Democratic convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter livnlern
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cornbread_r2 said:
What about the edible mark placed one’s soul when they’re baptized? Is “Once a Catholic always a Catholic” no longer true? As I understand it, even excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.

When you hear other Catholics bragging that there are 1+ billion Catholics on Earth do you correct them? How many Catholics would you say there are?

Has the Church officially conferred some special kind of authority upon you or is this just something you’ve assumed for yourself?

I’d still like to know too, how, exactly, one investigates the interior faith lives of other Catholics.
Click to expand...
**Bolding Mine: **

As the Scriptures say: “By their fruits will you know them.”

I would answer your other questions, however I would think you would be better served by attending RCIA classes as your knowledge of the Faith is somewhat insubstantial, and I do not to derail the thread.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The artwork depicting “God” was not distributed in time.

Nor the same of Jerusalem under siege. http://focusonjerusalem.com/fall500x290.jpg

After 20 years of rocking “Question Authority!” bumper stickers some folks don’t know when it’s time to stop questioning and bust an “Aye!” when coached to.
 
exnihilo said:
We can have the official words but if they are not lived they are worthless.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. All the fuss about the vote is really misdirected IMO. For what purpose, with what meaning and to what end, is the word “god” used in any political context? That is the real question.

My email inbox used to be chock full of messages that used the word ‘god’ to do everything from inspire and uplift, to deride and defame…and even some that sought to use it as a way of gaining my trust so I could be scammed out of hard-earned cash! When a politician or political party used the word ‘god’ who are they referring to, and most importantly, is there a common understanding among speakers and listeners of who God is and what His relationship is to mortal man?

I know what I believe about God - I just don’t need a politician giving the impression that he shares those same beliefs if in actual fact he doesn’t.
 
I agree 100%. All the fuss about the vote is really misdirected IMO. For what purpose, with what meaning and to what end, is the word “god” used in any political context? That is the real question.
Click to expand...
Amen brother, or sister…I’m really not sure,

John
 
seekerz said:
I agree 100%. All the fuss about the vote is really misdirected IMO. For what purpose, with what meaning and to what end, is the word “god” used in any political context? That is the real question.
Click to expand...
I posted this before. The objectionable phrase in the Democratic Party Platform document was this:We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.
The term in this context is not a political statement. Objecting to this is an objection to a belief in God, that there is a God who could give us anything. This is the significance of the issue: the Democrats at the convention were pretty evenly split over the question of whether God exists.

Ender
 
seekerz said:
I agree 100%. All the fuss about the vote is really misdirected IMO. For what purpose, with what meaning and to what end, is the word “god” used in any political context? That is the real question.

My email inbox used to be chock full of messages that used the word ‘god’ to do everything from inspire and uplift, to deride and defame…and even some that sought to use it as a way of gaining my trust so I could be scammed out of hard-earned cash! When a politician or political party used the word ‘god’ who are they referring to, and most importantly, is there a common understanding among speakers and listeners of who God is and what His relationship is to mortal man?

I know what I believe about God - I just don’t need a politician giving the impression that he shares those same beliefs if in actual fact he doesn’t.
Click to expand...
If it wasn’t a problem why did they have to scramble to put it back in?
 
Ender said:
I posted this before. The objectionable phrase in the Democratic Party Platform document was this:We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.
The term in this context is not a political statement. Objecting to this is an objection to a belief in God, that there is a God who could give us anything. This is the significance of the issue: the Democrats at the convention were pretty evenly split over the question of whether God exists.

Ender
Click to expand...
Is that your take on it - that they were split on whether God exists? I’m pretty sure that there are people whose belief in one or several ‘gods’ (depending on their religion) is as strong as it is different from your concept of God.

It is only natural that the difference would crop up at some point, rather than simply continuing to pretend that they all refer to the same Creator when they use the word ‘god’. Not sharing the same concept of God is hardly equivalent to doubting whether God exists.
 
estesbob said:
If it wasn’t a problem why did they have to scramble to put it back in?
Click to expand...
Where did I say it was not a problem? Politicians typically focus on the wrong problem, which in the case of the Democrats here, meant fixating on the use or removal of the WORD rather than a clarification on what the shared MEANING of that word is for them.

This generic ‘god’ that some cling in the public sphere often seems more like a figment of secular imaginations that bears little resemblance to the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent One of our Catholic faith.
 
seekerz said:
Is that your take on it - that they were split on whether God exists? I’m pretty sure that there are people whose belief in one or several ‘gods’ (depending on their religion) is as strong as it is different from your concept of God.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the wording that specifies or even implies any particular concept of God. A person who believed his talents came from Apollo would have no problem with that phrase.
It is only natural that the difference would crop up at some point, rather than simply continuing to pretend that they all refer to the same Creator when they use the word ‘god’. Not sharing the same concept of God is hardly equivalent to doubting whether God exists.
Click to expand...
What concept of God does the word God imply? The term is generic and there is no evidence whatever that the objection to the phrase was generated by people with different views of “the Creator”. Who exactly would object to that phrase. Muslims? Hindus? Wiccans?

Ender
 
seekerz said:
Where did I say it was not a problem? Politicians typically focus on the wrong problem, which in the case of the Democrats here, meant fixating on the use or removal of the WORD rather than a clarification on what th
ie shared MEANING of that word is for them.

This generic ‘god’ that some cling in the public sphere often seems more like a figment of secular imaginations that bears little resemblance to the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent One of our Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
It highlights a fundamental difference between the two party’s. Republicans believe rights flow ftom God. Democrats believe They flow from the govt. It is no coincidence that they dropped God from the platform at the same time they added homosexual mattige to it.
 
Ender said:
Who exactly would object to that phrase. Muslims? Hindus? Wiccans?

Ender
Click to expand...
I can think of a few examples off the top of my head:
  1. People who don’t believe in God-given rights for everyone but only for a chosen few? (Yes, there really are people - probably always have been a few - who believe the Constitution applies to them but excludes certain ‘undesirables’).
  2. People who believe that they are on a path to divinity…in which case, their rights could be more properly described as coming from themselves?
  3. People who believe that any mention of God in public equates to proselytizing by the Christian majority.
  4. Certain sects which take the names Jehovah or Yahweh, very literally and reject use of generic appellations.
  5. Some fundamentalists who reject any legitimacy of other religious beliefs and who could not conceive of sharing a generic ‘god’, even in a nominal sense, with non-believers.
There may be more, but I’m not intimately acquainted with all religious beliefs so it might take a bit of research. Point is, the more diverse the gathering, the more varied the beliefs. Relative size also does not confer a disadvantage if the voices are loud enough.
 
estesbob said:
Republicans believe rights flow ftom God. Democrats believe They flow from the govt.
Click to expand...
I think that is oversimplifying the issue, but I see your viewpoint. Rights do come from God and anyone who upholds the Constitution is implicitly admitting that fact.

The difference I see is that Republicans tend to stress God-given rights over God-given responsibilities. The two are, for all intents and purposes - inseparable.
 
seekerz said:
I think that is oversimplifying the issue, but I see your viewpoint. Rights do come from God and anyone who upholds the Constitution is implicitly admitting that fact.

The difference I see is that Republicans tend to stress God-given rights over God-given responsibilities. The two are, for all intents and purposes - inseparable.
Click to expand...
There are degrees of truth to both of the above statements.

However, in view of the Thread Title, and the rather alarming subject matter of the Democrats brazenly** (believe me- I could go on ad infinitum with the faults of the Republicans but they are not the focus, here, currently) deleting God ishorriffic.

Why?

Where do I* begin?*
  1. It is a bald faced erosion of this Nation’s Histroy. Revisionism will (already is among **Democrats **:cool:) run rampant.
  2. It undermines many a precept that grants this Nations citizenry the undeniable by Gov’t. ‘inalienable rights’ from God.
  3. If God is gone -* What* replaces God? The President? Gee! What Political Party would not like to have that power? Evolution and Science?(Le Gasp!! :eek:- then we humans are nothing more than mere… Bio - machines… and the law of the Land will be ‘Survivial of the Fittest.’ The richest and and the Politically Connected will be ‘more equal’ than all others and ultimately, the have nots **will **become grist for the mill.)
  4. It indicates just how far the disease of Atheistic Secularism has run unchecked.
  5. We can look forward to even more of, IMHO,Planned Parenthoodesque policies of not only abortion but Euthanasia, Eugenics a la Margaret Sanger, cloning to make superior beings, Big Business owning/buying **embryos (for embryos are not humans already thanks to ‘Enlightened/Rational’ Secular Thinking), for purposes of producing cloned workers, sex slaves, genetically engineered space travelers, soldiers, etc. etc. etc. Let’s face it. There is *money to be made here! Money is the true ‘Guiding Light’ of Secular Politicians -yes? Can this be denied? Look at what all the monies of Planned Parenthood has purchased in terms of Political Influence already. Enough influence to induce a Society that it is really mighty fine to abort one’s children. Can this really be debated? Methinks not. *
*America is the land of “This is true, this I know- for my TV told me so…” :cool: *
I**s it not?:confused:

6)* Need* I go on here?🤷
 
Nimzovik said:
**Bolding Mine: **

As the Scriptures say: “By their fruits will you know them.”

I would answer your other questions, however I would think you would be better served by attending RCIA classes as your knowledge of the Faith is somewhat insubstantial, and I do not to derail the thread.
Click to expand...
I find it odd that you’d be willing to answer multiple questions I posed to another poster, but as yet haven’t answered a very straightforward question I posed to you earlier.

I’m reasonably confident that a priest and nun I speak with regularly would disagree with your assessment of my knowledge of Catholicism – especially compared to many of the faithful, practicing Catholics they encounter on a daily basis. No offense, but their extended exposure to my knowledge base would seem to be a much more trustworthy basis upon which to form an opinion than is your very limited exposure.
 
seekerz said:
I can think of a few examples off the top of my head:
  1. People who don’t believe in God-given rights for everyone but only for a chosen few? …
Click to expand...
I’ll start by pointing out that the objectionable phrase referred to God-given talents, not God-given rights but if you want to make the case that it is reasonable to oppose the use of the phrase God-given rights in the Democratic platform would it not be just as reasonable to oppose its use in the Declaration of Independence? Shall we remove the phrase from there as well? If the phrase is objectionable to Democrats surely we would expect them to repudiate references to God whenever and wherever they arise - on our currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in our founding documents. Is this not actually what we’re seeing?

It seems that Democrats are increasingly opposed to any public reference to God and this kerfuffle at the convention merely highlighted that tendency. I don’t really care what explanation you present to justify the action, the inclinations of the Democrats and the direction they are moving are rather clear. It is now merely a question of choosing sides.

Ender
 
seekerz said:
I think that is oversimplifying the issue, but I see your viewpoint. Rights do come from God and anyone who upholds the Constitution is implicitly admitting that fact. .
Click to expand...
I believe that post reveals more about democrats (and why they removed “God” from their platform) than the poster ever intended.
 
seekerz said:
Rights do come from God …
Click to expand...
I read past this comment too quickly and missed its significance. This is the central idea behind our form of government: “that all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Either we believe that our rights are unalienable or we must accept that our rights are whatever our government says they are, and if we don’t believe that our rights are endowed by a Creator why would we believe they are unalienable? If Democrats reject the idea that our talents are God-given why should we expect them to believe that our rights are? We may not be able to foresee where this perspective will eventually take the Democrat party but we should all be able to recognize where it is leading it.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top