US Embassy Hangs Flag of Sodom at Its Embassy to Vatican
Edit: has Bergoglio complained? Gaybrielle hails it as a milestone. A millstone to tie around his neck?
AMDG
36 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I don't care what asshole Bergoglio would do about gays, or the Vatican. I will never asccept them other than perverts. Bergoglio's packed the Vatican with tons of gays anyway, so they're probably thrilled.
The embassy would not have put it there without clearing it with the Pope. And that means that he wants it there, and his allowing it indirectly sends the message that the Church is OK with it.
I am a very gay person. Especially on warm summer mornings when the hummingbirds are about. It makes me feel just so gay. Gay is a legitimate word in the English language. Personally, I think that language is a gift from God. Please don’t call homosexuals “gay”. They, and the sick perversion they practice is anything but GAY.
I don't care what Catholics have to say about gay people. It is enough to know that there are many gay people shaming these Catholics by setting a better example. Alan Turing saved 17 million people while that Pius XII cowered in the Vatican. Even a homeless gay transvestite, Natale Morea, risked his life to save several young women from being raped on the streets of Rome several days before Christmas in 2004.
No one could save 17 million people. That's unbelievable. Who the H is Alan Turing? If he did something noble and courageous to same some people (17 million...yeah, right, and I'm gonna be the next Pope) that's great. But if he was actively homosexual etc, that cancels it out.
These shenanigans are common at US Embassies when the Dem's are in control. Its not uncommon for that flag to fly in front of government buildings in Dem controlled states either. It doesn't suggest the Pope condoned or objected to the flag, the Vatican probably wasn't even contacted.
Oh, look at this. Damien is all for hating on fags, yet is apparently unaware that jews were instrumental in starting the Gay Rights movement from the 1960's onward. But that doesn't fit into his, "kiss every jew ass" narrative. And by the way, Damien the Genius, Alan Turing is the man who broke the German Enigma Code. You must have been swishing down the model runway instead of going to school.
"Oh, look at this. Damien is all for hating on fags, yet is apparently unaware that jews were instrumental in starting the Gay Rights movement from the 1960's onward. But that doesn't fit into his, "kiss every jew ass" narrative.' ================================================================================= Anon. at 2:46 a.m.(who sits and posts on this at 2.46 am? Don't you sleep ,man?
But Considering what you said about Jews, this is for you. You'd fit right in Buddy Man !! As for going to school...I know alot more than you think, Including languages. Anyway, this is for you. I remember it from my college modern history classes. Actually I'm surprised I remember it word for word. But considering your views, I suggest you say it every night before going to bed! :)
"Ich swore bei Gott dresen heillgen Eid, das ich dem Fuhrer des Deutchen Reiches und Volken, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will jederzeit fur dresen Eid mein leben einzusctzen."
In case anyone thought that I just made the post with the German piece up out of thin air, it actually (and I probably have alot of mistakes in it because it's been 12 years since I had that class in college, and my German though passable probably isn't 100% anymore) is called the "Wehrmacht Oath", compiled in 1935 after Hitler attained full control of Germany after the death of Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, who was German head of state after the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II after WWI. The oath was standard for all recruits into the German Army I'm surprised I remembered it all to post.
Judges 19: While they were making merry, and refreshing their bodies with meat and drink, after the labour of the journey, the men of that city, sons of Belial, (that is, without yoke,) came and beset the old man's house, and began to knock at the door, calling to the master of the house, and saying: Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may abuse him.
Sodomites are the Sons of Satan.
Period.
End of discussion.
If you think homosexuality is ok, take it up with God.
It should come as no surprise that the dunderhead labels himself 'Amateur...' Trotting out the Lex Talionis principle central to Semitic tribal existence and also to Old Testament 'Christians' like himself only works if it is put into practice. See Gaza, Yemen, 'Chop Chop Sq' in Riyadh noon on Fridays/ Is the bogus brain operator prepared to drag out a few 'Sodommites' into the public square and stone them to death. Don't forget to let us know how many, like you, got their rocks off.
I would never support the pervert gays, or say their lifestyle is worthy of a "Gay Pride Month" . In my industry, I've unfortunately seen them in action at mega-parties after the successful wrap to a show, or photo shoot, or film project. More times than I can count, I was pleaded with to join in. I always refused. I couldn't very well disappear and go home...because sometimes we were overseas. I had to tolerate them because some were managers, agents, scouts, cameramen. A good 60% of the crew were (gays /lesbians). But They are, to use a phrase from Jonathan Edwards, an mid 18th century Congregationalist preacher/pastor in New England who helped spark what became known as "The Great Awakening"..."Sinners in the hands of an angry God".
Of course I can't judge them..only God can. But I find it a violation of valid judgement that that which was considered perverted and a heinous crime only 50 years ago, and for 2,500 years before that in the Judeo-Christian tradition...should now be considered a noble lifestyle to be applauded and respected, worthy or praise and imitation and even indoctrination to 5-6 year old kids (that's what they're doing in public schools, in addition to the BLM, critical race theory crap.)
I tolerate them because I have to. And to just be a decent person. But I don't approve of them, etc. To me they are, Sinners in the hands of an angry God....and that's how the Catholic Church always saw them....until Francis of course.
While no doubt elated with the "Pride Flag" being flown, Bergoglio and the Vatican City State would have no "say" or "approval-giving" if the U.S. Embassy has it up. The Embassy is adjacent to the U.S. Embassy to Italy, on Via Sallustiana. It is U.S. territory, not Vatican City State or, for that matter, Italy.
The Pride Flag is flying at the Embassy of the USA to the Holy See. That is American soil. They can fly whatever they wish although it is rare for a diplomatic mission to fly anything other than the national flag. However, they need not ask the receiving state for any permission to fly it. However, the receiving state, in this case the Holy See, could register a protest.
Further, a diplomatic mission would not see it their interests to create an incident with a receiving state. Prudence would determine diplomatic behaviour. So, it is not in the interests of either state for the Embassy to provoke the receiving state unless that is a pre-determined action. I ask this question: Would the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia or in other Arab states or in some African nations fly the Pride Flag? If the flag is not being flown in Saudi Arabia why not? Perhaps not to offend the receiving state. But, that prudent consideration appears not to have been afforded to the Holy See. Why not? Prehaps we just do not really matter much anymore.
It is too simple to say that the US embassy is US sovreign territory and thr US has a right to fly any flag it wants without permission from the Pope. The embassy's job is diplomacy. It is obligated not to offend it's host State. Apparently, it does not offend negotiations and diplomatic sensitivities. So it has at least tacit consent from the Pope. It is in a similar way, comparable, to a national power planting it's flag on new or conquered soil, and claiming it for itself. It us like Chistopher Columbus planting the flag of Spain on the New World. Or similar to the US planting the US flag on the moon. It is a sign of occupation and ownership. Even the corrupt Borgia Popes would go this far. I ask God with all my heart, where do we find a another wonderful prelate as Girolomo Savanarola for our times?
Dear Mr. Kirton. That God judges sodomites to be sons of the devil is extrinsic to whether or not they ought be killed for their sodomitic activity. You do not appear to know that. You prolly are also ignorant that the Papal States used to execute sodomites.
As to ABS being an Old Testament Christian, yes.
Morality has always exited and it has never changed. Covenants have come and gone but not morals and there has ever been only one church
" That God judges sodomites to be sons of the devil is extrinsic to whether or not they ought be killed for their sodomitic activity."
How far we have come from the idea of executing homosexual perverts. That is too extreme of course, especially in our modern sense of justice. But how far we have come in the negative sense from 50-60 years ago, when honosexualit was never even mentioned, and the mere thought of it was unthinkable in most of society. People who were gay or actively homosexual lived in the shadows. I personally believe, from what I have seen first hand , is that although it is probably impossible, we need to return to the sexual morality and sense of sin people in general world-wide had pre-1960. I acknowledge it is impossible. But we could ressurect a sense of sin before God, and perhaps a re-education of children that this activity is sinful, and morally unacceptable. Also, a certain negative stigma should be re-introduced concerning the very idea of homosexuality, expecially active homosexuality, and it should be judged as a serious crime as it was pre-1960's. But certainly not as a capital offense with a death sentence. I believe homosexuals are still executed in Islamic countries...and perhaps also in China and North Korea.
(as an aside, the infamous , notorious, gay-loving, synodal-way enthusiast and wreckovator par excellence of the German Catholic Church, Cardinal Marx, tendered his resignation to Bergoglio!!! Not know if it will be accepted. The Vatican said he could publish his resignation letter, but to stay in office till further notice. Does it look like this slug's resignation will be accepted? Why else would the VAtican say he could publish his resignation? He and his clique are the ones who have destroyed the German Church. I should think the Vatican would be thrilled to get ris of him. Unfortunately it was Benedict XVI who put him in office....which was just one of his many mistakes, the biggest being resigning!)
