Architects Of The Culture Of Death

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1301389' date='Jun 25 2007, 04:10 PM']Wow, Budge missed the point. Again. [/quote]
Unsurprising. She's trying to turn this into another "the Pope is a Commie" thread.
Pope John Paul II, much maligned by Budge, was widely recognized as playing a major role in defeating Communism.

Here's just a few articles about Pope John Paul II's role in defeating Communism:

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28398-2005Apr5.html"]How the Pope Defeated Communism (washingtonpost.com)[/url]

[url="http://religion-cults.com/pope/communism.htm"]Pope John Paul II and Communism[/url]

[url="http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-4-2/27537.html"]Pope Championed Communism's Collapse, Mideast Peace[/url]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/21/papal.politics/index.html"]Pope John Paul's crusade against communism[/url]

[url="http://lists.jammed.com/IWAR/1998/01/0101.html"][IWAR] CUBA Pope attacks communism[/url]

[url="http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050405/news_lz1e5kemp.html"]The pope and the fall of communism[/url]

[url="http://www.cathnews.com/news/105/57.php"]Lech Walesa credits Pope for communism's downfall [/url]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3007787.stm"]Pope's role in Communism's end[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicnews.com/jpii/stories/story06.htm"]History may see pope as godfather of communism's demise[/url]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3276657/"]John Paul II and communism[/url]

[url="http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-4-5/27615.html"]The Spirit Behind Liberating Eastern Europe from Communism[/url]


Not to mention he wrote an encyclical [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html"]Centesimus Annus[/url], which clearly condemns Marxist Communism.

Of course, we've been over this before. Budge can't seem to grasp that repeating the same lies over and over won't make them true.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Socrates

[Akalyte]

Right now im reading about Alfred Kinsey. Budge I see your attitude and thinking in many of these architects. That's scary. since most of these guys and gals were atheists, communists and Nazi's.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Akalyte

[Akalyte]

These people wanted the world to be re-shaped after their personal interpretations and views. Sounds kind of like what budge is trying to do with Christianity and the bible.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Akalyte

[jeffpugh]

The Washington Post article was great. Just enough information for some on-the-fly apologetics.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1301558' date='Jun 25 2007, 07:10 PM']Right now im reading about Alfred Kinsey. Budge I see your attitude and thinking in many of these architects. That's scary. since most of these guys and gals were atheists, communists and Nazi's.[/quote]


[quote name='Akalyte' post='1301563' date='Jun 25 2007, 07:13 PM']These people wanted the world to be re-shaped after their personal interpretations and views. Sounds kind of like what budge is trying to do with Christianity and the bible.[/quote]

Not to be negative, but the same could be said for you, when you over stereotype all Protestants "heretics", and condemn them both under the same bandwagon just as you did with your suggestion that all Protestants adhere to the same theology as TBN.

[Akalyte]

The same thinking and attitude led them to be non-catholic in the first place. I know they are not all the same. Some are wiser. I'm a reborn catholic. What ever mind state is left from my old life I've been trying to get rid of. Trust I've went a long way. After reading this book there will be some more changes.

[RezaMikhaeil]

There were some Protestants that had good reasons for being protestant during the time of Martin Luther, but aside from that, particularly in our generation, most protestants were born protestants, so to put them in the same bubble and rebuke them as "heretics", would be improper.

[Budge]

Reza, remember all the "nice" approaches to Protestants is new in the Catholic Church....

Iron fist in velvet glove stuff.

Alfred Kinsey? {Im the one here POSTING against the death culture supporting UN}

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1301285' date='Jun 25 2007, 12:06 PM'][Oh so Benedict has NOTHING to do with the Vatican or continiuing the policies and plans of JPII__Benedict even had an ASSISI III?

I dont see forced giving between nations run by the UN, as something that was taught by Jesus Christ nor does it have ANYTHING to do with LOVE.

Sorry but the United Nations and global elites dont WUV you. Hillary Clinton when she preaches on the "common good" doesnt either.[/quote]

Right, and I imagine you think every president of the US was the same as well.

And since when does upholding beliefs about the common good (i.e. the universal human condition) translate to "forced giving"? Obviously it doesn't, but only in your uncritical mind and twisted logic could the Church quotes above ever be construed to say what you are trying to compare them to. I wonder if you are nearly as consistent in your reading of the Bible, but I have a pretty good guess on that.

In case anyone missed it, Budge was dead wrong about her characterizations of Pope Benedict as she acknowledges by her quiet dropping of the subject. But don't expect any admission from her. The day Budge ever admits she is wrong, I am sure it will be stickied prominently at the top. But until then, as a fundamentalist its your prerogative never to be wrong.

[jeffpugh]

[Budge]

[quote]
And since when does upholding beliefs about the common good (i.e. the universal human condition) translate to "forced giving"? Obviously it doesn't, but only in your uncritical mind and twisted logic could the Church quotes above ever be construed to say what you are trying to compare them to. I wonder if you are nearly as consistent in your reading of the Bible, but I have a pretty good guess on that.[/quote]ARe you living in cave? Havent you heard of G8 and how they plan to make it mandatory for every "wealthy" nation to give. America already gives the most via charitable {non forced giving} to the world.

By the way your Pope and his pals support G8 which is under United Nation auspices.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=79480"]http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=79480[/url]

[quote]
In case anyone missed it, Budge was dead wrong about her characterizations of Pope Benedict as she acknowledges by her quiet dropping of the subject. But don't expect any admission from her. The day Budge ever admits she is wrong, I am sure it will be stickied prominently at the top. But until then, as a fundamentalist its your prerogative never to be wrong.[/quote]

No I was not wrong and you didnt even attempt to prove your side.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1303041' date='Jun 27 2007, 05:47 AM']ARe you living in cave? Havent you heard of G8 and how they plan to make it mandatory for every "wealthy" nation to give. America already gives the most via charitable {non forced giving} to the world.[/quote]

Thanks for the help there, I never would have made the connection that when the Church talks about the "common good" it actually just means the G8, and still further the communist state. Because you know it's all the same thing, right?

(Please note sarcasm)

[quote]By the way your Pope and his pals support G8 which is under United Nation auspices.[/quote]What you meant to say was that the Pope and "his pals" support efforts to reduce poverty and its effects. And there is nothing new to that, it has been a constant fixture in Christian societies for several centuries. I know fundamentalists don't really care about poverty since they advocate a nihilistic conception of life.

[quote]No I was not wrong and you didnt even attempt to prove your side.[/quote]

That is because I have nothing to prove. Your position consists of trying to trick people into confusing what people like Marx and H.Clinton said with what Pope Benedict said. A shallow tactic to be sure, but not necessarily surprising given your fundamentalist agenda. Most of what you say can be dismissed outright, leaving you only with bald assertions and accusations.

[Budge]

[quote]Thanks for the help there, I never would have made the connection that when the Church talks about the "common good" it actually just means the G8, and still further the communist state. Because you know it's all the same thing, right?
[/quote]Um how many articles have I shown where the very topic IS the United Nations, UN Millennium Goals, G8 and that is where your Cardinals and Pope used that reference?

Alice Bailey used to speak of the universal good as well in same exact way, in advancing the same spiritualist global agenda of 'unity"


[quote]What you meant to say was that the Pope and "his pals" support efforts to reduce poverty and its effects. And there is nothing new to that, it has been a constant fixture in Christian societies for several centuries. I know fundamentalists don't really care about poverty since they advocate a nihilistic conception of life.[/quote]

Actually fundies, help those among them and know we have plenty of poor people to help right by our side.

Writing checks to global charities keeps the poor kind of distance away from you dont you think? Christians give to the poor and needy around them. I dont live in the rarefied upper middle class+ American world that most here seem to do--I pointed that out the other day saying most average working class people could not afford plane tickets to Rome. {I was told I was nuts for thinking people couldnt afford a trip to Rome, which tells me the world many here live in is far different} You act as thought there arent any poor people around you.

The UUS used to deal with everything globally as well, write the check to Bali, but ignore the people living out of shopping carts on the wrong side of the tracks.

You think any really poor people are FOOLED by rich elites blathering on about helping them? Anyone whose been super-poor knows this is rot.. Most starving Africans never see a dime, the warlords grab it all and if they dont get it then the ones on top keep it for themselves.

Being Christian is helping those in need around you, and maybe helping people via missions, it isnt writing a check out of your bloated bank account and calling it a day thinking youve done your part to "save" the world.
[quote]That is because I have nothing to prove. Your position consists of trying to trick people into confusing what people like Marx and H.Clinton said with what Pope Benedict said. A shallow tactic to be sure, but not necessarily surprising given your fundamentalist agenda. Most of what you say can be dismissed outright, leaving you only with bald assertions and accusations.[/quote]

They say the same things, using even the same terms.

Tell me how what HIllary Clintons "common good" was different from the Popes?

Both support the UN

Both support globalist redistribution of wealth among nations.

Both support G8-{I can find the link where the Pope approves it right there}

[Kirisutodo333]

Budge, your ability to interpret a passage is not the greatest (i.e.: the Bible). You should have read a little more into it. And please you could have posted the whole thing.

[quote]The universal destination of goods and private property

176. By means of work and making use of the gift of intelligence, people are able to exercise dominion over the earth and make it a fitting home: “In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property”[368]. Private property and other forms of private ownership of goods “assure a person a highly necessary sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy and ought to be considered as an extension of human freedom ... stimulating exercise of responsibility, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty”[369]. Private property is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic economic policy, and it is the guarantee of a correct social order. The Church's social doctrine requires that ownership of goods be equally accessible to all[370], so that all may become, at least in some measure, owners, and it excludes recourse to forms of “common and promiscuous dominion”[371].

177. Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: “On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone”[372]. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity[373]. This principle is not opposed to the right to private property[374] but indicates the need to regulate it. Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means[375].

178. The Church's social teaching moreover calls for recognition of the social function of any form of private ownership [376] that clearly refers to its necessary relation to the common good[377]. Man “should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others”[378]. The universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate owners. Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the effects that this use will have, rather they must act in a way that benefits not only themselves and their family but also the common good. From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in their possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, even entrusting them to others who are desirous and capable of putting them to use in production.

179. The present historical period has placed at the disposal of society new goods that were completely unknown until recent times. This calls for a fresh reading of the principle of the universal destination of the goods of the earth and makes it necessary to extend this principle so that it includes the latest developments brought about by economic and technological progress. The ownership of these new goods — the results of knowledge, technology and know-how — becomes ever more decisive, because “the wealth of the industrialized nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural resources”[379].

New technological and scientific knowledge must be placed at the service of mankind's primary needs, gradually increasing humanity's common patrimony. Putting the principle of the universal destination of goods into full effect therefore requires action at the international level and planned programmes on the part of all countries. “It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development”[380].

180. If forms of property unknown in the past take on significant importance in the process of economic and social development, nonetheless, traditional forms of property must not be forgotten. Individual property is not the only legitimate form of ownership. The ancient form of community property also has a particular importance; though it can be found in economically advanced countries, it is particularly characteristic of the social structure of many indigenous peoples. This is a form of property that has such a profound impact on the economic, cultural and political life of those peoples that it constitutes a fundamental element of their survival and well-being. The defence and appreciation of community property must not exclude, however, an awareness of the fact that this type of property also is destined to evolve. If actions were taken only to preserve its present form, there would be the risk of tying it to the past and in this way compromising it[381].

An equitable distribution of land remains ever critical, especially in developing countries and in countries that have recently changed from systems based on collectivities or colonization[382]. In rural areas, the possibility of acquiring land through opportunities offered by labour and credit markets is a necessary condition for access to other goods and services. Besides constituting an effective means for safeguarding the environment, this possibility represents a system of social security that can be put in place also in those countries with a weak administrative structure.

181. To the subjects, whether individuals or communities, that exercise ownership of various types of property accrue a series of objective advantages: better living conditions, security for the future, and a greater number of options from which to choose. On the other hand, property may also bring a series of deceptive promises that are a source of temptation. Those people and societies that go so far as to absolutize the role of property end up experiencing the bitterest type of slavery. In fact, there is no category of possession that can be considered indifferent with regard to the influence that it may have both on individuals and on institutions. Owners who heedlessly idolize their goods (cf. Mt 6:24, 19:21-26; Lk 16:13) become owned and enslaved by them[383]. Only by recognizing that these goods are dependent on God the Creator and then directing their use to the common good, is it possible to give material goods their proper function as useful tools for the growth of individuals and peoples.[/quote]

I especially like this part: [b]Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means[375].[/b]

You see private property is seen as a means to the universal destination of goods, so "private property" is still very well thought of by the Church as part of Man's human freedom given by God. What value does private property have in "Communism" or "Marxism?" Please do tell.

As Christians, we must be socially responsible for our private property. But EVERYONE has the RIGHT to PRIVATE PROPERTY and not government controlled property. It is that all NATIONS must provide the right to PRIVATE PROPERTY for everyone to provide for the COMMON GOOD. It is like the Nash Equilibrium. Everyone should concentrate on their personal strategy and the overall strategy of the team. Man should concentrate on their personal property while concentrating on the common good for the betterment of mankind. Not what is good for me "only", not what is good for "everyone" only, but what is good for "me and everyone" simultaneously.

Budge, you must respect the intellect of all of the posters here on this board or they will not take you seriously when you do have good points and sometimes you really do have good points.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1303382' date='Jun 27 2007, 01:14 PM']Writing checks to global charities keeps the poor kind of distance away from you dont you think? Christians give to the poor and needy around them. I dont live in the rarefied upper middle class+ American world that most here seem to do--I pointed that out the other day saying most average working class people could not afford plane tickets to Rome. {I was told I was nuts for thinking people couldnt afford a trip to Rome, which tells me the world many here live in is far different} You act as thought there arent any poor people around you.

The UUS used to deal with everything globally as well, write the check to Bali, but ignore the people living out of shopping carts on the wrong side of the tracks.

You think any really poor people are FOOLED by rich elites blathering on about helping them? Anyone whose been super-poor knows this is rot.. Most starving Africans never see a dime, the warlords grab it all and if they dont get it then the ones on top keep it for themselves.

Being Christian is helping those in need around you, and maybe helping people via missions, it isnt writing a check out of your bloated bank account and calling it a day thinking youve done your part to "save" the world.[/quote]

And where exactly from that article does the Pope advocate ignoring the poor around us? I must have missed that somehow...

[quote]They say the same things, using even the same terms.

Tell me how what HIllary Clintons "common good" was different from the Popes?

Both support the UN

Both support globalist redistribution of wealth among nations.

Both support G8-{I can find the link where the Pope approves it right there}[/quote]

Uh, maybe the fact that one semantical usage has a long Christian history, while the other is secularized and political? I can understand your confusion though, taking things out of context is a particular strength of yours.

And let us just say for the sake of argument that the two are saying the exact same things about redistributing wealth and social justice. What is the point? Is that suppose to prove that the Pope is evil because Clinton and Marx are evil? Do you likewise consider Christianity as such evil for preaching monotheism when those evil Muslims do as well?

Your logic is insufferable.