In news that surprises absolutely no one with a brain

Yeah, at this point bringing that up is just lame and low class. I'm sure the great Gul has never done something he regretted. Maybe he should be reminded every few days.

Must... resist... asking why a Christian needn't answer to God... lest I get drawn into the same topic that was indeed well settled oh so many years ago for us mortals... gnnnnhhh....

I didn't realize God had a statute of limitations.

If you ask God for forgiveness, he forgives. That is kind of the whole point of much of the New Testament.

If you don't believe God forgives there is little point in anything else?

Ah, so you're just making shit up. Do you realize that, or does your mind actually convince you of it? There is, of course, a difference between can be proven and didn't happen. We should all accept the former, but only an idiot fails to take a critical look at the larger picture. Zimmerman has followed a consistent pattern of douchebaggery, but if that works for you as a conservative archetype, I doubt you'll find many liberals bothered by the strange choice.

Don't forget.... it was a minor loss of temper. So if a minor loss of temper causes someone to slap their wife, one can see how someone could escalate into murder or serious bodily harm when they have a violent temper.

He even admitted this, and that it wasn't a big deal to have a minor loss of temper.

And if someone is prone to violent actions even due to minor triggers, then large triggers would most likely provoke even more violent triggers.

So is that a catch all for anything that someone who believes in god? Because if you are truly sorry, and truly seek forgiveness you do not take actions that are hurtful, immoral, or can cause harm to others with the intention of asking and receiving forgiveness. Because that means you truly aren't sorry and god would not forgive someone who would do such a thing.

Don't worry, @Dayton3. You're not the only one we have something to lord over for doing something extremely dumb anymore, right, @RickDeckard?

Or maybe one day the cops will quit trying to make a name for themselves an leave him alone.

What Zimmerman did subsequent to the Martin shooting doesn't change the facts of the Martin shooting.

Sorry.

Nope, it doesn't. The facts of the Martin shooting are, of course, not established. Not proven does not mean innocent. His behavior subsequent to the acquittal fits a pattern that matches well the theory that his behavior directly led to Martin's death, that he was very likely culpable. But that's he said, he said, only one of them is dead, so he can't actually testify.

Indeed. Even given the incompetent prosecution and tainted jury pool, Zimmerman would most likely have been convicted if all these arrests happened before his trial. When you claim self defense under questionable circumstances, a lengthy documented history of violent weaponized aggression is an awful big strike against you.

Ring around the rosies
A pocket full of posies
Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.

Yes, they are. Beyond reasonable doubt.

It only means that a claim that the crime was committed could not be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.

"Everyone knows she's a 'loose' woman. Therefore, she can't have been raped." "Everyone knows their kind has no respect for law and order. Therefore, he must be guilty."

Right?

No need. The evidence all pointed toward the aggressor being the dead one.

Incompetent because the prosecution was driven by political considerations? Incompetent because though a charge of murder was filed, there was not enough evidence to get even a manslaughter conviction?

How was it "tainted?"

What you're saying is this: if the accused has a criminal record, then his guilt should be assumed even if the evidence doesn't support it.

Again, you're saying a subjective evaluation of a person's character rather than the objective consideration of the evidence should decide guilt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on your religious beliefs you will be judged before God won't you?

If God has forgiven you of your sins (assuming you repented and asked for forgiveness) God no longer holds your sins against you on "judgement day".

I suppose you would say then that God judges those not forgiven.

You can't repent for a sin you intend to commit then be forgiven for, there isn't a loophole that covers that.

Ahhh, here's some interesting trivia!

"Ring-a-ring o' roses,
A pocket full of posies,
Atishoo... Atishoo...
We all fall down".

That's the way we say this over here and, indeed, I used to sing this as a child. It's said in folklore to originate from the Great Plague. "Atishoo" refers to sneezing, a later sympton of the plague and the reason that the American version is different in it's use of "ashes" is because early colonists would burn the dead bodies to try and prevent it's spread. Whether or not that's true I don't know, but I always liked the story.

How do you know that you're forgiven?

The bible says so.

Where?

It is my understand that you can't repent for a sin that you commit with full intent understanding fully that it is in fact a sin.

For example deciding to beat up a guy who dents you care and telling yourself

"I know it is a sin but God will forgive me".

But if someone dents your car, then you and he get into an argument and finally you do lose your temper and bust him across the face you can repent for it.

Because you had not intent of committing any sin.

Like in the American justice system, the same acts can be considered radically different based on intent.

I'll track it down.

Here are some handy verses.

http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/forgiveness_of_sins.php

@Paladin:

That's ridiculous. A lack of evidence to convict does not mean that innocence is proven. Had there been, say, a video camera, or a credible witness, the results of the trial might have been very different. We have a thread with a few billion posts in it, no need to revisit, but at least have the integrity to not confuse not proven guilty with proven innocent. I know some are desperate to avoid discrediting stand your ground, but you can't do it with Zimmerman.

Of course you can't because "Stand Your Ground" was never claimed. Zimmerman claimed straight up self defense.

The thing was that Zimmerman was never going to be convicted of anything once those pictures of his bloody head were released and they stopped showing the "Trayvon Martin" as the "tea & skittles kid" and instead showed Martin was the wannabe thug.

A better argument for the anti Zimmerman group would've been that head wounds always look a lot worse than they are and that based on that he was never in danger but they harped way too much on the fact that Martin was unarmed.

Yet you have no repentance over the wife beating. You've made it clear many times that it's no big deal because it was a few years ago and your wife seemingly forgave you, going on to dismiss the breakdown of trust and pain it inevitably caused.

That's not what I call repentance. Surely divine forgiveness only comes once you understand what you have done wrong?

What do you think I should've done?

It's not what you "should have done" it's the attitude you have towards it.

Why control yourself if it's that easy?

Be specific. How many years of self flagellation did you want to see.