Online Now 591

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Online now 456
Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)

Boards ▾

OUInsider - Owen Field

The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports

Basketball & Other Sports

Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Tickets Exchange

The place to buy, sell or trade tickets

Reply

Obama takes big step on Gay Marriage

  • "evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law"

    interesting Cyber Simon Greenleaf---greatest legal mind of his time put the ressurection of Christ to law tests

    his conculusion: It would stand in court

    check out his stuff sometime arguably the greatest legal mind of all-time

  • a blurb on Dr Greenleaf

    Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection โ€” Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:
    "it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
    (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

    Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!
    And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!

  • Greenleafs book might have been doable in the 1800s when few questioned the Bible but in todays courtrooms his arguments would be considered hearsay. That is unless you think God will answer your subpoena.

  • It's revealing, to say the least, about the Republican mindset that they're all about limited government.

    Until it comes to a woman's womb and a gay person's bedroom.

    Then, let the expansion of government roll.

    For those of you without a dictionary, that's called "hypocrisy."

  • my mindset is Biblical not Republican

    marriage is defined in our culture (and in reality was defined by God before Christianity as we know it existed)
    it needs no expansion and the institution itself is more important than individuals

    science can tell you when life begins and murder is illegal in this country---concerning abortion
    Roe vs Wade was built on faulty law and lies when you research it and should have never passed to begin with

    Cyber have you REALLY investigated the Bible for yourself? Have you actually read Greenleaf?

    some of your statements concerning the Bible indicate you are not that well versed in it---especially in terms of historical accuracy of places and peoples etc

    nobody seeks the God of the Bible but I believe if you seek truth He will show you Himself

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    I have said before that much is lost trying to communicate via text as opposed to face to face conversations. Even phone conversations lose much without the visual contact. In addition to that there is the dynamic of anonymity. Interesting stuff to an analytical person like me.

    Anyway, you would be very suprised if you met me as I get along with almost everyone quite well. The exception would be to extremely rude and obnoxious people. The latter is not experienced very often by me. By nature I have always been a quiet and easy going person.

    I do take a hard line stance in regards to the truth but I do not intend for it to come across as being harsh or mean, just firm or unbending.

    I will however seek the Lord in seeing how I may better serve Him in reaching people especially considering that people can easily mistake your intent and emotions seeing only text. Even in person, people can be taken the wrong way but at least it is a better and more effective way of communicating.

    This is why I have told you dodger, that communication is not an exacting thing. It's not to make an excuse , it's just the truth. Surely you have experienced people misunderstanding your words or intent and not just because they are ignorant.

    Two things in this post strike me as hilarious.

    1) You describe yourself as "analytical". How can you be analytical when you said you don't believe in genetics because you just don't. What part of reaching that belief was analytical?

    2) You refer to me as ignorant. Ignorant meaning, "lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated". Someone who doesn't believe in something "just cause" can never call anyone ignorant for any reason.

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    I understand what you are saying very well and I would rather you not be PC. I think that term and practice are disengenuous.

    This is not my first discussion like this. I realize that most people do not believe like I do and that way too many do not believe in God or the bible at all (except when they face a life threatening situation).

    If 99% of the population did not believe in God that still does not prove He does not exist. Denial is not proof. The truth of the matter is that no one can either prove or disprove God. Their is more evidence to indicate His existance however than there is to prove otherwise.

    You can never win an argument with a true believer however because the thing you cannot know or experience is the regeerated spirit which believers experience and by which God is substantiated to them. God is Spirit and He is known to us via our regenerated spirit.

    "Denial is not proof"

    Says the guy who thinks genetics is wrong because he just doesn't believe it.

  • BrianSooner,

    I'm familiar enough with Greenleaf to know his writings on this topic would be considered hearsay. In a court of law evidence has to be backed up with something more than faith.

    So, one could discuss the fact millions worship the Bible in court but one can't use passages in it as historical evidence. This is a pretty basic concept you really should understand before getting into legal discussions.

    As far as the Bible itself, what historical inaccuracies have I presented?

    I think I said there are no records of Jesus from the time when he actually lived, apart from some disputed passages from Josephus that were likely written after Jesus died anyway. Do you dispute that?

    I said you don't really know who wrote the Bible. Other than what the Bible says, there's no other evidence to corroborate who wrote what. I don't rely on faith so something else is necessary here.

    I said the Church decided what to leave out of the Bible. Surely you realize that's true?

    I said we haven't found Noah's Ark. Do you really dispute that?

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    I don't rely on faith so something else is necessary here.

    This coming from a guy who believes people who say they were born ghey...like has been pointed out...how exactly would someone know they were BORN ghey??? Since most infants/toddlers don't participate in or have sexual urges, not to mention most people can't remember this time of their life, how exactly would you provide evidence that someone was BORN ghey???

    Another question. Why don't we see a ton of homosexuality in other animal species...since they can be born that way? Many will say, "well, you ever see two male dogs riding each other around the yard?" You can always shut them up with..."yea, throw a female dog in that same yard and watch their reaction.."

    Also, since homosexuality is born in, how would a ghey person end up with members of the opposite sex later in life (you know, converted)...I guess their genetics changed, huh???

    Talk about naive...

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    Do you ever just state your beliefs or opinions without having to try to put someone down? I spend too much time just answering your incorrect assumptions and accusations. For example, I don't even remember the context of a statement concerning genetics but I know I didn't say I don't believe in genetics as you would imply. I think I simply made a statement about not believing that genes were the CAUSE of things like alcoholism and homosexuality. You always apply a generous liberal interpretation of what ever I say just to have some mud to throw.

    Funny that in a paragraph where I make the point about communication not being entirely precise and exacting that you misunderstand what I was saying. You should follow your own admonishing in careful comprehension while reading. LOL For example, I said, "Surely you have experienced people misunderstanding your words or intent and not just because they are ignorant." You thought I was talking about you being ignorant but if you look again, my reference to "you" was being the first person and not the last, or the speaker not the listener. Try again.

    I'm not trying to "put you down". I'm just pointing out the vast amount of errors that you make. You can claim that you spend time answering my incorrect assumptions, when in reality you NEVER answer anything. I've ask you for actual info on genetics at least five times and you never reply. You only spin and dodge. Listen, I would do the same if I was you because you just aren't educated on many subjects. Sorry if that sounds bad, but its true. You speak in very broad, vague terms on a number of issues. Then when you are called out you change the subject or claim that someone is twisting your words. Contrast that with BrianPA who brings things to the table and does so in far fewer words. He has obviously done his homework, you have not.

    I know you don't remember your comments on genetics, but I remember them very clearly. The fact that you ignore genetic links to some things, but not others makes you an ignorant fool at best.

    Your last statement referred to my words, not "people". Try again.

  • Klegg I don't know you and usually try to steer clear of making assumptions about people I don't know, but it's pretty clear to me you don't have many gay friends. You should spend some time talking with you know, actual gay people, before reaching any conclusions about them.

    Let's take your questions. Gay people will tell you their sexual attraction to members of the same sex began around the same time they became attracted to other people. In other words, when their biology reached a sexual maturity it was attracted to members of the same sex. Really that's no different than you or me and I don't know about you but I am positively sure I was BORN STRAIGHT.

    As far as animal species, there is evidence of homosexuality there. Google it. Plenty of studies have been done that show it happens.

    To answer your third question you need to take an unbiased look at our society. Most gay people I know actually dated members of the opposite sex early in life because society taught them to be ashamed of what they were. Some lead lies for many years before they realized it was society that had the problem not them. I think the reverse could be true of some people later in life finding religion and using faith in God to lead a lie. I know one man for example that was gay and stayed married and had kids but never admitted it because he lived in a very religious community.

    The other possibility may be that the people were never gay to begin with only curious. The world is not black and white and there are gay people who are gay and people who aren't but are only "trying new things" These people do end up marrying members of the opposite sex one day even though they may have spent years in a homosexual relationship. I have a lesbian friend that has had her heart broken many times from women leaving her for men (women who she knew weren't really gay but was attracted to anyway)

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    Klegg I don't know you and usually try to steer clear of making assumptions about people I don't know, but it's pretty clear to me you don't have many gay friends. You should spend some time talking with you know, actual gay people, before reaching any conclusions about them.

    Let's take your questions. Gay people will tell you their sexual attraction to members of the same sex began around the same time they became attracted to other people. In other words, when their biology reached a sexual maturity it was attracted to members of the same sex. Really that's no different than you or me and I don't know about you but I am positively sure I was BORN STRAIGHT.

    As far as animal species, there is evidence of homosexuality there. Google it. Plenty of studies have been done that show it happens.

    To answer your third question you need to take an unbiased look at our society. Most gay people I know actually dated members of the opposite sex early in life because society taught them to be ashamed of what they were. Some lead lies for many years before they realized it was society that had the problem not them. I think the reverse could be true of some people later in life finding religion and using faith in God to lead a lie. I know one man for example that was gay and stayed married and had kids but never admitted it because he lived in a very religious community.

    The other possibility may be that the people were never gay to begin with only curious. The world is not black and white and there are gay people who are gay and people who aren't but are only "trying new things" These people do end up marrying members of the opposite sex one day even though they may have spent years in a homosexual relationship. I have a lesbian friend that has had her heart broken many times from women leaving her for men (women who she knew weren't really gay but was attracted to anyway)

    I have ghey friends, btw...LOVE those people...don't like their choice of lifestyle and they know it, but for some reason it really doesn't affect our friendship (although, I will admit, I wouldn't say they are my close friends - for obvious reasons).

    I guess because I craved alcohol when I was 12, I'm an alcoholic. Guess what? If I'd been around alcoholics at that age and been told it was "how I was born", then guess what I'd more than likely be today?

    I notice you skipped over the "animal species" topic. Like I said, find me two homosexual squirrels, rabbits, coyotes, etc that won't immediately try to mate with a female in estrus when given the opportunity and we'll talk.

    I realize what I posted won't change your OPINION, but that was my point. It's REALLY just an opinion that you keep stating as fact. I give you a few examples of why what you say makes little sense, but of course, it would make no sense to you. Just as your's makes little to US. I harbor no ill will towards you at all for your opinion, but it appears whatever someone like me says will end up with the "you're a bigot", "homophobe", etc. slur directed at them.

    This is a losing battle for both sides, and I hope that God touches your life some day.

  • soonerprices

    I was born a tobacco pipe smoker. Just realized it on Saturday. I smoked that pipe one time and I love it. I must have been born that way.

    This post was edited by soonerprices 3 years ago

  • Klegg I didn't skip over the animal part I just didn't feel like doing research that's already been done on this board before. Google it, trust me it's there.

    I believe people who have addictions (alcohol, drugs, ect) were born that way too. How else can you explain why people who kick their addiction to drugs then become addicted to cigarettes or religion in some cases.

    As to your analogy on this, if you'd been around alcoholics at a young age and told "that's how you were born" you would be an alcoholic, I think you're missing a very obvious point here. It's not easy being an alcoholic if you're not really an alcoholic. It's hard on the body, relationships, jobs, ect.

    If you don't have the "addiction" so to speak those other factors will convince you not to be an alcoholic.

    Also, I use the term bigot to describe you because you believe it's ok to deny basic human rights to a person for being born different. You hold to this belief despite ANY evidence these people were not born this way.

    This post was edited by cyberthoth 3 years ago

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    Klegg I didn't skip over the animal part I just didn't feel like doing research that's already been done on this board before. Google it, trust me it's there.

    Written by those who agree with the notion...again, put a female in estrus around ANY pair of male animals and watch them "kill" each other...

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    I believe people who have addictions (alcohol, drugs, ect) were born that way too. How else can you explain why people who kick their addiction to drugs then become addicted to cigarettes or religion in some cases.

    What about the ones that kick it completely and don't acquire a new addition??? See, we can play this all day...

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    As to your analogy on this, if you'd been around alcoholics at a young age and told "that's how you were born" you would be an alcoholic, I think you're missing a very obvious point here. It's not easy being an alcoholic if you're not really an alcoholic. It's hard on the body, relationships, jobs, ect.

    It's not easy doing A LOT of things...I'm not sure that has anything to do with being born that way. In fact, if you're born that way, it would be really easy. Right?

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    Also, I use the term bigot to describe you because you believe it's ok to deny basic human rights to a person for being born different. You hold to this belief despite ANY evidence these people were not born this way.

    What exactly are "basic human rights"? Show me ANY post where I said I wanted to deny them. I asked YOU where it ends. You seem to think we should just accept any behavior. While I mostly agree with ACCEPTING it, I don't have to accept it as normal. Some things just aren't and you know it.

    Again, there's ZERO evidence they WERE born that way...ZERO. I find it funny you will accept the word of someone with a vested interest in being accepted as ghey, but not that of millions of people over our history and their experiences with Christ.

    Let me ask you this. What would happen to civilization if EVERYONE were ghey or if everyone gave into any desire they might have????

    This post was edited by Klegg 3 years ago

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    We'd probably all dress better....

    Ain't that the truth...

  • Scribe24 said... (original post)

    It's revealing, to say the least, about the Republican mindset that they're all about limited government.

    Until it comes to a woman's womb and a gay person's bedroom.

    Then, let the expansion of government roll.

    For those of you without a dictionary, that's called "hypocrisy."

    If you are going to get political, it runs the same for liberal democrats who want the government involved in your business except when it is in your personal business(sex, abortion, etc). So, yes it is a hypocritical stance by Repubs, but it is equally as hypocritical by the pro-abortion Dems.

    Find me a pro-life democrat or a pro-choice republican and you will find someone who may not be a hypocrite.

  • SoonerInTN said... (original post)

    If you are going to get political, it runs the same for liberal democrats who want the government involved in your business except when it is in your personal business(sex, abortion, etc). So, yes it is a hypocritical stance by Repubs, but it is equally as hypocritical by the pro-abortion Dems.

    Find me a pro-life democrat or a pro-choice republican and you will find someone who may not be a hypocrite.

    I'm a pro-choice republican...rockon

  • Klegg the fact that millions of people say they were born gay IS evidence. I'll give you the point it isn't evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt but to pretend like it's not evidence is simply being intellectually dishonest.

    Marriage is a basic human right. To take that away from someone because they were born different IS taking away a human right.

    You find it funny I won't accept the word of millions of Christians, do you accept the word of millions of Hindus? We can play this game too. I've looked at Christianity with a logical mind and found it doesn't meet the logic test for me. I can't prove or disprove the faith that you have and won't try.

    I will call Christians out though when they ignore inconvenient bits of their own history. Like the fact men, not God, but men selected what to put in the Bible and what not to put in the Bible.

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    Klegg the fact that millions of people say they were born gay IS evidence. I'll give you the point it isn't evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt but to pretend like it's not evidence is simply being intellectually dishonest.

    Marriage is a basic human right. To take that away from someone because they were born different IS taking away a human right.

    You find it funny I won't accept the word of millions of Christians, do you accept the word of millions of Hindus? We can play this game too. I've looked at Christianity with a logical mind and found it doesn't meet the logic test for me. I can't prove or disprove the faith that you have and won't try.

    I will call Christians out though when they ignore inconvenient bits of their own history. Like the fact men, not God, but men selected what to put in the Bible and what not to put in the Bible.

    It's not evidence AT ALL. You are taking statistics from a group that has everything to lose by stating otherwise. How's that evidence?

    Look, I'm not gonna argue how we differ in our beliefs. All I can do is give you logical explanations for WHY (I believe) homosexuality is a "learned" trait. I gave you those...you choose to disagree. I'm OK with that. I didn't start a thread re: a president choosing how to interpret law on his own, because it fit MY opinion. It's not his job to interpret the laws he wants to recognize.

    Marriage is a basic human right?? Really? So, children should be allowed to marry? Basic human rights, IMO, have more to do with how ALL people's rights. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Let's face it, many homosexuals want to be allowed to marry to somehow justify what MOST Americans find an immoral act.

    Like I said, I LOVE the people...am disgusted by the act...

    This post was edited by Klegg 3 years ago

  • SoonerInTN said... (original post)

    If you are going to get political, it runs the same for liberal democrats who want the government involved in your business except when it is in your personal business(sex, abortion, etc). So, yes it is a hypocritical stance by Repubs, but it is equally as hypocritical by the pro-abortion Dems.

    Find me a pro-life democrat or a pro-choice republican and you will find someone who may not be a hypocrite.

    Why do beliefs have to be exclusive of a political party?

    I don't align myself with either party. Don't care for the dirt that is politics. I lean towards most attributes of the Republican party, but the pro-life/pro-choice is where I somewhat differ - even as a Christian.

    I believe in cases of incest, rape and life-threatening situations a woman has EVERY right to choose to abort their pregnancy, but cannot agree with abortion in normal cases.

    That's where the "parties" lose me. Neither can ever see the other's side for any reason...

  • cyberthoth said... (original post)

    That's nothing to brag about but I'm not suprised.

    Not sure how you can be against government intrusion in so many areas, but when it comes to our own bodies you want them to step in and make a medical decision for us.

    I'm against taxpayer funded abortion, but overall I like knowing that people have control over their bodies. I would support this being a state to state issue though. Putting it up for a vote in the states would give people the choice of living in a pro-choice state or not.