Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ImaAnt]

Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan]


    4No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
         They trust in confusion and speak lies;
         They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.

I think this text says it all.

OK.  Please tell me what you believe this text says.

[Johann]

Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan]


    4No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
         They trust in confusion and speak lies;
         They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.

I think this text says it all.

OK.  Please tell me what you believe this text says.

That chapter refers to people whose sins have separated themselves from God, even though they belong to the church, and are doing great work for the Lord. Separated from God they sue, but that is not honest. They trust in spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured.

It has just been announced that the Jewish Harvard professor who managed to get O. S. Simpson exonerated, is going to conduct a seminar for lawyers and judges at a school not far from where we live. In that connection quite a bit of information on him was found in the local news. I discovered there are so many parallels in how he got the guilty exonerated and how 3ABN is now trying to exonerate their former president. Even the methods you are using seems quite similar. That professor also wrote a book on the ten commandments. . . Truly, where do you find people suing righteously? Even if they write on the ten commandments.   

[ImaAnt]

That chapter refers to people whose sins have separated themselves from God, even though they belong to the church, and are doing great work for the Lord. Separated from God they sue, but that is not honest. They trust in spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured.

It has just been announced that the Jewish Harvard professor who managed to get O. S. Simpson exonerated, is going to conduct a seminar for lawyers and judges at a school not far from where we live. In that connection quite a bit of information on him was found in the local news. I discovered there are so many parallels in how he got the guilty exonerated and how 3ABN is now trying to exonerate their former president. Even the methods you are using seems quite similar. That professor also wrote a book on the ten commandments. . . Truly, where do you find people suing righteously? Even if they write on the ten commandments.   

Thank you for your explanation as it helps me understand what you have said.

Do you think that "spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured." is ever acceptable?

I also presume you are speaking of Alan Dershowitz and it would take quite a bit of ink to adequately describe his career and opinions or even review his books.  However, it would not surprise me that  Mr. Joy would tell you that  Professor Dershowitz's opinions regarding the first amendment are quite consistent with his own. 

To answer your question I think we would need a common definition of "righteously", would you agree?

[Johann]

Do you think that "spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured." is ever acceptable?

Never!

I also presume you are speaking of Alan Dershowitz and it would take quite a bit of ink to adequately describe his career and opinions or even review his books.  However, it would not surprise me that  Mr. Joy would tell you that  Professor Dershowitz's opinions regarding the first amendment are quite consistent with his own. 

Why not?

To answer your question I think we would need a common definition of "righteously", would you agree?

Undir these conditions a common definition of quite a few words anmd terms are essential. Some of these are:

honesty
truth
integrity
ideals
loyalty
faith
Scripture
justification
Three Angels Message

since most of these and other terms have been greatly depreciated by initiating the current court case. If we do not fight against this depreciation it will be difficult to meet the founding fathers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the resurrection.

I do not fear the threats against me by Mr. Appletree. I am willing to face prison or death as long as I stand for what I know is the truth in this matter. Are you?

[ImaAnt]

Do you think that "spinning - or confusion - so that the truth is obscured." is ever acceptable?

Never!

Thank you for the clear answer.

I also presume you are speaking of Alan Dershowitz and it would take quite a bit of ink to adequately describe his career and opinions or even review his books.  However, it would not surprise me that  Mr. Joy would tell you that  Professor Dershowitz's opinions regarding the first amendment are quite consistent with his own. 

Why not?

Some research online will reveal that Professor Dershowitz is quite well known for his defense of civil liberties as well as his constitutional scholarship.  This would include among other things that our first amendment rights should only be subject to very minimal if any censorship. 

You might find these comments by him nearly twelve years ago in June, 1996 enlightening:
http://underground-online.troybrophy.com/iu/archive/issue7/onwith7/

To answer your question I think we would need a common definition of "righteously", would you agree?

Undir these conditions a common definition of quite a few words anmd terms are essential. Some of these are:

honesty
truth
integrity
ideals
loyalty
faith
Scripture
justification
Three Angels Message

since most of these and other terms have been greatly depreciated by initiating the current court case. If we do not fight against this depreciation it will be difficult to meet the founding fathers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the resurrection.

I do not fear the threats against me by Mr. Appletree. I am willing to face prison or death as long as I stand for what I know is the truth in this matter. Are you?

It is unlikely you will face prison or death for standing up for what you believe in this matter, but your commitment is noted.  But that is not what we were discussing. (and your question “are you?” needs further clarification as to what you mean before I am able to answer).

Your response once again begs the question if you are applying the text that started our dialogue to this specific situation (3abn suing Joy and Pickle)  or as you said in post #61 “Truly, where do you find people suing righteously? Even if they write on the ten commandments. “

Do you think it was wrong or unethical for Mr. Dershowitz to defend OJ Simpson?  And for the purpose of answering the question, let's assume Mr. Dershowitz knew OJ was guilty of the crime he was charged with.

[Johann]

Last year I met seasoned defense lawyer, and we became immediately friends. He told me that some of his *worst* clients readily admitted to him that they had done even more that what they were accused of. But is was his job to defend them, regardless. And confidentiality forbade him revealing what he knew. So several of his real criminals went free. This, he told me, is to be a defense lawyer.

So, are you a defense lawyer under similar circumstances, since you are asking me about Mr. Dershowitz?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Ah, ImaAnt, an intellectual discussion!!!

The problem with your question is that you are asking a theologian whose entire foundation is based upon an ecclesiatical perspective of law and the orderly dispositive rule of christian conciliation to answer a question mired in the ethics of juris prudence and the contemporary American Bar, a clear dichotomy of ethics best defined as ecclesiastically challenged!!!

