Bible Code

For those deep thinkers out there.
User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19989
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by hugodrax » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:30 am

Ossified manualists, Wosbald, wouldn't you say?
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
FredS
Patriarch of All Shirkdom
Patriarch of All Shirkdom
Posts: 22919
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Bible Code

Post by FredS » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:01 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:30 am
Ossified manualists, Wosbald, wouldn't you say?
Is that fancy speak for 'masterbators'?
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19989
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by hugodrax » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:52 pm

FredS wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:01 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:30 am
Ossified manualists, Wosbald, wouldn't you say?
Is that fancy speak for 'masterbators'?
Not at all.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20946
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by wosbald » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:07 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:03 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:44 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:35 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."
Correct. I agree that they would not be equivalent because the issue is with who or what is doing the limiting. Each statement places something/someone different which/who is doing the limiting.

If God deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that in no way equals "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it". Because who/what the limiter is has been shifted.
If God "deems" in one way, is he not Sovereignly Free to Justly deem otherwise?

If not, then who's the one "limiting God" now?
God deems. Get over it? :lol:

I mean, honestly. God's deeming is all over the Scriptures.

One might theoretically say that he can do whatever he pleases, set up the table today and then flip the table tomorrow, so to speak. But he's made it clear that his deeming, his limiting (and creating at all must include limiting, no?), his plan of redemption, his wrath even, is all done according to his own will and his own good pleasure. He does what he pleases. Why would he do what he pleases only to do that which he isn't pleased to do?

I guess if you want to argue that God is sovereignly schizophrenic, but that's rather dangerous. The Scriptures reveal he's sovereign and he deems, and that He doesn't change, and reveals this is all according to his will, his desire, his good pleasure, for his glory. So again, if God deemed for his good pleasure that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, and if he was pleased to crush his Son, it sounds rather priggish to debate if he could forgive in any other way. Not only are we then slighting his sovereignty but we're in greater danger of calling into question his impeccable taste.
The Cause and Necessity of the Atonement
[…]

B. HISTORICAL VIEWS RESPECTING THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT

On this subject there has been considerable difference of opinion. The following positions should be distinguished:

1. THAT THE ATONEMENT WAS NOT NECESSARY. The Nominalists of the Middle Ages generally regarded it as something purely arbitrary. According to Duns Scotus it was not inherently necessary, but was determined by the arbitrary will of God. …

2. THAT IT WAS RELATIVELY OR HYPOTHETICALLY NECESSARY. Some of the most prominent Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas, denied the absolute necessity of the atonement and ascribed to it merely a hypothetical necessity. Thomas Aquinas thus differed from Anselm on the one hand, but also from Duns Scotus on the other hand. This is also the position taken by the Reformers. Principal Franks says that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all avoided the Anselmian doctrine of the absolute necessity of the atonement, and ascribed to it only a relative or hypothetical necessity, based on the sovereign free will of God, or in other words, on the divine decree. This opinion is shared by Seeberg, Mosley, Stevens, Mackintosh, Bavinck, Honig, and others. Cf. also Turretin, on The Atonement of Christ, p. 14. Calvin says: “It deeply concerned us, that He who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly called simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree, on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us our Merciful Father determined.” [Inst. II, 12.1] The atonement was necessary, therefore, because God sovereignly determined to forgive sin on no other condition. This position naturally served to exalt the sovereign free will of God in making provision for the redemption of man. Some later theologians, such as Beza, Zanchius, and Twisse, shared this opinion, but according to Voetius the first of these changed his opinion in later life.

