The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER.. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15~16~17~18~19..29..38..47..56..64~65~66 [Next]
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.


I remember that. Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 13:12, satellite23 wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 10:45, Slide wrote:
"and we do not beat our children when they show signs of being gay. We understand that being gay is a natural process. However, marriages under Catholicism are supposed to be formed for the sake of creation."

First, yes you do: not you personally, but I'll be happy to send you link after link after link of preachers proposing this very thing. Very recently too.


Well, I have never really heard of those stories. Thanks for giving me a different view. However, I do not believe that the Church--meaning the Vatican condones such behavior. Unjust violence is a big no-no of Catholicism, and that is an unjust cause.

Quote:
On 2012-06-14 10:45, Slide wrote:
And so if a couple is infertile are they not allowed to marry? If they cannot create a child and need to adopt, that means they are not married in your eyes? Should we pass a law that states if you do not have children, your marriage is automatically null and void?

Sorry, it is a specious argument


That is also a very good point. Maybe I didn't word myself correctly--or maybe I just was ignorant on such a topic. Again, thanks for bringing it up. I cannot answer that question, but I think you might be able to find something in here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

This entire thread has been VERY interesting to read and discuss. I have not meant to offend anybody, I just wanted to express my point of view.


I don't think that the marriage-for-procreation argument is entirely specious. One might take the position that if gay marriage is disfavored or disallowed, then (some) people who would otherwise be involved in gay relationships might instead marry someone of the opposite sex and have children. And we know that DOES, in fact, happen.

As to how brilliant an idea it is, that's another question entirely.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Slide
View Profile
Special user
533 Posts

Profile of Slide
"One might take the position that if gay marriage is disfavored or disallowed, then (some) people who would otherwise be involved in gay relationships might instead marry someone of the opposite sex and have children. And we know that DOES, in fact, happen. "

Yeah, those are GREAT marriages.

Gay people usually adopt if they want kids. and of course Lesbians can have their own kids.
Slide
View Profile
Special user
533 Posts

Profile of Slide
If Gandhi went to hell and Jim Baker went to heaven, I'll take hell
Slide
View Profile
Special user
533 Posts

Profile of Slide
"So are you saying that Christianity is a net minus for the planet?"

Good question.

On the one hand we have Bach. On the other the Inquisition.
On the one hand we have Dr. Martin Luther King, on the other we have the Westboro Church

is it net minus.

Yes, it is net minus.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 13:42, Slide wrote:
Yeah, those are GREAT marriages.


Guess you missed that last line.


Quote:
Gay people usually adopt if they want kids. and of course Lesbians can have their own kids.


Adoption isn't procreation. If the goal is procreation, then heterosexual marriage that leads to more births is preferable to adopting children who already exist.

To anticipate the rebuttal, I'll type it slowly this time. I'm not saying it's a good idea; I'm saying it's not a specious idea.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Hmmm
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Quite right at 1:14 refers to Lobo at 12:51.
Slide
View Profile
Special user
533 Posts

Profile of Slide
"I'm saying it's not a specious idea."

I'm not either. I'm saying it's a specious argument. If you are saying that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, then those who cannot reproduce cannot get married.

You can't say: these two people here can't reproduce, so they can't get married and these people over here can't reproduce, and yet they get to be married.

If your criteria for banning marriage is that marriage is for procreation ONLY, then marriage should be disallowed for everyone who either can't or won't reproduce, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 14:31, Slide wrote:

If your criteria for banning marriage is that marriage is for procreation ONLY, then marriage should be disallowed for everyone who either can't or won't reproduce, regardless of their sexual orientation.



Plus with nearly seven billion people living on the face of the world the lack of procreation doesn't seem to be an issue. So using it as a basis for marriage seems rather outdated. Dowries generally are no longer a prerequisite for marriage either. They once were, but society has moved beyond that and wives are no longer looked upon simply as property and baby making mechanisms.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 11:06, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

Please cite the post in which I said the Bible was fiction. That may be difficult because I have repeatedly stated my opinion that it is a combination of history, folklore, poetry, allegory, metaphor etc.

It is also one of the most widely read and influential books in history.

It is, therefore, impossible to understand much of human history and thought without a knowledge of the Bible.

Do I accept it unconditionally as literal truth? Obviously not. Is it important work? Obviously yes.

So why wouldn't I want to discuss it?


Let me understand you. You do not accept it as unconditionally true. Would that make it fiction in your mind? Or is it that you only feel some is true and some is false? Or is it because you do not understand what is being said? Or is it you do not believe in God and want others to see it your way? These questions are all just part of the discussion that you want to take part in. However if something is written and it is untrue I kind of get the feeliing that that would be called fiction or a lie. Not sure which way you want to go on this. I just wonder why those guys made up all those untruths you refer too. Do you think they wanted to fool us? If so I wonder why.

Your questionof Why wouldn't I want to discuss it, can only be answered by you. Could be possibly thatyou wishto avoid a very volatile topic.Could be you want do try and make people see things yur way. However, discussion is one thing, trying to prove something is false is quite another. In a discussion there should be open mindedness unless one is discussing ones own religion. I say that because as I have said in the past that people who beileve and are devout in their religion know they are right so trying to make them change their mind is quite pointless unless you just wish to stir the pot so to speak. Two people who both believe in the bible can discuss issues they havae with it. However if another person does not believe in the bible it no longer stays a discussion, it escalates into a debate. Most debates have a reason for their existance. So why would you debate someones religious beliefs? Are you trying to convince them they are wrong and you are right? What is your side in this debate? Are you trying to say some of the bible is right and other parts are wrong? If so how do you know? By your posts you seem so sure yet it is not your religion that givies you that insight but rather what you think is correct.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
Bill Hilly
If I was a praying man you'd be on the top of my list.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.


Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:22, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.


Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.


Speaking for myself here...

I don't believe you both when it comes to questions about the afterlife. If there is even an afterlife.

Just want to know what your positions are. Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:26, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:22, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.


Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.


Speaking for myself here...

I don't believe you both when it comes to questions about the afterlife. If there is even an afterlife.

Just want to know what your positions are. Smile


You want to know about carrie sue and me and our positions? What are you a pervert? Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:46, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:26, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:22, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.


Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.


Speaking for myself here...

I don't believe you both when it comes to questions about the afterlife. If there is even an afterlife.

Just want to know what your positions are. Smile


You want to know about carrie sue and me and our positions? What are you a pervert? Smile


I REALLY did not mean THAT. Eeewww... Smile

But from the way you're asking...

I think it's you who should be worried. Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
I don'tknow how to break it to youguys but here are the top 20- religions and beliefs in the United States as of 2001.

Even if your numbers are growing, you are way behind if you are agnostic or atheist. But what do all these people know? Smile


If you have a hard time folowing Christianity is at 76.5%-----Agnostic is at .5%---Atheist is at .4%

.
2000 % Change
1990 - 2000
Christianity 151,225,000 159,030,000 224,437,959 76.5% +5%
Nonreligious/Secular 13,116,000 27,539,000 38,865,604 13.2% +110%
Judaism 3,137,000 2,831,000 3,995,371 1.3% -10%
Islam 527,000 1,104,000 1,558,068 0.5% +109%
Buddhism 401,000 1,082,000 1,527,019 0.5% +170%
Agnostic 1,186,000 991,000 1,398,592 0.5% -16%
Atheist 902,000 1,272,986 0.4%
Hinduism 227,000 766,000 1,081,051 0.4% +237%
Unitarian Universalist 502,000 629,000 887,703 0.3% +25%
Wiccan/Pagan/Druid 307,000 433,267 0.1%
Spiritualist 116,000 163,710 0.05%
Native American Religion 47,000 103,000 145,363 0.05% +119%
Baha'i 28,000 84,000 118,549 0.04% +200%
New Age 20,000 68,000 95,968 0.03% +240%
Sikhism 13,000 57,000 80,444 0.03% +338%
Scientology 45,000 55,000 77,621 0.02% +22%
Humanist 29,000 49,000 69,153 0.02% +69%
Deity (Deist) 6,000 49,000 69,153 0.02% +717%
Taoist 23,000 40,000 56,452 0.02% +74%
Eckankar 18,000 26,000 36,694 0.01% +44%
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
And people wonder why the world is in such a state? Smile

(And why are Humanist included in there? I'm a Humanist...)
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:15, acesover wrote:

[Let me understand you. You do not accept it as unconditionally true.



The Bible is true, it's just not factual. Just as Aesop's Fables are true but far from factual. There is much the Bible can teach us. However history and science are not among them. Most of the Bible can easily be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. But this in no way negates te valuable lessons to be learned from the text. Even the believers in the Middle Ages knew the stories in the Bible weren't lterally true. that they were Allegory, parable, myth and legend. It is only in the last century or so that the bible has begun to be seen as literal and true.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 16:28, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:15, acesover wrote:

[Let me understand you. You do not accept it as unconditionally true.



The Bible is true, it's just not factual. Just as Aesop's Fables are true but far from factual. There is much the Bible can teach us. However history and science are not among them. Most of the Bible can easily be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. But this in no way negates te valuable lessons to be learned from the text. Even the believers in the Middle Ages knew the stories in the Bible weren't lterally true. that they were Allegory, parable, myth and legend. It is only in the last century or so that the bible has begun to be seen as literal and true.


Does that mean we are getting dumber and dumber or more gullible?

Just as a side note what are some of the thngs you refer to as "Most of the Bible" that can be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. Not all because you said "most of" and there are probably hundreds of these in the bible so just give me a few. Say maybe 10.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER.. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15~16~17~18~19..29..38..47..56..64~65~66 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL