College Football Star Michael Sam Says He Is Gay; May Become First Publicly G...

[PP2]

Based upon the mistakes you have made thus far, your "challenge" doesn't exactly fill me with dread

Honestly, I haven't read anything you have written so far and felt challenged. I haven't learned anything.

Did you read the thread I linked? Do you have that kind of understanding of theology? The reason I'm asking is because I haven't seen a single statement from you that would indicate you've studied theology. Have you actually studied theology?


Why on earth would you ask me if I'm a Jesuit based upon the thread I linked u?

Oh, never mind. You aren't. Otherwise you wouldn't have named Athanasius Kircher as being amongst thinkers who 'happened to believe in God,' as he was himself a Jesuit, so naming him is redundant.

But you would have made an excellent Jesuit- if nothing else, you are a very hard-nosed Catholic.

So why don't you go ahead and test my knowledge of theology? Surely I'm certain to fail if you're so sure of yourself. But then again, you thought I was an atheist.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Oh, never mind. You aren't. Otherwise you wouldn't have named Athanasius Kircher as being amongst thinkers who 'happened to believe in God,' as he was himself a Jesuit, so naming him is redundant.

But you would have made an excellent Jesuit- if nothing else, you are a very hard-nosed Catholic.

So why don't you go ahead and test my knowledge of theology? Surely I'm certain to fail if you're so sure of yourself. But then again, you thought I was an atheist.

I'd never be a Jesuit...not even at gun point. I'm also not a "hard-nosed" Catholic. I'm a Catholic.

So I have to give you a test now? I'd rather not to be honest.

Just tell me your background....where did you study theology? How many years? What courses did you take? What is your religious faith?
Honestly, did you completely understand what I wrote about in that Francis thread?

 

[DarrylS]

How did this thread wind up in the Religious Forum, oh wait it was hijacked by the religious zealot, again....

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with religion except for those with "religious myopia"...

 

[PP2]

I'd never be a Jesuit...not even at gun point. I'm also not a "hard-nosed" Catholic. I'm a Catholic.

So I have to give you a test now? I'd rather not to be honest.

Just tell me your background....where did you study theology? How many years? What courses did you take? What is your religious faith?
Honestly, did you completely understand what I wrote about in that Francis thread?

I read through that Francis thread and found some of it interesting. You weren't kidding when you stated that "you've learned nothing from this discussion," not because you think you know it all, but because your theology is very rigid and not open to evolution or modification. You weren't really debating with anyone else in that thread as much as talking down to them.

In the sense that you believe that not all religions are created equally and that the Catholic interpretation of reality is 'incontrovertible' you are a true bigot.

In debating with you, I don't expect to change your thinking one bit, but I will refute what you claim to be absolute, especially the bull**** that Catholicism is the only vehicle towards salvation or self-actualization.

 

[Ring 6]

Your ignorance seems to have no limits along with your bigotry.{/quote]
Insult the other person, throw out a strawman. You have this down to a sscience.

I cannot even begin to start breaking down the stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance with which the bolded statement was written.

Go ahead and try. So far all you have is, when faced with something you cannot respond effectively to, is to call me stupid. Brilliant debate tactic you have there.

So you are an expert on "underdeveloped country law"....lol. Really, where do you get your degree from?

I need a degree to understand that the laws of underdeveloped countries are, umm, underdeveloped?
Answer this for me (I know you won't because it proves you wrong, so you will end up calling me stupid, changing it or avoiding it altogether)
Do you believe the laws in third world countries are as accurate a representation of the beliefs and wishes of their population as the laws of developed democratic countries?

I bet if I could sit u down right now and take u away from google, I'd bet you'd have trouble naming 10 Supreme Court decisions nevermind understanding them.

Another combo personal attack and strawman, which seems to be all you have.
Please explain what this comment has to do with this conversation. Where do Supreme Court decisions apply? And of course you wild guess attempt at an insult is wrong.

If you honestly think that laws in this country are "well studied" and "investigated" then you are blind.

So you feel less study and investigation goes into law making in the USA than in 3rd world countries?
You are embarrassing yourself.

Take a look at the Corwin Amendment and you tell me that was "well studied" and "investigated". I could go on for days on all the bad laws that were passed to this very day. Obamacare....."well studied" and "investigated" when it was passed????? Unbelievable.

The Corwin Amendment is law? I must have missed that. Of course it was written and rejected 150 years ago, so that seems very relevant to a comparison of 21st century laws in developed vs underdeveloped countries.

Regardless of your obvious lame attempt at finding examples, please explain how citing laws you find poor to be proof that undeveloped countries are more in tune with the beliefis of their citizens, more up to date in their law making and study and investigate these issues more thoroughly.

Of course we all know you will avoid that and insult me instead. How Catholic is that?

 

[Ring 6]

Ugh...the catechism doesn't say that it rejects capitalism. It says that it rejects capitalism that makes "the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor".

So the church rejects unbridled Capitalism (not Capitalism) but rejects Communism.

You directly quoted something that contradicts this position.
First, it spoke of modern versions which you seem to think relates to Marx, the original version (if you distinguish modern versions you cannot be including the original) and secondly it qualifies Communism and Capitalism BOTH in the case all decisions are made strictly on the basis of that ideology.
You fail for the second time to comprehend what you posted yourself.

I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I was stating an obvious fact.

You weren't insulting my intelligence because its a fact i'm stupid?
Is that what you are saying now?

I'm not going to learn anything from you. You're not an "opponent".

You aren't going to learn anything from anyone because you are arrogant, bigotted and closed minded.

You just don't bring much to the discussion and I'm starting to get bored to be honest.

Does that mean you have used up your supply of insults and are tired of creating more strawmen? Because that is all you have done, and are continuing to do here.

I've debated these issues a million times and on a scale of 1 to 1,000,000 (1 being the best I have had) well let's just say these "arguments" would be much closer to a million than one.
So unless you can show me a knowledge of history or religion or politics or anything for that matter.......well, this isn't worth my time.

You hide from knowledge. You don't want knowledge, you want to ingore it.

Not to mention that this is not a discussion about religion. It is a discussion about the rights of people who happen to be attracted to the same sex.
You can only see everything through your bigotted religious views. Your religious views mean nothing to me with respect to that topic. You are only serving to amuse me by acting so unadulterated arrogant, ignorant and childish.
Go ahead and tell me again how much smarter, better and morally right you are than me. That is your only argument. You know all and anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and not worthy of your time.
You are a sad, bigotted person. While it is a common practice for people to wish someone "Find God" I actually hope for your sake that you renounce your religion because it has turned you into a horrible person.

 

[Christiancat]

How did this thread wind up in the Religious Forum, oh wait it was hijacked by the religious zealot, again....

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with religion except for those with "religious myopia"...

How nice of you to call those who are strong in their faith religious zealots.

 

[PP2]

How nice of you to call those who are strong in their faith religious zealots.

Zealot = uncompromising.

In that regard, don't you think the definition is relevant?

If moving closer to God required you to modify your faith or your stance, would you deem that more important than adhering to dogma?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Go ahead and tell me again how much smarter, better and morally right you are than me. That is your only argument. You know all and anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and not worthy of your time.
You are a sad, bigotted person. While it is a common practice for people to wish someone "Find God" I actually hope for your sake that you renounce your religion because it has turned you into a horrible person.

Gotta love that Progressive Tolerance

You're not worth my time because you're not very knowledgable nor intelligent. It's really that simple.

BTW, I am very very glad someone like you sees me as a "horrible" person. It shows me that I'm very much on the right track.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

I read through that Francis thread and found some of it interesting. You weren't kidding when you stated that "you've learned nothing from this discussion," not because you think you know it all, but because your theology is very rigid and not open to evolution or modification. You weren't really debating with anyone else in that thread as much as talking down to them.

In the sense that you believe that not all religions are created equally and that the Catholic interpretation of reality is 'incontrovertible' you are a true bigot.

In debating with you, I don't expect to change your thinking one bit, but I will refute what you claim to be absolute, especially the bull**** that Catholicism is the only vehicle towards salvation or self-actualization.

Yes, just as I thought....you bring nothing. Quelle surprise!

BTW genius, I never said "Catholicism is the only vehicle towards salvation". In fact, the Catholic church doesn't teach that Catholicism is the only vehicle towards salvation. You see...you might have known this if you had a background in theology but it is painfully obvious that you don't have that background.



"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his (Catholic) Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"


CCC - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3



Too bad you weren't smart to realize that you could have learned something from me. Oh well :confused2:

 

[PP2]

Yes, just as I thought....you bring nothing. Quelle surprise!

BTW genius, I never said "Catholicism is the only vehicle towards salvation". In fact, the Catholic church doesn't teach that Catholicism is the only vehicle towards salvation. You see...you might have known this if you had a background in theology but it is painfully obvious that you don't have that background.



"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his (Catholic) Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"


CCC - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3



Too bad you weren't smart to realize that you could have learned something from me. Oh well :confused2:

Hey, you're back! Was wondering where you went.

While Catholic catechism does technically allow that there are paths towards God not involving the religion itself, I'm sure you'll recognize there is still plenty of inherent religiocentrism in Catholicism as far as accepting alternate interpretations to the theology of creation, including how it is taught and I'm sure plenty of bigotry inevitably seeps through. And while the paragraph you quote does acknowledge grace can be had outside Catholicism, it does not acknowledge that grace is achievable through other religions as well.

I do have a minor background in theology, but as I no longer treat it as a end unto itself, I'm not well-versed (as far as the nuts and bolts) as you are but I hope we'll continue to debate. Le réalité et toi, vous ne vous entendez pas, n'est-ce pas?

 

[Ring 6]

Gotta love that Progressive Tolerance

You're not worth my time because you're not very knowledgable nor intelligent. It's really that simple.

Nice argument you have there. I am right, I am smart, you are wrong you are stupid. The funniest part is you do not even realize how your desperate attempts to deflect the discussion illustrate your lack of an intelligent response.

BTW, I am very very glad someone like you sees me as a "horrible" person. It shows me that I'm very much on the right track.

Well that is awfully Christian of you, choosing a path that causes people to think you are a horrible person, and being proud of it. Wow, if I didn't know better I would think Jesus himself is speaking through you.

 

[PP2]

bump.. where are you RIP?

 

[SalemPats]

How nice of you to call those who are strong in their faith religious zealots.

you're always looking for a fight. Just relax, respect what others are saying when they don't agree with your faith

 

[PP2]

Yes, just as I thought....you bring nothing. Quelle surprise!

BTW genius, I never said "Catholicism is the only vehicle towards salvation". In fact, the Catholic church doesn't teach that Catholicism is the only vehicle towards salvation. You see...you might have known this if you had a background in theology but it is painfully obvious that you don't have that background.



"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his (Catholic) Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"


CCC - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3



Too bad you weren't smart to realize that you could have learned something from me. Oh well :confused2:

bump bump bump

Where have you gone? Come back here so we can debate again.

 

[fpraven88]

bump bump bump

Where have you gone? Come back here so we can debate again.

You're probably on his very lengthy list of people that he abruptly stops responding to.

At first, he frantically tries to redirect the debate by either being inflammatory and hoping the discussion gets hijacked into personal insults or he tries to bury you in copy/paste.

If that doesn't work, you get radio silence. Congrats, you made it to the final level.

 

[PP2]

You're probably on his very lengthy list of people that he abruptly stops responding to.

At first, he frantically tries to redirect the debate by either being inflammatory and hoping the discussion gets hijacked into personal insults or he tries to bury you in copy/paste.

If that doesn't work, you get radio silence. Congrats, you made it to the final level.

That's too bad. I thought he was fairly intelligent and very knowledgeable. I was hoping to have my theological astuteness tested.

 

[Patters]

That's too bad. I thought he was fairly intelligent and very knowledgeable. I was hoping to have my theological astuteness tested.

He really does know a lot about Catholicism. Because of him, I read a lot about the Magisterium and Papal infallibility. When I commented that masturbation is as much a sin as homosexuality according to the Catholic Church, he did not disagree. I'm not Catholic, but I did try to find a Catholic basis to challenge him on gays, but if one is to really follow the rules of the Church, then one is left without much of a sex life and perhaps little tolerance for those who engage in premarital sex, masturbate, look at porn, or are gay.

 

[PP2]

He really does know a lot about Catholicism. Because of him, I read a lot about the Magisterium and Papal infallibility. When I commented that masturbation is as much a sin as homosexuality according to the Catholic Church, he did not disagree. I'm not Catholic, but I did try to find a Catholic basis to challenge him on gays, but if one is to really follow the rules of the Church, then one is left without much of a sex life and perhaps little tolerance for those who engage in premarital sex, masturbate, look at porn, or are gay.

My challenge to him was that since Catholic catechism (or magisterium) cannot be proven to be anything but an human invention, it is therefore not infallible.