Liberals confess crush on 'Democrat' Pope over his 'message to GOP'

Plenty of  liberals were thrilled Thursday to hear what they could only assume was Pope Francis’ message to the Republican Party. In an interview with Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica, the Pope said the Church “could fall like a house of cards” if it were to “insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.” He further warned of divisiveness were the Church “to talk about these issues all the time.”

With more than a million Catholics to think of, it’s unlikely Pope Francis was speaking with the GOP in mind, but you wouldn’t know that from Twitter. Check out these converts.

Rebranding? It does sound a lot like Republicans talking about their “big tent.” A lot like it.

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people,” the Pope said. “We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.” He also reaffirmed that the “most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.” How many of these new “converts” will accept that teaching?

  • jerry148

    It appears that His Holiness is merely suggesting that the Church shouldn’t have a laser-like focus on those issues, not that they aren’t issues.

    Of course, those who support those issues immediately interpreted his statement to mean that the Church will renege on its positions.

    • https://twitter.com/Guy_Montag_OG Guy_Montag_OG

      Christos taught that the killing of innocents was an abomination. That Sanctitas Francis would side with Herod is something too grim to consider.

    • detroit19

      Exactly! He did NOT say that the Church condones or supports either gay marriage or abortion.

      • Brian Roastbeef

        He even said that the Church’s message on abortion has been made very clear, and that the reason it doesn’t always need to be discussed is because nothing more need be added.

        As far as homosexuality, it’s hard to imagine American leftists thinking outside their own agenda, but if there was a political aspect to this message, it may have been to Putin to quit condoning their being beaten in the streets.

  • http://whatandever.blogspot.com/ Osumashi Kinyobe

    Democrats, as usual, have reading comprehension problems. Pope Francis would be the very first to call them on their “Marie-Antoinette” ways.

    • Danimal

      The raw stupidity of liberals is just breath-taking sometimes. He states that instead of just hammering at these three big issues, that he’s going to broaden the scope of the Church’s message.

      Instead of being upset that the Church is going to be calling out a bigger variety of Liberal evils, they’re happy that he’s not just focusing on these three.

      They can’t do any of their own thinking and only read headlines.

      • http://whatandever.blogspot.com/ Osumashi Kinyobe

        Bingo.

        He wants to focus on anything but the issues the popular press yammers on about. He’s come out only recently to strongly condemn abortion, in case the morons in the press rooms were a few brain cells short when they paraphrased him and put words in his mouth.

  • Kawaei

    out of these issues I could careless about gay marriage or birth control, im not a very religious man but to me abortion is still murder to me

    • jerry148

      Honestly, I think I would give 100% support to gay marriage advocates if it meant that not one more abortion would occur in this country.

      • NXXII

        I’d join the Nazi Party if all counterfeiting would stop. I’m sure our logic will work out morally somehow…

        • jerry148

          All I’m saying is that there seems to be two pervading social issues being fought over between liberals and conservatives. The former believe that gay marriage is good, and that abortion is necessary. The latter believe that gay marriage is not so good, and that abortion is murder.

          I would compromise on the first issue, if it meant victory on the second.

      • NXXII

        Edit: iOS7 Mobile App Bug wrong thread.

    • NXXII

      Edit: iOS7 Mobile App Bug. Replied to Wrong Thread.

      • Kawaei

        I didn’t say its a false church people can believe what they want. I just live by Jesus loves you no matter what and I don’t see how being homosexual is really a choice, I love GOD but I just have different views then most people.

        • NXXII

          Sorry the Twitchy App posted my reply to another thread.
          I didn’t update it when I started using iOS7. Just another reason I love Android. Disqus never deletes my posts so I decided to just edit so the discussion doesn’t become confused.

  • FreedomFighter

    I grew up Catholic and i agree with the pope. Homosexuality and abortion are both sins, but who are we to judge. The ultimate judgment has yet to come. Lets focus on more important things.

    • NXXII

      The “Judge Not” verse in context is clearly about Hypocritical Judgements not about suspending the ability to form an opinion or conclusion. A world without judgement is nonsensical. We would have no ability to condemn a murderer let alone Adolf Hitler. It would be awful judgmental not to give away your young daughter to a pedophile too.

      • MarcusFenix

        Before I run….it’s good to see someone else who has this line of thinking. Usually, that’s not the case.

        It’s also the only correct thing you’ve said the entire time.
        +1

      • cummingsamerica

        Rinse, repeat this message until they can all recite by heart.

  • Maxwell

    I like that he put emphasis on the fact that Jesus Christ saved us.

    I think he just doesn’t want the Catholic Church to hyper focus on these issues, at least, I hope that’s what he means. If he doesn’t think at least abortion is a sin, we might be in for some dark times.

