T
Theo520
Guest
This from the guy who just admitted he doesn’t understand Church teachings
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
I thought that what he had indicated was that he didn’t fully understand the application of Church teaching in the Little sisters case. I think that that is a reasonable statement for all to make; I don’t think that there has been a definite ruling in the CC that upholds their perspective, and at the same time, repudiates the action of other Catholic organizations that worked within the expectations allowed under the law at the time that the sisters filed suit.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
Whatever you want to think is fine, because heaven knows when I think of religiously based arguments, I think of your posts.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
Keep up the lies Theo. I said that I may not understand all the finer aspects of Church teaching with regards to remote and direct cooperation with evil as regards to the Little Sisters case. Now, I do know that lying is against Church teaching and by misrepresenting what I said, you are lying. So I guess either you don’t know Church teachings or you are just fine with violating its rules to score political points.This from the guy who just admitted he doesn’t understand Church teachings
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
I read this after I posted. Thanks. I’m glad I made myself clear, which means that Theo is just choosing to lie to make political points.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I am sorry. What is Theo supposed to be telling lies about?dvdjs:
I read this after I posted. Thanks. I’m glad I made myself clear, which means that Theo is just choosing to lie to make political points.
I guess I missed something.
J
josie_L
Guest
Are you pro-choice? Are you pro-gay marriage? Do you believe in the traditional understanding of gender? Do you believe in euthanasia? If you said “no” to all these questions, then we have more in common then you or I realized, but if you said “yes”, then please stop pontificating to us that we (social Conservatives) are against and/or are undermining church teaching, when in actuality it is leftists who have corrupted the culture.josie_L:
Whatever you want to think is fine, because heaven knows when I think of religiously based arguments, I think of your posts.
Last edited:
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
No, mixed feeling, mixed feelings, no. Two out of four ain’t bad.
For gay marriage, I remember the days of the beard. Gay men who would pretend not to be so they would marry a woman to hide it. These marriages were very unhappy. I would rather gays have their own path instead of pretending to be straight and end up marrying my kids.
For gender identity issues, I do think that people have very confusing feelings. As someone who didn’t, I don’t feel I can give (name removed by moderator)ut to what they are feeling.
Now, let’s look at racism and misogyny. I know white Catholics that vote Republican like to pretend that they aren’t racist or misogynist, but they are supporting a man that has made racist and misogynist statements. Both are severe issues in society, racism is an intrinsic evil. I don’t know how a social conservative can support someone who perpetuates this within the country. I don’t know how anyone that has a bit of respect can support someone that makes obnoxious comments about sexual assault. So, by supporting the current Republican party (even from Canada), you are undermining aspects of Church teaching.
J
josie_L
Guest
Thank you for answering those questions honestly, I appreciate it. Although, however, sympathetic you may be to gays that does not precipitate endorsing said “lifestyle” and/or gay marriage, i.e., civil partnerships would have given them all the benefits of a married couple without the necessary distortions/redefinitions made to said institution. As for those progressives pushing a total eradication of binary gender/sex and pushing for gender fluidity, well, if you’re in agreement with that you have neither science nor religion in your corner.josie_L:
No, mixed feeling, mixed feelings, no. Two out of four ain’t bad.
For gay marriage, I remember the days of the beard. Gay men who would pretend not to be so they would marry a woman to hide it. These marriages were very unhappy. I would rather gays have their own path instead of pretending to be straight and end up marrying my kids.
For gender identity issues, I do think that people have very confusing feelings. As someone who didn’t, I don’t feel I can give (name removed by moderator)ut to what they are feeling.
Now, let’s look at racism and misogyny. I know white Catholics that vote Republican like to pretend that they aren’t racist or misogynist, but they are supporting a man that has made racist and misogynist statements. Both are severe issues in society, racism is an intrinsic evil. I don’t know how a social conservative can support someone who perpetuates this within the country. I don’t know how anyone that has a bit of respect can support someone that makes obnoxious comments about sexual assault. So, by supporting the current Republican party (even from Canada), you are undermining aspects of Church teaching.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Hahaha
Big of her
Big of her
J
josie_L
Guest
Your view point would only make sense if Trump were truly racist and misogynistic and that has not been proven, and/or if those who voted for him willfully did so knowing he was. And why is it as a Democrat you presume to believe that such vices exist amongst Republicans only, i.e., I can think of several occasions when Hillary made sexist and /or racist comments, here are just a few:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8687/video-proof-seven-instances-hillarys-clintons-john-nolte
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...b0b0ded0253_story.html?utm_term=.c05cffb7dfe0
And need I remind you that in recent times, Democrats, politicians/congressmen in particular, have been accused and convicted of sex crimes, which proves that neither party in this respect has the moral high ground. So any attempts to discredit social conservatives and their supposed support of racism and misogyny can be likewise said about those who voted for the Clintons on the left of the political spectrum. There are no saints running for office, which is why draining the D.C. swamp is imperative for those on both sides of the political divide, despite the relatively flawed individual at the helm.
