Sick and Tired

wroughtn_harv · Sep 9, 2002

Afternoon Pit Bull,

You did make me smile with the political references to the conflicts between the status quo and Jesus' policies.

Of course in my mind I saw Jesus being more of a Nadar if you know what I mean./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Jesus said that He and the Father were one, since all law decends from God and it was God who established goverment, it would seem contrary to hold that Jesus believed in seperation of Church and State.

I think where I come from we'd call that extrapolating cause nothing else could stretch that far./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

If you get a moment read the gospels and then listen to Rush. If you don't get a grin like a kid with a lollypop listening to that and imagining the tantrum old Rush would have about how Jesus thought about rich folks, well, you've never been a kid with a lollypop./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

PitbullMidwest · Sep 9, 2002

Harv,

I think where I come from we'd call that extrapolating cause nothing else could stretch that far /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif

If you get a moment read the gospels and then listen to Rush....

I stopped listening to Rush after hearing him mock Donna Rice following her conversion to Christianity (she got more applause then he did at a fund raiser dinner and he was offended). I'm reasonably sure he doesn't think Romans 3:23 is talking about him /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Anyway, I 've never believed that Jesus taught against wealth itself, but rather the danger wealth can cause when we trust in it more than in God. It is God's desire to bless his children, some can handle money, others are blessed in other ways.

Well, the grill is hot and the wife has a flying lesson tonight so I gotta go.

Ozarker · Sep 10, 2002

Of course you do understand that Biblical law is a copy of civil laws used long before the time of the Bible by other civilizations??????

Well, you certainly took the long way around but I am glad that you finally agree that there is no separation between church and state.

Can you post a copy of those civil laws so we can compare them to biblical law?

Chuck52 · Sep 10, 2002

You could check out the Code of Hammurabi. There are other sources as well. Seems to me I recall some early Chinese codes of conduct....gotta look that up.

Chuck

wroughtn_harv · Sep 10, 2002

Wow Chuck that <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/hamurabi.htm>hamurabi</A> was about the time of Noah doing a little math. That was a week or more before Moses and his adventures which haven't been able to have been corraborated by researchers into parallel societies.

But Ozarker think about it for a minute. If you want to have peace and harmony in a group of any size what would be the rules. Yup, no killing of members of the group, no stealing from members of the group, no lying about members of the group, no coveting for what other members of the group have, no messing around with each other's spouses, and of course honoring the old folks works good too.

Chuck52 · Sep 10, 2002

Harv,

I got the spelling right. NYAH HAAAA! Of course I didn't ask the man himself. Maybe he called himself Fred for all we know.

BTW, do you ever get the sense that these discussions are like arguing with your wife.....assuming that ever happens in your house? What you say need have no correlation with what she hears, and may only bear a passing resemblance to what you think you meant.
Chuck

wroughtn_harv · Sep 10, 2002

Afternoon Chuck,

It's not that way with Ozarker and me. We were at Al's elbow when he invented the internet and have been having these discussions ever since./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Actually I think it's a good thing. The best example I can think of why it's a good thing would be to look back at the original internet forums, the Federalist papers. Those discussions were just like these in so many ways, great minds using words to support their position./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

What makes it fun for me is I know that it isn't just me and them or just us in this conversation. And even though there's no way in heck I'm gonna change their position our discussions help someone not sure yet find theirs. It would be criminal for me to allow some statements to go unchallenged. So I try to challenge often just so I don't make a mistake and let one get by./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

What I like about this place is the positions might be polar here and parallel up a couple of threads. I also like the way folks seem to be able to discuss and cuss dis and dat and not let it get personal.

I do think the internet is the greatest thing to ever happen. The confirmation of just how great it is how all the status quo powers are doing everything they can to restrict access to it. All you have to do is look where they're attempting to limit it's spectrum and you see folks afraid of knowledge, especially when it's to be shared with others.

Ozarker · Sep 10, 2002

Now you want to change to speculation instead of proving your point with facts?

Show me that these early codes of conduct didn't come to Thor from the sun god or the tree god. When did man switch from taking what he needed to a belief that taking was wrong and why?

The reality is that no matter how far back we go in history, we find that early man had a very strong beleif in spirtual beings, good and bad. He also had various rituals (religion) that he used to please these spirtual beings.

Chuck52 · Sep 10, 2002

Ozarker,

You said "biblical" law, and that point was properly addressed. I would tend to agree that it is likely that many, and perhaps most , codes of conduct have derived or been associated with a belief in a god or gods. Now, we probably wouldn't want to follow some of these codes of conduct today. I kinda like my first born in one piece, for instance.

Animals seem to have codes of conduct as well, which work to ensure the survival of the species.

Chuck

Ozarker · Sep 10, 2002

That is a sacred text that was derived from a spiritual belief. It began and ended with addresses to spiritual beings..

I want to see that civil code that Harv is speaking of. He is trying to claim that laws do not have their roots in a belief in a higher power. That at some point in human history, the original liberals got together and just said this and this is now wrong, but they had no real basis for determining right from wrong. They just voted on it I guess.

That is all hog wash of course, but it might be fun watching the various twists and turns he goes through to try and make his point.

I'm just guessing about the "twists and turns" of course.