PDA

View Full Version : When is it OK to transgress one of the ten commandments?



Rincewind
23-05-2014, 10:28 AM
In the Trayvon Martin shooting thread discussion recently got on to George and Shelly Zimmerman lying about financial matters. I thought this was evidence of bad character. However Jono had a different view where he said...


In any case, people doing what they can to stay out of jail because of a vendetta by a corrupt prosecutor is hardly a problem.

Now that according to Jono it is OK to lie under oath if you feel like you are being victimised. And since nearly everyone in the dock thinks they are being victimised then bearing false witness (even under oath in a court of law) is permissible (according to Jono) in many circumstances.

This is news to me as I was taught that the ten commandments were laws you simply had to obey. If you transgressed one of them then it was a mortal sin. Is that how most people see them or have the ten commandments become more elastic since I was in Sunday school?

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2014, 12:59 PM
In the Trayvon Martin shooting thread discussion recently got on to George and Shelly Zimmerman lying about financial matters. I thought this was evidence of bad character. However Jono had a different view where he said...

In any case, people doing what they can to stay out of jail because of a vendetta by a corrupt prosecutor is hardly a problem.
You were trying anything to damn Zimmermann, and I was pointing out that a supposed lie about their finances to try to stay out of jail is hardly something to hold against him. The perjury accusation would never have come up were it not for a corrupt and politically motivated prosecutor. Since they were found not guilty, it would be fair not to hold things on them that occurred only because they were falsely accused in the first place. So a harsh punishment for actions prompted by a provenly unfair accusation would be unwarranted.


Now that according to Jono it is OK to lie under oath if you feel like you are being victimised.
Substantial twisting, since first of all it's dubious that it was a lie, and secondly this was a peripheral issue about finances not germane to the case in hand (the self-defence killing). No "feel" about it. The acquittal was unanimous, and legal scholars as eminent as Alan Dershowitz, hardly a right-winger, lambasted the corruptness of the prosecution.


This is news to me as I was taught that the ten commandments were laws you simply had to obey. If you transgressed one of them then it was a mortal sin. Is that how most people see them or have the ten commandments become more elastic since I was in Sunday school?
RW avoids the example I gave with the explanation. Evidently if he were in the Netherlands during WW2 and Nazis asked him if there were any Jews hiding in his house, RW would feel obligated to tell them if there were.

* My example (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14027-Trayvon-Martin-Shooting-(s-f-Pro-or-Anti-Gun-Control-)&p=377838&viewfull=1#post377838):
Yes, e.g. lying to Nazis about hiding Jews in one's basement. It's a simple concept: the Bible teaches a hierarchy of morality. Where there is a conflict, the resolution is not situational but depends on the biblical hierarchy of absolutes: duty to God > duty to man > duty to property; obeying God's laws > obeying the government. This system is called graded absolutism, where there are exemptions rather than exceptions to moral absolutes, i.e. the duty to obey the higher absolute exempts one from the duty to obey the lower one.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2014, 01:37 PM
Yes, e.g. lying to Nazis about hiding Jews in one's basement. It's a simple concept: the Bible teaches a hierarchy of morality. Where there is a conflict, the resolution is not situational but depends on the biblical hierarchy of absolutes: duty to God > duty to man > duty to property; obeying God's laws > obeying the government. This system is called graded absolutism, where there are exemptions rather than exceptions to moral absolutes, i.e. the duty to obey the higher absolute exempts one from the duty to obey the lower one.

Is evangelism a "duty to God"? If so, does the above mean that if lying was the most effective way to convince someone God existed or to deter them from disbelief, then it would be not just acceptable but a duty?

Goughfather
23-05-2014, 06:19 PM
Yes, e.g. lying to Nazis about hiding Jews in one's basement. It's a simple concept: the Bible teaches a hierarchy of morality. Where there is a conflict, the resolution is not situational but depends on the biblical hierarchy of absolutes: duty to God > duty to man > duty to property; obeying God's laws > obeying the government. This system is called graded absolutism, where there are exemptions rather than exceptions to moral absolutes, i.e. the duty to obey the higher absolute exempts one from the duty to obey the lower one.

