Posted on 03/10/2007 8:36:34 AM PST by ChessExpert
A new book climbing the New York Times Bestseller List warns Americans of a minority of religious fanatics who are hijacking a great religion and working to destroy the United States Constitution and set up a theocracy in America. Nonbelievers will be discriminated against or even summarily killed.
Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Atta? No, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Tim LaHaye. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Small Christian sects are, by definition...small.
Hardly an apt comparison to a faith that preaches executing dissenters as a doctrinal imperative.
There only are ten laws that matter, the ones God made.
The other 10,000+ laws on the books are a pathetic attempt by man to go one better.
No, I got your idea, and I agree with you. It's just the attempt to parallel mohammedens and Christians that I find objectionable.
What I've been trying to point out to you is that buying beer on Sunday is a pretty petty complaint to make parallels with people who whip you with a stick for listening to music.
I agree. I might suggest driving to church but then staying in your car during the service.
> What I've been trying to point out to you is that buying
> beer on Sunday is a pretty petty complaint to make
> parallels with people who whip you with a stick for
> listening to music.
The existing blue laws are the petty remnants of what used to be every bit as bad a religiously led nitwittery as the muslims are guilty of today.
To get the flavor of how bad it used to be, check out this book in **defense** of blue laws from 1876:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/other/abl/etext/trueblue/bluelaws.html
Do not assume the nitwittery was strictly based in religion. They had some funny ideas about trains that go faster than twenty miles per hour, and what constituted proper signaling at an intersection, also.
Which scriptural laws do you think shouldn't be obeyed in the modern era?
Good laws! And Jesus did rank them, it seems. I can dig it!
What are you trying to get at?
I'd like some insight into how you can distinguish between a law in the bible that is to be followed, and a law in the bible that is to be ignored, if any.
Notice "The Shema" (You shall love the Lord your God...etc,) does not appear in the Decalogue.
What laws in the Decalogue do you consider unimportant to be followed in modern day, if any?
> Do not assume the nitwittery was strictly based in religion.
Oh, I don't think a congress critter or other ballot louse *needs* religion in order to be a flaming imbecile who would compare unfavorably to a rabid weasel in both deportment and common sense.
I just know that it is one of their more common excuses.
Finally, a normal even healthy response.
The reasonings are different for Christians and Jews, and I am not as familiar with the reasonings for Jews.
That being said, you must understand for Christians, the law was instituted not to give a guide on how to live, but to demonstrate the impossibility of attaining God's standard of righteousness by personal effort. It's there to show you if you are going to be saved, it's because of what God does for you, not what you do to satisfy God.
It's kind of like the old joke about "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it."
I was asking how you personally can distinguish between one of those laws that must be followed, and one of those laws that it's ok to break.
Excuse me while I change my britches ;oD
By reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Me too. Where does the Catechism stand on adultery as punishable by death?
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.