Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains   North Spore Bulk Substrate, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlinesupernovasky
Comrade
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,990
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
President Obama's Notre Dame Speech
    #10354148 - 05/17/09 06:05 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

However you feel about Obama, I really think that he hit this speech out of the ballpark. I was watching it with an old couple who have a "no clinton" sign up on their wall, with Bill Clinton crossed out. They are quite republican... and yet, after watching this speech, they were floored and impressed beyond all means. I love the kind of unity that he promotes and speaks about in this speech, and I think he quickly diffused the abortion position controversy and made the protesters seem pretty dumb rather quickly.

You can watch the video here.

What did you think of it, if you saw it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/obama-notre-dame-speech-l_n_204389.html


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10355181 - 05/17/09 09:34 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Edit: oops... double post.


Edited by Seuss (05/17/09 09:36 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10355193 - 05/17/09 09:35 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

> What did you think of it

I liked the part where he said he was going to do away with consensual crimes and legalize drugs.  Oh wait... never mind.  :rolleyes:

(Yeah, he can read a good speech as long as he has a teleprompter telling him what to say.  I just wish there were a bit of substance in the suit to back up his spiffy speeches.  Until he stands up to unjust prohibition laws, I will continue to consider him a bigoted coward that will put people in jail for doing the same thing he did before he became president.  Before anybody goes partisan on me, I consider both Bush Jr. and Billy boy Clinton in the same light.)


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10355901 - 05/18/09 12:14 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

what I find interesting is that more people were incarcerated
during the clinton reign for drug crimes than under either of the
Connecticut Texans


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 26,443
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 15 hours
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10359164 - 05/18/09 05:20 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
Yeah, he can read a good speech as long as he has a teleprompter telling him what to say.



It's amazing how often the right repeats this.  Let's analyze this statement:

1.  Obama gives good speeches.
2.  His teleprompter tells him what to say.

I guess there's little debate/controversy about the first part of the statement because the right always says it, so let's analyze the second part, which the right feels the need to include after they say the first part:


a.  Do you think Obama has an opportunity to review/red-line his speeches before he makes them, or do you think he surprised by what shows up on the teleprompter?

b.  Do you think Obama chooses speechwriters to write speeches that match his own beliefs/opinions, or is his speechwriter forced upon him?

c.  Does Obama use the teleprompter the same way as his predecessors, or is there something different that diminishes what he has to say?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10359286 - 05/18/09 05:41 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Without the TPIC he can hardly speak at all.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 26,443
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 15 hours
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10359660 - 05/18/09 06:44 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

And this is different from Bush how?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10360014 - 05/18/09 07:43 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Nobody ever gushed big twat juice over what a great speaker Bush was.  Extemporaneously Bush is better than the Great Orator, who can't enough Ums and Uhs.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 26,443
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 15 hours
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10360180 - 05/18/09 08:02 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Nobody ever gushed big twat juice over what a great speaker Bush was.



Yet Bush used teleprompters.  Now the right wants to credit the teleprompter for Obama's speaking success.  I wonder why it only works for Obama?

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Extemporaneously Bush is better than the Great Orator



Do a Google search for Bushisms and tell me you're serious.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10360339 - 05/18/09 08:22 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Ummmm uh I giggled it and I found a whole lot of media carping about all of his malapropisms.  I also found a whole lot of media mumbling around Obama's cock about how eloquent he was.  Nobody ever waxed poetic about what a great speaker Bush was, but they sure did prostrate themselves before the altar of the all-knowing Teleprompter Fraud.  Bush=nobody said he was Cato: Obama=all the press said he was the most bestest speakuh evuh.  Fraud.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10361575 - 05/19/09 12:13 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Harry Reid: That speech was phenomenal, Barack,' I told him. And I will never forget his response.

Obama said: "I have a gift, Harry"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_reid_obama


Obama's real gift is his pigmentation....


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 26,443
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 15 hours
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10361647 - 05/19/09 12:30 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

lonestar2004 said:
Obama's real gift is his pigmentation....



So sayeth the conservatives.

Have you ever considered that some people like what he has to say?  Obama's approval rating is 64%.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10363451 - 05/19/09 11:05 AM (12 years, 5 months ago)

lets see if his 64% come out to vote in the 2010 elections. Then we can accurately gage the popularity/unpopularity of the president and how strong the Democratic base really is...


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10364880 - 05/19/09 05:33 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

I keep hearing about his approval rating being high but when asked about his policies, well, that's a different story.  Never forget that a significant number of those polled can't name the Vice President.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10365231 - 05/19/09 06:37 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

> Never forget that a significant number of those polled can't name the Vice President.

You mean that Sheriff guy that scares congress into not wasting money?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTGRR
Horrible Bastard


Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 2,084
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10366320 - 05/19/09 10:10 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

lonestar2004 said:
Obama's real gift is his pigmentation....




It's a good thing you're not a race-baiter or anything.


--------------------
What can we do to help you stop screaming?

Official Mr Shoebat lackey.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: TGRR]
    #10369339 - 05/20/09 01:59 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

TGRR said:
Quote:

lonestar2004 said:
Obama's real gift is his pigmentation....




It's a good thing you're not a race-baiter or anything.





i apologize TGRR, All praise The Chosen One......


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinerizingfire
Mycoticus psychoticus
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/10/07
Posts: 831
Loc: North-east USm'f'nA
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10369374 - 05/20/09 02:07 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Obamma is one of the biggest frauds we have elected to date, everyone who voted for him should be executed for being so stupid. The amount of money he just wasted could have given us each $425k and that would have fixed the economy yet this POS gave it to the rich instead. He is the most socialist voice in the senate, he should have been put to death for treason, not elected as president. People like him are the single worst thing to happen to the country...it isn't progress that is for sure...and the change he promised...all lies, just like everything else he said...so ya I am mad and hate that black piece of shit. After all he played the race card to win it...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinerizingfire
Mycoticus psychoticus
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/10/07
Posts: 831
Loc: North-east USm'f'nA
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: rizingfire]
    #10369378 - 05/20/09 02:07 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

The worst part was he made them cover their statues or refused to speak...he is a nutpuppet


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: rizingfire]
    #10369735 - 05/20/09 03:16 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

they must just be polling Bankers to get that 64% approval rating...


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10369752 - 05/20/09 03:20 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

> they must just be polling Bankers to get that 64% approval rating...

... and UAW members


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKnifey Mcstab
Sir Prancelot Brainfire
Male


Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 4,846
Loc: PNW
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10376957 - 05/21/09 05:19 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

This country is going downhill fast.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Knifey Mcstab]
    #10377008 - 05/21/09 05:27 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

you can almost hear the flushing/swirling sound....


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male

Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10379542 - 05/22/09 02:18 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

It was an effective speech but it should have been given over a month ago before the critics gained momentum.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 26,443
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 15 hours
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: rizingfire]
    #10379887 - 05/22/09 04:09 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

rizingfire said:
The amount of money he just wasted could have given us each $425k and that would have fixed the economy yet this POS gave it to the rich instead.



Let's see, 300 million people x $425k/person = $127.5 trillion.  Fortuntely, Obama's not spending that much.  But if he was, I'd agree with you.

Quote:

rizingfire said:
I am mad and hate that black piece of shit. After all he played the race card to win it...



Actually, he played the "I'm not a Republican" card to win it.

Quote:

rizingfire said:
The worst part was he made them cover their statues or refused to speak...



Wut???


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10381691 - 05/22/09 02:03 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
However you feel about Obama, I really think that he hit this speech out of the ballpark. I was watching it with an old couple who have a "no clinton" sign up on their wall, with Bill Clinton crossed out. They are quite republican... and yet, after watching this speech, they were floored and impressed beyond all means. I love the kind of unity that he promotes and speaks about in this speech, and I think he quickly diffused the abortion position controversy and made the protesters seem pretty dumb rather quickly.

You can watch the video here.

What did you think of it, if you saw it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/obama-notre-dame-speech-l_n_204389.html





Let me state that I am catholic and anti-abortion. Right or wrong, that's what I believe.


I see nothing wrong with being outraged that a person who is one of the most liberal on abortion is invited to the commencement speech at one the premier catholic uni's and giving him a law degree... :rolleyes: does not compute.

Honestly though, it's not about atheists vs. Catholics vs. Muslims vs. Mormons vs. pro-life vs. pro-right vs. whoever. It's an issue about rules. Notre Dame is a Catholic university and should follow those rules, especially when it's so explicity agaisnt the rules word-by-word. It's also a inner-Catholic issue.

That said, being outraged and protesting is fine by me. Disrupting the speech like that one guy is rude.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10381751 - 05/22/09 02:17 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

I'm PRO LIFE  :lifesaver:  but not catholic. (or christian)

IMO Obama had a right to speak at the University.

But I disagree with Notre Dame (a catholic school?) giving him an Honorary Degree

Whores......


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10388951 - 05/24/09 01:56 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

lonestar2004 said:
I'm PRO LIFE  :lifesaver:  but not catholic. (or christian)

IMO Obama had a right to speak at the University.

But I disagree with Notre Dame (a catholic school?) giving him an Honorary Degree

Whores......





Yeah Notre Dame is one of the top Catholic uni's. Just to bore you with the Catholic teachings on this:

In the last couple of years the US bishops issued a statement regarding Catholic institutions and politicians saying "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles... [but] We cannot cut off dialogue. ... We will rarely persuade if we have no dialogue or cannot make our case." This was issued in 2004, long before Obama's prime time.

It also caused an up roar because it was suggest pro-abortion politicians should not receive the Eucharist (a big deal to a Catholic). link to statement


Basically to sum it up all nice and pretty. It's kosher if Obama goes to Notre Dame for dialogue and discussion but what he was invited for was nothing of the sort. So that's what caused the uproar.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinesupernovasky
Comrade
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 8,990
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10390854 - 05/24/09 02:34 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Kind of funny though, considering that the catholic church has the same prohibition on the death penalty that it does on abortion, and believes that both are morally wrong, yet there was no such outrage when Bush went to Notre Dame (and he was governor of a state that executes retarded people!).


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 26,443
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 15 hours
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10391030 - 05/24/09 03:14 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Kind of funny though, considering that the catholic church has the same prohibition on the death penalty that it does on abortion, and believes that both are morally wrong, yet there was no such outrage when Bush went to Notre Dame (and he was governor of a state that executes retarded people!).



:werd:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10391926 - 05/24/09 06:38 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Kind of funny though, considering that the catholic church has the same prohibition on the death penalty that it does on abortion, and believes that both are morally wrong, yet there was no such outrage when Bush went to Notre Dame (and he was governor of a state that executes retarded people!).




The difference being that Bush was not advocating mandatory death penalty across all states.  As governor and president, he was simply enforcing law that was passed by will of the people.  Had Bush been actively pushing to expand the death penalty, I suspect his reception would have been as controversial as Obama's.

Reinforcing this point, Obama has done nothing to limit the use of the death penalty at the federal level, or pushed for the states to limit its use.  However, Notre Dame didn't bring this issue up with Obama either.

:werd: :rolleyes:


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10392121 - 05/24/09 07:23 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Kind of funny though, considering that the catholic church has the same prohibition on the death penalty that it does on abortion, and believes that both are morally wrong, yet there was no such outrage when Bush went to Notre Dame (and he was governor of a state that executes retarded people!).





Yea I thought this for the longest time too but it actually turns out to be wrong.

According the Catholic Church there _are_ circumstances where the death penalty is justifiable. Strange to us now but if you look into the Bible there are cases of executions and such.

Also official dogma :
"2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,..."

That being said, it's not encouraged usually. It is only allowed if there is 'no other recourse'.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTHC Titan
Spoonman
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: rizingfire]
    #10395485 - 05/25/09 12:53 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

rizingfire said:
Obamma is one of the biggest frauds we have elected to date, everyone who voted for him should be executed for being so stupid. The amount of money he just wasted could have given us each $425k and that would have fixed the economy yet this POS gave it to the rich instead. He is the most socialist voice in the senate, he should have been put to death for treason, not elected as president. People like him are the single worst thing to happen to the country...it isn't progress that is for sure...and the change he promised...all lies, just like everything else he said...so ya I am mad and hate that black piece of shit. After all he played the race card to win it...




How are you still allowed to post on the Shroomery after this hate-filled diatribe? Obama and his supporters should be killed (by who?) and he's the "most socialist" Senator for supporting the rich elite. You don't sound mature enough to engage in political discussion and I know this isn't a troll because you're not humorous or smart enough to pull that off.

On topic, there's not a good enough reason NOT to give Obama an honorary degree. He drew a lot of applause from that crowd, and boo's toward the protestors, so the statement that pro-choice politicians are not welcomed is obviously false. The Catholic bishops are way behind the social curve. Obama clearly enunciated that abortions should be reduced by increasing support for adoption programs, prenatal care, and young mothers. I don't know if he specifically mentioned it at Notre Dame but he also ended Bush's subsidies to abstinence-only sex education groups which is a major risk factor for unwanted teenage pregnancies. That has been empirically proven, by the way.

So unless you're arguing that Obama is literally PRO-abortion, Catholics should moderate themselves and take a step back and find the common ground they have with everyone else.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 26,443
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 15 hours
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: THC Titan]
    #10395560 - 05/25/09 01:14 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

THC Titan said:
How are you still allowed to post on the Shroomery after this hate-filled diatribe?



The mods are all conservative, and allow conservatives to say anything, while liberal posters are promptly warned for any negative remarks.

Consider this is your first warning.  :wink:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10395612 - 05/25/09 01:27 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

> The mods are all conservative, and allow conservatives to say anything, while liberal posters are promptly warned for any negative remarks.

And how many times have you been warned or banned for your socialist opinion?  (I see one warning for calling somebody an asshole.)  How many people were banned before the elections for the hate filled comments they were directing towards Palin?

> How are you still allowed to post on the Shroomery after this hate-filled diatribe?

We try not to censor opinions.  As long as the poster isn't verbally attacking another member of the forum, then they probably aren't breaking any rules, and they won't get banned.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10395630 - 05/25/09 01:33 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

I got a perma-ban for beating up on Ron Paul.  From an admin.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10395673 - 05/25/09 01:42 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

THC Titan said:
How are you still allowed to post on the Shroomery after this hate-filled diatribe?



The mods are all conservative, and allow conservatives to say anything, while liberal posters are promptly warned for any negative remarks.

Consider this is your first warning.  :wink:




You've got to be kidding me.  No moderators gives a fuck how hate-filled speech is unless it's directed at a poster here as a flame.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTHC Titan
Spoonman
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10395844 - 05/25/09 02:36 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
And how many times have you been warned or banned for your socialist opinion?  (I see one warning for calling somebody an asshole.)  How many people were banned before the elections for the hate filled comments they were directing towards Palin?




Unless it was directed at her for being a woman, pretty much any criticism of Palin is justified by her insane thought processes!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTGRR
Horrible Bastard


Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 2,084
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10397196 - 05/25/09 07:02 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

lonestar2004 said:
I'm PRO LIFE  :lifesaver:  but not catholic. (or christian)

IMO Obama had a right to speak at the University.

But I disagree with Notre Dame (a catholic school?) giving him an Honorary Degree

Whores......





It's not so much that I'm "pro-choice" as I am "anti-human".


--------------------
What can we do to help you stop screaming?

Official Mr Shoebat lackey.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10398459 - 05/25/09 10:37 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

> I got a perma-ban for beating up on Ron Paul.  From an admin.

That explains why you are still here.  :wink:

Mistakes do happen, but we try to self correct and have a fairly good record of righting our wrongs.  (Besides, you should know better than to taunt happy fun ball!)


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: THC Titan]
    #10400467 - 05/26/09 07:33 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

THC Titan said:
On topic, there's not a good enough reason NOT to give Obama an honorary degree. He drew a lot of applause from that crowd, and boo's toward the protestors,




As I said its not Jews vs. Catholics vs. pro-life vs. pro-choice. It's an issue about _rules_ not on how much sway he holds over a college crowd. For all it matters they could have given him 20 standing ovations that still does not hold any importance to the issue at hand here.

Quote:

THC Titan said:
The Catholic bishops are way behind the social curve.



If you mean the social curve that's redefining secular into atheist then yes, I should hope so.


Quote:

THC Titan said:
Obama clearly enunciated that abortions should be reduced by increasing support for adoption programs, prenatal care, and young mothers. I don't know if he specifically mentioned it at Notre Dame but he also ended Bush's subsidies to abstinence-only sex education groups which is a major risk factor for unwanted teenage pregnancies. That has been empirically proven, by the way.



This is all nice and good but refer to the last quote--->

Quote:

THC Titan said:
So unless you're arguing that Obama is literally PRO-abortion, Catholics should moderate themselves and take a step back and find the common ground they have with everyone else.



Remember FOCA and his promise to sign it? Not sure if he did, but he did campagin on it extensively.

Mexico City bill? He repealed it which allows direct funding for overseas abortion.

oh and this little marvel of an article in response to your 2nd to last quote:
Obama Aide: Not Our Goal to Reduce Abortions

So unless you're arguing that PRO-abortion isn't PRO-choice then I think you find yourself on a pretty hard hill to defend. (And no before you try to paint me into a corner, the argument PRO-abortion vs PRO-choice is pretty silly and fueled by emotions more than anything.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10406999 - 05/27/09 01:08 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

It's an issue about _rules




Okay, so should Notre Dame also teach that evolution is a big joke and that the earth was created 5,000 years ago?  Should Biology students learn that all humans have descended from two people?  That's what Catholics believe, after all, and this is about rules.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10407471 - 05/27/09 03:16 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Given that Obama was not granted an honorary degree in biology, what relevance does that have?  None.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10407563 - 05/27/09 03:37 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

What are you talking about?  CowFarmer said that Notre Dame is a Catholic univeristy and that they should follow rules of the Catholic church (by rules I assume he means their teachings).  The Catholic church doesn't believe in evolution.  Therefore... they shouldn't teach evolution in their university, according to his reasoning.  It's called an analogy.

The point is, religion is stupid and has no place in determining policy in a university.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10407840 - 05/27/09 04:29 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

You asked a dumb question that had not one thing to do with the issue.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10407861 - 05/27/09 04:31 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Religion has no place in determining policy?  I agree with you that religions( other than mine) are stupid but determining policy is exactly what they are for.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10412297 - 05/28/09 09:23 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

You asked a dumb question that had not one thing to do with the issue.




It most certainly is relevant to this issue.  Let me explain it to you since you aren't getting it. 

1. CowFarmer said Notre Dame should follow the rules of the Catholic church.
2. I'm pointing out that if they should be upholding the Catholic Church's morale standing against abortion, then they should also uphold their morale argument against evolution.
3. Otherwise they're hypocritical.

Try and prove that has nothing to do with the issue.

Quote:

Religion has no place in determining policy?  I agree with you that religions( other than mine) are stupid but determining policy is exactly what they are for.




You're twisting what I said - please reread my post.  I said it has no place in determining policy in a university.  Universities are places of higher learning and should be focused on gathering, developing, storing, and distributing knowledge of this physical world, which is proveable, logical, and factual.  Doing anything other than that, like teaching things as fact from a 2,000 year old book written by men who may very well have been skitzophrenic, would be the sign of a second rate shithole school, to say the very least.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10412416 - 05/28/09 10:27 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

2. I'm pointing out that if they should be upholding the Catholic Church's morale standing against abortion, then they should also uphold their morale argument against evolution.




Perhaps you should read up on Catholic dogma with respect to evolution before using it as an argument.

Pope John Paul II said (regarding evolution):
Quote:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.




Pope Pius XII said (regarding evolution):
Quote:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.




--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10413491 - 05/28/09 03:26 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

He has still failed to explain what teaching about evolution has to do with advocating the morality or immorality of abortion, as well.  He also seems to be willing to discard all of the humanities.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10415208 - 05/28/09 09:02 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.




Last time I checked, the theory of evolution didn't call for divine intervention as a driving force.  The Catholic Church accepts the theory of theistic evolution, which Notre Dame doesn't teach, except possibly in religous classes.

Quote:

He has still failed to explain what teaching about evolution has to do with advocating the morality or immorality of abortion, as well.




Zapp, continuing to say the same thing and ignoring my responses isn't an effective method of arguing.  Go up two posts and reread.  Also, feel free to respond with more than a one liner.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10419376 - 05/29/09 02:11 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

He has still failed to explain what teaching about evolution has to do with advocating the morality or immorality of abortion, as well.




Zapp, continuing to say the same thing and ignoring my responses isn't an effective method of arguing.  Go up two posts and reread.  Also, feel free to respond with more than a one liner.




I read it the first time.  Your failure to make a link between the two is not indicative of my failure to read your post.  It is indicative of nothing other than your failure to make the link.  Please elucidate how a stand on a policy issue, the morality of abortion, has anything to do with, for another example, particle physics.  Because one could argue that particle physics is also contra-indicated by the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Render unto Caesar.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10419645 - 05/29/09 02:55 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

I don't have to make a link between the two because I never said there was a link between abortion and evolution.  Where you got that from, I have no idea.  I used the example of Notre Dame not allowing views on evolution that are contrary to beliefs of the Catholic Church as an analogy to Notre Dame not allowing Obama to speak because his views are contrary to the Catholic Church.  That is the essence of an analogy.  I was responding to CowFarmer's post.  Perhaps you need to reread his post to understand that I was refuting his argument that Notre Dame should not have allowed Obama to speak because it was against the Catholic Church's rules. 

Once again:

CowFarmer said ND shouldn't allow Obama because his view are against their rules.

I say that's as dumb as not teaching facts of science because they are against the Catholic Church's rules.

There is no direct link between evolution and abortion that I was or am trying to make.  Please prove otherwise if you want to continue discussing my failure to make a link between aborition, evolution, particle physics, or whatever else.

I was criticizing the idea of using Catholic Church policy to determine university policy.  Perhaps you believe that Catholic beliefs should be used to determine what students at a university do or do not learn about (whether it be learning about the morality of abortion, evolution, or any other topic), and that's fine, but it isn't my opinion, which is what I was expressing with my first post.  If you would like to debate that issue, I'm all for it.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10419703 - 05/29/09 03:05 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Abortion is a moral issue that the Catholic Church has taken a stand against.  ND is a Catholic University.  Neither evolution nor particle physics is a moral issue.  There is no hypocrisy in teaching about evolution or particle physics while at the same time decrying abortion as immoral.  It is a total disconnect.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: zappaisgod]
    #10420934 - 05/29/09 06:53 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexuality because they believe it is a sin.  So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexuality is not, in fact, a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?  That would be going directly against a moral belief that the Catholic church upholds.  You could pick at the analogies all you want, but it's hypocritcal to expect ND to follow 'rules' on some counts, but not others. 

And the Vatican didn't even speak on this issue.  To me, it seems like an argument born out of the minds of strict republican Obama-haters.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10421258 - 05/29/09 07:58 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

> The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexuality because they believe it is a sin.

Once again you open your mouth and insert your foot when it comes to Catholic dogma.  Please, if you are going to use Catholic dogma as a basis for your arguments, at least research it before using it to save yourself from appearing ignorant.

Quote:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.




> The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexuality because they believe it is a sin.

Incorrect.  Read the above catechism.  Nowhere does it define homosexuality as sin.  Instead, homosexual acts are defined as "acts of grave depravity" and "contrary to the natural law".

>  So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexuality is not, in fact, a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?

According to the catechism, the "psychological genesis" of homosexuality "remains largely unexplained."  This leaves the psychological teachings about homosexuality open to the professor.

> That would be going directly against a moral belief that the Catholic church upholds.

According to your mistaken beliefs.  Again, if you are going to use Catholic dogma as the basis for your debate, you should really try and make an effort to understand Catholic dogma rather than assuming that you know what you are talking about.

> You could pick at the analogies all you want, but it's hypocritcal to expect ND to follow 'rules' on some counts, but not others. 

Again, this is your mistake based upon your failed understanding of the Catholic dogma.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10423028 - 05/30/09 02:01 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:

You're twisting what I said - please reread my post.  I said it has no place...





Hey pothead_bob.

I want you to read that quote up there. Thanks. I was responding you and all the nice little slander and libel you managed to weasel in there... Then I lost interest and started falling asleep. I'll anwser you later when I feel like putting on my boots to waddle through all the...

Anyways, it would be :birthday: f-a-n-t-a-s-t-i-c :birthday:  if you could just read that quote one more time, you managed to say a very point important word.

To Twist
, which is defined as:
1. A miniature whirlpool or whirlwind resulting when the current of a fluid doubles back on itself
2. To move in a twisting or contorted motion, (especially when struggling)


'Night :hatsoff:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10427978 - 05/31/09 02:36 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

**Most of your posts here are filled with weaseling and hate-filled diatribes on the matter of faith and religion. I will do my best to avoid addressing that topic as I believe you believe that you are a believer of rationalism, logic and science. Thus I believe that you would be best persuaded by being addressed with logic, rationalism and science in turn.

Since you so obviously only skimmed over my first posts I ask only ONE thing. That you read this post before answering me. I love debate and debating since I find that it teaches me and makes me question my thoughts. But I will not debate with someone who is twisting and weaseling, that is nothing more than a waste of time and thought.

-------
First let's anwser the first problem that occurs because your skimming over my posts. Why Obama shouldn't have been honored with the platform of giving a commencment speech and further more a LAW degree. Don't skim over this again.
Quote:

CowFarmer said:
In the last couple of years the US bishops issued a statement regarding Catholic institutions and politicians saying "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles... [but] We cannot cut off dialogue. ... We will rarely persuade if we have no dialogue or cannot make our case." This was issued in 2004, long before Obama's prime time.
link to statement

Basically to sum it up all nice and pretty. It's kosher if Obama goes to Notre Dame for dialogue and discussion but what he was invited for was nothing of the sort. So that's what caused the uproar.




This is the article, only the first 3 paragraphs. This was published in 2004. Obama was still a whippersnapper then and not our president. This anwsers your argument that these rules were placed by us obama-racist haters (which in fact I said in my first post on this)
Quote:


WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Politicians, who never miss a chance to shake hands or kiss babies, also seem keen on speaking on college campuses and delivering commencement addresses.

But the current dispute over denying Communion to Catholic politicians who dissent from church teaching has also sparked discussion about these same politicians addressing Catholic college students.

Scrutiny of who should and should not speak on Catholic college campuses comes in part from the U.S. Catholic bishops' "Catholics in Political Life" statement released June 18.

The statement does not point a finger specifically at Catholic colleges but includes them in its overall wording, noting that "the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."




(bolding is all mine)
Now that we have that matter of why ND was acting in defiance let's move on. I'm not going to quote-by-quote all 3 or 5 of your posts, that just get's ungainly.


Quote:

I say that's as dumb as not teaching facts of science because they are against the Catholic Church's rules.





Universities ARE places of higher learning. Pray do tell how inviting Obama for the _commencement_ speech is in fact akin to a biology or psychology class? Commencement speeches are nothing more than a few words of “Good job guys and gals, go get’em tiger!” held in honor for the graduates. 

Deconstruct the word commencement-
Commence
1.Take the first step or steps in carrying out an action
2.Set in motion, cause to start 
Quote:

Doing anything other than that, like teaching things as fact from a 2,000 year old book written by men who may very well have been skitzophrenic, would be the sign of a second rate shithole school, to say the very least.



You may very well be a ‘skitzophrenic’ for all I know and as far as I am concerned your posts in this thread are nothing short of second rate shitholes, to say the least.
The men who have wrote the book have been turned out to be very accurate and one of the best historians of their age, proven. You on the other hand are unproven, abrasive and quite candidly, seen to have proven alot of disinformation.

Actually the rules of the Church are in no way “against” science. In fact a lot of your acclaimed science would not be around without those dumb Catholics and Christians. Take for example some of the world’s greatest scientists:
  • Newton,
    Galileo,
    Copernicus,
    Georges Lemaître.


You might find it interesting that
  • amps,
    volts,
    ohms,
    coulombs,


all are named after the Christian scientists who 'discovered' them.

  • Desacrtes,
    Pascal,
    Ohm,
    Priestly,
    Lavoisier,
    Dalton,
    Faraday,
    Pasteur,
    Brahe,
    Mendel,
    Harvey.
 

Since you have such a deep seated love for evolution I’m sure you know Mendel, the guy who spent his whole entire life as a monk, invented the backbone for evolution. FYI, I made my list short for you to the most prominent ones so you wouldn’t have to spend so much time googling them and trying to prove me wrong.


Hell dude, you spend so much time spewing off falsehoods that you likely picked off the back cover of some new “heavy hitting” atheist’s New York best seller that you don’t even realize what was printed in Science magazine “What is incontrovertible is that a religious impulse guides our motive in sustaining scientific inquiry”



What in your mind is the back bone of science, the key that has allowed our limited knowledge to progress? I would and others would say that it is the scientific method. The method that all children in school are drilled on from the 4th grade up. Guess who was the founder of that? Francis Bacon, a devote Christian and “the inventor of invention” and that’s a pretty hefty title.Oh and let’s mention that the first medical institutions in Europe where founded under the Church.



Some might find it relevant to note here that without the dedication of monks during the middle ages translating and copying thousands of ancient manuscripts our knowledge of the world would have been drastically held back.

It was first several HUNDRED years that monasteries were the only institutions in Europe at all concerned with obtaining, preserving and spreading knowledge. It was because of the church, NOT in lieu, that schools were built and that the first universities were established. (Which by the way taught both theological and secular). Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Paris, Rome. All affiliated with the church.






Now tell me, are education and religion at odds with each other?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10430999 - 05/31/09 07:10 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Nowhere does it define homosexuality as sin




"contrary to natural law"... "acts of grave depravity"... "under no circumstances can they be approved"... Just what do you define as sin?  I think Catholic dogma is pretty clear that homosexual acts are sin.  Just saying homosexuality is natural is at odds with the Catholic Church.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10431323 - 05/31/09 08:16 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Wow CowFarmer, that post was quite arrogant and hate-filled.  Kind of hypocritical considering that you were directing similar accusations against me.  Are you Catholic?

I read through the first half of your post and realize that I didn't catch all of your original post.  I replied to your last post and I thought you were only saying that Obama should not have been allowed to speak there because of rules.  I didn't realize you also mentioned the outrage over him being offered a law degree.  For that, I admit error on my part.  That's not to say that I agree with Obama being honored as being against rules.  Before we continue this debate, could you please explain to me how advice given by a few bishops becomes 'church rule'?  Because as far as I could see from your article, the bishops were offering advice (and I believe it even said that in your article), not making rules.  Not to mention that, but the Vatican (which I would think is responsible for actually making 'church rules') remained silent on this whole issue.

As for some of your other colorful comments,

Quote:

This anwsers your argument that these rules were placed by us obama-racist haters (which in fact I said in my first post on this)




Please direct me to where I said that 'obama-racist haters' made up the rules that obama couldn't be honored.

Quote:

You may very well be a ‘skitzophrenic’ for all I know




Why?  Did I claim to talk to God through a burning bush when nobody else was around to witness it? 

Please, inform me as to why you think I'm skitzophrenic, because I find it personally insulting.  Do you even know what skitzophrenia is?

As for the second half of your post, your arguments are not as logical as you claimed them to be.  Firstly, to say that just because those great scientists were Catholic, that Catholicism was the reason that they made such discoveries is horrible reasoning.  If you weren't getting at that, then why even mention all those great catholic scientists?  Secondly, to mention Galileo, the man who was tried by the inquisition and spent the rest of his life under house arrest, all for believing (based on logic and scientific evidence) that the earth was not the center of the universe, is laughable.  To say the church was not against Galileo is absurd.

And please, enlighten me as to where in my posts I argued that religous institutions had no place throughout history in advancing science or technology?  Because it seems like that's what you're assuming in the second half of your post.  If you want my opinion on science vs. religion, I have no problem with religious institutions or any institutions, for that matter, that want to pursue scientific inquiry or storing knowledge, as those monks have that you spoke of.  I do have a problem when those religious institutions step in the way of scientific progress because it doesn't fit their concept of how the world is.  Just because they advanced some science doesn't give them the right to control what is and isn't fact.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10431568 - 05/31/09 09:01 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

> Just what do you define as sin?

Considering we are speaking of Catholicism, it doesn't matter what I define as sin.

> I think Catholic dogma is pretty clear that homosexual acts are sin.

Ah, so now you change the subject and begin debating about homosexual acts rather than homosexual people.  The two are distinctly different in the eyes of the Catholic church.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10431713 - 05/31/09 09:34 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Well Bob, let’s just be honest.

You launched a diatribe before basing your argument off my posts without reading them.

Wither or not I am hatefilled and arrogant I hardly think is an issue at hand here. People get angry when you proceed with 6 posts bashing something off of their own misconstruing. 

The bishops don’t give advice. It was a statement issued by the bishops not advice. Pherhaps the best way to explain it to you would be this, your father issues a statement: “Come home before 11 or I will beat your ass with a rubber hose” Now, I guess you could see that as advice but I think advice is the wrong way to look at it.

The issue of wither the Vatican has directly said anything or not is moot. There exists the whole reason for hierarchy in the church. It makes it so that everytime a priest wants to take a dump he doesn’t have to ask the Holy See.

Actually, something you may not be aware of is the fact that the pope is just another bishop.  He is the bishop of Rome, which is historaclly important since it was Peter’s place.

So in essence what we have here are a bunch of bishops (remember the pope is a bishop) giving a statement.

Quote:

As for the rest of your post.  “Please direct me to where I said that 'obama-racist haters' made up the rules that obama couldn't be honored.”



Gladly Bob, here you go:
And the Vatican didn't even speak on this issue.  To me, it seems like an argument born out of the minds of strict republican Obama-haters.

Quote:

Quote:

You may very well be a skitzophrenic for all I know




Why?  I find it insulting…



Why not? Why do I have to give you proof? You find it insulting? I found it the same way. Out of the blue someone drops a “blah blah blah skitzo” for no reason and with no argumentation or documentation. I too was insulted and am glad you have enough empathy to understand that.



Quote:

As for the second half of your post, your arguments are not as logical as you claimed them to b




Actually  my last post was not horrible reasoning as you say. Alot of those scientitist made a lot of their discoveries by being Catholic and some of the discoveries were made while in mass. Maybe you would do so well to look a few of them up and see that a few of them attribute their discovery directly to feverent prayer .

I can’t do all your research for you. :shrug:

More than that you could argue quite clearly that Christianity is the institution that gave us our modern view that the world is order and that it is governed by rules and laws. What I am proving here is that science and education are not mutually exclusive with religion infact it is WITH religion that it has historically flourished!

Now on Galileo, you're once again incorrect.  He was not jailed all for his views on the universe. To explain the whole case would take a book and indeed there are books out there. So let me sum it up. The pope was an admirer of Galileo and sponsored most of the observatories of the day. Galileo added many important ideas to support Copernicanism but many of his proofs were wrong and he infact was not a decisive factor. The whole world was divided between what moves around what. Infact, the greatest and most respected astronomer of the period, Tyco Brahe, supported geocentric theory (which by itself persuaded many astronomer until after he died).

Galileo one day got a visit from the haed of the inquisition, they agreed that Galileo had a good case but that he still had things to figure out. So they agreed that Galileo would not teach his heliocentric theory as fact yet and that would be that.

Fast forward several years, the current pope dies and a new one is elected. The new one , Pope Urban VIII, was a huge fan of Galileo. He had even written a poem for Galileo.

Then Galileo thought “Well this pope is a big fan of mine so what the hell…” He published a book in 1632 “Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems” directly against the ‘advice’ of  not to until he had solid proof. He began lecturing and teaching on wrong grounds. For example he said the tides were caused by the rapid movement of the earth around the sun. He als said the planets moved in circles (even though Kepler by this time had published his rules and they were known. You do know kepler right? He discovered that the planets moved in ellipsies.)
What’s even stupider is that in his book he had a dialogue between two people, one himself and the other was the pope. He named the pope Simplicio (stupid in Italian) and he, Galileo, would make grand statements showing how Simplicio was a moron.

Then Galileo made his final mistake. He ventured far out of his realm of science into scripture. He argued that scripture had to be constantly reinterpreted to stay relevant. He had been warned years past to not do that since this was the age of the Reformation (when all the protestants were angry because Catholics didn’t follow the Bible enough).
So he was taken to court were he flat out lied about having an agreement before to not teach and promote his theory. He got called out on his lie when they found documents, he continued to lie. He then said his book was not in support of heliocentrism.

Galileo was an ass and made an ass of himself. He was never tortured and got to visit his daughters and continue his research at various places.

And this is the only time that the Church has ever condemned a scientific theory.

Enough history lesson for you? The only thing I am proving to you is that science and religion are not engaged in the epic sruggle that you seem to think they are. Believe me, if this were true I would renounce the church today.


Edited by CowFarmer (05/31/09 09:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10434028 - 06/01/09 09:06 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

I was speaking of homosexual acts from the beginning.  The church separates the two (homosexuality and homosexual acts) in an attempt to save face. 

See Merium-Webster's definition:

homosexuality
One entry found.

   
Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty 
Pronunciation: \ˌhô-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tç\
Function: noun
Date: 1892
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

So no, you're wrong, I didn't change my argument.  The church just makes bizzare distinctions.

You're also wrong to say the catholic church doesn't believe that homosexual acts are a sin.  Which is funny considering you berrated me for knowing nothing of catholic dogma.


Edited by pothead_bob (06/01/09 09:09 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10434138 - 06/01/09 10:05 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

No CowFarmer, you're incorrect.  I made one post in reply to your post - not six.  The other posts were replying to others who replied to me.  If you would have replied to me earlier, perhaps there would not have been so many, but what does that matter anyway?  BTW, you're the one that made being hate-filled an issue - I was only pointing out your hypocrisy.

Something tells me your understanding of church hierarchy isn't accurate.  From wiki:

Quote:

While the Church considers Jesus to be its ultimate spiritual head, the spiritual leader and head of the Church organization is the pope.[




So my question to you is, who makes the 'rules' of the church?  Do these bishops getting together and issuing a statement comprise a new rule of the Catholic church that must be followed?

Quote:


Gladly Bob, here you go:
And the Vatican didn't even speak on this issue.  To me, it seems like an argument born out of the minds of strict republican Obama-haters.




Thank you, now compare the two statements and realize that they aren't the same.  Nowhere did I say that obama-racist haters made up the rules that obama couldn't speak at the university.  I said it seemed to me that 'strict republican obama-haters' were the only ones making an argument out of this.

Quote:

Why not? Why do I have to give you proof? You find it insulting? I found it the same way. Out of the blue someone drops a %u201Cblah blah blah skitzo%u201D for no reason and with no argumentation or documentation. I too was insulted and am glad you have enough empathy to understand that.




Because it's a character assasination.  Nowhere did I refer to you or anyone else on here as skitzophrenic.  For me to say that somebody who claimed to talk to God in a burning bush as possibly being prone to auditory and visual hallucinations is not out of the blue.  For you to call me skitzophrenic for not agreeing that the Catholic church should determine policy at universities is something all togetherly different.

Quote:

I can%u2019t do all your research for you.




You're the one who made the claim that Catholicism was responsible for their great discoveries.  Prove it if you believe it.

Your stories of Galileo sound like church propaganda.

Frome wiki:

Quote:

By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre.




Doesn't sound like the church is very pro-science to me.

From wiki:

Quote:

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism.




Read that last part about the Pope telling a scientist what not to advocate.  Now look at your statement:

Quote:

He ventured far out of his realm of science into scripture




So why is it acceptable for the church to reach out of their realm of scripture into science, but a scientist cannot reach out of their realm of science into scripture.  Hypocrisy?

More from Wiki:

Quote:

To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[89] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[90]
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future




So, care to give me some more 'history' lessons?

Quote:

Galileo was an ass and made an ass of himself.




Didn't you say in your last post that Galileo was a great scientist?  Now you're calling him an ass?


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10434412 - 06/01/09 11:50 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

> I was speaking of homosexual acts from the beginning.

No you were not... Quoting your own words:
Quote:

The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexuality because they believe it is a sin.  So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexuality is not, in fact, a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?




By the context of what you wrote, the first definition you provided is the one that applies: "the quality or state of being homosexual".  The second definition you provided does not makes sense in the context of what you wrote.

You were speaking about the "legalities" in the eyes of church for the school to be teaching about the origin of homosexuality, not about homosexual acts.  Nice try.

Even if you were speaking about homosexual acts, why would the church forbid a professor to teach about them?  Murder is sin in the eyes of the Catholic church, so should ND be prohibited from teaching about murder?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10434920 - 06/01/09 01:45 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Take what I said as you want, but homosexuality also includes engaging in sexual acts, which was what I was referring to.  The fact that you choose the churches definition of separating the two sides of homosexuality (homosexual desire vs. homosexual acts) is just that, your choice.  I, on the other hand, consider a homosexual person or a person that engages in homosexuality as one who engages in sex with a person of the same sex, and I thought most other people did, too.  Well, at least the people at Merriam-Webster do, so I could at least say I'm in good company.

But anyways, the church says that homosexuality (engaging in sex) is 'illegal' in their eyes because it is against the natural law.  For a professor to say homosexuality (the act of having homosexual desires or engaging in homosexual acts - it makes no difference) is natural, is going against church teachings.  To teach studens that sex has a purpose besides pro-creation  would be going against church teachings.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10437489 - 06/01/09 10:01 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Bob,
To define ‘rules’ for a Catholic is somewhat tricky.

Catholics are obliged to follow Tradition (capital T) and Scripture (Bible). Tradition is basically just church teachings and what has been done historically (No women as priests, priests cannot marry, Jesus is man and God, etc…).  This is where Catholics are set apart from Protestants and others. Years ago Luther decided Sola Scriptura (Only Scripture).
The Vatican is very important to a Catholic because it is the home to the archbishop of Rome.

The pope is just a bishop but he is very critical because he is command of historically the starting place of the whole church.  We also believe that the pope is God’s spokesperson on earth. That said the pope must follow the Bible as well, he can’t just decide to add or subtract a commandment or two.

So how are rules made? They are made through Tradition and Scripture (and tradition but I’m just trying to give you general idea).



This whole issue as I said is about rules. From what I understand you said it is being blown up because of republican-obama haters/ racist-obama haters whatever. But I’m arguing that that is not it at all. The bishops issued that statement in 2004 and it would be expected that a catholic institution would follow it when it is so clearly set-up just for that situation. There has been a lot of in-fighting with Catholics recently about what to follow and how to follow it, especially with abortion.

Quote:

Because it's a character assasination.  For you to call me skitzophrenic for not agreeing that the Catholic church should determine policy at universities is something all togetherly different.




:crymeariver: :wink: That’s actually not at all why I called you a skitzo. You made a shot in the dark and so did I. Tit for tat. I am not trying to assassinate you or your character, trust me.

About Galileo, what I said is the true story. It’s no more church propaganda than looking at your weather forecast. If you want to talk propaganda then I believe yours would fall beatifully under athiest propaganda. The story of Galileo has been fabricated to make it look like a light side vs. dark side episode. Some people state that Galileo was tortured and placed under strict house arrest for life because of his views. I have proven to you that this is not the case. (Your source actually agrees too, btw.)Refer to my last post to see what really happended after the whole debacle.

If you disagree there are two very good historians who wrote about this, Gary Ferngren and Thomas Lessl. The story of Galileo has evolved like a game of telephone. Everytime someone tells it the story changes a bit. I would much more trust those two guys than Wikipedia, which is generally not a very trustable (or acceptable) source and is very suscetiple to the ‘telephone’ game effect.

Why was Galileo told not to advocate anything? Simple, as I already stated the world was very divided. The most prominent astronomer of that time was an advocate of geocentric. Galileo’s proofs and theory’s had holes in them and were not fully conclusive ( look at my past post for examples). As far as I know, this in no way means he was not allowed to continue researching nor was he being threatened with a ‘ban’. He messed up, that’s that. He advocated his theory as fact, he made fun of the pope, he lied in court and continued lying after documents had been found, he tried to make an idiot of the court by saying that they read his book wrong and he promoted heresy.
This is not the way it happened:

Galileo- "OMG, hey guyz I have a theory I just made up, the earth revolves around the sun! IT'S AWESOME"
Church- "WTF, we're going to put you on the rack until you say that your theory isn't absolutely true and say that you were jking!"
Galileo- "OW, the rack hurts, ok I was jping."
Church- "Good now go to your house and never step outside again!"

He was incredibly smart, yes, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t an ass. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Why was he not allowed to venture into scripture? Well because what he was teaching was heresy and it was a very, very bad time to promote heresy. As I said the Protestants were riding the Catholic’s hard because they said Catholic’s did not follow the Bible enough. He could NOT have picked a worse moment. I mean, it was the REFORMATION. He knew what was going on in the world at the time and more than that he had been REPEATEDLY warned for YEARS. (Let's also remember that he followed his promise for several years then when he thought that the new pope was a joke he broke his promise!)

Infact it is thought that if the incident of Galileo happened a few years before or after the reformation then this whole debacle would have never occurred.

Look buddy, I'm not trying to convert you or anyone here. What I am trying to do is set the record straight. I cannot stand militant atheism no more than I can stand fanaticism. You choose what you want to believe but do it on the correct facts and don't try to make other people look like idiots for their beliefs.

That's not so wrong is it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTHC Titan
Spoonman
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10437595 - 06/01/09 10:20 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

CowFarmer said:Since you have such a deep seated love for evolution I�m sure you know Mendel, the guy who spent his whole entire life as a monk, invented the backbone for evolution. FYI, I made my list short for you to the most prominent ones so you wouldn�t have to spend so much time googling them and trying to prove me wrong.




Mendel's work is the backbone of genetics, not evolution. Natural selection is the backbone of evolution and that was Charles Darwin.

By the way, it's misleading to list all those scientists who were Christians. Virtually everyone used to be Christian. It wasn't until the 19th century that people realized dinosaur fossils belonged to prehistoric animals, not dragons or Biblical creatures. They were ignorant, not by choice, to the revelations of science and modern humanism at that time. If Newton had all the evidence we have today...he might not be a Christian.

Speaking of which, what's the status of creationism and evolution as taught in Catholic schools? I never went to one is why I ask.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: THC Titan]
    #10437722 - 06/01/09 10:41 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

THC Titan said:
Quote:

CowFarmer said:Since you have such a deep seated love for evolution I�m sure you know Mendel, the guy who spent his whole entire life as a monk, invented the backbone for evolution. FYI, I made my list short for you to the most prominent ones so you wouldn�t have to spend so much time googling them and trying to prove me wrong.




Mendel's work is the backbone of genetics, not evolution. Natural selection is the backbone of evolution and that was Charles Darwin.

By the way, it's misleading to list all those scientists who were Christians. Virtually everyone used to be Christian. It wasn't until the 19th century that people realized dinosaur fossils belonged to prehistoric animals, not dragons or Biblical creatures. They were ignorant, not by choice, to the revelations of science and modern humanism at that time. If Newton had all the evidence we have today...he might not be a Christian.

Speaking of which, what's the status of creationism and evolution as taught in Catholic schools? I never went to one is why I ask.





Actually Mendel is thought of as the father of heredity and did important work for genetics (He crossed different strains of pea plants and mice and so on.). http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.php

Evolution is largely atrributed to Darwin but if he didn't know about heredity then he could have never written his book. ( E.g. This pea plant crosses with that one which gives it a better chance of surviving.)

Not everyone used to be a Christian but yea it was wide spread. The reason why I picked those scientists was because not only are they incredibly famous but also were pretty devout. I doubt that Newton would have not been a Christian, he was quite a strong advocate. Infact it could be said he based a lot of his discoveries off of his idea of God. That God created the universe and set well defined laws that could be observed. Either way it's speculation, you can't just say if then he might not have, we'll never know.

Catholic schools teach biology, chemistry, geography and every other science just as any other school (I've never heard differently and I've known of a few). They also teach religion, as a seperate class.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTHC Titan
Spoonman
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10439109 - 06/02/09 02:32 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

CowFarmer said:
Quote:

THC Titan said:
Mendel's work is the backbone of genetics, not evolution. Natural selection is the backbone of evolution and that was Charles Darwin.




Actually Mendel is thought of as the father of heredity and did important work for genetics (He crossed different strains of pea plants and mice and so on.). http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.php




That's what I said.

Quote:

Evolution is largely atrributed to Darwin but if he didn't know about heredity then he could have never written his book. ( E.g. This pea plant crosses with that one which gives it a better chance of surviving.)





Here you are quite wrong. Gregor Mendel: father of genetics. Charles Darwin: father of modern evolutionary theory. Darwin wasn't aware of Mendel's work when he wrote The Origin of Species, and created his own (flawed) hypothesis on heredity. Besides, like I said earlier, Charles Darwin introduced the concept of natural selection which is not dependent on the nitty-gritty details of genetic heredity, but rather, the observable phenotypes. That is why Darwin is clearly the father of evolutionary theory.

Quote:

THC Titan
If Newton had all the evidence we have today...he might not be a Christian.




Quote:

Not everyone used to be a Christian but yea it was wide spread. The reason why I picked those scientists was because not only are they incredibly famous but also were pretty devout. I doubt that Newton would have not been a Christian, he was quite a strong advocate. Infact it could be said he based a lot of his discoveries off of his idea of God. That God created the universe and set well defined laws that could be observed. Either way it's speculation, you can't just say if then he might not have, we'll never know.




I said the same thing as you - he might or might not have been. Nevertheless, he was a product of his time, and people used to use God even more to explain the unknown. His actual theories of what he could empirically test were achievements of science, not theology (although he did write a lot on religion).


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10446349 - 06/03/09 10:08 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Before you talk about militant atheism, you should know I'm not an atheist.  The simple fact that I believe the church is hypocritical and has no place in speaking on behalf of science or determining university policy shouldn't be grounds for saying I'm promoting militant atheism.

Quote:

Catholics are obliged to follow Tradition (capital T) and Scripture (Bible).




This right here is a contradiction in itself considering catholic church tradition goes against scripture in certain instances.  So if catholics could go against scripture, why can ND not put their own spin on the bishops' statements or ignore them completely?  After all, they should be ultimatley following the word of God and not the word of men.

Quote:

There has been a lot of in-fighting with Catholics recently about what to follow and how to follow it, especially with abortion.




So how is this any different?  Some bishops issue a statement and ND has the right to 'interpret' it however they want.  After all, isn't that what the catholic church is all about?  Just interpreting things however it suits their agenda?   

And the pope is not just a bishop.  He's the leader of the catholic church.  His word trumps the word of other bishops.  Had he spoke on this issue, the doctrine of papal infallibility would have made his word binding for the whole church.  Of course, the decree of papal infallibility was made in 1870, while ND was founded in 1842, so I'm not sure I would agree they should have to be bound by papal infallibility either.

Quote:

About Galileo, what I said is the true story.




I think you had too much of the kool-aid. 

You still failed to explain how the church had authority in even saying what Galileo was or was not allowed to theorize about.  Even if his theory did have holes in it (apparently not as many as the church's theory, btw), what authority did the church have to silence him because of his beliefs?  Why did they make him stand trial and make a heretic out of him instead of just scientifically proving him to be wrong in his assertations?  Why was the pope pretending to be a scientist in the first place?  Why did it take the church until 1992 to clear Galileo of wrongdoing?

You know what?  It doesn't even matter.  You've already admitted that the church went against science in a previous post.  That's good enough for me.

Quote:

You choose what you want to believe but do it on the correct facts and don't try to make other people look like idiots for their beliefs.





Do you believe in God?  Do you have correct factual evidence for that belief?  Of course not, so why put stipulations on what I'm allowed to believe?


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Edited by pothead_bob (06/03/09 10:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10448828 - 06/03/09 06:59 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

----Before you talk about militant atheism, you should know I'm not an atheist.  The simple fact that I believe the church is hypocritical and has no place in speaking on behalf of science or determining university policy shouldn't be grounds for saying I'm promoting militant atheism.

Fair enough,I'll admit I assumed. Still doesn't change anything though.

-----Catholics are obliged to follow Tradition (capital T) and Scripture (Bible).



This right here is a contradiction in itself considering catholic church tradition goes against scripture in certain instances.


Nope.


Quote:


So if catholics could go against scripture, why can ND not put their own spin on the bishops' statements or ignore them completely?



Nope. Not the way it works.
Quote:


After all, they should be ultimately following the word of God and not the word of men.




Nope. Skewed history, skewed facts, skewed analysis. Catholics are Tradition and Bible, I've said it once, now I'm saying it twice.
Quote:



Quote:

There has been a lot of in-fighting with Catholics recently about what to follow and how to follow it, especially with abortion.




So how is this any different?  Some bishops issue a statement and ND has the right to 'interpret'



Nope. Incorrect reasoning, incorrect foundation, incorrect conclusion.
Quote:

  it however they want.  After all, isn't that what the catholic church is all about? 




Nope. Not even close.
Quote:

Just interpreting things however it suits their agenda?




Nope. Not even close.
Quote:

 

And the pope is not just a bishop.


Quote:

  He's the leader of the catholic church.


Yes, spirtual leader. Stated above in a previous post.
Quote:

  His word trumps the word of other bishops.


Over-generalization, and not always.


Quote:

  Had he spoke on this issue, the doctrine of papal infallibility would have made his word binding for the whole church. Of course, the decree of papal infallibility was made in 1870, while ND was founded in 1842, so I'm not sure I would agree they should have to be bound by papal infallibility either.




Nope. Wrong again. No where close to correct. Incorrect reasoning, incorrect foundation, incorrect conclusion. Nope. Not really a choice. More than that, once again you speak on things for which you don't understand

I'm going to post this source right here, for fun.
lol, source?
Quote:





I think you had too much of the kool-aid.




Oh no, character assassination :crying: .
Quote:

You still failed to explain how the church had authority in even saying what Galileo was or was not allowed to theorize about.


Nope. I explained it. Read my posts, bob.
Quote:

  Even if his theory did have holes in it (apparently not as many as the church's theory, btw)


Nope. Church's theory on what? Which one? When? What does it matter? Galileo wasn't brought to court for his theory nor because of how many holes... Don't worry about it though....

Jesuits were one of the largest groups of leading astronomers. Brahe was pro geo... I've said all this before.


--------what authority did the church have to silence him because of his beliefs?


Read my past posts, he commited several errors. You can go to Washington D.C. and go ahead light up a crack pipe in front of Capital Hill and pull out a gun and shout on your megafone "ITS MY RIGHT, BITCHES IN CAP HILL CANT SILENCE ME!" Don't complain when you get shot. Terrible argument, everything depends on political climate. It used to be okay to grow hemp, kill horse stealers, put babies on stakes, now it's not.


-------Why did they make him stand trial and make a heretic out of him instead of just scientifically proving him to be wrong in his assertations?


Again, read my posts, bob. Kinda funny how to alotmost? of these statements made by you were answered, before.

----Why was the pope pretending to be a scientist in the first place?

Nope. When did I state that? Who stated that? Where? Source?lolofcnotdawg


-----Why did it take the church until 1992 to clear Galileo of wrongdoing?
Nope. No wrong doing, at least my mind. That though would be a political matter, your politics most likely differ from mine. I also don't believe in reparations. The last pope was a peace maker, he thought it was the smart thing to do. I don't think it should have happened. :shrug: politcs brah.

------------You know what?  It doesn't even matter.  You've already admitted that the church went against science in a previous post.  That's good enough for me.


Yep, I've admitted the Church went against science.... Nice job just breezing through EVERY OTHER point I made. There has to be at least a dozen unrefuted points I made proving that without Christianity western scientific knowledge would have been held back several centuries, maybe millenia.

Bob, I'm glad that's good enough for you. Guess what, with this post, it's good enough for me too.

--- Do you have correct factual evidence for that belief? 

For what belief, bob? For my personal religious beliefs? Of course I do, but is this the place for that question or an answer?

----Of course not, so why put stipulations on what I'm allowed to believe?----

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You don't have a right to spew libel or slander. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Stipulations and rules are bundled together with society. Get over it.

However, I never put a single stipulation on what you can believe, I merely ask that you don't spew BS.


Edited by CowFarmer (06/03/09 07:33 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10449408 - 06/03/09 08:48 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Take what I said as you want, but homosexuality also includes engaging in sexual acts, which was what I was referring to.  The fact that you choose the churches definition of separating the two sides of homosexuality (homosexual desire vs. homosexual acts) is just that, your choice.  I, on the other hand, consider a homosexual person or a person that engages in homosexuality as one who engages in sex with a person of the same sex, and I thought most other people did, too.  Well, at least the people at Merriam-Webster do, so I could at least say I'm in good company.




One can be a homosexual without engaging in homosexual acts.  This isn't rocket science.  Even the dictionary, which you quoted, gives distinction between the two.  Based upon the context of your statement, which I quoted in a previous post, you were clearly speaking of homosexuality as a state of being, rather than homosexual acts.  You can try to weasel out all you like, but your original statement doesn't make sense if you pretend that you were talking about homosexual acts rather than homosexuality as a state of being. 

To illustrate, I will change your wording to be very un-"clear":
Quote:

The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexual acts because they believe they are sin.  So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexual acts are not, in fact, a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?




Uh, what?  People are born doing homosexual acts?  See, doesn't make sense.  You are clearly speaking about being born as a homosexual being, which is not a sin in the eyes of the church.  It is the homosexual acts that the the church has a problem with. For example, being a murder is not sin, but performing murder is.

Man up and admit you lost this round.

Quote:

But anyways, the church says that homosexuality (engaging in sex) is 'illegal' in their eyes because it is against the natural law.  For a professor to say homosexuality (the act of having homosexual desires or engaging in homosexual acts - it makes no difference) is natural, is going against church teachings.  To teach studens (sic) that sex has a purpose besides pro-creation would be going against church teachings.




And here you go again, changing the meaning of what you original said.  I'll quote you, again, so that we can keep you honest:

Quote:

So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexuality is not, in fact, a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?




How did you get from your original premise that a psych professor cannot teach about the origin of homosexuality (i.e. "people are born that way") to your new premise that "homosexual acts are natural and have a purpose"?  I clearly showed, by quoting Catholic law, that it is fine for a professor to teach about the origins of homosexuality (state of being, not the act of homosexual sex) being unclear.

I fail to see why you keep pretending that you said something other than what you said.  The record is clear.  The context is clear.  You were wrong.  Admit it, or drop it, and move on, but quite insinuating that I am misrepresenting what you said.  What you said may not be what you meant, but that isn't my problem.  It is what you wrote, and it is what I debated against.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10452435 - 06/04/09 09:35 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Even the dictionary, which you quoted, gives distinction between the two.




Yep, and it also shows that the word encompasses both meanings.

Quote:

The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexual acts because they believe they are sin.




Makes perfect sense to me. 

Quote:

So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexualtiy (being homosexual and engaing in sex with others of the same sex) is, in fact, not a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?





Both meanings inserted makes perfect sense.  If you only leave being homosexual in there, it's stil fine because I think of a homosexual person as one who engages in sex with others of the same sex.  You can't dismiss my argument on grounds of me not thinking of a homosexual as somebody who only thinks of having sex with others of the same sex but not actually doing it.

Quote:

For example, being a murder is not sin, but performing murder is.




Good analogy.

Quote:

origin of homosexuality (i.e. "people are born that way")




How are those two the same thing?  People being born as homosexuals constitutes the origin of homosexuality?  I think the origin of homosexuality would more aptly be discussed in the context of genetics (i.e. the mutation that causes people to be homosexual in the first place).  People being 'born that way' is much closer in meaning to it being natural.  If people are born that way (i.e. without the intervention of mankind) then that means, in my mind and I'm sure many others, that it is a natural thing.  So for a professor to say that people who are homosexuals are born that way is the same thing as saying homosexuality is natural.  No contradiction there and no change in argument as you suggest.

But go ahead and put effort into misinterpreting what I say.  It wasn't unreasonable to think that being homosexual encompasses engaging in sex with others of the same sex and it wasn't unreasonable for me to equate "being born that way" with something being "natural".


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Edited by pothead_bob (06/04/09 01:48 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10452681 - 06/04/09 11:01 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Gee CowFarmer, so many good, well-thought, logical points, where do I start in my rebuttal?  :rofl:

Just kidding.  How about at the beginning:

Quote:

Still doesn't change anything though.




That you think my arguments are militant atheist?  Because I don't agree with the catholic church?  Haha, whatever.  The militant atheist movement is a drop in the pond compared to the militant religious movement that has been going on for millenia.

Quote:

This right here is a contradiction in itself considering catholic church tradition goes against scripture in certain instances.

Nope.




"Anyone who rejects Me and persistently sets Me at naught, refusing to accept My teachings, has his judge however: for the very message that I have spoken will itself judge and convict him at the last day." [John 12:48]

Now remember those words of Jesus because they directly warn mankind to follow him and him alone. 

"Jesus is the Rock and Peter is "a stone". 1Cor.10:4 and Jn.1:42

Catechism 552: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the "living Stone",285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

Wait... Peter is the unshakeable rock and Jesus is the stone?  Looks like the church was trying to grab more power and control than they should have.

Flee riches. 1Tim.6:11 

And yet Roman Catholicism is the wealthiest religion in the world.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me,teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mk.7:7)

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col.2:8) Mk.7 Mt.15


You pointed out yourself that the catholic church demands scripture AND tradition be followed with equal authority.  But here's catechism 82 anyway:

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

1
1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions
2
through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.
3
They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving,
5
for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.


That was 1 Timothy 1-5.  Everything created by God is good?  Nothing to be rejected?  And yet, priests can't marry and the church doesn't consider everything made by God good (premarital sex, homosexuality).  Abstinence from foods?  The catholic church orders abstinence from eating meat on Fridays during lent (as if fish weren't a meat).

Call no man your Father. (Matt.23:9)

Priests are called father.

Do good to enemies. (Lk.9:52) Rom.11

Do I need to point out the obvious contradictions to this?

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1Tim.2:5)

But the church will be happy to become a middle man against the authority of God.

Mary had other children. (Ps.69:8, Matt.13:55-56)

Catechism 499: The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

Look, I proved my point.  The church is hypocritical.  Feel free to try and prove me wrong otherwise with something besides a "nope, noway, incorrect, incorrect basis".

Quote:

After all, they should be ultimately following the word of God and not the word of men.

Nope. Skewed history, skewed facts, skewed analysis. Catholics are Tradition and Bible, I've said it once, now I'm saying it twice




Actually, that is the way it works.  See 1Tim.2:5 if you don't believe me.

Quote:

it however they want.  After all, isn't that what the catholic church is all about? 

Nope. Not even close.




A lot closer than you give it credit.  See the above argument for proof of that.

Quote:

Over-generalization, and not always.




Prove it.

Quote:

I'm going to post this source right here, for fun.
lol, source?




Okay... from your source:

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17%u201319; John 21:15%u201317).

More proof that the pope is not just another bishop. Explicitly states pope is infallible in a special way.  What special ways?  Here are the teachings of the First Vatican Council:

Quote:

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority%u2026.")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)





Cannot get any more clear than that.  The Pope... is Infallible... when he defines that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the whole church.  Had the pope said that the bishops' document concerning not honoring people not in line with catholic morales should be upheld by the whole church, then that decision would be considered infallible.  Just what are you trying to argue against anyway?

Quote:

Nope. Church's theory on what?




That the earth was the center of the universe.  They must have believed that if they were refuting Galileo's theory.  And so you know, the church (more specifically the pope) had NO authority in telling Galileo what he could and couldn't theorize about.  You DID NOT prove me otherwise.  The Jesuits were astronomers?  Who cares?  that doesn't explain Galileo being tried for Heresy.  He should have just had his theories dismissed by the astronomers.  Do you also rationalize away the recent murder of George Tiller?

Quote:

You can go to Washington D.C. and go ahead light up a crack pipe in front of Capital Hill




You're just being ridiculous now.  This, in no way, shape, or form is a valid analogy to Galileo claiming the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Quote:

Nice job just breezing through EVERY OTHER point I made.




Most all points you made were malarchy.

Quote:

For what belief, bob? For my personal religious beliefs? Of course I do, but is this the place for that question or an answer?





Really?  You have factual evidence that God exists?  Then go write a paper which will settle the debate once and for all


Quote:

However, I never put a single stipulation on what you can believe, I merely ask that you don't spew BS




Really?  No stipulations?

Quote:


You choose what you want to believe but do it on the correct facts




If you're going to respond to me, all I ask is that you do so with logical arguments and not simple, second-grader-esque 'nope's and 'incorrect's.  After all, you're the one who righteously mentioned that debate should be a tool for expanding knowledge.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10456222 - 06/04/09 09:39 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

>  it's stil fine because I think of a homosexual person as one who engages in sex with others of the same sex.

It doesn't matter what you think.  We are debating about the church, and the church has clearly delineated a difference between being homosexual and performing homosexual acts.

> You can't dismiss my argument on grounds of me not thinking of a homosexual as somebody who only thinks of having sex with others of the same sex but not actually doing it.

Yes I can, and I have.  Again, it doesn't matter what you think when we are discussing how the church views the issue.  You tried to use the church's viewpoint to support your argument; therefore, it is a fallacy to substitute your own (differing) viewpoint at a later time in place of the original premise you made with respect to the church.  You have tried to do a slight of hand, and I continue to call you out on it, and you continue to pretend that you have done no such thing.

Quote:

How are those two the same thing?  People being born as homosexuals constitutes the origin of homosexuality?  I think the origin of homosexuality would more aptly be discussed in the context of genetics (i.e. the mutation that causes people to be homosexual in the first place).  People being 'born that way' is much closer in meaning to it being natural.  If people are born that way (i.e. without the intervention of mankind) then that means, in my mind and I'm sure many others, that it is a natural thing.  So for a professor to say that people who are homosexuals are born that way is the same thing as saying homosexuality is natural.  No contradiction there and no change in argument as you suggest.




I have no idea what you are blathering about here.  Nobody knows for certain what causes people to become homosexual.  It could be genetics (i.e. you are born that way) or it could be nurturing (i.e. you learned to be that way).  Regardless, the church has said that the 'origins of homosexuality are unclear' which means that (in the eyes of the church) we don't know what causes it.  Again, "not natural" in the eyes of the church relates to the act of homosexual sex, not to the being a homosexual.  Something your mind cannot separate, but which the church clearly views as two different things.  Perhaps you should look up equivocation.

Just because somebody is born in a certain way does not make it natural.  If a person is born without arms or legs because of some random genetic mutation, is that natural?  No, it is not, as long as you use the proper definition of the word "natural" within this context.  Knowing you, that is asking a little too much.

Quote:

It wasn't unreasonable to think that being homosexual encompasses engaging in sex with others of the same sex and it wasn't unreasonable for me to equate "being born that way" with something being "natural".




Ah, I believe we have finally identified the problem: because you were arguing in context of the church's beliefs, it doesn't matter what you find reasonable, all that mattes is how the church views the issues.  You cannot substitute your beliefs in place of the church's beliefs to argue about ND and its teaching ethics with respect to the church's beliefs (which you conveniently changed to your own beliefs).


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10458892 - 06/05/09 11:18 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Again, it doesn't matter what you think when we are discussing how the church views the issue.




But it's not just me thinking that.  It's so widely believed that a homosexual is someone who has sex with others of the same sex, that homosexuality and egaging in homosexual acts are interchangeable that it's in the dictionary.  I could understand where you are coming from if I just made up the fact that homosexuality means that, but I didn't.  If I said the church believes butter is a sin, and then argue that I thought butter meant engaging in homosexual acts, then I could see where you are coming from because I would probably be the only person in the world who would hold that definition.  But that isn't even close to the case.

Quote:

I have no idea what you are blathering about here. 




Well then maybe you should read your last post because you are the one who tried to accuse me of changing my argument from a professor teaching of the 'origin of homosexuality' (which I never said) to what is 'natural'.  I'm 'blathering' about not changing my argument - proving your accusation wrong.  In response to your analogy, you have a skewed definition of 'natural', which is once again funny considering how you arrogently claim that my definitions of words are incorrect.  If a person is born without legs and arms, that is natural unless that defect was brought on by human intervention.  That is what natural means - no human intervention.  If homosexuality was a chosen lifestyle, that would mean that intervention of man was required (i.e. making the decision to be homosexual).  Now, it may not be normal to be born without legs/arms, but it would most certainly be natural.  Do you understand the difference?  So, once again, there was no disagreement between what I said in those two different posts - no change in argument. 

Quote:

Ah, I believe we have finally identified the problem: because you were arguing in context of the church's beliefs, it doesn't matter what you find reasonable, all that mattes [sic] is how the church views the issues.




Arguing in context?  I'm not sure what you mean, but simply put, I was pointing out a fact.  The church believes homosexual acts are sin, as you say and the catholics will agree.  Homosexuality clearly includes the acts of sex between members of the same sex - a fact I've been trying to point out to you this entire time.  I said the church finds homosexuality a sin.  There was no conflict in what I said as hard as you may try to fabricate it.  What do you actually believe I was talking about when I said 'lifestyle' and 'homosexuality'?  Having homosexual desire, but no sex?  Please.

What you've been doing is completely derailing the topic of this thread over semantics, continuously arguing about what I meant by the word homosexuality, all to prove that I know nothing of church dogma (which was funny, considering you first argued homosexual sex was not a sin, which is not right), when I've clearly proven that I know more than you give me credit for during the conversation of this thread.  Will you not conceed to the fact that, even if remotely in your mind, that it is possible that saying homosexuality means being a homosexual which means engaging in sex with others of the same sex?  I will admit that (although highly unlikely) it's possible to be homosexual without actually having homosexual sex.  But that proves nothing because it doesn't change the meaning of what I said in the first post.  Now, to prevent generating this controversy, I should have said, for a professor to teach that the homosexual lifestyle (having not just homosexual desire but also homosexual sex) is not a chosen lifestyle, but people are just born that way.  But I didn't say that and I think it's unreasonable to require that for my analogy to be valid so long as it was implied.  It's not unreasonble to believe a homosexual lifestyle includes homosexual sex.  It doesn't change the fact that when I said 'homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle', I was implying a lifestyle of homosexual sex and not just a lifestyle of homosexual desire.  Is that really so impossible for you to believe?  Believe me, I was aware of the church's stance of 'accepting homosexuals who deny the naturalness of their "condition"', but condeming homosexuals who fulfill their desire with sexual acts.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains   North Spore Bulk Substrate, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The first black president...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Le_Canard 4,956 69 01/30/07 01:48 PM
by Syle
* Obama Warns Pakistan on Terrorism elbisivni 829 5 08/01/07 07:52 PM
by Penguarky Tunguin
* Obama offers universal health care plan lonestar2004 1,337 18 05/30/07 12:20 PM
by lonestar2004
* Obama launches 2008 White House bid zorbman 2,267 16 01/17/07 08:14 PM
by zappaisgod
* Free speech falls prey to 'human rights'
( 1 2 all )
wingnutx 2,492 35 08/19/03 09:18 AM
by shakta
* Young Republican National Federation president allegedly puts sleeping mans penis in his mouth.
( 1 2 3 all )
TheHateCamel 7,167 40 09/21/07 02:08 AM
by LucidDream
* Recent Gore speech
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Edame 3,694 66 08/11/03 11:18 PM
by pattern
* Opinions on Chavez speech at the General Assembly?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
TheHateCamel 5,059 70 09/29/06 12:39 AM
by Economist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,713 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.063 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.