So, ImaAnt, do you seek an ecclesiastical answer seeking conciliation; or an answer steeped in the ethically challenged juris prudence of adversarial law?

One foundation or the other is essential to a sane discussion.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[ImaAnt]

Last year I met seasoned defense lawyer, and we became immediately friends. He told me that some of his *worst* clients readily admitted to him that they had done even more that what they were accused of. But is was his job to defend them, regardless. And confidentiality forbade him revealing what he knew. So several of his real criminals went free. This, he told me, is to be a defense lawyer.

Do you believe the above is responsive to my question concerning what you believe regarding Mr. Dershowitz's representation of OJ Simpson?

So, are you a defense lawyer under similar circumstances, since you are asking me about Mr. Dershowitz?

Am I wrong that the lawyer you refer to in post #61 was Professor Dershowitz?

[ImaAnt]

Ah, ImaAnt, an intellectual discussion!!!

LOL GAJ, so many ways to spin that but will restrain myself.

The problem with your question is that you are asking a theologian whose entire foundation is based upon an ecclesiatical perspective of law and the orderly dispositive rule of christian conciliation to answer a question mired in the ethics of juris prudence and the contemporary American Bar, a clear dichotomy of ethics best defined as ecclesiastically challenged!!!

Could you be more specific as to the question that I asked that you are responding to?  I am certain you have seen more often than not in posting on boards that assumptions lead to confused or non-responsive answers.

Regardless, a general response would be that we do not disagree that Johann responds from a different foundation but therein we have the frequent and ongoing problem with posts on many threads where confusion results from mixing the two disciplines in discussing these issues. 

So, ImaAnt, do you seek an ecclesiastical answer seeking conciliation; or an answer steeped in the ethically challenged juris prudence of adversarial law?

Since I prefer not to assume the meaning of a question that does not flow logically from the discussion that precedes it, are you asking GAJ if I believe that the lawsuit can be resolved without a trial on the merits?

One foundation or the other is essential to a sane discussion.
Gailon Arthur Joy

Concordamos

[Johann]

Last year I met seasoned defense lawyer, and we became immediately friends. He told me that some of his *worst* clients readily admitted to him that they had done even more that what they were accused of. But is was his job to defend them, regardless. And confidentiality forbade him revealing what he knew. So several of his real criminals went free. This, he told me, is to be a defense lawyer.

Do you believe the above is responsive to my question concerning what you believe regarding Mr. Dershowitz's representation of OJ Simpson?

So, are you a defense lawyer under similar circumstances, since you are asking me about Mr. Dershowitz?

Am I wrong that the lawyer you refer to in post #61 was Professor Dershowitz?

Do you believe the above is responsive to my question concerning what you believe regarding Mr. Dershowitz's representation of OJ Simpson?

So, are you a defense lawyer under similar circumstances, since you are asking me about Mr. Dershowitz?

Am I wrong that the lawyer you refer to in post #61 was Professor Dershowitz?

I was referring to what one defense lawyer told me is the job of a defense lawyer. I have no idea if that is universal or not.

Did you want me to help you get enrolled at his seminar? Under what name do you want to register? The principal is a theologian[Lutheran], so you might get some theological impressions as well.

[ImaAnt]

I was referring to what one defense lawyer told me is the job of a defense lawyer. I have no idea if that is universal or not.

Did you want me to help you get enrolled at his seminar? Under what name do you want to register? The principal is a theologian[Lutheran], so you might get some theological impressions as well.

Yes, but why so unwilling to acknowledge if Mr. Dershowitz is the "Jewish Harvard professor" that  is speaking at the seminar you brought up.  I believe that if I had been wrong that you were talking about Alan Dershowitz  that you would not have hesitated to correct my error so I can't fathom why you would not acknowlege if I am correct.  It would then have been possible to discuss which of his views might be consistent with those of Mr. Joy as I had stated.

And I appreciate the fact that you spoke with a defense attorney but it was your opinion I was interested in. 

[Johann]

Yes, but why so unwilling to acknowledge if Mr. Dershowitz is the "Jewish Harvard professor" that  is speaking at the seminar you brought up.  I believe that if I had been wrong that you were talking about Alan Dershowitz  that you would not have hesitated to correct my error so I can't fathom why you would not acknowlege if I am correct.  It would then have been possible to discuss which of his views might be consistent with those of Mr. Joy as I had stated.

I am extremely sorry I misjudged your willingness to add two and two and draw obvious conclusions. I guess I am too used to deal with people who do such things without any question. I should have taken your disposition into consideration. I apologize! But this helps me understand better why it is so difficult for you to understand and evaluate information I have given.

My major professor, who had been a missionary to India, told us about the leopard mother which chews the raw meat, gulps it down and digests it before spewing it out again before feeding it to her young. Then he added, that too many people demand fully digested material before they react. This taught us to think before we asked too obvious questions.

At the other extreme we have people who keep drawing unwarranted conclusions. Why is life so difficult?

[ImaAnt]

Let's try again, Johann.

You quoted Isaiah 59:4 (New American Standard Bible)

         No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly
         They trust in confusion and speak lies;
         They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.

However, as you posted elsewhere, not every version interpets this verse as "no one sues righteously" do they?  In fact, other versions do not use the word "sue" at all or am I wrong?  Am I inaccurate in my understanding that some interpret this to be referring to a break down of the court and justice system at that time and not an admonition that no should sue?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Which perspective? Ecclesiastical or Juris Prudence?

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Ozzie]

Which perspective? Ecclesiastical or Juris Prudence?

Gailon Arthur Joy

I too would be interested in learning which perspective he is referring to.