And who is to blame black fathers leaving their kids behind? The culture!
Someone close to our family pulled the same shit. You know what we did? Cut all contact and shamed him. Eventually he came back to his senses and now he loves being a father.
Shame is an important factor in a society. Family values should never be taken for granted. The black ghetto community negates both these factors with how they tend to treat single motherhood.
Single motherhood caused by a father ditching the mother and kid is far worse than being a plain racist. Am I racist because I have identified a large problem inside the modern black society?
Honestly your statement isnt clear on the type of racist or bigot. Theres a sliding scale of how bad a racist/bigot can get. Obviously I shun the ones calling for lynching or genocide or an ethno state then again it seems there are racists on both sides of the political aisle.
I’m not sure how you define far worse here, but racism and bigotry destroys exponentially more lives than being a single parent could ever come close to doing. It would be racist to claim that black mothers are less able to handle being a single parent than white mothers, yes, just as it would be racist to ignore the systemic racism that contributes to the problem - ie, how many black men end up in jail or dead for doing the same things that white men get away with on a daily basis, or the economic disparities at play. This is a universal truth whether it’s raising kids or training pets or dealing with undesirable/criminal behavior in the general population, but teaching somebody that something is wrong is USELESS unless you’re also teaching them or giving them tools to take a different path the next time. Shaming is just half the battle.
A good example would be the terrorists who stormed the capital on January 6th in an effort to overturn the undisputed results of a free and fair election just because their candidate lost. They should be shamed out of society, yes?
I'm not saying it's the black womans fault or that a white single mother can do it better I'm stating empirical facts that people who come from a single parent household are worse off than 2 parent households. Now when 80% of the African American households are single mother ran dont you see a possible cultural spiral downwards?
There was no insurrection because there was no actual plan for taking over the goverment. Any rational person sees the storming of the capital to be pretty much the same as the Portland riots yet the people who went to the DC riots are actually getting charged while Portland's rioters or should I say "peaceful protesters" because nothing says peaceful like starting fires in small businesses that has nothing to do with the original protests.
You really think 10,000 people could take over the capital?? Hahahahahahaha
Those people where delusional if they thought that insurrection was possible by doing that. They were completely wrong for breaking stuff in the capitol but I fail to see why it was worse than the Portland riots. Voting was suspended for what a day? What did Pelosi advocate soon after? Armed MG trucks to protect them. Jesus the democrats are paranoid... they should be.
Like I said before, I see a lot of systemic causes to the problem that aren’t inherent to their skin color. Those systemic problems need to be addressed, yes, if that’s what you’re asking.
Yes, the terrorists who stormed the capital got to go home and wait until they have to pay bail so they can go back home and await trial, compared to the peaceful protesters in Portland who got arrested, thrown in jail for an indefinite amount of time, and then released only when required by law, because there was zero evidence they did anything wrong. It’s almost like trying to overthrow the government is worse than cracking a window and lighting a cigarette. Maybe they should go find the outside agitators(white supremacists) who were causing all the real damage and charge them, they have videos of them doing it, it’d be a pretty easy case to pursue.
Of course they were delusional. That’s why Trump said he loves the uneducated. He knew they would buy his lies hook, line, and sinker. He knew they would do exactly what he wanted them to do, no matter how little chance it had of succeeding. But nothing Trump has ever done succeeded so obviously that’s not what motivates him, and their failure doesn’t make their crimes any less severe.
True, though technically, most modern self proclaimed Christians are the heretics, insofar as how far they’ve strayed from what Jesus himself believed and taught. For example, they would have you believe that homosexuality is a sin when nothing could be further from the truth.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but know that this particular opinion disqualifies you from being a true Christian, as Jesus Christ would consider you a heretic.
Wrong beliefs that generally endanger humanity. For example, the idea that homosexuality is not a sin.
When it comes to Pope Francis, though, I think he's a heretic. My exact thoughts are hard to explain, and I effectively have to explain the three types of "Traditionalist Catholic" in order to explain them. There are three types of Traditionalist Catholicism: sedeplenism, sedevacantism, and sedeprivationism. I am a sedeprivationist.
Sedeplenists are a group of Traditionalist Catholics (also known as the "non-radical" Traditionalist Catholics) who believe that the Papacy that is currently in place is the Papacy of the Catholic Church of Christ. They claim that people should "Realize and Resist" when the Papacy says anything wrong. The problem with "R&R" is that the Papacy is supposed to be infallible in its teachings, and the recent Popes have proven themselves to be fallible.
This problem of obvious fallability in the Papacy has four answers, with the answer Sedeplenists go with being clearly wrong. The argument they use is as follows:
"The Papacy has not made any statements "ex cathedra" (in the form of a highly official church order), so none of it counts under the idea of "Papal infallibility"."
The problem with this argument is that it presents a complete misunderstanding of Papal infallibility. It does not merely apply to "ex cathedra" statements; it applies to any church orders or teachings. When the Roman Catholic Church defines itself as "subsisting in" The Church of Christ, rather than -being- the Church of Christ, that is a clear example of Papal fallibility.
That is where the “Radical” Traditionalist Catholics come in. There are three other answers to the problem of Papal infallibility:
1. (The argument non-Traditionalist Catholics use) “The Papacy has said nothing false.”
2. (The argument Old Catholics use) “Papal infallibility is a false idea to begin with.”
3. (The argument “Radical” Traditionalist Catholics use) “The current Papacy is a false Papacy.”
I effectively have to disprove the first two in order to continue. The Papacy has clearly stated falsehoods to be true teachings; anyone who disagrees is a heretic. Some of these include the aforementioned “subsisting in” wording in the definition of the Church itself and Francis's changes to the Catechism, making it state that the death penalty is a horrendously sinful act, despite the fact that the Church has supported the death penalty from the very beginning.
The second argument is one that could possibly be correct, but is far less likely than the third. In order to claim this argument, you must not only disagree with everything from Vatican II onward, but you must also disagree with Vatican I, as well as the general sentiment of Christians up until Vatican I. So, that would be a very bold claim.
So, that leaves the third argument as the most likely argument. The two types of “Radical” Traditionalist Catholics both agree upon it. However, they disagree on how it actually applies. The argument of the Sedevacantists is that heretics cannot be in the Papacy, so all those in the Papacy are illegitimate, since they all either didn't fight Vatican II or were appointed by those who didn't.
This finally allows me to get to what I believe, in a way that actually makes sense. Sedeprivationists believe that the current Papacy have cut themselves off from the Church of Christ, and have even legally defined themselves as cut off from the Church of Christ, since they defined the Roman Catholic Church as “subsisting in” the Church of Christ. They effectively split what was one Church into two Churches: the one true Church, the Church of Christ, and the old government of the one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. While Sedevacantists believe that, through their heresy, the Roman Catholic Church can never again be the one true Church, since all those within it are heretics, the Sedeprivationists believe something different. We believe that through abjuring (effectively stating that it was never correct) the Council that created the separation (Vatican II) and everything that came after, the Roman Catholic Church can once again become the one true Church. Unless that happens, though, and it probably won't, I am a follower of the Catholic Church of Christ (not a real church title, you'd just be looking for Sedeprivationist Churches).
I am sorry if you do not want to read this long rant; there is no real other way to put my beliefs on the Pope.
Yeah I knew it had to be bad when someone who was raised Lutheran became agnostic noticed how crappy of a religious leader the pope is being.
I appreciate that I learned some of the inter politics of the church, I really only was intrested in medieval times church affairs due to the more intertwined power structures of the church and state.
Are you saying I was an agnostic or you were an agnostic? If you were saying I was an agnostic, I was never an agnostic. I was raised Lutheran and became Catholic. Then, I realized how awful the current Papacy is and decided to become a Sedeprivationist.
IIN That I think today's black culture is degenerate
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
And who is to blame black fathers leaving their kids behind? The culture!
Someone close to our family pulled the same shit. You know what we did? Cut all contact and shamed him. Eventually he came back to his senses and now he loves being a father.
Shame is an important factor in a society. Family values should never be taken for granted. The black ghetto community negates both these factors with how they tend to treat single motherhood.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So you would agree, then, that the best way to deal with racists and bigots is to shame them out of society until they come to their senses?
--
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
dillpickleplutofent
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Single motherhood caused by a father ditching the mother and kid is far worse than being a plain racist. Am I racist because I have identified a large problem inside the modern black society?
Honestly your statement isnt clear on the type of racist or bigot. Theres a sliding scale of how bad a racist/bigot can get. Obviously I shun the ones calling for lynching or genocide or an ethno state then again it seems there are racists on both sides of the political aisle.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I’m not sure how you define far worse here, but racism and bigotry destroys exponentially more lives than being a single parent could ever come close to doing. It would be racist to claim that black mothers are less able to handle being a single parent than white mothers, yes, just as it would be racist to ignore the systemic racism that contributes to the problem - ie, how many black men end up in jail or dead for doing the same things that white men get away with on a daily basis, or the economic disparities at play. This is a universal truth whether it’s raising kids or training pets or dealing with undesirable/criminal behavior in the general population, but teaching somebody that something is wrong is USELESS unless you’re also teaching them or giving them tools to take a different path the next time. Shaming is just half the battle.
A good example would be the terrorists who stormed the capital on January 6th in an effort to overturn the undisputed results of a free and fair election just because their candidate lost. They should be shamed out of society, yes?
--
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I'm not saying it's the black womans fault or that a white single mother can do it better I'm stating empirical facts that people who come from a single parent household are worse off than 2 parent households. Now when 80% of the African American households are single mother ran dont you see a possible cultural spiral downwards?
There was no insurrection because there was no actual plan for taking over the goverment. Any rational person sees the storming of the capital to be pretty much the same as the Portland riots yet the people who went to the DC riots are actually getting charged while Portland's rioters or should I say "peaceful protesters" because nothing says peaceful like starting fires in small businesses that has nothing to do with the original protests.
You really think 10,000 people could take over the capital?? Hahahahahahaha
Those people where delusional if they thought that insurrection was possible by doing that. They were completely wrong for breaking stuff in the capitol but I fail to see why it was worse than the Portland riots. Voting was suspended for what a day? What did Pelosi advocate soon after? Armed MG trucks to protect them. Jesus the democrats are paranoid... they should be.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Like I said before, I see a lot of systemic causes to the problem that aren’t inherent to their skin color. Those systemic problems need to be addressed, yes, if that’s what you’re asking.
Yes, the terrorists who stormed the capital got to go home and wait until they have to pay bail so they can go back home and await trial, compared to the peaceful protesters in Portland who got arrested, thrown in jail for an indefinite amount of time, and then released only when required by law, because there was zero evidence they did anything wrong. It’s almost like trying to overthrow the government is worse than cracking a window and lighting a cigarette. Maybe they should go find the outside agitators(white supremacists) who were causing all the real damage and charge them, they have videos of them doing it, it’d be a pretty easy case to pursue.
Of course they were delusional. That’s why Trump said he loves the uneducated. He knew they would buy his lies hook, line, and sinker. He knew they would do exactly what he wanted them to do, no matter how little chance it had of succeeding. But nothing Trump has ever done succeeded so obviously that’s not what motivates him, and their failure doesn’t make their crimes any less severe.
Hot take: Fuck both the CCP and this guy. Iconic, I know.
That's technically how Christians are supposed to deal with heretics.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
True, though technically, most modern self proclaimed Christians are the heretics, insofar as how far they’ve strayed from what Jesus himself believed and taught. For example, they would have you believe that homosexuality is a sin when nothing could be further from the truth.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Homosexuality is a sin, and only a heretic would claim it to not be so.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but know that this particular opinion disqualifies you from being a true Christian, as Jesus Christ would consider you a heretic.
What's considered heretical now? Also unrelated what's your opinion on the pope? I personally think hes a weak leader.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Wrong beliefs that generally endanger humanity. For example, the idea that homosexuality is not a sin.
When it comes to Pope Francis, though, I think he's a heretic. My exact thoughts are hard to explain, and I effectively have to explain the three types of "Traditionalist Catholic" in order to explain them. There are three types of Traditionalist Catholicism: sedeplenism, sedevacantism, and sedeprivationism. I am a sedeprivationist.
Sedeplenists are a group of Traditionalist Catholics (also known as the "non-radical" Traditionalist Catholics) who believe that the Papacy that is currently in place is the Papacy of the Catholic Church of Christ. They claim that people should "Realize and Resist" when the Papacy says anything wrong. The problem with "R&R" is that the Papacy is supposed to be infallible in its teachings, and the recent Popes have proven themselves to be fallible.
This problem of obvious fallability in the Papacy has four answers, with the answer Sedeplenists go with being clearly wrong. The argument they use is as follows:
"The Papacy has not made any statements "ex cathedra" (in the form of a highly official church order), so none of it counts under the idea of "Papal infallibility"."
The problem with this argument is that it presents a complete misunderstanding of Papal infallibility. It does not merely apply to "ex cathedra" statements; it applies to any church orders or teachings. When the Roman Catholic Church defines itself as "subsisting in" The Church of Christ, rather than -being- the Church of Christ, that is a clear example of Papal fallibility.
That is where the “Radical” Traditionalist Catholics come in. There are three other answers to the problem of Papal infallibility:
1. (The argument non-Traditionalist Catholics use) “The Papacy has said nothing false.”
2. (The argument Old Catholics use) “Papal infallibility is a false idea to begin with.”
3. (The argument “Radical” Traditionalist Catholics use) “The current Papacy is a false Papacy.”
I effectively have to disprove the first two in order to continue. The Papacy has clearly stated falsehoods to be true teachings; anyone who disagrees is a heretic. Some of these include the aforementioned “subsisting in” wording in the definition of the Church itself and Francis's changes to the Catechism, making it state that the death penalty is a horrendously sinful act, despite the fact that the Church has supported the death penalty from the very beginning.
The second argument is one that could possibly be correct, but is far less likely than the third. In order to claim this argument, you must not only disagree with everything from Vatican II onward, but you must also disagree with Vatican I, as well as the general sentiment of Christians up until Vatican I. So, that would be a very bold claim.
So, that leaves the third argument as the most likely argument. The two types of “Radical” Traditionalist Catholics both agree upon it. However, they disagree on how it actually applies. The argument of the Sedevacantists is that heretics cannot be in the Papacy, so all those in the Papacy are illegitimate, since they all either didn't fight Vatican II or were appointed by those who didn't.
This finally allows me to get to what I believe, in a way that actually makes sense. Sedeprivationists believe that the current Papacy have cut themselves off from the Church of Christ, and have even legally defined themselves as cut off from the Church of Christ, since they defined the Roman Catholic Church as “subsisting in” the Church of Christ. They effectively split what was one Church into two Churches: the one true Church, the Church of Christ, and the old government of the one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. While Sedevacantists believe that, through their heresy, the Roman Catholic Church can never again be the one true Church, since all those within it are heretics, the Sedeprivationists believe something different. We believe that through abjuring (effectively stating that it was never correct) the Council that created the separation (Vatican II) and everything that came after, the Roman Catholic Church can once again become the one true Church. Unless that happens, though, and it probably won't, I am a follower of the Catholic Church of Christ (not a real church title, you'd just be looking for Sedeprivationist Churches).
I am sorry if you do not want to read this long rant; there is no real other way to put my beliefs on the Pope.
--
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah I knew it had to be bad when someone who was raised Lutheran became agnostic noticed how crappy of a religious leader the pope is being.
I appreciate that I learned some of the inter politics of the church, I really only was intrested in medieval times church affairs due to the more intertwined power structures of the church and state.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Are you saying I was an agnostic or you were an agnostic? If you were saying I was an agnostic, I was never an agnostic. I was raised Lutheran and became Catholic. Then, I realized how awful the current Papacy is and decided to become a Sedeprivationist.