God gap widens against Obama
Well, this is reassuring. For all his God talk, Obama lost ground. According to Yahoo News, November 1:
Barack Obama has courted white weekly churchgoers as avidly as any Republican-leaning bloc of voters, though it now appears his efforts may fall flat on Election Day.
The Gallup Poll now shows Obama backed by 28% of white voters who attend church at least once a week – a group that makes up a roughly a third of all voters – which would be no improvement from the 29% of these voters who, according to exit polls, backed Democrats John Kerry and Al Gore in the previous two presidential elections….
Read the rest of the article on page 2, which lists Obama’s foremost problem wooing both Protestants and Catholics. One guess what that is.
It was at that mid-August event at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church … that Obama said it was “above my pay grade” to define when a fetus gains human rights, while McCain quickly replied, “At the moment of conception.”
For social conservative leader Richard Land, Obama’s response encapsulated why Democrats have failed to make inroads with highly religious white voters.
“It’s abortion,” Land replied when the Gallup data was read to him.
“I think pro-choice people in this culture have absolutely no idea of the depth and intensity of the moral outrage of the people who are pro-life,” Land said. “They think that conservatives use it only as a wedge issue.”
“There is no other way to explain it than Obama’s position on the issues, particularly the issue of life,” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council….
Democrats have lost weekly churchgoers of all races by double-digits in every two-man presidential election since 1980, and by increasingly wide margins. Michael Dukakis lost these voters by about 10% in 1988, while Kerry lagged by more than 20% in 2004.
After Bush’s successful reelection bid, in which the Republican won eight in 10 of those who voted on “moral values,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid… said the party had been awakened by its extensive losses with religious voters. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched the Democratic Faith Working Group the following year, and Obama was among the Democrats who reached out to religious voters.
But Gallup’s finding, based on more than 21,000 voter interviews in October, suggests that weekly churchgoers remain an elusive target for Democrats.
“It is surprising that there is not movement there,” said Mara Vanderslice, the Kerry campaign’s director of religious outreach who now is a Democratic consultant….
Analysts have found that religion most clearly affects one’s vote only among the most religious, and that religiosity trumps religion in terms of voter preferences, so that weekly church-going Catholics and Protestants tend to have similar voting tendencies….
“There are three ways Democrats could approach these voters,” said Green. “Show respect, and certainly Obama has done that. The second thing is to change policy, and certainly Obama has not done that. The other way is mobilization. And there is some evidence they tried to reach out to these groups.”
But Green added, “What we could be seeing is that comfort and campaigning only go so far, and that ultimately it’s substance that matters to these voters.”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I recall a recent election where the media was shocked that people placed an emphasis on values and voted that way.
Some values are not negoiable. Obama tried to fake commitment to values and people had the nerve to look up his voting record and speeches. It came up hat he is an empty suit.
Democrats have lost weekly churchgoers of all races by double-digits in every two-man presidential election since 1980, and by increasingly wide margins.
It is worth noting, that the number of weekly churchgoers is itself declining.
It will indeed be interesting to see how the voting breaks down after this election, and whether abortion was a key issue, or subordinate to the economy and the war. I am cautiously optimistic that you antis are in for a bit of disappointment.
Lets hope America can be a beacon of justice and human rights by establishing a culture of life. If a country places so little value on life that they destroy the unborn in the womb, how can we have moral standing about “just” war or anything else? If we go pro-life, then Australia follows. Then gradually the other civilized countries see that their laws protecting their choice to destroy children in the womb are barabaric. That is how America could once again claim our position as leader for human rights in the world. Or we could elect Obama and migrate towards a culture of death and fail to lead the world with our example and once again become a beacon of light shining upon civilization.
“2 Chronicles 7:13-15 13 “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 15 Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place.”
For those of you who have put on Christ, please vote for life, there is simply no other choice.
Obama is pro-abortion which is pro-death of innocent children in the womb.
McCain is pro-life and will nominate judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade and get this country back on its moral foundations once again.
Christians, PLEASE VOTE, as if this is the one thing that God wanted you to do in life for such a time as this. He can multipky your faithful efforts.
