WE are losing it. (2023 Update)

[George]

"Solemnly swear or affirm" is the phrase.

[Just Curious]

Not the Birch John Society? (getting back on topic, the Birch John Society stands foursquare for the preservation of wood privies.)

[J T]

Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 6:37am (EST-3) [e-mail] (D'ohBoy) doth query: Can you 'splain that to me so you don't sound like a racist idiot?

I haven't been reading the thread, just figured I'dcheck why someone is slurring Leon. Simple enough, Muslim is a religion, not a race. Cancel Leon as idiot of the day.

JOAT

10 Out Of 10 Terrorists Prefer Hillary For President - Bumper Sticker I do not have a problem with a woman president - except for Hillary.

[Larry Blanchard]

It's not "wishy-washy" to realize that you cannot prove a negative. Or, in the case of religion and politics, a positive either. That's why they call it a belief, not a fact.

I suspect most religions arose from the innate reluctance of our species to say "I don't know".

[Larry Blanchard]

I was once asked if I believed in the violent overthrow of the government. I replied that of course I did, how did the questioner think our country got started. I got my security clearance :-).

[Swingman]

Not in the context I used it as a "process", which I clearly stated in the above. Go back and read your Constitution:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation".

[Leon]

I am not going to disagree with any thing you have said here but would like to point out that the word "swear" has several meanings. Some of those meanings are positive and some are negative. The English version of the Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. When translated phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the message. Thou shall not kill is a common example. Words do not always have the same meaning when translated. Like most any other language including English the word can have a totally different meaning when used with other words. He commonly "leaves" early, He raked the "leaves". The passage you quoted above IMHO indicates that if you are not true to your self/ believe what you say, others will recognize this and you will face those consequences.

I only recall seeing the Bible in court. That was not recently and perhaps is not the rule today.

[Robatoy]

At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice, according to the Greek text. Not wine. That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.

There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in the Bible. Then there are those who live by the Bible using it as guide, and then there are those legalistic sunsabitches who use it as weapon.

I knew kids from my school who we NOT allowed to go swimming on Sunday.

Yup, they were not allowed to float in God's warm water and glory, bathe in the sunshine and find rest in that non-activity.

To paraphrase Carlin: "there are still people doing time for that Friday/bologna rap."

I digress and don't get me started....

r

[Mark & Juanita]

Not sure where you got that information, but coming from a denomination that diligently researches and uses the original languages (all of our ministers must be able to read the scriptures from the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic in the proper historical meanings those words had at the time they were written), I can tell you that is the first I have ever heard of that interpretation. It further does not fit with the rest of the context of the account where the master of the wedding makes the comment about how the best wine was usually served first, then after the guests had drunk too much, the lower quality wine brought out. Try substituting "grape juice" in that sentence and you don't get the same effect. Also doesn't work for the account of "new wine in new wineskins, and old wine in old wineskins" comment that occurs elsewhere in the gospels. Further, it doesn't work in the historical context; there was no way at that time for grape juice to have been kept unfermented for any period of time.

On the flip side, this was not an approval of drunkenness as the admonitions against that are found throughout scripture.

That there is.

[Robatoy]

The 'word' is oinos and can mean wine or grape juice. Fact.

The context, however, makes it clear that it probably was, in fact, wine.... the fermented stuff that made the guests, after having drunk freely, intoxicated.

My point was that some people wag their fingers and proclaim, NO NO NO that wasn't booze, it was grape juice. Therefore NO amount of alcohol is allowed. And others use it as an excuse to get intoxicated, because it is acceptable.

I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do' scale.

[Nova]

The wedding at Cana where Jesus changed water into wine is John 2:1 through 2:9. The Strong's Concordance list the original Greek word as:

G3631 ??????? oinos oy'-nos A primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin [H3196]); ?wine? (literally or figuratively):?wine.

The Hebrew [H3196] cross references to:

H3196???? yayin yah'-yin From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication:?banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].

It often debated but the with the custom of the time it is doubtful unfermented grape juice was served at the wedding.

[Dave in Houston]

I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do' scale.

Far out and solid!

[Mark & Juanita]

"fruit of the vine"

Kind of hard to make that argument based upon other passages, both Old and New Testament.

Again, same thing, there are numerous admonitions, both Old and New Testament against drunkenness.

They would easily fit into the admonition regarding drunkenness, has nothing to do with the "naturalness" of the substance but the use to which it is put. After all, hemlock is natural as well, it's still not good for one.

[Andy H]

Does this mean atheists can lie in court? No, there are laws against that. So why bother with the pretense of "God" being "aware" of what you are saying.

Its funny that we can giggle at kids when they have to behave because "Santa is watching" then we mimic that same behavior in our Courts.

:Flame suit on::

Andy

[Andy H]

Larry, you are my new favorite poster! Congratulations.

Andy

[Robatoy]

It's okay. It has all been said.

r

[D'ohBoy]

statement overwhelming my semantic gifts. But that doesn't change the problems with his statement.

The basic thrust of my comment remains valid. Who is the us who owns 'our laws?' White male Protestant US citizens? Are Muslims not Americans? Aren't all Americans subject to and the owners of American law?

D'ohBoy

[Mark & Juanita]

My apologies in advance for making you out to be a complete and total idiot.

Since when is it gross bigotry to point out salient facts? The fact of the matter is that radical islamic groups like CAIR are using US laws against the citizens of this country to establish a foothold in US society in which they can establish their own Sharia type laws. The writings of their various leaders has firmly established their goals and ultimate objective. Various writings frankly sneer at our ideas of freedom of speech and other freedoms.

If you mean by "our" laws, the laws and customs of the US, then one would assume that we all own them. Muslims can and are US citizens, they are not free to establish their own sets of laws within this country. It used to be that when people came to this country from other countries, they were expected to assimilate into the culture of this country, not expect this country to adapt to the culture of the country from which they originated. The fact is that they are using the freedoms we have available to us in order to establish a foothold with the intent of removing those freedoms at a later date.

[Robatoy]

Ask anybody who lives in the UK, France, The Netherlands and other parts of the EU where the infiltration has already begun, they will tell you that it is NOT a good idea. Freedom of what you believe should be a right, to use it as a back- door for political change is not. I think it is time we start collecting foreskins again.

[George]

Muslim men are circumcised because Abraham had both Isaac and Ishmael circumcised.

Your reference is to David and the Philistines?