Kingston, TN and prayer

Jeremy Baker · **Posted:** Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:53 am

whoisdjkdh wrote:

jeremy baker wrote:

im all about being a good human being, im just not worried about a lightning bolt from the sky if i do something "sinful"

depeding on who you talk to.. *everything* is sinful..

exactly, so everyone is going to "hell" no matter who or what you believe in

so fuck it, why bother trying to keep yourself out of hell.

:pirate:

Leslie 2.0 v2 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 17, 2003 12:31 pm

celebrityguest wrote:

Yeah, funny, I put up the summary, which is longer than the actual federal code. so, here goes.

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the " Defense of Marriage Act" .

SECTION 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 115 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AFTER SECTION 1738B THE FOLLOWING:

"1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".

SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 1, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THE FOLLOWING:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.".

NEW DEVELOPMENT:

We're having a discussion here at work right now about whether or not same sex couples can be on the same insurance policy without being married.

The big debate is that the underwriters at the insurance companies are going to say that, because the state of Texas doesn't recognize same sex unions, that they can't be on the same auto policy. One partner has had his last name legally changed to the other partners, and one guy owns one vehicle, and the other guy owns the other vehicle.

So...it may not happen because they don't both own both vehicles.

HOWEVER...Same sex couples CAN have the same Homeowner's Policy, because they BOTH have insurable interest in the property.

I'm sure no one gives a rat's ass, but I thought it was interesting.

Kurt · **Posted:** Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:31 pm

jeremy baker wrote:

whoisdjkdh wrote:

jeremy baker wrote:

im all about being a good human being, im just not worried about a lightning bolt from the sky if i do something "sinful"

depeding on who you talk to.. *everything* is sinful..

exactly, so everyone is going to "hell" no matter who or what you believe in

so fuck it, why bother trying to keep yourself out of hell.

:pirate:

everyone meaning man.. in the end we will not be judged by man..

you dont have to "try" to do anything.. with the good comes the bad, with the bad comes the good.

No mater how much we strive to be good, we still do things that are wrong. Why? We are *human*.. we were designed to screw up and make mistakes.

no one is perfect.. regardless of what they might say.. =)

Kurt · **Posted:** Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:33 pm

Leslie wrote:

NEW DEVELOPMENT:

We're having a discussion here at work right now about whether or not same sex couples can be on the same insurance policy without being married.

The big debate is that the underwriters at the insurance companies are going to say that, because the state of Texas doesn't recognize same sex unions, that they can't be on the same auto policy. One partner has had his last name legally changed to the other partners, and one guy owns one vehicle, and the other guy owns the other vehicle.

So...it may not happen because they don't both own both vehicles.

HOWEVER...Same sex couples CAN have the same Homeowner's Policy, because they BOTH have insurable interest in the property.

I'm sure no one gives a rat's ass, but I thought it was interesting.

That is very interesting. But then again, if you think about it from an insureance companies point of view.. its all about money. Regardless of how they get it.. they want it, and will do what it takes to make more.

Jeremy Baker · **Posted:** Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:35 pm

whoisdjkdh wrote:

if you think about it from an insureance companies point of view.. its all about money. Regardless of how they get it.. they want it, and will do what it takes to make more.

sounds like a woman to me.

symmetry · **Posted:** Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:37 am

Quote:

hey kiddo, you're the one who's acting educated, not me. my conclusions come from myself, not from 'graduating' with a 'philosophy' degree.

Nice attempt at condescension, but I beat you to the punch. My point was never that having a formal philosophical education made one superior. All I was pointing out was that you have a habit of making bland and obvious statements as if you're bestowing some kind of enlightenment... and it's annoying. If you'll read back over what I said, you'll notice that I clearly stated "my problem with your statements lies not necessarily in that I disagree with them, but that they're so incredibly obvious, and that you seem to think you're so damn clever when making them". Again, in this case; of course you should come to your own conclusions, but when I see you coming to rather simplistic ones and strutting around like some kind of scholar, I can't help but comment even if I should know better.

Quote:

for your information i've read most of the books on M@'s list and found the ones that i have read boring and primitive

Then maybe you understand my frustration more than I realized.

Quote:

but even though they were all written ages ago they still pose questions that have yet to be answered

Soo... they're boring and primitive, but nonetheless pose questions that have yet to be answered? How is that boring and primitive?

Quote:

i don't claim to be educated when it comes to philosophy standards or definitions

Education isn't the point. Depth of questioning, whether arrived at on your own or by reading the works of others, is (in my opinion).

Quote:

but when you can write a dissertation about how 'uneducated' i am and STILL not even address a simple, one sentence question it becomes apparent that you are the one who is the pseudointellectual.

I reiterate: my lack of response to your little challenge isn't due to an inability to discuss the subject at hand. I already explained that judging from your response to celebrityguest's statement, I'd obviously be wasting my time.

Quote:

it's obvious i can't find "knowledge" from you, whatever "knowledge" means. I'll go find out for myself and get back to you.

Riiight... so, it's obvious you can't find something from me, followed directly by a statement that you can't even define the thing you'd be seeking? Is the logical contradiction of that statement not just glaringly obvious to you? You keep looking... and good luck seeing past your own hubris.

cheebs · **Posted:** Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:20 pm

symmetry wrote:

Nice attempt at condescension, but I beat you to the punch.

so you admit that you're just being a troll. quit wasting everyone's time here.

symmetry wrote:

All I was pointing out was that you have a habit of making bland and obvious statements as if you're bestowing some kind of enlightenment... and it's annoying.

they weren't obvious to the people i was responding to, obviously. if you find it annoying then don't read it. duh.

symmetry wrote:

Soo... they're boring and primitive, but nonetheless pose questions that have yet to be answered? How is that boring and primitive?

TROLL ALERT!
you just completely contradicted yourself. you called my responses annoying and obvious but agreed they were right, THEN accused me of doing the same thing!
the fact of the matter is that the question "what is knowledge," although primitive, is still an unanswered question.

symmetry wrote:

I reiterate: my lack of response to your little challenge isn't due to an inability to discuss the subject at hand. I already explained that judging from your response to celebrityguest's statement, I'd obviously be wasting my time.

it isn't my challenge, it's our challenge. we're all stuck here together trying to answer these questions. if the answer is so obvious to you that it's annoying to even see the question, why do you waste your time trolling around instead of just answering the question?

:roll:

symmetry · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:27 am

Quote:

so you admit that you're just being a troll. quit wasting everyone's time here.

WTF. It's a message board. People see something of interest, and they post on it. This thread is full of idiotic statements. That interested me, so I posted on it. I didn't post anything worthwhile, because I don't get any particular enjoyment out of swatting flies.

Quote:

they weren't obvious to the people i was responding to, obviously. if you find it annoying then don't read it. duh.

Like most threads on this board that attempt to discuss anything even remotely important, it's like a car accident that you can't help but stare at. I take the subject being discussed here very seriously... but at the same time, I rarely get involved in these anymore because they always turn out the same way. That "way" being that I end up having to babysit some moron who thinks they're clever.

Quote:

TROLL ALERT!
you just completely contradicted yourself.

Of coooourse I did. This should be entertaining...

Quote:

you called my responses annoying and obvious but agreed they were right

No, I said that the way you presented your responses was annoying, because: regardless of whether they were valid or worthwhile, you presented them as if they were some incredible wisdom.

Quote:

THEN accused me of doing the same thing!

That's not at all what I did. Obviously, critical thinking isn't your strong point, so I won't hold it against you.

Quote:

the fact of the matter is that the question "what is knowledge," although primitive, is still an unanswered question.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah, no shit, Einstein. Congratulations for grasping the most basic, fundamental premise of epistemology.

Quote:

it isn't my challenge, it's our challenge. we're all stuck here together trying to answer these questions. if the answer is so obvious to you that it's annoying to even see the question, why do you waste your time trolling around instead of just answering the question?

I'm very touched by your description of the human plight. Seriously. I have never claimed that "the answer" was obvious to me. I'd be extremely surprised if you or anyone could offer evidence that I even implied that I think there is an answer. But like I've said, I'm not interested in discussing my beliefs because this is not a valid forum for the subject. I'm sorry I offended your ego. I think you're a puffed-up pseudointellectual. You think I'm a troll. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

JOEL L · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:46 am

evilAngel wrote:

Just thought I'd toss this out for ya guys....

This is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at
Roane County High School, Kingston, Tennessee, by school Principal, Jody
McLoud. I thought it was worth sharing with the world and hope you will forward it
to all your friends. It shows clearly just how far this country has gone in
the wrong direction.

"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to
say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country."

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer
is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can
use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an
alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling
it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK.

I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an
unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no
problem.

I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in
activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it
"ecology."

I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depict
people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and
"ignorant" and call it "enlightenment."

However, if anyone uses this facility to honor God and to ask Him to bless
this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is
violated.

This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical.
Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except God and His
Commandments.

Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to
abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise
would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that
affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an
intentional transgression.

For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time.

"However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank God and ask Him, in
the name of Jesus, to bless this event, please feel free to do so. As far as
I know, that's not against the law----yet."

One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one
another and began to pray.

They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at
the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer's Box!

The only place they didn't pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States
of America - the Seat of "Justice" in the "one nation, under God."

I totaly agree

cheebs · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:34 am

symmetry wrote:

I think you're a puffed-up pseudointellectual. You think I'm a troll. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

i'm a philosopher, and i KNOW you're a troll.

all you've done is call me a know-it-all, admit that i'm right and then accuse me of "false thinking." as you've admitted you aren't actually going to express any opinions here except for the fact that you find my symantics annoying, (or was it the way i presented my symantics? :happyfinger:

) so go away. you aren't fooling anyone, you're just trying to offend me.

i'm sorry if my faith in God caused these hostile feelings in you, but that sounds like a personal issue. these feelings are only natural... the idea of a God presents the idea that in the end we will all be responsible for our actions, something you obviously have a problem with.

The Darksyde · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:32 pm

Keep God Out Of California!

Alan_ · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:05 pm

Are you guys still fighting? Geez. :roll:

symmetry · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:55 pm

Come on celebrityguest... let a guy have some fun.

Quote:

i'm a philosopher, and i KNOW you're a troll.

Why stop at troll? If you're a philosopher, I might as well be the easter bunny.

Quote:

all you've done is call me a know-it-all

Actually, it was pseudointellectual. I'd be unlikely to accuse you of knowing anything.

Quote:

admit that i'm right

Riiight... where was this?

Quote:

and then accuse me of "false thinking."

Again, I don't know where you're getting this. Keep digging, buddy.

Quote:

as you've admitted you aren't actually going to express any opinions here

Actually I said that it wasn't worth it... considering the fact that you're this twisted around when all I've said is that you're a pseudointellectual, why would I bother saying anything worthwhile? Why should I present anything that means something to me so that you can butcher it with your lame excuse for an intellect?

Quote:

except for the fact that you find my symantics annoying, (or was it the way i presented my symantics? )

Well, you'd know which it was if you had any idea what "semantics" means... proper response being that nothing I've accused you of is even remotely related to the semantics of your statements. Come on, man... even a pseudointellectual can pick up a dictionary.

Quote:

so go away. you aren't fooling anyone, you're just trying to offend me.

How am I trying to fool anyone? All I said was that this conversation was idiotic. It was, and now it's even moreso. At first, I wasn't even directing statements toward you. You took offense (which makes sense, since pseudointellectuals tend to be more concerned with looking smart than being so), and responded to me directly. Since then, it's just been you saying stupid things and me putting you in your place.

Quote:

i'm sorry if my faith in God caused these hostile feelings in you

Nothing I've said in this thread gives you any indication of that whatsoever, much less of my personal beliefs about god. You don't even have any probable cause to claim that I'm an athiest, which I'm not. Did you ever consider that I find it offensive when stupid people make stupid statements about god?

Quote:

but that sounds like a personal issue

Stick to being a sub-par philosopher... we're all full on sub-par psychologists.

Quote:

these feelings are only natural... the idea of a God presents the idea that in the end we will all be responsible for our actions, something you obviously have a problem with.

Jeez... just when I didn't think you could outdo yourself, you did. In a way, it makes me proud. That statement right there is a glowing illustration of how you claim to possess an evolved point of view, but still constantly fall prey to your simplistic assumptions. You just managed to assume that I'm an athiest, that I'm opposed to personal responsibility, and that my argument with you is based on an internal personal conflict- all in one fell swoop. You'd give Bill O'Rielly a run for his money. Maybe your problem is that you spread yourself too thin... what, with pretending to be a "philosopher", a "psychologist", and evidently a mind-reader.

Can someone lock this thread before the monkey flings any more poo? The exhibit isn't amusing anymore.

cheebs · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:31 am

symmetry wrote:

Come on celebrityguest... let a guy have some fun.

cheebah josh wrote:

i'm a philosopher, and i KNOW you're a troll.

Why stop at troll? If you're a philosopher, I might as well be the easter bunny.

this was all i read. your quote-reply and your attempt at being logical are getting quite tiresome. you have supplied no argument, only personal attacks on my proverbial spelling.

if you want to get into a strait out flame-war, i'll kick your ass in that too... just say the word scabie nads.

but if you don't have anything to say, then shut the fuck up.

omcreator · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:49 am

blah blah blah.. who gives a fuck. god is in your head... get over it. you are alone , you are not a unique and beautifull snowflake... you are a bi-product of a universal fusion rooted from the master algorythm of time itself. godspeak is merely a reflection of ones inner voice... i think its good that they dont let people hallucinate before football games anymore.

immma get a hooker on earth day and talk to her about how christianity is fucked.

cheebs · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:54 am

7.83 HZ wrote:

a bi-product of a universal fusion rooted from the master algorythm of time itself.