Except that duty to God overlaps with duty to man here. Perjury and bearing false witness are concepts that are both civil and religious. Your example of the person lying to protect the Jews in his basement is not applicable, given that Zimmerman was lying and encouraging another person to lie to advance his own self-interest. Of course, when Jono states that duty to God overrides duty to man, what he really means is that he considers himself to be God and that his desire to advance his own interests trump any kind of duty to act in a moral and responsible manner towards others. What he is advocating is not really some kind of Thomist "double effect", but really his own unique brand of ethical egoism cloaked in false piety.

Desmond
23-05-2014, 06:58 PM
Yes I wondered who the allegorical Jews would be; piles of Benjamin Franklins I guess. Perhaps these are sacred to Jono.

Rincewind
23-05-2014, 11:16 PM
You were trying anything to damn Zimmermann,

Actually that is substantial twisting. You were trying to damn former Zimmerman supporter as a liar and by so doing discredit his now apparently heartfelt change of opinion. I just pointed out that unlike this former support Shelly and George Zimmerman participated in a material deception over finances which lead to Zimmerman's bail being withdrawn.


and I was pointing out that a supposed lie about their finances to try to stay out of jail is hardly something to hold against him.

Exactly. Some one taking an oath on the Bible to tell the truth and then to knowingly and willingly mislead the court is as open and shut as it gets. This is in no way comparable to the Jews in the attic example since they were not preventing a greater sin (such as murder. They were simply lying under oath. Something which is explicitly against the ten commandments as well as the seven laws of Noah.


The perjury accusation would never have come up were it not for a corrupt and politically motivated prosecutor.

Sorry when was Angela Corey found guilty of corruption? Sounds like you are so used to lying you aren't even aware when you are doing it.


Since they were found not guilty, it would be fair not to hold things on them that occurred only because they were falsely accused in the first place. So a harsh punishment for actions prompted by a provenly unfair accusation would be unwarranted.

An acquittal is not evidence of a false accusation. Just an unproven one. There is a difference. The fact that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin is not false. The only question is what he guilty of the charges brought against him.

In any case just because a defendant is found not guilty that is not a defence for the crime of perjury. You are still accountable for what you say under oath and any suggestion otherwise is evidence of a morally bankrupt individual.


Substantial twisting, since first of all it's dubious that it was a lie,

It was described as such by the Judge reviewing the bail application and Shelly Zimmerman pleaded to perjury for her part in the deception. Not sure which part was dubious.


and secondly this was a peripheral issue about finances not germane to the case in hand (the self-defence killing).

The question of finances is of paramount issue in bail hearings as it is a measure of the degree of flight risk posed by the accused. Of course the Zimmerman's knew this which is why they wilfully mislead the court.


No "feel" about it. The acquittal was unanimous, and legal scholars as eminent as Alan Dershowitz, hardly a right-winger, lambasted the corruptness of the prosecution.

There is little love lost between Dershowitz and Corey and so anything Dershowitz says need to be taken with a grain of salt. In particular Dershowitz claim that the affidavit that Corey filed was misleading is a stretch as it was subsequently reviewed by two judges who thought it was ok.


RW avoids the example I gave with the explanation. Evidently if he were in the Netherlands during WW2 and Nazis asked him if there were any Jews hiding in his house, RW would feel obligated to tell them if there were.

Lying to Nazi's is permissible as it prevents one from being an accomplice to the the sin of murder.

In the Zimmerman case there is no sin being prevented by the Zimmerman's lying about their financial situation. It is simply an accused wanting to be granted bail on false pretences and misleading the court to make this happen. There is no duty to god in this case... and according to Jono's very elastic interpretation of the ten commandments "hardly a problem".

Rincewind
23-05-2014, 11:25 PM
Didn't Jesus describe himself as "the Truth". Something like "I am the way the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." (Via Veritas Vita)

It appears Jesus put a pretty high store on the truth and telling lies to get a bail application granted would seem to be almost blasphemous when your God calls himself "the truth".

