Pope enthralls large crowd with message of love, mercy

[struggle4progress]

Pontiff delights crowd of 200,000 in St. Peter’s Square
BY ANN RODGERS
BLOCK NEWS ALLIANCE

... Speaking from a window high above the square, he reflected on the gospel story of a woman caught in adultery, who Jesus spared from stoning by asking her accusers “Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone” ...

Earlier in the morning he presided at Mass in the small parish of St. Anne, inside the walls of the Vatican, where Vatican City residents worship. He wore unadorned vestments of Lenten purple, similar to those of the priests, and stood alongside them to distribute the communion ...

“I also think we are like this people who, on the one hand want to listen to Jesus, but, on the other hand, at times, like to be cruel to others, isn’t that right? To condemn others, right?” the Pope asked.

“This is the Lord’s strongest message: mercy. He himself said: ‘I did not come for the righteous.’ The righteous can justify themselves ... Jesus came for the sinners” ...

http://www.toledoblade.com/Religion/2013/03/18/Pope-enthralls-large-crowd-with-message-of-love-mercy.html

[trotsky]

1. "people who, on the one hand want to listen to Jesus, but, on the other hand..."

"...like to be cruel to others."

That's been such a common thread throughout the history of Christianity, it's seen everywhere. Even here on DU among the self-proclaimed liberal, tolerant Christians. Those who mock and belittle atheists and other non-believers, who blame non-believers for the hatred and intolerance they face from Christians. Just disgusting.

[BuddhaGirl]

3. There are self-proclaimed liberal and tolerant atheists here, aren't there?

And it's just disgusting how many of them mocked and belittled Catholics and Christians, especially recently.

It goes both ways, you know.

[trotsky]

4. Buddhists too, apparently.

How sad.

[BuddhaGirl]

5. where?

n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Post #3...

... wherein you conflate legitimate criticism of superstitious belief with "intolerance" and "bigotry" towards people.

Seemed fairly obvious to me, at any rate.

[BuddhaGirl]

7. nope

If you saw any of the recent threads on the Pope/Catholicism, there was no conflation.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. Most of what I saw was outrage directed at ostensibly progressive people...

... heaping praise upon a man whose opinions on homosexuality and women's rights are diametrically opposed to the progressive paradigm, a man who, were he a Republican congressman rather than a Catholic pope, would have received nothing short of unanimous contempt from the regular forum denizens.

Perhaps we were not reading the same threads.

[BuddhaGirl]

9. Apparently not

I saw a lot of broad-brushing attacks, and outright rudeness toward Catholic DUers.

A lot of that "praising" of the pope you saw, were hopes and wishes, that somehow the new pope would be able to usher in some reform in some way. You know quite well, I'm sure, that no DUer would condone bigotry towards gays, and oppose women's rights.

[Act_of_Reparation]

10. Categorically absurd

A conclave of conservative cardinals elected a conservative pope who made it abundantly clear, in no uncertain terms, that he has no intention of revisiting the church's attitudes towards homosexuals or abortion. Any wish for reform in these categories would be ill-placed under such circumstances.

No, I doubt many DUers would explicitly condone bigotry towards gays or women, but any DUer who occupies a pew in a Catholic church ostensibly lends credibility towards those who do. Any DUer who puts money in the collection plate funds a homophobic, misogynist organization, not to mention contributes monetarily to the legal defenses of dioceses displaying systemic patterns of child rape and criminal complicity thereof.

These aren't personal insults. They are criticisms of behaviors not in keeping with the tenets of progressivism. I understand some may feel that being told their money is quite visibly not where their mouths are is insulting and rude, but the criticisms are nonetheless legitimate. The church is diametrically opposed to many mainstream progressive values, and supporting them hurts our cause. Simple.

[Dorian Gray]

11. This is exactly the type of stuff

being talked about and debated throughout this site this past week. What Buddhagirl is talking about. Whatever. I don't have the desire to argue and repeat ad infinitum. Blaming congregants for the hierarchy is misguided. Especially when every single congregant in my parish is very liberal. (We're located in Brooklyn and our church has a huge gay and lesbian presence.)

Back to topic: the gospel reading. It's inspirational and one of my favorites.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. The heirarchy exists because the congregants allow it

This isn't a painfully difficult concept to grasp. If the status quo is rewarded with mass attendance and monetary contributions, then there is little impetus for the status quo to change.

If I were to make the same allegation towards, say, moderate Republicans, who, despite disagreeing with mainline conservatives on a number of important issues, still enable the GOP's political machine, no one would think twice about it. Double standard, anyone?

[Dorian Gray]

17. Not a double standard

for people who believe the theology of both transubstantiation and the Nicene Creed, this is what they've got. Daily/weekly mass. It's more complicated than what you bring it down to. There is also a cultural aspect to it. Being raised Catholic, there are a lot of traditions that aren't so easy to discard. You can lay it down as you do. For someone who isn't conflicted with belief, it seems easy. It's much more complicated than that.

And if you don't understand that, I can't really help you. It's easy to think in black and white terms, but there are many many liberals and progressives who still sit in the church pews. That's a fact.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Yes, a double-standard

for people who believe the theology of both transubstantiation and the Nicene Creed, this is what they've got.

And if you believe Brigham Young was the rightful successor to Joseph Smith, you're stuck with the LDS church. Still, we can objectively discuss how Mormons' tithes were used to fund anti-gay marriage efforts across the country.

Daily/weekly mass. It's more complicated than what you bring it down to. There is also a cultural aspect to it. Being raised Catholic, there are a lot of traditions that aren't so easy to discard. You can lay it down as you do. For someone who isn't conflicted with belief, it seems easy. It's much more complicated than that.

It would behoove you to remember most non-believers were not born non-believers. I, too, was raised in the church.

And no, it is not complicated. In one hand, you have real issues, with real-world consequences for billions of people. In the other hand, you have tradition. What's more important?

Furthermore, if there's a God upstairs--and if he's a progressive--don't you think he'd be understanding if you missed a few masses here and there, or if you didn't throw money in the plate?

It's easy to think in black and white terms, but there are many many liberals and progressives who still sit in the church pews. That's a fact.

And the money they throw in the plate is used to promulgate homophobia, misogyny, and human misery at home and abroad. That, too a fact.

Ironically, I remember Jesus quoted as having said, "Actions speak louder than words."

[Dorian Gray]

58. My experience

I miss Mass all the time. I'm not the most faithful catholic. I don't donate to the Annual Appeal (goes to the Diocese). I sometimes donate to our collection plate at my home church. That money goes directly to the church for upkeep. I certainly don't tithe any percent of anything.

And I have absolutely no problem criticizing the hierarchical structure of the church. They're humans who have perpetrated disturbing evils. Some deserve jail time for their crimes. I also have no problem debating theological issues.

What I take umbrage at is blaming congregants.

[skepticscott]

56. And if someone said that

they couldn't run their business and make a profit if they couldn't use slave labor, what would be the response of any decent person in this day and age? "Tough shit..get over it." And slavery is a much older tradition than Catholicism.

[Dorian Gray]

57. they aren't analogous

but you are way too smart not to know that.

[skepticscott]

60. No, they're not absolutely, 100% the same

But point 1 is that simply calling something a "tradition" and saying that it's very difficult to give up does not by itself justify sticking with it in the face of fundamental moral and anti-progressive issues.

If you discovered that the Catholic Church was using slave labor to help run the Vatican and if they publicly declared that they would never stop doing that, no matter what any lay Catholics said or did, would you still keep going to Catholic Church, tossing money in the collection plate, and proudly calling yourself a Catholic, rather than abandon the church for another faith community? Is there NO moral transgression by the RCC that would make you leave? And if the support of slavery would make you leave, why does the support of other fundamental violations of fundamental human rights NOT induce you to leave?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

53. "Blaming congregants for the hierarchy is misguided."

If congregant DUers can't stand the heat, then maybe they shouldn't start slobbering threads slobbering over the highest of the hierarchy.

[Dorian Gray]

54. Who did that?

I certainly didn't.

ETA: Oh, I see. Writing an OP about one of his first homilies (because it had a positive message) is "slobbering."

[cbayer]

55. Please consider posting in the new Interfaith group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1264

[Xipe Totec]

12. Very disappointing to see intelligence such as yours used to alienate and disparage nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. That certainly isn't the point

As a general rule, virtually every progressive in this country is boycotting something over ethical concerns. Nike employs sweatshop labor, so we boycott them. Wal-Mart kills business, so we boycott them. Meat is murder, so we don't eat meat. While I could continue with this ad infinitum, the point here is that few would interpret the statement "Hey, buying Nike enables human rights abuses abroad. Don't buy Nike" as alienating or disparaging. It's a mere statement of fact.

Because we're talking about a religion here, and not Nike, people invariably interpret any criticism as a personal attack. I can't help that they are so emotionally attached to the religion that they are incapable of discussing the matter objectively. Frankly, they need to grow up.

[BuddhaGirl]

19. Unnecessary rudeness

"Because we're talking about a religion here, and not Nike, people invariably interpret any criticism as a personal attack. I can't help that they are so emotionally attached to the religion that they are incapable of discussing the matter objectively. Frankly, they need to grow up."

And that is what has been circulating around DU lately, in the religion-based threads lately.

There is intolerance on BOTH sides, but rudeness is unhelpful and won't change anything...that goes for believers and non-believers.

[BuddhaGirl]

13. You are just repeating the same old stuff

and it is skirting the borderline of saying that Catholic DUers are responsibility for pedophilia in the church.

Absolute rubbish.

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. Your logic is uncompelling

You are repeating the same stuff

Sadly, repeating a point doesn't make it wrong. Under most circumstances it means the point has been inadequately addressed (refer to your post), or outright ignored.

and it is skirting the borderline of saying that Catholic DUers are responsibility for pedophilia in the church.

No, it isn't.

It seems to me rather obvious the church is responsible for the pedophilia within its ranks. The issue at hand is whether or not self-described liberal Catholics are preventing reform through their continued attendance and monetary contributions to the church. If the church can move from scandal to scandal with little impunity from their rank-and-file, then there is little incentive for them to change the status quo.

Of course, I think if you asked liberal Catholics whether or not they wanted their tithes to contribute to the legal defenses of pederasts, or anti-abortion or anti-gay lobbying efforts, the answer would be a resounding "NO".

It amazes me how objectively we can talk about boycotting public universities as a way of pressuring them to buy domestic or non-sweatshop clothing for their merchandise, but the minute somebody extends that logic to church tithes, everyone loses their shit.

The double standard is quite obvious.

[trotsky]

18. ...

"It amazes me how objectively we can talk about boycotting public universities as a way of pressuring them to buy domestic or non-sweatshop clothing for their merchandise, but the minute somebody extends that logic to church tithes, everyone loses their shit."

And that's what happens when religion is thrown in the mix. Rational discussion goes out the window, and you can see the same mob mentality that tied people to posts and burned them alive back in the good ol' days of religion.

[kwassa]

21. and your logic is just as uncompelling

What compels is rather subjective, after all.

Your priorities are not my priorities.

It seems to me rather obvious the church is responsible for the pedophilia within its ranks.

No, the Catholic church is responsible for it's response to pedophilia, not the pedophilia itself. The percentage of Catholic priests involved is small. The response it indeed disgusting, but the criminal commits the crime.

and quite honestly, you are just one of many Catholic critics on DU here whose opinion of the church are off-point. If the religious belief is important and has value, it has value regardless of the church structure. You are asking people to give up their faith which also creates their liberal beliefs in order to fulfill your personal vision of progressivism.

But why should I care about your view of the correct way to be progressive? Are you like the progressive pope, or something?

[trotsky]

22. How much responsibility for pedophilia does the church bear...

in the cases where it transferred a known pedophile priest to a new parish, giving him access to fresh victims?

What makes the pedophilia situation in the RCC different than say at Penn State, or in the Boy Scouts, is that the RCC has insisted (and insists to this day, AFAIK) that it will police itself. It wants to portray itself (and its priests) as above secular law, of course.

[kwassa]

25. No, that has changed, though not enough

Here are Vatican guidelines from 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

In May the Vatican published new guidelines, drawn up by Cardinal William Levada, the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, on dealing with the clergy sexual abuse cases.[184] The guidelines tell the bishops and heads of Catholic religious orders worldwide to develop "clear and coordinated" procedures for dealing with the sexual abuse allegation by May 2012.[185] The guidelines instruct the bishops to cooperate with the police and respect the relevant local laws in investigating and reporting allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy to the civic authorities, but do not make such reporting mandatory. The guidelines also reinforce bishops' exclusive authority in dealing with abuse cases. Victims advocacy groups criticized the new guidelines as insufficient, arguing that the recommendations do not have the status of church law and do not provide any specific enforcement mechanisms.[186][187]

[trotsky]

26. 2 responses:

1) You didn't answer my question.

2) Your excerpt supports my point.

...respect the relevant local laws in investigating and reporting allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy to the civic authorities, but do not make such reporting mandatory. The guidelines also reinforce bishops' exclusive authority in dealing with abuse cases.

They continue to insist on putting themselves above the law. This is unacceptable.

[kwassa]

27. respect the relevant local laws in investigating and reporting allegations of sexual abuse

by the clergy ...

Those laws require reporting. If the church doesn't, it is violation of both the law and church policy, and the law is a lot more to worry about.

[skepticscott]

28. Sheesh, did you even read what you posted?

The guidelines instruct the bishops to cooperate with the police and respect the relevant local laws in investigating and reporting allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy to the civic authorities, but do NOT make such reporting mandatory

In other words, act like you're respecting the law, but still cover things up if you think that's best. The guidelines are nothing but weasel words. After taking so long to write them, you'd think they'd come up with something more like "All allegations of sexual abuse shall be reported to local law enforcement agencies as soon as possible." Period. But they didn't.

[trotsky]

30. You still didn't answer my question.

Please answer it.

[kwassa]

35. To answer your question ...

the church bears total responsibility for the pedophilia. The culture of secrecy, and of keeping all things within the church structure, is really a sickness.

[trotsky]

38. If that's the way you bow out of the discussion, so be it.

Better luck next time.

[kwassa]

43. trotsky, you are such a waste of time.

I don't use the "ignore" function here. I can ignore you without it.

[trotsky]

47. All I did was ask a question.

Is the Catholic church responsible for further child rape committed when they transferred known rapists to new parishes for a fresh start?

Instead of answering it, you gave up and insulted me. Keep up the great Christian behavior, kwassa. You're a great example.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Logic is subjective. That's new.

No, the Catholic church is responsible for it's response to pedophilia, not the pedophilia itself. The percentage of Catholic priests involved is small. The response it indeed disgusting, but the criminal commits the crime.

The response isn't "disgusting", it's criminal. Church officials intimidated victims into keeping their mouths shut, while relocating priests they knew posed a danger to the public to preclude prosecution. If you or I had done this, we'd be sitting in a jail cell as accomplices to child rape. They are, by law, culpable.

and quite honestly, you are just one of many Catholic critics on DU here whose opinion of the church are off-point. If the religious belief is important and has value, it has value regardless of the church structure. You are asking people to give up their faith which also creates their liberal beliefs in order to fulfill your personal vision of progressivism.

Oh, please.

Since when did the Catholic faith hinge entirely on dropping money in the collection basket?

No one is being asked to change their beliefs. They are being asked to stop providing monetary support to an organization that is by and large not in keeping with progressive values.

But why should I care about your view of the correct way to be progressive? Are you like the progressive pope, or something?

If a diversity of ideas and opinions frightens you, perhaps you'd be better served in one of the safe haven groups.

[kwassa]

24. You are only logical up to a point.

As am I.

No one is being asked to change their beliefs. They are being asked to stop providing monetary support to an organization that is by and large not in keeping with progressive values.

Ask away. This organization, though, also supports some of the largest charity organizations in the world that do important work that progressives would heartily approve of. Catholic Relief Services was working in Darfur and many other poverty stricken places long before Darfur made the evening news. Catholic Charities is the second largest social service provider in the US, second only to the Federal government. They do great work. I used to work for them, and I am not Catholic. There are no faith requirements, either to work for them or receive services.

The basic importance of faith to believers is best experienced in community. Do you wish for Catholics to stop going to church?

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. Extortion

Ask away. This organization, though, also supports some of the largest charity organizations in the world that do important work that progressives would heartily approve of. Catholic Relief Services was working in Darfur and many other poverty stricken places long before Darfur made the evening news. Catholic Charities is the second largest social service provider in the US, second only to the Federal government. They do great work. I used to work for them, and I am not Catholic. There are no faith requirements, either to work for them or receive services.

The charitable work the church supports doesn't negate or cancel out the bad. Until Catholics are allowed to choose precisely where their contributions go, the money they drop in the plate invariably funds anti-homosexual and misogynistic programs, and defending and relocating rapist priests, as well as putting clothes on people's backs. Asserting that we can't risk punishing the Church financially for its inhumane programs because of the good works that will be negatively affected is tantamount to extortion.

Should we really have to put up with bigotry and criminal accessory to rape of minors because we're afraid the Church will no longer support good causes? If the Church hierarchy were good and moral, would they even let such a thing happen?

If you want to give money to the disadvantaged, that's absolutely terrific. I encourage it. And, there's no shortage of secular charities which, given the kind of funding that is pumped through the church, could accomplish similar, if not superior results. In lieu of dropping money in the collection plate, I would urge Catholics to give to these charities instead.

The basic importance of faith to believers is best experienced in community. Do you wish for Catholics to stop going to church?

Ultimately, I think the best method of voicing one's displeasure with the Church's leadership would be to boycott the organization entirely, but I don't think merely showing up for a service is equivalent to actively funding the organization. So no, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about whether or not liberal Catholics go to church. I understand the community is important to them, and I can see why it would be difficult to give that up.

Like I said, I wasn't born an atheist.

[okasha]

41. Can you choose where your income taxes go?

Do you support George Bush's war (now, unfortunately, Obama's war) in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has killed untold thousands of innocent persons, including children? The near-indifference to rape of women soldiers by fellow members of the US armed services? The inequities of NAFTA? The current policy of closing down the US-Mexican border regardless of its human, economic and environmental costs? If you don't, and progressives generally don't, have you refused to pay the taxes that fund those policies?

Do you boycott the US government entirely, not only refusing to pay taxes, but refusing to vote, campaign for candidates, accept any government benefits you may receive? If not, why not?

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. Paying taxes isn't voluntary.

Dropping money in the collection plate is. The comparison is invalid.

[okasha]

45. Paying taxes is voluntary

if you possess the moral conviction to accept the consequences of your action. Of course, you might also want to weigh the good the government does against the harm, andfactor that into your decision, too.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. Shockingly illogical

Your position is entirely fallacious.

First, you're making an equivocation fallacy. Not paying taxes has swift, assured, and decidedly negative consequences. Not dropping money in the collection plate at church does not. While you may give money to any of the innumerable charitable organizations in existence, a taxpayer can only pay taxes to the IRS. The two scenarios are incomparable.

Secondly, and more importantly, your entire argument is a tu quoque. My position is that funding the Catholic church works in large part against progressive ideology. What I do personally has no bearing on whether or not this position is factually correct.

[okasha]

49. So you would be willing

to go on financing an organization whose policies you do not approve to avoid unpleasant consequnces. Conscience ends where discomfort begins.

What you do personally may have no effect on your assumptions, but «Do what I say, not what I do» has a certain effect on your ability to persuade.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. Flogging dead horses, again.

More tu quoque bullshit.

My position is this: dropping money in the collection plate funds an organization which in no small part works against the progressive principals of equality, secularism, and reproductive freedom, as well as going towards efforts to cover up or otherwise evade punishment for the rape of minors.

This is not a command. This is not a suggestion. This is an observation. If what I do personally affects others' ability to evaluate this observation on its own merits, the problem lies between their ears, not in my tax returns.

So you would be willing to go on financing an organization whose policies you do not approve to avoid unpleasant consequnces. Conscience ends where discomfort begins.

Why stop with taxes, then?

If you don't agree with where the United States is going, you could always just up and leave. Living here is a choice, after all.

If you don't like working long, back-breaking hours for a pittance, then just quit. Working is a choice, as long as you don't mind the "discomfort" of not having money to feed yourself. But rest assured, eating is a choice, too. As long as you don't mind the "discomfort" of dying.

If anyone here were to make such suggestions honestly, they'd be ridiculed and promptly tombstoned.

The consequences of some decisions are such as to probabilistically exclude them from consideration. It is unrealistic to expect people not to eat. It is unrealistic to expect people to accept imprisonment. It is unrealistic to expect people to endanger the lives and well-being of their loved ones. Any choice that as a consequence expects one to deny oneself the essential necessities of life, freedom, or the safety and well-being of those important to them is hardly a choice at all.

And you compare this to the wholly voluntary act of church collections, for which the consequences of non-compliance are measurably nonexistent.

The comparison is wholly invalid.

[okasha]

51. Whaterver you say.

Let's just foget the suffragettes, the draft resisters, the civil rights workers and the peace activists who went to prison for their causes. Let's forget the hunger strikers, including the men who starved themselves to death in Ulster military prisons. Let's forget the Buddhist monks and nuns who immolated themselves to protest the Vietnam war.

They were all just unreasonable people

But you missed the real point., which is that you are advocating that other people stop supporting an organization which has don evil while yourself supporting an organization that has also done evil. You call your comments merely an observation. Very well. I also am merely observing.

[Plantaganet]

52. "Twaddle."

Source = Okasha

[kwassa]

44. Financially supporting an organization is ...

a choice that looks at the work of the organization, and usually says just yes or no. A secondary decision is, if supporting, how much?

We used to tithe a lot of money to the church we belong to. As it lost it's way, and our circumstances changed, we reduced and reduced our pledge, and our involvement.

I would think many Catholics do this to in response to changes. We all know that the larger picture is that only a small percentage of what is tithed goes to the national, and then international church. If a particular church is having financial problems, which many do, one line item that is immediately cut is the percentage of total income from the church that goes to those national offices. It is really the first thing to be cut.

We contribute to a local community that we believe in, and that sustains us. Hypothetically, if we were Catholic, you ask us to walk away from the organization because advocates some very bad ideas, despite nurturing us in some very positive ways, and doing important and very good things in the world. I don't think that will happen.

I think your perspective with seeing it as extortion is interesting, but incorrect. Most church attendees are very attuned to their local church, and much less so to the national body representing that church. Many Catholics have said the same thing in the many threads on this topic over the past two weeks.

If one wishes to belong to any group in this world, including DU, there are compromises to be made. One must measure the positive versus the negative, and there is almost never total positive with no negative. One must accept the whole if one is to belong. The value Catholics must weigh involves the same calculation, and for some that means sticking with a church hoping for reform, with others leaving, but with good memories, and for others, sworn hatred. All of these viewpoints are represented on DU.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

32. However, the atheists who mock and belittle believers

are just peachy-keen dandy. You atheists -- including "Trotsky" -- do not come here with clean hands.

[trotsky]

33. A lecture from you on behavior is laughable.

Try acting in a way that would make Jesus proud. Then again, maybe you already do that?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

37. I think I am acting in a way that Jesus would approve

After all, he didn't like bigots either.

I was just saying that your whining of Christians sneering at atheists is hypocritical, given your sneering at Christians.

[trotsky]

39. Awesome.

Keep showing what a great Christian you are. You'll scare more people away from your religion than I ever could.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

40. So do you approve of bigotry?

Apparently, you have no problem, insofar as it is atheistic bigotry.

[trotsky]

48. No, but apparently Jesus does. n/t

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

59. Now that would seem to be a bigoted remark

And while you claim not to actively support bigotry, it would appear that you really don't have that much of a problem with it, just so long as it is atheistic bigotry.

Jesus strongly opposed bigotry of all sorts, just as I do. Too bad that expressing my opposition to it seems to offend you.

[trotsky]

61. You have been asked at least 2 dozen times now...

to produce the EXACT QUOTE from Richard Dawkins that you claim is "atheistic bigotry."

You have utterly failed to do so. The very least you could do is admit that you were wrong about what you claimed Dawkins said. Apologize, and ask for forgiveness. Isn't that what Christians are supposed to do?

But you won't. So I really fail to see why I should take anything you say seriously. Your behavior is most decidedly not "Christian" as I understand most liberal Christians want the word to be defined. I see no love but only hatred and harsh judgmental behavior coming from you. You are one of the few Christians on DU I've seen that militantly defend the concept of hell - I guess that's why.

[edhopper]

2. Like keeping woman subservient

forcing them to have unwanted pregnancies and denying gay people their rights? That type of cruelty?

[Plantaganet]

29. I, for one, am enthralled.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2013/03/20/pope-francis-called-civil-unions-lesser-two-evils

[skepticscott]

31. You need to post this in GD

And let the fur fly.

[trotsky]

34. Love and mercy indeed.

What a guy.