3. THAT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. In the early Church Irenaeus already taught the absolute necessity of the atonement, and this was stressed by Anselm in the Middle Ages in his Cur Deus 𝖧omo?. Reformed theology in general rightly shows a decided preference for this view. Whatever may be true of Beza in later life, it is certain that such scholars as Voetius, Mastricht, Turretin, à Marck, and Owen, all maintain the absolute necessity of the atonement and ground it particularly in the justice of God, that moral perfection by which He necessarily maintains His holiness over against sin and the sinner and inflicts due punishment on transgressors. They regard it as the only way in which God could pardon sin and at the same time satisfy His justice. This is also the position of our Confessional Standards. [Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 40; and Canons of Dort II, Art. 1] This view is undoubtedly the most satisfying, and would seem to be most in harmony with the teachings of Scripture. The denial of it really involves a denial of the punitive justice of God as one of the inherent perfections of the divine Being, though the Reformers, of course, did not mean to deny this at all.

[…]
Coco seemingly adheres to #3.

You seem to vacillate twixt #2 and #3, with preponderant leanings toward #2.

And with #2, there's no question of Injustice were God to have Sovereignly deemed otherwise.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39851
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:33 am

wosbald wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:07 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:03 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:44 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:35 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."
Correct. I agree that they would not be equivalent because the issue is with who or what is doing the limiting. Each statement places something/someone different which/who is doing the limiting.

If God deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that in no way equals "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it". Because who/what the limiter is has been shifted.
If God "deems" in one way, is he not Sovereignly Free to Justly deem otherwise?

If not, then who's the one "limiting God" now?
God deems. Get over it? :lol:

I mean, honestly. God's deeming is all over the Scriptures.

One might theoretically say that he can do whatever he pleases, set up the table today and then flip the table tomorrow, so to speak. But he's made it clear that his deeming, his limiting (and creating at all must include limiting, no?), his plan of redemption, his wrath even, is all done according to his own will and his own good pleasure. He does what he pleases. Why would he do what he pleases only to do that which he isn't pleased to do?

I guess if you want to argue that God is sovereignly schizophrenic, but that's rather dangerous. The Scriptures reveal he's sovereign and he deems, and that He doesn't change, and reveals this is all according to his will, his desire, his good pleasure, for his glory. So again, if God deemed for his good pleasure that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, and if he was pleased to crush his Son, it sounds rather priggish to debate if he could forgive in any other way. Not only are we then slighting his sovereignty but we're in greater danger of calling into question his impeccable taste.
The Cause and Necessity of the Atonement
[…]

B. HISTORICAL VIEWS RESPECTING THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT

On this subject there has been considerable difference of opinion. The following positions should be distinguished:

1. THAT THE ATONEMENT WAS NOT NECESSARY. The Nominalists of the Middle Ages generally regarded it as something purely arbitrary. According to Duns Scotus it was not inherently necessary, but was determined by the arbitrary will of God. …

2. THAT IT WAS RELATIVELY OR HYPOTHETICALLY NECESSARY. Some of the most prominent Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas, denied the absolute necessity of the atonement and ascribed to it merely a hypothetical necessity. Thomas Aquinas thus differed from Anselm on the one hand, but also from Duns Scotus on the other hand. This is also the position taken by the Reformers. Principal Franks says that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all avoided the Anselmian doctrine of the absolute necessity of the atonement, and ascribed to it only a relative or hypothetical necessity, based on the sovereign free will of God, or in other words, on the divine decree. This opinion is shared by Seeberg, Mosley, Stevens, Mackintosh, Bavinck, Honig, and others. Cf. also Turretin, on The Atonement of Christ, p. 14. Calvin says: “It deeply concerned us, that He who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly called simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree, on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us our Merciful Father determined.” [Inst. II, 12.1] The atonement was necessary, therefore, because God sovereignly determined to forgive sin on no other condition. This position naturally served to exalt the sovereign free will of God in making provision for the redemption of man. Some later theologians, such as Beza, Zanchius, and Twisse, shared this opinion, but according to Voetius the first of these changed his opinion in later life.

3. THAT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. In the early Church Irenaeus already taught the absolute necessity of the atonement, and this was stressed by Anselm in the Middle Ages in his Cur Deus 𝖧omo?. Reformed theology in general rightly shows a decided preference for this view. Whatever may be true of Beza in later life, it is certain that such scholars as Voetius, Mastricht, Turretin, à Marck, and Owen, all maintain the absolute necessity of the atonement and ground it particularly in the justice of God, that moral perfection by which He necessarily maintains His holiness over against sin and the sinner and inflicts due punishment on transgressors. They regard it as the only way in which God could pardon sin and at the same time satisfy His justice. This is also the position of our Confessional Standards. [Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 40; and Canons of Dort II, Art. 1] This view is undoubtedly the most satisfying, and would seem to be most in harmony with the teachings of Scripture. The denial of it really involves a denial of the punitive justice of God as one of the inherent perfections of the divine Being, though the Reformers, of course, did not mean to deny this at all.

[…]
Coco seemingly adheres to #3.

You seem to vacillate twixt #2 and #3, with preponderant leanings toward #2.

And with #2, there's no question of Injustice were God to Sovereignly deem otherwise.
The word that you all (and your guys) are looking for is fitting.

God's ways are not controlled by any logical necessity. And God's ways are not capricious and random. It's just that God is God, and so He chooses the very best way. Often, His decrees are such and so in order to teach us something that we need to know.
============================================

We consider Mary 8O -- Mary, who was saved from even Original Sin by a simple choice of God's will. This was most fitting, so that Mary could be the Mother of God our Savior, and the Mother of His Church. Christ did not have to die for Mary's special salvation..... Mary's special salvation was for the purpose that Christ could die for us!

This reveals a very deep truth (many deep truths, but I want to focus on just one): Mary's special case reveals that Jesus could have taken the easy way out. He could have saved us all with an instant effort of Divine will. That was the temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane -- salvation, without the Cross.

But Jesus submitted to the will of the Father. He died for us, to show us just how far God will go in His constant desire to bring us back to Him. He respects our free will, and so He does not force Himself upon us by some sort of "irresistible grace." But He will sacrifice His own body and shed HIs own blood, so we can receive Him as our savior in the New Passover of His new Covenant with His New Church. BAM!
============================================

So it is fitting that God should save Mary the easy way -- the "perfect" way -- to show us that it isn't necessary for Jesus to die.

But.... Jesus's willing death for our sake is an even more perfect sacrifice precisely because it was not necessary! It was freely chosen, by God, for us.
============================================

Meanwhile.... the whole "paying the price" and "satisfying justice" arguments -- are all true. Not false. That is part of the message that God wants us to learn. He paid the price for our debt to Him.

We shouldn't make the mistake of taking this lesson into the only lesson.

As a matter of general advice -- be very suspicious whenever someone says "only" or "alone" in a doctrinal statement. They are probably denying the other half of some divine truth.
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39851
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am

FredS wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:01 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:30 am
Ossified manualists, Wosbald, wouldn't you say?
Is that fancy speak for 'masterbators'?
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

You can even get a coffee mug...


Image
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20946
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am

+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 14490
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:23 am

wosbald wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:07 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:03 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:44 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:35 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."
Correct. I agree that they would not be equivalent because the issue is with who or what is doing the limiting. Each statement places something/someone different which/who is doing the limiting.

If God deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that in no way equals "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it". Because who/what the limiter is has been shifted.
If God "deems" in one way, is he not Sovereignly Free to Justly deem otherwise?

If not, then who's the one "limiting God" now?
God deems. Get over it? :lol:

I mean, honestly. God's deeming is all over the Scriptures.

One might theoretically say that he can do whatever he pleases, set up the table today and then flip the table tomorrow, so to speak. But he's made it clear that his deeming, his limiting (and creating at all must include limiting, no?), his plan of redemption, his wrath even, is all done according to his own will and his own good pleasure. He does what he pleases. Why would he do what he pleases only to do that which he isn't pleased to do?

