Do they think we're morons?

raden wrote

When I had a CV it contained a line sort of like "Certain types of
military work and employers will be rejected on grounds of conscience."

It works too as there hasn't been any major conflict since.

 

I have a similar line about pharmas on my contract CV.

 

That was uncalled for.

I was referring specifcally to pensions, and in thier case the state
pension.

I would but they're dead

Well, continuing to make the world a better place might be nice. There
seems, generally, a huge effort going into some thigns that I can't see
really matter very much and sweet fa happening on something that is perhaps
rather mroe important.

For example hunting and school dinners respectively.

Now obviously not everyone's idea of what makes the world a better place
will accord with mine own but sometimes the effort and time put in by the
legislative process seems utterly disproportionate to the end result.

Yes, I think so. While I concede that a hung parliament is not ideal, I
don't think that a huge majority is either (especially when turnout is low)
Then again, I'm not entirely sure that our particular version of democracy
is all that to get excited about. It seems (from the outside, granted)
that the prime driving motivation is the continuation and exercising of
power, as opposed to what might actually be better for the country as a
whole (for example)


--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 155 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

You don't want to help save the world then?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

Catman wrote

A hundred years ago, around the time of the rise of the labour movement
there were no state pensions, only poor houses. Things have moved on.
We all take for granted that pension provision, of some kind, will
happen for all of us, even the Tories.

Who could disagree but the Mainstream parties, who by my definition are
afloat without a rudder, have to find something to be different about or
they, literally, have no job. It really is about arguing for the sake
of it. Certainly among "Career" politicians it is anyway.

 

I am not sure if you are dinging one or both paragraphs.

The resurrection will appear instant to the departed mortal because,
following your agreement that they insensate, the passing of time [1]
will go unobserved. Mind you assuming the existence of an eternal
afterlife then time has no meaning and that time was created [2] then
the creator can do whatever he (or she) likes with time anyway.

[1] Here we have to assume that time is a constant despite the creator
being outside of time.

[2] Have to assume the presence of a creator in this discussion.

 

Care to explain the transfiguration then? The departed prophets have to
have come from somewhere. One would take it that their appearance have
some form post-mortem and this even clearly pre-dates the second coming.

Let's not suggest that God has brought them back to circa 30AD from some
time after the second coming allowing that God exists outside of time.

 

Wheelies on a shaftie?

 

I had a little holiday a while back. It must have been then.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

In message <>, Phil

[big snip]

I assume we believe that Jesus is a real person and that he still
continues to exist? So is it so much of a problem that a personification
of the devil can be manifest. You could by the same stroke argue that
bad actions arise from internal motives and therefore so do good
actions. You then don't need a real Jesus, in either body or spirit,
because of the denial of the existence of the antithesis. I am not
personally bothered whether the bloke with the trident and bad smoking
habit exists or not, it how a person reacts when presented with a
situation to do something bad/evil.

Does this fall apart if you believe in pre-ordination? I don't know
which way you think on the subject, so I am just asking. If p-o does
happen then despite your personal experience suggesting that you have
free will, it makes it jolly unpleasant to find out that from day 1 you
were marked down because it was ordained so.

I don't think that there was [1] a suggestion that a fallen angel could
survive in the presence of God, see Rev 12 v 9.

[1] Apologies if I missed something.

[snip]

 

If you look up (funny newsreaders excepted) I too wrote the word "faith"
so I think in that point we were in agreement.

How so? They are recorded as doing as their faith directed them. It
doesn't tell them not to vote.

Oh bother my newsreader, cannot find the bit snipped above.

I don't agree. There is a differentiation between the physical and
metaphysical.

By Jesus who said "But I am amongst you as the one who serves"? But this
is a digression, we're supposed to be working on the voting issue.

 

Up to the end of v34 it is all OT, from v35 it is a general list of
un-named people. What is not clear is that we have left the era of OT
and entered early NT.

[snip]

Who will they be ruler and judge of?

[snip]

 

Actually you reminded me of something. Didn't the Jews say, "give us a
king so we can be like the neighbouring countries"? God replied
something to the effect that bad things happen if you get a king and the
people said that they would take the risk. Ok so I am doing this from
memory, but isn't this God's people doing the politics thing?
[snip]

 

Fair point indeed, but none the less we are both able to come to
different conclusions.

 

In message <>, Phil

[snip]

Dishonouring the monarch sounds fairly political

But I have yet to find the commandment "thou shalt not vote".

I do thank you for taking the time to debate the point, I am quite
intrigued by the replies. I am not sure that I can resolve them with my
interpretation or understanding.

 

I hope you beliefs remain the same, unless you find within yourself a
reason to change. It is not my desire to de-rail you at all. I am
actually interested in the interpretation you have arrived at.

I do debate that the political process in this country rests upon people
voting at the ballot box and that this process exists is according to
God's intent. You believe that God is in control of who runs the
country, stated above. I wish then suggest that it logically happens
that God requires a portion of the un-godly to vote, even to vote
against God's purpose or otherwise there'd be a result so extreme that
even Zimbabwe would look fair. (I wish you didn't split quotes, it makes
replying harder)

So continuing, I have established that both "saint" and "sinner" must
both vote because the current system is according to God's will.

(Right found my original text, please try to refrain from over
snipping). Here we go, the punishment of the un-godly occurs because
they have voted against God's will. They must have done so because there
isn't a universal vote at the ballot where everyone turns up and votes
for the same candidate. It's a logical conclusion, that even if there
were only 2 candidates standing at that constituency, a portion of the
votes have voted against God's will.

Now having established that the voting action of some is "wrong", we
have to assume that for this action they will receive some punishment.
You have said that the un-godly will be punished.

This means that you are living in a democracy that supports your freedom
to understand a Bible which allows you to profit from the punishment of
others.

 

I am just interested in how he got to the non-voting point.

 

Bear wrote:
[...]

Sigh. Doesn't happen often, but I found myself about to
post something very similar before reading this.

Yes, in my opinion Phil is quite mad. However, he and his
crowd do seem to be a relatively harmless British eccentrics,
especially as they *don't* get involved in politics.

It's the slimy double-crossing "kill babies on Thursday
and get absolution on Sundays" political back-stabbers
that one should reserve this type of vitriol against.

Unfortunately, they don't tend to post here, as they're
too busy actively interfering with everyones lives.

 

Heh, I like to help keep you busy.

I noted the sarcasm, just mistook what you were being sarcastic about.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Tim wrote:

Yes, that's in there somewhere.

Does it suggest that god does not choose the leaders after all?
it seems he didn't want there to be one, but had one foisted upon him ;-)

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked