Catholic Cardinal calls the election of Obama "Apocalyptic"

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: XMan
So essentially, if a religious persion of a right-leaning political persuasion says something contrary to your beliefs, then it's "another example of the nuttiness of the extremely religious", but if Louis Farrakhan proclaims Obama the Messiah, you have no comment?

I think they are equally nutty. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Are you surprised he said this? Do you think he's being overdramatic from his perspective? If you answer yes to either of these questions, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

That Obama campaigned aggressively regarding the "right to choose" is pretty much indisputable. That's the one talking point from his campaign that he was crystal clear about. That the dignity of human life is important to Catholic theology is no surprise - it has been one of the cornerstones for well over 1500 years. I'll also point out that the Catholic view of something that is "apocalyptic" is not the same as what a fundamentalist thinks is apocalyptic. For a fundamentalist, the apocalypse is the end of the world. For Catholics, it's more of a game-changer or a paradigm shift. That said, I don't think anyone would disagree that the election of Obama is certainly a paradigm shift in the history of the US and probably the world.

That's some rather awkard use of the word. I haven't looked this up but I'd be willing to bet 99% of all dictionaries disagree with that definition.

The definition of a word is up to the person using the word....dictionaries are well just that dictionaries.......
The world would be a vastly better place if people were not allowed to use their own definition of a word and were forced to use the dictionaries meaning!!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I like how the in the second to last paragraph he states that "a person's life cannot ultimately be controlled by government" yet he rails on the election of the candidate that wants to take away the government's ability to control a woman's life. Oh, the irony.

Socialism is going to reduce government control over our lives? PLEASE give me what you're smoking, cause it's out of this world.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
The definition of a word is up to the person using the word....dictionaries are well just that dictionaries.......
The world would be a vastly better place if people were not allowed to use their own definition of a word and were forced to use the dictionaries meaning!!

Or if people would mind their own business. Are you Catholic? Don't think so. So why do you care what this guy says or how he uses his words? He's not talking to you. If you were in the group of people he was talking to (i.e. Catholics), then you would understand the context of his statement in the way I described it rather than applying your own external biases to it.

 

[jonks]

you're a cute little catholic, yes you are! good boy! now play dead

 

[filterstb]

I don't usually pay attention to these predictions. Even outside of the religious circles, there are people who say that Obama is going to bring the apocalypse as predicted by Nostradamus, but the thing is that he could also fit the description of another important figure, a benevolent king (I don't know all the details but I've heard of it).

I mean, what's the point of predicting what is going to happen? It's how we react to what happens that will define us as a nation.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
The definition of a word is up to the person using the word....dictionaries are well just that dictionaries.......
The world would be a vastly better place if people were not allowed to use their own definition of a word and were forced to use the dictionaries meaning!!

Or if people would mind their own business. Are you Catholic? Don't think so. So why do you care what this guy says or how he uses his words? He's not talking to you. If you were in the group of people he was talking to (i.e. Catholics), then you would understand the context of his statement in the way I described it rather than applying your own external biases to it.

You have no clue dude...so don`t assume that you know what you speak of....
I am catholic and I am Jewish....
But with that said I don`t agree with all the hate that is spewed forth by others who believe they are doing or stating the will of God....
Just like I side with those who believe that Proposition8 is NOT a religious issue and as such there is NO valid reason except for ones own fears and prejudices to deny gays/lesbians and anybody else the same rights that we all enjoy!!

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: XMan
So essentially, if a religious persion of a right-leaning political persuasion says something contrary to your beliefs, then it's "another example of the nuttiness of the extremely religious", but if Louis Farrakhan proclaims Obama the Messiah, you have no comment?

It has to do with orders of magnitude with respect to influence. Isn't this obvious to you? In other words, Farrakhan's influence extends about as far as Howard Stern's, and I have similar reactions while listening to either of them. The Catholic church however does in fact wield some influence, and its followers make up a substantial portion of the US voting population.

