Town Quixote's

[IMJerusha]

You know, I used to be a very smart lady. Then I became a parent. Now it's a challenge not to drool on myself.

If we are blessed with God fearing children, the cycle of life will be complete when they wipe the drool from our faces. May it be so, according to His Will, for us all! In the meanwhile, may we all rise to the challenge! :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

Friday Afternoon Gazette

Took on the topical...

You often hear people say "all sins are equal". Is that a valid statement?

:think: All sin is equal in consequence to the sinner, absent grace, but unequal in relation to the consequence for others.

Asked baconface the seventh most reasonable question I could think of...

Any relation to Kevinbaconface? :think:

And to the other new guy, nodded...

:wave2:
I just joined today, after being told about this site from my very good friend, vegascowboy.

Vegas is your friend, eh? Playing the sympathy card is only going to get you so far around here.

We go to the same Messianic Jewish synagogue and talk a lot.

I'd be careful with that if you don't want them to ask you to leave.

...Looking forward to future discussions!

Well said, though you'd look silly looking back for them.

While over in the Mexican thread...

Two points:

1. You guys really shouldn't be criticizing Zippy.

At least you didn't drop the n-bomb at the end of it. lain:

Then, in his "Is TOL Really Knight's Playground?" thread...

There are many senses in which this can be taken. Did I honestly expect Knight to ban himself? No. Do I honestly expect anyone to be banned for anti-Catholic rhetoric? No.

I'll be darned, "Mexicans are Dumb and Will Destroy America?" wasn't, as it turns out, the worst idea you ever had for a thread after all. lain:

..."My" standard of fairness is one which pretty much all Americans believe in: equality in application of the rules.

Yeah, when someone says "equality" I think you're the first name that comes to mind around here.

TOL has stated rules. They should be applied equally, especially when it comes to people who pay to use the site.

It has a stated bias too and if you sign up here you take that yoke willingly. I don't agree with it. I've noted that an unequally applied law undermines its moral authority and I find that unfortunate on a Christian site, but it is what it is and no one has reason to bellyache for finding it as it declares itself to be.

I'll close with a couple of late contributions to anna's able "For God, Country, and Coca-Cola" thread...

In the South it's a source of pride that Coca-Cola is ours, like Jazz and humidity. lain:

And...

I remember hearing the "Mazola, corn goodness" jingle and wondering if it was more patronizingly racist or catchy. lain:

Have a wonderful, contemplative Memorial Day everyone! :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wednesday Gazette


So the rEeset took a dust covered stab at a funny...

Shirley you jest.

That one probably killed thirty years ago or so. lain:

And...

Sorry but your point sailed past me.

Part of the armada then. lain:

Then, when agreement with AB's conclusion led to the inevitable...

:devil:

You just scan posts for your initials, don't you... lain:

While in zoo's pool...

Are you a supposed "Christian?" Or are you a Christian?

Also, is a "supposed Christian" the same as a "so-called Christian"?

And then there's anna, who is a SoCal Christian.

Kept differing with the Tin man, who kept insisting suicide and the adherent went together ham and eggs...

If your actions have no effect or ability to alter someone's eternal fate and get them to reconcile with God, then they are pretty meaningless, no?

So those are the options to your mind, either I'm responsible for another person's salvation or my actions are without consequence.

You asked if I could save someone. Of course not, but my witness can be used by God to bear fruit. God frequently uses the willing instrument of those who love Him. Also, is your education wasted if it impacts and betters only you or is it useless to the extent it only does that, assuming that's possible? Of course not.

God is calling on you to perform an empty action.

No, you just keep doing your darndest to frame it so that's the outcome. Supra. Your premise was flawed.

Tried to widen Trad's notion on laws and approach...

The justification for homosexuality seems to be like this:

So long as two parties consent to the sexual act, then the sexual act is OK and should be legal. Marriage is about the consent of the two parties, and that's all that matters. People should do whatever pleases them, so long as they aren't hurting anyone.

That's about it, right?

No. The idea is that all adults who have capacity to enter into legal contracts shouldn't be impeded from doing so, that the right to cannot be abrogated absent a secular case for abrogation that overwhelms the right and justifies the otherwise discriminatory conduct. Marriage is a legal contract.

...If homosexuality is OK and homosexual "marriage" should be legalized, then why not these other things?

Because they're different cases and OK isn't the question. It's a question of right, not of being right.

Then, after reading a bit in his Why are Protestants Incredibly Stupid? thread...

It seems that as with IQ societies, some embrace religion as a means to stand above the next fellow...which can really get in the way of foot washing. :think:

oly: See you when I see you.

 

[Town Heretic]

Bumping this.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

TH said:

But here's the thing, in this country you aren't actually guilty of a crime until the trial concludes. So you don't actually defend a murderer, you defend a man accused of murder. Apply that same bit to the prosecutor by extension, if it doesn't cause you an aneurysm.

I bet Stripe would not say that George Zimmerman's lawyer is defending a murderer.

 

[resurrected]

So a person who murders another person isn't a murderer until the judge says he's a murderer? :freak:


Can the dead person pretend they're not dead until the judge says they're dead?

 

[Town Heretic]

So a person who murders another person isn't a murderer until the judge says he's a murderer? :freak:

Rather, a person accused of murder isn't guilty of murder until the facts establish it and the burden is met overcoming a presumption of innocence. If you want to talk more about this I'll be happy to in the thread where the discussion is ongoing on the point.

 

[Eeset]

Can the dead person pretend they're not dead until the judge says they're dead?

Sure. Why not? Who is going to stop them?

 

[resurrected]

Rather, a person accused of murder isn't guilty of murder until the facts establish it and the burden is met overcoming a presumption of innocence.

I see.

So it looks like you're saying that a murderer isn't guilty of murder until a judge sez so.

And if a judge doesn't say so, then a murderer isn't guilty of murder.

If you want to talk more about this I'll be happy to in the thread where the discussion is ongoing on the point.

No, I'm comfortable making my point in this thread, in response to Wile E's comment.

 

[Rusha]

I see.

So it looks like you're saying that a murderer isn't guilty of murder until a judge sez so.

I don't believe he has implied any such thing.

And if a judge doesn't say so, then a murderer isn't guilty of murder.

Legally ... NO, they are not. Which is why OJ (a murderer), did not go to prison. Technically (and morally), yes ... he was guilty.

 

[fool]

OJ was innocent.

 

[bybee]

OJ was innocent.

No he isn't.

 

[fool]

No he isn't.

Oh yes he was!
I feel a thread coming.

 

[fool]

Oh yes he was!
I feel a thread coming.

Here it is;http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3473895#post3473895

 

[Town Heretic]

So it looks like you're saying that a murderer isn't guilty of murder until a judge sez so.

Nope. Rather, you and anyone you love or hate, charged with the crime, isn't actually guilty of the crime at law absent admission or prosecution.

And if a judge doesn't say so, then a murderer isn't guilty of murder.

Supra.

No, I'm comfortable making my point in this thread,

Of course you are. You're a big, tough internet guy and you'll stay here and talk about whatever you feel like for as long as you feel like it. :chuckle:


Sod's point:

S: So my wife dies. She isn't dead until a judge says so?
B: She isn't legally dead until there's a death certificate.
S: So if there's no death certificate she isn't actually dead?
B: Until there's a death certificate she isn't legally dead. If she's dead that lack isn't going to bring her back.
S: Sounds to me like you're saying she isn't dead until a judge says so.
B: Sounds to me like you have a problem.

He really, really, really does too. lain:

 

[bybee]

Oh yes he was!
I feel a thread coming.

I don't care anymore.linger:

 

[resurrected]

I don't believe he has implied any such thing.

Town said: "...a person accused of murder isn't guilty of murder until..."

Legally ... NO, they are not. Which is why OJ (a murderer), did not go to prison. Technically (and morally), yes ... he was guilty.

Not according to Town, apparently :idunno:

 

[resurrected]

Rather, a person accused of murder isn't guilty of murder until the facts establish it ...

I see.

So it looks like you're saying that a murderer isn't guilty of murder until a judge sez so.

And if a judge doesn't say so, then a murderer isn't guilty of murder

Nope. Rather, you and anyone you love or hate, charged with the crime, isn't actually guilty of the crime at law absent admission or prosecution.

I don't see how what I said is any different than what you just said.

Other than the ramped up language that is, showing that you're starting to feel uncomfortable with the direction the conversation's taking:chuckle:

Supra.

:darwinsm:

You're a big, tough internet guy

:darwinsm:

Another one of your tells.


Do you feel better?

and you'll stay here and talk about whatever you feel like for as long as you feel like it.

Sure.

Why not?

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't care anymore.linger:

Probably best. One of the worst calls in the history of juries.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Rather, a person accused of murder isn't guilty of murder until the facts establish it and the burden is met overcoming a presumption of innocence. If you want to talk more about this I'll be happy to in the thread where the discussion is ongoing on the point.

TH,

They remind me of the lynch mobs in the old western movies. If the neo-cons ever took over government, and thankfully they will NOT, look out!