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2014, 01:42 AM
Sorry when was Angela Corey found guilty of corruption? Sounds like you are so used to lying you aren't even aware when you are doing it.
I'm not going to repeat what I've said in the other thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14027-Trayvon-Martin-Shooting-(s-f-Pro-or-Anti-Gun-Control-)&p=377878&viewfull=1#post377878), so stop wasting my time.


An acquittal is not evidence of a false accusation. Just an unproven one. There is a difference. The fact that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin is not false. The only question is what he guilty of the charges brought against him.
The false accusation includes withholding of exculpatory evidence.


In any case just because a defendant is found not guilty that is not a defence for the crime of perjury. You are still accountable for what you say under oath and any suggestion otherwise is evidence of a morally bankrupt individual.
What do you care? You believe that we are all rearranged pond scum anyway. Under that system, as Dawkins agreed, there is "no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference" (http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist). With the Zimmerman case, even if we don't condone lying, there is some mitigation in that he was trying to keep from being locked up in the notorious American prison system because of a corrupt prosecutor where his safety could not be guaranteed.


It was described as such by the Judge reviewing the bail application and Shelly Zimmerman pleaded to perjury for her part in the deception. Not sure which part was dubious.
Everything: these were finances donated for their defence fund, not in their own accounts.


There is little love lost between Dershowitz and Corey and so anything Dershowitz says need to be taken with a grain of salt. In particular Dershowitz claim that the affidavit that Corey filed was misleading is a stretch as it was subsequently reviewed by two judges who thought it was ok.
Something was very wrong all the way. The judge clearly had it in for Zimmerman. The fact remains that Corey withheld exculpatory evidence in her indictment, including GZ's severe injuries. Unfortunately under Yankee law there is very little punishment for prosecutorial misconduct, as explained in Angela Corey’s Checkered Past—Her peers describe an M.O. of retaliation and overcharging (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353633/angela-coreys-checkered-past-ian-tuttle/page/0/1):


But will Corey ever be disciplined for prosecutorial abuses? It’s unlikely. State attorneys cannot be brought before the bar while they remain in office. Complaints can be filed against Corey, but they will be deferred until she is no longer state attorney. The governor can remove her from office, but otherwise her position — and her license — are safe.


Lying to Nazi's is permissible as it prevents one from being an accomplice to the the sin of murder.
I agree.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2014, 01:45 AM
Is evangelism a "duty to God"? If so, does the above mean that if lying was the most effective way to convince someone God existed or to deter them from disbelief, then it would be not just acceptable but a duty?
Evangelism is indeed a duty to God but the Bible is against lying for this purpose, and there is no need to anyway.

Duty to God would, contrary to the moronic utterances of ChessChat's resident shyster GF, would include not renouncing Christ even on pain of death.

Rincewind
24-05-2014, 02:14 AM
I'm not going to repeat what I've said in the other thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14027-Trayvon-Martin-Shooting-(s-f-Pro-or-Anti-Gun-Control-)&p=377878&viewfull=1#post377878), so stop wasting my time.

You are wasting everyone time by continuing to misrepresent the blatantly extreme views of Dershowitz as facts. They are not facts and Dershowitz obviously has a axe to grind.


The false accusation includes withholding of exculpatory evidence.

According to the extreme opinion of Dershowitz.


With the Zimmerman case, even if we don't condone lying, there is some mitigation in that he was trying to keep from being locked up in the notorious American prison system because of a corrupt prosecutor where his safety could not be guaranteed.

OK so now you are saying it is OK for anyone to lie to avoid going to prison?


Everything: these were finances donated for their defence fund, not in their own accounts.

The Paypal account was in their name and they had access to the funds. Even they knew they were lying which is why when they spoke about finances in telephone conversations prior to bail being granted the first time, they used a coded language to prevent it being discovered by the authorities.


Something was very wrong all the way. The judge clearly had it in for Zimmerman.

Of course he did. Judges always have it in for the accused.


The fact remains that Corey withheld exculpatory evidence in her indictment, including GZ's severe injuries.

According to Derhowitz.


Unfortunately under Yankee law there is very little punishment for prosecutorial misconduct, as explained in Angela Corey’s Checkered Past—Her peers describe an M.O. of retaliation and overcharging (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353633/angela-coreys-checkered-past-ian-tuttle/page/0/1):


But will Corey ever be disciplined for prosecutorial abuses? It’s unlikely. State attorneys cannot be brought before the bar while they remain in office. Complaints can be filed against Corey, but they will be deferred until she is no longer state attorney. The governor can remove her from office, but otherwise her position — and her license — are safe.

As expected from a conservative rag like the National Review, that headline is a incredulous stretch. The primary sources are (once again) Dershowitz and Kruidbos (a disgruntled former IT employee from Corey's office). The paragraph above seems to written by the article's author, Ian Tuttle who seems to be a junior reporter with no specific legal background.


I agree.

And so you must also agree that in comparison to the Zimmerman lies are manifestly different. No murder was being prevented by the Zimmerman's lying about their finances.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2014, 04:46 AM
According to the extreme opinion of Dershowitz.
There is no pleasing the likes of RW with a vendetta against GZ. National Review is dismissed because it's "conservative", but then a left-winger like Dershowitz, who supported Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign, is "blatantly extreme".


Of course he did. Judges always have it in for the accused.
The one in question was replaced (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/08/29/bye-bye-lester-zimmerman-judge-removed-by-appeals-court-decision-for-bias-in-zimmerman-rulings/) after accusations of bias:


"Mr. Zimmerman has a reasonable fear that he cannot get a fair trial or a fair stand-your-ground hearing by this court," O'Mara wrote. "The court makes gratuitous, disparaging remarks about Mr. Zimmerman's character; advocates for Mr. Zimmerman to be prosecuted for additional crimes; offers a personal opinion about the evidence for said prosecution; and continues to hold over Mr. Zimmerman's head the threat of future contempt proceedings."

O'Mara argues that Lester, in his prior statements about the strength of the prosecution's case, showed bias toward convicting Zimmerman. "The court spent a lot of time and a lot of words crafting an order that was harsh and morally indignant in tone yet wholly fails to address one of the most important criteria in fashioning reasonable bail … the compelling evidence showing that the defendant has a viable, credible claim of self defense.

"Mr. Zimmerman fears that the court has already decided that he is not worthy of belief regardless of the type of proceeding or the corroborating evidence that would support his testimony," O'Mara wrote.

But the replacement judge Nelson had a reputation of favoring the prosecution (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-08-31/news/os-george-zimmerman-new-judge-20120830_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-mark-o-mara). And this was borne out by her conduct:


Judge Nelson showed no concern at all for the state's discovery violations (http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2013/07/more-judicial-bias-exhibited-in-george.html). Instead, she decided the defense would not be allowed to offer the text messages because of their inability to authenticate that Martin sent the text messages from his cell phone, an impossibility for the defense given the late date the prosecution turned over the evidence. Judge Nelson said others may have had access to Martin's password and made the texts without his knowledge and made an off-hand comment that a 7-year old could have figured out the password, even though the state claimed it spent months trying to find a computer expert to crack the code to reveal the previously sent text messages. West sought Judge Nelson's ruling last night so the defense could prepare what would be its final day of witnesses today, but she refused to make her ruling until after the court convened today, showing no regard for their ability to prepare for their case today, just as she refused the defense's request to delay the start of the trial last month after the prosecution waited until the last possible moment to turn over the damaging evidence.


She recently had a strange, unprofessional outburst against Zimmerman (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/07/21182-zimmerman-given-unfair-trial-by-judge/)while simultaneously silencing his attorneys.
Judge Nelson told Zimmerman that he had the “absolute right to remain silent,” and then asked him if he planned to testify. Despite Zimmerman’s “right to remain silent,” the judge continued to question him herself. It almost seemed like an interrogation.
Don West, Zimmerman’s lead attorney, tried to object the judge’s inappropriate and abrasive questioning several times. The judge angrily proclaimed, “Your objection is overruled!” to West.


