We are governed by laws not the Bible!
Posted By: Holy Moly on 2008-10-27
In Reply to: Well, then, I guess we should - gourdpainter
In the United States of America, we are required to follow laws, not the Ten Commandments. The last time I checked, raping, killing, and stealing were against the law.
By the way, a lot of good the Ten Commandments do keeping people from breaking laws. I would bet anything that the majority of prisoners in this country consider themselves to be Christian.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
Tax laws are always about
Secondary effects such as the impact on jobs, if any, are much more debatable, are often very difficult to prove and take much longer to materialize.
As I posted on the Company Board in a similar thread, these issues are very complex and this administration has made them even more difficult to determine by cleverly lumping "jobs saved" (which can never be proven because you have to prove a negative hypothesis - i.e., that a job was not lost that would have been lost if not for their programs) with "jobs created", and "jobs created" was already hard enough to prove anyway.
As I also said, the "other side of the coin" is that there was obviously some reason that the tax breaks were created in the first place. In this case, the main reason was that it would allow US companies to compete globally with foreign companies that enjoy low labor costs.
There will obviously be ways for companies to counter these proposed tax changes (which face stiff opposition in Congress) - including, if necessary, simply moving their entire operations to another country as some are already thinking of doing.
Every law that Congress passes has unintended consequences. These usually show up to bite us in the assets.
This is not about any laws! This is sm
about Christians trying to have bible study in their own homes which folks have been doing for centuries. If this were any other group, nothing would be said. It is about taking away freedom for Christiasn! I don't care what you say or what your opinion is as to why, Im telling you why, it is Christian persecution! Not religious but Christian.
If Wiccans or Muslims or anybody else did this it would be fine. I live in a city where there are at least 500 different religions practicing here and the only one that EVER gets picked on are the Christians.
As far as the Wiccans.......if they aer over there at their own house doing whatever they do, no I am not going to say a word nor am I going to watch and participate. as far as in the nude, if there is a law that says they can be nude in their backyard, there is nothing I can do about that.
My goodness I know people who have 15-20 people over every week for BRUNCH (why, I don't know) and no one would ever think of saying a word. Bible study where people are sitting in their living rooms discussing God's Holy Word, my goodness what a crime! I just know it is going to cause everyone so much harm!
What about the families who have teenagers that every single weekend there are more than the magic number of 15 gathered, partying in the front yard? Nobody says anything about that? I wouldn't either unless it got too loud. Its their house they can do what they want.
People wake up, this has nothing to do with licenses, laws, law breakers, religious persecution or anything else. It is nothing more than CHRISTIAN persecution. Anyone who is a Christian already knows this.
I assume you are wiccan because you say sometimes "we". That is your business. I am not bothering you, why do you insist on sticking your nose in my business.
If this were a bunch of Wiccans gathering each week and somebody raised an objection, there would be such an outcry of discrimination it would be unbelievable. Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I have seen it where I live.
Hmmmmmm guess they could keep the bible study to 14 people each week or 14 people each night or whatever. I guarantee you there would still be the same objections raised by folks who want to stamp God out of this country.
I refuse to get into an argument with a bunch of people on here about this subject though. It is my right to have a Bible study or whatever I want in my own home.
Sad thing about it is that as Christians, part of this is the Christians (me included) fault for sitting back for so long and allowing our freedoms to be slowly taken away. NO MORE!!!!!
Give it a few more years and it will be just like a communist country and the Christians will have to put black curtains up over their windows to be safe when having prayer and Bible study!
I don't believe he broke any laws
You believe that he did. We're at an impasse. I don't hate America I put America first before the rest of the world, but I guess I'm just selfish enough to take care of my home first. I'm a baaaad person I guess.
The tougher laws I see...
refer to dealers. So far as I can see, she wasn't dealing. She was a user. McCain, so far as I can see, has not wanted harsher penalties against users. He wanted tighter laws so not so much flows over the borders, he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins (like heads of cartels, etc). Again...John McCain, by himself, cannot make law. He can support it and vote for it, but if all the others in the legislature don't vote for it, it doesn't become law.
What he asked for tougher laws on I can't see that his wife did. I am sure Ted Kennedy would probably vote to keep the law that it is a felony to leave the scene of an injury accident too...but that didn't stop him from walking away from a bridge where a young woman was drowning in a submerged car. He managed to get himself out but could not be bothered to try to get her out. And he never did 1 second in jail for that. Which in my book is much worse than what Cindy McCain did.
That being said...The tougher laws McCain (and many others) supported was against dealers, not users. She didn't deal. She used and she stole from herself essentially (her foundation funded the charity) and yes, put pressure on the physicians associated with it to write her prescriptions. Because she was addicted and you know that someone who is addicted does not make good decisions.
The system is not perfect. No, she did not do any time for her crime. Many first-time user-offenders don't. On the other hand, they make deals with people a lot worse than Cindy McCain every day, turn them loose in order to get the bigger fish. That's not right either, but it happens every day. And contrary to what you might think, even people who forged prescriptions have gotten off, people a lot less affluent than Cindy McCain. For a whole lot of reasons.
And I say again...if you had all the means at your disposal the McCains have and it was your mother or sister who, while addicted, did things she would not normally do...if it was in your power to protect her from jail and get her the help she needed to get off the stuff, would you not do it?
Incidentally, McCain also, as part of his advocating harsher penalties for dealers, also advocated increase in federal spending for drug treatment programs: McCain indicates that federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs should be expanded. He says, Work to expand public/private partnerships in support of such initiatives, and coordinate them with state and local efforts.
Honestly, I can't find anything where he advocates harsher treatment of addicts and users. Only dealers.
Oh but it does...research the laws regarding...
citizenship.
in-laws are all dems - what to do? nm
x
Laws protect more than that...
You don't have to be a citizen in the United States to be protected from being murdered. You just have to be human and alive, both of which can also be said of UNBORN CHILDREN. Or are we to believe that a tourist, or a person who is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States, is NOT protected from being murdered? Can I just go out and kill anybody I want to just because they aren't citizens? Ahhh, no. I don't think so.
And the whole "mind your own business" argument doesn't hold water. A human life is taken during an abortion, the same as when it is taken during a murder. Are we all to just "mind our own business" and "just don't kill anybody?" No, it doesn't work that way. Just because you don't choose to kill someone, or have an abortion, doesn't mean we can just "live and let live" - particularly since people who commit abortions and murders DON'T let their victim live...at all.
These are exactly the types of arguments/mantra that have been spewed from the mouths of people who TRY to make us believe this is a women's issue to help us make a choice about "our bodies." If it was only my body, I would agree. But it is not my body that is being killed. It is my child. Men, women, children, citizen or not - no one has the right to take a human life.
you are right - but it is the privacy laws -
women's bodies are their own - if they are old enough to see a gynecologist they have their privacy. Now, they can go next door and get treated by the general physician and get the same thing done and mommy or daddy can be involved, just not in the gyno's office.
NY has had laws on the books for
over 5 years. No smoking just about anywhere except Indian-owned casinos and private clubs that do not have employees. No Smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.
I for one, love it!
Yeah......who needs laws?
bang, bang, shoot 'em up.
If there are laws against smoking
at parks, your son's baseball park, or anywhere, marijuana wouldn't be allowed either, because it's also smoking.
Marrying in laws
Was not required, but suggested. They were allowed to decline.
I said SOUND laws..
Giving women the right to vote WAS A SOUND LAW. I think someone has missed their naptime.
what? laws to taze your kid? sheez.
x
Laws protecting from murder
Yes, this country does have laws that protect citizens from being murdered.
A "citizen" is defined someone who "is born or naturalized in the United States."
Fetuses, embryos, etc. aren't born or naturalized. The issue of when life begins is akin to the "chicken/egg" question and will never be answered to the satisfaction of everyone. It relies mostly on religious views, and one's religious views shouldn't be forced on someone else who may not believe the same.
Again, I believe in minding my own business and NOT judging someone who may have or has had an abortion because it's none of my business.
If you don't believe in abortion, then I guess the simplest answer is: Don't have one.
There are a lot of anti-smoking laws
I did not realize this was an old campaign. It seemed like a modern idea when the surgeon general came out in 1969 against smoking.
no laws don;t trample people
shoppers do. We need to think our way out of the greedy consumerism that has been force fed to us by the republicans. A democracy needs reasoning participants. In times of economic crisis, saving $49 on a big screen TV should be laughable.
If we claim to be a nation of laws, then
we need to BE a nation of laws. JTBB has said it all and said it well.
Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
Read up on the laws of this country
A president, vice president and most/all members of congress and the senate get to go to safe places in case of attack or threat of attack. It's the way the government can keep going in case of an emergency.
Don't post something you know nothing about. Come to this board with FACTS. That's what this board is supposed to be about.
links to the COPYRIGHT LAWS
xx
Trying to change sound laws
is just as objectionable as breaking them. ;-) I believe the topic was enforcing laws. Need to leave this one alone so it can be enforced.
Oprah on child molestation laws...sm
I found this article on Oprah's website and thought this excerpt was powerful on the anti-child abuse/molestation movement. The underlined areas are links, please help out with this as you can.
*This is a full circle moment for me. For me to have been raped at 9 years old
this is so big and so gratifying that I now get to put people behind bars who did to me what they've been doing to other children. This is it. And so I am going to spend my own resources, and I am going to work with law enforcement, and I'm going to change, with your help, the laws in this country state by state by state by state.
We are not going to be a country that talks the talk about how we care about children, and then we let these people back out on the street. It's Joseph Duncan all over again. We have got to let Shasta Groene and all the others be the last children. Let their lives not have been in vain. Let's stand up, and change the laws.
Take a look at these accused child molester profiles, and see if you can be the next person to put a fugitive behind bars.*
I am SO with you on the religion in your face thing. My in laws are so sm
judgmental of nonChristians that it literally would make you ill. I am a Christian and a strong one, but I wasn't a Christian I would probably divorce my husband and move 3,000 miles away from all of them.
Nice talking with you.
Copyright laws forbid it. Nothing to do with the length. nm
.
Not to mention, THE PEOPLE vote for these laws and
People vote to place ridiculous bans on things because they saw on the news that a so-called scientific study told them it's for the good of all. Don't bother to trace back to who paid for that study and who will reap the rewards of the ban. My oh my, they said it's for the good of the people, so therefore, I shall vote as they instruct. The latest? They've now banned fast food restaurants in California because they apparently feel that poor people can't make good health choices. What an insult! If people are that poor, they probably can't afford fast food anyway because fast food ain't all exactly cheap these days.
But you go right on blaming the Democrats or the Republicans or whichever group you see fit. The vote still lays in the hands of the people of this country. The more I see so many Democrats here acting like everyone is a complete moron for having any kind of opposing view and touting every single thing a Democrat does as the holy grail, the more I feel like moving to another country. Wake up! If you can't admit that even Democrats make mistakes and aren't saviors, then you are prejudiced.
By law he can detain illegals......unfoturtunately our laws
nm
"If the laws in this country are not going to be enforced, what's the point of having them?
Would that include Proposition 8 that was recently upheld as lawful? ;-)
Bush Ignores Laws He Signs, Vexing Congress
President Has Issued 750 Statements That He May Revise or Disregard Measures.
WASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not, said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.
Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.
There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview, Specter, R-Pa., said.
It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, he added. I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.
A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.
Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events, said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11..
Congress has been more active, the president has been more active, she added. The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.
Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.
But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.
There's less here than meets the eye, Cornyn said. The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.
But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.
The president is not required to (veto), Boardman said.
Of course he's not if he signs the bill, Specter snapped back.
Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.
It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed, said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?
Why does the Government have to create Laws to make people Volunteer?...
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/meet-the-compulsive-service-orwellian-give-act-to-be-voted-on-this-week/
Next up on the agenda this week is the GIVE Act, short for the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act.
The ABC News headline GIVE Act Would Give Back. Volunteer Programs Would Provide Jobs to Unemployed, Assist Those in Need says it all.
In his address to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called on lawmakers to expand federally funded national service opportunities.
To encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country Sen. Edward Kennedy, the president said.
Democrats say they may be able to respond to that call by the end of this month.
The Senate is working on the Kennedy/Hatch Serve America Act of 2008, and the House is working on a similar bill, called the Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education (GIVE) Act.
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
Bible
I don't believe I ever stated that the bible supports abortion, if i did, that was a typo. I said that Christ did not teach on homosexuality, yet Christians can be quick to judge homosexuals.
I do not believe that the bible says one way or another, though abortion has been practiced for 1000s of years by midwives through the use of herbs.
As far as my belief in the bible, I don't believe every written word in the bible is the ispired word of God. It has been translated (and changed) by humans through the years to suit their needs. For many years, only the wealthy could read (and women generally were not allowed to), so the scriptures have been misinterpreted (in my opinion) often. I have studied Latin to try to gain some meaning from more ancient texts, but I truly believe that much of the bible is a praise work (as in the psalms) and historical, but not 100% the word of God.
