dcsimg The Get Rich Slowly Forums • View topic - ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warming)

  GRS Home  Forum Home
Bank Rates Center
   Savings Account Rates
   Money Market Rates
   Highest CD Rates
Insurance Rates Center
  Auto           Health
   Life              Home
Mortgage Rates Center
  Mortgage Rates
  Mortgage Quotes

Last visit was:
A place for Get Rich Slowly readers to ask questions
and exchange ideas
It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:40 pm




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 307 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:30 pm 
Moderator

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5372
VinTek wrote:
Born and raised in Southern California.


OMG, I misjudged you.

I thought you were a B guy. Now I find out you are MD heritage. Is that true?


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:42 pm 
Moderator

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5372
VinTek wrote:
In all seriousness, I'm philosophically in favor of a balanced budget for the government. But in practice, I think there would be some serious unintended consequences.


For brevity interested parties can read above. Just quoting the essence.

We agree about this. That's why I said we should not do it as a matter of law.

Any individual who believes in "no debt" and "no deficit" can never own a house unless they pay for it in cash. And that is terribly inefficient.

It's the same for governments. I do not think that the government should be constrained by law to balance the budget. But I do think that we should generally restrict deficit spending to wars and major infrastructure projects and once you vote to throw the country into that maelstrom, you're out to enjoy the benefits.

When we had major impediments like lack of transportation infrastructure that impeded growth them yes, we need to spend to grow. But we're really not in the same boat now. Name one area where dramatic spending would produce dramatic growth. Yes, we need to repair bridges and improve air traffic control. But commerce is not being held back by those things right now. Heck TSA issues are a bigger impediment to commerce than ATC. We can cure that with CUTS.

I don't think we disagree philosophically. But I think there is a lot to be done in the details first.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:43 am 

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:19 pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Ottawa, Canada
DoingHomework wrote:
That's easy to say. You are Canadian. YOUR government maintains a bit more fiscal sanity.


"A bit more," yes, but nowhere near as much as I'd like.

Short aside: The current "scandal" in the news in Canada is in regards to severance payments. In Canada, if you work for the federal government, you're entitled to severance pay when you leave your job. But I don't just mean if you're fired or laid off. You get this severance pay if you leave for ANY reason, including if you quit or retire. The severance pay is equal to 1 week's pay for every year you worked for the government.

That means someone who worked for the government for 40 years and retires at age 60 gets a "severance" cheque worth almost a year's pay (at their final salary - not even an average!). This is on top of being paid out for all unused accumulated sick days (they get 15 per year and they carry-forward indefinitely).

This, of course, is absurd. So the government has finally decided to end this practice. However, all the public servants who currently work for the government obviously objected to losing this benefit. After all, if they were to leave right now, they'd get big payout cheques. So to appease them, the government is paying them out all the severance they've built up over the years, but making it known that from here on out, no new severance entitlements will accrue (unless, of course, you're laid off or fired).

That means that everyone who works for the government in Canada is getting severance cheques. But they're keeping their jobs. My buddy works for the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's IRS) and is getting a cheque for $12,000, just to keep coming to work.

This is costing the government $6 billion. And remember, we're only 1/10th the size of the US, so that's equivalent to a $60 billion expense to you guys. It's outrageous, and the government is doing its best to downplay it and keep it out of the news. But if you Google for it, you'll find it.

Imagine! Paying people $6 billion in severance payments, and they get to keep their jobs. It's ridiculous.

One final insult to add to this taxpayer injury: In order to get the union to agree to terminating this benefit, the government has added a 0.75% pay increase over the next 3 years (on top of whatever pay increments were already built into the current collective bargaining agreement).

Tell me again about my government's "fiscal sanity?"


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:02 am 

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:19 pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Ottawa, Canada
DoingHomework wrote:
Aside from my own personal interest, eliminating deductions to increase revenue is just a way of shifting who pays.


Agreed, but I think who pays should be shifted a little bit. As I understand it, fully half the individuals in the US pay no net federal income tax at all. Aside from being prima facie unfair, to me it represents a dangerous "tipping point," where the majority could decide to vote themselves all sorts of freebies, and making the minority pay for them. Once we've passed that 50% point, I fear such an entitlement mentality could accelerate.

When you haven't paid anything for something, you value it less. If you've paid for it, you perceive it as having more value. I worry that all those people who pay nothing into the system take it for granted and abuse it. I believe if everyone (save those legitimately below the poverty line) were required to have at least a little "skin in the game," they would appreciate the benefits more and might not be so prone to abusing them.

I'd like to see the tax burden shifted downward, just slightly. Just enough to bring at least 20% of that 50% that's currently paying nothing, into the fold. Even if it's just 5-10% of their income. Nobody should get away with paying nothing, unless they're truly destitute.

Of course, "destitute" in the US still means air conditioning, cable TV, obesity, and cell phones. I don't believe North Americans, in general, truly know the meaning of the word "poverty." But that's another argument.

DoingHomework wrote:
kombat wrote:
[*]With the changes made in the previous section, eliminate 90% of IRS staff.

But even with your changes teh number of peopel you could eliminate would be small, nowhere near 90%


I should have been a little clearer with this one. The changes I would make to the tax could would dramatically simplify it. Instead of single/married/married filing jointly, there'd just be one form: individual. All deductions would be eliminated, so there'd be no wondering whether or not this or that can be deducted. You write your income on line 1 (from all sources, no special treatment for dividends, capital gains, lottery, whatever - if you earned it, you add it up and put it on line 1). Then work you way down a simple, one-page form. You pay 0% on the first $15,000. Thus, if you made less than $15,000, you pay no tax. You pay 15% on the next $20,000. You pay 25% on the next $50,000. You pay 35% on everything above that.

That's it. That's your income tax form. No need for complicated accountants, you just fill it out and send it in. No need for all that IRS staff to sift through the tax code and deliberate over whether or not your deductions are accepted.

DoingHomework wrote:
kombat wrote:
[*]Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security

Sounds interesting...But without the Coast Guard, who would rescue people and maintain navigation equipment?


The same people who would have done it on September 10, 2001. I'm saying you'd just revert to whatever the structure was prior to the creation of DHS after 9/11.

DoingHomework wrote:
kombat wrote:
[*]Raise the retirement age for Social Security to 67.[/list]

Already done.


Ah, I was unaware. Canada just announced it's going to slowly move its age from 65 up to 67 over the next few years (for Old Age Security. Canada Pension Plan still starts at 65, or even 60 if you're willing to take a discount).


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:25 am 

Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1891
DoingHomework wrote:
VinTek wrote:
Born and raised in Southern California.


OMG, I misjudged you.

I thought you were a B guy. Now I find out you are MD heritage. Is that true?

You are correct. But before going to MD, I was at Rockwell Intl (B-1B).


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1045
DoingHomework wrote:
kombat wrote:
[*]Immediately pull all troops out of all conflict regions everywhere in the world. Close all foreign-soil military bases and sell off surplus military equipment. It's the Department of DEFENSE. It should defend. Not go overseas and engage in pointless conflicts.



I want a very strong DoD to defend the US. I'll even go along with cooperative defense with Canada and Mexico. But this crap that politicians of both parties have involved us in for the last few decades has to end. It is destroying us. Defense spending is a greater threat to National Security than any other current threat!


While I agree going overseas at times can seem pointless let’s take a few other thoughts into consideration. Do you realize how many current jobs (and not just government/military but sub-contract) are related to DOD? What boosted America into a world power and ended the Great Depression? World War Two.

Quote:
In 1932, 34 million people belonged to families with no regular full-time wage earner.
In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.
In 1933, over 60% of Americans were categorized as poor by the federal government in.

By the end of 1941, before American entry into the war, defense spending and military mobilization had started one of the greatest booms in American history thus ending the last traces of [double digit] unemployment.

By 1945, 17 million Americans had entered service to their country.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States#Causes



Looking back that was money well worth spent since it eliminated Hitler’s regime and put communist USSR in check. I wonder what people will think of some of the wars we (US) have been in for the past few decades in the next 50 or 60 years say 2060 or 2070? And yes Vietnam was a losing battle from the get go but imagine if we didn’t help S. Korea in the Korean War who is now a symbol of freedom in Asia and one of our trading partners?

Economically in my mind this suggestion would create greater unemployment and less confidence in the American market.

Thoughts?

_________________
~ Eagle


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1045
kombat wrote:
Instead of single/married/married filing jointly, there'd just be one form: individual. All deductions would be eliminated, so there'd be no wondering whether or not this or that can be deducted. You write your income on line 1 (from all sources, no special treatment for dividends, capital gains, lottery, whatever - if you earned it, you add it up and put it on line 1). Then work you way down a simple, one-page form.

That's it. That's your income tax form. No need for complicated accountants, you just fill it out and send it in. No need for all that IRS staff to sift through the tax code and deliberate over whether or not your deductions are accepted.


While this would be a good idea I seriously doubt that would ever be proposed or approved into the U.S. Tax Code. Too many people in my opinion in the U.S. depend for their livelihoods on careers related to accounting and taxes. Not to mention eliminating the majority of IRS employees is just not ever going to pass Congress.

kombat wrote:
DoingHomework wrote:
kombat wrote:
[*]Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security


Sounds interesting...But without the Coast Guard, who would rescue people and maintain navigation equipment?


The same people who would have done it on September 10, 2001. I'm saying you'd just revert to whatever the structure was prior to the creation of DHS after 9/11.


Not sure the U.S. federal government would agree. It seems when something doesn’t work in the federal government the assumption is it is still needed just needs to be tweaked. Elimination is not usually even part of the conversation unfortunately.


kombat wrote:
DoingHomework wrote:
That's easy to say. You are Canadian. YOUR government maintains a bit more fiscal sanity.



"A bit more," yes, but nowhere near as much as I'd like. Short aside: The current "scandal" in the news in Canada is in regards to severance payments. In Canada, if you work for the federal government, you're entitled to severance pay when you leave your job. …everyone who works for the government in Canada is getting severance checks. But they're keeping their jobs. My buddy works for the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's IRS) and is getting a check for $12,000, just to keep coming to work. This is costing the government $6 billion. And remember, we're only 1/10th the size of the US, so that's equivalent to a $60 billion expense to you guys.


This really made me laugh. Sad but actually a bit funny. And I thought our government in the U.S. made ridiculous decisions. Makes me wish I worked for the Canadian government for just a moment.

_________________
~ Eagle


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1045
DoingHomework wrote:
Eagle, I have tried really hard not to attack your religion. In spite of what you might believe about me, and in spite of some cheap shots I may have taken, usually just to poke fun, I really do try to respect other people's beliefs.


That is appreciated. Thanks.

DoingHomework wrote:
There are in fact a few people on GRS who I have gone "head to head" with in the past when it came to religion yet I completely respect their opinions and I frequently agree with their finance advice. I (and I think those of who I speak) see no reason we can't peacefully coexist, work together to help others here, and even have intelligent conversations about political or intellectual topics.

I feel the same way about you...except...


Had me going there for a few seconds. That’s like saying we can talk about anything… But [or except]… Not everything. Lol. Or am I understanding this incorrectly? ;) I too want to peacefully coexist, help others, and have intelligent conversations. In fact I thought for a moment there you had added me to the “enemies” list on the forum and were no longer even seeing my posts.

DoingHomework wrote:
I have come to realize, because of things you've said, that you belong to a church, or at least a denomination, that clings to a view of themselves and the bible that is not supported by anyone else or by the evidence of history. You think you are the "true church" and the only "true Christians."


My denomination and consequently I supports the Bible as the inspired, inherent, infallible Word of God. I'm sure someone will disagree. In fact not all supposed Christians can agree on that. However, I know I am part of the “true church” and am a follower of Christ – the only way to God. I believe there are followers of Christ in a majority of Christian denominations with a few exceptions of cults like “Jehovah’s Witness” and “Scientology.”

DoingHomework wrote:
As an atheist, I have no skin in the game but I can also see things as an outsider and see that much of what you claim is not even what is accepted as the "scholarly" Christian theology.


Please specify what I have claimed is not “scholarly” Christian theology. If you mean by “scholarly” people associated with the Jesus Movement then I’ll take that as a compliment. I believe in the Bible as the Word of God, Jesus is who He said He was, and there is no other way to God except through Him. If this conflicts with what so-called “Christian scholars” say well everyone has a right to his or her own opinion.

DoingHomework wrote:
No offense intended, but some of the things you've said sound more consistent with the Gnostic movement in the 2-4 century than modern Christianity. But who am I to tell you which group to identify with.


Gnostic movement? Wow. Please specify which ideas that I’ve presented that led to this conclusion? I must say I’m a bit flabbergasted by this comment. Are you sure you know what Gnostic means? Or perhaps we have different definitions...

I believe Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God the Father are all one - as evidence in the Bible. There are not mulitple dieties as Gnostic theology often teaches. I don’t believe salvation is by knowledge as gnostic theology often teaches – it is by faith in Christ Jesus alone as clearly called out in the Bible. I don’t believe that matter is evil and knowledge is more important than faith as Gnostic theology teaches. What evidence have I given of Gnostic thinking? I'm very curious.

Out of curiosity how can I be Gnostic ("learned" or "intellectual") and not scholarly in the same post? I find this amusing. Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

DoingHomework wrote:
It is understandable how the kind of closed-minded thinking you have (probably) been raised to use limits your ability to process challenging evidence. For that reason, I find it a bit hard to be too critical of you but I also find it hard to take you seriously in an intellectual debate, which is what I think most of us are trying to have here.


So because of my belief system you feel I cannot process challenging information and it almost sounds as if you pity me a bit… Maybe I read this wrong. I find that humorous. ;)

DoingHomework wrote:
Not once that I can find have you directly addressed a challenge to your scientific or historical beliefs with actual evidence.


Scientific: I proposed several arguments/questions regarding Evolution. But like I said it is best for us to agree to disagree.

Historical: I gave evidence that you were wrong claiming that Hinduism and Budhism were in fact peaceful religions – while pointing out the darker sides of Christian history with the Crusades and Inquisition. I also pointed out that the split between the East and West occurred well before the Reformation.

DoingHomework wrote:
None of this is to say that I can't coexist with you here and agree with you when you give good financial advice or other good advice (which you often do). But I have come to think that your beliefs and unwillingness to think beyond them is severely limiting you. That may not be something you can help but I hope, because you are clearly an intelligent guy, that you will be able to get past it and think more broadly as you mature.


I’m glad to coexist with everyone. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish. So out of curiosity how would I reduce my limitations? Or get past my belief system? Are you suggesting I just reject everything I know to be true? Lol. :^)

DoingHomework wrote:
In any case, I doubt if you even care what I think. I just had to say it.


It is always interesting to have someone criticize one’s life/views from an outside perspective. Even if this post has been in my opinion an attempt to invalidate most of what I’ve discussed beyond finances. Not sure how constructive this was but I can tell you did try to put some thought into what you wrote. For that I am appreciative. ;)

_________________
~ Eagle


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1045
Thanks for the responses kaitlyn. It is always interesting to get other peoples takes on such ideas. Questions I'm interested are labelled A, B, C, D, E in bold.

kaitlyn142 wrote:
Most of those line-item quotes. Like I was saying, I can find quotes in the Bible that support abortion.


Really? How very curious. A) I’d love to see these passages in the Bible that support abortion. Also isn’t the position of the Catholic church one that all life is sacred even at conception? Or maybe I’m mistaken.

Also please point out the line-item quotes I took out of context. I mean hopefully you can agree that is a very blanket statement. Or at least give a few examples for me to better understand what you are trying to say. And even perhaps what they mean instead.

kaitlyn142 wrote:
This isn't true. The Pope is not the intercessor for the RCC or Christianity as a whole.

If you are asking where do we get the idea for having a Pope: Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


Another interpretation of this passage:

Matthew 16:16 Peter confesses Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Matthew 16:17 Jesus says this revelation of Jesus identity had been revealed by God the Father.
Matthew 16:18 Jesus agrees with Peter and says according to the truth that Jesus is the Son of God He will build His church.
Matthew 16:19 Nothing will able to stand against Christ’s kingdom.
Matthew 16:20 Jesus tells the 12 disciples not to tell anyone. It was not yet time for Christ to die on the cross.

Two different words were used.

Peter – man, name translated into “little rock.”

Greek - ‘Petros’ is a masculine noun denoting a “small movable stone” originating from an immovable rock (a Petra).

Rock – Truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Greek - ‘Petra’ is a feminine noun denoting a “large rock” or cliff, in situ, firm and “immovable.” [also reffered to as foundation bolder or cornerstone]

See: http://www.christconnections.com/Word/Matt_16_18.pdf

This is a play on words. Isn’t it ironic that out of a little stone or man [Peter] such truth [Jesus is the long awaited Christ] could be stated?

B) Isn’t Christ Himself called the “chief cornerstone” in 1 Pet. 2:6-7?

C) What is your take on Luke 22:24-30 when the disciples asked who was to be the greatest in Christ's kingdom? And how does this conform with the teachings of the RCC?

kaitlyn142 wrote:
1. Not even the Marists say that Mary is divine.


So then why pray to Mary then? Curious. Or is there Biblical evidence she can intercede for others behalf to God just as Christ according to the Bible can?

kaitlyn142 wrote:
2. This strongly implies that there are people who WILL be forgiven in the world to come but were not in this world, which in turn implies a transitional place where you can earn forgiveness.


Very interesting. So regarding purgatory we can agree theres is no place in the Bible where purgatory is actually mentioned?

Here’s my take: Even in the Jewish belief system there was the idea of Hades and a part of Hades was a good place called Paradise. I don’t Biblical evidence exists for such a place as purgatory in the passage quoted. 1 Cor 3:11-15 refers to the day of judgment at Christ’s return. Not a mystical place of neutrality. In Revelation we are told people will be divided right and left. Matthew 12:32 in context refers to rejecting God’s Holy Spirit and rejecting Christ as Savior. So basically what you are saying is people even after death can be saved and have the promise of Heaven? If so what would be the point of accepting Christ while alive? Or do they just roam the Earth “looking after” souls still on Earth.


3. Regarding indulgences and good works.. Curious where in the Bible does it say good works are for our benefit? I thought they were a testimony to God’s goodness and honor? So basically if I were to become Catholic I could work my way out of purgatory? Can one work one’s way out of Hell?

kaitlyn142 wrote:
4. Do you honestly blame the Catholic church for wanting to make families who are terrified their children are going to hell feel better (remember, we believe in the stain of Original Sin on the soul)?


Blame? I would call it what it what I believe it is - heresy. That would include any doctrine contrary to the Bible – where baptism as a sacrament is a sign of repentance in obedience as the example set forth by Christ. Can we agree then there is no evidence for this [baptism of infants] teaching in the Bible? Sprinkling some water on someone doesn’t change their heart or mind. I would debate the idea that baptism saves at all. It is a symbol of dying to one’s self and being raised in Christ.

kaitlyn142 wrote:
Eagle wrote:
And finally to be very blunt: Is salvation through faith in Christ or is it something that can be achieved through one’s own efforts?



5. Prayer to the saints: It's prayer with the saints. They have their special causes, and we believe by invoking their name, they will lend their voice with ours to God.


Sounds to me like saints can be mediators between God and man. There is no Biblical backing for this stance I take it. Or is there?

Additional Question:

D) Out of curiosity do Catholics believe anyone can be assured of their salvation?


Eagle wrote:
kaitlyn142 wrote:
IV. And finally to be very blunt: Is salvation through faith in Christ or is it something that can be achieved through one’s own efforts?


Official Catholic is position is neither. It is through faith and good works that one achieves salvation.


E) Interesting. So faith alone in Jesus Christ is insufficient for the assurance of salvation?

_________________
~ Eagle


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:47 pm 

Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1891
Eagle wrote:
VinTek wrote:
So why did God harden Pharaoh's heart?

This is a widely debated topic (leading to the subject of Predestination) that there are many studies, lectures, and arguments on. I will attempt to answer the question as best I can.

And you go on to cite a bunch of Biblical references and cite a Web site which offers up the gist of what most Biblical scholars have decided. I've decided not to re-quote what you said for the sake of brevity but I'll try very hard not to misquote or change the meaning of you said. The gist of what said via the quotes was:
    1) God hardened Pharoah's heart
    2) Pharoah hardened his own heart
    3) God knew that Pharoah would harden his heart and set him up as a foil for Moses

So that means...?
    1) We're robots after all because we can be programmed
    2) We're not robots
    3) We're not robots but we might as well be, because we serve God's purposes
Wow, talk about twisting yourself into knots to explain inconsistencies.

Quote:
“As Philip Graham Ryken remarks, the signs and wonders were just as much for the Egyptians as the Israelites. And when Moses was told to perform these wonders before Pharaoh, it was “not so he will let God’s people go, but exactly for the opposite reason. Rather than making a believer out of Pharaoh, the signs would harden him in his unbelief. In his stubbornness he would refuse to let God’s people go. The miracles of Jesus Christ had much the same effect: According to God’s sovereign will, some believed and were saved, while others doubted and were condemned. – Bill Muehlenberg”

That statement supports #3.

Eagle wrote:
See http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/04/20/difficult-bible-passages-exodus-73-4/

Pretty much boils down to statements #1, 2 and 3, I think.

So here's something I don't get. Why are there Biblical scholars at all? Many Protestant denominations (especially the evangelical ones) proclaim a close personal relationship with God. So much so that the Holy Spirit enters their bodies and some of them speak in tongues and such. Why the need for scholars? Why doesn't God just flat out say, "Hey, this is what I meant in My Book." Remember, the Bible is perfect. Why does it need to be explained? And if it needs to be explained, why doesn't God just explain to everyone who has a close personal relationship with Him? Why the need for scholarship at all? Surely the Bible isn't only for the learned.

And another thing about perfection. God is perfect. Why aren't His works perfect? You've stated that we all fall short of God's perfection so why were Adam and Eve (and by extension, all their descendants) so imperfect? Did God mess up making man? Oh yes, the free will thing. So if we have free will and are God's creations, why don't we make the perfect choices? And don't even get me started on the subject of fallen angels from a perfect Being.

And please don't fall back on the "God's ways are strange and mysterious" spiel. My ancestors ate from the Fruit of Knowledge. We aren't that dumb.


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:53 pm 

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:16 pm
Posts: 959
According to my parents I am still a Catholic.

In catechist(Sunday school): faith alone is not enough to receive salvation you must also follow the laws of the church/god.

Otherwise you could do whatever you want as long as you believe god exists.

_________________
Be what you want to attract.


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:27 pm 

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:59 am
Posts: 255
A) I’d love to see these passages in the Bible that support abortion. Also isn’t the position of the Catholic church one that all life is sacred even at conception?

The Catholic stance is absolutely that life begins at conception. However, the Jewish stance is different, and it is taken from Numbers 5:18-28. It's too long to post, but the gist is the priest gives a woman that may have been unfaithful "bitter waters" to drink to wash away her curse, which causes her stomach to swell.

I am not arguing the Catholic stance with that comment. It was purely to point out to you that the Bible can be made to say nearly anything if you cherry pick.

In regards to the Pope, I quite honestly don't care how you interpret it. That's fine. You aren't Catholic. Catholics interpret it to mean that Peter was the first pope. We've got 2000 years of history to back that up, thank you very much. Once again, the same words can be made to mean many things. Our interpretation is just as valid as anything you brought up.

B) Isn’t Christ Himself called the “chief cornerstone” in 1 Pet. 2:6-7? And? Your point being? It's not like we are saying Peter is equal to Christ.

C) What is your take on Luke 22:24-30 when the disciples asked who was to be the greatest in Christ's kingdom? And how does this conform with the teachings of the RCC?

I'm posting as a representative of Catholics. My personal interpretations may or may not agree with the RCC. For instance, I'm politically pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. I think Pope Benedict is one of the worst things to happen to the RCC in years. Quite honestly, I'm a terrible Catholic - just a terrible Catholic with 12 years of Jesuit schooling and a family that considers theological debate to be an entertaining dinner conversation.

So then why pray to Mary then? Curious. Or is there Biblical evidence she can intercede for others behalf to God just as Christ according to the Bible can?

It's along the lines of, if your mom asks you to do something, don't you pay extra close attention? My own mother is a Marist, and she is absolutely adamant that they do not consider Mary to be divine.

So regarding purgatory we can agree theres is no place in the Bible where purgatory is actually mentioned?

Certainly. Now find the words "Holy Trinity" in the Bible.

3. Regarding indulgences and good works.. Curious where in the Bible does it say good works are for our benefit? I thought they were a testimony to God’s goodness and honor? So basically if I were to become Catholic I could work my way out of purgatory? Can one work one’s way out of Hell?

I made it very clear that it goes into a good works bank for the souls in Purgatory. No, you cannot work your way out of Hell. Can you selfishly do lots of good works in the hope that you spend no time in purgatory? Nope, because the good works have to be done without any sin attached.

