in fairness to the prots, since they have no barrier to entry it is easy for non-prots to set up some kind of fake church or beliefs and then just teach other prots "this is the true protestantism", which is what seems to have happened. like at one point previous prots probably didn't believe like this, but "wronger" beliefs seemed to become more popular over time and become their mainstream
airrow
the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire
well any press is good press lol
pointless drama distraction
pretty standard response that killing the unborn doesn't make the situation any better
Wolf
edit: hey actually I saw a post scrolling earlier that was stickied that was yours (but I cant find it now) saying lemm.ee refugees are welcome... I guesss my question was if anyone posted about HC in their "we're closing" stickied post
I feel like ASL should be taught to more of like everyone, I see circumstances where it seems like it would be useful frequently (either quiet or really loud places, like libraries or where there is heavy machinery, or from driver to driver in cars where you can't hear them)
also not sure of all the SLs that exist and what attempts have been made towards standardication. I imagine there is more than just American SL / ASL for SLs but I haven't looked in to all the ones that exist
The basic Catholic / Lutheran (protestant) rift was: Catholics believe faith and works justify, protestants believe "faith alone" justifies. Ergo saying Luther is correct on justification seems to logically imply no need for works for salvation which is contrary to Catholic teaching.
And actually a lot of "evangelicals" according to recent polls (2017) do seem to believe salvation is by faith and works (even though this is traditionally associated with Catholicism): https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/08/31/poll-most-protestants-and-catholics-believe-faith-and-works-are-necessary
At the very least, it would be important for "Francis" to make sure this distinction is upheld and to affirm Luther was justly excommunicated for heresy. The continued acts of "Francis" show he is clearly trying to bend or deny this distinction. He hasn't done something like this once, but literally dozens of times, for example this defunct site lists some questionable statements made: https://web.archive.org/web/20200115152651/http://www.francisquotes.com/
Y / N ?
a leader who will condemn non-believers
While a leader might be kind and caring in speech, he'd also have to be subject to the rules and enforce them at some level (note that popes are "above the law" to some extent, but this is a different discussion).
Think for example of a forum like this that we are using: "rulebreakers" are banned. Imagine someone posting illegal content for example, they might be banned (and arrested) in society.
Now imagine unbelievers being in danger of being sent to prison forever (hell). Wouldn't the "kind" thing be to follow the rules yourself and set a good example for others, as well as to explain the rules clearly? Wouldn't someone who teaches people the wrong rules, that ends up getting such people in trouble, be thought to be a "bad" leader?
I think that's how Francis is viewed, he says words that are thought to be "kind", but which are ultimately harmful to people. Imagine if you were going to drive a car that was not safe to drive, and someone "kindly" instructs you that you're fine to drive it, to go ahead, and then you crash and are injured. This was not "kindness" then; instead, the person could have "kindly" warned such a person not to drive such a dangerous car.
Francis seemed to consistently speak and do bizarre things against a traditional Catholic way of life; we could discuss the matter further if it doesn't seem clearer upon further investigation.
this is a common objection, although there are clear differences
Francis for example had said, "Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken.": https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/
By this logic, it wouldn't matter if a person is Catholic or protestant to be "justified". Ergo it seems Francis would be the one in error and leading people in to error, more like the protestants than the sedevacantists
However, I think ordinarily these conversations become more unproductively antagonistic as they are part of temporary confusing conflicts. To me it seems clear the current papal lineage is invalid, and all those who claim to be Catholic ideally need to come to agreement about this, and then elect a pope that is actually valid. We are living in the temporary period of confusion leading up to this future moment of clarity.
so far the left seems to want to double down on politically unviable approaches, so I guess let them continue with it and see what happens
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/3436206/cnn-trump-approval-rating-surging-rocket-immigration/