Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Dreria]

there's an anglo catholic parish 30 miles from me, and a small ordinariate 15 miles away as well.

Sounds like you've got pretty good options then.

I've always wanted to visit an Armenian Church myself. I need to get around to that sometime.

yeah I'm in the los angeles area so you can find pretty much anything within an hour's drive, even ethiopian or assyrian, etc. I haven't taken advantage as much as I should have.

[Sordhau]

So, Christ was male.

Nonsensical. Christ was also a Levantine yet no one bats an eye at a Japanese man leading mass. He also had a beard and long hair. Hell, how tall was He? What other arbitrary characteristics can we use to make sure the emulation is truly valid? Maybe we're being too lax here?

Oh cut the bs.

It's not bullshit. Your arguments are weak and flimsy, they have no basis in anything other than "well people 2,000 years ago came to this conclusion so it must be right" which in turn is solely based in "well Christ did it this way so obviously if we do it any other way it's wrong even though He never warned us against it".

Like these are shit-tier arguments my dude. Absolutely weaksauce. A third grader could give me a better justification for picking his nose and eating the boogers than this shit smdh.

Imo the urge to "open up" the priesthood to women is a consequence of viewing the priesthood as just another profession. Once you accept that being a priest isn't a day job, esoteric rules like this make more sense.

Not really?

The problem is that she doesn't accept Holy Tradition to be authoritative as a concept when Catholics and Orthodox do.

I've never questioned the authority of Sacred Tradition, I question the validity of an all-male priesthood being included as part of Sacred Tradition. I do not believe it was divinely implemented or even inspired and you have yet to present a believable argument to suggest that it is.

[Salus Maior]

I've never questioned the authority of Sacred Tradition, I question the validity of an all-male priesthood being included as part of Sacred Tradition. I do not believe it was divinely implemented or even inspired and you have yet to present a believable argument to suggest that it is.

Well, you can take it up with whatever poor Orthodox parish priest you end up harassing over it if you ever actually get around to attending an Orthodox Church. I've said my piece and shown the reasons by both an Orthodox and Catholic perspective and clearly it's not going anywhere.

Nonsensical. Christ was also a Levantine yet no one bats an eye at a Japanese man leading mass. He also had a beard and long hair. Hell, how tall was He? What other arbitrary characteristics can we use to make sure the emulation is truly valid? Maybe we're being too lax here?

Maybe sex and gender aren't arbitrary characteristics.

[Tarsonis]

So, Christ was male.

Nonsensical. Christ was also a Levantine yet no one bats an eye at a Japanese man leading mass. He also had a beard and long hair. Hell, how tall was He? What other arbitrary characteristics can we use to make sure the emulation is truly valid? Maybe we're being too lax here?

First of all, pleasedon't splice my posts. I don't care if you don't think it's relevant, you don't get to wax about weak arguments and while burrying them. If they're so weak then leave them to be self evidently weak.

Oh cut the bs.

It's not bullshit. Your arguments are weak and flimsy, they have no basis in anything other than "well people 2,000 years ago came to this conclusion so it must be right" which in turn is solely based in "well Christ did it this way so obviously if we do it any other way it's wrong even though He never warned us against it".

Like these are shit-tier arguments my dude. Absolutely weaksauce. A third grader could give me a better justification for picking his nose and eating the boogers than this shit smdh.

Your mistake is assuming you're entitled to an argument. You realize the Church would be fully justified in saying "cause we said so" right? The Church doesn't actually have an obligation to justify its practices. That might be frustrating, but it is the reality.

Secondly, I think you've misunderstood the dynamic of the conversation, here. We're not arguing with you, so much as we're telling you how it is. You're the one who has something to argue for, not us. . That you can find fault with Tradition is irrelevant, i mean come on you know me, i find fault with it all the time. But Tradition isn't a logical battle that has to hold up to every logion, half cocked or otherwise, or be struck down. The only standard Tradition really has is to be internally consistent with itself, i.e it's only invalid if it contradicts Scripture or established Doctrine and Dogma.

Imo the urge to "open up" the priesthood to women is a consequence of viewing the priesthood as just another profession. Once you accept that being a priest isn't a day job, esoteric rules like this make more sense.

Not really?

I'd say it does. The Priesthood isn't an equal opportunity employment opportunity. It's whatever God, and/or the Church wants it to be.

The problem is that she doesn't accept Holy Tradition to be authoritative as a concept when Catholics and Orthodox do.

I've never questioned the authority of Sacred Tradition, I question the validity of an all-male priesthood being included as part of Sacred Tradition. I do not believe it was divinely implemented or even inspired and you have yet to present a believable argument to suggest that it is.

As much as we find it frustrating when it comes to freedom of thought within the Church, or lack there of, that really isn't how Sacred Tradition works. We're not Protestants.

[The United Front Empire]

I think looking at how female priesthoods have failed protestant denominations alone is enough evidence on why the priesthood should remain solely male.

But from a religious perspective, the priests are always male, and the Old Testament demands them so, and Jesus doesn't change this, so this way it should remain.

[Diarcesia]

I think looking at how female priesthoods have failed protestant denominations alone is enough evidence on why the priesthood should remain solely male.

If you're arguing for a solely male priesthood this is one of the weakest arguments one could make. Just because something does not work once, it doesn't follow (logically) that it will not work forever.

[Tarsonis]

I think looking at how female priesthoods have failed protestant denominations alone is enough evidence on why the priesthood should remain solely male.

If you're arguing for a solely male priesthood this is one of the weakest arguments one could make. Just because something does not work once, it doesn't follow (logically) that it will not work forever.

Eh, let him believe it. I don't want fascists like him feeling particularly inspired.

[Luminesa]

Nonsensical. Christ was also a Levantine yet no one bats an eye at a Japanese man leading mass. He also had a beard and long hair. Hell, how tall was He? What other arbitrary characteristics can we use to make sure the emulation is truly valid? Maybe we're being too lax here?

First of all, pleasedon't splice my posts. I don't care if you don't think it's relevant, you don't get to wax about weak arguments and while burrying them. If they're so weak then leave them to be self evidently weak.

It's not bullshit. Your arguments are weak and flimsy, they have no basis in anything other than "well people 2,000 years ago came to this conclusion so it must be right" which in turn is solely based in "well Christ did it this way so obviously if we do it any other way it's wrong even though He never warned us against it".

Like these are shit-tier arguments my dude. Absolutely weaksauce. A third grader could give me a better justification for picking his nose and eating the boogers than this shit smdh.

Your mistake is assuming you're entitled to an argument. You realize the Church would be fully justified in saying "cause we said so" right? The Church doesn't actually have an obligation to justify its practices. That might be frustrating, but it is the reality.

Secondly, I think you've misunderstood the dynamic of the conversation, here. We're not arguing with you, so much as we're telling you how it is. You're the one who has something to argue for, not us. . That you can find fault with Tradition is irrelevant, i mean come on you know me, i find fault with it all the time. But Tradition isn't a logical battle that has to hold up to every logion, half cocked or otherwise, or be struck down. The only standard Tradition really has is to be internally consistent with itself, i.e it's only invalid if it contradicts Scripture or established Doctrine and Dogma.

Not really?

I'd say it does. The Priesthood isn't an equal opportunity employment opportunity. It's whatever God, and/or the Church wants it to be.

I've never questioned the authority of Sacred Tradition, I question the validity of an all-male priesthood being included as part of Sacred Tradition. I do not believe it was divinely implemented or even inspired and you have yet to present a believable argument to suggest that it is.

As much as we find it frustrating when it comes to freedom of thought within the Church, or lack there of, that really isn't how Sacred Tradition works. We're not Protestants.

The bolded part:

SOMEONE SAID IT. THANK GOD. SPLICING POSTS IS SO ANNOYING. WHY DO PEOPLE TAKE THE EFFORT TO DO IT. Just answer the post like everyone else!

[Luminesa]

There's nothing to win. She asked why the priesthood is male only and I told her.

Not to her satisfaction. You are being asked that you further defend your position, and that you justify it logically, too (without excuses).

Now that is a big no-no if you want this to be a place to meekly put forth questions and answers with people never expected to be held to account for what they believe in.

My man there is a very clear difference between defending someone who has been shot what was perceived as an insult and jumping to the defense of someone who is not being aware of the inconsistencies in their own arguments. Don't white knight, man.

[Luminesa]

So, Christ was male.

Nonsensical. Christ was also a Levantine yet no one bats an eye at a Japanese man leading mass. He also had a beard and long hair. Hell, how tall was He? What other arbitrary characteristics can we use to make sure the emulation is truly valid? Maybe we're being too lax here?

Oh cut the bs.

It's not bullshit. Your arguments are weak and flimsy, they have no basis in anything other than "well people 2,000 years ago came to this conclusion so it must be right" which in turn is solely based in "well Christ did it this way so obviously if we do it any other way it's wrong even though He never warned us against it".

Like these are shit-tier arguments my dude. Absolutely weaksauce. A third grader could give me a better justification for picking his nose and eating the boogers than this shit smdh.

