[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I knew what you meant Chris. =] I know what the “cathedra” of St. Peter is all about. I know what “ex cathedra” is which refers the this very “chair”(authority) about which you have presently been typing. T1 does not buy B16’s alleged authority. [/quote]
The authority given to B16 but the successors of the Apostles, given to them by Jesus, who got his authority by the Father doesn’t care if you do not buy it. This is almost like saying God doesn’t exist because I don’t recognize that he exists. His existence is not dependent on your recognition.
It’s not only biblical in principal, it’s not even a symbol but an actual thing, an icon. That’s why no salvation outside the Church is true.
Hmm, well I respectfully disagree. There are many things that ‘enslave’ yet aren’t necessarily bad. I see these types of slippery slopes where a behavior or notion, several degrees removed from a core tenant is as still ‘bad’ but not implicitly so. Many things can fit that definition, and if you don’t check in with the core of the teaching such notions can get out of control.
Paul really appears to be invoking a moderation, rather than a condemnation of repeatative behaviours. There is a difference for instance of saying “Shit!” when you drop something and using a ‘colorful metaphor’ for every other word.
[/quote]
I don’t have much time, so just a few quick thoughts. This point was only one of several; it was not my primary point. I can agree that things like watching television, eaten chocolate, etc. are not inherently evil, but once you become enslaved to a particular thing, it IS evil for you. And with something like cussing, as you freely admit is the case for you at the bottom, it’s a bit of a habit already. In my experience and in the experience of many others, cussing is more difficult to quit, especially since the reasons why you generally cuss aren’t simply to tell knock-knock jokes, but either (1) to entertain others through derogatory or other crude statements (sexual suggestive remarks, sexual jokes, etc.), or (2) to attack people. In other words, we use swearing mostly in the wrong contexts ANYWAY. Once you start swearing, it becomes harder not to swear in those contexts. In other words, once you allow yourself too much leniency in an area, it becomes difficult to control yourself in other areas.
This last statement is false (except, apparently, in the case of Mr. Chen). There are host of cultural and sociological factors that dictate what words people think are taboo AND how people respond to them. In our world, we are terrified of germs, so there are things we won’t touch and will actively yell at other for touching. In a different part of the world, where they have no conception of germs, the same taboos don’t apply. The point is, our reaction to certain things (like cuss words) is socially determined. Tirib doesn’t CHOOSE to be offended; he (like many of us) has grown up in a culture that has INGRAINED IN US the notion that we SHOULD be offended by those words. Consequently, even if they are just words, in THIS society and THIS culture, they ARE offensive.
What I meant by getting caught up in, or leading to legalism, is putting so much emphasis on the rules that you ignore why they are there and in the end, no matter how little the violation.
I think this is a bit of a fuzzy issue, from my point of view, I don’t see cussing bad at all. To me it’s like a little spice or garnish to make language more interesting. If I did think it was a bad thing I would strive to eliminate it. But I don’t. I enjoy it actually. I know when not to say them and in which company it’s less abrasive vs. more. So it isn’t an absence of control.
Could I stop cussing all together, sure if I put my mind to it, but I am not interested in that. We live in a world that is rife with evil. I tend to like to call things I as I see them, which in some cases requires the use of a few choice words…
As far as the admonition of being trusted in small matters vs. large. I mean really, what’s the implication of dropping the occasional f-bomb? Not much. Even in really sensitive company I don’t see the implication being that big.
I do believe the biblical admonitions refer to things like the little girl next door who like to play with my daughter. When ever she comes over, she fills her pockets with every piece of candy she can get her hands on and drink every Gatorade she can carry too.
In that case, I don’t trust her not one bit.
I guess the question really boils down to, can you trust a person who cusses with your life. And most unequivocally I answer yes. I am responsible for lives and they get the best care I can possibly provide.
Even if you expound cussing to it ultimate most vulgar point, at worse it’s a little unpleasant. If I am the biggest cusser in the world, and that’s the worst thing you could say about me, then I am doing really good.
And when comes to flaws, if you see this as one, it’s the least of my problems.
When it comes to say Matthew 25:14 - 30 for instance, it’s about trust. If you are trust worthy in small things then you are trust worthy in large matters. If you are able to forgive small trespasses than likely you will be able forgive large trespasses. If use your talents well in small matters, you will use them well in larger matters.
If you cuss a little, you might cuss more in larger matters. Ever try to push in an actuated rear brake caliper piston? If that doesn’t make you cuss like a sailor, nothing will. Big deal…
In the end you do know this all this was, was another dig, or attempt to by Chen to bring me down, right? It has no real value, it’s just another attempt to bring me down based on minutia. [/quote]
Hey, EVERYONE on here can see what Chen is doing. His last couple points have definitely been petty, personal attacks, whether with the “Holy Father” thing or with his questioning of your moral credentials, and I don’t like it. I think it’s absolutely wrong. We ALL have our weaknesses and you don’t disprove someone’s beliefs by pointing out where you think they are in the process of sanctification. That’s not just intellectually fallacious; it’s spiritually oppressive. And frankly, if he is going to respond to you with intentional sarcasm BECAUSE you swear and attack him back, then he is being extremely hypocritical in questioning YOUR moral standing. The attitude is more important than the particular form the attitude takes (“G” rated sarcasm vs. cussing). I too would LOVE to move this thread back into the realm of substantive discussion, as it was originally intended.
That being said, I do reserve the right to disagree with something substantive, i.e., whether or not swearing is morally significant, an issue which both you and Brother Chris chimed in on. My point, once again, is that any behavior that becomes uncontrollable should be scrutinized, and the reason is that, once you start letting something else control YOU, it becomes harder for you to control other things. Once someone starts regularly allowing themselves to admire the hotties on the street, it becomes harder to stop doing that, and it can lead to other things (porn, for example). That’s why the “little things” DO matter. That was my point. On the most banal and basic level, this is why we know that children who like to kills small animals will likely one day enjoy doing the same thing to humans.
Furthermore, I was making the point that, except perhaps in the case of Mr. Chen (who chose to interpret your use of a word as having connotations he found offensive, regardless of what you actually meant by that word), people don’t CHOOSE to be offended by swearing. We Protestants don’t think matter is bad; but because certain words are considered uncouth and crass in our culture, and because they are used in contexts we find morally repugnant, many of us choose not to use them. What you say is your choice - I am not here to condemn you - but you can’t accuse Tiribulus or any other Protestant (except Mr. Chen) of CHOOSING to get offended by cussing. He didn’t choose to be offended any more than you choose to detest the thought of wearing lipstick.[/quote]
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Most Favoured Player?[/quote]
Your guess is VERY close.
Most Favored Protestant. You’d have to go back several pages to see where Pat bestowed this status on KingKai. I believe it was after he “handed me my ass”
[/quote]
Actually, he’s been doing that for quite a while. And he does not have to agree with me for me to like him. I like him very much I don’t expect him to agree with me on everything. That’s how adults act.
I don’t agree with anybody on everything, even BC and I have disagreed, but we don’t devolve in to personal attacks and comparing one another’s holiness because that crap is stupid.
Can we then move on to ‘Yo mama…’ insults, then? [/quote]
That’s your style, not mine:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]WW3General wrote:
Sloth- You don’t want to know what gods love feels like? Or have you already found out?
It is Stockholm Syndrome you don’t have to be embarassed it happens.
I think it is funny that you can not even deal with me saying that about you on an internet thread, but you seem not to care at all that some little boy had to go through that in real life.
For the record-
Fuck- all religion (catholics too)
and all you catholic child molesting supporters.[/quote]
Oh yeah! I fucked your mom last night!.. LOL![/quote]
It’s from the thread Come On In and Have a Seat Over There, pg 1. Oh I know, you’re just giving as good as you get. [/quote]
Do you realize how much effort you are putting in to try and bring me down? If had any inking of the context, I was mocking him for doing that. He was losing an arguement with somebody else so his retort was that he fucked that persons mother last night… I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. He got the message.
Is there no end to your pettiness?
