|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 81 of 331:
| 
Feb 26 17:53 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
crimson
|
|
response 82 of 331:
|
Feb 26 18:12 UTC 2006 |
It's actually 9:6, which is much more relevant. 9:4 forbids the eating of
blood; 9:6 says (in the NIV) "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall
his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:51 UTC 2006 |
The bible is not a legal reference for our laws. It is just the opinion of
some people that lived a few millenia ago.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 84 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:55 UTC 2006 |
And the Constitution is just the opinion of some people who lived a few
centuries ago. Are you proposing we discard it too?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:58 UTC 2006 |
The Constitution, even though the opinion of people that lived a few centuries
ago, is still our established law. The bible has never had that status in the
USA. We do change the Constitution when it becomes to be believed necessary.
It would probably be a good thing if the bible were also changed when a change
is needed.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 86 of 331:
|
Feb 26 20:01 UTC 2006 |
The Bible is part of the body of literature that our Constitution and laws were
formed from, along with English common law and Enlightenment political thought.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 331:
|
Feb 26 20:11 UTC 2006 |
That is irrelevant. As you note, our laws were formed from a lot more
literature and history and experience than just the bible (this should be
kept in mind by those that have been recently fulminating about judges
citing foreign laws - the bible is one of the ultimate foreign law
documents).
|
kingjon
|
|
response 88 of 331:
|
Feb 26 20:16 UTC 2006 |
Any argument that says that the Bible is irrelevant can also be used to dismiss
any other member of the body of historical literature from which our laws have
been formed -- and if you dismiss each member of a set you dismiss the set as a
whole.
The objections to references to foreign law have been objections to references
to _current_ foreign law as a standard by which to judge ours. Looking at the
_history_ of a given law, even when that history crosses national boundaries,
is commendable.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:26 UTC 2006 |
I did not say the bible was irrelevant to some aspects of the formation of
our laws. The men that wrote our laws believed in some aspects of the
bible to various extents. There are insights to be gained from the story
telling in the bible (about foreign partly historical and partly
mythological events). But what is irrelevant is your stated fact that "the
Bible is part of the body of literature that our Constitution and laws
were formed from". I acknowledge that, but what relevance does that fact
from the past have now? None.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 90 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:28 UTC 2006 |
Exactly the relevance that history of any sort has. If you say that is none,
that's your opinion, but I don't think you'll find many that share it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:35 UTC 2006 |
Of course not - you and others of your persuasion keep trying to claim
that our Constitution is based on the bible so the bible should control
our lives now. That is nonsense. "Exactly the relevance that history of
any sort has" is, exactly, to history.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 92 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:37 UTC 2006 |
The Constitution, along with every law ever passed, is a part of history. To
understand it, we must understand the history that it came out of.
|
slynne
|
|
response 93 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:40 UTC 2006 |
Well, try to argue a point of law in our country's courts using the
Bible as precedent and I think you will quickly learn how irrelevant it
is as a legal document especially when compared to the Constitution.
However, it would be silly to deny that the Bible has influence over our
current law makers. Obviously it does.
I am reading an interesting book right now about the abortion issue. It
has a bit of a provocative title but it is a good read. It is called
_How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics, and the
War on Sex_. It has mostly, so far, talked about how the Pro-Choice
movement also tends to be the pro birth control movement and how birth
control has changed our society both for men and women. The author gives
a lot of examples of the Pro-Life movement being against birth control.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:44 UTC 2006 |
Re #92: Good. We can agree perhaps on "Those who don't know history, are
bound to repeat it."
|
bru
|
|
response 95 of 331:
|
Feb 26 22:46 UTC 2006 |
Leviticus 17:10 - 15 is the verses I was refering to.
|
keesan
|
|
response 96 of 331:
|
Feb 26 23:23 UTC 2006 |
The bible requires that men whose brothers died marry their widows.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 97 of 331:
|
Feb 26 23:34 UTC 2006 |
So why aren't the fundies holding up HBO's Deadwood as a paragon of
Biblical morality?
|
twenex
|
|
response 98 of 331:
|
Feb 27 00:03 UTC 2006 |
The Bible is irrelevant because rcurl says it is.
Sounds like a bloody God-complex to me.
What does God want with a chemistry professorship?
|
tod
|
|
response 99 of 331:
|
Feb 27 01:05 UTC 2006 |
The next thing you know, they get to define a foetus as a human and then want
to outlaw masturbating. What a bunch of perverts trying to regulate a woman's
reproductive system.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 100 of 331:
|
Feb 27 02:05 UTC 2006 |
> What does God want with a chemistry professorship?
Indeed, why does God need a professor ship? *spoken in his best Spock voice*
|
twenex
|
|
response 101 of 331:
|
Feb 27 02:20 UTC 2006 |
Erm, Kirk said it.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 102 of 331:
|
Feb 27 02:47 UTC 2006 |
Spock said it too, after Kirk gets hit by lightning. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 103 of 331:
|
Feb 27 02:51 UTC 2006 |
C'mon Amichai Jeff Rollin, paraphrasing out of context doesn't become you.
I know the bible is relevant to some people, but it is not explicitly relevant
to our law making process (for which we should be thankful, with all the nasty
things it prescribes, like the one keesan cites).
|
gull
|
|
response 104 of 331:
|
Feb 27 07:04 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:84: I'm not interested in Biblical arguments about law until
you propose a law banning the consumption of shellfish. Otherwise it's
just people picking and choosing passages that happen to support their
own prejudices from a really long book.
|
klg
|
|
response 105 of 331:
|
Feb 27 12:06 UTC 2006 |
I think, in general, such people have deeply shameful feelings
about sex. It's a difficult area for them.
If this is true, then why do such people report more satisfying sex
lives than do non- such peopld??
chard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richa
If Roe were overturned, and congress passed a federal law making
abortion illegal, you would see abortions treated as a capital crime
like any other murder.
If Roe were overturned, it would probably be done so because abortion
is not a federal issue, meaning that it would again become regulated by
the states and Congress would not have the authority to pass laws
regulating such in-state activity. So, once again, we see the Left
Wing resorting to scare tactics rather that facts.
d Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard Lies--o--Richard L
Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies
Judaism finds little problem with abortion
This is completely untrue.
*Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cross Lies***-***Cr
|