"Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas John Paprocki says that any Catholic who votes for a Democrat very well may go to Hell, because a vote for any member of a party that supports sin makes the voter 'morally complicit.' Paprocki names the Log Cabin Republicans and 'pro-choice' (scare quotes his) Republicans as 'equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts.'”
Then why are only Democratic voters going to hell? Besides, the claim cannot be true: they will only go to Purgatory, a place invented so that Roman Catholic priests in Mexico from Cortez to Calles could unburden the serfs (indigenous people) of their hard-earned centavos. Hitchens discusses indulgences in god is Not Great. Why would a good and all-powerful god put your loved ones in a special cyberspace where they must remain until the guy in a black suit and a little white collar takes your money to download them into God's hard drive?
And speaking of moral complicity, why do many thousands flock to the cathedrals each Sunday putting money in a plate so that child molesters would be given new parishes upon the discovery they have porked some acolyte or choir boy and, O.J.-like, forced civil litigation to redress grievances. If the coffers are running on empty it is because of the pay-outs to hopelessly-damaged young men who, if they remember the obscenities at all, feel lost in some horror movie. The current occupant of Castel Gondalfo knew all about the pedophile priests and did nothing to stop it. He had a U.S.-Vatican treaty to hide behind and he covered up lies and secrets and is thus guilty of obstruction of justice.
I love a saying of Aleister Crowley, that the Devil is the God of anyone you personally dislike. Satan and Lucifer are merely the Egyptian Typhon and Set. All religions have them, and monotheisms are absolutely dependent on them, as they inspire fear and anxiety. They are necessary as bugaboos, a common enemy so unsettling they become the focal point as a common enemy.
Mainly, Satan is a crutch. Remember the black comedian who crossdressed in makeup and said, "the Devil made me wear this dress." If evil can be blamed on a boogeyman, he takes on extraordinary qualities, and as we all know, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, people go see little girls screw their heads counter-clockwise and come to a stop saying to a priest, "Your mother sucks cock in Hell," which only reinforces the either-or false dichotomy, what the late Aleister Crowley called the doings of Choronzon, Demon of Dispersion. (And BTW, the Anderson movie doesn't go into the fact that Hubbard's enlightenment on the road to Damascus was Crowleyanity.)
How can the priesthood be both celibate and sexually active with minors? I predict that the next Pope will issue a bull and make married clergy the norm.
Whatever moral authority the Roman Catholic Church may have exercised in the past was sacrificed to protect the church in the child molestation scandals of the last decade or so. So many priests (4000+) were involved with so many victims (10,000+) that no justification or excuse can be made. The church is an unquestionably evil institution and any good it may have done is far offset by the evil it has condoned.
I'm only a little surprised the RICO laws haven't been invoked. Seems like racketeering to me.
I cannot believe (and must know) that you and I agree so completely on this issue, I think I shall refrain from discussing it. You already say precisely what I would say.
No, he would just say, "Verily, I say unto you, between a sorry jackass and a fat pachyderm, choose the lesser of the two evils."
And let's not mention pulling up people who don't want to be rule by him to be slain before him. Oops, sorry, mentioned it. My bad!
BTW, don't believe me? Look up Luke 19:27...
So I looked for a site on the context of the verse and it said this, "...verse 27 is talking about executing those who commit treason, which is a reasonable punishment for an attempt to overthrow a legitimate government."
I'll look for more...
On a forum (Muslim/Christian debate, I assume) a poster says, "This parable is a lesson in what we are expected to do with the gifts that God gives us. Simply summarized, we can hide or ignore them and suffer the consequences, or use them and multiply them and be rewarded."
I'm putting this up here so we are aware of the apologetics linked with the verse you pointed us to.
I think their explanations are lacking, however. In the first case, it falls flat in that we don't know if the government in the parable is legitimate or not. How do we determine whether or not a government is legit? If you look at the US, our government was born from rebellion. Does that make it illegitimate? Also, there are many of us who are split on what constitutes treason these days. For the second case, it's really obnoxious in my opinion, to assume that people know their gifts or even have the chance to build on them. How many of us know how to sing and are given the spotlight and manage to be there on stage when a talent scout is in the audience? Really? What about the people who don't hear about god or have other gods? What about them?
How else would you take apart these rebuttals, guys? I'm just curious... I'm unused to debating so I'd like to learn from y'all.