Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The House of Lords

Expand Messages
  • Fred blahous
    Absentee rulers are the best time. They do less damage when they are simply indifferent to their jobs.lol. ... one ... proceedings!! ;- ... Parliament, ...
    Message 1 of 57 , Aug 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Absentee rulers are the best time. They do less damage when they are
      simply indifferent to their jobs.lol.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
      <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
      > 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.
      >
      > Whit
      >
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, crazy_calvinist
      > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > ---
      > > Well this has nothing to do with the question, but I would be
      > worried
      > > if the Lord's had much power for anything, since every time
      one
      > sees
      > > them on TV, half of them are sleeping through the
      proceedings!! ;-
      > )
      > > (tis true)
      > >
      > > ~Deejay
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
      > > <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
      > > > How would you explain that in the context of the UK
      Parliament,
      > of
      > > > which is 2 houses: the Commons and the Lords? The Commons
      make
      > > > Bills and pass laws (having the Royal Assent from the Queen).
      > Since
      > > > the 1600's, Bills written by the Commons to raise taxes and
      make
      > an
      > > > expenditure cannot be amended by the Lords. The Lords reviews
      > and
      > > > revise Bills and all others laws yet are still part of
      > Parlianment
      > > > (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
      > > >
    • Fred blahous
      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
      Message 57 of 57 , Aug 13, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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,
        Fred.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Whit"
        <covie_pres.1646@v...> wrote:
        > Indeed true!. Very good point as Psalms, Isaiah, and the other
        > books have warnings and exhortations to "kiss the Son lest he be
        > angry", "the Kings shall be thy nursing fathers", etc.
        >
        > Whit
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
        > <fritzbau@y...> wrote:
        > > Nations are under obligation to establish Presbyterianism
        because
        > it
        > > 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-
        Presbyterian
        > > states in their compacts? There is no call for war, certainly,
        but
        > > this does not mean they can form a compact with idolators. Just
        my
        > > thoughts.
        > >
        > > All the best,
        > > Fred.
        > >
        > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, 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-
        > Presbyterian?
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > No, it's not. How can that be said?
        > > > Virginia was not under any Covenant except her Constitution,
        nor
        > > was New
        > > > Hampshire. Neither had a prior obligation to be Presbyterian,
        > > > congregational, or Anglican. Both were equally sovereign.
        How
        > > should
        > > > 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.
        We
        > > did not
        > > > need a war to force Presbyterianism on the other states, now
        did
        > > we?
        > > > 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
        > obligation
        > > to
        > > > Presbyterianism or other denomination. The States were mostly
        > > founded
        > > > with an Established Church, which varied by State. The SL&C
        had
        > > never
        > > > been applied, nor required; so the denominational landscape
        was
        > > very
        > > > different than in the Three Kingdoms.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.