Many people share his horrible political beliefs and his faith. There is no such thing as "pure evil".

There are plenty of example in the bible of this. For instance, there's the story of how Jesus made everyone work for fish and bread.

Those that didn't, he let starve

At variance with the text.

Perhaps Paul needs to reread the original

We know the text.

Clearly Ryan has moved beyond a literal interpretation of your holy scriptures.

Whenever I read a post like this it brings me back to Leonard Cohen. I am trying to remain hopeful.


I can't run no more
With that lawless crowd
While the killers in high places
Say their prayers out loud
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
A thundercloud
And they're going to hear from me

to support or oppose political leaders. Let's get faith off the sleeves of our politicians.

and Paul Ryan is less Christian than I am.

"a good, caring person with a conscience". I disagree with that definition, because no such correlation exists. Christians aren't any more likely than non-Christians to be good, caring people with consciences.

while shunning the teachings of Christ means Ryan is a demon feigning to be a Christian. I neither embrace or deny Christ.

as he interprets them. As has been pointed out, he hasn't been denied Communion and he has not been excommunicated, so his Church obviously considers him to be a Christian in good standing. So, we have a difference of opinion. The Roman Catholic Church and I think Ryan is a Christian, and you think he isn't. How do we determine who is right? Do we flip a coin?

so it would appear that his political views are not in direct conflict with his faith. There is no objective standard for "faithiness". All we have is subjective reporting. He says he is a devout Catholic.

I am flattered.

You gave examples. Someone else also gave examples. Both examples are accurate. Balance is a good thing.

You flatter yourself, perhaps.

As to balance, there is none here. The anti-religion posts far outnumber all other posts.

You tend to think posts are anti-religion that are merely discussing religion. You are miscounting, I believe. This group is for the discussion of religion. There are bound to be discussions that are not positive about religion's influence on society. That bothers you, so you assume that any post that doesn't praise religion is anti-religion. That's inaccurate.

Sadly, your efforts to correct the balance often lead to additional posts you don't like.

And so it goes on an open discussion forum.

As for sarcasm, of course you were being sarcastic. Sarcasm has its uses, but it rarely leads to worthwhile discussion.

But I understand your apparent need to dismiss the issue. It validates what you believe to be correct.

(Some mind reading on my part.)

I post my thoughts and opinions here without regard to that. I have no needs in this group. I simply post as I choose.

Unless one lives alone, on an island. Humans are social creatures, and implicit in that is the recognition that we depend on others for many things, including validation.

And they are, proof of their own opinions.

And if those opinions happen to conform and agree to your own, I am certain that you assign a high value to those opinions.

Confirmation bias is an interesting thing.

I don't think you know much about us at all.

I realize religious people 'debate and discuss' too, but I've never see atheists debates spill out into the street as actual violence so....

Here and elsewhere.

I judge people based on how they act, and write, and speak. If they act or write or speak condescendingly, or ignorantly, I will judge accordingly.

But some apparently take exception to mentioning it.

Since you like to repeatedly bring up there are multiple sub-groups under Religion and Spirituality, might I remind you there's a specific group for Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith, maybe you can hike your 'GOOD NEWS FOR X' bullshit over there.

Or is it the theistic component that offends?

And not alienating the theistic component of the Democratic coalition also matters.

Bold move, Cotton.

And you could head over to Interfaith and try make that group active. I just looked and there is one new post since August. But from looking at the group rules, you won't have us nasty atheists over there pointing out that your "good news" is pretty weak.

And done it very well indeed.

From the clearly posted "about this group" discussion, Religion is not a "don't speak badly about religion" place to discuss. You have to live with the opposition. There are places where you don't. For example, I would imagine if you went and posted this nonsense in "Atheists & Agnostics" you would be stopped. So, too, would negative comments about religion in the protected religious spaces. Why don't you go there, then? Of course we all know the reason. Those places are ghost towns where nobody wants to talk. So you have two choices. 1. Try bring back the ghost town. 2. Deal with the fact that you don't get to do your rah rah religion schtick here without someone calling you on it.

Do you also analyze your own motives for posting here?

If you don't like the way things go in this group, there are other protected groups you can go to. if you choose not to, then you have to deal with this group as it is. It isn't going to turn into an echo chamber for religion is awesome posts. Those do exist, though.

It's like you're trolling for negative responses.

I understand the apparent need among some to minimize it, but ignoring reality does not change reality.

You've posted breathlessly hopeful shit before, without any reference to how many people it affects. Issues that affect not even whole numbers of a percent.

You should take your own damn advice. "ignoring reality does not change reality."

You're giving away your whole propaganda game when you call it 'minimizing', at least when you're speaking to me, because all I've ever done is supply actual numerical context.

The RCC certainly has not censured him, has not denied him communion as they did to John Kerry. So if the RCC is fine with his Catholicism, I have to accept that he is in fact a Catholic in good standing with his church.

I mean, have you ever seen somebody actually try to get excommunicated? It's nearly impossible.

...all you have to do is suck a dick... to get excommunicated, that is.

Let's say they baptise me after my death. Let's then say my remains are subsequently used in a homosexual act after my death--with just as much knowledge and consent as given to my baptism.

Can I get excommunicated for that?

behavior and positions. It is never good to blindly follow specially when the behavior is not Christ-like.

Or is it possible for you to be wrong about that?

That sure as hell isn't anything Christ-like!

would I find anything that wasn't "Christ-like"?

Or are you as perfect as the man-god you claim to worship?

Paul Ryan lives and acts for ALL of the great and good going to the wealthiest who already have more than everything. There is a Great Spirit but I'm at a loss for words regarding your so-called man-god.

Do you think Paul Ryan does ANYTHING "Christ-like" or is there absolutely nothing redeemable about him?

Wish republiCONs gave a damn about the greater good for ALL!

Do you think he gives any money to charity?

Are those things "Christ-like"?

Riddle me that?

They've threatened Pelosi with excommunication and refusing communion. Never a peep from them on Paul Ryan's basic lack of humanity, charity, or decency.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/sf-archbishop-pelosi-no-catholic-can-dissent-church-teaching-abortion

ARE there any christ-like people? Are you sure? Or is it just a matter of whose ox is being gored at any given moment?

It's impossible, no matter how hard you may try. Everyone is a sinner.

It's not hard to do.

If sin doesn't exist.

special pleading. Things like that. I am capable of it, in a sense. I though President Obama said something profoundly interesting about this.

I choose my values, and make a rational case for each one. I don't get my values from a book, or a preacher, or tradition, or nationalism, or any other external source. I built my values. In selecting them, part of the analysis included whether I COULD live up to them. Is it even possible. If I end up in some conflict that requires resolution, since *I* choose and validate my values, I can alter or replace them if I find a flaw in how they interface with reality, as easily as you can alter rules in a router's firewall. Because all I am looking for is what works, I don't have to agonize over or special plead when I find a rule not working. The goal is to' best fit', not to 'maintain the rule at all costs'. I don't care about the rules. I'm not emotionally invested in them. I just need them to compile and work. Ignoring/violating my values, (like Obama called it's own punishment) would lead to self-destructive behavior or results. I would damage my relationship with other people/reality if I started violating my own values.

What the President said was one of those insane moments of terrible clarity, where the solution to multiple problems clicks into place. I suddenly understood him, and immediately understood why religious conservatives reacted so venomously about what he said. Even though they share the same baseplate name faith, their implementations are wholly alien to each other. They accused him of aggrandizement and 'making himself his own god'.... which in a sense, was another profound peek behind the curtain of THEIR minds.



In any case, it gave me an expression of what 'sin' could mean, and as long as I am being honest with myself and the world around me, it is laughably easy to avoid sin entirely. Choose achievable values and live by them. That's it. It doesn't get any easier than that.

And challenging to the traditional meaning, I like it.

Neat how that works.

But a Catholic nonetheless.

According to the RCC, getting an abortion is an act worse than genocide. You can be forgiven for genocide, but abortion is an automatic ex-communication.

So logically, most DU Catholics are not "good Catholics" according to official church dogma.

Guess who else isn't a good Catholic, then. Any democratic politician that voted pro-choice. Know how I know that? The pope said it was a sin and those that didn't couldn't have communion.

What is the basis for your decision?

She wrote that Christ’s crucifixion was immoral not because people took Jesus’ life, but because he volunteered it, and because he sacrificed his perfect life for the imperfect lives of others. "According to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the non-ideal people." To Rand, altruism is the ultimate immorality because it is "the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others." Rand despised the idea that one should ever sacrifice one's own needs or desires for the sake of other people. John Kenneth Galbraith once said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." And that's what Rand seems to have tried to do. But when conservatives like Paul Ryan try to square Rand's objectivism with traditional Christianity - feeding the hungry, healing the sick, all that stuff - they are engaging in the most blatant and ridiculous intellectual dishonesty.

Human sacrifices to one or more deities are immoral in all cases, even when the person killed volunteers. The relative perfection of the person sacrificed and the supposed beneficiaries is irrelevant.

Maybe Ryan feels comfortable doing what he does because he believes that, as a Christian, he'll be forgiven all his sins.

People going to great lengths to disqualify someone from their religion when his own church embraces him.

The twists and turns are uncomfortable to watch.

Bought and paid for by his owners.

I think Lordquinton is talking about the posters who are saying Ryan isn't a Christian. Ryan's an evil SOB, but that doesn't make him a non-Christian.

Why doesn't he have 12 children? Gasp - do he and his wife use birth control?! Horrors!

and outcomes is just for programs for the "poor," not for things like, say, tax cuts, which have been proven to NOT create jobs.

Bullshit that says nothing and means nothing. Sophistry pure and simple. Is it not ironic that Ryan is a catholic AND an Ayn Rander?