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

[One Eyed Jack]

My religious beliefs are held separate from my political views.

Why is that? Can't your political views reflect your religious beliefs?

 

[Minerva]

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!

:rotfl:

Am I the only one that finds the absurd humor in that?

 

[Clete]

Politics is applied religion. It is not possible to hold them separate. It would be like holding biology separate from science.

 

[Fnord5]

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!

 

[Fnord5]

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.

 

[kmoney]

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. :chuckle:

 

[Clete]

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

 

[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

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.

 

[Clete]

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!!!! :bang:

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! :freak::duh:

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

 

[Fnord5]

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?

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! :freak::duh:

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Clete]

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

 

[JoyfulRook]

Nietzsche would disagree, as would Marx, Plato, Socrates and a host of other political philosophers.

To quote Vizzini: "Morons. All of them."

 

[Clete]

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.

:wave2:

 

[GuySmiley]

Oh, in case I forgot earlier, welcome to TOL. :wave:

 

[Fnord5]

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.

:wave2:

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.

 

[Turbo]

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.

"Fnord is the typographic representation of disinformation or irrelevant information intending to misdirect, with the implication of a conspiracy."​

 

[Fnord5]

"Fnord is the typographic representation of disinformation or irrelevant information intending to misdirect, with the implication of a conspiracy."​

If you had read the subsequent posts, it was in fact Clete that attempted to misdirect.

 

[Minerva]

"Fnord is the typographic representation of disinformation or irrelevant information intending to misdirect, with the implication of a conspiracy."​

I read the info in the link.....uh....strange, yeah....very strange... :noid:

 

[Clete]

"Fnord is the typographic representation of disinformation or irrelevant information intending to misdirect, with the implication of a conspiracy."​

Now that is just amazing.

Now I really feel like I wasted my time with this nut who thinks that every law on the books was rewritten when we declared independence from England, that sodomy laws never had anything to do with homosexuals, and that a 1967 act of Congress repealed laws which did not exist and who claims victory because I have been unable to find a specific reference to a 250+ year old enactment of a specific law as though such a specific law would be relevant to the debate in the first place.

Wow! Well, if it wasn't substantive, it was at least mildly entertaining. I never saw someone claim to have majored in logic before. :chuckle:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[George_Berry]

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.

Im sorry if this steps on too many toes, being only my second post and all, but that is the most retarded statement I have read in a while.

God made man in his own image.

Man is the cause for much suffering and misery.

If the things of God, and God himself were perfect, then there would be no suffering.

And also, if God is perfect, then why did he have to resort to plagues?

Although your argument may or may not be solid, that point there is just rediculous, and simply illogical.