Posted on 03/25/2014 7:32:08 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Something I was reminded of when I heard about World Vision deciding to hire those in "gay marriages" is how Catholic Charities has long promoted homosexuality. I know this because when I was living as a lesbian 15 to 20 years ago, I went to Catholic Charities several times for counsleing, and I found that the counseling was purely secular. When I went with a "partner," our lifestyle was embraced by the counselor. When I went to a couple other counselors myself later on, I was beginning to have doubts about this life, but one counselor even tried to encourage me to accept homosexuality. She said she had many homosexual friends, and these gay friends affectionately called their straight friends "breeders," but beyond that difference all relationships are the same.
It's troubled me for a long time that the Catholic Church raises money for Catholic Charities, and it goes for psychological counseling, which only makes one conform to the ways of the world.
“And where are your examples of anti-Catholic bigotry?”
Sorry, it’s still your turn.
No, as since nothing can be proven to one who provides no criteria by which something is defined, then it remains for you to provide that criteria by why of examples. Or are you here simply to be an antagonist, demanding something which, like an atheist can evidence for God, can never satisfy, and just want to waste our time?
Then since you have already denied this as fulfilling your ambiguous criteria then it means you do not want the evidence.
You never demonstrated Catholic bigotry, and you can’t.
Of course not to you, when you refuse to provide any examples of what you see as bigotry, and instead act like a liberal who uses the race card. And will not let a jury of your peers to judge, I am going to ask you again, provide some examples of what you call bigotry.
“Or are you saying that i am lying about that? Yes or no.”
You don’t get to interrogate me.
Or yes i do have a right to an answer when you infer i am lying. Saying "No examples were given. That is a fabrication" infers just that, unless you mean nothing was sent to you that meets your criteria, as you denied in your PM back to me, "From dsc | 10/16/2013 8:56:41 AM PDT replied" to me PM to you on 10/12/2013 5:13:00 PM PDT sent
“Do you know how to click on links and see that what i just referenced is true and the date?”
What I do or don’t know is irrelevant.
Irrelevant?! Rather you are making yourself irrelevant, making an accusation than simply denying what was sent you, as well as any examples of what you consider bigotry.
If you have anything to show, produce it.
Why? This is like trying to show a car thief a map to the police station.
However, check your PM again for what i sent your before, and a few more, but this time i am also going to copy in the RM, and let him/her judge. And who can also likely affirm i sent you the FRemail dates above.
If you want to post them publicly and find who sent each one and ping them (as you are to do for public posts) and bother them with your insolence, then you can do so.
However, the challenge was answered privately - demonstrated - in Freepmail, as it should be, with links and copied to me.
For the record, on many threads over the years both sides argue against the beliefs of the other. And the accusations are often contentious and hurtful.
And that is to be expected on "open" Religion Forum threads.
Posters who are not comfortable with that type of debate should ignore "open" RF threads altogether and instead read and post to RF threads labeled "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" or "ecumenical."
Enough has been made of this issue on this thread. Time to drop it.
You have a tough job.
Posters who are not comfortable with that type of debate should ignore "open" RF threads altogether and instead read and post to RF threads labeled "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" or "ecumenical."
Exactly.
Enough has been made of this issue on this thread. Time to drop it.
Indeed. I had merely pinged her as a courtesy seeing as i had quoted her as the issue came up again (and again and again) with another poster. But it remains "bigot" is so subjectively understood that it often can be used and denied as one wills.
“Time to drop it.”
So, you declare that the challenge was answered, and then close debate.
(N.B., the subject of this note is moderating.)
A little food and hugs and he was fine: named him Tiger.
Now he was playful, and just LOVED to stick his paw thru a small hole in the barn wall to mess with the goats.
Goats; being as curious as cats, would go to sniff the paw and then they'd get smacked in the nose for their effort!
EllieMae did NOT like this, and one day; when Tiger was prancing thru the goat area like it was his own; he was chased behind a 2' * 2' piece of plywood that was leaning against the wall.
Now goats ain't dumb, by ANY means. EllieMae sized up the situation, rared back and head butted that wood smack into the wall: with Tiger squished in the middle!
I thought I'd find a dead cat when I went to check; but he staggered out in a daze.
He NEVER went around them goats again!
You may want to look around for a piece of plywood leaning against the wall...
Nothing was closed; but some good advice WAS given.
He responded by Freepmail and copied to me. Whether or not you acknowledge his reply is irrelevant. It is the only way that kind of challenge can be answered on the Religion Forum, i.e. on this thread.
The Smoky Backroom is available to posters who thrive on flame wars. That option is always available to either of you - just do not bring the flame wars back here to the RF.
Indeed. Thus my Freepmail and appeal to you. Thanks.
THIS is why I just LOVE fr!
I learn something new almost every day!
“He responded by Freepmail and copied to me. Whether or not you acknowledge his reply is irrelevant.”
When you, a Protestant who favors Protestants in all disputes, declare that the challenge was “answered,” you are declaring that he provided what he claimed to have provided.
In effect, you said, “The Protestants have won; debate is terminated.” Is that the proper role of a moderator?
If you checked the links, then you know that they were not what they purported to be. And yet, not only do you deny me the opportunity to say so, you state that they were what they purported to be.
What do you suppose God thinks about things like that?
Check post 167. It’s one of those jungle-jive victory dances celebrating your having declared one side the winner.
As much as I hate leftards, I would not act as you have done in any debate. This is because passers-by are very likely to look at the situation and reason thusly: “Must be becase one side couldn’t make their case, so the moderator had to help them.”
Nothing less...
So you “know” the RM is a Protestant?
That’s interesting.......
“So you “know” the RM is a Protestant? That’s interesting.......”
No, it’s not. It came out in previous kerfluffles.
Since then we do not reveal our Freeper names or our religious beliefs.
Not to give offense, but I'd wager good money that you certainly aren't a Catholic, in that over time, some of your posts show a non-Catholic approach to Catholic issues.
I'm not asking you to confirm or deny your religious affiliation, but there is good reason to believe that you are a non-Catholic, and fairly likely a Protestant.
Thus, for the Catholic poster, it is fair, without further information from you, to assume that you are a Protestant.
sitetest
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.