Imo the urge to "open up" the priesthood to women is a consequence of viewing the priesthood as just another profession. Once you accept that being a priest isn't a day job, esoteric rules like this make more sense.

Not really?

The problem is that she doesn't accept Holy Tradition to be authoritative as a concept when Catholics and Orthodox do.

I've never questioned the authority of Sacred Tradition, I question the validity of an all-male priesthood being included as part of Sacred Tradition. I do not believe it was divinely implemented or even inspired and you have yet to present a believable argument to suggest that it is.

A male-only priesthood has roots in the Old Testament. God instituted a type (as He has through all time) for the particular purpose of having the man be the priest. This was a part of the pact He sealed with Abraham. "I will make your descendants as innumerable as the stars." The priesthood is inherently a fatherhood of sorts, as Abraham-or Melchezidek-was the first priest. There is nothing in this position which undermines the many women of the Bible who sometimes were significantly more obedient to the will of God (hello Mary, St. Elizabeth, Mary Magdalene, St. Anne, Ruth, Judith, Esther, Queen of Sheba, etc.) However, it is a position in which the father is given children as innumerable as the stars, and it is modeled after Christ's sacrifice, which is the culmination of saving all of those innumerable children, and those before Abraham as well. A priest remembers that sacrifice eternally in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Parishes are full of women who tend to run 90% of the church's functions, and that's in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and other traditions. But to respect Sacred Tradition, one must go back to Abraham, if not further back to Noah and to Adam. Salvation History is a tree which leads to Jesus.

[Diarcesia]

Nonsensical. Christ was also a Levantine yet no one bats an eye at a Japanese man leading mass. He also had a beard and long hair. Hell, how tall was He? What other arbitrary characteristics can we use to make sure the emulation is truly valid? Maybe we're being too lax here?



It's not bullshit. Your arguments are weak and flimsy, they have no basis in anything other than "well people 2,000 years ago came to this conclusion so it must be right" which in turn is solely based in "well Christ did it this way so obviously if we do it any other way it's wrong even though He never warned us against it".

Like these are shit-tier arguments my dude. Absolutely weaksauce. A third grader could give me a better justification for picking his nose and eating the boogers than this shit smdh.



Not really?



I've never questioned the authority of Sacred Tradition, I question the validity of an all-male priesthood being included as part of Sacred Tradition. I do not believe it was divinely implemented or even inspired and you have yet to present a believable argument to suggest that it is.

A male-only priesthood has roots in the Old Testament. God instituted a type (as He has through all time) for the particular purpose of having the man be the priest. This was a part of the pact He sealed with Abraham. "I will make your descendants as innumerable as the stars." The priesthood is inherently a fatherhood of sorts, as Abraham-or Melchezidek-was the first priest. There is nothing in this position which undermines the many women of the Bible who sometimes were significantly more obedient to the will of God (hello Mary, St. Elizabeth, Mary Magdalene, St. Anne, Ruth, Judith, Esther, Queen of Sheba, etc.) However, it is a position in which the father is given children as innumerable as the stars, and it is modeled after Christ's sacrifice, which is the culmination of saving all of those innumerable children, and those before Abraham as well. A priest remembers that sacrifice eternally in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Parishes are full of women who tend to run 90% of the church's functions, and that's in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and other traditions. But to respect Sacred Tradition, one must go back to Abraham, if not further back to Noah and to Adam. Salvation History is a tree which leads to Jesus.

If you're asking me, it's a reaction to secular policies like women requiring their husbands' permission to open a bank account.

[Prima Scriptura]

MAGA “Christianity” sure does breed some stupid fucking shit like this.

[Diarcesia]

MAGA “Christianity” sure does breed some stupid fucking shit like this.

What a chad response.

"He"

[Prima Scriptura]

MAGA “Christianity” sure does breed some stupid fucking shit like this.

What a chad response.

"He"

I don’t like gender ideology but this is fucking stupidity. “There are no pronouns in the Bible.” Now, THIS is the shit that makes me furious. It’s all about “owning da libs” for them and nothing else.

[Tarsonis]

What a chad response.

"He"

I don’t like gender ideology but this is fucking stupidity. “There are no pronouns in the Bible.” Now, THIS is the shit that makes me furious. It’s all about “owning da libs” for them and nothing else.

To be fair, she offered herself up to be owned here

[Prima Scriptura]

I don’t like gender ideology but this is fucking stupidity. “There are no pronouns in the Bible.” Now, THIS is the shit that makes me furious. It’s all about “owning da libs” for them and nothing else.

To be fair, she offered herself up to be owned here

My only question is is that does she actually know better or is she this fucking ignorant. You can’t really tell with MAGA grifters.

[Tarsonis]

To be fair, she offered herself up to be owned here

My only question is is that does she actually know better or is she this fucking ignorant. You can’t really tell with MAGA grifters.

Oh no, she's dumb as a rock. it's a wonder she knows how to breathe

[Prima Scriptura]

My only question is is that does she actually know better or is she this fucking ignorant. You can’t really tell with MAGA grifters.

Oh no, she's dumb as a rock. it's a wonder she knows how to breathe

Does the Bible say anything about people using the faith solely to make money from it?

[Tarsonis]

Oh no, she's dumb as a rock. it's a wonder she knows how to breathe

Does the Bible say anything about people using the faith solely to make money from it?

St. Paul made nets to sell because he didn't want to profit off the Gospel. Let's just say it's more or less frowned upon.

[Prima Scriptura]

Does the Bible say anything about people using the faith solely to make money from it?

St. Paul made nets to sell because he didn't want to profit off the Gospel. Let's just say it's more or less frowned upon.

I can also bring up that Lauren Bobert said if Jesus had an AR-15, he wouldn’t have been crucified, and my fellow theologically conservative evangelical eat it right up. Don’t they know that Jesus predicted and accepted the fact he was going to be the Lamb of God. That is Passion was necessary the atonement of our sins?… or is it that they only care about owning the left?

[Red Lake Circle]

St. Paul made nets to sell because he didn't want to profit off the Gospel. Let's just say it's more or less frowned upon.

I can also bring up that Lauren Bobert said if Jesus had an AR-15, he wouldn’t have been crucified, and my fellow theologically conservative evangelical eat it right up. Don’t they know that Jesus predicted and accepted the fact he was going to be the Lamb of God. That is Passion was necessary the atonement of our sins?… or is it that they only care about owning the left?

God, can you imagine what the Gospel would be like if Jesus didn't perform the ultimate sacrifice for us?

"Yeah, I'm the Son of God lol, there is no one who hasn't sinned and you're all going to hell because of it. Bye guys!"

[Prima Scriptura]

I can also bring up that Lauren Bobert said if Jesus had an AR-15, he wouldn’t have been crucified, and my fellow theologically conservative evangelical eat it right up. Don’t they know that Jesus predicted and accepted the fact he was going to be the Lamb of God. That is Passion was necessary the atonement of our sins?… or is it that they only care about owning the left?

God, can you imagine what the Gospel would be like if Jesus didn't perform the ultimate sacrifice for us?

"Yeah, I'm the Son of God lol, there is no one who hasn't sinned and you're all going to hell because of it. Bye guys!"

I mean, I’m pro-gun rights, but I don’t have to bring in our Lord and Savior to defend those rights. Secular progressives point to people like her that call themselves Christian just to feel superior to other people.

[Tarsonis]

St. Paul made nets to sell because he didn't want to profit off the Gospel. Let's just say it's more or less frowned upon.

I can also bring up that Lauren Bobert said if Jesus had an AR-15, he wouldn’t have been crucified, and my fellow theologically conservative evangelical eat it right up. Don’t they know that Jesus predicted and accepted the fact he was going to be the Lamb of God. That is Passion was necessary the atonement of our sins?… or is it that they only care about owning the left?

no. They're dumb as shit. Don't weep for the stupid or you'll be crying all day.

[Red Lake Circle]

God, can you imagine what the Gospel would be like if Jesus didn't perform the ultimate sacrifice for us?

"Yeah, I'm the Son of God lol, there is no one who hasn't sinned and you're all going to hell because of it. Bye guys!"

I mean, I’m pro-gun rights, but I don’t have to bring in our Lord and Savior to defend those rights. Secular progressives point to people like her that call themselves Christian just to feel superior to other people.

Oh, I'm pro-gun, too, I just think that even if Jesus had an AR-15 He wouldn't have used it to prevent his execution.

I mean... one of the disciples cut a legionnaire's ear off, and He just... reattached it, even as He knew what the guy was taking him away for and what was going to happen to Him as a result. If that's not a spirit of self-sacrifice on display, I don't know what is.

My point is that it indicates Mrs. Boebert wanted to own the left, and bastardized the Gospel in the process because she clearly cares more about clout than about God.

EDIT: Also she's clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer lol

[Luminesa]

MAGA “Christianity” sure does breed some stupid fucking shit like this.

A woman who has never read her Bible!

Absolute scummy nihilists some of these politicians. They’ve never read a Bible and they prey on Christians who have read their Bible and make them second-guess what they understand. This woman is an absolute nut.