Plea to Catholics of a Liberal Persuasion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cursilista
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
I don’t think liberal Catholics expect charity extended towards them to be applauded any more than charity is towards any of His other children. I think they only want charity extended to all His people, liberals included.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t even make sense. Who is saying that liberals are not worthy of charity?!
CMatt25 said:
Jesus spoke of His priorities.
Click to expand...
You are dodging the question.

When did Jesus ever do evil to do good or demand that evil be done to do good?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This doesn’t even make sense. Who is saying that liberals are not worthy of charity?!

You are dodging the question.

When did Jesus ever do evil to do good or demand that evil be done to do good?
Click to expand...
I think chasing out the money lenders would qualify. It’s portrayed as a violent response. Whipping people to get them to leave the temple.

[BIBLEDRB]John 2:13-16[/BIBLEDRB]
 
georgetowngrad said:
I think chasing out the money lenders would qualify. It’s portrayed as a violent response. Whipping people to get them to leave the temple.
Click to expand...
You have, indeed, identified a violent action by Jesus. But have you indeed identified a evil deed? No. Jesus targeted the money changers for their own wrong deeds.
 
CMatt25 said:
Maybe not but He had a lot to say about the poor, homeless, hungry, naked, and caring for people. So it does trouble me when I see Catholics saying over an employer mandate or now an insurance company mandate, that they will close the doors of places that serve these and according to Jesus, by serving these, they serve Him.
Click to expand...
And I’m pretty sure God said, thou shall not kill. So it does trouble me when I see Catholics dismiss this and vote for strong believers in abortion. Let alone Obama’s full support of gay marraige. And Obama is not helping the poor, needy, and most vulnerable. In fact he’s supporting the murder of the most vulnerable.

It is also unconstitutional to force a religious charity to choose between their moral conciense and helping the poor and needy.
 
Mike2010 said:
It is also unconstitutional to force a religious charity to choose between their moral conciense and helping the poor and needy.
Click to expand...
Much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. These consequences were inevitable when things like Social Security were established. The precedent was set; it’ was just a matter of time before the “experts” decided the government needed more of its citizens money to do the “right” thing. Robbing Peter to pay Paul robs everyone involved.

Of course, the turn away from Christ was the real culprit, but to even mention Christianity’s pivotal and essential role in the nations founding is considered blasphemous in most of the learned circles.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
You have, indeed, identified a violent action by Jesus. But have you indeed identified a evil deed? No. Jesus targeted the money changers for their own wrong deeds.
Click to expand...
Well it does run contrary to his direction to us, so if we did it, it would be a sin and sin is evil …

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 6:27-31[/BIBLEDRB]
 
georgetowngrad said:
Well it does run contrary to his direction to us, so if we did it, it would be a sin and sin is evil …
Click to expand...
Only if you believe that he directed us never to use violence.

But that is not what the Church teaches. The Church makes the very ordinary distinction between violence toward the innocent and the guilty. Which is why the Church is opposed to abortion but not self defense.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Only if you believe that he directed us never to use violence.

But that is not what the Church teaches. The Church makes the very ordinary distinction between violence toward the innocent and the guilty. Which is why the Church is opposed to abortion but not self defense.
Click to expand...
No one was attacking Jesus. It wasn’t self defense. He was proactive in His whipping. 🤷
 
georgetowngrad said:
No one was attacking Jesus. It wasn’t self defense. He was proactive in His whipping.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that it was, I said that Jesus was doing evil in his attack on the money changers. If you want a closer example, police use force to arrest a crmininal.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I didn’t say that it was, I said that Jesus was doing evil in his attack on the money changers. If you want a closer example, police use force to arrest a crmininal.
Click to expand...
So you are agreeing with CMatt25 sometimes the end justifies the means. Evil can lead to good. Jesus’ driving the money lenders from the temple using violence being an example.
 
georgetowngrad said:
So you are agreeing with CMatt25 sometimes the end justifies the means. Evil can lead to good. Jesus’ driving the money lenders from the temple using violence being an example.
Click to expand...
Nope, because I am denying that violence is categorically wrong.

I am attempting to explain to you the distinction between violence toward the guilty, which is not a sin, and violence against the innocent, which is.

Now if you can give us an example of Jesus attacking the innocent for some larger good, then maybe you would have a point.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Nope, because I am denying that violence is categorically wrong.

I am attempting to explain to you the distinction between violence toward the guilty, which is not a sin, and violence against the innocent, which is.

Now if you can give us an example of Jesus attacking the innocent for some larger good, then maybe you would have a point.
Click to expand...
Jesus directs away from violence per [BIBLEDRB]Luke 6:27-31[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
What *are *they teaching at Georgetown these days?!
Click to expand...
The basic premise of Christianity comes from this, with out the first sin of Adam and Eve there is no need for a Savior to save us from sin. No sin ( evil ) no Jesus as savior. Without sin there is nothing to save us from. Salvation becomes a Non Sequitur without original sin.
 
georgetowngrad said:
Jesus directs away from violence per
Click to expand...
Indeed, but the Church does not teach that violence is inherently evil, only that violence against the innocent is inherently evil.
georgetowngrad said:
The basic premise of Christianity comes from this, with out the first sin of Adam and Eve there is no need for a Savior to save us from sin. No sin ( evil ) no Jesus as savior. Without sin there is nothing to save us from. Salvation becomes a Non Sequitur without original sin.
Click to expand...
Jesus did not commit original sin, Adam did.

So we are still awaiting an example where Jesus did or advocated doing evil to do good.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Indeed, but the Church does not teach that violence is inherently evil, only that violence against the innocent is inherently evil.

Jesus did not commit original sin, Adam did.

So we are still awaiting an example where Jesus did or advocated doing evil to do good.
Click to expand...
Is whipping people, especially ones that didn’t commit a violent crime, not evil? You really think they deserved violence? Do you self flagellate?

Per the Catechism -
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.91
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top