If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Americans are right to be wary of Pope Francis. His religious philosophy is a result of KGB influence in Latin America   (wnd.com) divider line 378
    More: Scary, Pope Francis, Latin American, KGB, Americans, KGB influence, Pope Pius XII, trickle-down economics, economic power  
•       •       •

2120 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2013 at 1:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



378 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-04 05:18:59 PM  

parasol: Forgive my being curt but I was dismayed that you seem unfamiliar with the growing popularity of the prosperity gospel as a justification to marginalize the poor


I am, sadly, familiar. I pass by Osteen's 'Oasis of Love' every day. However, I do not consider them to be a valid denomination of Christianity, but rather a secular movement robed in scriptural snippets. They lack a coherent doctrine, theology, or dogma. They are 'Christian' in exactly the same way that the Klu Klux Klan is 'Christian', or North Korea is 'democratic'. (In my opinion, obviously). My original comment was clarifying that no official Christian denomination holds with this 'Prosperity Doctrine' nonsense, but I recognize that this was not clear, because many mistakenly  assumed that I was arguing that NO ONE believed this.

By now, my posts should be clear that I have nothing but contempt for 'prosperity doctrinists'. More to the point, I consider them to be as good an example of "False Prophets" as we are likely to see in the world today. I forced myself to sit through three of Osteen's 'sermons' because I believe I should not jump to conclusions, and that I should give it a fair shake. It's not Christianity, it is a corruption of Christianity. It's not even really Christian-ISH. It's Tony Robbins feel-goodism with scriptural excerpts.
 
2013-12-04 05:20:01 PM  

jso2897: But nobody gets a blank check from me - not even Christians. Sorry


Awesome. I did not know that Christians had asked you for one.
 
2013-12-04 05:21:53 PM  

tinderfitles: while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".


Protestant. That word is Protestant.


/yes, yes, Eastern Orthodox, but for most practical purposes, Protestant is the word for "Not Catholic".
 
2013-12-04 05:23:25 PM  

tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".


You have never heard the term "Protestant"?
 
2013-12-04 05:27:18 PM  
The KGB must have invented a time machine too, and must have been secretly mind-controlling Jesus when he said all that stuff about helping the poor and sick.
 
2013-12-04 05:32:05 PM  

DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?


Not all non Roman Catholic Christians are Protestsant. Eastern Orthodox being the largest example
 
2013-12-04 05:38:04 PM  

skullkrusher: DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?

Not all non Roman Catholic Christians are Protestsant. Eastern Orthodox being the largest example


Most Catholics I know consider non Catholic Christians as Protestants, even if the Eastern Orthodox split early and are not "Protestants".  Not saying they're right, just how they use it

Mormons aren't considered Protestant though, they're Mormons.
 
2013-12-04 05:41:20 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jso2897: But nobody gets a blank check from me - not even Christians. Sorry

Awesome. I did not know that Christians had asked you for one.


You did, when you suggested that I should accept their doctrines as "valid", sight unseen.
Are you now arguing with your own self?
Are you forgetting how we got here? You said that we all should accept the views of fundamentalist Christians as being as valid as our own, even if we disagree with them.
 I responded that I would not extend that carte balnche to fundamentalists, Nazis, child molesters or anyone else. In short, that I regard someone's views as being valid or invalid based upon what those views actually are, and nothing else.
And again - i don't give anybody that blank check. Why would I?
 
2013-12-04 05:41:22 PM  

DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?


You ever try calling a group of Southern Baptist protestants? I know its the technical term, but regionally in the south people get extremely pissy if you don't refer to their denominations correctly even if it is the "Non-Unified first baptist church of the holy word of god and jesus christ armed with the sword of Joshua, Number one gator hater council of 1925". So I just side step the issue with using the generality that all people accept, even though it is technically incorrect when referring to specifics. It allows a discussion to take place without everyone getting angry because you called the House of Go Dawgs Sick 'em protestant. 