Are you going to follow me around from thread to thread looking for me to “mess up” so you can bring it here and show everybody what a bad person I am? There are stalking laws you know…LOL!
What the hell is the matter with you dude? All I have asked from you is to bring up substantive topics to discuss… Not petty hate filled vomit with no basis in fact or reason. If you wonder why you have lost pretty much every argument it’s for that reason, you haven’t done your homework. You claim to be heavily educated, but you fill your pages with drivel…
I am so not impressed…[/quote]
We have discussed substantive issues here dude. Is Peter the first pope in the NT comes to mind. I know, YOU weren’t convinced of my position, so I lost that PETTY discussion, though SEVERAL people took part in it.
[/quote]
Yes, you did and the discussion itself wasn’t petty. Your manner of discussion was.
[quote]
As I said several times before, I could care less about your language. Let’s just go back to the street rules YOU requested before and all will be well. When I have more time, I’ll probably be involved in a more substantive topic here. Feel free to comment in any way you want. IF you use crass language and “fightin words”, I reserve the right to answer with sarcasm. I hope you’ll take it like a man.[/quote]
Then don’t comment on it, it’s not hard. You need to learn how to discuss things in such a way where your ego is not in play. If you act like an ass, I will treat you like one. If you say ‘Hey, the catholic church says this and I don’t agree with it. Can you explain?’ We got no problems.
If you say ‘The Catholic Church is a piece of crap and XYZ prove you people are stupid and going to hell.’, then your going to get the horns it’s that simple.
I have spent some time exposing what I consider Pat’s hypocrisy in complaining about me. That it’s necessary at all on a forum full of T-men is disappointing. Before you conclude I am being petty, may I suggest you go back and look at our exchanges on this thread, and note who started with the combative approach first, if it was me, I’ll apologize right here.
[ADD] The holy father address issue is not petty in the least by the way. I believe many protestants, and most baptists agree with my position. Protestants used to call him the “man of sin” if you recall. And as I’ve said before, I think it’s also definitely related to the issue of whether or not there should even be a “pope”. It’s why I brought it up in the first place. Do you not think this is a substantive issue?
[edited again for clarity][/quote]
You did start it. I am not going to search through the pages to prove it. It acually started on the previous thread with your grandiose admonitions of the Church and how bad it is. You didn’t just start with me, you started with everybody. So get over yourself. I offered to put an end to it and my offer still stands. The ball is in your court. If you want to continually vindicate yourself you’re only digging your own hole bigger. By trying to show me up, you’re showing yourself up.
It’s perfectly ok to discuss the pope and his legitimacy. Jesus said the ‘gates of hell will not prevail’ over the church, he didn’t say the ‘gates of hell’ would not try.
Must be talking about Protestants, because Catholics pray for true unity. That people stop being prideful and come back to their mother who knows best.[/quote]
Whenever I go to church, more and more, the behavior of the people there seems to me to be bordering on dementia. If space aliens came down and watched all these people chanting and then watched everyone line up while a man in bizarre robes put a cookie on their tongue or put the cookie in their hand…the aliens would be locked up if they reported it. The space alien boss would accuse them of being cracked out on the job.
Yes, there is a God. But The God of Spinoza is a lot closer to the real God.
How anyone believes this religious hogwash…
[/quote]
Wow, calling the Eucharist a cookie? Original. Let me write that down, send it to Chick tracks because I’m sure they never thought of that one.
Judas got upset about the teaching, too. John 6:66. [/quote]
Do you REALLY believe in transubstantiation? As a man living in 2012, you genuinely believe that such a thing happens?
Then, which is more likely – a space alien landed and took pity on a bunch of savages roaming about squalid huts in a place called Israel and cured some and did ‘miracles’? Or that God decided that he would be re-born as his own son and that he would let himself be tortured to death because letting savages torture you to death is the way to expunge all the evil that they did?
God exists. God is a purely mathematical being of pure logic, with existence being His self-expression (think Spinoza or Hegel). He has no desire to be worshipped by Opus Dei or have people wearing vest bombs walk into daycare centers in Israel and in His name.
When you finally realize this, you will know God.[/quote]
First HH, you can stop acting like a dick. I have protected you way to many times for you to come here and act like an asshole. Knock it off.
Second, the basis is scriptural. Logic cannot dictate the stuff of faith. It can only show you such a being exists. You cannot determine save for a few properties. The only clue in to God’s true nature through logic is that he must necessarily have a sentient quality, otherwise he could not be the ‘Necessary Being’ or ‘Uncaused-cause’ that logic can show.
But be in sentient is all we need from logic to justify faith and worship.
The origin of Transubstantiation is scriptural.
And anybody who says they knowGod is a first class idiot. You cannot know God as in totality. You can only know what he reveals and he hasn’t revealed everything, otherwise we’d know everything.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Protestants used to call him the “man of sin” if you recall.[/quote]
This belies such insecurity.
Never, ever, at any time at all, ever, have I witnessed a Catholic Mass given to discussion of the state of grace or sin of another protestant denomination, representative or individual.
“Petty” doesn’t begin to describe it.
(N.B. Before the inevitable avalanche of defenses and justifications comes thundering down, let me add the caveat: for sins related to heresy or blasphemy, or other issues that stem from denominationalism.)[/quote]
Nor have I, further to do so would be to go against church teaching. As AS scipture tells us, that if another man is proclaiming Christ, though not part of your church, do not stop him. ‘For those who are not against us are for us’… This is how Christians are to act.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Protestants used to call him the “man of sin” if you recall.[/quote]
This belies such insecurity.
Never, ever, at any time at all, ever, have I witnessed a Catholic Mass given to discussion of the state of grace or sin of another protestant denomination, representative or individual.
“Petty” doesn’t begin to describe it.
(N.B. Before the inevitable avalanche of defenses and justifications comes thundering down, let me add the caveat: for sins related to heresy or blasphemy, or other issues that stem from denominationalism.)[/quote]
I make a reference to this historical tidbit to make my point that the issue of whether or not there should be a pope is a substantive issue. But you are free to consider this historical practice petty.
Please recall that until Vat 2, protestants could not even be saved outside the RCC, although I doubt this fact was ever discussed at mass.
[/quote]
Vatican 2 did not declare it, it recognized it. There is a big difference between the notions. We recognize that God judges the heart, and God is the only one privy to it. We recognize that a love for Christ or God, even if sometimes ad hoc or deluded is still a love for Christ. And this is a love man cannot see of judge, but only Christ the appointed judge.
But we have people like you who claim that we are of hell and going to hell because we are from hell, even though that is in direct contrast to the scriptures.
The beauty is though, we have both the scriptures and history to back us up, and neither you, nor tirib can wish it away.
Not just baptists. Plenty of protestants think using the term “father” as an address is against Christ’s prohibition. I understand you are not convinced, of course. My point was only it’s hardly a petty topic. Whether my argument was successful or not is irrelevant. I was not attempting to marshal an army of agreement from among ignorant baptists. (sarcasm here just to liven things up, and to show I actually take no offense at you lumping me in with said ignorant mass)[/quote]
Haha well I didn’t call you or other baptists ignorant. There is a big difference between an insular, self-affirming group and an ignorant one. And once again, the Protestant critique of the use of “holy father” as a title only works with faulty exegesis premised on a faulty view of language. That’s not ignorance, but it certainly is petty. Of all the issues to raise, this is the LEAST important one. What about prayer to beings other than God, a non-Jewish practice and a vestige of our Gentile origins? What about affirmation of the assumption of Mary, a view with no biblical support whatsoever (aside from a gross and blatant eisegetical reading of Revelation 12), yet one which has been pronounced DOGMA (in short, a belief necessary for participation in the church and thus salvation)? THESE are real issues worth discussing, not the Catholic church’s nomenclature. [/quote]
If I was sensitive, I might have considered this sentence to say about as much:
“without being capable of convincing any other reasonable person”
See what I mean, this medium won’t work well without a decent amount of back and forth.
Those other topics are even better. I picked the HF issue as an interim project, Br. Chris can verify. And I did so because we had been working on the pope/no pope topic via Peter.
