Just_A_Guy

Snow, you're a sharp guy. I think you already understand this; but let me spell it out for you. Sometime back, you implied that someone who acted as stated in some scriptures with regard to children would: (note: I'm now incorporating your own quote to make my point) Well, if I sent an innocent child to his/her death in order to spare a culpable one, do you think for a moment that I wouldn't a) have my temple recommend yanked; b) be excommunicated; c) go to jail; and d) be despised and reviled? Our ethics say that yes, I should be. Yet God the Father found it perfectly acceptable to do this to His own Son. And to my knowledge, no code of ethics condemns Him for it. You state that Christ gave Himself freely. Yet, in the pre-existence, so did we all. Was Jesus' antemortal decision to sacrifice Himself somehow more "valid" than our own antemortal decisions to subject ourselves to whatever might transpire during our mortal probation? Yes, there's the issue that Christ consented to His fate in this life as well. But then, He had a lot more first-hand knowledge than we enjoy. Who's to say that any child (or even an adult) having the same degree of knowledge of the Plan of Salvation as Christ did at the time of His sacrifice, wouldn't gladly consent to the Father's taking his life if the Father deemed it expedient to do so?

I've gone over the rest of your post. I think most of your concerns would be alleviated by just re-reading what I posted. I would, however, like to respond to the following: Scary, isn't it? But it is demonstrably true that God the Father has demonstrably done things that it would not be considered acceptable for a mortal to do--the sacrifice of His innocent Son being the paramount example. Snow, such an obvious appeal to emotion is not like you. But I will concede that man, deciding of himself to kill babies and acting on that decision is bad. To get back to your point, though: the simple truth is that you are the one trying to rewrite scripture; you are the one making (hitherto) dogmatic claims that God is bound to the same code of behavior that applies to us; and so you do bear the burden of proof. The right to question sacred cows is not yours alone.

Snow, I'd appreciate it if you read my post in full rather than just knee-jerk disagreeing or nit-picking at everything I said. Had you read the quoted section, you'd see I was incorporating your own words into my point. I'll respond further after I've had time to digest the remainder of your post.

It means what it says. Anyone who sent one of his innocent offspring to his death in order to spare other offspring who are more culpable would most likely So, by your own criteria, an atonement would be against God's established rules and we may safely disregard any scripture that mentions such a heretical event. Right? We are also told, by those same scriptures and prophets, that all creation belongs to God and that He exercises, to a greater or lesser degree, control over life and death. We can either make a serious effort to reconcile all of these statements--perhaps by allowing for the vast difference between ours and God's powers, responsibilities, and prerogatives--or we can simply disregard the scriptures and prophets who disagree with our own worldviews. You'd first have to establish a) that there's a universal standard of morality that is equally applicable to men (in all dispensations of time) as well as gods; and b) that under the aforementioned standard, there are no justifiable reasons for taking innocent life. I haven't seen you establish either. Until you do, I see the whole thing as boiling down to a matter of "I can administer My own property; and you--not being My duly appointed agent in this matter--cannot."

You mean, knowingly and intentionally send one Child to an excruciatingly painful death in order to save the other children from the consequences of their own stupid decisions? Somehow, I don't think God plays by our rules.

And so help me, if I have to pull this discussion thread over you two are walking all the way home!

Oh, the irony . . . (it's "Quayle"). You've been slacking off on your Michael Moore viewership. Where was President Bush the morning of 9/11?

A Doctor's Plan for Legal Industry Reform. Don't worry. If you like your current law firm, I promise you get to keep it.

Mmmm . . . cream cheese . . .

What, you haven't seen MOE's avatar lately?

I think I can diagnose your problem. Wait 'til you start studying for the bar! :) Seriously--there's been some good advice here, and I hope you take it. Also, have you talked to your dean of students? At my law school, the dean of students would bend over backwards to make sure the students' needs were being met. He/she may be able to put you in touch with some additional health care resources. Good luck.

Of course, I was amused by the following from the above-cited website: HA! How quickly we forget the webcasts of the inauguration.

As I understand it, though, the Catholic Tolkien was quite disappointed that Lewis chose Anglicanism. I seem to recall Tolkien complaining that Anglicanism was a "sorry impersonation of the Mother Church", or something to that effect. Can't win 'em all, I guess. :)

Am I the only one who thinks this is getting blown out of proportion? It's the president, not a porn star. Why is he such a danger to our kids? If he were going to get up there and spout liberal rhetoric, that'd be one thing. But I don't see any credible evidence that this is going to be anything other than a (sorely needed) "get off your duffs and go to work" speech. What am I missing? Can someone point to specific passages of the current instructional supplements to the speech that they find objectionable?

Thanks, Snow. I'd be interested to see how that verse was traditionally interpreted before the rise of the higher critics in the late 19th/20th centuries. Was there any sort of "consensus" at that time?

Light rail is a nice idea. I believe it's also turned out to be something of a money pit for many of the cities that have tried it (Portland and SLC being the ones I've heard most about). If you raise ticket rates enough to take a significant chunk out of operational costs, it becomes cheaper for the prospective riders just to drive to work--and then, from an environmental standpoint, you aren't helping anybody. I'm not deeply opposed to light rail, but if we want to see significant benefits from its presence then we'd better be prepared to pay . . . and pay . . . and pay.

If we're going to be literal about the flood, we've also got to be literal about the story of Peleg. In which case, there were no American continents at the time of the flood. (I'm not sure I buy the literal view of events; I'm just sayin' we should be consistent here. :) )

(Clarification): Ritual sacrifice of animals, yes. But the principle of sacrifice--giving up something dear to us for His sake--is still very much a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Speaking of which . . . Is It Ethical To Engineer Delicious Cows That Feel No Pain?

Objectivity is like power, etiquette, or chastity. Anyone who feels compelled to come right out and claim he possesses it . . . probably doesn't.

Very much so, both for procedural and practical reasons. Procedurally, the court will only let people testify about what they are credentialed to testify about. In the Willingham case, for instance, anyone who had seen the damage could testify about crazed glass or charred wood under the threshold--but only a duly credentialed "expert" would be allowed to express his opinion to the jury that all of this suggested arson. And from a practical standpoint, the better your credentials, the more likely the jury will be to believe you. So, for example, the fact that the one arson guy had found arson in pretty much every one of the 1200-odd cases he investigated (whereas the Texas Fire Marshall found arson only about 50% of the time) should definitely have come out at trial--if defense counsel had been vigorously making their case, which they apparently weren't. Personally, I don't do much criminal work. But as a general matter: that's pretty routine. Generally speaking, if a case has made it to a full-fledged trial it's because it's "close"--the fact pattern could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Where the case is open-and-shut, most attorneys will advise their clients to plead guilty for a lighter sentence (as Willingham's attorneys tried to convince him to do). I'm not particularly impressed by Willingham's attorneys' performance, but you've got to bear in mind that (AFAIK) they were not criminal defense attorneys by calling--they were either jack-of-all trades lawyers, or specialized in other fields of law. It takes a special kind of attorney to be willing to believe a client's professions of innocence in a gruesome case after twenty years of practice when three or four eyewitnesses and the forensic file all point towards guilt. Frankly, these two had no business defending a capital murder case. But when the court appoints you, you can't just say "no".

As a lawyer I hear an awful lot of BS about people protesting their "innocence", and it unfortunately tends to jade my judgment. I've seen judges who are the same way, for the same reasons. I'm not sure this can be avoided through the standard appellate process. But it can--and should--be avoided in the process whereby a governor decides whether or not to grant clemency. IMHO, there shouldn't be a standing "advisory panel": a new panel, composed of ordinary citizens, should be convened for every death-row case.

What's that Adam Smith quote about every time businessmen get together, they come up with a new way to stick it to the consumer?

It is never wrong to request a priesthood blessing, so long as you don't expect the priesthood holder to let you dictate the content of the blessing.

My experience was more or less similar to Annamaureen's. Basically I said to God, "If this isn't right, please let me know; otherwise I'm gonna do it." Never heard anything more.