Which political party are you?

[Starscream]

Republican! And always will be! Slobbering Liberals are destroying this country and decaying the morals of our youth!

I know right!? F*** acceptance and embracing change!

 

[8Mud]

I know right!? F*** acceptance and embracing change!

If the change is studied and not just change for the sake of change. New isn't necessarily better.
If the change is actually for the good of as many as possible and not just politically motivated, agenda or motivated by personal gain for one group over another. Which right there disqualifies most change.
Thomas Jefferson said (paraphrasing) if your pissed count to ten, if your really pissed count to a hundred.
The gospel by chuck, politics is like a woman, you change and head off in a new direction and you are just swapping one set of problems for another. The better solution is to stop, take stock and try to make what you have work, someway, somehow.

 

[jeeperjohn]

8Mud, agree with you on this one.
Many politicians have what I call "Do something disease".
Some sort of tragedy, natural disaster, or crime takes place, they (Politicians-Government) feel they have to come up with some new law, or regulation. One example comes to mind is Hate Crimes.
Lets say you killed somebody. They were of a minority race. Or maybe it turned out they were gay. There are laws in place that would cover that, without creating new ones.

I think we should scrap the vast majority of laws in the US and make judges become constitutional experts and authorities (like they are supposed to be now) and let them judge whether something violates our constitution. It seems the libs think they can write a law to cover any possible occurance. It can't be done. Someone has to interpret the law and make a decision. If we had a very basic legal system based on a few simple guidelines like the 10 commandments for example, it would streamline our legal system and make things far more efficient. Maybe this would only shift the burden to the appelate courts but it would relieve the workload from the lower courts.

 

[Starscream]

I think we should scrap the vast majority of laws in the US and make judges become constitutional experts and authorities (like they are supposed to be now) and let them judge whether something violates our constitution. It seems the libs think they can write a law to cover any possible occurance. It can't be done. Someone has to interpret the law and make a decision. If we had a very basic legal system based on a few simple guidelines like the 10 commandments for example, it would streamline our legal system and make things far more efficient. Maybe this would only shift the burden to the appelate courts but it would relieve the workload from the lower courts.

I agree with a streamlined law system, but not based on the 10 commandments. Based on The Constitution, yes. Separation of Church and State still doesn't seem to have happened in a lot of places and, IMO, freedom of religion means that the government of an entire country shouldn't be based on any single religion.

 

[Russ Pottenger]

I can't speak for John, but what I think point he was making, and I believe myself is that the simplicity of the 10 Commandments was intended to be a guide for moral behavior that has lasted for thousands of years. Likewise, our magnificent Constitution that we have had for just a few hundred years, should be our Governmental guide. The more we deviate from it, the less liberty we will have.

 

[Trail-Axe]

I agree with a streamlined law system, but not based on the 10 commandments.

Which of the Ten commandments do you disagre with?

 

[o2bgpn]

Which of the Ten commandments do you disagre with?

How about the first four (over 33% of the ten commandments)

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy

 

[Russ Pottenger]

How about the first four (over 33% of the ten commandments)

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy

What is the point your trying to make in reference to the subject?

 

[o2bgpn]

I thought it was pretty obvious having referenced the persons quote in my reply. He asked a question, I answered it.

 

[Starscream]

Which of the Ten commandments do you disagre with?

I don't necessarily agree with the first few, but that's a moot point. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to follow those, but we should not be bound by laws following them. Sure, murder and stealing and things of the sort are bad, but that's a given.

 

[Trail-Axe]

I don't necessarily agree with the first few, but that's a moot point. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to follow those, but we should not be bound by laws following them. Sure, murder and stealing and things of the sort are bad, but that's a given.

Thanks for you input, and I appreciate your opinion. But why is it a given that murder and stealing are bad? If no one ever said they were bad, how would we know? And if the last five commands are given to teach us how to get along with each other, and that seems ok with most of us; why should we then ignore the first five that teach us how to get along with the One who gave all of them to us in the first place?


To o2bgpn:
I noticed you did not include the Fith commandment in your list of commands you disagree with, why is that?

"The fifth commandment is the first commandment with a promise. "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee"
(Ex. 20:12).

