Catholic Q&A Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
721

[quote]Cortes wrote:And what does the barometer of foul language measure?
[/quote]I once sent this in an email to a friend: [quote]While I have you here I have to say that I really wish you wouldn’t use that profane language. I’m not your Mama or your pastor and I’m not saying this with an attitude of fundamentalist judgment. Honestly. It does not become a man of God. I think of you more highly than that. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks Jesus said. I just can’t believe you would say “f bomb laden expletives” if you were in the presence of the Lord, which you are.

Do a bible study sometime on the significance and power of the spoken word. It will change the way you speak on every level. I don’t mean some bizarre heretical name it n claim it new age doctrine either. The power of spoken communication is a major component of the image of God in man. It is to be cherished and guarded and used only in ways that bring glory and honor to it’s author. We shouldn’t say anything to each other that we wouldn’t say in prayer to Christ Himself. Can you imagine Mary talking like that?

My head dropped and I winced when I read that because it’s ugly coming from you. I don’t see you like that anymore. This is from my heart {friends name}. Please do take it that way.[/quote]Ephesians 4:29>[quote]Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.[/quote]Colossians 3:8>[quote]But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.[/quote]1 Timothy 4:12>[quote]Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.[/quote]James 1:26>[quote]If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.[/quote]How bout a couple of your own. Sirach 23:13>[quote]Let not your mouth become used to coarse talk, for in it lies sinful matter.[/quote]and 23:15>[quote]A man who has the habit of abusive language will never mature in character as long as he lives.[/quote]Folks can rationalize all they want. Spoken communication IS part of our being created in the image of God and used for any other purpose than bringing glory to His name and representing Him in purity and faithfulness betrays a heart that does not grasp it’s responsibilities before His throne. Jesus did indeed say, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”. If filth is coming out guess what’s inside?

I stop right where I am and if I can’t say what I’m about to, to God in prayer? I won’t say it. I also will not give occasion for unbelievers to unjustly scoff at my claim upon His name because I don’t speak or act any different than they do. They will have plenty to scoff at already if I’m being faithful without my illegitimately adding my own lack of self control to their list. It’s a first telltale sign to me. “I’m a Christian you fking ahole!!!”. Tell somebody else please.

722

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

I’ve known many foul mouthed Catholics. It doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]

What doesn’t?
[/quote]
It doesn’t surprise me that Pat has a foul mouth.

Perhaps, as a Catholic, you take offense. But it’s a simple statement of my own experience. I’ve never known a RC to have a cleaner mouth, or lifestyle in any degree better than anyone not claiming Christ. This is not to say I assume it.[/quote]

And what does the barometer of foul language measure?
[/quote]
I consider Pat’s above just as bad as directly taking the Lord’s name in vain, although you won’t find a specific prohibition on the word “bloody” in Scripture. [/quote]

That’s quite a stretch. Here:

There are more sources, but the proposition that “bloody” refers specifically to the blood of Christ is certainly not an established fact. Most of the evidence points, at best at it being a minced oath appropriation of “by’r Lady” (by Our Lady), on par with jeez, darn, and gosh.

All of this is beside the point, though. If you know anything about the Bible at all, you know what Jesus himself said of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:3.

“So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (NIV)

You needle him for supposedly not studying the Bible like you do. You adopt a condescending tone that certainly appears to take the form of judgment in pronouncing him and other “Roman” Catholics as some unspoken not-good somethingorother because you have never met one “better than anyone not claiming Christ,” (but you don’t assume it!). You clearly hold Catholics in contempt; your haughtiness oozes from every post.

I’ll wager that even your Protestant brothers can see this; though, KingKai excepted, few see fit to call you out on it as we are called out when another Catholic on this board expresses a questionable sentiment. Funny, that.

I’m sure you’ll dismiss this post with a snide, oh-so-Christian remark, as you do most others. That’s okay. I don’t really seek to engage you. I just don’t like what I see, and I want to make sure others reading this thread recognize it.

If there is an appropriate way for a Christian to conduct himself as a representative of his faith on a message board, you’re doing a bloody bad job of it.

723

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I stop right where I am and if I can’t say what I’m about to, to God in prayer? I won’t say it.
[/quote]

I have no beef with this. Or you. And it applies perfectly to my previous post. Please read it.

724

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

I’ve known many foul mouthed Catholics. It doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]

What doesn’t?
[/quote]
It doesn’t surprise me that Pat has a foul mouth.

Perhaps, as a Catholic, you take offense. But it’s a simple statement of my own experience. I’ve never known a RC to have a cleaner mouth, or lifestyle in any degree better than anyone not claiming Christ. This is not to say I assume it.[/quote]

And what does the barometer of foul language measure?
[/quote]
I consider Pat’s above just as bad as directly taking the Lord’s name in vain, although you won’t find a specific prohibition on the word “bloody” in Scripture. [/quote]

That’s quite a stretch. Here:

There are more sources, but the proposition that “bloody” refers specifically to the blood of Christ is certainly not an established fact. Most of the evidence points, at best at it being a minced oath appropriation of “by’r Lady” (by Our Lady), on par with jeez, darn, and gosh.

All of this is beside the point, though. If you know anything about the Bible at all, you know what Jesus himself said of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:3.

“So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (NIV)

You needle him for supposedly not studying the Bible like you do. You adopt a condescending tone that certainly appears to take the form of judgment in pronouncing him and other “Roman” Catholics as some unspoken not-good somethingorother because you have never met one “better than anyone not claiming Christ,” (but you don’t assume it!). You clearly hold Catholics in contempt; your haughtiness oozes from every post.

I’ll wager that even your Protestant brothers can see this; though, KingKai excepted, few see fit to call you out on it as we are called out when another Catholic on this board expresses a questionable sentiment. Funny, that.

I’m sure you’ll dismiss this post with a snide, oh-so-Christian remark, as you do most others. That’s okay. I don’t really seek to engage you. I just don’t like what I see, and I want to make sure others reading this thread recognize it.

If there is an appropriate way for a Christian to conduct himself as a representative of his faith on a message board, you’re doing a bloody bad job of it.
[/quote]

Very well put Cortes!

725

[quote]Cortes wrote:

That’s quite a stretch. Here:

[/quote]

I did say it was my barometer. However consider this:

“The suggestion that it originated as a reference to Jesus “bleeding” on the cross is compelling for its shock value, callousness and sacrilegious intent, just as the Irish, and those of the diaspora, will exclaim “suffering Jesus” in response to something shocking.” (from http://www.ask.com/wiki/Bloody)

Also note this: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

If you read the origin description, you’ll see “After the mid 18th century until quite recently bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ,”

Although the Oxford dictionary thinks this origin incorrect, it suggests that the understanding of the word by so many people was such that it couldn’t be used in print.

Perhaps Cortez you would also like to comment on the long list of Pat’s quotes I just provided.

726

[quote]Cortes wrote:

If there is an appropriate way for a Christian to conduct himself as a representative of his faith on a message board, you’re doing a bloody bad job of it.
[/quote]
And here’s something else I don’t get- you’re disturbed about how I’ve treated Pat, yet here, you use a word in talking with me I consider very offensive. Have we had some conversation in the past that warrants you now disregarding my feelings. I have a history with Pat, and whatever you think of my posts to him, they were to him, and not you. I have shown my reasons for my occasional use of sarcasm with Pat. Have I offended you personally, that you decide to speak like this to me?

727

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

Are you from England? You’ve learned to curse like an Englishman I see. It refers to the precious blood of Christ you know.

I’ve known many foul mouthed Catholics. It doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]

Matters what you mean by foul. Unlike protestants we don’t believe matter is evil. So, certain words aren’t “naughty” to us.

728

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I consider Pat’s above just as bad as directly taking the Lord’s name in vain, although you won’t find a specific prohibition on the word “bloody” in Scripture. [/quote]

How is taking the Lord’s name in vain close to saying bullshit? You have that much lack of reverence for the Lord’s name or do you really think that matter is that evil.

729

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I consider Pat’s above just as bad as directly taking the Lord’s name in vain, although you won’t find a specific prohibition on the word “bloody” in Scripture. [/quote]

How is taking the Lord’s name in vain close to saying bullshit? You have that much lack of reverence for the Lord’s name or do you really think that matter is that evil. [/quote]
So you’re saying “bloody” = “bullshit”. That’s not how I perceive it personally. Did you read the Oxford Dict. entry I linked?

730

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

Are you from England? You’ve learned to curse like an Englishman I see. It refers to the precious blood of Christ you know.

I’ve known many foul mouthed Catholics. It doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]

Matters what you mean by foul. Unlike protestants we don’t believe matter is evil. So, certain words aren’t “naughty” to us. [/quote]
Do protestants believe that? Didn’t know.

