if you want to keep the sabbath, your church better be very close to your house or you might have to walk a long way. That's a violation of the sabbath. You could drive, but that would be against the spirit of letting your animals have the day off. If the israelites were not allowed to build a fire on the sabbath, are you allowed to turn your oven on? Do you make calls on the sabbath? Do you go out to eat? Do you go grocery shopping? Are you ok with the football players working so you have something to watch? You've posting here on a sabbath, aren't you? Isn't that verboten?
If you want the government to restrict marijuana, be careful what YOU ask for. Don't come crying when you are no longer allowed to buy sudafed over the counter. Think things through, and don't impose 21st century biases on scripture.
This is bigger than the church issue. They're taxing people for not staying home 24 hours/day? Government out of control.
This is just one more step towards tyranny. First, the state demanded you pay rent to it for your property - called the "Property tax". Then, we were forced to pay rent on the atmosphere over the property, called an "emissions fee". Now citizens of Kansas City are being forced to pay for the privilege of leaving their homes. I can't wait to see what's next!
Methinks your opinions are tainted by the culture in which you live. The coercive power of the state should only be used to enforce our natural rights and nothing more. The use of marijuana, as stupid as it is, should not be restricted.
It's not that intoxicating substances are good or that I want to use them (I don't). It's just that their restriction is outside the rightful function of secular government.
Why does it surprise anyone that a pastor from N.J., a state well know for strong gun control in the failed attempt to stop murders, pastor has enacted FaceBook control to prevent adultery?
Matches don't cause arsen, pencils don't cause misspelled words, hammers and nails don't build bird houses, guns don't kill, and FaceBook does not cause adultery.
I wonder of the ol' boys in Colorado City AZ and Hildale Utah have computers and are watching this. If I were in their shoes, I'd be throwing a royal fit right about now.
The public is all of the sudden horrified when they see the bodies? That human beings are chemically burned alive or impaled daily isn't a crisis...unless we see the evidence? Also, how is it that 2D pictures of aborted fetuses are "inflamatory" but the actual (3D) aborted fetuses are a cause for alarm?
The lesson for abortion providers here is clear: If you want to continue the wholesale slaughter of a defenseless segment of society uninterrupted, destroy the evidence.
Bob wrote: "rights under the U.S. Constitution." Interesting how our government is quick to apply the Constitution in some cases but not so in others. i.e. Gun rights for example
How is abstaining not a form of birth control? Skin and space are just as much barrier methods as is latex. If you wish to oppose birth control because it is a violation of the nature that God created, then don't heat your house or wear glasses - if you wish to remain consistent, that is.
If you want to argue the dangers of chemical contraceptives, that's a different argument.
The exercise of the second amendment has required a license for years. Why would anyone be surprised to find a government official arguing for licensing of the FIRST amendment??
The amount of debt in America is designed by the money system. Dollars only exist when they are borrowed and disappear when they are paid back. The problem is, more must be paid back than exists (because of interest). Once credit stops or slows not enough money is created to service old debts, and foreclosures are a mathematical certainty.
On a local level, individuals may pay off their debts, but as a whole the US populace is insolvent. I don't know why this fact escapes attention.
Yes, that was my point with that comment. Fix's point in his book was that the repeating sugar highs crash with predictable regularity, and my point was that I sensed this was another sugar high. I have not read about the discovery in question, but assuming you're right DNA analysis helped weed this one out early. Otherwise, it would have taken much, much longer. The parties involved with Fix's examples simply failed to recognize where evidence stopped and desire driven speculation began. This is a human tendency that has nothing to do with availability of DNA analysis, and creationists are sometimes just as guilty of this as evolutionists.
I know what you meant by your consensus statement. I don't think it is as clean and dry as it's portrayed. There are plenty of intelligent people who have evidence based arguments against Darwinian evolutionism.
12/26/10 10:32 PM
