Posted on 07/05/2014 5:53:22 AM PDT by Kolokotronis
"I say only that the Communists have stolen the flag,” Francis responded. “The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the heart of the Gospel. The poor are at the heart of the Gospel. Take Matthew 25, the protocol over which we shall be judged: ‘I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was in prison, I was sick, naked.’ Or look at the Beatitudes, another flag. The communists say that this is communist. Yeah, right, 20 centuries later.”
The Holy Father concluded with a joke: “So you could say when you speak to them: ‘But you are Christians.’”
Some precincts of the American hard right went predictably bonkers. “NUTS,” was Jim Hoft’s headline at Gateway Pundit. Rush Limbaugh wondered if the pope was claiming Jesus as a communist. The comboxes at Free Republic, the Washington Times, Newsmax and The American Catholic swelled with insults aimed at the Holy Father. There will be more where this came from, but the week is young."
(Excerpt) Read more at aleteia.org ...
“I am completely unsurprised that you would say this.”
And I am completely surprised that you would ignore even the bits of support I provided for my statement.
That’s how you have remained at your current level of development.
Resorting to ad hominem attacks now, are we? Good to know that I frustrate you so.
“Resorting to ad hominem attacks now, are we?”
You can’t be serious.
Look up the definition of argumentum ad hominem.
“Good to know that I frustrate you so”
It is normal and appropriate to be frustrated by willful wrong-headedness. I don’t know why you would consider that a badge of honor.
I only replied with the Christianity Today article because it was relevant to the discussion you had decided was no longer worth rebuttal. Unfortunately, since that point (and even a few posts before it), you have contributed nothing to the conversation except for remarks like "Now *that's* hard-headed."
Claiming "lack of energy," you have made no effort to answer my contentions and have resorted to parroting "You're wrong" without substantiating just why I am wrong in your eyes.
Sadly, my part in this 'discussion' is done.
“Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.”
It’s only an argumentum ad hominem if it pretends to be an argument. Ordinary pokes in the eye are not included.
“Claiming “lack of energy,” you have made no effort to answer my contentions and have resorted to parroting “You’re wrong” without substantiating just why I am wrong in your eyes.”
Parroting would imply a number of repetitions. It’s not right to use hyperbole to exaggerate a complaint.
Just a note or two above I gave three arguments, and you didn’t make any effort to answer those.
“Sadly, my part in this ‘discussion’ is done.”
You can’t quit; I already fired you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.