Pope Francis ain't messing around

[TH3]

 

No. They're Irish Catholics. They're not even real people, they're friggin' leprechauns.

 

Flummoxed by something you can't answer.....?

 

This is hysterical....are you more pious/real Catholics - as opposed to the fake catholic that bd obviously is - saying it is a sin to not vociferously oppose SSM of people who simply live in your country?

 

Do you have the same level of angst with divorce/cheating/ogling/lying/sloth/wanting too much money/ I must be missing those threads....

Edited July 1, 2015 by baskin

[birdog1960]

The money changers weren't agents of Rome. They were put there by the priesthood. A corrupt, calcified, amoral and backward priesthood.

and endorsed by their roman occupiers. they were part of the stable fabric of jewish society and almost certainly payed off their roman masters.

 

from a pbs series:

 

But let's think for a moment what Jesus might have been doing if we take the story seriously as told in the gospels. To cleanse the Temple of these money changers is an act of protest against something apparently, but what? Now there's no reason to say from a perspective of the way the Temple was run that there's anything wrong with the money changers in the Temple, of buying and selling things that are part of the religious activities of the Temple. In fact it was an absolutely necessary activity within the way the Temple was run. So whatever the protest represents it must be a protest against some sort of idea of what the Temple should be, that they represent as having gone awry. It may be the case that Jesus represents the same kind of criticism that the Phariseesthemselves would have brought against the Temple, that in fact the kind of piety that happens only once a year at Passover is something that ought to happen every day and every week in your private lives. In that sense, Jesus' criticism of the Temple sounds very much like the Pharisees wanting to bring piety home. Wanting to make it much more personal. Another possibility though is that Jesus sounds more like the Essenes who were really criticizing the whole way the Temple is run as having become too worldly. Too caught up in the money of the day, or maybe just too Roman, and if that's the case then his actions look much more like an act of political subversion.

Edited July 1, 2015 by birdog1960

[GG]

The money changers weren't agents of Rome.

 

Is this the cue for JTSP's entry into the thread?

[IDBillzFan]

well, he actually did. the temple money changers incident was an afront to the status quo and roman dominance. he declared himself at the very least a liberal, if not radical jew with his actions there. many historians believe that act was the percipitant for his execution.

 

and you are clearly not Catholic if you imagine immersive baptism as a standard procedure. perhaps this is emblamtic your limited knowledge of the traditions of the church.

 

on the last point, i fully agree.

 

but let's metaphorically turn the tables here:

 

do you believe that methusala lived til the age of 609, overlapping the lifespans of both adam and noah?

 

I was raised Catholic, which is like saying I was raised on the public school system. Told what to do. Told what to say. Told when to stand. Told when to kneel. Told when to sit. Told what to memorize. Told what to recite. Told when to confess. Told what I could and could not do. But taught nothing of any redeeming value that allowed me to think for myself.

 

Come to think of it, I believe I just made your point for you. That doesn't just describe what it means to be a Catholic, but also what it means to be a liberal. Same rules. Same results. Maybe there really are a lot of Catholic liberals.

 

How about that.

[birdog1960]

 

I was raised Catholic, which is like saying I was raised on the public school system. Told what to do. Told what to say. Told when to stand. Told when to kneel. Told when to sit. Told what to memorize. Told what to recite. Told when to confess. Told what I could and could not do. But taught nothing of any redeeming value that allowed me to think for myself.

 

Come to think of it, I believe I just made your point for you. That doesn't just describe what it means to be a Catholic, but also what it means to be a liberal. Same rules. Same results. Maybe there really are a lot of Catholic liberals.

 

How about that.

you may have been better served at a Jesuit school. they're quite accomplished at independent thought.

[DC Tom]

Flummoxed by something you can't answer.....?

 

This is hysterical....are you more pious/real Catholics - as opposed to the fake catholic that bd obviously is - saying it is a sin to not vociferously oppose SSM of people who simply live in your country?

 

Do you have the same level of angst with divorce/cheating/ogling/lying/sloth/wanting too much money/ I must be missing those threads....

I really thought that "friggin' leprechauns" would make it obvious to even the densest poster that I was making a joke.

 

But if jyou insist...Irish who voted for gay marriage in contradiction to Catholic dogma are not Catholic, according to Catholic doctrine. Period.

[birdog1960]

really? from the wiki entry on Jesuits:

 

Within the Roman Catholic Church, there has existed a sometimes tense relationship between Jesuits and the Holy See due to questioning of official Church teaching and papal directives, such as those on abortion,^[60][61]birth control,^{[62][63][64][65]}women deacons,^[66] homosexuality, and liberation theology.^[67][68] Usually, this theological free thinking is academically oriented, being prevalent at the university level. From this standpoint, the function of this debate is less to challenge the magisterium than to illustrate the church's ability to compromise in a pluralist society based on shared values that do not always align with religious teachings.^[69] The previous two Popes have appointed Jesuits to powerful positions in the Church; John Paul II appointed Roberto Tucci, S.J., to the College of Cardinals, after serving as the chief organizer of papal trips and public events. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have appointed ten Jesuit Cardinals to notable jobs. Benedict XVI appointed Jesuits to notable positions in his curia, such as Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, S.J., as Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Rev. Federico Lombardi, S.J., Vatican Press Secretary.^[70]Pope Francis, has become the first Jesuit Pope and is initiating discussions on social matters, elected in 2013

Edited July 1, 2015 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

Here's another outlook on the gay marriage thingy:

 

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2015/07/01/the-real-goal-of-the-same-sex-marriage-movement/?subscriber=1

 

Late last week, after the Supreme Court of the United States declared without any Constitutional basis that the Constitution mandates same-sex marriages be state legitimized across the nation, a disquieting level of triumphalism broke out from coast to coast. The president shined lights representing the gay pride rainbow flag on the White House -- a gross boot-on-the-throat display from an anti-religious leader. Corporations, undoubtedly fearful of the consequences of ending up on the wrong side of the riotous left, began tweeting out rainbow symbols. News outlets similarly embraced the rainbow symbol, as though it were uncontroversial to do so; BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, and Mashable all turned their logos rainbow, with BuzzFeed's Ben Smith explaining, "We firmly believe that for a number of issues, including civil rights, women's rights, anti-racism, and LGBT equality, there are not two sides."

Let's move beyond the romantically idiotic language of Justice Kennedy's decision. The notion that gay rights advocates and their allies, who have spent decades suggesting that the institution of marriage represents patriarchal oppression, love and respect marriage so much that they wish to join in its binds, is inane. And the idea that the gay rights movement desperately seeks the tax assistance available to male-female married couples was made false long ago with the promises of civil unions.

No, the gay rights movement and the broader American left celebrated the same-sex marriage decision in wild fashion because the decision established two fundamental notions: First, that government has replaced God in the moral pantheon of the United States; second, that the new god-government has the power to root out and destroy any God-based institutions, destroying the social capital and fabric that holds together the nation.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Pope Francis delivered a fiery denunciation of modern capitalism on Thursday night, calling the "unfettered pursuit of money" the "dung of the devil" and accusing world leaders of "cowardice" for refusing to defend the earth from exploitation.

Speaking to grassroots organizers in Bolivia, the Pope called on the poor and disenfranchised to rise up against "new colonialism," including corporations, loan agencies, free trade treaties, austerity measures, and "the monopolizing of the communications media."

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/world/pope-mass-ecuador-quito/index.html?sr=tw070915popedungdevil10pVODtopPhoto

[Magox]

Those comments from the pope are music to evo morales' ears.

[Alaska Darin]

Here's another outlook on the gay marriage thingy:

 

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2015/07/01/the-real-goal-of-the-same-sex-marriage-movement/?subscriber=1

 

Late last week, after the Supreme Court of the United States declared without any Constitutional basis that the Constitution mandates same-sex marriages be state legitimized across the nation, a disquieting level of triumphalism broke out from coast to coast. The president shined lights representing the gay pride rainbow flag on the White House -- a gross boot-on-the-throat display from an anti-religious leader. Corporations, undoubtedly fearful of the consequences of ending up on the wrong side of the riotous left, began tweeting out rainbow symbols. News outlets similarly embraced the rainbow symbol, as though it were uncontroversial to do so; BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, and Mashable all turned their logos rainbow, with BuzzFeed's Ben Smith explaining, "We firmly believe that for a number of issues, including civil rights, women's rights, anti-racism, and LGBT equality, there are not two sides."

Let's move beyond the romantically idiotic language of Justice Kennedy's decision. The notion that gay rights advocates and their allies, who have spent decades suggesting that the institution of marriage represents patriarchal oppression, love and respect marriage so much that they wish to join in its binds, is inane. And the idea that the gay rights movement desperately seeks the tax assistance available to male-female married couples was made false long ago with the promises of civil unions.

No, the gay rights movement and the broader American left celebrated the same-sex marriage decision in wild fashion because the decision established two fundamental notions: First, that government has replaced God in the moral pantheon of the United States; second, that the new god-government has the power to root out and destroy any God-based institutions, destroying the social capital and fabric that holds together the nation.

Just stop. Seriously.

 

Gay marriage isn't going to change YOUR life one bit. It's not going to have a more biting effect on any religion that the hypocrisy that (insert whatever religion you want here) hasn't already brought upon itself through it's own policies and actions.

 

No one gets to say "Free Country" as long as there are segments of the adult population who don't enjoy the same legal protections afforded to others. "All (men) are created equal."

 

Conservatives should be thrilled. This is a hot button issue that has driven large segments of the voting populous to the other side for decades. Now that it's off the table it's one less "easy win" for the liberals that they clearly never deserved. Within a generation this debate will be forgotten. Within a couple people will wonder why it was even an issue.

 

Get over it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just stop. Seriously.

 

Gay marriage isn't going to change YOUR life one bit. It's not going to have a more biting effect on any religion that the hypocrisy that (insert whatever religion you want here) hasn't already brought upon itself through it's own policies and actions.

 

No one gets to say "Free Country" as long as there are segments of the adult population who don't enjoy the same legal protections afforded to others. "All (men) are created equal."

 

Conservatives should be thrilled. This is a hot button issue that has driven large segments of the voting populous to the other side for decades. Now that it's off the table it's one less "easy win" for the liberals that they clearly never deserved. Within a generation this debate will be forgotten. Within a couple people will wonder why it was even an issue.

 

Get over it.

 

By and large I agree with this. But rest assured, the liberals will be all over different opportunities. The left is ascendant. The right, well, not so much.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Bolivia's socialist leader, Evo Morales, acknowledges the Red Pope as a fellow socialist: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/morales-calls-pope-francis-teachings-socialist-32364223

Edited July 10, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

Pope Francis calls for an end to the Christian genocide in the middle east:

 

 

Pope Francis demanded an immediate end on Thursday to what he called "a genocide" of Christians taking place in the Middle East and beyond, describing it as a third world war.

The pope, who has never been afraid to weigh into delicate issues both religious and political, made the comments in Bolivia, the second stop on a three-nation tour to his home continent of South America.

 

 

http://www.firstpost.com/world/pope-francis-demands-end-to-christian-genocide-in-middle-east-2336292.html

[birdog1960]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/world/americas/in-fiery-speeches-francis-excoriates-global-capitalism.html

[TakeYouToTasker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/world/americas/in-fiery-speeches-francis-excoriates-global-capitalism.html

Only a wolf in sheep's clothing would call freedom a dictatorship and a slave maker. This Pope sounds more like Old One Eye himself.

[Dante]

Only a wolf in sheep's clothing would call freedom a dictatorship and a slave maker. This Pope sounds more like Old One Eye himself.

The communist a plant to sell globalism to the masses.

[birdog1960]

The communist a plant to sell globalism to the masses.

you really find this plausible, don't you?

[Alaska Darin]

you really find this plausible, don't you?

You're already on board, so there's that.

[TakeYouToTasker]

you really find this plausible, don't you?

He's not a Communist plant. He's an adherent to the doctrines of Scratch.

 

He can go right on ahead and get behind me.