-->
@Tradesecret
Please explain what you think "the law" is and where do you think it comes from?
Common Law is the basis of Civil Law.
Common Law is a compilation of social norms and traditions from various towns and cities.
What would you do if God commands you to murder.
Posts
Total:
115
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain what you think "the law" is and where do you think it comes from?Common Law is the basis of Civil Law.Common Law is a compilation of social norms and traditions from various towns and cities.
Common Law - best articulated by William Blackstone in his legal Commentaries expressly indicates that the Common Law is derived from the Bible.
And Blackstone is acknowledged around the world as one of the best Legal historians in the business.
-->
@Tradesecret
If all of the towns and cities had the same laws (based on the holy scriptures) why was it such a difficult task to compile them into a uniform code?
Did each town and city perhaps have their own unique interpretation of what was generally considered appropriate?
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain how you decide who should live and who should die.Sure, you don't kill people with your own hands.Please explain how you decide who SHOULD live and who SHOULD die.For example,You could probably save the lives of many starving children if you devoted your energy and resources to feeding some starving children.Are you indirectly killing those children by not devoting your energy and resources to feeding some starving children?
I am not sure what you are attempting to get out me. I have indicated that I do not decide who should live or die. Are you asking me- if I was given authority - how would I decide?
I devote a significant amount of my resources in trying to prevent abortions from happening. I also devote a significant amount of resources to programs which enable people to adopt children. I also devote a significant amount of my resources towards helping people who are left in homeless situations and are expected to be looked after by the government and its welfare programs.
I provide resources to my local church as well who have significant means of assisting people in impoverished places around the world and locally.
If I did not do any of these things - I still would not be indirectly killing people.
I have responsibilities for things and people I have been put in place with and are connected to.
-->
@3RU7AL
If all of the towns and cities had the same laws (based on the holy scriptures) why was it such a difficult task to compile them into a uniform code?Did each town and city perhaps have their own unique interpretation of what was generally considered appropriate?
I am not sure it was such a difficult thing to do. But I suggest that back in the day - they never had photocopy machines. Nor the telephone. And that there was only a limited amount of people who could read.
And like today - where we have such resources - there are also people with power and influence who want things their own way. Not necessarily the right way - but their own way.
-->
@Tradesecret
Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. This may be a legacy of the Norman conquest of England, when a number of legal concepts and institutions from Norman law were introduced to England. In the early centuries of English common law, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the system of writs to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law. An example is the Law Merchant derived from the "Pie-Powder" Courts, named from a corruption of the French pieds-poudrés ("dusty feet") implying ad hoc marketplace courts. [LINK]
-->
@Tradesecret
If I did not do any of these things - I still would not be indirectly killing people.
Do you believe that people who support medical privacy ARE "indirectly killing people"?
-->
@3RU7AL
In which country?
-->
@Tradesecret
.
TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman NOW, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is fiction within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, and a LIAR of their true gender,
YOUR BIBLE STUPIDITY AND IGNORANT QUOTE ONCE AGAIN IN YOUR POST #4: “I personally don't think that God will ask us to murder.”
With your Satan induced quote above, you once again show this forum that you absolutely have no knowledge of the scriptures! Jesus, as the serial killer Yahweh God incarnate’s inspired word, asks us to murder, in only a few of the many biblical examples of Jesus' inspired words shown below, understood Bible fool?
"If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death,; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, BUT KILL HIM. Your hand shall be the first raised to SLAY HIM; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall STONE HIM TO DEATH, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
“For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9). He/She Tradesecret, you remember this passage don’t you, sure you do, where you agreed with Jesus in your quote shown herewith: “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death.”
YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE #3826721372: “the application to this is : if someone pretending to be God tells you to kill someone - you can know with the assurance of the Bible- God's word itself - that any so called new or fresh revelation is NOT from God.”
First thing, cite a biblical reference to your assumed proposition above, okay? Waiting. Relative to your comical scenario above, Jesus’ disciples sure knew it was God when Jesus commanded them to do the following: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27) Ever wonder why Jesus turned into a pussy this time in this particular killing notion? It was easy for Jesus to kill His creation at other times as explicitly shown within the scriptures, but why did He wuss-out and want His disciples do it for Him in this case? Any thoughts upon this biblical axiom? Don't RUN AWAY again, okay, the membership is watching and so is Jesus! (Hebrews 4:23)
“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5) EVERY word includes the passages within this post, and once again at your embarrassment and expense in front of the membership.
He/She Tradesecret, we have to ask you, how can you continue to stay within this prestigious forum while I and others continue to make you the #1 Bible fool? Huh? How many times do I have to easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership? Huh? You are a total disgrace to Jesus and Christianity, period! You act as though you are a Presbyterian! LOL
As shown before ad infinium, you cannot address my posts to you, other than to RUN to the moderators crying and whimpering again that I am out of line, where in FACT, I am not by using the Bible to easily refute your blatant ignorance of same!
NEXT RUNAWAY PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WILL BE ….?
.
-->
@Tradesecret
Do you believe that people who support medical privacy (for every human being on the planet earth) ARE "indirectly killing people"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe that people who support medical privacy (for every human being on the planet earth) ARE "indirectly killing people"?
I honestly still do not know what you are talking about? Please explain.
What does support mean? Are you talking about agree with or paying taxes into or paying private funds into or what?
And what is medical privacy? Are you talking about obamacare or some kind of public generated medical health fund or what?
And how can it be for every human on the planet? Are you talking about setting up some kind of UN controlled medical health fund?
And why would a health fund be killing people directly or indirectly?
I don't agree with abortion in principle. There are exceptions to that principle. I don't think that public monies ought to be ever used for abortions. If an abortion is necessary then it ought to be privately funded.
But if you are asking whether I take the view that paying taxes is tantamount to paying for people to be killed - then I would say that there are plenty of legal cases that refute that position. We have thing called a consolidated revenue fund. It means that taxes are paid into that fund. The government of the day then - pays for its own agenda out of that fund. We do not have a taxation system whereby we pay taxes for specific things. We pay tax simply because we have no choice in the matter. And it all goes into one big fund.
At that point - those funds remain in that fund - and we have done our duty or paid our dues. The government of the day, is responsible totally for how those funds are spent. There might be a case made - that if we voted for a particular government party that we are in fact supporting that party and how they spend their money. But if I vote conservative or if I don't vote at all, then how the progressive party spends the revenue is on them - not on me.
I have paid my taxes into a pot. I can attempt to reduce the amount as much as I can in order to reduce the amount of funds that would help the progressive party do their dirty work - but it is all on them how they spend this pot.
But paying taxes into a fund does not by itself make me directly or indirectly responsible for what the government of the day does with the fund. And this is the case in particular if I voted for the other party, if I intentionally chose not to vote, or I live in a different country.
It would be helpful to know what "trap" you are setting for me - before I know whether to jump in with one foot or two. Or whether I simply ignore you.
-->
@Tradesecret
And why would a health fund be killing people directly or indirectly?
A health fund indirectly kills anyone they "could have" helped but didn't help.
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think that public monies ought to be ever used for things I disagree with, like WAR.
-->
@3RU7AL
And why would a health fund be killing people directly or indirectly?A health fund indirectly kills anyone they "could have" helped but didn't help.
I think you need to explain your case.
-->
@Tradesecret
If a WAR is necessary then it ought to be privately funded.
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think that public monies ought to be ever used for things I disagree with, like WAR.
So no more taxes then - at all.
-->
@Tradesecret
But if you are asking whether I take the view that paying taxes is tantamount to paying for people to be killed
The argument is basically, (iff) you give money to a charity (or a government), (and) that charity gives money to poor people in a poor country (and) those poor people in a poor country give aid to people with guns who don't like foreigners with guns telling them what to do ("terrorists"), (then) you're a de facto terrorist.
-->
@Tradesecret
So no more taxes then - at all.
Perhaps the amount of your tax could stay the same no matter what, but you could check off a list of things you DON'T want "your money" to be used for.
For example, if you don't want to pay for prisons, then perhaps more of "your money" would be allocated for education or something else.
-->
@Tradesecret
Do you believe that people who support medical privacy (for every human being on the planet earth) ARE "indirectly killing people"?I honestly still do not know what you are talking about? Please explain.
Medical Privacy.
Privacy of medical records.
Doctor to patient confidentiality.
Do you support Medical Privacy (philosophically) in principle?
-->
@3RU7AL
So no more taxes then - at all.Perhaps the amount of your tax could stay the same no matter what, but you could check off a list of things you DON'T want "your money" to be used for.For example, if you don't want to pay for prisons, then perhaps more of "your money" would be allocated for education or something else.
But that is how it works now. This is what I meant by the consolidated revenue fund. It is a pot - you pay tax into. And then the govenment of the day determines where and how that pot is divvied up.
This creates a separation between the tax you pay and what the government use it for. There are lots of things that I think taxes should not be used for. I believe in small government for instance. I think that for it to be more like you say - that the amount you pay should be reduced accordingly, not just allocated for something else. Allocating it for something else - is simply mirrors and shadows.
-->
@3RU7AL
But if you are asking whether I take the view that paying taxes is tantamount to paying for people to be killedThe argument is basically, (iff) you give money to a charity (or a government), (and) that charity gives money to poor people in a poor country (and) those poor people in a poor country give aid to people with guns who don't like foreigners with guns telling them what to do ("terrorists"), (then) you're a de facto terrorist.
I have never been a fan of just giving money to people. I don't even like the idea of giving food stamps or other items, because - it achieves the same thing, If you give food stamps, then the money they do have will go towards buying other stuff.
I also think that the logic you draw from a person giving money for charitable and good faith reasons to becoming a de-facto terrorist is flawed. It puts too many links into a chain. If the original person knew or ought to have known and went ahead anyway - that the money given would be used for terrorism, then an argument based on intention or recklessness that they were conspirators of some description is valid. Yet - if they did not know and had no way of knowing - then I would take the view that they are not terrorists - intentionally, recklessly, or even de-facto.
Giving money to help people is not a bad thing per se. It is a noble and a generous thing to do. Making sure you do your homework is an important thing to do. AND If you don't do your homework but simply give money to people who are asking for it - then you are reckless and indirectly supporting a terrorist. If you do your homework and you still get stung, then that is a different matter. I take the view that intention in your giving - involves not just what you want to do with it - but the realistic probabilities of what might happen.
-->
@Tradesecret
Allocating it for something else - is simply mirrors and shadows.
Ok, so why did you suggest you didn't think "your tax dollars" should help pay for feminine healthcare?
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe that people who support medical privacy (for every human being on the planet earth) ARE "indirectly killing people"?I honestly still do not know what you are talking about? Please explain.Medical Privacy.Privacy of medical records.Doctor to patient confidentiality.Do you support Medical Privacy (philosophically) in principle?
I think our usage of words might be confused due to different countries understanding of words.
I do believe in private health funds. I don't believe in public health funds. In other words, I think we should be encouraged to give to a fund voluntarily but not compulsorily.
I do agree with medical records being private - and with doctor to patient confidentiality. I think mostly that medical privacy is a good thing. There are somethings that are none of anyone else's business.
Having said that - I do take the view that the government has some responsibilities and why I think people should pay tax. One of those is the defense of the nation from both foreign and domestic threats. Hence, we have the defense force and we have the police force. Yet I also think that this is not restricted just to nations or individuals and groups who are threatening to harm our nation. It also includes threats of nature, cyclones, hurricanes, pandemics or contagious diseases.
Does it also include philosophical threats or idealistic threats to our current ideologies and political system? Potentially. Yet, more difficult to determine. Is Socialism or Communism a threat to the capitalistic and market way of life in the West? Is multi-culturalism a potential threat? Is relativism a potential threat to our way of life? Is Christianity a threat to our current democracy or is Christianity the foundation on which our system is based? These questions become quite more complicated. I would think that the responsibility of our government is clear when it comes to external and internal threats of nature and people. Ideologies however - which are potentially more dangerous and which plausibly could do more harm - are much more complex. We all saw the results of trying to stamp communism out. Although in today's world - stamping out fascism seems to be ok.
-->
@Tradesecret
I also think that the logic you draw from a person giving money for charitable and good faith reasons to becoming a de-facto terrorist is flawed.
Fair enough.
I borrowed it from an "anti-terrorism" television commercial.
I reasoned that you can't really buy anything without indirectly supporting some brutal dictator or mean spirited person or unsafe working environment somewhere.
-->
@Tradesecret
I do agree with medical records being private - and with doctor to patient confidentiality. I think mostly that medical privacy is a good thing. There are somethings that are none of anyone else's business.
I'm glad we can agree on this.
-->
@3RU7AL
Allocating it for something else - is simply mirrors and shadows.Ok, so why did you suggest you didn't think "your tax dollars" should help pay for feminine healthcare?
Did I suggest that? Where?
But that the answer is - because I don't think it is my responsibility personally to provide this healthcare for individuals.
And furthermore I don't think it is the government's responsibility.
It is a private matter for families.
And if people - privately want to set up a charity or organisation for it specifically - then go for it. Let them pay for it and raise money in a private way.
-->
@Tradesecret
because I don't think it is my responsibility personally to provide this healthcare for individuals.
Do you realize that your tax dollars are used to pay for emergency room care for homeless people?
-->
@3RU7AL
because I don't think it is my responsibility personally to provide this healthcare for individuals.Do you realize that your tax dollars are used to pay for emergency room care for homeless people?
Yes. It does not mean I agree with my tax dollars being used for such a thing. Because I don't.
Do not misunderstand me. I think it is the right thing to help and assist the vulnerable. My point is that this IS not the responsibility of the government, but of the private sector, and of churches.
And when the private sector sees no need to do it because the government is and when the churches see no need to do it because the government does, then like most government programs - it essentially becomes wasted money in the main. And homelessness and poverty increase.
When the government sector spends tax dollars on it - it means that they have less funds to spend on thing that they ought to spend it on. It means the private sector spends its money on other things - mostly for itself and has less need to be altruistic in its endeavors. And the church spends more money on other things which are not necessarily part and parcel of what it ought to be doing. I take the view that the churches ought to be at the forefront of assisting the poor and vulnerable in our society - not raking in money for themselves. Some - not all - but some churches are very rich and wealthy. For me - this is not a sign of God's blessing, but rather, a sign of the church's abdication of what they ought to be doing.
Similarly, the private sector has almost no incentive to assist in the sphere of the vulnerable. Whereas in the past - families looked after their own - now they don't. They have abdicated the role in many respect to the government. The government pays for schooling, for medicine, for charities, for almost everything. And honestly, if the government is going to pay for it all, why would I bother spending my money as well. It is easier to complain that the government has not done enough than to look at my own lack of responsibility.
And the government has been quick to take on all of the responsibility. It knows it provides them with the justification to ask for higher taxes. And most people are sheep and like to be looked after. Not too many consider that they are themselves personally responsible. So they won't quibble when the government asks for more - and in fact they will get upset if say someone like me - says - stop - I want to pay less taxes - I want to be responsible for my own life.
Yet, while the private sector takes less responsibility. While the church goes into decline. The government is getting bigger. This means ultimately - and logically - bigger taxes and less and less individual rights. This also means that individuals will be able to less and less rely upon rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own guns, freedom to privacy, freedom to travel, freedom to take responsibility.
So yes I am very aware of the fact that my tax dollars are helping the poor and homeless. I am not happy about this. I would love to be able to voluntarily contribute -(which incidentally I do to private charities I know actually know the poor) and let the government use those tax dollars for things that they ought to be funding.
-->
@Tradesecret
My point is that this IS not the responsibility of the government,
What do you believe is the proper function of government?
-->
@3RU7AL
To govern. Not to lead. Not to tell people how to live their lives. But to govern.
This generally is to protect the country from enemies, from within and from without. Defence force and Police force. It is to provide a justice or legal system to ensure that such enemies are dealt with under the law. It is to ensure that agreements between people from all walks of life if procured justly can be enforced if necessary.
Hence, ordinary things flow from this. A taxation system. It is impossible to build a legal system or a police force and defence force without funds. A properly established system for elections.
Other things that flow implicitly from this duty to protect are emergency hospitals for contagious diseases. The defence of a nation includes protection in relation to natural disasters - weather patterns, perhaps even climate change.
It should not include laws about marriage, births, and deaths, international travel, passports etc. Nor should it include things like education, health, currency, postage stamps, traffic (motor vehicle) registration, or indeed any type of registration, property or otherwise.
It should not involve itself as a party in any economic areas where private institutions can function properly.
This obviously is not comprehensive. Yet I am a proponent of small government. It is not a business. It should not be run like a business. It should be limited - by taxation, by longevity, by private institutions. By its constitution. It should not involve itself in matters of religion nor in matters of private property. Both being separate powers and having their own spheres of responsibility. This is in accordance with a separation of powers doctrine.
I am in two minds about roads. Is it a public area, or a private area? I probably err towards a local governing area as opposed to a national one. Many matters would be better governed by local government, things such as crime and enforcing contracts. Other things would be better governed by national government such as defence force.