= a definition of God

Alan_ · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:06 am

Yeah, you all laugh and bicker now, but will you be so glib when the SUPERVOLCANO exacts its fiery wrath?

Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen a solid 'proof' by logic that God exists or doesn't exist. People have been battling over this one for thousands of years.

Personally, I think the problem with trying to prove the existence of God is that I see us as a part of God. I don't believe in a separate entity, a la most religions. I see the universe as a conscious body. We are immersed in god. In fact, we are a part of whatever it is. It would be like one of your red blood cells trying to comprehend the whole body that contains it, or maybe one protein molecule trying to comprehend the whole entity it is a part of. We're just too damn small to do so. Matter is organized in similar ways on multiple levels. To see this, look at an atom, then the solar system. Mind you, none of this is based on anything other than my brain and the fractal nature of the organization of matter. Shoot holes in it if you like. It's just an elegant way for me to deal with the whole existence of god thing, and total conjecture on my part. Trust me, just because I think something makes sense doesn't mean I expect anyone else to think it does.

The Darksyde · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:38 am

I am sorry josh, but I do not believe you did not read his whole post. You can not back off from an argument to save your life. It is like everything that you live and breate for.

Kurt · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:14 am

7.83 HZ wrote:

blah blah blah.. who gives a fuck. god is in your head... get over it. you are alone , you are not a unique and beautifull snowflake... you are a bi-product of a universal fusion rooted from the master algorythm of time itself. godspeak is merely a reflection of ones inner voice... i think its good that they dont let people hallucinate before football games anymore.

immma get a hooker on earth day and talk to her about how christianity is fucked.

damn it man.. you ruined it for me. =)

Leslie 2.0 v2 · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:23 am

If anyone's interested in learning the quantum science of it all, let me know.

There's a lot of proof out there.

cheebs · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:28 am

celebrityguest wrote:

Personally, I think the problem with trying to prove the existence of God is that I see us as a part of God. I don't believe in a separate entity, a la most religions. I see the universe as a conscious body. We are immersed in god. In fact, we are a part of whatever it is. It would be like one of your red blood cells trying to comprehend the whole body that contains it, or maybe one protein molecule trying to comprehend the whole entity it is a part of. We're just too damn small to do so. Matter is organized in similar ways on multiple levels. To see this, look at an atom, then the solar system. Mind you, none of this is based on anything other than my brain and the fractal nature of the organization of matter. Shoot holes in it if you like. It's just an elegant way for me to deal with the whole existence of god thing, and total conjecture on my part. Trust me, just because I think something makes sense doesn't mean I expect anyone else to think it does.

i actually agree with 100% of that. however i don't think it's useless to comprehend God... we can't comprehend pi, but we can get pretty damn close.

cheebs · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:31 am

The Darksyde wrote:

I am sorry josh, but I do not believe you did not read his whole post. You can not back off from an argument to save your life. It is like everything that you live and breate for.

maybe i'm "pointing out the obvious" and pretending like it's some "grand knowledge" but there has to be an actual argument to argue.

Alan_ · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:38 am

Leslie wrote:

If anyone's interested in learning the quantum science of it all, let me know.

There's a lot of proof out there.

Proof of what, though? Proof of an omnipotent deity separate from all material existence? I think the problem with most proofs I've seen is that it's all indirect, and just as easy to prove the opposite. It's all about which postulate you choose to accept. Personally, all the proof I've seen makes me regard man-made religion as just that: man made. HOWEVER, I also think that religion/spirituality developed to explain something real, in addition to its use by folks in power as social control. I don't believe that any one sect of humans could pin down the true nature/identity/ideology of whatever makes up this higher-level conciousness. I also believe we are a part of whatever this is.

Leslie 2.0 v2 · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:55 am

Whatever. All I'm saying is, that for those who are interested, PM me.

Kelley · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:04 pm

Leslie wrote:

Whatever. All I'm saying is, that for those who are interested, PM me.

WHATEVER?

lol...nice reply.

and i've got to say, duffy is one of the most intelligent people that i know. you could learn a lot josh. maybe instead of bickering and picking each other's words apart, you could kiss and make up and actually use the other person to your advantage and hear their points of view.

isn't that the "christian" way?

Kingston, TN and prayer

Who is online

Social Network

Night Club Culture

GlobalBeatz.net