If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Ad.min can suck my balls]

linaloki

For the record. I'd like you to see the bolded parts.

A) These clearly say that a woman in church should NOT teach. Nuns, being female, that teach are obviously breaking this Paulian command.

Since when do nuns teach in a church?

[Cougar Draven]

Ad.min can suck my balls

linaloki

For the record. I'd like you to see the bolded parts.

A) These clearly say that a woman in church should NOT teach. Nuns, being female, that teach are obviously breaking this Paulian command.

Since when do nuns teach in a church?

Since parochial schools.

Not to be mean or anything, but why haven't you been permabanned yet?

[dakru dakruon]

John Calvin

linaloki

Well, the lot is insinuated by me. When he starts in on a certain tilt using personal pronouns a lot, I infer he's saying, "In my words".

However, he actually did say it in... 1 Corinthians 7:10, he specifies the Lord - "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):" But in 1 Corinthians 7:12, he says "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):".

I might give an argument on this. However, I wouldn't say that two verses are "a lot."

John, could this be applicable in that what was said by Paul is secure mention and accountable: 2 Timothy 3:16-17? As according to Paul no less. I also remember a couple of mention at least in the book of 1 Thessalonians to the effect of obeying "just as we told you." NIV

[Kalil Chernov]

Cougar Draven

Ad.min can suck my balls

linaloki

For the record. I'd like you to see the bolded parts.

A) These clearly say that a woman in church should NOT teach. Nuns, being female, that teach are obviously breaking this Paulian command.

Since when do nuns teach in a church?

Since parochial schools.

Not to be mean or anything, but why haven't you been permabanned yet?

He has.
That's why he has a name name every few days.

[linaloki]

John Calvin

linaloki

Well, the lot is insinuated by me. When he starts in on a certain tilt using personal pronouns a lot, I infer he's saying, "In my words".

However, he actually did say it in... 1 Corinthians 7:10, he specifies the Lord - "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):" But in 1 Corinthians 7:12, he says "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):".

I might give an argument on this. However, I wouldn't say that two verses are "a lot."

>.< Yeah, "a lot" was a mistake on my part. I personally see Paul, through his mannerisms and ideas, applying this "a lot", though he does not always say it.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

dakru dakruon

John Calvin

linaloki

Well, the lot is insinuated by me. When he starts in on a certain tilt using personal pronouns a lot, I infer he's saying, "In my words".

However, he actually did say it in... 1 Corinthians 7:10, he specifies the Lord - "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):" But in 1 Corinthians 7:12, he says "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):".

I might give an argument on this. However, I wouldn't say that two verses are "a lot."

John, could this be applicable in that what was said by Paul is secure mention and accountable: 2 Timothy 3:16-17? As according to Paul no less. I also remember a couple of mention at least in the book of 1 Thessalonians to the effect of obeying "just as we told you." NIV

Just because he makes specific references to teachings that are not solely his does not mean the rest of his words are not his own. As many of us are quite familiar with, Paul does refer to, for example, the Council of Jerusalem, which is about as authoritative as you're going to get, save for Yeshua.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

dakru dakruon

John, could this be applicable in that what was said by Paul is secure mention and accountable: 2 Timothy 3:16-17? As according to Paul no less. I also remember a couple of mention at least in the book of 1 Thessalonians to the effect of obeying "just as we told you." NIV

This argument was held in a different thread (I should have kept the articles). My position would be close to what Barraketh mentions, but not entirely. I do agree that men and women are equal ontologically, but not economically. I consider the male to be the head and the female to be subordinate. In the economy, or household management, the father is greater than his wife, and the child (or children) subordinate to the mother and father. The husband loves his wife, just as he loves himself. This is an example of Christ and His Church. I have no issue for a female to teach other females, or children. And I do not deny that a female cannot be a prophetess of God. There are women mentioned in the Word of God that are great. Anyway, I do not see why what is said of one person could not be applied to others.

[Cougar Draven]

Kalil Chernov

Cougar Draven

Ad.min can suck my balls

linaloki

For the record. I'd like you to see the bolded parts.

A) These clearly say that a woman in church should NOT teach. Nuns, being female, that teach are obviously breaking this Paulian command.

Since when do nuns teach in a church?

Since parochial schools.

Not to be mean or anything, but why haven't you been permabanned yet?

He has.
That's why he has a name name every few days.

Hell, the mods need to just IP ban him and get it over with.

