Skip to comments.Pope Francis and Gays: “Loving the Sinner” Is Still Intolerance (Thanks for clarifying that, Time)
Posted on 07/30/2013 11:25:09 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
click here to read article
Amen ... even so come quickly, Lord Jesus!
“Pope Francis and Gays: Loving the Sinner Is Still Intolerance” - Time Magazine
‘Tolerance And Apathy Are The Last Virtues Of A Dying Society’ - Aristotle
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
- G. K. Chesterton
It’s pretty biblically clear that homosexuality is hugely offensive to God,
and that’s why the left picks this issue to promote in our society.
Darwin would call homosexuality an unsuccessful mutation since it does not provide for procreation.
Not that there is anything wrong with that...
Silence on the matter will be construed as intolerance.
Her “Fruits”, apparently are Sean Lennon and Kyoko Chan Cox.
I’m not sure what (if anything) they tell us about her.
No vice however squalid and nasty is without defenders as Padgett proves.
Loving the sinner, really isn't even tolerance. It is calling to repentance. Loving the sinner is actually INtolerance of the sin.
I’m in a time warp ... this is the first I’ve ever heard of Kyoko.
This sodomite Padgett does not understand love. We love those involved in homosexuality (in the same way that God so loved the whole world) ... therefore we point out to them that homosexual conduct is depraved, and evil, and sinful ... and we call them to repentance and conversion to Christ.
The sin comes when you indulge your homosexual proclivities.
I was thinking of her movies, books, audio recordings and general willingness to trade on her deceased husband’s fame and notoriety. Sean is nothing special as far as I know, but I wouldn’t quite categorize him as a fruit.
Sorry ... don't mean to imply that he's a sodomite.
According to wiki he's an occutard.
Completely different. Can you not love a person who is an alcoholic? Would you still love one of your children who is a murderer?
That is true in the same sense that cancer is as biological as other cells. It doesn't mean what Tim was trying to twist the words to mean. Biological is not the same as positive. I don't encourage my friend with stage three cancer to celebrate the growth of that part of his biology, any more than I would encourage men who are attracted to men to turn an exit into an entrance.
homosexual relationships have proven as valid and socially enriching as straight ones
I missed that proof. What I have seen is relationships among friends and co-workers that have never in my experience included fidelity and that have never in my experience lasted more than a few years. The best homosexual relationships I have seen have lacked the stability and commitment of the worst heterosexual relationships I have seen.
can we take any religious leader seriously when he claims to love gay people but at the same time demonizes the consummation of their love for each other? How, for example, can the Catholic church declare homosexuals disordered and their lifestyle an intrinsic moral evil, yet expect us to applaud its love for gays somewhere beneath all that homophobic bigotry?
I missed the alleged demonization. Those who commit adultery (another group whose sex lives violate scripture) are not demonized; it's just that their actions violate God's Word. The same is true of homosexuals. This moron does not understand either "demonizing" or love. Which is hateful and which is loving: (a) telling people to do whatever makes them happy sexually (b) advising people to act prudently and in a manner that will allow them to avoid a fatal disease such as AIDS? I don't see a phobia in either approach, but one has an outcome that is hard to describe as anything short of hateful.
If animal behavior is normative for humans, we should be living naked in the trees, pooping on the ground, establishing social hierarchies by brawling, flirting by displaying our swollen rumps, eating placentas, and --- if our offspring seem subpar --- eating the babies, too.
Every disease, disability, disorder, abnormality, malformation and malfunction known to man or beast, is biological. Duh: What else would it be? CGI?
That doesn't mean we have to define ourselves by our disorders.
Even nature doesn't favor behaviors that lead to the specimen's genetic extinction.
“given our awareness today that homosexuality is as biological as heterosexuality”
HUH? Sorry Charlie,
“Studies by Johns Hopkins University, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a prohomosexual
scientist, Evelyn Hooker, and Masters and Johnson all deny that theres any genetic link. They agree that the connection between genetics and homosexuality is a myth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.