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

[RI Patriots fan]

You are confusing Karl Marx's pure communism with the much-abused version of communism exercised by Stalin, Mao, etc.

True communism is in fact, very close to the ideology of true Christianity in that every person would ideally receive food and shelter, and there wouldn't be class, racism, or oppression.

True Communism is very much unlike true christianity. The Catholic church opposes Communism in its official teaching.



2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."


Catechism of the Catholic Church - The seventh commandment

 

[Ring 6]

True Communism is very much unlike true christianity. The Catholic church opposes Communism in its official teaching.



2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."


Catechism of the Catholic Church - The seventh commandment

Do you even understand what you post?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

You just contradicted yourself.

No, actually I didn't contradict myself but no surprise you couldn't see that.

I was showing AJ that he was wrong on two levels.

First, that the vast majority of the world supported homosexual acts. They don't support homosexual acts.

I wasn't trying to say that because the vast majority of people in the world believe that homosexual acts are wrong, that they were right. I was just pointing out that the majority thought just the opposite of what he said.

Second, that even if they did support it, it wouldn't matter. Right and wrong are not decided by a majority.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Do you even understand what you post?

AJ, please...you aren't even in the same ballpark. You're lucky im even playing catch with you.

 

[Ring 6]

No, actually I didn't contradict myself but no surprise you couldn't see that.

I was showing AJ that he was wrong on two levels.

First, that the vast majority of the world supported homosexual acts. They don't support homosexual acts.

I wasn't trying to say that because the vast majority of people in the world believe that homosexual acts are wrong, that they were right. I was just pointing out that the majority thought just the opposite of what he said.

Second, that even if they did support it, it wouldn't matter. Right and wrong are not decided by a majority.

Who is right or wrong decided by?

 

[Ring 6]

AJ, please...you aren't even in the same ballpark. You're lucky im even playing catch with you.

OK, so since you dont understand and can only resort to insults, I will explain.

In your attempt to argue against PP2s point and 'prove' Marxist thoughts are antiCatholic, you cited a passage that said "ideologies in MODERN TIMES that are assoicated with communism or socialism" and also included that the church rejects capitalism BECAUSE in both cases it says regulating the economy SOLELY by either ideology leaves some underserved, which I am sure it would state about any form of government whatsoever.

In other words, your own quote doesnt say what you think it does.

But go ahead, insult my intelligence, it appears to be your only move.

 

[Ring 6]

No, actually I didn't contradict myself but no surprise you couldn't see that.

I was showing AJ that he was wrong on two levels.

First, that the vast majority of the world supported homosexual acts. They don't support homosexual acts.

I wasn't trying to say that because the vast majority of people in the world believe that homosexual acts are wrong, that they were right. I was just pointing out that the majority thought just the opposite of what he said.

Second, that even if they did support it, it wouldn't matter. Right and wrong are not decided by a majority.

No, you contradicted yourself.

 

[PP2]

True Communism is very much unlike true christianity. The Catholic church opposes Communism in its official teaching.



2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."


Catechism of the Catholic Church - The seventh commandment

Just because the Catholic church rejects communism does not mean the two are not similar in some ways.

Both wish to abolish class so that poor people are no longer suffering, true/false?

Both strived for all people to have food and shelter, true/false?

Both preferred a "stateless" community, true/false?

I could go on and on.

And don't get me started on how similar perverted versions of both communism and Christianity are in their brutal oppression of anything not agreeing with their doctrine.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Yes, the laws of underdeveloped countries would not be considered as well studied, investigated and current as those of developed countries. That seems pretty basic to anyone of intellectual integrity.

Of course they can, but their systems of government and lack of development doesnt represent the people being heard.


First, that is incorrect.
Your standard was the laws. Take a look at the map in the article you cited. It isnt close to a majority of the world.
Secondly, you just attempted to demean mean with a condescending comment implying that I thought if the majority believes it is correct.
Ironically, I did not say or imply that, and you just did.

Your ignorance seems to have no limits along with your bigotry.

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

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

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.

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

 

[PP2]

No, actually I didn't contradict myself but no surprise you couldn't see that.

I was showing AJ that he was wrong on two levels.

First, that the vast majority of the world supported homosexual acts. They don't support homosexual acts.

I wasn't trying to say that because the vast majority of people in the world believe that homosexual acts are wrong, that they were right. I was just pointing out that the majority thought just the opposite of what he said.

Second, that even if they did support it, it wouldn't matter. Right and wrong are not decided by a majority.

Yes you did.

What you said was pretty clear:

And the vast majority of the world (including those lowly third world people) believes that homosexual acts are wrong.

It's pretty obvious what you are implying with that statement.

 

[PP2]

AJ, please...you aren't even in the same ballpark. You're lucky im even playing catch with you.

Your hubris here is pretty obvious.

Hmm.. wonder what Jesus said about that?

Or do you actually not practice what you preach or believe in?? The doctrine of the Catholic Church specifically names pride, as in hubris, as one of the seven deadly sins.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

OK, so since you dont understand and can only resort to insults, I will explain.

In your attempt to argue against PP2s point and 'prove' Marxist thoughts are antiCatholic, you cited a passage that said "ideologies in MODERN TIMES that are assoicated with communism or socialism" and also included that the church rejects capitalism BECAUSE in both cases it says regulating the economy SOLELY by either ideology leaves some underserved, which I am sure it would state about any form of government whatsoever.

In other words, your own quote doesnt say what you think it does.

But go ahead, insult my intelligence, it appears to be your only move.

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.


I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I was stating an obvious fact.
I'm not going to learn anything from you. You're not an "opponent".
You just don't bring much to the discussion and I'm starting to get bored to be honest.
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.

 

[PP2]

Take a look at the Corwin Amendment and you tell that was "well studied" and "investigated".

The Corwin Amendment was never passed. What's your point?

Anyway you are taking it way out of context. It existed at a time when the country was in dire straits and people were taking drastic measures.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Yes you did.

What you said was pretty clear:



It's pretty obvious what you are implying with that statement.

Unbelievable. I am wasting my time. Shame on me.

 

[PP2]

I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I was stating an obvious fact.
I'm not going to learn anything from you. You're not an "opponent".
You just don't bring much to the discussion and I'm starting to get bored to be honest.
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.

In other words, you're getting outdebated and you know it.

No need to try to demonstrate what you think is superior intelligence. The platforms your arguments are based on are faulty and no amount of intelligence will cover that up.

 

[PP2]

Unbelievable. I am wasting my time. Shame on me.

Oh sorry.. I must have misunderstood. What exactly were you trying to prove when you said that the MAJORITY of the world is against homosexual sex?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

The Corwin Amendment was never passed. What's your point?

Anyway you are taking it way out of context. It existed at a time when the country was in dire straits and people were taking drastic measures.

Yeah, thanks for that history lesson. I'm going to write a book on the Corwin Amendment so I think I might have a slight idea what transpired.

My point is obvious....not all laws in the good ole USA are well thought out when they are writen. The context is immaterial as many laws are written in reaction to some "crisis" which only solidifies my point.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

In other words, you're getting outdebated and you know it.

No need to try to demonstrate what you think is superior intelligence. The platforms your arguments are based on are faulty and no amount of intelligence will cover that up.

Yeah, thats it......clearly I'm being "outdebated" by two savants who have an excellent grasp of theology, philosophy, history, and apparently "underdeveloped country" law.

As you freely admitted in post #507 of this thread, you believe you might learn a thing or two from this discussion. I'm learning nothing from this discussion. It's boring now. I've done this many times before with far superior opponents. All I'm asking for is one thing....just one. A historical fact....an argument I haven't heard before.....anything.

Nothing.......well, I guess the "well investigated" law comment will give me a chuckle for a little while. I guess that's something.


This is more of what I'm looking for...starts on page 9 and really starts to pick up on page 13:


http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...pe-francis-says-atheists-can-saved-page9.html

 

[PP2]

Yeah, thats it......clearly I'm being "outdebated" by two savants who have an excellent grasp of theology, philosophy, history, and apparently "underdeveloped country" law.

As you freely admitted in post #507 of this thread, you believe you might learn a thing or two from this discussion. I'm learning nothing from this discussion. It's boring now. I've done this many times before with far superior opponents. All I'm asking for is one thing....just one. A historical fact....an argument I haven't heard before.....anything.

Nothing.......well, I guess the "well investigated" law comment will give me a chuckle for a little while. I guess that's something.


This is more of what I'm looking for...starts on page 9 and really starts to pick up on page 13:


http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...pe-francis-says-atheists-can-saved-page9.html

Well let's revisit your flawed thesis:

I'm saying that homosexual acts are wrong because they both violate Natural law and God's law.

Which we know to be false because:

1) You cannot prove that God made 'laws,' and as you say, the burden of proof is on YOU because you are making that claim.

2) And I pointed out that "natural law" is not applicable and is irrelevant because the word 'natural' is not a matter of consensus, and cannot be proven to refer to something that is objective. In other words what is 'natural' is a matter of subjective preference, just as 'beauty' and 'quality' is. What you perceive as unnatural is not what another would necessarily perceive as being unnatural. Because no two person can agree on what 'natural' is, this disqualifies 'natural' as being applicable to your argument.


And please don't think you can argue me under the table when it comes to theology, philosophy, or history. I beg you to try.

P.S. I took a quick look at that Francis thread. Are you a Jesuit?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Well let's revisit your flawed thesis:



Which we know to be false because:

1) You cannot prove that God made 'laws,' and as you say, the burden of proof is on YOU because you are making that claim.

2) And I pointed out that "natural law" is not applicable and is irrelevant because the word 'natural' is not a matter of consensus, and cannot be proven to refer to something that is objective. In other words what is 'natural' is a matter of subjective preference, just as 'beauty' and 'quality' is. What you perceive as unnatural is not what another would necessarily perceive as being unnatural. Because no two person can agree on what 'natural' is, this disqualifies 'natural' as being applicable to your argument.


And please don't think you can argue me under the table when it comes to theology, philosophy, or history. I beg you to try.

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?