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Cougar Draven

Kalil Chernov

Cougar Draven

Ad.min can suck my balls

linaloki

For the record. I'd like you to see the bolded parts.

A) These clearly say that a woman in church should NOT teach. Nuns, being female, that teach are obviously breaking this Paulian command.

Since when do nuns teach in a church?

Since parochial schools.

Not to be mean or anything, but why haven't you been permabanned yet?

He has.
That's why he has a name name every few days.

Hell, the mods need to just IP ban him and get it over with.

I'd like to know why they haven't yet. He only gets worse with each account and only an idiot wouldn't be able to figure out he's the same guy after a few posts

[Squeegy-Beckinheim375]

Kalil Chernov

Cougar Draven

Ad.min can suck my balls

linaloki

For the record. I'd like you to see the bolded parts.

A) These clearly say that a woman in church should NOT teach. Nuns, being female, that teach are obviously breaking this Paulian command.

Since when do nuns teach in a church?

Since parochial schools.

Not to be mean or anything, but why haven't you been permabanned yet?

He has.
That's why he has a name name every few days.

I'm getting in this late but...nuns teach in a school with desks and chalk boards. Not in a church with pulpits and sacristies and pews.

[TsuruTenTen]

Belle Adler

Kalil Chernov

Cougar Draven

Ad.min can suck my balls

linaloki

For the record. I'd like you to see the bolded parts.

A) These clearly say that a woman in church should NOT teach. Nuns, being female, that teach are obviously breaking this Paulian command.

Since when do nuns teach in a church?

Since parochial schools.

Not to be mean or anything, but why haven't you been permabanned yet?

He has.
That's why he has a name name every few days.

I'm getting in this late but...nuns teach in a school with desks and chalk boards. Not in a church with pulpits and sacristies and pews.

I've seen catholic school classes go into the church next door. I've seen teaching happen during said period.

[PoeticVengeance]

Ad.min can suck my balls

PoeticVengeance

Personal insults or attacks that don't add to the debate or aid in the justification of your material.

Calling someone a Jackass would be one of those.

Except not. Ad Hominem is a fallacy of relevence in which the opponent's argument in order to derive some conclusion. For example, here is a common one used against me:

Me: Homosexuality is a sin because the Catechism says so.
Some N00b: He's a troll. Don't listen to him.

That's not what is happening here. I am not saying that you are wrong because you are a jackass. I am merely saying that you are a jackass.

Oh okay. Then consider the complaint retracted. I thought you were using the word jackass in that fashion.

Jackass.

^^

Quote:

Quote:

Sheol, being the original translation in such verses as Romans and used in many cases to back up the flawed misconception of Hell.

Sheol itself is an unpleasant and short term place of purification that all souls go too, based on Abrahamic Scripture and Lore. Afterwards they are considered pure, and with a messiah's guidance can enter paradise.

Without a messiah they wait for the gates to open.

Purgatory is word for word what Sheol is

You are saying they are similar, and therefore the same?

A miswording.

No, I'm saying they are similar enough to track Sheol as Purgatory's roots, but not similar enough to be the same.

Especially because purgatory is more selective in its pull and different enough in the conditions for leaving to make it notably separate.

Its enough of a difference that I wouldn't find it easy to blame it on simple translational issues, and would need to label it blasphemous if the issue continued once the complaints were brought to light.

(Obviously if changes were made to acknowledge the problem, the charge of blasphemy is no longer relevant, since I doubt this was purposeful.)

Quote:

Quote:

but purgatory itself has no biblical backing that I can find.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Not entirely. I have read the Bible cover to cover. No verses support the idea of purgatory. The closest one could get is a misconception of Sheol that is extremely corrupted, but at this point event that is a stretch.

Do you assert it is biblically supported?

Quote:

Quote:

But no, Limbo isn't Canon, and is therefore invalid by your own admissions on what is valid to the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Establish it.

It's not explicitly spelled out, therefore it doesn't exist. That's argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Based on the Church's treatment of Canon, if it isn't in Canon or in the Bible it isn't real.

Otherwise it would be far more open to admissions made by other religions that don't directly contradict dogmatic law and Scriptural law.

I am not myself asserting that Limbo isn't real based on any arguments of mine. I'm asserting that Limbo, according to the Church's own teachings is inadmissable.

Quote:

I never said that if it isn't canon, it isn't true. I said that if it contradicts canon, it must be false. Limbo doesn't contradict canon, and has been purposely been left up in the air.

