svede
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by svede
-
-
Secondly, what would it do wrong to you if gays could have a legal bond? It's allowed in many European countries and we have no problems because if that here. We don't have more pedophiles than there are in the US, we don't have more criminality (a lot less to be precise), we don't have less morals, we don't have so many problems with teenagers, etc.
But the key is that you dont consider as many things (such as gay marriage) a problem in Belgium like we do in the USA...so we may report more, but much of what we report as wrong you guys allow legally....
QUOTEI believe, as the founders believed, that a country could only last if it was founded upon the laws of God
In which foundation document of our country would the founding fathers have expressed this? I recall no such beliefs.
Altho Jordan gave a few of the many quotes by the founders, I will give you just one example from a founding document...when we declared ourselves an independent country to be precise:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.read the full document here.
-
lift(british) = jack(american)=steal, as in to take without paying (common word)
I actually hear "lift: used more often here in USA...
also, we use a variant in "shoplift"....maybe its cuz im in shoplifting prevention (
), so i hear "lifters" used quite often referring to shoplifters...anyways, some ive heard and needed to learn at my work (when we have UK people in the store):
washroom (and something else) [uK] vs bathrooms/restrooms [uSA]
and
Dustbin [uK] vs Trash/Garbage Can [uSA]
-
Wait being gay isn't a sin, it's living a homosexual lifestyle that I don't agree with.
And people definately don't choose to be gay. Although there should be more research done on it, the main thing they're connecting homosexuality to is stuff that happens to you as a kid. I can't remember what all there was, but like if you were abused as a child, or your family structure was... idk how to put it... messed up (like you're parents were divorced, or you had too strong a relationship with one parent and not the other), then you had a higher chance of being gay.
By the Bible's standards it is a sin.....as for the "research" anyone can do psychological studies to prove things.....people can prove things that contradict each other.....basically what it comes down to is an excuse for sin....but the Bible states very clearly that it is sin..
additionally, no one is "gay" based upon the Bible.....thus by claiming to be so you are commiting a sin (action-wise)....
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankindeffeminate = gay, case closed (with just a single verse)
-
The constitution IMO is not the place to take this, the Constitution defines government, not personal life. And since I've always believed government should interfere minimally with personal life, I most definitely would not support any kind of amendment to our constitution.
I believe, as the founders believed, that a country could only last if it was founded upon the laws of God and promoted such morality....the constitution is founded upon the Bible where certain things are immoral and just as wrong as any other crimes/sins
I think it's not right to say gay marriage is wrong because the founders thought that. You have to see it in a timeframe: in that time almost everybody was opposed to gays because they didn't know any better.It's not simply that they "thought that", but founded our governmentand constitution upon the laws of God and the Bible, believing these to be correct and unchanging (as I also believe).
The main argument against gay marriage is that being gay is a choice (and a sin, according to one bible-thumper ). However, when I asked that certain person if he could chose to be gay, he said no.QUOTEThe main argument against gay marriage is that being gay is a choice
An argument like that really makes me laugh, but it's also frustrating that so many people actually believe that. Yep, if you haven't had any experience with homosexuals yet it may sound credible. But if you have it's a totally unrealistic argument. Many gays have been through a whole mess before they accepted they are gay. My brother married, has been through a very bad marriage, has been rejected by most of his family, that's not something you choose for.
Let me explain the argumentation against it in the USA....as stated in my response above to Adam, the founders founded the USA on the Bible and its principles, believing government to only last or be good if it is founded and run as such (I'm currently collecting my info on this to create a new post with
).Unlike belief in other religions, such as evolution or secular humanism, there are very well defined standards and laws in the Universe, set by God, that are unchanging and right......so as the founders believed, there couldnt be a better foundation...(unmoving, solid, good, etc)
So since being gay is immoral and a sin by these laws, the person has a choice to sin or not as with any other sin......thats the general idea....id be glad to clarify anything
-
Thomas Jefferson might have first coined the words in the way we use it today
yes, he was, except he didnt use it the way we use it these days...he meant it to be a one-way wall....where the government doesnt intefere with religion, but religion can and should still affect government.....*looks with Adam*
-
That's not right, he is just endorsing nothing. And remember that aitheism is not a religion, not even a group of people with a common believe (apart that there is not god).
