Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 56 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 3
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Fri, Sep 11, 2015, 7:57am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Well if there is a rights conflict I side with the group that didn`t create the conflict, but so if it is this grey, then you can understand why I think hospitals should be allowed to hold the pro life view.

Well Catholic hospitals will provide the morning after pill to rape victims only, if they believe it will only prevent conception. Catholic hospitals do provide non abortaficent contraception to rape victims.

So you can understand why we dislike the Democrats when they suddenly start to treat pills that kill conceived life as essential services, when they never were so before. Just as suddenly gay adoption is a right. The Catholic Church founded many of the first hospitals and adoption agencies and provide 26 % of the worlds health care. How about a live and let live approach. Millions of pro-life Catholics pay taxes. So if Democrats don`t want to give any of that money to Catholic charity because it values the unborn, then I think you can see why we withhold the flesh and blood of our God and saviour from them.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Fri, Sep 11, 2015, 2:24am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ I think that the government denying a group of people the right to life is undesirable as it violates equal protection, and is discriminatory. Also your quote as interpreted by you, could justify killing infants, spousal abuse, or plain anarchism on the grounds of liberty. By creating life we accept responsibilities that inhibit our liberties as we add members to our families who are also entitled to rights. You can prevent loosing control over your organs by not conceiving a child inside of you which needs those organs for whom they were intended. You can be imprisoned because of your own actions, or have to share your pay check, it depends on the situation you create.

Yeah I don`t think you would get off scot free. If my child dies you are going to be arrested and tried and convicted. You will not get the chance to do it again. Also the government will not providing funding for your to create these situations, or require hospitals to treat you.

In the case of a pregnancy however you are already sharing your body. So the weirdest but best metaphor is that of the SpongeBob episode, yes really, where due to a teleporting accident SpongeBob and Squidward become connected. If you used teleporting knowing it could get you connected to someone else, especially your child, and then separating after you created this connection would kill your child, I am pretty sure you could be required to wait 9 months. You have already donated your organs. Also no hospitals would be required to kill your child. You would not get the chance to do it multiple more times. Also if the result of teleporting like that was people having to die due to a situation someone else put them in, then the practice would be outlawed. So yes if sex for pleasure results in the death of millions of babies, that does not speak well for reproductive health.

However not even this is fitting, as this isn`t an artificially enforced donation. This is a natural connection where the natural purpose of your organs is to sustain the fetus like a tree sustains its leaves.

So a more accurate example would be if I intentionally create a Siamese twin that would be dependent on me. Again I will not get the chance to kill multiple Siamese twins nor would any hospital, let alone religious ones, have to do help in order to keep the funding in a large part coming from pro-lifers.

So with the points you make, only giving funding that also comes from pro-lifers, to hospitals that will provide un demand abortions starts to sound pretty unreasonable.

Also if you believe in Christ you would know God intends pregnancy and created the uterus to be the home of the fetus.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 12:42pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Elliott@ A zygote has always been life. That is not retroactive. Zygotes are the first stage of human beings. Control over nature should not mean the ability to kill human beings.

Robert@ So loosing control over your body due to the natural results of your action is unjustified. But being murdered merely for having been conceived is ok?
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 9:48am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Yes pregnancy is a very unique biological occurrence. However this isn`t initiated or caused by the child but by the mother. By willingly conceiving and needy child she created the situation,. and although pregnancy isn`t exactly always nice it is for only 9 months. In countries where waters and formula is scarce breastfeeding is also a duty. The womb is naturally intended for foetuses after all, it is its natural home. The symbiotic relationship comes from nature. In fact a fetus came to exist from the mothers egg. The egg was already inside her and she caused it to be fertilised. If you don`t want to surrender bodily autonomy, don`t create a living human being inside of you. To then blame it for a situation you put it in is unfair and unchristian.

Again this is not a religious moral. This is defending basic human rights. By forbidding murder we enforce our believe that all human beings have the right to live on others. The Catholic Church merely wants to protect all human beings. Just as the believe in the equal rights of black people and that all men were created equal were forced on others. The Democrats support murdering a certain group of humans, does this sound familiar?

Could you tell me which Republicans reject those exceptions?

Technically that wasn`t true. This was an error on the part of the doctors. Ireland does have a life of the mother exception. As do Poland, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic and about half of these also have rape exceptions.

There is a difference between rape exceptions and forcing hospitals to perform un demand abortions for any reason, even at 5 months in order to get funding that comes from taxes also paid by prolifers.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 3:59am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ So the Jews you are friends with are not Jews at all. They worship God with their lips but not with their hearts. Jesus Christ was rigid. He said we had to follow the narrow path, reject our sinful selves, this sinful world, and be hated by it. We had to take up our cross and follow him. That is what real faith is. Those Jews sound like cafetaria Jews. Partaking in the faith merely out cultural tradition, or only keeping the easy parts of the faith. Those Christians also existed in the early church. They worshipped the emperor along side with Christ as to not have to be a martyr. They were excommunicated and denied the salvation the martyrs had.

There is a reform Catholicism, it is Anglicans and Old Catholicism. You can believe anything you want in their churhes, many of their priests no longer believe in the ressurection, the virgin birth, or the bible as the word of God. The same applies to Reformed Judaism. These people are only religious in the broadest, most un devout sense. That isn`t the way of the prophets, Christ, the bible, the Talmud, the church fathers, or anyone. It is simply the faith as influenced by Deists, Agnostics, Secularists, Liberals, Relativists, Neo Marxists, and so on.

It is a faih for unbelievers. Why would you want to go to a reformed Catholic Church when clearly you don`t want to follow the narrow path Christ said was essential for salvation? You would worship him while following the narrow path that he says would result in your damnation?

Jesus spoke with liberal Jews. They traded in the temple and he kicked them out. Isaiah spoke with liberal Jews and he prophecised they would be conquered by the Assyrians. Which they were. Moses confronted them after they had created a golden calf they were to wonder in the desert for 40 years. Jeremiah spoke with liberal Jews he told them he Babylonians would conquer them. Which they were.

I prefer to stay clear of the great apostasy.

Funny you admit abortion is killing, but so if it is jusified because the fetus enslaves her, then tell me, why did she cause the fetus to enslave her? She conceived the child with its needs. So she shouldn`t have to take responsibility for her sexual choices by being pregnant for 9 months and instead the child must die for it? So sex for pleasure wihout consequences is such a crucial right, that the children have to pay for it with their lives, just so the parents don`t have to take responsibility for their own choices?

I don`t oppose abortion because i is contrary to God`s will. I already opposed it as an Atheist. Murder is murder, and I don`t think a child can be blamed for being conceived. I do think having sex requires one to provide the natural care for their children. Fathers have to pay child support for 18 years.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Wed, Sep 9, 2015, 5:01pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Exactly as Christ said himself we cannot be of this world. It will hate us and we will hate it. That is essential to following Christ on the narrow path. Interesting that you consider the believes of the resistance and the aposles absolete.

So I made you hate the church by pointing out that it kept the apostolistic teachings and rejected secularism, Humanism, Neo Marxism, and Liberalism? What did you expect? Are you expecting Jews to reject the Sabbath or the importance of Israel? It seems you think the Democraic Party is the highes authority on Earth. I wonder what makes them so great? They don`t provide 26 % of the worlds health care.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Wed, Sep 9, 2015, 12:52pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ First of all Jesus was the messiah of Judaism which condemned abortion and supported the death penalty. Second judge not lest ye be judged does not exclude ensuring civil justice and defending the rights of victims.

Was it wrong to kill Nazis? Were the Nuremberg trials wrong? Roosevelt would say no, but he would consider birth control immoral. Same goes for Oskar Shindler, and the resistance in general. The death penalty was normal, the use of birth control wasn`t. The death penalty was defended by various church fathers. Birth control was condemned by all. God killed Onan for wasting his seed. God said go forth and multiply, he actually ordered the killing of those who were evil. Augustine wrote in favour of the death penalty.

Here is an advice, if you cannot afford more kids, do what Jesus said was good, be an eunuch for the kingdom of Heaven. Be celibate. The Catholic Church has provided plenty of instructions of the rhythm method and provided care and support to orphans. However if you want to know why the church is so strongly against birth control read the encyclicals of Pope Pius XI. If more people had listened to that blessed man that the Holocaust could have been avoided.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Wed, Sep 9, 2015, 12:25pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ No. It should be self-evident that killing murders and rapists who permanently destroyed the lives of innocent people is not as bad as committing Onan`s sin. The use of birth control goes against the first mandate humans ever received. Go forth and multiply.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Wed, Sep 9, 2015, 2:02am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Actually we only have to follow binding teachings. Not personal opinions of the pope. Pope Pius XII, and Pope Pius IX both defended the death penalty. So whatever the pope thinks of it now is a matter of personal opinion. Pope John Paul II said Catholics could form their own opinion on this as even various church fathers differed on this issue. Not so with either birth control or abortion which were consistently and unanimously condemned since the early first century by every church father including those who knew the apostles.

The death penalty is a grey area. Abortion is not. That was the position of the first century Christians.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Tue, Sep 8, 2015, 3:04pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert @ Birth control is still a mortal sin. Executing criminals isn`t a sin at all. Some Catholics are against the death penalty. We don`t have to be.

What first century Catholic Church fathers believed is the standard of the Catholic faith. They dictate dogma.

The church has the legal right to express itself on moral issues, and to tell her adoption agencies who to give children to.

The First amendment guarantees the right of religious institutions to follow the tenets of the faith. The Hyde Church amendment defended this right and protects the right of doctors to defend the Hyppocratic Oath.

Well yes Democrats have long attacked the church on dogmatic and moral issues and Republicans have been more likely to defend religious freedom. How is that bad? Are you saying the Democrats are so great, you`d support them when they persecute Christ`s church?


Public infrastructure is not Socialism, and not aggressive anti-Christian Socialism.


The founding fathers were Christians. George Washington was a devout Episcopelian. He regularly attended church, did lay work, prayed intensely, and his step daughter defended his Christianity. Just because he used the term providence, does not make him a Deist. The Anglican prayer book used such terms.

Benjamin Franklin had rejected the Deism of his youth and supported prayer during government proceedings. He returned to Puritanism.

Alexander Hamilton was an Episcopelian, who converted from Presbyterianism.

All of these men affirmed the value of prayer. All attended church, were buried in the church, and believed in the bible.

James Madison was also Episcopelian.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Tue, Sep 8, 2015, 10:38am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Directly ensuring is different from paying taxes for. Being forced to provide insurance is very Socialist and goes against the founding fathers anyways. A mandate to insure never existed like this before, and lead to dozens of lawsuits of Catholic institutions as insuring the morning after pill is cooperating in the murder of fertilised eggs. Thankfully the supreme court overruled Obama.

This country was discovered by Catholics. The constitution written by devout conservative Christians of various creeds. Founding fathers whom opposed abortion and the likes.

The death penalty is the killing of guilty evil, mortal sinners. This is compatible with the teachings of Augustine, or a great hero like Pope Pius XII. They defended the death penalty as it is aimed at the evil who harm the innocent. Like just war. Abortion on the other hand was condemned since 70 A.D. in the Didache as murder of the innocent. Americans also executed Nazis but that wasn`t the same as killing babies.

Jerome, Ambrose, Hyppolatus of Rome, Barnabas, John Chrysostom, they all condemned both abortion and birth control. Early Christians also refused to attend races although it was a public duty as slaves were forced into it. The Catholic Church in Poland refused to confirm to the Communists and support birth control and abortion. Catholics have died over these issues.

So by Obama`s reasoning any doctor could avoid being charged with infanticide just by claiming that the baby had no chance of surviving. Also plenty of foetuses were actually killed after abortions while others were saved by nurses, every Democrat aside from Obama supported the law. What is the harm in helping the fetus anyways? If it dies at least you tried.

This was about late term abortions. Fetuses have been born at 22 weeks, Obama required no proof of doctors to indicate the fetus would die, and by allowing it to die, we don`t know whether it could have been saved or not. Also how objective is an abortion doctor really? Doctors in the early twentieth century defended eugenics, and the Nazi T4 program, as well as lobotomies. Doctors long classified homosexuality as an illness. Clearly the opinion of doctors isn`t infallible otherwise it wouldn`t change, and many doctors have saved foetuses.

The law wouldn`t have punished women for having abortions. It was passed, and it was never used as such. It only required the doctor to try and take care of the infant. It had to do with giving care to born babies. Many of whom lived thanks to this bill. Late term abortions don`t just occur because of the severe handicaps you describe. Obama didn`t even use the defences you used.

He merely believed pro choice doctors who perform late term abortions could be trusted to decide what constituted viability. The bill merely required them to check whether the fetus was viable. There is my rebutal.

The Hyde Church amendment enacted after Roe Vs Wade with the support of the supreme court guaranteed that religious hospitals do not have to provide abortions or sterilisations even while receiving federal funding. Tens of millions of prolifers pay taxes after all, and Catholic hospitals provided services to the public long before anyone considered legalising abortion. We founded the first hospitals after all. 46 States have laws protecting religious hospitals also. Around 30 protect any hospital from providing abortion.

Catholic hospitals are ran by directives from the bishops which ban abortion, sterilisation, IVF, and so on. The hospital as an organization is under Catholic control and is there to provide medical care, not to support sexual promiscuity. The original Hypocratic Oath forbids both abortion and euthenasia.

Not the Democratic party itself but certain Feminists that are supported by it, it was a big case in the eighties.

Republicans maintained the traditional views on marriage, life, America as a Christian nation, just war and so on.

The point is that opposition to abortion started in the first century Christian Church. It has always been condemned as murder. Republicans have recently been expanding conscience clauses protecting Catholic institutions. A Californian judge lectured the Catholic Church for its position on gay adoption. Again Democrats even tried to take control over church funds away from the bishops in Conneticut.

Democrats have also tried to force Catholic pharmacies to provide birth control, and Democrats usually promote dissident Catholics. Again Carter lectured John Paul II on church.

Also they supported Planned Parenthood who`s crimes have recently been coming to light.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Tue, Sep 8, 2015, 7:43am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

ES@ In the past not everyone viewed black people the same, that still didn`t prevent the Republicans from fighting over it in the civil war under Lincoln. Democrats have also supported plenty of wars. There is a difference between just war, and infanticide. Clinton also had bombings done in Yugoslavia. War is usually crucial to defend the weak. It usually targets those who can defend themselves. If babies cannot even be safe by their own mommies there is a problem.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Tue, Sep 8, 2015, 4:19am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ I just wanted to say that after thinking about it for a while I still think that an alliance between Catholics and Democrats is impossible. If the Democratic party was still what it was before Jimmy Carter we would firmly support it. The Democrats were once pro life. Now they are the party of death. Democrats don`t just support first as well as second trimester abortion for any reason they also defend partial birth abortion. Also their current president defended infanticide, multiple times. If any doctor our parent, or caregiver, abandons, or neglects a born baby that is infanticide. Just as throwing a baby in a dumbster is.

Pure Catholicism is first century Christianity. If you read either the Didache, which predates revelations, or the Epistle of Barnabas, you see firm and explicit condemnations of both infanticide and abortion. Both which the church banned. Excommunication was always the punishment for those involved with abortion.

However Jimmy Carter also saw it fit to lecture John Paul II. Now John Paul II grew up when the Nazis invaded Poland and was bishop under the Communists and opposed their tyranny while bishop, and worked together with Ronald Reagan and Margaret in bringing about the peaceful fall of Communism.

Also the Obama administration opposed the ministerial exception. The Democratic party has frequently ridiculed Catholic republicans. Obama tried to force religious Catholic institutions to provide birth control coverage. The Democrats try to force Catholic hospitals to provide the morning after pill. They don`t respect the freedom of Catholic hospitals, they despise our theology, they oppose the papacy. Democrats have even supported attempts in certain states to infringe upon church organization trying to enforce democratic decision making. The Democratic party indulges people who tried to have the tax exempt status of the church revoked because we are pro-life. The Democratic party as it is right now, would like nothing more then to do to the Catholic Church what Queen Elizabeth did. They will oppose Catholicism till it becomes like Anglicanism. Also Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Methodism have all shown that becoming increasingly more secular, liberal, and humanistic does not preserve membership, encourage devotion, or do anything except make the church leadership as faithless as the faithful.

Lastly Obama dared to lecture the Irish about separate religious schools, but never did anything of a kind with Muslims. Also the Democratic Party has done very little for the Christians in the Middle East.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 5:57am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Elliott@ The Romans were rather secular. They were very pragmatic about religion and it had no influence at all in politics. Slavery was a common practice under the Romans. Including the raping of slaves. The raping of slaves, or forbidding them to marry was abolished by the church. Various saints freed slaves, or opposed slavery al together like Saint Patrick and Gregory of Nyssa.

La Casas was the ultimate patron of Indian rights. The North was also devoutly religious, and the jesuits long protected the Indians.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 5:52am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

"That is not the premise in the episode. To paraphrase the great Christopher Hitchens: good people tend to do good, evil people tend to do evil; for a good person to evil and believe himself doing good, that takes religion."

I have said this before and will say it again: in order for this to be true, Atheists would have to percentage wise produce less psychopaths and murderers, compared to every existing religious group. The reign of terror, Mao, North Korea, and Cambodja all make this rather difficult to assert.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 3:12pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ That is not my view, but the view of the pope and the church.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 1:19pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ The church also condemns spousal abuse, believing it is oke to control how a man treats his family to protect the innocent. The church banbed infantcide on the grounds you could control people to not harm others. As the woman is the cause of the fetus being inside her, the church doesn`t see it as a justifficationn for murder. It is infantcide. The church like with the T4 program, will not compromise.

Telling a man not to rape is also controlling his body in a sense. The women harms not just her own body, but the fetus, she put inside her body. I am allowed to kill trespassers, but not my own children I take care of inside my home. I also cannot kick them out while it is storming or until I have found another home. The burden is on the parent to find alternative care. So go work on that.

No but they wouldn`t be going even the church sold out to the evils of the world, as Protestantism has shown.

Nazis were excomunicated, anyone else who supports a holocaust will receive the same treatment.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 12:10pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ The Catholic Church actually supported centrist parties a lot like the Catholic Centre Party in Germany.

True but I think killing babies before they are born, chosing who lives and who dies, is a freedom noone deserves.

The church long did ally itself with centrists, in many countries, especially south America, Poland, the Philipines, Australia, and Germany they still do.

However I think you understand that if you are really prolife abortion is like murdering a baby. So the liberals have to give way on that. The church generally supports the Republicans indirectly, by default.

Also there is a difference between judginng sins and the sinners. The church is not merely a charity orginisation. The Nazis also provided social services to Aryans, the church condemns what it connsiders the murder of the innocent. The church saved many mentally handicapped people from the Nationnal Socialists because they refused to compromise.

The Episcopelians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and generally all liberal protestants have done what you suggested. Those churches are already practically dead.

As Catholicism is the biggest single denomination this makes sense. Most Protestants are agnostics as well, but there churches have themselves become agnostic and don`t even care whether you show up or not, so noone notices.

Liberal Christianity has also seen better days. Also if the church in Poland had followed your advice, the iron curtain might still be up.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 9:10am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Actually secular education already existed in Roman times. Paul epistles are pastoral and refer to roles in the church, and it means women should not try to discuss the faith within the church. Temple discussion and discussions in church were theological, and sacramental.

You shoulde check the constitutional ban on divorce that existed in Ireland till 1993, or the protests of the church and papacy over the legalisation of divorce in Austria-Hungary, the constitutional ban on divorce in Brazil in 1978, the attempts to ban divorce in Italy trough referendum in the sixties, to opposition to divorce in Spain and Portugal.

To be very honest. We lost.

Similarly Ireland, Argentina, Chile, etc. all used to ban birth control. I think Bolivia, El Salvador, and Colombia still do. The Philipines still has a ban on divorce.

The church mainly opposes gay adoption as like abortion it is seen as hurtful to young children. They believe children need both a father and mother.

The church Always defended marriage as it started out as a religious Union first, and the goverment used to base its views on marriage on the Christian religion of the founding fathers.

The church has Always requested the goverment upholds the Christian ethics the Western world was founded upon.

If they wouldn`t adopt kids I wouldn`t have a big problem with it. Also if it would legalise adoption the church would request their adoption agencies be exempted. Which too often they are not, forcing them to close centuries old adoption agencies and abandon hundreds of children.

I would prefer for divorce to be banned as well, as I have seen what it did to countless children. Most became bullies, or severly depressed. I believe divorce goes against the promises you make, the vows you take.

I think birth control also has done great harm, as it caused people to view their own bodies in a superfisial way, and caused certain children to be accidents. It caused getting children to become a choice, and it suggests my grandparents were breeders. Many of us exist thanks to the times that birth control and abortion were banned. Also considering birth control was made popular by Communists and eugenicists I could favour banning that.

Pope Francis tried to keep birth control illegal in Argentina.

Also one a personal note, one of the reasons I became Catholic is because I have OCD and Tourette and have been bullied for that, relentlessly, including by own liberal teachers, and I soon learned that the liberal anti-discrimination movement only wanted to protect certain groups, while allowing the truewlly handicapped and weak to suffer. If you were gay you were totally save, but I was physically assaulted by own liberal teachers.

I also came to discover liberal doctors and psychiatrists supported the Nazi eugenics program, and that it was the silly Catholic Church that opposed eugenics.

I became prolife after learning of the aborting of children with downsyndrome, and girls, and because women wanted to go on vacation.

Also my parents sometimes treated me as a burden, and sometimes that caused me to wish I hadn`t been born, till I realised it was their choice to get me, and that children are not pets you can love or take responsibility for, only if they suit your demands.

I came to the conclusion that the liberal freedom= happines culture, was a mild version of anarchism. Of allowing 2 wolves and 1 sheep, to vote over what you are going to do. Seeing the silent scream was especially interesting. Learning of partial birth abortion was also horrifying. One person even said he didn`t care if the fetus felt pain.

I was also interested to learn that the church stance against abortion and euthenesia and birth control made them one of the greatest opponents of both Nazism and Communism, and the heroic role of the church during World War II was universally aknowledged till a disinformation campaign from the KGB in the sixties started to influence public opinion.

As for your last question, I think the annulment might have been granted because of lack of maturity when entering the marriage, not being ready for it, and that the new marriage might be less harmfull to the children then one that didn`t work. I hope they had valid reasons for it. Henry VIII showed annulments aren`t granted lightly. But the bishop could have been a hypocrite, yes. I hope he wasn`t. Even the pope can make mistakes when not speaking ex cathedra, although rarely.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 2:40am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Thank you. Yes I as a Catholic believe celibacy is the calling for all who are not ready to have kids within a sacramental marriage, which is most people nowadays really. You don`t have to pray the gay away, just pray you can not have sex, which those who aren`t married yet should pray also.

We don`t say don`t be gay, we say don`t have sex we disagree with, which is most forms really.

Considering the first quote refers to women in the church, and the second was in a pastoral epistle speaking of how to lead the church, and referred back to the first, this clearly refers to church matters, and church leadeship. They are one of the reasons the church does not ordain women.

However the church fathers never opposed women being involved with politics. It was the church that gave women the right to independently own property, and the ban on infantcide also really helped out young girls. It is really sad many people call the church sexist just for her refusal to not ordain women.

Like with gay people at schools, church teaching positions are seperate from public life. So no. Women can be politicians, they have been so for 2000 years. Empresses could even cal councils like Nicea II. We greatly honour Mary Queen of Scots, or Empress Theresa.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 10:25am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Actually it just shows how I feel about all non reproductive sex, or sex outside of a sacramental marriage. Incest even involves consenting adults, but the point is those people didn`t chose those feelings either, so if you mstill think you can disagree with their choices, it shows the argument I was born with these feelings is invalid. Just as you don`t chose to have feeling of bestiality but you chose whether you act on them or not. The same with rape, sadism, polygamy, fornivation, adultery, masturbation, etc.

What does choosing to be chaste have to do with science mumbo jumbo? It is also nothing like conversion therapy, you merely chose to be celibate, it doesn`t require you to change who you are, only how you act. The church gives the same calling to the divorced remarried, those who don`t want children, or who aren`t married yet. How is asking people to be celibate an abomination?

When the church fathers and the magisterium interpet the bible a certain way, that interpetation is valid.

Well that is why Jesus made Peter the pope, because you can have good and evil interpetations. Claiming that an orginisation that is to explain sacred scripture is a cult is a gross stereotype.

Not everybody believes in individualism, that doesn`t automatically make you cult thinker.

Those dietarry laws were abolished in the New Testament when Jesus declared all foods clean. The church fathers never forbade pig meat, they Always banned homosexual acts.

Actually again, these laws weren`t upheld in the New Testament, if you read Jude, Timothy, Romans, or Corinthians, you see the laws on homosexuality were. Also I sugest you read the Didache from 70 A.D., the earliest cathechism which bans both abortion, and homosexual acts.

Again read the Didache or even Ignatius for Sunday worship.

I can tell you when I chose not to masturbate, fornicate, swear, or not practice any sinful acts. A homosexual can tell you when he stopped sleeping with men, just as you stopped going to church.

That comparison is much better. A better comparison to chosing to be straight, ( which I didn`t say, I said chosing to be celibate), is chosing to no longer believe in God, or to feel as though God exists, or to chose to no longer fear Hell, believe the bible, or to feel as though your traditionalist parents were right.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 3:51pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Children have killed themselves for various reasons. You don`t have to aproove incest, drug use, pedophilia, or anything you consider wrong, just because someone people want to kill themselves unless you agree with them. Anti-Catholicism has also resulted in countless murders.

If I couldn`t faithfully follow the bible I would kill myself.

Altar girls is a discplinarry issue. Ethics are dogmatic.

Yeah tell me what contradiction exists within Catholicism without citing fallible disciplinarry issues, or generally fallible non dogmatic teachings?
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:53pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Discriminatorry thought? Well what is wrong with that? We have freedom of religion. Religion discriminates nearly Always, unless it is relativistic. Religion discriminates against sin, and against what it perceives to be heretical and false. In this sense all religions discriminate against eachother. Protestants can be against anti-Catholic violence and discrimination in public life, yet still not want Catholics to teach in their schools. Jews can think that the Christian religion is incorrect and forbid those who are uncircumcised from teaching in Jewish schools. That would not be the same in any way, as commiting violence against Christians, as refusing them public jobs, positions in goverment or anything else. Many Catholics opposed anti-Semitic Nazi laws, but that didn`t mean they would be oke with Jews teaching in Catholic schools.

How is disagreeing with sexual promiscuety dangerous? The church teaches sex is only allowed when it is within marriage for reproduction. This has been the cionstant teaching of the church fathers. The Didache, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, all of them were against birth control, abortion and homosexual practices.

Jesus indicated marriage is a permanent sacramental Union between one man and one woman.

The church does not stone the adulterer, and we would protect them if others wished to do so, but we ciould not have adulterers teach in our schools.

You are yourself disceiminating against traditionalistic Catholicism, why would that be any more oke? Condemning the church for following the church fathers is also discriminatorry.

The church does not consider gay feelings a life stule our choice. Conspucience is not sinfull. The church views acts as sinfil.

All sexual acts not open to reproduction are a sin according to the bible and sacred tradition.

One still choses to practice homosexual acts or not, just as one choses whether to practice Catholicism or not. You can argue you don`t chose to have homosexual feelings, but you also don`t chose to think the bible is correct you just do. Religious feelings and thoughts aren`t more up to free will then sexual feelings. Both are inffluenced by nature and nurture.

Actually the church indeed disagrees with most wars and the death penalty, but since John Paul II the church has stated one can faithfully disagree with the church on this, as it has not been infallibly defined, many church fathers believed in just war, many Catholic saints did, and whether taking evil lives to save thiose of the innocent is justified, is considered more grey than whether mothers may kill their babies.

Democrats violate infallible teachings that all the church fathers held since the first century. Those in favour of preemptive war do not.

That really ddoesn`t proof religion is harmfull. The church does not refuse communion to those who disagree on non essential debatable matters, it does refuse communion to those who reject infallible dogmas.

I don`t know pick something? If it is an infallible dogma than no, I follow all de fide articles of the church.

I used to disagree on masturbation, but I conquered that sin. I have come to accept that the pope holds the keys.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:00am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert @ Thank you for the kind response. Abstinence only worked well in the entire continent of South America.

Actually saying you do not follow all Catholic teachings, so you cannot teach Catholicism doesn`t mean so we generally discriminate towards you. I doubt I`d be allowed to teach at an Islamic school. It is about ministerial positions which is seperate from human rights issues and the issue of discrimination.

That is like saying that the church should allow Muslims to teach at Catholic schools because if not they encourage Islamophobia. Again ministerial positions are an exceptional issue.

Again the two issues are not comparable. Catholic teachers have to follow the Catholic faith, that is different from requiring someone to follow Catholic teachings for a secular job.

The church is seperate from public society, and supposed to be the body of chridt, not a representation of an ideal earthly society.

Suggesting Catholics allow those who oppose the churches teachings to teach at their schools just to set an example is an extreme form of over compensation.

Yeah that is the issue of a two party system, if one of the two supports murdering babies, that creates problem.

The church was often more supportive of the democrats before they embraced the culture of death.

Right now the Republicans seem like a lesser evil as they value all innocent human life.

Well yes the church needs to protect innocent life, just as it did in the thirties. You cannot receive the body of Christ if you do not wish to protect all innocent humans.
Set Bookmark
John Logan
Mon, Jun 22, 2015, 3:32pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

Robert@ Most abortions are for healthy pregnancies when women freely consented to sex. No I want to make sure the fetus doesn`t pay for it instead. It didn`t do anything.

No you eho conceived this life knowing it would be dependent on you, should take care of the live you created, you are doing something wrong if you create a live just to kill it. Whether it is wrong to create a life or not, depends on whether you do it responsibly. Getting children isn`t a crime, but fathers still have to pay child support.

You can consider adultery a sin without advocating stoning them. You can consider masturbation a sin, without wanting to beat up children who do it. According to the church we all struggle with sin and need to fight our natural sinful tendencies. Yet we should treat eachother with kindness and leave the judgement up to God.

Forcing into the legal code that all human beings have a right to live, is basic human kidness.

Actually they teach chastity which is a full proof way to prevent the spread of HIV, which is why South America and the Philipines or even Ireland have less then the world wide average.

Actually it makes sense to believe God punishes sinners, yet as we are not without sin, we cannot cast the first stone and need to forgive others their tresspassings, so others may be forgiven.

Catholic schools only hire teachers who agree with and live by church teachings. Discrimination by religious institutions for ministerial positions is different from secular public discrimination. The church fires all who dissent from her teachings, from positions where they are to teach the Catholic faith. One has to be a commited Catholic or at least a crypto Catholic Christian to teach Catholicism.

Yes the pope supports the right of the church, to appoint her own ministers. So did the founding fathers. The church believes in the right of women to receive any job with equal pay except the priesthood as that is a religious position. For example I am against firing people because they are Muslims but ofcourse this would be normal if they wanted to teach at a Protestant or Jewish school. You confuse public life, and private religious institutions.

Well Democrats who support the murder of babies, yes they are refused communion. That is not an unconditional endorsement of the republican. The church also excomunicated all Nazis and Communists in the thiries while not unconditionally supporting either Social Democrats or Nationalists.

Pope Francis also did this in Argentina, if people support the murder of innocent life, then they do follow the teachings of Christ and his church, and should not eat the flesh of the man who taught us to love the weak, not murder them for being weak. He taught us the narrow path, not that we can be irresponsible and make our weak children pay for our actions.
Next ►Page 1 of 3
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. Terms of use.