Author Topic: Speed (Read 8964 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!

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #25 on:** July 16, 2009, 05:01:13 PM »

Interestingly, liberals are the ones who aren't reading the healthcare bills.

Redemption Player X · « **Reply #26 on:** July 16, 2009, 05:06:35 PM »

AH, politics....

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #27 on:** July 22, 2009, 02:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael 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.

I disagree with this. Even though America is a liberal democracy, Obama would not be in office unless God allowed it (God allowed sinful men to rule Israel -- think King Saul). So as liberal as our country is, it still has laws that are to be obeyed, provided it does not conflict with God's laws. It is a sin to speed because not only is it illegal it is also dangerous. And even one mile an hour over the speed limit is speeding and the police can still bust you for it. After all, what happened to all the people in Scripture who tried to rationalize going against God's laws even a tiny bit?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #28 on:** July 22, 2009, 03:08:48 PM »

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on July 22, 2009, 02:38:40 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael 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.

I disagree with this. Even though America is a liberal democracy, Obama would not be in office unless God allowed it (God allowed sinful men to rule Israel -- think King Saul). So as liberal as our country is, it still has laws that are to be obeyed, provided it does not conflict with God's laws. It is a sin to speed because not only is it illegal it is also dangerous. And even one mile an hour over the speed limit is speeding and the police can still bust you for it. After all, what happened to all the people in Scripture who tried to rationalize going against God's laws even a tiny bit?

Do you have any idea how American Government works? Obama doesn't make laws or really have any power. Of course, both Obama and Bush used mafia like tactics to take power, which is a perfect example of a use for the second amendment.

juhnkect · « **Reply #29 on:** July 23, 2009, 05:53:37 PM »

Quote

Do you have any idea how American Government works? Obama doesn't make laws or really have any power. Of course, both Obama and Bush used mafia like tactics to take power, which is a perfect example of a use for the second amendment.

It doesn't matter how the government works, or fails to work.. It's still established by God! We are still mandated in Scripture to submit to it.

Pretty sure Paul, and the Christians he wrote to, were under rulers much worse than Bush, or Obama- but they were still under the obligation to submit.

There's no "well, if the government is corrupt" ... "if the government isnt functioning properly" clauses in romans 13.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #30 on:** July 23, 2009, 06:01:38 PM »

Yet the American Rebellion is justified?

soul seeker · « **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2009, 06:12:48 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.

Actually, Colin you are wrong on several accounts. It is true that your thinking has been swayed by RECENT history books but they were changed twice and intentionally. Once in the 50s and once in the 70s both quoting an atheistic author back in the 20s whose claims were unfounded both about the reasons why we "rebelled" and the belief systems of the draftees of the constitution. Prior to that it was about religious freedom. Our church is watching a DVD series "American Heritage". People harp on the "Taxation without Representation" and it wasn't even one of the top 15 complaints, and was mentioned overall very little. In an interest to keep God out of our history, and to make more of our books more about economics and it's role. The newer history books held on to that gripe and rose it to prominence. Along with the men who were deists and their roles.
I would encourage you to look into that series. I will find the exact name and website to check it out when our pastor comes back from vacation.

lightningninja · « **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2009, 06:21:43 PM »

Well, to answer the original question posed, I don't think it's wrong to speed as long as you're keeping up with other people. If everyone is going 70, and you want to go the speed limit (55) that's WAY dangerous.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #33 on:** July 23, 2009, 07:33:52 PM »

Right, because "everyone else is doing it" has always been adequate justification for sin.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #34 on:** July 23, 2009, 10:15:16 PM »

Quote from: soul seeker on July 23, 2009, 06:12:48 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.
Actually, Colin you are wrong on several accounts. It is true that your thinking has been swayed by RECENT history books but they were changed twice and intentionally. Once in the 50s and once in the 70s both quoting an atheistic author back in the 20s whose claims were unfounded both about the reasons why we "rebelled" and the belief systems of the draftees of the constitution. Prior to that it was about religious freedom. Our church is watching a DVD series "American Heritage". People harp on the "Taxation without Representation" and it wasn't even one of the top 15 complaints, and was mentioned overall very little. In an interest to keep God out of our history, and to make more of our books more about economics and it's role. The newer history books held on to that gripe and rose it to prominence. Along with the men who were deists and their roles.
I would encourage you to look into that series. I will find the exact name and website to check it out when our pastor comes back from vacation.