Forgive my lack of the exact source (although I do sometime want to get it nailed down....got it from a reliable source but they didnt state the exact cases since it was only a side point), but in the USA between the 60's-80's, Atheism was ruled as a RELIGION by either the supreme court or a federal court.
Satanism (think about Halloween) and Human Secularism were also ruled religions during that time period by either the supreme court or federal court......something to think about.
BtwI believe it's not needed to make almost anything discussed in these forums into a debate concerning religion
I do understand what you are saying, however, in this case I feel Jordan was right....to fully understand our constitution and government you got to understand how it was founded on religion
-
I mean I've always believed in at least attempting to think about the opposing side before solidifying yourself on the other
Yea, well thats what I meant....I had gone to it in the past to understand the opposing side, but I found it to be more of an embarressment to the opposing side of my opinions....I find it sad to find such sites....you can find them on either side, however, Im not simply meaning that the side opposing mine is the one one with them.
-
here is a good quote on this issue:
The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. -
Title pretty much covers it.
What is your heritage like and who are you related to in history?
as for me:
Medieval Times:
My surname line comes from a scandinavian family that became Norman Nobles.
Later, an ancestor of mine was granted lands in England for "distinguished service" in the Battle of Hastings under William the Conqueror.
Another line that later connects to my surname line, might have been British/Scottish Nobility, but thats pretty sketchy right now.
Renaissance/Imperial Age
My ancestor from my surname line still held many estates in England. They also married into many wealthy and powerful families of the time such as the "Red Hand of Ulster" (Irish Royal Line, the O'Briens), and the De Earth Family (a brother (?) of my line actually took over the De Earth inheritance through marriage to their last heir)
Revolutionary War:
One ancestor is Colonel William Bond, commander of the 25th Continental Regiment:
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/h...l/mss0080d.html
http://www.uswars.net/1775-1783/states/ma/cl-25.htm
Another is a 1st Lieutenant in George Washinton's Army (cant recall the name).
Civil War:
Many different people from both sides of the conflict, ranging from privates to officers, including a 1st Lieutenant....many fought in some of the "great" battles.
One part of my family during this time period were also plantation owners in Virginia.
Twentieth Century:
One line of my inheritance was German. They 'fled' from Germany to Hungary and then to the USA in early 1900's before WW1, believed to be because of tensions there.
-
I wasn't trying to say anything negative about your opinion on the US constitution and founding fathers.
Yes, I didn't think you were implying that at all, but just wanted to make sure it was clarified for those other forummers outside of the USA.
-
Lol, I know the US isn't a monarchy, what I meant was the similarity we have in treasuring something that was a very important thing during the founding of our countries.
well, yes, with one vital difference..
Taking your word for it that the monarchy is no longer needed and costing money.
Our founding I find VERY vital to the continuation of and freedom in our country...in fact I believe we have strayed too far from it, already.
-
That's not logically correct.
What they're saying:
There are star(s) in existence that are older than 4,000 years.
What you're saying.
*every* star in existence is younger than 4,0000 years.
In other words, They only have to show that *one* star is older than 4000 years, while you have to show that *all* stars are less than 4,0000 years.
Let me restate myself, since you are miscontrueing what I said.
Evolutionary Statement:
The earth is millions of years old, or at least older than 4,000-6,000 years old.
You statement:
We got a star here that is over 4000 year old
My statement:
We can give proof that limits the age of the earth to 4000-6000 years old.
Result:
Disproves evolutionary Statement, so that if it is to last you will need to rethink it.
My result does not simply disprove your statement, but the theory you are using your statement to prove......
Now dont jump at me all at once, but on the same line I've never seen any evolution's so-called "proof" that wasn't able to be disproven...have you seen any that arent able to be disproven?...
Well I don't think many people will take the time to read this, it's a huge archive, but the internet infidels made quite a nice collection of essays, articles, book reviews, etc. regarding creationism not being true.So if you want some evidence take some time to look through the whole site.
Yeah, I've seen that site before, but quite honestly it's nothing more than a hate site with no evidence other than what they *want* to be true
Secondly, I've learned that the evolution theory as it is, is indeed just a theory. But imo that doesn't say creation happened, that just tells us that, as with many scientific theories, mistakes have been made.ABSOLUTELY.
Simply having Evolution as a theory or even going as far as to disprove it does not automatically make creation correct. I simply argue that too many people view it as *fact* and use it as evidence....then they turn around and say we can't use creation as "evidence." I will say tho, that weakening one theory helps to make one more plausible or proveable.An argument I heard enough is that because evolutionists disagree on many things it means that the evolution theory is wrong. But, you can use the same argument for religion:Each religion has differences, may it be small or big
And there are many disputes inside religions. If you follow the history of Christianity, especially during medieval times, you can see how many different theories there were inside Christianity. To name a few medieval (pre reformation period) Christian 'philosophies': Irish church, Arianism, Greek orthodox church, Alexandrian church, Roman church, Frankish church, etc. They don't just differ because only one accepts the pope as the high authority, but also in things like the trinity, the position of Satan, the divinity of Jesus, etc.
Just because many evolutionists disagree does not make it wrong. It simply means that evolution will seem less credible. At the same time I agree that this does the same for christianity; the difference being that I argue many of them are not *true* christians, but rather people who want "religion" and have ripped christianity and made it to say what they want.
To All HoIers
You guys, we have been getting a bit more "flamey" lately....we gotta remember our purpose here is to make great games and have fun.
Now I might post something that offends you or your beliefs, but it is not intended that way as I trust will be the same from you guys. We gotta make sure our posts are allowing people to have their own opinion, but understand that stating an opinion that disagrees with another does not mean they are not allowing for your statement to be said, but bringing debate to the table.
So lets have fun debating our beliefs, but remember that we are all WFGers at heart. ...whether you like the
or the .....or simply come here for -
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Precisely. Our founders created what had never been done before...a form of representative/democratic government that has lasted this long. It leads you to understand that there was something special about how they founded us. The spirit that allowed just a handful of men to declare independance from the most powerful country in the world and win a war with that country should endure. Additionally, understanding our founding and the founder's beliefs helps us to understand the meaning of our constitution, the supreme law in the USA, better and thus continue on the path they set us on.
-
Im from NH, so I get PLENTY
I gotta agree with ak_thug tho...Id prefer to see the issues so that I can better make an accurate opinion based on what is important and not on how well the candidate is doing
-
Just quoting one website that doesnt even go through the details of it does not make what I said false....Im willing to dig up my information, too....I may not be able to "talk" to them but i can read what they said.
anyways, what you said about those founders was wrong and Ill try to give you a small portion of the overflowing evidence in support of this.....but lets make another post for it
Mythos_Ruler was not trying to say ALL of our founding fathers were deists - some of them.Why must you distort the proportions of his claim and then declare your own as empirically true? There's no room for such a style of argument in the hall of intellectuals.
I in NO way disproported what he said....he stated that many of the founders were deists....this is simply untrue....only a few were indeed deists
-
Democracy can go with socialism (an economic system) just as well as capitalism. Just look at the 'welfare states' like Canada and most of W Europe (I've heard those countries are starting to run into trouble though, do any Europeans agree?).
Sure, since a democracy is simply rule by the people, it could have either. I think it really depends on what the constitution says....b/c the rule of the people must be within its guidelines.
for example in the USA (a REPUBLIC, but may be used similarly in this case to a democracy), we are capitalistic, NOT socialistic by our constitution...regardless if we are becoming more of a welfare state ourselves, we technically should not be
-
good topic...we covered this in my politics class last semester, too.
Anyways, I have to agree that if u want the perfect government it will be a monarchy with a perfect ruler. If the ruler is perfect he will never make wrong decisions and he can get decisions done immediately, without the delays of congress such as filibustering. Now, only such a 'person" could be God himself, and thus it becomes an ideal. Although a government can be founded upon the principles of God (as the USA was), he obviously isnt on Earth in a human sense to be Monarch.
Thus, our founders wisely chose a republic for the USA...the next best choice. (I would like to emphasize that the USA is a REPUBLIC NOT a democracy as it sounded like some might have thought in this thread). It gives the control to the people through representatives, so that we have a form of "just rulership" if the people are just and vote in those who are just.....still obviously not perfect, but the next best choice.....the best we Humans can do.
ok, leme know what you all think.
Svede
EDIT: Oh and I almost forgot, there are a bunch of quotes from the founders on things like this too (also an idea by one of the top 3 quoted law sources of the founders....showing they read this sort of thing and agreed with it). They said things like, you either must keep rights or freedoms via morality and good foundation or force/bayonet (ok, thats a paraphrase.....dont hold me to the exacticty of it....trying to find them)
EDIT:
ok, I found a late-founder example.... the same thing the early/main founders said tho:
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.(Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")
-
many of the Founding Fathers of the United States are examples of deists
Thats simply not true. Many atheists/agnostics have labeled them as such to avoid the truth, however if you study them you will indeed find the VAST majority of them to be professing and active christians.
QUOTEYou guys are trying to prove a theory....now you can have as much proof for it as you want, but to disprove it I need only one proof of its falseness.....at least in this world....maybe different on some other planet
Actually, in this case, it's up to you to prove that for every star in existence, they're not that old. All they have to do is show that there is *atleast* 1 star that is older.
Nope, thats not correct. Evolution is a theory and a theory needs only one disproof. The burden is upon those who believe in the theory to show that there is not a single case in which it is not true....now i dont mean you have to go do each star, but it does mean all I need to do is disprove it for ONE SINGLE case to to disprove the theory as it stands.
As for stars, if one star is found older than the 4,000/6,000/10,000 YEC's lose.Again, read above about the scientific method.
thanx,
svede
-
got one, but dont do much shopping...
its hooked up to my Mom's account (cuz she gets 1% back on it), so everything i spend first goes through her and im accountable to her
-
excellent point. I should have thought of that too.
rep++; -
I was gonna avoid this post due to time constraints, but I have to say that ak thug does have the correct arguments i would use against the "christians get divorced" quote....the fact is I dont even believe the majority of those who claim to be christians are christians....now someone could be a christian and have been divorced or whatnot, but thats still sin and thats what im fighting...
-
(didn't wijit also have an article like this one? About some state in the US?)My Identity Crisis, Idaho isn't the only imaginary place
-
LOL, Klaas, I alway knew you were just Jason's creation!
Anyways, as much as I hate liberal philosophies etc, this just goes overboard into pathetic claims against liberalism.
-
Evolutionists don't agree more than christians, so why's that?
The difference is that when someone who calls themselves a christian as I do, yet differs in a fundamental point like that, would most often be not considered prolly a Christian in my view.....
Also, there is one true way in all of christianity, whether some stray from it or not....Im saying that you are saying something contradictory to the standard evolutionary practices....
Evolution works like that.No it doesnt. That would be considered one method of survival of the fittest, but killing for survival is a key of it as well......I could go on, but this isnt really that complex to understand...
You dont born natural killer. That is something that comes with the environment, how the parents raise you +++ ..I really hope you are kidding.. .
You argue this for serial murderers, but why not with sodomy? its the same thing....
I looked in one of my school books,Thats where you went wrong.....most of those books are biased by the authors opinion anyway.....simply reading the opinion of a "textbook" on a controversial issue doesnt make it correct....in fact thats a whole other debate about textbooks
The Us Constitution
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
This shows a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the USA's government and constitution. It WAS made by enlightened men who intended it to last....and they did NOT do it hastily....if this was so, then why did they scrap the first version after giving it a trial run and then improve it based upon their findings?? It was NOT made to be used until something better came along....I seriously wonder if you are even talking about the USA.....