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Would you expect any different? I swear many users here must carry around a notecard that states:
Dem=enlightened, Rep=enemy

and whenever a situation presents itself, they just refer to their notecard and respond in kind. 😀

Well I'm glad you had an opportunity to express your bias, hopefully you feel a little better? It should be obvious why anyone, regardless of affiliation, should pay more attention to the stated political positions of the Catholic church than to the Nation of Islam. Since it isn't obvious to you, I'll help you out:

http://www.usccb.org/comm/cip.shtml
61.9 million catholics in the US; roughly 23% of the population

Now please please please try to argue that the NOI wields substantial influence in American politics, besides giving young soldiers such as yourself talking points with which to obfuscate the issues.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You have no clue dude...so don`t assume that you know what you speak of....
I am catholic and I am Jewish....
But with that said I don`t agree with all the hate that is spewed forth by others who believe they are doing or stating the will of God....
Just like I side with those who believe that Proposition8 is NOT a religious issue and as such there is NO valid reason except for ones own fears and prejudices to deny gays/lesbians and anybody else the same rights that we all enjoy!!

No one is talking about spewing hate except you. I'm also curious how one can be both Catholic and Jewish, but I can only assume you mean culturally rather than as a matter of religion. Thus, my original statement holds.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You have no clue dude...so don`t assume that you know what you speak of....
I am catholic and I am Jewish....
But with that said I don`t agree with all the hate that is spewed forth by others who believe they are doing or stating the will of God....
Just like I side with those who believe that Proposition8 is NOT a religious issue and as such there is NO valid reason except for ones own fears and prejudices to deny gays/lesbians and anybody else the same rights that we all enjoy!!

No one is talking about spewing hate except you. I'm also curious how one can be both Catholic and Jewish, but I can only assume you mean culturally rather than as a matter of religion. Thus, my original statement holds.

Hey, I spewed a little hate in this thread... Don't I get some love too? 🙂

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Hey, I spewed a little hate in this thread... Don't I get some love too? 🙂

Fine. None of the Catholics in this thread are spewing hate - only the anti-Catholics. *shrug*

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Hey, I spewed a little hate in this thread... Don't I get some love too? 🙂

Fine. None of the Catholics in this thread are spewing hate - only the anti-Catholics. *shrug*

Hope you aren't including me in that. I have great respect for Catholics. They pay no attention to the church that commands them to squirt out a new Catholic every nine months and teaches this violence toward women. It is a broken religion caught in the horror of absolutism, but the faithful aren't faithful. It's great. Every religion should have people as smart as Catholics.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Not to tring to demagog the pro life vs pro-choice. This is bigger than that. Yet it is also the essence. Taking an unborns life is wrong no matter how you vie w it its wrong.

But what the HRCC is saying here is more smoke and mirrors. There is a plan being followed here by both sides . In a game that almost none know ablout.

Both sides know what has been written. Both sides know that a Pawn must be sacrificied.

Both sides decided and agreed it would be the American people.


What both sides didn't know is Americans True essense is to overcome. We shall overcome and lay waste to their evil plan. AS Long as America has the Food producing capicity she has . She stands tall. Try eating oil . We have what they want Food . This is about food.

Is there a way to subscribe to your posts? I look forward to reading each attempt at written communication that you make.

He adds comedy value everywhere he posts.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: microbial
You know, Judaism was a pretty reasonable set of didactic concepts codified into myths, legends and stories for their time.

It's too bad that all derivative religions stemming from Judaism. like Catholicism, and Islam, and of course all the protestant sub-sub derivatives have taken the tactic of saying that all these stories and myths weren't just vehicles and mechanisms for teaching (and also for controlling social behavior), but beyond that that these things really happened.

At some point you have to do the courageous thing, look at the absolute lack of objective evidence (100% lack of any evidence) and say God and other myths were/are only social teaching tools, constructed by humans. Nothing else.

So I assume you have read, and performed sufficient research to reject, such books as, "The Evidence for Christianity?" Whether or not you believe that there was anything supernatural in the stories of the Bible or not, it's purely ignorant to suggest that everything in the book is a myth.

The operational condition here is : Objective evidence, that is to say evidence that is unequivocal and not subjective.

There is NO objective evidence for a higher being or creator. There has never been any on-the-level academic research done on this matter, because there is no factual research that can be done.

Christianity, is a fact and does plainly exist--as a method/religion. The underpinnings of Christianity based on a Jewish God and his son are totally unfounded, as I said before. Jesus is undoubtedly a legendary figure, and probably an amalgamation of many different historical personages through a wide scope in time, all rolled-up and summed into one.

As to what book you refer to, I don't know. In any case, I mentioned myths, legends and stories.

The point is this: any person or organization can critisize an incomming administration.

If, however, you do it citing as authority a set of trumped-up, made-up, irrational religious beliefs--be prepared to be soundly rejected at face value.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: microbial
The operational condition here is : Objective evidence, that is to say evidence that is unequivocal and not subjective.

There is NO objective evidence for a higher being or creator. There has never been any on-the-level academic research done on this matter, because there is no factual research that can be done.

Christianity, is a fact and does plainly exist--as a method/religion. The underpinnings of Christianity based on a Jewish God and his son are totally unfounded, as I said before. Jesus is undoubtedly a legendary figure, and probably an amalgamation of many different historical personages through a wide scope in time, all rolled-up and summed into one.

As to what book you refer to, I don't know. In any case, I mentioned myths, legends and stories.

The point is this: any person or organization can critisize an incomming administration.

If, however, you do it citing as authority a set of trumped-up, made-up, irrational religious beliefs--be prepared to be soundly rejected at face value.

The problem here is that you cannot read. This explains why you have not read the historical treatise I previously mentioned, as well as your problems in waging a rational discussion without bringing in red herrings and the like. If I couldn't read what you were typing, I would have to resort to the same sort of shenanigans. Try reading my previous post again for practice, then report back.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You have no clue dude...so don`t assume that you know what you speak of....
I am catholic and I am Jewish....
But with that said I don`t agree with all the hate that is spewed forth by others who believe they are doing or stating the will of God....
Just like I side with those who believe that Proposition8 is NOT a religious issue and as such there is NO valid reason except for ones own fears and prejudices to deny gays/lesbians and anybody else the same rights that we all enjoy!!

No one is talking about spewing hate except you. I'm also curious how one can be both Catholic and Jewish, but I can only assume you mean culturally rather than as a matter of religion. Thus, my original statement holds.

I do not think I am spewing hate at all.....I have not to explain my religious beliefs to you or any person.
Yet you stated for the record --
Are you Catholic? Don't think so.
also you stated --
If you were in the group of people he was talking to (i.e. Catholics), then you would understand the context of his statement in the way I described it rather than applying your own external biases to it.
So let me get thsi correct the way you described...is the only way it can be understood or taken???
If I chose to disagree with your diatribe it is MY external bias....hmmmmm

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Are you surprised he said this? Do you think he's being overdramatic from his perspective? If you answer yes to either of these questions, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

That Obama campaigned aggressively regarding the "right to choose" is pretty much indisputable. That's the one talking point from his campaign that he was crystal clear about. That the dignity of human life is important to Catholic theology is no surprise - it has been one of the cornerstones for well over 1500 years. I'll also point out that the Catholic view of something that is "apocalyptic" is not the same as what a fundamentalist thinks is apocalyptic. For a fundamentalist, the apocalypse is the end of the world. For Catholics, it's more of a game-changer or a paradigm shift. That said, I don't think anyone would disagree that the election of Obama is certainly a paradigm shift in the history of the US and probably the world.

That's some rather awkard use of the word. I haven't looked this up but I'd be willing to bet 99% of all dictionaries disagree with that definition.

The definition of a word is up to the person using the word....dictionaries are well just that dictionaries.......
The world would be a vastly better place if people were not allowed to use their own definition of a word and were forced to use the dictionaries meaning!!

Well... Not in Law.... Words have a very specific meaning. In Contracts parole evidence is generally not allowed so long as no ambiguity is evident in a material matter. Additionally, I'd say that Liable and Slander both use words and for a defendant to attempt the use of "personal meaning" as a affirmative defense would not generally be accepted. Of course, that is imo.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
I do not think I am spewing hate at all.....I have not to explain my religious beliefs to you or any person.
Yet you stated for the record --
Are you Catholic? Don't think so.
also you stated --
If you were in the group of people he was talking to (i.e. Catholics), then you would understand the context of his statement in the way I described it rather than applying your own external biases to it.
So let me get thsi correct the way you described...is the only way it can be understood or taken???
If I chose to disagree with your diatribe it is MY external bias....hmmmmm

If you attempt to understand something without understanding its context, then you have no guarantee that you have understood it in the way it was intended. For example, if I say, "That's what she said," and you didn't hear the preceding comment which would give it context, you might misinterpret the meaning of my statement. Two examples of possible preceding statements that could lead to vastly different contexts for my statement are:
1. "That's just too big."
2. "I thought you said dinner was at 5?"

Without knowing the context, determined by previous dialogue which generates an understanding between the relevant parties (i.e. the people in the conversation, not the person who simply overhears the latter statement), you have no way of knowing what the snippet you overheard actually meant. Hopefully I don't have to explain how this simple concept applies to this thread.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I didn't know the Vatican had a Prison.

Oddly enough, it's the only place the priests don't pound you in the ass. 😛

 

[ericlp]

And I thought the christains where nuts!!!!! damn.... Oh well... Like I say, one organized religion is just as bad as any other.

 

[sportage]

Catholic Cardinal calls the election of Obama "Apocalyptic"

Right after Cardinal molested his 11 year old "secret friend" :roll:

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: microbial
The operational condition here is : Objective evidence, that is to say evidence that is unequivocal and not subjective.

There is NO objective evidence for a higher being or creator. There has never been any on-the-level academic research done on this matter, because there is no factual research that can be done.

Christianity, is a fact and does plainly exist--as a method/religion. The underpinnings of Christianity based on a Jewish God and his son are totally unfounded, as I said before. Jesus is undoubtedly a legendary figure, and probably an amalgamation of many different historical personages through a wide scope in time, all rolled-up and summed into one.

As to what book you refer to, I don't know. In any case, I mentioned myths, legends and stories.

The point is this: any person or organization can critisize an incomming administration.

If, however, you do it citing as authority a set of trumped-up, made-up, irrational religious beliefs--be prepared to be soundly rejected at face value.

The problem here is that you cannot read. This explains why you have not read the historical treatise I previously mentioned, as well as your problems in waging a rational discussion without bringing in red herrings and the like. If I couldn't read what you were typing, I would have to resort to the same sort of shenanigans. Try reading my previous post again for practice, then report back.

Very simply, Cardinal James Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, has no credible argument or critique (or whatever) on the next administration, if it is based on his religious beliefs in God and jesus Christ.

Now you may ask yourself why--a very legitimate question.

Read my posts for your answer.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: microbial
Very simply, Cardinal James Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, has no credible argument or critique (or whatever) on the next administration, if it is based on his religious beliefs in God and jesus Christ.

Now you may ask yourself why--a very legitimate question.

Read my posts for your answer.

Your tack wasn't working, so I guess it was time to try a new one. Or did you already forget your original statement - that the Bible is just a book of mythology?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Hey, I spewed a little hate in this thread... Don't I get some love too? 🙂

Fine. None of the Catholics in this thread are spewing hate - only the anti-Catholics. *shrug*

Hope you aren't including me in that. I have great respect for Catholics. They pay no attention to the church that commands them to squirt out a new Catholic every nine months and teaches this violence toward women. It is a broken religion caught in the horror of absolutism, but the faithful aren't faithful. It's great. Every religion should have people as smart as Catholics.

ahhh lumping everyone in one group to have the same behaviors is such a sign of intelligence. you can do better than that. this must have hit a cord.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I didn't know the Vatican had a Prison.

In some ways, many religions ARE prisons... of the mind.