Well, now it seems that God has weighed in on the subject and claims it’s true: https://mobile.twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod/status/649240439967625216?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
[QUOTE=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html]
Mr. Staver, her lawyer, said Vatican officials had been aware of Ms. Davis, and that the meeting had been arranged through them — not through bishops or the bishops’ conference in the United States. He would not identify the Vatican officials.
[/QUOTE]
But there’s nothing there to suggest thta the meeting was long enough for the “pope to agree with her” on actual facts/principles - and more likely an 'agreement to stand firm" (whatever that means).
<golf clap>
Thats hilarious.
Let me just re-add what I said onthe previous page - I do not care if the Pope ‘agrees with her’ in any way shape or form - he doesn’t write the laws for this country, and that is what she is currently violiating.
She has every right to ‘object’ as an individual - she does not get to deny the rights of others based on that.
Why is the leader of a centuries-old hate organization dedicated to fucking babies embracing a rabid homophobe not believable?
…I think I must have skipped over that part of the Bible.
The part of the Bible that mentions establishing the Roman Church also seems to be missing.
[QUOTE=Matthew 16:18-19]
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the scriptural argument the Catholic church uses, anyway.
Where are you getting “dedicated to fucking babies” from?
something about peter and a rock I think -
Pedophile priest hyperbole?
I was pretty sure that Apostolic Christians don’t seek the blessing of the pope for anything, so whatever else I guess it’s a step forward for ecumenism.
A spokesman for the Vatican confirmed the visit. What more do you need for confirmation that the visit occurred?
I guess you’re relying on the non equivalence between affirming and not denying. Given the context, ‘I don’t debt’ is a confirmation. What would be needed for your reading is ‘I neither confirm nor deny.’
A spokesman for the Vatican refused to deny the visit.
That’s not the same thing as confirming it, or saying that it in any way resembled Davis’ description of events.
No, he did not confirm the visit.
“I do not deny that the meeting took place, but I have no other comments to add,” he said.
That’s a confirmation.
I didn’t say it resembled her description and if asked 'did it happen,: the reply ‘I don’t deny it’ pragmatically unless it did happen.
^implies, not unless
Refusal to deny != confirmation.