AZ megachurch to host Trump tomorrow (6/23) at the next stop on the Pandemic Hotspot Tour

[essentialsaltes]

Really? So Trump claims he is a Christian but you question that because of his behavior

Dude, this started when you said in #106 that Trump doesn't pretend to be Christian. It was pointed out that he does claim this. So by my count it is you who question his Christianity because of his behavior.

 

[Kentonio]

The elephant that I am not ignoring is that convicting any person of a crime they didn't commit is a crime. Even charging a person with a crime they didn't commit and then having them go through a trial can ruin them for life. You don't solve this problem by ignoring it and that is exactly what happens when you get rid of the death penalty. Now we don't have to feel guilty for killing an innocent person, yet they are in prison for 25 years to life. I treat people the way I would want to be treated. If I was convicted for a death penalty case where I wasn't guilty I would ask the judge for the death penalty. No doubt he would ask me why. My answer is that as long as I am in jail I will be dedicated to proving my innocence and I have much more tools at my disposal if you sentence me to death. The death penalty can often take 25 years before it is carried out.

Well that's provably untrue. If it was true then countries in the EU wouldn't have experienced any advances in their investigative techniques and in appeal process methods since the death penalty was abolished. In reality they've made massive advances.

 

[ZNP]

Dude, this started when you said in #106 that Trump doesn't pretend to be Christian. It was pointed out that he does claim this. So by my count it is you who question his Christianity because of his behavior.

The discussion veered, I hope you can read every post because I find this discussion incredibly tiresome and childish and would love to be able to ignore this thread as soon as people stop asking me to respond. If after reading all my posts since 106 you still have a burning question you need me to answer fine, but till then this is really absurd.

 

[ZNP]

Well that's provably untrue. If it was true then countries in the EU wouldn't have experienced any advances in their investigative techniques and in appeal process methods since the death penalty was abolished. In reality they've made massive advances.

Wow. That assumes that if Fingerprints are first used in Argentina to solve a crime that no one else will learn this and use it until they also have a death penalty case and have to discover it for themselves. Is that your argument? I suppose that argument would make sense to someone who doesn't actually read the research journals, they probably assume everyone else is just as lazy as they are.

 

[Kentonio]

Wow. That assumes that if Fingerprints are first used in Argentina to solve a crime that no one else will learn this and use it until they also have a death penalty case. Is that your argument? I suppose that argument would make sense to someone who doesn't actually read the research, they probably assume everyone else is just as lazy as they are.

Are you really going to claim that all investigative advances came from death penalty countries? Really?

 

[Kentonio]

You seem to also forget that a strong push for improving detection techniques is to catch perpetrators not just to prove guilt once you've caught them. That certainly drove both fingerprinting and DNA a lot more than possible innocent might have done.

 

[ZNP]

Are you really going to claim that all investigative advances came from death penalty countries? Really?

Historical fact, Fingerprints, DNA, and many, many more advances were made during death penalty cases. These advances are then applied to all cases and everyone benefits, not just in the US but in Europe, etc.

There is no reason to debate this, just look it up.

Many advances were made by scientists at universities who were brought it pro bono because it was a death penalty case. Yes, these are facts.

I am not saying every forensic advancement, nor am I saying that once fingerprints are seen as a technique that other countries don't use it nor am I saying that we only use fingerprints in death penalty cases.

What I am saying is that the death penalty holds us to a very high standard, a standard we can't meet, but the attempt to meet that standard is where many of our greatest advances have come.

 

[ZNP]

You seem to also forget that a strong push for improving detection techniques is to catch perpetrators not just to prove guilt once you've caught them. That certainly drove both fingerprinting and DNA a lot more than possible innocent might have done.

My comments have been brief and should not in any way be construed as comprehensive, simply the main point.

 

[wing2000]

Get back on topic....

 

[Kentonio]

Historical fact, Fingerprints, DNA, and many, many more advances were made during death penalty cases. These advances are then applied to all cases and everyone benefits, not just in the US but in Europe, etc.

There is no reason to debate this, just look it up.

Many advances were made by scientists at universities who were brought it pro bono because it was a death penalty case. Yes, these are facts.

I am not saying every forensic advancement, nor am I saying that once fingerprints are seen as a technique that other countries don't use it nor am I saying that we only use fingerprints in death penalty cases.

What I am saying is that the death penalty holds us to a very high standard, a standard we can't meet, but the attempt to meet that standard is where many of our greatest advances have come.

They weren’t made during death penalty cases, they were just first used in capital crimes which is logical, especially for fingerprinting which was first used in a time when lots of crimes were capital offenses. Both followed years and years of hard scientific work that started long before those cases.

 

[Kentonio]

My comments have been brief and should not in any way be construed as comprehensive, simply the main point.

Ok, you’re literally the first person I’ve ever spoken to who defends the death penalty using this argument. I’ve heard hundreds of defenses of it, but this one truly is unique to me. I’m having trouble deciding if you’re being completely serious.

 

[wing2000]

Trump's faith, death penalty, abortion....all off topic....

 

[ZNP]

Ok, you’re literally the first person I’ve ever spoken to who defends the death penalty using this argument. I’ve heard hundreds of defenses of it, but this one truly is unique to me. I’m having trouble deciding if you’re being completely serious.

