Home / News / Catholic voting guide indicates that it is a sin to vote for President Obama
Catholic voting guide indicates that it is a sin to vote for President Obama

Catholic voting guide indicates that it is a sin to vote for President Obama

A video outlining the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" indicates that Catholics will be guilty of "serious sin" if they endorse or vote for political candidates who do not support five non-negotiable moral principles on abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and same sex marriage.  The video, which was posted on the Rosary Films YouTube channel, is based on a printed voter's guide created by Catholic Answers, self-described as "one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization."

Rosary Films, in describing the video (which is posted and transcribed below), declares that "Barack Obama is at odds with every one of them {referring to the five non-negotiable principles}. Barack Obama is at odds with these key elements of The Roman Catholic Faith. No faithful Catholic in good conscience can vote or support this presidential candidate. The teachings of the Magisterium show why it would be gravely sinful to vote for him."

Here is a transcript of the video (the video is embedded at the end of the transcript):

This video version of the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" is intended to help you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching.

On most issues that come before voters or legislators, a Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. But some issues, particularly those concerning non-negotiable moral principles, are so key and fundamental that no one endorsing the wrong side of these issues would be acting consistent with the Church's moral norms. This video addresses your role as a Catholic voter, identifies five issues involving non-negotiable moral values in current politics, and offers practical advice on how to identify acceptable candidates for national, state and local offices.

First, let's discuss your role as a Catholic voter.

Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good of the country by exercising their voting privileges at the ballot box. It's not just civil authorities who have this responsibility. Service of the common good requires all citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community, but voting can't be arbitrary. A well-informed Christian conscience doesn't allow voting for a political program or an individual law that contradicts fundamental morals. Citizens support these immoral laws indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them, thus to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically wrong. Instead, as best possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law (picture of 10 Commandments shown). When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, you must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.

Catholic national prioritiesNow that we've outlined your role as a Catholic voter, here are the five non-negotiable issues.

These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically immoral and must never be promoted by the law or deliberately performed under any circumstances. It's a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of them.

[pullquote]The unborn child is always an innocent party and no law may permit the taking of his or her life, even when a child is conceived through rape or incest.[/pullquote]Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being and therefore is a form of homicide. The Church teaches that it is never acceptable to vote for a law permitting abortions. The unborn child is always an innocent party and no law may permit the taking of his or her life, even when a child is conceived through rape or incest. The fault is not the child's and the child should not suffer death for another's sins.

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia is also a form of homicide. Since no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person, in euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed by action or omission out of a misplaced sense of compassion. But true compassion can't include intentionally harming another person.

Human embryos are human beings. The Church opposes embryonic stem cell research but allows adult stem cell research since respect for human beings' basic dignity does not permit manipulating or exploiting the human embryo. Everyone wants to see life-threatening diseases cured, but recent scientific advances show any medical cure that might result from research on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead, without doing harm to the source of the cells. That being said, no valid medical argument exists favoring use of embryonic stem cells, period.

The Church opposes cloning of human beings for any purpose. Attempts to create a human through cloning are contrary to moral law since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the marital union. Human cloning involves homicide because the rejected or unsuccessful clones are destroyed. Human life should never become a commodity created to then be terminated for experimental research.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, the view held across all cultures and religions for thousands and thousands of years. Marriage recognizes commitment, love and the natural capacity of men and women to have children, the next generation of society. Legal recognition of any other union as marriage undermines true marriage, permanently denies children their rights to have both a mother and a father and also encourages immoral behavior. Thus, Catholic lawmakers have a moral duty to vote against any legislation favoring recognition of homosexual unions. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is immoral.

Drawing on these five non-negotiables, here are some guidelines that help you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates and make the best moral choice. Don't just vote based on your political party affiliation, earlier voting habits or your family's voting tradition. Today, you need to take a look at the stands each candidate takes and perhaps vote for candidates from more than one party.

Also, do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching. And most importantly, don't vote for candidates who will vote wrongly on key moral issues, even if you agree with their views on lesser issues. Although a candidate may have voted in line with Catholic values except for, say, abortion, the candidate still should not get your vote unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms.

VoteCatholicNow that we've clearly expressed the importance of your role as a Catholic voter, the five non-negotiables and how to narrow the choices, here's how you can take action and put these ideas into practice.

First, for each national, state and local office, determine how the candidates stand on each of the issues that will come before him and that involve non-negotiable principles. You can educate yourself about the positions of candidates by reading newspaper articles, researching their views on the Internet, contacting local campaign offices or studying one of the many printed surveys that are distributed at election time. Remember, that your vote today – even for local elections – may affect the offices the candidate later achieves.

Next, eliminate from consideration candidates who are wrong on any of the non-negotiable issues regardless of how right they may be on other issues.

Finally, choose from among the remaining candidates who hold the right views on fundamental moral issues by assessing each candidate's views on other lesser issues. In some political races, where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate who takes the fewest wrong positions and who is likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on secondary issues or you ultimately may choose to vote for no one.

[pullquote]By voting for candidates whose positions and legislative records reflect the teachings and values of the Catholic Church, you can advance the common good of society for this generation and beyond. [/pullquote]Voting Catholics have the power to transform our nation, making it more supportive of life, families and the most vulnerable. In the past, you may not have considered the act of voting a moral choice or decision, but today the role of citizens and elected officials in our society is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible and Catholics are obligated to participate in the political life of our nation. Like all citizens, we are entitled to use the tools of democracy to create a better society. To achieve this, we must strive to put in place laws and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. By voting for candidates whose positions and legislative records reflect the teachings and values of the Catholic Church, you can advance the common good of society for this generation and beyond. As a Catholic citizen, you can confidently place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church as you vote Catholic.

To obtain a free copy of the more comprehensive print version of the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" from Catholic Answers, please call 888-291-8000 or visit us online at www.catholic.com


{video link}

About D. Beeksma

One of the growing crowd of American "nones" herself, Deborah is a prolific writer who finds religion, spirituality and the impact of belief (and non-belief) on culture inspiring, fascinating and at times, disturbing. She hosts the God Discussion show and handles the site's technical work. Her education and background is in business, ecommerce and law.
  • Mark Mywerds

    The Catholic CHURCH can find sin around every corner and in every nook and cranny of one's life. I give them the middle-finger salute for this ability. True Catholic folks will vote for Obama. From what I can see, Ryan might even vote for Obama.

    • irishsmile

      Giving the "middle finger" to those with whom you disagree is problematic. No one is forced to be a Catholic. Your definition of a "true Catholic" is interesting. The Catholic Church has been against abortion for over a thousand years. Long before there was a Democratic Party or a Republican Party or even an America.

      • Dmikem

        irishsmile,
        Mark doesn't have a clue about what it means to be a 'true Catholic', he's simply consumed too much of Obama's Kool-Aid.

    • Dmikem

      Well Mark if you are a Catholic all I can say is drop the word Catholic when you discribe yourself. If you are not a Catholic why don't you go on Atheists-R-Us and spew your hate speech. So now that we know you support abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research and cloning it can safely be deduced that you must be a liberal secular progressive relativistic left-leaning disciple of Obama. Good luck with that when you stand before the Lord in judgment (I'm betting you'll be hiding that middle finger then) <[:-o

  • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

    You know, I just love how humans, not a god, but humans, decide what is "sinful" and what is not. The idea that voting for a particular person is sinful just goes to show that humans decide what is a sin and what is not. It also shows that humans, such as those in the Vatican, are controlling other humans, not a deity. I really wish people would figure that out and quickly.

    • Dmikem

      Mriana,
      Humans have not decided what is sinful and what is not, God does through four channels:
      1. Scripture
      2. Papal declarations from the Chair of Peter
      3. Apostolic tradition (T)
      4. Teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium of the Church.
      By voting for Obama you are voting for those (5) intrinsic evils. If you're comfortable with that go-for-it; but be prepared to explain yourself on judgment day.

      • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

        Humans wrote the scriptures. The Bible is not the inerrant word of God, inspired by God, but rather written and inspired by humans. It's all mythology and the Magesterium, who are humans, are controlling people's minds and without a doubt decided what is sinful, not a deity. Now that is evil mind slavery esp if one has been brainwashed so much that they truly believe God decided what is sinful.

        • Dmikem

          Mriana,
          Where do you get this stuff, out of the atheist/agnostic handbook. I don't care what you believe but you have absolutely zero….zero…proofs of your position.
          You don't believe in the 10 Commandments, Moral Law, the Beatitudes, the existance of Jesus Christ, His death, His resurrection fine….but you waste your breath and the breath of you band atheist/agnostic friends in make sill statements like this.
          Why is it that people like you spend so much effort to prove that God does not exist when you don't believe in Him? Do you do the same for the Tooth Fairy, Santa, the Easter Bunny…..?

          • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

            I was an Episcopalian long before I was a humanist. I'll tell you where I learned most of what I know about the Bile:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

            Need I say more.

            • Dmikem

              Mriana, Oh yea, you got to say a lot more. This is what happens when you get your theological degree as a prize in a cracker jack box. This man is so deluded that it is hysterical. He is simply irrational when it comes to religion…..he has become what he condemns.

              • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

                He and I could say the same of you too.

                • Dmikem

                  I'm sure he would decry me and all mainstream religions just like other cult leaders like Kook-Aid Jim Jones (killed his followers and himself in 1978), Marshall herif Applegate said he was a prophet (killed himself in a mass suicide in 1997) David Koresh head of the Branch Davidians (killed in a shootout with federal authorities in 1993). The people you admire are just one step above these religious extremist people. They have no real standing in the religious theologians. They are marginal….extremist. I think you could put their followers into a phone booth so I couldn't care much what they say.

                • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

                  You wouldn't know fantasy if it bit you in the butt.

                • Dmikem

                  Mriana,
                  I'm sure you hold a PHD in fantasy as you posts indicate you live there so I am not offended, my PHD is in rational thought.

          • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

            I also learned from this Anglican too:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk-6qtQl0vU

            Get this, "Religion is mythology misunderstood. Let me repeat that. Religion is mythology misunderstood." ~ Tom Harpur

            • Dmikem

              Another marginal player……why do you pick people on the fringe to follow. I'm not going to watch this guy try to undo historic fact. It's like listening to those that deny the holocaust actually occurred.
              He is just another agnostic or humanist or gnostic trying to persuade people that Christ and Christianity et al is false.
              Kinda sad.

              • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

                I pick them because they are honest and tell the truth, unlike the Catholic Church and Fundamngelicals. I can list others who basically say the same thing and they are legit theologians and scholars, unlike the Darth Vaders (the Pope) you follow.

                • Dmikem

                  Mriana, you wouldn't know the truth if it fell on you. You want to follow non-steam Jim Jones type characters that's you biz but these guys are very fringe. It makes one wonder if you really believe this stuff or just like the lack of moral restrictions you get by following them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1546749407 Maureen Hart

    I wonder if that group enjoys a tax exempt status. ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dphilippart David Philippart

    This group, Catholic Answers, does not speak in any official capacity for the Catholic church. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is an association of all the Catholic bishops of the US, each of whom does speak in an official capacity for the Catholic church in the United States as it exists within his diocese. The bishops have issued there own voter's guide, which can be found here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-document.cfm No where do the bishops say that it is a sin to vote for Barak Obama. The religious sisters of the "Nuns on the Bus" fame give much better advice for Catholics when they vote: http://www.networklobby.org/ Please don't be snookered into thinking that to be a Catholic one must vote Republican.

    • Peter

      No, the Bishops don’t say it’s a “sin” to vote for Obama, but it was perfectly clear where they stood when it came to Obama’s health care reforms which carried provisions for birth control and legal abortion. And, of course, they do tell the faithful it is “sinful” to use birth control and a mortal sin to get an abortion. However, the Bishops are quite careful about not actually telling their congregations how to vote but the message is clear, don’t vote Democrat. Thankfully, more and more ordinary Catholics are tuning out and ignoring these dried-up old men. It’s about time.

      • Dmikem

        Peter,
        Say what. Please please don't tell me you consider yourself Catholic! Why do you need a guide to judge Obama who supports abortion (mortal sin); euthanasia (mortal sin); homosexual marriage (mortal sin); cloning (mortal sin) and embryonic stem cell research (mortal sin).
        You said, "Thankfully, more and more ordinary Catholics arte tuning out and ignorning these dried-up old men. It's about time." Your remarks are proof positive you know less than zero about the Catholic faith which Jesus Christ Himself structured….where He Himself endowed Peter with the charism of infallibility which has passed to each succeeding pope….where He Himself entrusted the teaching authority of the Church to the bishops. Dried up old men indeed.
        As a liberal, secular, relativistic, progressive CHINO….where do you get off insulting the bishops?

        • Peter

          I’m
          not a Catholic, I’m not a Christian but I am a freethinker not bound by dogma
          or the outright lies embedded in Christianity. For instance, where’s the
          historical evidence that Peter was the first Pope? Where is the historical
          evidence that there ever was a person called Peter or Jesus for that matter? Of
          course, the biggest lie is Petrine infallibility, which has no basis in
          reality. Peter infallible? I don’t think so. He was a common, unsophisticated
          working man and according to the Gospels he didn’t understand many of Jesus’
          parables. He so exasperated Jesus that at one point he called Peter Satan.
          (Matthew 16;23) Why Jesus picked these ignorant men as disciples is a mystery.
          Of course, cult leaders do that all the time.

          Jesus
          didn’t structure a church and certainly not the Catholic Church, which only
          came into being a few centuries down the road. Jesus wasn’t starting a new
          religion, his mission, as a Jew, was reforming Judaism. You people go by that
          saying that Jesus would build his
          church on
          this rock (Peter). Why would a Jew say church it never
          happened. If you read your bible, it’s clear in Acts and Paul’s letters that
          James, Jesus’ brother, was the leader of the primitive early church, the bishop
          of Jerusalem. It certainly wasn’t Peter, and he wasn’t the first pope.

          How do you defend the sordid history of
          your infallible papacy where at one point there were three claiming to be Pope,
          where they all infallible? The biggest joke is how the select a pope. It’s a
          political move, a popularity contest, with candidates jockeying for support for
          power. There isn’t a big finger pointing down from the sky thundering, “he’s
          the one.” Can you tell me where in the NT the god-man Jesus ever said anything
          about those mortal sins you mention? Those are injunctions by mortal men with
          their perverse agendas. Your morally bankrupt institution is slowly dying year
          by year. There is justice, after all.

          • Dmikem

            Peter,
            I'm delighted to learn that you are not Catholic nor Christian; your comments prove you know next to nothing about either. You obviously have not read scripture because it would be impossible to miss Christ's words to establishing Peter as the first pope and conveying to him the charism of infallibility (Mt 16:18-20) in matters of morals and faith. You couldn't have missed the establishment of the teaching authority of the Church (Mt 18:15-17) (Lk 10-16). It is clear as day what these passages say, I can only conclude that you haven't read scripture in context but only to snap up a out of context citations to support your incorrect views.
            As to your Mt 16:23 citation; it is taken badly out of context, you totally misinterpret the message and prove, once again, your ignorance of scripture. In this passage Christ was simply chastizing Peter for opposing God's divine will for opposing Christ's passion and death.
            Jesus Christ had no bothers or sisters. If you are referring to the use of the term brother or sister that would go to a cultural practice of the time referring to cousins as such. Clearly no place in the historical accounts of Christ or in scripture is it inimated that he had a brother.
            I can give you tons of references where God (The Big Big Finger pointing down from the sky) conveys in the NT prohibitions against these sins. Before doing so however I need to further your understanding of scripture. Catholics and other Christian believe both the OT and NT are inspired. Therefore your exclusion of the OT leaves aout rich admonishions against the mortal sins you must think are OK. In Mt 5:17-20 Christ said, " [17] Do not think that I
            am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to
            fulfill. [18] For
            amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle
            shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] He therefore that shall
            break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called
            the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be
            called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, that
            unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees,
            you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Admonitions against contraception and abortion begin in The Writings of the Twelve during the 1st century called the 'Diache'. Contraception is condemned in both the OT and NT….Mt 21:19, Mk 11:14, Gn 38:9-10, Rom 1:25-27, Gal 6:7 and on and on. Abortion, while not specifically mentioned in the bible condemns roundly condemns abortion using other words. First, in Jer 1:5 God says, " Before I formed thee
            in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of
            the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations. " Why would God sanction the murder of a baby in the womb after making this declaration? Also,

            • Peter

              Ah yes, the true sign of the desperate:
              resort to ad hominem attacks instead of presenting a logical and
              reasoned rebuttal that doesn’t rely on Church propaganda. Anyway, let me get
              this straight. Jesus picked an unsophisticated, illiterate working man as the
              first pope. A married man by the way according to
              the Gospels, so much for celibate popes. Then, suddenly, in Acts Peter becomes
              a theologian with sophisticated arguments more profound than anything Jesus
              said. But of course the biggest problem with these “inspired” texts is that
              they were written from forty to seventy years after the fact by non-witnesses
              who never met Jesus. Even modern Catholic scholars agree to this. And, we’re
              expected to believe this is the Gospel truth. Give me a break.

