Miss Lizard

Jesus didn’t come to earth to save us by showing us how to be good people. He came to earth to die for us as a propitiatory sacrifice because there is no one good, no not one

@Strangeland_Elf But what about the authenticity?!

Sounds fun, as long as no one actually gets murdered 😅

BREAKING: Recent widow, Erika Kirk, on emergency travel to see to the affairs of her recently deceased husband, purchased clothing online. Why does a woman do this? Due to hurried travel without clean clothing, obviously. Hope the ALO employee who found and shared this info is fired.

Michael Spangler calling other people “subversive”. This man is truly doing the will of his father, the Devil.

Candace Owens Ian Carroll Collin Campbell Will all be getting cease and desist letters from Erika Kirk I helped with Collin Campbell Fun is over losers.

He didn’t come to establish a magisterium. He came to tear the veil. That torn veil in Matthew 27:51 is one of the most theologically loaded moments in Scripture. The veil separated ordinary people from the Holy of Holies where only priests could enter and only through prescribed channels, only with institutional authority. Christ’s death ended that system permanently. The message is pretty clear and that message is that direct access to God is now available to every person. No mediating institution required. The Council of Nicaea was men voting. The Pope is a man. Tradition was compiled by men. Christ came to make all man equal before God. Through Him.

@dicentra33 @HazelAppleyard She doesn’t have to blame the dog. She can actually blame the party responsible. He did something embarrassing, so let him be embarrassed by it

@HazelAppleyard Most wedding dresses are made out of fabrics that don't like water very well. Dry cleaning the dress will be costly and also embarrassing. She'll have to blame the dog.

He has the mind of an untrained dog. Disgusting.

Charlie Kirk was assassinated by Tyler Robinson who is currently being prosecuted in Utah and the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. You should maybe try to familiarize yourself with reality.

Between ~1,040,000 and 1,140,000 babies are killed annually in the United States through abortion. There's a lot of babies being killed. But to many like you, it's ok because they're not "persons" to you... But that sounds about the same as "chattel slavery is ok because even though they're human, they're not 'persons'." All you're doing is dehumanizing humans to justify doing with them what you want (including killing them because you don't love them or can't stand the idea of giving them up for adoption).

Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, not the pope.

Honest question: If a white Republican mayor of a large city had a white wife who sympathized with a skinhead group, liked some of their statuses, and used the n-word with a soft a (because the soft a is somehow culturally acceptable), would the left accept the mayor’s excusal and absolvement that his wife is a “private person?” I mean, by that logic, Melania has been a “private person” all her life and the left will crucify her if she drinks decaf coffee. Just asking questions…

Men are simple creatures

@LoneStarMattie @RoCa74394915 @SHogan875176 @getabass “Do more than one chore a day for your wife”

@RoCa74394915 @SHogan875176 @getabass @adelethelaptop “Be a blow up doll for your husband.” Women love flowers. Is his advice to men “if you’ve already give your wife flowers that day, it’s wrong to not give her more. Give her flowers every time she asks for them. Then she won’t want them anymore.”

Proudest new member of the Lori block club! Guess she didn’t like it when I pointed out she didn’t care about Joseph Duggar’s victim. 🤷‍♀️

@RoCa74394915 @LoneStarMattie @SHogan875176 @getabass I love how the conversation is often so one-sided. Seems like if they’re going to insist women should say yes all the time, they should insist that the husband work to make it something she also wants and enjoys

@LoneStarMattie @SHogan875176 @getabass @adelethelaptop All I could find on my X search was a screenshot of something her husband shared.

@RoCa74394915 @LoneStarMattie @SHogan875176 @getabass Reminds me of Gary Ridgeway the serial killer who wanted it multiple times a day AND was still unsatisfied, all while also killing/raping women on the side. The rule “women should never say no” is really, really lacking in nuance. Is the husband doing his part?

@LoneStarMattie @SHogan875176 @getabass @adelethelaptop And this. He's so creepy! He gives me the heebie-jeebies.

If you had an anti Israel meeting you would attract: Blue haired liberals Far right confessed Nazis Islamic terrorists. And you still don’t see who’s behind it all? HELLO!?

