A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Oh this seems libellous to me:
Allen Lubeck: “Yes, he [the Pope] presently occupies the office of the Anti-Christ…”
Let me look up the definition of libel again, but this statement sure seems to cross some legal boundaries to me. Note the bald, unapologetic rhetoric which makes no attempt to seek common ground and makes no provision for the possibility of being incorrect or offensive. A more reasonable manner of phrasing this point of view would be something like:
“Yes, the Pope does occupy a position which could , in my opinion, be viewed as the Anti-Christ.”
But oh no. Whatever comes out of their mouths is delivered as though it were pure unadulterated truth not subject to discussion at all.
It seems from the thread that no reference is given for who the priest is or what exactly he said or from what radio station he spoke. Am I surprised? Of course not. Poor scholarship and poor manners from the likes of that website is not surprising at all.
Allen Lubeck: “Yes, he [the Pope] presently occupies the office of the Anti-Christ…”
Let me look up the definition of libel again, but this statement sure seems to cross some legal boundaries to me. Note the bald, unapologetic rhetoric which makes no attempt to seek common ground and makes no provision for the possibility of being incorrect or offensive. A more reasonable manner of phrasing this point of view would be something like:
“Yes, the Pope does occupy a position which could , in my opinion, be viewed as the Anti-Christ.”
But oh no. Whatever comes out of their mouths is delivered as though it were pure unadulterated truth not subject to discussion at all.
It seems from the thread that no reference is given for who the priest is or what exactly he said or from what radio station he spoke. Am I surprised? Of course not. Poor scholarship and poor manners from the likes of that website is not surprising at all.