MuttleyLaff:
Strange, a Brit, changing my written "offence" to "offense"

We all grown, and no ones deliberately slung any insult at you on here or elsewhere
If any had done, then reproduce it here, word for word, verbatim here or elsewhere
Copy and paste the insult slung at you here, and the perpetrator who did it
I can bet my bottom dollar, it's not how you're taking it
Apologies can be sincerely tendered, if you still feel aggrieved

Did you miss the bit about my age? Or the offense being at myself for engaging with people who lack manners?

I don't need anyone apologising to me mutt. I've said my bit on the issue and moved on, and it would seem, so too has the person concerned. It could after all have not been on purpose, and that's the stance I'm willing to take on the subject barring evidence to the contrary.

Could you move on too maybe?

budaatum:
Did you miss the bit about my age?
Or the offense being at myself for engaging with people who lack manners?

I don't need anyone apologising to me mutt.
I've said my bit on the issue and moved on, and it would seem, so too has the person concerned.
It could after all have not been on purpose,
and that's the stance I'm willing to take on the subject barring evidence to the contrary.

Could you move on too maybe?

Your wish is my command. How many steps? Pẹlẹ.
PS: If not that you clammed up, I really was looking forward to catching up with you, in camera, that failed to happen

MuttleyLaff:

PS: If not that you clammed up, I really was looking forward to catching up with you, in camera, that failed to happen

I'm sure if you'd tried hard enough, you'd have got me.

budaatum:

I'm sure if you'd tried hard enough, you'd have got me.

50 shades of gay

Don't beat me o!

budaatum:

The Church of England's creed, which is Anglican reads as follows:
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints

The more detailed Nicene Creed, also read in the Anglican Church of England, reads as follows

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

They don't say "catholic" to "differentiate between us and the other sects" but to show the opposite, joint communion.

Every church claims to teach the version of the early Apostles. It also seems every church wants to claim their's is more godly than anyone elses.

The use of the word catholic with a small "c" does not mean the Catholic denomination. It is an older usage (from which the denomination drew its name) meaning "universal". Anglicanism is often called the "via media" or "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism.

budaatum:
I'm sure if you'd tried hard enough, you'd have got me.

I did,
but you never once, came back to say, you're in with the in-camera+ its term(s)

shaybebaby:
50 shades of gay
Don't beat me o!

I see you. So, you've got jokes erh?

MuttleyLaff:
I did,
but you never once, came back to say, you're in with the in-camera+ its term(s)

I see you. So, you've got jokes erh?

You fellas made it too easy for me.

budaatum:
The Church of England's creed which is Anglican reads as follows:
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints

The more detailed Nicene Creed, also read in the Anglican Church of England, reads as follows

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

They don't say "catholic" to "differentiate between us and the other sects" but to show the opposite, joint communion.

Every church claims to teach the version of the early Apostles.
It also seems every church wants to claim their's is more godly than anyone elses.

9inches:
The use of the word catholic with a small "c" does not mean the Catholic denomination. It is an older usage (from which the denomination drew its name) meaning "universal". Anglicanism is often called the "via media" or "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism.

• Adam & Eve in Eden, fast forward to Matthew 16:18 and Acts 2:41
• Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all.
(i.e. a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire)
• Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
• the sell-out and/or shady deal(s)(e.g. "Church" and State collaboration under Constantine)
• The regularisation and formation of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC)
• Roman Empire's adoption of RCC as "official" church during Constantine's reign
• The supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy) created/aided with the support of the Roman emperors (i.e. Constantine and his successors)
• Constantine calling the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose
(e.g. Arianism, doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D) and presiding over this first ecumenical church council
• the exploits of the apostles, all charged up in their faith, preaching the Gospel and like Jesus willing to die horrible deaths because of it.
• The apostolic period (i.e. including The "patristic writings'') - about contemporaries of the apostles like Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, and who became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred
• the ante-Nicene (i.e. before Nicaea) period - about the likes of Ignatius and his "ekklesia katholicos" phrase, he was a disciple of the apostle John
• the post-Nicene "church" period - about the likes of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine
• The term "Roman Catholic" defined by Emperor Theodosius on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code.
In that document, he referred to those who hold to the "religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter"
as "Roman Catholic Christians" and gave them the official sanction of the empire
• the first canon (i.e. Muratorian Canon), the progressive acceptance of other books as canonical and have them make up the 66 books of the bible
• The fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476 and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church
• the Pontifex Maximus; the highest office in the state religion of ancient Rome and at the collapse of the Roman Empire, RCC popes taking on this title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors
• the tragic compromise of believers with the introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences
(i.e. the Romanization and paganization of Christianity and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs)
• Apostolic succession and Pope Gregory in AD 590, upon assuming office denying any responsibility or support for any ambition to the throne of Peter
• "Church" and State fully merged as the Holy Roman Empire

Preemptively, I provided the above bullet points, highlighting the gradual development of RCC.
Notice from the bullet points that, its Ignatius who first used the "ekklesia katholicos" phrase
(i.e. "ekklesia katholicos" means "the universal called out'')
and its Emperor Theodosius, on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code, who defined the term "Roman Catholic" .

shaybebaby:
You fellas made it too easy for me.

I wonder what it was that was difficult or hard before

MuttleyLaff:
I wonder what it was that was difficult or hard before

No double entendre previously.

I'm not some kid you do humour with by slinging insults!
And so you must bleep all of them in The English Hse of Lords?
And please, could you consider minding your own skin instead of licking others?
Yours is ruff, rashy, rugged and scaring. That's why you are hiding it from bleeping.
You got me wrong so I'd assume you got orisa wrong too.
All I'm saying is that Dogara, Saraki, Onneghen and Osinbajo should not be complacent to allow our home grown Fulani guerrilla bleep them off.
I'm not ignoring the other stuff you wrote, just can't get my head around it.
Please don't play a Bull in a China Shop.

shaybebaby:
No double entendre previously.

As in?

9inches:

The use of the word catholic with a small "c" does not mean the Catholic denomination. It is an older usage (from which the denomination drew its name) meaning "universal". Anglicanism is often called the "via media" or "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism.

As in antecedent to the 'C' use, used prior to the 'C' usage, derived from a previous usage? It does imply there were Christian churches before the "Universalism".

The first churches were disorganised pockets of Christians. It was some of these that were grouped together to form the Roman Catholic Church. Doctrinal differences kept some apart, but some still joined up despite the differences. If they were in the Roman Empire, they pretty much had no choice in the matter. These differences, along with the decline of the Romans, however festered into the splits that created the different protestant sects.

shaybebaby:

50 shades of gay

With muttley? The guy who refuses to write straight sentences?

I pass thanks. He'd have to bend!

shaybebaby:
50 shades of gay
Don't beat me o!

budaatum:
With muttley?
The guy who refuses to write straight sentences?

I pass thanks. He'd have to bend!

MuttleyLaff being straight is good enough,
and probably maybe part of why the guy doesn't write straight sentences.

You have a free pass bud, as I can bend,
but with both hands firmly clasped behind my back

PS: 9inches doesn't and won't buy into your post up there

Ubenedictus:
I don't agree with this.

every one is welcome to Church, the saint, the sinner and even the criminal, the repentant, the repenting and even the unrepentant. Catholics are never to lose hope in God's power to bring the most unrepentant into grace

they are welcomed the Church

Why should they be allowed if they have not repented of theirs evil ways. why should they polute the congregation of the Lord. Allowing them to -come inside the church is against Biblical Principle (Act 2v41-47). If they wanted to come in the door is open, as long as they are ready to repent.

As at today, there are non LGBT who are yet to repent from their old ways, we see them causing troubles in the church

xpmode:


Why should they be allowed if they have not repented of theirs evil ways. why should they polute the congregation of the Lord. Allowing them to -come inside the church is against Biblical Principle (Act 2v41-47). If they wanted to come in the door is open, as long as they are ready to repent.

As at today, there are non LGBT who are yet to repent from their old ways, we see them causing troubles in the church

So how will they get the right information that might compel them to repent if not in the church?

xpmode:
Why should they be allowed if they have not repented of theirs evil ways.
why should they polute the congregation of the Lord.
Allowing them to -come inside the church is against Biblical Principle (Act 2v41-47).
If they wanted to come in the door is open, as long as they are ready to repent.

1/ What exactly is/are the evil ways, they have not repented from?
2/ As long as they are ready to repent from what gangan?

xpmode:
As at today, there are non LGBT who are yet to repent from their old ways, we see them causing troubles in the church

The B in LGBT, I personally think, is about trying to have your cake and eat it too
If you want to be Osakala, be Osakala,
if you want to be Osokolo, be Osokolo,
but dont be mixing Osakala & Osokolo together
One can't have it both ways, that is just pure "ojukokuro, afẹjumọ" greed

9inches:
So how will they get the right information that might compel them to repent if not in the church?

1/ What right information exactly is this, that will force them to change?
2/ What precisely are they changing from, and what exactly are they changing into?

MuttleyLaff:

1/ What right information exactly is this, that will force them to change?
2/ What precisely are they changing from, and what exactly are they changing into?

1. The Word of God as authentic as it comes.
2. Changing from sinful ways to righteousness.

xpmode:


Why should they be allowed if they have not repented of theirs evil ways. why should they polute the congregation of the Lord. Allowing them to -come inside the church is against Biblical Principle (Act 2v41-47). If they wanted to come in the door is open, as long as they are ready to repent.

As at today, there are non LGBT who are yet to repent from their old ways, we see them causing troubles in the church

So, only those who are sinless should be in your church? Only the "righteous" should be in your congregation? While I wonder how you intend to check for this sinlessness and righteousness, I wonder if you wouldn't end up with empty pews singing aleluya. I guess you wouldn't need stones as there'd be no one to stone with them. You probably wouldn't have anyone to do the stoning either, with those empty pews.

MuttleyLaff:
1/ What right information exactly is this, that will force them to change?
2/ What precisely are they changing from, and what exactly are they changing into?

9inches:
1. The Word of God as authentic as it comes.
2. Changing from sinful ways to righteousness.

Let's put "righteousness" for a short time, aside and latch on to " sinful ways"
We'll come back to "righteousness" later, properly and fully.
So what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that it requires changing?

MuttleyLaff:


Let's put "righteousness" for a short time, aside and latch on to " sinful ways"
We'll come back to "righteousness" later, properly and fully.
So what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that it requires changing?

Check the meaning of sin.

MuttleyLaff:
Let's put "righteousness" for a short time, aside and latch on to " sinful ways"
We'll come back to "righteousness" later, properly and fully.
So what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that it requires changing?

9inches:
Check the meaning of sin.

No, dont ask me to check the meaning of sin,
as all that's asked you is that, in this context, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that requires changing.
Why are you dodging from answering this question, in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt?

MuttleyLaff:


No, dont ask me to check the meaning of sin,
as all that's asked you is that, in this context, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that requires changing.
Why are you dodging from answering this question, in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt?

I'm asking you to check the meaning of sin.

9inches:
I'm asking you to check the meaning of sin.

Brother, the meaning of sin in a simplistic and biblical term is, missing the mark.
Now, please, I repeat, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that requires changing.
Why are you dodging from answering this question?
Tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please.

MuttleyLaff:
Brother, the meaning of sin in a simplistic and biblical term is, missing the mark.
Now, please, I repeat, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that requires changing.
Why are you dodging from answering this question?
Tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please.

Brother, there's nothing like sinful enough. Sin is sin. Is there any particular act you want to know if it qualifies as a sin?

9inches:
Brother, there's nothing like sinful enough. Sin is sin. Is there any particular act you want to know if it qualifies as a sin?

OK, brother, I hear you
Now let me rephrase that then
by saying please, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is the sin, that requires changing.
Please dont make dodging from answering this question turn into a habit
So, tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please

MuttleyLaff:

The B in LGBT, I personally think, is about trying to have your cake and eat it too

One can't have it both ways, that is just pure "ojukokuro, afẹjumọ" greed

I used to think the same way. But concluded that where other people put their bits is none of my business as long as they weren't putting it into me or I wasn't putting my bits into them.

budaatum:
I used to think the same way.
But concluded that where other people put their bits is none of my business as long as they weren't putting it into me or I wasn't putting my bits into them.

Bud, I think it's like a case of fancying brunettes, that are tall and with heavy bazookas and bacca
but settling for a shorter one with just bacca, and get committed, faithful, honest to a lifetime long lasting relationship

In a sense, they're attracted to both sexes,
but become committed, faithful and honest once a particular plunge has been taken

MuttleyLaff:
Bud, I think it's like a case of fancying brunettes, that are tall and with heavy bazookas and bacca
but settling for a shorter one with just bacca, and get committed, faithful, honest to a lifetime long lasting relationship

In a sense, they're attracted to both sexes,
but become committed, faithful and honest once a particular plunge has been taken

Not quite. It's like fancying both at the same time. Once you settle for one, you're no more "b".

MuttleyLaff:
OK, brother, I hear you
Now let me rephrase that then
by saying please, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is the sin, that requires changing.
Please dont make dodging from answering this question turn into a habit
So, tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please

Since we don't know what the people we are referring to, how would I know what they do so as to say if it's sin or not?

"Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4)

budaatum:
Not quite. It's like fancying both at the same time.
Once you settle for one, you're no more "b".

On the contrary, you're still "B"
You still fancy both sexes, but you have decided not to follow it through.
As you're now committed in a relationship built on trust, truthfulness, honesty and faithfulness to this person you've chosen to settle down with