BREAKING: White smoke from the Vatican!

But they're delicious when marinated and grilled.

Better to have said 1199, when Assisi was a teenaged nobleman whose entire purpose in life was to party.

You sure you aren't confusing him with St. Augustine? He was the big playboy/party animal IIRC.

So, when will you be joining the ranks of the choir boys?

I'm just going by these paragraphs:

They may not be right, but it's not important enough for me to care.

Unfortunately, he can't. He's been crestfallen ever since the day he found that he had hair where there was no hair before.

I don't know where you get the "whore of Babylon" out of the story of the adulterous woman (which I assume you are talking about).

The adulterous woman brought before Jesus by the Jewish opposition was for the purpose of setting a trap for Jesus.

1) They brought only the woman. Not the man as well which was against Jewish law.

2) They were trying to get Jesus to endorse stoning her which (according to them) would've been according to Jewish law (without the man as well though it would not have been) but AGAINST Roman Law.

Thus the Jews were deliberately trying to force Jesus to give the appearance of violating Jewish law or Roman law.

Jesus turned that around by suggesting the Jewish leaders themselves stone her. That would've caused them to violate Roman law first.

This incident has had its meaning deliberately altered by more modern "alleged feel good" Christians who want to claim it is an example of Jesus refusing to condemn a slutty woman.

But look at Jesus's final statement to the woman.

"Go, and sin no more."

He did not say "Return to your boyfriend and enjoy your pleasures".

His simple statement "Go, and sin no more" was in fact a judgemental statement. He acknowledged that her adultery was in fact a sin and ordered her not to do it again.

He did say that he didn't condemn her. But this was clearly meaning that he did not condemn her to death by stoning. He never gives any indication that he did not consider her adultery sinful.

And you would have chucked a rock at her.

^

No. I'm not a Jew. Not bound by Jewish law. And I have no particular affection for Jews one way or the other.

And you would have chucked a rock at her.

Not unless they brought the man she was with out as well.

There's no need to bring Chuck into this.

Dayton. You can't get an Academy Award if you play full retard, FYI. You're not even going to get nominated at this rate.

So you would have thrown (sorry Chuck!) rocks at the both of them for doing something that was none of your business.

I normally tend to just ignore what you say about you faith, since your understanding of Christianity is so obviously incompatible with my own, but this post really amazed me, even from you!

While I know squat about this guy, the fact that he's a Latin American Jesuit may potentially point to a commitment to social justice. That might be nice.

Commitment to drug cartels maybe?
Here's a social injustice remedy: give the billions/trillions in wealth wrapped up in the Catholic Church to the poor. Sadly, the poor will give their last cent to the church to keep this whole fucking kiddie diddling circus going.

Maybe the vikings should have gone that extra mile in eradicating them.

According to the Jewish law in effect at that time it was my business.

Extramarital sex undermines the family and the family is the core of society that we live in.

Extramartial sex? The hell? Sex in places other than on the battlefield? Preposterous!

Sorry. It is early here and I'm waiting for it to get light enough out to walk the dog.

and I was up half the night with acid reflux

Well, that... uh... explains it?

The more I read, the less likely this seems, not that I had any hopes it would change Church policy even if he had such a commitment. In particular, the degree to which the Catholic Church in Argentina under his direction sided with military dictatorship, torture, and the disappearing of dissidents is disconcerting to say the least.

DAMN! I forgot do quote tags in my post. Rick (I think) said that comment about getting social justice or somesuch. I disagreed wholeheartedly.

And the only reason you're half a fag is because you realized you're never getting a chick anyway, right?

Look at that post. It's almost like Jesus is standing right here in front of me!

I told you what the beam in your eye was. You ignore the teaching of Jesus as regards the poor, and openly profess to be against it.

So in your mind, if they had brought the man to Jesus as well, he would have endorsed having them stoned to death?


I bet that thought gives you a major woody!

So that's why you slap your wife around, to strengthen family values?

Would you support Jesus slapping Mary Magdalene around to keep her ass in line?

Yanno, I though BD was a bit obsessed with bashing on Dayton, but this thread has cemented the fact that he deserves every bit of shit he gets.

This is making the rounds on FB, but I have been unable to verify its authenticity.

Women are naturally inept at holding political office. The natural order and the facts teach us that men are to be the politicians par excellence. The scriptures demonstrate to us that the woman is always the support of the male thinker and maker, but no more than that.

You know what else is wrong and immoral? Hitting your fucking wife, you pile of shit.