GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

by Terry 145 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Perry echoed his previous litany this way:

  Terry,

  Here's some questions in bold below:

  If a theif stands before a judge and his relative stands up on his behalf and asks the Judge for mercy stating that he will pay the offended party 10 times the amount stolen if he will release the thief into his custody.... the Judge is NOW faced with TWO POSSIBLE REMEDIES.

  (1) He can accept the payment. In that case, the offended party pockets the cash and ALL go home satisfied.

  (2) He can reject the offer & pass prison sentence. In this case only the offended party goes home somewhat satisfied.

  In either case, Justice is served no? It is the Judges' call.

  There was no relative with a ten time payment for Sodom and Gomorrah, hence the Judgment was just then as it is now.

  Is it hypocritical to criticize God for showing mercy when we enjoy receiving it and at times enjoy giving it?

  Well, is it?

  Can you NOT see my answer, Perry? A Judge is BOUND by law in what "mercy" he can extend. Judges don't get to go beyond the law.

  A righteous God is only righteous when He consistently honors His own standards and values reflected in His law.

  Since you don't actually READ my responses I'll repeat them like you repeat your question ( which my response answered!)

  Definitions of judicial discretion:

  • Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion. ...
    

    Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the following on this subject:

    Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge, always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law . [1]
• 

  Perry

  Can God remain god if He violates His own perfect standards and goes against His own values?

  Terry,

  This is where you are stuck. The reason that you keep claiming that God is unjust is because your naturalistic/atheist definition of the word "death" is still stuck in Watchtower mode which btw, is identical to the view of an atheist.
• 

  Perry

  Perry echoed his previous litany this way:

  Who are you talking to? Please don't start referring to yourself in the 3rd person too
• 

  Perry

  Can you NOT see my answer, Perry? A Judge is BOUND by law in what "mercy" he can extend. Judges don't get to go beyond the law.

  Again, God did not go beyond the LAW. Death was perscribed and death was delivered.......but also mercy through Jesus Christ.

  If you are going to criticize Christians, you ought to at least see what they believe FIRST, to see if your argument can have merit on a Christian playing field. You can't start on a football field and then when you argument fails to produce your desired results simply start playing on a soccor field.

  This is what you are doing by parsing to and fro between a biblical worldview and a naturalistic worldview.
• 

  Terry

  Again, God did not go beyond the LAW. Death was perscribed and death was delivered.......but also mercy through Jesus Christ.

  Oh really??

  Was Jesus guilty of sin? If he wasn't--but--was punished under the law AS THOUGH he were guilty then GOD WENT BEYOND the law!

  If you punish the INNOCENT instead of the GUILTY you are rewarding the guility and punishing the innocent.

  What part of "ridiculous travesty of justice" don't you understand, Perry?
• 

  Terry

  This is what you are doing by parsing to and fro between a biblical worldview and a naturalistic worldview.

  This is Strawman Inc. at work again! President and C.E.O. is Perry.

  I've clearly defined for you the basis by which I parry Perry.

  I'm not actually involved in imposing a worldview, naturalistic (reality) or biblical (imaginary).

  I'm holding you to whether or not you are consistent with your own worldview (Pre-Enlightenment).

  You espouse a self-contradictory Faith which hinges on the central doctrine of GRACE which rewards the guilty and punishes the innocent and calls it "love"!

  I'm also reminding any members of this discussion list the basis for your "foundation" is a corrupt syncretism laden with mind-warping illogic.

  As wretches needed to "win" arguments against non-believers and heretics throughout the ages they invented out of whole-cloth whatever doctrine needed and then fudged the written word (i.e. changed it to suit themselves!) These wretches needed to be saved without it having anything to do with their own actions. They called it Grace and didn't bother to reflect how poorly it reflected on the Justice of God.
• 

  Perry

  If you'd take the time to answer my questions at the end of my scenario below, you'd see how it makes sense. The one paying below isn't being forced to do so....He is doing it willingly. There is no travesty of justice.

