dope factory in head road closed down

[Lost Login 1,710]

 

Only nonsense if you subscribe to a very distorted description of what constitutes a nationally elected democratic parliament.

There's a boat most mornings. The island would be an infinitely better and more wholesome place if low life criminals and blasphemous scum were to take it.

 

 

I've always taken the view that this God person can not be all that great if he created man in a way which allowed them not to believe in him or do criminal acts. If I had the powers of creation. wiring up man so that they are nice and all worshipped their creator is something I would expect to be a given. Major design flaw to exclude unless you take the view that what we view as crimes God does not.

 

I

[Lisenchuk 4,501]

 

Spook the reality is that there is so much "law" made by our legislators sometimes ill conceived, badly drafted or influenced by money or industry or even quangos that it is impossible to live your life and earn a living without breaking it daily.

The police have to be very selective about what they enforce and take action against. What is illegal at that petty level changes by the week, the month, the year, the decade, and crimes come and go. It's really not so absolute.

May I ask which of the "God given" laws in Leviticus you feel you can ignore and which you feel must be obeyed and why the 10 commandments, some of which are purely administrative in content, carry such weight.

Your comment above about influencing others to engage in ... mental self abuse is so ironic. Isn't that what all religions actually end up achieving, even if they set out to do otherwise

There are many ways to democratically challenge a law, voting and in parliament is but one. Peaceful protest, civil disobedience, juries refusing to convict, even in seemingly obvious cases, just ignoring the law is just as legitimate a means, although it may leave you with a conviction.

What would you do if our law said you could not have a bible or read a bible or have a bible read to you in any language other than latin?

In th case of Leviticus the laws expressed differ from the Decalogue in that they were instructions given to Moses as his role of a prophet to guide the People of the Tribes of Israel during their journey into The Promised Land and for some time thereafter whereas The Decalogue were kit termly written by The Lord on stone tablets and intended for all time.

 

In due course and over a period of many hundreds of years as circumstances changed so The Lord through later prophets gave further guidance described in later books especially the Haftorah (judges etc.)

 

So do I abide by Leviticus? No, but I do abide by the Decalogue and by the commandments of Jesus.

 

What would I do if forbidden to read The Bible or only read it in Latin on the Island, in the second case it would present no difficulty, in the first case, I would go somewhere where it was legal.

 

As for breaking the law in order to change the law - that is just silly AND criminal.

 

Even if the law in that place was Sharia Law? Would you still serve to the letter of the law then?

[spook 1,340]

 

 

Spook the reality is that there is so much "law" made by our legislators sometimes ill conceived, badly drafted or influenced by money or industry or even quangos that it is impossible to live your life and earn a living without breaking it daily.

The police have to be very selective about what they enforce and take action against. What is illegal at that petty level changes by the week, the month, the year, the decade, and crimes come and go. It's really not so absolute.

May I ask which of the "God given" laws in Leviticus you feel you can ignore and which you feel must be obeyed and why the 10 commandments, some of which are purely administrative in content, carry such weight.

Your comment above about influencing others to engage in ... mental self abuse is so ironic. Isn't that what all religions actually end up achieving, even if they set out to do otherwise

There are many ways to democratically challenge a law, voting and in parliament is but one. Peaceful protest, civil disobedience, juries refusing to convict, even in seemingly obvious cases, just ignoring the law is just as legitimate a means, although it may leave you with a conviction.

What would you do if our law said you could not have a bible or read a bible or have a bible read to you in any language other than latin?

 

In th case of Leviticus the laws expressed differ from the Decalogue in that they were instructions given to Moses as his role of a prophet to guide the People of the Tribes of Israel during their journey into The Promised Land and for some time thereafter whereas The Decalogue were kit termly written by The Lord on stone tablets and intended for all time.

In due course and over a period of many hundreds of years as circumstances changed so The Lord through later prophets gave further guidance described in later books especially the Haftorah (judges etc.)

So do I abide by Leviticus? No, but I do abide by the Decalogue and by the commandments of Jesus.

What would I do if forbidden to read The Bible or only read it in Latin on the Island, in the second case it would present no difficulty, in the first case, I would go somewhere where it was legal.

As for breaking the law in order to change the law - that is just silly AND criminal.

Even if the law in that place was Sharia Law? Would you still serve to the letter of the law then?

To begin with its not shar'ia LAW, it's simply shar'ia and yes, I would have to up to the point that it meant contravening the Decalogue or the Two Great Laws that Jesus described. What I would submit to would be any punishment, no matter what, if I did break the Law of the Land. There are countless examples of precedence where Christians have done just that. They're called Martyrs n case you didn't know.

 

Abiding by The Laws of the Land is a requirement placed upon us within the broad context of the Synoptic gospels, in particular Mark 12 : 17 --- "Render unto Caeser" etc.

 

Without intending to be rude there is obviously a very great deal about Christians and Christianity that a lot of people know very little about.

[Lost Login 1,710]

Worth a read, and whilst there are the normal simplistic views in the comments from both sides, some are more interesting

 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/13/should-i-stop-smoking-cannabis

[John Wright 7,962]

But there are only 4 legal statements creating offences in the 10

 

Don't

 

Kill

Steal

Adulter

Bear false witness

 

Everything else is pick and choose Leviticus and the Jewish,mcatholic and Protestant versions have subtle differences - graven images, for instance, at Protestant 2, and the Protestant 10 combines Catholic 9 and 10 about coveting

 

I don't think any of us contest kill and steal, although it's clear that it's not all killing that is proscribed. Adultery is more difficult and is decriminalised now as an absolute as is false witness, what about white lies, again lies are not criminalised. So really only 2 out of 10 proscribe anything. And it's not very much.

 

Spook, you have odd ideas of democracy. It exists in many forms. Those who believe in each one say theirs is the only one and scoff at the others, bit like religion really

[Matt Bawden 622]

 

 

 

Only nonsense if you subscribe to a very distorted description of what constitutes a nationally elected democratic parliament.

There's a boat most mornings. The island would be an infinitely better and more wholesome place if low life criminals and blasphemous scum were to take it.

I've always taken the view that this God person can not be all that great if he created man in a way which allowed them not to believe in him or do criminal acts. If I had the powers of creation. wiring up man so that they are nice and all worshipped their creator is something I would expect to be a given. Major design flaw to exclude unless you take the view that what we view as crimes God does not.

 

I

This God character is at least a narcissist and quite possibly a psychopath. A bit of a game player too if you think that if he/she is all knowing and knows the alleged final outcome but yet decided to go ahead anyway just as a vanity project.

[Matt Bawden 622]

 

 

 

Spook the reality is that there is so much "law" made by our legislators sometimes ill conceived, badly drafted or influenced by money or industry or even quangos that it is impossible to live your life and earn a living without breaking it daily.

The police have to be very selective about what they enforce and take action against. What is illegal at that petty level changes by the week, the month, the year, the decade, and crimes come and go. It's really not so absolute.

May I ask which of the "God given" laws in Leviticus you feel you can ignore and which you feel must be obeyed and why the 10 commandments, some of which are purely administrative in content, carry such weight.

Your comment above about influencing others to engage in ... mental self abuse is so ironic. Isn't that what all religions actually end up achieving, even if they set out to do otherwise

There are many ways to democratically challenge a law, voting and in parliament is but one. Peaceful protest, civil disobedience, juries refusing to convict, even in seemingly obvious cases, just ignoring the law is just as legitimate a means, although it may leave you with a conviction.

What would you do if our law said you could not have a bible or read a bible or have a bible read to you in any language other than latin?

 

In th case of Leviticus the laws expressed differ from the Decalogue in that they were instructions given to Moses as his role of a prophet to guide the People of the Tribes of Israel during their journey into The Promised Land and for some time thereafter whereas The Decalogue were kit termly written by The Lord on stone tablets and intended for all time.

In due course and over a period of many hundreds of years as circumstances changed so The Lord through later prophets gave further guidance described in later books especially the Haftorah (judges etc.)

So do I abide by Leviticus? No, but I do abide by the Decalogue and by the commandments of Jesus.

What would I do if forbidden to read The Bible or only read it in Latin on the Island, in the second case it would present no difficulty, in the first case, I would go somewhere where it was legal.

As for breaking the law in order to change the law - that is just silly AND criminal.

Even if the law in that place was Sharia Law? Would you still serve to the letter of the law then?

To begin with its not shar'ia LAW, it's simply shar'ia and yes, I would have to up to the point that it meant contravening the Decalogue or the Two Great Laws that Jesus described. What I would submit to would be any punishment, no matter what, if I did break the Law of the Land. There are countless examples of precedence where Christians have done just that. They're called Martyrs n case you didn't know.

 

Abiding by The Laws of the Land is a requirement placed upon us within the broad context of the Synoptic gospels, in particular Mark 12 : 17 --- "Render unto Caeser" etc.

