If you can’t grasp this…

I saw this at my friend The Motley Monk‘s place.

Go read the first comment over there. It is PERFECT.

 

If you can’t grasp this…
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to If you can’t grasp this…

  1. Priam1184 says:

    The one on the left likes the United States and the one on the right wanted, and presumably still wants, to destroy the United States. I’m guessing that is why our liberal friends despise the one and have affection for the other.

  2. OrthodoxChick says:

    Fr. Z.,

    I just tried using your sharing button to tweet this out, but I received an error message.

  3. chantgirl says:

    Bazinga!

    Phil also hasn’t threatened to wipe an entire country off the map. I thought liberals loved to try to understand the misunderstood. I guess Phil doesn’t count, or perhaps they understand perfectly and don’t like certain sins being called out as sins. It’s okay to call racism a sin, or defrauding the worker of his wages a sin, but bedroom sins are off limits.

  4. OrthodoxChick says:

    I got it. The twitter feature under the general +Share/Bookmark feature had the error. When I used the dedicated “Tweet” button, it worked just fine.

  5. SKAY says:

    I believe the one on the right told the Columbia students there were no such “people” in Iran.

    That goes along with “If you like your healthcare you can keep it. Period.”

  6. Imrahil says:

    Forgive me, but I do not see the irony here.

    I can see a lack of tolerance on the liberal side, yes.

    But: the punishment of Hell is worse than beheading, hanging, stoning and burning alive. Mhm. Yes that’s so. They seem to get that for a change.

    On a related issue, the Koran makes Abel say to Cain: “I will not do raise my hand against you, I’ll be content that you merely go to Hell, where all the evildoers go.” Merely? and content? To me this is a typical case of charity-lacking moralizing. If that were true, would not the sympathy naturally fall rather on Cain’s side, who cannot resist the temptation to kill in hot anger, but at the very least does not apply in cold wrath to the punishment of God Himself?

    Bottom line: who says that gays cannot go to Heaven might be able to defend what he says. But it’s in my view wrong if he tries to defend himself by “having a right to his opinion” or “after all hurting noone (but God does)” and the like. This sort of thing he may say to the police officer who threatens to ban him from preaching. But it has not otherwise any place in the discussion.

    To say “gays cannot go to Heaven” is not only viewed as an attack on the homosexuals, but it is one; in a certain sense, it is a worse attack than a merely earthly pyre. It may be a justified attack, but it is not “sorry, that’s my opinion”.

    (And there is still 1. chastity 2. repentance 3. ignorance 4. the weakness caused by deep-rooted habits the Catechism speaks of. Thus it is not in this generality justified, and in my view threats like that must be very careful to be totally justified.)

  7. Johnno says:

    To be fair, the only reason the liberals at Columbia Uni invited him is because it would be like shooting fish in a barrel, and they could use him to frame the opposition to homosexuality. But make no mistake that Columbia University and other liberal universities would NEVER EVER invite any actual reputable debater who knows his/her stuff to speak on topics of abortion, homosexuality, evolution etc. unless they can argue the point to their advantage.

    And as an aside, Ahmadinejad never “threatened to wipe an entire country (Israel) off the map”, so let’s not perpetuate that distortion. Though, ironically, it was Iran’s own propaganda arm that botched the translation which led to the American MSM using that quote, though as we’ve seen with Pope Francis, the American MSM isn’t exactly the brightest fly in the ointment, and they’re not about to correct a mistranslation error taken out of context when it works to their advantage and the story they want to sell.
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

  8. Gretchen says:

    Johnno, I think these quotes from Ahmadinejad are on par with wiping Israel off the map.From a speech at Al-Qods [Jerusalem] International Conference, Tehran, April 14, 2006:

    “The Zionist regime is a clear example of oppression, and its fundamental nature represents an actual and permanent threat. Its establishment was for this very purpose, namely to put in place a permanent threat in the region. Therefore, its continued existence is a continuation of threat and oppression, and it would not exist without threat and aggression, and is not inherently able to survive in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. Such a regime, even if it remains established in one square meter of the land of Palestine, will continue to be a threat.”

    And just for good measure:

    “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury”.

    Thankfully, Ahmadinejad is no longer in office. Although, perhaps it is better to have the devil you know than the devil you don’t know…

  9. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Imrahil,
    In saying, “To say ‘gays cannot go to Heaven’ is not only viewed as an attack on the homosexuals, but it is one”, what do you understand by “gays”, “homosexuals”, and “attack”? Would you equally say that when St. John said to Herod Antipas, “Non licet tibi habere uxorem fratris tui” (St. Mark 6:18), he was ‘attacking’ him? If Herod had set aside his brother’s wife and repented of this adultery, would matters have been (in a good way to being) set right? Is something like that the tenor of your saying, “it may be a justified attack”?

  10. Supertradmum says:

    Same old problem of hating the sin and loving the sinner-but so many people under the age of 70 have never learned what objectivity is; that is, the ability to separate personal attacks (ad hominem) from the real condemnation of sin.

    People are going to hell in a hand-basket and we quibble about whether we are hurting someone’s feeling by expressing the traditional Christian belief and the reality of natural law, that sex with someone of the same gender is a huge no-no.

    The biggest lie is that people are identified by gayness-no again.

    There is no gay gene. There are tendencies to disorder, which we all have from the First Sin-concupiscence, which may be “attacked” by a life of prayer, sacrifice, celibacy and so on.

    Those who are willing to be violent towards themselves in battling sin are those who will, with God’s grace and in His mercy, enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

    But, can we not merely quote the Holy Spirit, speaking through our first theologian, St. Paul on the disobedience and rebellious of people?

    “…. God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:24 on).

    Either we preach the Gospel and the teachings of the Church or we let people die in serious sin….