  The only travesty going on here is your refusal to answer my questions below with a simple yes or no answer and perhaps with a short expansion if you want. This is what I did for your questions. Any possible standard of fairness would demand the same in return from you. Your stubborn refusal to entertain mercy is somehow related to your refusal to answer even these simple questions which is JUST PLAIN COWARDLY IF YOU DO NOT.

  If a theif stands before a judge and his relative stands up on his behalf and asks the Judge for mercy stating that he will pay the offended party 10 times the amount stolen if he will release the thief into his custody.... the Judge is NOW faced with TWO POSSIBLE REMEDIES.

  (1) He can accept the payment. In that case, the offended party pockets the cash and ALL go home satisfied.

  (2) He can reject the offer & pass prison sentence. In this case only the offended party goes home somewhat satisfied.

  In either case, Justice is served no? It is the Judges' call.

  There was no relative with a ten time payment for Sodom and Gomorrah, hence the Judgment was just then as it is now.

  Is it hypocritical to critize God for showing mercy when we enjoy receiving it and at times enjoy giving it?

  Well, is it?
• 

  Terry

  Terry,

  This is where you are stuck. The reason that you keep claiming that God is unjust is because your naturalistic/atheist definition of the word "death" is still stuck in Watchtower mode which btw, is identical to the view of an atheist.

  I'm not claiming that God is unjust.

  I'm claiming that God is represented as unjust by the Grace doctrine because it violates His standards of Justice. How many times does somebody have to repeat a simple point to penetrate your temporal lobes? I'm claiming the doctrine is inconsistent with a God of Values, Standards and Justice. Rewarding the guilty and punishing the innocent makes god appear unjust. Transparent logic!!

  My naturalistic/atheistic definition of the word "death" is not MY definition. It is the ONLY definition. I point out to you that the natural death of one's body is palpable but the other definitions ("spirit" and "soul" ) were metaphysical. What did I leave out? Nothing!

  I can't help but wonder if you aren't flailing about striking in every direction before you think about how you characterize what somebody is saying?

  Hint: try really reading what I say before you characterize it!
• 

  Terry

  If you'd take the time to answer my questions at tHE end of my scenario below, you'd see how it makes sense. The one paying below isn't being forced to do so.... He is doing it willingly. There is no travesty of justice.

  Oh, Pleeeeeaaaaasssse!

  Let me tell you a true story.

  When I was 20 and about to go to Federal Prison because of the stupid JW "neutrality" policy my mother--bless her heart--asked the F.B.I. agents who came over to the house to interrogate me if it were possible for HER to go to prison IN MY PLACE!!

  That was lovely--but--it embarassed the hell out me!

  But, that's not the point. The F.B.I. fellow explained to her that it was not possible for one person to serve a sentence ON BEHALF of another person and meet the requirements of the law.

  Can you guess why he said that? I'll give you a few minutes to think about it.....................tick tick tick tick tick tick......tock!

  TIME'S UP!

  Imagine the news report:

  "Today Federal District Court Judge Leo Brewster sentenced a mother to 6 years in prison. Her son, a Jehovah's Witness, refuses to accept Military service in the armed forces because it violates his conscience. The mother loves her son so much she didn't want him to have to go to prison.

  The Judge spoke from the bench saying:

  "Since you are WILLING to receive this punishment (even though you've done nothing to violate the law) I am going to allow your conviction in place of your son. I do so on the basis that...um.....well.......you are WILLING to do it."

  The District Attorney spoke to reporters: "As long as SOMEBODY pays for a crime---anybody---for anybody's crime---the law is satisfied."

  Is that what you had in mind?
• 

  Perry

  As wretches needed to "win" arguments against non-believers and heretics throughout the ages they invented out of whole-cloth whatever doctrine needed and then fudged the written word (i.e. changed it to suit themselves!)

  That is hysterical nonsense. You know that 99 % of all ancient nt manuscripts are in near total agreement (some like the Peshitta going back to 150 AD) and you still throw up all over yourself with this kind of stuff?

  For what purpose? Your claims are demonstratably FALSE.