    • https://twitter.com/Guy_Montag_OG Guy_Montag_OG

      The moment Sanctitas Francis mentions that abortion is murder, or that humans need to repent for their sins and accept The Savior into
      their hearts, is the moment that Plouffe/Hayes will rip into him like a
      Centurion w/ a cat-o-nine tails on the Isle of Patmos.

      • Ann Margaret Lewis

        Thing is…he HAS said these things explicitly as a cardinal.

  • https://twitter.com/Guy_Montag_OG Guy_Montag_OG

    Plouffe/Hayes are looking for a Brave New World/1984 where they’re the Overseers.

    I want a minimal Federal Government holding a loose Republic of states that make their own laws on a local level.

    This isn’t going to end well. If the populace is anything like me, this Republic is going to splinter fast on the first Fall.

  • 0bamasnought

    Wow.
    The Atheist Party really ate that up.
    And the Republican’s didn’t boo God at their convention.

    • NXXII

      Why compromise at all?
      Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Liberal rodents love to show off how little they know about religion and how bad they are at self-awareness. No, the Holy Father is not an ally of the slime that ridiculed and demeaned him and his life’s work as evil up until, well, today. He would forgive them their words because he is better person than they are, but God a Democrat? Lay off the opium, pal. I, and smarter people, wondered how Latin-America social democratic philosophies would play, and the end result is kind of, IDK, Libertarian. De-emphasize social doctrine, attract people by emphasizing core ideas. Jesus is our savior. The Church is here to do good works, and so on. Might work. But experience, and rhetoric, tells me “Liberal Catholics” aren’t Catholics at all, or even very religious. But His Holiness is a better person than me, too. Allowing their culture-change gambits to potentially take root in the Church is a EXTREMELY worrisome prospect. It’s a bad enough that they’ve been attacking the Faith for decades from the outside. But he is the Pope, and that means something to me.

  • Maxx

    Don’t get too giddy Democrats….this is the same fella who finds your position on abortion shameful…

  • URGR82

    If Jesus fid come back and say he was a democrat how many “dems” would flee the party

    • Clete Torres

      A lot of them, you can be sure of that.

  • Love of Country

    Christopher Hayes ✔ @chrislhayes

    Seriously, he keeps this up, and I’m gonna start going to mass.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    PEDOPHILE ALERT

  • Mr_Wrestling_XIII

    His Holiness is definitely unconventional, but he’s still against all 3. All he’s saying the Church should ease up on the divisive rhetoric and emphasize on the fact Jesus is our Lord and Savior. Any so-called “Catholics” politicizing his statements should be ashamed of themselves.

    God and Jesus are Democrats? WTF is wrong with these people…

    • wwbdinct

      You know the libtards only hear what they want to hear. All they saw were the words “abortion” and “gay” and that’s enough to send the thrills up the leg. They didn’t bother to try to understand the context of his statement.

      • Chrissy the Hyphenated

        The same way they cherry pick Scripture and Church teachings.

  • Benjamin Johnson

    Hey, if this pope keeps going the way he is going, why bother with a church at all? Isn’t he the one who was saying it isn’t necessary to believe in God to reach heaven? So why bother with organized religion? Sounds like a waste of time and money. Now, he wants to conform more to the values of the American Left? Really not seeing the point of supporting that.

    • MarcusFenix

      My believe in God doesn’t rest within the walls of organized religion. The way things are now is not how it was intended.

      • NXXII

        (Citation Needed)

        • MarcusFenix

          Most of how the modern church functions isn’t how it was intended, specifically starting with Acts. The church, as it is now, functions as a business. I doubt Christ had franchise issues in mind when he began his ministry. He did specifically say, however that “Where two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am there with you” in Matthew 18:20. No mention of mega-churches. No mention of 2 or 3 hundred. Possibly anecdotal in the larger context, but clearly stated.

          Originally, it was small groups of people. Paul, in many of his letters, used the word “ekkelsia” to describe the “churches”..which, the term denoted usually less than 30 people who are tied together in some communal fashion. It wasn’t until the 3rd and 4th centuries where official buildings like we might know them were constructed. Even then, it was still the smaller, group style gatherings where people gave encouragement, admonishment, prayer, and thanks that were more prevalent. It wasn’t until much later that the larger style churches became the commonplace sight as we see now.

          One article I’ve read previously addresses many issues at once, and is worth the read.

          http://members.toast.net/puritan/Articles/ChurchOrganization_f.htm

          I have a few things around here with more direct references, but I’m also in need of having to get ready for a project for work, so…I’ll have to look for it later and post. Sorry I couldn’t be more direct, would just take time to look up things in my library that I’m out of time for this morning.

          • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

            Exactly, and like it or not the Catholic Church has always been a political organization rife with corruption. To me, the very idea of a Pope and a power structure goes against the teachings of the Bible and it has led to some very bad men taking power like Rodrigo Borgia and extensive corruption.

          • NXXII

            I’m non-denominational but if you are looking for a corruption free organization you aren’t going to find one. Politics and Power are not inherently bad or good it’s what flawed humans chose to do with them.

          • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

            The Catholic Church is a worldwide organization with a centuries-long history of corruption and abuse that has it’s tentacles all over the world though. We are not talking about a few Applebee’s employees that steal from the cash register here. This is the Grandaddy of them all. It has good intentions but deep systemic problems that go against it’s own teachings and they have been going on for a very very long time. It’s followers are good people but their leadership is corrupt and this new progressive Pope is nothing more than politics.

          • NXXII

            “Tentacles”? Worldwide Conspiracies?
            It’s like that Ron Paul post the other day!
            Good times.

          • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

            When did I say anything about conspiracies or Ron Paul? I said ‘corruption’ which has been well documented. Quit twisting my words and try to keep on the subject please.

          • NXXII

            I never said that you said anything about Ron Paul nor did I twist your words but you are using conspiracy related imagery. My point was that any large organization would be extremely susceptible to corruption based on human nature and lack of oversight but you ignore that and spin this wild-eyed fanciful tale of a shadowy organization “The Grand Daddy of Them All!” with it’s “Tentacles” clutching the globe in a sinister embrace. It’s classic conspiracy related imagery and it gives the impression that you think Catholicism is uniquely “corrupt”.

          • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

            Corruption is corruption and it is wrong whether it is at McDonald’s or the Catholic Church. When an organization is that big and that influential and spreading a progressive message then it is everyone’s problem. Stop quibbling with my wording and stop excusing it.

          • NXXII

            Great we’re in total agreement then.
            Corruption is corruption and there is no special grand conspiracy involving Catholicism.

          • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

            I love your logic. I guess we should tolerate people doing bad things because other people are doing it. Hey guys, let’s not do anything about corrupt organizations because other organizations are corrupt. That makes a lot of sense. Why does it have to be ‘special’ to want to get rid of corruption? Why are you bending over backwards to defend it? Why aren’t you concerned that the Catholic Church is spoon-feeding it’s followers Progressivism?

          • NXXII

            Where did I say we should tolerate Corruption?
            Where did I say corruption had to be “Special” to warrant action? What I am objecting to is you claiming the Catholic Church is uniquely engaging in a worldwide conspiracy as an organization.

          • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

            When did I say conspiracy? The pope is pushing progressive views which affects the whole church. It’s out in the open, how can it be a conspiracy? You are the one arguing against things I haven’t even said.

          • MarcusFenix

            This guy is a pompous nutbar. Just my 2 cents, now that Im finished talking to him in my last post. It doesn’t do any good to talk to someone who makes up things you never said, and then bases an argument off of it.

          • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

            Yeah, I had a feeling I was getting trolled.

          • MarcusFenix

            I’m not even convinced it’s pure trolling, like some of our more well known residents. He does share some of the same qualities.

            Credit where it’s due, he does tend to be more articulate. That’s a least a plus. It’s just hard to give style points for someone who automatically says that you have to concede everything in an argument to him, because he stuffs the conversation with fluff and bases an argument off of it.

            Or, we’re being trolled. There is that. LOL

          • MarcusFenix

            I had to reply one more time to him….it’s to the effect of when I see something REALLY stupid, I just can’t help but go after it…kind of like instinctively stepping on a bug, simply because it’s there. <_<

          • NXXII

            So by your logic Jesus was saying every time more then two or three people gather together to worship it’s a false church? If not what is the maximum number of worshippers before a church becomes “bad”.
            Why does having a building officially designated as a place of worship mean it’s invalid and where does it say that early church practices must be applied universally?
            How do Megachurches let alone regular churches operate as businesses? Every church I’ve been to survives on donations. Unless we are counting running bake sales as operating as a business I don’t quite follow.

          • MarcusFenix

            Not sure how much more twisting of my words you could get, to try and justify your own point as being the only correct one. Thanks for proving just one more more reason why organized religion isn’t terribly great. You spent a lot of time shoving words in my mouth. Additionally, you seem kind of combative on the issue, this time around.

            My “logic” was that the original set up of small groups used was the intent. I didn’t say some other setup was evil, bad, malignant, etc. It’s just not what was intended. I also never said Jesus set some magical number limit. The original intent was tighter knit communities, like an extended family, that spiritually took care of one another. There was a senior pastor involved, which took care of multiple groups and traveled around, while the less senior priests and deacons took care of the more immediate and day to day interactions.

            I never said having a building was invalid, or that early church practices were somehow iron clad. Again, I was stating intent. Not dogma. As time has past, we have spent more time worrying about buildings than we do about people, in my opinion.

            If you have trouble seeing how churches operate akin to business, then likely any explanation I provide is going to be something you’ll argue. Churches, especially smaller ones, exist on donations. Afterwards, however, you get into the details of the organization. “We have to keep our numbers up.” “We need to raise more money, because we’re going to miss our budget.” These are things a business says, when dealing with customers, and yet…it’s all too common at a church business meeting to hear those terms. If churches were more concerned with the spiritual lives of their congregation, rather than how much money came into the plate that week, people would come. People are hungry for a message, and yet…it’s about the money and how many butts the church can get into the seats.

            As much as I happen to enjoy listening to Osteen from time to time..his net worth is 40 million dollars. It would be past absurd to believe that he gained that much wealth from just donation. Notice I’m not attacking the fact he’s wealthy. I’m simply pointing out that his personal wealth has less to do with donations, and more to do with a business model of location appearances, the selling of merchandise, and the like. I happen to like his approach with the message, but he still runs it like a business.

          • NXXII

            So you readily concede my points that you have no historical or scriptural basis for your views and you must appeal to a magical “Original Intent” that somehow was never recorded. I’m not sure how my concern for proper historical and scriptural knowledge makes me “one more more reason why organized religion isn’t terribly great” because as I’ve said I do not attend church and if you look at my other posts you will see I’m non-denominational. As I’ve said “I’m not demanding mandatory church attendance or saying that Christians
            that don’t attend church go to hell but I’m also saying that Christians
            who attend Churches and Mega-churches are just as valid as those who
            don’t. I find no indication that God has given a preference on the
            matter so it’s up to the individual to worship as he chooses.” So unless you are still claiming that your “Original Intent” is universal and mandatory we are in complete agreement as you conceded all my points.

            You seem to have a great distrust of business and misunderstand how it works while assuming sinister intent so it almost seems pointless to try to explain otherwise.
            I’m not sure how Joel Osteen’s private endeavors as a best selling author and speaker cited by national news organizations and presidential candidates are relevant to this discussion unless you are claiming his skimming his churches coffers.

          • MarcusFenix

            All you seem capable of is twisting words around to suit whatever argument you’re making and coming across like an uneducated jackass.

            I “readily concede” nothing. As I stated previously, you’ll simply disagree with something that’s not your own opinion. You strike me as being someone who wouldn’t agree with anyone else, if it differs from you at all. Childish.

            The entire book of Acts isn’t Scripture-based enough for you? Did you even bother to read any of what was posted before coming up with this? Do you know of any large churches that were built pre-4th century? Do you understand what “ekklesia” means, in its context? Clearly, you don’t. Early Christians didn’t build large churches or buildings for worship…yet you don’t even bother to ask, much less understand, why this was the case. Did you “magically” believe something else? The reason was because the intent was for smaller, tight knit groups, as is demonstrated in Acts, and was written about by Paul. I’m sorry that you fail to understand that.

            Notice that I never, at any point, stated it was mandatory or somehow there was some negative result stemming from going to a church, a mega-church, or just sitting at home. I simply stated that it was how things started and that it was the original intent of the early church for things to be that way, based on historical context and the Book of Acts along with the writings of Paul. Again, more stuffing of words into someone’s mouth because you cannot make your argument without doing so. Should you then concede that since I made no such claims, that your premise is wrong or that you completely misunderstood? Should you concede that by continually assuming and having to wrap your own argument in words someone else never used, that your own argument is flawed, because your ego refuses to accept anything but what -you- see as the truth?

            I didn’t think so.

            The original concept is clearly demonstrated there in Acts, however. Go read it, or don’t. Your contempt on the matter is the only thing clearly demonstrated here. Does it make you feel better to just say that someone else conceded a point that you have not fully understood, nor would even when explained? It’s stupid to say someone concedes anything when you’re obviously incapable of doing so yourself, and more so when you base it off of things that you take purposely out of context, dismiss out of hand without researching first, or just outright act like a clown because you just -can’t- be wrong.

            I don’t have a mistrust of business. What a ridiculous thing to say. How would you even come to that conclusion? Do you concede you have no idea what you’re talking about? I doubt it. Nor did I “assume sinister intent”. The old adage about “assuming” applies directly to you in this case.

            I have a distrust of people, such as the Catholic church, who abuse their authority. You might need that spelled out for you as well, but since Google is a thing, you can do it there. It’s not like there’s a lack of scandals to find.

            My claims about Osteen were pretty straight forward. Apparently, English isn’t your strong suit. Let me say it again:

            ” I’m simply pointing out that his personal wealth has less to do with
            donations, and more to do with a business model of location appearances,
            the selling of merchandise, and the like.”

            Were the words too big, or was it your ego that bypassed this very simply meaning and dropped that steaming pile on your last post?

            When Osteen holds a seminar, he doesn’t accept donations as an entry fee. He charges a flat rate for tickets, to make profit He sells books, for profit. He sells merchandise, for profit. How does any of that not work as a business? Since you need a refresher on your own quote:

            “Every church I’ve been to survives on donations. Unless we are counting
            running bake sales as operating as a business I don’t quite follow.”

            Should be easier to follow now, unless the words have been too large. I don’t disagree with his right to do so, but clearly people like Osteen and his church (again, even though I do like his message) don’t run just on your fictitious and ludicrous “bake sale” idea. As I stated before, when a church worries more about how much is in the plate and how many people are in the seats…it’s a money issue. Most churches, sadly operate under this principle.

            It’s always best to actually understand a conversation before you participate in it.

            Likely, we won’t continue this discussion, because you’ll just add more things into the discussion that were never said, and then draw your false narrative from them, or warp what is said into something it’s not in order to create the illusion that you’re still correct. Have fun with that. :)

          • NXXII

            It’s completely pointless trying to reason with you when all you have are emotion based attacks on capitalism,churches,and myself. Until you can show me where in Acts it says the early church standards of organization are mandatory,timeless,universal you have no historical or scriptural basis for claiming your preference are the one true method of church organization. Until you stop lashing out at anyone who asks a question and answer with evidence we have every right to question your conclusions.

            “When Osteen holds a seminar, he doesn’t accept donations as an entry fee. He charges a flat rate for tickets, to make profit He sells books, for profit. He sells merchandise, for profit. How does any of that not work as a business?”

            He’s doing that as Joel Osteen private citizen not as a pastor.
            Again unless you are claiming he is skimming his coffers bringing him up is completely irreverent and only serves to illustrate your prejudice towards business and a ignorance to what Modern Churches actually are.

            How would your proposed “True Church” fund itself anyway?
            May I suggest a bake sale?

          • MarcusFenix

            What was emotional about anything I said? I stated my opinion. You shoved a bunch of statements into the discussion, as I’ll demonstrate later with 5 examples, to only favor your opinion. There’s nothing emotional about calling you out on that. It doesn’t change the fact that I think, at least on this specific discussion, that you’re clown shoes and that, at best you can only deflect, misrepresent, add words and meaning never assigned, and lie to yourself about this so that you’ll not be wrong.

            Asking for a direct blueprint, someone laid out to your incredibly specific requirements is a Continuum Fallacy. To wit, how many churches can you name or identify that were built pre-4th century, as we know them now? We can obviously agree there were Christians, so…what church did they go to? Certainly, there were no lack of people. Since you like references:

            Acts 2: 44-46: Direct mention of actions of the early church, including the breaking of bread from house to house…not from church building to church building.

            Acts 4:4- states 5000 people were saved. No mention, nor historical data of buildings to accommodate this number.

            Acts 4: 32-35- Shows believers sharing everything they had, as a community or tight-knit family group…they sold their possessions and property and gave the money to the apostles to spread the word. Zero mention, or historical/archaeological evidence that they then bought property for a large church building…quite the opposite.

            Acts 8:3- Saul (later known as Paul) starts a large persecution of Christians after the stoning of Stephen. He goes house to house. If there was a huge congregational building, why doesn’t it say he went there? Because there was no such building.

            Notice the context and descriptions in those verses, No buildings. Just people congregating in their homes and worshiping, while part of a larger network. That looks like plenty of scripture there. Historically, there is no evidence churches as you know them were built until well into the 4th century, yet…there were thousands upon thousands of believers just in a single region.

            Now, we get into where you’re stuffing the argument.

            1. “Until you can show me where in Acts it says the early church standards of organization are mandatory,timeless,universal…”

            A claim I never made. I never said there was no other way, that this was absolutely and without fail the only way, or that it was somehow flew in the face of Christianity that things had changed. I stated that there was only the *intent*, and that it was how it started. Your words are in error, with respect to trying to turn the discussion in only your favor. Insisting I did is simply false, as the above posts show very plainly.

            2 …you have no historical or scriptural basis for claiming your preference are the one true method of church organization.

            Again, words I never said, that you’ve included as if they were or were somehow implied directly. I never said it was the “one true” method at all. I stated it’s the *intent*. Consider intent for a moment. My intent was to sleep in until about 730 this morning…I’m awake much earlier. What I intended and what came to be are different items, just as in this case. Intent does not establish some adamant foundation that is unchanging and unyielding. The fact that you somehow believe so is simply incorrect from the start. I’ve now demonstrated scripture, and there’s no historical buildings to show you, because those didn’t exist. I cannot disprove a negative…which shows your lack of knowledge for debating and logical reasoning.

            3. “Until you stop lashing out at anyone who asks a question and answer with evidence we have every right to question your conclusions.”

            You have every right to question conclusions, and I am glad when people do so. It is how proper discourse occurs. Each posting of mine has drawn the same conclusions, with the same statements. My original postings to you weren’t lashing out. If you believe that me calling you a jackass is “lashing out”, I’d caution you about pretty much the entire internet…that’s not lashing out, it’s just calling you a jackass because of your attitude.

            Your argument was to include items never mentioned or intended, then state that with these inclusions of yours that I have to concede my argument to you as a result. Your arguments also twist what was said, as above, simply to fit your narrative. It’s intellectually dishonest to do so, and fallacious to include things that were never said or meant and use them as a base for your argument.

            4. “….to illustrate your prejudice towards business and a ignorance to what Modern Churches actually are.”

            That is a great deal of illustrations for things that I, again..never said, never implied, and certainly did not mean in the way you state them. That was made clear on more than 1 account. Even a cursory understanding of the previous discussions would yield that information. Again, it is dishonest when it’s been made clear multiple times that your assessment is incorrect and ludicrous on it’s face…yet, here you are with it again. I personally love capitalism, and absolutely believe in a free market system.. Do you need me to state directly that I’m not prejudiced towards businesses for you to get it into your thick skull that your statement is wrong?

            With regards to Osteen, he *is* in fact writing books, promoting seminars, and acting in his capacity as a pastor. It’s what he is and what he does. His church ministry and his personal ministry are intricately and directly connected. There is no way to separate the two, with the exception of his annual tax forms. Otherwise, the two are universally connected. People go to see Osteen as a pastor, not just some guy on the street. You cannot separate the two, simply because it disagrees with your erroneous premise. f he were taking only donations to go to his seminars, or only accepting donations with regards to book sales, you may be on to something. But these things are done to generate funds, directly, for Osteen and his ministry, for profit. Good luck attempting to separate the two otherwise.

            5. “Again unless you are claiming he is skimming his coffers bringing him up is completely irreverent…”

            I never said he was. I said he runs his ministry in the same manner as a business. The mention of Osteen in this fashion *directly* establishes relevance, when talking about how churches operate as business. You can scroll upwards again to see that line of thought, repeatedly. In what manner is mentioning this, when part of the topic is the discussion of churches functioning as business, not be relevant with the stated material. It’s only “irrelevant” because you say it is, because it is something you disagree with and have to (again) twist around to somehow make yourself correct. It is, however…as anyone who can read basic English, directly tied to the discussion as an example for the case in point.

            Outside of this, your personal stances on things referenced in the other post was of no real relevance, nor was it something you stated to me. Using something you said to someone else at a different time or different place, that was outside of what we were discussing, was ill placed. I’m not going to backtrack every post or discussion you’ve ever had, anywhere, to try and figure out your meaning. You didn’t say it to me, in this thread or any other, so…there is a piece of irrelevance for you.

            You state you’re a recent convert, and you’re non-denominational and don’t go to church…then call other people on a subject you specifically acknowledge that you’re not involved in on a level to understand their workings from the inside. I find it odd you state other people are ignorant for something you have never been involved in…that’s like going to an eye doctor for an operation, only to find the man doing it is a foot doctor and is just filling in for the day.

            The “true church”? What would that be? It’s not what I’ve stated, since I only stated intent of early churches and not the establishment of some “true church”….notice that you’re shoving more words into the conversation, used as incorrect pseudo-allegory and as an illustration that is inconsistent with the narrative (just like you did with Ben, below…….). Guess that makes this one example number 6? If you can define what you believe a “true church” is, we can address that directly, but when you do…it’ll just be more misinformation from you. I am not claiming that the intent from Acts was a “true church”. You can quote me on that if you like.

            I didn’t want to get into this discussion again, because your last post was precisely as I predicted it would be from before.

            But please, feel free to continually expose your ignorance on the subject matter, continue to state things never said, bring in meanings that were clearly never intended, and to manipulate the narrative so that somehow, you just can’t ever be wrong.

          • NXXII

            To clarify I don’t attend church due to a potent combination of Agoraphobia and Claustrophobia plus I’m not really a “People Person” and the decision to attend should be left up to the individual I’m just saying that I find no cause to assume that early church practices that relate to a specific historical situation must be applied Universally. I’ve read some books championing a return to “The True Church” and they tend to be polemic works championing the author’s prejudges (i.e “Social Justice”). I’m not demanding mandatory church attendance or saying that Christians that don’t attend church go to hell but I’m also saying that Christians who attend Churches and Mega-churches are just as valid as those who don’t. I find no indication that God has given a preference on the matter so it’s up to the individual to worship as he chooses.

        • Grandma HeadInjury

          Check out Pagan Christianity by George Barna and Frank Viola.

          It’s an eye opener. Viola is a dedicated Christian who points out how many of our rituals are rooted in the paganism of the 1st century. He also does a great study on what the Apostolic Christian church was originally like.

    • NXXII

      Why bother being moral at all?

    • https://twitter.com/Guy_Montag_OG Guy_Montag_OG

      Francisco’s Letter to La Repubblica: those were sensationalized headlines, probably to drive click-through traffic. Sanctitas Francis’ letter was subtle, but not heretical.

      http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/did-pope-francis-really-say-atheists-are-going-to-heaven-5823451667365888

      Letter in La Repubblica: http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/?ref=search

  • Kathleen

    … And those ultra-liberals crushing on him right now is EXACTLY the reaction that Pope Francis wanted. I can guarantee it. Liberals going to church … Maybe they’ll get something out of it by listening to something new!

    The Pope did not tell people that sinning was okay, nor did he say that abortion was cool. I reckon he was saying that sinners will never find their path to God if nobody allows them to. Threatening hellfire and brimstone doesn’t work as well as the teaching of Jesus Christ (love).

    You know that old saying, “You attract more flies with sugar”? I think that applies here.

    • NXXII

      Then the flies grow big and fat off your sugar and start bossing you around.

      • Kathleen

        That could very well happen, but opening your arms to the sinners is part of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Pope is being faithful to the church in that retrospect. I hope and pray he continues to be true to those teachings by spreading the gospel to the other side, rather than letting the other side overrun him. As a Catholic myself, I strongly believe that our church needs leaders who are kind, but have strength.

        The only way to bring about change is to have a willingness to try to work with others, according to Christianity. Our country is so divided right now because partisan politics have turned too many people into antagonizers and name-callers. We are in a dire need to at least bring back intelligent conversation. Remember, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.”

        • MarcusFenix

          I agree that as Christians, we should be open to others on our invitations. It’s a good thing to try and reach people regardless of who they are, and whatever their world view may be, so that they’re given an option.

          However…in one specific instance like this, you have liberals who are simply pushing to an ideological belief and using the Pope’s message to do it. Whether the message is right, wrong, or indifferent is of no consequence to them. They’re just using the Pope as a prop. Is that to say that *all* of them are….no. But I wouldn’t put it past them, as being the case, for the large majority.

          They’re not interested in a Christian message…they’re only interested in doing what they want. Having the heart of a servant, as in the Biblical sense, is a foreign concept to many.

        • NXXII

          But we also must remember that “Even Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.” We must also shun false prophets and wolves in sheep’s clothing who only want to destroy the church. Silencing your opposition tends to only encourage the other side. I’m all for welcoming people to Christ (I converted about four years ago) but it must be done carefully. One bad apple can spoil the bunch.

        • NXXII

          In a way we are both right.
          http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/3.htm

        • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100000632491464/ Al Mahan

          NXII – Your “grow big and fat off the sugar and start bossin gyou around” That was a very well worded statement with a whole lot of umph! You hit the nail on the head!
          Also, you can really draw flies if you shovel crap from the pulpit. And that is what is happening to the Gospel today. The flies are drawn by the sugar or the crap and then take over the place demanding that we turn the church into a manure pile!

  • Magnifico

    He never said that you should marry your best friend and have an abortion. I wouldn’t get too excited.

  • Grandma HeadInjury
    • grais

      funny stuff, eh?
      Maybe now’s the time to remind them about one of their favorite screeches :

      Keep your religion out of my government!!!

  • grais

    So, Now the Pope’s infallible again? Almost? Sort of?

    And these clowns think it’s the GOP that’s obsessed with gay marriage and abortion??
    hilarious!!

  • rennyangel2

    Only self-obsessed libs think everything is about them. The Pope was speaking to Catholics across the entire world.

  • Jimni27

    The GOP isn’t obsessed with those issues. The liberal press is obsessed with asking the GOP gotcha questions about those issues in order to call them out of touch.

    • Chrissy the Hyphenated

      I recall a clip of a Romney interview like this. He finally asked the reporter, “Don’t you want to talk about anything IMPORTANT?”

      • Jimni27

        Rubio did the same to BuzzFeed Ben when they had their little Buzzfeed brews Q&A. They’re getting smarter about it.

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    Unfortunately they are right about this Pope being a progressive, I’ve known it since his remarks about poverty and the economy. Catholics don’t want to admit it but The Catholic Church has become a very progressive organization itself and this Pope reflects that.

    • Chrissy the Hyphenated

      Pope Francis spent a good deal of time in Argentina fighting against the modernist reforms of the government. Moreover, within the Church the spectre of liberation theologies that conflate Christ’s justice with Marxist principles was (and still is) a constant presence in Latin America.

      “To those who are now promising to fix all your problems, I say, ‘Go and fix yourself.’ . . . Have a change of heart. Get to confession, before you need it even more! The current crisis will not be improved by magicians from outside the country and nor will [improvement] come from the golden mouth of our politicians, so accustomed to making incredible promises.”

      http://www.stpeterslist.com/10390/quotes-from-cardinal-bergoglio-now-pope-francis-on-7-moral-issues/

      • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

        I’m not buying it, progressives often use the language of conservatives. When a man complains about income inequality and low wages as ‘slavery’ then there is no doubt that he is a progressive.

    • Lady 12

      Very true. This Pope is more politics than religion.

  • rivers

    “Pope Francis is on record as vehemently opposing gay marriage and standing up to politicians regarding the life issues as well. His point is that when we minister to people who are estranged from the church or who have never known God we don’t come at them with doctrine, but with prayer and the good news about God’s love for them through Jesus Christ. He is worried that people who are in need of ministering to might think that the Church’s only purpose is to proselytize moral beliefs.”

  • Steve_J

    It would seem the liberals are just fine with priests diddling alter boys after all.

  • Chris

    So is this one of these things where the power structures tries to reach out to the fringe and alienates the base? Can I just have one public group I can belong to that will stand up for morality and doing what is right? Can’t one guy get up and say “This is what we’re about and we’re not going to change it to suit others needs.” I mean, religious and political organizations aren’t businesses, they don’t exist to flex with the times, they exist to represent something we believe in. If people, as a group, start believing in different things, than that organization disappears and a new one takes its place, it doesn’t change what it believes in.

  • vetgal1970

    Anyone who watched the spectacle that was the 2012 Democrat National Convention knows who is obsessed with these as issues. The same people who voted to reject God. So let them think whatever they want, let them gloat. If 1 persons soul hears and accepts the message ‘Jesus Christ has saved you’, it’s worth it. I didn’t see where he said we had to accept it, I think he was saying we shouldn’t use it as an excuse to reject people who might be saved.

  • Right Wired

    I missed the part where his Holiness said gay marriage and abortion were ok.
    Oh wait, that’s because he didn’t say that.

  • Richard Wayne

    Have Catholic charity and social work been an illusion? These media idiots are the ones who always focus on the Church’s stance on abortion and gay relationships and giving the impression that Catholics are only about these issues. Nothing the Pope said changes the Church’s stance on those issues.

  • Randal Smith

    I’m no Pat Robertson, but I believe God and Jesus would be Democrats

    You believe they would be pro-abortion? Seriously?

  • Chrissy the Hyphenated

    Pope Francis has affirmed church teaching on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage. He has also specifically rejected Socialism, which is the heart and soul of the Obama Democrat philosophy. Some of his quotes are at this link, which also includes links to other stuff in the footnotes.

    http://www.stpeterslist.com/10390/quotes-from-cardinal-bergoglio-now-pope-francis-on-7-moral-issues/

  • Karla M

    Pope condemns abortion as product of ‘throwaway culture’

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto…ns/1303991.htm

  • Kat

    I somehow missed the part where the pope said that gay marriage, abortion, and contraception were suddenly endorsed by the church.

    More to the point, if liberals and feminists aren’t obsessed with these three issues, perhaps they can leave the Mormon sci-fi writers, cake decorators, and arts and crafts supplies cashiers alone, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. Nope, nothing wrong with pink vagina costumes and constant screaming about how they will DIE if they have to pay for those birth control pills themselves.

  • Steve Vandenberg

    Umm sorry progressives, like the constitution the 10 commandments isn’t a living document!

  • Lady 12

    This is what happens when religious leaders mix politics into their ecclesiastical duties: they make political compromises about doctrine! This pope is not a good pope.

  • wwbdinct

    Looks like there are going to be some broken hearts in Libtardland today. As I suspected, they really did NOT pay attention to what Pope Francis said It seems that others have posted the statement that he made today so I won’t post another link. Suffice it to say – Lucy pulled the football away from Charlie Brown.

  • http://twitter.com/starwarsfan107 Hayekguy

    To my leftists fellows on twitter, the Pope saying the Church shouldn’t focus on abortion and gay marriage doesn’t automatically make them non-issues. It just means the Church should be widening its focus on other issues. Every time he makes a statement like this about outreach, they act like it’s the greatest thing he’s ever done. Please lefties stop freaking out. The Church is not changing any of its positions any time in the distant.

  • http://twitter.com/starwarsfan107 Hayekguy

    Now with all that said to lefties about their bowing to Pope Francis to his statements, I will say he sets a good example for the GOP when it comes to reaching out. Focus not just on one or two issues, but the wide array of things.

  • jazj

    Didn’t need to read any of that except for Chris Hayes tweet;

    “Seriously, he keeps this up, and I’m gonna start going to mass.”
    So you don’t celebrate mass, have communion, go to confession and believe in Jesus Christ, the Catholic doctrine only if the Pope talks more about Gays and Abortion?
    Abortion/Contraception/Homosexuality are topics to be discussed within the Church but that should NEVER prevent you from going to Church, no one is turned them you burke.
    Also they forget most Republicans are not Catholic.

  • stuckinIL4now

    Seems to me it’s libturds who are obsessed with gay marriage, contraception and abortion. As for Chris Hayes–yeah Chrissie, you need to go to mass, or better yet–confession. And gee would I love to know what penance you get