Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Albrenia]

I'm willing to bet no matter what version he's using, I have a copy somewhere. Seriously I have too many. It's a problem.

I mean, there is a toilet paper shortage. And "The Message" Bible is objectively terrible.

Be nice, Mr.Caveman, we're guests in their thread.

even if you are completely correct

[Neanderthaland]

I mean, there is a toilet paper shortage. And "The Message" Bible is objectively terrible.

Be nice, Mr.Caveman, we're guests in their thread.

even if you are completely correct

Oh, no no no no. I would never suggest doing such a thing with an actual Bible.

But "The Message" hardly qualifies.

I mean, when even atheists are complaining about the quality...

[United Muscovite Nations]

I mean, there is a toilet paper shortage. And "The Message" Bible is objectively terrible.

Be nice, Mr.Caveman, we're guests in their thread.

even if you are completely correct

The Message isn't the Bible, honestly we'd take it as a compliment if he used The Message as toilet paper.

[Northern Davincia]

Be nice, Mr.Caveman, we're guests in their thread.

even if you are completely correct

Oh, no no no no. I would never suggest doing such a thing with an actual Bible.

But "The Message" hardly qualifies.

I mean, when even atheists are complaining about the quality...

The Message Bible is something I have not known prior to now, and now I wish I never knew it.

[Tarsonis]

Be nice, Mr.Caveman, we're guests in their thread.

even if you are completely correct

Oh, no no no no. I would never suggest doing such a thing with an actual Bible.

But "The Message" hardly qualifies.

I mean, when even atheists are complaining about the quality...

That's nothing, in youth group we had a bible that was meant for youth in the 70's. Now that was some bananas translations.

[Neanderthaland]

Oh, no no no no. I would never suggest doing such a thing with an actual Bible.

But "The Message" hardly qualifies.

I mean, when even atheists are complaining about the quality...

That's nothing, in youth group we had a bible that was meant for youth in the 70's. No that was some bananas translations.

Oof. I can imagine. Though I'm trying hard not to.

[Imperial Joseon]

Then, homosexuality is a sin, then? Tell me, oh Oracle.

Dogmeat's post was directed towards your claim that you possess a uniquely accurate Bible that Tarsonis does not. And nothing else.

You are dodging the question.

What bible do you have? Tell me. We can compare.

[Alt-Right Death Squads]

I'm willing to bet no matter what version he's using, I have a copy somewhere. Seriously I have too many. It's a problem.

I mean, there is a toilet paper shortage. And "The Message" Bible is objectively terrible.

Modern problems require post-modern solutions.

[Servilis]

So, women actually are permitted to teach and have authority over a man? If so, what's wrong with ordaining women?

Ordination isn't just about teaching. Women can't be ordained because the priesthood is an inherently male order. Christ established the priesthood and He only ordained men to be His apostles. Priests imitate Christ, who is God become man, a male. The purpose of the priesthood is not to exclude women, but to be a valid order for the continuation of the sacraments of the Church. It is beyond the authority of the Church hierarchy to allow female ordination, since the priesthood as it exists is divinely ordained by Christ.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explains it quite succinctly. (And is very short for a Vatican document!)

When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."

Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, "the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Therefor, the Church has a male priesthood because 1) that is how God created it, 2) it is not discrimination to follow the ordinance of God, and 3) the Church doesn't have the authority to change the priesthood.

Well if he did indeed do that, then it's time to introduce a new denomination to stand up to that.

[Imperial Joseon]

Are we talking a "My Strange Addiction" level here?

Now I'm imagining a house stacked with literally thousands of Bibles in every room.

Not quite, that level but if I see a bible I like I can't help myself. I probably have at least 30

I assume a couple of them are from the Seventh Day Adventists and Latter Day Saint's, respectively?

[The New California Republic]

Dogmeat's post was directed towards your claim that you possess a uniquely accurate Bible that Tarsonis does not. And nothing else.

You are dodging the question.

What bible do you have? Tell me. We can compare.

You could just answer the question instead of repeatedly dodging it. The fact that you keep dodging it however does speak volumes.

[The Archregimancy]

Oh, no no no no. I would never suggest doing such a thing with an actual Bible.

But "The Message" hardly qualifies.

I mean, when even atheists are complaining about the quality...

That's nothing, in youth group we had a bible that was meant for youth in the 70's. Now that was some bananas translations.

'Peter, you are a brick, and I'm going to use that brick to build my church'.

NEITHER 'PETER' NOR 'CEPHAS' MEAN 'BRICK', YOU IDIOTS.

Sorry; 40 years on I clearly still need to get that out of my system.


Separately, is the execrable Good News Bible still a thing, or is it too groovy for you kids nowadays?

[The New California Republic]

Separately, is the execrable Good News Bible still a thing, or is it too groovy for you kids nowadays?

I was walking past the nearby manse the other day, and the car boot of the car in the drive was open. Inside was a Good News Bible, so at the very least one of the local priests uses it. Something about my nosiness felt wrong however; "Thou shalt not peer into God's boot" or something.

[The Archregimancy]

Separately, is the execrable Good News Bible still a thing, or is it too groovy for you kids nowadays?

I was walking past the nearby manse the other day, and the car boot of the car in the drive was open. Inside was a Good News Bible, so at the very least one of the local priests uses it. Something about my nosiness felt wrong however; "Thou shalt not peer into God's boot" or something.

The Lorrrrrd's word is nae good news, laddie; do you nae ken Knox?


Edit:
If Ken were to know Barbie in the Biblical sense in Scotland, would that mean that Ken kens Barbie?

[The New California Republic]

I was walking past the nearby manse the other day, and the car boot of the car in the drive was open. Inside was a Good News Bible, so at the very least one of the local priests uses it. Something about my nosiness felt wrong however; "Thou shalt not peer into God's boot" or something.

The Lorrrrrd's word is nae good news, laddie; do you nae ken Knox?


Edit:
If Ken were to know Barbie in the Biblical sense in Scotland, would that mean that Ken kens Barbie?

He likely had different versions in there, but short of rummaging around in God's boot—an even worse sin than simply peering in—there was no way to know for sure.

And yes, it is taken as a given that Ken "kens" Barbie fairly regularly...

[Imperial Joseon]

I was walking past the nearby manse the other day, and the car boot of the car in the drive was open. Inside was a Good News Bible, so at the very least one of the local priests uses it. Something about my nosiness felt wrong however; "Thou shalt not peer into God's boot" or something.

The Lorrrrrd's word is nae good news, laddie; do you nae ken Knox?


Edit:
If Ken were to know Barbie in the Biblical sense in Scotland, would that mean that Ken kens Barbie?[/quote]

Sounds like something related to druidism, considering Barbie is a doll, but I can't get too ahead of myself.

[Tarsonis]

Ordination isn't just about teaching. Women can't be ordained because the priesthood is an inherently male order. Christ established the priesthood and He only ordained men to be His apostles. Priests imitate Christ, who is God become man, a male. The purpose of the priesthood is not to exclude women, but to be a valid order for the continuation of the sacraments of the Church. It is beyond the authority of the Church hierarchy to allow female ordination, since the priesthood as it exists is divinely ordained by Christ.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explains it quite succinctly. (And is very short for a Vatican document!)







Therefor, the Church has a male priesthood because 1) that is how God created it, 2) it is not discrimination to follow the ordinance of God, and 3) the Church doesn't have the authority to change the priesthood.

Well if he did indeed do that, then it's time to introduce a new denomination to stand up to that.

That's not how this works

[Tarsonis]

Not quite, that level but if I see a bible I like I can't help myself. I probably have at least 30

I assume a couple of them are from the Seventh Day Adventists and Latter Day Saint's, respectively?

Yes I have a KJV. Rather nice one at that.


Now, are you gonna answer the question that started this?

[Imperial Joseon]

I assume a couple of them are from the Seventh Day Adventists and Latter Day Saint's, respectively?

Yes I have a KJV. Rather nice one at that.


Now, are you gonna answer the question that started this?

Well, you're the one who opposed that homosexuality isn't a sin. So, prove that, instead of dodging to back up your own claim.

[Tarsonis]

Yes I have a KJV. Rather nice one at that.


Now, are you gonna answer the question that started this?

Well, you're the one who opposed that homosexuality isn't a sin. So, prove that, instead of dodging to back up your own claim.

Not how this works, kid. You made the claim, I'm asking you to clarify what you meant. If you can't answer that question, I'm left, and it seems the rest of the thread is left, to conclude you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now, you said "The Bible hints at it, but it doesn't outright specifically say it's a sin."

Please expand upon what you mean by that.

[Imperial Joseon]

:meh:

Well, you're the one who opposed that homosexuality isn't a sin. So, prove that, instead of dodging to back up your own claim.

Not how this works, kid. You made the claim, I'm asking you to clarify what you meant. If you can't answer that question, I'm left, and it seems the rest of the thread is left, to conclude you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now, you said "The Bible hints at it, but it doesn't outright specifically say it's a sin."

Please expand upon what you mean by that.

":eyebrow: what now?"

Explain this. I've already stated my claim. I'm pretty sure you have no idea how this place works.

[Tarsonis]

:meh:

Not how this works, kid. You made the claim, I'm asking you to clarify what you meant. If you can't answer that question, I'm left, and it seems the rest of the thread is left, to conclude you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now, you said "The Bible hints at it, but it doesn't outright specifically say it's a sin."

Please expand upon what you mean by that.

":eyebrow: what now?"

Explain this. I've already stated my claim. I'm pretty sure you have no idea how this place works.

Explain? That's a question. Questions are interrogative statements. The interogative phrase "what now" is Similar to "Huh?" "What do you mean?" "What are you on about?" " What in the devil are you babbling?" Etc etc.

I'm asking you now the same question I asked then, what are you saying by "The Bible hints at it, but it doesn't outright specifically say it's a sin." Explain yourself.

Further Why is this so hard for you to do? Why is it like pulling teeth for us to get you to defend any thing you say? Why do three other posters have to hound you to answer simple questions?

[Imperial Joseon]

[

Explain? That's a question. Questions are interrogative statements. The interogative phrase "what now" is Similar to "Huh?" "What do you mean?" "What are you on about?" " What in the devil are you babbling?" Etc etc.

I'm asking you now the same question I asked then, what are you saying by "The Bible hints at it, but it doesn't outright specifically say it's a sin." Explain yourself.

Further Why is this so hard for you to do? Why is it like pulling teeth for us to get you to defend any thing you say? Why do three other posters have to hound you to answer simple questions?

Hey, that's what I want to say. Why aren't you elaborating on your response to mine? It seems you're just avoiding it, simply because you can't back up your post. Why is it so hard for you to do?

[Tarsonis]

[

Explain? That's a question. Questions are interrogative statements. The interogative phrase "what now" is Similar to "Huh?" "What do you mean?" "What are you on about?" " What in the devil are you babbling?" Etc etc.

I'm asking you now the same question I asked then, what are you saying by "The Bible hints at it, but it doesn't outright specifically say it's a sin." Explain yourself.

Further Why is this so hard for you to do? Why is it like pulling teeth for us to get you to defend any thing you say? Why do three other posters have to hound you to answer simple questions?

Hey, that's what I want to say. Why aren't you elaborating on your response to mine? It seems you're just avoiding it, simply because you can't back up your post. Why is it so hard for you to do?

Alright, Gim, I give up. If you can't do anything else but say "no you" I'm not gonna waste my time.

[Imperial Joseon]

Alright, Gim, I give up. If you can't do anything else but say "no you" I'm not gonna waste my time.

Tarsonis Survivors, you don't really back up your words, just trying ti stir up arguments, right? I believed in you, but you failed me. If you can't back up your posts, don't bother replying to me. Got it?