What a bunch of hogwash |
If you plan to shove your religion down someone’s throat, expect to see ugly and humiliating truths regurgitated on you. Expect to see your faith humiliated. I’m fully content to let people live their nonsense in private. But when it comes the basis for how I’m supposed to live my life it’s all going under the microscope. When my Catholic ancestors came to this country they understood that. |
Fine The group that is un power has co opted Christianity. Why Christians aren't louder in opposition, I don't know Is it because they can skate under the radar... for now. Let them examine me to see if I'm a danger to them. Too many have fine harm, in His name. And Christians should expect persecution, no? |
* done harm |
You're asking people to give Christians more grace than they offer everyone else. Until they stop trying to impose their religion on everyone, I will view all of them with suspicion |
Othet than the trans issue which yes is biology related proving false by physical anatomy but also true based on genes by both parents and brain structure (we all are both male and female in terms of anatomy through genes and other biology not to mention human which bonds us all) that is the only science related issue I can get behind on the right and barely so. What about all the other science they are against? How do you as a wafer eating Christian and your party show belief in science and push policies that support science? The comment was people that believe in supernatural things are hard to convince of facts and I think this is a true scientific observation. |
And furthermore why the hate? The constant outgroups? |
No, you just called the most sacred of all Christian sacraments "Zombie Jesus." Flat out mockery. You did not 'debate the science' nor is doing so necessary. Any Catholic priest will tell you there is no human DNA is a consecrated host. The faiths that believe in transubstantiation do not pose it as a physical or scientifically provable event. They teach it as metaphysical and spiritual transformation. It is a difference between the "substance" and the "accidents" (theological terms), the metaphysical and the physical. So trying to "disprove it scientifically" is just a gross misunderstanding of the Sacrament. Mocking it, is bigotry. For those open minded folks who would like to actually understand this important distinction, including many Catholics who learned it with a second grade brain and never thought about it again and possibly misunderstood it for most of their lives, here is a discussion of this topic --and the exact mockery PP engaged in--from the Society of Catholic Scientists. https://catholicscientists.org/articles/does-contemporary-science-refute-the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation/ Similarly, any priest will agree that you cannot scientifically prove when a soul enters the body. Politics aside for a moment, this is why the Catholic theological, moral view is that one must assume it occurs at conception to avoid sin (and acknowledge that people do sin). That is their personal, moral, theological prerogative that does not have to be scientifically proved. Politically, the unknowable, unprovable aspect of ensoulment is why others, including many Catholics and Catholic politicians, agree that the government should not be involved in what is a personal moral belief and decision, particularly because one must acknowledge that other faiths have very different opinions about when, or even if, a soul enters a body. Americans who believe in freedom of religion and separation of Church and state, including many Catholics and Christians and Christian politicians, understand that those individuals should not be held to the moral standards of another faith system, when the basis of all of them is belief. |
I (still the DP here, not the person you started with) do too, and I am not shoving my faith down your throat (I'm a proc choice, liberal Democrat, btw, as are many Catholics and Catholic politicians), nor am I going to mock other peoples' faiths and beliefs, because that gets us no where but divided. Also, you did not regurgitate a "truth," you just proved that you don't understand what you are mocking and probably never actually looked into it, so you are too easily dismissed by people like the MAGA upthread, which isn't helpful. Your anger is apparent in your text, and so it seems emotion is getting the better of your reasoning. |
Fabulous. Then let’s stop making abortion policy based on nonsense and faith. |
Except for MAGA it's all talk. MAGA never submitted to the authority of the Obama or Biden administrations, but they will proof-text bible verses to say that you have to accept the authority of their guy. It's also in their favor that the religion they co-opted already had its own tax-exempt non-profits, a built-in media empire, indoctrination centers (megachurches), and discouraged critical thinking. It doesn't surprise me when I read articles like this one, where a Charlie Kirk AI video about martyrs is being used as Christian Nationalist propaganda in megachurch services: https://julieroys.com/charlie-kirks-ai-resurrection-ushers-in-a-new-era-of-digital-grief/ |
Probably. I’m an atheist, so it’s all BS to me. I also don’t see the point in “reasoning” with people who are content to bring Hell on earth because they think God is on their side. There is no reasoning with that. They didn’t reason themselves in, so there is no reasoning them out. But if you have suggestions I’m happy to hear them. |
They are! Do you know how many Christians and Catholics are leaders in the Democratic party: 33 Democratic Senators are Christian, and 9 are Jewish; 13 of the 24 Catholic Senators are Democrats. Have you seen the nuns outside of convents protesting Trump and his policies? Have you listened to the religious leaders around the country denouncing Trump and his administration's behaviors? I have. For you to post, as if fact, that they aren't is spreading disinformation that frankly helps the MAGAs by reinforcing a false picture of where people actually stand. |
Your premise and your response to it are both wrong. Yes, there is a huge, ugly problem with Republicans using faith as a weapon - and most would agree that it is a false claim of faith that is not true to the religions they claim to be a part of, which should stand out to you as a big red flag (or hat) -- but Democrats of the exact same faiths are not using it as a weapon, and if you choose to accept that a given religion, writ large, is a weapon and indiscriminately fight back against all who identify with a religion, you are falling into their trap. Don't you see the trap? |
If you think we need "belief" in science or we need to "support" science then you do not understand science. We should always question which is the root of all science. |