<p>Del, pig doesn’t exist in my name. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Oh, and true believers capitalize his name (I’m not a believer, FYI). ;)</p>
<p>@del – I thought you’d learned last night not to bring up the gay thing regarding religion. Were you not listening when I meted out truth to Baelor? Okay Here goes again you homophobe:</p>
<p>1) Marriage was TRADITIONALLY a property thing, which predated Judaism and all modern religions. Religious marriage has no right to dictate Civil marriage. End of discussion.</p>
<p>2) That passage in Leviticus? It doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Abomination” did not exist, the word was TOEVAH, Ritualistically unclean. Like a woman on her period (you DID know it was considered wrong to sleep with a woman for a certain period of time after her period, right?). Furthermore, this referred to just the Levite priests/priestesses, and as a condemnation against gay rape, not sex itself.</p>
<p>3) Do you follow all the other laws in Leviticus? Well do you Del? </p>
<p>I thought so. Shut your face and let the gays marry. </p>
<p>P.S. Did you actually pull that argument that polygamy was acceptable because it involved 1 man and 1 woman at any given time? How about you read Judge Walker’s 136-page decision, someone on the Yes on 8 side tried to use that as a defense… he had his testimony disregarded since he clearly wasn’t an expert.</p>
<p>romanigypsyeyes- get a shorter name! </p>
<p>and logic, reason and full understanding is far more important to what composes a true beliver than a technical thing like not capitilizing. And i know ur not a bleliever; noone for gay rights is. and thats what it ultimatly boils down to. You must not be a thinking person</p>
<p>YES! UR BACK! nice to see u again; ur the reason i came back on today. anyway i have the response to ur thing from last night. want me to post it?</p>
<p>no, ok, let me down a little. i spent like 10 freakin’ minutes last night putting th epost together and then my computer ******ed up. i wanted to continue that debate…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfertilized cells slough off, not embryos. Those are called miscarriages, and yes, they are tragedies as well.</p>
<p>delmonico- Nah. I think you should just learn to read. </p>
<p>It takes much less effort to shorten my name (Rom, Roma, Romani, etc) than it does to screw up the letters and add whatever words you care to.</p>
<p>@del you’re… rather impatient, aren’t you? Let’s see what you’ve got… and in response to some of your posts a few pages back, homosexuality is NOT a choice, I have several Psychology articles that support this. They also support that it’s not a mental disorder, there’s nothing to change. Reparative Therapy fails and leads to unhealthy repression. The only times it’s ever worked are 1) The person is still gay, just repressing it, 2) They were bi all along and just ended up being more attracted to the opposite sex, 3) They were liars and never gay to start with. But Reparative Therapy is a pet peeve of mine, people think it works, it doesn’t, at all. Not only does it not work but it causes SEVERE psychological harm that could lead to suicide.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know what an appeal to authority fallacy is? Your somewhat subjective opinion of how “super smart” someone is (how did Bill Gates and Thomas Edison wind up on your list?) doesn’t prove anything about God. And it’s not up to me to provide a list of famous Christian thinkers, Google is at your command. Rather than posing a challenge, you’ve simply shown everybody how lazy you are at research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isaac Newton was not actually a Christian. It’s hard to describe what he was exactly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, I get it. You’re not really an atheist, it’s just that you believe YOU are a god.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. He’s an atheist who’s sick and tired of people who don’t have the ability to reason their way out of their little religious holes. Frankly, I don’t blame him.</p>
<p>Sigh, it’s getting to the point where I have difficulty taking religious people’s views seriously. And not just their views on God and such, but their views on everything. If you can’t figure out that God doesn’t exist, I question your ability to reason at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, so that isn’t even partially right? How is it misaccurate? I remember being taught something like that in lutheran middle school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you say that people who believe in God are reasoning incorrectly?</p>
<p>Actually, the Catholic Church did believe that for quite a long time. It’s why the Bible was written in Latin only and not the common language of the people. They wanted the commoners to be completely dependent on the Church (ie- Priests, Bishops, etc) in order to get to heaven. </p>
<p>Prove to me otherwise.</p>
<p>i don’t know i’m asking baelor. i sort of believe him because i doubt that the lutheran school account of catholic doctrine tries its hardest to be accurate and fair.</p>
<p>I went to a Catholic school for 9 years. That’s something I learned there.</p>
<p>Baelor may have heard a different history though.</p>
<p>Romani, let us be clear: What you “learned” at school is irrelevant. As I’m sure you know, I am very careful in my distinguishing between that which is believed and that which is believed institutionally – every member in the U.S. Congress can believe that the U.S. mascot is Barney the Dinosaur, but it is not. Hence the very important distinction, one over which I never pass. If it’s not codified in Church documents, it’s not held institutionally by definition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s very obviously wrong. Clearly, the most reliable source on an institution is a school run by those who exist solely because they rebelled against and disagree with that same institution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the Bible was published in Latin because that is the official language of the Catholic Church. It still is – Church documents of international nature are still published in Latin, and then translated into vernacular. This is in spite of the new liturgy, which allows vernacular to be used during the Mass in places where it could not be employed before the Second Vatican Council. The Church is universal, and thus having one language as a universal language makes sense. This language is traditionally Latin.</p>
<p>And “institutionally” means that the belief is institutionally held – show me in official Church documents that the Church believes that priests and ministers form the only road to Heaven/God. The absence of this anywhere in Catholic teaching is all the proof that’s needed.</p>
<p>Deleted .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hmm the more u know. so maybe de facto what lutheran schools taught me was true, but it never was really officially true.</p>
<p>Not that it would have made a big difference if they had produced it in the common languages, what with their overwhelmingly high literacy rates and all.</p>
<p>Could it not have been because: A) Before Gutenberg invented the printing press, it was extremely time consuming and costly to copy any lengthy written text and B) it would have been even more costly to make translations. Not to mention most people would have been unable to read it anyway. The first full English Bible was not even published until 1535.</p>