Pope says church should ask forgiveness from Sodomites for past treatment

[eider]

Nope. Individuals should apologize for their own, specific actions that they repent of.

But you take individual homosexual's crimes and attribute these to all homosexcuals, don't you?
If I'm right, then you might need to apologisde for your individual prejudice and bigotry, yes?

This moron saying that Christians should apologize to homos is utterly un-Christ-like.

You can't have studied Jesus's life and vocation. He never ever abused a homosexual. In fact, the only people that Jesus abused were Temple Traders.
If you are a Christian you would never call anybody a moron, would you?

Wow....... if I'm right, your apology-list is huge, isn't it?

 

[serpentdove]

Sex between same genders is a sin. There should be no apology for recognizing it as such.

Sodomites defend Sodomites (Ro 1:32).

The wickedness of Sodom ([Ex 20:14]

heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12] or homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13]) was notorious (Gen. 13:13).

 

[Cruciform]

Meanwhile, this pope chick thinks we should apologize to homos.

You really are just an ignorant child, aren't you. Poor little lamb. lain:

 

[Cruciform]

Nope. Individuals should apologize for their own, specific actions that they repent of.

Look who caught up! That's exactly what the Pope was saying. :doh:

 

[Stripe]

But you take individual homosexual's crimes and attribute these to all homosexcuals, don't you?

Nope, but nice use of the tu quoque fallacy. You've tacitly conceded that my characterization of what this pope thing said was accurate. :up:

If I'm right, then you might need to apologisde for your individual prejudice and bigotry, yes?

Depends.

You can't have studied Jesus's life and vocation. He never ever abused a homosexual.

It's homos that abuse homos.

And this rant has nothing to do with what I said. A non sequitur to add to your fallacy count.

If you are a Christian you would never call anybody a moron, would you?

Why not?

That's exactly what the Pope was saying.

:darwinsm:

Was it encoded?

 

[Cruciform]

Was it encoded?

Not even a little. Back to Post #43.

 

[Stripe]

"The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?"

We'll, for a start, you're the pope. :doh:

 

[Cruciform]

"The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?" We'll, for a start, you're the pope. :doh:

Now go ahead and explain the context in which the Pope was speaking, and the specific situation he was addressing when he said those words.

 

[Stripe]

Back to self-referential nonsense.

Oh, now I remember you. :idea:

 

[Cruciform]

Oh, now I remember you. :idea:

You missed Post #48.

 

[Stripe]

Now go ahead and explain the context in which the Pope was speaking, and the specific situation he was addressing when he said those words.[/FONT]

The story doesn't say. However, it is hardly needed. He is called on to judge what he sees, not pretend he can read hearts and minds.

 

[Stripe]

[FONT=GeorgiYou missed [B]Post #48[/B].[/FONT]

Don't worry, so did everybody else. :up:

 

[Stripe]

See post 47.

 

[Stripe]

See post 53.

 

[Stripe]

See post 54.

 

[Cruciform]

The story doesn't say.

That's what I thought. So you really have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about when you parrot a few of the Pope's words entirely without context as though you're some sort of self-styled expert on papal doctrine. Don't even bother. You're just embarrassing yourself.

However, it is hardly needed.

Literary context is irrelevant, says Stripe. That explains so very much.

 

[Cruciform]

Don't worry, so did everybody else. :up:

Thus perfectly proving my statement in Post #43.

 

[serpentdove]

Jesus said we must forgive in order to be forgiven

Lk 17:3

 

[Stripe]

See post 55.

 

[Cruciform]

See post 55.

Post #43