A Sign From the Lord

Originally posted by @thinkofone

Was this a valid sign from the Lord? Why or why not?
...

How could we tell?

In general, is this a valid approach to problem solving? Why or why not?

We can believe anything on faith. Clearly we need other systems too.

Should an individual who subscribes to such an approach be allowed to hold a position that can have such a large impact on the lives of others?

.
Sure. You haven't claimed that the individuals approach is the cause of such large impacts.

Originally posted by @secondson
So adding more information after the fact is very clever.

From the OP we're told the prosecutor was born again just after the start of the trial. Then when was it that he said he was looking for a sign? Decades later, or immediately after his conversion at the start of the trial?

How long did the trial last? 3 months, six?

If the documentary was ...[text shortened]... ortunity and a platform to launch your church hating and Christian maligning agenda. That's why.

Not only do you repeatedly show how you draw the most nonsensical conclusions, evidently you have reading comprehension problems as well.

From the OP we're told the prosecutor was born again just after the start of the trial. Then when was it that he said he was looking for a sign? Decades later, or immediately after his conversion at the start of the trial?

In the OP the prosecutor says things such as, "So when I got this case, I turned the case over to the Lord.." and "On the day we had the start of the hearing". So clearly he was looking for a "sign" at the start of the trial.

The fact that he brought it up decades later in response to the investigator saying, "So inconsistencies in his confession - you said that's not enough" tells you that he still believes that it was "a sign [to him that he] was doing the right thing and that the Lord was with [him] through all the process".

If the documentary was about "a team of investigators that seek to prove the innocence of those wrongfully convicted", then what's the point in including the information concerning the prosecutor's conversion?

Once again, the prosecutor is the one who chose to bring it up in response to the investigator saying, "So inconsistencies in his confession - you said that's not enough". It's really simple. The prosecutor was asked about an issue and that was his response. What part of that can't you understand? It makes absolutely no sense to conclude that "The investigators found a babe in Christ to humiliate. The documentary was a setup. " He wasn't a "babe in Christ" at the time the issue was brought up in the interview. He wasn't "setup" to provide information about his conversion.

Originally posted by @secondson
Seeking a sign is a sign of superstition.
...

Oh no! we better seek those signs of superstition so that this never happens to us!

Originally posted by @apathist
Oh no! we better seek those signs of superstition so that this never happens to us!

I think seeking a sign is akin to putting God to the test, which is a big no no. It’s like human beings saying, “All right, God, here are my terms. If you do X, I’ll do Y. But if you don’t do X, or if you do Z, I’ll do Q.”

Can you imagine if every believer on earth was doing that nonsense? How is that a relationship with God?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Not only do you repeatedly show how you draw the most nonsensical conclusions, evidently you have reading comprehension problems as well.

[b]From the OP we're told the prosecutor was born again just after the start of the trial. Then when was it that he said he was looking for a sign? Decades later, or immediately after his conversion at the start of ...[text shortened]... was brought up in the interview. He wasn't "setup" to provide information about his conversion.

"He wasn't a "babe in Christ" at the time the issue was brought up in the interview. He wasn't "setup" to provide information about his conversion."

"The fact that he brought it up decades later in response to the investigator saying, "So inconsistencies in his confession - you said that's not enough" tells you that he still believes that it was "a sign [to him that he] was doing the right thing and that the Lord was with [him] through all the process"."

Right! So decades later the prosecutor is still a babe in Christ believing in signs.

I guess he set himself up, and you capitalized on it to malign Christians with this thread. Part of how you did that was in providing insufficient information.

For example - what you posted said that the inconsistencies in the murderer's confession with the forensic evidence meant that prosecution couldn't be made based on evidence alone, so the prosecutor sought a sign to as evidence to move forward with a trial, but nothing in your OP said anything about what forensic evidence there was, what the confession was, and how they were inconsistent. No, you simply posted enough information to proving a platform from which to denunciate Christians.

Apparently the jury found the guy guilty.

I wouldn't want that lawyer as my defense attorney.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I think seeking a sign is akin to putting God to the test, which is a big no no. It’s like human beings saying, “All right, God, here are my terms. If you do X, I’ll do Y. But if you don’t do X, or if you do Z, I’ll do Q.”

Can you imagine if every believer on earth was doing that nonsense? How is that a relationship with God?

What God? Where is it?

I have a magical fairy in my pocket. She won't hurt you though.

Originally posted by @secondson
[b]"He wasn't a "babe in Christ" at the time the issue was brought up in the interview. He wasn't "setup" to provide information about his conversion."

"The fact that he brought it up decades later in response to the investigator saying, "So inconsistencies in his confession - you said that's not enough" tells you that he still believes that it ...[text shortened]... Apparently the jury found the guy guilty.

I wouldn't want that lawyer as my defense attorney.

My previous posts have clearly illustrated your reading comprehension problems as well how you repeatedly draw the most nonsensical conclusions. Once again it's obvious you aren't all that bright and never have been. Instead of humbly accepting this about yourself, you've once again chosen to ignore this and continue on in the same vein.

Once again, shouldn't you humbly accept the truth about yourself? And stop responding with even more nonsense?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
My previous posts have clearly illustrated your reading comprehension problems as well how you repeatedly draw the most nonsensical conclusions. Once again it's obvious you aren't all that bright and never have been. Instead of humbly accepting this about yourself, you've once again chosen to ignore this and continue on in the same vein.

Once again, s ...[text shortened]... ouldn't you humbly accept the truth about yourself? And stop responding with even more nonsense?

Why do you always find it necessary to question a person's intelligence? Is that a projection of your own intellectual insecurity?

Recent studies have shown that 'kindness' is an 'intelligent behavior' (kindness being less destructive). It is more strategic and does not favor "crushing one's enemies". Those who are not kind may crush that which is not the enemy, and therefore unknowingly do themselves harm. An intelligent and kind person may elect not to crush a bee that is actually a helpful pollinator, whereas dumber and more mean people go about crushing bees, thereby interfering with the pollination process that is critical to the success of all living things.' - Deborah Edelen.

When did 'you' last post something kind? Not only is that the Christian thing to do, it is also the 'intelligent' thing to do.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Why do you always find it necessary to question a person's intelligence? Is that a projection of your own intellectual insecurity?

Recent studies have shown that 'kindness' is an 'intelligent behavior' (kindness being less destructive). It is more strategic and does not favor "crushing one's enemies". Those who are not kind may crush that which i ...[text shortened]... hing kind? Not only is that the Christian thing to do, it is also the 'intelligent' thing to do.

[Why do you always find it necessary to question a person's intelligence? Is that a projection of your own intellectual insecurity?

Says the guy who just started a thread entitled "Atheists do better at IQ tests". What utter and blatant hypocrisy.

Yet another trolling post by GoaD. GoaD started as a troll. He continues as a troll. See the following thread for an example of his early efforts. 

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/john-858.164426 

The following thread is another early example of GoaD's trolling. Note how his posts were in an effort to "stir the pot". 

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/salvation.165585 

This is nothing new from GoaD. He has been underhanded and deceitful from the beginning.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[[b]Why do you always find it necessary to question a person's intelligence? Is that a projection of your own intellectual insecurity?

Says the guy who just started a thread entitled "Atheists do better at IQ tests". What utter and blatant hypocrisy.

Yet another trolling post by GoaD. GoaD started as a troll. He continues as a troll. See the fo ...[text shortened]... 585 

This is nothing new from GoaD. He has been underhanded and deceitful from the beginning.[/b]

Ah, the spam post already removed twice by the Mods.

Is your lack of originality another indication of your intellectual insecurity?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Ah, the spam post already removed twice by the Mods.

Is your lack of originality another indication of your intellectual insecurity?

Even here GoaD once again shows his underhandedness in pretending that he wasn't called out on his utter and blatant hypocrisy.

It's part and parcel of his trolling MO.

GoaD started as a troll. He continues as a troll. See the following thread for an example of his early efforts.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/john-858.164426

The following thread is another early example of GoaD's trolling. Note how his posts were in an effort to "stir the pot".

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/salvation.165585

This is nothing new from GoaD. He has been underhanded and deceitful from the beginning.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[[b]Why do you always find it necessary to question a person's intelligence? Is that a projection of your own intellectual insecurity?

Says the guy who just started a thread entitled "Atheists do better at IQ tests". What utter and blatant hypocrisy.

Yet another trolling post by GoaD. GoaD started as a troll. He continues as a troll. See the fo ...[text shortened]... 585 

This is nothing new from GoaD. He has been underhanded and deceitful from the beginning.[/b]

Let's take a look at your 'hypocrisy' allegation in regards to your own conduct in this forum. In one thread you post:

"None of your posts have addressed John 15:9-10. Instead your posts have been a string of various forms of ad hominem attack."


And then, directed at the very same person, you post the following hypocritical ad hominem attack:

" Once again it's obvious you aren't all that bright and never have been. Instead of humbly accepting this about yourself, you've once again chosen to ignore this and continue on in the same vein."


Perhaps ad hominem attacks only count as such when you are on the receiving end?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Let's take a look at your 'hypocrisy' allegation in regards to your own conduct in this forum. In one thread you post:

"None of your posts have addressed John 15:9-10. Instead your posts have been a string of various forms of ad hominem attack."


And then, directed at the very same person, you post the following hypocritical ad hominem attack ...[text shortened]... ame vein."


Perhaps ad hominem attacks only count as such when you are on the receiving end?

Is this the best use of your time?

Is this normal behavior from a mental health professional who supervises other mental health professionals?

Should we expect you to be on here all day trolling and thumbing down posts? Do you have no professional obligations to attend to?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Perhaps ad hominem attacks only count as such when you are on the receiving end?

Is an unfavorable assessment an ad hominem attack if it's true?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Is an unfavorable assessment an ad hominem attack if it's true?

To clarify your position, when ToO says to Secondson, "Once again it's obvious you aren't all that bright and never have been," his remarks are an unfavorable assessment rather than ad hominem? (Because you believe them to be true?! )