Why Should Jesus Love Me?
Rosa Winkel

Byron Bay, Australia

#542784 Jun 2, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>I have seen many defendants dressed in suits and looking too good to be true..... you are right, impressing the judge and the jury with their personal attire (even if only for a day) plays a great part in the scheme of things.
Some are not as smart and dress as they always do.....
That doesn't make them innocent of course. But presentation is always very important.

In reality, a crime boss would easily be able to afford the latest suit and tie. A truly innocent person may not scrub up so well...
Rosa Winkel

Surry Hills, Australia

#542785 Jun 2, 2013
Solomon78 wrote:
lesbianism=feminism=Christian love?
Hi Adolf. Why are you using a Jewish name?

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#542786 Jun 2, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is good. Quite a bit to whine about these days. Like a gov that sees fit to target certain people and forget about them being equal under the law. Tell me again how you are for everyone. It would seem not. But no matter God is good and vengeance belongs to Him and Him alone!
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
But no matter God is good and vengeance belongs to Him and Him alone!
That's not true at all.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542787 Jun 2, 2013
The Thinking Man wrote:
All of history is hearsay if you're using chronological proximity as your basis for not accepting the available evidence. Historicity isn't determined "beyond reasonable doubt" as is a criminal court case. Historicity is determined by several factors. Bias of the writers is considered, but character doesn't always cancel out the historical evidence for a crime. Suppose we didn't have the Zapruder film from the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. Suppose all we had were the terrified accounts from hysterical women and a few close aides of the late president. Suppose we also had one account from a compulsive liar who was suffering from a hangover. Does that mean that JFK was never assassinated?
Nevertheless, I do not accept the claims of the bible. I do not believe that there was a god born to a virgin that did magic during his lifetime and then arose from the dead. The hearsay testimony attributed to guys named Mark and Matt isn't evidence of anything except that somebody wrote those stories and called the authors Mark or Matt.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." – Christopher Hitchens
The Thinking Man wrote:
As for agendas, what agenda would be served in a highly strung Jewish culture under Roman occupation by admitting that women were the first witnesses to a resurrected messiah?
You can speculate as easily as I can. Mark gave you a few suggestions.
The Thinking Man wrote:
Yes they are extraordinary claims. No disputing that. But the evidence we do have is cumulative and no alternate explanation adequately addresses the known events of that turning point in human history better than the conclusion that there was a resurrection.
You have no evidence to support the extraordinary claims named above, just a bible and a religion, each of which are easily explained without resorting to the supernatural.
The Thinking Man wrote:
If you have a better explanation I'd be glad to read it.
Yeah. They made it up. Naturalistic explanations are adequate to explain Christianity.
Rosa Winkel

Byron Bay, Australia

#542788 Jun 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We all are animals.
We're part of the animal kingdom.
Yes, and all Homo Sapiens too.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#542789 Jun 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the testimony isn't stricken, you have gotten the jury's attention, and you proceed to cross-examine the witness.
It would not be difficult to impeach the witness's credibility: You ask whether he told the police (or investigators, or whomever) x took place. You point out that the statement was made not long after the incident, while his memory was fresh. You then point out that now, a long time later, he suddenly "remembers" something different. Later, you remind the jury of the prior inconsistent statement while the witness's memory was fresh, point out that we remember things far more clearly close to the event, and you "suggest" possible reasons for the changed version.
Of course, in closing argument you stress that proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
One caveat: It doesn't help to have a client whose demeanor leads the jury to dislike him. From what I have seen here, this could have been a significant problem for you.
I never took the stand

My lawyer did impeach his testimony in every way that was possible

But now your story is changing when before you claimed you would have had the testimony stricken. Why lie Catcher when you certainly knew that isn't even legally possible? The only choices are impeach the credibility and appeal

It would seem your terrible ethics may be a reason for your constant free time

I mean if you are going to toot your own horn, at least don't lie and make up a situation not even plausible and then have to back off it. You never should have said you would have gotten the testimony stricken, that was just silly. You were probably banking on the fact that most people wouldn't realize how silly of a thing that was to say. Which tells me you lie when you think you can get away with it

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#542790 Jun 2, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I could answer in the same way like: IS YOUR HATE OF TRUTH SO STRONG?
But that is not fair. Rhetorical questions are an underhanded way of discussing. You ask a question, that can only be answered by accepting the hidden accusation that is in. It is no real question, but a dirty way to accuse people.
On topic: Christianity is very active in raising money and praying, but not in real unselfish help. Even if they help with the money they raise, it is simply a part of their proselyting.
They not only let the customers pay for an overly expensive afterlife insurance, they even ask money to expanding their business. They call it spiritual, but it is the most unethical business, because it is not only unethical actually undermines ethics itself.
That is why it is no surprise you defend it with equally unethical means.
You are trying to change the subject

I asked you a simple question. When you were a Christian, did you feel prayer was an either/or proposition and by praying it meant you would do nothing other than pray? Or did you do what you could and pray as well?

Because either your ethics were bad while you were a Christian, which certainly isn't Christianity's fault, or you are intentionally portraying how prayer is approached in a way you know to be untrue

You did a lot of talking about how giving money isn't enough and it should be given in person. So why aren't you down there right now helping with the disasters?

It is easy to talk a big game on the Internet

Most people don't have the time or financial freedom to cut big checks or jet down to every disaster. That is just commons sense. But I don't know of a single Christian that thinks "well I don't have to do anything to help anyone because I prayed instead"

We do what we are capable of and also pray

You should know that since you were in the faith

You talk like someone who integrity would be important to. Yet you presented this situation in a very dishonest way imo. So it seemed like a natural assumption to assume your motivation to do so was based proportionately on how much you dislike the faith. Your past posts certainly would support that conclusion as well

If your dislike of the faith had nothing to do with you presenting the situation dishonestly, then all the more shame for you then I guess

Like i said, you probably should do some thinking on how you want to approach things and what you are willing to sacrifice of yourself. You know prayer is not an either/or situation and presented it as one anyway.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#542791 Jun 2, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That's not true at all.
The God is good, or the vengeance is his alone?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#542792 Jun 2, 2013
Epiphany2 wrote:
Morning.....
“If you want to change somebody,
don’t preach to him.
Set an example and shut up.”
~ Jack LaLanne
Thought for the Day
Hey Epi!!

I was wondering if you were back around

Is the move all done?

How did it go?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542793 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
"you knew you were not telling the truth. And it shows that you are still being deceptive"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
<quoted text>
I have no interest in theology.
<quoted text>
I have established that I have no interest in theology and consider it nonsense. What do you think my answer would be to such a question: "What god? You made it up. It can have as many facets as Santa has reindeer, and for the same reason."
Anyone interested, please follow, this link IANS privided, then follow the link IANS provide at this link. It speaks for itself. All information is there.
IANS I don't know how I missed that comment of your before, but I did. And I did say that you knew you weren't telling the truth.
You have established that you do have an interest in theology. The interest of disproving it and discrediting it. If you have no interest in it then you are really wasting your time having any conversation with me. For I am all about it, even in my sin. To me it is all about God and the study of God.( Theology)
I think you are like a dog that is chasing it's tail in a circle and are trying to get me to do the same. I'll pass. I find it more fun to just observe such things.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#542794 Jun 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you are in no position to call your god good.
I do apply my moral standards to the god character in your bible and find it to be morally flawed in the extreme.
Once again, I could care less what you think about the bible

Why do you keep telling me?

Why do you think i care? I have told you repeatedly i don't.

Are you this desperate to feel like you matter that you have to keep inventing scenarios in your mind where the other person cares about your opinion?

Hopefully for the last time...

I don't care what you do or do not believe

I don't care what you think about the Bible

If for some reason you continue to be unable to resist the urge to keep telling me anyway, prescribe yourself some anti-psychotics

And this from the guy who wants to act like people are forcing their beliefs on him and I literally can't get you to stop telling me yours!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542795 Jun 2, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You do?
Impressive. Can you tell me what language he was butchering?
Hahaha yes, I do. The language he is using is English. The application of it, well, lets just sy either you get it or you don't :)
I think the key to understanding what many people say is to look to the message rather then look to the words used to relay that messsage so much. Once you have the message, use the words to understand how they feel about the message.
In simple words this is the best I can do to explain it.
In honesty though, I think you were clowning, rather than actualy seriously wanting to know. Which if I am right, supports my point about the message before focusing on the words :)
And if you can follow what I just said, that is impressive. I am not sure I can :)
On another note, I hope you are haveing a great evening :)

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#542796 Jun 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I never took the stand
My lawyer did impeach his testimony in every way that was possible
But now your story is changing when before you claimed you would have had the testimony stricken. Why lie Catcher when you certainly knew that isn't even legally possible? The only choices are impeach the credibility and appeal
It would seem your terrible ethics may be a reason for your constant free time
I mean if you are going to toot your own horn, at least don't lie and make up a situation not even plausible and then have to back off it. You never should have said you would have gotten the testimony stricken, that was just silly. You were probably banking on the fact that most people wouldn't realize how silly of a thing that was to say. Which tells me you lie when you think you can get away with it
OK, counselor felon.

I will bow to your expertise and say no more about your criminal history.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#542797 Jun 2, 2013
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
Please try again. You must have left something out of your story. Both are examples of people reading a paper that says there are 13 hammers on the other side of a door.
Right.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
Both are examples of people choosing to believe or not believe that there are 13 hammers on the other side of the door, by faith in accuracy of what the paper says.
Correct, both do require a faith to believe, but do not require faith to not believe.

Additionally...

The 1st instance is supported by non biased evidence. The paper is read, the door is opened, the hammers are there. Belief was warranted. Non belief was also eliminated when the door was opened.

The 2nd instance requires a faith supported belief. The only evidence supporting that belief is written on the paper, and that alone. Non belief is warranted in this instance.

The 1st instance doesn't ask you to believe at all. It's a simple statement that there is something behind the door. Some may choose to believe, others may not, nevertheless, both the believer and non believer are convinced when the door is opened.

The 2nd instance asks you to believe with no evidence. It requires that you believe the hammers are there by faith, with no evidence other than what is provided in the the written statement.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
And both are examples of peoples faith in what the piece paper had written on it being substantiated by the presense of the hammers when the door was opened.
No, the 1st one is substantiated.

The 2nd isn't.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
One group also read on the paper that they are reading, that they should take it by faith based on the evidence they have. Which is the same evidence the other group has. A peice of paper that says there are 13 hammers on the other side of the door.
No, the difference is the 1st is able to be verified.

The 2nd relies solely on what is written on the paper, and requires that the belief is supported by faith alone.

Keep in mind, the 1st and 2nd instance may have nothing behind the door.
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
The only difference being that the one that gives the advice could be warning that there will be those who try to convince you that there are not 13 hammers on the other side of the door while the door is not yet opened. So they should not give up faith that there are 13 hammers on the other side of the door.
Nope. You're introducing imagined scenarios and aspects of your faith supported religious beliefs into the examples now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_disso...
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
A question I have is what are those who try to cause doubt going to do when the door is open and the 13 hammers are there.
Again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_disso...
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
Again, please try again.
The examples and explanations are appropriate, and illustrate the differences between non biased evidence supported belief(1st), and faith supported belief alone(2nd).

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#542798 Jun 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, counselor felon.
I will bow to your expertise and say no more about your criminal history.
Characterize however you want, it doesn't change the fact the you tried to make yourself look more qualified as a lawyer by lying

I hope you don't do this with clients and make promises to them you know you can't keep

If and when you actually happen to have clients that is

I don't know if I know more than you about the law. I would hope since it is your profession that you would know more. What I do know is that I won't lie to try to make myself look more knowledgeable. When you can do the same, let me know

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#542799 Jun 2, 2013
What futher statement of Christ seems to lay the responsibility for the orgin of sin upon satan and his angels.

Then shall He swy also unto them on the left hand depart from Me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.Matthew 25:41

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#542800 Jun 2, 2013
What led to satan's sin,rebellion and downfall.

Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty thou has corrupted thy wisdom by reason of brightness.Ezekiel 28:17

Thou hast said in thine heart I will acend into heaven,I will exalt my thone above the stars of God;I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north;I will be like the most High.Isaiah 14:13&14

BIBLE TRUE JEHOVA

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#542801 Jun 2, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Characterize however you want, it doesn't change the fact the you tried to make yourself look more qualified as a lawyer by lying
I hope you don't do this with clients and make promises to them you know you can't keep
If and when you actually happen to have clients that is
I don't know if I know more than you about the law. I would hope since it is your profession that you would know more. What I do know is that I won't lie to try to make myself look more knowledgeable. When you can do the same, let me know
skom
You are right
true professional Lawyer never tell anyone or around among strangers about someone past criminal histories,

you are on the right track,and past time never interupt honest humble life of true Gods Follower

God bless you Skom

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#542802 Jun 2, 2013
In contrast with the pride and self-exaltation exhibited by satan who spirit did Christ manifest.

Who being in the form of God,thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of not reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man,He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross.Philippians 2:6-8

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#542803 Jun 2, 2013
After man had sinned how did God show His love and His willingness to forgive.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min Clearwater 17,425
Looking for girls to snapchat 17 min aldenmorgan737 3
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 21 min Buck Crick 983,256
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 21 min Michael 683,928
Blindfolded, hands tied and forced to their kne... 1 hr Leave None Alive 1
Play "End of the Word" ..... Part 2 (Dec '16) 2 hr andet1987 86
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 4 hr Tony 6,421
More from around the web