ironmonk Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Sorry if this is off the thread topic... Please visit the links... If abortion is a matter of choice... there is no reason why rape shouldn't be either. http://www.moraltruth.com/Choice.asp The most dangerous place in the world - with Scripture: http://www.moraltruth.com/Danger.asp Your Servant in Christ, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 *looks at watch and counts down the seconds until this reaches the Back Alley* I'm voting for an AVERAGE JOE!!! Joe Schriner for president!!! http://www.catholicchronicle.org/articles_current.asp?ID=325 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Is Demoncrats outlawed too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 (edited) Are you suggesting that liberals can not be good Catholics, or that people that believe in homosexual unions can not be good Catholics? Yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting. Such people have no regard for the teaching of the Church. I am extremely liberal, and I consider myself a good Catholic. By liberal I mean I believe in governmentally instituted social welfare programs. If this is what you mean by liberal, then it is not what I mean by liberal. What the heck are you arguing about? Where does the Church speak against such programs?? I don't understand strict conservatives that claim to be Christian. So we should throw out strict adherence to the Ten Commandments, eh? 1 John 2:4-6 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love[1] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. 1 John 5:2-4 2This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Edited December 29, 2003 by ICTHUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 At any rate, since this thread has been hijacked by liberals, and all the orthodox people are here doing a fine job of refuting them, I'll request that all the liberals *cough*heretics*cough* start a new thread to spout their heresies and get blasted . So, at any rate, I had a huge argument with the three of my cousins in question last night. I made my oldest cousin, the one whom I thought was the most orthodox, cry - apparently, she has a homosexual friend and this is why she has difficulty accepting the Church's teaching. I explained to her, using the Catechism, that homosexual people are to be accepted and loved by the Church, but that they are called to live a life of chastity I made sufficently clear the distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual orientation, that the latter, whilst disordered, is not a mortal sin like the former, and that the former warrants prohibition from the Lords Table, whilst the latter does not. She responded with the argument that it would be impossible for a priest to know wether a person was homosexually orientated, or engaging in homosexual acts, unless they were blatantly confessed, and thusly a priest could very well unjustly discriminate against a person for their appearance or effeminate behaviour if they were indeed attempting to live chastely. The difficulty arose when my other two cousins, aged 13 and 14, began to pipe up. Their knowledge of their faith is shaky at best and the best they could come up with is "Well, we as Catholics don't take the Bible literally, we just go with the spirit of the Bible!". My youngest cousin postulated (in jest) that St. Paul was in fact a homosexual because he was so "homophobic" - this from an altar server! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 I should also mention that my second eldest (I'm the eldest) cousin (who is 17) is a Catechism teacher at her parish. :sadder: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Invite them here for a visit to meet the rest of the phamily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 i think st paul was a chaste homosexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazilloe Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 However...if you'd like me to discuss the fiscal nightmare Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are going to cause over the next 40-50 years as a direct result of this liberal practitioning of social welfare, I'm more than willing. As an econ major and with concentrations in population economics and the economics of abortion, I'm well equipped. And I can tell you, the looming fiscal nightmare is all due to abortion and birth control...the bi-products of our liberal-minded culture of death. These programs are funded by annual tax revenue. The money taken out of your paychecks to fund these systems is not invested, saved, or put in an account under your name. The money goes directly to current retirees. Over the lifetime of these programs, there have been fewer retirees than workers. Usually about 5 to 6 workers pay the retirement benefit of one senior every year. Given this fact, the system requires that the pool of retirees be smaller than that of American workers. However, the next generation of both retirees and workers are already born, and due to sustained falling birth rates since the "sexual (de)revolution" we will have 3 times as many retirees as workers by the year 2030. People simply are aborting and preventing the births of our next generation of workers. This cannot be changed...these people are already born (or not born in this case). Thus, when I retire, if these programs are not eliminated or drastically changed, I will be paying for the retirement income of 3 seniors...by myself. As a result, the U.S. faces a 21-trillion (yes, trillion) dollar cumulative fiscal deficit over the next 75 years. We are aborting ourselves into national bankruptcy with these "social welfare" programs. Don't believe me? Ask France, Italy, or Japan how their fiscal situation looks considering their depopulation and equally flawed concepts of social welfare. Their stagnation and mounting deficits speak volumes. Whoah whoah whoah whoah WHOAH. When did I ever say I was pro-choice? NEVER. Who ever said that in order to be liberal you had to be pro-choice? NO ONE. I am liberal. I believe HELPING people that deserve help. Not the jerks that ride off of the welfare programs, but the ones that actually need it. Like the ones that are on the Welfare to Work program. Single parent families. Children who's parents are drug addicts, so they have no food. Do you get what I'm saying? Being liberal means accepting changes. I would gladly accept a change in all social welfare programs if it meant more people that deserve the money are getting it and less people that don't aren't. In fact, why don't YOU propose a change? I'd love to hear it. And I'd probably agree with you. Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I hang out at Planned Parenthood. I'm starting to believe I'm the only Catholic that DOESN'T stereotype people. With all this "What, are you anti-catholic!?" "That's anti-catholic!" "You protestant!" Maybe THAT'S why people hate us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 St. Paul was not a homosexual. There is no basis of saying such garbage. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm Also see the all the letters written by St. Paul. Then read all that has been written about Christ in the New Testament... note His words. The man (St. Paul) travelled... He did not have time for a wife, his focus was on Christ and saving souls, to say he was a chaste homosexual is asinine... For anyone could say the same thing about Christ?! There's no logical reason to think such a thing. Come on... think people. -ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Whoah whoah whoah whoah WHOAH. When did I ever say I was pro-choice? NEVER. Who ever said that in order to be liberal you had to be pro-choice? NO ONE. I am liberal. I believe HELPING people that deserve help. Not the jerks that ride off of the welfare programs, but the ones that actually need it. Like the ones that are on the Welfare to Work program. Single parent families. Children who's parents are drug addicts, so they have no food. Do you get what I'm saying? Being liberal means accepting changes. I would gladly accept a change in all social welfare programs if it meant more people that deserve the money are getting it and less people that don't aren't. In fact, why don't YOU propose a change? I'd love to hear it. And I'd probably agree with you. Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I hang out at Planned Parenthood. I'm starting to believe I'm the only Catholic that DOESN'T stereotype people. With all this "What, are you anti-catholic!?" "That's anti-catholic!" "You protestant!" Maybe THAT'S why people hate us. You sound conservative to me. :D Also, don't get caught up in the political "liberal" vs. the Catholic "liberal".... two different animals. Your Servant in Christ, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazilloe Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting. Such people have no regard for the teaching of the Church. I'm confused, my conservative friend. What I asked was two questions, a blank/or/blank type of thing. "Are you saying that liberals can't be good catholics, or that good catholics can't accept homosexual unions?" You see, the first one was: "Are you saying liberals can't be good catholics?" and the SECOND one was: "Or that Catholics can't accept homosexual unions?" I understand that this is very hard for you to comprehend, but that's okay. I accept all people. Liberals can be good Catholics. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, they can. You see, when I vote, I don't plan on voting. That way I don't vote for a pro-choice candidate that has some good social welfare ideas. And I don't vote for a pro-life candidate that has crappy social welfare ideas. I don't step on anyone's toes and I'm not commiting any sin by not voting. See? I don't support homosexual unions. I never said I did. You must have assumed that because I'm LIBERAL. And after all, ALL liberals support homosexual unions and infanticide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 ironmonk, why precisely is it garbage to say that st paul was a chaste homosexual? and what precisely is the problem with saying that christ was a chaste homosexual? is there now something wrong with being a chaste homosexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 i do believe that it is possible for either one of them to have been tempted that way. of course, we must note that Christ NEVER would have acted on the temptation, whereas we cannot be positive about Paul but i don't think he acted on it either. there'z nothing wrong with homosexual orientation, as in-- being attracted to ppl of the same sex. that is a temptation, and Christ was alike us in all things but sin, including temptation. okay, now, the term "liberal" when used to say "liberal Catholocism" refers to someone being liberal in the religious beliefs, not their political beliefs. "liberal Catholocism" is what ICTHUS was wailing about. it means that people do not think that to be Catholic they have to at least strive to accept all the doctrines of the Church. one that openly picks and chooses doctrines is what would be called a "Liberal Catholic" as opposed to a "Conservative (you could substitute Orthodox here if you hate the term conservative fearing it will somehow make you republican) Catholic" is one who believes Christ leads the Church to not err in matters of faith and morals and thus accepts all Catholic doctrine. I am not Democrat or Republic, i'm not even moderate. This is something i heard an EWTN priest say one. We are called to be the EXTREME MIDDLE, not the moderates who pick and choose from reps and ems, not the reps or the dems, but CATHOLICS undefined by a party. i tend to lean more towards republican because they are the party most opposed to the MURDER OF INNOCENT BABIES which ruins more lives than any social polocies or wars or whatever. it's more important than anything. ahhh w/e. :rolling: :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsFrozen Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 I am liberal. I believe HELPING people that deserve help. I am conservative, and I believe in helping people who deserve help. You don't have to be liberal to be compassionate. In fact, I would say just the opposite is true. A basic liberal idea is to be pro-murder. How compassionate is that? If we had people like Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton running the country, imagine what a state it would be in! I shudder to think. God would not be allowed ANYWHERE, abortions would be just fine up to the baby's due date, people who didn't want to work wouldn't have to and people who'd work their tails off would have to support them, not to mention the taxes we'd pay! You call this HELPING PEOPLE?! :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts