Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - More Than Mortal

Pages: 1 ... 402403404 405406 ... 502
12091
Serious / Re: 7 Family Issues Pope Francis Should - But Won't - Discuss
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:16:31 PM »
They're not staying celibate so obviously they don't have self control.
Exactly. The systematic suppression of natural urges and human emotion will never result in anything good.

12092
The Flood / >when your Ebola test comes back negative
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:15:00 PM »
YouTube

>tfw

12093
Serious / Re: 7 Family Issues Pope Francis Should - But Won't - Discuss
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:11:43 PM »
The ones that have stayed celibate are still doing fine.
I don't think that's a fair trade off for the institutionalised rape of children.

12094
Serious / Re: 7 Family Issues Pope Francis Should - But Won't - Discuss
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:10:24 PM »
I don't see how changing its stance on masturbation matters at all
Not demonising the urges of distressed Catholic teens seems like a bonus.

The third point, however, is the most important.

12095
Serious / Re: 7 Family Issues Pope Francis Should - But Won't - Discuss
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:03:28 PM »
that would be considered lust.
>implying lust is bad

12096
Serious / Re: 7 Family Issues Pope Francis Should - But Won't - Discuss
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:03:03 PM »
The point of celibacy is to show the person has self control.
Yeah, look how fuc­king fantastically that turned out.

12097
Serious / 7 Family Issues Pope Francis Should - But Won't - Discuss
« on: October 12, 2014, 12:52:16 PM »
A good article.

Quote
1. The Church should stop treating women as second-class people, and not just in family issues. Women should have the same rights and privileges as men in the Church. We can only dream that one day there will be a Pope Frances. At this point, women cannot even be priests.

2. It’s time to end the Church’s celibacy requirement for priests and nuns. While promoting natural law, the Church fails to acknowledge how unnatural celibacy is. Here’s a novel idea: Shouldn’t priests be viewed as role models with families, rather than as unquestionable messengers who act as necessary intermediaries to God?

3. The Church should give high priority to eliminating family poverty caused by having too many children. Provide evidence-based sex education for young people, especially since abstinence-only programs have such a high failure rate. Permit abortion under some circumstances and encourage contraception. Pregnant teenagers are not ready to start families of two and are likely to drop out of school. Education for women is a primary method of reducing poverty.

4. The Church should recognize that masturbation is not a sin. It is natural and healthy safe sex, giving harmless pleasure to individuals without leading to unwanted pregnancies or venereal disease.

5. Regarding gays, Pope Francis, move away from “Love the sinner, but hate the sin.” If two responsible and mature people love each other, are in a committed relationship, and would like to marry, you should be willing to bless such a union. And please stop telling people that the purpose of marriage is to have children, since you sometimes perform marriages for heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children.

6. Please recognize that it is degrading to have celibate male priests passing themselves off as experts on sexual advice for women, men, and children. Male leaders in the Catholic Church are obsessed with sex. Morality should not be viewed through the narrow prism of sexual conduct. Ethical and moral behavior is about treating everyone with respect. If there is any issue that is none of the Church’s business, it is the private sexual acts of consenting adults. Church leaders claim to be humble, but their treatment of women and people who don’t share their antiquated beliefs is the height of arrogance.

7. Don’t expect those outside the Catholic faith to behave like those in the faith. Stay out of politics and don’t prevent others from following the dictates of their conscience.

All valid except for the first, really.

12098
The Flood / ignore
« on: October 12, 2014, 12:47:52 PM »
whoops

12099
The Flood / Re: More proof challenger and kinder are secretly dating
« on: October 12, 2014, 11:50:55 AM »
Please.

12100
The Flood / Re: ITT: you bash me
« on: October 12, 2014, 11:40:12 AM »
oi i bet ur an illiterate chav
1v1 me

12101
Perhaps she might convince you, or alternatively you know every side of her argument, and you can use it against her, but no, be the stupid brat that you are.
I like how you're assuming I didn't ask her all of that. When I post a verbatim transcript of the argument, then you can tell me what I did or didn't say.

Regardless, it turns out there isn't much you can say to a person who thinks emotions trump rights and then sits back saying "I've made up my mind and nothing will change it".

12103
The Flood / Re: ITT: you bash me
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:20:39 AM »
My feelings are hurt.

BAN THEM ALL.

12104
Serious / Re: What do you think about animal testing?
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:18:13 AM »
Completely for it when it comes to medicine/science.

I'm only not against it for things like cosmetics on the grounds that the animal isn't harmed.

12105
The Flood / Re: ITT: you bash me
« on: October 11, 2014, 06:30:50 PM »

12106
The Flood / Re: ITT: you bash me
« on: October 11, 2014, 06:30:14 PM »
you used to be cool capitalist guy but lately you've turned into a dirty socialist pig.
uw0t

I'm still a capitalist. It's just as soon as you realise that technology will eventually make human labour obsolete, you can't possibly defend the notion of private property anymore.

It's a case of abolishing the proletariat, not giving it political power.

12107
The Flood / Re: ITT: you bash me
« on: October 11, 2014, 06:22:52 PM »
do you value justice?
as in, if a person is nice, you are nice back
and if bad, youre bad back

subjective terms, yes, but you get the idea
Of course I value justice.

I also value being the judge.

12108
Serious / Re: What is the general consensus on gay marriage here?
« on: October 11, 2014, 06:22:04 PM »
There is no such thing as an unbiased study. get over it libtards.
Of course not.

Biases are a result of values, which necessarily precede facts. It's just fortunate for science that it promotes the values which most closely track reality.

A bias toward following the evidence is nowhere near as intolerable as a bias for finding evidence to support your assertions in a dogmatic way.

12109
The Flood / ITT: you bash me
« on: October 11, 2014, 06:15:53 PM »
I figure myself to be more divisive than CIS Scum, so I feel more deserving of a thread like this.

12110
Serious / Re: What is the general consensus on gay marriage here?
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:58:36 PM »
I can't stay to argue because my wife should be back from her errand soon and I promised to watch a movie with her, but this is one of the studies I'm referring to.
The fact that the author is explicitly pro-family-values and religious casts doubt on its validity.

12111
Serious / Re: What is the general consensus on gay marriage here?
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:52:19 PM »
Is it anti-scientific to ignore the needs of a child to have two parents of both genders?
It's anti-scientific to posit that. The consensus is that homosexual parents are equally capable.
I've seen studies that actually argue the opposite.
And yet major psychological associations don't condone these findings. The empirics is on the side of homosexuals, here.

12112
Serious / Re: What is the general consensus on gay marriage here?
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:46:18 PM »
Is it anti-scientific to ignore the needs of a child to have two parents of both genders?
It's anti-scientific to posit that. The consensus is that homosexual parents are equally capable.

Quote
Does it encroach upon religious freedom to force churches to marry gays?
Of course it does.

Quote
Can we really redefine marriage without it losing its merit?
Yes we can.

12113
Serious / Re: Why Do People Get Upset About Removing the Pledge?
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:03:22 PM »
moderator abuse.
What?

Sounds like I missed something interesting.

12114
Serious / Re: Why Do People Get Upset About Removing the Pledge?
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:56:37 PM »
I guess you've never studied Islam, or for that matter Christianity.
Please tell me it's Dustin.

12115
Serious / Re: Why Do People Get Upset About Removing the Pledge?
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:47:12 PM »
Why don't you PM him on Bungie.net and see what he says.
Gee, that's not insanely obvious.

12116
Serious / Re: Why Do People Get Upset About Removing the Pledge?
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:40:52 PM »
Allah isn't purposeful, like the Christian God. Christianity's God suits to solve the logical problem that the Universe exists from nothing, while Allah is only imagined to woo its followers, unlike Christianity.
YouTube

12117
Serious / Re: Why Do People Get Upset About Removing the Pledge?
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:35:36 PM »
Islam believes in God, just as Christianity, but they believe in Him only by a matter of faith, without any logic.
You do realise the ontological argument you've espoused could be used with respect to Allah?

Or anything other you try to define as metaphysically necessary.

12118
Serious / Re: Why Do People Get Upset About Removing the Pledge?
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:30:40 PM »
Unlike Christianity, which has merit, Islam has very few arguments in its defense.
I honestly don't even know what to say to that.

I don't think I've ever come across such a stupid sentiment before.

12119
Is that the victim or the father's name?
Well if you watched the video you wouldn't have to ask such a blindingly stupid question.

12120
Serious / Re: Why Do People Get Upset About Removing the Pledge?
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:22:47 PM »
Islam has no logical basis for their religion.
. . .

I'm sorry, what?

Pages: 1 ... 402403404 405406 ... 502