Talking religion in the south is like walking on eggshells, so generally I do what I can to avoid any agitation before the conversation even begins. Because that will come later when you start discussing sacraments.
 
2013-12-04 05:41:31 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: tinderfitles: while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

Protestant. That word is Protestant.


/yes, yes, Eastern Orthodox, but for most practical purposes, Protestant is the word for "Not Catholic".


EO is the 2nd largest Christian sect after RC
 
2013-12-04 05:46:56 PM  

meat0918: skullkrusher: DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?

Not all non Roman Catholic Christians are Protestsant. Eastern Orthodox being the largest example

Most Catholics I know consider non Catholic Christians as Protestants, even if the Eastern Orthodox split early and are not "Protestants".  Not saying they're right, just how they use it

Mormons aren't considered Protestant though, they're Mormons.


In the US that's probably a safe simplification but not globally. Plus there are non-Roman Catholic Catholic sects in communion with the Bishop of Rome (old Frannie boy) as well as others which call themselves Catholic but aren't like the Church of Ireland
 
2013-12-04 05:48:54 PM  

skullkrusher: DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?

Not all non Roman Catholic Christians are Protestsant. Eastern Orthodox being the largest example


Eastern Orthodox considers Catholics protestants, but Eastern Orthodox is not a big mover and shaker in the United States. Certainly, they certainly do not fall under the umbrella of the conservative Christian groups that the American Catholic church seemed to be like before the current pope, which was how the OP was using the term. Those groups are correctly described as Protestant (although the more liberal Protestants like to call themselves Mainline Protestants). I would even argue that the group of people that the OP was referring to as Christians were actually Conservative Fundamentalists.
 
2013-12-04 05:55:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: tinderfitles: while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

Protestant. That word is Protestant.


/yes, yes, Eastern Orthodox, but for most practical purposes, Protestant is the word for "Not Catholic".


You beat me to it by one post. And, yes, Eastern churches are different. Somehow, I doubt he was talking about Eastern Orthodox or the Coptics.
 
2013-12-04 05:56:44 PM  

DeaH: skullkrusher: DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?

Not all non Roman Catholic Christians are Protestsant. Eastern Orthodox being the largest example

Eastern Orthodox considers Catholics protestants, but Eastern Orthodox is not a big mover and shaker in the United States. Certainly, they certainly do not fall under the umbrella of the conservative Christian groups that the American Catholic church seemed to be like before the current pope, which was how the OP was using the term. Those groups are correctly described as Protestant (although the more liberal Protestants like to call themselves Mainline Protestants). I would even argue that the group of people that the OP was referring to as Christians were actually Conservative Fundamentalists.


EO do not consider Roman Catholics to be Protestant. The Protestant sects came as a result of the Reformation when they broke from the RC Church.

The Catholic Church has long been a bunch of socialists in dresses. There's almost a century of papal writings that would make the leftiest lefty blush. The change the current Pope has brought is to focus less on issues like abortion and gay marriage (two things he still opposes, btw) and instead focus on more important things like poverty, disease and the elderly. It's a shift in focus, not teaching.
 
2013-12-04 06:00:43 PM  

ikanreed: BojanglesPaladin: What I *CAN* say is that contrary to a few Farker's comments upstream, we can say that government *IS* already in the charity and poverty business, and that the problem has not been 'fixed' by government.

It sure as hell has lessened the social harm, and your ignorance of that is a testament to how much improved poverty is in the U.S. today because of it.

You're like the people who don't get vaccines for their children because they've never seen the pre-vaccine world.


This also fails to acknowledge that one of our two major political parties has been utterly committed to deliberately sabotaging the government's efforts for over four decades in an attempt to prove an ideological point and to foster hatred of the government itself.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan

Who sabotages private charity? People are free to give as much as they want, however they want. And when they do, people applaud and say "attaboy! Way to go!"

In fact, if private charity were a remotely successful solution, we wouldn't even be having the conversation. The problem wouldn't exist in any meaningful way for government to address.

Obviously, it's not a solvable problem. It's something of a game of Whac-a-mole. But we could sure as shiat be doing a hell of a lot better on it.
 
2013-12-04 06:02:46 PM  

tinderfitles: DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?

You ever try calling a group of Southern Baptist protestants? I know its the technical term, but regionally in the south people get extremely pissy if you don't refer to their denominations correctly even if it is the "Non-Unified first baptist church of the holy word of god and jesus christ armed with the sword of Joshua, Number one gator hater council of 1925". So I just side step the issue with using the generality that all people accept, even though it is technically incorrect when referring to specifics. It allows a discussion to take place without everyone getting angry because you called the House of Go Dawgs Sick 'em protestant. 

Talking religion in the south is like walking on eggshells, so generally I do what I can to avoid any agitation before the conversation even begins. Because that will come later when you start discussing sacraments.


If Baptists don't like being called Protestants, then they must hate being lumped in with other Christians, too, eh? It is extremely offensive to refer to Catholics as something other than Christian - and it is meant to be offensive. Many Baptists think the Catholic Church is the Devil's agent on Earth. "Papistry" is seen as something negative and anti-Christian. If you want to avoid offending the Baptists, perhaps you could say Protestants and Baptists if they need some sort of call out? You will, however, insult every Catholic (and there are a lot of them) and most Protestants if you refer to Catholics as something other than Christian.
 
2013-12-04 06:03:17 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea, and I have no idea how you think Joel Osteen trumps the Vatican for instance, but I don't see any point fighting about it.

But out of curiosity, what do you think the new Pope is DOING?




Is this copy-pasta that you vomit up anytime someone points out that if good Christians take offense to being lumped in with loud-mouth assholes Christians, then maybe they should denounce said loud-mouth asshole Christians with the same fervor with which they whine about being lumped in with them?

Yes, the new pope is finally doing this, and I hope that mentality takes hold here in the US as well, where we have some of the loudest-mouth asshole Christians on the planet.
 
2013-12-04 06:06:25 PM  
...and of course, one of the best ways we could be "doing a hell of a lot better on it" is by not allowing business and the wealthy to run buck-farking-wild pressing their advantage and creating so many people who need "charity" to begin with.
 
2013-12-04 06:10:58 PM  

skullkrusher: DeaH: skullkrusher: DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?

Not all non Roman Catholic Christians are Protestsant. Eastern Orthodox being the largest example

Eastern Orthodox considers Catholics protestants, but Eastern Orthodox is not a big mover and shaker in the United States. Certainly, they certainly do not fall under the umbrella of the conservative Christian groups that the American Catholic church seemed to be like before the current pope, which was how the OP was using the term. Those groups are correctly described as Protestant (although the more liberal Protestants like to call themselves Mainline Protestants). I would even argue that the group of people that the OP was referring to as Christians were actually Conservative Fundamentalists.

EO do not consider Roman Catholics to be Protestant. The Protestant sects came as a result of the Reformation when they broke from the RC Church.

The Catholic Church has long been a bunch of socialists in dresses. There's almost a century of papal writings that would make the leftiest lefty blush. The change the current Pope has brought is to focus less on issues like abortion and gay marriage (two things he still opposes, btw) and instead focus on more important things like poverty, disease and the elderly. It's a shift in focus, not teaching.


Actually, I have a number of EO friends. It's a running gag that with them that the first protestants were the Catholics. It's part of the idea that Christianity began in the East and the Romans broke away. The actual, official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Orthodox Catholic Church." Now, do they consider them protestants the way the term is used in the the West? No. They are not stupid.

Protestant is, however, the correct term for a person who was talking about conservative, evangelical Protestant churches. It is always incorrect to say Catholics compared to Christians.

/And I am deeply disappointed you did not mention Copts.
 
2013-12-04 06:16:59 PM  

guestguy: Is this copy-pasta that you vomit up anytime someone points out that if good Christians take offense to being lumped in with loud-mouth assholes Christians, then maybe they should denounce said loud-mouth asshole Christians...


Two people in this thread made the exact same dumb-ass argument, so I saved myself some typing, yes. It's a dumb-ass argument, so the less time spent on it the better.

DeaH: Somehow, I doubt he was talking about Eastern Orthodox or the Coptics.


THANK YOU! I couldn't think of the other big one. Coptics. I knew that, just couldn't shake it out of my brain. Now I can sleep tonight.
 
2013-12-04 06:17:15 PM  

Chummer45: The KGB must have invented a time machine too, and must have been secretly mind-controlling Jesus when he said all that stuff about helping the poor and sick.


That was Obama's magical time machine piloted by Pope Francis this time, who forced Supply Side Jesus to become socialist with funding from the Holy See and George Soros. Michelle Obama was also the Virgin Mary after being the Doctor's companion on the Tardis, which is why so many leftist socialist marxist European countries have "Black Madonnas" in this timeline.

Study it out.
 
2013-12-04 06:20:04 PM  

Weaver95: Rev. Skarekroe: They're actually scared of this guy, aren't they?

Yes, very much so. Pope Francis is someone the evangelicals are terrified of having to confront.


Because he worships Jesus the way he is depicted in the bible instead of the pro-capitalism, greedy, gun-toting, gay-bashing Jesus that the Evangelicals made up.  If somebody doesn't stop this Pope, Catholics are going to become downright reasonable, level headed.
 
2013-12-04 06:20:24 PM  

tinderfitles: DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?

You ever try calling a group of Southern Baptist protestants? I know its the technical term, but regionally in the south people get extremely pissy if you don't refer to their denominations correctly even if it is the "Non-Unified first baptist church of the holy word of god and jesus christ armed with the sword of Joshua, Number one gator hater council of 1925". So I just side step the issue with using the generality that all people accept, even though it is technically incorrect when referring to specifics. It allows a discussion to take place without everyone getting angry because you called the House of Go Dawgs Sick 'em protestant. 

Talking religion in the south is like walking on eggshells, so generally I do what I can to avoid any agitation before the conversation even begins. Because that will come later when you start discussing sacraments.


I could swear you live a few houses down from me. With, of course, three churches between us.
 
2013-12-04 06:25:13 PM  

ikanreed: ikanreed: Did everyone else see their might-as-well-be-KKK race-baiting "deal of the day" book on the sidebar?

Holy shiat.  How can you get more racist than "White girl bleed a lot"?

With a subtitle transcribing loosely as "how black people are going to kill a bunch of white people any day now."  But don't you dare call them racist.

Oh, and of course it turns out WND is publishing that book themselves.  Damned racists.


Could you post it? I don't want to give Weird Nuts Daily another hit.
/Wait, I thought that commies hated religion?
 
2013-12-04 06:30:20 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Mikey1969: Even the poorest of the poor in the United States live far better than the rest of the world because capitalism works.


Really? The "poorest of the poor live far better than the entire "rest of the world"? So the US has a median income of $51,000, so let's say the poor live off a third of that. NOBODY on the planet makes MORE than $17,000 a year?

Hell that's the farthest I've gotten to this point, came up for air and a pair of hip waders...

I think he means poor Americans are better off than poor people anywhere else. Which is patently absurd and also ignores the fact that that poverty is purely manufactured, unnecessary and only exists at all to enrich the already insanely wealthy.


Poor people in America DO, in fact, MOSTLY live better than the poor anywhere else; when you consider that the standard for "poverty" according to whichever UN agency does that kind of calculating bases it on an income of "a dollar a day [US]). So most poor in America live in relative comfort compared to, say, shantytown dwellers in Mumbai or favela residents in Rio, who are scraping by on a per capita annual income of $300 a year in tin shacks with dirt floors.

That said, it's not like dirt-floored tin-roofed shacks for all is exactly a target we should be aiming for; and it's not because "capitalism works" either; it's because DEMOCRACY works. (Or really, it's because large-coalitiion politics works, but that's a minor distinction)
 
2013-12-04 06:30:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: guestguy: Is this copy-pasta that you vomit up anytime someone points out that if good Christians take offense to being lumped in with loud-mouth assholes Christians, then maybe they should denounce said loud-mouth asshole Christians...

Two people in this thread made the exact same dumb-ass argument, so I saved myself some typing, yes. It's a dumb-ass argument, so the less time spent on it the better.



Yes...

"If you're angry that mean-spirited jackholes are taking control of your religion's public image, you should probably tell THEM to get bent instead of getting angry with the people who react to them."

...such a stupid argument.

as evidenced by the incredibly positive response the new Pope has received by doing exactly that.

Maybe all those good AMERICAN Christians should have farking done it years ago.
 
2013-12-04 06:32:07 PM  

FarkedOver: simplicimus: FarkedOver: SovietCanuckistan: Communism does not equal Socialism. Socialism does not equal Communism

Sincerely,

Progressive Northern Countries Around the Globe with Awesome Socialized Governments and Higher Living Standards

Mixed economies do not equal socialism.

The goal of socialism is communism.

Sincerely,

A Socialist

Odd goal there, communism. A system that has demonstrably failed wherever attempted.

Socialism has been attempted.  Communism has not.


You're trying to sell us on a cross-country all-summer road trip, when everyone's seen your car engine repeatedly catch fire when it's driven more than a few blocks. Yeah, that'd be a sweet trip... too bad it'll never actually happen.
 
2013-12-04 06:36:49 PM  

Gyrfalcon: A Dark Evil Omen: Mikey1969: Even the poorest of the poor in the United States live far better than the rest of the world because capitalism works.


Really? The "poorest of the poor live far better than the entire "rest of the world"? So the US has a median income of $51,000, so let's say the poor live off a third of that. NOBODY on the planet makes MORE than $17,000 a year?

Hell that's the farthest I've gotten to this point, came up for air and a pair of hip waders...

I think he means poor Americans are better off than poor people anywhere else. Which is patently absurd and also ignores the fact that that poverty is purely manufactured, unnecessary and only exists at all to enrich the already insanely wealthy.

Poor people in America DO, in fact, MOSTLY live better than the poor anywhere else; when you consider that the standard for "poverty" according to whichever UN agency does that kind of calculating bases it on an income of "a dollar a day [US]). So most poor in America live in relative comfort compared to, say, shantytown dwellers in Mumbai or favela residents in Rio, who are scraping by on a per capita annual income of $300 a year in tin shacks with dirt floors.

That said, it's not like dirt-floored tin-roofed shacks for all is exactly a target we should be aiming for; and it's not because "capitalism works" either; it's because DEMOCRACY works. (Or really, it's because large-coalitiion politics works, but that's a minor distinction)



So, what you're really saying is... poor people in America live better than poor "anywhere else" as long as we don't include other first world nations?

But hey, compared to banana republics, barren deserts, and third-world shiatholes, we're the tops!
 
2013-12-04 06:41:15 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: poverty is purely manufactured, unnecessary and only exists at all to enrich the already insanely wealthy.


Poverty is the default human condition. It wasn't some scheme dreamed up by the bourgeoisie.
 
2013-12-04 06:42:38 PM  

Gyrfalcon: That said, it's not like dirt-floored tin-roofed shacks for all is exactly a target we should be aiming for; and it's not because "capitalism works" either; it's because DEMOCRACY works. (Or really, it's because large-coalitiion politics works, but that's a minor distinction)


So people can just vote themselves wealthy?
 
2013-12-04 06:43:38 PM  

technicolor-misfit: ...such a stupid argument.as evidenced by the incredibly positive response the new Pope has received by doing exactly that.


Perhaps you have noticed that what the Pope is NOT doing is telling other Christian denominations that they are 'doing it wrong'?

So. Again. I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea...
 
2013-12-04 06:44:18 PM  

Mikey1969: According to Lt. Gen. Ion Pacepa, the Soviet communist-led idea of "social justice" was infiltrated successfully by the KGB into Latin America's Catholic Church as a religious movement called "liberation theology." The goal was to "incite Latin America's poor to rebel against the 'institutionalized violence of poverty' generated by the United States." (Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, "Disinformation," WND Books, 2013)

Look, the reference they cite is one of their OWN books...


Which is named Disinformation, unironically.
 
2013-12-04 06:45:16 PM  

DeaH: skullkrusher: DeaH: skullkrusher: DeaH: tinderfitles: When I typed "Catholics" I generally refer to Roman Catholics, while "Christian" I use as a general term for everything else because there is no real blanket term for the rest of denominations that isn't "Not Roman Catholic".

You have never heard the term "Protestant"?

Not all non Roman Catholic Christians are Protestsant. Eastern Orthodox being the largest example

Eastern Orthodox considers Catholics protestants, but Eastern Orthodox is not a big mover and shaker in the United States. Certainly, they certainly do not fall under the umbrella of the conservative Christian groups that the American Catholic church seemed to be like before the current pope, which was how the OP was using the term. Those groups are correctly described as Protestant (although the more liberal Protestants like to call themselves Mainline Protestants). I would even argue that the group of people that the OP was referring to as Christians were actually Conservative Fundamentalists.

EO do not consider Roman Catholics to be Protestant. The Protestant sects came as a result of the Reformation when they broke from the RC Church.

The Catholic Church has long been a bunch of socialists in dresses. There's almost a century of papal writings that would make the leftiest lefty blush. The change the current Pope has brought is to focus less on issues like abortion and gay marriage (two things he still opposes, btw) and instead focus on more important things like poverty, disease and the elderly. It's a shift in focus, not teaching.

Actually, I have a number of EO friends. It's a running gag that with them that the first protestants were the Catholics. It's part of the idea that Christianity began in the East and the Romans broke away. The actual, official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Orthodox Catholic Church." Now, do they consider them protestants the way the term is used in the the West? No. They are not stupid.

Protestant is, however, the correct term for a person who was talking about conservative, evangelical Protestant churches. It is always incorrect to say Catholics compared to Christians.

/And I am deeply disappointed you did not mention Copts.


I married a Protestant who went to Vanderbilt. She still tells stories about her freshman year roommate who was an evangelical. No thanks. I went to a Catholic College in MA. The only Protestants we had were of the blue blood variety. Much less creepy
 
2013-12-04 06:47:39 PM  

skullkrusher: The only Protestants we had were of the blue blood variety.


We call those Episcopalians.
 
2013-12-04 06:52:30 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: poverty is purely manufactured, unnecessary and only exists at all to enrich the already insanely wealthy.

Poverty is the default human condition. It wasn't some scheme dreamed up by the bourgeoisie.


Oh no. If it weren't for capitalism, we'd all still be in the Garden of Eden. See, the images you see of indigenous people in communal societies living in mud huts are Photoshops perpetrated by your capitalist overlords. Study it out.
 
2013-12-04 06:53:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: skullkrusher: The only Protestants we had were of the blue blood variety.

We call those Episcopalians.


Catholic Lite.
 
2013-12-04 06:58:58 PM  

skullkrusher: jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: poverty is purely manufactured, unnecessary and only exists at all to enrich the already insanely wealthy.

Poverty is the default human condition. It wasn't some scheme dreamed up by the bourgeoisie.

Oh no. If it weren't for capitalism, we'd all still be in the Garden of Eden. See, the images you see of indigenous people in communal societies living in mud huts are Photoshops perpetrated by your capitalist overlords. Study it out.


I mostly like capitalism.  It's the unrestrained bits that tend to screw over those without the means to mitigate the effects.

Those unrestrained bits and effects can be addressed without going full commie, or even part commie.
 
2013-12-04 06:59:24 PM  

dickfreckle: Serious Black: I love how people are all but calling Francis a heretic and blasphemer.

To quote my favorite The The song, "If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today, he'd be gunned down cold by the CN.IR.A."


/FT4YFTTS
 
2013-12-04 07:03:49 PM  

meat0918: skullkrusher: jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: poverty is purely manufactured, unnecessary and only exists at all to enrich the already insanely wealthy.

Poverty is the default human condition. It wasn't some scheme dreamed up by the bourgeoisie.

Oh no. If it weren't for capitalism, we'd all still be in the Garden of Eden. See, the images you see of indigenous people in communal societies living in mud huts are Photoshops perpetrated by your capitalist overlords. Study it out.

I mostly like capitalism.  It's the unrestrained bits that tend to screw over those without the means to mitigate the effects.

Those unrestrained bits and effects can be addressed without going full commie, or even part commie.


Oh no, we gotta tear it all down. Guy on the Internet said so
 
2013-12-04 07:04:12 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: technicolor-misfit: ...such a stupid argument.as evidenced by the incredibly positive response the new Pope has received by doing exactly that.

Perhaps you have noticed that what the Pope is NOT doing is telling other Christian denominations that they are 'doing it wrong'?

So. Again. I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea...



OH MY GOD, YOU JUST SQUELCHED ME!!!!


Openly dIsagreeing with someone is not "squelching" them. You are in no way suppressing or limiting their ability to express themselves or to practice their religion in any way they choose.

When someone very publicly says "Christianity = X," it is not bad form to call bullshiat if you disagree. And if you are such a spineless little shrinking violet that you can't do that, then shut the fark up and don't SQUELCH other people when they say "Hmm, I guess Christianity really does = X."

And you have perfectly expressed the problem... that weak-willed, cowardly-ass, go along to get-along, conformist allegiance to the "club" of Christianity that supercedes devotion to the principles. It's like "good" cops whose loyalty to fellow cops supercedes their obligation to uphold the law.

And yes, the pope farking well did call people out. He ran sword directly through the heart of "Christian Conservatism":

"Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.  Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."


You can be as disingenuous and deliberately obtuse as you want, but nobody's buying it.

The "good" American Christians should have been saying that shiat a very long time ago.
 
2013-12-04 07:11:49 PM  
I would pay good money, to the Catholic Church, to see Pope Francis go all "Shoes of the Fisherman" and to watch the tidal wave of exploding heads to follow.
 
2013-12-04 07:12:54 PM  

skullkrusher: We call those Episcopalians.
Catholic Lite.


All the sacraments, half the guilt :)
 
2013-12-04 07:27:10 PM  

technicolor-misfit: that weak-willed, cowardly-ass, go along to get-along, conformist allegiance to the "club" of Christianity that supercedes devotion to the principles.


Thank you for sharing your perspective on Christians broadly. Very informative. Quite a reasoned and calm, completely unbiased assessment you got there. I will not argue that you hold that view.

technicolor-misfit: It's like "good" cops whose loyalty to fellow cops supercedes their obligation to uphold the law.


So now, Christians are supposed to "police" other Christians? Again, I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea...

I don't know if you are aware, but we generally frown on one sect of Christianity declaring themselves to be the 'one true' version and then trying to stop other sects from doing their own thing. Perhaps you have read some materials related to sects of Christianity and the early Americans, for instance? I think if you put your mind to it, you can figure out why, especially in America, most Christians don't think they should be trying to "shut down" versions of Christianity they disagree with.

I may personally think Osteen and the prosperity doctrine thing is complete bullshiat and wrong, wrong, wrong. I have said so repeatedly. As have others here. As have a whole LOT of people in this country all the time. I'm not sure what it is you are looking for, exactly.

technicolor-misfit: He ran sword directly through the heart of "Christian Conservatism"


I'm not really sure what you are talking about, but I am willing to accept that you believe that he did something (not sure what 'ran sword through the heart' means exactly) to what you believe "Christian Conservatism" is.

technicolor-misfit: You can be as disingenuous and deliberately obtuse as you want, but nobody's buying it.


Whew! That's a relief! I'm not selling it, and I'm not about to warranty it.

technicolor-misfit: Openly dIsagreeing with someone is not "squelching" them.


Only you said that. Since it's not clear what, exactly, you expect "someone" to do, I can't provide you any comment on it.

Out of curiosity, Are you also attacking Muslims for failing to 'adequately' denounce Wahhabism ? I mean, sure a lot of Muslims have gone on record as saying that the beliefs of wahhabism are not 'true' Islam, but clearly that alone is not enough. What exactly SHOUDL they be doing to appease technicolor-misfit?
 
2013-12-04 07:29:22 PM  
Reads article:  Trickle Down Economics

Checks year:  2013


i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-12-04 07:54:33 PM  
You almost got me to click a WND link.  No.  Actually, heck no.

But an Argentine Jesuit advocating "liberation theology"?  Hmmm...  Maybe you should stop frackin' acting like you want a frackin' corrupt military junta in charge, and this won't be a frackin' threat.
 
2013-12-04 07:55:01 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-04 08:04:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: So now, Christians are supposed to "police" other Christians? Again, I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea...

I don't know if you are aware, but we generally frown on one sect of Christianity declaring themselves to be the 'one true' version and then trying to stop other sects from doing their own thing. Perhaps you have read some materials related to sects of Christianity and the early Americans, for instance? I think if you put your mind to it, you can figure out why, especially in America, most Christians don't think they should be trying to "shut down" versions of Christianity they disagree with....



Blah, blah, blah... Straw me, straw men, straw men... as far as the eye can see!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-04 08:07:05 PM  

jigger: Gyrfalcon: That said, it's not like dirt-floored tin-roofed shacks for all is exactly a target we should be aiming for; and it's not because "capitalism works" either; it's because DEMOCRACY works. (Or really, it's because large-coalitiion politics works, but that's a minor distinction)

So people can just vote themselves wealthy?


Kind of. There's a good book that explains why the masses are better off in nations with large-coalition politics, called "The Dictator's Handbook: Why bad behavior is almost always good politics". What it comes down to is that there's really not much distinction between leadership styles--leaders in any political system are in it for the power, getting power and keeping power. How they behave once they're there depends on how many people they have to keep happy to stay there.

In what are called "democracies"--what the authors call large-coalition politics--those in power have to keep a very large number of essential followers happy in order to stay in power, and a large number of "interchangeables" or what might be termed voters also have to be kept happy. This leads to things like social programs and public works projects.

In "autocracies"--what the authors call small-coalition politics--those in power have only a small group of essential followers to placate, and few or no "interchangeables" i.e. voters. Thus once the essentials are paid off, the leaders can do whatever they like with the money left over, which may or may not be in the interests of the people.

In general, large-coalition leaders have to give people the freedom to get and keep money, so even their poor people have some; while small-coalition leaders do not. There are a few exceptions--Singapore is about the only one I know of--but it plays out around the world. The poorest nations are without exception the ones with the least freedom overall, and the ones with the most freedom are the ones with the highest standards of living even for the impoverished classes.
 
2013-12-04 08:14:01 PM  

technicolor-misfit: straw men, straw men


Oh, that is just so sad. You could have kept some dignity and just walked away.

/Seriously, you are the one calling for Christians to police each other. I TOLD you it was a dumb position to take, don't get all mad at me just because you finally realized it.
 
2013-12-04 08:27:11 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: technicolor-misfit: straw men, straw men

Oh, that is just so sad. You could have kept some dignity and just walked away.

/Seriously, you are the one calling for Christians to police each other. I TOLD you it was a dumb position to take, don't get all mad at me just because you finally realized it.


So Christians shouldn't be held to the same standards Conservatives hold Muslims to when it comes to the moderates decrying the extremists?
 
Displayed 50 of 378 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report