SITE NOTICE | MORE..Gospel of John Third Printing! We're excited to announce the third printing of the Gospel of John Personal Edition booklets! To date we have seen over 200,000 copies printed and sent out. .. click for more info!
You claimed to apply the same logic (although actually you failed in that) to both the Bible and the Constitution. Your thinking is invalid and illogical because you failed to account for and recognise the different authors and natures of the documents in your reasoning - I am happy to keep posting this as many times as you need me to.
By the way it is quite pathetic that you bluntly repeated a request for me to respond to a question, and then when I had space in a response to directly address your question you then dismissed *your very own topic* as a rabbit trail.
Kyle wrote: However, from a strictly legal standpoint, the US Constitution does protect internet porn as free expression, even though the Biblical principle, as you say, makes it sinful.
and is God the author of sin? No! Well, then let's be careful not to conflate 1. The Bible, which is God given, PERFECT, cannot err, and is our sufficient rule for faith and practice, and, 2. A document written by fallible man, who cannot see the end from the beginning and would be horrified to see their words being used to peddle pornographic SINFUL materials.
Kyle wrote: and by the same logic
No! you are conflating perfect the Word of God with the fallible words of men.
Kyle wrote: The constitution did not create the rights it protects. It merely affirms them.
Kyle wrote: It affirmed the principle, the same way the first amendment protects free speech on the internet. The Bible didn't predict surgical abortion or internet porn. Does that mean it doesn't address them? It's about principle, nor necessarily it's expression in codified law.
Principles: The Bible forbids all forms of sexual immorality and lust. The US Constitution protects internet porn.
If the constitution did not create the rights and principles it protects, where did it find them?
Kyle wrote: No, i don't concede anything of the sort. I denied that it was anachronistic, and you accused me of a straw man so I dropped the argument.
No, you did not deny that your practical extension was anachronistic. You cut and paste anachronistic out of context and applied it to a general principle, arguing against something I had not stated. A clear case of strawman argumentation. I was not aware that you had dropped the argument. You simply failed to respond when an apology and request for forgiveness would have more appropriate in the light of the 9th commandment.
Yes, I agree in principle with your right to carry a musket. I reject your illogical and anachronistic practical extensions.
Kyle wrote: It affirmed the principle, the same way the first amendment protects free speech on the internet. The Bible didn't predict surgical abortion or internet porn. Does that mean it doesn't address them? It's about principle, nor necessarily it's expression in codified law. Laws requiring fee men and women to disarm or be thrown in jail violate the principle that the second amendment affirms. And yes, it existed long before 1791.
"restaurants, bars and liquor stores, which serve taxpayer-subsidized alcohol late into the night during parliamentary sessions. Now the undignified acts of some MPs have brought calls for a sobering-up."
Hey cobber fancy a tinny before we legislate on the alcohol consumption laws. Hic!!
Would the member for said constituency please try to stand up?