re: Illegal rapes 16 year old girl in her home?

Why would a sheriff or prosecutor release an illegal rapist back into society?

Because they got leftist money to run their campaign and had to sign onto a leftist raft of positions to keep that sweet, sweet commie money flowing into their campaign coffers.

quote:

---

Why would a sheriff or prosecutor release an illegal rapist back into society?

---

It's an interesting question. Most of those instances occurred in Massachusetts.

The basis for those is the MA Supreme Court 2017 Lunn decision. Jose Lunn was an illegal immigrant arrested in Massachusetts for an undisclosed supposedly non-violent crime. He was determined to be eligible for bail, and bail was set. However, ICE had an administrative detainer for Lunn, and notified authorities. So Lunn was held in custody after he had posted bail. He challenged his prolonged detention as unlawful.

The core question was "Do Massachusetts court officers or sheriffs have legal authority under state law to hold someone solely on an ICE immigration detainer?" The Massachusetts Supreme Court said "No, they do not have that authority."

Their "rationale"?
ICE detainers are based on civil, not criminal, immigration law. The Court held that as Massachusetts officers can’t make civil immigration arrests, detaining someone is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Without state authorization, that seizure is unlawful.

Congress could fix this in an instant by declaring illegal entry into the US a criminal offense. But Congress is worthless. So states can basically do as they please in circumventing ICE requests.

These stories should be everywhere.

quote:

---

Yet “God” killed David’s son due to David’s sin, which “God” promised he would not do in Ezekiel 18:20, Deuteronomy 24:16, and Jeremiah 31:29-30.

---

God promised no such thing. Those passages speak of human injustice. It's like how God has the authority, right, and prerogative to take the lives of His creation but man has no authority, right, or prerogative to do the same on his own.

David's son was not morally responsible for David's sin. His death was not a punishment against the child for David's sin, but a consequence of David's sin, and a punishment against David.

quote:

---

And for someone to NOT punish someone for breaking the law, that would in fact be breaking the law, the covenant with Yahweh. So morality and judgment and punishment are intertwined.

---

They are related, but shouldn't be conflated. A king pardoning a thief doesn't negate the fact that theft is still wrong or illegal.

quote:

---

When David raped Bathsheba, the crime wasn’t against Bathsheba. It was against Uriah the Hittite for violating his personal property. Men could have sex with any woman he chose, as long as the woman wasn’t married to another Israelite. Any woman the man violated was fine as long as he paid the father the bride price. Read the Bible, Foo.

---

I think you're confusing things. David committed adultery by having sex with another man's wife. It's why he tried to cover it up and have Uriah killed rather than claiming he had a right to it

quote:

---

You should read the Bible. In the verses I referenced, it is Yahweh doing the judging, not human courts. You made that up, as usual.

---

You always forget to read the rest of the verses. Your inability to understand context makes you look silly every time you try to interpret the Bible.

quote:

---

quote:

---

God did not hold David’s child morally responsible for David’s sins

---

quote:

---

13David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child who is born to you shall die.” 15Then Nathan went to his house.

---

---

Those statements are not contradictory. The death of the child was not a punishment on the child, but on David. There's a difference between a consequence impacting others, and guilt of the sinner that leads to the consequence. I keep repeating it in hopes that it will eventually sink in.

quote:

---

It’s like you are getting even more retarded.

---

I wouldn't be throwing out words like "stupid" and "retarded" when you are the one failing basic reading comprehension and logic.

quote:

---

Early apologists had to attempt to rationalize the contradiction. There are more in those genealogies. Joseph is both the son of Heli and of Jacob. Joseph is of the lineage of Solomon in one and Nathan in the other (two different sons of David). There are many more actually just in the genealogies.

---

There are sufficient explanations to do away with the notion of "contradiction" (which you still fail to understand the meaning of the word).

If one is able to "rationalize the contradiction", then that means it's not necessarily a contradiction. I hope you figure that out eventually.

quote:

---

Weird as compared to common thought, maybe. But it’s based on evidence. The Ascension (Vision) of Isaiah may have been part of or maybe even “the” scriptures referenced by him in 1 Corinthians as to the “fact” that Jesus had died and was resurrected, and that early Christian scripture matches Paul’s “gospel” message to the highest degree. And in that scripture, Elyon literally manufactured a fleshly body created from the sperm of David to give to Yahweh to go down to the lowest heaven to be crucified by the leader of the archons of this aeon. None of the archons would’ve done that had they known who he was. It was a secret plan. (Vision of Isaiah plus 1 Corinthians 2)

---

You are trying to interpret one verse in light of texts that weren't considered holy Scripture rather than interpreting that verse in light of surrounding verses by the same author in the same letter. It's as if you just pick and choose which individual words you want to pay attention to. It's comical that you turn around and say you're just going off of the evidence. You ignore the evidence that is right there in the same writings

quote:

---

Only one of us takes the historical position, and it ain’t you!

---

Hah, not quite. You ignore the very texts you are cherry-picking from, as well as the historical interpretations of those very texts.

You are not exhibiting intellectualism. You are exhibiting moral corruption.

quote:

---

I neither want nor don’t want it to be contradictory. I do want to understand the truth of our reality, unlike you. It’s not good enough for me to make up unlikely and nearly impossible things which are not in evidence to explain contradictions. That’s not satisfying to me. I’d rather know and understand what is most likely or proven beyond a doubt.

---

I don't care what is "satisfying" to you. I'm going off of the text and its context. You are picking words and verses out of its context and interpreting them in light of unrelated texts or beliefs that you try to connect in order to prove a point that doesn't fit the evidence provided. It's why I keep referring to you as a conspiracy theorist: you keep trying to make unrelated connections fit while ignoring facts that blow up your narrative.

You obviously do want there to be contradictions. Instead of listening to explanations of how a logical contradiction does not necessarily exist, you dismiss every defense on its face, just repeating the same thing over and over again, that it has to be a contradiction because you don't believe the reasoning provided against your assertion.

I'll say it again: a logical contradiction does not exist if a plausible clarifying explanation does exist. Just because it doesn't "satisfy" you doesn't mean a contradiction exists.

everyday

Was this a tinder date?

Not a democrat voter in the USA sees anything wrong with this

the post doesn't really mention how he came to be there? did he break into this house to rape an underage girl while her parents were unaware? He must have known her?

That level of evil blows my mind. I am quicker to forgive "crimes of passion" but this sh!t had to be premeditated.

Bad toupee

Looks like he would vote democrat.