Biden: To hell with God and the Church. I'm taking communion.

[Idolater]

I can almost guarantee you that, had the homo priests who have molested little boys and girls whom they had authority over had a wife to begin with, they likely would never have gone down the path of molesting children.

You still do not know what child rapists are. They aren't 'animals' or 'predators' and they don't rape children because they have no wife. No animals or predators do what child rapists do, and no one who is not a child rapist rapes kids, whether they are married or not, homosexual or not. They're in a category with serial killers, who are also rapists.

And thus they should be put to death upon being convicted of their crimes.

Separate issue.

Paul's words:

My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we have no right to eat and drink?Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? - 1 Corinthians 9:3-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians9:3-5&version=NKJV

Not to mention the entirety of chapter 7...

Literally all throughout chapter seven he lauds celibacy, just as I said he did:

...It is good for a man not to touch a woman....

...I would that all men were even as I myself.... (i.e. celibate)

...He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:...

...she (a widow) is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God....

 

[Right Divider]

Literally all throughout chapter seven he lauds celibacy, just as I said he did:

There is a context there that you are ignoring.

1Co 7:1-3 KJV Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (2) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

Note that it is NOT Paul saying "It is good for a man not to touch a woman". Someone ELSE wrote that to him. What Paul said was "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Paul also says this about that passage:

1Co 7:6 KJV But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Besides... The "Pope Peter" had a wife. Why should your "priesthood" be different?

Luk 4:38 KJV And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

 

[Idolater]

There is a context there that you are ignoring.

Note that it is NOT Paul saying "It is good for a man not to touch a woman". Someone ELSE wrote that to him. What Paul said was "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Paul also says this about that passage:


Besides... The "Pope Peter" had a wife. Why should your "priesthood" be different?

My post stands: Paul lauded celibacy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What's "THIS book?"

Pilgrimage: My Search for the Real Pope Francis

Pilgrimage

A down-to-earth and deeply intimate portrait of Pope Francis and his faith, based on interviews with the men and women who knew him simply as Jorge Mario Bergoglio Early on the evening of March 13, 2013, the newly elected Pope Francis stepped out onto the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica and did...

books.google.com

 

[ok doser]

In a discussion regarding homosexuals, the RCC priesthood and pedophilia, it's important to note that most of the cases of child abuse were not strictly speaking pedophilia but were hebephilia. The victims of the predator priests were usually post-pubertal.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Glass houses.

I don't live in one.

He's not

Again, denying reality isn't healthy. The pope is, in fact, pro-homo, and the links I've provided show that clearly.

and neither is Catholicism "pro" homo-genital relations.

Red herring.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You still do not know what child rapists are.

I know exactly what child rapists are. They are vile criminals who deserve nothing more than death.

They aren't 'animals'

Right. They're monsters.

or 'predators'

They are indeed predators.

Their prey are children.

and they don't rape children because they have no wife.

My point was that if they had had an outlet for their sexual urges to begin with, as PAUL HIMSELF mentions, they wouldn't have resorted to children, rather than a woman or man.

No animals or predators do what child rapists do,

I'm wondering if you're understanding the manner in which "animal" and "predator" are used... They're not literal animals or predators, but their behavior is similar to that of animals, and they certainly prey on children.

and no one who is not a child rapist rapes kids,

Duh, that's the definition of "child rapist"...

whether they are married or not,

Duh.

homosexual or not.

Duh.

They're in a category with serial killers, who are also rapists.

Not all serial killers are rapists. Not all rapists are serial killers.

Not all murderers are serial killers either (because "serial" implies multiple victims).

Separate issue.

Literally all throughout chapter seven he lauds celibacy, just as I said he did:

As RD pointed out:

There is a context there that you are ignoring.

Note that it is NOT Paul saying "It is good for a man not to touch a woman". Someone ELSE wrote that to him. What Paul said was "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Paul also says this about that passage:


Besides... The "Pope Peter" had a wife. Why should your "priesthood" be different?

In addition, Paul says directly:

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. (7:2) But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (7:8-9, and my point that I was making above)

Who are you, who is the RCC, to contradict Paul on this?

 

[JudgeRightly]

My post stands: Paul lauded celibacy.

He also lauded marriage.

Especially if there would be lack of self control, or if they burn with passion, or if there's a risk of sexual immorality (which includes homosexuality).

 

[Right Divider]

My post stands: Paul lauded celibacy.

"lauded"

Paul told husbands to have a wife and for a wife to have a husband.

Why did you ignore the entire post? (never mind, I already know, you have no argument).

 

[annabenedetti]

Pilgrimage: My Search for the Real Pope Francis

Pilgrimage

A down-to-earth and deeply intimate portrait of Pope Francis and his faith, based on interviews with the men and women who knew him simply as Jorge Mario Bergoglio Early on the evening of March 13, 2013, the newly elected Pope Francis stepped out onto the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica and did...

books.google.com

Okay, so that's a book written about Pope Francis. It's not the "THIS book" you said "his first assignment to the teenage boys, students in his class in Argentina, was to read THIS book, written by an openly homosexual author.

So you have a google link that effectively goes nowhere, and certainly not to the "THIS book" you say he assigned to his class.

 

[Idolater]

"lauded"

Paul told husbands to have a wife and for a wife to have a husband.

Why did you ignore the entire post? (never mind, I already know, you have no argument).

I made my point and proved it with scriptures. I never said that he didn't also laud marriage. I ignored your entire post because it didn't address my point, which has been shown to be true: Paul lauded celibacy.

You all are acting like celibacy is demonic in origin, it's ridiculous.

 

[Right Divider]

I made my point and proved it with scriptures.

So says everyone.

I never said that he didn't also laud marriage.

Perhaps you could actually stick to the context of these things instead of cherry-picking and trying to force your meaning on them.

I ignored your entire post because it didn't address my point, which has been shown to be true: Paul lauded celibacy.

No, he didn't.

You all are acting like celibacy is demonic in origin, it's ridiculous.

You, again, mischaracterize what I said.

God never gave any "priesthood" a celibacy requirement. That is your RCC mispresenting God.

The only priesthood that God ever created was the one in and for the nation of Israel.

Peter, your supposed first Pope, was a married man. Why would his supposed successors be required not to marry?

 

[Idolater]

That it is literally killing a life? Yeah, Rusha on here doesn't commit to Christianity, but she believes abortion is murder and wrong. You don't have to be a Christian to know ending a life is wrong is wrong is wrong.

True enough.

Yet Biden has signed pro-abortion bills.

Anything, literally. "This country was founded upon Christian principles" "I cannot mandate laws that support Christian values, but I personally hold them very strongly and wish abortion never happened, ever!" It'd be really easy for a democrat to say that. Reagan though supporting abortion, said "when it comes to life and death, the law should always favor life." Reagan's presidential platform was to eliminate all abortions except those needed within the context of life. He thought abortion should only happen when it endangered a mother. He said:
"The real question for him (any abortion doctor) and for all of us is whether than tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the
law–the same right we have.”

Reagan is responsible for many Protestants and Catholics moving from a Democrat platform, to a Republican one, simply based on his expressed values. ANY president that speaks from his heart regarding issues of life (and so poignantly) will win the allegiance of a nation of Christians (including Catholics).


Reagan had issues, but 'issues' do not undo Christianity. He spoke most often as if he held Christian values and was more bold than any that I can recollect regarding Christian expressions.

We do when they vote and pass bills unless they make a very very strong statement of why they'd pass something they know is against the heart of God. It ever and only came down to one thing in the Christian vote: Lives. Most Christians knew beyond doubt that votes for Republican were costing them money, but they put their money literally where their mouth was, took huge financial hits, and supported Republicans for only their stance, openly, against abortion. It literally was a matter of conscience. Any more those lines are not contrasted at all. Most republican politicians are indifferent to those laws. Today, Republican is more about a decrease in taxation and government spending. In such a scheme, it has favored the rich, but underneath Presidential elections has been a steady secularization and removal of Christianity and Christian influence as if such was a bad thing. These United States necessarily must and mark my words (I think prophetically though I'm not a prophet) will become divided. I can't see any other way around it. One side ADAMANTLY wants no Christianity and the Other insists it is necessary for any republic to actually work. I see another civil war of some sort on the horizon, and the sparks heralding it already set off.

I believe indiscriminate abortion is grave matter because I believe in the teaching authority of the Apostles. It's my Christian faith that compels me to believe it is serious sin.

How can you convince someone who believes that the fetus doesn't have any rights until he or she is born? "There are many rights that basically don't come into effect until he or she is born, so why not simply all of them?" they might say. It's not self-evident very early in the pregnancy, even if it's arguably self-evident later on. How do you persuade them?

 

[Lon]

I believe indiscriminate abortion is grave matter because I believe in the teaching authority of the Apostles. It's my Christian faith that compels me to believe it is serious sin.

How can you convince someone who believes that the fetus doesn't have any rights until he or she is born? "There are many rights that basically don't come into effect until he or she is born, so why not simply all of them?" they might say. It's not self-evident very early in the pregnancy, even if it's arguably self-evident later on. How do you persuade them?

Because nothing 'changes.' Everything there at 6 weeks is there at 600 weeks. The only difference is the address they live.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Okay, so that's a book written about Pope Francis. It's not the "THIS book" you said "his first assignment to the teenage boys, students in his class in Argentina, was to read THIS book, written by an openly homosexual author.

So you have a google link that effectively goes nowhere, and certainly not to the "THIS book" you say he assigned to his class.

I apologize.

I seem to have misread something.

Here is what I was trying to paraphrase (unsuccessfully, it seems):

- The first assignment that he gave to the teenage boys in his class in Argentina in 1964 was to read the writing of an openly homosexual author, and one of the boys in that class grew up to become one of Francis' many homosexual defenders. To BEL's knowledge, Francis has never repented from this very public sin. Sadly, it's not that Francis became the pope in spite of, but because of, his fondness for homosexuality.

The Case Against Pope Francis: BEL's Pope List | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[annabenedetti]

After controversy, U.S. Catholic bishops say there will be ‘no national policy on withholding Communion from politicians’​

“There will be no national policy on withholding Communion from politicians. The intent is to present a clear understanding of the Church’s teachings to bring heightened awareness among the faithful of how the Eucharist can transform our lives and bring us closer to our creator and the life he wants for us,” the Q&A said.

 

[annabenedetti]

I apologize.

I seem to have misread something.

No problem, just wanted to get to clarification.

Here is what I was trying to paraphrase (unsuccessfully, it seems):

- The first assignment that he gave to the teenage boys in his class in Argentina in 1964 was to read the writing of an openly homosexual author, and one of the boys in that class grew up to become one of Francis' many homosexual defenders. To BEL's knowledge, Francis has never repented from this very public sin. Sadly, it's not that Francis became the pope in spite of, but because of, his fondness for homosexuality.

The Case Against Pope Francis: BEL's Pope List | KGOV.com

kgov.com

I don't know why Pope Francis should have to apologize for presenting some of the works (poetry) of a famous Spanish literary figure. Or why the fact that one of his students was gay should have anything to do with the pope. It's such a reach. Isn't it enough that you (or BEL) think the pope's too kind to homosexuals, without blowing things so far out of proportion as to make it sound like he was giving porn to his students or something?

Again: Should no American student read any literature by Truman Capote? Oscar Wilde? Tennessee Williams? James Baldwin?

 

[Lon]

I'm don't know why Pope Francis should have to apologize for presenting some of the works (poetry) of a famous Spanish literary figure. Or why the fact that one of his students was gay should have anything to do with the pope. It's such a reach. Isn't it enough that you (or BEL) think the pope's too kind to homosexuals, without blowing things so far out of proportion as to make it sound like he was giving porn to his students or something?

Again: Should no American student read any literature by Truman Capote? Oscar Wilde? Tennessee Williams? James Baldwin?

If you follows Judge's bottom link from BEL (including Franklin Graham's concern), it was in connection and conjunction with all of his other pro-homosexual inclusions, it'd be suggested that his fondness for Homosexual authors goes beyond merely the literature including openly-gay statements and stances. Maybe another way of looking at it would be: Should student's hear all of Elton John's songs? Including those openly homosexual, or just the ones that do not promote it, as required classroom listening?

 

[marke]

Did you mean from Trump to Biden?

Yes. I slipped up. We have no records of Biden votes being flipped to Trump and yet we have clear evidence that some computers flipped Trump's votes to Biden.

 

[Lon]

Should no American student read any literature by Truman Capote? Oscar Wilde? Tennessee Williams? James Baldwin?

I've not read any of them. My education wasn't/isn't lacking. I'm no worse for not watching Cooper Anderson, Elton John, or better for having watched Ellen DeGeneres or Jodie Foster. I'm not sure about 'required' reading. It should be something that isn't an affront to students. I REALLY didn't want to read Lord of the Flies, for instance. It did leave me with memories pictured I'd MORE than just as soon have out of my head. A good many books that were required, I think abuse the psyche. That should never be entered by any teacher or school system lightly. While the above books might be included on a list, for me, as a teacher, those options are very important. The only required reading should be by wholesome stories from authors and not do damage even potentially. Lord of the Flies, necessarily, leaves disturbing pictured memories for a life-time (anybody that has read it, may not have those same problems with the pictures in mind, but all who have just read this know implicitly what I'm talking about).