Posted on 04/09/2024 10:11:31 AM PDT by ebb tide
I have tried to read the newest excrementation, or declaration, or whatever document it is, about the alleged infinite dignity of the human person. They quote the United Nation at the very start. I have stopped reading there, as I am not a follower of the United Nations religion.
Still, already from a general perspective, it is quite evident what this infinite here and infinite there aims at: the divinisation of the human being.
It is not Christian (much less Catholic) tradition to say that a person has “infinite dignity”. Why? Because it hasn’t.
A person can lose his right to live through his culpable action, and therefore be sent to the scaffold. A person can be part of an army fighting against ours in a just war, and therefore get a bullet in his head. A person can be found guilty of conduct unbecoming to a clergyman, and therefore be smashed on the street. A person can be guilty of depraved behaviour, and therefore (again) executed (the treatment yours truly would inflict to, say, child rapists) or jailed (the treatment yours truly would reserve to scandalous sodomites).
When the person is seen as the carrier of something “infinite” qua person, this person becomes, in a way, untouchable, and I wonder how such a person can, with this reasoning, be condemned to hell if, qua person, he is the bearer of such glory.
I have, as stated, not read, nor will I read, the excrementation. I don’t know what Kissing Faggot and Fat Faggot have tried to smuggle with the excuse of all this infinite stuff. However, already this “infinite” adjective does not pass the smell test.
With the V II church, and more so with the acute manifestation of the disease, the frankiechurch, we see this constant levelling of every traditional religious concept to the prejudices and feel-good feelings of the world out there, which makes the initial mention of the United Station not casual, but programmatic.
Infinite dignity, my foot.
In Catholic times, death on the stake awaited those who played with the truths of the Church. Believe it or not, this treatment was perfectly in line with the infinite nature of the soul possessed by the condemned heretic and making, ipso facto, the carrier of that soul worthy of the punishment.
As to the person, he was burned to a crisp.
Amazingly, Catholicism in those times did not consist in stupid regurgitation of worldly prejudices and fashions.
It is not Christian (much less Catholic) tradition to say that a person has “infinite dignity”. Why? Because it hasn’t.
...
When the person is seen as the carrier of something “infinite” qua person, this person becomes, in a way, untouchable, and I wonder how such a person can, with this reasoning, be condemned to hell if, qua person, he is the bearer of such glory.
Ping
I knew you wouldn’t disappoint, ebby! Less than 24 hours to get those gin mills ginning. So Pope Francis, and our recent Popes/Saints/Cardinals and Bishops whom you condemn, are back in Dante’s forth circle of hell; or do they plumb deeper?
I haven’t condemned anyone, foister.
Your false witness is becoming tiresome.
Doe God need to apologize to Lot's wife for violating her "infinite dignity" by turning her into a condiment?
Does God need to apologize to the Egyptians, for violating their "infinite dignity", who were chasing Moses and the Israelites into the Red Sea ?
What would you call your words and actions? Supportive? “Condemning” certainly seems the more reasonable term that describes your “criticisms.”
What words?
What actions?
Unlike you, I don’t support sodomites, heretics, fornicators, etc.
Fernandez said it....this comes from Fancis.....not God.
Burning Cardinal’s and other apostates to a crisp is sounding better by the day.
Typical. You never answer.
Typical. You don’t tell the truth and refuse to back-up your slander against me.
Try something in your own words. Not inflammatory postings from the same publication(s). How can I slander you if you don’t share your thoughts? I suppose I could try.
What a joke!!
It was you stated to me, "So Pope Francis, and our recent Popes/Saints/Cardinals and Bishops whom you condemn, are back in Dante’s forth circle of hell; or do they plumb deeper?"
Never have I condemned anyone, yet you are falsely claiming I have done so. That is called slander..
There's a word for people who bear false witness. It rhymes with flier.
Your articles often, and you by association because you post them daily, use the term anti-pope. You do realize this? Any reasonable person would believe whatever you call my assertions. And they aren’t slanderous.
Show me where I have used the term “anti-pope”.
Put up or shut-up and apologize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.