 

[98XJSport]

But why is it a given that murder and stealing are bad? If no one ever said they were bad, how would we know?

Who says they are? Survival of the fittest :scottm:

 

[goodburbon]

Theological debate warning........

The first four don't apply because they work on the assumption that everyone belives in the same god.

The fifth works because there is a bond from generation to generationm no matter what religion you are.

The murder and theft ones apply because 95%+ of the people have a conscience, That conscience is an internal warning that is supposed to let you know when something is unacceptable. It is possible to have laws without gods, it is also possible to know right from wrong without supernatural influence. If it weren't there would be a helluva lot more atheists in jail.

 

[Trail-Axe]

Who says they are? Survival of the fittest :scottm:

My point exactly, but even the fittest of men may one day need someone to heal them.

 

[Starscream]

Theological debate warning........

The first four don't apply because they work on the assumption that everyone belives in the same god.

The fifth works because there is a bond from generation to generationm no matter what religion you are.

The murder and theft ones apply because 95%+ of the people have a conscience, That conscience is an internal warning that is supposed to let you know when something is unacceptable. It is possible to have laws without gods, it is also possible to know right from wrong without supernatural influence. If it weren't there would be a helluva lot more atheists in jail.

Could not have said it better myself. :thumbup:

 

[8Mud]

Thanks for you input, and I appreciate your opinion. But why is it a given that murder and stealing are bad? If no one ever said they were bad, how would we know? And if the last five commands are given to teach us how to get along with each other, and that seems ok with most of us; why should we then ignore the first five that teach us how to get along with the One who gave all of them to us in the first place?


To o2bgpn:
I noticed you did not include the Fith commandment in your list of commands you disagree with, why is that?

"The fifth commandment is the first commandment with a promise. "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee"
(Ex. 20:12).

Look up the term translation fallacy. In effect it says an exact translation between two languages is almost impossible. And secondly, the original books of the Bible were in the language of that day and not of our day, language has evolved in meaning, context and complexity. For instance how would you say, gene splicing is forbidden in Americ or maybe don't mess with neutron accelerators.
Peoples unending search of absolutes is likely and largely a waste of time. Even math and physics are relative and not static.
The translators of the Bible likely had an agenda or at the very least a preconception.
A Calvinistic view of the Bible might be more appropriate, The fewer people between you and the source the more likelihood of the message being untainted.
The Basic foundation laid down in the Ten Commandments (found in two different books of the Bible that I know of and that don't read exactly the same), aren't a bad starting point lacking something better (perhaps the return of the Messiah).
Before you write off the commandments as being irrelevant, stop to think for thousands of years, billions of people have been trying to quantify something they know is there, but have been largely unsuccessful in explaining.

 

[IndyXJ]

You're not supposed to kill people? Whoops! :shhh:

Back on topic somewhat and yes, this is a plug.
Ron Paul is THE best option for maintaning our Constitution. Not a member of the CFR or other New World Order scum groups.

Anyway, google Ron Paul if you haven't already and make up your own mind.

Guiliani is using 9/11 like a !!!1 Huckabee would be better then him given the choice without Paul as an option.

I voted other since I see good on both sides.

 

[Starscream]

You're not supposed to kill people? Whoops! :shhh:

Back on topic somewhat and yes, this is a plug.
Ron Paul is THE best option for maintaning our Constitution. Not a member of the CFR or other New World Order scum groups.

Anyway, google Ron Paul if you haven't already and make up your own mind.

Guiliani is using 9/11 like a !!!1 Huckabee would be better then him given the choice without Paul as an option.

I voted other since I see good on both sides.

Ya, until Guiliani started campaigning I didn't realize how everything is a byproduct of 9/11.

 

[goodburbon]

Before you write off the commandments as being irrelevant, stop to think for thousands of years, billions of people have been trying to quantify something they know is there, but have been largely unsuccessful in explaining.

???? People who "Know" don't bother to quantify, they accept. The rest of us doubting Thomas' try to quantify, and end up with nothing, because without faith, there is no god.

 

[goodburbon]

There are a few people I can not and will not vote for.

Obama
Edwards
Clinton
Guilliani

I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat if he made the ballot, if not I just have to vote against those other humps.