Re: The House of Lords
- I occasionally watch both Houses on ParliamentTV online; it seems
that the only time there's a sizable count of them together is
during State Opening. Our cable TV doesn't carry much of foreign
parliaments. So, I try watch them online.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, crazy_calvinist
> Well this has nothing to do with the question, but I would be
> if the Lord's had much power for anything, since every time onesees
> them on TV, half of them are sleeping through the proceedings!! ;-)
> (tis true)of
> In email@example.com, "Whit"
> <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
> > How would you explain that in the context of the UK Parliament,
> > which is 2 houses: the Commons and the Lords? The Commons makeSince
> > Bills and pass laws (having the Royal Assent from the Queen).
> > the 1600's, Bills written by the Commons to raise taxes and makean
> > expenditure cannot be amended by the Lords. The Lords reviewsand
> > revise Bills and all others laws yet are still part ofParlianment
> > (in addition to being the UK "Supreme Court", the final court of
> > Appeal). However, if the Lords stop a Bill, it may be proposed
> > again in Commons, and the Commons may pass it without the Lord's
> > review or consent. (REF: "House of Lords Briefing", 2003, UK
> > Parliament: House of Lords)
> > Whit
- Thanks, Whit.
Won't it be great when we see all the other kingdoms establishing
the same unified religion, and abolishing both Popery and the
Eastern anti-filioque religion in Russia and Serbia? Then we will
finally be rid of church divisions and the so-called "three great
traditions" nonsense, bandied about so much.
All the best,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Whit"
> Indeed true!. Very good point as Psalms, Isaiah, and the otherbecause
> books have warnings and exhortations to "kiss the Son lest he be
> angry", "the Kings shall be thy nursing fathers", etc.
> --- In email@example.com, "Fred blahous"
> <fritzbau@y...> wrote:
> > Nations are under obligation to establish Presbyterianism
> > is the true religion required in God's Word, with or without a
> > covenant to do so. God did not tell us that "nations have no
> > obligation to Presbyterianism" in Acts 15, did he? And I repeat,
> > what was stopping them from simply not including non-
> > states in their compacts? There is no call for war, certainly,but
> > this does not mean they can form a compact with idolators. Justmy
> > thoughts.nor
> > All the best,
> > Fred.
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Larry Bump
> > <lbump@b...> wrote:
> > > Shawn Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > >"to prevent discrimination against a particular State's
> > > >established denomination"
> > > >
> > > >Is not even this idea Anti-Christian as well as Anti-
> > > >
> > > >
> > > No, it's not. How can that be said?
> > > Virginia was not under any Covenant except her Constitution,
> > was NewHow
> > > Hampshire. Neither had a prior obligation to be Presbyterian,
> > > congregational, or Anglican. Both were equally sovereign.
> > shouldWe
> > > the issue be resolved? By not involving either state in the
> > matters of
> > > the other; i.e. as it was by aknowledging the sovereignty of
> > either state.
> > >
> > > Sure, it's no-Presbyterian. But so were some of the States.
> > did notdid
> > > need a war to force Presbyterianism on the other states, now
> > we?had
> > > That's not how the Kingdom is built.
> > >
> > > You are blinded by your pre-suppositions. The states were
> > sovereign,
> > > the Feds had no jurisdiction, and their was no previous
> > to
> > > Presbyterianism or other denomination. The States were mostly
> > founded
> > > with an Established Church, which varied by State. The SL&C
> > neverwas
> > > been applied, nor required; so the denominational landscape
> > very
> > > different than in the Three Kingdoms.