HisMan, I’m not sure McCain is right for the U.S. at this time.
How anybody who calls himself a Christian can vote for a man who favors wrapping babies in a towel and sticking them in a closet to die is beyond me. Since when is it okay to kill the innocent just because their mothers have forsaken them?
Hal, it’s better to have any President, even a mediocre or bad President. than to put in power somebody who has been raised from obscurity by people behind the scenes whose real agenda we can only guess at.
We know where McCain came from. Obama arose from out of nowhere like Harold Saxon in “Doctor Who”. Anybody who doesn’t find that at the very least unnerving has never studied history.
I believe McCain’s experience a a war veteran and former POW speaks volumes about his character. What sacrifices has NObama made for any of his fellow man or woman? None that I know of.
NObama has given speeches about how we are “our brother’s keeper” which is correct, but then he has family members living in poverty, and he’s the most pro death candidate ever.
Even if NObama was as pro life as McCain, I still would say he is totally unqualified to be President. McCain is.
I pray that we will be saying President-elect McCain tomorrow evening.
“…whose real agenda we can only guess at”
paranoid much?
@Christina: OMG! I’m *not* the only one who thought of that?! THAT MAKES ME SO HAPPY! :D
Doctor Who is my sanity-pills. :D
Barack Obama has courted ‘WHITE’ weekly churchgoers as avidly as any Republican-leaning bloc of voters, though it now appears his efforts may fall flat on Election Day.
The Gallup Poll now shows Obama backed by 28% of ‘WHITE’ voters who attend church at least once a week – a group that makes up a roughly a third of all voters – which would be no improvement from the 29% of these voters who, according to exit polls, backed Democrats John Kerry and Al Gore in the previous two presidential election….
————————————————–
These ‘WHITE’ voters must be the ones the o’bamam (pbuh) is courting who are not bitter, not clinging to their guns and their religion, and do not hold antipathy towards those who just might want to kill them because they do not think or believe like them.
These are same kind of guilt obsessed people who are known to Marxist and terrorists as fellow travelers or useful idiots.
They are voting for the o’bama (pbuh) because they are anti-war. That means they are willling to let other people fight and die to protect them and theirs because their enlightened sensitivities will not allow them participate in such nasty business.
Well, when it comes to war, I am pro-choice. And I am not taking any options off the table. If people refuse to respect me because they have antipathy towards me because I do not look or think like they do, then at least let them fear me because they have good reason to believe that I will use whatever means is at my disposal to defend myself and mine.
That is the basis for some meaningful dialog. I believe it is called negotiating from a position of strength, or as one former president described it, walking softly and carrying a prominently displayed big stick.
The big stick will impress them much more than rhetorical flourishes and oratorical skills. If smooth talkin alone would get the job done, McCain would have already conceded defeat to the o’bama (pbuh) and the amercian citizens would have crowned the o’bama (pbuh) by acclamation.
Evidently, even the o’bama (pbuh) can’t persuade everybody that he is the ‘one’.
Hal:
I am positive Obama will NEVER be right for this country.
HisMan, give him a chance. Be prepared to be pleasantly surprised. Can you do that? Once he’s in office, you can let us know what he does or doesn’t do that bothers you.
This radio show is about what is truly at stake in this election, and what we are TRULY voting for. This election can change the mindset of the entire country and could have an effect for years to come. Most people don’t think of it in this way. It’s very surprising. And either way you decide, you will at least be aware and understand the unspoken implications. If you like what you hear, please pass the link on to others who you may think might like it.
http://tinyurl.com/5znubc
So 28% of 1/3 of the electorate. Thats an awfully tiny proportion to be quibbling about. I also noticed that the data is skewed by only looking at white voters.
HisMan, give him a chance. Be prepared to be pleasantly surprised. Can you do that? Once he’s in office, you can let us know what he does or doesn’t do that bothers you.
Posted by: hal at November 3, 2008 9:21 PM
When are you going to quit drinking the kool aid Hal?
For just a minute here, I am going to pretend NObama is as pro life as McCain and Palin.
He’s still the most unqualified person to be president!
He’s got 143 days experience in the Senate. During that time, I am not aware of him sponsoring any major legislation. He wasnt one of the Senators who sounded the alarm a couple of years back about the impending financial crisis. No…. that would be REPUBLICAN senators, including John McCain. And they were stopped by DEMOCRATS. Not a word from NObama.
He was too busy getting ready to run for President. It seems he felt a scant 143 days was enough preparation for him. Yet his own running mate mentioned his lack of experience before the primaries began. He said the Presidency was not the place for “on the job training.”
NObama “present” over 100 times in the Illinois senate. This is a cop out, and in no way demontrates leadership.
I’d like to know what exactly NObama has accomplished that makes him qualified for President? How has he served his country, and what has he done to serve others?
When has he demonstrated strong character? How has he ever been tested?
Name ONE THING NObama has done of consequence, that gives him the right to believe he should be President of the United States!
Joanne, what is something Sarah Palin has done that makes her qualified to be the President. After all, it’s a very real possibility that she may end up president.
I’m sorry, I don’t think a president should have to demonstrate strong character. It’s sad, but it’s true. I’ll say what I’ve said many times: Bill Clinton will go down in history as being one of the best presidents of all time.. his moral fiber though, wasn’t the best.
Josephine,
Sarah Palin has executive experience, something none of the other three have.
However, you didnt state a single thing NObama has done to make him qualified. Foreign policy experience? NONE!
NObama wants universal health care? Who is going to pay for it?
I could go on and on about how NObama is hardly qualified to run a lemonade stand, never mind the country.
However if you add his radical pro abortion policies he is without a doubt the worst candidate ever, and the most evil.
I didn’t defend Obama. I just wanted to know what Palin had done.
I do believe Obama would be a great leader, however. Let’s be honest, with the help of a cabinet and Joe Biden (who is a VERY experienced senator)I’m sure he’ll do just as well handling the position as McCain would. Living in Illinois, I probably here a lot more about Obama than most. My parents have been voting for him since the first time he ran for the Illinois senate.
I, personally, don’t believe being governor of Alaska qualifies Sarah Palin to be president. She’s had many controversies. Even if she was cleared of Troopergate, what about all the Alaskan tax payers money she spent traveling with her family? Or the money she charged the state of Alaska for her living at her own home.
Unfortunately, you’re incorrect about one thing: Obama doesn’t want universal healthcare. If someone wants private healthcare, they can still get it. I’ll still be getting insurance through my father… I don’t have to take Obama’s. He’s just giving regular people the chance to buy into government healthcare. If you can get healthcare elsewhere, there is no law against it.
That, however, is just my way of thinking.
I have to correct myself. I said “here” instead of “hear” and it will bug me all night.
Mrs. Palin is an outspoken advocate of children.
Mr. Obama is an outspoken advocate of murderers of children.
What is the purpose of the civil government?
Josephine,
Palin is not running for president. :)
Obama has been running for president for 2 years now. He believes that running for president gives him the experience he needs to be president. What does that add up to? 100 some odd days in the Illinois Senate?
She’s running to REPLACE the President. If McCain is elected, there is a good chance she WILL take office. I mean, if you believe LIFE beings a conception, then doesn’t DEATH begin at birth?
And, haven’t you ever heard the quote? NO ONE is qualified to be president unless they’ve already done it. NOt one candidate knows what they’re getting into.
HisMan, give him a chance. Be prepared to be pleasantly surprised. Can you do that? Once he’s in office, you can let us know what he does or doesn’t do that bothers you.
Posted by: hal at November 3, 2008 9:21 PM
Be prepared to be pleasantly surprised at how quickly your religious freedom disappears, at how fast FOCA is enacted, at how quickly the Supreme Court is staked with liberal proabort justices, at how quickly the homosexual agenda is rammed down kindergarteners throats, at how quickly doctors lose their freedom of conscience, at how quickly Catholic hospitals close, at how quickly Catholic charities will be forced to adopt children to same-sex couples, at how quickly courts persecute Christians who don’t follow the liberal proabort agenda……
Be surprised! NOT!
Oh Patricia. I wish I could stand reading your comments. I have so many questions for you.
Why are religious freedoms disappearing? What, specifically does Obama plan on doing to take away religious freedoms?
Why are doctors losing their freedom of conscious? I’ve said it before, I’m from a family of doctor. What, exactly, is taking my families conscience away?
Why is it a problem for gay couples to adopt?
Why what Christians be persecuted for not following the pro-abort agenda? We’re going to start getting arrested for NOT having abortions?
Can you even answer one of these questions honestly?
I agree with Josephine, you really seem to be seriously over reacting. What does this mean?
“at how quickly courts persecute Christians who don’t follow the liberal proabort agenda”
Unfortunately, you’re incorrect about one thing: Obama doesn’t want universal healthcare. If someone wants private healthcare, they can still get it. I’ll still be getting insurance through my father… I don’t have to take Obama’s. He’s just giving regular people the chance to buy into government healthcare. If you can get healthcare elsewhere, there is no law against it.
Government healthcare is universal healthcare, like what they have in Canada and Europe. They often have no choice of what doctor they can go to, and waits for treatments can be months until a doctor is available. Who is going to pay for it? Tax payers like you and I which will mean even higher taxes. You’ll be paying for your own and someone else’s. As a doctor you will probably make more money than you know what to do with but the majority of people don’t. You don’t represent the average American, supported by the fact you have stressed that you come from a “wealthy family”.
When Obama passes FOCA he will virtually erase all current doctor’s conscience laws regarding doing abortions, Pharmacists dispensing Plan B, etc..and laws regulating abortions that have been passed since 1973, Roe V.Wade.
Here’s an analysis of FOCA:
http://www.frc.org/insight/focusing-on-foca-freedom-of-choice-act-would-harm-women-and-remove-protections
Why is it a problem for gay couples to adopt?
Well, the focus of this website isn’t first of all a chaste and godly lifestyle, but you, Josephine, raised the question, asking for an “honest” answer to “even one” of your questions.
Actually, your having raised the question proves another of Patricia’s points. She spoke of “how quickly the homosexual agenda is rammed down kindergarteners throats.” Here you’re attempting to ram the same agenda down our throats, pretending a “gay couple” are a normal family, being able to adopt children. And actually, such a “gay couple” would themselves corrupt the children entrusted to them at an even earlier age than kindergarten.
Very simply, a “gay couple” cannot adopt because they are not a family and cannot constitute a family, even if they became legal guardians of children. A normal family consists of a father and mother, and no amount of sophistry can change the obvious. When a father or mother dies, or they divorce, the family is no longer ideal, but such is the misery of the world in which we live.
As for a “gay couple,” they are living in sin. Obviously children need to be protected from such perverting influences. In fact, the “gay couple” is obviously proud of their sin, the worst situation possible.
So, a single woman can adopt. A single woman can get pregnant and have a baby and raise it alone. A woman can die in birth leaving the husband to care for the baby alone. But all those are better than TWO LOVING PARENTS taking care of a child? I have two friends (twins) who happened to have “2 moms” if you get my drift. Their parents were separated when they were very young. Both girls love their mom’s partner just like like a mom. The girls aren’t gay, despite being raised by two lesbians.
Now, seriously. How is a loving gay couple adopting a child worse than a single woman who gets knocked up? I honestly don’t understand that point of view.
I mean, I know you bring up “ramming it down kindergartners throats” but, why would we have to tell kids? I mean, I was never specifically told about marriage. It’s something you just find out about. Why should gay civil unions be any different?
I don’t believe being gay is a sin. I don’t believe any person chooses to be gay (and many, many gay people will agree with me there) and if they didn’t choose it, doesn’t that mean God made them that way?
And-for who commented on Obama’s plan: You can still get healthcare on your own. He is NOT making EVERYONE get the same healthcare. Therefore, it’s not universal. If you have healthcare already, it’s cool to keep it. Obama is giving people the OPTION of government healthcare. He’s said it MANY times.
To-whoever commented above on Obama’s plan,
(That was me, thanks for noticing)
The state of Hawaii had universal healthcare. It went bankrupt and was discontinued after 7 mos. because people who could afford their own were dropping their policies to get healthcare from the government for “free”. If universal healthcare was initiated in the US, I would think medical insurance companies would go belly-up if they could not sell enough policies to make a profit. That would place more pressure on the government system, most likely causing major delays in getting healthcare.
Josephine said, “I don’t believe being gay is a sin.”
It is. The Bible says it is.
But even if you don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin against God, you should be able to see that it is an offense against oneself. You don’t have to be an anatomy student to recognize the function of the various body parts. To use a body part in a way for which it was not designed can damage it. And homosexuality is degrading; it is its own punishment. The civil government is supposed to promote virtue, not vice.
Josephine said, “I don’t believe any person chooses to be gay… and if they didn’t choose it, doesn’t that mean God made them that way?
No, God is never the author of sin. Adam and Eve chose to sin, and we are their children. Sinners sin, and we are sinners. In fact, every human being who is conceived is dead in sin. We are still responsible to the God who had created Adam and Eve able to live perfectly in harmony with His will.
By the way, there are former homosexuals. That is, they stopped being homosexuals. I think that I’ve heard that some have even married and raised a family. That’s hard to believe, though.
As for a “gay couple,” they are living in sin. Obviously children need to be protected from such perverting influences. In fact, the “gay couple” is obviously proud of their sin, the worst situation possible.
Posted by: Jon at November 4, 2008 10:23 AM
Jon, if you’re trying to be the most offensive poster at this site, this is a good first effort. Not enough to win, but maybe a Silver.
Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Should single mothers get their children taken away? If I had a baby that I was giving up for adoption, I’d rather give it to a happily married gay couple then a single 30 year old woman.
As for a “gay couple,” they are living in sin. Obviously children need to be protected from such perverting influences. In fact, the “gay couple” is obviously proud of their sin, the worst situation possible.
And parents would do well to protect their children from Hal.
Josephine said, “Sex outside of marriage is a sin… I’d rather give [my baby] to a happily married gay couple…”
There is no such thing as a “married gay couple” (unless Josephine was redundantly using gay to emphasize happily). And even if the civil government recognizes such a farce, God does not. Homosexuality is a sin, and sin is what Josephine is talking about.
Gay couples aren’t the only ones living in sin. I live with my boyfriend, I’m living in sin. Doesn’t the bible say something about doing things to your body? Is everyone who has a tattoo or piercing going to hell? I’m sorry, and I can see where you’re coming from…but why should gay people get discriminated against? I mean, when I was in a 7th grade a girl in my class got pregnant and moved in with her 20 year old boyfriend. Why do they deserve a child more than… say, a forty year old man with a good, stable job and his lover?
I can see why you’d want to use sin as an excuse, but there are plenty of other parents that live in sin; just not that particular sin.
Josephine, to people like Jon, some sins are worse than others. Gay people being in love and getting married seems to be something they really don’t like. I truly have no idea why.
It’s hilarious that Josephine says she’s Catholic. Go back to your books you silly little girl. Better yet, why don’t you go study the Catechism? Or at the VERY least stop the hypocrisy.
Oh my goodness. Are you kidding? I’m pretty sure sins aren’t supposed to be weighted. At least that’s what my priest said. Is he wrong? So, unless you’ve never sinned before.. you should probably not comment on my “hypocrisy”.
Did you ever see the interview Joe Biden did with the news anchor in Florida? When he just basically laughed in her face for being ridiculous. I know, now, how exactly he felt that day. :)
Oh my goodness. Are you kidding? I’m pretty sure sins aren’t supposed to be weighted. At least that’s what my priest said. Is he wrong?
Posted by: Josephine at November 4, 2008 1:50 PM
Oh MY goodness! Are YOU kidding? There are mortal and venial sins. They are weighted. Really how can you call yourself Catholic? You know NOTHING of the Faith. And I’d say, get yourself to another parish with a priest that KNOWS something. But really you seem totally disinterested in the true teachings of Catholicism.
And since you haven’t got a clue, the hypocrisy statement was about you calling yourself Catholic but not following ANY of the teachings of the Church. THAT is different than sinning and being sorry for your sins by going to confession, which – just a guess – you probably haven’t done in a VERY long time, if ever.
Hal said that “to people like Jon, some sins are worse than others.”
I don’t think I’ve said that, but your interpretation might be correct. The Bible does speak of an unforgivable sin, and that sin is not homosexuality. As the apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans says (1:26-27), homosexuality is just as much a symptom of a depraved society as a sin in itself. Homosexuality is not necessarily the worst sin. Certainly there can be forgiveness and redemption from it. Those who are proud of their homosexuality are far from forgiveness, but perhaps even they can be saved.
Hmm, let’s see. We were having a mature conversation. You came, even though you hadn’t commented on ANYTHING else, and started criticizing me?
So, if you claim to be a good Catholic even though you “seek” me out to criticize me.. well, I’m sure you’re making Catholic leaders everywhere proud.
Sweetie, can I clarify something? Venial sins=all equal. Mortal sins=all equal. AND in context of this discussion.. sex outside of marriage and gay sex are EQUAL. So to say gay people don’t deserve children, but women who get knocked up do isn’t fair.
Jo Jo,
This is an open blog. Anyone who reads can join in – that’s the idea.
Kristen makes excellent points. Find a good traditional Catholic Church with priests who follow the Catechism.
“I live with my boyfriend, I’m living in sin.”
You said you are not having sex, so you aren’t living in sin.
So to say gay people don’t deserve children, but women who get knocked up do isn’t fair.
Who ever said life is fair? That applies to anything, not just your statement above.
Josephine said, “[W]hen I was in a 7th grade a girl in my class got pregnant and moved in with her 20 year old boyfriend. Why do they deserve a child more than… say, a forty year old man with a good, stable job and his lover?”
The question is not first of all one of deserving, is it? The simple fact is that sexual intercourse can result in a child whereas homosexual intercourse cannot.
The girl who became a mother was still under the authority of her parents, wasn’t she? I’m not sure how far the parents can take their authority, but certainly they might advise her to give the baby up for adoption. I don’t think that the civil government has authority to decide here. If the young mother tried to kill her child, then the civil government should bring the accomplices to justice. Abortionists are cold-blooded murderers. Pharmacists who provide abortifacients also break God’s law.
You see an alternate scenario as more deserving of a child: a forty-year-old man with a stable, good job and a lover. Is the lover the same girl in Grade 7? The forty-year-old man is richer than the twenty-year-old man, to be sure. But if he is not married to the girl, he might be as guilty of rape as the twenty-year-old man.
I will assume that you meant a male lover, i.e. they are homosexuals. But don’t you really mean lovers? You see, despite Hal’s claims, most homosexuals do not remain in committed, loving relationships. The hype about “gay marriage” is just intended to destroy the normal family. And those who engage in homosexuality are much more likely to engage in bestiality and pedophilia. Why? because they don’t understand their own sexuality. And those who are sexually abused as children are likely to themselves become sexual abusers. Those who grow up without the care of a mother, having two, or three–or sometimes no–fathers–or maybe a brother-father–or maybe the occasional woman in the house–will themselves have difficulty courting a woman and marrying her. The sins of the fathers are visited on the children.
But I think there’s more than the evil to the child thus entrusted to a homosexual couple (for however long they are a couple). There’s also the bad effects on society, on other people’s families. Friends and fellow students learn about his situation, but the situation is recognized by society as valid. In other words, homosexuality is not being treated like the sin that it is.
I probably have not dealt with the issue clearly. I’m sure that others, e.g. Dr. Dobson, have already spoken much better. Or maybe Bobby on this website.
The trouble with you, Josephine, is your admission of living in sin. If indeed you’re living in sin, then you’re going to hell. Why do you want to go to hell? Repent! Today is the day of salvation.
Jesus said, “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.” Rev. 22:14-15
I didn’t say I was or was not having sex.
It’s an open thread. But insulting MY Catholicism when she doesn’t understand the conversation? That is not okay.
I go to a Roman Catholic church. My church at home was the biggest church there, just like my church at school is the biggest church. Both churches I go to advocate not being judgmental and generally believing the best of people.
Laws are made to make life fair. That’s why black people got the right to vote. That’s women got the right to vote. We aren’t talking about people’s religious preferences. Gay couples in the eyes of the state should be just like heterosexual couples. You may feel they’re judged differently in God’s eyes. We’re not talking about does GOD think it’s okay.
Josephine said, “We’re not talking about does GOD think it’s okay.”
We certainly were talking about whether God thinks it’s okay.
But let’s say we weren’t. Is God irrelevant to human beings and the way they live together? Then you aren’t a Christian. You are a secular humanist like Hal.
Laws are intended to bring justice. Life is not fair.
Jon.. I have probably the craziest view on hell that anyone has ever had. I won’t say it, because I don’t want to get attacked. However, let’s just say I’m not very traditional.
However, while in the eyes of God homosexuality should be a sin, should the government have the option to decide that? I don’t think so. The government isn’t a theocracy. While I understand that you think it’s wrong, and I do respect that.. I don’t agree. I come from a semi-small suburb, but after going to school I’ve met so many different kinds of people. Even if they live in sin, they’re GOOD people and I just can’t stand to see them judged.
I never said God was irrelevant to human beings and the way they live together. But everyone must understand there are different beliefs. There are people who don’t believe in God, and people who believe in a different God than the one Christians believe in. It’s not right to invalidate their beliefs.
I didn’t say I was or was not having sex.
Well you chastised a commenter (Patricia?) earlier for assuming that you were, but if you declare you are living in sin, then you must be having sex. It doesn’t really matter… What does it matter that your church was the biggest? Some priests are afraid to speak the truth because they don’t want to offend people and loose parishioners. Parishioners keep the church building from disrepair and support schools. What priests don’t realize is they are hurting their parishioners in the long run by not teaching the true faith.
Carla,
Laws are intended to bring justice. Life is not fair.
Exactly!
I never said God was irrelevant to human beings and the way they live together. But everyone must understand there are different beliefs. There are people who don’t believe in God, and people who believe in a different God than the one Christians believe in. It’s not right to invalidate their beliefs.
Posted by: Josephine at November 4, 2008 2:56 PM
That’s right, but you don’t have to forfeit your own Catholic beliefs to respect those of others, IMO.
I’m sorry, Janet, but what’s this about respecting the beliefs of others? Do you respect Satan? He is the enemy. The Lord Jesus didn’t respect false beliefs. He didn’t respect false shepherds, either.
Even logically, how can you respect the beliefs of others if you have contrary beliefs? If you really believe your beliefs, then the contrary beliefs are lies. Yes, we might respect the person who holds to the beliefs–as a human being, as a long-time acquaintance with shared experience, as a fellow American (or Canadian in my case), as someone with other beliefs that are admirable, or qualities worth imitating–but the beliefs themselves we despise. And in so far as the person who holding those beliefs represents them, I will hate such a person. “Pro-choicers” should be hated for their “pro-choice” beliefs–and loved as fellow human beings.
As for Josephine, she doesn’t seem to know what she believes. And when she does make an assertion, she’s willing to contradict God on the matter. At least, so I read the situation. If so, she’s her own little god and on her way to hell. But I may well be wrong. I hope so. I’d rather believe the best of people.
Jon,
I should have said we can respect the right of a person to have their own beliefs; my main point was that she shouldn’t toss her beliefs away to pacify others, to appear politically correct, as so many ex-Catholics have done because they don’t want to appear “judgmental” of others.
And in so far as the person who holding those beliefs represents them, I will hate such a person. “Pro-choicers” should be hated for their “pro-choice” beliefs–and loved as fellow human beings.
You can’t hate somebody and love them at the same time.
“I have probably the craziest view on hell that anyone has ever had.”
Is it the apokatastasis? I don’t think you could get much crazier than that, and we’re all familiar with it. No one will jump down your throat.
Just because someone doesn’t worship the God that we believe in, doesn’t matter they don’t believe in a God of the own. Who is one person to say another persons religious beliefs are wrong? I can disagree with there beliefs, but that doesn’t make them wrong. It doesn’t make me wrong. I mean, I can’t believe in a God that would condemn every non-Christian in the world. Especially because many of our beliefs come from family.
And, as for me Jon, I know exactly what I believe. I am a Catholic, but I figure out for myself what I take literally and what I don’t. You can’t make me feel badly, because I feel good about my faith.. even if it’s not traditional.
Janet said, “You can’t hate somebody and love them at the same time.”
Maybe not, but I’m not entirely convinced.
Anyway, I’ve had feelings of hatred toward “pro-choicers” on this site–arising because of the false “pro-choice” beliefs they express–while at other times enjoying with them something that both I and they regard as humorous.
Jon,
I can somewhat sympathize with what you’re saying, but in its truest sense of the word, “hate” means to wish harm or ill upon someone. This is DIRECTLY opposed to the theological virtue of charity, which is to desiring the highest good (heaven) for someone. I suppose it depends what you mean when you say you “hate” pro-choicers. I too, hate what they believe and support, but I do wish that they will repent of their ways and come to know JESUS and end up with him for all eternity. Does that make sense? God love you.
Josephine says:
Sweetie, can I clarify something? Venial sins=all equal. Mortal sins=all equal.
THAT is the funniest thing I’ve read all day! Duh! I know Venial sins are equal as Mortal sins are. The point is that the TWO are not equal to each other.
Jon is correct. You don’t know what you believe. And what does the size of your church have to do with anything? Logic would dictate that more people belong to parishes that are lacks in the true teachings of the Church because most people don’t like to hear they are wrong so they flock to churches where the priests don’t care.
You can’t choose what you take “literally” from Church teachings. The Bible, yes. Church Dogma, no. Sorry.
Perhaps I’ve been uncharitable in some of my comments to you. I read several from you directed toward Patricia or Janet (maybe both) and Elizabeth where you were just a total brat. B R A T! If you want a civil conversation you have to reciprocate. Grow up already.
If you read my comments on THIS thread, I have been disrespectful to NO one except you.
I never COMPARED something like, I don’t know… shoplifting a candy bar to homosexuality. I compared sex out of marriage to homosexual sex! I wish you could read. That would make this so much easier on me.
If you’ll notice the conversation was civilized before you came.
What? Are you a split personality or something? One thread you’re happy-go-lucky and the next your psychotic? You SAID sins weren’t weighted, no where in that post did you say WHAT sins. It would make it much easier on ALL of us if you could just try to stop backing out of what you say, OR say it clearly. (I believe Patricia asked the same thing.)
Again, grow up already.
In the other thread, when people were rude to me, I was rude back. In this thread, I wanted a civilized conversation and then you can and you started being RUDE. You weren’t arguing with my points.. you were arguing with me as a person.
WHY would you take an argument from a different thread and bring it here?
It seems as though I’m not the one that needs to grow up. So if you could PLEASE stop making little quips I’m sure everyone would appreciate that. You made the thread go from real topic to you attacking me.
How was I arguing with you as a person? I was arguing that you cannot say you’re Catholic and not believe or practice anything the Church teaches. That’s just a fact, it has nothing to do with you. If I was arguing the point in a theology class I’d say the same thing. I wouldn’t say “Josephine cannot be Catholic because she doesn’t believe or practice what the Church teaches. It’s okay for everyone else though.”
Gee, egotistical much? Everything is about you isn’t it.
How would YOU know I don’t practice ANYTHING the Catholic church preaches. Stop lying. It’s annoying.
PS. OBAMA FREAKIN’ WON. WOOOOOOOOOOO.
:)
Praise God!!!!
OBAMA WINS!!!!!!!!!!