Kim Davis lawyer claims Pope Francis met controversial clerk during DC visit
33 replies, posted
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30/kim-davis-lawyer-claims-pope-francis-met-controversial-clerk-during-dc-visit/?intcmp=hpbt2[/url]
[QUOTE]The lawyer for Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was briefly jailed earlier this month after refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, claimed Tuesday that Davis met with Pope Francis during the pontiff's visit to Washington D.C. last week.
[/QUOTE]
:v:
Reeks of a lot of bullshit and attention grabbing. It's pathetic and sickening. I am a somewhat religious person but I mean common already.
[QUOTE=Datsun;48794602]Reeks of a lot of bullshit and attention grabbing. It's pathetic and sickening. I am a somewhat religious person but I mean common already.[/QUOTE]
She's not a Christian. She's basically no better than WBC.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48794611]She's not a Christian. She's basically no better than WBC.[/QUOTE]
Except she is a Christian?
How could they have met if literally all of the Pope's movements were documented and videotaped?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48794633]Except she is a Christian?[/QUOTE]
She says she is but by practice, she's not.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
I'm listening to Howard Stern now and they just said she [I]did[/I] meet with the Pope. Not sure if I believe him though.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48794611]She's not a Christian. She's basically no better than WBC.[/QUOTE]
I'm sick of seeing this "no true Scotsman" bullshit when it comes to religion.
"The WBC aren't true christians"
"ISIS aren't real muslims"
"Catholics aren't christian"
It all seems really ridiculous to an outsider that sees a bunch of whackos arguing over what verses to follow from some ancient text.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48794661]She says she is but by practice, she's not.
[/QUOTE]
This is the most delusional attempt of disassociation ever.
Ofcourse she is a Christian.
Sorry if it hurts the brand name of the religion, but she isn't even WBC levels and cannot even be considered a extremist outlier when people nationwide share her views.
[QUOTE=Tudd;48796818]This is the most delusional attempt of disassociation ever.
Ofcourse she is a Christian.
Sorry if it hurts the brand name of the religion, but she isn't even WBC levels and cannot even be considered a extremist outlier when people nationwide share her views.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. I could pretend to be something I'm not in order to have some "logical" backing to my agenda. Doesn't mean I am.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48794611]She's not a Christian. She's basically no better than WBC.[/QUOTE]
Regardless of denomination or practice if she believes Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior then by george she's a Christian.
Maybe not the best example of one but my point stands
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48796874]Regardless of denomination or practice if she believes Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior then by george she's a Christian.
Maybe not the best example of one but my point stands[/QUOTE]
Well okay fine, but she kinda cancels that out with how she acts.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48796848]No it isn't. I could pretend to be something I'm not in order to have some "logical" backing to my agenda. Doesn't mean I am.[/QUOTE]
What's your definition of a True Christian, then?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48794661]She says she is but by practice, she's not.[/quote]
Shes a Christian. No true scotsmen fallacy. Etc.
[quote]
I'm listening to Howard Stern now and they just said she [I]did[/I] meet with the Pope. Not sure if I believe him though.[/QUOTE]
Ahh yes Howard Stern, the most reliable of sources.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48796887]Well okay fine, but she kinda cancels that out with how she acts.[/QUOTE]
Not every christian is as strict to the teachings of Christ as the next. Somthing we just have to accept, and try to help them back on the path
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48796848]No it isn't. I could pretend to be something I'm not in order to have some "logical" backing to my agenda. Doesn't mean I am.[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that she is a homophobe that is faking using relevant Christian values, to make her decision to deny same-sex marriage licenses appear more logical?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/NqqJl.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Tudd;48796948]Are you suggesting that she is a homophobe that is faking using relevant Christian reasons, to make her decision to deny same-sex marriage licenses appear more logical?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/NqqJl.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
He can't accept that someone can logically derive homophobic views from reading the Bible.
[QUOTE=Explosions;48796973]He can't accept that someone can logically derive homophobic views from reading the Bible.[/QUOTE]
Leviticus and Judaic law are outdated without a doubt, I know depending on what denomination you're a part of though also depends on whether one follows it. For the most part Levitical law was completely thrown out the window, however Homophobia left its mark on the church after the influence of Judaic law on The Church, what with the first Christians being Jews originally. But the majority of Christian Churchs really shouldnt preach outright hatred at Homosexuals, its just plain out wrong. Especially since they're breaking from Christ's teachings of loving thy neighbor as thyself
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48797027]Leviticus and Judaic law are outdated without a doubt, I know depending on what denomination you're a part of though also depends on whether one follows it. For the most part Levitical law was completely thrown out the window, however Homophobia left its mark on the church after the influence of Judaic law on The Church, what with the first Christians being Jews originally. But the majority of Christian Churchs really shouldnt preach outright hatred at Homosexuals, its just plain out wrong. Especially since they're breaking from Christ's teachings of loving thy neighbor as thyself[/QUOTE]
The single strongest verse against homosexual sex comes from the New Testament, specifically Romans 1. Yes, churches shouldn't preach hate against homosexuals and should accept them fully into the body of Christ, but it's silly to pretend that the Bible, in it's entirety, doesn't speak against homosexual sex.
The word "homophobic" is such a great example of changing the meaning of words to better suit your goals. Technically, it should mean having an irrational fear of gay people, but now it means doing anything below absolute celebration of gayness in it's entirety.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48797089]The single strongest verse against homosexual sex comes from the New Testament, specifically Romans 1. Yes, churches shouldn't preach hate against homosexuals and should accept them fully into the body of Christ, but it's silly to pretend that the Bible, in it's entirety, doesn't speak against homosexual sex.[/QUOTE]
Ofc it speaks against it, the bible speaks against any sexual act not meant for pro-creation for the most part. But yes I agree, the Christian Faith is in need of another reformation or Awakening today. In the end though anyone can be saved throught repentance of sins and faith in Christ
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48797118]Ofc it speaks against it, the bible speaks against any sexual act not meant for pro-creation for the most part.[/QUOTE]
I don't really think that's true. The only example I know of is the one time the guy pulled out at the last second and was punished, but the context makes it clear that he was punished for not wanting to fulfill his obligation to continue his brother's line, not because of the sexual act.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48797229]I don't really think that's true. The only example I know of is the one time the guy pulled out at the last second and was punished, but the context makes it clear that he was punished for not wanting to fulfill his obligation to continue his brother's line, not because of the sexual act.[/QUOTE]
If you read all of that Verse 26 in Romans 1 you'll find that it speaks against "Unnatural Sexual Relations" I.E. anything besides Pro-Creation as being sinful. Of course Everything depends on your own interpretation of the scripture
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48797267]If you read all of that Verse 26 in Romans 1 you'll find that it speaks against "Unnatural Sexual Relations" I.E. anything besides Pro-Creation as being sinful. Of course Everything depends on your own interpretation of the scripture[/QUOTE]
I don't want to take this too far off topic. So this will be my last response, but I really think this isn't an issue of interpretation. Verse 27 makes it preeminently clear that the phrase you quoted is referring to trading the "natural" relation of man with woman for the "unnatural" relation of man with man and woman with woman.
As a side note: the CEB isn't a very good version IMO. I know you used it because that phrase is literally only used in that version. The NASB, for example, is used by a lot of Biblical scholars because of it's very literal translation, and uses the phrase "natural function." I think this phrase makes it much more clear because it shows the focus on the complementary function of male and female sexual parts as opposed to a generalized idea of "relations." This more physical translation is also in scholarly bibles like the NRSV.
[QUOTE=Datsun;48794602]Reeks of a lot of bullshit and attention grabbing. It's pathetic and sickening. I am a somewhat religious person but I mean common already.[/QUOTE]
the lawyer already got called out for claiming there was a rally in peru for this bitch. He countiues to say "OKAY PHOTO IS FAKE BUT THERE WAS ONE I SWEAR" despite getting called out for his shit.
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48797027]Leviticus and Judaic law are outdated without a doubt, I know depending on what denomination you're a part of though also depends on whether one follows it. For the most part Levitical law was completely thrown out the window, however Homophobia left its mark on the church after the influence of Judaic law on The Church, what with the first Christians being Jews originally. But the majority of Christian Churchs really shouldnt preach outright hatred at Homosexuals, its just plain out wrong. Especially since they're breaking from Christ's teachings of loving thy neighbor as thyself[/QUOTE]
what am i reading
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
god it almost makes you wish for the days when scripture wasn't in the vernacular; at least we didn't have retarded DIY theology like this
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48795200]I'm sick of seeing this "no true Scotsman" bullshit when it comes to religion.
"The WBC aren't true christians"
"ISIS aren't real muslims"
"Catholics aren't christian"
It all seems really ridiculous to an outsider that sees a bunch of whackos arguing over what verses to follow from some ancient text.[/QUOTE]
You're no better since judging by your avatar you're a Satanist which is just as stupid as Christianity if not more.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
Also the Catholic church goes against alot of things in the bible such as worshiping statues and the virgin marry etc. So that is why Christians don't consider them christian. I should know since I used to be a christian and am now atheist.
[QUOTE=catchall;48798926]god it almost makes you wish for the days when scripture wasn't in the vernacular; at least we didn't have retarded DIY theology like this[/QUOTE]
tantum linguam latinam scripturae liceat
[QUOTE=coldroll5;48798940]Also the Catholic church goes against alot of things in the bible such as worshiping statues and the virgin marry etc. So that is why Christians don't consider them christian. I should know since I used to be a christian and am now atheist.[/QUOTE]
Well I was raised a Catholic and as far as I could tell I didn't see anybody worshiping statues. Also how does that make them non-christian when Catholics overwhelmingly constitute the largest Christian grouping in the world? There's over a billion of them.
Also how do you mean "since I used to be a christian". Were you baptized Catholic or?
[QUOTE=catchall;48798926]what am i reading
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
god it almost makes you wish for the days when scripture wasn't in the vernacular; at least we didn't have retarded DIY theology like this[/QUOTE]
It was even worse when priests who couldn't speak or read Latin preached out of their asses without any idea of what was even in the Bible
[QUOTE=coldroll5;48798940]You're no better since judging by your avatar you're a Satanist which is just as stupid as Christianity if not more.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
Also the Catholic church goes against alot of things in the bible such as worshiping statues and the virgin marry etc. So that is why Christians don't consider them christian. I should know since I used to be a christian and am now atheist.[/QUOTE]
You could judge me by my words and actions and not by my avatar and title on a gaming forum. I'd relay my beliefs to you if I thought it'd be helpful, but I don't think that's what you were asking for nor do I think it'd do much for you.
Either way, the whole issue with saying the Catholic church isn't christian basically shows that people don't get all their morals from religion, but rather shape their religion from their morals. People choose to ignore things in their holy texts they disagree with and focus on the things they do agree with.
That's not to say religion doesn't affect what people think is right and wrong, but take this:
If I were to start a new denomination of Christianity that took 1st Corinthians 11:14, which states that a man with long hair disgraces himself, seriously, and then claimed that all men with long hair weren't true Christians because of their sin, how could you objectively say I was wrong?
Or the verse somewhere (1st Timothy 2:12 or 1 Corinthians 14:34) about not allowing women to raise questions during congregation. I could claim that any church that allowed women to get involved with the sermon and raise questions as being a church from satan harming the grace of god.
It's all nonsense. There are so many bullshit new testament verses that are ignored by mainstream churches today, it's impossible to take them seriously on any interpretations. Once they throw a little out and say "Nah, I don't think men having long hair is a sin" or one of the hundreds of other examples, they lose all credibility when it comes to making judgments against other christians.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48800060]You could judge me by my words and actions and not by my avatar and title on a gaming forum. I'd relay my beliefs to you if I thought it'd be helpful, but I don't think that's what you were asking for nor do I think it'd do much for you.
Either way, the whole issue with saying the Catholic church isn't christian basically shows that people don't get all their morals from religion, but rather shape their religion from their morals. People choose to ignore things in their holy texts they disagree with and focus on the things they do agree with.
That's not to say religion doesn't affect what people think is right and wrong, but take this:
If I were to start a new denomination of Christianity that took 1st Corinthians 11:14, which states that a man with long hair disgraces himself, seriously, and then claimed that all men with long hair weren't true Christians because of their sin, how could you objectively say I was wrong?
Or the verse somewhere (1st Timothy 2:12 or 1 Corinthians 14:34) about not allowing women to raise questions during congregation. I could claim that any church that allowed women to get involved with the sermon and raise questions as being a church from satan harming the grace of god.
It's all nonsense. There are so many bullshit new testament verses that are ignored by mainstream churches today, it's impossible to take them seriously on any interpretations. Once they throw a little out and say "Nah, I don't think men having long hair is a sin" or one of the hundreds of other examples, they lose all credibility when it comes to making judgments against other christians.[/QUOTE]
It sucks that a lot of those verses in the New Testament were convoluted when the King James Bible came out, but the LDS copy has a slightly more accurate translation
[url]https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/14.34?lang=eng#33[/url]
[QUOTE=mralexs;48800345]It sucks that a lot of those verses in the New Testament were convoluted when the King James Bible came out, but the LDS copy has a slightly more accurate translation
[URL]https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/14.34?lang=eng#33[/URL][/QUOTE]
You linked to this:
[quote] 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.[/quote]
I don't see how what I referenced was convoluted.
edit:
But lets say some christian apologetic tried to argue that I need to consider the context of the verses. Maybe yahweh needed to make those rules to keep from alienating men at his churches. Something about culture during those times and how wives weren't normally allowed to speak in public and god didn't want to alienate the men so he made those rules that would be changed at a later date.
Then I could point to verses that claim that god's word is eternal, not bound by the changing tides of culture, (which are really in there) etc.
It's all pointless SUBJECTIVE bullshit. People make their own minds up. Nobody really follows their holy text. Churches wouldn't survive if they did in the civilized world. So they have to ignore verses left and right to accommodate their dying beliefs to survive as long as they can. They will keep changing to meet the beliefs of their followers as their followers progress in ideas along with the rest of society (how ever much slower). We've seen this happen over the last dozen centuries. What really has changed since the 10th century regarding scripture besides cultural interpretations? Why would christians change how they follow scripture? Where they just flat out wrong in the past and we have a greater understanding of god's word now? I don't think so.
Basically, a christian calling any other person who follows some sort of rules laid out by their interpretation of the same book "not christian" is full of shit. They have almost no legs to stand on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.