No I am not Catholic. I would describe myself as a non-denominational Christian. My brother is Catholic and graduated from Vanderbilt Divinity School. Thanks to his lectures, I am quite familiar with Catholicism as we often discuss/debate our different views. Always good fun in my book!
No, I do not believe that the Eucharist is really the body of Christ nor do I believe that all of the Bible is to be interpreted literally despite my views on Genesis (not sure if that is the direction you were going). The Communion is a memorial that was instituted by Christ while He was still living. Christ often used metaphor as John where he says, "I am the vine" or "I am the door" or "I am the good shepherd". It is obvious to me that when he says this "is the new covenant in my blood" he is speaking metaphorically. Also his reference to himself as the vine and his disciples the branches. Also the drinking of blood is prohibited in scripture. Question for you: Why was the doctrine of transubstantiation added around 1215 AD? Were previous popes incorrect for not making this an article of faith?
We didnt go over anything as I dont recall addressing you in any form. I stand by my usage. By the way, you might want to go back and edit your post #126. The word is brush not bursh. And yet again in #150, it is remain not ramain. I wouldnt be so hasty to correct others in the future. Wouldnt you agree?
Just for the record, my initial use of the term "anti-science" was put in quotations marks because my intent was a less literal or loose interpretation. I do not believe that someone who believes in the supernatural is anti-science necessarily but rather miracles are anti science in that they are in direct "opposition to " natural laws.
You state that it is not anti-scientific to believe there is a reality beyond empirical science or the natural world, but yet you then state that we should agree with the evidences found in Earth Science rather than taking a literal 6 day interpretation of Genesis. Okay fine, but why deny all other natural laws and scientific probability with other miracles. You claim the Virgin Birth and Resurrection cannot be disproven, and yet Science can most certainly demonstrate through observation/experimentation of the natural world that these events are almost certainly unlikely or non existent. So why believe one set of observations and not another? We can agree to disagree at this point, but I do not see YEC as incompatible with any other miracle in Scripture.
I simply used the term anti-science as meaning something that is outside the natural realm. Just not sure I follow you on this one. I doubt you will find many secular scientists who would conclude that a virgin birth were possible in the natural sense and based upon your comments, I think we agree. Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the feeling that no matter how much scientific evidence that could be presented to you regarding the impossiblity of the Virgin Birth or Resurrection, you would dismiss that information because you believe in the miracles and have faith in them to be correct. I am a Christian myself so I understand this faith; however, you seem to scoff at those who see a 6 day creation in a completely similar light as all other miracles.
Gus, I wouldnt worry too much about what others say. Most Christians believe in some Bible miracles. In fact, I do believe the apostle Paul stated that if the Resurrection did not happen, then Christianity is pointless. The virgin birth, resurrection, or Jesus healing the sick by simply touching them could certainly be classified as "anti-science" as they are supernatural events. I know plenty of Catholics who will diss Creationists as idiots and then turn around and claim that transubstantiationism is fact for them. In my opinion, it is all the same. Either God is miraculous and can do as He says or He is not. I find it a bit intellectually dishonest to pick and choose which miracles you choose to follow but hey to each his own... Either way, stick to your guns...
You made the comment that some claim the vote was dampened due to fear that Conservatives were trying to forbid abortions/contraception. The Supreme Court settled that long ago and without the Conservative party harping on the issue, most liberals would try, as they always do, to do away with any restrictions on abortion. Most Dems have consistently tried to eliminate parent notification and the ban on late term abortions and yet, you suggest we should somehow put the issue on the back burner and not emphasize it so much??? I agree with Mask's comments above that no matter how Conservatives address these issues, they will be twisted by the mainstream media. In my opinion, they are the problem. How can any election be fair when the coverage is not objective and honest.
I find it a bit hypocritical for anyone to suggest that Republicans should downplay the abortion issue to win elections and yet, go into a rant expressing outrage over an assasination attempt of another journalist. Dont get me wrong, I do find this horrid, but I also find the murders of millions of babies a bit more upsetting. It would seem that certain lives have more value than others?
Bret Stephens says "tone down the abortion extremism"? You are joking right? There are 3000 babies murdered every single day in this country. Who is extreme?
It is highly condescending to refer to these people as stupid/dumb or anything else! I think most people understand that these petitions will not pass, but people are trying to make a statement because many feel they have no voice. Yes, many more conservatives should have voted but for those of us who did, it is clear that Obama has no intention of reaching across the aisle or even acknowledging our concerns/views. Anyone with half a brain cell realizes that tax hikes on the so called "rich" and small businesses is only going to hurt the middle class more, not help them as the liar in the White House claims. So while you mock people for doing this, please tell me why half the country should continue to pay for the every growing welfare state? People are angry, and as far as what the press will say about this, I could care less. The press is in Obama's pocket no matter what he does. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is going to happen over Benghazi or the "fast and furious" scandal. You watch and see
As someone who resides in a small town in Ohio, I would have to say that religion plays a part in developing that kind, friendly spirit you speak of. Many churches here organize community service events and from a young age children are taught to serve their neighbors. Teenagers will often volunteer in the spring and fall to assist the elderly with yardwork and general cleanup. Of course, it is no utopia but from what I see, parents still work quite hard to teach their kids kindness and to respect those around them. It would seem that the so-called intellectual elite often view this bucolic life with contempt. All I can say is I still sleep with the doors unlocked and windows open in the Summer. I see the goodness in my neighbors and the youth around me. This has given me reason to maintain my hope in the resilience of the American people/spirit despite the negativity of the press.
Sorry James. Usually I agree with you on most things, but I cant believe you are talking about Romney's manners! Brits are always bashing Americans. I read many of the blogs in the Telegraph and it is a constant thing over there. Americans would be appalled if they read some of the comments last year regarding the tenth anniversary of 9/11. I was appalled. There were hundreds of nasty comments about how we deserved this tragedy. Please do not talk to me about some silly remark over the Olympic games. The way Boris Johnson ridiculed Romney onstage in front of such a large crowd was awful.
Like most celebrities Cher is irrelevant, but they have power because we give it to them by watching their movies or listening to their music. If enough people refused to fund their careers, they would learn to keep their mouths shut; unfortunately, many Conservatives are just as likely to head to the theatre as anyone else. If enough people boycotted these morons, they might not feel so bold.
Re: Is Ricochet Worth It For Libertarians?