Ah. So i guess you’re on record of saying that defending child rapists is a christian thing to do, then, too, as some in the catholic hierarchy did it?
…what religion are you?
The Pope’s not a Christian either.
The Roman Catholic Church is a Paulinist institution; Paul rejected the teachings of the Christ wholesale.
If you want to start a separate thread to try to make this weird claim, do so. Do not hijack this thread with off-the-wall theology.
[ /Moderating ]
It’s relevant, in context.
Someone made the claim that Phil Robertson’s statements are consistent with his Christian beliefs.
I corrected him, pointing out that Robertson’s beliefs are in no way Christian.
Someone else attempted to contradict me by using the Pope as an example of a Christian who holds similar beliefs, which I rejected on the grounds that the Pope is in fact not a Christian in the first place.
You can’t accuse a post of being a threadjack based on completely divorcing it from its conversational context.
I have yet to see any Catholic defend child rape. Cite?
As for me - not Christian. How is it relevant?
In this case, it is absolutely a hijack. Only a minuscule number of people would hold the theological position that either Robertson or the pope were not Christian. Billions of other people would hold that they were Christian. Trying to introduce a discussion of what constitutes Christianity and who may be called a Christian is not relevant to this thread except from the perspective of the tiny number of people who hold a separate theology.
You will not continue this discussion in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
I said “rapists”, not “rape”. If you want to have a discussion, you first shouldn’t outright change what I’m saying. It’s extremely dishonest of you, and I’m going to call you out on it.
Give me a cite of some Catholic “defending” a proven child rapist. And by “defending” I presume you mean some kind of justification for his actions?
Karrius and Terr, take your current nascent hijack to a new thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Question—if you don’t think it’s completely on point, consider it a hypothetical: If someone merely relays a bit of Christian doctrine as it applies to homosexuals, does that in and of itself make them bigoted? Or unreasonable? And if you answer the latter in the affirmative, are all Christians unreasonable people?
Was Robertson “merely relaying” or was he expressing his own views?
Whether someone says something bigoted because their mama beat them as a child, or because their favorite politician told them to say it, or because it’s been a belief of their people for thousands of years, or because It Was Written In A Book, or because God Said It, or because the neighbor’s dog whispered it to them, or because they derived the belief from a misunderstood conglomeration of tax law, botany, and Rumi’s poetry is immaterial. If someone sincerely professes a belief that’s bigoted, then that person is a bigot.
And no: not all Christians are bigoted, nor are all Christians unreasonable people.
The question is, if someone says. “I’m a Christian. And Christian doctrine says that homosexuality, adultery, etc. is a sin”, does that make that person a bigot? Unreasonable?
If yes, then doesn’t one’s merely stating that one is a Christian allow you to classify them as a bigot? (Let’s leave aside, for now, the possible existence of Christian organization that, oxymoronically, does not adhere to Christian doctrine.
That assumes there’s only one christian doctrine. That is obviously not true.
Indeed. And the doctrine a person chooses reveals who they are. They have options.
Traditional Christian doctrine. Is everyone who adheres to it a bigot? Unreasonable?
Is there only one traditional Christian doctrine?
You’re inviting circularity here. If “traditional Christian doctrine” means bigotry, then, yeah, adhering to traditional Christian doctrine means being a bigot.
Does it?
You’re trying to get around bigotry through syllogism.
The person either is or is not implying the third step of the syllogism:
- I follow Christian doctrine.
- Christian doctrine says homosexuality is wrong.
- I declare that homosexuality is wrong.
If they’re not implying that third step, then they’re not bigoted. If they are, they are. I don’t actually give two shits about steps 1 and 2, except as a friend and as a sociological fact respectively; it’s only step 3 that determines whether they’re a bigot.
For the first time, I decided to actually watch this show, and it is seriously stupid. This particular episode has the uncle playing with a pair of handcuffs and -hilarity- he cuffs himself to Willie, leading to an extended search for a removal tool since the key is nowhere to be found. Wow, this must be their homage to Three’s Company and Perfect Strangers and every other sitcom from 1978-1990.
Another of the bearded ones find this endlessly hilarious (and we are treated to endless sidebar comments of his about how endlessly hilarious this is) and during one such hilarious moment when the uncle has to take a leak, the noncuffed nephew takes some pictures of the hilarious situation, leading the cuffed nephew to yell “You best not be taking pictures of this!” having apparently forgotten about the camera crew standing fifteen feet away.
Maybe I should see if there’s a Café thread about this.