Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What do you think ?According to scripture there is only one God, should this “truth” be enshrined in our Nation’s Law?
You should look at the history of Europe, being of one mind about God didn’t stop many wars.What do you think ?
Nations that oppose the one true Creator are cursed and destroyed.
Nations that obey and honor the one true Creator are blessed (and attacked by other nations).
After the parousia, when the 1000 year Rule by King Jesus occurs, what will happen to the people who weren’t “saved”?What ?
Made to conform by who ? When ?
The history of Europe, eh?You should look at the history of Europe, being of one mind about God didn’t stop many wars.
Probably the same thing that happened daily (or will happen) to those who in the last six thousand years were not "saved".After the parousia, when the 1000 year Rule by King Jesus occurs, what will happen to the people who weren’t “saved”?
So everything will be “the same” after Jesus comes back?Probably the same thing that happened daily (or will happen) to those who in the last six thousand years were not "saved".
(Enough with the theology of intervening posts, back to the topic)True. In a democracy the opposition opposes. It is their duty as well as their prerogative.
Only when they have a working majority. We have seen the level of cooperation shown by oppositions when presidents try to get legislation past a hostile Congress and Senate.
Hypothetically, it can happen, and might happen, albeit with some adjustments , eh ?
Not on a big scale though, I expect.
I don't ever expect to see anything good widespread anywhere until Jesus Returns to save His people and to execute God's vengeance on those responsible for shedding innocent blood all of our lives, our parents lives, ye even since the beginning.
True. In a democracy the opposition opposes. It is their duty as well as their prerogative.
Only when they have a working majority. We have seen the level of cooperation shown by oppositions when presidents try to get legislation past a hostile Congress and Senate.
(Enough with the theology of intervening posts, back to the topic)
Sometimes that negotiation involves factions with in a party. We have a moment coming in 3 weeks when the authorization to federal spending ends and the government will largely shut down unless a new budget is passed (or the current one extended). The radical faction of the ruling party in one of the legislative chambers wants radical changes to the scope of the budget and government. That party doesn't have the votes for a majority without them and the radicals would like to use that leverage to get something they want.
In other times with stronger leadership the Speaker would negotiate with the majority of his party and the central faction of the opposition, but who knows this time as the Speaker is a coward. But, this is all just part of democracy, many actors are empowered by voters.
I agree, all parties will have to negotiate and come to compromises to arrive at action they can agree on. We see it all the time in Parliamentary systems as well as in American politics. The two main parties in both countries (and no doubt in many others) are coalitions. I think it is often true in many contexts; company board meetings, even panels of beauty contest judges.(Enough with the theology of intervening posts, back to the topic)
Sometimes that negotiation involves factions with in a party. We have a moment coming in 3 weeks when the authorization to federal spending ends and the government will largely shut down unless a new budget is passed (or the current one extended). The radical faction of the ruling party in one of the legislative chambers wants radical changes to the scope of the budget and government. That party doesn't have the votes for a majority without them and the radicals would like to use that leverage to get something they want.
In other times with stronger leadership the Speaker would negotiate with the majority of his party and the central faction of the opposition, but who knows this time as the Speaker is a coward. But, this is all just part of democracy, many actors are empowered by voters.
Yes. We are discussing democracy, not ethics.Well they can...whether or not they should is another discussion.
In the USA, perhaps at the moment. Yet working majorities have been the rule rather than the exception in US and British experience. The discussion (where the focus has not been on morality and theology) has been wider than just the American situation.I think the idea of a working majority pretty fanciful atm.
Really? Are you asserting that all laws legally passed are just laws simply because those laws were legally passed? Jim Crow segregation statues, for example? Or Nazi Germany's anti-Semitic laws that restricted the civil and human rights of Jews in Germany. Of course not.Setting the rules is not a moral act.
"... can only be described as obscene"? I think you make my point: government sometimes legislates morality.[Is inequality of wealth immoral] To a certain extent? No. But to an extreme, which we often find is the case? Yes. And sometimes the difference can only be described as obscene.
Not so. Making the right to vote dependent on the net contribution to the commonwealth does not discriminate solely against the poor. For example, in the USA, the right to vote would also be taken from those whose tax payments are less than their Medicare or Social Security payments. All, whether rich or poor, who have a vote, ie., that is a say on how their tax dollars are spent, would only be those from whom those tax dollars were taken.I think that what you are suggesting is that the 'haves' get to vote and the 'have nots' don't. The rich can vote but the poor can't. I can't offhand think of a system with which I'd disagree more.
Uncertain. However, I hope to be one asking rather than being one able to answer your question.After the parousia, when the 1000 year Rule by King Jesus occurs, what will happen to the people who weren’t “saved”?
Once there is a qualification placed on the franchise (beyond majority and nationality) it ceases to be democratic. If there is a case to be made for other systems of rule - make it.Making the right to vote dependent on the net contribution to the commonwealth does not discriminate solely against the poor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?