Announcement

**SGalisa** · 12 July 2015, 08:07 PM

Apologies for the length -- this topic is rather *challenging* to piece together in easy, rational terms.

Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post

I do want to ask one question, and it is about the current topic.
If Jesus forgave all past and future sins by accepting humanities failures, Why does the CC feel the need to interfere with -temporal- law?
Why do they weigh in on LGBT marriage?
That is gods domain now, not humanities.

Why do they weigh in on political leaders?
That is the domain of man.

Why do they judge when by your own justification, without my challenging it, they are overriding Gods own judgement?

"Why do they weigh in on LGBT marriage?"
Because they see themselves as speaking for God in human form (they are repeating God's words regarding various issues). In that sense, they are sort of correct -- as long as they agree with God's law for or against the situation or issue in question.

The remaining *why's* are Probably the simple answer to all of the above questions is--
because the Catholic Church is basically still operating under both the spiritual Ten Commandments (or 12 if they include Jesus' 2 new ones) and Roman Law (Human Gov't)-- thus being labeled as
the "HOLY" Roman Catholic Church, but added the word "HOLY" above the LAW part to include the Biblical Laws (the TEN COMMANDMENTS) originally given to the Hebrews etched into physical writing by the very "finger of God" (see Exodus 31:18).

If you really want the answers about temporal punishment, etc, as delivered by the Catholic hierarchy, some of the answers are listed in a little book of dogma on Catholic Doctrine---

Spoiler:

Let me just state the following about the above spoiler quoted material.
1-- The above process sounds fairly familiar to what and how our human-gov't LEGAL Codes of rules and regs are performed. The only difference is not spending time in an actual jail cell apart from the rest of humanity. If bail is accepted in lieu of a law that was deemed broken according to a gov't law code, the person is essentially *forgiven* to go out and do not break that law again (or "sin" in the Church's POV or spiritual law code). If a person breaks that same gov't Code law again, then that person might be slapped with a higher form of punishment to pay for the "broken law/crime/sin" committed.

2-- A person performing "Penance" can often fall into the realm of turning this repetitious action--of attending confession on a regular basis to be forgiven, only to end up having temptation win, and the wrong action (broken law/sin) committed again ... and again... and again.
It ends up becoming a "...but I can't help stop myself from doing this deed..." or
"I just don't care any more" ritual behavioral issue, regardless of whether or not it is spiritual (against God's LAW) or physical (against mankind's written *human* gov't issued LAW).

Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post

To keep this on topic, what punishment would you proscribe for those 2-4 people who break Gods law every week?

Thankfully, that's not for me to decide their fate.

They screw their own life up, that's between the human courts on the earthly level, AND God's (final) Court at what is termed "the White Throne Judgement" on the spiritual level.

Many Church people use the excuse of living under GRACE (or the *grace of God* "for it is by GRACE (generic) you have been saved, not by works, so that no one may boast"--), so they excuse it themselves for breaking either God's law or man's gov't laws. When people break mankind's governmental laws, it's only until they get caught in the act, and deemed guilty by another human being, according to the LAWs established by their own human governing system.

Spoiler:

Many people have (proud) brag fests, because they like to do so.
Even when a person is proud (brags) not to have done "thus and so" they are bragging in reverse pride. It took a while for me to comprehend the whole reverse pride issue, which in some Protestant/Evangelical Churches -- "reverse pride" is considered also as a "sin" before God's "Holy Presence" not as being humbled. (And there is a difference between being truly humble in contrast to humiliated. Humbleness does not feel embarrassment. Feeling humiliated includes feeling embarrassed or "shamed".)

Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post

If Trump makes it in for 2016, I would lament for the USA.

The two biggest hindrances to Trump becoming elected would be his (current) stance on immigration and his position on {possibly nuking?} Iran. I think he should focus more on the Islamic State (threats) more than Iran at the moment. Iran's problem is their verbally publicized threats against Israel and the USA, unless that is all pure bully talk (except most people believe they are definitely against Jewish Israel). I'm not sure about where Iran stands with the USA (one day they like us, the next moment they want us all dead!), so I can't say who has the best answer there.

Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post

If God came to you and told you to renounce the church, would you believe him?

I already did... renounce if that is the term your stating. Actually, when I married in a Lutheran Church, that action automatically put me onto the EXcommunicated Catholic List, according to Catholic Church doctrine/Law. My parents were very upset at me, because I had the *nerve* to marry in another denomination -- that was NOT Catholic ordained (did not have the Pope's blessings!).

So, I don't need to do any renouncing there. Have I renounced the Protestant Church?
Only the one listed in Revelation 3:14-18 (Church type of Laodicea).
Whether or not the spiritual or physical *Harlot* of Babylon,
as noted in Revelation 17: 1-18 is the same as the "Church" or governing spiritual system revealed in the *Last days of this age* ... when "GOD" says "COME OUT OF HER, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues, for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her for her *crimes*..." (see Revelation 18:4-5) ...well...

Yeah, I'm gonna listen to "GOD" over ANY human authority controlled Church and LEAVE that Church (or Church system). God has the final (authoritative) say in this, NOT man.

Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post

You say it is wrong, but you make excuses for the corruption of the church?

I think you're viewing my comments in a different way than I am stating them.
I'm not making *any* excuses for the corrupted Church members. I grew up with enough of them all around me; so why should I accept their rules and regulations into my life, when they won't even follow their own list of rules and regs? That's kind of pointless. Attending Church, going to Confession, walking out and watching everyone else inside leaving to go and start committing "sins" (against God OR fellow humans), the moment they walked out those Church doors, is enough to make anyone stop believing in the "Church's system" ever again. It was the CHURCH members who were committing the offensive deeds, NOT God (or God's WORD). Similar to Rev. 3:14-16 (where God declares "I am about to spit you out of my mouth"), I used to get physically sick watching all of the offending nonsense.

Perfect little darling (*angels*), my foot!

Originally posted by garhkal View Post

How exactly did i take your question out of context?

Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post

Because the person I asked was a dyed in the wool Catholic. It only has context if you believe in God, and you are unsure.
Therefore, you cannot understand the context.
Simple really.

Hey, I like reading what garhkal has to say sometimes. The conversations are interesting!

Besides, it took me quite a while to trace back *who* that "dyed in the wool Catholic" person was. Six pages back on this topic and nearly a dozen other quotes in between, until I found the original comment was a reply to me!

Seriously, I did take my Catholic "Confirmation" commitment(s) very seriously. I can't say the other kids did at whatever their ages were after they went thru the same "ritual".

Originally posted by garhkal View Post

I was born Roman Catholic in the 70s, and was a born again christian back in the late 80s. stopped believing in the late 90s-early 00s... So i can understand the context. JUST cause someone says they are now an Atheist/Agnostic, does not mean that they were not of the faith prior to that.

I can testify or reinforce that action of *disbelief*. My own flesh and blood dad was a strict, FIRM Catholic --who ruled with a "DO as I say, NOT as I do" type of family rules and regs *policy* -- yet in the core of his heart personality -- he was an agnostic, at least until the day before he died. I don't know what he was at the moment he actually died. My mom believes he finally became a complete believer overnight, and accepted Jesus on Jesus' terms (not the Church's or man's terms). BTW, my mom had her own *issues* between herself and "almighty God". She grew up a confused *believer* --maybe more after she married into the Catholic Church-- because her own dad and sister turned to mysticism, and that sort of confused a lot of other things, which the Catholic Church sees mostly as superstitious, but as acceptable to human eyes/ears.

**SGalisa** · 12 July 2015, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Coco Pops View Post

In a country that is bathed in sunshine how can you rail against solar power and renewable energy?

I'm not sure. I've heard Massachusettes (USA) is against putting Wind Turbine farms along the Ocean Shore shoreline, because it destroys or upsets the natural sea view (according to a certain Kennedy family member).

Other USA states have complained about Wind Turbines killing off birds and bats. Some of the local countryside have complained about setting up some land to install solar power farm panels, because it looks ugly and requires lots of careful weed and grass maintenance to be kept pruned underneath low-heighted panels. Other solar panel complaints are about clearing snow and ice off of them in the colder (winter-type) weather.

However, I recently drove past a school that had installed what I thought was a nice carport roof to shade the cars underneath it. To my pleasant surprise, when I was far enough away in view, I realized it was a solar panel energy unit system, which provided both shade for the vehicles underneath, and (energy) power to the school nearby. I thought that was both amazingly creative and *cool* (in more ways than one!)

I can understand some complaining about hydro-electric power, because the waterways providing such systems seem to be drying up in the USA and Canada (specifically at Niagara Falls). Within so many years into the future, there will be a desperate need to find some other alternate form of energy.

Using manure / poop as energy basically smells awful, so that is pretty obvious, especially for using it to fuel cars. Peeeee-uuuuuuuuuuu. *clothespin on nose*

Otherwise, if the complaining is coming from TPTB controlling the lower levels of societies, it could be to deliberately force / put people into the dark (energy wise) in order to control them more.

**Coco Pops** · 12 July 2015, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by SGalisa View Post

I'm not sure. I've heard Massachusettes (USA) is against putting Wind Turbine farms along the Ocean Shore shoreline, because it destroys or upsets the natural sea view (according to a certain Kennedy family member).

Other USA states have complained about Wind Turbines killing off birds and bats. Some of the local countryside have complained about setting up some land to install solar power farm panels, because it looks ugly and requires lots of careful weed and grass maintenance to be kept pruned underneath low-heighted panels. Other solar panel complaints are about clearing snow and ice off of them in the colder (winter-type) weather.

However, I recently drove past a school that had installed what I thought was a nice carport roof to shade the cars underneath it. To my pleasant surprise, when I was far enough away in view, I realized it was a solar panel energy unit system, which provided both shade for the vehicles underneath, and (energy) power to the school nearby. I thought that was both amazingly creative and *cool* (in more ways than one!)

I can understand some complaining about hydro-electric power, because the waterways providing such systems seem to be drying up in the USA and Canada (specifically at Niagara Falls). Within so many years into the future, there will be a desperate need to find some other alternate form of energy.

Using manure / poop as energy basically smells awful, so that is pretty obvious, especially for using it to fuel cars. Peeeee-uuuuuuuuuuu. *clothespin on nose*

Otherwise, if the complaining is coming from TPTB controlling the lower levels of societies, it could be to deliberately force / put people into the dark (energy wise) in order to control them more.

Well over here if your land has a wind turbine installed the company pays you a nice handsome payment every year for having it on your land. Most of the opposition to them comes from people who don't have one on their land and they make up all manner of excuses such as they are bad for our health and such.

I always say to them "suck it up you special snowflakes" because I smell envy and jealousy.

The religious discussion I am finding very interesting.. I would pose a question but I don't wish to derail that part of this thread.

**Annoyed** · 13 July 2015, 08:08 AM

Well, there is at least one Republican candidate for 2016 that I might vote for.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ite-house-bid/

I like this guy; I like what he has done in his home state. The only unclear area for me is he seems to flip flip on the illegal immigration issue.

**Nolamom** · 13 July 2015, 08:33 AM

oh joy, another male politician in favor of limiting women's rights

**Pharaoh Hamenthotep** · 13 July 2015, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Nolamom View Post

oh joy, another male politician in favor of limiting women's rights

Indeed.. Anti-abortion, anti-union, voted to stop funding to planned-parenthood clinics.. climate change denier.. expanded gun rights, he got rid of the state’s 48-hour waiting period, and voted in favour of concealed carry laws..

And against gay marriage..

Sounds like a winner..

**SoulReaver** · 13 July 2015, 08:47 AM

Scott Walker's not exactly a libertarian especially when it comes to workers' rights & women's rights (for the latter he'd make a good taliban)

his only redeeming quality on civil liberties is his support of the castle doctrine & 2nd amendment (then again who's to say he won't abolish these in the name of fight against Terrorism(tm) )

**SGalisa** · 13 July 2015, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Coco Pops View Post

The religious discussion I am finding very interesting.. I would pose a question but I don't wish to derail that part of this thread.

If it's religious, you could always post it onto the active "religion" discussion topic at---

Spoiler:

Otherwise, if it's political/gov't law/rules & regs related, post it here, since that's what this topic seems to have been created for.

Don't be too concerned for me, I'm not always able to post in here (due to real life home time management stuff), so I've gotten into the habit of keeping some sort of tracking system in writing down what a person wrote on which page back and which posting number with approx. time, too (in case the comment gets moved). It helps a little bit, especially when messages get rather lengthy or pushed into the far, far away past.

Originally posted by Coco Pops View Post

Well over here if your land has a wind turbine installed the company pays you a nice handsome payment every year for having it on your land. Most of the opposition to them comes from people who don't have one on their land and they make up all manner of excuses such as they are bad for our health and such.

I always say to them "suck it up you special snowflakes" because I smell envy and jealousy..

I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's where our families and school classmates would often attend special exhibit places like EXPO '68 or whatever year it was. There was also the World's Fair in NY (USA), which had exhibits about how life might be like in the future with advancing technologies. Now we have Epcott in Florida (USA) to visit for these amazing space and technology ideas.

It was also inspiring to me, by our local papers--which posted some visionary plans suggested by NASA, to design for future colony living (earth-like) environments in E.T. space --- beyond earth's atmosphere, while traveling to other galaxies or just living out there somewhere as a stationary space location. During this time, Star Trek, Doctor Who, and other TV/movie space adventures were being aired to audiences wherever they were received. As the years passed forward in real time, (fabric) synthetics and storage materials were making advances in what seemed to be good, sturdy, and long lasting -- especially for people moving off to live on other planets.

However, since those days of creative future space living began to actually become actual designs, other issues came up like how making those items was affecting our earth.

I am still all for space exploration and making materials and designs that actually work, but in the meantime, I do agree that if our earth is being environmentally destroyed bit by bit in the process of achieving these other things, there has to be a "happy middle ground" where both sides can balance or work with each other in as perfect as possible harmony. It just seems that our current life has stalled into a standstill, because we don't seem to be progressing forward, but slipping backward or going nowhere, except in circles, and focusing more on war and power of control than helping one another into a vibrant, (hopefully peaceful) and beautiful future.

In the 1960's there was a famous Native American Indian commercial where one of the "chief leaders" was canoeing along a river, and someone tossed trash out their car window at his feet. The tear in his eye had a very emotional and lasting effect on my life, as I am part Native American; and now I see more and more trash being thrown just anywhere, every day. It's really sad, but things (one of many issues) our world needs to deal with in cleaning up its actions. At the same time, we need technicians and designers to continue working on making it possible to move some of our earth's populations onto other planets or earth-like space colony stations (Those places need designers, agricultural, and other skilled workers, etc., too). Until life becomes a perfect Utopia, we have to live with what we have, and use the resources provided to the best of our abilities, and try to preserve our environment at the same time -- as a giant (dare I say it?) organizational juggling act.

**jelgate** · 13 July 2015, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Nolamom View Post

oh joy, another male politician in favor of limiting women's rights

What's your point?

**SGalisa** · 13 July 2015, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post

Question for you dude: Do you believe a fetus is a human?

I know that question was directed to someone else, but may I please I weigh in on this question?
This is an issue that just irks the life out of my previous scholastic learning sanity, because I keep hearing it over and over and the end results often ultimately go no where. My answer is not about creation science, but what I learned from my 8th and 9th grade BIOLOGY school classes.

Science BIOLOGY teaches about what DNA and RNA are, how their structures are formed, what each basically does. The classes taught that from the moment a single cell is formed into a living creature, regardless of what type of creature, genus and species it is, that creature's very first cell contains all the DNA and RNA (genetic/material, whatever else) requirements that eventually make it grow into the living thing that it is. This is also true of plant-life.

So, when it comes to humans, once that first cell starts turning into a living being, it doesn't matter what stage that *creature* is in, the DNA and RNA has already established what future appearances that living creature will turn into. Whether it is a fetus or a 3-year old child or some ailing 80-year old adult, it is still HUMAN at all stages of growth. It never ceases to be human even at death. The DNA and RNA composition never changes, unless some crazy scientist expert modifies the existing strands somehow. Such an example might now be understood as gender bending (changing one's gender).

Still, changing a living creature's gender is NOT changing the lifeform they are, unless we're talking science fiction -- such as

Spoiler:

I'm not sure that can even be done after the first cell begins the creature's life cycle.
I have heard that DNA and RNA can be manipulated within individual sperm or egg cell, as long as they are apart from each other. Once they merge together and form a new living creature, the joining process establishes a completed DNA/RNA sequence. If the creature is human, it is human at all stages. It does not turn into a frog, or a horse, unless before turning into the new life form -- the cells were manipulated to merge together. Once the first living cell of that creature is formed, it turns into whatever it was designed to become. That's simple science!

I've tried looking at a catepillar and wondered what type of moth or butterfly it will eventually end up looking like. The moment a butterfly begins living in its egg, then hatches out as a catepillar, if it lives long enough, it will enter the pupa stage where it hides itself into a protective casing, termed as a chrysalis. There, it transforms into a butterfly and eventually emerges to flutter around the earth, find a mate, and maybe participate in producing new little butterflies -- starting the entire egg -- larva -- catepillar -- pupa/chrysalis stage to morph into a butterfly... and repeat process, etc.

So, just because a butterfly's earlier life shows up in the form of a catepillar, it does not cease being a butterfly, just because it is living in a different stage of life appearance. So it is also true of humans in their earlier fetus stage of growth, into a child, teenager, and eventually an adult.

I do wonder what happens after a human's death stage, if it really isn't death -- but just *might be* similar to the various life stages of a butterfly, if that death process is actually a human chrysalis stage, where there is a transformation process for a "human" body into something even more amazing than our current (complex) lifeform? DNA/RNA maintains our personal identity thruout each life stage process, so a human will always be a human, regardless of what it looks like at a specific point in time. Many "religious" people simply look at life after death, as living in a *transformed body*. It used to have a mortal human body, but after death, something that existed within that mortal body transformed into an eternal creature -- perhaps still having a human appearance, but living in a body form that will remain that way forever.

These are often things I've wondered about whenever I garden, and look up at the trees and watch them grow seeds starting out as flowers, then turn into seeds, mature, drop off the trees, die, and amazingly take a firm root into the ground to grow again into a new tree form, after withering for a winter in a hidden dormant appearance stage. Sometimes I smile, and other times I grumble for having to rip up the little seedlings lest they start growing in places they are not welcomed at!

There is nothing "religious" about this. It's all simple -- common sense biology/science, whether the creature is simple celled or complex in its complete composition. In that sense (and based on what I perceived from all of my biology classes with various science lab experiments)--
Life begins at the very first formation of a cell.

Otherwise, that same lifeform wouldn't have grown any further into whatever creature or life form it ends up showing up as in its childhood or mature adult stage. Well, that's my blithering POV on this. Politicians can decide when to terminate life, and hire folks to write on how to get whatever lifeform desired-- as started, but they (the politicians) cannot change the creature or living *thing*s personal identity (DNA/RNA) code structure, once it begins to live. At least, as far as I know, not yet.

**Annoyed** · 13 July 2015, 11:23 AM

I pretty much agree; from the moment of conception it is a human (or whatever) life. logically, it's the only thing that makes sense. So killing it at any point past conception is murder, in my opinion.

But, pregnancy can be so damned inconvenient. And you know how high a priority convenience is these days.

**mad_gater** · 13 July 2015, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Annoyed View Post

I pretty much agree; from the moment of conception it is a human (or whatever) life. logically, it's the only thing that makes sense. So killing it at any point past conception is murder, in my opinion.

But, pregnancy can be so damned inconvenient. And you know how high a priority convenience is these days.

and calling PP a crusader for women's health is like calling Jeffery Dahmer a chef

the vast majority of the things PP's founder, Margaret Sanger, a blatant believer in eugenics, had to say did nothing but turn my stomach

**SoulReaver** · 13 July 2015, 12:32 PM

but the funniest viewpoint is that of those who oppose both abortion & social welfare

**Annoyed** · 13 July 2015, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by SoulReaver

Scott Walker's not exactly a libertarian especially when it comes to workers' rights & women's rights (for the latter he'd make a good taliban)

his only redeeming quality on civil liberties is his support of the castle doctrine & 2nd amendment (then again who's to say he won't abolish these in the name of fight against Terrorism(tm) )

What worker's rights are you referring to? The union's right to force people who did not agree with nor want to join a union to do so? Doesn't seem like all that much of a "right" for workers to me.

What women's rights do you refer to? The right to murder their unborn children? Doesn't sound like much of a right for the unborn child.

**SoulReaver** · 13 July 2015, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Annoyed View Post

What worker's rights are you referring to? The union's right to force people who did not agree with nor want to join a union to do so? Doesn't seem like all that much of a "right" for workers to me.

who said anything about forcing anyone
in fact strangely enough the few unions he does support are mostly the anti-democracy unions:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...292416091.html

What women's rights do you refer to? The right to murder their unborn children? Doesn't sound like much of a right for the unborn child.

cells have rights? what about ovums then? (it'd only be fair)

what about passive smoking? smoking in presence of pregnant women?
is the fetus' life still of value in that context? or is the tobacco indu$try in its right?

Originally posted by Annoyed View Post

Umm.. Do you realize how generous welfare has become?

yo that's interesting
so the life of the unborn loses its value once it's born?

what about a pregnant woman who can't afford healthcare? (that one's a toughie)

Announcement

The Political Discussion Thread

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment