Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ming]

Gee... 65 vs 65.6 for SS and 65 vs 75 for Medicaid.
I don't see the g-normous difference.

What I'm seeing is three huge voting blocks.
So are you're really trying to say that 65 million voters don't matter?

Again, you are ignoring the total dollars being spent on each and the ability to save money. Going after the 3% makes no sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

So are you're really trying to say that 65 million voters don't matter?

No, just that when the choice is between direct support and funds for schools, that people will choose the direct support over funds for schools. If you're having trouble putting food on the table, is education going to be your first priority? No.

[Ming]

No, just that when the choice is between direct support and funds for schools, that people will choose the direct support over funds for schools. If you're having trouble putting food on the table, is education going to be your first priority? No.

You keep wanting to make this an either/or. It's not.
The voters will want it all, and say **** the military or some other program.

65 million voters is a huge voting block. Again, the party that tries to eliminate public schools will be the minority in no time at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

The voters will want it all, and say **** the military or some other program.

Well, given higher debt levels now than have been seen since 1947, that's not going to happen. Something will have to give.

We have about 3-4 years to fix this.

[Ming]

Cutting the 3% isn't going to fix anything.

The only real fix is major cuts across the board and higher taxes/increased revenue.

And yes, the voters will still want it all anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only real fix is major cuts across the board and higher taxes/increased revenue.

And yes, the voters will still want it all anyway.

Cuts at this point are pretty much inevitable.

In 1988, debt to the treasury was 214 billion. In 2011 it hit the all time high of 454 billion. That's about 30 percent of revenue.

So, if you're earning 50k, that would be the equivalent of paying about 15k in interest payments, alone. That's a hard ratio.

[Proteus_MST]

Cuts at this point are pretty much inevitable.

In 1988, debt to the treasury was 214 billion. In 2011 it hit the all time high of 454 billion. That's about 30 percent of revenue.

So, if you're earning 50k, that would be the equivalent of paying about 15k in interest payments, alone. That's a hard ratio.

But, as Ming said ... why cut something that takes just 3% of the budget, if there are 97% of other expoenses in the budget

[kentonio]

How is it suicide? He was arrested by the civil authorities for preaching what they perceived to be sermons against the powers that be, he was tortured by those selfsame authorities without a trial. He was then imprisoned and then executed in less than a week after his arrest, in a brutal fashion being left on a cross to die.

How was it not suicide? He supposedly knew exactly what the outcome of his actions would be, but chose to do it anyway despite there not actually being any real point. He could have used his godly stealth powers to just leave for instance, but instead deliberately chose a path of death to leave a message to future generations. When people make the police shoot them, they call it suicide by cop. This was nothing more than suicide by Roman.

Your words, not mine. LOL

Yes my words. You tried to say that America being dominated by Christians was the reason it was the richest most powerful country on the planet. Except that doesn't seem to apply to many other christian dominated countries, showing that once again you're cherry picking.

The fact that we easily dominate standardized testing suggests otherwise.

The East Germans had an amazing athletics record too, what's your point?

Stripping accreditation from independent Catholic schools because they are Catholic and use different curricula is the step from 'liberal' to 'zealot'. I have no issues with making us do standardized tests every year. But if we pass, then the state has no say as to what we are teaching.

Bull****, the state has EVERY say in what you're teaching as long as you're accepting public money. They should have every say even if you're not, because children are protected by the state, and should not be some pawns who can have their futures ruined because of the fantasies of disturbed adults.

We reject the presupposition that education and religion should be kept separate.

Of course you do, because you're a vile bigot who thinks his own little fairy tales are so important they give you the right to force children onto the same path. You said above that you had a secular education, yet as we know you're now a religious fundamentalist. Why exactly do you think its ok that you got that opportunity to choose, yet you're desperate to remove that choice from todays children?

If parents are supposed to protect their children part of that includes responsibility for their education.

Parents shouldn't get to choose how their children are educated. Children are not property, or clones of their parents, they are tomorrows adults and citizens, and if you believe in the most basic ideals of America that all men are created equal, then you should also believe that all people have the right to the same opportunities and choices. Otherwise you're just a fascist.

[kentonio]

Finally, if I am working at a hot stove and you come up to me and I warn you not to touch the stove and you do anyway, am I at fault or you?

"I didn't want to have to beat you honey, but you know I get angry when my dinner isn't ready when I get home, so why was it 5 minutes late?"

(Finally, that is Moses interpretation of what God told him. The only things that are from God to man that wasn't through the interpretation of a man is the words of Christ and the 10 commandments. And of course, as hearers we interpret them still.)

This is always a favourite. "Ah the bible that was life or death to millions of people over the millenia isn't actually god speaking, its just peoples interpretation of what god was thinking/doing". So basically it could all be complete bull****. Good work.

[kentonio]

Apparently nobody received an education prior to the end of the 19th century.

It's kind of amusing that you want to turn the clock back to the 19th century, given that back then a deaf kid would have been treated basically as a ******, and perhaps if the people were particularly kind have been trusted with sweeping up animal **** or some other work no-one else wanted to do. You certainly wouldn't have seen the inside of a school at any point (although I'm not sure we would really be able to tell the difference).

[Jon Miller]

"I didn't want to have to beat you honey, but you know I get angry when my dinner isn't ready when I get home, so why was it 5 minutes late?"

You don't make sense here. You are taking a consequence (a hot stove burns) and saynig that it is a choice (getting angry).

This is always a favourite. "Ah the bible that was life or death to millions of people over the millenia isn't actually god speaking, its just peoples interpretation of what god was thinking/doing". So basically it could all be complete bull****. Good work.

It isn't all complete bull****. And that is precisely what people thought it was over millenia including NT writers about the OT. The people who think that God actually dictated each word have the wrong religion (that religion is Islam with the Quran) or are ignorant people of today.

In Christianity there are three sources of truth: the Bible, Tradition and Revelation. All three are used to varying extants (although some groups like the Catholics tend to emphasize Tradition and minimize Revelation). The latter two are sometimes called the Church and the Spirit.

It is also the common view of other religions toward their holy books.

JM

[kentonio]

You don't make sense here. You are taking a consequence (a hot stove burns) and saynig that it is a choice (getting angry).

It makes perfect sense unless you're blinkered by your religion. This isn't a natural event that would happen anyway (the stove is going to be hot regardless of whether you touch it), this is an angry reaction by a bad tempered god (look in this box and I will kill you). Why aren't you considering the proportionality of gods response, rather than victim blaming?

It isn't all complete bull****. And that is precisely what people thought it was over millenia including NT writers about the OT. The people who think that God actually dictated each word have the wrong religion (that religion is Islam with the Quran) or are ignorant people of today.

You're just trying to have your cake and eat it. Either its the intent of god or it isn't (and if it isn't, why the hell did he let people write it in a book under his name that has lasted for thousands of years). People did something and then died en mass. Either you're saying that sometimes people just die in horrific events and thats not gods intent (in which case he's not all powerful) or else he meant it to happen.

In Christianity there are three sources of truth: the Bible, Tradition and Revelation. All three are used to varying extants (although some groups like the Catholics tend to emphasize Tradition and minimize Revelation). The latter two are sometimes called the Church and the Spirit.

It is also the common view of other religions toward their holy books.

Yes, I'm well aware many religions come up with illogical and frankly bizarre explanations to cover up for the gaping cracks in their ideologies. You could make it a lot simpler by simply saying 'this is what is written in the bible, and these things are stuff that men made up later'. For athiests we'd still think it was all made up by men of course, but at least you'd have some consistency. Relying on tradition for instance is totally ridiculous, and saying you should just follow a teaching not because it came from god but because it was a habit picked up over the centuries.

[Jon Miller]

It makes perfect sense unless you're blinkered by your religion. This isn't a natural event that would happen anyway (the stove is going to be hot regardless of whether you touch it), this is an angry reaction by a bad tempered god (look in this box and I will kill you). Why aren't you considering the proportionality of gods response, rather than victim blaming?

Not true, in many other cases the Bible also says that it is a natural result of God being so Holy/etc that we can't survive it (And others). This is a consistent theme, including in apocalypses and visions and all stories.

Your invented interpretation that goes against almost 3000 years of interpretation is 'reading it wrong'. There is no consistent story, other than some paranoid conspiracy theory, for your interpretation to be correct and all of the other interpretations to be incorrect.

JM

[Jon Miller]

You're just trying to have your cake and eat it. Either its the intent of god or it isn't (and if it isn't, why the hell did he let people write it in a book under his name that has lasted for thousands of years). People did something and then died en mass. Either you're saying that sometimes people just die in horrific events and thats not gods intent (in which case he's not all powerful) or else he meant it to happen.

He didn't write it in His name.

And He knows that humans have terribly misused even the best words and messages from Him (how many people kill in the name of Jesus or curse people in the name of Jesus?). Imagine if there was some set of instructions. For one, it would have to be a extraordinarily long (I think that narrative and story can describe truths that would take incredibly long description, just look at what has come out of one of our novels (Hamlet, War and Peace, etc). I understand that Randians disagree, but they seem to be obviously limited). Additionally, people could still misuse it because people are people and their interpretations are based on their own limitations and choices. Once more, see all of those who kill or curse in the name of Jesus. Finally, words change meaning and connotation over time. Look at the change in gay, this is also an important reason people should use modern translations and not KJV unless they have studied the meanings of words in context in the KJV.

So no, stories and narrative are better. As I said earlier, even Christ used those, he didn't teach by giving a huge list of commands/instructions/rules.

The only way that God could give us (human-)interpretation free laws is to beam them right into our heard with no choice in the matter. Then we are effectively robots and not conscious beings.

Also, your posts consistently demonstrate that you have a feeble comprehension of not just Christianity but Religion in general. I recommend that you actually study some some time. Maybe start with Hinduism (real Hinduism and not some Humanist interpretation there of) or Shintoism instead of Christianity since you are obviously biased there.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Yes, I'm well aware many religions come up with illogical and frankly bizarre explanations to cover up for the gaping cracks in their ideologies. You could make it a lot simpler by simply saying 'this is what is written in the bible, and these things are stuff that men made up later'. For athiests we'd still think it was all made up by men of course, but at least you'd have some consistency. Relying on tradition for instance is totally ridiculous, and saying you should just follow a teaching not because it came from god but because it was a habit picked up over the centuries.

There are traditions that just creep in, see Christmas.

But there are also traditions, or the Church, which provide the required context to understand what the people were saying. We can't go back in time and watch Jesus or see people's response to Him. So we have to go back to His disciples, and their disciples and so on and look. What did they understand from their interactions with Christ? This understanding is then passed down through the Church (or as tradition). It was already happening before 70 AD as Christ had died in approximately 33AD. Paul repeatedly said in the letters "this is how we interpret Christ, who He was, His actions and what He said". There were other interpretations, but they are not (Paulian) Christianity.

Once more, this is common for all religions (or even books of philosophy or stories or history). I really think you need to study some, even if you are certain in your atheism. It might be that you should just study some philosophy or history and not even start with non-Western religions.

JM
(There has been a recent interest in non-Paulian Christianity. And there were non-Paulians ini the first couple of centuries AD. But it is Paulian Christianity that has come to mean Christianity over the last 2 millennia.)