14 Jan '13 19:38>
Just curious as to have Christains view these? Are these from God or man and do you put these above God's laws and commands?
Originally posted by galveston75What's also interesting is how so many pretend not to understand that the purpose of constitutional amendments is to make changes to the existing Constitution. Instead they try to pretend that the Constitution was written in stone and was never meant to be changed. That they do this with the 2nd AMENDMENT makes it all the more ridiculous. How do they think it became a part of the Constitution in the first place?
Just curious as to have Christains view these? Are these from God or man and do you put these above God's laws and commands?
Originally posted by galveston75You want Christian views so I will answer that way. Based on what I was taught in Catholic grammar school (assuming you count the RCC as Christian), constitutions including their amendments are man's word; the Bible is God's Word, and under certain circumstances, God assures that the pope is speaking infallibly when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church (This is a very small subset of all the things the Pope says.) But papal infallibility does not make the Pope's pronouncements "God's Word."
Just curious as to have Christains view these? Are these from God or man and do you put these above God's laws and commands?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI agree. It seems as the world changes on so many levels these ammendments would have to be changed and updated to protect the people they were4 designed for.
What's also interesting is how so many pretend not to understand that the purpose of constitutional amendments is to make changes to the existing Constitution. Instead they try to pretend that the Constitution was written in stone and was never meant to be changed. That they do this with the 2nd [b]AMENDMENT makes it all the more ridiculous. How do th ...[text shortened]... le can and has been used to "justify" just about anything - slavery, death penalty, war, etc.[/b]
Originally posted by JS357Thanks for your insight.
You want Christian views so I will answer that way. Based on what I was taught in Catholic grammar school (assuming you count the RCC as Christian), constitutions including their amendments are man's word; the Bible is God's Word, and under certain circumstances, God assures that the pope is speaking infallibly when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or mo ...[text shortened]... whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril"
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAt the time the constitution was written the writers had all used their guns in gaining independence and no one then questioned the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. It was a given. However, in time, just like today, those rights were questioned and so the 2nd amendment became necessary. 😏
What's also interesting is how so many pretend not to understand that the purpose of constitutional amendments is to make changes to the existing Constitution. Instead they try to pretend that the Constitution was written in stone and was never meant to be changed. That they do this with the 2nd [b]AMENDMENT makes it all the more ridiculous. How do th ...[text shortened]... le can and has been used to "justify" just about anything - slavery, death penalty, war, etc.[/b]
Originally posted by JS357You could look at it in that way for some amendments, like the 2nd. However, Christ came to fulfill the law, not to change it. Whereas, not all the amendments to the constitution was for the purpose of fulfillment and clarification. 😏
Sometimes, it seems to me, the NT is treated like the amendments to the OT.
Originally posted by galveston75Oi be vrum the south but us don't 'ave amendments or even a constitution down yere. Us might 'ave a constitutional after church of a Sunday if us iz of the god bothering persuasion.
Lol. Not tha way iz spellez it. Give me a break as iz iz from the south. 🙂
Originally posted by RJHindsOut of curiousity, what part of the following didn't you understand?
At the time the constitution was written the writers had all used their guns in gaining independence and no one then questioned the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. It was a given. However, in time, just like today, those rights were questioned and so the 2nd amendment became necessary. 😏
What's also interesting is how so many pretend not to understand that the purpose of constitutional amendments is to make changes to the existing Constitution. Instead they try to pretend that the Constitution was written in stone and was never meant to be changed. That they do this with the 2nd AMENDMENT makes it all the more ridiculous. How do they think it became a part of the Constitution in the first place?
Originally posted by galveston75And yes they do use the Bible to justify what they feel would help their causes. The Bible was not written to be used for our selfish advantages but for the eventual outcome of mans good.
I agree. It seems as the world changes on so many levels these ammendments would have to be changed and updated to protect the people they were4 designed for.
And yes they do use the Bible to justify what they feel would help their causes. The Bible was not written to be used for our selfish advantages but for the eventual outcome of mans good.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBut in reality the Bible is not open to inerpretation even though that happens and this is why there are hundreds of millions of interpretations.
[b]And yes they do use the Bible to justify what they feel would help their causes. The Bible was not written to be used for our selfish advantages but for the eventual outcome of mans good.
Unfortunately it lends itself to just that because it is so widely open to interpretation. Despite protests to the contrary, people are left with having to pic hings lay a sound moral foundation and are reasonably coherent (unlike the Bible as a whole).[/b]