I taught Forensics, I taught all these advances and it hit me that again, and again these advances were being made when someone was facing a trial with a death penalty. This was not a coincidence. They went to the scientists and said "he'll be executed if we don't do this", they refused to convict someone until they were sure because they knew they would be executed.

We talked about the innocence project and it hit me, all of these exonerations were using techniques that were first used in a death penalty case and because it was a death penalty case.

When I read the debates about the death penalty they said again and again that the death penalty is not a deterrent to criminals, but no one mentioned that it was a motivating factor to learn the truth to lawyers, scientists, and police.

 

[Kentonio]

I taught Forensics, I taught all these advances and it hit me that again, and again these advances were being made when someone was facing a trial with a death penalty. This was not a coincidence. They went to the scientists and said "he'll be executed if we don't do this", they refused to convict someone until they were sure because they knew they would be executed.

We talked about the innocence project and it hit me, all of these exonerations were using techniques that were first used in a death penalty case and because it was a death penalty case.

When I read the debates about the death penalty they said again and again that the death penalty is not a deterrent to criminals, but no one mentioned that it was a motivating factor to learn the truth to lawyers, scientists, and police.

Under a system that has the death penalty than sure death penalty cases are always going to grab the focus of attention for people, but I think its a mistake to take that extra step into thinking they're the only reason. In countries like mine where we don't have the death penalty you still have massive interest in people trying to prove the guilty or innocent of people sentenced or potentially about to be sentenced to long jail sentences.

 

[Speedwell]

In case I was not clear enough for a five year old to understand let me reiterate.

It seems pretty clear, even for a five year old.

I have only talked to a few Christians who voted for him, generally what I learned is that his stance on abortion and Israel matched theirs, and they despised Clinton. One told me the election was about SCOTUS. The fact that Trump's behavior was not Christian they saw as a phony argument. Clinton is not Christian, so voting for a Christian candidate was not a choice and too many times the "moral" candidate turns out to be the bigger liar, so they were voting for issues that mattered to them.

In addition they point out how incredibly hypocritical it is for atheists and agnostics to bring this up. Since neither candidate would have qualified as the "Christian" candidate what they are really arguing is for Christians to just not vote.

 

[ZNP]

It seems pretty clear, even for a five year old.

The claim made was that someone who is pro life could not be for Trump because he has behaved in a way that is not pro life. The initial claim was not about what someone claims, but about how someone acts. Using that metric to say that Trump is not pro life, you can then use the same metric to say he has not professed the faith, don't care if he claims to be a Christian, he has not held to a good conscience as evidenced by his visit to the church for a rally during a pandemic, which in turn means he is shipwrecked according to the faith if he ever had the faith. The Spirit clearly says that in the end times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits. Now since I was not judging whether or not Trump was a Christian by what he claimed but rather by what he did, the same measure needs to apply to Clinton.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1Tim 6:10 Maybe she once had the faith, I don't know, it is not for me to determine, but if she has committed fraud and put the entire nation at risk in order to get money, well it is clear, she has wandered from the faith.

Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith. This discussion that a Christian should not vote for Trump because his actions are clearly not according to the New Testament but should vote for Clinton because she says she is a "christian" even though her actions would say otherwise is hypocrisy. The entire discussion is godless chatter. Why should someone from France have any say in how we vote in the US? Why should an atheist and an agnostic tell a Christian what is the christian way for them to vote?

 

[wing2000]

The Arizona AG slapped a cease and desist order on the business:

“Businesses cannot mislead consumers with their advertising, especially when it comes to health issues as serious as COVID-19,” Brnovich wrote. “We will not tolerate companies or individuals attempting to deceive or exploit the public during this public health crisis.”

A similar warning was sent to Dream City Church regarding the "public representations" it made about the air filtration system it had purchased from Clean Air EXP, particularly the claim that the system "kills 99% of COVID within 10 minutes."

The church also claimed "when you come into (the church's) auditorium, 99% of COVID is gone" and that "...when you come down here, you'll be safe and protected."

...of course they do...

Leaders from the Dream City Church, which has locations in Phoenix and Scottsdale, are claiming in a Facebook post that they’ve installed new technology that “kills 99% of Coronavirus” through “ionization” within 10 minutes. A local company -- conveniently owned by church members -- developed the technology, they say.

I can almost hear Trump putting in a plug tomorrow night....

Problem solved? The Arizona church hosting a Trump rally claims it can kill COVID-19

 

[cow451]

There's more to Pro-Life than abortion. Being Pro-Life would take an opposition to abortion certainly but being Pro-Life also includes capital punishment and euthanasia. It doesn't stop there, you'd need to be in favor of adequate healthcare measures, addressing education, poverty and hunger and closure to what seems like a never ending series wars. Being pro-life would include protecting the environment and being mindful of the stewardship God gave man in this area.
Trump is not pro-life and has not governed as Pro-Life.
He has merely tossed evangelicals an anti-abortion bone to gnaw on with no meat on it.

I’ll go so far as to say that a significant number, of not a majority, of Americans are not really “ProLife”, but anti-abortion. After a child is born, a lot of the “Pro” fades...IMHO