Merry Christmas and love from the Pope

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You seem to mistakenly believe that it's bigoted to point out someone's bigoted behavior. I assure you, it's not. Being a bigot doesn't mean merely disagreeing with someone ... rather, a true bigot is someone who treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. To truly understand what makes something bigoted, you have to look up the word intolerance. And when you do, you find that to treat a group of people with intolerence, you actively discriminate or otherwise treat unequal, a certain class of people.

Where did I say it's bigoted to point out bigotry? Your canned responses to rhetoric from other people is tiresome. Why not trying to address what I've actually said for a change? Or did you not understand what I said? Or did you not bother to read what I said? Or did you type something with little correspondence to what you were "trying to say" again?

Merriam-Webster points out that intolerant people are, "...unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights."

I'd argue that the Vatican opposing UN legislation to ban criminal penalties for being gay, is a clear form of intolerance, just as the folks supporting Proposition 8 in California are intolerant, and thus bigoted.

You mean that legislation you haven't read? Read it, then get back to me.

In order for those arguing against the pope to be considered bigoted, we'd have to be advocating unequal or discriminatory practices against the Catholic church. I, and most of the others here (as far as I can tell), are simply condemning the pope and the vatican for their actions, we're by no means asking for the Catholic church to be outlawed or treated in an unfair way.

Frankly, I don't think you get it.

You have utterly confounded intolerance with bigotry, and it may be unintentional, or it may be intentional. Do you tolerate creationism? I doubt it, because, while you feel everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. Am I right? Thus, if morality is a matter of fact rather than opinion, as just about any philosopher of note throughout history would agree, then it is not bigoted to be intolerant of a morally reprehensible action. Thus, as I stated previously, until you can demonstrate that morality is relative, you have no grounds for any claim of bigotry. Frankly, I am absolutely positive that you will be unable to do so and am therefore sure that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jonks
http://uk.reuters.com/article/.../idUKTRE4BI30Y20081219

According to this article, the vatican is in favor of decriminlization of homosexuality but doesn't want to sign the UN res because it fears it's a backdoor to gay marriage, which is patently ridiculous.

So you haven't read the bill either? Shocker! But you'll assume that it fits your preconceived notion of what such a bill should say and bash anyone who dares to oppose it. :roll:

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Jeez, Pope Benedict XVI has denounced gender theory, warning that it blurs the distinction between male and female and could thus lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race."

What a joke...I hope no one ever explains to His Holiness that people exist who are neither XY nor XX. Oh, and those pesky folks that have AIS. You know the ones, that are genetically male but due to a genetic mishap are completely insensitive to Androgens and so appear extremely female? And don't let him know about the folks that actually have both sets of genitalia or his cranium may actually explode. Blurring the lines between man and woman, indeed...surprise, God has already done that. Does His Holiness not believe that they, too, are God's children?

And so we have the 82 year old virgin is again instructing his flock on matters pertaining to sex. Now can anyone recall just why are they called a flock?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm not condemning the Pope, I'm condemning his actions, the illogical nature of his thinking. Gay sex is every bit the bond for some gay people as it is for some straight people. If he is not saying being gay is a choice, then there is no logical reason to exclude bonding gay sex from bonding straight sex as both are a foundation of loving life long relationship, no reason, that is, except bigoted ones bases on text and tradition. No, the Pope is a bigot, just as I said. I understand where he's coming from, obviously, better than you do. Any minor negative views I have of Catholicism were given to me by Catholics expressing negative views about their own religion. The Pope is arrogant in thinking he has any special gift or knowledge about whose souls need to be saved. He is a mouthpiece for a fundamentalist bigoted tradition. The Church needs to do an about face on homosexuality just like they did on geocentricism.

And you still don't understand that unity AND (not OR) procreation are the purposes of human sexuality according to the Catholic philosophy. Since you can't (or refuse to) grasp that simple idea, the rest of your pseudo-enlightened hackery is worth less than the photons used to display it for me. You have decided that he's a bigot and will now alter any future statements to that effect rather than thinking it through, then deciding whether or not he's a bigot.

If the Catholic philosophy is that of an unyielding and very strict sense of 'unity and procreation', which ultimately leads towards discriminatory practices or beliefs, then the Pope may very well be bigoted.

It doesn't matter if the Pope can hide behind a religious philosophy - in the end it is simply another set of ideas, just like many non-religious philosophies.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
If the Catholic philosophy is that of an unyielding and very strict sense of 'unity and procreation', which ultimately leads towards discriminatory practices or beliefs, then the Pope may very well be bigoted.

So you, like jonks and DealMonkey before you, claim that intolerance of perceived immoralities is bigoted. I challenge you just as I challenged them: explain why morality is relative. If morality is a matter of opinion, then the pope may be bigoted in decrying certain moral actions. If it is not a matter of opinion, then he is not a bigot.

It doesn't matter if the Pope can hide behind a religious philosophy - in the end it is simply another set of ideas, just like many non-religious philosophies.

I actually laughed out loud at the assertion that all ideas are equal. If you really believe that, I have a hard time understanding why you would bother to post here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Unity and procreation, I see. That unity part is only for straight people with kids. That adds idiocy to the Pope's view as well as bigotry.

I see you don't know what procreation means, since you assume only people who already have kids can procreate. That would explain a lot of the problems you're having here. If you disagree that procreation is a fundamental purpose of sex, please explain.

How about procreation without unity? Is that another rain forest?

Yes, which is why the Church opposes in vitro fertilization and similar methods of artificial conception. Amazing how quickly everything comes into focus when the basic principles are elucidated, huh?

Sorry, I was sloppy with my words expecting, I suppose, a certain quantity of reasonableness on your part. I meant sex is only for those who have the potential to have kids by that act, not those who had already proved to be able to do so. Your point, that the purpose for sex is procreation, of course, is a modern one, because, people didn't always know that having sex nine months before a child came was the reason for that child. You, of course, won't face the central issue, that sex for gay people is every bit as driven as sex for straights. Who cares if kids are why sex evolved. It evolved and most people feel the drive. The purpose of that drive is to fulfill it as the drive is unconscious of any purpose. I have sex because I like it and so do most people not made sick by religion. The notion that sex should be limited to heterosexual couples who will have it to have children is totally absurd which makes the Pope absurd.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jonks
http://uk.reuters.com/article/.../idUKTRE4BI30Y20081219

According to this article, the vatican is in favor of decriminlization of homosexuality but doesn't want to sign the UN res because it fears it's a backdoor to gay marriage, which is patently ridiculous.

So you haven't read the bill either? Shocker! But you'll assume that it fits your preconceived notion of what such a bill should say and bash anyone who dares to oppose it. :roll:

Do I have to read all 800 pages of the patriot act too? How about i read some articles on it, see what both proponents and critics have to say, see who exactly the proponents and critics are and what ulterior motives they may have, and then voice my opinion?

I've read what this is about, and what both sides have to say. I've read the vatican's critique and it fails. They "worry" that undue pressure will be brought to bear against countries that don't allow gay marriage, which is what, all of them except 3? The fact is that every country in the EU supports it except the vatican. I wonder why that is, that secular countries don't have a problem with it, but a religious one does. This is a nonbinding declaration, not even a resolution. Who else opposed it? The United States, Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The fucking dream team.

The US (under Bush, still, unfortunately) is the only other western country to oppose the declaration. Don't approve of gay marriage? Fine. Don't want to sign voice opposition to jailing or killing gays? Not fine, and frankly a fucking embarrassment. Another reason to be glad Bush is going away.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
If the Catholic philosophy is that of an unyielding and very strict sense of 'unity and procreation', which ultimately leads towards discriminatory practices or beliefs, then the Pope may very well be bigoted.

So you, like jonks and DealMonkey before you, claim that intolerance of perceived immoralities is bigoted. I challenge you just as I challenged them: explain why morality is relative. If morality is a matter of opinion, then the pope may be bigoted in decrying certain moral actions. If it is not a matter of opinion, then he is not a bigot.

It doesn't matter if the Pope can hide behind a religious philosophy - in the end it is simply another set of ideas, just like many non-religious philosophies.

I actually laughed out loud at the assertion that all ideas are equal. If you really believe that, I have a hard time understanding why you would bother to post here.

Exactly, the Pope is absurd and I am not. And I have explained why my thinking is better than his. He is a mouth piece for ancient bigotry and I look at only what is real. There is nothing wrong with sex between gays or straights. It is just sex. Good sex is the kind that takes place between lovers. One person's love is not better than the love of another. Homosexual expression threatens nobody, and especially God.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sorry, I was sloppy with my words expecting, I suppose, a certain quantity of reasonableness on your part. I meant sex is only for those who have the potential to have kids by that act, not those who had already proved to be able to do so. Your point, that the purpose for sex is procreation, of course, is a modern one, because, people didn't always know that having sex nine months before a child came was the reason for that child. You, of course, won't face the central issue, that sex for gay people is every bit as driven as sex for straights. Who cares if kids are why sex evolved. It evolved and most people feel the drive. The purpose of that drive is to fulfill it as the drive is unconscious of any purpose. I have sex because I like it and so do most people not made sick by religion. The notion that sex should be limited to heterosexual couples who will have it to have children is totally absurd which makes the Pope absurd.

People are driven to lie, cheat, kill, and steal as well. The idea that people should do whatever they are driven to do is absurd, which makes you absurd. Instinct doesn't imply that something is morally correct.

Exactly, the Pope is absurd and I am not. And I have explained why my thinking is better than his. He is a mouth piece for ancient bigotry and I look at only what is real. There is nothing wrong with sex between gays or straights. It is just sex. Good sex is the kind that takes place between lovers. One person's love is not better than the love of another. Homosexual expression threatens nobody, and especially God.

So you also dodge the simple question? No one is surprised. Your philosophy doesn't seem to have very many answers to surprisingly simple, fundamental questions. Either that, or you refuse to answer them because the answer is absurd, as above.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jonks
Do I have to read all 800 pages of the patriot act too? How about i read some articles on it, see what both proponents and critics have to say, see who exactly the proponents and critics are and what ulterior motives they may have, and then voice my opinion?

I've read what this is about, and what both sides have to say. I've read the vatican's critique and it fails. They "worry" that undue pressure will be brought to bear against countries that don't allow gay marriage, which is what, all of them except 3? The fact is that every country in the EU supports it except the vatican. I wonder why that is, that secular countries don't have a problem with it, but a religious one does. This is a nonbinding declaration, not even a resolution. Who else opposed it? The United States, Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The fucking dream team.

The US (under Bush, still, unfortunately) is the only other western country to oppose the declaration. Don't approve of gay marriage? Fine. Don't want to sign voice opposition to jailing or killing gays? Not fine, and frankly a fucking embarrassment. Another reason to be glad Bush is going away.

You don't have any idea of the content of the declaration except what you read on one news site and an entertainment site, yet based on weak hearsay, you condemn everyone who opposes it. Why? Because you suppose anyone who would oppose it must be bigoted because they disagree with your uninformed perception of what the bill might be. I can only assume that the declaration is too long for you to bother reading. This seems to imply that there is a little more to it than the three sentences you've read regarding its contents.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jonks
http://uk.reuters.com/article/.../idUKTRE4BI30Y20081219

According to this article, the vatican is in favor of decriminlization of homosexuality but doesn't want to sign the UN res because it fears it's a backdoor to gay marriage, which is patently ridiculous.

So you haven't read the bill either? Shocker! But you'll assume that it fits your preconceived notion of what such a bill should say and bash anyone who dares to oppose it. :roll:

Do I have to read all 800 pages of the patriot act too? How about i read some articles on it, see what both proponents and critics have to say, see who exactly the proponents and critics are and what ulterior motives they may have, and then voice my opinion?

I've read what this is about, and what both sides have to say. I've read the vatican's critique and it fails. They "worry" that undue pressure will be brought to bear against countries that don't allow gay marriage, which is what, all of them except 3? The fact is that every country in the EU supports it except the vatican. I wonder why that is, that secular countries don't have a problem with it, but a religious one does. This is a nonbinding declaration, not even a resolution. Who else opposed it? The United States, Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The fucking dream team.

The US (under Bush, still, unfortunately) is the only other western country to oppose the declaration. Don't approve of gay marriage? Fine. Don't want to sign voice opposition to jailing or killing gays? Not fine, and frankly a fucking embarrassment. Another reason to be glad Bush is going away.

I've read it too and it seems like the Vatican's big argument is a slippery slope logical fallacy that perhaps it may lead to gay marriage when there's absolutely no mention of gay marriage anywhere in the resolution. Whatever. :roll:

 

[Farang]

I don't think there is any reason to call the Pope a bigot. The Church espouses mostly good beliefs and serves to create a positive moral standard for humans to live by. The problem with this case is the Church view homosexuality as an immoral act, while the OP sees it as a genetic condition. Although I lean towards the latter, I don't see malicious intent in what the Pope is saying, instead I think we just disagree on the nature of homosexuality. It has not been concretely proven one way or another and until it is we should not be so harsh against the Church.

 

[DealMonkey]

Text of the UN Declaration

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I've read it too and it seems like the Vatican's big argument is a slippery slope logical fallacy that perhaps it may lead to gay marriage when there's absolutely no mention of gay marriage anywhere in the resolution. Whatever.

You said you "read it too" in response to jonks, who admitted that he hadn't read it. Which brings me to the question I've asked several other times in this thread: do you ever really read anything, or do you just have canned responses to everything? At this point, I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Text of the UN Declaration

Bad request: invalid URL. And you said you "read it too" in response to jonks, who admitted that he hadn't read it. Which brings me to the question I've asked several other times in this thread: do you ever really read anything, or do you just have canned responses to everything? At this point, I'm leaning towards the latter.

I fixed it. Try again.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I've read it and it seems like the Vatican's big argument is a slippery slope logical fallacy that perhaps it may lead to gay marriage when there's absolutely no mention of gay marriage anywhere in the resolution. Whatever.

You said you "read it too" in response to jonks, who admitted that he hadn't read it. Which brings me to the question I've asked several other times in this thread: do you ever really read anything, or do you just have canned responses to everything? At this point, I'm leaning towards the latter.

My responses are sometimes rushed and my semantics often aren't perfect. Get used to it. I don't employ a professional editor to catch my mistakes.

There, I dropped the word "too" ... is that better for you?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I fixed it. Try again.

The declaration uses very vague language, a couple examples of which are:
-prohibition of "exclusion"
-deprivation of social rights

Both of these could be readily interpreted to allow gay marriage. Moreover, the original "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" already renders this document irrelevant by way of Article 2:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

and Article 7:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

In fact, after reading the original declaration, it seems that this new declaration could be little but an attempt to grant some other right to gays. I say this since all of the basic human rights are guaranteed to everyone who has been born, period. This makes the new document a sham in my book, since any government not recognizing these basic rights already is in non-compliance with the existing declaration and, therefore, completely unlikely to heed any new declaration. What's the point? It's either another useless political football, or another agenda exists.

edit: forum fail on bullets

edit 2: I'll also point out that, though it shouldn't make any difference, I disagree with the Vatican's stance on gay marriage. If the state is sponsoring marriage, then it should allow everyone to be involved. In the end, the state should be out of the marriage business entirely. Thus, I really don't care if the new declaration would allow it, but I can see where it could be interpreted that way.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Perknose
And this puts that sclerotic institution, perhaps unintentionally, on the side of backward bigots and social troglodytes. Or do you disagree? For instance, what is YOUR stance on sex outside of marriage . . . that it is a sin and an abomination which, if unconfessed, will prohibit a person form entry into heaven? :roll:

I'm sure that all of your views are shared by some bigots as well. Does that make you wrong or a bigot? I don't believe so. Let's review the definition of bigot, shall we?

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Thus, the fundamental problem here is that you feel morality is an opinion (i.e. relative to the person), whereas the pope does not. Thus, in your mind, anyone who holds any stance on a moral issue is automatically a bigot and there is no reason to even discuss any such issues with you. The pope, on the other hand, believes that morality is more than a matter of opinion. I am inclined to agree with him on that. You can kick and scream and yell "bigot!" until you're blue in the face, but until you can rationalize moral relativism, you have no grounds to do so.

As for my views on sex outside of marriage, they have nothing to do with this thread. I'll just say that it is equally as bad as gay sex.

Wow. The gaping chasms in your logical progressions require exposing point by point, nearly sentence by sentence. I thought you were a tighter thinker than you display here.

I'm sure that all of your views are shared by some bigots as well. Does that make you wrong or a bigot? I don't believe so. Let's review the definition of blah, blah, blah

[...]

You can kick and scream and yell "bigot!" until you're blue in the face...

Read more closely. Scream and yell "bigot?" I do no such thing.

I did not say that the Pope was a bigot, only that his pronouncements effectively put him on the same side, re: gays, as backward bigots and social troglodytes. See the fundamental difference? Good!

Thus, the fundamental problem here is that you feel morality is an opinion (i.e. relative to the person), whereas the pope does not.

Lol, wot? From where do you get this? Please be SPECIFIC in your answer by quoting me. :roll:

The Pope believes gay sex, sex out of wedlock, and masturbation (!) to be morally prohibited sins, abominations as a unvarying and unchanging moral absolute.

I believe that any sexual practice amongst consenting adults to be entirely morally acceptable across all cultures, mileau and time, as an unvarying and unchanging moral absolute.

So take your strawman attack and set that lame bad boy on fire.

Thus, in your mind, anyone who holds any stance on a moral issue is automatically a bigot and there is no reason to even discuss any such issues with you.

I'm going to be kind and mostly let this appalling embarrassment of yours speak for itself.

Still, if you wish to continue to embrace this, please show me where I said any such thing.

My understanding of objective morality differs from yours and the Popes. I believe the highest morality is inclusion, tolerance and acceptance, and that this highest objective morality trumps any narrowly primitively anachronistic view of human sexual practice.

It seems that it is you are the one too clouded by self righteous bigotry to be able to "discuss any such issues."

The pope, on the other hand, believes that morality is more than a matter of opinion.

That's his opinion. It is my opinion that the Pope's retrograde and unhelpful -- certainly un-Christ-like -- view of human sexuality is not THE ONLY valid view on the subject. In fact, I think he's lamentably wrong.

I am inclined to agree with him on that.

So I see.

You can kick and scream and yell "bigot!" until you're blue in the face, but until you can rationalize moral relativism, you have no grounds to do so.

Ah, yes, back to your penultimate spasm of righteousness.

For the unbolded, I have already established that I did no such thing.

And now, back to your strawman: moral relativism.

I have herein espoused no such thing. If you disagree, please provide a quote of mine where I do. Moral relativism posits the same action may be ok in one culture or circumstance but not in another. Again, I SAY NO SUCH THING.

My best understanding of an objective and unvarying moral absolute is that it is undergirded by love, acceptance, and inclusion. For me, then, absolutely and across all cultures and times, a person's chosen sexual practices, unless they directly victimize another person, are not immoral.

You and the Pope say it is.

I disagree.

This does NOT make you moral and me not, nor does my opposing view make me a bigot, nor does it make me in ANY way a moral relativist.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So you, like jonks and DealMonkey before you, claim that intolerance of perceived immoralities is bigoted. I challenge you just as I challenged them: explain why morality is relative. If morality is a matter of opinion, then the pope may be bigoted in decrying certain moral actions. If it is not a matter of opinion, then he is not a bigot.

Anything can be an 'immorality' depending on how you define or view it. The fact that the Pope hides behind a set of beliefs or ideas known as a religion does not make him immune from his own bigotry, even if it is his religious beliefs that make him think that certain acts are 'immoralities'.

The Pope's moral position is not based upon fact and he is arguably a bigot against homosexuals. He cannot hide behind religion as an excuse.

I actually laughed out loud at the assertion that all ideas are equal. If you really believe that, I have a hard time understanding why you would bother to post here.

Then you are laughing at yourself because I never made such an assertion. How amusing. If you actually stopped and thought about my comments for a bit instead of putting up an illogical and emotionally charged reactionary post, you would actually understand that I'm implying the opposite.

The bottom line is that religious philosophy is simply a set of ideas and beliefs, like many other philosophies. You cannot hide behind any of these philosophies and use it as a justification for bigotry while also claiming to be immune from criticism of said bigotry.

 

[Atreus21]

I wonder how much bandwidth would be saved on this entire forum if ad hominem attacks were somehow automatically removed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sorry, I was sloppy with my words expecting, I suppose, a certain quantity of reasonableness on your part. I meant sex is only for those who have the potential to have kids by that act, not those who had already proved to be able to do so. Your point, that the purpose for sex is procreation, of course, is a modern one, because, people didn't always know that having sex nine months before a child came was the reason for that child. You, of course, won't face the central issue, that sex for gay people is every bit as driven as sex for straights. Who cares if kids are why sex evolved. It evolved and most people feel the drive. The purpose of that drive is to fulfill it as the drive is unconscious of any purpose. I have sex because I like it and so do most people not made sick by religion. The notion that sex should be limited to heterosexual couples who will have it to have children is totally absurd which makes the Pope absurd.

People are driven to lie, cheat, kill, and steal as well. The idea that people should do whatever they are driven to do is absurd, which makes you absurd. Instinct doesn't imply that something is morally correct.

Exactly, the Pope is absurd and I am not. And I have explained why my thinking is better than his. He is a mouth piece for ancient bigotry and I look at only what is real. There is nothing wrong with sex between gays or straights. It is just sex. Good sex is the kind that takes place between lovers. One person's love is not better than the love of another. Homosexual expression threatens nobody, and especially God.

So you also dodge the simple question? No one is surprised. Your philosophy doesn't seem to have very many answers to surprisingly simple, fundamental questions. Either that, or you refuse to answer them because the answer is absurd, as above.

Instinct implies instinct. It has nothing to do with morality. Morality is an issue that requires context. Sex for the sake of sex is moral or not based, not on the sex of the couples but the quality of the relationship. Is the sex a rape or some other denial of the freedom or another or is it an act of love. I maintain the absolute principle that one person's real love is equal to any other's. You are trying to elevate to an absolute a principle that is small minded. And you do so without any logical reason, resorting instead to nonsense about procreation as if love without children as a goal is somehow tarnished. Utter bunk! I haven't dodged your question. It has no meaning at all. You simply defend something that's totally irrational.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I wonder how much bandwidth would be saved on this entire forum if ad hominem attacks were somehow automatically removed.

P&N would shrivel up and disappear.

The church's "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing really takes some getting used to....

 

[I Saw OJ]

So Pope Dracula doesnt like gays, not surprising in the least.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Who cares what a man or woman in a pointy hat says. He's got no authority, only the authority you give him. Most of the time, they try to do well, while some of the time, they are major fuckups who don't care because 'they speak for god'
Nah, sorry, electing someone to be the head of an organized religion that is intentionally hiding child molesting assholes deserves no respect and no authority.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I wonder how much bandwidth would be saved on this entire forum if ad hominem attacks were somehow automatically removed.

P&N would shrivel up and disappear.

The church's "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing really takes some getting used to....

In simplistic terms, yet accurate, yes. "Love the sinner, hate the sin". A distinction many posting here seem to be missing or failing to understand.