@Rach4Patriarchy@LowStudies@paleochristcon At least then it would be true when referring to the European changes in the institutions.
...
I still think you'd be wrong, but it's a far better descriptor of what was going on.
Of course then you'd have to lay off throwing all the worlds problems on Protestants though.
@Rach4Patriarchy@LowStudies@paleochristcon You guys are claiming far more than just 'one event led to another'.
You claim that questioning 'normative authorities' has as an origin the Enlightenment.
A completely false claim.
If you wish to make that argument at least go back to Philip IV of France or Magna Carta.
@DavidBandel1@Rach4Patriarchy Au contraire.
I understand exactly what her intention was.
It's just funny to me how when applying a similar standard of obtusity you all attempt to claim it's me who doesn't understand. ๐
I believe the term to describe such behaviour is hypocrites.
@navaja_ped172@Rach4Patriarchy If she's so stupid that she would attempt to go to those levels to defend this: Then yeah...sure.
In reality though I know she ain't that stupid, nor do I think one stupid action means dismissal of all.
A rebuke is for correction, that is all.
@DiscipleFrog@cookbarnier@Rach4Patriarchy ๐คฃ๐คฃ๐คฃ
No no, PLEASE EXPAND.
There's only about 3 possible interpretations the sentence can hold.
Clearly your unbelief pertains to one of them.
Which is it?
This is gunna be good. ๐
@RationalMale ...did you actually tell him that?
Saying shit on your own show is hardly confirmation.
Example: I say to a friend "lets go to the cinema on July 8th!", he says I'll confirm with the girlfriend.
He talks with gf and they both agree to go....but never tells me.
Is it confirmed?
@genuinenicholas@BiggyBigTIME@RealBenMichael@pearlythingz You say "Not at all" and then proceed to say the most infantile things. . .
Someone asking you on a public sidewalk whether you would answer a few questions is not and never will be harassment.
Acting on base passions would be the whinging and whining I have seen from your camp.
@ggg_blocgggg@TheRightsWriter@TheHeroesForge But we've already established that "a nominal member who attends once a year" ain't good enough.
We gotta establish that they are regular attendees in good standing, before we ask simple basic questions.
"Practicing" could be anything and we have to be sure.
So; how many years?
@ggg_blocgggg@TheRightsWriter@TheHeroesForge No.
But I'm cognisant of yours.
Now the argument is apparently that attendees religious history is now essential for even having dialogue.
So, are we allowed to ask that question?
What is an acceptable answer?
2 years? 5? 10? 20?
At what point can we ask an actual question?
@TheRightsWriter@TheHeroesForge Often, yes.
Usually it comes up naturally in the conversations.
Where it doesn't it's usually due to the conversation being too short to develop.
So.
Now that you have an answer to your pathetically formed question I'll look forward to your retraction and apology.
@OrthodoxPole81 'I'm Anglo-Saxon'...and then proceeds to make claims ignorant of their ancestors.
The Anglo-Saxons fought long and hard for freedoms they had consistently advocated for (right to roam etc.) so their wayward children could piss them down the gulley apparently.
@DixonCameronS@MinarchistKitty@richardrohlin She's not your dhimmi.
And to expect certain channels or behaviours to be adopted by default outside of civil societal ones is a grand demonstration of a 'completely warped understanding'.
@MinarchistKitty@DixonCameronS@richardrohlin A question to passerbys who can voluntarily answer or not is in no way harassment whether they are or are not grifting.
Irrelavent.