When will the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church ever end?

Author: BrotherDThomas ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 34
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,669
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas



    .

    In the link below, the Catholic Church once again slaps Jesus in the face relative to His inspired words within the scriptures! Whats new? NOTHING!

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-francis-appoints-6-women-151610049.html

    Within the link above, the Hell bound Pope Francis has placed even more 2nd class women into positions of the church that have leadership over man, therefore, how ungodly can the Pope get?  "Pope Francis ... has affirmed that the Catholic Church needs more women in leadership positions. In the Vatican and the Roman Curia, he is gradually preparing the ground," Vatican News said in 2019.”

    Obviously Pope Francis has literally forgotten about what our serial killing Jesus stated regarding the 2nd class woman, in that they are to be subject to man, and that if it is good enough for women not to teach man in church, then it is not biblically correct to not teach man away from church, to wit:

     Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over man, but to be in silence.” (Timothy 2:12)

    “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and that the head of the woman in man.” For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 


    Most importantly, Pope Francis forgot about how he is to feel towards the woman in the first place, and that is adamantly shown in the inspired words of Jesus in the following passage: 

    “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

    Jesus H. Christ, as if the Catholic Church wasn’t embarrassed enough over their child-buggering priests of innocent crying children as they were sexually abused, and the BILLIONS of money paid out for reparations towards this despicable and ungodly act, then you have Pope Francis giving 2nd class women positions over man that goes directly against Jesus’ true words!   Whats next, allowing women into heaven that directly goes against the scriptures as well?


    .
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    So... are you antichrist or christian? Choose one.
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,669
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Intelligence_06



    .

    YOUR QUOTE: "So... are you antichrist or christian? Choose one."

    I will correct your false duality of choice, I am a TRUE Christian instead that follows ALL of the JUDEO-Christian Bible as intended by the serial killer Jesus the Christ as Yahweh God incarnate.


    .



  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Wow. Spoken from an actual hypocrite. You think the bible is wrong but you follow it which makes no sense to me.
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,669
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Intelligence_06



    .
    Intelligence_06,

    Take your pointed aluminum foil hat off for a rational moment, okay?  I do not think the Bible is wrong within its content, but only the Hell Bound Pope Francis in going directly against said Bible with promoting the 2nd class woman having authority over man, get it? Huh? Maybe?  :(

    Your homework tonight is to reread my initial post and understand its true meaning to save yourself further embarrassment. You're welcome.


    .
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    promoting the 2nd class woman having authority over man,
    How did he do anything wrong? He did the right thing, equality. Are you so conservative that you think women are not as good? Then no.

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,022
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    this is about the treasury
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 2,586
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    BrotherDThomas is an incel
  • TheUnderdog
    TheUnderdog avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 429
    2
    3
    9
    TheUnderdog avatar
    TheUnderdog
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Even though the bible advocated for women to be 2nd class citizens in the past, what if the Christian God/Jehovah isn't all knowing and any time in the bible he says he is is just Jehovah being metaphorical?  Then, it's possible that he doesn't advocate this anymore?
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,669
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @TheUnderdog



    .
    TheUnderdog,

    In addressing your pathetic post #9, first and foremost, this is a religion forum and Christianity is a part of it, therefore, do not embarrass yourself by even mentioning the Hell bound unchristian-like Jehovah Witness Religion, understood? JW’s are minions of Satan with their ungodly, rewritten by Satan Himself, NWT Bible!  How dare you disrespect this forum!

    There are NO WHAT IFS within Jesus’ inspired words within the scriptures, therefore how dare you come into this forum with your disrespectful demeanor and piss on the JUDEO-Christian bible like you have done? The only religious faiths that I have seen do what you have done, is the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, and for the sake of me "Bible Slapping you Silly®️"even more, hopefully you are not one of them!

    We can see that your Bible ignorance has no bounds with your metaphorical constructs, and make believe, therefore your sophomoric stance does not supersede Jesus’ true words relative to women are not to have authority over man. Do you understand this simple premise, if not, then join a “Children’s Christian Forum” where you will be more at home with your outright biblical ignorance.

    Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4). KEY WORDS: “every word” which includes passages I have shown where women are 2nd class citizens.

    He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” (Luke 11:28). Jesus’ words say to obey all passages, including the ones that explicitly show women to be 2nd class, understood? Huh?

    Your biblical ignorance now is duly noted by many of the membership at DEBATEART, and unfortunately, at your embarrassing expense.  Sad indeed.


    .
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,586
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @MisterChris
    BrotherDThomas is an incel


    Personal attacks? And from a moderator too. I have been banned for less.
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 2,586
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @Stephen
    if you look at the definition of an incel, the criticism is fair game. If he openly advocates for women going straight to hell, I can definitely call him an incel. 
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,669
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @MisterChris

    .
    christopher_best,

    YOUR QUESTIONABLE QUOTE: "if you look at the definition of an incel, the criticism is fair game. If he openly advocates for women going straight to hell, I can definitely call him an incel."

    Heads up!  Your key word "if" is not an absolute, and is contradicting now to your post #8 where it was an absolute, therefore, which is it before you can call me an incel? Huh?

    Where did you get this notion in the first place?  If it is because of my last quote of: "Whats next, allowing women into heaven that directly goes against the scriptures as well,"  whereas, I am NOT condoning that women are not going to heaven upon their demise, it is Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, that promotes this biblical axiom within the scriptures!  2+2=4.  :(




    .
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 2,586
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    ok incel
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,586
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @MisterChris
    if you look at the definition of an incel, the criticism is fair game. If he openly advocates for women going straight to hell, I can definitely call him an incel. 
    Opinion

    Incel: "involuntary celibates", who define themselves as unable to find a romantic  or sexual partner despite desiring one". .

    Applying this unfounded tag to the Brother is a personal attack. Or do you as a mod retain the right to move the goal posts at will?
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 2,586
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @Stephen
    If you're going to cite a Wikipedia definition, don't cherry-pick. 
    Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentmentmisogynymisanthropyself-pity and self-loathingracism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people
    BrotherD hits a lot of those boxes believe it or not. Either way, it was mostly intended as a joke. It was a pretty moderate burn. It is out of my control that you are getting so worked up over it.

    Ironically, you seem to care far more than he does.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    In the link below, the Catholic Church once again slaps Jesus in the face relative to His inspired words within the scriptures! Whats new? NOTHING!
    LOL! - No he does not.  He has appointed 6 women to positions within the Vatican council on the economy. There is nothing in the link about slapping Jesus. And there is nothing that is contrary to the Bible. 


    Within the link above, the Hell bound Pope Francis has placed even more 2nd class women into positions of the church that have leadership over man, therefore, how ungodly can the Pope get?  "Pope Francis ... has affirmed that the Catholic Church needs more women in leadership positions. In the Vatican and the Roman Curia, he is gradually preparing the ground," Vatican News said in 2019.”
    Is the Pope going to Hell? Big call, based on what? 2nd class women? As opposed to 1st class women? You don't really explain yourself. Why are these women 2nd class women? Who is a first class woman? I assume you actually mean 2nd class humans as opposed to women. You are a bit clumsy with your words old man. Still, the gist of your "pain" seems to be that the ungodly pope made an ungodly decision.  I assume you are being ironic - because it makes sense that an ungodly - hellbound pope - would make an ungodly decision. I can only imagine your outrage if the ungodly pope made a godly decision! Yet, here your suggestion is that the pope appointing women to positions within the church is ungodly.  I cannot imagine where in the bible you come up with such a farcical idea. The Bible is full of women in leadership positions. Think of the judge Deborah in the book of Judges. Think of Esther in Esther. Think of the mother of Jesus at the Wedding in Cana.  Think of Phoebe in the church at Philippi. Think of Euodia and Syntyche in the same church.  Many women were involved in the leadership of the church - gee just go to the epistle of Timothy - it even gives a run down of criteria for deaconesses- specific women in the church who are leaders in the church. So your view that appointing women to positions of leadership in the church being ungodly is unfounded and incorrect. 