And so you must also agree that in comparison to the Zimmerman lies are manifestly different. No murder was being prevented by the Zimmerman's lying about their finances.
According to a judge, Kenneth Lester, who was replaced by the Fifth District Circuit Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach because of credible concerns that a reasonable person could conclude that Lester was biased against the accused: (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/08/29/bye-bye-lester-zimmerman-judge-removed-by-appeals-court-decision-for-bias-in-zimmerman-rulings/)

“A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.”

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2014, 01:50 PM
Duty to God would, contrary to the moronic utterances of ChessChat's resident shyster GF, would include not renouncing Christ even on pain of death.

What about if it was pain of someone else's death and not yours? In the Nazi example it is acceptable to lie about the presence of Jews in the house if this prevents the Nazis from killing the Jews. But what if you are guarding Jews and are actually confronted by a bunch of antisemitic atheopaths, who say that they will kill the Jews unless you deliver to them a five-minute speech about the all-encompassing excellence of Richard Dawkins. No one apart from the thugs will hear your speech, and they'll know that it wouldn't be sincere anyway, but does such a speech qualify as "renouncing Christ" and therefore forbidden?

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2014, 02:20 PM
What about if it was pain of someone else's death and not yours? In the Nazi example it is acceptable to lie about the presence of Jews in the house if this prevents the Nazis from killing the Jews. But what if you are guarding Jews and are actually confronted by a bunch of antisemitic atheopaths, who say that they will kill the Jews unless you deliver to them a five-minute speech about the all-encompassing excellence of Richard Dawkins. No one apart from the thugs will hear your speech, and they'll know that it wouldn't be sincere anyway, but does such a speech qualify as "renouncing Christ" and therefore forbidden?
There have been many equally horrific real-world examples, e.g. Communists and Nazis demanding recantation or else a close family member would be tortured to death, or a sadistic Nazi guard telling one Jew to shoot another or else be shot, or make a Jewish man choose between losing his mother or his wife.

Rincewind
24-05-2014, 03:51 PM
There is no pleasing the likes of RW with a vendetta against GZ. National Review is dismissed because it's "conservative", but then a left-winger like Dershowitz, who supported Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign, is "blatantly extreme".

I think you don't even know when you are saying something which is untrue. An occupational hazard, no doubt. But I said Dershowitz's opinion of Angela Corey was extreme as indeed it is. He described per prosecution and borderline criminal and I know of no other analyst who suggested anything nearly as extreme as that.


The one in question was replaced (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/08/29/bye-bye-lester-zimmerman-judge-removed-by-appeals-court-decision-for-bias-in-zimmerman-rulings/) after accusations of bias:

A prudent move since the Zimmermans lied to Judge Lester's face in the bail hearings he was inclined to think that they were liars. That is not bias it is experience.


But the replacement judge Nelson had a reputation of favoring the prosecution (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-08-31/news/os-george-zimmerman-new-judge-20120830_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-mark-o-mara).

according to Bill Sheaffer, legal analyst for WFTV-Channel 9.


According to a judge, Kenneth Lester,

No. Shelly said they were practially penniless but actually had thousands of dollars in a paypal donations that they hid from the authorities. These a undisputed matters of fact. As a result Shelly was charged with perjury a charge to which she pleaded guilty.


who was replaced by the Fifth District Circuit Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach because of credible concerns that a reasonable person could conclude that Lester was biased against the accused: (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/08/29/bye-bye-lester-zimmerman-judge-removed-by-appeals-court-decision-for-bias-in-zimmerman-rulings/)

Again this was after the Zimmerman's had lied to Lester. In generally lying to people and being caught out lying tends to have that effect.

Rincewind
24-05-2014, 03:55 PM
So it is obvious from Jono's wriggling and excuse mongering that he thinks it is perfectly fine to lye to avoid legal arrest.

What do other so-called Christians think. Would you be willing to break one of the ten commandments to avoid being held on charges?

