(09-12-2017 11:41 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote: But comparing illegally entering the country to embezzlement is not a false equivalency? Really tom?
Where did I ever do that?
I find it interesting you had no comment on the original post I was replying to but nearly broke your ankles tripping over yourself to "correct" mine..
And I didn't break anything...the analogy is moronic.
Aw that is cute calling his analogy moronic, although the intent is that the Bull is moronic. When you can't win the argument ________________
No...it wasn't. I have no issues with Bull. Move along.
(09-11-2017 01:28 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be Catholic.
Then why stay in the religion...? It sounds like you wear your religion like a bumper sticker.
You're never *sometimes* embarrassed to be a member of a certain group but other times you like being in that group?
Or was this just a chance to welsh on your wager and insult a persons faith at the same time?
It was an honest question. If I thought my soul was at stake with risk of eternal damnation I'd be concerned if I found myself frequently in disagreement with the religion's #1 figurehead.
Well, according to the Catechism if you do not hold to everything the current Pope, the Popes before him and the Catechism espouse you are anathema to the church. Everything...and can be ousted from the Church.
Don't believe me, be like the Bereans and check it out yourself.
So, Catholics of the board, how do you regard this sentiment?
(09-12-2017 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Where did I ever do that?
I find it interesting you had no comment on the original post I was replying to but nearly broke your ankles tripping over yourself to "correct" mine..
And I didn't break anything...the analogy is moronic.
Aw that is cute calling his analogy moronic, although the intent is that the Bull is moronic. When you can't win the argument ________________
Not to mention my analogy is as close as you can get... Someone goes someplace to live illegally, the kids should be left there (living illegally) while the parents go to trial.
Let me ask you this tom... What do you do with the parent? Do you put them in jail or deport htem for breaking the law? Because if you do that you're hurting the kids.
"Won't someone think of the children" used to be something people on the left would say to make fun of the right. Now they say it to justify their politics.
A few things.
1. Crossing the border is the illegal act. Not staying in the states.
2. Breaking into a house normally results in harm to the property or the individuals residing in that property. Not every illegal immigrant here causes direct harm to any property or individual. And as has been proven many times over, illegals do pay taxes and they have been shown to commit no more crimes than legal residents after they are here. Besides, we're talking about the kids here anyway, not the parent who brought them here through no fault of their own.
3. If you jail the parents while court proceeding take place, then the state might have to pay for the sustenance of the children. I doubt you want that.
And I've never heard anyone say that about the children just to make fun of the right, so I don't know where you got that from.
What I want to happen is for the parents and kids to be brought out of the darkness, get them documented, and put on a path to citizenship. If they're acting as normal members of society, they should be allowed to continue that. But yes, I would prefer congress get their heads out of their asses and get this put into law.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2017 10:16 AM by Redwingtom.)
(09-12-2017 03:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote: I find it interesting you had no comment on the original post I was replying to but nearly broke your ankles tripping over yourself to "correct" mine..
And I didn't break anything...the analogy is moronic.
Aw that is cute calling his analogy moronic, although the intent is that the Bull is moronic. When you can't win the argument ________________
Not to mention my analogy is as close as you can get... Someone goes someplace to live illegally, the kids should be left there (living illegally) while the parents go to trial.
Let me ask you this tom... What do you do with the parent? Do you put them in jail or deport htem for breaking the law? Because if you do that you're hurting the kids.
"Won't someone think of the children" used to be something people on the left would say to make fun of the right. Now they say it to justify their politics.
A few things.
1. Crossing the border is the illegal act. Not staying in the states.
2. Breaking into a house normally results in harm to the property or the individuals residing in that property. Not every illegal immigrant here causes direct harm to any property or individual. And as has been proven many times over, illegals do pay taxes and they have been shown to commit no more crimes than legal residents after they are here. Besides, we're talking about the kids here anyway, not the parent who brought them here through no fault of their own.
3. If you jail the parents while court proceeding take place, then the state might have to pay for the sustenance of the children. I doubt you want that.
And I've never heard anyone say that about the children just to make fun of the right, so I don't know where you got that from.
What I want to happen is for the parents and kids to be brought out of the darkness, get them documented, and put on a path to citizenship. If they're acting as normal members of society, they should be allowed to continue that. But yes, I would prefer congress get their heads out of their asses and get this put into law.
And what I want is for the parents to be returned to their native land to start the process in a legal manner.
We can debate whether or not the legal process needs to be addressed.
The children should stay with their parents.
Now, given that millions of Americans line up on different sides of the issue, how do we proceed?
Ignore the current law or abide by the current law?
(09-13-2017 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: 1. Crossing the border is the illegal act. Not staying in the states.
False.. If you come here legally on a visa and the visa expires you're breaking the law by staying. So if you come here legally on a visa but stay you've broken one law, if you crossed the border without one, you're breaking two laws.
Quote:2. Breaking into a house normally results in harm to the property or the individuals residing in that property.
But not always, what about an abandoned house or one in which the current owner is not living?
Quote:And I've never heard anyone say that about the children just to make fun of the right, so I don't know where you got that from.
Think the porno issues and video game violence of the 80's / 90's... Heck "won't someone think of the children" became a pre internet meme after the pastors wife on the simpsons
Quote:Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons.
But that's not a violation of federal criminal law -- it's a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings.
...