    Obviously Pope Francis has literally forgotten about what our serial killing Jesus stated regarding the 2nd class woman, in that they are to be subject to man, and that if it is good enough for women not to teach man in church, then it is not biblically correct to not teach man away from church, to wit:
    LOL! It would be good to hear what the pope had heard in the first place about second class women - as opposed to first class women.  It would be nice if the BrotherDThomas could enlighten the less able of us what he specifically means.  Does he mean that a first class woman is not subject to man. Well how does he know what kind of women the pope appointed.  Perhaps he appointed the first class type?  Yet I jest, obviously the class clown Brother DThomas has got his words a bit mixed up and means second class humans, namely women, should be subject to man. And I suspect the Brother is using "man" here not generically as in all humanity - but as male. I do wish he would be more clear with his language. Still, his leap of logic in the next step is nothing short of an Olympic effort - to go from woman not teaching in the church to not teaching away from church - is breathtaking.  I wonder if thinks this means that there should be no female school teachers who teach any male students? Or is this ok because the students are not adults? Or what about in an atheistic university? Or female politicians? The Bible never makes this leap of logic. Hence why Deborah could be a judge -and why females play such a prominent part in the biblical narratives.   

     Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over man, but to be in silence.” (Timothy 2:12)

    “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and that the head of the woman in man.” For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 
    Each of these verses are beautiful and ought to be taught in the church and Christian families. The first directly talks about marriage. Note it does not say woman should be subject to someone else's husband - only to your own. It also indicates in the context that husbands must love their wives - and be prepared to lay down their lives sacrificially to the death for their wife - as the church is to Christ.  It always amuses me when people forget that verse.  Interestingly, there is no command for the woman to love her husband. 

    The second verse relates specifically to a service in a synagogue. The silence is not absolute either - for woman are commanded to sing - obviously not silent - and to pray - again - obviously not silent. Woman are also told to teach the younger woman. The point is that in the Jewish synagogue - there was two floors. Down the bottom was the place men assembled and on the second floor - the woman and their children assembled. The speaker was in the midst of the men on the bottom floor. What often occurred is the speaker would speak - and the people on the second floor could not hear - so they wives would call down to their husbands and ask what what said - or to explain what had happened. This obviously disrupted the meeting. Hence the pragmatic rule was made - wives stop calling out - be silent in this situation - if you did not hear - go home and ask your husband. 

    The third verse was in context talking about Christ's place in the church and Paul was using the family as a model to explain this. Christ is the head of the man. Man is the head of the woman. Why is it that no one ever gets grumpy about the fact that the head of man - is Christ? The husband is to obey Christ in all things. This is what it means. That the man is ruled by Jesus and his word. So for the female or wife to be subject to the husband - means only that she is subject to him who is subject to Jesus. That is its meaning - it is not suggesting that the man is better than the woman or that Jesus is better than the man - it is really saying that if you want to be a Christian - these are the rules - and Jesus is the boss - and everyone is subject to him. Of course Paul also refers to Genesis and the order in which man and woman came into existence in the world - woman from man not man from woman. An order had to be made - there is always a  hierarchy. It is never a matter of hierarchy or no hierarchy - but always - what hierarchy? in our society, we have the state over the individual. This is a hierarchy. hierarchies are inescapable. 

    Most importantly, Pope Francis forgot about how he is to feel towards the woman in the first place, and that is adamantly shown in the inspired words of Jesus in the following passage: 
    What a weird thing to say? The pope has forgotten how he is to feel towards the woman????? Whatever does that very vague statement even mean? 

    “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)
    The quote from Ecclesiates is not talking about employing people in places of position. It is entirely different context - probably talking about whores and prostitutes seeking to seduce men away from what is best for them. It is an absurd thing to place into the context of this topic. 

    Jesus H. Christ, as if the Catholic Church wasn’t embarrassed enough over their child-buggering priests of innocent crying children as they were sexually abused, and the BILLIONS of money paid out for reparations towards this despicable and ungodly act, then you have Pope Francis giving 2nd class women positions over man that goes directly against Jesus’ true words!   Whats next, allowing women into heaven that directly goes against the scriptures as well?
    Blasphemy????? Surprise surprise. The Catholic church ought to be held accountable - indeed every church and organisation, religious or secular ought to be held accountable for the evil they have done towards children. there is no excuse for this vile behaviour and my view is that these people will all rot in Hell.  Yet not everyone in the Catholic church or in secular educational facilities is evil in the same way.  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

    Women do go to heaven. What nonsense to suggest the bible says otherwise. The bible has never made women second class citizens - it in fact was at the forefront of women's rights - as it was at the front of slave's rights. Any one who takes time to read history knows these things to be true.  Brother DT you embarrass yourself. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    I thought I would raise this topic to the top of the forum again. Just to remind you that you should stop RUNNING away. LOL!


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Waiting! 8 days
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,669
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret

    .
    Tradesecret,  The Debate Runaway,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, and a Runaway from my posts to him,

    In addressing your wanting post #17, you know what? Your misguided notion of using the term "children" in Matthew 15: 1-4, instead of what Jesus truly said when He used the term "ANYONE" that cursed their parents should be murdered, rubbed off on me where I should have stated in the woman's biblical behalf and used the term "2nd class citizen!"  Do you see how your biblical ignorance can rub off on others? LOL!

    Therefore, I'll make this quick to save you any further embarrassment. In January of 2020, Pope Francis named the FIRST, and I repeat, the FIRST woman to a managerial position in the Vaticans most important office, the Secretariat of State!  I ask you, where were woman in the Hell bound Catholic church BEFORE the Pope enacted this position?  NOWHERE  as the embarrassing thread below so states:


    Jesus, as our Triune serial killer Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, from the beginning made it known that since Eve transgressed FIRST in eating the forbidden fruit in the Creation narrative,  then Jesus cursed her by the following biblical axiom: JESUS SAID TO THE FIRST WOMAN EVE:  “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husbandand he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:12).

    Since Jesus stated that Adam, as the superior man, was to rule over Eve, then she became a 2nd class citizen and the rest is history!



    THE INSPIRED WORDS OF JESUS SHOWN BELOW MAKE THE WOMAN A 2ND CLASS CITIZEN AS SHE SHOULD BE, PRAISE OUR MISOGYNIST JESUS THE CHRIST!

    SECOND CLASS CITIZEN DEFINITION:  someone who is not given the same rights as other people. Well, this definition certainly describes the women in Jesus' JUDEO-Christian Bible to the letter, praise!


    Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.” (1 Peter 3:1-2)

    Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18)


    Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

    Your comical quote to the passage above was "The second verse relates specifically to a service in a synagogue. The silence is not absolute either - for woman are commanded to sing - obviously not silent - and to pray - again - obviously not silent."  All of these entities that you have given are showing women to be 2nd class, HELLO?  Singing and praying ARE NOT teaching man, get it? Huh?  :(


    “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:7)

    I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

    "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deut. 22:20-21)

    “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.” (Proverbs 21:9)

    “A continual dripping on a rainy day and a quarrelsome wife are alike;” (Proverbs 27:15)

    “It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.” (Proverbs 21:19)

    “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.” (Proverbs 25:24)

    A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands.” (Proverbs 27:15-16)


    I don't have time to enlighten you on the Woman's Suffrage Movement, where they were not allowed to smoke, vote, or hold jobs that men had all in the name of Jesus' Bible. You will have to learn that yourself for a change.  


    Continued ............
    .





    .







  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,669
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret



    .
    Tradesecret,  The Debate Runaway,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, and a Runaway from my posts to him,

    Addressing your Bible ignorance from your post #17 continued:

    ONE OF YOUR MOST BIBLE IGNORANT AND HISTORICAL IGNORANT QUOTES:  "Women do go to heaven. What nonsense to suggest the bible says otherwise. The bible has never made women second class citizens - it in fact was at the forefront of women's rights - as it was at the front of slave's rights. Any one who takes time to read history knows these things to be true.  Brother DT you embarrass yourself." 

    ROFLOL!!!!  As usual, your Bible knowledge is from a Crackers Jack Box! NO, as Jesus' inspired words so state, women DO NOT go to heaven, and as before, I am tiring of your complete stupidity to Jesus' TRUE words within the scriptures relating to said topic that you are obviously unaware of!  

    Now, as before in your embarrassing presence within the What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?  thread, I can't debate you upon this topic of women not going to heaven because you have set an embarrassing example for yourself by RUNNING AWAY from debating me on Jesus' true Modus Operandi!    I have asked you SEVEN TIMES TO DEBATE ME UPON THIS TOPIC, whereas the only thing that you can do in a scared and quivering way, is to run away from said debate in front of the membership to this day! LOL!!!!



    TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF DEBATEART, SIT DOWN, WHERE THE EVER SO BIBLE INEPT TRADESECRET HAS REALLY SHOWN HIS COMPLETE BIBLE STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE IN HIS FOLLOWING STATEMENT, READY?!

    TRADESECRET QUOTE IN HIS POST #17: (Bible) it in fact was at the forefront of women's rights - as it was at the front of slave's rights."

    Barring the fact that the JUDEO-Christian Bible was NOT at the forefront of woman's rights as shown throughout history, that Tradesecret is unaware of, he has given us another biblical "comedy routine"  in his post #17 where he had the audacity to state  that the JUDEO-Christian Bible was at the forefront of American slaves rights?!  Tradesecret, STOP IT, QUIT MAKING US LAUGH AT YOUR BIBLE IGNORANCE AGAIN! LOL! 


    Tradesecret, now try and keep a straight face,  tell the membership if the inspired words of Jesus' passages below were at the assumed forefront of any slaves rights throughout the world! Ready? Go!

    "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” (Colossians 3:22)

    "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free." (Ephesians 6:5-8)

    "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." (1 Peter 2:18)

    "Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior." (Titus 2:9-10)

    “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master." (Matthew 10:24)

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    JESUS’ PARABLE, STATED BY JESUS, AND ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS, IN THE FACT THAT HE CONDONED SLAVERY!”And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?  Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.  Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.  But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful.  And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. " (Luke 12:43-47)

    Within Jesus' parable above, it is stated by Him and attributed to Him where He states that you can own slaves and beat them if need be!  Way to go the ever loving and forgiving Jesus, praise! Notwithstanding, how can Jesus even utter the words of beating slaves in the first place?  Does any pseudo-christian want to argue that the true words of Jesus in this parable is wrong, in essentially calling Him a LIAR?! Anyone? Tradesecret, wanna try knowing that I will Bible Slap you Silly®️ with other biblical axioms that are unknown to you just like before?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Tradesecrert, another heads up, to save us from further embarrassment, I left out the despicable and horrific Old Testament passages relative to Jesus' inspired words relative to slavery,  where you can murder slaves, beat them with stripes, and to treat them in other disgusting ways, just like the Confederate South did in the United States in the name of Jesus, praise!


    .




  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Oh goody goody, the class clown has finally turned up red in the face from hiding in the dark hoping against hope that no one would ask him a question. 

