<p>
</p>
<p>The Catholic Church believes that salvation comes through the Church. Officially and unofficially, they continue to foster and promote a personal relationship with God, Mary, and all the saints. So, your Lutheran school taught you incorrectly.</p>
<p>The fact that some persons were power-hungry in the Church, particularly during the Middle Ages, does not mean that the institution believes, or its adherents “de facto” believe, anything. It simply means that bad people exist.</p>
<p>@ itcharumon- its not worth it anymore. i cant keep logging on and off every half hour. If your willing to stay on for a certain period of time in a chatroom format then send me a message and ill continue. </p>
<p>@romanigypsyeyes- i was positng a message where i couldnt see ur name (i.e. not the quick reply) . That’s why i mispelled your anoyying name so often. But i will take your request into consideration, and learn how to read.</p>
<p>@everyone: this thread hasnt stopped sucking today! What’s with the constant returning to the catholic/ gay marriage/ religion topic!!! Could we get back to some hard core conservative vs. liberal vitriol …</p>
<p>If I continue to read this thread, I’m going to crack my skull from <em>headdesking</em>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then talk us through your line of reasoning which tells you God doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>
Also, don’t you see where this leads? A person fails in one line of reasoning, so therefore they might have no capacity for reasoning at all? Should I deem someone stupid because they make one intellectual mistake, as well? “Oh, you integrated that function incorrectly, clearly you can’t do any math correctly at all…” I think you ought to reconsider the reasoning behind your own perspective. And all this assumes that you are actually correct in your estimation that a reasonable person believes God does not exist.</p>
<p>@del – is it “not worth it” because it truly isn’t worth it to you, or do you just not have a comeback to what I had to say? I know plenty of people who refuse to debate me after a very short time because I reduce their arguments to nothing and all they’re left with are “well… gays are icky and my views on that should be inscribed in law! I don’t really care whether I’m wrong or not I just don’t like it blehhhh.” </p>
<p>And before you say I’m exxagerating, I once made a guy whose argument against it was steeped entirely in the Bible, admit he’d never read the Bible in the first place using the same argument I’ve used above. </p>
<p>So ask yourself – is it really not worth it? Or are you just afraid that if you debate me I’ll be able to knock down your talking points? Now common, post that excellent response you supposedly had for me about three hours ago, I waited for you to post it (a lot longer than the 5 minutes you waited for me while I caught up with the forum) so let’s hear it.</p>
<p>Also, I’ve heard roman’s argument before and it’s actually very accurate. However one of the reasons (one, not the main) reason they didn’t want the Bible translated into the “vulgar” was because they felt it was sinful… namely because of roman’s argument. That’s not some Lutheran “talking point” that’s actually… the accepted history of events.</p>
<p>The “Lutheran talking point” was factually inaccurate. History outside codified Church documents is irrelevant when discussing what is verbatim in codified Church documents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s like talking to a brick wall lol. It’s why I gave up. It’s just not worth it in the end. People on both sides of issues are going to believe what they want to believe, facts be damned. It’s why our country runs on 30-second sound bites.</p>
<p>Live and let live.</p>
<p>Now if only all people followed that advice…</p>
<p>Good night all. Happy debating!</p>
<p>^So what you’re saying is, regardless of what history shows us to be true, we’re automatically wrong because the Church documents say otherwise? And you don’t think they’d… you know, hide the corrupt stuff?</p>
<p>…Okay -pats- how about a cookie? You special person you</p>
<p>No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that when discussing what the Church believes, what is relevant is what the Church believes, not what its adherents do.</p>
<p>^And yet, if it’s adherents are doing something contrary to what the Church believes, they’re not following the Church now are they?</p>
<p>Yes, that would be correct. Note, however, that “contrary” does not mean “not in Church teaching.” e.g., which color is your favorite.</p>
<p>History is most definitely a hard science. I’ve never heard of historians having opposing views, and since they were there, it’s pretty hard to debate with them.</p>
<p>History of public opinion is a much different thing than “This city was here 2500 years ago”. History of public opinion is what you cite when you say that the church believed this or that when it’s not even in the documents. Also, the church exists for the people, not for itself. I wholeheartedly agree with anyone that having the Catholic Church for the sake of having the Catholic Church is pointless. However, the Church exists to unite all believers with God, even if it seems to people outside of it like its main point is to collect various artifacts and take your money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not… but if you’re not then you have much to learn about history lol.</p>
<p>Almost nothing is unanimously agreed upon in history. The farther back you go, the harder it gets. You can even have the same “evidence” and it be interpreted a multitude of different ways.</p>
<p>If I weren’t sarcastic, I’d be a ■■■■■.
If I were a ■■■■■, you shouldn’t feed me.
You fed me.
You must think I’m sarcastic then.
Why am I responding then?</p>
<p>^No. There is a third option- you are misinformed. I was going with that option.</p>
<p>In my opinion, misinformed on the College Life forum makes for a ■■■■■.
Now, if I said this on the SAT forum, you wouldn’t be able to tell.</p>
<p>@ itachirumon- </p>
<p>"Okay from your mentioning of Israel I’m going to focus on Iran only
and ignore anything having to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Since I
told you to specify which countries you had a specific issue with and
that was the only one you bothered to name. While we all agree that
Ahmadinejad is a dangerous nut, it’s pure hypocrisy to scream at
countries about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when we ourselves
refuse to sign it (since we have several thousand nukes laying about
this country of ours). Liberals just believe that with SOME dangerous
nuts you need to try to solve things diplomatically instead of with a
“shoot first, ask questions later” cowboy mentality. You know, try to
talk with them and reach some form of agreement and then should that
fail, THEN you blow their arses out of the water. " </p>
<p>ME: Yep, arent
we conservatives all just abunch of trigger-happy cowboys?? not at
all. IF you understand the circumstance you understand that
negotioating or sanctions (which suprisingly you didnt mention- the
educated liberals would mention that, but i wont adress why they wont
and havent work b/c you didnt mention it) will simply reap no success
whatsoever. The IRan situation is th e most time-sensitive of all. With
every day another step closer to nukes in the hand of a REAL trigger
happy maniac seeking to “wipe ISrael off the map” and the western
world as well. So why waste time trying to negotiate with terrorists?
i simply dont see a valid reason for that step? cause it’s nice?
enlighten me. anyone who understands the situation knows “talks”
(w/out preconditions) will go nowhere, and only backfire and worsen the situation. And hey, look, just as
conservatives predicted- the passive approach hasnt accomplished
anything. And yes, we can regulate which countries cannot have nukes
if they say such things as achmedinijad does and sware to wipe out
countries once they get their bombs. There is a good guy and a bad guy
sometimes. And btw, there is far more to the middle east confilct then
IRan, and i was actually reffering to the palestinian-Israeli
situation, but whatever, if Iran is easier for ur ignorant, uninformed mind to understand, than so- be-it. </p>
<p>NEXT:</p>
<p>“Lack of Racial Profiling at the airports” This is um… a good thing
you know. Racial Profiling is you know… bad? We’re not supposed to
be in support of that, nobody with a brain is supposed to be in
support of that. “”</p>
<p>Answer: nice one. lack of racial profiling is good b/c “were not
suposed to be in support of that” and “nobody with a brain is in
support of that”. But i hear what your saying- to you it’s so obvious
that its bad cause youre too ignorant (its not your fault, youve been
sheltered) to know of what the results of it being implimented. Look
at ISrael, they’re key tactic is racial profiling; they simply look at
the guy and see. How efficeint is it - extremely. I can very
confidently say that 9/11 and many other -both failed and accomplished-
terrorist attacks could have been averted had we had our airport
security racial profiling. Peoples’ hurt feelings vs. loss of life?
belive it or not, it’s something to consider.</p>
<p>NEXT:</p>
<p>"I’m glad you mentioned the “taxing of the rich” let’s blow that one
up right now. Obama isn’t increasing the taxes on the rich, he’s
removing tax CUTS to the rich. Do you get it? the rich already were
paying reduced taxes (ie: not their fair share) and now Obama’s ending
that practice. The rich are peeved because they don’t like the
percieved increase of tax. Nothing’s being “increased” in the sense
that a law was passed to increase them, Obama’s just letting them
return to their normal, original level prior to the Bush tax cut. "</p>
<p>Answer:</p>
<p>Yes, the bush tax cuts are being removed, in other words he’s taxing
the rich. And when you say “fair share” im sure you know thats
subjective. Well, actually the real FAIR share would be a percentage
constant. everyone from poor to rich has to pay, say, 30% of income to
taxes. BUt that fair method is actually not how it works. Ever heard
of graduated income tax? ya, THAT’s how it works. real fair? nope. NO
matter the tax cut, the rich were never paying below the real fair
line, their percentage; always above. And you didnt get into the
pragmatic ramifications of taxes on the rich so ill leave that out
unless you want to mention it in ur response in which case ill adress
it next time.</p>
<p>NEXT:</p>
<p>“Let’s remind ourselves of why we had the need for health care reform
in the first place: because someone without insurance who would have
cost the insurance company a few hundred dollars for a hospital visit
for the flu, can’t afford to go. So they wait and wait and BOOM,
they’re in the hospital with pneumonia, costing the STATE $10,000 a
day. That’s a 100% increase, and it’s spanned out over what could be
up to two weeks for the person to recover. All because they can’t
afford insurance. That right there is all the reason I need to support
a health care option, the alternative is wasteful.”</p>
<p>IM not sure what ur saying here. IS it that a public option would in
essence SAVE the government capital? cause ive heard that insane claim
before, but i dont want to dispell it and get into it unless thats what ur saying.
PLease clarify again why ur pro-public option. </p>
<p>There are the answers to ur stupidity. please, just read up on economics, the midddle east conflict, and racial profling. You could use the knoledge.</p>
<p>“Lack of Racial Profiling at the airports” This is um… a good thing
you know. Racial Profiling is you know… bad? We’re not supposed to
be in support of that, nobody with a brain is supposed to be in</p>
<h2>support of that. “” ~ itachirumon</h2>
<p>What you call “Racial Profiling” is actually Police Work 101.</p>
<p>When a group of people are making attacks (in any circumstance), the first thing you do is get their description/profile, race being the most important identifier. Then, the people fitting the profile SHOULD be given extra attention, no question. That doesn’t mean a 3 hour interrogation to get on an airplane, it just calls for very simple procedures to be applied such as an extra thorough pat-down, a brief “terry stop” type of frisk, a more intentive search of their carry-on luggage, a momentary discussion with the other members of the party to confirm “stories are straight”, and at times a brief criminal record search ran via database that takes a wopping 15 seconds.</p>
<p>Delmonico is very correct when citing Israel anti-terrorism methods, they’ve literally written the book on ATO procedures, and no one knows the harsh realities of NOT being completely diligent and NOT being completely thorough better than them. Political Correctness is fine in some areas, but not when people are stepping onto an airplane. When it comes to something like that, being PC will only get people killed. </p>
<p>The day 80 year old caucasian females start hijacking airplanes, we can “profile” them as well, it makes no difference to me.</p>