-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Ummm no. First, my argument is that it's unjust to lock non-violent low grade offenders up for crimes that don't warrant it. Secondly, for those that do, the sentences should be reasonable. Languishing for decades in prison over non-violent low grade offenses is cruel and unusual punishment and violates our Constitution not to mention natural law and scriptural principles.
Finally, I made a point that because we're locking up non-violent low grade offenders for long periods of time anyways we've created a sprawling prison-industrial complex... literally an extremely costly, unnecessary, and undesirable gulag system within our nation.
And this is coming from a conservative that believes in the death penalty for all first-degree murderers and life sentences for other types of serious violent criminals that don't murder. So please don't make up stuff about me Rachel that isn't true. Thanking you in advance for that my totalitarian friend.
Finally, I made a point that because we're locking up non-violent low grade offenders for long periods of time anyways we've created a sprawling prison-industrial complex... literally an extremely costly, unnecessary, and undesirable gulag system within our nation.
And this is coming from a conservative that believes in the death penalty for all first-degree murderers and life sentences for other types of serious violent criminals that don't murder. So please don't make up stuff about me Rachel that isn't true. Thanking you in advance for that my totalitarian friend.
Good post
It's wild how people kick you when your down, he said long ago that he agrees with Mr.Ham (creationist) on about 98% of what he believes. He's debated plenty of folks at a lot of different universities, he sticks to creation beliefs. He was handed these structuring charges... Period.
I can't even call this guy a criminal for not casting pearls before swine... A criminal to me is someone hurting others in some form or fashion.. but if he did all this time for this, why is no one from the irs doing time for targeting individuals ?
It's wild how people kick you when your down, he said long ago that he agrees with Mr.Ham (creationist) on about 98% of what he believes. He's debated plenty of folks at a lot of different universities, he sticks to creation beliefs. He was handed these structuring charges... Period.
I can't even call this guy a criminal for not casting pearls before swine... A criminal to me is someone hurting others in some form or fashion.. but if he did all this time for this, why is no one from the irs doing time for targeting individuals ?
D
There definitely is. I haven't reviewed any of the evidence regarding the accusations but yes, propaganda abounds. Both on the for and against side. I don't know if he's guilty or not, but either way I'm not going to judge him. The world will keep on turning if I decide not to pass moral judgement on someone.
All I really know about the guy is that I seen him make some very good points in a debate a long time ago, before he went to jail. He made logical mistakes here and there, yes....but he also presented a lot of very sound logical arguments that were way better than what you usually see when a creationist debates with an evolutionist. To be quite frank about it, most Scientific based Apologists absolutely suck at what they are trying to do even though they mean well. Hovind had some really good moments in that regard.
For example, he once said something along the lines of "Ok, im going to have you tell me how a computer came to be.....but theres one catch.....you can't say man created it. How did it get there?". I thought that was really useful philosophically, because thats basically the parameters creationists are pressured to answer within. God is not allowed to even be considered as a possibility in tenured academia. Really is a strong thought exercise when you think about how much more complex our bodies are compared to computers.
We know alot about our bodies but there are still a LOT of things we don't understand and we cant produce one from scratch aside from reproduction....yet the possibility of us being created deliberately and intelligently is somehow supposed to be foolish and illogical, and even being open to investigating the possibility seems to be reason enough for a scientist to be shunned by their peers. There is no rationality in the approach mainstream academia is taking and even agnostics can recognize that pretty easily.
I think philosophical thought experiments like Hovind presented there really can have a positive impact with agnostic people. Its better than the argument type debates that produces no fruit and encourages no sincere inquiry on either side, which sadly seems to be the norm.
All I really know about the guy is that I seen him make some very good points in a debate a long time ago, before he went to jail. He made logical mistakes here and there, yes....but he also presented a lot of very sound logical arguments that were way better than what you usually see when a creationist debates with an evolutionist. To be quite frank about it, most Scientific based Apologists absolutely suck at what they are trying to do even though they mean well. Hovind had some really good moments in that regard.
For example, he once said something along the lines of "Ok, im going to have you tell me how a computer came to be.....but theres one catch.....you can't say man created it. How did it get there?". I thought that was really useful philosophically, because thats basically the parameters creationists are pressured to answer within. God is not allowed to even be considered as a possibility in tenured academia. Really is a strong thought exercise when you think about how much more complex our bodies are compared to computers.
We know alot about our bodies but there are still a LOT of things we don't understand and we cant produce one from scratch aside from reproduction....yet the possibility of us being created deliberately and intelligently is somehow supposed to be foolish and illogical, and even being open to investigating the possibility seems to be reason enough for a scientist to be shunned by their peers. There is no rationality in the approach mainstream academia is taking and even agnostics can recognize that pretty easily.
I think philosophical thought experiments like Hovind presented there really can have a positive impact with agnostic people. Its better than the argument type debates that produces no fruit and encourages no sincere inquiry on either side, which sadly seems to be the norm.
A
If I were president, I'd publicly rebuke Kent for failing to obey the law and pay taxes reminding him that Jesus Christ Himself instructed it and then I'd give him a full pardon, fire the federal prosecutor in charge of his case, and call on Congress to impeach the judge in his case for violating the Constitution in issuing a sentence that comprises "cruel and unusual punishment."
I have no problem with tax evaders being sentenced to a federal prison for tax evasion and all the assorted charges the prosecution always piles up like a mountain that range from structuring to obstruction to conspiracy to pretty much anything else they can add to get a life sentence which constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
I have no problem with tax evaders being sentenced to a federal prison for tax evasion and all the assorted charges the prosecution always piles up like a mountain that range from structuring to obstruction to conspiracy to pretty much anything else they can add to get a life sentence which constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
A
Sorry, I was on the phone when I wrote that second paragraph. What I mean is I have no problem with tax evaders being sentenced to a federal prison for tax evasion; however, the sentence should be reasonable and piling up a bunch of ancillary charges developed to defeat organized crime to get a life sentence for a non-violent low grade offender who has zero to do with organized crime is a miscarriage of justice and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution of the United States.
I am of the belief that Federal Income Tax created by Lincoln to be illegal and unconstitutional.
Are federal income taxes legal?
Anti-Lincoln Page
Are federal income taxes legal?
Anti-Lincoln Page
Last edited:
