How to Red-Pill a Bishop

[ModernTemplar]

The fact that you are saying these claims are “made up” only reinforces what I just said. . . .

 

[godisgood77]

The fact that you are saying these claims are “made up” only reinforces what I just said. You are a lost cause, my friend.

You saying that does not change the fact that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud…my friend.

You’re not a lost cause though, I have hope for you… reality will set in and I’m confident that you will get it albeit eventually

 

[whatistrue]

What percentage of lawsuits filed by the Trump legal team about alleged election fraud were not dismissed for lack of evidence? Reinforces the “made up” characterization.

 

[ModernTemplar]

And on a side note, you should be ashamed of yourself supporting a party that actively supports everything Christians stand against. It would not be an exaggeration to call it a party of evil. Transgenderism, gay marriage, anti-nuclear family, pro abortion, intolerance and disdain of Christians, promotion of “sexual freedom”, support of socialism… It goes on and on. I vote based on POLICY and LOGIC. . . .

 

[godisgood77]

And on a side note, you should be ashamed of yourself supporting a party that actively supports everything Christians stand against. It would not be an exaggeration to call it a party of evil. Transgenderism, gay marriage, anti-nuclear family, pro abortion, intolerance and disdain of Christians, promotion of “sexual freedom”, support of socialism… It goes on and on. I vote based on POLICY and LOGIC, you vote based on emotion because “orange man” hurts your feelings.

Now your assumptions are not only false, they make you seem a bit delusional…

For someone claiming logic as a guiding principle, you are sure making some emotionally charged, baseless accusations.

 

[ModernTemplar]

Where is the “emotion” in what I said? These are all principles the Democratic party supports. Now you’re being defensive because I pointed them out to you.

 

[whatistrue]

actively supports everything Christians stand against.

Like help for the poor? Respect for everyone? Fairness? Not denuding the planet? Are those positions that Christians stand against?

“orange man” hurts your feelings

Can’t speak for anyone else, but he never hurt my feelings. He did, however, cause serious damage to the credibility and viability of the country he was supposed to be leading and protecting.

 

[ModernTemplar]

You may be confused, but I was not replying to you… Not sure why you are responding.

 

[whatistrue]

Not sure why you are responding.

Because it is a forum for discussion. And I wanted to discuss your errors, no matter who they were addressed to. If you want only private exchanges, take it to PM.

 

[godisgood77]

Where is the “emotion” in what I said? These are all principles the Democratic party supports. Now you’re being defensive because I pointed them out to you.

Resorting to a baseless personal attack seems emotionally charged to me. If your post was just wrong instead that is fine

Your personal attack assumes that I support the Democratic Party - which is false.

You go on to make baseless claims about my vote being based on emotion… which is garbage, but somehow you know…

Can we get back to the facts please?

How about some evidence of widespread voter fraud?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Don’t feed the trolls. Just a friendly reminder.

 

[upant]

First, why do you ask? The fact that you suggested that both sides meet on some common ground implies that you already know what they are and what that ground is.

Nonsense, how can I know what they are, each bishop is different. What is common with one may not be common with another

Have you ever negotiated with a group before?

Second, are you sure you don’t want to figure out what those two positions are by reading the article yourself?

My point is beyond the article. What issues do you have with the article? Can we reach common ground on it?

Are those positions that Christians stand against?

To all discussing the vote, this is off topic, start your own thread or go to one of the election threads.

 

[ralfyman]

I explained this in a previous message. Please scroll up to read it and tell me what you think of it.

 

[ralfyman]

Why are you talking about a point “beyond the article” when your response concerning a “common ground” is to a post I made about the article?

Try to stay on topic: I wrote, “The catch is that red-pilling also makes one critical of Trump.” I was told that I did know what the term meant, but I was right: taking the red pill leads to realizing unpleasant truths, and that applies to not only those who support an opposing politician but also the one he supports.

Your point: “it is better to work with the bishops and try to reach common ground.”

My question: What is that common ground? Your response: “Now that obviously depends on the issue you are addressing.” But I never talked about anything else except the article which is the main point of this thread.

So, what is that common ground? In order to find out, you need to read the article and see what the two positions are. It’s only then will you be able to answer my question. After that, we can go beyond the article if you like.

 

[Socrates92]

I regret following the link and spending 30 seconds scanning the article. Now I’ve lost 30 seconds I could’ve spent playing Wordscapes.

How many seconds did you spend typing out that comment and then reading mine?

 

[upant]

“The catch is that red-pilling also makes one critical of Trump.”

the article is about red-pilling bishops, I don’t care about trump.

Our goal should be to open the bishops’ eyes, not to shout them down. We should be appealing to them as effectively as possible, not browbeating them into submission (an exercise in futility if there ever was one). If we treat them like enemies, they’ll do the same to us.

My question: What is that common ground? Your response: “Now that obviously depends on the issue you are addressing.” But I never talked about anything else except the article which is the main point of this thread.

the article discusses opening the bishop’s eyes, to do this you need to find common ground. I am not indulging in your trump rhetoric

After that, we can go beyond the article if you like.

I am on topic

 

[AnaCarolina7]

Im a blue pill person myself.

 

[ralfyman]

I am referring to the first example of the article, which refers to most bishops refusing to endorse Biden or Trump. The latter part refers to Bishop Barron with Fr. Martin vs. traditionalists.

In which case, red-pilling means making bishops endorse candidates (any or specific ones?) or make them defend Sacred Tradition by arguing that some will be damned through a common ground.

What is that common ground?

Finally, red-pilling in the movie refers to realizing that the world is a virtual run created by aliens, and where human beings are used as fodder. It’s unpleasant not only for Neo but also for Morpheus. In this case, what unpleasant truths do “we” who want to meet bishops on some common ground also realize?

 

[upant]

I am referring to the first example of the artic

he defends Archbishop José Gomez, what issue do you have with that?

red-pilling means making bishops endorse candidates

nope, I don’t see it that way at all.

this has to do with a lot more than an election.

In this case, what unpleasant truths do “we” who want to meet bishops on some common ground also realize?

I don’t think you and the author have the same meaning for red-pill, the unpleasantness is simply that they are on the wrong side of the issue, a wake-up call to them.

as he says

We can address them calmly and respectfully, hoping, not to thwart them, but to win them over.

 

[ralfyman]

Are you sure we’re reading the same article? He criticizes Archbishop Gomez for jumping the gun on Biden being the next President, for cleverly hedging and referring to Biden as one who professes the Catholic faith, and for congratulating Biden prematurely even as his orthodox views run contrary to those of the politician.

See that in light of the next set of paragraphs, starting with, “There are 271,” followed by the writer’s conclusion:

In fact, most U.S. bishops didn’t weigh in one way or the other. That’s probably because they don’t think it’s fitting for a bishop to endorse political candidates. We may disagree with them on that point; I certainly do. But, if so, that doesn’t mean the bishops are evil. It doesn’t mean they’re secret Biden supporters. It just means that… well, they’re wrong.

Now, connect that to the next two points: a center-right bishop who can’t deal with problems in his diocese because he has no control over it, and that bureaucrats run it, and most people not realizing that they have no control because of too many pressures involved, but that’s not meant as an excuse but only to show that they’re not really “evil.”

And in light of that, see the points about Bishop Barron, Fr. Martin, Balthasar, Fr. Nichols who praises him but accuses Pope Francis of heresy, and the option of either being a sedevacantist or working with the bishops. And doing so means to “call wayward fathers back to the Truth” and thus “protect our fellow laymen from error”. And according to the same article, that truth is “the Sacred Tradition.”

Do you now understand the article? The positions of liberalism and conservatism or traditionalism are clear, with the Sacred Tradition acting as that middle ground.

At the same time, notice contradictions in criticism of the bishops by the flock. The flock is supposed to be “bigger men,” but they have to protect each other from error, and probably need help from bishops who are literally “bigger men” because they are part of authority, but also the opposite because they have no control over the same flock and are part of bureaucracy.

What makes matter worse is that the metaphor or red-pilling is raised. Your third point is correct: we don’t have the same meaning. That’s because I find it bewildering to compare the Sacred Tradition to taking a red pill.

In the movie, by taking the red pill Neo realizes the unpleasant truth that the pleasant life he had was actually a virtual one, and that his real world is horrible. Morpheus, who gave him the red pill, also presumably realized the same.

But what does that mean in this case? “lip a red pill into a bishop’s wine.” What unpleasant truth do the bishops realizing after taking that pill? And what unpleasant truth do critics realize after taking the pill themselves?

Finally, do you now see the connections between that and my first post?