p.s. (Saint) Constantine was a deeply flawed individual and yet God chose him to legalize Christianity and bring the Church out into the open.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Really, you thought of these? It looks like some others, grinding a polemical ax, decided to play these up, and you, uncritically, followed along.
Last edited:
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
Well, she thought to google “Hillary racism” and then posted whatever came up. The verbal gymnastics some on the right will do to keep from confronting their own racism and the racism they support politically is amazing.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
You conservatives are really into this Kulturkampf thing, aren’t you?
You know what, you don’t get to impose a litmus test on who is Catholic or not, or who is corrupting the culture, any more than we “leftists” (your word, not mine) get to decide who is disregarding the voluminous body of Church teaching on the preferential option for the poor, or Christ’s own words on our duty to the poor and sick. Or that thing he said about sword and ploughshares…
Really. You wouldn’t let a liberal pontificate about who is more Catholic for a second, would you?
You know what, you don’t get to impose a litmus test on who is Catholic or not, or who is corrupting the culture, any more than we “leftists” (your word, not mine) get to decide who is disregarding the voluminous body of Church teaching on the preferential option for the poor, or Christ’s own words on our duty to the poor and sick. Or that thing he said about sword and ploughshares…
Really. You wouldn’t let a liberal pontificate about who is more Catholic for a second, would you?
Last edited:
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
Well, at least on this website, attacking the Pope isn’t allowed. On many ‘Catholic’ websites, it is all but actively encouraged. A great deal of people have confused their politics and their religion.
P
petra22
Guest
If you want the truth it was the MEDIA, MSM to be more specific. They were prepared to trash all 17 GOP runners in the 2016 election but they thought they had the better “evidence” against DT… so they threw all their support on a candidate who cheated Bernie, a candidate who refused to come up with a campaign other than tell what a terrible candidate DT was. She HRC had no plan that she expressed other than continue with the policies of BO. She purposely stayed out of the lime light, having debates during NFL games and on Sunday evenings… She purposely stayed off the campaign trail for extended periods of time, she purposely refused to talk to the press… I know I’m just taking the “bait”. Sorry if you readers are tired of the rehash. I guess I just can’t get it out of my deplorable mind…
P
petra22
Guest
I thank you for taking the time to try to explain a confusing issue, values/principles. It is a very weighty subject for me and you have given me much food for thought.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
I’m not sure how this makes any sense. It’s the media’s fault that the Republicans nominated and voted for Trump? The same media that the right hates with a passion? I’m sorry, I still think it’s the Republicans’ responsibility and they need to own it.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Exactly. There were 17 candidates for the Republican nomination, some of them quite credible. Kasich, Bush, Rubio, I suppose Cruz. I was impressed by Fiorina, although I don’t share her political principles.
And yet Republican primary voters enthusiastically chose Donald Trump, a man who actually bragged about the size of his you-know-what during the Republican primary debates.
It wasn’t the fault of the “MSM.” Republicans could have voted for any of the candidates. They chose Trump. Something about him appealed to them. All the Trump supporters here claim that they’re on to the mainstream media, and they’re too smart to be manipulated by the media elite. So that can’t be it.
I get some of it. There’s an element of truth to the charge that the Democratic party, in embracing Clintonian neo-liberalism, has abandoned working people. Although the Republican party is actively anti-labor, rather than just ignoring labor, like the Democrats, Trump at least gave lip service, if nothing more, to the concerns of the working class. I get why people would vote for him just to raise a middle finger to those who’ve forgotten them.
But there’s another side to Trump, one that appeals to some very dark elements in America, and that’s what worries me.
P
petra22
Guest
I guess you could say those stupid conservatives thought they were voting for a movie star because his “private language” that was made public sounded just like the movies and TV shows that our kids are watching these days… Just because you keep saying DT is racist doesn’t make it so… so
- Status