So although there are more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the US, they haven't all committed a crime just by being in the country.
(09-12-2017 09:31 AM)JDTulane Wrote: Then why stay in the religion...? It sounds like you wear your religion like a bumper sticker.
You're never *sometimes* embarrassed to be a member of a certain group but other times you like being in that group?
Or was this just a chance to welsh on your wager and insult a persons faith at the same time?
It was an honest question. If I thought my soul was at stake with risk of eternal damnation I'd be concerned if I found myself frequently in disagreement with the religion's #1 figurehead.
Well, according to the Catechism if you do not hold to everything the current Pope, the Popes before him and the Catechism espouse you are anathema to the church. Everything...and can be ousted from the Church.
Don't believe me, be like the Bereans and check it out yourself.
So, Catholics of the board, how do you regard this sentiment?
It is my understanding that as a Catholic I must adhere to the teaching of the pope only when he speaks with infallibility (which is not often).
Otherwise he is giving his opinion and I am not bound by his opinion.
His views on DACA are interesting but not spoken as infallible so I give it the same weight as my next door neighbor's.
(09-13-2017 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: This explains it pretty well.
Quote:Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons.
But that's not a violation of federal criminal law -- it's a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings.
...
So although there are more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the US, they haven't all committed a crime just by being in the country.
Because Trump is anti illegal immigration, as the vast majority of Americans are, the left tries to lump Melania into that group. She would have needed a fake Visa to enter illegally.
(09-13-2017 08:00 AM)miko33 Wrote: You completely ignore and/or miss my point. There are situations in the world where kids grow up in completely sheltered areas where Christianity is never observed directly. Maybe the kids grow up in India or other Asian countries where the dominant religions are Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. Or maybe even more blatant the children who grow up in the middle east who are brainwashed in Islam their entire lives, and access to a Christian mission is impossible because they cannot travel outside their village (poverty) and the missions are not allowed in the Muslim country.
Those are examples where a lack of access would automatically damn these people to hell - through no fault of their own - according to your beliefs.
You mean you are now trying to shift the goalpost. What you are saying has nothing to do with the context of Pope Francis telling others they can be saved through being a Muslim or Atheist.
If you now want to shift gears, and discuss what the bible says about those who never heard of Christ in their entire lives, we can discuss what the bible says about those people. Though it looks to me like you were already given some good responses to that. Keep in mind also that a very large number of Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and Hindu in the world already know who Jesus is.
But that was not the context of Pope Francis words at all. Pope Francis is telling billions of Muslims, Buddists, Hindu's and atheists they can be saved through through their own religion or good deeds. That all religions can all worship God together.
That is blasphemy against the Word of God, and the words of Jesus Christ.
And lets be CLEAR, these are not MY personal beliefs, they are what the bible and Jesus Christ teaches.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2017 04:48 PM by ericsrevenge76.)
IN short, the NT teaches that faith comes by HEARING, and HEARING by the Word of God.
Our Lord does not "automatically" condemn those who never once heard the Gospel of Christ. Nor does He condemn small children who have not even come of age yet, or have never heard of the Gospel.
Those are lies placed in your heart by the father of lies, whom you unknowingly follow and have been deceived by.
God DOES condemn those who have HEARD the Gospel and rejected it. We are told that repeatedly in the NT.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2017 04:45 PM by ericsrevenge76.)
Wrong. The catechism states that to be true only during times when the pope is speaking "ex cathedra". Technically speaking, that's not very often when you evaluate all the things each pope discussed in public during their tenures.
[/quote]
Okay, I'll give you that one. But do YOU believe that the Pope is the God's representative on earth?
(09-13-2017 04:48 PM)olliebaba Wrote: Okay, I'll give you that one. But do YOU believe that the Pope is the God's representative on earth?
I know YOU are already aware of this, but its worth repeating again for others.
Telling Muslims, Buddists, etc they can reach God the father through their own religions or atheism is blasphemy against the Word.
There is no context or setting where that is not blasphemy
Whether the pope says it addressing the RCC or in a general public or political setting makes no difference at all.
Its blasphemy and its a REALLY, REALLY BIG DEAL.
Sorry Eric, but I was asking Miko who I quoted. I should remember to name the person I'm quoting. As the Pope would say, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa".
(09-13-2017 04:42 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: IN short, the NT teaches that faith comes by HEARING, and HEARING by the Word of God.
Our Lord does not "automatically" condemn those who never once heard the Gospel of Christ. Nor does He condemn small children who have not even come of age yet, or have never heard of the Gospel.
Those are lies placed in your heart by the father of lies, whom you unknowingly follow and have been deceived by.
God DOES condemn those who have HEARD the Gospel and rejected it. We are told that repeatedly in the NT.
The problem with all that is that you are going to be a product of the culture you are born into. Objectively speaking, the majority of people in countries that have access to modern technology has heard of Jesus. However, the probability is quite high that certain parts of the world will be damned to hell. Take India for example. No doubt thru British occupation plus access to the internet in modern times has exposed the population to Christianity.
Yet as you can see, roughly 80% of the population is Hindu. Hindus clearly do not have Jesus as part of the religion. Therefore, the vast majority of Indians are going to hell. Right?
/
Pope Francis: Rescinding DACA is Not Pro-Life
It sounds like you wear your religion like a bumper sticker.
![[Image: data-2.jpg]](https://hinduexistence.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/data-2.jpg)