    A couple of things before we start on the topic - which you incidentally started and flummoxed. Your clumsiness on this topic of yours was well and truly established before my discussion on the other topic.  I have not run away from you - there is no point. In fact I have to restrain myself everytime you write something because it is so foolish and easy to refute.  Note even here on this post I had to raise it the top of the forum and then remind you of it again and again. 8 days I had to wait - if I don't respond to yours within 5 minutes you are ready and waiting to call me a runaway. Your hypocrisy is amusing.  Me choosing not to debate you in a debate is a matter of principle. I have also given you an opportunity to demonstrate that you have some intellectual honesty at which point I am happy to debate you. At the moment however, while you remain unable to admit any concessions, it won't happen. There is no point to having a debate with someone who cannot even admit when they get it wrong.  And if you never get it wrong - there is no point in discussing things with you in a debating forum. 

    Here it is simply a forum - people can add to it - and see things -  and take it as they like - I am content with that. It also demonstrates that I am not running away - but am intent on continuing the conversation. 

    Now back to the topic: "when will the hypocrisy of the catholic church ever end?"

    You raised the subject of the pope appointing woman to a position in the Vatican as ungodly, because you say the Bible teaches that woman are second class citizens and do not go to heaven. 

    I disagreed with that statement on numerous levels - none of which you have actually addressed. I referred to various woman in the OT and in the NT where woman had been placed by God into positions of power and authority. I further referred to a specific passage in Timothy where criteria for females are listed to evaluate suitable female candidates for ministry. You chose to ignore these - interestingly, even suggesting that because there are rules for slavery in the bible that God condones slavery. This by the way is not a discussion about slavery. I used abolition of slavery alongside woman's rights as two things that the church and the bible has been at the forefront of raising as significant good things. (If you want to debate slavery - start another topic don't fill this one up going down rabbit holes) 

    Therefore, I'll make this quick to save you any further embarrassment. In January of 2020, Pope Francis named the FIRST, and I repeat, the FIRST woman to a managerial position in the Vaticans most important office, the Secretariat of State!  I ask you, where were woman in the Hell bound Catholic church BEFORE the Pope enacted this position?  NOWHERE  as the embarrassing thread below so states:
    Not appointing females to a top managerial position and then doing so for the first time is something that should be admired and championed not ridiculed. Especially by someone like you who actually thinks females should be in the top job. Yours is a strawman argument.  The church as a whole does not believe that females should not be in managerial positions.  The catholic church might object to a female pope (although history reveals there has been a female pope) but not placing someone in a particular role does not logically mean that they should not many other significant and meaningful roles. I note that the catholic church would not put a protestant male into the role of pope either. Or a male Muslim - or a Gay man either (although again history does reveal some wonderful conundrums for the Vatican). 

    Despite not addressing my discussion points you then attempt to write a narrative that the bible puts females down. From the beginning you twist things by omitting significant points and then drawing conclusions to rewrite your own narrative and message. 

    Jesus, as our Triune serial killer Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, from the beginning made it known that since Eve transgressed FIRST in eating the forbidden fruit in the Creation narrative,  then Jesus cursed her by the following biblical axiom: JESUS SAID TO THE FIRST WOMAN EVE:  “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:12).

    Since Jesus stated that Adam, as the superior man, was to rule over Eve, then she became a 2nd class citizen and the rest is history!
    This an example of your twisting. God never said that Adam was superior. You simply insert into the narrative. You omit that God cursed Adam for scapegoating Eve. Eve in the Genesis narrative comes from Adam's side, the symbolism is clear - they are equal. Side by Side. If God has made Eve from his toe then you might have something to work with - but God made them equal. To be companions - side by side.  Not egalitarian necessarily, probably complementarian. And for the record, the words here reveal that IT IS A CURSE - I don't think that is meant to be a good thing. This implies that God did not think it best for the man to rule over the woman - which incidentally contradicts your entire premise about God not wanting woman in heaven. (Notwithstanding the entire argument that the Garden of Eden is symbolically heaven in the first place -and that God placed both Male and Female into heaven - another supreme example of the bible contradicting your warped views about the bible) 


    SECOND CLASS CITIZEN DEFINITION:  someone who is not given the same rights as other people. Well, this definition certainly describes the women in Jesus' JUDEO-Christian Bible to the letter, praise!
    Where does this definition come from? There are many people in the world who are not given the same rights as everyone else. This does not make them a second class citizen per se. For instance I do not have the same right as a female to enter the female toilets. Not only would it be sick to insist upon such a right - but there are good reasons for females to have rights that men do not have.  I also have the right to enter my home and enjoy peace.  You do not become a second hand citizen because I refuse to let you enter my home.  And the fact is you don't have this same right. Do gays have the right to call themselves heterosexuals? Do I have the right to walk into the White House? Or is it the fact that me not being allowed to do so make me a second hand citizen?  I think your definition is flawed. Perhaps you should try and find a real one. 


    “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.” (1 Peter 3:1-2)

    “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18)

    Your usage of these three verses as above omits the context and attempts to rewrite the narrative in accordance with your warped position which is contradicted by the rest of the Bible. None of these words actually put a female in an inferior position in society. I explained the first verse above in my previous post. You have not refuted that point yet. The second verse actually demonstrates that the female has the power to changer her husband with her conduct. This is hardly an inferior position - but one that gives her power- power to stay or power to go - the choice is hers depending upon what is best for her and her children and the relationship. The third verse contains that qualification which is certainly implied in all of the other verses if not stated explicitly - :"as is fitting to the Lord". If the husband is not seeking God honoring requests, then they are not in the Lord and as such she has the right to leave or not to do them. Submission in the bible by the way does not mean OBEDIENCE.  If it did then where Paul says to "submit one to another" it would mean that everyone had to obey each other. This makes no sense.  It clearly has a different meaning. The word used for submission in English in the Greek is often the word peitho. This words means "to persuade". And it is the same meaning it has in other contexts - for example in a court room, lawyers make submissions to the judge. He or she seeks to persuade the judge that their position needs to be considered. In the same way wives submit their concerns to the husband who is ultimately responsible before God for the decisions that he, his wife and all members of their household make.  



    “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressorYet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

    Your comical quote to the passage above was "The second verse relates specifically to a service in a synagogue. The silence is not absolute either - for woman are commanded to sing - obviously not silent - and to pray - again - obviously not silent."  All of these entities that you have given are showing women to be 2nd class, HELLO?  Singing and praying ARE NOT teaching man, get it? Huh?  :(
    Well at least you have tried to engage a little bit.  good for you. 


    I have seen churches argue the case that females should not teach adult men. Personally I am not opposed to that idea - but it is an irrelevant argument for your position that woman are not allowed in heaven.  Similarly for the other verses you quote above. And let us be very clear for the sake of the argument - let us assume that each of these verses are understood perfectly by you in your distorted and perverse manner - none of them give even a hint that females won't go to heaven. At the high point of your argument if taken as agreed - these woman are looked down upon. But this has nothing to do with going to heaven.  Remember in God's perspective - EVERYONE - male, female, white, black, brown, educated or not, wealthy or poor, ALL HAVE sinned and fall short of his standards. In his perspective no one deserves to go heaven. Your point does not go even close to revealing how bad the situation is.  IT is not just woman - it is every white male. Including the pope who does not deserve to go to heaven, 

    Let us have that discussion. Tell me why God should LET anyone into heaven. That is a far better question. And once we have answered that one - perhaps we can revisit females. 


  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,669
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret



    .
    Tradesecret, The Debate Runaway,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT,

    I am going to use your way of thinking, in the way that you would not debate me until I addressed your post #194, remember? Even though you came up with more excuses to RUNAWAY from debating your biblical ignorance upon Jesus' TRUE MO within the scriptures.

    Therefore, within the same vein, when you address my question to you relating to what DIVISION of Christianity you follow, then, in part, like your quote in the above link; " I will consider answering your embarrassing quotes in your post #22 above. Get it?  In simpler terms for you to understand, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. LOL

    You embarrassingly are still running away from telling the membership in what DIVISION of Christianity you follow:


    .
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    .
    Tradesecret, The Debate Runaway,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT,

    I am going to use your way of thinking, in the way that you would not debate me until I addressed your post #194, remember? Even though you came up with more excuses to RUNAWAY from debating your biblical ignorance upon Jesus' TRUE MO within the scriptures.

    Therefore, within the same vein, when you address my question to you relating to what DIVISION of Christianity you follow, then, in part, like your quote in the above link; " I will consider answering your embarrassing quotes in your post #22 above. Get it?  In simpler terms for you to understand, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. LOL

    You embarrassingly are still running away from telling the membership in what DIVISION of Christianity you follow:

    It would be lovely if you did use my logic.  But whatever division of Christianity I follow is irrelevant to our discussions.   And for the record, until you stop hiding behind the façade you pretend to be - Brother D Thomas - whoever you are - despite the links and proofs others have provided - and put your real name down, and your real religion - which is atheism down - then I won't even consider putting my down. And the fact that I want you to do this is not for the same reason you want me to disclose such information. (That being you need to know my background so you can go to your magic little internet site and find the appropriate holes in my logic) I just want you to have some intellectual honesty. I don't think that is too much to ask, although perhaps with someone without the capacity to have such honesty it might be.

    Besides o Holy Brother of the cloth, if you really were a brother of any description, and even a Christian, which clearly you are not, you would be able to tell what the color of my stripes are. I picked you straight away - as do all the real Christians on this site. Most have given you the benefit of the doubt at some time -but overall, it is very easy for Christians to recognize each other and each stripe if you like.  In fact, most Christians can pretty quickly spot a dud -or a fraud or a cult member.  It really is not that difficult. And the main reason is - because we actually do have most things in common doctrinally, and we share the love of God and the partnership of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit. 

    The problem you are having with me is deepened  - because I have a broad background - and I have read widely. I have already told you I used to be an atheist and now I am not. I could inform you that I have written publications anti-Christian, ones you may even have quoted. But would that help you? Not at all.  You in fact mostly use the same arguments I have used in the past.  But times changes old man. Some people grow up and evolve from the sheer weight of facts. I could inform you of any of these things - but it will not change anything which is why I typically do not and choose to remain anonymous. 

    My stripes if you like are pretty easy to detect.  But if you really are a True Christian it would not be difficult to pin me down. Because you have to ask - and demand and make it a condition - LOL! you demonstrate an ignorance that is truly breathtaking.  Just for the record on several censuses over the years since I became a Christian - I have ticked various boxes- interestingly, the first time as a Christian I chose to tick the no - religion box. Why did I do that? I certainly was a Christian. And for most secularists this would have misrepresented the stats - yet many Christians I know do not consider Christianity to be a religion. Yes, they go to church, read their bible, pray and even give money to the church. But they did not and at the time I did not consider Christianity to be a religion.  After some time as a Christian, I started to tick the census box Christian. I never nominated a denomination because I thought denominations were evil and I did not want to add to the divisions. Now I am quite happy to tick my denomination. I see denominations as a wonderful thing. You see even my views on such were maturing or evolving.  I evolved from being a selfish and annoying little know it all atheist to something quite more.  

    What else do you need to know? Perhaps the problem you are having old man is that Christians really do share a lot in common despite your ridiculous claim that they hardly believe anything the same and read the bible in many different ways. If that were the case, then you should have easily detected my stripes. Yet the fact is I stick pretty close to the traditional doctrines of the historic church and that is one reason why you are struggling to figure out my stripes.  You see from my point of view Christians as a whole believe the same thing - sometimes they say things in ways that seem to be at odds with each other.  Yet when it comes down to it - much of the doctrinal difference is on emphasis.  Mostly it is in relation to church government or cultural differences. Still - at least I am not pretending to be something I am not. You on the other hand are a fake and a fraud and as such and until you stop doing so - I am not going to disclose anything about myself unless I want to.   



  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Another week - the runaway refuses to response.