Evangelical leader accuses pope of creating "division" with LGBTQ+ views

You only hear about the lead grifter at any point in time. There's always a bunch of them.

As long as the money is there to grift, people will do so.

I went and seen WV Grant work his magic once. I wish I could remember the date so I could order the dvd haha.

His father did the same thing, and he passed the con on down the line.

He told several people that I know personally that they were healed of various problems. Of course, none of them were. I wish I had the balls of James Randi and I would’ve done my best to make a show of it. That’s difficult when you’re with your very religious family all expecting miracles though.

When I told my people of his various scams (fake orphanages in Haiti, tax evasion on his mansions they bought for him), I was accused of planting seeds of doubt that cost them their blessings. Apparently god can even work through a conman and believing is everything.

Great supernatural powers always seem to exist just around the corner. “I heard from a man I trust that magic filled the air and people who had been paralyzed 20 years got up and ran around.” Oh, ohhhhh, well hell, I didn’t know Bobby “Mack Daddy” Hicks was a witness. That changes everything.

I wish I didn’t have a conscience sometimes. It would be easier than ever to run that scam today. I’d make a Facebook account called “God Bible of the Living Jesus” and set up a tent revival. All I’d have to do is scan timelines for “pray for aint Betty. She have leg problem keep her wake all nite. A man.” and hit the stage, “Betty, Betty with the leg problems keeping her up all night! The lord said come see me Betty, get up here! Do you believe you’ll sleep tonight? Do you believe them leeeegggs gonna be healed? OH SHONDRA MAH HYBA MAH HEEP BABA MAKOYA! You’re healed if you believe it Betty! Who just felt the spirit flying all over this tent?!”

Poor Betty would think she just didn’t believe enough and I’d be standing at the bank the next morning with her disability check.

Unfortunately, I love poor Betty and I don’t even know her. Damn my conscience.

Also, Billy Graham's Troubling, Nasty Nixon Moment

The legendary religious leader exposed a nasty side in a 1972 meeting with Richard Nixon.

(⁠-⁠_⁠-⁠ ⁠)⁠ﾉ⁠⌒⁠┫⁠ ⁠┻⁠ ⁠┣⁠ ⁠┳

(c'mon he's a demigod, he could totally do this)

Almost like reading the book exposes a bunch of hypocracy within the organizations that preach it.

Christians who think Jesus promoted hate are heretics.

The bible is not clear about homosexuality, the heretics just like to twist its words to try to justify their own hatred.

But it is very clear on how you should treat your neighbor. And that part those heretics ignore by the bucket load.

I expect they were using the term heretic because "evangelical" generally implies protestantism, which split off from catholicism and so could technically be considered a heresy of it

All these satanic mfers wearing rayon and eating shellfish...

I'm Atheist but I guess you could rationalize it this way, Jesus never actually says anything about being gay in the new testament. That stuff comes from Paul's letters.

The pope is a jesuit. They usually are scholars and work in science. The pope is a chemist. Jesuit schools teach evolution and all that. Basically looked at like secular liberals by conservative catholics.

Evangelicals don’t care that they’re wrong. And they believe that the Catholic Church has wandered too far from the ‘original church’ to a point where it’s no longer actually worshiping god, but has been twisted by the devil. So they ‘return’ to how their idea of what ‘the original church’ is instead. They recognize, however that their worship is actually nothing like the original church and despite not having proper biblical support, believe they are actually worshiping the right way. It’s one of the many contradictions they actively hold highly.

This was my experience with evangelicals, which I’m rather sure is rather more expansive than most as I’ve lived all over the country attending several evangelical churches in each place, grew up VERY active with Billy graham ministries and focus on the family, spent my first 4 years of school in the evangelical home school system known as A.C.E., ‘interned’ for teen mania ministries which brought together evangelicals from around the world, all of whom conformed quite directly to this experience, and attended a Christian university where a pre-req was to do an academic deep dive into Christianity which is, unsurprisingly, the catalyst for what got me out… I of course spent more time learning about the evolution of evangelicalism than I did the rest of the denominations as I was continually having my world rocked by how little sense any of the general beliefs actually make and was desperately grasping for anything to settle my worldview back down.

Evangelicals are stupid, they know it, and they revel in their ignorance (faith of a child bullshit taken so far out of any semblance of context).

preying to merry though, pretty common. funny though i was raised catholic but my mothers side are Irish protestant and i remember talking about the differences with my aunt, she said, you go to merry, we go to the man himself.

Catholics weren't the original church. That claim of theirs basically hinges on the claim that Peter started the Papal succession which is bullshit also, when Peter came to Rome James was already Bishop in Jerusalem. Coptics are also definitely contenders, tracing themselves back to Mark. That was all before the New Testament was written, the newest parts date to as late as 100CE.

...and that's organisationally. When it comes to rites and theology the Orthodox Churches and Coptics have a much better claim at being original, Rome forming its doctrine to serve the unity of state and governance of the people as they were essentially the ministry of religion. And thus arguably the last remnant of the administration of the Roman Empire, I'll give them that.

As to idolatry: Protestants deny that there's a distinction between dulia and latria, consider it a rhetorical justification ex post, "We're doing that stuff but as we can't be idolaters we must now make up new terms to explain how it's not actually idolatry". That's, mind you, Calvin and Luther, not the current bunch of nutjob US evangelicals I doubt those have ever considered anything about theology.

Damnit, you’re right. They’re the nosy neighbor that’s constantly looking through their blinds and gossiping about everyone to everyone else. This is actually exactly in their wheelhouse.

Mind giving some context on the Pauline chapters thing? Seems interesting AF to spend an afternoon on.

Look, he’s banking on them not reading the bible and you are not helping.

More like 95 feces, amirite?

This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en

he created a second type of marriage for everyone else so their unions may be officially blessed by the church

The church doesn't have the power to create different types of marriages and neither does the pope. I do not believe the nature of the change made is being described or reported accurately. It is being oversimplified.

Francis has actually been a very progressive pope, making great strides to make the church a more welcoming place.

I agree. I think a lot of changes he has made are good. I think this change is good. I think reporting on it has been dumbed down to the point of being incorrect.

From my understanding he didn't create any sort of new officially sanctioned union. He simply allowed blessings of same sex couples with some caveats. Mostly that the blessing cannot occur directly in connection with any sort of union ceremony (marriage, civil union, etc) and that it cannot involve any of the typical trappings of a marriage ceremony so as to avoid confusion.

So basically, you can't get the blessing at your actual wedding. You can't get the blessing if you show up in tuxedos/bridal dresses, exchange rings, whatever else even if technically it isn't a wedding. Simply show up together on any random day as a couple and ask for a blessing without those things? Sure they'll do it. Whereas before they couldn't.