If its been left up in the air, don't treat it as a major part of doctrine. Very simple. You belittle others for having an apparent lack of knowledge of doctrine, yet you voice (as factual information) the existance of something that is not doctrine and something that is most definately up to the individual.

Such belligerancy is completely unneeded, especially considering Limbo isn't doctrine at all. It makes your arrogance misplaced and foolish looking.

Now if you'd care to attempt to prove the existance of Limbo using logic, Scripture, Canon, doctrine or anything else you think is relevant, you may do so.

But stop pretending that people that don't believe in Limbo, or consider it a part of the Catholic faith lack knowledge of doctrine. Because its pissantly wrong to base such an assertion on that.

Quote:

Quote:

Establish it.

Unborn babies are sent to Heaven or Purgatory or Hell.

According to Catholic doctrine, NONE of those are necessarily the case.

Do you have suitable proof that they do go to someplace else?

Quote:

Quote:

Is there a biblical reason to believe that there is another place they would go?

Is there a biblical reason to presume that I would need a biblical reason?

Is there a reason to presume you don't?

[PoeticVengeance]

Ad.min can suck my balls

PoeticVengeance

That's entirely different from depending on tradition alone to make your argument, so why are discussing the nature of Appeal to Tradition if you aren't using it?

Beats the hell outta me.

*shrug*

I blame Gaia.

Quote:

Quote:

Not strong enough to work on its own.

Except you are wrong. You accept appeals to authority all the time.

Oh?

Quote:

For example, when's the last time you questioned your doctor?

All the time. I generally want her assertions to be explained and supported. It helps that I know of biology and that I like to have a good knowledge of my body.

Quote:

Or when is the last time you questioned me on what is and is not a fallacy?

I've questioned you over and over again.

lol, in fact I'm pretty sure I demanded you establish that a fallacy had been committed each time you said one had.

I've disputed viritually all of your attempts to establish them to.

Quote:

Or when is the last time that you've questioned Steven Hawking on physics?

I haven't questioned him personally, but I have questioned his theories and checked them versus other material.

One authority by itself is never enough. Or maybe you are merely not curious enough.

Quote:

The answer should be "never."

Oh really? You put too much weight on authority. One should always question the information, even if its from a trusted source or an authoritive source.

Its what allows mistakes to be caught.

Are you aware of the peer review system?

Within science, all scientists (no matter what field) publish their findings from experiments and subject them to a vigorous pounding by every other scientist available to deliver it.

No matter how respected you are, how much authority you have, you still subject your work to the same beatings.

Other scientists test it, running the same experiments, tearing at the logic, and debating whether it works.

Even if the name on the top of the article is Steven Hawking.

Respecting authority is fine, and it will boost ones argument a little (only if said authority can be established) but no way in hell is it enough to make an argument by itself.

Quote:

Doctors spend years in Med School for that s**t,

And they ******** up just as much as any human.

Quote:

Steven Hawking is a qualified physicist (from what I understand),

Who is still subjected to peer review and still makes mistakes.

Quote:

and I aced an introductory level logic class dealing with particularly that subject matter.

Prove it.

But even if you can prove that you have strong capability with logic, fallacies, discrete math, and reasoning I will still dispute everything you say if I don't agree with it.

No matter how much authority you claim, I will question you. No matter how much authority the church claims I will question it.

Without such questioning, any and all mistakes will go unnoticed. And that's why appeals to authority are very dangerous when used by themselves.

Quote:

Quote:

Prove it.

It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are spouting nonsense.

Stating its obvious does not actually prove anything.

Take the material I have stated then run through each flaw and explain how combined they make me clueless about this subject.

Obviously, if you keep dealing in abstracts and pretending that its "obvious" without establishing anything, you'll force me to conclude that you lack any proof at all and are merely being a jackass for no reason.

Baseless accusations make baby Jesus cry.

[PoeticVengeance]

Ad.min can suck my balls

Priest of Merwynism

that only applies to catholicism in general and perhaps some denominations of protestantism.
it varies from denomination to denomionation.

however, i personally think it's an illegitimate practice.
there is biblical evidence of female teachers, such as the apostle thecla.

Any denomination that allows a woman anything is a fluffy bunny Christian.

1 Timothy 2:11

Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

Hmmmm a self referring pronoun there.

Are you sure Paul is not merely referring to a personal preference instead of dictating religious law?