CatholicCrusader Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I didn't vote, since the reason given was wrong. A vote for Bush is not a vote in line with the Church. He supports divorice, contracpetion, separation of Church and State, embroytic stem cell research (where they were already frozen), abortion for case of mother's health, rape, and incest, and he was not opposed to gay unions... a vote for Bush was not a Catholic option. I am not really sure of the war... I have heard it was based around the pro-Isreal, pro-Jewish agenda pushed by Bush and all American Presidents. I have not researched that, but it did come from a respectable source... but Bush was not a viable candidate for the Catholic voter, if that is the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 30 2004, 02:56 PM'] I believe it was pretty straight forward... It's directed at anyone who voted for Kerry. Narcissism is not a good thing to have. The statement was not asinine at all... the statement is true. God Bless, ironmonk [/quote] Ah, well since it's directed at everyone who voted for Kerry you are, quite simply, wrong. There are many who voted for Kerry who know much about Jesus. Knowing a lot about him doesn't necessarily make a person christian, though. Blanket statements are rarely a good idea, friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 30 2004, 06:37 PM'] Ah, well since it's directed at everyone who voted for Kerry you are, quite simply, wrong. There are many who voted for Kerry who know much about Jesus. Knowing a lot about him doesn't necessarily make a person christian, though. Blanket statements are rarely a good idea, friend. [/quote] No it's not. People who are not Christian, know very little about Christ. To know a lot about Him requires one to follow Him. People who voted for Kerry know very little about Christ. To know Christ is to Love Christ, to follow His ways, and know His teachings... a vote for Kerry proves that a person does not know Christ very well at all. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 30 2004, 04:46 PM'] No it's not. People who are not Christian, know very little about Christ. To know a lot about Him requires one to follow Him. People who voted for Kerry know very little about Christ. To know Christ is to Love Christ, to follow His ways, and know His teachings... a vote for Kerry proves that a person does not know Christ very well at all. God Bless, ironmonk [/quote] know: 1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of 2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write> 3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with intransitive senses 1 : to have knowledge 2 : to be or become cognizant -- sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech I'd say that the first two are applicable here. I know people who have most of 1 and at least 2b of Jesus and yet are not christian. If you use the word with an arbitrary definition the discussion falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 30 2004, 07:20 PM'] know: 1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of 2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write> 3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with intransitive senses 1 : to have knowledge 2 : to be or become cognizant -- sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech I'd say that the first two are applicable here. I know people who have most of 1 and at least 2b of Jesus and yet are not christian. If you use the word with an arbitrary definition the discussion falls apart. [/quote] To know Christ is to know He is God. If people do not know He's God, then they do not Know Christ. No one in their right mind would deny Christ. You're wrong. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 30 2004, 04:49 PM'] over 840,000 abortions since June (4000 per day) > 1,121 US deaths in Iraq since June [/quote] The numbers don't lie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 30 2004, 06:21 PM'] I didn't vote, since the reason given was wrong. A vote for Bush is not a vote in line with the Church. He supports divorice, contracpetion, separation of Church and State, embroytic stem cell research (where they were already frozen), abortion for case of mother's health, rape, and incest, and he was not opposed to gay unions... a vote for Bush was not a Catholic option. I am not really sure of the war... I have heard it was based around the pro-Isreal, pro-Jewish agenda pushed by Bush and all American Presidents. I have not researched that, but it did come from a respectable source... but Bush was not a viable candidate for the Catholic voter, if that is the question. [/quote] There were only two people running in the presidental election remember, and one disqualified himself by his stand on abortion. President Bush is the lesser of two evils and Catholics were certainly free to vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 1 2004, 10:43 AM'] There were only two people running in the presidental election remember, and one disqualified himself by his stand on abortion. President Bush is the lesser of two evils and Catholics were certainly free to vote for him. [/quote] Only 2 people were running? You should tell that to the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc., etc., etc. (up to 100 others) candidates that there were "only 2 candidates running". Actually, there are usually literally 100 who run every year-- from such groups as Communist, Socialist, KKK, etc. I would have probably voted for Peroutka, if judging purely on the issues, but I heard he made an anti-Catholic statement at one of his rallies in a speach, so he would not have gotten my vote. I am not sure who I would have voted for. I would have had to dig deeper into the third-parties to see if anyone did not break with Catholic teaching. If everyone did, I wouldn't vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aloha918 Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 abortion is a greater evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 (edited) ..didn't log out. Edited December 1, 2004 by amarkich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='aloha918' date='Dec 1 2004, 02:53 PM'] abortion is a greater evil [/quote] Yes, abortion is an evil. My candidate would be one who is not only against abortion but also contraception, divorice, civil unions, separation of Church and State, Modernism, etc. Since all of those are evils that are mortally sinful (and no Catholic can support any of them), I would only support a candidate who opposed them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 09:36 AM'] Only 2 people were running? You should tell that to the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc., etc., etc. (up to 100 others) candidates that there were "only 2 candidates running". Actually, there are usually literally 100 who run every year-- from such groups as Communist, Socialist, KKK, etc. I would have probably voted for Peroutka, if judging purely on the issues, but I heard he made an anti-Catholic statement at one of his rallies in a speach, so he would not have gotten my vote. I am not sure who I would have voted for. I would have had to dig deeper into the third-parties to see if anyone did not break with Catholic teaching. If everyone did, I wouldn't vote. [/quote] Two winnable candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 03:25 PM'] Yes, abortion is an evil. My candidate would be one who is not only against abortion but also contraception, divorice, civil unions, separation of Church and State, Modernism, etc. Since all of those are evils that are mortally sinful (and no Catholic can support any of them), I would only support a candidate who opposed them all. [/quote] You need to read some on the principle of double effect and the material participation in evil. In this case, they both actually applied. You were materially participating in evil, and chances are you could have been participating more so than anyone voting for Bush, it just depends on where you live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 1 2004, 05:28 PM'] You need to read some on the principle of double effect and the material participation in evil. In this case, they both actually applied. You were materially participating in evil, and chances are you could have been participating more so than anyone voting for Bush, it just depends on where you live. [/quote] Since I'm not yet 18 until March, I didn't participate in any evil, since I couldn't vote. In any event, you fail to take into account the effect of continuing to always chose the "lesser of two evils" for the particular election. What does it lead to? More and more evil... if Catholics, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils in the spectrum of the particular election, and looked rather to the effect of voting for an evil candidate over time, it would be less evil to vote for the candidate without evil, since when you continue to vote lesser of 2 evils only more evil prevails... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Our job is to [i]always[/i] limit the evil done. Sometimes it can't be helped that some will be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now