- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Messages
- 48,918
- Reaction score
- 28,830
- Location
- Somewhere in the Low Country
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I think I might know a bit more about what religion I am than you do...you don't get to dictate to me what my faith isCool, find a faith that accepts your interpretation of faith and communion.
Spoiler: It's not the Catholic Church.
Again I asked you to post where Pope Francis said that a pro choice politician isn't allowed to take Communion...You made the claim...stop trying to deflectThe posts you're responding to has a quotes from Pope speaking directly to reporters. That's what being on the record means. Again, read his quotes in full rather than cutting them up to mean what you want them to mean.
You realize none of the funding by the government to PP is used for abortion...or is it a sin to get a pap smear?I've already provided the quote from her speech at NARAL. I could also provide you with her voting record on funding Planned Parenthood, she even tried to use COVID funding to fund abortion, as well as the donations from Planned Parenthood to her campaign... she received a fricking Margaret Sanger Award, for crying out loud!
And the Archbishop RIGHTLY sees this as providing aid and support for committing the sin of abortion.
You don't get a say, sorry.
Sorry but publicly issuing an ultimatum to a member of the church who happens to be a politician to publicly repudiate her political views on abortion rights or be sanctioned with the loss of access to it's highest holy sacrament is indeed dabbling in politics just a bit. Her public life requires her to be an advocate in protecting or preserving the constitutional rights of all Americans, regardless of which religion they practice, or don't practice. Her public life in this regard should be kept separate from her private life and her relationship with God. The church has no business poking it nose thereHow is the Catholic Church’s position political?
Other than all the blather I think you’re easily offended. And wrong. But have it your way.Obviously you don't read your own posts. Your clear belief is that anyone who does not subscribe to the same sub-set of "Christianity" as you do is **W*R*O*N*G**.
And that isn't actually any problem for me, since I don't insist that everyone answer to the same "Voice of God" as I do.
What I said about "The Word of God" is that YOU have been TOLD (and you "believe") that "The Bible" (which is primarily a historical record interspersed with what the writer said was the message which he received from a specially designated "Messenger of God" [plus inter-lineages and marginalia for clarification and explanation] - for the "Old Testament" [and which isn't any part of "Christianity"] and witness descriptions of what some other person did/said [plus explanatory notes] which did NOT claim to be "divinely inspired revelations" - for the "New Testament") is "The Word of God".
That is hardly derogatory (in English [or any other language]) to "The Word of God".
"The Qu'ran" has a much better provenance for being an accurate recording of the actual words of Mohamed recounting his "divine revelations" of "The Word of God" than "The Bible" does for containing "The Word of God".
"The Book of Mormon" has a much better provenance for being an accurate recording of the actual words of delivered to Joseph Smith in written form by God's Messenger that contained "The Word of God" than "The Bible" does for containing "The Word of God".
Are any of them ACTUALLY "The Word of God"? I have no idea - God hasn't told me.
Are any of them NOT ACTUALLY "The Word of God"? I have no idea - God hasn't told me.
If God has actually spoken to you and told you which of them is ACTUALLY "The Word of God", I am impressed.
If the person who told you which of them is ACTUALLY "The Word of God", then I'll wait until I have some evidence that God actually spoke directly to them and told them before taking their word for it.
Murder is a legal term, and the 10 Commandments were Levitical laws.The correct translation is NOT "Thou shalt not kill.", but rather it is "Thou shalt not murder."
Once the infliction of death has been sanctioned by the church/government it ceases to be "murder" and, thus, is completely OK - theologically.
Yes, so? That's a political matter whereas the situation with Pelosi is a religious one.Seem to recall it saying something about the abridgement of the freedom of speech too. And while it protects the free practice of religion it also has an establishment clause that prohibits Congress from making laws establishing or promoting any one religion over another.
She can ask the question, but that doesn't mean she's right.During the wave of state abortion bans passed this spring, elected officials around the United States, the overwhelming majority of which being white male republicans, routinely invoked God and religion to justify stripping individuals of the constitutional right to make decisions about our own bodies. In Dobbs vs Jackson when a lawyer described Roe v. Wade as “the right to end a human life.” Sotomayor stepped in, asking, “How is your interest anything but a religious view?- "The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time — it’s still debated in religions,” she said. “So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view, isn’t it?”
They are speaking of theirs.So when the religious Christian Right speak of abortion as a religious freedom issue - whose religious freedom are we talking about?
You're presenting a theological issue which obviously entails differences of beliefs. The only one that matters in this case is that of the RCC of which Pelosi is a member of.Judaism for instance doesn't teach that life begins at conception. According to Jewish law, abortion is not only permitted; it is required if a pregnancy endangers the life or health of the pregnant individual. And Judaism isn't the only religion to permit abortion. Muslim Americans can also make the same argument. Along with a number of other religious groups. Why does the religious position of a particular religious group have to be the law of the land superimposed on a very diverse polity?
Yes, so? That's a political matter whereas the situation with Pelosi is a religious one.
She can ask the question, but that doesn't mean she's right.
They are speaking of theirs.
You're presenting a theological issue which obviously entails differences of beliefs. The only one that matters in this case is that of the RCC of which Pelosi is a member of.
Yep.And even then, its just one diocese of the RCC.
Murder is a legal term, and the 10 Commandments were Levitical laws.
For the Romans.for instance, the execution of Christ was perfectly legal.
Again, it's already been provided in a post that you responded to. Figure it out. It's not complicated.Again I asked you to post where Pope Francis said that a pro choice politician isn't allowed to take Communion...You made the claim...stop trying to deflect
Did you realize that none of the "non-lethal, humanitarian, aid" that is supplied to one side or the other in a civil war is used to purchase weapons, don't you?You realize none of the funding by the government to PP is used for abortion...or is it a sin to get a pap smear?
Yes, those are your opinions.Other than all the blather I think you’re easily offended. And wrong.
Now if only you would extend that attitude beyond an internet discussion site.But have it your way.
Well, you see, this is only pointing out her hypocrisy: saying one thing, doing/supporting the opposite. Nothing new for a dim.Sorry but publicly issuing an ultimatum to a member of the church who happens to be a politician to publicly repudiate her political views on abortion rights or be sanctioned with the loss of access to it's highest holy sacrament is indeed dabbling in politics just a bit. Her public life requires her to be an advocate in protecting or preserving the constitutional rights of all Americans, regardless of which religion they practice, or don't practice. Her public life in this regard should be kept separate from her private life and her relationship with God. The church has no business poking it nose there
Quite right andMurder is a legal term, and the 10 Commandments were Levitical laws.
And for the Jews (who reputedly [although there is nary a hair of historical evidence to support it] chose Barabbas as the one to be spared) who were subject to the laws of the land in effect at the time. In fact, it was the Jewish theological and governing classes which wanted Yeshua bar Yosef bin Nazaret executed because he was considered to be a threat to their temporal power.For the Romans.
What the hell does any of that have to do with Covid relief aid? Covid doesn't pick political sides. Abortion care is healthcare. Is it not? So how it would not be an appropriate use of relief funds to help the most critically affected by the pandemic -the poor - get access to critically needed healthcare?Did you realize that none of the "non-lethal, humanitarian, aid" that is supplied to one side or the other in a civil war is used to purchase weapons, don't you?
Of course that doesn't mean that the funds that that side would have had to use to purchase the "non-lethal, humanitarian, aid" can be "re-purposed" and used to purchase weapons - but that's OK because the hands of the party providing that "non-lethal, humanitarian, aid" remain clean.
And if not a human being then you do not know that is actually murder either, correct?PS - Lest you be confused, I have absolutely no difficulties with "The Gummint" providing funding to Planned Parenthood. My position is that, since I do not KNOW that a fetus is a "human being" then I do not KNOW that terminating a pregnancy is actually killing a "human being" - therefore I am not able to judge whether someone else's opinion on the matter is either "right" or "wrong".
So long as it is understood that any such God or entity is to reserve handing down such judgement to the ethereal afterlife only and not here on earth. If human history has taught us anything it would be that whenever religion and government/politics become inextricably intertwined and one side sees 'God' as being on their side and the other side as being Godless that's when some really really bad things begin to happen.That means that I have to leave the judging to the only entity which does KNOW that to that entity. If there is a "God" then surely that entity does KNOW and will judge accordingly. I also have no difficulty in KNOWING that a delivered fetus IS a "human being". I am also not confused by the mistranslated "Thou shalt not murder." so that it reads "Thou shalt not kill." as "killing" and "murdering" as those two terms do not mean the same thing.
I think I might know a bit more about what religion I am than you do...you don't get to dictate to me what my faith is
You realize none of the funding by the government to PP is used for abortion...or is it a sin to get a pap smear?
Well, since I never mentioned "Covid relief aid", I really couldn't say.What the hell does any of that have to do with Covid relief aid?
To some - to others it is murder.Covid doesn't pick political sides. Abortion care is healthcare. Is it not?
Who said anything about "the pandemic"?So how it would not be an appropriate use of relief funds to help the most critically affected by the pandemic -the poor - get access to critically needed healthcare?
I guess that my "therefore I am not able to judge whether someone else's opinion on the matter is either "right" or "wrong"." sort of gave that away - didn't it?And if not a human being then you do not know that is actually murder either, correct?
Nope, there is no limitation placed on where or when "God" hands down judgment.So long as it is understood that any such God or entity is to reserve handing down such judgement to the ethereal afterlife only and not here on earth.
Religion and government/politics have been inextricably intertwined andIf human history has taught us anything it would be that whenever religion and government/politics become inextricably intertwined and one side sees 'God' as being on their side and the other side as being Godless that's when some really really bad things begin to happen.
Nothing is ever resolved to everyone's satisfaction.^^
And these two immediately previous posts very aptly, and succinctly, represent the dichotomy that exists in current society between Church & State. It's also why the abortion issue will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
This is a case of a high ranking religious using the power and authority of his position in the catholic church, the female members of which hold virtually no positions of power or authority whatsoever in the hierarchy of, to publicly browbeat and shame a high visibility public official and a leader of a major political party and female member of the church to publicly repudiate her position and that of great many in her party, Americans in general, and the majority of Catholics as well, of being in favor of legalized abortion, which the all male Catholic clergy opposes, isn't a paternal and political power play, then I don't know what is.Yes, so? That's a political matter whereas the situation with Pelosi is a religious one.
AG Steward wasn't able to provide her with a clear answer to it. So she wasn't wrong either.She can ask the question, but that doesn't mean she's right.
Thanks for confirming they want the law of the land in respect to abortion to be exclusively based on their religious beliefs. Which would be contrary to the Establishment Clause.They are speaking of theirs.
An elected public official and party leader having a public and personal opinion contrary to that of the Church that a majority of Catholics share or sympathize with, is not as much of a theological issue as it is a political issue. Including the politics within the Church itself. Let's not pretend that isn't a thing.You're presenting a theological issue which obviously entails differences of beliefs. The only one that matters in this case is that of the RCC of which Pelosi is a member of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?