One common objection to sola scriptura is this: if Scripture does not contain a table of contents, then it cannot be the highest authority, because you would need some other infallible authority to tell you what Scripture is. That sounds persuasive at first, but it rests on a false assumption. It assumes that in order for something to be infallible, there must also be an infallible authority outside of it to identify it. That is simply not true. A thing does not become what it is by being recognized. Scripture is the Word of God because God breathed it out, not because the church later certified it. The church does not stand over Scripture giving it authority. The church stands under Scripture, receiving what God has given. This confusion also collapses the difference between being infallible and making a true judgment. A fallible person can make an inerrant statement. I can say, “Jesus Christ is the Messiah,” and that statement is true, even though I am not incapable of error. In the same way, the church can recognize the canon truly without being an infallible institution. The claim that you need an infallible list from an infallible authority confuses categories. Infallibility is a property of nature, not a temporary condition that appears when needed. Scripture is infallible because it is God’s Word. The church is not. The “table of contents” argument is especially weak. A table of contents does not make a book what it is. It is a later organizational tool. If every table of contents disappeared tomorrow, Genesis would still be Scripture, the Gospels would still be Scripture, and Paul’s letters would still be Scripture. Their authority does not come from an index page. It comes from God. The canon is not created by a list. The list reflects what God has already given. So the objection fails. It mistakes recognition for authorization and assumes that without an infallible institution, there can be no certainty. But Scripture does not derive its authority from the church. The church derives its authority from Scripture. God gave His Word, and His people receive it as such. That is sola scriptura.

This is just a sophisticated form of the No True Scotman fallacy. Anytime that the church was wrong then is said to not really be an act of the church. You also use special pleading for specific cases of infallibility. Catholics have to redefine infallibility and come up with highly specific scenarios to even fit that. And ultimately even that comes down to saying that whatever the current church authority says is right is right.

Roman Catholics claim an infallible church, but in practice what they defend is a selective and shifting infallibility. The problem is not hard to see. There are councils the Roman Church now rejects or downplays, such as the iconoclast council of Hieria in 754, which opposed the use of images, and then later councils that reversed course. Both cannot be protected from error. At some point, the church was wrong, and Rome decides after the fact which moments count and which do not. That is not a consistent doctrine of infallibility. That is a retrospective sorting of history. The same tension appears in the Western Schism from 1378 to 1417, when there were two and then three rival popes, each with supporters, each claiming legitimacy, and each excommunicating the others. The church did not speak with one clear, indefectible voice. It fractured, and it took decades and a council to sort out the mess. During that time, who exactly was the infallible head of the church. The system offers no clean answer. It simply moves past the problem once a winner is declared. There are also moments when popes themselves resisted ideas later defined as dogma. In the fourteenth century, during disputes over poverty, the Franciscans pushed arguments that would bind a pope to prior papal statements. Pope John XXII rejected those claims and opposed the line of reasoning that would later be used to support papal infallibility. Take another example. Pope Honorius I was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople for supporting the Monothelite heresy. A pope was formally rebuked as a heretic by a council later recognized as authoritative. Or consider the Council of Constance in the fifteenth century, which asserted that a general council held authority over the pope. Rome later rejected that principle. So was the church speaking infallibly when it elevated the council over the pope, or when it later denied it. Both positions have been held. Both cannot be infallible. Then there is the case of Pope Sixtus V and his official edition of the Latin Vulgate in 1590. He proudly proclaimed to have produced an infallible translation. Yet within his own lifetime, it was found to contain numerous errors. Within a short time, it was withdrawn and replaced under Pope Clement VIII with a corrected version. Oops. And this raises a deeper problem. Can the church produce an infallible list of all the infallible things it has ever said. It cannot. What Rome actually has is a selective catalog, identified after the fact, under highly technical conditions that seem to change with the wind. That is not how an inherent property works of infallibility works. Even beyond that, popes have contradicted one another in teaching and policy. Councils have been called, corrected, and sometimes effectively reversed. Rome maintains the appearance of consistency by narrowing the definition of infallibility to rare, highly technical conditions, then declaring that only those moments count. Everything else is allowed to be mistaken, revised, or abandoned. That approach protects the claim while conceding the reality that the church, in its actual history, has erred. Once that is admitted, then we aren't dealing with infallibility any more. An authority that can be wrong in many of its official acts, reversed by later decisions, and divided against itself in times of crisis does not carry the marks of something that is incapable of error by nature. The historical record shows a church that can speak truly at times and err at others. That is exactly what one would expect from a fallible institution, not an infallible one. Holy Scripture is infallible because it is the word of God. It is the only infallible authority on earth.

@abbythelibb_ 💀

Is the hospital ok?