100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
DRESSING FOR CHURCH TODAY
|
|
my mother is the all time expert on church stuff, just ask her and she'll say it's true so it must be true, and she'd say that flip flops and shorts are a definite no no. your best dress and shoes are the only thing appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." as regards laws this simply means that if the federal government has not made a law governing a particular topic, the states are free to do so AS LONG AS SUCH LAWS COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Since the above quote is exactly what I have been saying myself, I have to assume that we have indeed misunderstood one another and actually agree in our interpretations of the Constitution. hmmmmm. i'm not so sure. you've talked about the ENTIRE constitution here. has anyone ever interpreted the entire constitution? i can't think of a case frankly. some portions of the constitution apply in some cases, others in other cases. As we agree, I see no reason to continue a disagreement, and as all other arguments fall within the parameters of the original disagreement, they are by default moot. of course how i interpret sections of the constitution or how you intepret those sections are moot as the law goes. only the federal courts have the power to interpret. but moot is what a forum like this is all about is it not? at any rate, i think we're far from agreeing on how the constitution has been interpreted by federal judges and justices. And yes, as Constitutional law was my course study for 3 years, I have indeed read the Constitution. I wish to apologize if the comment that I have probably not read it was in retaliation for my offer to scan you a copy. I gladly pocket your insult, but wish to extend and apology to you as I meant no barb by my comment and had no more knowledge of your access to a copy than you would have of my educational background of the subject matter. Have a pleasant Sunday. i'd never have questioned your educational background. and of course my credentials in law are of little substance here. it's a dating site for crying out loud. lol. Indeed! Haha! There is only one thing that gets me truly upset regarding the Constitution...and that is people who don't care enough to give it any thought at all. So, even if we have had trouble understanding each other...which sometimes happens, I am glad to know there are still people who give their attention to it. I'm glad you give it the merit it deserves. kind words. it is good to discuss the constitution i think. the more we kick it around the better we all understand it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." as regards laws this simply means that if the federal government has not made a law governing a particular topic, the states are free to do so AS LONG AS SUCH LAWS COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Since the above quote is exactly what I have been saying myself, I have to assume that we have indeed misunderstood one another and actually agree in our interpretations of the Constitution. hmmmmm. i'm not so sure. you've talked about the ENTIRE constitution here. has anyone ever interpreted the entire constitution? i can't think of a case frankly. some portions of the constitution apply in some cases, others in other cases. As we agree, I see no reason to continue a disagreement, and as all other arguments fall within the parameters of the original disagreement, they are by default moot. of course how i interpret sections of the constitution or how you intepret those sections are moot as the law goes. only the federal courts have the power to interpret. but moot is what a forum like this is all about is it not? at any rate, i think we're far from agreeing on how the constitution has been interpreted by federal judges and justices. And yes, as Constitutional law was my course study for 3 years, I have indeed read the Constitution. I wish to apologize if the comment that I have probably not read it was in retaliation for my offer to scan you a copy. I gladly pocket your insult, but wish to extend and apology to you as I meant no barb by my comment and had no more knowledge of your access to a copy than you would have of my educational background of the subject matter. Have a pleasant Sunday. i'd never have questioned your educational background. and of course my credentials in law are of little substance here. it's a dating site for crying out loud. lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, tell me more about this Hell. You seem to note that Hell does not exist in the Jewish religion and that Yeshua does not mention it (he mentions Gehenna, an actual place outside of Jerusalem) and yet you go on about this apparently made up place? Or are you taking your information from Pagan religions, which begs the question... Jeremiah 19:6 6Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. The Valley of the son of Hinnom is Gehenna, this is not "hell". cowboy, have you ever come up with a cognitive thought that you didn't have to read from scripture? i'm sure your computer and mine could have a lively debate copy pasting passages from the bible back and forth but this is an open forum for people to exchange THEIR OWN VIEWPOINTS on the various topics. do you have a viewpoint yourself or does the bible do all of your reasoning for you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Divine Inspiration
|
|
Adendum to my last post: If God is the ceator, then would it be correct to assert that everything God created was devinely inspired? Can God inspire himself?  If God created all that is in the heavens and on the Earth would it not have been divinely inspired? Can God inspire himself? i inspire myself quite often actually. in fact i think it safe to say that most of my inspiration comes from within. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 10/16/11 06:20 AM
|
|
can you provide the article and section or the amendment that makes it clear to you in the constitution "what issues the federal government has the right to legislate"? The provisions ARE the entire Constitution of the United States...not just an article or two. The Federal Governent is in charge of the laws pertaining to the provisions of the Constitution and all esle is left to the States to govern. I'm sure there are online verstions availabel, otherwise I would have to scan in the whole Constitution and email it to you. hell, i've three different online versions with legal notations and case history notes in my list of favorites. "the whole constitution" as you put it, is only two pages long. i've made it a forth of july tradition of mine for more than a quarter century to read the damn thing begining at "we the people" all the way through the 27th amendment. takes me all of about a half hour. either you can or cannot point to a section of the constitution that will substantiate your claims about what the federal government is empowered and forbidden to do and then we can discuss your claim in that context. short of you doing that, i'll simply assume you've not read it yourself. i see no referance, for instance, in the constitution regarding aircraft and pilots yet the federal aviation exists to legislate aviation matters. your reading of the constitution is very flawed imo. state and local law quite often exceeds the boundaries of federal law. for instance, there is no federal law restricting night landings at aspen airport but there is a city ordinance barring such. land at aspen at night and the crew will be arrested by aspen police yet they've broken no federal law or regulation. Of course there are no specific references in the Constitution regarding issues that are regulated by individual States. These are things that are outlined in individual State Constitutions. The Federal Constitution was written for the express purpose of outlining what the Federal Government IS allowed control…and not what it is NOT allowed to control. The Supreme Court's job would be much simplified if they had…though I don’t imagine there would have been enough trees to get that job done. Haha. you really haven't read the constitution have you? tell me this. can a state decide today that it will begin to issue pilot certificates that would allow people to fly in the airspace over that state WITHOUT a faa pilot certificate? if what you say is true, a state's constitution could claim the right of control over it's own airspace without federal intervention. As we continue back and forth, I'm beginning to suspect that we are not butting heads so much as talking about two different things. Correct me if I’ve misunderstood you, but you may be referring more to the fact that States have precedence over all legislation that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the right to restrict….which is supposed to be most everything. Therefore States have the right to make laws that the Federal Government does not have the right to interfere with or pass laws of their own on the issue…if that’s what you mean by precedence then I quite agree. no, in this the tenth amendment is quite clear: " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." as regards laws this simply means that if the federal government has not made a law governing a particular topic, the states are free to do so AS LONG AS SUCH LAWS COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. I am using the word precedence to describe which law prevails when State law and Federal law butt heads. Obviously a State can pass whatever law it wants to, but will end up being brought to task in the Supreme Court if it infringes on existing Federal mandates. The only way the Supreme Court will find for the State law over the Federal law is if it is ruled as not offsetting the purpose of the Federal law or if the Federal law it contradicts is deemed Unconstitutional. not so in the least, but perhaps you can cite case history that will convince me. This is Article VI, Clause 2 of The United States Constitution: “Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” There is a lot of assumption that plays into what people believe…most people believe that there is a Federal law that sets the legal drinking age at 21. Since there were many States that held the legal drinking age at 18, people assumed the State law outweighed the Federal law on the matter…which is not the case at all. It seems that the Federal Government goes out of its way to make people think they hold all the cards. There is no Federal Drinking Age in any law in existance...and the Federal Government has NO Constitutional right to enact one. That being the case, here is what they do… From Chapter 1, Title 23 of the U.S. Code… “§ 158. NATIONAL MINIMUM DRINKING AGE (a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance.— (1) In general.— The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104 (b)(1), 104 (b)(3), and 104 (b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful. (2) State grandfather law as complying.— If, before the later of (A) October 1, 1986, or (B) the tenth day following the last day of the first session the legislature of a State convenes after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, such State has in effect a law which makes unlawful the purchase and public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than 21 years of age (other than any person who is 18 years of age or older on the day preceding the effective date of such law and at such time could lawfully purchase or publicly possess any alcoholic beverage in such State), such State shall be deemed to be in compliance with paragraph (1) in each fiscal year in which such law is in effect. (b) Effect of Withholding of Funds.— No funds withheld under this section from apportionment to any State after September 30, 1988, shall be available for apportionment to that State. (c) Alcoholic Beverage Defined.— As used in this section, the term “alcoholic beverage” means— (1) beer as defined in section 5052(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (2) wine of not less than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume, or (3) distilled spirits as defined in section 5002(a)(8) of such Code" So, as you can see that what people think is a Federal Drinking Age, is actually a bribe to force States into enacting drinking legislation of their own that comply with Federal wishes. The books are full of these kind of underhanded controls, and are all too often taken to be actual Federal laws. The Federal Government has a lot fewer laws than most would expect…but what they do actually legislate, they have the authority to uphold. i fail to understand that what people think or assume has anything whatsoever to do with the constitution or the law. and i sure don't see what all this has to do with article six clause two. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"leave people be"; great way to put it, conrad. for every person who thinks that he's giving to his home town there's an equal number who thinks that what he's giving is a gift they don't want or need. if more people would just live and let live without trying to fix all that THEY think needs fixin' the world would be a much safer place.
"leave people be." damn, conrad. i'm stealin' that one. lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A different path to space
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 10/16/11 05:32 AM
|
|
true, the atmosphere is very thin that high but along with very little resistance comes very little lift capability. gravity would still be in effect and without lift it'd be a short trip from the balloon back to terra firma. airspeed is needed to create aerodynamic lift and at high altitudes the TRUE airspeed needed is very high. we'd have to get into the definition of true airspeed to fully discuss the topic but suffice it to say that the further apart air molecules are, a thin atmosphere, the faster a craft would have to fly to get the molecules to provide lift. we can get deeper into it all if you'd like but i'll leave it at this; great speed is required to either overcome the effects of gravity to obtain orbit or to proved lift at altitude to overcome the effects of gravity to stay aloft within the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Justification...
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 10/16/11 05:16 AM
|
|
Hilter orchestrated the slaughter of thousands of people, therefore his personal justification is irrelevent. It becomes a public matter. sure, any sane person would agree that hitler's personal justification is irrelevant but the same argument can be made about bush's and obama's actions in iraq and afghanistan. hitler justified his actions largely on the versailes treaty and many americans use 9/11 as justification for the wars today while at the same time an equal number of citizens say the wars are unjustifiable. when you say 'it becomes a public matter' all you're really saying is that many or even most of the individuals who make up the publice agree on the particular matter but each must see justification in his/her own mind. the public in germany in the thirties was behind hitler. there is plenty of evidence to show that. the public in saudi arabia justifies the beating of a husband's wife if he shames him or his family. yet most americans feel that is unjustifiable but you'll still see the occasional wife beater in ammerica justifying his putting his wife in intensive care with, "well if she wouldn't keep pissing me off i wouldn't have to beat her." so here justice is served when he ends up in jail but in saudi arabia his actions wer justified publically. when it comes to public justification all we really have are the laws society makes. that's simply becaus we cannot all agree on what is and is not justifiable; what is right and what is wrong. if the public as a whole did agree we wouldn't need laws. the public is divided on roe v wade, for instance. likely half the population feel that laws banning abortion would be justified and half would vote no. a half century ago many if not most of the folks that make up the public in the southern states felt the civil rights act was unjustifiable. how can you justify a law that makes white kids have attend the same school as black kids? the feelings were so divided that the national guard had to be called to the steps of the university of alabama to forcibly remove the state governor himself. so if today we look back and find hitler's or george wallace's actions highly unjustified, did public justification ever exist in the first place? or did it exist in germany but not in america outside of montgomery alabama at the time? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
PRESIDENT
|
|
i see no more equitable country than ours, frankly, and i'm quite pleased with how the country as a whole is doing. sure, we have some issues as does the rest of the world but we've all had it rougher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Justification...
|
|
i've a pretty souped up search engine too if i choose to research further. Ok, so here it is, I know shocking . . . its a philosophy forum, and this is the thread on Justification, I know too much trouble to read up on it before arguing your side. what makes you think i've not read up on the topic? ah, you mean i haven't read what you read. got it. now, have you read what i read? i see soul has posted more for us all to read. hey, instead of speaking our own views in open forum such as this we could have all of our search engines linked together i'll bet and then our computers can argue my link against your link automatically. then soul's computer can come back with a half dozen links which jeannie will counter with,..............oh my god!!! no jeannie!!! not fair!!!!! A YOU TUBE VIDEO????????!!!!!!! INCOMMING!!!!!!!!!!! or we could just have an exchange of individual viewpoints. you know, people like you and me who's views we can challenge. i can't challenge the views of an author of an internet link who's not here to answer can i? and of course you can challenge my views without help from wiki can you not? actually you've no choice as i don't do wiki. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jrbogie, I was referring to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution outlining "Supremacy of National Law". the supremacy clause merely states that federal laws are applicable regardless of any state law. "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." the law in california allows the possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes yet such posission or use is still against federal drug laws. buy marijuana in california for medicinal use and you can be arrested by the dea and prosecuted in federal court then sent to federal prison. all the time you complied with california law. I certainly misspoke if there is a Federal Law making the death penalty mandatory. Do you happen to know where I could find it? nowhere is a law making the death penalty mandatory. the death penalty is an option in capital crimes and treason against the u.s. government. tim mcveigh was tried, convicted, sentenced and executed by the federal government. I don't want to wait to read it until it's kicked out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, or until the states that are not complying are brought to task. not sure what you're talking about here. i know of no challenge presently before the supreme court regarding either federal or state death warrants. nothing in the constitution prohibits the death penalty per say, for either the states or the federal government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Constitution states clearly (some think not so clearly) what issues the Federal Government has the right to legislate and all else is left to the discrepancy of the individual States. The Federal Government overreaching and writing laws it has no right to makes it seem as if States go against Federal laws. can you provide the article and section or the amendment that makes it clear to you in the constitution "what issues the federal government has the right to legislate"? i see no referance, for instance, in the constitution regarding aircraft and pilots yet the federal aviation exists to legislate aviation matters. your reading of the constitution is very flawed imo. state and local law quite often exceeds the boundaries of federal law. for instance, there is no federal law restricting night landings at aspen airport but there is a city ordinance barring such. land at aspen at night and the crew will be arrested by aspen police yet they've broken no federal law or regulation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Justification...
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Fri 10/14/11 06:47 AM
|
|
This throws away the objective qualities of philosophical justification. It tosses its usefulness in the trash heap. This is anti logic. and just what are these "objective qualities of philosophical justification"? objective qualities by what measure or more correctly WHO'S measure. everything about philisophical justification his highly SUBJECTIVE based on individual reasoning. This is the problem we keep having, people continue to use the colloquial version of a word instead of the philosophical or scientific and rigorously defined versions. When someone sets out a definition for a particular conversation it must be adhered to within that conversation unless a separate argument is being used that relies on a different definition and then that one must be adhered to . . . however one cannot refute the other using different definitions or you get what we have here . . . . a failure to communicate. who set out what definition that must be adhered to? i don't recall agreeing on or even discussing definitions here. JR's justification is really just rationalization or under the TOJ it would be warrant as previously stated, not philosophical justification. Excusing an act based on preference has nothing to do with logical justification. where have i offered justification of anything other than within my own mind? Please take a moment and read about the theory of justification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification i've a pretty souped up search engine too if i choose to research further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
PRESIDENT
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Fri 10/14/11 06:02 AM
|
|
there is no single human that can improve the country no matter what authority he is given. what i see we need in a president is a leader, someone who can pull together a colletion of people, some who already are in government, some who would be presidential appointments, and then lead the country to betterment. i don't even listen to who would do what about the economy, jobs, a more fair tax system or pretty national parks. there's not one candidate out there who actually has a clue, but they're all pretty cagey about getting folks to think that they do enough to get elected. give me a candidate that says, "i can't fix what's wrong with america on my own because i'm no expert in all that's wrong and how to fix it. i'm putting out a call to all in government to rally with me to find real answers and then we'll all fix whats broke as best we can."
eisenhower was such a leader but unfortunately he missed his time as president. but he damn sure put together a coalition of highly unlikely bedfellows to win the greatest war in history. anybody who could get the likes of such arrogant egomaniacs as churchill, rosevelt, stalin and de gaule to even pose together for a photo op much less get them to all dance to his tune logistically and tactically in battle could certainly bring the likes of boener and pelosi to the table. can't really say we've seen such a leader in the white house since ike. nor do i see a candidate that measures up. likely i'll once again, for the third time, write in colin powell/bob gates as pres/vp. two proven leaders in my mind. may as well waste my vote on a fantasy as waste it on one of these idiots who might actually win. a waste is a waste is a waste. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama must fail. This is the highest priority of our Nation, our People, our God. TheGOP and Tea Party is working hard to fullfill the patriotic wishes of all Americans by defeating this bill. As we all know, Obama is a kenyan born, radical muslim socialist waging jihad against America from our WHITE House! What the Senate must do, is pass additional taxcuts for the Job Creator class. These can be funded once we ended governement handouts like Socialism Security, Mediscam, and so called unemployment"benefits"! The patriotic wishes of all Americans? It's patriotic and American to want the President to fail? What is the GOP doing to ensure jobs are created? here's what you folks just don't get. gop, democrats, bubbacrats, dubyacans, or ron paulianas, or whatever political party, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT LEGISLATE JOB CREATION. sheesh. Wasn't that something Boehner and the Republicans campaigned on? Fixing unemployment and creating jobs? not a clue who campaigned on what. job creation cannot be legislated be it the republicans saying they can or the democrats. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as to polygamy, thats another one I dont feel the laws is infringing upon,,, because in such religion the authority is not the STATE but the CHURCH,, so indeed their church may still aknowledge polygamy without it being necessary that the state does...(ie, the church will call and recognize the many wives, the state will only aknowledge or document one) you couldn't be more wrong. many people, mormons included, are serving time in jail after being convicted of polygamy. name one state that tolerates marrying more than one spouse regardless of what the church recognizes. another example where the establishment clause is readily applicable. states dont tolerate marriage to more than one spouse as defined by the STATE (That is, one cannot have a marriage 'license' and state documented marriage to more than one person) however, a church can certainly perform whatever ceremonies they wish and recognize within their church those involved in whatever capacity they wish to so the church can decide to marry (According to their traditions) and recognize as married anyone they choose but people cannot have any STATE documented spousal relationship to more than one partner at a time mh, in your first sentence of this post you said "as to polygamy, thats another one I dont feel the laws is infringing upon,,, because in such religion the authority is not the STATE but the CHURCH,," when speaking of laws and infringing upon them, the church has no authority whasoever. oh sure there is ceremony, tradition, pretend but you were speaking about laws and authority which once again happens to be the topic. of course, but when it comes to religion 'authority' is debatable IF my 'authority' is God, than I can certainly construct my life around GODS authority without needing mans,, except when it comes to theivery or murder but if GODS authority determines my marital status, I dont need the state or government to aknowledge it,,,,so polygamy laws dont actually impede my ability to have spouses in 'GODS' eyes, they just prevent me from having spouses as defined and aknowledged by the hand of government,,, when it comes to the law, which is what we're talking about, authority is NOT debatable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
But that was my point exactly, The fact is that we know terrible things happen everyday, and that these things are not hallucinations. And the thought that we actually live in a shared hallucination is absurd. Put it like this I am 5'2" and 190 give or take a lb. I can beleive I am a supermodel til the cows come home but that don't make it so.... There is a gift we all have called imagination; the ability to believe in things that are made up in our minds. Belief is a thing that can not be taken away from someone but it has to be measured with common sense or it becomes dangerous. Why do you think some of the early Philosophers were seen as heritics. Because the Ideas they had were in fact dangerous to themselves and others...Now days we call mis guided philosophers CULT LEADERS. Because we are lost as a society and mankind does have major abandonment issues about just being here and having no Idea of where we really came from we are alot like Lambs to the slaughter...we follow Ideas that we feel give us a place to belong and those of us with IQ's over 150 should take better care when we speak of things so we do not lose our humanity to a over grown God Complex. you have an iq over 150? yeow. what's genius? 140 i think? not to argue, just curious. how many iq's over 140? 136 for me. not that it matters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama must fail. This is the highest priority of our Nation, our People, our God. TheGOP and Tea Party is working hard to fullfill the patriotic wishes of all Americans by defeating this bill. As we all know, Obama is a kenyan born, radical muslim socialist waging jihad against America from our WHITE House! What the Senate must do, is pass additional taxcuts for the Job Creator class. These can be funded once we ended governement handouts like Socialism Security, Mediscam, and so called unemployment"benefits"! The patriotic wishes of all Americans? It's patriotic and American to want the President to fail? What is the GOP doing to ensure jobs are created? here's what you folks just don't get. gop, democrats, bubbacrats, dubyacans, or ron paulianas, or whatever political party, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT LEGISLATE JOB CREATION. sheesh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unemployment Rate Would Have Hit 14.5% Without 2009 Stimulus. says who? tell me how YOU think the stimulus positively affected the employment figures. not here to read articles or links i can find on my own. here to discuss real topics with real people. so tell me what YOU think. wherever you heard the 14.5 number, tell me YOUR reasoning as to why you think it's prediction of the future back in 2009 make sense TO YOU. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
