Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (NIV)
What is Heaven? What is eternal life? Although the Bible tells us little, at least Heaven and eternal life rate a mention. (Not so with that other place, Hell, which isn’t mentioned once in literal translations of the Bible, such as Young’s Literal Translation.)
How do you think you’re going to spend the rest of eternity?
It’s not wrong to kill people if the killing is justified (this is a necessarily true statement).
Killing people in war is justified, killing people in self defense is justified… even killing people that deserve death is justified. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life principle is not obsolete.
When considering euthanasia a killing can be justified by mercy – the principle being do to others as you would have them do to you. In a situation where a person wants to die and a person kills them compassionately the killer has not wronged anyone.
Some appeal to the Sanctity of Life to oppose euthanasia but if the Sanctity of Life doctrine were true it would condemn the other justified killings mentioned above.
Holy cow! Seen at a restaurant in Goa.
The Sanctity of Life doctrine is false – it’s a sacred cow that needs killing.
New Zealand has the “sovereign right” to protect its citizens and will not be told what to do by tobacco companies, Tariana Turia says, as plain packaging of cigarettes passed its first hurdle.
Last night Turia, Associate Minister of Health, introduced the Smokefree Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill into Parliament, and it passed its first vote by 118 votes to one.
It has now been referred to the Health Select Committee for public consultation. National, Labour, the Greens are all supporting it, while New Zealand First was expected to support it at least through to select committee.
Eventually the legislation would see all branding removed from all tobacco products, aside from the name of the variation in small plain type, with large warnings about the risks posed by smoking.
Turia said that despite legal challenges to similar measures across the Tasman, she was confident it met New Zealand’s international obligations.
Mandatory plain packaging is the latest government intervention to stop people smoking.
I’m against it. It’s creeping totalitarianism!
The tobacco industry is against it. British American Tobacco spokeswoman Susan Jones says
Plain packaging constitutes a severe restriction on the use of our intellectual property, including trademarks. This is a huge concern to us, as it would be to any business, because the effect is to render our trademarks unusable.
John Banks is against it. He says
I don’t believe the State should seize property rights from legitimate companies selling legitimate products
What I find particularly interesting is that Jones and Banks both make their argument against plain packaging on the basis of intellectual property rights, specifically trademarks. But there are no intellectual property rights! Or, there shouldn’t be!
There’s no doubt that the introduction of private property was hugely civilising. Property rights in the tangible fruits of one’s labours means that one’s possessions are legally secure. Whereas, before the invention of private property, one could walk into stores and just take things, now it’s theft!
Privatisation of land also seems to me to have been a good idea. (Not according to the geolibertarians.) But should we privatise everything? Should we privatise the whales? Should we privatise business names and logos? Should we privatise inventions? Should we privatise stories? Should we privatise air? Should we privatise the Moon?
Please understand that what constitutes private property is a system of restrictions, authorised and enforced by government, on who may do what with certain things. For example, making it illegal for anyone except the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to use the word ‘camel’ and a picture of a camel in certain contexts is what constitutes the company’s intellectual property in the Camel trademark. To own a trademark is to restrict everyone else’s freedoms, e.g., to restrict their freedoms to talk about and draw camels.
Getting the government to restrict other people’s freedoms to use words, images and ideas is tantamount to theft and anathema to this libertarian.
Jones complains that plain packaging constitutes a severe restriction on the use of British American Tobacco’s intellectual property. Of course, it does. But here’s the irony. The very existence of a British American Tobacco trademark is constituted by severe restrictions on everyone else’s use of what previously they could freely use. Now it’s not simply everyone else whose freedoms are restricted. It’s everyone whose freedoms are restricted, including British American Tobacco. It’s now illegal for anyone to use the word ‘camel’ and a picture of a camel in certain contexts. One law for all!
I don’t think much of the trademarks argument put forward by Jones and Banks. The government giveth and the government taketh away. Problem?
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Still falls the rain,
the veils of darkness shroud
the blackened trees, which,
contorted by some unseen
violence, shed their tired
leaves, and bend their boughs
toward a grey earth of severed
bird wings. among the grasses,
poppies bleed before a
gesticulating death, and young
rabbits, born dead in traps,
stand motionless, as though
guarding the silence that
surrounds and threatens to engulf
all those that would listen.
Mute birds, tired of repeating
yesterdays terrors, huddle together
in the recesses of dark corners,
heads turned from the dead, black
swan that floats upturned in a
small pool in the hollow.
there emerges from this pool
a faint sensual mist, that
traces its way upwards to
caress the chipped feet of
the headless martyr’s statue, whose
only achievement was to die to
soon, and who couldn’t wait to
lose.
the cataract of darkness form
fully, the long black night begins,
yet still, by the lake a young girl waits,
unseeing she believes herself unseen,
she smiles, faintly at the distant
tolling bell, and the still falling rain.
On Friday 13 February 1970 Black Sabbath released their eponymous debut album.
I was contemplating reading a white paper on Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies by Glenn Greenwald of the Cato Institute.
On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were “decriminalized,” not “legalized.” Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.
Perhaps the Green Party could learn some Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. Because, let’s face it. Their drug policies so far have been neither fair nor successful.
A man known internationally as the “Machine Gun Preacher” said Friday that federal agents interrupted his charity work in Africa when they raided his Pennsylvania home, business and warehouse Wednesday.
“They went into a container that was packed and ready to come to the orphanage and totally destroyed it,” Sam Childers, currently in Africa, told WJAC-TV over the phone. “I mean, destroyed it, and what’s so sad is that it was all children’s clothes.”
According to WJAC-TV, the FBI said they couldn’t elaborate on why they conducted the raid or comment on a pending investigation.
The Gospel is that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead showing his victory over sin and death and guaranteeing our salvation and justification before God.
Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord *Shall* be saved.
For by grace are ye saved, through faith… it is the gift of God.
Not of works lest any man should boast.
For God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ.
You cannot *add* or take away anything from this…. God’s ordained prescription for salvation in this age.
You cannot deny Christ’s Sacrifice and resurrection and be saved.
You cant say “I’m a good person.. I dont deserve to go to hell”…. for there is none Righteous no not one, For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.
If you deny that it was necessary for Christ to shed his blood for you…. you reject the gift of God.
False preachers of the Law say that a person must keep the Law to be saved…. ie they add *works* as necessary for salvation.
They prove they dont understand the Gospel of grace at all!
They fail to ‘Rightly divide’ the word of truth and so twist the scriptures to say what they want…. by mis-applying the old testament, the Kingdom preaching of Christ, St Peter, St James, etc…. and corrupt the Gospel of grace into Slavery under the Mosaic Law.
They add things like baptism, like keeping the Sabbath etc as necessary for salvation.
These ‘additions tend to enslave those whom they deceive into obeying *The Church hierarchy*….. ensnare them in tithing etc.
This is to deny the Liberating Power of the Cross, which sets us free from the Law.
If all this seems confusing….. Satan Laughs and spreads his wings…. He created this confusion to keep you from the Simple truth.
That Christ has paid the penalty of our sins and that if we simply ask God to save us in Christ’s name…. we will be saved indeed… no ifs…. no But’s….
Christ came to save us Sinners. No matter who you are or how evil you have been, or what your personal struggles and vices are.…. Christ s Blood can save you!
Rejoice in the Love and GRACE of God our Heavenly Father.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Protestant King James Bible believer Dispensationalist Libertarian Independent.