But it’s really more an issue of testimony, see Tirib’s verse list above. Scatological words are normally not considered polite conversation. You don’t often find them in the news media, or higher class writing. Say “crap” or “frickin” in a job interview and see if you get a call back.

731

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Matters what you mean by foul. Unlike protestants we don’t believe matter is evil. >>>[/quote]Really Christopher. We’ve been through this. I repudiated this scandalous accusation of Manicheanism in the strongest and most unmistakable terms possible. Are going to make me re post it? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, certain words aren’t “naughty” to us.[/quote]This is where you worry me. It MAKES NO DIFFERENCE what YOU(or I) think. You are claiming to be an ambassador of Christ in the earth. A family representative of the holy spotless Lamb of the holy spotless Father God indwelt by the holy spotless Spirit. Around whose holy spotless throne the angels cry day and night a barrage of innocent profanity because they don’t believe matter is evil. Ooops, that would actually be “HOLY HOLY HOLY is the Lord of hosts. The whole earth is full of His glory”

Even if it were not in itself the outflow of a filthy heart like Jesus said, Paul told the Corinthians that he would forgo even lawful practice if it meant avoiding the appearance of evil to someone else. I GUARANTEE you I can find even Catholic saints who agree with everything I just said. Why don’t you pray to Teresa of Avila and ask her if she thinks your semantic trickery in the defense of profanity is a Christlike witness. Ask her if she thinks the godly path leads one to try to split hairs and figure out which words or phrases are offensive TO THE LORD AND OTHERS or whether just making the practically non existent “sacrifice” of simply avoiding them all would be most pleasing to a God one claims to love.(Don’t really do that, but you get my point)

As for this outrageous charge of Gnostic dualism? Bring some proof or knock it off. You’re better than that. BTW, this has nothing to do with Mr. Chen at all.

732

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

If there is an appropriate way for a Christian to conduct himself as a representative of his faith on a message board, you’re doing a bloody bad job of it.
[/quote]
And here’s something else I don’t get- you’re disturbed about how I’ve treated Pat, yet here, you use a word in talking with me I consider very offensive. Have we had some conversation in the past that warrants you now disregarding my feelings. I have a history with Pat, and whatever you think of my posts to him, they were to him, and not you. I have shown my reasons for my occasional use of sarcasm with Pat. Have I offended you personally, that you decide to speak like this to me?

[/quote]

I really have to explain the use of the word as a rhetorical device in this particular instance? Really?

I’m sorry you find a word that means “covered in blood” highly offensive. Not sure how you’ve made it through this website these past 8 years.

As for your last question, the answer is no. You have neither “disturbed” nor offended me. I have been a registered member of this website for nearly as long as you have, and have over five times as many posts. I speak when I see fit to speak, and this was one of those times.

When a so-called Christian on this board takes to belittling fellow members for not having read or studied the Bible as much as he has, or using non-sequiturs such as nit-picking the use of a Category C swear word as some indication of separation from Christ, all haughtily delivered as if some judgment from on high and clearly intended to convey the idea that you are saved while your opponent most certainly is not…I don’t know what it is when I read stuff like that, but my typing fingers start getting itchy.

733

So for you to do it, it’s a rhetorical device, but if I do it, it’s belittling. Is that correct?

734

And Pat’s long list, those are all rhetorical?

735

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

That’s quite a stretch. Here:

[/quote]

I did say it was my barometer. However consider this:

“The suggestion that it originated as a reference to Jesus “bleeding” on the cross is compelling for its shock value, callousness and sacrilegious intent, just as the Irish, and those of the diaspora, will exclaim “suffering Jesus” in response to something shocking.” (from http://www.ask.com/wiki/Bloody)

Also note this: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

If you read the origin description, you’ll see “After the mid 18th century until quite recently bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ,”

[u]Although the Oxford dictionary thinks this origin incorrect[/u], it suggests that the understanding of the word by so many people was such that it couldn’t be used in print.

Perhaps Cortez you would also like to comment on the long list of Pat’s quotes I just provided. [/quote]

Just thought I’d highlight that for you. Today was the very first time I have ever heard it suggested that “bloody” referred to the sacred blood of Christ. And I’ll be so vain as so state that I am fairly well read.