I guess if you want to argue that God is sovereignly schizophrenic, but that's rather dangerous. The Scriptures reveal he's sovereign and he deems, and that He doesn't change, and reveals this is all according to his will, his desire, his good pleasure, for his glory. So again, if God deemed for his good pleasure that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, and if he was pleased to crush his Son, it sounds rather priggish to debate if he could forgive in any other way. Not only are we then slighting his sovereignty but we're in greater danger of calling into question his impeccable taste.
The Cause and Necessity of the Atonement
[…]

B. HISTORICAL VIEWS RESPECTING THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT

On this subject there has been considerable difference of opinion. The following positions should be distinguished:

1. THAT THE ATONEMENT WAS NOT NECESSARY. The Nominalists of the Middle Ages generally regarded it as something purely arbitrary. According to Duns Scotus it was not inherently necessary, but was determined by the arbitrary will of God. …

2. THAT IT WAS RELATIVELY OR HYPOTHETICALLY NECESSARY. Some of the most prominent Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas, denied the absolute necessity of the atonement and ascribed to it merely a hypothetical necessity. Thomas Aquinas thus differed from Anselm on the one hand, but also from Duns Scotus on the other hand. This is also the position taken by the Reformers. Principal Franks says that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all avoided the Anselmian doctrine of the absolute necessity of the atonement, and ascribed to it only a relative or hypothetical necessity, based on the sovereign free will of God, or in other words, on the divine decree. This opinion is shared by Seeberg, Mosley, Stevens, Mackintosh, Bavinck, Honig, and others. Cf. also Turretin, on The Atonement of Christ, p. 14. Calvin says: “It deeply concerned us, that He who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly called simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree, on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us our Merciful Father determined.” [Inst. II, 12.1] The atonement was necessary, therefore, because God sovereignly determined to forgive sin on no other condition. This position naturally served to exalt the sovereign free will of God in making provision for the redemption of man. Some later theologians, such as Beza, Zanchius, and Twisse, shared this opinion, but according to Voetius the first of these changed his opinion in later life.

3. THAT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. In the early Church Irenaeus already taught the absolute necessity of the atonement, and this was stressed by Anselm in the Middle Ages in his Cur Deus 𝖧omo?. Reformed theology in general rightly shows a decided preference for this view. Whatever may be true of Beza in later life, it is certain that such scholars as Voetius, Mastricht, Turretin, à Marck, and Owen, all maintain the absolute necessity of the atonement and ground it particularly in the justice of God, that moral perfection by which He necessarily maintains His holiness over against sin and the sinner and inflicts due punishment on transgressors. They regard it as the only way in which God could pardon sin and at the same time satisfy His justice. This is also the position of our Confessional Standards. [Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 40; and Canons of Dort II, Art. 1] This view is undoubtedly the most satisfying, and would seem to be most in harmony with the teachings of Scripture. The denial of it really involves a denial of the punitive justice of God as one of the inherent perfections of the divine Being, though the Reformers, of course, did not mean to deny this at all.

[…]
Coco seemingly adheres to #3.

You seem to vacillate twixt #2 and #3, with preponderant leanings toward #2.

And with #2, there's no question of Injustice were God to have Sovereignly deemed otherwise.
I wouldn't presume to know coco's view, but as for me I don't mind having a foot in streams 2 and 3. I'd even say (tentatively) that they can be harmonized. I would throw away all that 'relatively or hypothetically' language, or at least keep it on a spiked leash. It was absolutely necessary because God desired it. Theoretically, in the abstract exercises of the mind, can the sovereign free will of God change his desire after he so declared his desire and set forth his plan? Possibly. But that's where the 'hypothetically' comes from and I'd rather base things off of what is stable rather than what is in the air.

