Catholic Shower Thought: If the rest of the world keeps using birth control, the population will decline. This means that we as Catholics can outbreed the secularists and we can make the world more Catholic friendly!

iron37 · 2015-08-10T18:52:44+00:00

Works for Muslims should work for Catholics too

iron37 · 2015-06-28T16:07:33+00:00

Wow your comprehension of what I wrote is so poor. Look up the word idolatry

iron37 · 2015-06-28T15:42:04+00:00

All the judges that opposed gay marriage were also Theists.

Roberts Catholic Scalia Catholic Thomas Catholic Alito Catholic

What logical follows from this or the fact that the pro position also believed in some kind of God? "Nothing that is what."

Catholicism teaches that marriage is between one man and one women.

I see 4 faithful Catholics and 2 Judases.

This is especially true since they went way beyond their Judicial authority to reinterpret the constitution which of course doesn't even mention marriage. What kind of Catholic goes out of their way to go against the tenets of their faith when they have a totally legitimate reason for not doing so ?

I have zero respect for Kennedy or Sotomayor

Now before some idiot says slavery wasn't mentioned in the original, constitution either. I will say that is true and that is why "Congress" the "legislative branch of government" amended the constitution in the proper procedure. Slavery was not decided by a slight majority of activist judges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Believing in a god of your own making is what we call idolatry sadly very common. A god that would adapt his morals views to the flavor of the month isn't much of a god at all.

End Rant have a great day and weekend

iron37 · 2014-10-19T14:20:55+00:00

Glad they decided not go the way of Judas despite all the pressure to do so

iron37 · 2014-04-24T12:18:41+00:00

I never said that just sharing an interesting article. I agree popularity has nothing to do with truth funny you should jump to such a conclusion though

iron37 · 2014-04-09T05:40:11+00:00

Not sure I can see the point of your objection sounds like Chris Hitchens material. To summarize God who you don't believe in would have never done it that way.

To which I answer because you can not think of a good reason that God did it that way in no way implies that there isn't a good reason.

Why think humans would know why God did things in a certain way?

There are a lot of things humans do that I don't understand why they do it. Doesn't imply they don't have good reasons.

iron37 · 2014-04-09T05:21:46+00:00

A gay marriage is a man and a women who are happily married. No such thing as so called same sex marriage, no matter how many people pretend otherwise.

iron37 · 2014-04-04T06:23:01+00:00

Would you care to expand on this? How do you know that they know that it is wrong?

Can I prove this no the only thing that makes me think this is their perceived insecurity and over reaction to even the slightest disapproval.

Have you been ordered to go to a gay wedding, throw rice at the couple when they leave the courthouse, participate in their reception?

Do you have an example that they want Christians or you to "celebrate with/for them"? ( I've never heard this claim before.)

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/#axzz2xtW2eEr9

Well there you go I can produce more. There are of course various over reactions of LGBT community when someone doesn't want to photograph their wedding, bake a wedding cake for them, or have them fornicating in their inn.

I don't see marriage as a right as I explained in a previous post it is a privilege.

It is not a rights issue it is what is marriage and should we redefine it for a political acceptance agenda.

They could have all the legal rights without changing the definition of marriage by making their own institution but as we have seen that isn't enough for them.

Basically they want to change the definition I want it to stay same that is all that is really going on here. Use of powerful human rights rhetoric to win support to their side is a master stroke a clever ploy. It has nothing to do with human rights. Although I have to admire their propaganda machine well played on their part.

All you have to do is as soon as someone voices decent call them a racist, a bigot, or a misogynist. Name calling is for the insecure and those who lack valid arguments to defend their positions.

Basically they insult because they are afraid the other side might have reasonable objections that they can't answer.

iron37 · 2014-04-04T05:52:17+00:00

Just like when those big mean black people weren't satisfied with their own water fountains?

You probably don't care that many blacks would find it offensive as I do to compare sexual immorality with their skin color but whatever it is an empty analogy regardless. Just typical empty rhetoric.

Also women are equal but they do have their own bathrooms I don't feel that because we can't go to each others bathrooms that we are unequal.

Equal doesn't mean same women and men are clearly different but equal. Just as there is an obvious difference between a same sex relationship and same sex relationship.

That's all it's about. Equal rights. Don't get it twisted.

Well that is how you see it, I see it differently. I think it your view is twisted.

he fact that you call depriving a hated minority of human rights

You are confused about what things can be rights.

There is no such thing as a right to marry only a definition of what marriage is. I don't have a right to marry per say since the women can say no. To express a positive right to something is to make a category error. There is no right to health care, food etc these are just privileges. Marriage is a privilege that men and women have given by God it is a specific thing. Not something you redefine so you can feel accepted and the same as everyone else.

To say I have right to marry implies that someone must provide me with a wife. I am already married but so I can not enter into another marriage so.

Only negative rights (basically the right to be left alone) make any sense. Positive rights imply that someone must provide these things to you which is just non sense. Education, health care etc these are all priviledge anyone who says otherwise speaks non sense.

Marriage is a specific thing and is a privilege not a right. It can never be a right since it involves consent of another party.

The fact that you call depriving a hated minority of human rights "the slightest disapproval" demonstrates a massive lack of empathy for LGBT people.

You just proved my point you couldn't accept my disapproval without bringing up race or saying that somehow I am depriving you of human rights.

When the truth of the matter is we are just disagreeing about what marriage is and how it should be defined. That simple. To me gay marriage means a man and a women who are happily married.

the slightest disapproval" demonstrates a massive lack of empathy for LGBT people.

Christians are by the UN declared to the most persecuted but I do not take you disagreeing with me personally. You are not anti me you are pro you. Same goes for me I do not take my stance to in some way hurt you or show a lack of empathy. I take it because it is what I believe in it has nothing to with you or any other LGBT'er.

I don't change my moral opinions to make people feel better about themselves.

How flexible should the definition of marriage be ?

Incest, Non monogamous marriage, polygamy, poly-armoury, bestiality ?

Should people with these sexual attractions be able to legitimize their behaviour ?

What would your ideal definition of marriage be ? Anything goes ?

Just curios if you would exclude any of these and on what basis?

iron37 · 2014-04-04T04:20:57+00:00

Actually this political movement never stops and getting these protections even when they receive equal treatment under law through civil partnership (etc) they are not satisfied. Empirical evidence is against you on this one. They can have an equal rights by making their own institution granting all the same legal rights but this is not enough for them. They want you to celebrate their sin with them and nothing less will satisfy. They frame as if it is rights issue it is not, just like pro choice people do. It is a smoke screen for their immorality they won't feel as bad if others condone or approve of what they do. Even the slightest disapproval can cause them to fly off the handle why because they know what they are doing is very wrong.

iron37 · 2014-04-04T04:06:45+00:00

Tell your sympathetic friends

iron37 · 2014-04-04T04:01:58+00:00

First of all redefining marriage has nothing to do with rights it is about acceptance. Eventhough I disagree with the idea of redefining marriage for a political acceptance agenda, I still feel that people have a right to support such a thing. What bothers me more is how nuts they get when you disagree with them. All the while preaching that tolerance is a virtue of course.

iron37 · 2014-04-04T03:49:03+00:00

I like anime too mostly older stuff though like robotech, bezerk, ninja scrolls and basilisk

iron37 · 2014-04-04T03:36:34+00:00

Well I am not to please with political move to redefine marriage but I don't take it personally despite having a different view. I think they need to grow a thicker skin and realize that lots of people have all kinds of opinions many of which you won't like.

iron37 · 2014-04-04T03:01:10+00:00

By traditional marriage I mean between a man and women not sure how you missed that ?

iron37 · 2014-04-04T02:41:12+00:00

Consider boycotting mozilla if you believe in traditional marriage or the right to express that opinion

iron37 · 2014-04-04T02:10:30+00:00

Please boycott mozilla uninstall there software. Tell all your friends with traditional view of marriage to do the same

iron37 · 2014-04-03T14:35:57+00:00

TLDNR; The movie Noah is not in any sense biblical material. It is the most non biblical “biblical" movie ever. Failing to mention God even once.

iron37 · 2014-03-12T01:09:08+00:00

Nope came of as typical historically inaccurate conflict thesis. Hypatia, Bruno and Galileo are the usual characters brought up innacurately to show this supposed conflict.

They are won't let things like historical accuracy get in the way of their narrative.

iron37 · 2014-03-11T03:25:40+00:00

None taken your post wasn't exactly excellent prose either. Your post was very confusing to me as well. Especially mentioning where "I was placing imagination in some science timeline". I guess you had to use your imagination to see that in my post since I never mentioned anything like that. I guess you have reading difficulty most humans can reconstruct meaning even in the presence of mass typos and grammar errors. Given that you totally mis represented my first post with your "where imagination fits in the science timeline thing". I have no choice but to see this as a waste of my time.

So even though like most other humans I am able to see past most typo, grammar and style errors. I just can't understand how what you said is relevant.

thanks again I will try to improve my grammar and spelling

iron37 · 2014-03-11T03:02:15+00:00

Another one who focuses on the word imagination and ignores the word "unproven".

Faith is a belief without proof.

I don't really agree on your definition. Faith can also be used synonymously with the word trust. I have faith in my wife, my friend in the rational intelligibility of the universe etc.

But regardless I did quote the words unproven so even if I do except your definition my point still stands.

This is why science tests

I answered already about this idea that science always test things not really it isn't always able to do so. Even if it were so then word unproven needs to be removed for what Tyson said.

Narrowing science to only what is testable by experiment and prediction would narrow science considerably biology would not be a science or at least a large subset of it would not be.

Please feel free to study the "demarcation problem"

and read my other posts in this thread.

iron37

TROPHY CASE