New Death Threats Against Italian Bishops' Leader

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom317 said:
Humility is a profoundly important trait. Insulting others never helps get a point across. All you had to do was bring up the obvious point that we should condemn an entire group of people…that is a point well made and well taken if propose through love and respect. But, when you try to make the point while insulting an entire group of people, you come across as a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
:clapping: Amen!
 
Tom317 said:
Humility is a profoundly important trait. Insulting others never helps get a point across. All you had to do was bring up the obvious point that we should condemn an entire group of people…that is a point well made and well taken if propose through love and respect. But, when you try to make the point while insulting an entire group of people, you come across as a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Read some of the things that have been said about gays on this thread, nevermind any other, and, perhaps, in humility, wonder whether the line was just ‘exaggeration for effect’.
 
When gays don’t condemn this kind of violence it makes them accomplices of evil.
 
bones_IV said:
When gays don’t condemn this kind of violence it makes them accomplices of evil.
Click to expand...
I’ll await your condemnation of any physical threat to a gay person on the basis that, to do otherwise, would make you an accomplice of evil.
 
correction:

Humility is a profoundly important trait. Insulting others never helps get a point across. All you had to do was bring up the obvious point that we should NOT condemn an entire group of people…that is a point well made and well taken if propose through love and respect. But, when you try to make the point while insulting an entire group of people, you come across as a hypocrite.
 
bones_IV said:
When a group of people fails to condemn violence it is only encouraging the oppressors. Just like when we had people in the Middle East calling for His Holiness’s death in response to the Regensberg speech he gave. Hence the true nature of Islam revealed.
Click to expand...
THIS IS PRECISELY THE REASON WHY MANY OF US SUSPECT THE ENTIRE GAY MOVEMENT IN ITALY IS INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THREAT.

Sure, we don’t have actual evidence of the gay movement in Italy supporting the threat, but their silence leaves an impression that they actually do. The only other explanation that I could think of is that there could’ve been condemnation from the gay community for the threat, but that the media didn’t cover them.

We can still give the benefit of the doubt, which I do, towards the rest of the gay community in Italy when it comes to this threat against the arch-bishop, but their silence, regardless of the reasons, does not make them look very good at all.
 
Kaninchen said:
I’ll await your condemnation of any physical threat to a gay person on the basis that, to do otherwise, would make you an accomplice of evil.
Click to expand...
A physcial threat to a gay person is a crime, just as the threat to the Archbishop’s life is a crime. They are both wrong and they both should be condemned. It makes no difference how opprosed a person or group “feels,” threats to life and threats of physical harm are wrong. Gays have a civil right to express their views and to try to get the culture to go their way, and so do people who think that the gay “lifestyle” is very bad for our culture. Neither side deserves threats or violence.
 
master_catholic said:
THIS IS PRECISELY THE REASON WHY MANY OF US SUSPECT THE ENTIRE GAY MOVEMENT IN ITALY IS INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THREAT.

Sure, we don’t have actual evidence of the gay movement in Italy supporting the threat, but their silence leaves an impression that they actually do. The only other explanation that I could think of is that there could’ve been condemnation from the gay community for the threat, but that the media didn’t cover them.

We can still give the benefit of the doubt, which I do, towards the rest of the gay community in Italy when it comes to this threat against the arch-bishop, but their silence, regardless of the reasons, does not make them look very good at all.
Click to expand...
or…it might now have anything to do with gays at all…we just don’t know and we are all better served to wait until we actually know more.
 
master_catholic said:
Sure, we don’t have actual evidence of the gay movement in Italy supporting the threat, but their silence leaves an impression that they actually do. The only other explanation that I could think of is that there could’ve been condemnation from the gay community for the threat, but that the media didn’t cover them.
Click to expand...
Actually, the gay rights group did condemn the ‘bullet’.
 
Tom317 said:
Gays have a civil right to express their views and to try to get the culture to go their way, and so do people who think that the gay “lifestyle” is very bad for our culture.
Click to expand...
They have a “right” to get the culture go “their way”? :eek: The gay lifestyle is wrong. Sure they can speak and think whatever they want, but to insist upon it is not a good thing at all.
 
bones_IV said:
But that doesn’t excuse their lifestyle does it?
Click to expand...
Their ‘lifestyle’ is incidental to the question of culpability of the specific offense you raised in the opening post.

If you wanted to moan about their ‘lifestyle’ in and of itself you would have needed another op - it would even have had the advantage of me not being around because it’s not a subject that interests me.

How minority groups are treated interests me (I’ve always been a member of one) but not necessarily the minority group itself.
 
bones_IV said:
They have a “right” to get the culture go “their way”? :eek: The gay lifestyle is wrong. Sure they can speak and think whatever they want, but to insist upon it is not a good thing at all.
Click to expand...
Of course from a civil point of view they have every civil right to try to make the culture change to what they feel is a more moral path (don’t forget, most gays today think living gay is perfectly moral). We cannot say that we have civil freedoms if everyone does not have those same freedoms. The point is, Christians need to take a stand and make sure a bad lifestyle is not codified into law…that is our right to try to counter the gay agenda. Now, if we want gays to be respectful of our rights, then we have to be respectful of theirs and may God help Christians win the legal struggle.

If Christians followed Chist, this would not be an issue.
 
Kaninchen said:
Their ‘lifestyle’ is incidental to the question of culpability of the specific offense you raised in the opening post.

If you wanted to moan about their ‘lifestyle’ in and of itself you would have needed another op - it would even have had the advantage of me not being around because it’s not a subject that interests me.

How minority groups are treated interests me (I’ve always been a member of one) but not necessarily the minority group itself.
Click to expand...
Their lifestyle is chosen. I wasn’t moaning about their lifestyle I’m just separating sin from the sinner.

Here’s what Gerry Augustinus said,

closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/
 
Kaninchen said:
Actually, the gay rights group did condemn the ‘bullet’.
Click to expand...
Good 🙂 , then they demonstrate their sympathy towards an “enemy” of their agenda and eliminate any (or at least many) grounds for suggesting they support the threat. Just as pro-lifers have to constantly attempt to distinquish themselves from violent “pro-life” activists, so did the more understanding gay community distinquish themselves from the violent pro-gay activists.

Wether or not the condemnation on their part was just a ploy to avoid charges of bias we won’t know, for now at least.
 
Kaninchen said:
That may, or may not, be the case and could be said to be the case with quite a range of minorities. It’s still incidental to your op.
Click to expand...
Main Entry: 1in·ci·den·tal [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript:popWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?incide03.wav=incidental’))
Pronunciation: "in(t)-s&-'den-t&l
Function: adjective
1 a : being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence <social obligations incidental to the job> b **: MINOR **1
2 : occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

I’m not getting into an argument of semantics here
 
bones_IV said:
Main Entry: 1in·ci·den·tal [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript:popWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?incide03.wav=incidental’))
Pronunciation: "in(t)-s&-'den-t&l
Function: adjective
1 a : being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence <social obligations incidental to the job> b **: MINOR **1
2 : occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

I’m not getting into an argument of semantics here
Click to expand...
Ah, you looked up ‘genocide’ then! 🙂
 
Kaninchen said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bones_IV
Their lifestyle is chosen.

That may, or may not, be the case and could be said to be the case with quite a range of minorities. It’s still incidental to your op.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether or not they actually practice homosexual activity, they still associate themselves with the movement. Their reasons for chosing the lifestyle or associating with it may vary, or their culpability may not ever be known, but if they at least associate with the movement, it’s reasonable to assume that they could be practicing homosexuals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top