I have problems with many philosophers including Agustine, Anselm, and others. For example Anslem argues: " 1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater
1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
2. Being is greater than not being
3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater.
4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable

Conclusion: If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists"

This is circular reasoning. For example, if I believe in the possibility of time travel, ergo, it must exist.
NO!

You might want to read the following link regarding Augustine: http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/august.asp

I have similar problems with Pauline texts.

The God of Abraham told Abe to murder his son Issac or Ishmael depending on the faithful's belief. I do not find this logical. The God of Abraham allowed Satan to cause Job many pains. Logical. Nope. I am sure you do not want me to detail the irrational behavior of the God of Abraham.

An elected official should follow the voice of her or his constituents, not her or his belief. This is an elected official's job. Ellison is a Muslim who very well might believe in Sharia Law. He has no right to impose this law upon his constituents, just as any elected Catholic hasn't the right to impose her or his religious belief on those represented.

I want an elected official to follow the Constitutional Laws of the land. To me, it is unConstitutional to economically disenfranchise gays. If the laws are changed requiring insurance companies and businesses to recognize domestic partnerships many will stop their yelling about gay marriage.

What has my life style, my expenses to do with gay marriage or abortion? I decide how my money is to be spent; not you or your church. This is off topic.

Look, both my significant other and I took oaths of marriage, and we both were betrayed. His wife cheated and stole most of what he had. My ex became verbally abusive and I found a toolbox full of coke in the garage. Bye Bye. I refused to allow my son to be around this walking nightmare, and his visitation rights were restricted to his mother's home under supervision. Best decision I ever made. Royce meant his vows, and was heartbroken when divorced. He loved her, as he loves me, but still bears the scars of abandonment. Thankfully, he is not possessive nor jealous as I have had to spend many late hours after work attending graduate classes until 10:00 p.m. BTW: Neither he nor I dated for several years after our divorces. Currently, we have been happily joined for 21 years, and were friends 2 years prior to this. Frankly, after his divorce he could not afford the $5,000.00 for a Catholic divorce even working two jobs. A second mortgage is a tough gig and you judge him too harshly.

I still believe the Catholic Church is using extortion in the matter of divorce.

I really dislike the ad hominem attack of ignorance. As previously mentioned I do peruse the teachings of numerous faiths, and read Catholic Answers regarding your faith. Do you bother reading the teachings of other faiths.

I do not want to live with Natural Law especially when I find nature to be very violent. Ever see a lion kill and eat its prey? How about volcanoes, cyclones, tsunamis. This is a misnomer.

What is practical are laws to create a happy, productive society. I reject many philosophers, Kant, works as many had no real contract with much of humanity. Much of what Aquinas wrote shows he was slipping into madness.

I have read much of Pagel's works, the Gnostic's Bible, the Jewish version of the Torah which differs from the Old Testament, and several other works.

If you dislike my words, don't read them, very simple.

He should have forgiven his wife, and she should have repented of her adultery.
An annulment is not a divorce, and that's a problem with the Church in America.

People harp about the "Costs" of an annulment but they are often miniscule compared to the legal fees of a divorce itself. The Church hardly reaps any "profit" from an annulment. Most of the fees–a few thousand dollars, on average, go to paying for the various consultants: canon lawyers, psychologists, etc. The Tribunal has to evaluate the records of the couple's pre Cana process, and the notes the priest originally took about their counseling, interview witnesses, etc. It's a full fledged trial.

Jesus said anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery–that's not "institutional religion"; that's not "man made laws." That's the teaching of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church is the only Christian "denomination" that still honors that teaching, with the exception in some Gospels that "unless the marriage is invalid." So people who want to have their divorces need to prove their marriages were sacramentally invalid. For most of today's "divorces," that involves exercising the newer addition to Canon Law that suggests abuse and adultery can constitute signs one or both partners were insincere at the altar, and, in order to justify that, they have to do a lot of paperwork to hunt for the faintest evidence.

Incidentally, the vast majority of annulments that get granted in America and appealed to the Vatican are overturned because the American tribunals are so liberal.

Again, I know from long experience that comboxes are not the place to explain natural law to the ignorant, but if you really care, you should start by reading C. S. Lewis's _The Abolition of Man_. On the evils of divorce, read Maggie Gallagher's _The Abolition of Marriage_, which documents how psychologically destructive divorce is, not just on the people involved, but on their children. But I think you'd rather just keep expounding your rants against religion than look at the reasons behind our moral views.

And Congress has been forcing us to fund an aggressive, unjust war for the last 7 years.

I was really asking, just requesting that you remember that your audience does not believe in any formal faith which is important for communication.

My significant other was married in your church, but will have to pay exorbitant fees to obtain a divorce regardless of the fact his wife was cheating, and stole almost every item in the home, including TP when she left, which is abandonment. IMHO, this smacks of extortion on the Church's part.

My point is that his divorce was valid, but the Church wanted funds to make it valid in their institution. As a result, he, like me, has rejected all formal religions as salvation for a shilling.

Frankly, I do not care what most faith's teach unless they interfere with another person's right to economic freedom and happiness, hence my stance for gay marriage and birth control.

Why should a family have more children than they can afford? Why should any person have children if they do not want any? These people should not have to endure the continual ad hom attacks of "Evil," "Murderer," from the faithful.

Actually, much of your stance, and the Church's stance is totalitarian dictating what a politician, Catholic or not, should do. One can state as a person of faith I oppose abortion and contraception and divorce, but I cannot impose my religious beliefs on my constituents in this free, secular society.

Can you imagine Congress passing a law saying that America must fund aggressive unjust war? No one in his right mind would agree to it. But these people want Congress to fund abortion. That's why it is so urgent. No one is proposing LAWS mandating the funding of aggressive and unjust war. It would be considered insane by anyone……..yet that's what they've done with abortion..

1) First off, as a Christian, with a genetic disorder, I don't see death as a bad thing–I meant it in a Providential context. Yes, McCain is divorced. He also supports ESCR.
The Catholic voter should support the person who *best* represents Catholic values. Normally, I reject the false dichotomy, but in 2008 I opted for McCain because Barr was certainly unacceptable, and neither was Baldwin.
2) Are you looking for an *explanation* or a fight, then? I can explain *that* this discussion is about the role of Catholics in public life, so what matters is what the Church teaches–not whether a Deist Feminist agrees with it.
3) Divorce is always wrong, but sometimes necessary. No-fault divorce creates a culture where anyone can get a divorce for any reason, and it cheapens marriage. It is silly to talk about gay marriage, or anything else, cheapening marriage as long as no fault divorce exists. As a general rule, a Catholic politician should oppose divorce and favor very strict divorce laws. However, divorce in general does not constitute a "non-negotiable" in public life; no-fault divorce does.
4) I know people don't accept it, but the Catholic Church *does* teach that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that it forms a fundamental threat to society on numerous levels–the nature of marriage, the nature of the family, economics, respect for life, etc. So if we're going to say that Catholics have to oppose intrinsic evils like ESCR and abortion, why do Republican Catholics conveniently leave out other intrinsic evils?

But, again, my problem is that there are a lot of things that should be "non-negotiable." The "five" are usually given as the ones most urgent in our society.

Why wish death on an American hero who suffered much in the name of our land. You are discrediting your Christianity.

Remember, your audience is a Deist, Feminist.

BTW: McCain is divorced