OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[daesthai]

I'm not very adept at using the quote system here, so please be patient, but I've gotta step in on the Catholic stuff here. Without trying to pour gas on the fire, let me just point out a couple of misplaced arguments...

There is a sense in these postings that it is expected that Catholics are required to blindly follow and believe in exactly what the Holy See (ie - the Pope and Vatican City) says. I have to take exception to that. Yes, there is an expectation to follow scripture, tradition, and canon law. My exception is in the thought that it is happening "blindly". The church strongly encourages study to promote understading the "why's" and "how's" of the belief system. It's not the fault of the church if people jump on or off the bandwagon with no knowledge of why they're doing something.

But going on with the topic of following the Popes commands and teachings - a person either agrees with and follows the Catholic faith or they don't. No one is being FORCED to do anything. But if a person claims to be Catholic, they agree to follow its precepts. And there is concern in the Catholic church currently regarding people taking a "pick and choose" mentality toward which teachings they agree to follow and which they don't.

True - Mankind has judgement and freewill (speaking on the whole, not politically) and not everyone agrees with everything the Pope says. But if a person does not follow the teachings of canon law and the Catholic faith, then, by the church's standards, that person is not living a Catholic life.

Before someone gets offended, I'm NOT making an arguement for whether or not Catholicism is "correct", I'm NOT saying non-Catholics are bad people, and I'm NOT equating morality with Catholicism. There are very good and moral people who disagree with certain Catholic teachings. But my point is that by claiming to be a Catholic, a person is saying that he follows Catholic teachings and holds Catholic values.

Sure, it's possible to disagree with the Holy See - that's how Protestantism and it's various denominations came about. Martin Luther was a Catholic who disagreed with some of the views so he created his own church to meet his value needs. John Calvin and Joseph Smith did the same thing. They didn't agree with what they were being taught, so they broke away on their own. The point being - if someone disagrees with the Catholic church, why would they WANT to associate themselves with it and continue to name themselves as Catholic? It's not possible to HONESTLY say "I'm a Catholic....except for the parts about abortion, sex, and marriage".

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

[ July 26, 2004, 23:56: Message edited by: daesthai ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by daesthai:
To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

I concur. Isn't the entire point of being a member of said religion that you share that religion's beliefs? Because if you don't, obviously, you're not really a member....unless you somehow just like having the label for whatever benefit you can gain from it, without having to actually be bound by the obligations of said title. I suspect the only real claim some of them have to being "Catholic" is starting out born that way. For instance, I tend to completely disagree with many Catholic views. Thus, I am not a member, and do not claim to be one.

[daesthai]

Thanks Norfleet. You were able to state a bit more concisely the point I was trying to make.

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Since you are such a big supporter of all things Republican, I find it most hypocritical that you should cite the rising national debt, something that has traditionally exploded under Republican administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.) that are staunch believers in deficit spending and letting future generations worry about the problems caused by their populist policies of tax breaks (for rich people & corporations) and warmongering.

Have I written anything about supporting Republicans??? NO ! So despite your vast mind reading abilities you are wrong here. I am not supporting either side... just don't want Kerry because he is trying to make huge changes which will give us HIGHER taxes, more government intervention and he is for abortion which goes against my moral beliefs.
None of the presidents have changed the national debt from increasing to decreasing.... when one of them can do this then I'd have enough faith to give him a shot at some national healthcare system which is also a huge financial task/responsibility.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Frosted Flake:
As for Arryn thinking all Republicans thinking alike where did that come from? I am a conservative Republican...I believe in balanced budgets,conserving the environment,preserving our country's (and the world's) freedoms. I want to know how the biblethumping southern democrats took over my party? I also want to know how middle America can back Bush after Iraq. Bush,Cheney,Rumsfield and the idiots who authorized torture in iraq have sullied the honor of the world's finest milatary..in the name of expediency.

According to the current political scheme of things, you're a "moderate" Republican. IOW, you're a rational, thinking person, unlike the mainstream mindless drones in your party. As for how your party was hijacked, you must ask yourself what people of like-minded values such as yourself were doing since 1994 and Newt Gingrich's hostile takeover of the Congress, or during the election campaign of 2000? We'd be a helluva lot better off if McCain had won the primary battle back then. Instead of having to face a choice between Bush and Kerry now.

[djtool]

fogive me for not quoting you vigabrand.


I can't believe you would insinuate that a man not pushing his own personal values upon the country is a bad thing. I don't know kerry personally, but i do know that the president is not an elected king. It is not the presidents job to impose his values upon americans, but to manage comprimise with them.

[djtool]

[/quote]We'd be a helluva lot better off if McCain had won the primary battle back then. Instead of having to face a choice between Bush and Kerry now.[quote]

I can't say I disagree.

The whole party thing is a real mess though. Its a shame we have to choose between to Groups of people who, by the nature of their organizations, have to put the american people third on their list of priorities...if that.

(yes i realize I don't have to vote rep or dem i'm sure you get the picture)

[ July 27, 2004, 01:36: Message edited by: djtool ]