|
Author
|
Topic: Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 1066 of 1309 (742049)
11-16-2014 2:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1063 by PaulK
11-16-2014 2:35 PM
|
|
I didn't read it as evidence for homosexual relationship, just for homosexual desire.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1063 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 2:35 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1067 of 1309 (742050)
11-16-2014 2:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1064 by jar
11-16-2014 2:38 PM
|
|
Re: While you are in actually answering mode ...
It's a matter of personal conscience, as you well know, their having a right to their conscience. Not YOUR conscience, THEIR conscience.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1064 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 2:38 PM | | jar has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 1068 of 1309 (742051)
11-16-2014 2:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1065 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:41 PM
|
|
quote:
Where's the "evidence of homosexual relationship" in those letters?
The homoerotic content, for a start. Not to mention the quotes already provided. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1065 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:41 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1069 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:46 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1069 of 1309 (742053)
11-16-2014 2:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1068 by PaulK
11-16-2014 2:45 PM
|
|
OK, you win.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1068 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 2:45 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1076 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:58 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5949 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.2
|
|
|
Message 1070 of 1309 (742054)
11-16-2014 2:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1039 by Phat
11-16-2014 12:40 PM
|
|
Re: Majority and Minority
...this is an issue between them and their Creator or higher conscience.
As expressed by Madison in A Memorial and Remonstrance. That quote you repeated was at the end of the first of 15 enumerated remonstrations that Madison made in that pamphlet (written in order to oppose Patrick Henry's proposed bill, "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," which would have supported Christian clergy with tax money). Here it is in its entirety:
quote:
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Rights of Conscience. Madison even included that very wording in earlier drafts of the First Amendment, but it was not approved. Still, that does indicate his original intent (the Almighty buzzword of in the 80's of the Radical Religious Right as it began revising American history). Edited by dwise1, : Forgot to fill the qs
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1039 by Phat, posted 11-16-2014 12:40 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 1071 of 1309 (742056)
11-16-2014 2:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1067 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:45 PM
|
|
Re: While you are in actually answering mode ...
Lol How is that different than the other examples. They were a matter of the supporters conscience. So once again Faith, how are the examples different?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1067 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:45 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1072 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:51 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1072 of 1309 (742057)
11-16-2014 2:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1071 by jar
11-16-2014 2:49 PM
|
|
Re: While you are in actually answering mode ...
Supposedly we have freedom of conscience. You do not get to define somebody else's conscience.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1071 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 2:49 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1073 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 2:52 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 1073 of 1309 (742058)
11-16-2014 2:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1072 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:51 PM
|
|
Re: While you are in actually answering mode ...
LOL Nor have a tried to do so. Now how are the examples different?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1072 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:51 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 1074 of 1309 (742059)
11-16-2014 2:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1052 by Faith
11-16-2014 1:40 PM
|
|
That's another big fat lie. He was an oppressive dictator by any modern and ancient definition.
James asserted the divine right of kings as antidote to the Pope's claim to be boss over kings as well as everybody else. In his own words he believed that Kings came into existence before laws did, so Kings were primary over the law. He believed that therefore parliaments should only be held for new laws, and consequentially he dissolved the government and became the supreme executive, legislative and judicial leader of England, with only the nobles to check his power.
And he was hardly the great tyrant you make him out to be. He was the autocrat of England and Scotland. He believed the divine right meant that parliament was nearly inconsequential, and he derided it as a bad idea to begin with. He passed his beliefs on to his children, and this resulted in civil war.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1052 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 1:40 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 1075 of 1309 (742060)
11-16-2014 2:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1061 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:28 PM
|
|
But the contemporary claim didn't quite accuse him of homosexuality anyway, just of unseemly behavior.. quote:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1061 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:28 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1077 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:58 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1076 of 1309 (742061)
11-16-2014 2:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1069 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:46 PM
|
|
You SEEM to win anyway. Here's what is said about Stephen A. Coston who has written extensively to try to answer the claims of James' homosexuality, who calls today's historians revisionist and incompetent. If I ever read his books I'll let you know my final conclusion.
A surprising number of works exist about His Majesty King James VI of Scotland & I of England, some for James and some against. Yet a number of the ones against James, these works forged like swords from the minds of sex obsessed revisionist historians, pseudo historical authors who lack even the grammatical knowledge to understand the definitions of the terms King James used in his letters & works, pierce the minds of the unsuspecting causing a false image of this King. These modern authors for the most, part bang away at their typewriters and word processors rehashing the hateful & racist works of Anthony Weldon and his like against this just King. Stephen A. Coston SR. deposits into this so-called scholarly arena of defective swords and hammers generated of late by pseudo historians the Anvil Of Truth concerning King James VI & I. In this volume "King James VI & I And Papal Opposition" Coston dispels the myth held by some of King James being a crypto Catholic, and documents James' disputes with the Pope of Rome. Additional source materials from King James and his contemporaries are sited and quoted from in length & detail, works not previously included in Coston's book "King James VI & I Unjustly Accused". Coston also details the danger James and his subjects faced in opposing the mighty religious empire of Rome and its head the Pope.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1069 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:46 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1077 of 1309 (742062)
11-16-2014 2:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1075 by Modulous
11-16-2014 2:58 PM
|
|
Yes he would be guilty of that sin.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1075 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2014 2:58 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1081 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 3:13 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 1078 of 1309 (742063)
11-16-2014 2:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 982 by Faith
11-15-2014 4:35 PM
|
|
Second Reminder
I showed an example of the law in Message 989 Here's the question again.
If the laws compelling commercial bakers to provide wedding cakes to gays are unconstitutional, why are the same laws constitutional when banning segregation? Both are religious principles held by Christians (to be generous to you). Why is it acceptable to penalise one but not the other?
Are you going to answer it ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 982 by Faith, posted 11-15-2014 4:35 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1082 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:14 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 1079 of 1309 (742064)
11-16-2014 3:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1076 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:58 PM
|
|
Is there any reason to consider Coston a reliable source ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1076 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:58 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1080 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:12 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1080 of 1309 (742065)
11-16-2014 3:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1079 by PaulK
11-16-2014 3:07 PM
|
|
Is there any reason to believe that anybody is a reliable source at this point? The upshot of this discussion is that I do not believe anybody about any of it. There are vested interests on both sides.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1079 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 3:07 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1119 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2014 4:38 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2