TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

powerboatr wrote: {snip}
as a fellow converted Catholic
I agree 100%
The times make it harder and harder to remain steadfast, but I for one will not fold on my beliefs and my faith.

Super! Why do y'all want to impose your mores, beliefs and judgements on others?

Live and let live, ours is not to judge. God will sort 'em out, eh?

Oldgringo, you speak of which you do not know. The Catholic Church does not impose mores, beliefs, and judgements on others.

The Catholic Church has been the steadfast source of Truth for 2,000 years. If you look at history and the teaching of all other world religions their teachings have changes with the times and social engineering. The Catholic Church's teaching is the same today as it always has been.

You are also wrong about one other point in your post. God will not sort 'em out. When we die we sort ourselves out. When we die we judge ourselves because we then understand fully His Right and Truth. These are no longer clouded. We decide to go to either heaven (purgatory for those with imperfections) or heck. If you die outside of God's loving grace you cannot stand to be in His presence.

This might be difficult for some to accept but it is the truth.

Please stop judging the Catholic Church in your posts such as these because they are not true.

Anygunanywhere

It seems that this thread is about the republican party changing platforms, actually changing core beliefs to suit the lefties so that a GOP candidate can pass muster and get elected.

How about the GOP adopting the anti-gun stance and even push for assault weapons ban and a $1.00 tax on each round of ammo?

That would show the lefties we are willing to find more "common ground". This common ground is now the buzzword in DC and really means we give up our beliefs and they continue to take our rights.

In my world, there is no common ground.

I do not give up my beliefs. I do not change just to suit someone else and make them like me.

Oldgringo wrote:

snatchel wrote:I guess this all begs the question: What makes any of us culpable for someone's decision to participate in pro-choice/pro gay-marriage acts?

If the 2016 Election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: Pro-Choice, Anti-Handout, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Gun

I would vote Republican still, in a heartbeat. Why? I'm getting what I WANT while letting what I cant fight happen. There is no way that a Republican President is going to be elected again while maintaining a strict anti-choice/anti-gay marriage platform. Too many younger conservatives like me who are willing to sacrifice "bedroom issues" in order to maintain a fiscally conservative government that stays out of everyone's business.

It's not that I support Pro-Choice candidates... never have, never will. Nor Do I support gay-marriage. At least not from a moral perspective. Still, far be it from me to thumb my nose at a gay man who wants to marry his boyfriend. Heck, 50 years ago I would have been frowned down on by ultra-conservatives for marrying an Asian woman. "Gosh no, Sonny! You can't marry a... minority".....

Times are changing. What seems like an unforgivable, morally compromising decision now will be a non-issue in ten years to most folks. So how can I, a christian male, agree to sign off on a candidate who is pro-choice/pro gay-marriage? Simply put, i'm not responsible for other peoples actions. Going out and drinking till unconsciousness is morally wrong, sinful, stupid, and often gets people killed. But it's legal, and none of us feel culpable for those idiots, do we? In the 1920's they did... and we know how prohibition worked out.

I picked my fights. I can't baby-sit the United States. I'm not responsible for someone else's stupid decision. A pro choice/pro gay-marriage Republican President wouldn't be responsible for it either. That's between the person who chooses to do those things and God.

So here I sit... in bed next to my beautiful wife after going to Mass this evening. Tonight we will pray that the Republican party starts to realize that social-conservatism is going to bury the Republican party .. and has been since 2008. We pray that God gives us a candidate who is willing to sacrifice some conservative social stances so that he or she can have a leg to stand on come election time, so that America can start to get back on track to a country where we aren't afraid to have children in.

There it is!

C-dub wrote:IBTL

anygunanywhere wrote:

Purplehood wrote:
I do not see why one cannot defend social liberty and religious freedom.
Social liberty and religious freedom by definition are one and the same.
A religious person may not like the fact that social liberties exist, but must accept that others may practice it.
A person believing in equal rights and the like may consider religious beliefs as outdated, outmoded and obsolete, but must allow others the freedom to practice them.

Simply put, stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours. Government and politics should have nothing to do with it.

Purplehood, the government is forcing your social engineering down the throats of those who object because of their faith.

FORCED. THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR US.

The HHS Mandate is mandatory, under penalty of law!

WHERE IS THE FREEDOM OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?

You say you want the government to stay out of your bedrooom. Tell your government to stay out of my freedom of religion.

I do not have to believe in gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the so called social freedoms you insist I embrace just to elect someone to represent me in an oppressive government of which I no longer recognize as a valid government.

Respectfully,
Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:So what you are essentially saying is that in order to get elected one must give up all principles and toe the social agenda line? Kill more babies, more elderly? We have to tolerate more social engineering when the enemy does not tolerate us or anything about us?

NIce.

Sell your soul for public office.

You can't defend your social liberty and maintain religious freedom. They are not mutually inclusive.

Anygunanywhere