Jump to content

Papa Zoom

Members
  • Content count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Papa Zoom last won the day on October 14 2016

Papa Zoom had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

253,510 Excellent

About Papa Zoom

  • Rank
    Member

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

Relationship Status

  • Relationship Status
    Married

Denomination

  • Den
    Baptist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Papa Zoom

    The Shack — The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment

    Specifically name the heresy.
  2. Papa Zoom

    The Shack — The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment

    If you didn't read the book but read the reviews your views are not your own but the views of others. So basically others are telling you how to think about a thing and you're going along with it.
  3. Papa Zoom

    The Shack — The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment

    I read the Shack. I commented negatively on it before reading it. 😕 That was dumb. So I read it. Saw the movie too. It was okay but I really didn't think about the story that much. Then I read the book Finding God In The Shack by Randal Rauser. https://www.amazon.com/Finding-God-Shack-Randal-Rauser/dp/1606570323 What I found was a book rich with biblical themes. Yes, The Shack has its problems. But it also has very good elements. I find there are two or three camps of peeps when it comes to this book: 1. People who didn't read the book but never-the-less are critics of the book. Bad form IMO. 2. People who read the book and are critical. (this is fine) 3. People who read the book and gave it some thought; sought out the ideas and opinions of others; read books about the Shack; and found that jumping to a conclusion about the book was neither fair nor smart. Again, there are issues in the book. There are also redeeming qualities. The best book to read on this is the Randal Rauser book. It's better than the Shack IMHO.
  4. This post of mine makes my position clear. Unless the father violated and actual law that one can cite, he can't be held legally responsible. They could charge him but that would be meaningless if no law was actually broken in his case. This is a fundamental principle in our legal system. Emotion responses to tragedies are not a basis for charging someone.
  5. Exactly. It doesn't apply in this case. And I've checked many sources and can find nothing indicating that the father did anything wrong. The law is the law and we're discussing what is, not what you wish it to be. Finding it repulsive is an opinion and the law isn't concerned with personal opinion. Which was my earlier point. You're stating an opinion and what matters is the law. There may be a law violated by the father here but I've not seen it. So just because he was the owner of the guns doesn't make him liable for the killing because you are "repulsed." That won't stand up in court. You can't be held accountable if you've not violated some law. Simple as that.
  6. I said that the father can only be held legally responsible if he's broken an actual law. You've not cited an actual law that applies in this case. Read what I actually said and respond to what's actually written. Your strawmen are getting tiring.
  7. Apparently GSG didn't read the actual information he's posted. I caught that right off as well.
  8. Maybe you should read stuff before posting them: (a) In this section: (1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age. So by the law you cite he's NOT a child under the law.
  9. Being legally responsible is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of law. So unless the father violated an actual law that one can cite, he's not legally responsible. Unless he gave his son permission to borrow his guns to shoot up the school. I never said there wasn't such a law. I said the father would have to have violated an actual law.
  10. No, I'm right. You have to have violated an actual law as it's written. The law you cite is about children getting access to guns and in the process harming themselves or accidentally shooting others. It's not clear that such a law would apply in this case. The killer isn't a child. The examples you've given show children under 10. Also, we aren't fully into the investigation and we don't know how the father secured the weapons. Even so, it's still a matter of law. Not opinion. So my original point stands firm. Looks like you're wrong again.
  11. Being legally responsible is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of law. So unless the father violated an actual law that one can cite, he's not legally responsible. Unless he gave his son permission to borrow his guns to shoot up the school.
  12. Papa Zoom

    Gina Haspel is the first female CIA director

    you are right in that she will never allow for it again. At least not under our current political climate. If however there were another 911 and lots of chatter about more, I've little doubt they'd use it off-shore or something.
  13. Papa Zoom

    New perspective.

    yes! God so LOVED the world!
  14. I totally agree. Seems the blame is well put on the shoulders of the killer and him alone.
  15. Look, you that know me know I'm a strong conservative. But this OP is nothing less than a "triggered" response (like a snowflake) and a manufactured outrage. We know there are jerks in the world. Surprise.
×