Take the Other Side

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Interesting idea Cortes, but I don’t think it’s working out…[/quote]

Literally lolling, as I was just thinking the same exact thing. [/quote]

Well, I’m guilty too now. Someone else is going to have to kick it off.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

The thread has not been a complete failure…
[/quote]

Pretty damned closed, though.

Oh well. I tried.

It is interesting, though. From a didactic perspective, this thread has displayed how magnificently difficult it really is to get an ideologue to even begin to consider a perspective different than his own. I say this without the slightest hint of derision. Being firmly rooted to your beliefs is a good thing.

Unless you’re a liberal, of course.

(^_^)b

*edited

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Yeah for this to work well people need to sincerely adopt a position, not mockingly.

Imagine you’re on a debate team.[/quote]

No really, I’m being serious. Tom Paine supported a progressive tax system, estate taxes and publically funded welfare in 1793. In his work The Necessity of Taxation he espouses the benefits of a socialist state and in Agrarian Justice he argues that all land is communal property.

‘Government and the people do not in America constitute distinct bodies.’ - Tom Paine, radical Jacobin statist and founding father.

So, as you can see the U.S. was intended to be a totalitarian Communist state in which individual liberty is non-existent and the state all powerful and subsuming.

I’m working on something really twisted and evil. Not sure if it will all fit as well as I’m thinking, but it might - I gotta sleep now tho

I think this is an excellent idea - difficult to do seriously - but worth more effort than shown

…plus - no. That Raj post was awesome (you didn’t lol at it? I still am)
Thread was nowhere even near a failure

edit:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

The thread has not been a complete failure…
[/quote]

Pretty damned closed, though. [/quote]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I think killing an innocent baby is ok, but killing a convicted murderer is dead wrong. [/quote]

I agree. If the mother wants to kill her baby it’s not infanticide it’s a ‘choice’ that she’s entitled to make. And as Obama says, if ‘that fetus or child - however way you want to describe it’ is born alive - or as Obama says: ‘let’s say, movement and some indication that, in fact, they’re not just out limp and dead’ then the doctor can kill the baby after it’s born. Sorry, I mean fetus, thing or ‘however you want to describe it’ - if it doesn’t come out ‘limp and dead’ then the doctor has to kill it. That’s the mother’s choice. I feel that the mother should be able to have the thing or ‘however you want to describe it’ killed up until the age of 15.

Did I mention that the founders were all racist old white dudes? It wasn’t until the Democrats won the Civil War that the abolition of slavery began.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
It is interesting, though. From a didactic perspective, this thread has displayed how magnificently difficult it really is to get an ideologue to even begin to consider a perspective different than his own.
*edited[/quote]

This thread has proved that notion better than I would’ve thought possible. And it only took like 3 posts. At least a lot of this stuff is funny though lol

I might give it a real attempt later. So far every start has felt phony. Maybe that’s why I’ve never been persuaded by them, as they simply do not click with me as a person at all.

Edit: Maybe something on environment/climate. I’m not as anti-environmentalism as many righties. Well, while that might surprise some, it wouldn’t actually be an opposite position for me. Heck, I don’t know.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I might give it a real attempt later. So far every start has felt phony. Maybe that’s why I’ve never been persuaded by them, as they simply do not click with me as a person at all.

Edit: Maybe something on environment/climate. I’m not as anti-environmentalism as many righties. Well, while that might surprise some, it wouldn’t actually be an opposite position for me. Heck, I don’t know.

[/quote]

I actually think it might be easier to argue a position about which you feel just a tad over lukewarm. I’ve tried imagining how I might argue for abortion and the opposing thought process is just so completely alien and irreconcilable to me that I really can’t imagine being able to give it serious treatment.

After having thought about it, the only issue I think I could give a very solid argument against is gun control. I’m as pro 2nd amendment a person as you could find, but there are definitely angles one could take (that are actually being taken, I should say) by opponents that are very insidious and effective.

[quote]smh23 wrote:
At least a lot of this stuff is funny though lol[/quote]

Dude, we should totally legalise marijuana…(cough, splutter)…where was I? Can’t remember what I was saying…total spin out…(bubble, bubble, bubble, cough, heave, splutter, spit…)

Why is Catholicism Right and Protestantism Wrong?
The key is where the authority to declare doctrine at all comes from. Jesus told the apostle Peter that that he would build His Church upon Peter, the first Pope, thus depositing His authority and the gospel itself into what would become the “magesterium”. That is, the body of divinely ordained men, consisting of the Pope and the College of Bishops, operating under the authority and unction of God the Holy Spirit Himself.

These men, the direct unbroken successors to the first century apostles, are alone authorized to declare final arbitration on what is and what is not accepted dogma. There was no bible and hence no canonized scriptural standard until the fourth century and actually the final canon wasn’t authorized until around five hundred so any appeal to the bible is automatically an appeal to The Church who was entrusted by Christ to canonize it, in other words, the Catholic Church.

Christ left us A Church and a gospel out of which came the sacred scriptures and not the other way around. Either the Catholic Church is the bride and original apostolic Church of Christ or there isn’t one and Christianity is a lie. What The Church fathers who lived RIGHT after Jesus and the apostles believed is variously either exactly what the Catholic church believes today or laid the groundwork directly for it so yes, once again the Catholic faith IS the original apostolic faith held by those directly in contact with the first century Church and hence uniquely qualified to report what was held by the seminal apostolic Church.

Sacred scripture (the bible), having been complied and canonized by this Church, is also authoritatively interpreted ONLY by this Church, commissioned by Christ Himself. Therefore any dispute about scripture is moot because there is no such thing as a private interpretation. That is, ANY interpretation not authorized by Christ through His true apostolic Church.

Being that this Church alone holds this God ordained authority it also alone has authority to more fully reveal the divine mind through sacred tradition which is THE only way the gospel was propagated before the aforementioned canonization of sacred scripture. Hence the Church, far from adding to scripture per se, simply stewards the whole of divine revelation including scripture and tradition which together represent the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

This being undeniably established by the plain record of history, the discussion of any particular doctrine is meaningless because the debate is already over. If it ISN’T established then WHERE WAS THE CHURCH for 1500 years? SO, the Eucharist. The very body and blood of the risen Christ and hence Christ Himself is available only in that Church wherein the power of consecration and transubstantiation of the host elements has been savingly decreed.

This central and essential doctrine along with Mariology, purgatory, papacy, mass, relics, icons, ECCLESIOLOGY, _____________________, the whole of that glorious body of Christian faith, are accepted or rejected as that whole along with THE CHURCH. But rejecting THE CHURCH is rejecting that there is any church… or gospel at all because the Holy Christ of God promised his chosen apostle that the "gates of hell would not prevail against HIS CHURCH.

If the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the body and bride of God the Son, Jesus Christ? AND,as has been made undeniably manifest, that Church is rooted in the apostles themselves? Then Jesus of Nazareth is NOT God the Son and Christianity is, as has been charged, the moral philosophy of a mere man. GOD FORBID!!!

As for protestants or any other non Catholic? Those who are born live and die in a state of ignorance of the gospel invincible enough to induce the salvific mercy of God the Father CAN be (but not necessarily) saved by the grace of Christ and incorporated into His body without their knowledge of having been so redeemed. And that once again only because that grace is in the earth through THE CHURCH.

No Father would eternally punish his own child not having given him so much as a single syllable of godly instruction to save him. It is monstrous to ascribe such injustice to a loving God that we would not ourselves inflict upon our own Children. So once again and in the end. Either Catholicism is true or Christianity is false, because Catholicism IS the ancient faith and any objective study of the early Church will plainly reveal all the seminal elements of the Kingdom of God on earth presently ruled by the Bishop of Rome from the Holy See of Vatican City.

If you sense the Lord is tugging at your heart as a result of having read this brief presentation of the truth and authority of His Holy Apostolic Church, please use this Parishes Online | Live Your Faith, Wherever Life Takes You page to contact a parish in your area where knowledgeable and helpful men and women of God will rejoice in the opportunity to help you come into communion with His body as a fellow Catholic believer. Thank you and God bless you.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
At least a lot of this stuff is funny though lol[/quote]

Dude, we should totally legalise marijuana…(cough, splutter)…where was I? Can’t remember what I was saying…total spin out…(bubble, bubble, bubble, cough, heave, splutter, spit…)[/quote]

Dude, if that is the best you can do to make our argument, light up!

You have nothing to lose.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
A solid case for the CC as the end all and be all of Christianity
[/quote]

First one that was not idiotic and takes the other side seriously.

Please accept my e-fistpump.

Fuck it, anyone give me any topic and I will do the best I can.

Intellectually lazy is what you are.

[quote]orion wrote:

Intellectually lazy is what you are.

[/quote]

I was thinking more along the lines of emotionally married but…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Intellectually lazy is what you are.

[/quote]

I was thinking more along the lines of emotionally married but…[/quote]

I am emotionally married to libertarianism like you would not believe but I understand where other people are coming from.

Its not that hard either, you understand their rough ordinal value system and their ethical system which are usually both unquestioned by them and if they are somewhat rational you will know their conclusion before they do.

Evidence like this from our best allies top science programs clearly establishes that Obama should not have passed the natural born citizen requirement.

http://www.science.co.il/Obama-Birth-Certificate.htm

[quote]orion wrote:
Fuck it, anyone give me any topic and I will do the best I can.

Intellectually lazy is what you are.

[/quote]

Make the case for the Iraq war.

/Gets popcorn