¿

@Alan_Foster01 @TaylorRMarshall Where is the word “alone” in there? Do you think it’s ok to add to the word of God?

@TaylorRMarshall Im just going to put this here… Ephesians 2:8-9 New International Version 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

We are reaching a critical mass of people realizing that “justified by faith alone” is not in the Bible. The internet is allowing people to hear beyond their Protestant pastors. This is one reason why so many adults are converting to Catholicism this year.

@WiseWolf52 @CathoBroski @ShantaeRespectr @BishopJaxi And the bishop of Rome had authority over them. Your point?

@CathoBroski @ShantaeRespectr @BishopJaxi And he wasn't the "pope" of catholicism. He was a bishop of a church like many other churches

Catholic: I trust the Church Christ established to interpret Scripture. Protestant: That means you worship the Church as a god. Okay… then by your own logic: You trust yourself to interpret Scripture. So you worship yourself as a god. Well, thanks for being so honest in your acknowledgement of what we already knew, that Protestantism is the exaltation and worship of the self.

@BishopJaxi "B-b-but you have statues of Mary you clearly worship statues!"

@mcfarmerson @BishopJaxi There have been reforms, but you are content to remain ignorant instead of doing any research.

@BishopJaxi So you don’t think the catholic church has molested any children?

The Catholic Church is the fullness of the Christian faith, containing the fullness of truth and the fullness of grace that God has given to mankind through Jesus Christ.

@ThePoliticalHQ @dqluyu @PastorDScott @vinicius_snrr It never says God didn’t intend to create Eve. Why are you adding to the text?

@dqluyu @PastorDScott @vinicius_snrr Can you read?

if God created adam at first without intention to create eve, why did he add reproductive organs

@skaldrwolf @DelusionPosting You do, unless you think there are people who are neither male nor female. Care to answer now?

@HD_81_ @DelusionPosting Just like I said. You don't have to get in the weeds with genetic disorders.

@skaldrwolf @DelusionPosting So how would you define male and female?

@HD_81_ @DelusionPosting All NORMAL men have XY chromosomes and all NORMAL women have XX chromosomes. There, fixed it with one adjective.

@DramaLlamaAcc @DillanWilliam11 @DelusionPosting Glad we agree. So now simply say a woman is an adult human of the nature to produce ova and you won’t have any contradictions. 👍

@HD_81_ @DillanWilliam11 @DelusionPosting So congratulations. On a technicality, not every woman on earth has XX chromosomes. Not every woman has a functional vagina. So now it's **almost** every woman. So now what? You got your small technical victory.

@TJtheSting @DelusionPosting Compelling argument.

@HD_81_ @DelusionPosting Chromosomes also determine if one is retarded or not. And, well, you have some extras

@morethanglam1 @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting I’m open to you explaining the distinction and how it supports your argument, but you would rather throw terms around and pretend you won something.

@HD_81_ @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting You are correct, you literally can not understand what I am saying, and that's okay. Seperating epistimic intent from transduction is an extremely difficult concept.

@morethanglam1 @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting You may not consciously subscribe to a theory of knowledge, but you use one nonetheless every time you appeal to science. The only point I’ve been trying to make is that we don’t use ontology to understand ontology, and I frankly don’t understand why you fight me on this.

@HD_81_ @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting Here you go again with your tuatological idiocy. I, or any syntactic operator doesn't need a theory of knowledge to know things, just like a camera doesn't need to undestand optic theory to take a picture.

@whatupdudesss @XpTa_Z @DramaLlamaAcc @DelusionPosting So people with Swyer syndrome, XY chromosomes, who have gestated a child (via egg transplants) are not females?

@excel0fficial @StuartAC130 @DelusionPosting They generally do, but you couldn’t use it as a definition of what it means to be human. That’s the same point I’m making about chromosomes and sex.

@HD_81_ @StuartAC130 @DelusionPosting There are humans who don't have limbs or humans who don't have skulls, does this mean we can't say humans have limbs and skulls?

@ZephyrKibago @Ali_TheKOH @DelusionPosting I’m not talking about men who think they’re women.

@HD_81_ @Ali_TheKOH @DelusionPosting No, just because your brain is "I am this!" Doesn't change what you have between your legs. This is what biology is. Go back to biology 101

@morethanglam1 @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting It appears you are too stupid to answer the question. I never claimed that what exists is limited to human knowledge. My question was in regard to how we can know things without a theory of knowledge.

@HD_81_ @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting You are quite stupid. Do you want me to answer your question two times, maybe three, maybe a million? bringingthemtheplague.medium.com/what-s-the-epi…

@morethanglam1 @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting I’ll give you one last chance to answer it, then. Feel free to copy and paste. How do we extract facts about reality without epistemology?

@HD_81_ @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting I directly answered your question you’re just too stupid to understand it. Maybe read over what I said again and try to process it.

@_SchusterDev @GentlemenBrian @ShadowBannedUSA @DelusionPosting This is why I said “nature of,” not production of functional gametes. Your view would entail people with Swyer syndrome being male.

Yes these things are always paired The edge cases I imagine you're thinking about that you think must disprove the binary here are our cases where individuals are infertile . They do not produce large or small gametes that are functional. There are effectively zero cases supporting your assertion here

@morethanglam1 @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting I’ll ask again, since you dodged. How do we extract facts about reality without epistemology? Feel free to provide a definition of epistemology to educate my feeble mind.

@HD_81_ @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting You’re operating under a definition of epistemology that would render the word a useless tautology. Your mind is too feeble to understand the seperation of physical transduction and cognitive interpretation.

@morethanglam1 @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting Yes, the ontology exists. Now explain to me how we extract facts about reality without epistemology. This is news to me.

@HD_81_ @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting The ontology exists anyway you absolute fucking idiot, even the scientific process, which has epistemological purpose, has a mechanistic interaction with reality separate from the epistemic agency.

@morethanglam1 @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting No, it cannot. We use epistemology to understand ontology. This is basic philosophy, my guy.

@HD_81_ @ColumnaMagnesio @DelusionPosting The ontological layer of science can be extracted without any epistemological layer you fucking worthless midwit. Don’t invoke things you haven’t a clue about or enjoy being in that circle your whole life you absolutely worthless fucking moron.