New Contributor Column: Media Research Center Head Brent Bozell on “SHAMELESS BIAS BY OMISSION”

User Profile: TarletonsQuarter

Member Since: November 20, 2011

CommentsDisplaying TarletonsQuarter's 10 most recent comments.

  • Locked,

    Of course it is paying for abortions. It is an accounting trick.

    It is similar to the “lottery goes to education” gambit. TECHNICALLY it does, but the state just allocates less to education based on the projected earnings of lotto. Money that PP would have to pay to keep the lights on, do breast cancer “screenings”, etc, is allocated to “abortions” because they know the federal government will fill that gap and pay for those things. It is nothing but moving cash around between two different pots.

    Yet another of our government’s great deceptions.

  • Obama: Health Insurers Will Foot the Bill for the Pill

    January 20, 2012 at 3:53pm

    In reply to Leopold.

    Wrong. The RCC opposed Obamacare because of abortion funding and conscious concerns for medical professionals.

    And although it is done frequently, saying the “Catholic Church supports…” is completely inaccurate. The USCCB is but a small part of the “Catholic Church” and even American Catholics are not bound to agree with their political positions.

    We have a Baptist congregation here in Kentucky that tried to keep same sex couples from singing and holding leadership positions in their church because they believe it is a sin. Your comment is akin to me saying that Baptists believe interracial marriage is a sin based on that example.

  • Pope Rush,

    You have systematically bore false witness and demeaned Catholicism, Mormonism, and even biblical figures like the Ethiopian eunuch, who you condescended to and demeaned.

    Meanwhile, you have completely refused to share the church you attend. Why is that? Hmmmm?

  • Pope Rush stated: “uh don’t you think Jesus is behind the OT too? hmmmm??? Jesus is the same God of the OT and the NT….or do you think Jesus is a created being? hmmmm??? oh like the mormons you admire so much!!! ”

    Of course He is in the OT too. But, he was NOT telling parables in it, especially where you cited.

    Pope Rush stated: “oh here tarl….just for you…

    “The Prodigal Son: Not Conducive with Catholic Doctrine”

    This just in. A website that disagrees with the True Church’s theology says the True Church is wrong. How original.

    Pope Rush stated: “so which churches have broken up over it? now you don’t want to post that do you? oh and yes go ahead and post where I do claim infallibility…this should be good”

    See my above posts (from a Protestant source) and the exact quote of you saying there is NO CHANCE your interpretation could be wrong.

  • Pope Rush stated: “uh yeah there was a bible in Paul’s day..the OT…how hard is this?”

    We are talking NT. 2 Timothy is a pastoral letter and he is instructing him in Christian teachings, which would be preached as there is no NT scripture. How hard is this?

    Pope Rush stated: “oh and I notice you haven’t posted anything proving your contention about the prodigal son….its very disputed whether he was saved or not…..”

    Strawman. The issue is whether father=God and son=us in the parables of Jesus. Your “evidence” does not address this question.

    Pope Rush stated: “…..and of course no comments about satan being a son of God…”

    Already addressed. Your quotes were OT quotes that were not Jesus parables. You know what a parable is correct? You know who Jesus is, correct?

    Pope Rush stated: “and your church wasn’t either…it was started by constantine….oh and what religion was Jesus again?? oh yeah JEWISH…as was Peter, Paul, John, etc…never heard of them renouncing their jewishness, did you?”

    Then are you Jewish?

    Pope Rush stated: “no, some things are SYMBOLIC…some are not…”

    Translation: When they disagree with Pope Rush’s theology, they are symbolic. When they agree, they are “clearly” written.

    Pope Rush stated: “do you think Jesus LITERALLY said you have to eat His flesh and drink His blood? ”

    His disciples did and they left Him because of it. And Jesus did not chase after and say “I am speaking SYMBOLICALLY!

  • Pope Rush stated: “oh good, I‘m sure you think you’ll become your own god, with your spirit-wives and have lots of sex in the afterlife so you can have lots of kids too…no surprise you admire those who follow a different gospel and different Christ than the Bible….”

    Sure, because noting there very pious and Christ-like demeanor is the same as advocating spirit wives. Do you ever make ANY statements that are not some form of logical fallacy?

    Pope Rush stated: “this is laughable…Christ didn’t start the catholic church…post your quote of HIS that says He did…you cannot…the catholic church was started by MEN…Constantine…get a clue.”

    Of course He did. Current prisest, bishops trace their ordination back to an apostle, not Constantine. From Ignatius of Antioch, a student of John around 110 AD: “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.” — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

    Pope Rush stated: “post where I have claimed this infallibility…I claim the bible is infallible…..and I find it interesting about how often you have to lie about me to try to win an argument….your desperation is palpable…”

    Already did. See above post.

  • Pope Rush stated: “yeah the bible IS more infallible than the pope….another nice lie of yours trying to claim I said I was infallible…post your proof, or apologize..but you won’t that would take integrity…”

    Another easy one. I asked: “3) Is there ANY chance that you are wrong?”

    Pope Rush replied: “3) about salvation by grace alone through faith alone…no.”

    That is a declaration of infallibility.

    Pope Rush stated: really, where did Luther do that (add “alone” to the bible)? oh and he was a CATHOLIC monk, so he couldn’t have been that good, right? another time to post your proof…I’ve noticed you have a hard time of that…you make accusations and cannot back them up.”

    Easy. In addition to adding “alone”, he also tried to throw James and Revelation out of the Bible, calling James an “Epistle of Straw” (Translation: It demolished his faith alone theology). Regarding “alone”: “Luther added the word ”alone” (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[5] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

  • Pope Rush stated: “he sure didn’t listen to your first pope peter now did he? Paul clearly states Who it was that taught him the bible…and of course he was a pharisee…and knew the OT by heart…Galations 2:”

    So? Peter, nor any Pope is impeccable. They make errors in almost every area of life. Please look up what infallibility means to the Catholic Church and then address it. You are obviously clueless.

    Pope Rush stated: “why, when its obvious catholics add to the scripture…post your scriptural proof of INDULGENCES…you cannot.”

    Yikes. I can’t even get you to understand the basic scriptural truths and you want a lesson in indulgences? You are like a baby throwing his own feces at the wall to see what will stick.

    You stated: “uh newsflash gomer, thats exactly what you do…only the POPE can interpret scripture for the rest of po dumb schmucks…”

    Of course I never said that, but hey, it is your fairy tale. Apparently arguing in logical fallacies is your only weapon.

    Pope Rush stated: ”
    you are being disengenous (thats a nice of way of saying you’re lying) the problem with pedophilia isn’t nearly as bad in the protestant church…yours was on supposed sexual misconduct….not limited to pedophilia…you are comparing apples and oranges…which is all you can do since you have lost the argument…rather badly….”

    Great, I got out of you exactly what I wanted. Protestants are ONLY guilty of “supposed sexual misconduct?” Who is making

  • Pope Rush stated: “revelation talks about the stars falling to earth…do you think that will LITERALLY happen?? hmmm??”

    Yes, it will happen in a literal fashion. It just will not happen in a literalist fashion. Know the difference?

    And you did just what I thought you would. When you think it supports your theology, the Bible means “clearly what it says” and when it does not support your theology, things suddenly get more complicated.

    Pope Rush stated: “so satan is a ‘son of God’ ”

    Too funny. THIS is what I said emphasis added: “We both know (along with every Christian of every denomination I have ever been in contact with) that when the PARABLES OF JESUS refer to a father/master, He is speaking about God….”

    So, you are claiming that the verses you cite in GENESIS and JOB are “parables of Jesus?” That is even worse than your absurd claim that the Prodigal Son is not speaking about salvation.

    Pope Rush stated: “really…post your proof of that…put up or shut up.”

    Post what? That sola fide is a varied and complex topic or that you have declared infallibility? I can post either.

  • Pope Rush stated: “and yeah how hard is it to be more intelligent than bureacrat? LOL I mean really…..”

    Do you really want to be the one to claim to cherish the Bible when you will turn around and ridicule/condescend to a very good model of character and faith in the very same book you claim to defend? I suppose THAT is what you meant by having the “faith of a demon” because no one with “true faith” would ever do such a thing.

    Pope Rush stated: “the mormons claim THEY ARE THE CHURCH…why aren’t they? hmmmm???? how do you know?”

    Because like all of the Protestant denominations, they were not around at the time of the apostles and were not started by an apostle. It was started by a man in the 1800s.

    Pope Rush stated: “and what about mary? the ‘queen of heaven’??”

    A sure sign of desperation is when you start throwing stuff against the wall hoping it will stick (kind of like the priest/pedophilia stuff). Let’s keep the topic to your claims of infallibility.

    Pope Rush stated: “no I didn’t…you just ignored my response…no surprise….there is no set interpretation of that verse…he could have been saved….or not…..you have no proof he was saved…and lost his salvation…thats really a stretch.”

    LOL Please show me ONE Protestant scholar that does NOT believe sonship=salvation. It is Bible 101.