              Oh yes, all Jesus’
              brothers and sisters were cousins. Of course they were and your church has
              perpetuated this lie almost from the beginning. In addition, until the Bishops
              came up with the Nicene Creed many early Christians from various other factions
              didn’t believe Jesus was divine. That was decided by a vote and the yahs barely
              won.

              And then there’s
              the Virgin Mary. Of course, Catholics ignore the fact that Mother Mary was not
              a virgin as stated in the Gospels: “but Joesph knew her not until
              she had borne a son.” (Matt. 1:25) “Knowing” someone is biblical shorthand for,
              gosh, sex. In fact, most scholars, including Catholic ones, know that what
              Matthew claims is a prophecy about a virgin giving birth is a mistranslation of
              Isaiah. The word in Hebrew means a young woman, not specifically a virgin. Even
              Paul never mentions this virgin birth nonsense, and he wrote well before the
              Gospels. A virgin birth and perpetual virgin is a church sanctioned myth, without
              basis in fact which over the centuries turned into the Virgin Mary cult. Every
              Catholic home I’ve been to has a picture of Mary which violates the 10
              Commandment injunction about making graven images, at least in Protestant
              bibles.

              • Dmikem

                Peter, because this combox is getting pretty narrow I started a new one…..look for it. :)

        • SouthAustin

          You're right – they're not dried up at all – their libidos seem to spring into action whenever young boys are around. Not sure what's worse – the pervert clergy or the perverts that make excuses for them.

          • Dmikem

            SouthAustin,
            I'll tell you what is worse. It is the misinformed that continue to use the child abuse issue as a hammer when it has been over since the late-eighties. Go to school a little bit, update yourself as to what is and has happened in the U.S. Catholic Church then I'll be happy to have a debate with you. But it is hard to debate blind bias.

    • irishsmile

      Abortion and gay marriage are non-negotiable areas for practicing Catholics. No one is forced to be a Catholic; the door swings both ways. Also, "Nuns on the bus" are a joke to church-going Catholics. It is not about Democrat or Republican. It is about not supporting with one's vote a candidate who supports abortion and gay marriage immaterial of which party that candidate belongs to. Unfortunately almost all Dem candidates support these two non- negotiable areas. I won't vote for any candidate of either party who supports abortion.

    • Dmikem

      The guide does not require anyone to vote Republican, Democrat or suggest a person not vote at all. The guides (inlcuding the USCCB's Faithful Citizenship) are only aimed at helping a Catholic form their conscience in line with Church teachings before they cast their vote. A close read of Faithful Citizenship and the Catholic Answers guide will uncover a common theme; one's must not vote for a candidate who promotes intrinsic evils. If both candidates are imperfect then one's vote should go to the candidate whose policies best conform to Catholic teaching and best advance the common good.
      You do not have to be a genious to realize that Obama is the most anti-Catholic, anti-Christian president in the history of our counry. He vocally and through action supports every single one of the 5 intrinsic evils outlined in the Catholic Answer's Guide……100%. Obama voted against the Born Alive Act; He cancelled the Mexico City Policy; He ordered his Justice Department to stop defending DOMA and actively promotes homosexual marriage; His administration is actively promoting and funding UN initiatives designed to provide contraceptives and abortions around the world; He overturned Bush's ban and funded embryonic stem cell research; He made a duplicitous speech against cloning but left the door wide open to reconsider it in the future; His unconstitutional HHS mandate is nothing more than a naked attack on religious liberty and forces religious institutions to provide abortifacients, contraceptive and abortion services; the ACA will bring rationing of health care services and procedures to the elderly, handicapped and mentally ill. Just look to Europe to read the tea leaves; He is on record supporting euthanasia.
      Any Catholic that votes for this guy is publicly endorsing his policies.
      Any right thinking Catholic will recogize who is being snookered by liberal Social Justice 'Katholics' who consider Church dogmas mere suggestions.

  • labman57

    The Catholic and Mormon Churches have become little more than political action committees.