I read all of those comments from Pat. I’ve read this whole thread and most of every other religion thread on PWI. I saw nothing there or elsewhere that speaks to my issue with you. Again, to be clear, there is a difference in kind in using old fashioned fightin-words on the one hand, and in suggesting that your opponent is not as “good,” or as “righteous” as you have done at least twice now. That is what I am addressing. There is almost no way you could convince me that is NOT what you were aiming at, rhetorically, in the instances I’m talking about. The first was actually the more egregious of the two. Would you like for me to repost it here so that we can dissect it?

Also, my name is Cortes. It is spelled with an “s,” not a “z.” Are you just getting it wrong, or doing it on purpose? If it’s the latter, I honestly don’t care, though I don’t understand the point, if the former, I thought I should let you know.

736

[quote]Cortes wrote:
When a so-called Christian on this board takes to belittling fellow members for not having read or studied the Bible as much as he has, or using non-sequiturs such as nit-picking the use of a Category C swear word as some indication of separation from Christ, [/quote]
You are lying here. This is what I said about Pat’s eternal condition, or anyone’s for that matter:

pg 28

I do not know how you originally came to Christ, but as I’ve said before, if you are putting your trust in a justification that requires your works, and believe the RC sacraments efficacious as works towards your ultimate salvation, then you are not my brother in Christ, because you are not in Christ.

I made no comment relating Pat’s eternal state with his foul mouth.

737

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

That’s quite a stretch. Here:

[/quote]

I did say it was my barometer. However consider this:

“The suggestion that it originated as a reference to Jesus “bleeding” on the cross is compelling for its shock value, callousness and sacrilegious intent, just as the Irish, and those of the diaspora, will exclaim “suffering Jesus” in response to something shocking.” (from http://www.ask.com/wiki/Bloody)

Also note this: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

If you read the origin description, you’ll see “After the mid 18th century until quite recently bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ,”

[u]Although the Oxford dictionary thinks this origin incorrect[/u], it suggests that the understanding of the word by so many people was such that it couldn’t be used in print.

Perhaps Cortez you would also like to comment on the long list of Pat’s quotes I just provided. [/quote]

Just thought I’d highlight that for you. Today was the very first time I have ever heard it suggested that “bloody” referred to the sacred blood of Christ. And I’ll be so vain as so state that I am fairly well read.

I read all of those comments from Pat. I’ve read this whole thread and most of every other religion thread on PWI. I saw nothing there or elsewhere that speaks to my issue with you. Again, to be clear, there is a difference in kind in using old fashioned fightin-words on the one hand, and in suggesting that your opponent is not as “good,” or as “righteous” as you have done at least twice now. That is what I am addressing. There is almost no way you could convince me that is NOT what you were aiming at, rhetorically, in the instances I’m talking about. The first was actually the more egregious of the two. Would you like for me to repost it here so that we can dissect it?

Also, my name is Cortes. It is spelled with an “s,” not a “z.” Are you just getting it wrong, or doing it on purpose? If it’s the latter, I honestly don’t care, though I don’t understand the point, if the former, I thought I should let you know.
[/quote]
Sorry for the misspelling, it wasn’t intentional.

If you want to dissect anything I’ve said, feel free. I would just ask that you read carefully, and try to understand my intent.

And I will [ADD] I have already said at least once I care not how Pat talks to me. I didn’t bring it up until after he complained about my sarcasm.

738

I’ve never known a RC to have a cleaner mouth, or lifestyle in any degree better than anyone not claiming Christ. This is not to say I assume it.

Sorry, what?

What on earth is the above supposed to mean, then? I even left the final sentence in there for you to work with. What else could you possibly be suggesting?

739

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve never known a RC to have a cleaner mouth, or lifestyle in any degree better than anyone not claiming Christ. This is not to say I assume it.

Sorry, what?

What on earth is the above supposed to mean, then? I even left the final sentence in there for you to work with. What else could you possibly be suggesting? [/quote]

Me from same post: “it’s a simple statement of my own experience”

So, if one more RC has a foul mouth, I’m not surprised. I made it clear I don’t assume all Catholics have foul mouths.

740

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve never known a RC to have a cleaner mouth, or lifestyle in any degree better than anyone not claiming Christ. This is not to say I assume it.

Sorry, what?

What on earth is the above supposed to mean, then? I even left the final sentence in there for you to work with. What else could you possibly be suggesting? [/quote]

Me from same post: “it’s a simple statement of my own experience”

So, if one more RC has a foul mouth, I’m not surprised. I made it clear I don’t assume all Catholics have foul mouths.[/quote]

You didn’t answer the question. Why? Why did you feel the need to bring it into the argument?