Terrible source: CheckWhat the hell are you talking about? Reuters is one of the two biggest news agencies in the world. Certainly respected worldwide.
Unknown Journalist: Check
CR90 confusing two different word (reconsidered and reassessed): Check
All in all, pretty standard and generic thread.
Unknown Journalist: Check
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
I counter with higher government deficits.
Irrelevant, the point is that their kind of healthcare is better.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
I counter with higher government deficits.
So making a country bankrupt so you have better health care is irrelevant, yeah good luck with that rationale.Irrelevant, the point is that their kind of healthcare is better.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
I counter with higher government deficits.
Works great everywhere else. The only western country that doesn't have Universal Healthcare has the largeset deficit.So making a country bankrupt so you have better health care is irrelevant, yeah good luck with that rationale.Irrelevant, the point is that their kind of healthcare is better.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
I counter with higher government deficits.
So making a country bankrupt so you have better health care is irrelevant, yeah good luck with that rationale.Irrelevant, the point is that their kind of healthcare is better.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
I counter with higher government deficits.
Why do I even bother trying to supply you with actual news articles when you all shoot everyone of them down as republican propaganda if you don't agree with 'em?
Why do I even bother trying to supply you with actual news articles when you all shoot everyone of them down as republican propaganda if you don't agree with 'em?
We didn't.... you misrepresented a news article then spouted blatant lies.
Please don't lie about what you did either.
Why do I even bother trying to supply you with actual news articles when you all shoot everyone of them down as republican propaganda if you don't agree with 'em?
So... during a time of fiscal scale-backs they're looking at ways of saving money from an innefficient health care system? Sounds reasonable to me. I saw nothing in that article about reconsidering the whole system.
And as for spiralling budget concerns, I point you to this page http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/ which measures the debt as a percentage of GDP and as actual figures.
USA:
$8.68 trillion
60.8% of GDp
Canada
$0.81 trillion
62.3%
UK
$1.05 tr
47.2%
And deficits? http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/budget_deficit_pct_of_gdp_2010_0.html
USA: 11.92%
UK:14.2%
Canada:2.48%
So, what was your point again?
He he he, we have a debt 8 times as high as engerland's yet it's 3 percent less of our gdp.
Woot.
He he he, we have a debt 8 times as high as engerland's yet it's 3 percent less of our gdp.
Woot.
Where in Chris's post does it show any statistics for England?
Who the fuck said anything about England?
i want CR90 to respond to the facts.
i want CR90 to respond to the facts.
Hello, welcome to FES. You must be new here.
I know, surprising that with a much bigger population and landmass...
anyway, I fear we're in danger of derailing this, i want CR90 to respond to the facts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
I counter with higher government deficits.
Fucking this.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
I counter with higher government deficits.
Actually try countering with having an extensive military budget that also creates a huge deficit while creating little public infrastructure for the country while making CEO's with military contracts extremely wealthy. Then have presidents that pander to their base ever increasing the military budget and lowering taxes without lowering expenditures. Then when the economy tanks and there isn't adequate public infrastructure to handle the situation, blame the president who has to handle it by government spending to increase monetary flow to keep people from spiraling into a devastating depression as a socialist/communist/fascist/nazi. Thus the American Way [abridged version]TM. Amen. Don't tread on me. Thank you Jesus.
Message sponsored by:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:B-grAKO-sxY9QM:http://www.washing-machine-wizard.com/images/tide.jpg)(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:v7SozTjrvI-SHM:http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/Coca%2BCola_1665_19554832_0_0_7003816_300.jpg) (http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:T0_ogShNp4cpBM:http://mymalaysiainfo.com/service/fast-food-malaysia/mcdonalds_300dpi360x240pxl.png) (http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:i7BQHTgtdlOU0M:http://www.cdecard.com/Alphabetic%2520MASTER%2520DIRECTORY%2520ALL%2520CDECARD%2520BUSINESSES/exxon.gif)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3<Points to higher standard of living, higher average life span, and healthier populations in countries where they practice Universal Healthcare>
AHAHAHA! I love it! ;D Not working as well as your lies (or opinions) are saying is it? ;D ;D ;D 8)
(Got the link from here. (http://bucschat.com/showthread.php?t=23439) Where btw they have compassion even for those they don't agree with.)
I counter with higher government deficits.
Actually try countering with having an extensive military budget that also creates a huge deficit while creating little public infrastructure for the country while making CEO's with military contracts extremely wealthy. Then have presidents that pander to their base ever increasing the military budget and lowering taxes without lowering expenditures. Then when the economy tanks and there isn't adequate public infrastructure to handle the situation, blame the president who has to handle it by government spending to increase monetary flow to keep people from spiraling into a devastating depression as a socialist/communist/fascist/nazi. Thus the American Way [abridged version]TM. Amen. Don't tread on me. Thank you Jesus.
Blame the president? Been doing that, glad you finally came on board. :)
i want CR90 to respond to the facts.
Hello, welcome to FES. You must be new here.
Sometimes people deserve to see their faith rewarded. I'm keeping my faith in CR90 for now.
Blame the president? Been doing that, glad you finally came on board. :)
Blame the president? Been doing that, glad you finally came on board. :)
Blame the president? Been doing that, glad you finally came on board. :)
>implying the president has any real control over the country
Blame the president? Been doing that, glad you finally came on board. :)
>implying the president has any real control over the country
I find it humorous how much control the average person thinks the President has. It's no surprise when presidential hopefuls campaign about how they will do X and stop Y but the reality is, all they can do is bargain with Congress members and hope they have the negotiating skill and power to get enough members of Congress to follow the President.
He he he, we have a debt 8 times as high as engerland's yet it's 3 percent less of our gdp.
Woot.
I counter with higher government deficits.
I counter with higher government deficits.
I think this belongs in the fail thread. U.S. has both one of the highest deficits and highest debts in the world.
Anyone know if Greece has taken the lead for highest debt?
I counter with higher government deficits.
I think this belongs in the fail thread. U.S. has both one of the highest deficits and highest debts in the world.
Anyone know if Greece has taken the lead for highest debt?
Why is a deficit an immediate pointer off a bad economy or administration?I counter with higher government deficits.
I think this belongs in the fail thread. U.S. has both one of the highest deficits and highest debts in the world.
Anyone know if Greece has taken the lead for highest debt?
Why? Who has the biggest is irrelevant in this case, IMO. A deficit is bad no matter who has it.
Why is a deficit an immediate pointer off a bad economy or administration?I counter with higher government deficits.
I think this belongs in the fail thread. U.S. has both one of the highest deficits and highest debts in the world.
Anyone know if Greece has taken the lead for highest debt?
Why? Who has the biggest is irrelevant in this case, IMO. A deficit is bad no matter who has it.
So since Bill Clinton's administration had a surplus, his presidency wa the best of the last half a decade?Why is a deficit an immediate pointer off a bad economy or administration?I counter with higher government deficits.
I think this belongs in the fail thread. U.S. has both one of the highest deficits and highest debts in the world.
Anyone know if Greece has taken the lead for highest debt?
Why? Who has the biggest is irrelevant in this case, IMO. A deficit is bad no matter who has it.
Bad economy, maybe not, Bad head of state, hell yes, cause it's their responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.
(http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/03/GR2008020300149.gif)Why is a deficit an immediate pointer off a bad economy or administration?I counter with higher government deficits.
I think this belongs in the fail thread. U.S. has both one of the highest deficits and highest debts in the world.
Anyone know if Greece has taken the lead for highest debt?
Why? Who has the biggest is irrelevant in this case, IMO. A deficit is bad no matter who has it.
Bad economy, maybe not, Bad head of state, hell yes, cause it's their responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.
(http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/03/GR2008020300149.gif)Why is a deficit an immediate pointer off a bad economy or administration?I counter with higher government deficits.
I think this belongs in the fail thread. U.S. has both one of the highest deficits and highest debts in the world.
Anyone know if Greece has taken the lead for highest debt?
Why? Who has the biggest is irrelevant in this case, IMO. A deficit is bad no matter who has it.
Bad economy, maybe not, Bad head of state, hell yes, cause it's their responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.
So I take it you like Clinton?
Clinton getting sucked off makes his economic plan bad? What the fuck?
I counter with higher government deficits.
Who has the biggest is irrelevant in this case, IMO.
Clinton getting sucked off makes his economic plan bad? What the fuck?
Would you like to spin what I said any further, maybe make sound like I said he painted the white house pink? Or are you done putting words in my mouth? I said his presidency was tarnished imo not his economic plan. (http://bucschat.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
Clinton getting sucked off makes his economic plan bad? What the fuck?
Would you like to spin what I said any further, maybe make sound like I said he painted the white house pink? Or are you done putting words in my mouth? I said his presidency was tarnished imo not his economic plan. (http://bucschat.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
Would you like to veer off topic any further?
Clinton getting sucked off makes his economic plan bad? What the fuck?
Would you like to spin what I said any further, maybe make sound like I said he painted the white house pink? Or are you done putting words in my mouth? I said his presidency was tarnished imo not his economic plan. (http://bucschat.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
Would you like to veer off topic any further?
Would you like to "yell" at the real person who veered off topic?
Myjafjallajokul is waiting for your stern lecture. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=17207)
Also, I'd like to point out that CR90 was the one who brought up presidential competency as relating to the size of the deficit/surplus.Clinton getting sucked off makes his economic plan bad? What the fuck?
Would you like to spin what I said any further, maybe make sound like I said he painted the white house pink? Or are you done putting words in my mouth? I said his presidency was tarnished imo not his economic plan. (http://bucschat.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
Would you like to veer off topic any further?
Would you like to "yell" at the real person who veered off topic?
Myjafjallajokul is waiting for your stern lecture. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=17207)
He didn't veer off topic, the thread had already turned to to the subject of the economy, and he presented a chart which related to the economy. You started talking about what Bill Clinton likes to do with his penis, which has nothing to do with his economic strategy.
Why is a deficit an immediate pointer off a bad economy or administration?I counter with higher government deficits.
I think this belongs in the fail thread. U.S. has both one of the highest deficits and highest debts in the world.
Anyone know if Greece has taken the lead for highest debt?
Why? Who has the biggest is irrelevant in this case, IMO. A deficit is bad no matter who has it.
Bad economy, maybe not, Bad head of state, hell yes, cause it's their responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.
Why do I even bother trying to supply you with actual news articles when you all shoot everyone of them down as republican propaganda if you don't agree with 'em?
Canadian health care is awesome.Fox News disagrees, your turn.
(Now we're back on topic)
Canadian health care is awesome.Fox News disagrees, your turn.
(Now we're back on topic)
I've never experienced North Korea but I know it sucks there. 8)Canadian health care is awesome.Fox News disagrees, your turn.
(Now we're back on topic)
They speak of that which they have never experienced.
Canadian health care is awesome.Fox News disagrees, your turn.
(Now we're back on topic)
They speak of that which they have never experienced.
I've never experienced North Korea but I know it sucks there. 8)
Sarcasm, but thanks for the compliment.Canadian health care is awesome.Fox News disagrees, your turn.
(Now we're back on topic)
They speak of that which they have never experienced.
I know a few Canadians who would love to see your health care system tweaked.I've never experienced North Korea but I know it sucks there. 8)
burn.
Of course it needs to be tweaked, that doesn't make the system bad.
Canadian health care is awesome.Fox News disagrees, your turn.
(Now we're back on topic)
They speak of that which they have never experienced.
I know a few Canadians who would love to see your health care system tweaked.
I've never experienced North Korea but I know it sucks there. 8)
burn.
Of course it needs to be tweaked, that doesn't make the system bad.
Doesn't make it good either.
It's statistically better than the US system in almost every way.Of course it needs to be tweaked, that doesn't make the system bad.
Doesn't make it good either.
It's statistically better than the US system in almost every way.Of course it needs to be tweaked, that doesn't make the system bad.
Doesn't make it good either.
It's statistically better than the US system in almost every way.Of course it needs to be tweaked, that doesn't make the system bad.
Doesn't make it good either.
So that means everyone should just fall in line for the system like sheep?
It's statistically better than the US system in almost every way.Of course it needs to be tweaked, that doesn't make the system bad.
Doesn't make it good either.
So that means everyone should just fall in line for the system like sheep?
Why should people fight against a system that benefits their people for better than the system to the South? If anything, citizens in America should be fighting against the current system.
Why should Americans fight against a system that allows them to shop around for their own (private) insurance if they can afford it?
Because many do not have it, we have a shorter average life span, we pay more than any other industrialized country, we have a lower standard of living...It's statistically better than the US system in almost every way.Of course it needs to be tweaked, that doesn't make the system bad.
Doesn't make it good either.
So that means everyone should just fall in line for the system like sheep?
Why should people fight against a system that benefits their people for better than the system to the South? If anything, citizens in America should be fighting against the current system.
Why should Americans fight against a system that allows them to shop around for their own (private) insurance if they can afford it?
It's statistically better than the US system in almost every way.Of course it needs to be tweaked, that doesn't make the system bad.
Doesn't make it good either.
So that means everyone should just fall in line for the system like sheep?
Why should people fight against a system that benefits their people for better than the system to the South? If anything, citizens in America should be fighting against the current system.
Why should Americans fight against a system that allows them to shop around for their own (private) insurance if they can afford it?
Here's a nice little factoid for CR90.
In a recent large-scale survey, over 86% of Canadians expressed strong support for the current universal heath care model. What makes this study so interesting is that the support spans all known demographics and ideologies.
50-60% of your own country's population support a government-administered, single-payer healthcare system (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1). Why do you resist the will of the American people?
Moar: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/us/healthcare031020_poll.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/us/healthcare031020_poll.html)
You must understand that the statistics of who supports it is based on the idea that they won't pay for it.Although I agree in general, these parts of the article are notable:
As Americans, we're naturally self centered. If it's not in our best interest, we won't do it. If we don't get anything out of it, we won't put anything into it. It's our culture: I before We.
Eighty percent (up from 71 percent in 1999) say it's more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people uncovered.
Three-quarters favor the $400 billion plan to cover prescription drugs in Medicare; most would pay higher taxes to fund it.
Me and my family hardly get by as it is, screw higher taxes.
So... during a time of fiscal scale-backs they're looking at ways of saving money from an innefficient health care system? Sounds reasonable to me. I saw nothing in that article about reconsidering the whole system.
And as for spiralling budget concerns, I point you to this page http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/ which measures the debt as a percentage of GDP and as actual figures.
USA:
$8.68 trillion
60.8% of GDp
Canada
$0.81 trillion
62.3%
UK
$1.05 tr
47.2%
And deficits? http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/budget_deficit_pct_of_gdp_2010_0.html
USA: 11.92%
UK:14.2%
Canada:2.48%
So, what was your point again?
Also: are you ever going to respond to this?
Me and my family hardly get by as it is, screw higher taxes.
Wait a minute, how did this get to be about me, the thread is about the Canadian Health care system, last time I checked I live about as far south from Canada as you can while still being in North America.
You live in Mexico?
Wait a minute, how did this get to be about me, the thread is about the Canadian Health care system, last time I checked I live about as far south from Canada as you can while still being in North America.
Me and my family hardly get by as it is, screw higher taxes.
Wait a minute, how did this get to be about me, the thread is about the Canadian Health care system, last time I checked I live about as far south from Canada as you can while still being in North America.
Me and my family hardly get by as it is, screw higher taxes.
I made a one sentence anecdote. Not a new topic.
I made a one sentence anecdote. Not a new topic.
What was the point of making that post if you didn't want people to respond to it?
I made a one sentence anecdote. Not a new topic.
What was the point of making that post if you didn't want people to respond to it?
I didn't say I didn't want people to respond to it, I said I didn't want to permanently change the topic to about me and my financial situation.
Wait a minute, how did this get to be about me, the thread is about the Canadian Health care system, last time I checked I live about as far south from Canada as you can while still being in North America.
You live in Mexico?
No smart ass.
For the sake of f***, CR90, if you don't want the topic to be about you then answer the sodding points relevant to the debate like the comparable deficit/debt figures, otherwise we have no choice but to make the topic about you because you won't respond to the real points being made.
Now either take your sanctimonious head out of your arse and debate or get off the forum.
/me facepalmsWait a minute, how did this get to be about me, the thread is about the Canadian Health care system, last time I checked I live about as far south from Canada as you can while still being in North America.
You live in Mexico?
No smart ass.
You live in Panama? You seem awfully patriotic towards America do be living there. Are you on a mission trip or something?
For the sake of f***, CR90, if you don't want the topic to be about you then answer the sodding points relevant to the debate like the comparable deficit/debt figures, otherwise we have no choice but to make the topic about you because you won't respond to the real points being made.
Now either take your sanctimonious head out of your arse and debate or get off the forum.
Who's f***?
Also, whatever.
For the sake of f***, CR90, if you don't want the topic to be about you then answer the sodding points relevant to the debate like the comparable deficit/debt figures, otherwise we have no choice but to make the topic about you because you won't respond to the real points being made.
Now either take your sanctimonious head out of your arse and debate or get off the forum.
Who's f***?
Also, whatever./me facepalmsWait a minute, how did this get to be about me, the thread is about the Canadian Health care system, last time I checked I live about as far south from Canada as you can while still being in North America.
You live in Mexico?
No smart ass.
You live in Panama? You seem awfully patriotic towards America do be living there. Are you on a mission trip or something?
What don't you get about the term "about as far south"?
For the sake of f***, CR90, if you don't want the topic to be about you then answer the sodding points relevant to the debate like the comparable deficit/debt figures, otherwise we have no choice but to make the topic about you because you won't respond to the real points being made.
Now either take your sanctimonious head out of your arse and debate or get off the forum.
Who's f***?
Also, whatever./me facepalmsWait a minute, how did this get to be about me, the thread is about the Canadian Health care system, last time I checked I live about as far south from Canada as you can while still being in North America.
You live in Mexico?
No smart ass.
You live in Panama? You seem awfully patriotic towards America do be living there. Are you on a mission trip or something?
What don't you get about the term "about as far south"?
That means less than halfway now?
Me and my family hardly get by as it is, screw higher taxes.
CR90 is unemployed.Me and my family hardly get by as it is, screw higher taxes.
Got a question:
Do you get health insurance through your employer?
CR90 is unemployed.
CR90 is unemployed.Me and my family hardly get by as it is, screw higher taxes.
Got a question:
Do you get health insurance through your employer?
My family gets by pretty easily. Tell your parents to get better jobs.
My family gets by pretty easily. Tell your parents to get better jobs.
First off, shut the hell up. Second, they've tried.
My family gets by pretty easily. Tell your parents to get better jobs.
First off, shut the hell up. Second, they've tried.
How come my parents got good jobs easily? ???
Two things. First: Who said they got new jobs, I just said they've tried. Second, my mother doesn't work do to disabilities.
will offer to buy said Xbox, and all games... for next months electrical bill.Two things. First: Who said they got new jobs, I just said they've tried. Second, my mother doesn't work do to disabilities.
You should definitely help them out by selling your XBox.
Two things. First: Who said they got new jobs, I just said they've tried. Second, my mother doesn't work do to disabilities.
You know the irony?
If we had public health care, I bet his mother's medial expenses due to her disabilities wouldn't cost the family anything and they'd be in much better shape than they are now.
You know the irony?
If we had public health care, I bet his mother's medial expenses due to her disabilities wouldn't cost the family anything and they'd be in much better shape than they are now.
No irony.
She has medicare. :P
You know the irony?
If we had public health care, I bet his mother's medial expenses due to her disabilities wouldn't cost the family anything and they'd be in much better shape than they are now.
No irony.
She has medicare. :P
Which is socialized Medicine. Congratulations: your mom is using the very thing you said you don't want.
You know the irony?
If we had public health care, I bet his mother's medial expenses due to her disabilities wouldn't cost the family anything and they'd be in much better shape than they are now.
No irony.
She has medicare. :P
Which is socialized Medicine. Congratulations: your mom is using the very thing you said you don't want.
You know the irony?
If we had public health care, I bet his mother's medial expenses due to her disabilities wouldn't cost the family anything and they'd be in much better shape than they are now.
No irony.
She has medicare. :P
Which is socialized Medicine. Congratulations: your mom is using the very thing you said you don't want.
Wrong. Medicare is by application, not a hand out.
You know the irony?
If we had public health care, I bet his mother's medial expenses due to her disabilities wouldn't cost the family anything and they'd be in much better shape than they are now.
No irony.
She has medicare. :P
Which is socialized Medicine. Congratulations: your mom is using the very thing you said you don't want.
Wrong. Medicare is by application, not a hand out.
Hi,
What you've just said makes no sense at all. You should consider rethinking it in order that you not look like a complete tool in the future.
Much love,
Guessed
You know the irony?
If we had public health care, I bet his mother's medial expenses due to her disabilities wouldn't cost the family anything and they'd be in much better shape than they are now.
No irony.
She has medicare. :P
Which is socialized Medicine. Congratulations: your mom is using the very thing you said you don't want.
Wrong. Medicare is by application, not a hand out.
You know the irony?
If we had public health care, I bet his mother's medial expenses due to her disabilities wouldn't cost the family anything and they'd be in much better shape than they are now.
No irony.
She has medicare. :P
Which is socialized Medicine. Congratulations: your mom is using the very thing you said you don't want.
Wrong. Medicare is by application, not a hand out.
Hi,
What you've just said makes no sense at all. You should consider rethinking it in order that you not look like a complete tool in the future.
Much love,
Guessed
???
I am proud that part of my paycheck goes to programs that support CR90's mom ex:Medicare. She actually deserves the coverage. I don't want my money going towards supporting freeloaders.
personally I think she earned not got it for free.How did she earn it?
personally I think she earned not got it for free.
personally I think she earned not got it for free.
personally I think she earned not got it for free.
What the fuck? My hard-working parents' tax dollars pay CR90's mom so she can sit on her ass and eat Doritos?
personally I think she earned not got it for free.
She earned it? All she had to do is fill out a form and she got free socialized health care. How do you earn something like that?
personally I think she earned not got it for free.
My mommy gladly takes monies from the government but tells me socialism is naughty.
Where you live CR90? Texas?
My mommy gladly takes monies from the government but tells me socialism is naughty.
I'm pretty sure that is the basis of everything. Sean, you just gave us insight into CR90's soul.
Don't forget that Abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy since his school taught him that.
Ya know, despite not mentioning contraceptives.
Where you live CR90? Texas?
First off, I'm in Florida. Second, My parents taught me abstinence, which I agree with. But if I was going to have sex I would be an idiot not to use contraceptives. Third, my county's school's sex ed classes are voluntary and they teach contraceptives not abstinence. And FYI, I took the sex ed classes :PMy mommy gladly takes monies from the government but tells me socialism is naughty.
I'm pretty sure that is the basis of everything. Sean, you just gave us insight into CR90's soul.
Don't forget that Abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy since his school taught him that.
Ya know, despite not mentioning contraceptives.
Where you live CR90? Texas?
I asked you earlier, what are the sex ed courses like? are they abstinence only?
Actually I've ever heard them mention abstinence that I can remember.
My mommy gladly takes monies from the government but tells me socialism is naughty.
Second, My parents taught me abstinence, which I agree with.
First off, I'm in Florida. Second, My parents taught me abstinence, which I agree with. But if I was going to have sex I would be an idiot not to use contraceptives. Third, my county's school's sex ed classes are voluntary and they teach contraceptives not abstinence. And FYI, I took the sex ed classes :PMy mommy gladly takes monies from the government but tells me socialism is naughty.
I'm pretty sure that is the basis of everything. Sean, you just gave us insight into CR90's soul.
Don't forget that Abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy since his school taught him that.
Ya know, despite not mentioning contraceptives.
Where you live CR90? Texas?
Nice lying.I asked you earlier, what are the sex ed courses like? are they abstinence only?
Actually I've ever heard them mention abstinence that I can remember.
My mommy gladly takes monies from the government but tells me socialism is naughty.
First off, I'm in Florida. Second, My parents taught me abstinence, which I agree with. But if I was going to have sex I would be an idiot not to use contraceptives. Third, my county's school's sex ed classes are voluntary and they teach contraceptives not abstinence. And FYI, I took the sex ed classes :PMy mommy gladly takes monies from the government but tells me socialism is naughty.
I'm pretty sure that is the basis of everything. Sean, you just gave us insight into CR90's soul.
Don't forget that Abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy since his school taught him that.
Ya know, despite not mentioning contraceptives.
Where you live CR90? Texas?
Nice lying.I asked you earlier, what are the sex ed courses like? are they abstinence only?
Actually I've ever heard them mention abstinence that I can remember.
Both those quotes say the same thing.
From the next one onwards I'm going to start a thread entitled 'arguments CR90 has dodged'
From the next one onwards I'm going to start a thread entitled 'arguments CR90 has dodged'
I think I understand:
His family is conservative so he was raised to believe that socialism is bad and anything that is government run will most likely fail. Free market forever and all.
His mom god disabled and, when push came to shove, they needed help so instead of thinking themselves as hypocritical they instead say "we earned it so it's ok".
We used cucumbers in our sex-ed class.
If a teacher tried using one of those here it would make the news and the teacher would probably be fired, lol.
Abstinence only makes me laugh because the teenage years are when our bodies are specifically ready to have sex and reproduce. We're biologically supposed to be having babies by 16 so that, when we hit 30, we can die.
True, that was a VERY long time ago in our evolutionary chain, but it's not like it's gone away.
Abstinence only makes me laugh because the teenage years are when our bodies are specifically ready to have sex and reproduce. We're biologically supposed to be having babies by 16 so that, when we hit 30, we can die.
True, that was a VERY long time ago in our evolutionary chain, but it's not like it's gone away.
I disagree. It wasn't that long ago. Kids be fuckin...Christians be trippin'...And that's just the way she goes.
If you think about it...If we consider technological evolution - particularly medical technology - the goal is continually to extend the human life. We can easily do it in the adult stage with medicine and therapy and shit, but extending the childhood (arguably the best part) is not as easy of a task. In that way we use social rules/taboos/etc., to attempt an extension of the childhood to meet up with the extension of the later adulthood. I suppose the only real way to do that technologically would be through some kind of genetic manipulation...but that's a whole extended step.
I don't know if you were actually being sarcastic Raist, but I agree. His statement makes a lot of sense.If you think about it...If we consider technological evolution - particularly medical technology - the goal is continually to extend the human life. We can easily do it in the adult stage with medicine and therapy and shit, but extending the childhood (arguably the best part) is not as easy of a task. In that way we use social rules/taboos/etc., to attempt an extension of the childhood to meet up with the extension of the later adulthood. I suppose the only real way to do that technologically would be through some kind of genetic manipulation...but that's a whole extended step.
Wow. That actually makes a lot of sense. It explains a lot actually.
I was being 100% genuine. That puts a lot in perspective.I don't know if you were actually being sarcastic Raist, but I agree. His statement makes a lot of sense.If you think about it...If we consider technological evolution - particularly medical technology - the goal is continually to extend the human life. We can easily do it in the adult stage with medicine and therapy and shit, but extending the childhood (arguably the best part) is not as easy of a task. In that way we use social rules/taboos/etc., to attempt an extension of the childhood to meet up with the extension of the later adulthood. I suppose the only real way to do that technologically would be through some kind of genetic manipulation...but that's a whole extended step.
Wow. That actually makes a lot of sense. It explains a lot actually.
If you think about it...If we consider technological evolution - particularly medical technology - the goal is continually to extend the human life. We can easily do it in the adult stage with medicine and therapy and shit, but extending the childhood (arguably the best part) is not as easy of a task. In that way we use social rules/taboos/etc., to attempt an extension of the childhood to meet up with the extension of the later adulthood. I suppose the only real way to do that technologically would be through some kind of genetic manipulation...but that's a whole extended step.
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
What a succesful campaign. South Africa is now the AIDS capitol of the world
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
What a succesful campaign. South Africa is now the AIDS capitol of the world
Abstinence classes cause AIDS?
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
What a succesful campaign. South Africa is now the AIDS capitol of the world
Abstinence classes cause AIDS?
When did I say that?
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
What a succesful campaign. South Africa is now the AIDS capitol of the world
Abstinence classes cause AIDS?
When did I say that?
You didn't. Just an idea I had that I believe needs further testing.
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
What a succesful campaign. South Africa is now the AIDS capitol of the world
Abstinence classes cause AIDS?
When did I say that?
You didn't. Just an idea I had that I believe needs further testing.
Well....
Teachers are authority figures.
Teenagers do like to do the opposite of whatever authority figures tell them.
Therefore:
Abstinence only teaching can cause an increase in AIDS.
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
That goes against the pope's official decision.
On a second not, did the priest's molest you? The pope is ok with that.
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
What a succesful campaign. South Africa is now the AIDS capitol of the world
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
What a succesful campaign. South Africa is now the AIDS capitol of the world
I heard it worked pretty well in Uganda. I imagine that in some of these places it is hard to get condoms.
Back to the sex ed stuff...
I went to an all male private catholic school in one of the southern states and they taught us to use condoms. You may understand why I find it odd that other schools in other places teach abstinence only.
Some states demand Abstinence Only. Like Texas. Heck, Bush made a bill for groups to go into Africa and teach them abstinence as a way to control the spread of AIDS.
What a succesful campaign. South Africa is now the AIDS capitol of the world
I heard it worked pretty well in Uganda. I imagine that in some of these places it is hard to get condoms.
Especially when you have pricks like Darth Sidious telling them that they'll go to Hell for using them...
so long as it works
Quoteso long as it works
And clearly it doesn't.
Quoteso long as it works
And clearly it doesn't.
I was under the impression that the abstinence program in Uganda had been relatively successful.
Quoteso long as it works
And clearly it doesn't.
I was under the impression that the abstinence program in Uganda had been relatively successful.
Who told you that?
My favourite quote on this is from Stephen fry, who has done a great deal of work with AIDS in Africa
"There was a time when [Uganda] had the highest incidence rates of HIV/AIDs in the world but through an amazing initiative called ABC:
Abstinence,
Be faithful
Correct use of condoms
Those three, and I'm not denying that abstinence is a very good way of not getting AIDs it really is, it works; so does being faithful but so do condoms and do not deny it!"
I don't really care what combination of techniques works best so long as it works, and neither should you. In a lot of these countries there exists a strong taboo against using condoms. Education on safe-sex can do a lot, but for many, encouraging abstinence from sex with multiple partners is the most realistic solution to curbing the spread of HIV.
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
When are you going to get it into your head that not all Christians believe the same thing.
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
When are you going to get it into your head that not all Christians believe the same thing.
As soon as it stops being an oxymoron. They're a single religion, if they didn't believe the same thing then they wouldn't be.
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
When are you going to get it into your head that not all Christians believe the same thing.
As soon as it stops being an oxymoron. They're a single religion, if they didn't believe the same thing then they wouldn't be.
That's why they're called denominations!
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
When are you going to get it into your head that not all Christians believe the same thing.
As soon as it stops being an oxymoron. They're a single religion, if they didn't believe the same thing then they wouldn't be.
That's why they're called denominations!
So which one is right? Since they have identical scriptures, surely one is definitely absolutely right.
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
When are you going to get it into your head that not all Christians believe the same thing.
As soon as it stops being an oxymoron. They're a single religion, if they didn't believe the same thing then they wouldn't be.
That's why they're called denominations!
So which one is right? Since they have identical scriptures, surely one is definitely absolutely right.
They will all claim to be right. As for Christianity as a whole, I would define it as all religious denominations that currently believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, died for man's sins, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven with his body, and only through belief in him can a persons sins be forgiven. That belief appears to be common amoung all of the current Christian religions, though there may be some other common beliefs, such as the virgin birth.
Certainly, anyone can claim to be right. But when it comes to this, one definitely absolutely is. Does it make you sad that the lunatics in the Deep South that stone biology teachers for stating the fact of evolution are adhering to scripture more than you? Even then, they do so on the Sabbath while wearing two types of thread.
Certainly, anyone can claim to be right. But when it comes to this, one definitely absolutely is. Does it make you sad that the lunatics in the Deep South that stone biology teachers for stating the fact of evolution are adhering to scripture more than you? Even then, they do so on the Sabbath while wearing two types of thread.
I have no problem with schools teaching Creationism, so long as it is taught in religion class. It is not and has never been scientific.
Certainly, anyone can claim to be right. But when it comes to this, one definitely absolutely is. Does it make you sad that the lunatics in the Deep South that stone biology teachers for stating the fact of evolution are adhering to scripture more than you? Even then, they do so on the Sabbath while wearing two types of thread.
Lol.
You'd perhaps be interested in this poll:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/25/teach-evolution-creationism-britons
I have no problem with schools teaching Creationism, so long as it is taught in religion class. It is not and has never been scientific.
Certainly, anyone can claim to be right. But when it comes to this, one definitely absolutely is. Does it make you sad that the lunatics in the Deep South that stone biology teachers for stating the fact of evolution are adhering to scripture more than you? Even then, they do so on the Sabbath while wearing two types of thread.
I disagree with the bold, I would say none of them are likely to be correct. Unless they can be independently verified.
Certainly, anyone can claim to be right. But when it comes to this, one definitely absolutely is. Does it make you sad that the lunatics in the Deep South that stone biology teachers for stating the fact of evolution are adhering to scripture more than you? Even then, they do so on the Sabbath while wearing two types of thread.
Lol.
You'd perhaps be interested in this poll:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/25/teach-evolution-creationism-britons
Gods below, I need to emigrate.
Certainly, anyone can claim to be right. But when it comes to this, one definitely absolutely is. Does it make you sad that the lunatics in the Deep South that stone biology teachers for stating the fact of evolution are adhering to scripture more than you? Even then, they do so on the Sabbath while wearing two types of thread.
I disagree with the bold, I would say none of them are likely to be correct. Unless they can be independently verified.
If none of them are correct, why doesn't somebody make one that is?
Certainly, anyone can claim to be right. But when it comes to this, one definitely absolutely is. Does it make you sad that the lunatics in the Deep South that stone biology teachers for stating the fact of evolution are adhering to scripture more than you? Even then, they do so on the Sabbath while wearing two types of thread.
I disagree with the bold, I would say none of them are likely to be correct. Unless they can be independently verified.
If none of them are correct, why doesn't somebody make one that is?
Science is working on that.
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
When are you going to get it into your head that not all Christians believe the same thing.
As soon as it stops being an oxymoron. They're a single religion, if they didn't believe the same thing then they wouldn't be.
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
When are you going to get it into your head that not all Christians believe the same thing.
As soon as it stops being an oxymoron. They're a single religion, if they didn't believe the same thing then they wouldn't be.
Do you think that all Christians have to believe that one flavour of ice cream is superior to all the others?
Yes, but the point is that the Pope actively denies having that combination, he denies condoms! The church has made aid conditional on not giving out condoms, the pope has spread the lie that condoms make it worse!
When are you going to get it into your head that not all Christians believe the same thing.
As soon as it stops being an oxymoron. They're a single religion, if they didn't believe the same thing then they wouldn't be.
Do you think that all Christians have to believe that one flavour of ice cream is superior to all the others?
If the scriptures say so, then yeah. There would probably be genocides over which one though, unless that was very clearly specified.
So how does one explain denominations? Clearly if it isn't in the Bible then YHWH doesn't care that much about it.
So how does one explain denominations? Clearly if it isn't in the Bible then YHWH doesn't care that much about it.
Denominations emerge around those things which God apparently does not care much about or at least did not care enough to spell it out for us plainly. Most Christians will admit that it doesn't really matter which denomination you belong to. Even though they differ in their beliefs here and there, they are all still legit because they agree on the fundamentals.
So how does one explain denominations? Clearly if it isn't in the Bible then YHWH doesn't care that much about it.
Denominations emerge around those things which God apparently does not care much about or at least did not care enough to spell it out for us plainly. Most Christians will admit that it doesn't really matter which denomination you belong to. Even though they differ in their beliefs here and there, they are all still legit because they agree on the fundamentals.
Er, yeah. This.So how does one explain denominations? Clearly if it isn't in the Bible then YHWH doesn't care that much about it.
Denominations emerge around those things which God apparently does not care much about or at least did not care enough to spell it out for us plainly. Most Christians will admit that it doesn't really matter which denomination you belong to. Even though they differ in their beliefs here and there, they are all still legit because they agree on the fundamentals.
Don't most believe that those not in there denomination will go to hell?
I see this most hard-core in born again christians and evangelicals.
Er, yeah. This.So how does one explain denominations? Clearly if it isn't in the Bible then YHWH doesn't care that much about it.
Denominations emerge around those things which God apparently does not care much about or at least did not care enough to spell it out for us plainly. Most Christians will admit that it doesn't really matter which denomination you belong to. Even though they differ in their beliefs here and there, they are all still legit because they agree on the fundamentals.
Don't most believe that those not in there denomination will go to hell?
I see this most hard-core in born again christians and evangelicals.
The Catholics see the Protestants as heretics, and vice versa. The hard-line ones, at least.
Er, yeah. This.So how does one explain denominations? Clearly if it isn't in the Bible then YHWH doesn't care that much about it.
Denominations emerge around those things which God apparently does not care much about or at least did not care enough to spell it out for us plainly. Most Christians will admit that it doesn't really matter which denomination you belong to. Even though they differ in their beliefs here and there, they are all still legit because they agree on the fundamentals.
Don't most believe that those not in there denomination will go to hell?
I see this most hard-core in born again christians and evangelicals.
The Catholics see the Protestants as heretics, and vice versa. The hard-line ones, at least.
I was raised Baptist, and I don't ever remember being taught that the other denominations were going to hell for the slight differences in beliefs. Now, maybe for some of the bigger differences, like Catholics praying to idols and saints.
You guys didn't pray to statues of Mary?They do say the hail Mary.
You guys didn't pray to statues of Mary?
You guys didn't pray to statues of Mary?
You guys didn't pray to statues of Mary?
No we didn't. And besides, praying to Mary isn't worshipping a false God.
You guys didn't pray to statues of Mary?
No we didn't. And besides, praying to Mary isn't worshipping a false God.
So Mary created the Earth in 7 days? My, she was a busy woman wasn't she?
But Mary is dead. What good does it do to pray to her?
But Mary is dead. What good does it do to pray to her?
I dunno, I don't pray to her. But i'm pretty sure it's more just about actually talking to someone about the issues in their life. If they can regonise them and think about them, and contemplate them, who cares if they are talking to a dead person. So people go to loved one's graves and talk to them. Whats the difference?
But Mary is dead. What good does it do to pray to her?
I dunno, I don't pray to her. But i'm pretty sure it's more just about actually talking to someone about the issues in their life. If they can regonise them and think about them, and contemplate them, who cares if they are talking to a dead person. So people go to loved one's graves and talk to them. Whats the difference?
But Mary is dead. What good does it do to pray to her?
I dunno, I don't pray to her. But i'm pretty sure it's more just about actually talking to someone about the issues in their life. If they can regonise them and think about them, and contemplate them, who cares if they are talking to a dead person. So people go to loved one's graves and talk to them. Whats the difference?
I'm pretty sure people worship golden oxen because it's more about talking to a god that is applicable to them in their life. If they can recognize it and think about it and contemplate it, who cares if it's a "false" idol. So people worship all kinds of shit. What's the difference?
But Mary is dead. What good does it do to pray to her?
I dunno, I don't pray to her. But i'm pretty sure it's more just about actually talking to someone about the issues in their life. If they can regonise them and think about them, and contemplate them, who cares if they are talking to a dead person. So people go to loved one's graves and talk to them. Whats the difference?
I don't think there's anything wrong with any of it. I just know that according to the bible you're only supposed to pray to God...
Have you provided the passages that say you should pray to Mary and the saints? There are several passages that refer to praying to God. Why would you assume that you should pray to anyone else?
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:6-7)
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds
of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints" (Ephesians 6:18) (for the saints, not to them)
I don't have time to look up more.. but I'd really like to read some passages about praying (worshiping) Mary or any of the saints. Prayer is a form of worship.
Have you provided the passages that say you should pray to Mary and the saints? There are several passages that refer to praying to God. Why would you assume that you should pray to anyone else?How the actual translation differences for "for the saints" and "to them". Unfortunately, I'm not a scholar of languages.
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:6-7)
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints" (Ephesians 6:18) (for the saints, not to them)
I don't have time to look up more.. but I'd really like to read some passages about praying (worshiping) Mary or any of the saints. Prayer is a form of worship.
I think the issue is that those are humans who are dead and can't "hear" prayers.
I think the issue is that those are humans who are dead and can't "hear" prayers.
What's the big deal though? If it makes them happy, it doesn't hurt anyone, and God doesn't say you can't do it, why should it matter?
I think the issue is that those are humans who are dead and can't "hear" prayers.
What's the big deal though? If it makes them happy, it doesn't hurt anyone, and God doesn't say you can't do it, why should it matter?
It seems, to me, a bit hypocritical. God is the only one who can actually do anything about their problems (i.e. answer their prayers) so praying to a dead human vessel who cannot do anything about their problems, is tantamount to praying to a false god in my opinion. Erecting statues to the Mary and praying to them is the same as praying to a golden cow. They're ascribing "godly" attributes (forgiveness, comfort, etc) to a human.
I think the issue is that those are humans who are dead and can't "hear" prayers.
What's the big deal though? If it makes them happy, it doesn't hurt anyone, and God doesn't say you can't do it, why should it matter?
It seems, to me, a bit hypocritical. God is the only one who can actually do anything about their problems (i.e. answer their prayers) so praying to a dead human vessel who cannot do anything about their problems, is tantamount to praying to a false god in my opinion. Erecting statues to the Mary and praying to them is the same as praying to a golden cow. They're ascribing "godly" attributes (forgiveness, comfort, etc) to a human.
Humans cannot forgive or comfort others? Besides, they aren' just a dead human vessel. They are in heaven and are Saints.
I think the issue is that those are humans who are dead and can't "hear" prayers.
What's the big deal though? If it makes them happy, it doesn't hurt anyone, and God doesn't say you can't do it, why should it matter?
It seems, to me, a bit hypocritical. God is the only one who can actually do anything about their problems (i.e. answer their prayers) so praying to a dead human vessel who cannot do anything about their problems, is tantamount to praying to a false god in my opinion. Erecting statues to the Mary and praying to them is the same as praying to a golden cow. They're ascribing "godly" attributes (forgiveness, comfort, etc) to a human.
Humans cannot forgive or comfort others? Besides, they aren' just a dead human vessel. They are in heaven and are Saints.
There is no indication in the bible that anyone besides God can hear prayers, or any indication that someone like Mary would have God's ear.
I think the issue is that those are humans who are dead and can't "hear" prayers.
What's the big deal though? If it makes them happy, it doesn't hurt anyone, and God doesn't say you can't do it, why should it matter?
It seems, to me, a bit hypocritical. God is the only one who can actually do anything about their problems (i.e. answer their prayers) so praying to a dead human vessel who cannot do anything about their problems, is tantamount to praying to a false god in my opinion. Erecting statues to the Mary and praying to them is the same as praying to a golden cow. They're ascribing "godly" attributes (forgiveness, comfort, etc) to a human.
Humans cannot forgive or comfort others? Besides, they aren' just a dead human vessel. They are in heaven and are Saints.
All Christians are saints, not just the ones the pope chooses. A lot of evangelicals believe that no one goes to heaven when they die, that they are instead waiting for Jesus to resurrect them. Sort of sleeping until judgment day. Then there are others who believe that they go directly to heaven and will get a new body after the second coming.
None of this is a big deal to me, I realize religion was made up by people. We're debating Christianity though, and Christianity has some rules. One of them being that we aren't to worship any other gods. Prayer is a form of worship, because you ascribe godly powers to someone besides god. There is no indication in the bible that anyone besides God can hear prayers, or any indication that someone like Mary would have God's ear.
I think the issue is that those are humans who are dead and can't "hear" prayers.
What's the big deal though? If it makes them happy, it doesn't hurt anyone, and God doesn't say you can't do it, why should it matter?
It seems, to me, a bit hypocritical. God is the only one who can actually do anything about their problems (i.e. answer their prayers) so praying to a dead human vessel who cannot do anything about their problems, is tantamount to praying to a false god in my opinion. Erecting statues to the Mary and praying to them is the same as praying to a golden cow. They're ascribing "godly" attributes (forgiveness, comfort, etc) to a human.
Humans cannot forgive or comfort others? Besides, they aren' just a dead human vessel. They are in heaven and are Saints.
All Christians are saints, not just the ones the pope chooses. A lot of evangelicals believe that no one goes to heaven when they die, that they are instead waiting for Jesus to resurrect them. Sort of sleeping until judgment day. Then there are others who believe that they go directly to heaven and will get a new body after the second coming.
None of this is a big deal to me, I realize religion was made up by people. We're debating Christianity though, and Christianity has some rules. One of them being that we aren't to worship any other gods. Prayer is a form of worship, because you ascribe godly powers to someone besides god. There is no indication in the bible that anyone besides God can hear prayers, or any indication that someone like Mary would have God's ear.
This is one of the best thought out and best researched posts I've seen in this thread. You describe the Protestant position perfectly.
Don't be jealous! :P
One thing I've noticed about the Christians that I know personally is that they believe that people don't go directly to heaven, unless someone in the family dies. Then, suddenly, we're all to believe that the person is with Jesus now.
Don't be jealous! :P
One thing I've noticed about the Christians that I know personally is that they believe that people don't go directly to heaven, unless someone in the family dies. Then, suddenly, we're all to believe that the person is with Jesus now.
Sorta makes you realize that Marx was right in that sense, eh? Religion truly is the opiate of the masses. The ultimate comfort blanket.
Don't be jealous! :P
One thing I've noticed about the Christians that I know personally is that they believe that people don't go directly to heaven, unless someone in the family dies. Then, suddenly, we're all to believe that the person is with Jesus now.
Sorta makes you realize that Marx was right in that sense, eh? Religion truly is the opiate of the masses. The ultimate comfort blanket.
Yep.
You also don't hear people give non-touching eulogies. Things like "This man was a dickhead and I'm glad he's dead". We treat the dead as though they're pure even though they aren't. The only socially acceptable way to express that side of a person is to not say anything.
Don't be jealous! :P
One thing I've noticed about the Christians that I know personally is that they believe that people don't go directly to heaven, unless someone in the family dies. Then, suddenly, we're all to believe that the person is with Jesus now.
Sorta makes you realize that Marx was right in that sense, eh? Religion truly is the opiate of the masses. The ultimate comfort blanket.
Yep.
You also don't hear people give non-touching eulogies. Things like "This man was a dickhead and I'm glad he's dead". We treat the dead as though they're pure even though they aren't. The only socially acceptable way to express that side of a person is to not say anything.
Or it is just a common courtesy to not bad mouth them when there are other people around that may have cared about them. Doing so would just be kicking people while they are down.
Stop trying to find deep meanings where there are none. Not everything can give insight to the human condition. Stop trying to make deep observations in completely pointless things. It is getting quite annoying.
Don't be jealous! :P
One thing I've noticed about the Christians that I know personally is that they believe that people don't go directly to heaven, unless someone in the family dies. Then, suddenly, we're all to believe that the person is with Jesus now.
Sorta makes you realize that Marx was right in that sense, eh? Religion truly is the opiate of the masses. The ultimate comfort blanket.
Yep.
You also don't hear people give non-touching eulogies. Things like "This man was a dickhead and I'm glad he's dead". We treat the dead as though they're pure even though they aren't. The only socially acceptable way to express that side of a person is to not say anything.
And no, I won't stop. I find it fun and if this forum isn't meant for angering people, I don't know what forum is.Don't be jealous! :P
One thing I've noticed about the Christians that I know personally is that they believe that people don't go directly to heaven, unless someone in the family dies. Then, suddenly, we're all to believe that the person is with Jesus now.
Sorta makes you realize that Marx was right in that sense, eh? Religion truly is the opiate of the masses. The ultimate comfort blanket.
Yep.
You also don't hear people give non-touching eulogies. Things like "This man was a dickhead and I'm glad he's dead". We treat the dead as though they're pure even though they aren't. The only socially acceptable way to express that side of a person is to not say anything.
Or it is just a common courtesy to not bad mouth them when there are other people around that may have cared about them. Doing so would just be kicking people while they are down.
Stop trying to find deep meanings where there are none. Not everything can give insight to the human condition. Stop trying to make deep observations in completely pointless things. It is getting quite annoying.
And no, I won't stop. I find it fun and if this forum isn't meant for angering people, I don't know what forum is.Don't be jealous! :P
One thing I've noticed about the Christians that I know personally is that they believe that people don't go directly to heaven, unless someone in the family dies. Then, suddenly, we're all to believe that the person is with Jesus now.
Sorta makes you realize that Marx was right in that sense, eh? Religion truly is the opiate of the masses. The ultimate comfort blanket.
Yep.
You also don't hear people give non-touching eulogies. Things like "This man was a dickhead and I'm glad he's dead". We treat the dead as though they're pure even though they aren't. The only socially acceptable way to express that side of a person is to not say anything.
Or it is just a common courtesy to not bad mouth them when there are other people around that may have cared about them. Doing so would just be kicking people while they are down.
Stop trying to find deep meanings where there are none. Not everything can give insight to the human condition. Stop trying to make deep observations in completely pointless things. It is getting quite annoying.
Good to clear up you're just a troll.
Don't be jealous! :P
One thing I've noticed about the Christians that I know personally is that they believe that people don't go directly to heaven, unless someone in the family dies. Then, suddenly, we're all to believe that the person is with Jesus now.
Sorta makes you realize that Marx was right in that sense, eh? Religion truly is the opiate of the masses. The ultimate comfort blanket.
Yep.
You also don't hear people give non-touching eulogies. Things like "This man was a dickhead and I'm glad he's dead". We treat the dead as though they're pure even though they aren't. The only socially acceptable way to express that side of a person is to not say anything.
I think that custom has more to do with leaving people with at least one good memory of the deceased, not so much with making them appear pure. We spend our whole lives finding the faults in others, might as well see what good they've done once they're dead, no?
Then I shall bring it back on topic....
http://ravenites.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1197
Good thing Toronto has Universal Health Care. I imagine there are quite a few injuries.