Trading and the love of God

So Stu when Thomas Jefferson wrote Creator and then latter in publc speach at university invocation he said that his "Creator" was of course the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob -

Do you have a problem with that?

Remember just a few days ago you essentially said we must believe Hitler because he made public pronouncements.

Is it now your logic that we must believe Hitler's speeches as to his beliefs but we must discount Jefferson public speeches as lies.

It is so incredibly childish of you to think that our law was not heavily influenced by Christianity.

I have proven to you the US Supreme Court said we (at that time) are a Christian nation.

I have showed you that various State constitutions made it mandatory to profess belief in God to hold office or be even competent to take the stand.

And public school used to teach the bible.

Common law was made by judges. Judges in the past had to oaths as to their belief in God and country.

When you review older case law you always see references to God.

But none of this matters to you because you live in the dream world of the anti christian internet frauds.
 
Quote from jem:
So Stu when Thomas Jefferson wrote Creator and then latter in publc speach at university invocation he said that his "Creator" was of course the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob -
Do you have a problem with that?
Remember just a few days ago you essentially said we must believe Hitler because he made public pronouncements.
Is it now your logic that we must believe Hitler's speeches as to his beliefs but we must discount Jefferson public speeches as lies.
It is so incredibly childish of you to think that our law was not heavily influenced by Christianity.
I have proven to you the US Supreme Court said we (at that time) are a Christian nation.
I have showed you that various State constitutions made it mandatory to profess belief in God to hold office or be even competent to take the stand.
And public school used to teach the bible.
Common law was made by judges. Judges in the past had to oaths as to their belief in God and country.
When you review older case law you always see references to God.
But none of this matters to you because you live in the dream world of the anti christian internet frauds.
More...
your arguments are tediously repetitive circular and therefore always end up being boring .

Common law was formed within the context of many things. Some of which are far more basic and fundamental than Christianity.
Furthermore, Common Law was established before Christianity was thought of.

Christianity may well influence law , but it is not fundamental to it. And then again, humanitarian issues influence law, far more heavily as you put it, than Christianity ever did, so why are you not trying to champion them?
It is more obvious that Business and Commerce influence law, more than Christianity, so why would you not first be an apologist for those?
Because of course your argument as always is inevitably closed off to any fact which might get in the way of holding a tediously repetitive and circular position. That's what blind religious indoctrination does for you.

Superstitious belief systems based upon the invisible imaginary sky daddy friend is not a part of Common Law. Get over it.
The point being, if you want to impose that stuff on others, do so in your own school away from public learning centers where the focus is on a rule based system of inalienable rights for all, through a Common Law base, which therefore cannot, and are not constitutionally able to be grounded or formed with sectarian preferences such like your christian catholic perversions as part of them.
 
Quote from jem:

you just don't get it - you totally missed the fricken point.

1. A christian has just as much right to vote his conscience as an atheist.

2. The west laws are based on common law. And common law was formed within the context of Christianity.

3. Our constitution allows for majority rule as long as fundamental rights are not violated.

.
More...

Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. "

Seneca
 
....aready mentioned in a previous post Seneca,

..but it won't make any difference anyway for jem.
His reply, as always, is to rush blindly for a disconnect toward something else, during the process of which he applies the most atrocious grammar and spelling, as happened on cue (quote): " ... when Thomas Jefferson wrote Creator and then latter in publc speach at university invocation he said that his "Creator" was of course the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob -..."

And there you have it. The archetypal closed minded dead end circular jem christian defence argument.
 
Quote from jem:

So Stu when Thomas Jefferson wrote Creator and then latter in publc speach at university invocation he said that his "Creator" was of course the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob -

Do you have a problem with that?

Remember just a few days ago you essentially said we must believe Hitler because he made public pronouncements.

Is it now your logic that we must believe Hitler's speeches as to his beliefs but we must discount Jefferson public speeches as lies.

It is so incredibly childish of you to think that our law was not heavily influenced by Christianity.

I have proven to you the US Supreme Court said we (at that time) are a Christian nation.

I have showed you that various State constitutions made it mandatory to profess belief in God to hold office or be even competent to take the stand.

And public school used to teach the bible.

Common law was made by judges. Judges in the past had to oaths as to their belief in God and country.

When you review older case law you always see references to God.

But none of this matters to you because you live in the dream world of the anti christian internet frauds.
More...
Two observations:

1. Jefferson did not believe in a personal God.

2. Hitler did.


http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994571,00.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=hitl...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 (Read the 3rd entry)
 
Quote from stu:

Superstitious belief systems based upon the invisible imaginary sky daddy friend is not a part of Common Law. Get over it. The point being, if you want to impose that stuff on others, do so in your own school away from public learning centers where the focus is on a rule based system of inalienable rights for all, through a Common Law base, which therefore cannot, and are not constitutionally able to be grounded or formed with sectarian preferences such like your christian catholic perversions as part of them.
More...

Common Law implies law which applies to all, universally, regardless of sectarian interpretations.

The Law of One, is just such a law. It cannot be subverted regardless of sectarian interpretations.

Opposed to the Law of One are the laws of perception. Perception is a twisted form of the Law of One which aims at subverting it. Perception also offers a common law, that is, laws which apply to "all" regardless. Only the Law of One is truly "common". Perceptions laws operate within the Law of One and cannot change it. All such laws, whether truly common or pseudo-common are laws of mind.

Only the Law of One guarantees inalienable rights. Subversive interpretations of the Law of One will therefore conjure up the concept of "aliens". Jem operates under this law voluntarily. Such laws alienate, for example, by dividing the world between members and non-members.

The Law of One says that all are members of one "body", equally bestowed of every gift of God. This is inalienable regardless of the laws of belief which are sectarian laws which cooperate with perception. "Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ" restates the Law of One. When it is interpreted privately to separate believers from unbelievers, the Law of One is subverted in favor of sectarianism. So the "apostle Paul" both stated and subverted the Law of One. Such is the schizophrenic nature of what is called "Christianity"...blessing and cursing out of the same mouth.

The saviors of the world operate only under the Law of One and show that only the laws of God apply, anyway, anytime, anyplace. Miracles show that the laws of God supercede the laws of perception. Miracles show that the Sons of God have an inalienable birthright.

All the laws of this world are common only to the laws of perception. These are the laws of the maker of this world, because perception makes it. This includes the "law" of gravity as well as the laws of time and mass. Time itself is sectarian, separating one moment from another, dividing existence into past and future. The laws of mass separate one mass from another by "space" inbetween.

The laws of man are silly charades which uphold the laws of perception. They essentially do not work toward reestablishing the Law of One to awareness. So there are no miracles except the "miracles of science". Man's laws aim to subvert the laws of perception, which aim to subvert the Law of One. So there is great confusion regarding law, what it does, etc. Man is using the laws of perception to murder. Then he makes laws to punish murder with a view to prevent it...without addressing the actual cause of murder. So it is a charade. His ignorance does not change the fact that man is using the laws of perception to self-sabotage his every step. Ignorance of the laws of perception do not exclude man from it's effects.

Faith is a law of perception. It is common law for those who have volunteered to operate under perceptions laws...to see if the Law of One can be broken. Anyone "on earth" has done so, whether they are aware of it or not. The earth itself is a perception! "All have sinned" is the same as saying, "All have percieved".

I am about reversing [think: repenting/ repealing] the laws of perception in a way that leads back the the Law of One as the only law that can be truly abided by. Man has never broken the Law of One. It is literally inalienable. "What God has joined, let no man put asunder" means that perception can never subvert the Law of One. Therefore, man is innocent. He need only to understand this to return to the happy experience of the Law of One.

Only the Son of God experiences the Law of One fully. There is only one Son. Therefore, man must cease to exist, and identify instead with the Son of God. Then he will truly abide in abundance.

Jesus
 
Most agnostics are independent thinks, with a tendency to be sceptical empiricists (i.e. only believe things based on facts and evidence, not received opinions from authority, tradition, or mysticism). That's pretty much the ideal mindset to have as a trader IMO.
 
I do not know where heck you guys get your definitions for common law, but common law was started in England and still evolving today. It is laws made by judges not the legislature. Case law -- not law derived by statutes.

But I will go with the department of justice website and my law school training.

"common law: The legal system that originated in England and is now in use in the United States. It is based on judicial decisions rather than legislative action."

Jefferson's definition was far too narrow and if you read it in the context I read those quotes in - (on the internet) it can be seen he was advancing an argument not claiming to be correct.

Whether common law started before Christianity hit England is irrelevant. The question is did the judges appeal to christian principles when they made decisions.

I have already provided that answer to the STU many times. The fact that I repeat the truth does not make it less true, even if it is boring to you.

Stu is the guy who will not accept the dictionaries definition of atheism, and on this subject his does not accept the authority of the U.S. Supreme court to determine U.S. law.

But let me remind you when the U.S. Supreme court declared we are a Christian Nation - they gave numerous reasons. The U.S. Supreme court reviewed common law and state constitutions.

Stu do you think business common law developed in a vacuum outside of the concepts and fundamentals of christianity. Do you not fathom that for the first 150 years the U.S. was a very religions country. We used to teach religion in our public schools. Do you think Christianity stopped at the chruch steps and then all of sudden a ruling class of atheists took over and evolved the country?



would'nt you (haven't you) been telling me that the church caused gallieo to be locked up for his beliefs and that witches were burned and every other evil you can think of.

Shit you guys have to pick your poison.

Either the church and christianity were highly influential or they were not.
But please stop trying to rewrite history in an inconsistent manner. Especially when you are pulling arguments out your ass.
 
Quote from jem:


Whether common law started before Christianity hit England is irrelevant. The question is did the judges appeal to christian principles when they made decisions.

More...

No. "Judge not", when translated to English means don't judge. So to judge, in any way whatsoever is not a Christian principle. If you want to follow me, you will give over every decision to the Holy Spirit to decide for you in every case. The reason for this is because the Spirit is your will. What is judging without the Spirit is a pseudo-will, slave to narrow-mindedness, and literally not capable of making any decision relative to salvation without Guidance. As you give over every decision to the Spirit, your problems are solved, and you begin to understand you are one with the Spirit. So you go when and where the Spirit goes, following Spirit's instructions to the letter. This is the "way".

The Spirit guides you "home". When you understand that you are the Spirit, you are almost home. When Spirit is all you know, you are home. Flesh arises through a process of judgement, and becomes a prison from which you will never be able to escape because it is your decision-making process that imprisons you in flesh. Therefore, Christianity is or ought to be about the practice of allowing the Spirit to make decisions for you until all your decisions are made by Spirit. Spirit knows everything, and solves all problems from a macro perspective. Your problem is that you think you are flesh, but really you are Spirit. You have judged yourself unworthy, guilty, small, limited...eveything that is not what or who you are. So you are confused and "lost". The fact that you experience yourself as "man" means you are not thinking straight and need Guidance. "Follow me" means use me as an example of one who followed the Guidance of the Spirit in all things until I understood that I am Spirit and allowed Spirit to use the flesh to communicate truth to the world. When you surrender to Spirit, the Spirit works through you, as "you". You no longer speak as a "man". You speak as the Spirit itself, in first person. For example, "I am the way, the truth and the life" is Spirit speaking in first person through a mouthpiece that used to think of itself as the son of man. The Spirit is the savior. The Spirit is Self.

You cannot judge, literally. You need Guidance. If you give all decision-making over to Spirit, you are not making judgments anymore. Capish?

You have not understood even the most basic tenets of authentic Christianity. Rather, you have listened to judges who decided they knew what I said and meant. Behold, they rewrote history in an inconsistent manner, pulling arguments out of narrowed perspectives.



Quote from jem:


But please stop trying to rewrite history in an inconsistent manner. Especially when you are pulling arguments out your ass.
More...

Another reason not to judge is because usually, when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you. This is good news if you use the feedback to correct mistakes.

Jesus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top