PhuturePriest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1339105975' post='2442284'] Deliberately getting drunk (as opposed to moderate alcohol consumption) is always sinful. It's mortally sinful if it leads to endangerment of one's own life or the life of others (as by drunk driving) or leads to the complete loss of reason. [/quote] Precisely. I know that. But Kujo decided I was a lost-cause and stopped arguing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 How can a Democrat be faithful Catholic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted June 12, 2012 Author Share Posted June 12, 2012 [img]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/21891216.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r2Dtoo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Groo, you missed a thread. http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/113257-if-god-is-all-powerful-can-he-make-a-rock-so-big-that-even-he-cannot-lift-it/page__st__140 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1339105975' post='2442284'] Deliberately getting drunk (as opposed to moderate alcohol consumption) is always sinful. It's mortally sinful if it leads to endangerment of one's own life or the life of others (as by drunk driving) or leads to the complete loss of reason. [/quote] Can you specify the Blood alcohol level that it changes from moderate not sinful to 'drunk' always sinful? Can of worms friend! Action as in the second statement is more appropriate. A happy drunk is not committing any sin whereas one who engages in bad or dangerous behaviour is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1339470039' post='2443733'] Can you specify the Blood alcohol level that it changes from moderate not sinful to 'drunk' always sinful? Can of worms friend! Action as in the second statement is more appropriate. A happy drunk is not committing any sin whereas one who engages in bad or dangerous behaviour is. [/quote] being delibratly drunk is a sin no matter if your a happy drunk or a drunk who is engaging in other sinful activities. being delibratly drunk no matter how you act is sinful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1339482803' post='2443808'] being delibratly drunk is a sin no matter if your a happy drunk or a drunk who is engaging in other sinful activities. being delibratly drunk no matter how you act is sinful. [/quote] Except at weddings The wedding @ canna , if you wanna be sola scriptora. But st paul did say "have a little bit for what ails you." He didn't say have alot. Also st paul says "Drunkardness is evil." now as to whether or not Drunkardness is not the state of getting drunk sometimes or whether it is anytime drunk i don't know, all i know is when i'm drunk me personaly am more prone to sin maybe some aren't. And the O.T. says "Don't drink with drunkards." That's all the scripture i've got on tha matter. Just all the wording seems specific, DrunkardNESS, DrunkARDS . Onward Christian souls. JESUS iz LORD. God iz Good,God iz Love,God saves. p.s. check out, trip lee - the good life,if you all haven't already, he has a pro life song on there about not aborting children in the womb. We can unite on this paticular matter. Edited June 12, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) And back on topic unsure about the democratic political parties in the u.s.a but we can faithfully support democracy and reamian fully catholic. Keep writing the letters/emails and peacfully protesting, at the least it releaves our concience and you may think people must have already written or your suggestions and complaints don't make a difference your only one person or 3 friends, they do,if we all thought like that the governments thinks itself above the people,for a democracy to work more effeciently the people need to work it, exercise your democratic rite to write. And i know everyone here where i live says they don't read it anyway, yes they do and re-occuring subjects need to be given serious consideration by a democratic government same as peacfull protests, and even if it isn't a popular media subject send it in even if you think it's nothing and too quirky,and if any friends or fam agree with your suggestion get them to email too, and send a paper letter too why not. But also don't forget to send congratulation letters to polies about things you agree with and like. Onward christian souls. JESUS iz LORD. God is Good,God is Love,God saves. P.s. Don't forget to pray for them,the cops and the holy priesthood, there like 3 way high pressure jobs. Edited June 12, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 It's not to late, young men and women of GOD rise up, and all ye old scabbards back to tha decks man the cannons got ta teach deez govs sum spect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1338862450' post='2441033'] Many people have made worse first posts and stayed for years though... [/quote] Yeah me too, and i continue to post weird, half the time, i won the most un-comprehensible poster for the last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 [quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1339484905' post='2443809'] Except at weddings The wedding @ canna , [/quote] Thanks for the rescue! Obviously drunkenness to the point of not knowing good wine from bad is not yet sinful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1336894494' post='2430179'] I think you can certainly be a pro-life Democrat. It's pretty obvious that the platforms are irrelevant and not binding on anyone. Right now I am an independent. At one time I registered as a Democrat, and then later I switched to the Republican party. But on neither occasion did anyone ask me to take an oath to uphold the party platform or even show me a copy. Both parties espouse the "big tent" idea. In short, they want as many members as possible without regard to their views. Unless of course, you are peddling racist stuff, etc. But even then they make no effort to screen anyone up front. S. [/quote] I just finished reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and one of the bones of contention is whether they each support their respective party platforms. It would have been a breach of honor if not (otherwise what's the point of attaching yourself to the party if you don't support the platform). Of course, this is in the context of politicians, not party members. But if politicians are expected to uphold the platform, then theoretically, there shouldn't be candidates to vote for who don't support it. Just curious what you think about that (not saying you're right or wrong, just curious because I happened to be reading those debates). Edited June 13, 2012 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzo Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1339620663' post='2444377'] I just finished reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and one of the bones of contention is whether they each support their respective party platforms. It would have been a breach of honor if not (otherwise what's the point of attaching yourself to the party if you don't support the platform). Of course, this is in the context of politicians, not party members. But if politicians are expected to uphold the platform, then theoretically, there shouldn't be candidates to vote for who don't support it. Just curious what you think about that (not saying you're right or wrong, just curious because I happened to be reading those debates). [/quote] I think platforms ought to matter and should be binding on candidates but it just isn't the case sometimes. With respect to the example you cite the fact that Lincoln and Douglas were questioned on whether they supported their party platforms kind of implies that even then people wondered about the issue. The thrust of my comments was more directed towards the modern era but if you look at the 1864 election you will see another very notable example of what I am talking about. The Democratic party platform of 1864 called for a "cessation of hostilities" and a negotiated peace with the South. Then they nominated General George McClellan as the party's nominee. McClellan repudiated the peace plank in the platform. No one said "Hey, you can't be our nominee anymore". We would probably have to do a lot of research on platforms in our history to answer this fully. But I think we would find that even in the 19th century some candidates also quietly ignored things in the platform they didn't like. But in our era things are definiteley different. Another example would be 1996 when Bob Dole was nominated by the Republicans. He remarked at one point during the convention that he had not read the whole platform. One thing called for in the platform was to amend the Constitution so that children of illegal immigrants born in the USA would no longer be automatic citizens. Dole sidestepped the issue at the convention saying he would have to "think long and hard about it". Well, "long and hard" only took nine days before he announced he would not support that plank of the platform. [url="http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/24/us/dole-rejects-a-party-plank.html"]http://www.nytimes.c...arty-plank.html[/url] I think this is one thing (among many!) that is wrong with party politics and this is why I think platforms are just hot air now. If candidates can ignore them, then why bother having one? S. Edited June 13, 2012 by Skinzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I'm a faithful Catholic, and a Democrat. I'm just not a faithful Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Why is this thread still active? I thought we all agreed to speak about ponies and llamas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now