Sunday, October 24, 2004
Posted by J. J. Jackson @ 4:04 PM
Kerry, today on the campaign trail said basically that he is a Catholic that disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church. He is of course referring to how he thinks abortion is A-Ok and the Church does not.
Mr. Kerry, if you disagree with the doctrine of the church then why are you a member?
Perhaps it has something to do with his belief that he knows best. Perhaps it has something to do with the necessity as being seen as a religious man to win any political office. Only in the mind of the the "war hero" lays the answer.
Leave a comment if you like! *Note if you are a left wing, tin hat wearing, pro-Marxist loon that likes to post "anonymously" you will be treated like the kook you are!
Please note everyone that once again, Dennis has not addressed the issue at hand which is that the Bible condones killing someone (which is different that murder) as punishment for certain crimes is legitimate. He and his little buddy here have still not refuted that nor have either of them informed us of what crime the unborn child has committed.
If he had ever read the Chirstian Bible (which he probably hasn't because he already admitted elsewhere he is Jewish) and particularly the New Testament he would know the lessons of Jesus were to show compassion. Jesus stepped in and ceased certain acts of violence during his ministry. However please note that Jesus did NOT ever, NOT once, ever condemn or renounce killing as a form of punishment out right.
In fact the record shows that he added only one additional teaching to that of his Father and that was to love one another as he had loved us. Note that there is no record of him rewritting any of the other lessons.
Dennis continues here to open his mouth and remove all doubt.
Come on Dennis, I'm waiting...what "crime" has the unborn child committed?
You ran away from the other two threads you posted in pretty fast after accusing me of being insensitive to Jews only to be shot down when I pointed out that I myself have a strong Jewish herritage. Why is that? Hmmmm? I know, I know, it hurts to have your worldview shattered that somehow you have all the answers.
“Oh so you're going to use the Bible as a means to justify capital punishment just because it was done in ancient times? OK, well those who don't go to church on Sundays or those who do not observe the Sabbath were ordered stoned in the Bible. Should we do that, too?” -Dennis
I noticed that you ignored the rebuttal to that (which again is typical for you) where I clearly stated “Jesus stepped in and ceased certain acts of violence during his ministry. However please note that Jesus did NOT ever, NOT once, ever condemn or renounce killing as a form of punishment out right.”
You are still attempting to paint me as a stupid little Rushbot. Why? Because you can’t even address the issues placed before you. YOU are the one that attempted to backdoor into the argument the implication that the Bible (which Christianity is based on) doesn’t condone killing as a punishment for crimes. However once you realized that I actually know what the Bible says you promptly ignored that.
Then, you attempt the ULTMIMATE in dishonesty by saying “I was hoping you might be willing to engage in a real political dialogue without being so nasty.” Nasty? Excuse me but if you call me confronting your worldview “nasty”, then you have continued to show your own unwillingness to talk. You REALLY expect anyone reading this to believe that you came here looking for “real political dialogue” when the absolute first post you made was to insult me?
“I was just wondering if you had an original thought that didn't derive from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Maybe?”
That’s what YOU said Dennis. Do you often open a “real political dialogue” by insulting people as unintelligent and unthinking? Of course you do. And you continue to prove it with every post you make. Now you are whining. Or, actually I should say, all you have done is whine. You call me “nasty” when all we have to do is look at your first “intellectual” response here.
Then you try again to defend your assertion of me by saying “And all the stuff you wrote about Kerry today...heard it all on Rush. Yeah, I listen to Rush. Why? Because I'm interested in opening myself up to different viewpoints. And that is something you are not interested in.”
The purpose? Why once again to attempt to discredit me as someone simply parroting Limbaugh. However, once again I remind you that I do not listen to Rush. Also note that I stated with posts today at 8:45 AM, 9:05 AM and 10:56 AM. Um, what time does Limbaugh come on live? 12:00 Noon perhaps?
Ouch. I know that you have a problem dealing with reality.
Also note that when you first accused me of parroting Limbaugh and Hannity it was in response to items that occurred on Saturday and Sunday. Um….hmmmmm…Rush isn’t on live either of those days is he? I didn’t think so.
So before you come here and accuse me of being the one not interested in listening to other sides which is humorous in and of itself (talk about making assumptions!) and complaining that I am being nasty for confronting your fallacies, maybe you should revisit your plan of attack so to speak.
Like I said, this is my world. You came here. You attacked my credibility, intelligence and ability in your VERY FIRST post. Are you actually going to make a relevant point at some time in the future? Or are you content to just keep opening that mouth?
Because right now there is very little doubt left.