• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion

jallman said:
Hyperlinks don't take you to textbooks and references. I imagine if you type a portion of the phrase into google, you will find whatever it is you are looking for.
Click to expand...
Oh? So you have the books there with you? Please--a citation? The "rules" used to require that--do they anymore? and an ISBN would be nice too, please.:roll:


I have stated nothing that wasn't entirely true and have not made the first assertion against your personal integrity and reputation. If you find honest discussion about the Church unpalatable unless it is tempered with "if it pleases the Pope" before every statement, perhaps discussion of the Church is not for you and a reexamination of your own faith in the flawed institution is in order.
Click to expand...
Would you like me to quote you?
 
UtahBill said:
intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, at that time, if you were a christian, you were most likely a catholic...
BUT, there were other christians, various christian cults were either absorbed by the main denomination, catholics, or they were persecuted.....
Click to expand...

Like...the Gnostics? Who? Other's claiming things contrary to the teachings of Jesus?
 
Felicity said:
Like...the Gnostics? Who? Other's claiming things contrary to the teachings of Jesus?
Click to expand...

why should the roman catholic church have exclusive ownership of teaching contrary to the teachings of Jesus?
 
Felicity said:
Oh? So you have the books there with you? Please--a citation? The "rules" used to require that--do they anymore? and an ISBN would be nice too, please.:roll:
Click to expand...

So then basically you are trying to make this about whether I am honest or not and not about the quotes from the men. I'm not playing this game with you felicity. If you don't want to acknowledge that these are direct quotes from the men themselves (which is citation enough, by the way), then there is nothing I can do about that. However, I have no intention of sitting here and letting you question my honesty and integrity, especially considering how I have defended you over and over in the past.

Would you like me to quote you?
Click to expand...

Only if you intend to provide an ISBN with the quote. :roll:
 
jallman said:
So then basically you are trying to make this about whether I am honest or not and not about the quotes from the men.
Click to expand...
No--I actually would really like to know the source so that I can read it in context.:doh

I'm not playing this game with you felicity. If you don't want to acknowledge that these are direct quotes from the men themselves (which is citation enough, by the way), then there is nothing I can do about that.
Click to expand...
The lady doth protest too much. Sheesh. I'd like to be able to see what the source is so that I can look at the heading etc... Aquinas often played the role of Devil's advocate and then countered his own "objections." Summa Theologica is written that way.

You're really being ridiculous about this which DOES then make me wonder "why?"

However, I have no intention of sitting here and letting you question my honesty and integrity, especially considering how I have defended you over and over in the past.
Click to expand...
Is the above not a reasonable explanation as to why I'd like the source? Those fellas wrote A LOT of stuff. What texts are you referring to?


Only if you intend to provide an ISBN with the quote. :roll:
Click to expand...
How about a link...
You called my defense of the Church "disgusting."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057954541-post210.html
 
UtahBill said:
why should the roman catholic church have exclusive ownership of teaching contrary to the teachings of Jesus?
Click to expand...

Big f-n circle. I gave you the Jesus quote.:roll: ...and the Jewish meaning of those terms he used denoting authority.:roll:
 
Felicity said:
No, that's okay...you can ignore the fact that I gave you THE Pope saying exactly what you said no Catholic bishop has said....And then continue asserting you lies and harping on supposed Church misogyny and blaming the Church when it appears your dad LIED to them about not being able to reach your mother and obfusacating the facts so he could get an annulment. That's fine.:roll:
Click to expand...

The church is misogynistic.

I've lied about nothing.

Pedophiles are not excommunicated.

My father more than likely did lie to the church but shame on them for their supposedly rigorous annulment process being no more than a shoddy questionnaire and payment of $$$. The document actually lists my mother's address as unknown and states she could not be found for comment. However when she was married in the church the address & phone number listed at the time are THE VERY SAME address & phone number of my grandparents house. They could have called at any time if they had any sincere interest in tracking down my mother or fact finding - which they did not.

You can continue on defending the indefensible. But I have to ask you - why? Men of the cloth are not infallible. The church is NOT infallible. Why run around acting like it is?
 
Felicity said:
No--I actually would really like to know the source so that I can read it in context.:doh
Click to expand...

