Thank the Lord. At least he's showing us that its just a couple dinghy's with a few migrants and not the millions or swarms The Wail had you believe. Probably why the FO is not bovvered either.
Farage Kent Coast discuss
- Thread starter festive
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Thank the Lord. At least he's showing us that its just a couple dinghy's with a few migrants and not the millions or swarms The Wail had you believe. Probably why the FO is not bovvered either.
It's not the dinghies you need to worry about; it's the lilos.
And the trebuchets
let me correct that for you:
"I see Nigel has been busy again in his
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,721
- Reaction score
- 2,216
- Country
Here is half a dozen I can think of straight off. There are about a gazillion academic studies on it. I'm pretty sure I had to write an essay on it also about a gazillion years ago.
sec 57, Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Deuteronomy 17:17
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2005
Leviticus 19:15
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998
1 Corinthians 6:1-9
Equality Act 2010
Galatians 3:26-28
Luke 2:1-52
Law of Property Act 1925
Census Act 1920
It could be argued that the bible was an attempt at writing the law.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,065
- Reaction score
- 370
- Country
Wrong i see myself as both.
I did say (read it again please or see me after school) IF my ass was being peppered with all sorts it's highly likley evasive action would cause me to seek refuse in the first safe country.
Being a villain with time gives you time to plan? Obvious hence i asked what's your point. Its all pointless waste of internet talk.
Didn't insinuate they are in any way inept. I have absolutely no underestimation of anyone believe me, one value i've always stuck to, never underestimate anyone no matter how they may appear or sound.
That's a bad example, because it is known to be untrue.
The Roman Empire had a substantial bureaucracy and kept records.
This is just a made-up fable.
Sorry.
That's a bad example, because it does not deal with equality across, for example, race or religion or sexual orientation or prosperity.
It only says the people baptised within the same religion should be treated as equals.
I can't see what you hope to prove by that reference.
You are suggesting that telling the truth in legal proceedings is only required in systems based on Jewish laws.
This is completely untrue.
i don't know what you intend this example to prove.
English law does not forbid a monarch from being rich and greedy.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,721
- Reaction score
- 2,216
- Country
I don't know why you have an issue with our laws being based on the religion of the land. However, it doesn't change the fact that they are, though many also came from the Romans and ancient Greeks (again based on religious belief). You have to remember that when our legal system was in its infancy, people thought that the teachings on the bible needed to be enforced otherwise we'd end up in hell. It wasn't that long ago that you swore an oath to tell the truth, holding the Bible in your hand. Oaths Act 1978
Example 1: The bible forbids multiple wives, as does sec 57, Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I really can't see any reason why Bigamy could not be accommodated in law. But it hasn't been. In all the examples there are plenty of other bible texts.
Example 1: The bible forbids multiple wives, as does sec 57, Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I really can't see any reason why Bigamy could not be accommodated in law. But it hasn't been. In all the examples there are plenty of other bible texts.
I have a problem with people asserting that acceptable behaviour is determined by religion. In fact, the opposite is true.
Laws and religions simply attempt to codify human standards.
Humans, other great apes, and other animals are generally genetically coded not to murder their own kind, to look after their family group, and, in larger social groups, have learned that it is preferable not to lie, cheat and steal. None of that needs a religion.
Human behaviour existed long before occultists found a way to make an easy living.
Laws and religions simply attempt to codify human standards.
Humans, other great apes, and other animals are generally genetically coded not to murder their own kind, to look after their family group, and, in larger social groups, have learned that it is preferable not to lie, cheat and steal. None of that needs a religion.
Human behaviour existed long before occultists found a way to make an easy living.
It also commends it. How many wives did Solomon have?
It also approves slavery.
In a book written by numerous old men, many years ago, to suit the attitudes of their time, you can find plenty of contradictory writings to support whatever view pleases you.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,721
- Reaction score
- 2,216
- Country
I'm not going to suggest either of us waste our time by reading the bible, as I doubt we'd find anything useful, but you get that there was a version 1 and a version 2 release?
Rightly or wrongly acceptable behaviour was defined by religious teachings and these rules still exist and are enforced today. Your views on anthropology aren't backed up by science. Evolution determines survival of the fittest. Our very rules on acceptable behaviour and religious teachings are at odds with this. From an evolutionary perspective there is nothing to be gained from protecting the less fortunate, healing the sick, caring for the poor etc.
Rightly or wrongly acceptable behaviour was defined by religious teachings and these rules still exist and are enforced today. Your views on anthropology aren't backed up by science. Evolution determines survival of the fittest. Our very rules on acceptable behaviour and religious teachings are at odds with this. From an evolutionary perspective there is nothing to be gained from protecting the less fortunate, healing the sick, caring for the poor etc.
Sponsored Links
