The document will be seen by some more conservative Catholic as a win after years of feeling embattled during Pope Francis's leadership
They're feeling embattled after Francis paid the barest lipservice to LGBTQ people without actually doing anything.
What a joke these people are.
It didn't, I just disagree.
Nice, I do like it when useful idiots identifiy rhemselves upfront, instead of me having to dig, thanks!
Who is "calling" and "not calling" the uncommitted movement?
Yeah, that doesn’t sound abusive in the slightest.
You seem to be projecting...
Imagine not getting mad at a hate church.
Oh wait, you don't have to.
They are a hate church and/or a cult.
A few (of the many) red flags:
"We believe the Bible is God’s inerrant truth and it’s the foundation to everything we do."
"The fact that we live in 21st century, it doesn’t change the message that God gave 2000 years ago"
"Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."
They literally admit they're cult in the FAQ page
Surprise, surprise, they're doing tithing
If you check their annual reports, they have some $86+ million is assets and $6 million in cash(!)
From the article:
"At Crossroads, Tome says that the church is trying to walk the line between welcoming LGBTQ+ members and adhering to what he says are biblical traditions. Tome says that Crossroads does not affirm LGBTQ+ individuals in all ways."
the more nuanced and relatively benign idea that everyone should be converted to Christianity and in that sense be a “Christian” nation while nominally maintaining separation of church and state.
Forcible conversion and theocracy is benign and nuanced to you?
Thank a christian for this.
Don't sell yourself short. You are an ally, you are helping. Just not the side you think you are.
And just like your fellow regressives, you desperately reject reality until it personally affects you.
I just hope that when it does, it isn't someone else who pays that price for you.
Have a good day.
I didn't, but only through luck. If we weren't lucky, I would have had to kill them, or more likely I would have had to try to.
Apparently since I don't approve of killing people I have to list all the incountable ways that you can deal with all kinds of negative confrontations without resorting to literally killing someone.
Please, do tell me how I could have managed to deal with multiple drunk guys cornering and trying to beat/stab us to death.
This has been a very stupid day defending the most basic idea that maybe we shouldn't just kill people and maybe we shouldn't fantasize about killing people.
I think what's even more stupid, is coming into a community of vulnerable people, and telling them that by defending themselves from aggressors makes them bad people, that they'll have blood on their hands and they won't be able to live with themselves.
I honestly think you're either one of two things: You're either an alt right troll, or worse, you're someone who thinks themselves an ally, but has absolutely zero practical experience in the matter.
I mean anyone who says the following:
If self defense was really the goal why didn't the father gift their child a bullet proof vest or a shield or pepper spray or a taser or any other of the myriad options that exist in the real world to defend yourself from attackers?
Is either trolling, or unintentionally trying to get people killed through bad advice.
Either way, you're helping the regressives, not us.
Just like how historical spider-man existed, but the comic version didn't, right?
Don't do religion, kids.