Bible
The Antichrist comes after a falling away or apostasy. (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
- At times forbids marriage (1 Timothy 4:3)
- At times commands not to eat certain foods that God says are ok to eat. (1 Timothy 4:3-5)
- Has other teachings that are devilish (1 Timothy 4:1; Acts 8:20; 1 John 3:8, 4) |
The Antichrist is revealed before the second coming of Jesus. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) |
The Antichrist has a visible leader. (Acts 20:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Daniel 7:8) |
The Antichrist comes from within the church. (Acts 20:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:4) |
and then takes up residence in the church (2 Thessalonians 2:4) |
The Antichrist rules for a long period of time. (Revelation 13:5, 12:6, 12:14; Daniel 7:25) |
The Antichrist receives its power from the Devil. (Revelation 13:2; Revelation 12:9) |
The Antichrist blasphemes God. (Revelation 13:5-6; Daniel 7:8,20,25) |
The Antichrist tries to change God's law. (Daniel 7:25) |
The Antichrist persecutes the people who keep God's law. (Revelation 13:2, 12:17, 14:12; Daniel 7:21) |
The persecution diminishes prior to the end of the Antichrist's rule. (Matthew 24:22) |
The Antichrist's long rule comes to an end. (Revelation 13:3) |
The Antichrist again regains power and prestige. (Revelation 13:3) |
The Antichrist deceives people around the world into worshipping it. (Revelation 13:3) |
Another forces people to worship the Antichrist. (Revelation 13:11-12) |
Miracles are used to deceive people into worshipping the Antichrist. (Revelation 13:13-14) |
Some resist the authority of the Antichrist so economic sanctions are then used. (Revelation 13:16) |
Some people still resist and a death decree is brought against them. (Revelation 13:15) |
The Antichrist has a mark of authority that must be avoided at all costs. (Revelation 13:16-17, 14:9-10) |
"I think everyone had better get out their Bible
AIN'T IT THE TRUTH????
where in the bible does it say
abortion is wrong? Don't give me the murder crap, where does it actually say ABORTION is wrong? Abortion has been going on since the beginning of time and I am pretty sure there was plenty of it going on in biblical times, yet I don't recall seeing it mentioned ANYWHERE in the bible.
The Bible for one.......... sm
and I believe I have a responsibility to uphold its laws above and beyond upholding the right of perverts to access p*rn in the library while my child happens to see it.
I do believe morality has flown right out the window here. I think I need a shower now after participating in this thread with you.
Says who? Your bible, which is nothing more than
(no pun intended, of course)
no I don't. I believe the Bible is the sm
literal word of God and I believe it from front to back. There is a difference between reading a book and "studying" a book.
The Bible
is the only recognized source of even a knowledge of God. None of us would even know God if it weren't for the Bible. You go ahead and believe that. I'm not going to be in your corner.
look beyond your Bible, so that you can
see what is going on in the REAL world, not in the BIBLE WORLD.
Bible not bad book at all...
...and should have its basic tenets taught right alongside of those of the Qur'an and the holy books of all other major world religions. Students of any age who wish to read the Bible in my opinion should certainly be able to do so anytime they wish. Same for all other holy/religious writings. A person's education really isn't complete without a fundamental understanding of all of the religions that shape our world.
I would however sign any petition that forces anyone to do anything in the spirit of indoctrination or exclusion, or against any requirement that implies that THIS is the one true holy book and you WILL read it even if your negligent atheist going-to-hell-parents wouldn't force you to do it at home (and we're coming for them soon too - better join us if you know what's good for you). Unfortunately that is how this kind of requirement is perceived by many people in our current political climate - including me. And unfortunately, I believe this is exactly the attitude held by those who try to force such requirements into the public schools.
I don't think it qualifies as a "random act of kindness" - but rather as a deliberate act of religious supremacism.
The Bible says he did not "know" her
until after Jesus was born. What's your point?
If you truly have read the Bible then you know...
God makes no distinction for sin and lumps it all together except in a very few cases where the word *abomination* is attached, and homosexuality is one of those things. So I was not comparing a homosexual and a killer...I was comparing sins. And yes, we do sin, all of us, every day, and will have to account for that some day. But calling it other than a sin does not make it so, at least in my book. I did not call homosexuality an abomination...God did. So take your argument to Him. I choose to believe what He said. I do not hate anyone, I do not treat gays any differently than anyone else as fellow human beings. I have been lied to, stolen from...I don't hate those people, but I don't condone what they did. However, I do not condone homosexuality, any more than I condone lying, stealing, murder or any other sin. You can love an individual but not approve of the sin. That is what, I believe, treating others as you would be treated means. Treat the person with dignity without condoning the behavior. I don't believe in abortions, but I do not condone blowing up abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors. I do not believe in changing laws to accept aberrant behavior, and we seem to keep trying to go down that road. Years ago, you are right...premarital sex did go on, but it was called what it was...a sin and something that should not be done. No longer the case. Same with homosexuality...it has gone on since time immemorial. But it was called wrong. There used to be laws against it in the US. No longer the case. What next? Polygamy? Bestiality? Necromancy? You say that could never happen here. Thirty years ago your parents probably would never have thought that adultery would be celebrated as entertainment news, premarital sex celebrated on prime time TV, and gay marriage becoming law. Just be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. We have experienced a big moral decline in this country and frankly, it did not begin with conservative Americans.
My opinion only...don't attack all conservatives for what I say. Opinions differ. That is mine.
What does Nostradamus have to do with the bible? sm
Besides, wasn't what Nostradamus wrote so vague that it could be interpreted to 'predict' anything and everything... or nothing at all, depending on how it was interpreted?
Read your Bible. The
antichrist will come from Rome or EU. Obama as the antichrist is absurd.
Uh, last I checked, the Bible said
to help those less fortunate than you, NOT those who just don't want to work but just want to collect money from the government for doing nothing.
VOTING ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE
I AGREE.
Like the Bible says...."many shall come in my name..."
saying you are a Christian does not make you one.
I don't read the bible
And I don't want to.
Don't get me wrong. I've read it. I decided at a pretty young age that it's a fairy tale that for the most part was written by a lot of people who weren't around when Jesus was & that didn't have all that much to do with reality. If it works for you, fine. I don't need to read in some book what the right thing to do is, & I don't assign any particular importance to Jesus. I find it irritating, condescending and naive for someone to suggest that I should "know Jesus" and have my life saved.
It's possible to think all of the above and still be a moral person, & what makes a lot of (not all) Christians narrow-minded is their belief that this isn't so, but they unfortunately can't see this from the narrow place from which they operate. Do I believe in God? I believe in the godhead; the life force; the force that drives the green shoot up, as Dylan Thomas would say; the inferno of activity in the nucleus of every cell... Do I believe this life force manifests as a person? Sure I do. The godhead is in everyone. Jesus didn't have any more of a hotline to the godhead than any of us has. The thing that makes a lot of (not all) Christians narrow-minded is their belief that "God" only speaks "Christian." This concept is too ridiculous for words. The godhead "speaks" every religious "language." I put this into quotes because I specifically don't personify the godhead; i.e., the godhead doesn't "do" the same things that a human body does, though in this instance it's a fairly good metaphor.
I believe that everything -- EVERYTHING -- came from the godhead. Because I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in "The devil," who is a big enough part of that religion that you really must accept the existence of the devil if you want to be Christian, & I don't think that kind of polarization is healthy, nor do I have any compulsion to externalize/personify every human impulse into a creature with horns or one that sits on a cloud or whatever. The universe creates trying, challenging scenarios of all sorts, which in the interest not just of survival but of enlightenment are our tasks to address, understand, & solve, & these would include ALL forms of religious extremism.
The bible is a book that simply doesn't interest me. There are spiritual books that do interest me for their complexity and illumination, but I don't need to live my life by any of them, & I don't need any of them to be a moral or spiritual person.
There are many religions much, much older than Christianity. The godhead was here long before any of it (& believe me, it was longer than 4000 years) & we as a species did not only obtain the capacity for enlightenment after the bible was written or after Jesus arrived.
If you "love Jesus," great. Go for it. Just don't end a conversation with some smug, proselytizing last word that in the end is just a way to think you are superior.
bible quotes
Yes, I am fairly familiar with Old Testament, in Hebrew, but thank you. The Psalm was written by David, not by G-d. As for Jeremiah, yes G-d does know our souls, before we are even human.
|