Morality has always exited and it has never changed. Covenants have come and gone but not morals and there has ever been only one church""
Do something novel for yourself by purchasing a copy of the New Testament then, if you can find Matthew's Gospel, have a close read of Mt 5: 21-48.
In Biblical interpretation these verses are called the 'Antitheses' and for a reason. Jesus turns OT morality on its ear and demands more than the boorish rock throwing variety you are comfortable with.
You might even become a Christian someday but I doubt it very much.
Dear Mr. Kitton. One can see you specialise in confusion and error.
Let's stay with sodomy because that is what this thread is about.
Owing to the truth that morality is Universal, Objective, Personal and Perduring - it has always been the same and it always applies to every man who has ever lived because it was created by God - sodomites were condemned/punished in both the Old and New Testament.
You think differently.
Tell us why you are claiming that God overturned that Universal Objective Morality
Dear Mr. Kitton From the Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide:
Think not that I am come to destroy (Gr. καταλϋσαι, to dissolve, abolish) the law and the prophets. Christ’s special meaning in this place is that He came to fulfil the moral precepts of the Law by teaching and expounding them more perfectly, and by substituting the sanction of eternal for temporal rewards and punishments, and by adding to things of precept evangelical counsels of perfection, as will be plain from what follows. It is also meant that Christ supplied the imperfection of the Law of Moses by justifying us through faith and the sacraments of the New Law, which He instituted, which the Law of Moses could not do.
You think differently which is why you argue against truth which makes you a heretic which means ABS will simply ignore you because you not only live in darkness, you desire to spread that darkness and obscure the light.
"Tell us why you are claiming that God overturned that Universal Objective Morality." The Amateur is making an enormous presumption that Semitic tribal law is a 'Universal Objective Morality.' No it's not. It is a code that is common to 'Honour - Shame' societies and operates according to the Lex Talionis or Law of the Balance. It is the basis of Sharia Law, the Mishnaic Code and the Ten Commandments.
Jesus Christ taught that they were not enough, that the seat of morality is intention and not act and that moral culpability must be judged with mercy, compassion and understanding not just according to the strict terms of the Eye for an Eye code. Read Matthew 5:21-44. Jesus was making it perfectly clear that the time of the old Law was over, it had been fulfilled and now a New Covenant and its new Moral Code were in place. Cornelius a Lapide was a very confused person, probably a raging Schizoid.
Get yourself along to an RCIA and ready yourself for reception into Christianity next Easter.
A person in the thread has attributed to ABS words he never said. That isa nasty and malign tactic and he desires no response over than ignoring.
ABS has never said, nor would he ever say, that Lex Talioni was Universal Objective Morality. Such an idea is so stupid it could only come from the person who lied by saying that was what ABS was saying, "The Amateur is making an enormous presumption that Semitic tribal law is a 'Universal Objective Morality."
But, of course, that is not the idea of ABS but the false accusation of the person attributing his own lying words to ABS,
. In fact, it is quire easy to scroll uo and read what ABS wrote. As for his hateful claim that the justly famous Cornelius a Lapide was "...probably a raging Schizoid..." is as demented as it is devilish.
Basta, enough with his ignorance, nonsense and lies.
Here is what St John Chrysostom had to teach about The Sermon in The Mount. Try as you might you will not, as the lying person claimed, see Jesus teaching that morality is intention and not act.
++++++++++++++++++++++++=
For if Christ came to destroy his tyranny, how is this covenant not only not destroyed, but even fulfilled by Him? For He said not only, I do not destroy it; though this had been enough; but I even fulfill it: which are the words of one so far from opposing himself, as to be even establishing it.
And how, one may ask, did He not destroy it? In what way did He rather fulfill either the law or the prophets? The prophets He fulfilled, inasmuch as He confirmed by His actions all that had been said concerning Him; wherefore also the evangelist used to say in each case, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet. Both when He was born, Matthew 1:22-23 and when the children sung that wondrous hymn to Him, and when He sat on the ass, Matthew 21:5-16 and in very many more instances He worked this same fulfillment: all which things must have been unfulfilled, if He had not come.
But the law He fulfilled, not in one way only, but in a second and third also. In one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the law. For that He did fulfill it all, hear what He says to John, For thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness. Matthew 3:15 And to the Jews also He said, Which of you convinces me of sin. John 8:46 And to His disciples again, The prince of this world comes, and finds nothing in me. John 14:30 And the prophet too from the first had said that He did no sin. Isaiah 53:9
This then was one sense in which He fulfilled it. Another, that He did the same through us also; for this is the marvel, that He not only Himself fulfilled it, but He granted this to us likewise. Which thing Paul also declaring said, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 And he said also, that He judged sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh. Romans 8:3-4 And again, Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31 For since the law was laboring at this, to make man righteous, but had not power, He came and brought in the way of righteousness by faith, and so established that which the law desired: and what the law could not by letters, this He accomplished by faith. On this account He says, I am not come to destroy the law.
4. But if any one will inquire accurately, he will find also another, a third sense, in which this has been done. Of what sort is it then? In the sense of that future code of laws, which He was about to deliver to them.
For His sayings were no repeal of the former, but a drawing out, and filling up of them. Thus, not to kill, is not annulled by the saying, Be not angry, but rather is filled up and put in greater security: and so of all the others.
Wherefore, you see, as He had before unsuspectedly cast the seeds of this teaching; so at the time when from His comparison of the old and new commandments, He would be more distinctly suspected of placing them in opposition, He used His corrective beforehand. For in a covert way He had indeed already scattered those seeds, by what He had said. Thus, Blessed are the poor, is the same as that we are not to be angry; and, Blessed are the pure in heart, as not to look upon a woman for lust; and the not laying up treasures on earth, harmonizes with, Blessed are the merciful; and to mourn also, to be persecuted and reviled, coincide with entering in at the strait gate; and, to hunger and thirst after righteousness, is nothing else than that which He says afterwards, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them. And having declared the peace-maker blessed, He again almost said the same, when He gave command to leave the gift, and hasten to reconciliation with him that was grieved, and about agreeing with our adversary.
But there He set down the rewards of them that do right, here rather the punishments of them who neglect practice. Wherefore as in that place He said, The meek shall inherit earth; so here, He who calls his brother fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire; and there, The pure in heart shall see God; here, he is a complete adulterer who looks unchastely. And having there called the peace-makers, sons of God; here He alarms us from another quarter, saying, Lest at any time the adversary deliver you to the judge. Thus also, whereas in the former part He blesses them that mourn, and them that are persecuted; in the following, establishing the very same point, He threatens destruction to them that go not that way; for, They that walk 'in the broad way,' says He, 'make their end there.' And, You cannot serve God and mammon, seems to me the same with, Blessed are the merciful, and, those that hunger after righteousness.
But as I said, since He is going to say these things more clearly, and not only more clearly, but also to add again more than had been already said (for He no longer merely seeks a merciful man, but bids us give up even our coat; not simply a meek person, but to turn also the other cheek to him that would smite us): therefore He first takes away the apparent contradiction.
On this account, then, as I have already stated, He said this not once only, but once and again; in that to the words, Think not that I have come to destroy, He added, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all come to pass.
Now what He says is like this: it cannot be that it should remain unaccomplished, but the very least thing therein must needs be fulfilled. Which thing He Himself performed, in that He completed it with all exactness.
And here He signifies to us obscurely that the fashion of the whole world is also being changed. Nor did He set it down without purpose, but in order to arouse the hearer, and indicate, that He was with just cause introducing another discipline; if at least the very works of the creation are all to be transformed, and mankind is to be called to another country, and to a higher way of practising how to live.
5. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven.
Text without context is pretext. Your pretext is rampant ideology which uses religion as a blunt instrument to belt opponents into submission. You have a real problems Gladys that you should attend to without delay: unresolved anger, a brain fogged up by anal retention, soul paralyzing resentment all compounded by breathtaking ignorance and incompetence. Do get some help Gladys.
36 comments:
I don't care what asshole Bergoglio would do about gays, or the Vatican. I will never asccept them other than perverts. Bergoglio's packed the Vatican with tons of gays anyway, so they're probably thrilled.
Damian M. Malliapalli
The embassy would not have put it there without clearing it with the Pope. And that means that he wants it there, and his allowing it indirectly sends the message that the Church is OK with it.
I am a very gay person. Especially on warm summer mornings when the hummingbirds are about. It makes me feel just so gay. Gay is a legitimate word in the English language. Personally, I think that language is a gift from God. Please don’t call homosexuals “gay”. They, and the sick perversion they practice is anything but GAY.
Monique, please, don't call yourself "gay," You are unworthy of the word.
I don't care what Catholics have to say about gay people. It is enough to know that there are many gay people shaming these Catholics by setting a better example. Alan Turing saved 17 million people while that Pius XII cowered in the Vatican. Even a homeless gay transvestite, Natale Morea, risked his life to save several young women from being raped on the streets of Rome several days before Christmas in 2004.
No one could save 17 million people. That's unbelievable. Who the H is Alan Turing? If he did something noble and courageous to same some people (17 million...yeah, right, and I'm gonna be the next Pope) that's great. But if he was actively homosexual etc, that cancels it out.
Damian M. Malliapalli
If Pope Francis actively condones that flag and "gay pride" he's worse than I thought....and that is pretty bad.
But I wouldn't be surprised. Like I said, probably 60% of his appointments that he personally picked are probably gay.
(There's another VaticanLeaks about finances on it's way. Look for Parolin to loose his job!) !!
Damian M. Malliapalli
Hey dummy Unknown, apparently you do care what Catholics have to say about gay people...
These shenanigans are common at US Embassies when the Dem's are in control. Its not uncommon for that flag to fly in front of government buildings in Dem controlled states either. It doesn't suggest the Pope condoned or objected to the flag, the Vatican probably wasn't even contacted.
Oh, look at this.
Damien is all for hating on fags, yet is apparently unaware that jews were instrumental in starting the Gay Rights movement from the 1960's onward.
But that doesn't fit into his, "kiss every jew ass" narrative.
And by the way, Damien the Genius, Alan Turing is the man who broke the German Enigma Code.
You must have been swishing down the model runway instead of going to school.
"Oh, look at this.
Damien is all for hating on fags, yet is apparently unaware that jews were instrumental in starting the Gay Rights movement from the 1960's onward.
But that doesn't fit into his, "kiss every jew ass" narrative.'
=================================================================================
Anon. at 2:46 a.m.(who sits and posts on this at 2.46 am? Don't you sleep ,man?
But Considering what you said about Jews, this is for you. You'd fit right in Buddy Man !! As for going to school...I know alot more than you think, Including languages. Anyway, this is for you. I remember it from my college modern history classes. Actually I'm surprised I remember it word for word. But considering your views, I suggest you say it every night before going to bed! :)
"Ich swore bei Gott dresen heillgen Eid, das ich dem Fuhrer des Deutchen Reiches und Volken, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will jederzeit fur dresen Eid mein leben einzusctzen."
Damian M. Malliapalli
The Lord will separate the Sheep from the goats
In case anyone thought that I just made the post with the German piece up out of thin air, it actually (and I probably have alot of mistakes in it because it's been 12 years since I had that class in college, and my German though passable probably isn't 100% anymore) is called the "Wehrmacht Oath", compiled in 1935 after Hitler attained full control of Germany after the death of Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, who was German head of state after the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II after WWI. The oath was standard for all recruits into the German Army
I'm surprised I remembered it all to post.
Damian M. Malliapalli (the above post....forgot to sign it)
Judges 19: While they were making merry, and refreshing their bodies with meat and drink, after the labour of the journey, the men of that city, sons of Belial, (that is, without yoke,) came and beset the old man's house, and began to knock at the door, calling to the master of the house, and saying: Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may abuse him.
Sodomites are the Sons of Satan.
Period.
End of discussion.
If you think homosexuality is ok, take it up with God.
It should come as no surprise that the dunderhead labels himself 'Amateur...'
Trotting out the Lex Talionis principle central to Semitic tribal existence and also to Old Testament 'Christians' like himself only works if it is put into practice. See Gaza, Yemen, 'Chop Chop Sq' in Riyadh noon on Fridays/ Is the bogus brain operator prepared to drag out a few 'Sodommites' into the public square and stone them to death.
Don't forget to let us know how many, like you, got their rocks off.
I would never support the pervert gays, or say their lifestyle is worthy of a "Gay Pride Month" . In my industry, I've unfortunately seen them in action at mega-parties after the successful wrap to a show, or photo shoot, or film project. More times than I can count, I was pleaded with to join in. I always refused. I couldn't very well disappear and go home...because sometimes we were overseas. I had to tolerate them because some were managers, agents, scouts, cameramen. A good 60% of the crew were (gays /lesbians).
But They are, to use a phrase from Jonathan Edwards, an mid 18th century Congregationalist preacher/pastor in New England who helped spark what became known as "The Great Awakening"..."Sinners in the hands of an angry God".
Of course I can't judge them..only God can. But I find it a violation of valid judgement that that which was considered perverted and a heinous crime only 50 years ago, and for 2,500 years before that in the Judeo-Christian tradition...should now be considered a noble lifestyle to be applauded and respected, worthy or praise and imitation and even indoctrination to 5-6 year old kids (that's what they're doing in public schools, in addition to the BLM, critical race theory crap.)
I tolerate them because I have to. And to just be a decent person. But I don't approve of them, etc. To me they are, Sinners in the hands of an angry God....and that's how the Catholic Church always saw them....until Francis of course.
Damian M. Malliapalli
While no doubt elated with the "Pride Flag" being flown, Bergoglio and the Vatican City State would have no "say" or "approval-giving" if the U.S. Embassy has it up. The Embassy is adjacent to the U.S. Embassy to Italy, on Via Sallustiana. It is U.S. territory, not Vatican City State or, for that matter, Italy.
Near enough is always good enough for this lot. Reality is a bonus if it and its Alternative collide.
The Pride Flag is flying at the Embassy of the USA to the Holy See. That is American soil. They can fly whatever they wish although it is rare for a diplomatic mission to fly anything other than the national flag. However, they need not ask the receiving state for any permission to fly it. However, the receiving state, in this case the Holy See, could register a protest.
Further, a diplomatic mission would not see it their interests to create an incident with a receiving state. Prudence would determine diplomatic behaviour. So, it is not in the interests of either state for the Embassy to provoke the receiving state unless that is a pre-determined action. I ask this question: Would the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia or in other Arab states or in some African nations fly the Pride Flag? If the flag is not being flown in Saudi Arabia why not? Perhaps not to offend the receiving state. But, that prudent consideration appears not to have been afforded to the Holy See. Why not? Prehaps we just do not really matter much anymore.
It is too simple to say that the US embassy is US sovreign territory and thr US has a right to fly any flag it wants without permission from the Pope.
The embassy's job is diplomacy. It is obligated not to offend it's host State. Apparently, it does not offend negotiations and diplomatic sensitivities. So it has at least tacit consent from the Pope. It is in a similar way, comparable, to a national power planting it's flag on new or conquered soil, and claiming it for itself. It us like Chistopher Columbus planting the flag of Spain on the New World. Or similar to the US planting the US flag on the moon. It is a sign of occupation and ownership.
Even the corrupt Borgia Popes would go this far. I ask God with all my heart, where do we find a another wonderful prelate as Girolomo Savanarola for our times?
Tancred fyi- paid to protest
https://es.churchpop.com/2021/05/30/procesion-en-memoria-de-martires-catolicos-es-atacada-por-grupo-antifa/
Anon 1:54 AM posts fake news paid for by QAnon and the Black Swamp Good Ole Boys.
Dear Mr. Kirton. That God judges sodomites to be sons of the devil is extrinsic to whether or not they ought be killed for their sodomitic activity. You do not appear to know that. You prolly are also ignorant that the Papal States used to execute sodomites.
As to ABS being an Old Testament Christian, yes.
Morality has always exited and it has never changed. Covenants have come and gone but not morals and there has ever been only one church
Dear Mr. Kirton. https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n009rp_HomosexualPriests.htm
" That God judges sodomites to be sons of the devil is extrinsic to whether or not they ought be killed for their sodomitic activity."
How far we have come from the idea of executing homosexual perverts. That is too extreme of course, especially in our modern sense of justice. But how far we have come in the negative sense from 50-60 years ago, when honosexualit was never even mentioned, and the mere thought of it was unthinkable in most of society. People who were gay or actively homosexual lived in the shadows. I personally believe, from what I have seen first hand , is that although it is probably impossible, we need to return to the sexual morality and sense of sin people in general world-wide had pre-1960. I acknowledge it is impossible. But we could ressurect a sense of sin before God, and perhaps a re-education of children that this activity is sinful, and morally unacceptable. Also, a certain negative stigma should be re-introduced concerning the very idea of homosexuality, expecially active homosexuality, and it should be judged as a serious crime as it was pre-1960's. But certainly not as a capital offense with a death sentence. I believe homosexuals are still executed in Islamic countries...and perhaps also in China and North Korea.
(as an aside, the infamous , notorious, gay-loving, synodal-way enthusiast and wreckovator par excellence of the German Catholic Church, Cardinal Marx, tendered his resignation to Bergoglio!!! Not know if it will be accepted. The Vatican said he could publish his resignation letter, but to stay in office till further notice. Does it look like this slug's resignation will be accepted? Why else would the VAtican say he could publish his resignation? He and his clique are the ones who have destroyed the German Church. I should think the Vatican would be thrilled to get ris of him. Unfortunately it was Benedict XVI who put him in office....which was just one of his many mistakes, the biggest being resigning!)
Damian M. Malliapalli
The well self-described 'Amateur...BS!' wrote:
"As to ABS being an Old Testament Christian, yes.
Morality has always exited and it has never changed. Covenants have come and gone but not morals and there has ever been only one church""
Do something novel for yourself by purchasing a copy of the New Testament then, if you can find Matthew's Gospel, have a close read of Mt 5: 21-48.
In Biblical interpretation these verses are called the 'Antitheses' and for a reason. Jesus turns OT morality on its ear and demands more than the boorish rock throwing variety you are comfortable with.
You might even become a Christian someday but I doubt it very much.
Dear Mr. Kitton. One can see you specialise in confusion and error.
Let's stay with sodomy because that is what this thread is about.
Owing to the truth that morality is Universal, Objective, Personal and Perduring - it has always been the same and it always applies to every man who has ever lived because it was created by God - sodomites were condemned/punished in both the Old and New Testament.
You think differently.
Tell us why you are claiming that God overturned that Universal Objective Morality
Dear Mr. Kitton From the Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide:
Think not that I am come to destroy (Gr. καταλϋσαι, to dissolve, abolish) the law and the prophets. Christ’s special meaning in this place is that He came to fulfil the moral precepts of the Law by teaching and expounding them more perfectly, and by substituting the sanction of eternal for temporal rewards and punishments, and by adding to things of precept evangelical counsels of perfection, as will be plain from what follows. It is also meant that Christ supplied the imperfection of the Law of Moses by justifying us through faith and the sacraments of the New Law, which He instituted, which the Law of Moses could not do.
You think differently which is why you argue against truth which makes you a heretic which means ABS will simply ignore you because you not only live in darkness, you desire to spread that darkness and obscure the light.
Adios
Or perhaps with Jesuits ruling the RCC the gay pride flag is a welcome sign of unity with the curia?
"Tell us why you are claiming that God overturned that Universal Objective Morality."
The Amateur is making an enormous presumption that Semitic tribal law is a 'Universal Objective Morality.' No it's not. It is a code that is common to 'Honour - Shame' societies and operates according to the Lex Talionis or Law of the Balance. It is the basis of Sharia Law, the Mishnaic Code and the Ten Commandments.
Jesus Christ taught that they were not enough, that the seat of morality is intention and not act and that moral culpability must be judged with mercy, compassion and understanding not just according to the strict terms of the Eye for an Eye code. Read Matthew 5:21-44. Jesus was making it perfectly clear that the time of the old Law was over, it had been fulfilled and now a New Covenant and its new Moral Code were in place. Cornelius a Lapide was a very confused person, probably a raging Schizoid.
Get yourself along to an RCIA and ready yourself for reception into Christianity next Easter.
For lurkers.
A person in the thread has attributed to ABS words he never said. That isa nasty and malign tactic and he desires no response over than ignoring.
ABS has never said, nor would he ever say, that Lex Talioni was Universal Objective Morality. Such an idea is so stupid it could only come from the person who lied by saying that was what ABS was saying, "The Amateur is making an enormous presumption that Semitic tribal law is a 'Universal Objective Morality."
But, of course, that is not the idea of ABS but the false accusation of the person attributing his own lying words to ABS,
. In fact, it is quire easy to scroll uo and read what ABS wrote. As for his hateful claim that the justly famous Cornelius a Lapide was "...probably a raging Schizoid..." is as demented as it is devilish.
Basta, enough with his ignorance, nonsense and lies.
Here is what St John Chrysostom had to teach about The Sermon in The Mount. Try as you might you will not, as the lying person claimed, see Jesus teaching that morality is intention and not act.
++++++++++++++++++++++++=
For if Christ came to destroy his tyranny, how is this covenant not only not destroyed, but even fulfilled by Him? For He said not only, I do not destroy it; though this had been enough; but I even fulfill it: which are the words of one so far from opposing himself, as to be even establishing it.
And how, one may ask, did He not destroy it? In what way did He rather fulfill either the law or the prophets? The prophets He fulfilled, inasmuch as He confirmed by His actions all that had been said concerning Him; wherefore also the evangelist used to say in each case, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet. Both when He was born, Matthew 1:22-23 and when the children sung that wondrous hymn to Him, and when He sat on the ass, Matthew 21:5-16 and in very many more instances He worked this same fulfillment: all which things must have been unfulfilled, if He had not come.
But the law He fulfilled, not in one way only, but in a second and third also. In one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the law. For that He did fulfill it all, hear what He says to John, For thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness. Matthew 3:15 And to the Jews also He said, Which of you convinces me of sin. John 8:46 And to His disciples again, The prince of this world comes, and finds nothing in me. John 14:30 And the prophet too from the first had said that He did no sin. Isaiah 53:9
This then was one sense in which He fulfilled it. Another, that He did the same through us also; for this is the marvel, that He not only Himself fulfilled it, but He granted this to us likewise. Which thing Paul also declaring said, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 And he said also, that He judged sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh. Romans 8:3-4 And again, Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31 For since the law was laboring at this, to make man righteous, but had not power, He came and brought in the way of righteousness by faith, and so established that which the law desired: and what the law could not by letters, this He accomplished by faith. On this account He says, I am not come to destroy the law.
4. But if any one will inquire accurately, he will find also another, a third sense, in which this has been done. Of what sort is it then? In the sense of that future code of laws, which He was about to deliver to them.
For His sayings were no repeal of the former, but a drawing out, and filling up of them. Thus, not to kill, is not annulled by the saying, Be not angry, but rather is filled up and put in greater security: and so of all the others.
Wherefore, you see, as He had before unsuspectedly cast the seeds of this teaching; so at the time when from His comparison of the old and new commandments, He would be more distinctly suspected of placing them in opposition, He used His corrective beforehand. For in a covert way He had indeed already scattered those seeds, by what He had said. Thus, Blessed are the poor, is the same as that we are not to be angry; and, Blessed are the pure in heart, as not to look upon a woman for lust; and the not laying up treasures on earth, harmonizes with, Blessed are the merciful; and to mourn also, to be persecuted and reviled, coincide with entering in at the strait gate; and, to hunger and thirst after righteousness, is nothing else than that which He says afterwards, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them. And having declared the peace-maker blessed, He again almost said the same, when He gave command to leave the gift, and hasten to reconciliation with him that was grieved, and about agreeing with our adversary.
But there He set down the rewards of them that do right, here rather the punishments of them who neglect practice. Wherefore as in that place He said, The meek shall inherit earth; so here, He who calls his brother fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire; and there, The pure in heart shall see God; here, he is a complete adulterer who looks unchastely. And having there called the peace-makers, sons of God; here He alarms us from another quarter, saying, Lest at any time the adversary deliver you to the judge. Thus also, whereas in the former part He blesses them that mourn, and them that are persecuted; in the following, establishing the very same point, He threatens destruction to them that go not that way; for, They that walk 'in the broad way,' says He, 'make their end there.' And, You cannot serve God and mammon, seems to me the same with, Blessed are the merciful, and, those that hunger after righteousness.
But as I said, since He is going to say these things more clearly, and not only more clearly, but also to add again more than had been already said (for He no longer merely seeks a merciful man, but bids us give up even our coat; not simply a meek person, but to turn also the other cheek to him that would smite us): therefore He first takes away the apparent contradiction.
On this account, then, as I have already stated, He said this not once only, but once and again; in that to the words, Think not that I have come to destroy, He added, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all come to pass.
Now what He says is like this: it cannot be that it should remain unaccomplished, but the very least thing therein must needs be fulfilled. Which thing He Himself performed, in that He completed it with all exactness.
And here He signifies to us obscurely that the fashion of the whole world is also being changed. Nor did He set it down without purpose, but in order to arouse the hearer, and indicate, that He was with just cause introducing another discipline; if at least the very works of the creation are all to be transformed, and mankind is to be called to another country, and to a higher way of practising how to live.
5. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven.
Text without context is pretext.
Your pretext is rampant ideology which uses religion as a blunt instrument to belt opponents into submission.
You have a real problems Gladys that you should attend to without delay: unresolved anger, a brain fogged up by anal retention, soul paralyzing resentment all compounded by breathtaking ignorance and incompetence.
Do get some help Gladys.
Post a Comment