And no, it is not a testament to God's goodness and honor. It's about treating everyone as Christ-like as possible. See Matthew 25: 35-40. Doing good works follows being Christian - Jesus was all about the good works. He didn't do them for greater glory or to honor His Father. He did it because it was the right thing to do. If you aren't doing good works, you aren't trying hard enough to be Christ-like, which makes you a pretty terrible Christian. This is why Catholics believe faith and good works.

I've worked with the homeless (voting drives, working at a "Christmas store" where less fortunate could get free Christmas presents for their kids), feed the hungry (food drives, holiday dinners), visited the elderly (Meals on Wheels) and volunteered at a home for the severely mentally disabled. How about you?

Blame? I would call it what it what I believe it is - heresy.

We disagree. For us, baptism is washing away Original Sin and we'd really rather that get done as soon as possible. The parents make all the promises about the child being raised in Christ. Side note, we don't consider someone to be a full member of the Church until after Confirmation. You disagree on our interpretation of Original Sin, therefore, you disagree with our stance. Good for you and hooray for there being more than one religion in the world.

Sounds to me like saints can be mediators between God and man. There is no Biblical backing for this stance I take it. Or is there?

Then you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Praying WITH the saints. Not to. That isn't mediation, that's a strengthened voice of sorts.

D) Out of curiosity do Catholics believe anyone can be assured of their salvation?

Be a good person, try not to sin, repent when you do, and have faith.

E) Interesting. So faith alone in Jesus Christ is insufficient for the assurance of salvation?

I was very clear it isn't. See above answer on good works for why.


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1045
On the positive side looks like Catholics and Protestants are beggining to stick together on certain issues:

Quote:
Evangelical College (Wheaton) joins suit against ObamaCare Contraception Mandate

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/evangelical-college-joins-suit-against-obamacare-contraception-mandate/?test=latestnews


An evangelical college is joining Catholic groups in suing the Obama administration over the so-called contraception mandate.

Illinois-based Wheaton College announced Wednesday morning that it had joined The Catholic University of America in filing suit before District of Columbia federal court.

The wave of lawsuits has so far been dominated by Catholic organizations. After the Supreme Court upheld most of the federal health care overhaul last month, those groups vowed to continue their legal challenge against the requirement that employers provide access to contraceptive care.

The announcement Wednesday marks the first time an evangelical group has joined that effort.

"In this case, we recognize we have common cause with the Catholic University of America and other Catholic institutions in defending religious liberty," Wheaton College President Philip Graham Ryken said on a conference call.

Wheaton, a protestant institution, is objecting to the Department Health and Human Services rule on slightly different grounds than the Catholic institutions. While those institutions are opposed to the requirement regarding all contraceptive coverage, Wheaton objected only to the possibility that they would have to provide access to coverage for "abortion-inducing drugs."

"We're very clear on the sanctity of life, and this insurance mandate goes against our conscience," Ryken said. He said the fact that Catholic groups are teaming up with an evangelical college in this lawsuit should signal that "something really significant in terms of religious liberty is at stake."

In May, dozens of Catholic groups filed a dozen separate but related federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America.

The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complain the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

_________________
~ Eagle


Last edited by Eagle on Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:38 pm 
Moderator

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5372
Eagle wrote:
On the positive side looks like Catholics and Protestants are beggining to stick together on certain issues:

The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complain the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.


They are p*ssing into the wind. They already have a way around this. They can simply only hire members of their own religion. I don't think the USSC will rule in their favor. But even if it does, they will have a hollow victory. They will likely pay more for plans that exclude contraception.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: ObamaCare (+Tangents Evolution, Religion, & Global Warmi
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1045
DoingHomework wrote:
Eagle wrote:
On the positive side looks like Catholics and Protestants are beggining to stick together on certain issues:

The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complain the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.


They are p*ssing into the wind. They already have a way around this. They can simply only hire members of their own religion. I don't think the USSC will rule in their favor. But even if it does, they will have a hollow victory. They will likely pay more for plans that exclude contraception.


Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough that anything below the title was just the author of the article...

_________________
~ Eagle


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 307 posts ]  Moderators: kombat, bpgui, JerichoHill Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki