Templarkommando

@ShitpostRock This is basically every settlement in Starfield.

What game is this?

@DelusionPosting Says women don't murder, but abortion is still an actual thing.

@KnightsTempOrg I think the response to this is: "Well, officer, I think that is liable to be a huge mistake on your part, but while we're entertaining the idea - PLEASE, PLEASE write me a ticket. I would love to sue your department for rights violations, and get off on your citation."

This is AMERICA, not Europe! She claimed: "If someone is offended by your talking, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!" The man, a retired cop, fires back: "That is a constitutional violation!" Officer: "If they're offended—" Man: "I don't CARE if they're offended." Officer: "OK, we'll right you a TICKET!"

@redeemed_zoomer When I was in college it was the bathroom on the third floor of the university library. Most of the time, no one went up there, and it was virtually always spotless.

Does anyone else try to find the most hidden least-used bathroom in places or is that just me?

@calvinrobinson They are upset that he preaches that the hearer cease wickedness, else they won't enter heaven. But apparently, the constable thinks that there is something wrong or wicked about the preaching.

British police are a farce. Yet again, an officer attempts to silence a street preacher for potentially offending sinners by talking about sin. In a Christian country, they do not want you preaching the Gospel. Preach it anyway, like this man. 🔥🔥

@TheLayManualist @5Solas You’re presenting Scripture, Tradition, and the Church as three independent witnesses, but all three are only known through the Magisterium’s interpretation. That’s not a triangle of authority. It’s a circle.

No, because Catholicism does not start with “Scripture alone” and then privately reason its way to the Church. The New Testament is itself a product of the apostolic Church’s life and witness. That same apostolic Church preached, baptized, governed, handed on Tradition, preserved the Scriptures, and later recognized the canon. So I do not know the Church merely because “the Bible says so,” nor do I know the Bible merely because “the Church says so.” I receive both as mutually coherent parts of the one apostolic deposit handed down from Christ.

Sure we can. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter. Etc.

@TheLayManualist @5Solas Let me see if I understand you. You would agree: 1.)We know Christ gave authority to the Church because Scripture says so, and 2.) we know what Scripture means because the Church has authority. Is that what you're saying here?

I know it through the apostolic deposit: Scripture, Tradition, and the historical continuity of the Church. Scripture testifies that Christ gave authority to His Apostles, but Scripture itself was received, preserved, canonized, and interpreted within the visible apostolic Church.

@TheLayManualist @5Solas How do you know that Christ gave teaching authority to the church?

Upon the basis that Christ gave teaching authority to His Church. “He who hears you hears me” is not “he who reads the Bible and agrees with his own interpretation hears me.” Everyone interprets Scripture. The question is whether Christ left us with a visible apostolic authority to judge disputed interpretations, or whether the final authority is the individual reader.

@TheLayManualist @5Solas Upon what basis would you claim that any body has authority to interpret scripture?

False dilemma fallacy. The meaning is not created by the Magisterium, nor is your private interpretation identical to the text. Scripture has objective meaning. The question is who has authority to judge between rival claims about that meaning when Christians disagree. Saying the text itself does not answer that, because both sides claim the text.

@TheLayManualist @5Solas So... the text has meaning. Is this meaning inherent to itself, or does the Magisterium just get to fiat whatever they happen to think is a convenient meaning at the time?

You keep confusing “the text has meaning” with “my interpretation of the text is automatically the meaning.” I’m not denying that texts communicate. I’m denying that you get to equate your disputed reading of Paul with Paul himself. The text is the authority. Your interpretation of the text is what has to be argued for.

@TheLayManualist @5Solas The issue is you've painted yourself into an epistemological corner. The interpretation of a given text then relies on an interpreter and not the original text itself, which is why I'd like to thank you for agreeing with me, and saying that you will soon convert to Protestantism.

You’re proving my point. You can interpret my post. But if I say, “That’s not what I meant,” you don’t get to reply, “Well, interpretation exists, so my reading wins.” You’d have to argue from the text. Likewise, 5 Solas doesn’t get to say “Paul believed what I believe” when the whole debate is whether his reading of Paul is correct.

@TheLayManualist @5Solas Indeed, and unfortunately, whatever it is that you're trying to communicate to me has to be held in terms of what the earliest interpretation is, so I interpret your earlier post as meaning that I am correct, and that you are apologizing for holding the position that you hold.

You understood my post well enough to mock it, so clearly I’m not arguing that communication is impossible without an infallible interpreter. I’m saying your appeal to the Apostles does not prove your position unless you can show that your interpretation of them was actually held in the early Church. Otherwise “Paul believed what I believe” just means “I interpret Paul the way I interpret Paul.”

@christianluper @5Solas I was going to respond to this, but then it occurred to me: What did @christianluper mean by this post? Clearly, I don't have an infallible interpreter for what he said, so there's just no way for me to know. Also, if he were to respond to me, he would need an interpreter too.

@5Solas This answer is based upon your interpretation of the writings of those men, and your interpretation of the writings of those men is precisely what is in question.

@Cory_M_Jenkins Notice how the Birmingham Police investigated themselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing... shucks... I was sure that they were going to find something. /sarc

@JackPosobiec You know... as a small r republican, I don't go big on monarchy, but I will tell you about this... this amounts to a political movement breaking into someone's house and murdering their whole family unprovoked. Imagine the wrath that these folks have stored up for themselves.

@ve1vet199 @LTFrankDrebin3 Do you have some kind of problem with things not being the genuine article? Like, if I was expecting someone to be a member of one sex, but they were actually pretending to be a different one?

@HLC_actual I think it depends on the context... I don't know it, you do. Is this something that has happened before? Numerous times? Is this a person that you must get along with? (e.g. family) Is this something that the perpetrator has any control of?

So without any context I want to know what you all think I should do. I have a bit of a problem with 2 possible answers.

@ma1ybe Here we see an argument that is both literally and figuratively against the man.

Men. You can't get pregnant. Sit down when abortion is discussed.

@David_Kicinski So many atheists that I have talked to claim to have read the Bible, and even if that's true, they're not reading it to understand it. This is why, when they think of a meme like this, they don't immediately think about the Harrowing of Hell.

I have a feeling some atheists haven't actually fully read and analyzed the Bible. Because the answer to this "gotcha" is in it.