WILLOWTREE

Hi Ameleq:

I appreciate the fact that you are debating unlike the others who have conceded via insults that anyone can post.

Ameleq: Objection! Defense counsel is changing the subject, your honor. If we might have the record read back:

Ameleq: It is clear that establishing that "whatever God says will happen" is entirely irrelevant to the question.

With regard to the actual charge, the Defense appears to vacillate between circularly redefining the concept of "moral" to the point of meaninglessness and tacitly acknowledging his Client's guilt:

Willowtree: But your Honor, my Client has no peers and IF He IS then whatever He does is righteous BECAUSE nobody can put Him in His place.

This fact MEANS that my Client's subjective views are objective truth.

This fact means "righteousness" is whatever my client says it is.

What the prosecution fails to understand is the position of authority that you yourself occupy, like my Client, you Sir, determine the application of the law and its requirements in regards to guilt or innocence. You my Honor make all the decisions and especially the final ones.

My Client is no different. He has decided that whatever He audibly utters (as recorded in the written word - already entered into evidence) He is bound to perform regardless of who it affects - even Himself. He spared not the children NOR His Son on that cross when He yelled, "My God My God why have You forsaken Me ?"

What we have here your Honor is an attempt by the prosecution to define "morality" by a standard that presupposes the guilt of my Client.

The point here, your Honor, is that your authority, like my Client's is absolute.

The prosecution wants the authority of my Client undermined. I ask that you reiterate to Counsel that YOU are the Boss and that this issue is not debateable.

I contend the deaths of the children amounted to a "tragic decision" CONSISTENT with the larger concern of establishing an immutable lesson that proves whatever my Client says will happen. There is no integrity or reason to believe that whatever my Client says will happen UNLESS it ALWAYS applies no matter what. When this is ascertained it provides the hearer with the confidence to believe my Client will keep His word to them based on other utterances found elsewhere in the record/Bible.

Could the immutable lesson be taught without having to kill children ?

My Client commands me to respond by saying the following: Whatever I do is righteous.

Absolute adherence to the immutable lesson is designed to prevent untold amounts of other persons from not taking seriously the only way to escape the looming judgement of hell and its saving agent - the Gospel.

Therefore, your Honor, the deaths of the children is a righteous and moral act because it is intended to prevent the eternal deaths of persons too inumerable to count.

My Client DID NOT have to make known the said incident - He did so to make ONE grand point: Good or bad whatever He says will happen.

I contend your Honor that the publishing of the said horrible event demonstrates the integrity of my Client, namely that He will do whatever He says and on this basis IF He will do and perform that which harms children how much more will He keep His word pertaining to good things promised.

I move for summary rejection of prosecutorial attempt to have this trial narrowly focused on the incident out of context from the entire testimony of my Client found in His written word.

JUDGE: Counsel....

Ameleq: Clearly, your Honor, this redefinition renders the entire trial a farce and constitutes a waste of The Court's precious bandwidth. The only rational way this trial can be conducted is by consistently applying the same standards defining "moral behavior" to humans to the Defendent.

However, I believe a careful consideration of the Defense Counsel's other statements will reveal that, within the abovedescribed context, he has essentially acknowledged his Client's guilt.

Willowtree: Counsel is repeating themself your Honor and evading the intent and motivations of my Client.

My Client is subject and bound to His own word even to His own hurt. This is demonstrated in the events of the life of His Son. Morals that were created by my Client cannot be elevated above my Client.

May I remind the Court that the larger context as already described makes the deaths of the children necessary OR the perfect record of my Client in performing His word would be ruined. This tragedy THEN would provide the basis for the Enemy to sow the invulnerable doubt that when my Client forgives sins maybe they really aren't forgiven ? This would create a greater tragedy affecting untold more persons than 42 children !

My Client never denied His guilt - He killed the children - this is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is IF there was reasonable justification for doing so.

If the court weighs all the testimony then it must conclude that my Client was justified in accordance with His immutable objective to always perform what He says, that when this is realized it gives a rational basis for faith to trust my Client which is His goal.

Ameleq: as a mistake, i.e. immoral, for the Prophet to make the curse, it can only be considered even more immoral to fulfill it.

Lest there be any confusion, Defense Counsel makes it quite clear that he considers the act of causing bears to kill children an immoral act:

Willowtree: Your Honor, my Client has taken full responsibility for His Prophets words. It is not immoral IF the preceding rationale is recognized. That preceding rationale explains why my Client did what He did.

Ameleq: Thus we see that the Defense offers nothing but a logically flawed redefinition of the term "moral" while, within the context of a definition of "moral" as applied to all humanity, clearly acknowledging that the behavior attributed to the Accused in his own Book can only be considered immoral.

Willowtree: Your Honor, IF my Client failed to carry out His Prophets unfortunate words THEN what silences the criticism that maybe our sins are not forgiven ?

Ameleq: In view of this evidence, your Honor, the Accused can only be found guilty.

Willowtree: Guilty of what ? Keeping His word your Honor ? My Client pleads guilty to keeping His word ! If He will keep His word to the hurt of children then how much more will He keep His word in the good promises based on the blood of His Son ?

JUDGE: the Court is in recess....

WILLOWTREE

JUDGE: Counsel ....

Willowtree: My Client wishes to take the stand and testify....

JUDGE: Place your left hand on the Covenant and raise your right hand.....do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help Yourself ?

GOD: I do.

JUDGE: Prosecution the Witness is all yours....

Sven

contrast this with:

So he obviously knows how to write scholary and has already done it to get his degree.

As long as you don't provide any shred of reason why he doesn't write up his work any more, it's fair to say that he refuses to publish.

Vorkosigan

This is prime ~E~.

Vorkosigan

funinspace

Regargding TeleScotty:
I'll take that as a refusal to substanciate your claims, and since your words are so apropos. It seams that you "have conceded via insults that anyone can post". It sounds like you just don't like the questions and the requests for you to substanciate your unsupported claims regarding Hitler or TeleScotty. TeleScotty kind of has a ring doesn't it? :devil3: Or maybe Gong?

WILLOWTREE

Dr. Scott has never published so your comment saying " anymore" is incorrect.

Dr. Scott just began his 30th year teaching the Bible and related subjects on T.V., Satellite, Internet, Short Wave Radio.

Those mediums are the only way to access his research.

Dr. Scott could care less about "peer review" or other crowd pleasing gimmicks.

The ranting against him is caused by his research and the worldwide classroom that he commands.

As I already have evidenced - the majority is always wrong.

Anytime any of you hate mongers can produce any evidence to refute any of his research please cough it up. Until then you are jealous tabloid lackeys doing what comes easy - speading lies.

WT

WILLOWTREE

The real reason the topic was moved was because of my arguments and the inability to refute.

In protest, I quit this topic.

WT

funinspace

:rolling: And once again...rants totally ignoring the actual questions that should be simply answerable, and then runs off, apparently unable to substanciate his claims of "eminent" and "world leading authority" for TeleScotty.
:rolling: :rolling:

Weltall

Door, ass etc. Come back when you feel like having a reasonable discussion.

Sven

Then he can not have the title "Dr.". Quite simple: You have to publish your PhD thesis before you can use this title. We still have a contradiction here.

If he doesn't care, he also should not expect to be taken serious by anyone. Also quite simple.

:rolling:
More unsupported assertions.

:rolling:
Oh, then the Earth isn't a globe?

OK, I agree, Vork, this is indeed prime ~E~
:rolling: