3rdnlng Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 i don't think so. conservative Catholics might. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23489702 Your link says that women should not be priests and that Pope Francis is against homosexuals acting out their tendencies. Is that you position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 no, the argument is that there are a great many liberal Christians and specifically, liberal Catholics. there are many in Mass. alone. but i can't let you get away with characterizing jfk as anything but a liberal. it's not integral to my argument but it is so. here's another quote from the same speech: Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. franklin rooseveltso where are the quotes that support your position? So you've modified your position to state that neo-Conservatives didn't support social security, welfare, public education, etc.? The Bush administration spent a larger portion of GDP on liberal social projects than Kennedy ever dreamed of. Kennedy liberalism is no more than neo-Conservatism. Look at the policy, not the stump speeches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) So you've modified your position to state that neo-Conservatives didn't support social security, welfare, public education, etc.? The Bush administration spent a larger portion of GDP on liberal social projects than Kennedy ever dreamed of. Kennedy liberalism is no more than neo-Conservatism. Look at the policy, not the stump speeches. i've shown plenty of strong evidence. you've shown none. game, set, match. Your link says that women should not be priests and that Pope Francis is against homosexuals acting out their tendencies. Is that you position? my link says that the pope does not find homosexuality itself to be sinful. i agree. i don't agree about female priests. so what. this started in reference to liberal Christians. ample proof has been presented re their prevalence. none has been given to disprove it. Edited June 30, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 i've shown plenty of strong evidence. you've shown none. game, set, match. my link says that the pope does not find homosexuality itself to be sinful. i agree. i don't agree about female priests. so what. this started in reference to liberal Christians. ample proof has been presented re their prevalence. none has been given to disprove it. Your link says that the Pope doesn't find humans who have homosexual tendencies and don't act on them as sinful. It goes without saying then that he would find practicing homosexuals as sinful. You said you were in agreement with his stance. Do you view practicing homosexuals as sinful or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Your link says that the Pope doesn't find humans who have homosexual tendencies and don't act on them as sinful. It goes without saying then that he would find practicing homosexuals as sinful. You said you were in agreement with his stance. Do you view practicing homosexuals as sinful or not? why do you require a checklist of issues of agreement with the pope to debate the question of the prevalence of liberal catholics. i agree with him on very many things. not all things. even that statement is not relevant to the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 i've shown plenty of strong evidence. you've shown none. game, set, match.You haven't presented anything other than excerpts from a stump speech. That isn't even confirming evidence of what I've presented in this argument, which is that Kennedy was what was considered a liberal in the late 1950's and early 1960's by the standards of those times; so how could you possibly toss Kennedy into a time machine, and claim he was liberal by the standards of 2015? The liberals of Kennedy's era who were pro-interventionism and pro-American Exceptionalism, which JFK was, became what are today called neo-Conservatives. Those are the facts. You just can't see past it because you're far too invested in hero making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 why do you require a checklist of issues of agreement with the pope to debate the question of the prevalence of liberal catholics. i agree with him on very many things. not all things. even that statement is not relevant to the argument. I asked you a specific question and you said you agreed with the Pope regarding it. I then proceeded to look up the Pope's position (from the link you provided) and asked you if you actually agreed with it. You then backtracked:and tried to turn this into a debate on less specific issues. This is from the prior page here: Posted Today, 03:59 PM 3rdnlng, on 29 Jun 2015 - 3:56 PM, said: no, i don't. i believe i'm in agreement with the pope here: "who am i to judge?" Edited by birdog1960, Today, 04:04 PM. So, how can you reconcile being a Catholic and a modern liberal at the same time? Even the leftist, liberal Pope can't bring himself to not call the actual practicing homosexuals sinful. Do you see where I am coming from here? You actually are facing a conundrum but aren't really dealing with it. Your proclaimed faith is diametrically opposed to your liberal leanings. Hey, I have the same problem with abortion. I personally despise it, but as a person trapped between conservatism and libertarianism I sort of mumble that it is a woman's choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I asked you a specific question and you said you agreed with the Pope regarding it. I then proceeded to look up the Pope's position (from the link you provided) and asked you if you actually agreed with it. You then backtracked:and tried to turn this into a debate on less specific issues. This is from the prior page here: Posted Today, 03:59 PM 3rdnlng, on 29 Jun 2015 - 3:56 PM, said: no, i don't. i believe i'm in agreement with the pope here: "who am i to judge?" Edited by birdog1960, Today, 04:04 PM. So, how can you reconcile being a Catholic and a modern liberal at the same time? Even the leftist, liberal Pope can't bring himself to not call the actual practicing homosexuals sinful. Do you see where I am coming from here? You actually are facing a conundrum but aren't really dealing with it. Your proclaimed faith is diametrically opposed to your liberal leanings. Hey, I have the same problem with abortion. I personally despise it, but as a person trapped between conservatism and libertarianism I sort of mumble that it is a woman's choice. If you frame it as a woman's