Government, man's replacement for God

@secondson said
Paul was beheaded for civil disobedience as were all the apostles. The commandment of scripture is to be subject to the powers that be, but there is a higher law. When the powers that be attempt to supersede God's commandments, then "rendering" is no longer possible.

Was introducing the healthcare reform - mentioned in the post you were replying to - in contravention of a "higher law" and/or an "attempt to supersede God's commandments" in your view?

@secondson said
Here in the states we don't have a king or queen. Our government exist by, for and of the will of the people. We will not tolerate despotism and tyrannical rule by a bunch of elitist who think they know better what's good for the people.

When the government fails to serve the people, at the behest of the people, it is our constitutional right to revolt, and revolt is just around the corner.

What has your rant about despots tyrants and revolts got to do with Her Maj ?

@deepthought said
Oh, just for fun:

1) If you are worried about the NSA just ditch electronic communication. Move to a log cabin or tent in the woods - under cover of foliage so you're invisible to satellites - and don't go anywhere where there's likely to be CCTV.

2) The traditional repositories of knowledge, for the last 900 years in my country, have been universities. I don't be ...[text shortened]... and not amateurs, especially ones who have an agenda that goes beyond what the needy actually need.

So it works just fine does it? Why then did the colonies rebel in the 1700's? Was that justified you think?

As for universities, they have been taken over by Left wing kooks who have established "safe zones" where people are not allowed to offend Left wing thought and professors, even tenured ones, are being chased from their profession by merely speaking with or about people who question the PC culture and those who oppose the PC culture are routinely forbidden from even speaking at a university. Most universities have their origins traced back to religious folk who were attempting to improve society, but have turned into a group think brain washing institution instead for Leftists.

In fact, if you can find this movie, I suggest you see it

YouTube

But my guess is that where you live it would probably be deemed "hate speech" or simply ignored because of the kind of PC culture you live in.

@divegeester said
Obama was put in position by God, he introduced healthcare reform and you should have supported it by rendering unto Caesar that which was his.

I am told to obey the law of the land, so long as it does not conflict with the laws of God. Currently, the law of the land allows me to question any government policy verbally. In fact, if more people did this the country would be a far better place because no one policy is flawless because they simply reflect the short comings man has in general.

@suzianne said
Do you get the Constitution confused with the Bible?

The Constitution, like the Bible, was given to us as a warning. If you violate either, there will be no thunder bolts of lightening to strike you down. In fact, there more than likely will not be any immediate negative consequences for violating either. However, what is at stake in violating either is a gradual waning of personal freedom to the point where you are nothing but a cotton picking slave, or worse, if such behavior is allowed to continue.

Or do you disagree?

John 10:7-18
Then Jesus said to them again, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

So are we sheep in need of a shepherd? Yea or nay?

@whodey said
The Constitution, like the Bible, was given to us as a warning. If you violate either, there will be no thunder bolts of lightening to strike you down. In fact, there more than likely will not be any immediate negative consequences for violating either. However, what is at stake in violating either is a gradual waning of personal freedom to the point where you are nothing but a cotton picking slave, or worse, if such behavior is allowed to continue.

Or do you disagree?

My point was that both have their place; they are not to be confused, but neither is the Constitution to be rejected just because it isn't the Bible.

@whodey said
John 10:7-18
Then Jesus said to them again, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they ...[text shortened]... his command I have received from My Father.”

So are we sheep in need of a shepherd? Yea or nay?

It's nothing short of disturbing to me that you think so.

And it's just as disturbing to me that, for you, there is no "we". It's only "you" and "us".

@whodey said
So it works just fine does it? Why then did the colonies rebel in the 1700's? Was that justified you think?

As for universities, they have been taken over by Left wing kooks who have established "safe zones" where people are not allowed to offend Left wing thought and professors, even tenured ones, are being chased from their profession by merely speaking with or about pe ...[text shortened]... ld probably be deemed "hate speech" or simply ignored because of the kind of PC culture you live in.

And you've swallowed the right's divisive con job hook, line, and sinker. They depend on an ignorant electorate.

@divegeester said
So if the government of the USA introduce a tax health strategy, then Democrats and Republicans should support it, correct?

Based on "render unto Caesar" etc...

"Support" is a personal matter.

The point is that healthcare is not for the church to decide.

@fmf said
Is "revolt ... just around the corner" a metaphor for the general election in November 2020?

No man! We're talkin' revolution, with guns. It won't take long.

@fmf said
Was introducing the healthcare reform - mentioned in the post you were replying to - in contravention of a "higher law" and/or an "attempt to supersede God's commandments" in your view?

The way our constitution is written, any "law" passed by tyrants that goes against the will of the people is "an attempt to supersede God's commandments".

@whodey said
John 10:7-18
Then Jesus said to them again, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they ...[text shortened]... his command I have received from My Father.”

So are we sheep in need of a shepherd? Yea or nay?

Yea, indeed we need a shepherd. Notwithstanding the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, interestingly enough.

@secondson said
The way our constitution is written, any "law" passed by tyrants that goes against the will of the people is "an attempt to supersede God's commandments".

This is my favorite speech about the Constitution, provided by Ben Franklin

Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."



In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.


|Home| |Constitution| |FAQ| |Topics|
|Forums| |Documents| |Timeline| |Kids| |Vermont|

For you see, Ben Franklin, although not a very religious man at all, understood that freedom can only be obtained by a moral society and that faith in God was key to this morality, yet he also acknowledged how the state speaking from the pulpit was equally as problematic.