Adamski
24-05-2014, 07:42 PM
For Christmas the 10 commandments are not the real issue. The whole point of Jesus coming to earth is that no-one can keep all yhe 10 commandments all the time in their own strength. Jesus instead gave us 2 to try to keep: Love the Loed your God with your whole being (heart, soul, mind, strength) and love your neighbour as yourself.

Rincewind
24-05-2014, 09:08 PM
For Christmas the 10 commandments are not the real issue. The whole point of Jesus coming to earth is that no-one can keep all yhe 10 commandments all the time in their own strength. Jesus instead gave us 2 to try to keep: Love the Loed your God with your whole being (heart, soul, mind, strength) and love your neighbour as yourself.

Sure and so is telling lies loving your neighbour as yourself?

Adamski
25-05-2014, 08:53 AM
Sure and so is telling lies loving your neighbour as yourself?Only if there is no better option in the situation. E.g., the hiding Jews example in Germany cited earlier. I would lie to the Nazis searching for the Jews to kill them.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2014, 11:09 AM
So it is obvious from Jono's wriggling and excuse mongering that he thinks it is perfectly fine to lye to avoid legal arrest.
It's obvious from RW's twistings that he has a poor handle on truth, and is happy with not-proven-guilty people being sent to jail because of politicially-motivated prosecution after the police on the scene decided it was clear self-defence, despite the known risks to their physical safety in the over-crowded and under-protected American prisons.

Rincewind
25-05-2014, 11:19 AM
Only if there is no better option in the situation. E.g., the hiding Jews example in Germany cited earlier. I would lie to the Nazis searching for the Jews to kill them.

OK How about if you were charged with a crime you believe you did not commit. Would it be permissible to lie under oath about your finances so as to make bail more easily?

Rincewind
25-05-2014, 11:21 AM
It's obvious from RW's twistings that he has a poor handle on truth, and is happy with not-proven-guilty people being sent to jail because of politicially-motivated prosecution after the police on the scene decided it was clear self-defence, despite the known risks to their physical safety in the over-crowded and under-protected American prisons.

Sorry Jono you've had a chance to make your case. Now I'm trying to ascertain the Christian view.

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2014, 03:00 PM
There have been many equally horrific real-world examples, e.g. Communists and Nazis demanding recantation or else a close family member would be tortured to death, or a sadistic Nazi guard telling one Jew to shoot another or else be shot, or make a Jewish man choose between losing his mother or his wife.

Except that these examples, while all "horrific", are not all equally horrific by normal standards. Forcing someone to do something by threatening to kill someone is bad enough, but your second and third examples both involve an innocent person definitely dying (and also an innocent person being forced to choose who dies). The first doesn't; someone only has to recant insincerely to a bunch of thugs who know the recantation is insincere and no-one is harmed beyond that (assuming the thugs can be believed, which is another story.)

If "duty to man" allows for lying to save someone's life in most cases, it would seem a bit silly if "duty to God" prevented recanting for the same reason. After all, an all-powerful God is hardly harmed by someone insincerely stating disbelief in it in order to save a life (especially if the audience won't believe the recantation anyway), knows the recantation is insincere, and could prevent the incident from happening in the first place.

Adamski
25-05-2014, 04:50 PM
OK How about if you were charged with a crime you believe you did not commit. Would it be permissible to lie under oath about your finances so as to make bail more easily?If such a difficult situation arose I would certainly have to pray about it. It is not a black and white situation.

Rincewind
25-05-2014, 09:40 PM
If such a difficult situation arose I would certainly have to pray about it. It is not a black and white situation.

What?

So you take the stand and are under oath. You know you have thousands of dollars in a PayPal account and the judge asks you directly "what is the sum total of your financial assets?" are you saying that you would have pray about it before answering? Wouldn't that be a slightly obvious tell?

How could telling a lie here not be a transgression of the ten commandments?

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2014, 09:54 PM
I'd have thought the Christian response would be that you tell the truth, put up with being remanded, and pray that you are rightly found not guilty.

Goughfather
25-05-2014, 10:37 PM
If such a difficult situation arose I would certainly have to pray about it. It is not a black and white situation.

I have to say that I'm rather shocked. While Jono is a habitual liar who is perfectly happy to say anything to further his own interests, I can't say I expected you to be so equivocal about the truth.

Adamski
26-05-2014, 12:21 AM
I would most likely tell the truth (in the laughable situation of me having large financial reserves) and trust in God to provide the bail money from some other source.

Desmond
26-05-2014, 08:55 PM
Why should a Christian fear false imprisonment, aren't they basically guaranteed a 10-fold righting of any wrongs? The tougher time they have now the better, I would have thought they'd be secretly hoping for a smidge of persecution.

Unless they're not too sure about this whole God thing of course, and just want to have a bob each way.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2014, 01:48 AM
GF is a habitual shyster and Alinskyite who will say anything to further his leftist race-baiting, the whole "perjury" thing against the Zimmermans was simply a politically-motivated determination to lock GZ up for something, even if they couldn't get him for the self-defence killing.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2014, 01:51 AM
Why should a Christian fear false imprisonment, aren't they basically guaranteed a 10-fold righting of any wrongs? The tougher time they have now the better, I would have thought they'd be secretly hoping for a smidge of persecution.
I am not sure that GZ claimed to be a Christian. He was a Democrat after all; probably the only Democrat that rr, GF, and RW hate, while Corey is the only Republican they love. Also, if the American crime shows are to be believed, being sodomized is a likelihood for men in American prisons.

Rincewind
27-05-2014, 10:07 AM
I must say Jono's lack of regard for the due process of the law is more than a little unchristian of him.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2014, 11:33 AM
↑↑↑ What would an atheopath like RW know or care?

Rincewind
27-05-2014, 11:46 AM
↑↑↑ What would an atheopath like RW know or care?

My family were/are all devout Christians. I can tell you that there is no question that telling lies about finances in a court of law is as blatant a transgression of the ten commandments imaginable.

I'm not sure how you were taught the christian virtues but your interpretation of them is so elastic as they may as well not exist. One wonders if you are so elastic with the others.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2014, 01:30 PM
My family were/are all devout Christians.
Hard to believe when you are such a Christ-hater.


I can tell you that there is no question that telling lies about finances in a court of law is as blatant a transgression of the ten commandments imaginable.
Only "lies" according to a judge who was replaced for obvious bias against Zimmerman, perhaps because the political establishment wanted to throw him under the bus to appease the race-baiting mob that had threatened violence.


I'm not sure how you were taught the christian virtues but your interpretation of them is so elastic as they may as well not exist. One wonders if you are so elastic with the others.
No, you just have a straw man interpretation allied to a twisted view of Zimmerman that wanted to see him done for something if the murder charge didn't work.

Rincewind
27-05-2014, 02:30 PM
As I said earlier, Jono, your views on the matter are painfully obvious. I'd now like to hear from some Christians.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2014, 02:58 PM
As I said, an atheopath's opinion about morality and who is or is not a Christian is a joke.

Rincewind
27-05-2014, 03:04 PM
As I said, an atheopath's opinion about morality and who is or is not a Christian is a joke.

Luke 6:44, "For every tree is known by its fruits". The fruit you provided in this thread speaks for itself.

Goughfather
27-05-2014, 08:49 PM
Luke 6:44, "For every tree is known by its fruits". The fruit you provided in this thread speaks for itself.

It seems that given Jono's angry response, what you said really touched on a sore point for him. He wouldn't feel the need to lash out like that if he felt secure in his own faith.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2014, 11:02 AM
If GF had any real arguments, then he wouldn't keep resorting to Alinskyite tactics. RW's moronic atheopathy shines in his ignorance of biblical context.

Desmond
28-05-2014, 02:25 PM
If you swear under oath to your god and the bible in a court of law, and that oath means nothing to you, well that says a lot about you.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2014, 03:01 PM
I wouldn't swear on the Bible anyway, and the only "evidence" for any lies by GZ concerned donations for his defence fund in the opinion of a judge removed for his bias against GZ.

Desmond
28-05-2014, 03:38 PM
I wouldn't swear on the Bible anyway...Well in this case I'm sure your testimony would be weighted accordingly if allowed at all.

Rincewind
28-05-2014, 04:19 PM
the opinion of a judge removed for his bias against GZ.

You don't seem to care very much for the truth. It is not just the opinion of a judge but Shelly Zimmerman pleaded guilty to the perjury charge and so in the opinion of Shelly or at least her expert legal advice, it was not contestable.

Also the so-called bias of the judge was only apparent after he caught the Zimmerman's out in their duplicity. As I have already mentioned several times, when someone says things to me which they claim are true and I later discover that these things are not only untrue but the person knew they were untrue at the time they told me. I tend to be biased against those people too. Another word for this is experience. Once biten, twice shy... etc Or to quote your hero...

eKgPY1adc0A.

Goughfather
28-05-2014, 06:30 PM
Well in this case I'm sure your testimony would be weighted accordingly if allowed at all.

I have represented plenty of clients who have committed offences of dishonesty and I would consider the vast majority of them more trustworthy than Jono.

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2014, 01:34 AM
↑↑↑ Probably why the shyster ambulance-chaser GF is so saturated with dishonesty.

Adamski
29-05-2014, 12:51 PM
I wouldn't swear on the Bible anyway.I agree. When I was selected for the jury in a murder trial in NZ I chose to affirm. The Bible tells us not to swear on anything. See e.g. Matthew 5:34 ff. "But I tell you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God's throne ....
Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. ... "

Desmond
29-05-2014, 07:02 PM
I agree. When I was selected for the jury in a murder trial in NZ I chose to affirm. The Bible tells us not to swear on anything. See e.g. Matthew 5:34 ff. "But I tell you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God's throne ....
Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. ... "Yeah, that bit you follow, but the whole thou stall not lie, that depends...

Adamski
29-05-2014, 10:31 PM
Yeah, that bit you follow, but the whole thou stall not lie, that depends...It only "depends" in very rare circumstances. Again I point you to the "hiding Jews from the Nazis" example.

Rincewind
30-05-2014, 12:23 AM
It only "depends" in very rare circumstances. Again I point you to the "hiding Jews from the Nazis" example.

I'm perfectly fine with the Nazi example. No one would feel bound by honour or morals to tell the truth in that circumstance due to the consequence of doing so is to allow a far greater evil.

However something less clear is if you are arrested and coming up for a bail hearing. You know you have received $1,000s in donations but telling this to the judge will mean potentially a higher bail.

Do you

(a) tell the truth about your finances. or
(b) wilfully deceive the court while under oath?

If you choose (b) then have you transgressed one of the ten commandments? That is have you done something which is considered objectively immoral according to biblical teaching.

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2014, 01:19 AM
Adamski has it exactly right (about both not swearing on the Bible, and the hiding Jews from the Nazis as even RW agrees).

Adamski
30-05-2014, 03:30 PM
I'm perfectly fine with the Nazi example. No one would feel bound by honour or morals to tell the truth in that circumstance due to the consequence of doing so is to allow a far greater evil.

However something less clear is if you are arrested and coming up for a bail hearing. You know you have received $1,000s in donations but telling this to the judge will mean potentially a higher bail.

Do you

(a) tell the truth about your finances. or
(b) wilfully deceive the court while under oath?

If you choose (b) then have you transgressed one of the ten commandments? That is have you done something which is considered objectively immoral according to biblical teaching.

I am sure I would choose (a).

Rincewind
30-05-2014, 03:54 PM
I am sure I would choose (a).

Thanks Adamski. I'm sure anyone of principle would say the same.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2014, 05:19 AM
Thanks Adamski. I'm sure anyone of principle would say the same.

Ruling RW and GF out.

Goughfather
31-05-2014, 09:19 PM
Ruling RW and GF out.

Actually we both say the same. You, on the other hand, are perfectly content to lie in any circumstance in which it would benefit you to do so.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2014, 10:59 AM
More lies from one who does it for a living. ↑↑

Rincewind
04-06-2014, 11:08 AM
More lies from one who does it for a living. ↑↑

Pot, kettle, black.