What's the difference between God and doctors?



God doesn't think he's a doctor.



(drum roll, cymbal crash...)

Thank you.  Well, it didn't specify, so I was just wondering...



thanx

What's going on here?   Numbers 31:18


     

I'm an Okie, so I would use a 45 and say it was a meteor.
---------------------

Hello Symphony and Willowbirch, it's great to hear from you.

thank u bep, it's nice to check back in...

   

   this is just knee-jerk reactionism if i ever heard it


   

[proven]

This weekend there were at least two major radio talk show hosts discussing this once again; it appears to be imminent, under the auspices of Homeland Security.

Should Christians take a National ID?

Is it a matter of degree?

Many of us take IDs of various kinds - licenses to drive a car, professional licenses for employment, ids for employment.

But this would be a general, overall 'license' to citizenship itself which, technically, if I'm reading the U.S. Consititution right, is a violation or, 'abridgment', of the 14th Amendment which, for citizenship, only requires that we be born here - there is nothing additional required; which would mean all i need is proof of birth here.  Requiring an I.D. would be technically an 'abridgement' of this amendment, which specifically declares that such rights are not to be 'abridged'.

Is it a matter of degree - that is, a Christian can allow himself to be so 'identified', up until some invisible line - say, once it becomes biometric - that is, using some body part to identify the person, then that's when to draw the line.  Of course, we've been using finger prints, a body part, for some 100 years already - but typically, that was for criminal, or military, reasons only.  Of course, they're doing it on school children now.  

One other presumption a National I.D. makes is, by definition, a presumption of guilt.  B/c a National I.D. is being implemented primarily for security reasons - i.e., to screen out 'undesirables', by implication then, if you don't take it, it will be an automatic presumption of guilt.

A presumption of guilt, to my mind, cuts at the root of all American liberty - that is, 'innocent until proven guilty'.
On the contrary, this will be making one's failure to take the id, as 'proof' of guilt.  Or, at least a presumption of guilt.

The whole point of any real 'freedom' in the first place is a minimum of identification.

That's what the Pilgrims, and everyone else fleeing to here, were fleeing from - constantly being 'identified', and harrassed - or worse.


Technically, for me, a National I.D. violates directly the protection of the 14th Amendment and, secondly, violates the general spirit of the whole U.S. Constitution, in the first place, that is, that its citizens are now guilty, until proven innocent - by virtue of a National I.D.

So even if the National I.D., is not biometric- that is, connected to some body part, it still even then would be a violation of my own Constitutional liberties, for citizenship, as I see it.

maybe a hamster.  you could walk it on a leash.


   

Irving was just coming out of anesthesia after a series of tests in the hospital, and his wife, Sarah, was sitting at his bedside.  His eyes fluttered open, and he murmured, "You're beautiful."

Flattered, Sarah continued her vigil while he drifted back to sleep.  Later he woke up and said, "You're cute."

"What happened to 'beautiful'?" Sarah asked.

"I guess the drugs must be wearing off," he replied.  

 

       



Lone Ranger:   Tonto!  We're surrounded by Indians!!

Tonto:   What you mean 'we', Kemosabi?



       

Do u think global injection of democracy, as for instance, in Afghan, Iraq, perhaps Iran, N. Korea, etc., could be the "..on the wing of abominations..."  Daniel speaks of, and Jesus alludes to?

In other words, Democracy seems to be breeding every form of malfeisance, in it's free market economy, civil rights and 'freedoms'(translation: licensiousness) in all of the western free nations.

As that is injected wordwide, is that through which the antichrist can appear, as democracy endorses and supports homosexuality - i.e., the 'beast'...?

Democracy liberates nations from tyranny; isn't it really just exchanging one form of tyranny for another, and this time on a worldwide, more unified, global scale?

A sort of tyranny of 'diversity', and 'toleration'?

Notice how vehemently Christians are rejected for quoting the biblical prohibition on homosexuality.

It's interesting that through the vehicle of Democracy, which I gather once again President Bush this evening, in his State of the Union Address, will be referencing - or at least which he certainly did in his Inaugeration address two weeks ago - has come the protection, and endorsement, of the homosexual 'lifestyle'.

Interesting.

Thank you, bronzesnake.  

Or, perhaps, one is transparent, the other opaque?


Or, one is the light itself; the other is what happens when that same light is reflected off different pigments (as in print)?

thank you, cris.

i should go over & take a look at Amazon's critique there, on that book.

Our local library thru interlibrary loan is very good at getting just about any book.

On law schools using Romans as a reference tool is so specific, tho.  Last time i checked, there were some 185 law schools in the US; may be more, now, don't know - or less.  

Law schools are at the vanguard of any national psyche - influencial.  

I was recently reading the first account of the slave Frederick Douglass, c. 1845.  At the end, his Appendix makes a laudatory endorsement of '...the Christianity of Jesus...', as he calls it.  This was in a hard-copy edition, of 1963.

But when i went to an on-line edition of the same book, sponsored by a Berkeley group, i notice the Appendix is missing.

I may be missing something, but it's this sort of treatment that makes me wonder - even if law schools had been using the book of Romans, would that fact have long since been carefully erased?  It would just about have to be - at least from any or most law schools' archives/consciousness.

Including a book from the Bible in a law school's curriculae would be tantamount to wholesale heresy, in today's social and political climate; I'm guessing they'd have to deny it ever happened.

Most law schools and/or lawyers are at least sympathetic to, for instance, the gay rights issue; and Romans pulls no punches in it's opening chapter, on such behavior.

To find out, however, one literally would have to survey, and research, one by one, all 185 or so, law schools.  And you might have to do some sleuthing, ala Sherlock Holmes, since such 'embarrassing' detail may have long since been, shall we say, 'santized'.  

And taking the time, resources and energy to do that extra undercover work, would be cost prohibitive - to do it adequately.  You'd be paddling your canoe upstream, and possibly not much sympathy or help from, say, law school librarians.  Just a guess, but that's my thinking, on it.

But to me a very interesting topic.  A major embarrassment.  

I do recall reading somewhere, that the undergraduate curriculae at, like Harvard and Yale, included significant coursework in New Testament studies - and was required.

I've heard that several U.S. law schools use to include the book of Romans as one of their texts.

Anybody heard this, and how would you go about finding out?



   

You can't fix stupid.

filled with the spirits.  hehe  


And then there was the ladies group that met every Tuesday morning at Sister Alma's so they could gossip....er, "share in luv."    

unfortunately so sadly, sadly true.  we can't wait to soak up all the latest delicious gossip 'bout so&so, and what better place other than the barber shop than church.

'Christianese', M.  Perfect.    I love it.  

unfortunately, too, it's true.