right to murder her baby it helps with that conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 If you frame it as a woman's right to murder her baby it helps with that conundrum. No kidding. It tortures me. My conservative/libertarian beliefs are all in a tangle with my morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) If you frame it as a woman's right to murder her baby it helps with that conundrum. i can reconcile it in the same way so many other millions of modern liberal Catholics do: I see a few absolutes: eg the ten commandments and "do unto others as..." much of the rest is based on tradition and are gray areas and imo open to interpretation. i'm not silent on my views. hasn't got me excommunicated yet and i doubt it will. if so, i can always become an anglican or episcopalian. Edited June 30, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 if so, i can always become an anglican or episcopalian. Catholic Lite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Catholic Lite even more liberals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) You haven't presented anything other than excerpts from a stump speech. That isn't even confirming evidence of what I've presented in this argument, which is that Kennedy was what was considered a liberal in the late 1950's and early 1960's by the standards of those times; so how could you possibly toss Kennedy into a time machine, and claim he was liberal by the standards of 2015? The liberals of Kennedy's era who were pro-interventionism and pro-American Exceptionalism, which JFK was, became what are today called neo-Conservatives. Those are the facts. You just can't see past it because you're far too invested in hero making. what? huh? all i see is the far to common ppp argument of "because i say so". you're not very good at attacking my argument. you're woefully inadequate at building your own. Edited June 30, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 even more liberals Are you going to respond to my post #187? You originally stated that your beliefs regarding homosexuality were aligned with the Pope's beliefs. Simply put, do you or do you not believe that practising homosexuals are sinners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Are you going to respond to my post #187? You originally stated that your beliefs regarding homosexuality were aligned with the Pope's beliefs. Simply put, do you or do you not believe that practising homosexuals are sinners? no, i'm not going to respond. my opinion on that issue is irrelevant to the discussion as is my opinion on gay marriage or women priests or a plethora of other issues. i'm making the point that there are a large number of liuberal Christians in direct contradiction to another poster that stated this not to be the case. and i have amply shown him to be wrong and shown my assertrion to be true. it's a technique ya'll should try some time. Edited June 30, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 what? huh? all i see is the far to common ppp argument of "because i say so". you're not very good at attacking my argument. you're woefully inadequate at building your own. So you're opposing the portion of my argument where I state that Kennedy was considered a liberal in the late 1950's and early 60's? OK... make that case then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 So you're opposing the portion of my argument where I state that Kennedy was considered a liberal in the late 1950's and early 60's? OK... make that case then... back to ignore. you're not worth the trouble. you add nothing to the discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 back to ignore. you're not worth the trouble. you add nothing to the discussion Why is it that every time you're getting your ass kicked with the slow and steady application of facts and logical progression, you decide the best course of action is to hide the facts and logic? Intellectual cowardice rears it's ugly head yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 no, i'm not going to respond. my opinion on that issue is irrelevant to the discussion as is my opinion on gay marriage or women priests or a plethora of other issues. i'm making the point that there are a large number of liuberal Christians in direct contradiction to another poster that stated this not to be the case. and i have amply shown him to be wrong and shown my assertrion to be true. it's a technique ya'll should try some time. Actually, you're making my point by refusing to answer the simple question. You insist there are a lot of liberal Christians, and even point to yourself as one. Yet as a self-proclaimed follower of Christ, you are unable to agree that, as a follower, you believe God intended sex to only be between a man and a woman in marriage...with no exceptions. If you believe God is okay with men having sex with men, then it's not difficult to admit you're not near the Christian you want everyone to believe you are. There's more to being a Christian than just saying you believe in God only when it aligns with your views. That's okay, though. God loves you anyway. But you probably already knew that, and figured "Hey, if he loves me anyway, why bother believing everything he says?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Actually, you're making my point by refusing to answer the simple question. You insist there are a lot of liberal Christians, and even point to yourself as one. Yet as a self-proclaimed follower of Christ, you are unable to agree that, as a follower, you believe God intended sex to only be between a man and a woman in marriage...with no exceptions. If you believe God is okay with men having sex with men, then it's not difficult to admit you're not near the Christian you want everyone to believe you are. There's more to being a Christian than just saying you believe in God only when it aligns with your views. That's okay, though. God loves you anyway. But you probably already knew that, and figured "Hey, if he loves me anyway, why bother believing everything he says?" ba,ha,ha,ha...you as the moral compass? defining what is and isn't Christian? snort, snort, belly laugh! there are millions of Christians that would by any reasonable definition be considered liberal. and with a wave of your hand you deny them the possibility of being legitimate because of their beliefs. such opinions just don't seem very charitable, er,.. Christian... judge not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts