Which religion

[Gabu]

I should also note that there really should be an option between "liberal Christianity" and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity".  It's not as if there's nothing in between.

Were you always this stupid and ignorant?...What, exactly, is the commonality between "jmfcst" and "Pat Robertson"?

You'll find that the ONLY commonalities between jmf and Pat are those shared by 95% of Christianity.

Don't ask me; I'm not the one who came up with the term "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity".  I just didn't feel like arguing that point because it would have detracted from my main point.

[Dr. Cynic]

Ok, then Alcon. Under that logic, what makes religon a religon. All it is, is a belief.

[Gabu]

Ok, then Alcon. Under that logic, what makes religon a religon. All it is, is a belief.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

The part relating to the "creator and governor of the universe" is critical.  No deity, no religion.

[Dr. Cynic]

Then what is agnosticisim according to it? It is the religon of not really taking a side.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I should also note that there really should be an option between "liberal Christianity" and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity".  It's not as if there's nothing in between.

Were you always this stupid and ignorant?...What, exactly, is the commonality between "jmfcst" and "Pat Robertson"?

You'll find that the ONLY commonalities between jmf and Pat are those shared by 95% of Christianity.

Don't ask me; I'm not the one who came up with the term "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity".  I just didn't feel like arguing that point because it would have detracted from my main point.

Your "main point" is that you have no point.  Your brain can only spout mindless labels absent of any supporting facts.

Let me show you the outline of an argument:

1) State the topic
2) Give two or three supporting facts
3) Form a conclusion

Do you get the basic idea, or are you failing 2nd Grade?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The mainstream Catholic religion that you decided didn't exist.

Yep - Roman Catholicism for me.

That falls under "Liberal Christianity" if you're a liberal Catholic and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" if you're one of those anti-condom nuts.

[Gabu]

Then what is agnosticisim according to it? It is the religon of not really taking a side.

Who is the deity in agnosticism?

[Gabu]

I should also note that there really should be an option between "liberal Christianity" and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity".  It's not as if there's nothing in between.

Were you always this stupid and ignorant?...What, exactly, is the commonality between "jmfcst" and "Pat Robertson"?

You'll find that the ONLY commonalities between jmf and Pat are those shared by 95% of Christianity.

Don't ask me; I'm not the one who came up with the term "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity".  I just didn't feel like arguing that point because it would have detracted from my main point.

Your "main point" is that you have no point.  Your brain can only spout mindless labels absent of any supporting facts.

Let me show you the outline of an argument:

1) State the topic
2) Give two or three supporting facts
3) Form a conclusion

Do you get the basic idea, or are you failing 2nd Grade?

This is the first sentence of my initial post:

"I should also note that there really should be an option between 'liberal Christianity' and 'jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity'."

That was my point.  I was simply using the terms provided in this topic.  I did not come up with the name "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity", nor do I agree with the notion that you and Pat Robertson agree on everything.  I did not start this poll.  I'm not entirely sure why you're attempting to attack me for the term "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" while not saying anything to BRTD about it...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You and Pat Robertson are both intolerant gay haters. Hence you belong together. Basically, what opebo said.

[Keystone Phil]

That falls under "Liberal Christianity" if you're a liberal Catholic and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" if you're one of those anti-condom nuts.

Looking at people like yourself, I don't see how anyone can be anti-condom. God help us if you ever reproduce.

You and Pat Robertson are both intolerant gay haters. Hence you belong together. Basically, what opebo said.

When someone calls someone else a "fag" or "homo" as an insult, are they gay haters? Just curious.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The mainstream Catholic religion that you decided didn't exist.

Yep - Roman Catholicism for me.

That falls under "Liberal Christianity" if you're a liberal Catholic and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" if you're one of those anti-condom nuts.

jmfcst does not all under the anti-condom crowd.  But I can see that you have a problem with Catholics who actually believe what their church teaches.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That falls under "Liberal Christianity" if you're a liberal Catholic and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" if you're one of those anti-condom nuts.

Looking at people like yourself, I don't see how anyone can be anti-condom. God help us if you ever reproduce.

Well, then you're not a good Catholic, since you want me to use condoms, which is sinning in your church's eyes, despite the fact that 80% of American Catholics are enlightened enough to realize this stance is a load of crap and completely ignore it. Of course I'm not Catholic anyway so there's no reason for me to care what they say, but do you want Flyers to use condoms?

You and Pat Robertson are both intolerant gay haters. Hence you belong together. Basically, what opebo said.

When someone calls someone else a "fag" or "homo" as an insult, are they gay haters? Just curious.

Not neccesarily, they're just severely lacking in maturity and wit. I refuse to ever use such insults.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You and Pat Robertson are both intolerant gay haters. Hence you belong together. Basically, what opebo said.

Probably 98% of Christianity follows the bible's teaching that homosexual sex is a sin.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The mainstream Catholic religion that you decided didn't exist.

Yep - Roman Catholicism for me.

That falls under "Liberal Christianity" if you're a liberal Catholic and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" if you're one of those anti-condom nuts.

jmfcst does not all under the anti-condom crowd.  But I can see that you have a problem with Catholics who actually believe what their church teaches.

