Kate Steinle murderer found not guilty of murder.

[OldLady]

I GET it. I am not advocating for illegals being here. I am commenting on the murder charge. That requires intent. He could have been in prison for manslaughter right now.

Sending him to prison doesn't seem to be the problem ... He has been there several times.
The fact they keep letting him out, back into the country, and residing in this country under the benefit of a sanctuary city is where the problem comes from*.

*Edit:
According to rightwinger ... That's Fox News' fault ...

.

Well, we know better than to believe everything Rightwinger says, don't we?

It completely pisses me off that this guy has been able to accumulate the history he has. I heard a super fast snippet on NPR this a.m. -- they are "working on" sending him back to his country. For a long time, our laws have protected criminals. I don't advocate taking people out and shooting them on the side of the road, but things are out of hand.

I watched Philadelphia last night.

What do you call 1,000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.

 

[JoeB131]

ICE signed the deportation order ... San Francisco ignored it and set him free ...

did they show up, THAT DAY, to collect him?

Or did they say, "Hold on to him, we'll get to him, eventually?"

After he was released, did they send some ICE agents to SF to find him?

Or was he just not a priority because he hadn't committed any bad acts since 2009, and the warrant he was picked up on was 20 years old.

This is another case of "business as usual", until something bad happens and everyone points fingers.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Lol....they do not believe in Jesus Christ's teachings. They teach heretical doctrines that go directly against Jesus's teachings. I'm really surprised there are still people like you out there who have never encountered this argument against Catholicism being considered a christian denomination...it's been around for a very, very long time.

Should Roman Catholicism Be Considered a Christian Religion? | John Ankerberg Show

Yeah except Catholics are the original Christians. That's like Religion 101 dude

No they are not.

Yeah they are, dope.

Simple, who did Christ tell He would build his Church upon? Who was the first Pope?

All the others are Johnny Come Lately

You lose, have a good day

Hahaha! So much wrong....


" Question: "What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the pope (“pope” means “father”) is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:

1) Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader, but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority, or “ex cathedra”). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking “ex cathedra” was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the church unerringly.

2) Peter later became the first bishop of Rome. As bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman bishop.

3) Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained, and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

4) Based upon the claim of an unbroken chain of Roman bishops, Roman Catholics teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, and that all churches that do not accept the primacy of the pope have broken away from them, the original and one true church.

Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “Mother Church” as being necessary to guide the church, and uses that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, we find the following:

1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily from this, and the historical rise of the influence of the bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. Paul does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or “anathema,” upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through the following:

(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written Word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have seemingly been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as pope of the Roman Catholic Church—some point to Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis I as examples—the Roman Catholic teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9)"

I know better and am not going to read your mini novel post.

You're quoting anti Catholic BS.

Bye

The bible itself is anti-catholic. But if you want to remain hell-bound...stay blind and never research for yourself.

 

[JoeB131]

Hahaha! So much wrong....


" Question: "What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?"

Silly man, Catholics were the ONLY Christians for much of history.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Hahaha! So much wrong....


" Question: "What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?"

Silly man, Catholics were the ONLY Christians for much of history.

They were not the first Christians though. And the bible doesn't support their doctrine.

 

[rightwinger]

[Q

Again, the facts did not support a charge of murder

Can you provide any facts that show intent?

No, you are confused Moon Bat.

The "facts" only interpreted by queer Moon Bat San Francisco assholes. Three of them illegals.

The dumbasses accepted the "I was only shooting at Sea Lions" malarkey. Typical for the Libtard idiots that live in San Francisco.

I challenged you to present any facts that support the conclusion of intent

You failed

 

[PredFan]

That jury just handed the GOP some victories. If they are smart enough to pound on this throughout the elections.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

" Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"

Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?

Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).

Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.

Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).

Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.

Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).

Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).

Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.

Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).

Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.

Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Recommended Resources: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes "

 

[rightwinger]

Just can it, A young woman died, and the State could not get even convict on "manslaughter" or "reckless endangerment". Possession of a firearm by a felon only carries 3 years in California? That is wrong.

The state overplayed a weak hand and went with second degree murder

It didn't stick

 

[Peach]

[Q

Again, the facts did not support a charge of murder

Can you provide any facts that show intent?

No, you are confused Moon Bat.

The "facts" only interpreted by queer Moon Bat San Francisco assholes. Three of them illegals.

The dumbasses accepted the "I was only shooting at Sea Lions" malarkey. Typical for the Libtard idiots that live in San Francisco.

I challenged you to present any facts that support the conclusion of intent

You failed

For those advocating strict firearm control, why not with him? He was proven to have played with a loaded firearm, took a life. I read the Feds will try to "do something", that is no comfort.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yeah except Catholics are the original Christians. That's like Religion 101 dude

No they are not.

Yeah they are, dope.

Simple, who did Christ tell He would build his Church upon? Who was the first Pope?

All the others are Johnny Come Lately

You lose, have a good day

Hahaha! So much wrong....


" Question: "What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the pope (“pope” means “father”) is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:

1) Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader, but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority, or “ex cathedra”). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking “ex cathedra” was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the church unerringly.

2) Peter later became the first bishop of Rome. As bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman bishop.

3) Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained, and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

4) Based upon the claim of an unbroken chain of Roman bishops, Roman Catholics teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, and that all churches that do not accept the primacy of the pope have broken away from them, the original and one true church.

Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “Mother Church” as being necessary to guide the church, and uses that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, we find the following:

1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily from this, and the historical rise of the influence of the bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. Paul does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or “anathema,” upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through the following:

(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written Word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have seemingly been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as pope of the Roman Catholic Church—some point to Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis I as examples—the Roman Catholic teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9)"

I know better and am not going to read your mini novel post.

You're quoting anti Catholic BS.

Bye

The bible itself is anti-catholic. But if you want to remain hell-bound...stay blind and never research for yourself.

Blah blah blah...youre a novice using BS sites

I'm duly unimpressed

 

[rightwinger]

That jury just handed the GOP some victories. If they are smart enough to pound on this throughout the elections.

Another embarrassing failure for the rightwing media

 

[Peach]

Manslaughter did not get a conviction either, Agg. Manslaughter was thus not an option either. And Kathryn Steinle is dead, age 32. A failure for the United States also.

 

[rightwinger]

[Q

Again, the facts did not support a charge of murder

Can you provide any facts that show intent?

No, you are confused Moon Bat.

The "facts" only interpreted by queer Moon Bat San Francisco assholes. Three of them illegals.

The dumbasses accepted the "I was only shooting at Sea Lions" malarkey. Typical for the Libtard idiots that live in San Francisco.

I challenged you to present any facts that support the conclusion of intent

You failed

For those advocating strict firearm control, why not with him? He was proven to have played with a loaded firearm, took a life. I read the Feds will try to "do something", that is no comfort.

Supports manslaughter not murder
That is what they should have charged him with....But Trump and Fox News would have had a fit

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

No they are not.

Yeah they are, dope.

Simple, who did Christ tell He would build his Church upon? Who was the first Pope?

All the others are Johnny Come Lately

You lose, have a good day

Hahaha! So much wrong....


" Question: "What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the pope (“pope” means “father”) is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:

1) Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader, but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority, or “ex cathedra”). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking “ex cathedra” was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the church unerringly.

2) Peter later became the first bishop of Rome. As bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman bishop.

3) Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained, and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

4) Based upon the claim of an unbroken chain of Roman bishops, Roman Catholics teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, and that all churches that do not accept the primacy of the pope have broken away from them, the original and one true church.

Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “Mother Church” as being necessary to guide the church, and uses that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, we find the following:

1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily from this, and the historical rise of the influence of the bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. Paul does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or “anathema,” upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through the following:

(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written Word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have seemingly been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as pope of the Roman Catholic Church—some point to Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis I as examples—the Roman Catholic teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9)"

I know better and am not going to read your mini novel post.

You're quoting anti Catholic BS.

Bye

The bible itself is anti-catholic. But if you want to remain hell-bound...stay blind and never research for yourself.

Blah blah blah...youre a novice using BS sites

I'm duly unimpressed

Nice ad-hom fallacious argument, ma'am. Care to address the content instead of attacking the source? Whose source is the bible itself at that?

If what I am using is a BS source, you are calling the bible a BS source.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

As a side note.....

I am wondering if Kate Steinle and her family supported Sanctuary City policies or were against them?

The point being, are people who are creating the Sanctuary Cities and bringing this hell to America the primary one suffering from it?
It would seem, generally speaking, that if you live in SF you probably support illegal immigration.

Doesn't really make much difference....just wondering.

 

[rightwinger]

I GET it. I am not advocating for illegals being here. I am commenting on the murder charge. That requires intent. He could have been in prison for manslaughter right now.

Sending him to prison doesn't seem to be the problem ... He has been there several times.
The fact they keep letting him out, back into the country, and residing in this country under the benefit of a sanctuary city is where the problem comes from*.

*Edit:
According to rightwinger ... That's Fox News' fault ...

.

No, what is Fox News' fault is creating hysteria and fear about Mexican immigrants over a case of manslaughter

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yeah they are, dope.

Simple, who did Christ tell He would build his Church upon? Who was the first Pope?

All the others are Johnny Come Lately

You lose, have a good day

Hahaha! So much wrong....


" Question: "What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the pope (“pope” means “father”) is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:

1) Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader, but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority, or “ex cathedra”). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking “ex cathedra” was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the church unerringly.

2) Peter later became the first bishop of Rome. As bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman bishop.

3) Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained, and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

4) Based upon the claim of an unbroken chain of Roman bishops, Roman Catholics teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, and that all churches that do not accept the primacy of the pope have broken away from them, the original and one true church.

Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “Mother Church” as being necessary to guide the church, and uses that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, we find the following:

1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily from this, and the historical rise of the influence of the bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. Paul does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or “anathema,” upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through the following:

(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written Word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have seemingly been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as pope of the Roman Catholic Church—some point to Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis I as examples—the Roman Catholic teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9)"

I know better and am not going to read your mini novel post.

You're quoting anti Catholic BS.

Bye

The bible itself is anti-catholic. But if you want to remain hell-bound...stay blind and never research for yourself.

Blah blah blah...youre a novice using BS sites

I'm duly unimpressed

Nice ad-hom fallacious argument, ma'am. Care to address the content instead of attacking the source? Whose source is the bible itself at that?

If what I am using is a BS source, you are calling the bible a BS source.

No you're not you used some copy and paste. Now run along and try to snow someone else

 

[WillowTree]

Anyone who supports sanctuary cities, anyone who voted for a politician who supports sanctuary cities has blood on their hands

 

[Peach]

[Q

Again, the facts did not support a charge of murder

Can you provide any facts that show intent?

No, you are confused Moon Bat.

The "facts" only interpreted by queer Moon Bat San Francisco assholes. Three of them illegals.

The dumbasses accepted the "I was only shooting at Sea Lions" malarkey. Typical for the Libtard idiots that live in San Francisco.

I challenged you to present any facts that support the conclusion of intent

You failed

For those advocating strict firearm control, why not with him? He was proven to have played with a loaded firearm, took a life. I read the Feds will try to "do something", that is no comfort.

Supports manslaughter not murder
That is what they should have charged him with....But Trump and Fox News would have had a fit

Had the State concentrated on that, perhaps a conviction would have been plausible; instead, just a firearm charge, and deport. Besides his personal disgust, and word from Trump on a DOJ investigation?