Posted on 07/26/2016 8:58:34 AM PDT by marshmallow
RICHMOND, Virginia, July 26, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-abortion Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Senator Tim Kaine received a standing ovation at his parish on Sunday and several Catholic priests praised his nomination.
Meanwhile, as Catholics call for Kaine to be denied Communion in accord with the Church’s laws, his bishop in the Diocese of Richmond has issued a statement saying that Catholics have a duty to determine their own worthiness “through an upright and informed conscience.”
Kaine and his wife were “like every other married couple going to church on a Sunday morning — if every other couple were met by reporters, people craning for a better look and a picture, and a standing ovation,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.
Kaine and his wife went to Mass at St. Elizabeth Catholic Church in Highland Park, Virginia, a parish in the Diocese of Richmond. Kaine reportedly sang in the choir and performed a solo.
“He's in the choir, and he's a tenor. He hasn't been able to sing as much since he's been a United States senator,” Father Jim Arsenault, the priest at St. Elizabeth, told NPR. “But every once in a while, our choir director Kim Ford will nab him and say, Tim, we need your voice. And he is very grateful to help out.”
Arsenault told NPR that he thought the issues most important to Kaine were women’s pay and “social justice issues.” He said that he could reconcile Kaine’s label of himself as “personally pro-life” despite the fact that as governor of Virginia, Kaine oversaw several executions.
“I know that he's definitely against capital punishment and works to help defend those who are on death row,” said Arsenault. “The church has a teaching with regard to we're pro-life, and we believe in that seamless garment of life. We respect sometimes...........
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Defenseless, sure, but if it’s a human, it’s not innocent, according to God. The only way a human can claim righteousness is to be under the grace of Christ, and an infant in the womb has had no opportunity to accept that grace.
I don’t care what theologians think, because the Bible is clear enough on the matter. All men are guilty in the eyes of God (unless they have obtained grace though Christ), so unless you want to argue that infants in the womb are not men, then they must be guilty as well.
When God judged Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham “haggled” with God to spare the cities, and God said He would spare it if even ten righteous men could be found in them. Now, I think one could find 10 pregnant women at any time, in any city. So it would have been an easy matter to get the cities spared if infants in the womb are innocent, but obviously that is not the case, for the cities were destroyed.
You had better care what theologians think. The Bible is clear on many things and theologians make sense of what is not clear, based upon context. Sodom was destroyed by their degenerative sin, specifically sodomy, which was ingrained in youth. The people were corrupt to their essence, as were the Amalokites, Jebusites, etc. those who worshiped Moleck. Further, the Old Testament was about the journey of Israel, not salvation for mankind.
When God came in the flesh He led us to another course, that of bringing in people not of the Hebrew line, not from the House of Israel. And thank God for it or we would be lost. Christ condemned those who would harm children (Matthew 18:6). Though His words can be interpreted in a few different ways, we as His children are charged with their protection.
God is not malicious, nor is He uncaring. He delays His return so that the entire number of saved can be counted.
“You had better care what theologians think. The Bible is clear on many things and theologians make sense of what is not clear, based upon context.”
You’re not making much sense here. If the Bible is clear on a topic, and it’s quite clear on this topic, then the opinion of theologians is at best redundant, and at worst heresy (if they disagree with the Bible).
“Sodom was destroyed by their degenerative sin, specifically sodomy, which was ingrained in youth. The people were corrupt to their essence, as were the Amalokites, Jebusites, etc. those who worshiped Moleck.”
This is irrelevant to the point I made, so why bring it up, unless to confuse the issue? Are you trying to say they “ingrained” the sin of sodomy into unborn children? If not, then what is the relevance?
“Further, the Old Testament was about the journey of Israel, not salvation for mankind.”
Again, this is irrelevant. Man’s nature didn’t change from the period of the Old Testament to period of the New, so observations made about man’s nature from that period hold just as true today.
“Christ condemned those who would harm children (Matthew 18:6). Though His words can be interpreted in a few different ways, we as His children are charged with their protection.”
More irrelevance, as none of that even speaks to the point under discussion. We are also commanded not to murder people, but that doesn’t mean the people we are commanded not to murder are innocent. If you want to prove people are innocent, you need to frame arguments from Scripture that show people are innocent, not make non sequiturs.
“God is not malicious, nor is He uncaring. He delays His return so that the entire number of saved can be counted.”
This argument actually serves to butress MY argument, not yours. The whole reason Christ needs to save us is because we are guilty in the first place.
People don’t get their morality from their testicles.
You are having a difficult time comprehending. If the Bible is unclear on a topic, theologians are trained to help lay people understand what is written. Their opinion is more than just that, in understanding the context and the language used, it can illustrate the magnificence of God's word.
This is irrelevant to the point I made, so why bring it up, unless to confuse the issue? Are you trying to say they “ingrained” the sin of sodomy into unborn children? If not, then what is the relevance?
It was you that brought up Sodom. What God destroys is not murder. He gets to make that call, not us. Sodom and Gomorrah were entirely corrupt, which is why Abraham did not live within its walls. The entirety of that civilization was condemned by God Himself. Their children were taught that sodomy was expected of them.
Again, this is irrelevant. Man’s nature didn’t change from the period of the Old Testament to period of the New, so observations made about man’s nature from that period hold just as true today.
Man's nature has NOTHING to do with the Old Testament. It is the story of God raising Israel and (repeatedly) forgiving them. The point of distinction from the OT to the NT is that God's focus moved from Israel to the Gentiles.
More irrelevance, as none of that even speaks to the point under discussion. We are also commanded not to murder people, but that doesn’t mean the people we are commanded not to murder are innocent. If you want to prove people are innocent, you need to frame arguments from Scripture that show people are innocent, not make non sequiturs.
Not irrelevant, simply you not comprehending that God puts emphasis on not harming children. Your thesis is that all are guilty and by extension killing a child in utero is not a problem. This is essentially justifying murder. Try explaining that to the Master. Plain and simple, abortion is murder. While God allows for killing, He does not allow for murder. By your logic, since everyone is guilty, we are free to kill whomever we wish and would be justified by God. This is the core tenet of Islam.
This argument actually serves to butress MY argument, not yours. The whole reason Christ needs to save us is because we are guilty in the first place.
Your argument is that all are guilty and therefor abortion is not a sin. This is patently false. God makes the distinction between justified killing and murder. Abortion is murder.
Those organs are sometimes viewed as being related to courage. At least, among men.
Yeah. I heard.
This will be an issue. What are the best arguments against ‘choice’? Also ‘I don’t want government interfering with my life?’
I heard Tim Kaine is a brainless, spineless, heartless, gutless, ballless, pathetic pile of putrid possum poop ... utterly devoid of courage, or principles, or moral standards, or any other virtue.
May God grant him the Grace of repentance and conversion.
“If the Bible is unclear on a topic...”
It’s not unclear on this topic, so theologian’s opinions are not necessary here.
“What God destroys is not murder. He gets to make that call, not us. Sodom and Gomorrah were entirely corrupt, which is why Abraham did not live within its walls. The entirety of that civilization was condemned by God Himself. Their children were taught that sodomy was expected of them.”
You continue to bring up irrelevant points that don’t address the point of my argument. Unless you are arguing that somehow they taught their unborn children sodomy, this argument of yours is going nowhere fast. God allowed that he would spare Sodom if even 10 innocent people could be found within. Obviously there must have been at least 10 pregnant women in the two largest cities in the region. Therefore, those unborn children could not have been innocent, or God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah. Is there something unclear about that argument that you don’t understand?
“Not irrelevant, simply you not comprehending that God puts emphasis on not harming children.”
I comprehend it, but it is irrelevant to the point in dispute, which is: “are unborn children innocent?” God puts emphasis on not harming EVERYONE, yet that does not demonstrate that everyone is innocent, no more than God placing emphasis on not harming children means children are innocent. You are making a non sequitur argument.
“Your thesis is that all are guilty and by extension killing a child in utero is not a problem.”
Incorrect. I have never said anything remotely resembling that statement, you have pulled it from your own imagination.
“Your argument is that all are guilty and therefor abortion is not a sin.”
Please do not lie and put words in my mouth, that is not a proper way to make an argument.
Amen.
| Yr | D | R |
| 1952 | 56% | 44% |
| 1956 | 51% | 49% |
| 1960 | 78% | 22% |
| 1964 | 76% | 24% |
| 1968 | 59% | 33% |
| 1972 | 48% | 52% |
| 1976 | 57% | 41% |
| 1980 | 46% | 47% |
| 1984 | 39% | 61% |
| 1988 | 51% | 49% |
| 1992 | 47% | 35% |
| 1996 | 55% | 35% |
| 2000 | 52% | 46% |
| 2004 | 52% | 48% |
| 2008 | 53% | 47% |
| 2012 | 56% | 44% |
Performed a solo? Standing ovation? Crowd of admirers?
Is this a church or Carnegie Hall?
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.