appeals enable criminals to shop for gullible judges.

This goes back to the first point, if a judge feels like it would boost his reputation to overturn an earlier conviction, then criminals can use that to their advantage and escape punishment.

As directly addressed above, just garbage. If a judge reverses a decision without sufficient evidence to exonerate then his reputation is more likely to suffer for it. There have been cases where it's happened (rare) and judges have had to resign over such matters.

· Appeals increase crime; denying appeals reduces crime, the caseload, and thus, judicial errors.

If you have a bigger caseload, more resources are used up trying to punish criminals. A smaller caseload frees up those resources, and so fewer errors will be made.

Of course they don't and whoever wrote this stuff isn't exactly clued up in legal process and resources available.

In my system, they would have never been convicted in the first place. So what's your point?

Oh, so your system would absolutely guarantee that no innocent convictions would happen?

You are in lala land. How old are you dude?

Nope. They wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. :deadhorse:

Yes, they would. Even in the most efficiently run and as watertight system as it could get there would still be errors and innocent people would be swept up in it. Under your "system" the numbers could only increase because your acceptance of evidence to determine guilt wouldn't be as stringent as it is now and with denying any form of appeal for the inevitable mistakes made the numbers of wrongful convictions would go up.

And what's available currently is being used inefficiently, to the point where the authorities are unable to do what they're supposed to.

More hot air.

We agree. But how much more evidence can initially be brought to light if the system can be used far more efficiently?

How do you suppose convictions are made as it is? You make it sound as if there's a complete dearth of resources available.

Agreed, but even less so in God's system.

According to you there wouldn't be any mistakes in your system.

:freak:

Nope, not at all.

A speedy trial (which right doesn't belong to the criminal, but to the people) where two or three witnesses (God's standard; not limited to "eyewitnesses") are brought against the accused (who, while guilty as soon as they commit a crime, is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court) deters criminals from committing crimes because it instills the fear of being caught and punished into them (a righteous man does not fear a righteous government, but a wicked man does; today there is no fear of the authorities, and cities have become warzones).

Yeah, there'd be no mistakes made under your system at all...

:rain:

You keep asserting this, but have not provided any good reasoning as to why your standard is better than God's (if you have, please point me to the post where you did, so that I may address it).

If God originally required two or three witnesses for all crimes committed, regardless of their severity, and He never changed that requirement, what makes you think that absolute proof is necessary today? Why would forensics mean that the standard has changed? It just means that better evidence would be available to be used in court against a criminal, and since two or three witnesses is enough to convict (according to God), then "absolute proof" is unnecessary. More below.



Accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. If a person cannot be proven guilty based on two or three witnesses, then they cannot be punished for a crime.

The judge examines the evidence and questions the accused directly. If the accused maintains that he is innocent, and the evidence fits his defence, then it's likely that he's innocent, and he would not be charged with a crime.

However, if he maintains that he is innocent, yet the two or three witnesses do not fit his defence, then it's likely that he's lying, which is an indicator of guilt (to at least some extent).

There's very little room for error at all, yet still enough give to prevent what you keep saying will happen in my system.

For a start it's better than yours. You may wish to live in the OT and apply commandments given to tribes in ancient times as being literal verbatim in the present but I don't and given that the Bible says that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then the sheer amount of wrongful convictions that would happen under what you describe above and the abolition of any appeal for "DP" cases would make the numbers skyrocket. The amount of potential for human error alone would ensure that. On that alone, your "system" is far from Godly.

The term is "city of refuge." It's an actual city, not a farm.

And are you asserting that George couldn't take him?

You don't pick up on acerbic humour much do you? Sure, George could take him if he could get past the lynch mobs but why should Lennie have to be outcast? He's not a murderer and you simply live in the OT.

I'm asking to see if you know what it is. Do you know?

Watching X Factor on loop for six years.

And what should the penalty be, in your opinion?

Stiff prison sentences.

Again, I'm asking to find out if you know what the Biblical death penalty is. Do you know? If not, I recommend you find out.

Dude, instead of talking about the Bible, just save time and say OT okay?

Duh.

Yet both are capital crimes.

Adultery isn't.

:AMR:

Murder is the calculated killing of another. Why this is so hard for you to understand is anyone's guess.

I think that all are equal under the law.

So you think that children should be tried as adults and executed then.

Real nice to know.

:vomit:

Correlation does not equal causation.

You of all people should know that.

Was Vlad a wicked man? Most likely. Were his methods of execution unecessarily violent? Sure.

Is his swift punishment of criminals

Ya know, maybe if you didn't multi quote long posts by multiple posters and posted like a normal person you wouldn't end up with some nonsense conclusion like this. FTR, and as a heads up, if you do so with me again I ain't responding so don't waste your time. Just no need for it JR.

 

[Town Heretic]

But you won't explain.

Rather, I've set out my argument prior and numerous times.

You've shown no capacity to even understand...

Like having your posture critiqued by Quasimodo.

You are not justified in insisting that Jesus did not present the law. He may well have.

Rather, if you're going to claim that he did you have to offer proof that isn't in the narrative. What is in the record is clear evidence of another intent. I'll come back to this.

2. "The point of the narrative was defeating a legalistic trap" is a straw man.

No, it isn't. That's been proffered more than once and not by me.

We might not provide this as the point of the story. What has happened is that you introduced this story as an apparent counter to Jerry's justification of the DP. You apparently believe this story overturns the law. We have been showing you how it does not. We have not been discussing what we think is the story's main point.

What actually happened was this:

Without Christ being put to death for our sins (for the wages of sin is death), no man could ever be saved (Psalm 49:7-9, 15).

And at the same time he illustrates the problem with the DP beyond that moment, as he was innocent.

That is, JR answered ider's question on where Christ endorsed the DP with that bit and I noted that his answer brings up an important problem, the conviction of the innocent. For a bit the conversation was around that particular. At some point in it I noted that you don't require DNA evidence from people who can't provide it, even though DNA evidence is superior to what people think they know through inference or eye witness. Then the whole conversation took on its own life, as happens in conversations. Especially when you're having the same one with three or more people.

So, an argument from silence and a straw man. And the argument from silence was what you were trying to defend.

Neither of those are true for the reasons offered prior. If I note that a legal trap is set before Christ and he doesn't respond to the nature of that trap, but propounds a different standard, all I'm really doing is noting the fact. That fact has logical inference. Neither noting that fact nor setting out a reasoned proffer about the actual response are arguments from silence.

Christ, presented with the trap, chose to do something other than respond on the point of law that would easily dismiss it and take the trap as it was offered. What he actually did was important.

You think it was about the law. Could it have been the law? "It didn't reach his discourse with those present"? What does that mean?

I forget you're a foreigner from time to time, but aren't you a native speaker with at least a little formal education? Discourse is written or oral communication. "It" is a pronoun taking the place of the legal discussion. "Those present" would be the mob. So it means the legal conversation that the mob set before him didn't enter into his communication to them, where he set a different standard.

"He presented a different standard"? No, He didn't.

He literally did. He said that the one without sin could throw the first stone. I

He said: "Him without sin." That's not a legal standard.

That's an actual straw man because you advance your argument, that it isn't a legal standard, on the assumption that I have said it was, which I didn't.

What's to believe? I'm quoting the law.

You're quoting what you believe it necessitates. And your understanding is contrary to the function of that law. To say bring both parties for judgement is not the same as saying "Because if you only bring one the one can't be tried." And if that had been the case the easy dismissal by Jesus in support of business as usual would have been to note it.

He didn't do that.

Yes. You criticize us, saying we turn Jesus into a lawyer.

I reject your reasoning. If you want to personalize it that's you. And I think you've demonstrated over the course of your posting that to you it's the same thing and that is a problem for you.

Ah hah! The law says both should be brought. From your very lips! The law. Do you see now that she could not have been justly convicted in that setting?

No, supra.

That "lucky you" part is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It would make the law the sort of thing Jesus criticized in the religious leaders of the day, by robbing it of justice, making it a slave to form. Or, as I've written before, the law serves justice. To approach it the other way around is to make the same mistake the priests made about the wheat his apostles ate.

Yes, you do waffle.

No, which is why you say it without demonstrating it, over and over.

You fragment posts so they are impenetrable and talk about things you've said.

That has nothing to do with and doesn't support the waffling bit, by way of. It's just on to the next spurious charge, mostly about me. And if you don't bring up a new point you can't complain about my noting it or talking about the old.

Rather, I stop to answer points and leave off things I've answered repeatedly. Sometimes, as a courtesy or as a point of illustration, I'll note that most of the points have been addressed. Sometimes I'll line item noting. It depends.

You take silly little snippets of posts and build entire paragraphs around them.

I take points and address them to the extent I think it's helpful. If the approach bothers you don't talk to me. Easy-peasy.

You delete the questions you are asked that show how thin your position is.

Nah. I have left off answering questions that are essentially restatements of previous points made and answered though.

Town: "For men, who could not know what He knows."
Yes, the law is for men. So what?

See, I told you the so what in the line you don't appear to understand. So yes, I sometimes don't answer people when they appear indifferent readers or incapable of handling fairly straight forward propositions.

It says "both," you know? Was that "for men"?

So I'm telling you the law is for men who don't have his knowledge, the knowledge of her guilt. The law provided them a means to arrive at judgement and to carry it out. Christ understood what the law was aimed to discover and he understood it perfectly, without the process of law.

Town: "The procedure is meant to serve justice."
Yes, the law is meant to serve justice. So what?

So you need to pay attention. I'd just told you the answer. You either can't or won't understand that, which is why I leave off worrying with some questions, like that one.

It says "both," you know? Was that meant to serve justice?

Supra. :sigh:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm pretty sure we've agreed and established He does. So you can stop using the "if" word here...

Hey JR. I thought I was pretty clear on the point, but though I notice my name was somewhere in the middle of that sprawling bit, I'm just not going to bother to weed through that much to other people to get to it. It's a formatting pain among other considerations.

If you want to talk to me talk to me. If you're going to bury it in the middle of things I'm going to leave it on the vine. Your choice. So if you're determined to do that don't take my silence as assent.

:e4e: