She accepted her training very well. She does not question. I do not really discuss it with her. Actually avoided discussing my ideas with my son. Either he would get by the programming or he would not. It seems debates really do not change the minds of people whose concepts are held on an emotional level. The best intellectual arguments are wasted on a closed mind. They have to begin to question by themselves then you can talk about it.
Aaahhh! An explanation. 
Have you considered the possibility that your inability to sway others through reasoned debate may ultimatly devolve onto the fact that you’re an inarticulate idiot?
Burn!
Sure I am apparently quite stupid . How could I possibly answer to the depth of such a well thought out remark like that.
gonzo is not stupid at all, but for some reason is unwilling to be bothered with the little niceties of written communication, such as good spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and sometimes coherence.
Seriously, gonzo, you’re not stupid, but your arguing skills approach nil. They tend not to be the logical, well-reasoned arguments you describe above, but rather bitter and emotional diatribes that are comprehensible but not compelling at best, and complely incomprehensible at worst. It’s odd that the only answer that ever occurs to you as to why you don’t win adherents to your arguments is that the audience is either stupid or closed minded. Have an eye to your debating skills, sir; that’s where your weakness lies: your inability to coherently present the logical, well-reasoned viewpoint you are trying to convey. If you work on that, I’m sure you’ll meet with far greater success. As it is, you will have to continue hanging out with close-minded fools whenever you are talking with anyone who doesn’t understand with and agree with you before you begin.
This was not meant as a slam, but truly as a well-meant piece of advice. I wish you all success.
Who says nobody has been swayed.? Who makes such a decision.? Moreover who says that is the point?
I love the pickyness even when wrong. I believe Liberal thought he was correcting me when I referred to a cite as a site. However it was a web site. As such the use of site was correct. I know the difference. Shall I say I am citing a site from now on. ?
Why are you here if you are not trying to sway people to your point of view? Intellectual masturbation? I am, in general, on your side. My usual reaction to your posts is putting a cold washcloth on my forehead to relieve the muscles from all the eye-rolling. I shudder to imagine where your opponents find it necessary to put a cold washcloth.
Yes. That would be correct. If, of course, correct use of language is important to you.
There is something almost surreal about Tomndeb’s insistence that the Catholic Church does not believe that you have to die in a state of grace (i.e. no unconfessed mortal sin) to go to Heaven, or that they do not preach that there is no salvation outside the RCC.
I have just remembered that my Father, who dies in 1995 and who studied in Catholic Schools in the 1920s and 1930s was taught precisely that, for goodness’ sake.
I remember him clearly telling us that his teachers had told him that a Protestant could in *strict theory * go to Heaven. But since one cannot go to Heaven unless one dies in a state of grace, meaning no unconfessed and unforgiven mortal sin, the Protestant, having no access to the sacrament of penance, would have to live his entire life free of mortal sin in order to die in a state of grace.
My mother, who went to Catholic schools in another part of Canada during the 1920s, concurred that she had been taught something similar.
I am so sure that I was taught precisely that when I went to Catholic schools in the 1950s and 1960s that I tried to find the Baltimore Cathecism that I was istructed with. I found a site that has it, but fo some reason I am having trouble downloading it.
Anyhow, along comes Tomndeb who hauls out some documents to tell us that this is not and never was Catholic doctrine. 
Besides, is there not even a Latin saying about “Outside the Church there is no salvation”? Was that not the justification for the Inquisition, namely, that a heretic, by believing and preaching ideas not approved by the Church, would damn himself and all those who followed him to Hell?
I can understand if I was maybe misinformed by one priest or nun. Mistakes happen. But my father, my mother and me, and my brother and sisters who all remember being taught that? And American Catholic friends of mine who remember being taught that? Over a period of at least 30 years at different locations in North America?
All I am saying is that what I was taught can just as validly be called “what the church says” as any document Tomndeb wants to drag out.
You have done two things in your last post that you enjoy very much but I find boring: you have changed the topic under discussion and you have attributed to me statements I have not made.
As to your most recent attempt to pick a fight, I will simply quote from the Catechism, (although I am sure that I will have to come back and explain it after you choose to mangle the meaning):
I will point out that the “through no fault of their own” is not interpreted as menaing only literal ignorance (such as a preliterate person from a hill tribe of New Guinea in the tenth century before missionaries showed up), but anyone who, because of whatever impediment, does not come to realize the “truth” of Catholicism. So even an apostate who turned away because of scandal or some other reason is included in those God may save–only those who know in their hearts that the RCC is the true church and deliberately reject it find themslves outside salvation for rejecting the church.
I recognize that those statements are going to seem insulting to a lot of people; I am only pointing out that under current theology, the RCC is not running around claiming that only Catholics are getting into heaven.
Was your father taught odd stuff? Probably. But I will note that when Fr. Feeney of Boston began preaching the same sort of thing in the 1940s, the church theology was already such that they told him he was out of line and wound up excommunicating him for insisting on that position. So 15 years before Vatican II, the RCC was already publicly making the point that it was not true that only Catholics were saved. You can find similar points in the works of G.K. Chesterton thiry years before that. You can find theologians on both sides of the issue through the ages, of course.
I believe we could discuss whether the use of site is correct. I am aware of what cite means and I chose to use site because I was referring to a site. I also did it because I knew some of you would get your underwear bunched, even though it may well be correct. Are you telling me if I say here’s a site and you are looking at a website that would be incorrect. My site is my cite.
Actually, that was me. I did that because you corrected me in the same manner in another thread awhile back, even though I was using “site” the same way you were.
Having got a migraine trying to finish up my taxes this morning I am obviously in desperate need of some mindlessness that I even opened up this thread. I have not been disappointed.
I submit to all an observation, one that if replicated enough may make for a new law similar to Godwin’s: any message board poster who alludes to their IQ being high invariably posts in the most stupid manner possible. OTOH no intelligent poster ever posts about their high IQ (… or their amazingly large penises). I have observed this correlation on many multiple occassions.
Kudos to the grumpy old men theme!
Boy, pitting Tom because you envy his ability to be rational and because he kindly provides you with enough rope to hang yourself upon the noose of your own arrignorance* … your IQ size may or may not be less than you actually imply, but man you got balls the size of grapefruit!
*“arrignorance” - a potent combination of arrogance and ignorance, found too often on MBs in general.
there’s a joke about two wrongs not making a site here, somewhere.
Also known as the “If you can find a better car, buy it!” marketing strategy.
That was completely different and totally understandable. I have been hammered for using site and do it to piss off the anal. Plus cat feet on the keyboard gets interesting results sometimes.
Dseid, the only reason I brought up my IQ is that the word “idiot” means one of two things. In older parlance, it actually had a scientific meaning as one whose IQ was below a certain level.
The other meaning, which I will call the SDMB meaning, is a simple term of abuse defining a person whose opinions you dsagree with.
I never said that my IQ makes me or my postings good or bad. Hitler and Torquemada were probably intelligent people who would have rated high on IQ scores.
I only implied that if people are calling me an idiot in terms of IQ, they are incorrect.
If they simply want to dump on me to compensate for their pecker being too small, they are entitled to their opinion that I am an idiot.
That must have been one hell of a tax bill!
I do NOT envy his ability to be rational. I envy his ability make his postings seem disinterested and rational when in fact they are are as much a butress of his preconceived opinions as those of any other poster here.
This is why people like you get the false impression that he “kindly provides me with enough rope to hang” myself as you put it. That is your opinion. My neck feels just fine thanks.
If you want to idolize Tomndeb go ahead, but your opinion is your opinion, and his opinion is his (no matter how much he tries to make it sound like some truth from on high).
Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear that you do not put an especially high premium on rationality.
I do not envy Tomndeb’s alleged ability to be rational because I do not believe he is being rational. I believe he has a well-honed ability to make his expressions of highly partisan opinion (mainloy RCC apologetics) sound rational. And when I said I envied that, I was being sarcastic. Sorry if many of my subtler meanings are going over your head and the heads of the other members of the Tomndeb-is-god fan club. In future I will use lotsa :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: to indicate sarcasm, just for your benefit.
Is that clear enough fer ya, buddy??? 
By the way, I mentioned IQ in connection to my alleged idiocy because, while I stand (or sit at persent ) to be corrected, I don’t believe I have ever called anyone an idiot, even in the pit. I feel that insults of that kind do more to lower the person using them than the person they are directed to.
As we say in French, insults ae the weapon of the man who has no arguments. Except for whn someone comments on mt balls, in which case I can comment on his pecker!