"Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas John Paprocki says that any Catholic who votes for a Democrat very well may go to Hell, because a vote for any member of a party that supports sin makes the voter 'morally complicit.' Paprocki names the Log Cabin Republicans and 'pro-choice' (scare quotes his) Republicans as 'equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts.'”
Then why are only Democratic voters going to hell? Besides, the claim cannot be true: they will only go to Purgatory, a place invented so that Roman Catholic priests in Mexico from Cortez to Calles could unburden the serfs (indigenous people) of their hard-earned centavos. Hitchens discusses indulgences in god is Not Great. Why would a good and all-powerful god put your loved ones in a special cyberspace where they must remain until the guy in a black suit and a little white collar takes your money to download them into God's hard drive?
And speaking of moral complicity, why do many thousands flock to the cathedrals each Sunday putting money in a plate so that child molesters would be given new parishes upon the discovery they have porked some acolyte or choir boy and, O.J.-like, forced civil litigation to redress grievances. If the coffers are running on empty it is because of the pay-outs to hopelessly-damaged young men who, if they remember the obscenities at all, feel lost in some horror movie. The current occupant of Castel Gondalfo knew all about the pedophile priests and did nothing to stop it. He had a U.S.-Vatican treaty to hide behind and he covered up lies and secrets and is thus guilty of obstruction of justice.
I don't believe a person can be a Republican AND a 'christian'. Doesn't the story of jebus in the bible say to leave all your worldly goods and follow him. Help the poor? Jesus doesn't mention gay-marriage or abortion in their book. I would think if there really had been a jesus as the story is told, he would be a Democrat?
No, he would just say, "Verily, I say unto you, between a sorry jackass and a fat pachyderm, choose the lesser of the two evils."
Yeah. Then he'd go and kill a tree because it wasn't bearing fruit out of season, chew out his mother in public, infect some innocent and harmless swine with "demons," and deny a poor woman's daughter help because she wasn't jewish. What a f&*#ing sport!!
And let's not mention pulling up people who don't want to be rule by him to be slain before him. Oops, sorry, mentioned it. My bad!
BTW, don't believe me? Look up Luke 19:27...
So I looked for a site on the context of the verse and it said this, "...verse 27 is talking about executing those who commit treason, which is a reasonable punishment for an attempt to overthrow a legitimate government."
I'll look for more...
On a forum (Muslim/Christian debate, I assume) a poster says, "This parable is a lesson in what we are expected to do with the gifts that God gives us. Simply summarized, we can hide or ignore them and suffer the consequences, or use them and multiply them and be rewarded."
I'm putting this up here so we are aware of the apologetics linked with the verse you pointed us to.
I think their explanations are lacking, however. In the first case, it falls flat in that we don't know if the government in the parable is legitimate or not. How do we determine whether or not a government is legit? If you look at the US, our government was born from rebellion. Does that make it illegitimate? Also, there are many of us who are split on what constitutes treason these days. For the second case, it's really obnoxious in my opinion, to assume that people know their gifts or even have the chance to build on them. How many of us know how to sing and are given the spotlight and manage to be there on stage when a talent scout is in the audience? Really? What about the people who don't hear about god or have other gods? What about them?
How else would you take apart these rebuttals, guys? I'm just curious... I'm unused to debating so I'd like to learn from y'all.
You have never led me astray so far and I believe you now! Here it is!
Jesus Preached PEACE or JIHAD
Jeez! It is getting to late for this kind of reading!
One of the problems with all wars is that man engages in what we now euphemistically call ethnic cleansing, eschewing the more disturbing genocide. When Hitler threatened Croatia at the outbreak of WWII in the Balkans, a fascist element, the Ustasha, took over, promptly slaughtering every Serb in sight. In their defense, age-old rivalries had in even moderate minds "justified" the slaughter, since the means are not important, only the ends. (Of course the central problem with ethic atrocities is that they are self-perpetuating in futuro, endlessly.) Now, guess what lay at the heart of the takeover of Croatia by the local Hitler, Ante Pavelic? Well, let's start with the fact that Serbs are mostly Eastern Orthodox, while Croatians are primarily Roman Catholic. Tell ME these wars are not religious wars. I have photos of Pavelic and his henchman, Artukovic, hamming it up at meetings with the clergy.
BTW, Joan, there are some problems with equating those words of Christ with Nazis and the Holocaust.
James, I didn't choose this photo because of the Holocaust, I looked for photos of genocides and this one popped up with Luke 19:27 on it. The idea I intend to convey is that one group of people slaughtering another group for whatever reason is a restatement of Jesus' call to bring to him any who would deny him. It is the kind of thinking that said, "Jesus did it and it is OK for us to do it."
We have the same phenomena with wife and child abuse, the bible says it was OK for biblical people and it is OK for us, even to the point of death. Sadly, in the case of modern assaults, we are only beginning to come out from under that cruel dogma.
How would you demonstrate what I am trying to convey? I appreciate you pointing out the problem my illustration creats. The issue, it seems to me, is an attitude of "entitlement". They are entitled to do .... even if in modern terms it is legally assault.
It isn't too hard to expose collaboration of the Roman Catholic church with Hitler and Nazis. If the Pope believed the Holocaust was appropriate, it is not all that much different in principle, if not in effect, for Bishop Paprocki to believe those who vote for Democrats may go to Hell. They are both political statements that prevent "other" from flourishing.
How is my reasoning not sound?
James, there has to be a better way to organize society than the capitalistic/consumer one we labor under. Got any ideas?