Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#598347 Oct 4, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
He only has a duty to his client if he takes the case
I don't how any lawyer in private practice with the option would knowingly take on someone that felt was guilty of raping children
He also said he would never turn down a client based on the type of person he was or what he was accused of. So if someone convicte3times of molesting children walked into his office and said I want you to defend me for this 4th charge he would take the case
I am not suggesting a lawyer take a case then not try his best. But some cases you don't volunteer for in order to get money. Not if you have a conscious and want to sleep at night
JMO
But I agree its an ugly system and that unfortunately, its better than most anywhere else, sad as that is
Wrong again.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#598348 Oct 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me.
NOpe

Not until you either confirm or deny specifically what you want me to show you

Why should i dig for posts for you then to be able to pretend you never contested that part?

Did you or did you not say that you would never turn down a client no matter what type of person he was or what he was accused of?

And when I pressed the point by giving you a worse case scenario about defending an accused child molester than you pretty much knew to be guilty, you responded by reiterating you would never turn down any client regardless of what kind of person they were or what they had been charged with

When I asked you doesn't it matter to you in certain cases whether or not you believe your client is guilty and you said it make no difference to you and that you would never even ask

I said well at least you were honest about it

Tell me exactly what I got wrong, if anything, and then I will consider looking up the old posts.

Conversations i am not in I may skim and get some things wrong because I did. This conversation, about law and about defending child molesters, I know exactly what was said

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#598349 Oct 4, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
But no way, no how would i ever defend someone I thought raped kids so they could go do it again unless I was ordered to
You couldn't defend anybody.

You're a felon.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#598350 Oct 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, what the hell?
When the cop slapped the cuffs on me, I never heard the 'brown chicken brown cow' theme song.
I got jipped!
LOL

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#598351 Oct 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
You like being as vague as possible don't you

It allows you that weaselly wiggle-room that liars like to keep for themselves

What exactly am I wrong about because a lawyer in private practice sure as shit doesn't have a duty to represent anyone that comes to him

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#598352 Oct 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't defend anybody.
You're a felon.
I know this shouldn't be necessary since you pretend to be a lawyer but I was convicted of a second degree misdemeanor.

How does that make me a felon counselor?

You don't even know the basics

You should have pretended to be an airline stewardess. At least that would have been believable!

And who would have been in better shape if they wanted an arrest record expunged? Someone that came to you or me? You would have told them it isn't possible without a conviction!

:)

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#598353 Oct 4, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
NOpe
Not until you either confirm or deny specifically what you want me to show you
Why should i dig for posts for you then to be able to pretend you never contested that part?
Did you or did you not say that you would never turn down a client no matter what type of person he was or what he was accused of?
And when I pressed the point by giving you a worse case scenario about defending an accused child molester than you pretty much knew to be guilty, you responded by reiterating you would never turn down any client regardless of what kind of person they were or what they had been charged with
When I asked you doesn't it matter to you in certain cases whether or not you believe your client is guilty and you said it make no difference to you and that you would never even ask
I said well at least you were honest about it
Tell me exactly what I got wrong, if anything, and then I will consider looking up the old posts.
Conversations i am not in I may skim and get some things wrong because I did. This conversation, about law and about defending child molesters, I know exactly what was said
Nope.

Fail again.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#598354 Oct 4, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with the second part. There is no duty to take cases he doesn't want unless he is a public defender.
<quoted text>
I have no problem if the court makes a lawyer take the case
<quoted text>
I agree many PD are overtaxed. Many are not the cream of the crop. And while the law guarantees a defense and the best defense that attorney can offer, it does not guarantee the quality of the lawyer. Its why people like OJ Simpson or Blake beat murder raps. But there would be no practical way to say everyone is entitled to the best lawyers available
<quoted text>
I am not sure I would say it is best served. In theory the purpose should be fair justice. And if the most heinous criminal are guilty, it simply adds more stress to an already overtaxed system. I'd rather see the time go to making sure people who are not the most heinous criminals get a fair shake instead of just being a number. But I do agree with innocent until proven guilty and everybody deserves a defense. But no way, no how would i ever defend someone I thought raped kids so they could go do it again unless I was ordered to
<quoted text>
In theory that would be the result
But at the end of the day there is just guilty and not guilty. Come sentencing, it won't matter how hard the defense tried. If anything, the time for a better lawyer to affect his client getting a fair sentence is during the plea bargain process. Once it goes to trial, a guilty verdict pretty much results in a judge going by sentencing guidelines. In rare cases they may go below and in many cases they go higher than the guidelines require.
I am all for evenly the playing field so the defense in general can compete with the prosecution. The prosecution bullies its way into getting people to agree to disproportionate sentences or even innocent people to plea because they are afraid of the worst case scenario
But there has to be some moral lines. IF a lawyer volunteers to try to get someone he thinks or knows is guilty of raping children back on the street to do it again, then where is the justice in that?
JMO
(T) Peace
This deserves attention.

I'll tend to it tomorrow.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#598355 Oct 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Fail again.
LOL

Another "not-responsive" reply

Just as I knew you would!

Of course you won't say what. You on top of everything else, I will expose you as a blatant liar

Thank you for confirming you had nothing

How is it such a prominent lawyer as yourself can't even prevent himself from getting backed into a corner on Topix when you have all the time you need to think before posting?

:)

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#598356 Oct 4, 2013
How can a person that hates God thinks it would be punishment to be deprived of an after-life with the Lord?? I think it would be the opposite. Someone who loves to commit everything contrary to the bible would not want to have anything--- nothing, to do with living for eternity with the God of the Bible if they hate the commandments of the bible and hate God. Does not that seem more likely?
[QUOTE who="Skombolis"]< quoted text>
To me, the punishment is being deprived of an after-life with the Lord
Although I don't necessarily look at it as reward and punishment
Just saved and unsaved
Those that will be saved are every bit as guilty as those that will not be. So its not so much one side deserves to be punished or the flip side would have to be we deserved to be saved
Plus, if it was punishment, to me it would be hard to argue the justness of the same fate for someone who butchers a family compared to someone who didn't believe
I look at it like death, both body and soul, is a natural consequence of human life reaching its end. An end that will not be avoided if we die unrepentant in our sins and no trust in the Lord. However if we do trust in the Lord he will have mercy on us
JMO
But I agree, talking about it among those in the faith is always a good thing. Or should be anyway
(T) Peace
How can a person that is not saved be as guilty as a person that is saved?

The person that trusts in Jesus Christ has accepted the shed blood of Jesus as the coverings for their sins. The person that rejects Jesus rejects the sacrifice and the shed blood for the remission of their sins. So how does your comment "Those that will be saved are every bit as guilty as those that will not be"--how can that be?

Don't you believe the person that rejects Jesus Christ deserves to be punished?

The punishment won't be the same for the murderer as it is for the non believer. Hell was originally made for Demons:

2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment

So of course the punishment for a Demon won't be the same as the punishment for a human soul. So will be different levels of punishment for say the demon---the non believer--and the mass murderer.

I just don't see how being destroyed is the same as not being "aware" or "not existing". Again if a person that was killing people---an adulterer--a thief---a drug user---child sex abuser--if that person knew the punishment from God when they die is that they no longer are "aware" of any punishment for their evil works on Earth--how would that be punishment? I think that person would be giddy with glee that they can do all those things people considered evil and the best God can do to punish them is to make sure they no longer exist and no longer aware of any punishment.

I get what you saying. It not like you the first Christian I have met made this argument about hell. But obviously I not agree.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#598357 Oct 4, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm watching When Girls Had Tails on Amazon Sub-Prime.
Can't afford the good stuff.
I blame it on obama.
You should've bought Jos. A. Bank franchises.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#598358 Oct 4, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>Anytime Skombolis. Christians discussing Christianity can only be a positive. At least it should be.
Noted your views on "destroyed" to mean "no longer exist"
But how would that be punishment?
Consider the person that kills their family and then commits suicide.
How would he be punished if his soul is destroyed to mean "no longer exist"?
Think about Hitler or Stalin or any person bent on causing evil in this world. If they were told their punishment from God for all the evil they do would be "they no longer exist or cease to be aware"?
That is not punishment. That reason I think every soul that goes to hell will be destroyed. But will be >aware< of the hellish destruction of their soul.
However I can see how you arrived at your interpretation.
You brought your homework on hell, right?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#598359 Oct 4, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
How can a person that hates God thinks it would be punishment to be deprived of an after-life with the Lord?? I think it would be the opposite. Someone who loves to commit everything contrary to the bible would not want to have anything--- nothing, to do with living for eternity with the God of the Bible if they hate the commandments of the bible and hate God. Does not that seem more likely?
It might not be considered punishment to someone who doesn't believe in God to not spend an eternity with Him. Although if hell was eternal suffering I would think they would definitely consider that punishment
trifecta1 wrote:
How can a person that is not saved be as guilty as a person that is saved?
The person that trusts in Jesus Christ has accepted the shed blood of Jesus as the coverings for their sins. The person that rejects Jesus rejects the sacrifice and the shed blood for the remission of their sins. So how does your comment "Those that will be saved are every bit as guilty as those that will not be"--how can that be?
The saved and unsaved have still both committed sins for which the penalty is death

The difference for the saved is God has forgiven us and took the punishment meant for us. Someone taking our punishment doesn't make us any less guilty for the sin. But His mercy towards us for trusting in Him for salvation allows us to avoid that fate
trifecta1 wrote:
Don't you believe the person that rejects Jesus Christ deserves to be punished?
If faith is given by God, then why would not believing be worthy of punishment? I think it just makes them unable to be saved
trifecta1 wrote:
The punishment won't be the same for the murderer as it is for the non believer. Hell was originally made for Demons:
2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment
So of course the punishment for a Demon won't be the same as the punishment for a human soul. So will be different levels of punishment for say the demon---the non believer--and the mass murderer.
Actually it will be the same

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
trifecta1 wrote:
I just don't see how being destroyed is the same as not being "aware" or "not existing".
i just don't see how that can't be the interpretation when looking at these three verses

Matthew 10:28
Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell

Psalms 146:4
His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.
trifecta1 wrote:
Again if a person that was killing people---an adulterer--a thief---a drug user---child sex abuser--if that person knew the punishment from God when they die is that they no longer are "aware" of any punishment for their evil works on Earth--how would that be punishment? I think that person would be giddy with glee that they can do all those things people considered evil and the best God can do to punish them is to make sure they no longer exist and no longer aware of any punishment.
I get what you saying. It not like you the first Christian I have met made this argument about hell. But obviously I not agree.
I believe life is a gift

Notice in Ecclesiastes is describes death as no further reward

That is how i see it too

Those that don't accept Christ or die in their sins will receive no further reward

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#598360 Oct 4, 2013
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
This deserves attention.
I'll tend to it tomorrow.
Looking forward to your reply

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#598361 Oct 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't lump all Christians together.
You and Al Garcia, for example, are poles apart.
Al is a good and decent Christian.
I'm sure you'd call anyone that doesn't disagree with you "good and decent".

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#598362 Oct 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I wanna fight.
grrr
*flexes keyboard*
Scared?
Quick ...go hide car! Hide in someones garage!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#598363 Oct 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Quick, somebody warn RR's wife.
I wish I could show you the text she send me a few minutes ago, to show you how utterly moronic and childish you're being. There's this big dog, a Boxer/Pit mix that was abandoned or something that's been "living" in the field behind our house. I've been warming up to him and getting to know him a little bit. I rigged up a couple of buckets to lower food and water over the fence for the big guy, now he really won't go away. We're thinking about keeping him but we already have a lot of animals. My wife reluctantly suggested calling the pound, I told the that's probably not a good idea because we all know what happens to pit bulls at the pound. I told her I'd rather keep him than call the pound, even though we don't want and can barely afford another dog, especially a big boy like that. She sent me a text that said "Aw, I'm about to cry. I love you so much, honey. You have a big heart."

So go ahead. Warn away.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#598364 Oct 4, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I know this shouldn't be necessary since you pretend to be a lawyer but I was convicted of a second degree misdemeanor.
How does that make me a felon counselor?
You don't even know the basics
You should have pretended to be an airline stewardess. At least that would have been believable!
And who would have been in better shape if they wanted an arrest record expunged? Someone that came to you or me? You would have told them it isn't possible without a conviction!
:)
2nd degree misdemeanor?!?!

Oh crap, you're an evil villain, too!

>:)
Lost In Transition

United States

#598365 Oct 4, 2013
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
You should've bought Jos. A. Bank franchises.
C'mon, a Burlington Coat Factory in Florida. What could possibly go wrong? It was a no-brainer.
We just got our autumn ear-muffs in stock. They're not selling too well.
Stupid Florida.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#598366 Oct 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you'd call anyone that doesn't disagree with you "good and decent".
There's your usual deflection.

You said I lump all Christians together.

I showed you that I don't.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min RiversideRedneck 979,217
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 9 min Brian_G 285,930
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 13 min RiversideRedneck 92,072
News Letter: DNC accept responsibility 34 min Ronald 10
Watching porn with my brother (Mar '14) 1 hr grown up now 9
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Student 46,034
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 hr RiccardoFire 183,604
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 hr kent 667,497
More from around the web