You're serious? You invite kids to "Go to Hell"???
Really?
Man, I was born too late.........
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelinde...7-eccc502e9264
Printable View
You're serious? You invite kids to "Go to Hell"???
Really?
Man, I was born too late.........
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelinde...7-eccc502e9264
You know, I'll play Devil's Advocate here (no pun intended). I could give a rat's ass about ANY of this, BUT ... to stand back and look at the overall picture, I can see their point. Stupid? Yes. But it IS valid. The ol' Separation of Church and State argument will go on forever and I think there's some "interpretation" involved. The First Amendment doesn't really read the way most think it does. It's no different than the way some interpret the Second Amendment ... it all depends on which side of the fence you're on as to how one may interpret it. Argue all you want (as I know you will) ... but if it were plain as day, neither one would end up being "tested" or challenged in court as often as they are. As for religious objects, phrases ... whatever, on government property ... either you're IN the game, or you're OUT! Make up your frigging mind! Heck, we have "In God We Trust" on our dang currency! The question is, where do we draw the line? Sure, "In Satan We Trust" would be silly to most ... but what's the difference when you REALLY examine the issue?
I don't have the answer and I could give a squat about b/s like this, but I do try to look at it from all sides and draw a conclusion. I know it's a cliche' ... but people all want to have their cake and eat it too. It all depends on which side of the fence you're on as to what you feel is right or wrong.
I saw that in today's paper. It'll not happen is all I can tell you.
But to be honest, I don't care if there is list of the ten commandments at the state capitol or not. I don't dislike the ten commandments, but my state's constitution and code of law is already based on them. Why do I need to display them at the capitol?
BKB
No Thump. It depends on what IS right and wrong.
But I realize you don't believe in that. I get it.
You mean "YOUR OPINION" of right and wrong.
Some cultures eat dog meat ... "we" generally say that's "wrong". Who's right?
Sorry. Just never will buy the "There is no standard of right or wrong, everyone gets to do whatever they think is right" mantra. It makes no sense to me.
Bucky, I agree and that's why we have laws. Too damned many of them IMO too.
The one thing I've never understood about the ten commandments is that they are old testament laws, supposedly replaced by a new covenant with mankind with the coming of Jesus. If so, then why are they considered so sacred and need to be applied now to our lives? they've been replaced haven't they?
BKB
Seems like I read that somewhere? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Buckrub
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
Is Bucky stuttering tonight? Or just repeating himself? And he calls ME a PuMPheAd! ;)
He could post that in the fishing forum if we had one!
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
I agree ... TO A POINT! Some things are "black & white". Right and wrong is not even debatable. Rape, murder, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckrub
Others are debatable and are strictly opinions. There are a zillion religions of the world ... if you want to argue religion ... the difference between "right and wrong" is SOMETIMES strictly YOUR opinion. Hindus don't eat beef, Jews don't eat pork ... is that "wrong"? My parents had me circumcised when I was a baby ... is that "right" or "wrong".
There are religious beliefs and there are laws ... some conflict even here in the U.S. ... who's right and who's wrong? Where does morality come into play? In many states it's illegal for your wife to give you a dang BJ! It's against the law ... so I suppose it's "wrong". I could go on forever. I said above quite a few times I could give a crap about the issue you posted ... I'm simply trying to offer an alternative view. Because YOU "think" something is wrong, doesn't necessarily make it so.
Posthole, yes. Trouble is, most Baptists don't believe that. And there's a bunch of 'em!
:)
Course, the only way they can make it valid is to twist the 4th one around to say it means Sunday now. Sabbath meant "Day of Rest" and it was the 7th day, the day the Lord rested when he made the world.
See, there have not been TWO Dispensations of time. There was a time (and a lot of recorded Biblical history) BEFORE the 20th chapter of Exodus and the giving of the Ten (and subsequent gazillion) Commandments. The "Ten" was just the beginning. Tons of laws came after that. But geez, there were people BEFORE that!! So what law were they under?
Hebrews 1:1 explains it. God spoke to the "Fathers by the Prophets", THEN he gave what we call the Old Testament "Law", THEN Christ nailed that to the Cross..Colossians 2:14 clearly says the Old Testament Jewish law was gone, nailed to the cross.
Where folks get so confused........is that many of the precepts are repeated in each of the three laws. Murder was condemned to Cain, codified in the Ten Commandments as an illegal action, and then gone even further in the New Law by not even allowing you to hate someone bad enough to want to kill them. Christ said "You've heard it said in the Old Law (thus and so), but I tell you (such and such)" several times. The old law required you to DO an action to break it. The new law is one of faith, and love, and thought. It can be broken just by your thoughts and desires.
Example, First Law, Cain was banished for committing murder. Second Law (Old Testament Law), it was against the law to murder. New Law, it is against the law to hate, much less actual murder. So murder is against all three. That doesn't mean that the first law is still around, or the second. It means there are some underlying principles that go throughout time, and others that don't.
And I am quoting, or at least paraphrasing, from my Standard of Right and Wrong.
Ha ha! My mom tells me I'd argue with a post ... Bucky argues with himself! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Captain
Way more than you realize, Thumper...........
:biggrin:biggrin:biggrin
I'm betting that a woman came up with that 'no BJ' law.
I like retired Bucky. You guys can't get his panties in a wad like you used to :)
I like panties.
They are not the most important things in the world..........but they are right up there next to it.