I am going to go back to your last to me on the HF thing, because I think you’re wrong wrong wrong, but I can’t do it today. I will go back to it, not because the topic itself is so important, but rather as an issue of exegesis.
I’m sure you’ll be busy though in the meantime, as someone will probably jump on something you’ve mentioned above. I’ll be sympathizing with you silently from my corner.[/quote]
You have to explain what you find wrong with it, for you actually have managed not to do that. Fill in the blank: Calling the pope 'holy father is wrong because ___________.
I have read about the messianic connotation thing before, which is the only thing it could possibly be. It’s been translated from Greek to Latin to English. It’s merely a title of office like calling the president, the president.
Without gymnastics, tortured logic, arrogance or jackassery, please articulate your specific issue with that title…
[quote]pat wrote:
You have to explain what you find wrong with it, for you actually have managed not to do that. Fill in the blank: Calling the pope 'holy father is wrong because ___________.
[/quote]
Now, if I was going to answer Kingkai’s last to me, I guess I would have to explain wouldn’t I. Thanks Teach for helping me out there.
[quote]pat wrote: Without gymnastics, tortured logic, arrogance or jackassery, please articulate your specific issue with that title… [/quote] I’ll try my best to use logic that even you can understand.
You truly are an irritating person Pat, sorry I couldn’t help myself from throwing in some mild sarcasm there. You might want to work on that. Just a suggestion though.
'Ye should not shy for honest laughter; it purgeth melancholy. There are no rogues who laugh, good friend.' -Robert Louis Stevenson
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s perfectly ok to discuss the pope and his legitimacy. Jesus said the ‘gates of hell will not prevail’ over the church, he didn’t say the ‘gates of hell’ would not try.[/quote]
It appears my position concerning the pope has been likened to the ‘gates of hell’. Is that correct? I don’t want to misunderstand.
Yes, I think that’s the intent. BRAVO! A good piece of wit there.
Does the Catholic church believe that Adam and Eve were literal historic individual people created by the hand of God Himself. Literal. A man, Adam, a woman Eve, jist like the critters runnin around the earth today? Real people. Individual people. First ones ever. Note that I did not ask you how old the earth was.
YAY OR NAY? Surely my mother has THE definitive unequivocal answer to this foundationally vital question. Surely my mother KNOWS, beyond a shadow of any possible doubt where I came from. If not? She ain’t my mother.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Does the Catholic church believe that Adam and Eve were literal historic individual people created by the hand of God Himself. Literal. A man, Adam, a woman Eve, jist like the critters runnin around the earth today? Real people. Individual people. First ones ever. Note that I did not ask you how old the earth was.
YAY OR NAY? Surely my mother has THE definitive unequivocal answer to this foundationally vital question. Surely my mother KNOWS, beyond a shadow of any possible doubt where I came from. If not? She ain’t my mother.[/quote]
Faith and Reason are opposites. Faith is the denial of your mind and is therefore a death wish. Reason is using your abilities to the utmost for clearcut concept formation. Reason is a Life Wish.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Faith and Reason are opposites. Faith is the denial of your mind and is therefore a death wish. Reason is using your abilities to the utmost for clearcut concept formation. Reason is a Life Wish.[/quote]
Until you die of course.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Faith and Reason are opposites. Faith is the denial of your mind and is therefore a death wish. Reason is using your abilities to the utmost for clearcut concept formation. Reason is a Life Wish.[/quote]
Until you die of course.[/quote]
I wish I could make up definitions and then say, “Gotcha! I WIN!”
IN faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Does the Catholic church believe that Adam and Eve were literal historic individual people created by the hand of God Himself. Literal. A man, Adam, a woman Eve, jist like the critters runnin around the earth today? Real people. Individual people. First ones ever. Note that I did not ask you how old the earth was.
YAY OR NAY? Surely my mother has THE definitive unequivocal answer to this foundationally vital question. Surely my mother KNOWS, beyond a shadow of any possible doubt where I came from. If not? She ain’t my mother.[/quote]
Yes. Real persons. CCC 390. [/quote]How bout the rest of what I asked?