    In any case, let's examine the whole "damned to hell" proclamation by dusting off a well-known anecdote about a mythical college Chemistry Final Exam …

    Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

    Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs by explaining that a gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed, or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

    First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

    As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions, and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

    With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell, because Avogadro's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

    This gives two possibilities:
    1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
    2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

    So which is it?

    If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my freshman year
    that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then I can conclude that #2 cannot be true, and therefore Hell is exothermic.

    • Dmikem

      Hell ain't no myth either.

  • Dmikem

    Peter,

    Ahaaaa the ‘ol atheist
    defense……’the your being mean defense’.
    Perhaps you can point out this ‘ad hominem’ attack. I suspect it is in the facts and scripture
    citations that you don’t understand and cannot refute. Allow me to further your education:

    Yes Jesus did pick uneducated fishermen many of
    which were married. To your point that
    you think it speaks volumes about celibate popes; celibacy within the Catholic
    Church is only a Church requirement and could be changed in the future. Today there are married priests within the
    Catholic Church who have come to the Church from non-Catholic faith
    communities. If you need an explanation
    of why Catholic clergy is celibate I’d be glad to explain in another post.

    Once again your ignorance
    of scripture raises its head. You said, “In
    Acts Peter becomes a theologian with sophisticated arguments more profound than
    anything Jesus said.” Please read the
    following which will explain exactly why the apostles were able to speak so
    deeply and so eloquently:

    “John 16:7, "But
    I speak the truth to you. It is better for you in order that I go, for if I do
    not go, the Paraclete (Advocate) will not come to you, but if I go, I will send
    him to you.” Jesus leaves them, as to suffer death for the redemption of all
    men. According to the order of divine decrees, If I do not go, the Paraclete
    will not come. The coming of the Paraclete was to sanctify the apostles
    with divine gifts, and to teach them after His Ascension. In the three years
    the apostles spent with their Master, was it really possible for them to learn
    everything they would need to know? Even a well educated and most reasoned
    intellect would have had a hard time digesting the wealth of information given
    to the apostles, and Jesus seemed to agree, so He provided for their
    "continuing education" after the Ascension, through the operation of
    the Holy Spirit:

    "Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But
    when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all the truth. For he
    will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he will hear he will speak,
    and the things that are to come he will declare to you." John 16:12-13.
    Jesus tells the apostles not to worry about what to say.

    Luke 21:15 -

    "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not
    be able to resist."

    and Mark 13:11 -

    "And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful
    beforehand what you shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you in that
    hour, say that. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Spirit."

    You think that because the gospels were written 40 – 70 years and could not
    be inspired because they were written by non-witnesses. Modern Catholic scholars do not agree with
    this is patently false because they would fist have to deny the Gospel of St.
    John. You are not suggesting that this
    apostle did not know Christ do you? St.
    Mark was one of the 70 disciples of Christ; St. Luke hung out with St.
    Paul….you know Saul who God himself converted. He joined St. Paul
    in 61 and remained with him for years.
    His close association with St. Paul
    provided the insight and the Holy Spirit the accuracy. St. Matthew was one of the 12 and so new
    Christ first hand. So there you have it…..the gospels were written after the
    death of Christ which only makes sense if you understand the story of the 4
    gospel writers. You can believe them
    because they are inspired.

    Now let’s turn to your lack of understanding of scripture, culture and the
    language of the times. Below is a link
    that will fully explain this. It is from
    a Catholic source but you are free to find secular evidence to refute it. Just as a teaser I lifted the following from
    the article:

    “Actually,
    the confusion originates in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of most of the
    original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word
    existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the
    word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, “the son of
    the brother of my father.” When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and
    the New Testament written in Greek, the word adelphos was used to capture all of
    these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the
    title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of
    distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the
    Greek adelphos to signify all of these relations.

    This is, from
    both secular and religious language experts accurate….it was the culture of the
    day.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0090.html

    As for Christ’s
    divinity…..there arose in the 4th century a heresy known as Aryanism. A group within the Church declared that
    Christ was not divine as was held by the Catholic Church from day one. In Scripture Christ refers to Himself as the
    Son of God in many ways and in many places.
    So this was an effort by heretics to change the Church teachings clearly
    not an uncommon in the history of the Church and it was suppressed. You notion that the vote was close is not
    supported by facts. Of the 250-318 who
    attended all but 2 voted to suppress it.

    With regard
    to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary you once again fail to understand the
    context of the citation you provide. Just
    as your idea that Jesus had brothers and sisters was wrong factually,
    culturally, historically and scripturally, your ‘sole scriptura’ approach to
    reading the bible will always lead you into error and confusion. You misunderstand and misrepresent a single
    verse because you don’t understand the word ‘until’ as used in the time denotes
    only events that happened up to that moment and has nothing to do with the
    future. In addition you fail to
    understand the meaning of the word ‘firstborn’ as used in this passage and
    culturally in the time of Christ. Why do
    you fail to address the citations that testify to her perpetual virginity? Beginning with Lk 1:34 where Mary asks, “How
    can this be since I do not know man”……? Or Lk 2:41-51 where Christ
    entrusted Mary to John….why not a younger sibling?

    As for craven
    images….I haven’t had such a laugh in years….thanks. So you think we pray to statues and pictures……LOL
    that is a knee slapper. I carry pictures
    of friends, families and pets all the time but I don’t pray to them. When I see a statue or a picture of Mary it
    elevates my thoughts and helps me focus my prayers. Thanks for a great laugh. As for the protestant bibles….if it weren’t
    for the Catholic bible they wouldn’t have a page in ‘em! Please explain how a picture violates the 10th
    Commandment that prohibits coveting? Ever
    wonder why there are 40,000 protestant faith communities……sola scriptura.

    You’re a hoot
    to talk to but oh….let me end with a little ad hominem that was absent in my
    last post; if biblical and religious ignorance was bliss you would be the
    happiest person ever born. <[:-0

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314195742 Rain Mist

    Soooooo…..God opposes homicide? Particularly of children?

    Is this the same God who killed all the firstborn of Egypt, demanded Abraham sacrifice his son with a knife, and pre-ordained the brutal death of his own son because boy, if there's anything that demonstrates compassion, charity, and tolerance, it's nailing someone up?

    Just curious.

    Also, I note nothing on Jesus' one commandment: to love one another. Goodness knows, there's no demonstration of love, or pretty much anything but spitefulness, in the comments below from the alleged 'Christians'. Hm. Wasn't that love for all others supposed to be the sign by which we would know the true followers of Christ?

    • Dmikem

      You might want try and read scripture in context instead of selectively quoting out of context words and events to support your position…..silly.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314195742 Rain Mist

        I'm reasonably certain that I've read more of the Bible in its entirety than the average Christian. Which is to say, I've read it through, and thought about it. Religious services have passages they like; that would be selective reading. I read the whole thing, multiple times, even the genealogies. It's part of why I left religion. OT God tends to be savage and totalitarian in its demands. If it exists, I can't see any justification to obey it, much less worship it. You might as well worship Zeus. Equally flashy, arbitrary bullying.

        Jesus, OTOH, seems to be a being of an entirely different philosophy, one which echoes the best sentiments of other major religions. Unfortunately, all too often, the tenets Jesus stressed are abandoned wholesale. People pat themselves on the back for being Christian because they go to services or hand out some money. But they can't maintain that extraordinary generosity of spirit in their day-to-day lives. It's bad for business. But Jesus was not spectacularly interested in profits.

        • Dmikem

          The difference between us is that I understand the context of Scripture….you read it for your own understanding (sole scriptura). You like so many who think they are "intellectuals" have no grasp of scripture…no matter how many times you claim you have read it.

          You generalize, condemn Christians and offer zero in terms of what should be done.

          It is you that worships not Zeus, but your own opinion, which is sad considering you have discarded 2000 + years of scholarship because 'you know best'.

          One of the seven deadly sins is 'Pride'.

  • Pingback: The Episcopal Church, faith, and U.S. Politics, defying the defiers on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” | God Discussion

  • bob

    Perhaps it's time the church looses it's tax deductions if it plays in politics and tries to impose it's beliefs on non members.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KAGQQLZOHBC6HIDY62DLCMWKTY johnf

    Who gets to pick these 5 categories? They are certainly not from the Bible since the primitive people who wrote it had never heard of stem cell research and Jesus never mentioned abortion or homosexuality. If you really want to know who Jesus would vote for check out which candidate is, like Jesus, a champion of the poor.

  • Piobairean

    “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they
    will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on
    the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you
    should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be
    gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories
    of your loved ones.”

    Marcus Aurelius

Scroll To Top