jefferiah

**Hits Xman across the head with a baseball bat. Real enough for ya.

This, I think, is another move by the Pope to make it clear that the Church recognizes problems that have risen out of the misinterpretation of VII. Pope JPII issued an apology for errors and injustices that occured in the past. That surprised some, and was a sigh of relief for others. Moving forward..... Now BXVI is moving to bolster the doctrine and tradition of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Ecumenism is a way to engage in dialogue with other denominations, instead of ignoring them. Hopefully, the result will be conversion to the Church. VII didn't intend to give the impression that the Church now sees all Christian denominations as being as valid as the Church. What I see in this Pope is a man who is going to leave behind a Church with it's faithful reverting to the devotion seen before the crazy changes in society during the 50's and 60's. Perhaps that is what happened with VII. The timing. I wont convert to Catholicism I can tell you that. But at the same time it wouldnt be much of a faith if it didnt say its tenants were the right ones. Thats what having a position is about. The conversion from Catholicism occured when people were actually allowed to read the Bible and interpret it for themselves. Peter (the first Pope) was married. Mary is not mentioned in the Bible as a person to be prayed to or adored. Nor the so-called saints. The original church (i.e. Paul and the apostles never made mention of Mary). The use of Mary was probably a way for Roman culture to keep it's Diana. The "Queen of Heaven" is even warned about in the Old Testament. Where Jesus asked that the ceremony of eating bread and drinking wine be done in his memory he never dictated that it had to be done once a year by an ordained priest (the Priest has the power to put the Holy Spirit in the bread once a year???? yep its there in Catholic canon---i guess it like getting an oil change) of the Catholic church or else damnation.

But at the same time if some people in the interest of protecting the "white race" (whatever that is, or whatever they see it as) make the decision to date only white women/men etc....how is that any of our business. I don't see anything racist about it at all. If a black guy said he only wanted to date black women I wouldn't jump all over him and accuse him of thinking his race was superior. And chances are neither would the people jumping all over Scott.

Yeah I have nothing against other races and interracial marrying, dating, etc. But Kimmy raised kind of a cool point when she said about the children of the future being the colors of the rainbow, instead of generic. One thing that makes humanity interesting is that sort of thing. It would be kind of sad to see that go. You know if all flowers were daisies......

Variety in the gene pool makes for a healthy population! Do I care? No. Not really. If they consider themselves Canadian, share our common mores and pass those same values onto their progeny, I could not care less what shade their skin may be. Well, I dont care either really. I pretty much agree with what you just said, but I also dont see anything wrong with someone who wants to preserve a certain race----in and of itself it is not racist. But it is something in common with many of the greatest racial tyrants in history, but nonetheless---in and of itself it is not racist. I am open to the possibility of their being a school of thinkers who while not looking down on others could just honestly wish to preserve "white" people. Why not? It doesnt seem so far-fetched to me. We preserve buildings and forts.

I have a highly developed sense of values. I am with Argus and August in preserving those values is a much more important legacy than preserving any particular skin-tone. However, I'm not too big to admit that I am influenced by appearance. My suspicion is that only the visually impaired can truthfully say otherwise. -k Well I would have thought you would have replied in such a manner rather than stating how you see it as your duty to pass on your radiant skin and straw coloured hair. And ofcourse everyone is influenced by appearance. However, my suspicion is that if you don't recognize beauty in the opposite sex of people with darker skin than yourself you are either visually impaired or have some kind of prejudice towards them. I think this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Personally I find women of other races very attractive but so what if someone else doesnt. I have heard of black guys who like only white women and dont like black women, and white guys with asian fetishes. And probably some white guys are more attracted to white women then others. Thats nobody's business really. And if you wish to get into the ridiculous things other people were talking about, alot of people like a certain eye color, hair color, build...etc. That's not racist. Scott is not talking about white supremacy as far as I can tell, he is simply talking about the prospect of an entire "race" (however you define that dying out). I honestly dont think he means it in the way you think he does, but because it can be associated with that people get all up in arms about it.

This video is extremely offensive to people who worship the jug of milk! This video is completely intolerant to their beliefs! You should be ashamed of yourself, Cybercoma, because you are lactose-intolerant! -k ......You rock Kimmy!!!

You know even though I am not a Catholic, and I totally disagree with their views I dont see why this is such a big deal. I am Protestant but there are some vital differences between the two. And you cant really believe in one while believing in the other. So I mean what kind of Catholic would you be if you said Mary was a virgin all her life and the sinless Mother of God, but also Jesus's brothers were not immacutely conceived and Mary is a normal sinner. You can't get anywhere by trying to mish mash things all the time. For instance if the teacher asks what is 5 plus 5....one kid raises his hand and says "8", the other says "10". Should we ask both if them to soften their position and make the answer "9"? Ah but there has to be something that is true, Scriblett. You are either a man or a woman. Yes?

One has to wonder why you clicked on the thread then.

I think there is some important information to be learned here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories And this would be relevant J, if Flick were actually something funny. Its not like it offends me either, but its just plain stupid. Kids will think its stupid too. Thats what you dont get. Adults are infinitely lamer when they are trying to be cool. I think they should do a study on people who are easily amused (ie people who watched the show Friends).

that's not the point. you think you are the only one who knows kids know cuss words. i am sure my 16 year old nephew knows a lot of stuff, cuz i was 16 once. he's probably smoked a little pot. that doesnt mean i am going to go score him some. if the kids are saying it or using it it doesnt mean i should just to reach out. and here is where i think you all are a little naive. this Flick thing will only be cool to the absolute dorkiest of teens. trust me.

People do things for a reason. Prayer is something that people do, so they have a reason for doing it. Not being religious myself, I am curious as to what that reason is. Is there genuine hope that the prayer will be answered? That is, is there belief that through the act of praying, the probability of the desired outcome will be increased? Is it done for emotional comfort, knowing that there isn't any actual effect? Is it done simply because it is a reaction and ritual that is ingrained in people that are religious by institutions, with no particular thought on the part of the individual as to its effect? People pray for different reasons at different times.

Of course people pray for those things. But we have to accept that people are going to go sometimes. Really though how can anyone answer this question as to why and when people pray. I am sure it is different in every circumstance and for every person.

God's will is not always the same as mine.

Ya I have to agree with M Dancer and JBG here. This is unsuitable. Yeah duh. I know kids know all the cuss words, that doesnt make it a free for all for me to start using classless language. Plus if I was a teen this would not appear intelligent to me at all. Just a stupid attempt by some very unhip people to use something controversial to be cool. It just comes off as cheesy to a kid, and from an adults perspective should we be encouraging the F-word. You trust kids to know the F word, but you dont trust em to be smart enough to know you are dumbing stuff down for them. Maybe we should start having debates on Much Music hosted by the Vee Jays.

That's wonderful that your personal idea of Christ doesn't give you moral justification to go out and beat homosexuals. Unfortunately, the unquestioning reverence you demand for your religion allows those who do find justification in the Bible to get away with murder.No. I don't believe religion should be banned. I do think people should be educated about its lies. People who want justification for something will find it wherever they please. Even in your words if they like.

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change those things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." Big difference between those words and: "Yo, Big Guy, send me a Porsche" He most definitely is one of those Scott. I will place money on him being Christian in the future.

OK but that is not what I believe. Given stuff Jesus said I dont think he would have beaten any homosexuals. So because some people can take it one way does that mean it should be banned. That brings back to just about anything else that can be used, and thus we are back at The Catcher in The Rye. And then there are kitchen utensils as well, which can be used for ill. Or cars.

The truth is you just have a chip on your shoulder about religion. Nothing more nothing less. You don't give a damn about children or anything else. So its simple for you. Just be who you want to be. I dont go to church and I have done some very anti-Christian things and nobody ever burned me at the stake for it. You are so vehement about this. You would think you are undergoing military attacks from the old Anglican ladies.

I'm not concerned about the Catcher in the Rye because it is not systemically being forced into the minds of children from birth. There are lots of reasons people do terrible things, but, "for good people to do evil, that takes religion."Do I feel threatened by local church goers? That depends on a number of things. I suppose if I were gay, I might be concerned, considering recently a homosexual was put into the hospital after being beaten by church goers. Perhaps if I was a woman and my church going doctor refused to prescribe birth control or a morning after pill if I were raped, I would be concerned. Maybe if I was an atheist at Ryerson, I would feel threatened by local church goers. So what does it matter if I personally feel threatened? I think society needs to be a lot more progressive and it is impossible with the burden of unreasonable beliefs being forced upon children before they know any better. How many church goers are active in beatings of homosexuals? Cmon, be realistic here. I knew people who went to Boy Scouts that gave someone a wedgie once. Are you ready to add Boy Scouts to the list? And I dont buy your "the children boohoo" for one minute. You probably know someone who goes to church, they are not hurting people. Mennonites are not hurting you. But how would you get rid of religion. Penalize believers? You are more of a tyrant than most religious people.

Please stop your pretence of being concerned.

I care because it is that God that people (whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim) are using as a reason to kill, torture and otherwise oppress others because they feel this imaginary God gives them a moral "right". Are most believers in God killing? Do you feel threatened by the local church goers in your community? Are they leading attacks against you? Sure people can use God as an excuse. You can use anything. Didnt Mark David Chapman use The Catcher in The Rye? Why aren't you concerned over that?

Let's not forget the possibility of claiming the air space above that land as well and charging for cell phones signals passing through it.

Was it last year that they found the remains of a body in Washington state that was dated to 9000 years ago? The discoverers determined that the man was probably Caucasian due to the structure of the skull and it appeared as if he had died from some sort of attack. He was later deemed a Native American (politically correct gesture) much to the dismay and protest of the archaelogists who discovered him. I wonder why white people in Washington State aren't making land claims?

Do you sign your grocery lists?