Yes I do, and so do you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You and Pat Robertson are both intolerant gay haters. Hence you belong together. Basically, what opebo said.

Probably 98% of Christianity follows the bible's teaching that homosexual sex is a sin.

Obviously not true, since over 2% of Christians support gay marriage even if their church is not quite so enlightened (even mine is having trouble on this). See for example, the Catholic parish in St. Paul where all the parishoners are wearing rainbow sashes during Mass to show their opposition to the church's intolerant stance.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not entirely sure why you're attempting to attack me for the term "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" while not saying anything to BRTD about it...

maybe I'm just warming up

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Probably 98% of Christianity follows the bible's teaching that homosexual sex is a sin.

Obviously not true, since over 2% of Christians support gay marriage even if their church is not quite so enlightened (even mine is having trouble on this). See for example, the Catholic parish in St. Paul where all the parishoners are wearing rainbow sashes during Mass to show their opposition to the church's intolerant stance.

Then, please allow me to rephrase:  Probably 98% of Christian LEADERS follow the bible's teaching that homosexual sex is a sin. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The mainstream Catholic religion that you decided didn't exist.

Yep - Roman Catholicism for me.

That falls under "Liberal Christianity" if you're a liberal Catholic and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" if you're one of those anti-condom nuts.

jmfcst does not all under the anti-condom crowd.  But I can see that you have a problem with Catholics who actually believe what their church teaches.

Yes I do, and so do you.

Slime, don't ever associate me with your filth, for you have never heard me call Catholics "nuts".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The mainstream Catholic religion that you decided didn't exist.

Yep - Roman Catholicism for me.

That falls under "Liberal Christianity" if you're a liberal Catholic and "jmfcst/Pat Robertson Christianity" if you're one of those anti-condom nuts.

jmfcst does not all under the anti-condom crowd.  But I can see that you have a problem with Catholics who actually believe what their church teaches.

Yes I do, and so do you.

Slime, don't ever associate me with your filth, for you have never heard me call Catholics "nuts".

Oh, you have said not nice things about them before. See this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=31109.0

Plus you oppose their contraception stance as much as me.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Oh, you have said not nice things about them before. See this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=31109.0

I see you completed ignored the point that your attempt to associate me with this Catholic belief was a red herring.  The fact is that you believe anyone that follows the bible is a “nut” and you apply that label to Jesus Christ and his chosen Apostles.

---

Yes, I disagreed with Cardinal Poupard since he equated what his own church did to Galileo to my "fundamentalist" reasons for not accepting everything science has to say. 

To execute or imprison scientists is extreme.  To believe everything scientists say is also extreme. 

I argued for a moderate position that doesn't imprison scientists that disagree with my faith, and this moderate position accepts science when it makes sense, and rejects science when it doesn't.

For Cardinal Poupard to attempt to equate what his church did to Galileo, with my respectful disagreement with science…is insulting.

---

Plus you oppose their contraception stance as much as me.

What?  I don't care if each Catholic couple has a dozen kids.  Big families have been the norm throughout human history, so I obviously don't think it is cruel for a couple to have to raise a dozen children.

I disagree with them that contraception is a sin.  My wife and I have "multiplied", we have four kids: 2 parents times 2 equals 4 kids.   So, since we have "multiplied", it doesn’t really make sense to tell us that if we use contraception, we are disobeying God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”.

Besides, the context of Onan’s sin was that he refused to be the kinsman redeemer, not that he pulled out.  His pulling out was simply the means by which he rejected his role of being a kinsman redeemer. 

If Onan would have used the “Family Planning Method” (or whatever the Catholics call it), he still would have been killed by God for not fulfilling his role as the kinsman redeemer.

Gen 38:8-10 Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death.

[Cubby]

Write In: Reform Judaism (But I voted Judaism in the poll) Yes I know Leviticus applies to this sect too, so you don't need to tell me.

BRTD I appreciate your effort but don't waste your time arguing with conservative Christians, they are a lost cause. If they want to base their lives on literature distorted during the Middle Ages then no amount of reason will change their minds. They like to feel superior to others.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If they want to base their lives on literature distorted during the Middle Ages then no amount of reason will change their minds. They like to feel superior to others.

"distorted during the Middle Ages"?!  That is just another fig newton of your imagination.

[Democratic Hawk]

Liberal Christianity

Dave

[Keystone Phil]

Well, then you're not a good Catholic, since you want me to use condoms, which is sinning in your church's eyes, despite the fact that 80% of American Catholics are enlightened enough to realize this stance is a load of crap and completely ignore it. Of course I'm not Catholic anyway so there's no reason for me to care what they say, but do you want Flyers to use condoms?

Haha. Actually, Josh, it's not considered a sin. I love when foolish people (especially Protestants) like yourself dictate Church teachings to Catholics.

By the way, if the Church said it was sinful, 99% of Americans believe it and that doesn't mean it's right. The Church doesn't teach based on public opinion polls, fool.

As for Flyers, I'd like him to lose weight.

[Keystone Phil]

You and Pat Robertson are both intolerant gay haters. Hence you belong together. Basically, what opebo said.

When someone calls someone else a "fag" or "homo" as an insult, are they gay haters? Just curious.

BRTD, I want that question answered.