 

Without intending to be rude there is obviously a very great deal about Christians and Christianity that a lot of people know very little about.

What if the law of the land stated that you must denounce God etc. blah, blah....yawn😴

[Matt Bawden 622]

Worth a read, and whilst there are the normal simplistic views in the comments from both sides, some are more interesting

 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/13/should-i-stop-smoking-cannabis

From the Daily Mail.....straightaway the 'report' has lost any credibility it ever had😄

[spook 1,340]

 

Worth a read, and whilst there are the normal simplistic views in the comments from both sides, some are more interesting

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/13/should-i-stop-smoking-cannabis

From the Daily Mail.....straightaway the 'report' has lost any credibility it ever had

The news item is from the DM, the report is not.

[Matt Bawden 622]

 

 

Worth a read, and whilst there are the normal simplistic views in the comments from both sides, some are more interesting

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/13/should-i-stop-smoking-cannabis

From the Daily Mail.....straightaway the 'report' has lost any credibility it ever had

The news item is from the DM, the report is not.

I don't think anyone ever claimed it to be harmless, just that it shouldn't be illegal...ffs sweets are legal and sugar is quite possibly one of the most harmful and addictive substances we consume, nothing is harmless it's just less harmful than alternatives.

[Lost Login 1,710]

Matt if you could be arsed to actually look at you would see it is a brief Guardian article commenting on the Daily Mail headline claim. If you engaged your brain you might expect that of all the major newspapers the one most in favour of "soft" drugs such as Cannabis might be the Guardian

 

The reason I posted was I thought that many of the comments posted were interesting. Not from those firmly in favour of legalisation or those anti but those who had smoked for numerous years and stopped as it gave a different perspective to much of what is posted here.

[Matt Bawden 622]

Matt if you could be arsed to actually look at you would see it is a brief Guardian article commenting on the Daily Mail headline claim. If you engaged your brain you might expect that of all the major newspapers the one most in favour of "soft" drugs such as Cannabis might be the Guardian

 

The reason I posted was I thought that many of the comments posted were interesting. Not from those firmly in favour of legalisation or those anti but those who had smoked for numerous years and stopped as it gave a different perspective to much of what is posted here.

Fair enough...I did read it but for some daft reason mistook the Guardian for the Daily Mail, my mistake.

 

The content as I read it was neutral but stated the 'bleedin' obvious'.

[manxman1980 1,550]

Just to add my two penny worth...

 

The Police did what they should have done given the current legislation. They do not make the law, although they do have some discretionary powers under it.

 

The current legislation may not be correct, however, that is not for the Police to decide. They can made recommendations to the Politicians, the voting public could petition for a change in the legislation or elect pro-cannabis MHKs which would all potentially lead to a review of the legislation.

 

To answer Lisenchuck. whilst I do not agree with Spook, if I was to live in a country with Shar'ia law then I would comply with the requirements and would seek to find a way to change the law. Just as I am suggesting that those who do not agree with the current legislation on the Island should seek to reform the law. If I felt reform was impossible and I felt that strongly about the existing legislation I would move to somewhere I would be happier.

 

Much better to seek change legally that than face fines, imprisonment and criminal records which can follow you for a long time.

[homarus 1,564]

Seek to elect pro cannabis MHK's? I like that!Half of them are space cadets already .

 

 

My opinion is that, although I don't see anything cool or attractive about "skinning up" it's a stinking habit (Like all smoking) it should be, at the end of the day up to any adult individual to choose their own poison in the privacy of their own home in their own personal space.

If however they decide to harm others (especially the young)by selling the shite then that is a different matter.

[Lisenchuk 4,501]

A person using cannabis for pain

 

Just to add my two penny worth...

 

The Police did what they should have done given the current legislation. They do not make the law, although they do have some discretionary powers under it.

 

The current legislation may not be correct, however, that is not for the Police to decide. They can made recommendations to the Politicians, the voting public could petition for a change in the legislation or elect pro-cannabis MHKs which would all potentially lead to a review of the legislation.

 

To answer Lisenchuck. whilst I do not agree with Spook, if I was to live in a country with Shar'ia law then I would comply with the requirements and would seek to find a way to change the law. Just as I am suggesting that those who do not agree with the current legislation on the Island should seek to reform the law. If I felt reform was impossible and I felt that strongly about the existing legislation I would move to somewhere I would be happier.

 

Much better to seek change legally that than face fines, imprisonment and criminal records which can follow you for a long time.

A person using cannabis for pain relief is hardly likely to wait until they have secured the approval of the law,it simply isn't a practical option.