Nowhere does Scripture reveal that God had any other design for the salvation of his people, and everywhere we find that God was pleased to save his people via the atonement of Christ on the cross. So if God deems/decrees/desires and even reveals that such will (and did) take place, then we have to say it was absolutely necessary in that sense. If we hold on to the "Possibly" it jerks the car across a few other theological lanes, ones even less hard to understand than God's sovereignty and will. Like whether or not God changing his mind in such a way would make him a liar. Not a trifling subject. But if you hold it in check and play the 'what if' game by starting it from before the foundation of the world, then, sure, have at it. But so long as you leave it in the air for philosophical badminton.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39851
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19989
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by hugodrax » Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm

Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39851
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19989
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am

Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39851
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 am

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Oops. I meant sock puppeh.
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19989
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:14 pm

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Oops. I meant sock puppeh.
Kilts are nature's way of advertising "no hugs." :lol:
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
sweetandsour
Minister of Shotgun Breaking
Minister of Shotgun Breaking
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Bayou Self
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by sweetandsour » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:21 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:14 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Oops. I meant sock puppeh.
Kilts are nature's way of advertising "no hugs." :lol:
Easy, guys, i'm reading this thread to my wife.
I'm old but I'm happy. (Most of the time.)

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39851
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:16 pm

sweetandsour wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:21 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:14 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Oops. I meant sock puppeh.
Kilts are nature's way of advertising "no hugs." :lol:
Easy, guys, i'm reading this thread to my wife.
I bet she'd like to hug a guy in a kilt!
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19989
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:20 pm

sweetandsour wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:21 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:14 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:39 am
"Unreconstructied ossified manualists" was Pope Francis's disparaging term for folks who like clear moral teaching and traditional, disciplined Liturgy.

[…]
Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Oops. I meant sock puppeh.
Kilts are nature's way of advertising "no hugs." :lol:
Easy, guys, i'm reading this thread to my wife.
Why would you do a damfool thing like that?
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Stanley76
Deputy Sheriff of Mayberry
Deputy Sheriff of Mayberry
Posts: 1856
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:50 pm
Location: Pungo River NC

Re: Bible Code

Post by Stanley76 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:42 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:20 pm
sweetandsour wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:21 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:14 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+



Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Oops. I meant sock puppeh.
Kilts are nature's way of advertising "no hugs." :lol:
Easy, guys, i'm reading this thread to my wife.
Why would you do a damfool thing like that?
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39851
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:09 pm

Stanley76 wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:42 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:20 pm
sweetandsour wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:21 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:14 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm


I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Oops. I meant sock puppeh.
Kilts are nature's way of advertising "no hugs." :lol:
Easy, guys, i'm reading this thread to my wife.
Why would you do a damfool thing like that?
I bet those Bible Code guys are the best at spelling contests!
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
sweetandsour
Minister of Shotgun Breaking
Minister of Shotgun Breaking
Posts: 11159
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Bayou Self
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by sweetandsour » Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:10 pm

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:16 pm
sweetandsour wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:21 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:14 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:18 am
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:30 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:17 pm
Del wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:54 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:18 am
+JMJ+



Source?
I can't find a source.

I thought that this was first attributed to Pope Francis. But so many people call themselves "unreconstructed ossified manualists" that it appears to be a meme, and the internet is so full of this reference that I can't find the original source.

"Neopelagian self-absorbed judgmentalist" is another self-deprecating label that the unreconstructed ossified manualists use.
I like 'copraphagic Neo-Pelagian,' myself. It's so redolent of Christ's abiding love for His creation.
You're a sick puppeh.
It's like a warm hug from His Holiness, Del. Don't you like hugs?
Oops. I meant sock puppeh.
Kilts are nature's way of advertising "no hugs." :lol:
Easy, guys, i'm reading this thread to my wife.
I bet she'd like to hug a guy in a kilt!
I don't know that for sure, depends on who's wearing the kilt. She asked if there were underpants worn under a kilt, and thats what I said - "depends on who's wearing the kilt".
I'm old but I'm happy. (Most of the time.)

Post Reply