Originally posted by KingsGambit
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Pope Gaycis not even trying anymore
Collapse
X
-
-
Let's not detract from the rhetoric with mere facts now, shall we?
Leave a comment:
-
Latest example of Pope Francis's unambiguous support of homosexuality:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pop.../04/id/622803/Last edited by KingsGambit; 02-05-2015, 02:18 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostSo apparently this is somehow now about the Constitution? What does that have to do with the Pope?
Pope Francis, along with a good proportion of the hierarchy, seems interested in staking out a middle ground between extremes-
Leave a comment:
-
So apparently this is somehow now about the Constitution? What does that have to do with the Pope?
Pope Francis, along with a good proportion of the hierarchy, seems interested in staking out a middle ground between extremes-- of coming to terms with homosexuality without compromising (among other things) Christian doctrine on marriage as both a sacrament and a natural institution. What exactly the boundaries of that middle ground ought to be are still open for debate, and that's part of what the Synod is about. No doubt there are those who are trying to pull it too far in one direction or the other (both Burke and Kasper come to mind in this respect), but we shouldn't let either personalities or media narratives (to say nothing of tired old forum arguments) keep us from discussing these questions in nuance and depth.
As for the question of whether "valuing" is substantially different in meaning from "evaluating," I was initially confused by the change in wording, but I see some kernel of sense in the distinction between a neutral evaluation and positive valuing. To begin from neutrality is, in my understanding, beginning with the subject as an individual rather than as representative of a group identity, and to seek to understand that individual rather than blindly (and therefore blandly) offering affirmation. A neutral starting position also offers to the church on the ground the freedom to ask the same sort of questions that might be asked among the hierarchy-- not with respect to pushing the limits of orthodoxy or orthopraxis, but with respect to being open to ideas that are (or seem) genuinely creative and new (as opposed to simply conceding to the culture).
And if you found that confusing, just wait until you ask me to explain further I'd be just as willing to explain via PM, in case anyone finds this thread unlikely to yield worthwhile conversation on the subject
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View Postlol @ 'slavery lover'. There is no indication any jurist thinks anything remotely like this in interpreting the constitution.
Leave a comment:
-
lol @ 'slavery lover'. There is no indication any jurist thinks anything remotely like this in interpreting the constitution.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by phank View PostNo ant-discrimation laws have been found unconstitutional. And quite a few have been tested. You are simply wrong.
Wow, obeying the law is sure a burden on you. How you must suffer the slings and arrows of honest people obeying the law all around you!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostThe law is unconstutional. It's no different from runaway slaves "breaking the law". In both cases people refuse to do work demanded of them by Democrats.
Yes, we all know you think "bigots" are subhuman, and unlike the slaveowners of old you want to force people to do work purely out of a sadistic desire to destroy people who aren't like you.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by phank View PostBreaking the law brings fines. Sorry you don't like following the law, and think that SOME lawbreakers are just dandy.
We'll all cry crocodile tears that bigots who violate the law because they are bigots, must pay fines for breaking laws.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostProbably not, but He certainly seemed to value those who might have practiced them, a subtle distinction.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostProbably not, but He certainly seemed to value those who might have practiced them, a subtle distinction.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
We'll all cry crocodile tears that bigots who violate the law because they are bigots, must pay fines for breaking laws.
You continue to make elementary category errors, over and over. The relevant categories here are "seller" and "customer". NOT "Christian" and "homosexual". Religion and sexual orientation are irrelevant. Business licences and laws are relevant.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostYeah Christ valued thieverey, murder, harlotry and homosexuality.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:09 PM
|
5 responses
65 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 05:27 AM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
0 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
0 responses
28 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 10:08 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
28 responses
214 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 11:00 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
65 responses
484 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 10:40 AM
|
Leave a comment: