|
Kyrie eleison posted:To answer your question, left wing Christians are not taken that seriously because they are a relatively small group, whereas evangelicals are an enormous voting block that make up the bulk of the Republican party. Yeah both these things are true, Episcopalians (which are probably the most liberal mainstream denomination) only totals about two million people in the US. I know plenty of liberal Christians and they're very vocal about injustices and all that but the problem is for every one of them there's about five others saying how the poor are lazy moochers and that gays should burn in Hell. That said... quote:Leftist Christians would do better to focus their efforts on promoting Catholic Social Teaching and its scriptural basis This is dumb and I'm not gonna do that.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
While openly becoming The Catholic Party might be counterproductive, not being afraid of the G-O-D words seems like it would be politically valuable. If nothing else, if you had more figures who were both obviously religious and obviously liberal as hell, it would erode one of the key pillars on which the right wing has built their big ol' Satanic temple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Well I mean Joe Biden and Stephen Colbert are pretty famous liberal Catholics so it's not like they're unheard of in the political world, I just think it's a matter of statistics. If you're in the US and you're Christian odds are you're fairly conservative, and it doesn't really seem like liberal Christians existing and already being into politics is really going to change that much. It does seem like (I have no idea how true this is, so I'm not trying to say it is definitely the case) the more liberal you are, the more likely you are to be agnostic or probably even atheist. I mean look at this very thread. Even those of us who are liberal and believe in Christianity have to do a lot of "Well you can't really take what the Bible says about th is at face value, it was written by men, it's probably not true, this part is definitely hosed up and you gotta just kind of take it in context and realize the culture" and at that point most people are pretty much going to go "Eh if we're going to disregard this much of it it doesn't seem useful to believe in at all" which is what some people's responses in this thread are basically saying, that if you believe Jesus is just a good moral teacher and not the Son of God and Paul was just a guy who isn't applicable to today's world, why even be Christian? It's obviously not really required to be a good person and do the right thing so what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
A Catholic party would rule, really. While it wouldn't be great for reproductive or homosexual rights, necessarily, it would be fantastic on all sorts of economic issues as well as being staunchly against foreign excursions. Imagine what a weird and effective third party that could be in American politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Well and it does dig upon another point. It's not as if Democrats are NOT Christians. Pelosi? Roman Catholic. Harry Reid? Mormon Hillary Clinton? Methodist Elizabeth Warren? Methodist Al Franken and Bernie Sanders are Jewish, and we all know that those from the right seem to LOVE them per them always tossing out the "Judeo-Christian" line. It's just kind of bizarre how the left is tarred and feathered as "NOT BELIEVING IN THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHIC", when there's really not any sort of basis for that claim. Barney Frank was like...the only name that really comes up as someone who doesn't have some sort of faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:A Catholic party would rule, really. While it wouldn't be great for reproductive or homosexual rights, necessarily, it would be fantastic on all sorts of economic issues as well as being staunchly against foreign excursions. Imagine what a weird and effective third party that could be in American politics. I foresee an America somewhat divided along several political lines: 1. Capital, which manipulates everyone into imperialism, and doesn't care one way or another about religion or race or nation or anything but keeping economic power. 2. Evangelicals, represented by the Republicans, who are somewhat white nationalist, fiercely patriotic (whether American, Southern, or Texan), easily duped by Capital, especially since Capital promises them national power. 3. Socialists, full of a variety of modernist ideals and policies (good and bad), but their only political hope is the Democrats, who are totally controlled by Capital. 4. Catholics, a full 25% of the American population and increasing due to Hispanic immigration, presently divided uncomfortably amongst the two parties but with a 70/30 split in favor of Democrats. The only force which is closed off enough to avoid corruption by Capital, and Capital's historical enemy. What do I mean by it being the historical enemy of Capital? I am referring to the French Revolution, in which Capital, also called the bourgeoisie, overthrew the traditional Catholic monarchy and became the reigning institution ever since. America of course has been ruled by wealth since the beginning. If you sincerely want to fight Capital, you have to go to the ancient institution that it overturned -- the Church. Everything else is compromised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:A Catholic party would rule, really. While it wouldn't be great for reproductive or homosexual rights, necessarily, it would be fantastic on all sorts of economic issues as well as being staunchly against foreign excursions. Imagine what a weird and effective third party that could be in American politics. Yeah, giving up access to necessary healthcare for women and making homosexuality a felony sounds just awesome. Sign me the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Well I mean Joe Biden and Stephen Colbert are pretty famous liberal Catholics so it's not like they're unheard of in the political world, I just think it's a matter of statistics. If you're in the US and you're Christian odds are you're fairly conservative, and it doesn't really seem like liberal Christians existing and already being into politics is really going to change that much. It does seem like (I have no idea how true this is, so I'm not trying to say it is definitely the case) the more liberal you are, the more likely you are to be agnostic or probably even atheist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, giving up access to necessary healthcare for women and making homosexuality a felony sounds just awesome. Sign me the gently caress up. It makes perfect sense that Capital has embraced homosexuality and abortion as major planks of its platform, and they have pitted it against traditional Christianity brilliantly. An excellent strategic move, as many people care more about these things than economic justice or empire. As a conservative Catholic, I'm willing to grant some political concessions regarding homosexuality (and other forms of sexual libertinism), because I have a sense of perspective. Abortion is still horrible to me, but hopefully we can agree to a solution in which we at least try to minimize it rather than encourage it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Sex ed and free effective birth control would be a good start. But boy is that ever a non-starter at the KofC meetings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:KofC I love their chicken
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm willing to grant some political concessions regarding homosexuality (and other forms of sexual libertinism) gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Sex ed and free effective birth control would be a good start. But boy is that ever a non-starter at the KofC meetings. You know the Church can't go against Humanae Vitae. Which, I remind you, is a post-Vatican II document.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:
It's because there's an increasing de-emphasis of the church as a social center and conservatives are the only ones fighting that. The other issues are superficially why people turn out, but the failure of the left to adopt religion in a left or even just liberal context leaves a lot of religious people out in the cold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 09:36
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What do I mean by it being the historical enemy of Capital? I am referring to the French Revolution, in which Capital, also called the bourgeoisie, overthrew the traditional Catholic monarchy and became the reigning institution ever since. America of course has been ruled by wealth since the beginning. Oooooooooh boy. You'd almost think Kyrie was a Marxist. And then quote:If you sincerely want to fight Capital, you have to go to the ancient institution that it overturned -- the Church. Everything else is compromised. Noooooooooope.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:gently caress you. And what do you object to? That homosexuality is libertine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:And what do you object to? That homosexuality is libertine? Homosexuality is whatever heterosexuality is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Homosexuality is whatever heterosexuality is. Homosexuality cannot produce children through the natural union of man and woman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Homosexuality cannot produce children through the natural union of man and woman. I have an uncle who couldn't have children with his wife (she was infertile), is that an "unnatural" union? Did they inadvertently become sexually "libertine" even though they are devout Christians and didn't know about their blasphemous infertility until after their marriage? BadOptics fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Homosexuality cannot produce children through the natural union of man and woman. Yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:I have an uncle who couldn't have children with his wife (she was infertile), is that an "unnatural" union? Did they inadvertently become sexually "libertine" even though they are devout Christians and didn't know about their blasphemous infertility until after their marriage? No. The Bible has examples of "infertility", in Genesis of all places, resulting in people having children. So the official teaching of the Church is that infertility is never certain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:No. The Bible has examples of "infertility", in Genesis of all places, resulting in people having children. So the official teaching of the Church is that infertility is never certain. "Yes dear, I know we had to remove your ovaries due to the cancer but the bible says infertility is never certain, so maybe it will still work!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:37
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:1. Capital, which manipulates everyone into imperialism, [citation needed - hello Lenin!] quote:and doesn't care one way or another about religion or race or nation or anything but keeping economic power. Tell that to catholic fascism! It's the exact fusion of all of these ideas! quote:2. Evangelicals, represented by the Republicans, who are somewhat white nationalist, fiercely patriotic (whether American, Southern, or Texan), easily duped by Capital, especially since Capital promises them national power. There are some reasons to believe that this won't be the case forever. Evangelical movements have always been a politically mixed bag - and in the US example, look at the history of a place like Kansas. quote:3. Socialists, full of a variety of modernist ideals and policies (good and bad), but their only political hope is the Democrats who are totally controlled by Capital. What do you even mean when you say 'controlled by Capital'? In what sense do you mean that? quote:4. Catholics, a full 25% of the American population and increasing due to Hispanic immigration, presently divided uncomfortably amongst the two parties but with a 70/30 split in favor of Democrats. The only force which is closed off enough to avoid corruption by Capital, and Capital's historical enemy. There are lots of reasons to suppose that might not last forever either. The social agenda of a large number of those people is anti-abortion, pro-nuclear family etc. If they were marginally less economically exploited and discriminated against, that could easily swing in your or my lifetime. quote:What do I mean by it being the historical enemy of Capital? I am referring to the French Revolution, in which Capital, also called the bourgeoisie, The Bourgeoisie aren't just 1%'ers, you know. And I'm not sure what you think the Vatican bank is, if not a bourgeois project... quote:overthrew the traditional Catholic monarchy and became the reigning institution ever since. America of course has been ruled by wealth since the beginning. If you admit that the Church has made mistakes, then I think you'd have to be understanding of French revolutionary anti-clericalism. Why is there a revolution? Because the ancien regime (which includes the church) has a monopoly on privilege, is making GBS threads all over the poor. Moreover, I think you're relying on a pretty primitive idea of what happened in the French Revolution - ever hear of the Sans-culottes? And, y'know, it failed. France had a Jacobin period followed by a nationalist-populist dictator, followed by decades of Reactionary-Conservative Catholic monarchy. And Catholicism is still the official religion of France. A social democratic country in which I think it would be hard to argue 'capital' is getting things all its own way at the moment - but I don't think that has much to do with Catholicism, demonstrably. I'm not sure your crazy Catholic-centric version of history is really all it's cracked up to be. Ed: Also, goddamn it, I got iron-knuckled. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Yes dear, I know we had to remove your ovaries due to the cancer but the bible says infertility is never certain, so maybe it will still work!" Hey, God could totally spontaneously regenerate her ovaries! I mean he probably won't, but you can't say he DEFINITELY won't, so that's why it doesn't count as an unnatural union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:No. The Bible has examples of "infertility", in Genesis of all places, resulting in people having children. So the official teaching of the Church is that infertility is never certain. If infertility is never certain how can we be sure that homosexuality can't produce children?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
The Catholic church is notoriously bad at accounting for people who are born intersexed, as it happens. It's a bit of an 'oh gently caress' for traditional doctrine.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
I suppose in the olden days you could just drown it because it's clearly a demonspawn. And then stone the parents for good measure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 13:13
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I suppose in the olden days you could just drown it because it's clearly a demonspawn. And then stone the parents for good measure. Actually Christianity half-heartedly tried to abolish the practice of killing deformed children. Heads of families were under positive obligations to kill deformed children in ancient Rome. It was a bigger deal to ancient Christianity than medieval Christianity, though, so people kept on doing it for centuries. Good times.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Homosexuality cannot produce children through the natural union of man and woman. So? Are we running low on people to rape the earth? Also, you are a homosexual and who cares? Go gently caress a guy or be hosed by a guy or whatever and move on and have your personal relationship with Jesus Christ, what's the problem? Jesus gave no fucks about homosexuality or abortion or masturbation, his message was pretty simple but people feel the need to muddy it and live miserable existences so they can lord it over others. Disinterested, why did you change your avatar from major league to something so vile?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What do I mean by it being the historical enemy of Capital? I am referring to the French Revolution, in which Capital, also called the bourgeoisie, overthrew the traditional Catholic monarchy and became the reigning institution ever since. America of course has been ruled by wealth since the beginning. Yeah when I think of institutions that are anti-imperialist, anti-exploitation, kind to the poor, enemies of greed and vanity, defenders of the rights of man, and with a history of caring for the downtrodden rather than wasting vast sums on ostentatious palaces and rivers of blood in pointless bungled wars, the first thing that leaps to mind is the loving Bourbon monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Al Harrington posted:Disinterested, why did you change your avatar from major league to something so vile? Ironknuckle is back buying avatars that link to his lovely racist website. I think he must chose based on number of posts in certain forums or something. EDIT: Disinterested has zero to do with any of this in case it wasn't initially clear. Ironknuckle is still allowed to buy avatars for people even though he's been banned for years now. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Homosexuality cannot produce children through the natural union of man and woman. But they can adopt. What do you have against stable families adopting? Why do you loathe orphans so much?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Ironknuckle is back buying avatars that link to his lovely racist website. I think he must chose based on number of posts in certain forums or something. this is incredibly bizarre
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But they can adopt. What do you have against stable families adopting? Why do you loathe orphans so much? Stable? Um, there are two penises. In one marriage! That's even worse than two different skin colors!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Ironknuckle is back buying avatars that link to his lovely racist website. I think he must chose based on number of posts in certain forums or something. quote:And anyone who knows me would understand that I would rather spend every blog post talking about the evils of homosexuality and how this is opposed by God. Go away IronKnuckles. Go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:No. The Bible has examples of "infertility", in Genesis of all places, resulting in people having children. So the official teaching of the Church is that infertility is never certain. More seriously, encouraging gay couples to form and adopt children seems as if it would be a great way to reduce the number of children languishing without families. This is how most gay bird couples obtain the children they rear, so it is not as if the good Lord did not conceive of this eventuality, at least as a factor in a population. (Unless you want to assert that birds have been tempted by Satan.) If you absolutely must, recognize this as a less-bad expedient viz. Paul and the number of unwanted children left littering the streets by Protestants, and there you are! e: Really, the abundant examples of homosexual behavior being a common if not universal activity among many families of mammals and birds seems to kind of terminally gently caress this 'it's unnatural' argument y'all have going on. You recognized evolution, just recognize it was an understandable mistake and relax about the gays. You can even distinguish between respectable gays like George Takei and his husband and Strawman McDickpit, if you must. Nessus fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
It would definitely put me off being a Christian if it came with a risk of butt babies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It would definitely put me off being a Christian if it came with a risk of butt babies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
My rear end isn't that mysterious and it doesn't want babies in it. No siree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My rear end isn't that mysterious and it doesn't want babies in it. No siree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:56
|
|