Posted on 07/16/2005 4:07:51 AM PDT by Lindykim
ping
Excuse me, but what the heck is this senseless drivel supposed to mean?
>>Excuse me, but what the heck is this senseless drivel supposed to mean?<<
I think it means to make Americans communists. Like redestributing wealth, banning religion etc.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
What are the truths that shall make us free in that nasty 'forbidden book'? Here are a few:
Just to add to this: The Truth is Jesus. This is who sets everyone "Free" from sin. Remember and never forget, Jesus called himself, "The Truth."
This is vitally important that people know this and take it to heart.
Um... I read the Bible a couple of times in its entirety. Better than quoting fragments or doing it the Google way. These were interesting experiences. The Bible was written by humans, and other humans made a selection of books that should be bundled and go under that name. A certain number of books is still the topic of debate (the Apocryphs), and other books were left out while some claim they are authentic.
Quite a number of stories defy moral analysis. Others really are too cruel for an enlightened world (the Hebrews traversing strange territory, killing the inhabitants, and sampling thousands of foreskins as symbol of triumph? No please). There is oppressive contradiction, all due to the abominable concept of a Chosen People. We get confronted with random killing sprees in the name of Yahweh.
It is frustrating that amidst all this general mayhem and carnage there are good moralities to be found. The Book Of Ruth. The story of John The Baptist and cruel Salome. Simson and Delilah. But on the other hand there is the indecipherable rambling of the Book of the Apocalypse.
I believe in Evolution Theory as a factual description of the birth of life, and the human race. (We don't even know where to place the exact delineation between 'dead' viral elements and bacteria). That said, the myth of Genesis is a beautiful and poetic metaphor of the first week of the Universe.
I believe in a decent tax system that helps protect the poor against starvation and homelessness. People always fall short of decent charity, no matter how many leftover carrots they throw at the underprivileged.
I hate the Eye For Eye, Tooth For Tooth routine. It leads to nothing except century-long feuds, Yugoslavia-style.
Yes, I am a conservative social-democrat. Sounds a bit broad, but that's what I am.
If it's true that God himself wrote the Biblical words, then he must have been mightily drunk while doing so. And Herman Melville is the far better writer anyway.
Books aren't true because they are old and beaten into schoolchildren's heads for two millennia or so.
I just wrote what I think. No offense intended against anyone. And I hope that this free place can stomach such harsh words. But the Bible and the Koran have more in common than Joe Public would like to believe.
I'll leave the Biblical stuff aside and just ask if you can point out the relevant article in the constitution that allows congress to enact such a tax system. Thanks.
[Excuse me, but what the heck is this senseless drivel supposed to mean?]
Psalms 1
1. Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
Great article.
Please avail yourself of the Word once again....
..and this time, ask the good Lord to guide you in your reading, and seek His face.
Do not blaspheme the Holy Scriptures.
The period of Judges was closer to anarchy than anything else. It certainly had nothing resembling our elections.
The author tries much too hard to get the Bible to prescribe his own preferences as being God's will.
James Madison the "Father of the Constitution" was not so convinced.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison
...and there is the awful problem of cultural supremacy and cultural values themselves. See: there is, philosophically, no objective higher standard, or slide rule, to determine which God is the True God, or the Best God. We claim that GWB is on the right side and that the Biblical God is the True Lord. Islamists (whose violent fundamentalism I abhor) claim that Allah is the true God, and, say, the Iranian Head Of State on the Right Side. Since both religious books contain much that is reprehensible, and also good, decent guidelines, it is factually impossible to decide which side is the right side. In other words: there is no proof, nor certainty. It is down to your most own inner sentiments and irrational feelings to make up your mind about such things. One can't prove that the Bible is the Word Of God, just because it says so in the book itself - that is a fallacious circular argument. Same applies to the Koran, and Allah. And, to repeat myself, I hate Gods Who need an awful lot of violent threats to subjugate their Children, make them fearful, et cetera. Not my style.
Not really. As enacted, the punishment for intentionally putting out someone else's eye was to have your own put out, by the state as a judicial punishment, not as a revenge thing by the family of the victim.
Even-Steven. No rationale for the family of the perpetrator to retaliate again against the original victim.
Perhaps you could explain to me why it is widely considered unjust or barbaric for a person to suffer the exact damage he intentionally inflicted on someone else. From a purely logical standpoint, it sounds like perfect justice.
If George chops off Andrew's foot, how is it unfair for the judicial system to chop off George's?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.