This Corona virus pandemic could be the weapon that takes our liberties away , all in the name of saving lives?
- Thread starter Whispered
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It is also important to interpret the difference between liberty, freedom, and rights. This once understood as we actually give up freedom to live in a society. A governing body will either restrict or protect liberty. Liberty being understood as the God given rights to all mankind equally.
-Thomas Jefferson
As spoken on in the Declaration and Bill of rights. And governments main purpose designed by God is to protect such rights.
-William Blackstone
-William Blackstone
Our laws are supposed to protect our natural rights within Biblical morality ( Biblical morality being the foundation for American law and historically influenced English law) So we make laws based on morality. Right and wrong.
John Adams said in 1798, “[o]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Within morality this is what makes this virus complicated.
Life and liberty being 2 natural God given rights. Government designed by God is to protect these rights. This virus is taking life and limiting liberty. This is why it is so complicated as both are moral issues.
The Webster's 1828 dictionary is known as the Constitution dictionary as the words are defined in context of the founders interpretations.
LIB'ERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
(Laws of nature being understood as created by nature's God. Again that God evidently was the Biblical God in their writings, debates, and personal lives.)
3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
So we are at a point when how far or loose should we go to protect life and liberty. We understand civil liberty has restraints on natural liberty ( absolute freedom) but only as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society. If a restraint of natural liberty isnt necessary or expedient for the public, it is tyranny or oppression.
-Thomas Jefferson
As spoken on in the Declaration and Bill of rights. And governments main purpose designed by God is to protect such rights.
-William Blackstone
-William Blackstone
Our laws are supposed to protect our natural rights within Biblical morality ( Biblical morality being the foundation for American law and historically influenced English law) So we make laws based on morality. Right and wrong.
John Adams said in 1798, “[o]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Within morality this is what makes this virus complicated.
Life and liberty being 2 natural God given rights. Government designed by God is to protect these rights. This virus is taking life and limiting liberty. This is why it is so complicated as both are moral issues.
The Webster's 1828 dictionary is known as the Constitution dictionary as the words are defined in context of the founders interpretations.
LIB'ERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
(Laws of nature being understood as created by nature's God. Again that God evidently was the Biblical God in their writings, debates, and personal lives.)
3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
So we are at a point when how far or loose should we go to protect life and liberty. We understand civil liberty has restraints on natural liberty ( absolute freedom) but only as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society. If a restraint of natural liberty isnt necessary or expedient for the public, it is tyranny or oppression.
-
1
- Show all
Official congress web confirm h.r.748 introduce a year before pandemic
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748
-
2
- Show all
Paul seemed quite upset. But I cannot blame him or anyone because we are created in God's image. Seekers of justice. When justice fails, it should bother any Christian.
Acts 16:37-38 New International Version (NIV)
37 But Paul said to the officers: “They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.”
38 The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed.
To want justice doesn't mean you cannot have the attitude of the Apostles in Acts 5:41.
Take Martin Luther King for example.
Acts 16:37-38 New International Version (NIV)
37 But Paul said to the officers: “They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.”
38 The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed.
To want justice doesn't mean you cannot have the attitude of the Apostles in Acts 5:41.
Take Martin Luther King for example.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Amen.
Check this out. I gave a old calendar to a senior in high school yesterday. It had magnificent pics of tall ships.
One had the USS constitution on it.
I asked her if that pic was indeed the constitution. She said " you mean the Mayflower? "
The schools now skip over most american history.
Part of duping society
Check this out. I gave a old calendar to a senior in high school yesterday. It had magnificent pics of tall ships.
One had the USS constitution on it.
I asked her if that pic was indeed the constitution. She said " you mean the Mayflower? "
The schools now skip over most american history.
Part of duping society
-
2
- Show all
Unfortunately very true. Or the history taught is the progressive reimagined history. For example they may teach George Washington's farewell address but only a snippet of it and not include all the religious talk. Or the include all the Mayflower conpact that also gets real religious at the end.
Or try to smear the founders by claiming they was racist, agnostic, athiest, rich white people.
While many was involved in the abolition movement which actually began decades before the independence of America. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson being one of the examples who tried to abolish slavery while under British rule. Atheist by far is just false. Agnostic I would probably only say that of Thomas Paine. And remember we are talking about more than 100 individuals who are considered founders. People only maybe know 3. Many wasnt rich in fact many lost everything during the revolution. As for white well yes that is true to a degree. But American history involves black history. And many black Americans helped fight for independence and worked with these people to bring about the country we see today.
Two stories I love are of Lemuel Haynes and Salem Poor.
Lemuel Haynes
Haynes was born a free black in 1753 in West Hartford Connecticut. He was abandoned by his parents who were “a white woman of respectable ancestry” and a black man. At the age of five months, he was indentured to a David Rose of Middle Granville, Massachussets. His indenture was until the age of 21. According to Haynes, “He [David Rose] was a man of singular piety. I was taught the principles of religion. His wife . . . treated me as though I was her own child.” Part of the agreement for his indenture was that he would receive an education, which he did. “I had the advantage of attending a common school equal with the other children. I was early taught to read.” He developed a passion for reading, especially theology and the Bible. While just a teenager, he began giving sermons in the town parrish.
When his indenture ended in 1774, Haynes enlisted as a “Minuteman” in his local militia. Though he did not fight in the Battle of Lexington, he did write a ballad-sermon about it. The poem dicussed the conflict between slavery and freedom but did not address black slavery. He took part in the Siege of Boston and the expedition to Fort Ticonderoga led by Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.
After the war, Haynes had an opportunity to study at Dartmouth College. He turned it down. Instead he took up the study of Latin and Greek with a Connecticut clergyman. By 1780, he was able to receive his license to preach. His first congregation was a white one in Middle Granville. He eventually presided over white and mixed congregations in four different states, including New York and Massachusetts. Later he married a white school teacher by the name of Elizabeth Babbitt. He was ordained in the Congregationalist Church in 1785, the first black to be so by a mainstream protestant church.
For more than 30 years, Haynes presided over a mostly white church in Rutland, Vermont. During his time there, he developed an international reputation as a preacher and a writer. In 1801, he published a track called “The Nature and Importance of True Republicanism.” This contained his only published statement on race and slavery. He did argue for the abolition of slavery by arguing that it denied black men their rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He also said, “Liberty is equally as precious to a black man, as it is to a white one, and bondage as equally as intolerable to the one as it is to the other”. In 1804, he became the first black man in America to receive a masters degree, earning it from Middlebury College. He was also a friend and counselor to the presidents of Harvard and Yale universities.
Haynes left Rutland in 1818 due to conflicts over politics, Haynes was a fervent Federalist, and style. Sadly, after living and working with the people of Rutland for 30 years, there was speculation that the departure was due to his race.
Haynes final appointment to a church was in Manchester, Vermont. There he counseled two men who were condemned to death for murder. Their convictions were overturned when their victim reappeared quite alive. Haynes wrote a best seller about the seven year ordeal. The book stayed a best seller for a decade.
During the last decade of his life, Haynes ministered to a church in New York. He died in 1833, at the age of 80. His tombstone read,
Salem Poor
Salem Poor began life as a Massachusetts slave and ended it as an American hero. Born into bondage in the late 1740s, he purchased his own freedom two decades later for 27 pounds, the equivalent of a few thousand dollars today. Soon after, Poor joined the fight for independence.
Enlisting multiple times, he is believed to have fought in the battles of Saratoga and Monmouth. He’s most famous, however, for his heroism at the Battle of Bunker Hill—where his contributions so impressed fellow soldiers, that after the war ended, 14 of them formally recognized his excellent battle skills with a petition to the General Court of Massachusetts. In it, they called him out as a “brave and gallant soldier,” saying he “behaved like an experienced officer.” Poor is credited in that battle with killing British Lieutenant Colonel James Abercrombie, along with several other enemy soldiers.
But most public schools don't even teach this or if they do it is seperate ar black history month instead of being incorporated in American history in general.
Not sure how I got down this road but I guess it is irritating how our public schools handle history.
Or try to smear the founders by claiming they was racist, agnostic, athiest, rich white people.
While many was involved in the abolition movement which actually began decades before the independence of America. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson being one of the examples who tried to abolish slavery while under British rule. Atheist by far is just false. Agnostic I would probably only say that of Thomas Paine. And remember we are talking about more than 100 individuals who are considered founders. People only maybe know 3. Many wasnt rich in fact many lost everything during the revolution. As for white well yes that is true to a degree. But American history involves black history. And many black Americans helped fight for independence and worked with these people to bring about the country we see today.
Two stories I love are of Lemuel Haynes and Salem Poor.
