Quote:

Pariah said:
The true meaning of God’s words was misconstrued by his children. So, he corrected his children and imbued upon them knowledge of etiquette. The situation is static. If you’re doing good DIRECTLY, you can work on Sunday.



Right, exactly. The meaning of the word was misinterpreted, and Jesus clarified. This is the point I've been trying to make.

So why were you saying otherwise before?

Quote:

Animalman, generalized opinions in the (pseudo)Catholic communities and individuals who have different interpretations of God other than what the Bible has interpreted for them means they’re not full Catholics.



Then most Catholics in Texas must not be fully Catholic.

Quote:

Like I said before; to be a Christian or Catholic, it takes a certain amount of agreeance and belief in the Bible. i.e. all of it. Look inside any Catechism book and you’ll find that this belief is taught and circulated throughout the Church—And for any practicing Catholic, it is required.



Then I've met hundreds of people who think they're Catholic, but according you, aren't.

Quote:

Side note: I know a lot of Catholic Schools, and never have I heard this belief questioned by general public of the schools/staff of said schools. Which ones have you been around exactly?



This is the deep south, so there are dozens of Catholic schools in the area. I went to a Jesuit high school. I knew kids from plenty of others.

Most view the Bible as a guide for good living, and that the fundamental requirement for being Christian was to recognize Jesus Christ as God. They also realized that the Bible was not directly from God, but the interpretation of God through man. Without this realization, think about where our society would be now. I know it's an old argument, but it's a good argument.

Quote:

Now, this may not contradict anything you said, but it still raises the question: Why mention blasphemy in changing scripture when Jesus is the only one being implied as having done it, and then afterwards say that Jesus didn’t count in the first place?



Because it goes back to what you yourself were doing(what I thought you'd argue) just a few posts ago. You seem to argue that a person can just look at the commandments and clearly determine that the predominant theme is loving each other, then arrive at the position that loving each other is the most important aspect of a good life.

In the time of Jesus, to make such an assumption with holy scripture would be considered blasphemous. Jesus removed that burden from you, by saying what no regular man could have previously.

Quote:

That damage eventually stops, because the vagina evolves to a consistent dick size and because of the differing quality of the vagina to the sphincter of natural lubrication. The fetish of anal sex may be loved by a bunch of people, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’d need to exercise and infinitely greater amount of caution to participate in it. This makes vaginal sex not only safer, but also easier (and easier to be safer). So, anyway, while damage stops for the vagina, it just keeps on going with the ass.



Yes, there's a greater risk of pain, but the fact remains, if it's exercised an intelligent manner, it can be fine. The same is true for vaginal sex, though, as stated, the precautions aren't quite as numerous.


Quote:

Heh! Are you gonna tell me I’m wrong on this one from the scientific angle? The sphincter is meant to relieve the body of waste and that’s all. If you have a theory of why it SHOULD evolve or how it COULD evolve into a body part that was meant for insertion AS WELL AS excreting with as much results as having two separate holes for two different functions…Then I’d love to here it.



Again, this is waaaaaay off topic, but it could evolve, because evolution is change based on necessity.

Quote:

This is true, but it’s not the ONLY reason. The abominable act is also complemented by physical abuse towards your neighbor AND yourself.



Again, if done correctly, the abuse is minimal.

..and also again, there is physical damage done in vaginal sex as well.

We're going in circles here.

Quote:

If you remember the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” and all it entails, we’d see that not only the extermination of life is a sin, but also that hurting the body in general is a huge sin.



By that logic, impregnation is a sin, as is loss of virginity. We've covered this.

Quote:

Sodomy is a type of way to hurt the body—Gentle or not, it leaves lasting (short or long depending on sexual habits) effects.



As gone over before, that's not necessarily true.

Quote:

Yes there is. My entire goings on about the sturdiness of the vagina compared to the rectum is based on the high risk of semen getting into the bloodstream. I mean, it’s the MAIN thing. Obviously AIDS and HIV resides in higher importance above all, so I focused on them. Anyway, they’re just the tip of the Ice burg.



Considering what you're about to say, I don't get why you'd even mention HIV....

Quote:

A monogamous relationship doesn’t sturdy up the colon, nor does it change the scenario of lacking condoms and careful consideration. They may not get AIDS or HIV, but….

http://www.ivillagehealth.com/experts/infectious/qas/0,,416911_173045,00.html

Anal sex can result in a variety of illnesses. I will mention only the more serious. A rare but life-threatening complication of anal sex is rupture of the rectum, resulting in a severe bacterial infection. This can occur with anal sex and with the insertion of various objects into the rectum. Care must be taken to avoid serious injury to the area.



Pelvic inflammatory disease has similar principle. The inflammation is usually due to an STD, but not always. It's another "rare but life-threatening" case.

Quote:

Homosexual men in the United States have HIV at a higher rate than heterosexual men, but this is not true outside the Western world.



Actually, according to some physicians, including Dr. King K. Holmes of the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, this isn't true anymore. The risk is still greater with homosexuals, though.

Quote:

Other viruses can be transmitted through anal sex quite easily. These include hepatitis B and hepatitis C, which cause liver disease. Possibly Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), which causes mono, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) can also be transmitted in this way. Another cause of liver disease is the hepatitis A virus. It is transmitted through contact with the feces of someone with the virus, so anal sex may increase the risk of acquiring that infection.



....but if they're tested it doesn't matter.

Quote:

So what you’re saying is; you’d condone a couple who put their lives at risk by hurting each other like those couples I saw in the movie Crash (waste of my fucking time). Or (as I exemplified before) the people who’d commit suicide together just to get the point across that they love one another.



No, I wouldn't, and that's a ridiculous comparison.

What I would condone, as I've said all along, are two monogamous people taking the necessary precautions before having sex. Getting tested for STD's, using a condom, etc.

It applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Quote:

Prioritizing would mean to exclude everything else if any situation would for call for the certain circumstances.



....that's quite a reach, Pariah.

No, what prioritizing means is.....prioritizing. Listing in order of importance. Period.

This is what I mean when I say you're reading what you want to read into it.

Quote:

Ah. Resorting Whomod’s and Jim Jackson’s tactics are we? When one feels the need to get defensive and/or post snarky remarks, it usually means they’re getting desperate.



If you'd like to consider it snarky, you're more than welcome to. I saw it as a perfectly reasonable possibility, given the arguments you've been making.

MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.