Author Topic: Speed (Read 10618 times)

juhnkect · « **on:** July 16, 2009, 01:35:02 PM »

Is it a sin to speed?

is there a "grace" 5-10mph?

Romans 13: 1-2 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2009, 01:51:39 PM »

I have heard that speeding tickets have check boxes for how much a person is speeding.
10-15 16-20 21-30 over 31

If this is the case, then going less than 10 mph over the posted speed limit is actually not really against the law due to there not even being a category for that infraction. However, going 10 mph or more over the posted limit would indeed be disobeying the authority that is established. And rebelling against authority (except when that authority contradicts scripture) is indeed sinful.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2009, 01:54:48 PM »

I'm almost positive there was a 0-10 on my ticket. I'm not sure where I filed that though....

The Guardian · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2009, 01:58:14 PM »

There is some gray area to this as well. If the speed limit is 55, and everyone else is doing 70, then assuming road and traffic conditions are okay, I would guess you're actually safer (and being less of a hazard to other drivers) doing at least 65.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:01:44 PM »

That's very true.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:12:45 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 16, 2009, 01:54:48 PM

I'm almost positive there was a 0-10 on my ticket. I'm not sure where I filed that though....

I would appreciate if you could find it, as this is important information to me.

Quote from: The Guardian on July 16, 2009, 01:58:14 PM

There is some gray area to this as well. If the speed limit is 55, and everyone else is doing 70, then assuming road and traffic conditions are okay, I would guess you're actually safer (and being less of a hazard to other drivers) doing at least 65.

This may be true, but I dislike the notion that because everyone else is doing something wrong that it makes it ok (or even better) for me to do something wrong. I can't go along with that.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #6 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:28:37 PM »

Quote

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Speed should be done in moderation. I personally don't have any respect for the law or policemen, but don't typically speed because I don't want tickets. I have run from the police in my car twice though and got away, which was cool.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #7 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:34:05 PM »

I know you're joking Colin, but encouraging drug use and evasion of police officers is inappropriate for this forum. Please be more careful to use you wit in constructive ways.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #8 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:35:42 PM »

I'm not positive the second part is a joke like that first part is.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #9 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:36:09 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 16, 2009, 02:28:37 PM

Speed should be done in moderation.

Mayhap that should have been worded a tad differently

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #10 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:37:01 PM »

No, he intended that.

The Guardian · « **Reply #11 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:44:45 PM »

Quote

This may be true, but I dislike the notion that because everyone else is doing something wrong that it makes it ok (or even better) for me to do something wrong. I can't go along with that.

Hmmm, sounds like a different discussion we had...

However, not keeping up to speed in heavy traffic can also be considered reckless driving. I'm not sure how favorably a police officer would look at you if you cause an accident by going 15 mph slower than everyone else...I dunno, like I said, it's a gray area to me anyway.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #12 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:48:21 PM »

I've just seen too much police abuse over the years to have any respect for the law.

In fact, our city would easily survive without one police officer, but they keep upgrading and upgrading. Everytime they pull someone over for speeding, two other cops show up for backup, simply because they don't have anything better to do. They're spending our tax money so that they can give us more tickets and catch more fourteen year-olds smoking pot. That's pretty dumb.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #13 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:55:52 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 16, 2009, 02:37:01 PM

No, he intended that.

Maybe. Regardless, I thought it was funny, hehe

Colin Michael · « **Reply #14 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:00:29 PM »

Quote from: LukeSnyder on July 16, 2009, 02:55:52 PM

Quote from: Janissary on July 16, 2009, 02:37:01 PM
No, he intended that.

Maybe. Regardless, I thought it was funny, hehe

If only Johnny Thunders had listened though (that is, if the conspiracy theories aren't true).

In regards to the topic, America is a liberal democracy, therefore, the verse is non-applicable.

juhnkect · « **Reply #15 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:25:07 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 16, 2009, 03:00:29 PM

In regards to the topic, America is a liberal democracy, therefore, the verse is non-applicable.

I Don't think I agree with that.

Yes, America has become a liberal democracy, but that still means its a governing authority, correct? We, as the people, just more or less, choose which laws govern us.

But there are still laws... put in place to govern us... by those in authority. right?

So the passage is still very much applicable

Colin Michael · « **Reply #16 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:26:54 PM »

Quote from: juhnkect on July 16, 2009, 03:25:07 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 16, 2009, 03:00:29 PM

In regards to the topic, America is a liberal democracy, therefore, the verse is non-applicable.

I Don't think I agree with that.

Yes, America has become a liberal democracy, but that still means its a governing authority, correct? We, as the people, just more or less, choose which laws govern us.

But there are still laws... put in place to govern us... by those in authority. right?

So the passage is still very much applicable

Not if you're a dissident.

juhnkect · « **Reply #17 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:35:02 PM »

Well, that brings up a whole new question.

Is being a dissident not submitting yourself to governing authority?
and would that make it a sin?

I'm not trying to preach hail, fire, brimstone.. I'm just viewing your comment in the context of the post. Kinda playing devil's advocate.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:38:08 PM »

Quote from: juhnkect on July 16, 2009, 03:35:02 PM

Well, that brings up a whole new question.

Is being a dissident not submitting yourself to governing authority?
and would that make it a sin?

I'm not trying to preach hail, fire, brimstone.. I'm just viewing your comment in the context of the post. Kinda playing devil's advocate.

Well, what about our founding fathers?

juhnkect · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:00:53 PM »

Haha. the good ol' "our founding father's were dissenting immigrants too!"

I really don't have a good answer...

Other than, I believe the original pilgrims left England because they were being religiously persecuted and kept from worshiping God freely. So, biblically they had not only the right, but the obligation to separate themselves. They had the means and land to start a new society where they could better obey and worship God. Those were freedoms they established in the new society and were in the right to defend.

In our country, we still have that religious freedom, so I don't feel that there is a strong enough biblical reason to not act in submission.

*edit*

the comment about the "founding father's being dissenting immigrants" sounded a little sarcastic and negative. I didn't mean it that way. i just run into that argument a lot (especially debating border control) and i honestly don't have a good reply. Sorry if i sent the wrong vibe.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #20 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:05:44 PM »

Quote from: juhnkect on July 16, 2009, 04:00:53 PM

Haha. the good ol' "our founding father's were dissenting immigrants too!"

I really don't have a good answer...

Other than, I believe the original pilgrims left England because they were being religiously persecuted and kept from worshiping God freely. So, biblically they had not only the right, but the obligation to separate themselves. They had the means and land to start a new society where they could better obey and worship God. Those were freedoms they established in the new society and were in the right to defend.

In our country, we still have that religious freedom, so I don't feel that there is a strong enough biblical reason to not act in submission.

I don't care for the Pilgrims much. The original settlements were Jamestown and such. Either way, the founding fathers were English citizens who declared independence.

juhnkect · « **Reply #21 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:07:56 PM »

Right, but the initial call for independence was rooted in a desire for religious freedom.

Redemption Player X · « **Reply #22 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:23:25 PM »

SO far I agree with juhnkect.

I mean, Im not fan of this government either (hope this doesnt cause me to get taken to prison) but we still have to respect them as long as they dont impose on our worship.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #23 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:30:01 PM »

Quote from: juhnkect on July 16, 2009, 04:07:56 PM

Right, but the initial call for independence was rooted in a desire for religious freedom.

What? Not in any way at all. The Pilgrims came for religious freedom almost two centuries before the war for independence. The war for independence was about taxation without representation. The colonies had religious freedom under England. Many of the founding fathers weren't even Christians, they were deists.

Also, people were allowed to be Christians under England, they just weren't allowed to be Christians in the way they wanted.

Read your history books.

DaClock · « **Reply #24 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:58:51 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 16, 2009, 04:30:01 PM

Quote from: juhnkect on July 16, 2009, 04:07:56 PM
Right, but the initial call for independence was rooted in a desire for religious freedom.
What? Not in any way at all. The Pilgrims came for religious freedom almost two centuries before the war for independence. The war for independence was about taxation without representation. The colonies had religious freedom under England. Many of the founding fathers weren't even Christians, they were deists.

Also, people were allowed to be Christians under England, they just weren't allowed to be Christians in the way they wanted.

Read your history books.

No thank you. I'll leave the reading for the pagans and liberals!

News:

Author Topic: Speed (Read 10618 times)