Fine, whatever.

Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Reinke Heineman
The Churches and Modern Thought, Vivian Phelips
The Confessions of St Augustine, St Augustine translated by Rex Warner




How about a link...
You called my defense of the Church "disgusting."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057954541-post210.html
Click to expand...

Why don't you try diagraming that sentence and then tell me what I said you were defending and then try again at telling me what I said was disgusting?
 
jallman said:
You are absolutely right. And it's my obstinate sin of compassion over dogma that leads me to renounce my Catholicism from here on. I don't want anything to do with an institution that would do this to a family in this much crisis.

Washed my hands and done. Probably should have done this years ago.
Click to expand...

I can't really thank you enough for this. To me it's not about the renouncing part...it's about the compassion part. Well said jallman.
 
Classic demonization of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the Bishop is wrong, perhaps he is not, either way, I don't see how a single mistake made by a single Church official could conjure up such vitriol and outrage. I wish people got this mad every time our government did something distasteful.
 
jallman said:
Fine, whatever.

Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Reinke Heineman
The Churches and Modern Thought, Vivian Phelips
The Confessions of St Augustine, St Augustine translated by Rex Warner
Click to expand...
Do you have a section, or page number so I can get near whereabouts you're referring?






Why don't you try diagraming that sentence and then tell me what I said you were defending and then try again at telling me what I said was disgusting?
Click to expand...

"It's" is an unclear reference. The primary subject of the prior sentence was concerning my defence, so my reading of the sentence is the most likely. Are you saying otherwise?--that somehow "it's" refers to the pronoun "this" --or maybe the proper noun "Rome?" Still, in context, the understood reference goes to the subject of the prior sentence.
 
Ethereal said:
Classic demonization of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the Bishop is wrong, perhaps he is not, either way, I don't see how a single mistake made by a single Church official could conjure up such vitriol and outrage. I wish people got this mad every time our government did something distasteful.
Click to expand...

If this was their first offense you'd have a point. Unfortunately it's a long pattern of untoward behavior that will ultimately lead to their demise.
 
Felicity said:
Do you have a section, or page number so I can get near whereabouts you're referring?
Click to expand...

Eunuchs Page 88
Eunuchs Page 120
Eunuchs Page 51-52
Churches 203
Confessions Books 6 and 9






"It's" is an unclear reference. The primary subject of the prior sentence was concerning my defence, so my reading of the sentence is the most likely. Are you saying otherwise?--that somehow "it's" refers to the pronoun "this" --or maybe the proper noun "Rome?" Still, in context, the understood reference goes to the subject of the prior sentence.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify for you.

This was referring to the situation at hand. I said you were defending "this" (or the particular bishop and excommunication of this woman) as if this meant defending Rome (or the Church itself). "It's disgusting" was referring back to "this" or the situation.

It was not an attack on you but a further attack on this disgusting situation.
 
talloulou said:
If this was their first offense you'd have a point. Unfortunately it's a long pattern of untoward behavior that will ultimately lead to their demise.
Click to expand...

Who's they? And what kind of "untoward behavior" have "they" been engaging in?
 
Ethereal said:
Who's they? And what kind of "untoward behavior" have "they" been engaging in?
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church. Their decision to excommunicate ordained women, this mother, and others while NOT ONCE EVER excommunicating the numerous pedophiles within their ranks. Their continued misogyny. Their continued hypocrisy. The list is really too long to go into.
 
Ethereal said:
Classic demonization of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the Bishop is wrong, perhaps he is not, either way, I don't see how a single mistake made by a single Church official could conjure up such vitriol and outrage. I wish people got this mad every time our government did something distasteful.
Click to expand...

The difference here, the govt isn't trying to use God as an excuse for their shortcomings....
and your authority quote needs a LOT of stretching to come up with what you think it says...could that be one of those spandex scriptures?
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Classic demonization of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the Bishop is wrong, perhaps he is not, either way, I don't see how a single mistake made by a single Church official could conjure up such vitriol and outrage. I wish people got this mad every time our government did something distasteful.
Click to expand...

single mistake, single official? surely you jest. ever read any history? the church has a very long history of such actions...
 
talloulou said:
The Catholic Church. Their decision to excommunicate ordained women, this mother,
Click to expand...
It's not a decision--it's doctrine.

and others while NOT ONCE EVER excommunicating the numerous pedophiles within their ranks.
Click to expand...
For the damnable 666th time--Mortal sin excommunicates. Hardly anyone get the "official" boot, and the bishop even clarified the latae sententiae "sort" that this is--it's been on the books so to speak, for eons.
Their continued misogyny. Their continued hypocrisy. The list is really too long to go into.
Click to expand...
So in other words, YOUR perception of how things are is YOUR truth regardless of the objective facts. :roll:
 
The difference here, the govt isn't trying to use God as an excuse for their shortcomings....
Click to expand...

And this matters because...?

and your authority quote needs a LOT of stretching to come up with what you think it says...could that be one of those spandex scriptures?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about.

single mistake, single official? surely you jest. ever read any history? the church has a very long history of such actions...
Click to expand...

Could you direct me to the post in which I implied this was the only mistake committed by the Catholic Church in history. Anyway...

Perhaps I'd be inclined to take criticisms of the Catholic Church more seriously if its incessant detractors didn't constantly distort things and blow them wildly out of proportion. Almost all of the anti-Catholic threads I've seen started on DP were either willfully ignorant of the facts or brazenly dismissive of them. Objectivity towards the Catholic Church is a rare commodity, indeed. And it's not like I'm a Catholic either, I just don't allow my emotion to cloud my judgment.

The only person I've been affording an objective viewpoint is Jallman. He obviously has a legitimate grievance and isn't motivated by a reflexive hatred of the Catholic Church. I'll listen to him, and I hope he and Felicity are able to re-establish a constructive dialogue, although, I'm not sure how feasible that is with the usual suspects waiting in the wing.
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
It's not a decision--it's doctrine.

For the damnable 666th time--Mortal sin excommunicates. Hardly anyone get the "official" boot, and the bishop even clarified the latae sententiae "sort" that this is--it's been on the books so to speak, for eons.
So in other words, YOUR perception of how things are is YOUR truth regardless of the objective facts. :roll:
Click to expand...

Anyone who can look at the Catholic Church both from a historical and a here and now perspective and declare that they don't see misogyny and hypocrisy is blind as a bat.
 
Felicity said:
Mom apparently "likes 'em young" too!
Click to expand...

Ummmm that's pretty stupid. a 30 year old woman dating a 23 year old guy is not the same as a 23 year old guy raping a 9 year old girl. Please stop? This is embarrassing.

That did not happen.
Click to expand...

How welcome do you think this little girl is in her church now after an abortion? ;) My comment stands.

People really need to know what occurred prior to forming an opinion.:roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah. You're right. We should instead of concocting ridiculous theories and trying to justify the actions of a clergyman that thinks it's perfectly fine to make people social pariah's on national television. I wonder whether you really have the best interests of this 9 year old in mind or protecting the dogma of a religion. Tradition over people I guess.
 
I've long said that the Catholic Church has misogynistic tendencies. I imagine Brazilian culture does too. You have to have a penis to be the Pope.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Last time I checked, the appropriate penalty for sin in the Catholic Church was confession and penance.
Click to expand...

This is what I will never undersand about religious 'fundamentalism' (not limited to, but in the case of the 3 major monotheistic religions, as I am more familiar with the fundamentals of these religions than others and I do not wish to speak beyond by bounds).

It ignores so many of the fundamentals of the religions that they mroe acurately reflect perverted cults than the term "fundamentalism".
 
jallman said:
Excuse me? Since when did Catholics become nonchristians? You do realize that we are the seat of Christianity...the origin.

The rest of you protestant dogs split off from us so don't you dare tell us we are not Christians. That was the most ignorant thing I think I have EVER heard on this forum.
Click to expand...





And there I was wondering why there were "troubles" brewing in Northern Ireland again! :lol:
 
scourge99 said:
I can only guess that practicing is held at different level of contempt than preaching.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it does in the eyes of the church but, if you look at what Pelosi and her ilk do do, they are responsible for far more abortions than one abortionee. I'd say in the days of ye old Catholic Church, it'd be off with her head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom