User Tag List

Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 234567815 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 368

Thread: ARCHIVE: Hello. (funniest "hello" thread ever!)

  1. #61
    Over 2000 post club One Eyed Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,093
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    My religious beliefs are held separate from my political views.
    Why is that? Can't your political views reflect your religious beliefs?

  2. #62
    Journeyman Minerva's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    249
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    My religious beliefs are held separate from my political views.

    And as for the edit, a simple mistake.
    Wow Mr. Logic....now there's a "tell all" statement if I ever saw one!



    Am I the only one that finds the absurd humor in that?
    THE PEOPLE AT TOL ARE GREAT!

    "If you admit you're dumb, you might just be smarter than I thought!" - A M!nerva original

    I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.

    If a cannibal used a knife and fork, would you call that progress?

  3. #63
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,899
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920769
    Politics is applied religion. It is not possible to hold them separate. It would be like holding biology separate from science.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  4. #64
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    Who are you talking too?

    I know you are getting dog piled here a bit but come on already! You have to at least stay on the same page as the one you're talking too. Why is it necessary for me to keep reminding you of what YOU said?

    You are the one who brought up the fact that homos should have equal rights because of the Declaration of Independence. I then pointed out the fact that homosexuality was illegal when the Declaration was written. IT WAS THEN YOU WHO BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT WE WERE UNDER BRITISH LAW WHEN THE DECLARATION WAS WRITTEN!!! So in response to that I cited the fact that Henry VIII made HOMOSEXUALITY illegal clear back in the 16th century!

    I didn't bring up British law, you did! And in my previous post I cited, per your request, the precise piece of legislation that ended laws against homosexuality (not sodomy - sodomy is still against the law in most states) IN THIS COUNTRY in 1967. Why would such a piece of legislation be necessary if the activity hadn't been illegal?

    Do you seriously doubt that homosexual activity was illegal for the first 200 years of this countries existence? If so, you really need to read some history books.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    I was responding to your bringing up of sodomy, when it was completely off topic.
    I brought up British law with the intent to keep you from citing it as proof that homosexuality was illegal until 1967. IE: British law is not American law.
    The 1967 cite was only one half of my request, the main part was, and still is, legislation outlawing it in the first place.
    And, again someone trys to substitute two different concepts for each other. HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IS NOT THE SAME AS HOMOSEXUALITY!

  5. #65
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    Politics is applied religion. It is not possible to hold them separate. It would be like holding biology separate from science.
    Nietzsche would disagree, as would Marx, Plato, Socrates and a host of other political philosophers.

  6. #66
    Silver Member kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    10,197
    Thanks
    1,131
    Thanked 2,272 Times in 1,198 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1133418
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    Nietzsche would disagree, as would Marx, Plato, Socrates and a host of other political philosophers.
    I have a feeling Clete doesn't care if they disagree.

  7. #67
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,899
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920769
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    Nietzsche would disagree, as would Marx, Plato, Socrates and a host of other political philosophers.
    And they would be as wrong as you are (assuming that they would actually disagree, which I seriously doubt).

    You believe what you believe politically because of your worldview and your worldview is defined by your ultimate beliefs, including your beliefs concerning the nature of God and His relationship to you and to the society in which you live.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  8. #68
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    Nietzsche would disagree, as would Marx, Plato, Socrates and a host of other political philosophers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    And they would be as wrong as you are (assuming that they would actually disagree, which I seriously doubt).

    You believe what you believe politically because of your worldview and your worldview is defined by your ultimate beliefs, including your beliefs concerning the nature of God and His relationship to you and to the society in which you live.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Nietzsche, Marx, Plato, and Socrates were all atheists. Nietzsche in particular was very anti-religion.
    And perhaps that is how your political beliefs were formed, but not mine.
    Yes, they are influenced by my relationship with God, but they are not dictated by those beliefs. A dialectic is possible.
    God gave me free will, that allows me to hold two opposing ideas or beliefs at the same time.

  9. #69
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,899
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920769
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    I was responding to your bringing up of sodomy, when it was completely off topic.
    You're an idiot. The two are virtually synonymous and you know it. You focused on a technical definition of the term sodomy with the specific intent of diverting the focus of the discussion which has never strayed from the topic of homosexuality.
    Furthermore, today in the United States, sodomy is primarily defined as oral or anal sex between two men or two women.

    I brought up British law with the intent to keep you from citing it as proof that homosexuality was illegal until 1967. IE: British law is not American law.
    IT WAS WHEN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS WRITTEN!!!!

    The 1967 cite was only one half of my request, the main part was, and still is, legislation outlawing it in the first place.
    It was never NOT against the law in this country since even before July 4th 1776! And the law in this country was based on BRITISH law as well as the Bible!

    How is a piece of legislation enacted in 1967 supposed to repeal a law which never existed? The existence of the repeal is proof that homosexuality was illegal in this nation prior to 1967.

    If you really want to get a feel for the history of such laws, all you need to know is that scholars date the first of such laws against homosexuality as far back a 550BC! But since you don't really care about that, we can focus on the United States, in which case we have to look at the laws of the original colonies prior to the actual formation of the country. It's not as if the whole of the law was rewritten when the Declaration was signed.

    American sodomy laws derived from the so-called English "buggery law," passed by Parliament in 1533 in the reign of Henry VIII. In the so-called "New World," the settlement at Jamestown, Va., was founded in 1607 by the London Company as a British military and trading post. Though British law was implicitly in force, in May 1610 the governor or Virginia, Sir Thomas Gates, instituted martial law in order to keep the young male colonists more firmly in line. Virginia's "Articles, Laws, and Orders, Divine, Politique, and Martial" covered a long list of both secular and religious infractions punishable by "pain of death" - theft, blasphemy, adultery, rape, illegal trade with Indians, and "the detestable sins of Sodomie." (It was plural because sodomy included male-male and male-female anal and oral sex, as well as bestiality.) There were, however, no recorded executions for sodomy until 1624. The first person to be executed was Richard Cornish, a ship's captain accused of sexually assaulting his indentured servant, William Cowse. As the number of colonial settlements grew in the 1600s, each instituted its own local code of laws, and each included sodomy as a capital offense. pro-homo source

    And, again someone trys to substitute two different concepts for each other. HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IS NOT THE SAME AS HOMOSEXUALITY!
    This doesn't even warrant a response except to ask, do you even know how to have a normal conversation?

    I feel like I'm talking to a 16 year old punk child! How old are you anyway?

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  10. #70
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    You're an idiot. The two are virtually synonymous and you know it. You focused on a technical definition of the term sodomy with the specific intent of diverting the focus of the discussion which has never strayed from the topic of homosexuality.
    Furthermore, today in the United States, sodomy is primarily defined as oral or anal sex between two men or two women.
    You failed to define what exactly you were referring to when you said sodomy, I took the common definition, not a technical one, anal sex, to be what you were talking about. Define your terms better.

    Sodomy is not synonymous with homosexuality, no matter what you may think.
    You made the attempt to shift discussion, otherwise, why would you have switched terms when homosexuality was working fine?
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    It was never NOT against the law in this country since even before July 4th 1776! And the law in this country was based on BRITISH law as well as the Bible!

    How is a piece of legislation enacted in 1967 supposed to repeal a law which never existed? The existence of the repeal is proof that homosexuality was illegal in this nation prior to 1967.
    You have still failed to cite specific passages that backs your claim. If this law existed, show me. Based on British law is not the same as actual law. Proof is needed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    If you really want to get a feel for the history of such laws, all you need to know is that scholars date the first of such laws against homosexuality as far back a 550BC! But since you don't really care about that, we can focus on the United States, in which case we have to look at the laws of the original colonies prior to the actual formation of the country. It's not as if the whole of the law was rewritten when the Declaration was signed.
    I do care about that, and yes the whole law was re-written, it had to be, we were a new country.
    Ancient Rome and Greece both publicly practiced sodomy, and they are what all western governments take inspiration from. Japan has a history of accecpted homosexuality also.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    American sodomy laws derived from the so-called English "buggery law," passed by Parliament in 1533 in the reign of Henry VIII. In the so-called "New World," the settlement at Jamestown, Va., was founded in 1607 by the London Company as a British military and trading post. Though British law was implicitly in force, in May 1610 the governor or Virginia, Sir Thomas Gates, instituted martial law in order to keep the young male colonists more firmly in line. Virginia's "Articles, Laws, and Orders, Divine, Politique, and Martial" covered a long list of both secular and religious infractions punishable by "pain of death" - theft, blasphemy, adultery, rape, illegal trade with Indians, and "the detestable sins of Sodomie." (It was plural because sodomy included male-male and male-female anal and oral sex, as well as bestiality.) There were, however, no recorded executions for sodomy until 1624. The first person to be executed was Richard Cornish, a ship's captain accused of sexually assaulting his indentured servant, William Cowse. As the number of colonial settlements grew in the 1600s, each instituted its own local code of laws, and each included sodomy as a capital offense. pro-homo source
    Nice citing of English law, but another failure to cite American. You keep avoiding the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    This doesn't even warrant a response except to ask, do you even know how to have a normal conversation?

    I feel like I'm talking to a 16 year old punk child! How old are you anyway?

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Does not warrant a response? It is a simple statement. Having anal sex does not make one a homosexual. Confused, bisexual, rape victim, yes, but it does not dictate that someone is a homosexual.

    You feel like you are talking to a punk kid? LOL you keep avoiding a simple request, you switch terms to mislead, maybe you are more a child than I.
    And age is not all that important is it? But, just in case you are really that concerned, I am nearly 27.

  11. #71
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,899
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920769
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    Nietzsche, Marx, Plato, and Socrates were all atheists.
    PLATO WAS AN ATHEIST???!!!!!

    HA!

    You mean the Plato that wrote this...
    "Then everything which is good, whether made by art or nature, or both, is least liable to suffer change from without?

    True.

    But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect?

    Of course they are.

    Then he can hardly be compelled by external influence to take many shapes?

    He cannot.

    But may he not change and transform himself?

    Clearly, he said, that must be the case if he is changed at all.

    And will he then change himself for the better and fairer, or for the worse and more unsightly?

    If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannot suppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty.

    Very true, Adeimantus; but then, would any one, whether God or man, desire to make himself worse?

    Impossible.

    Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being, as is supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable, every god remains absolutely and for ever in his own form." Plato: The Republic: XVIII

    Nietzsche in particular was very anti-religion.
    You don't get it. Anti-religion is a religion. Atheism is a religious position in that it is a belief about the nature of God even if that position states that He does not exist.

    And perhaps that is how your political beliefs were formed, but not mine.
    You're wrong. You cannot separate yourself from your own worldview of which your religious beliefs are a critical part.

    Yes, they are influenced by my relationship with God, but they are not dictated by those beliefs. A dialectic is possible.
    I don't dispute that you can hold positions that are inconsistent with your basic beliefs, almost everyone does, but even the willingness to do that stems from a basic core belief.
    You simply cannot escape your own presuppositions; they influence everything you think and you cannot believe in what you do not think about. Our actions in thought, word and deed all stem from those core beliefs which one holds most true and nonnegotiable.

    God gave me free will, that allows me to hold two opposing ideas or beliefs at the same time.
    Yes, God will allow you to be irrational if you choose to be. There can be no argument there.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  12. #72
    Over 1000 post club JoyfulRook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,353
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    Nietzsche would disagree, as would Marx, Plato, Socrates and a host of other political philosophers.
    To quote Vizzini: "Morons. All of them."
    "I maintain my pride in the face of men, but I abandon it before God, who drew me out of nothingness to make me what I am." - The Count of Monte Cristo

  13. #73
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,899
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920769
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnord5
    I do care about that, and yes the whole law was re-written, it had to be, we were a new country.
    You're an idiot and are making this up as you go. The dorks on whatever other website you cam from might have been stupid but I am not.

    I'm not wasting any more time with you.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  14. #74
    Over 1500 post club GuySmiley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,829
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    160614
    Oh, in case I forgot earlier, welcome to TOL.
    "I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

    "Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot

  15. #75
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    You're an idiot and are making this up as you go. The dorks on whatever other website you cam from might have been stupid but I am not.

    I'm not wasting any more time with you.

    Aww, no cite?

    There are two reasons you have not provided the simple cite I asked for.
    1: Said cite does not exist, and you refuse to admit it.
    2: Said cite refers only to sodomy, and therefore you cannot use it without proving yourself wrong.

    The entire set of laws for this country were re-written by the founders, because we had just removed ourselves from English rule, and wanted a clean break. Yes the English influenced the laws, but they were all penned new after independence.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us