buddy you've really gotta learn some better comebacks than ctrl+c/ctrl+v

He was much better than people give him credit for, but far from the best. The best was indisputably GW, the original gangster.

TR hated Taft.

So you know its basically a legal cult

Since "legality" is the only thing that differentiates a cult from a religion, this is an oxymoron. It's a bit like saying it's dry water.

Also unaltered basically says that its pretty much the same as it was hundreds of years ago.

You'd have to be terribly ignorant of Catholic history and current events to believe this, which I get the strong impression you are. To start with, ever heard of Vatican II?

In the bronze age slavery and rape were okay. So if it is unaltered, that would mean those things or things like it would be okay too.

This is some of the most spurious reasoning I've ever read on this site, and there are a lot of incoherent retards around here. Do you even know what period the term "Bronze Age" refers to? Catholicism didn't exist in the Bronze Age.

so you're 11 is what you're saying

i'm actually really curious about how you lead your extra-ebate life. do you have a facebook? a blog? how do you interact with family members and classmates? do you have a mode of interaction other than "laughable tryhard condescension?" how have you managed to live longer than a decade acting this autistic? who is nummi

are you literally 12

The risk is increased just about proportionally with promiscuity is what I think he's saying.

In doing so you implicitly brought up the US's moral quality,

How? If I were to contest abstractly that the quality of food is subjective, that shouldn't be taken as an invitation to talk about whether pizza is objectively the best food. You're confusing relation with relevance.

You seem to have a very clear understanding of exactly what constitutes the "pursuit of justice"

I don't, actually; I'm baiting. I'm waiting for someone to object to what I'm calling just and tell me why it isn't, in which I might evaluate their reasoning and decide whether I agree with them. The reason I start discussions isn't out of great conviction that mine is the correct position, but for the purpose of seeing the merits of different viewpoints laid out by their believers. I'm about as unsure of this as I am of anything, which I mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

I'm broadening the discussion to highlight its inadequacy.

Who did you root for in the Superbowl?

no, i actually make every effort to be as receptive to substantial criticism as possible, and to reevaluate any stance or view i'm given cause to. blindness to constructive criticism is probably my biggest pet peeve! h/e like i said that shit has to be qualified, and with your determination to demonstrate irreverence + prejudice at every opportunity your opinions are p well qualified as "worthless"

Young Earth Ceationism is an unjustifiable historical extrapolation from a largely non-historical document. It's an embarrassment to Christians and Biblical scholars everywhere.