Lemuel Haynes
Haynes was born a free black in 1753 in West Hartford Connecticut. He was abandoned by his parents who were “a white woman of respectable ancestry” and a black man. At the age of five months, he was indentured to a David Rose of Middle Granville, Massachussets. His indenture was until the age of 21. According to Haynes, “He [David Rose] was a man of singular piety. I was taught the principles of religion. His wife . . . treated me as though I was her own child.” Part of the agreement for his indenture was that he would receive an education, which he did. “I had the advantage of attending a common school equal with the other children. I was early taught to read.” He developed a passion for reading, especially theology and the Bible. While just a teenager, he began giving sermons in the town parrish.
When his indenture ended in 1774, Haynes enlisted as a “Minuteman” in his local militia. Though he did not fight in the Battle of Lexington, he did write a ballad-sermon about it. The poem dicussed the conflict between slavery and freedom but did not address black slavery. He took part in the Siege of Boston and the expedition to Fort Ticonderoga led by Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.
After the war, Haynes had an opportunity to study at Dartmouth College. He turned it down. Instead he took up the study of Latin and Greek with a Connecticut clergyman. By 1780, he was able to receive his license to preach. His first congregation was a white one in Middle Granville. He eventually presided over white and mixed congregations in four different states, including New York and Massachusetts. Later he married a white school teacher by the name of Elizabeth Babbitt. He was ordained in the Congregationalist Church in 1785, the first black to be so by a mainstream protestant church.
For more than 30 years, Haynes presided over a mostly white church in Rutland, Vermont. During his time there, he developed an international reputation as a preacher and a writer. In 1801, he published a track called “The Nature and Importance of True Republicanism.” This contained his only published statement on race and slavery. He did argue for the abolition of slavery by arguing that it denied black men their rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He also said, “Liberty is equally as precious to a black man, as it is to a white one, and bondage as equally as intolerable to the one as it is to the other”. In 1804, he became the first black man in America to receive a masters degree, earning it from Middlebury College. He was also a friend and counselor to the presidents of Harvard and Yale universities.
Haynes left Rutland in 1818 due to conflicts over politics, Haynes was a fervent Federalist, and style. Sadly, after living and working with the people of Rutland for 30 years, there was speculation that the departure was due to his race.
Haynes final appointment to a church was in Manchester, Vermont. There he counseled two men who were condemned to death for murder. Their convictions were overturned when their victim reappeared quite alive. Haynes wrote a best seller about the seven year ordeal. The book stayed a best seller for a decade.
During the last decade of his life, Haynes ministered to a church in New York. He died in 1833, at the age of 80. His tombstone read,
“Here lies the dust of a poor hell deserving sinner, who ventured into eternity trusting wholly on the merits of Christ for salvation. In the full belief of the great doctrines he preached while on earth, he invites his children, and all who read this, to trust their eternal interest on the same foundation.”
Haynes was a great admirer of George Washington. He was a member of the Washington Benevolent Society, and every year he would preach a special sermon on Washington’s birthdaySalem Poor
Salem Poor began life as a Massachusetts slave and ended it as an American hero. Born into bondage in the late 1740s, he purchased his own freedom two decades later for 27 pounds, the equivalent of a few thousand dollars today. Soon after, Poor joined the fight for independence.
Enlisting multiple times, he is believed to have fought in the battles of Saratoga and Monmouth. He’s most famous, however, for his heroism at the Battle of Bunker Hill—where his contributions so impressed fellow soldiers, that after the war ended, 14 of them formally recognized his excellent battle skills with a petition to the General Court of Massachusetts. In it, they called him out as a “brave and gallant soldier,” saying he “behaved like an experienced officer.” Poor is credited in that battle with killing British Lieutenant Colonel James Abercrombie, along with several other enemy soldiers.
But most public schools don't even teach this or if they do it is seperate ar black history month instead of being incorporated in American history in general.
Not sure how I got down this road but I guess it is irritating how our public schools handle history.
Well the state of emergency was before the statewide shelter in place I think...although each county/city could put forward its own restrictions. People knew about it here and there were a few places that there was talk of curfews about an hour away from me. Up in blue ridge in the mountains they said something along the lines of "we don't want anyone that doesn't live here coming to blue ridge...pass on through"
But yeah april 3rd to april 30th I think it was everywhere in the state. Leastways it was supposed to be when Governor Kemp passed it to be effective those dates.
But yeah april 3rd to april 30th I think it was everywhere in the state. Leastways it was supposed to be when Governor Kemp passed it to be effective those dates.
