The Crown alleges that David Bain’s shirt, shorts and socks got bloody before David did his paper run.
Did David do his paper run wearing a bloody shirt, shorts and socks or did he change back into them when he got home from his paper run?
Proverbs 10:26
As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so are sluggards to those who send them.
A recent blog entry Don’t be hoodwinked by “nationhood” incorrectly identified New Zealand’s Governor-General as Dame Susan Devoy.
New Zealand’s Governor-General is in fact Bernie Lomax.
Eternal Vigilance is sorry for any confusion the error may have caused.
As far as I can tell New Zealand is a Church of England based state and has never undergone separation. In state ceremonies prayers are said and oaths to God are made – no one is wronged by this aspect of church and state integration.
The doctrine of separation of church and state is supposed to avoid religious persecution, state forced indoctrination and state suppression of beliefs however some of the worst persecutors of religious people and indoctrinators have been secular states.
NZ state schools suppress religion due to separation considerations but state indoctrination (Treaty of Waitangi, Global Warming, naturalism, etc.) is compulsory. And in NZ people can be persecuted for their beliefs using the Bill of Rights. These wrongs however do not stem from NZ’s integration of church and state.
The doctrine of separation of church and state doesn’t stop religious persecution, state forced indoctrination or state suppression of beliefs.
The doctrine of separation of church and state seems as likely to cause the problems it is supposed to alleviate.
Yesterday someone broke into my house and stole my iMac, some laptops, cash, an X box and a few other things.
Luke 6:29
Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
I’m not concerned about the loss… but yeah… I’m not really feeling this scripture (Tim, please tell me this one is part of an irrelevant dispensation 🙂 )
A christian friend said hearing about the theft made him angry – I don’t want to be angry. How should I, or any Christian, react to being robbed?
On a personal level I’m unsure of how to react but on a political level I find things much more straight forward – when a person steals another person’s property the thief should have to repay the victim the value of the stolen goods plus a penalty proportionate to the value of the stolen goods.
Proverbs 6:30-31
People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.
It’s often said that criminals have a debt to society but this is incorrect – criminals have a debt to their victims and when possible penalties should be given with the aim of restoring victims. When restitution is not possible then even selling a person into slavery is justified.
Exodus 22:1-4
Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft. If the stolen animal is found alive in their possession—whether ox or donkey or sheep—they must pay back double.
I hope this post provokes a robust discussion. Unfortunately I may be limited to making follow up comments using my smartphone. 🙂
Mercy, like charity, has been socialised in the western world and is not a virtue as it is normally practiced.
When the government forcibly takes money from taxpayers and doles it out to whom it pleases the virtue of charity has been removed. Neither the true giver nor the receiver benefit. Those that support this redistribution deceive themselves thinking that they are generous.
Similarly, when the government doles out light punishments to whom it pleases the virtue of mercy has been removed. Neither the victim nor the offender benefit. Those that support light sentences deceive themselves thinking that they are merciful.
Of course, true mercy is a virtue but that comes from the victims of injustice.
Jodi Arias is guilty of murder and a jury is deciding whether she should receive the death penalty.
If the jurors decide to punish Jodi Arias for her crime of murder and implement the death penalty what should happen to the jurors?
Should the jurors receive a severe punishment, a minor punishment or should they not be punished for seeing justice done?
Hopefully, you agree with me and think the jurors shouldn’t be punished for seeing justice done.
Now imagine that the mother of the murder victim were to take it upon herself to see justice done and she killed Jodi Arias what should happen to the mother?
Should the mother receive a severe punishment, a minor punishment or should she not be punished for seeing justice done?
There would be no objective difference in the two scenarios and if this were to happen then the mother shouldn’t be punished for seeing justice done.
John 8:1-11
but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
What if the Pharisees had instead brought someone like Jodi Arias before Jesus?
Jodi Arias killed her ex-boyfriend, she stabbed him repeatedly, shot and nearly decapitated him. She has been found guilty and may be sentenced to death. What would Jesus response have been had the pharisees said to him “in the Law Moses commanded us to kill such women. Now what do you say?”
Would Jesus have said “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” or would he have said, as Moses instructed, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life”?
I’m not going to tell you what your politics should be concerning Genetic Engineering and Border Control… what I am going to tell you is that politically the two topics are identical.
Should a person be able to import snakes if they want them? An importer could easily let the snakes escape and lose control of them. This would have a huge impact on others that do not consent to the importing of snakes.
In the same way, because GE is self replicating and transferable, Genetically engineered organisms could easily escape from controlled environments into the wild. This would have an impact on people who do not consent to GE.
To be consistent you have to be for unregulated borders and unregulated GE or; for regulated borders and regulated GE.
If you are for one and against the other then you have contradictory political views.