I'm not interested in Christian revisions of what really happened. I've taken several college courses on both early U.S. History and U.S. Politics. I've also done primary source readings on my own. The colonists had religious freedom; there was no cause for a religious rebellion.

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on July 23, 2009, 07:33:52 PM

Right, because "everyone else is doing it" has always been adequate justification for sin.

No, because it's safer to go at the speed everyone else is going. Also, it's not a sin.

Also, I'd rather not be a Christian if being a Christian means that you have to submit to your government without question (thank God it doesn't).

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #35 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:06:35 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 23, 2009, 10:15:16 PM

Quote from: soul seeker on July 23, 2009, 06:12:48 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.
Actually, Colin you are wrong on several accounts. It is true that your thinking has been swayed by RECENT history books but they were changed twice and intentionally. Once in the 50s and once in the 70s both quoting an atheistic author back in the 20s whose claims were unfounded both about the reasons why we "rebelled" and the belief systems of the draftees of the constitution. Prior to that it was about religious freedom. Our church is watching a DVD series "American Heritage". People harp on the "Taxation without Representation" and it wasn't even one of the top 15 complaints, and was mentioned overall very little. In an interest to keep God out of our history, and to make more of our books more about economics and it's role. The newer history books held on to that gripe and rose it to prominence. Along with the men who were deists and their roles.
I would encourage you to look into that series. I will find the exact name and website to check it out when our pastor comes back from vacation.

I'm not interested in Christian revisions of what really happened. I've taken several college courses on both early U.S. History and U.S. Politics. I've also done primary source readings on my own. The colonists had religious freedom; there was no cause for a religious rebellion.
Quote from: FresnoRedemption on July 23, 2009, 07:33:52 PM
Right, because "everyone else is doing it" has always been adequate justification for sin.
No, because it's safer to go at the speed everyone else is going. Also, it's not a sin.

Also, I'd rather not be a Christian if being a Christian means that you have to submit to your government without question (thank God it doesn't).

Well, there are a lot of hard teachings in Scripture, but one of the hard ones is that Christianity really does call for a surrender of our personal rights. Read the Sermon on the Mount if you don't believe me.

lightningninja · « **Reply #36 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:19:28 PM »

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on July 23, 2009, 07:33:52 PM

Right, because "everyone else is doing it" has always been adequate justification for sin.

You state that as if it's a fact. I don't believe following the other cars to be safe is a sin.

So you'd not sin and kill yourself and someone else on the road? I'd rather stay alive and "sin," if that's what it takes.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #37 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:22:10 PM »

Right. Because heaven blows.

lightningninja · « **Reply #38 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:22:44 PM »

Right, and I'm not gonna go to heaven cause I speed. That's a good observation.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #39 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:24:24 PM »

I was more talking about your goal of possibly sinning mainly to stay alive.

lightningninja · « **Reply #40 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:26:46 PM »

Oh, well I still stand by that. I would save my life, and especially the lives of others, even if it meant I'd sin. Obviously I draw the line somewhere, but I would lie to save my friend. I would kill in self-defense.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #41 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:27:52 PM »

"Killing" has never been a sin. Murder has. But most of both of our posts is a seperate topic.

lightningninja · « **Reply #42 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:29:10 PM »

True, although I do think that they're very closely related. It's all about is it okay to do something "wrong."

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #43 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:30:52 PM »

If it was, it wouldn't be wrong would it?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #44 on:** July 24, 2009, 12:02:31 AM »

Quote from: lightningninja on July 23, 2009, 11:26:46 PM

Oh, well I still stand by that. I would save my life, and especially the lives of others, even if it meant I'd sin. Obviously I draw the line somewhere, but I would lie to save my friend. I would kill in self-defense.

He who tries to save his life will lose it, but he who tries to lose his life for my sake will save it.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #45 on:** July 24, 2009, 01:29:43 AM »

Take it in context and tell me that passage has anything to do with self-defense.

Then, tell me why the Apostles were instructed to go about armed.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #46 on:** July 24, 2009, 10:32:11 AM »

Also, tell me why the Christians were themselves political dissidents.

News:

Author Topic: Speed (Read 8964 times)

FresnoRedemption

FresnoRedemption

FresnoRedemption