The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[IMRight]

I would like to point out that agitating someone is just as sinful as using profanity.

Then there are a lot of us in a lot of @#$%$@%@# trouble.

[OLD REGGIE]

And ,of course,the Protestant churchs long ago gave in to the use of contraceptives, a immorality, that, unfortunately Catholics have also adopted. Can bestility be far behind?

Oh my gosh!!! Tell me this isn't true. And all this time I thought the declining birth rate in Italy, Ireland, USA, the entire population of "advanced" nations, etc., among the RC's was due to absintence.

[Wordsmith]

Hey, I got to use it! Or try to. Its the penalty ref, but I'm not sure its showing up - its not in preview.

Hi Dave. Keep it soothing, and refrain from profanity even via astericks.

Hi Isaiah. While I don’t deny you the right to vigorously condemn Roman Catholicism, let me again remind you that it is FR policy to not let it get personal. Here’s what seem to me to be the worst of the attacks from both SoothingDave and you. Others can say what they please, but it certainly seems that while Dave’s are strongly worded yours are deliberately personal. Please refrain from personal attacks.

SD:

EARTH TO ISAIAH_66_2! This is the third freaking time I have said this!

Or do you think infallibility is impeccability? You wouldn't be the first to be confused.

How many f***ing times do I have to tell you this?

Isaiah:

How old are you dave, 10 or 11?

Hey, dave spoiled little child, said he was going to "shun" me.

Even in your immature, childish, emotionally charged hysteria, I am glad to see you recognize the evil practices of the papist church by protecting perverts in it's clergy.

Would an estrogen suppository help you with those PMS episodes?

The name "soothing dave", reminds me of one of the early popes, who taught that sex of any kind was not sinful(he was of the gnostic flavor), and aside from being a bisexual, he had a stable of mistresses, of both sexes---but at a villa he owned outside of Rome, kept one of his mistresses and her daughter, with whom he had 3 somes with. His name was "innocent".

Seems plain to me who is crossing the “personal” line. I defer to the interpretation of others, but there is a big difference between someone saying “how many f***ing times do I have to tell you this” and “spoiled little child” and a snide personal sexually-charged attack on someone’s screen name.

And as far as your interpretation of the “shunning exchange”:

Isaiah: God says to hate evil---you say---love it.

Dave: This statement of yours is beneath contempt. Retract it at once or be shunned. We don't accuse you of loving sin, none of us has made a statement that could mean that we do. Yet you "witness" to the Truth of Christ by telling lies about others.

Isaiah: You said earlier that if I didn't retract and apologize for calling certain actions by the papist church evil that you were going to "shun" me then.

Looks to me like you made a direct accusation against Dave and the original poster of the “warts and all” comment – that “you say love evil.” This is what Dave asked you to retract, not any statement of yours “calling certain actions by the papist church evil.”

I do not ask you to temper the fervency of your convictions. I ask you to respect the other members of this board by debating sensibly and not personally attacking people you’ve never even met.

God Bless.

[Havoc]

Somehow this means, to you, that the Church approves of people living a homosexual lifestyle. Though the call to chastity leads one to be a witness of God's fidelity and kindness. Somehow, you think that a gay lifestyle is a good witness, according to the Catholics, anyway. Are you ready to apologize for your gross mischaracterization?

Gross mischaracterizations - no. Just a flatfooted dealing with the answer you gave. I wasn't aware that another lessen in Catholic terminology was going to be required in order to understand the Official statement. You almost have to be a lawyer to follow it, don't you. Find peice a, connect it with peice b, etc, and eventually, it says what you want. Seems to me - as it always has - there is something intrinsically disordered about that. Especially when I can go to scripture and pull four passages out (not single verses) that spell it out plainly. It's plain enough to your side that your own people were telling me that homosexuality isn't a sin and is not called a sin in the Bible. Now, Given the official position and the mass exodus to attack what I quoted from scripture.. care to comment on how you guys can believe and speak plainly opposite of what you say is the official position?

[eastsider]

Then there are a lot of us in a lot of @#$%$@%@# trouble.

Not if one's confessor has a prison ministry. : )

[Wordsmith]

Oh well. Sorry guys. Looks like angelo's link for the ref dude didn't work. I'll see what I can do.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I blanked out the leters. It could be "fooding" or "fording."

Don't forget farting. :-)

[Wordsmith]

Dave, Isaiah. No profanity. No personal attacks. God Bless.

[SoothingDave]

Hi Dave. Keep it soothing, and refrain from profanity even via astericks.

I shall do my best. It didn't have asterisks in it when I previewed, but I thought better of it.

I am not really upset by the childishness. It was the repeated questioning and stating of facts that gives the impression that I or any of the Catholics here were supporting the Church in its vile actions regarding pedophile priests. Though I repeatedly said that I was not supporting these actions and that I found them wrong (to put it mildly), certain people continued to address me as if I were a defender of such. It is this which led to my blow up.

I have a hard enough time defending the things I do believe, I don't need to be continuously beaten over the head with these sins which I am not defending.

Thank you for your moderation. The flag picture did not come through.

SD

[Wordsmith]

Where's Wordsmith? He's supposed to be monitoring for Angelo.

Sorry Reggie. Guess I should keep my day job. I think that Isaiah is as much in need of repentance as Dave. If "pompous ass" can warrant and receive an apology, as it did earlier, then I don't see how anything Dave said deserved "spoiled little child" and the stupid comparison to a horribly sinful pope. God Bless.

[SoothingDave]

Gross mischaracterizations - no. Just a flatfooted dealing with the answer you gave. I wasn't aware that another lessen in Catholic terminology was going to be required in order to understand the Official statement. You almost have to be a lawyer to follow it, don't you. Find peice a, connect it with peice b, etc, and eventually, it says what you want.

Yes, it isn't written for fourth graders. one is thought to be familiar with the idea that evil things are sins, that things against natural law are sins, that disorders ae against the natural law. That chastity has a meaning beyond "not having sex." Etc.

Perhaps next time you will remember that there are meanings assigned to words, that nuance exists and that the Catechism is very precise in what it says, without being reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Maybe next time you will ask questions about what things mean, rather than assuming the worst and running with it.

Seems to me - as it always has - there is something intrinsically disordered about that. Especially when I can go to scripture and pull four passages out (not single verses) that spell it out plainly.

You do your own synthesis from the verses. It is no different than what the Catechism does, other than the fact that our language is more confusing to the uninitiated, or the one used to a simple manner of expression.

It's plain enough to your side that your own people were telling me that homosexuality isn't a sin and is not called a sin in the Bible.

No they weren't. they were saying that people we consider "homosexual" but living in chastity are not sinners. These same people you no longer consider "homosexual" or sinners. So we agree, but are using different terminology.

Now, Given the official position and the mass exodus to attack what I quoted from scripture..

People did not attack Scripture. People attacked your idea that Scripture speaking of acts referred to the people identified above, whom we consider "chaste homosexuals" and you consider not homosexual at all. No one attacked Scripture.

care to comment on how you guys can believe and speak plainly opposite of what you say is the official position?

Who did that? Homosexual acts are sinful. Thining about these acts is sinful. Living a lifestyle of sin is sinful.

Resisting temptation and living a truly chaste life is not sinful. This is the official position and this is all everyone was saying.

SD

[eastsider]

Oh well. Sorry guys. Looks like angelo's link for the ref dude didn't work. I'll see what I can do.

FWIW, most of the pictures posted to these threads are botched. You're better off learning to post the picture from scratch by following the instructions here. Most important, "Be sure to add the height and width sizes if at all possible. It allows the threads to load more efficiently."

[ksen]

Hey ... that's hitting below the belt! ;o)

Hi al! It's good to see you back. I am glad to hear that your now larger family is doing well. ;^)

-ksen

[Havoc]

The use of tools and machines does not violate the natural law. I again ask you to show me a violation of the natural law which is not a sin.

1.A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.

2. that instinctive sense of justice and of right and wrong, which is native in mankind, as distinguished from specifically revealed divine law, and formulated human law.

Yes they most certainly do. Natural law is a belief system, not a scientific method. For centuries, it was believed that men could not and should not fly. Even at the time that aircraft were invented, it was considered un-natural and a temptation of God. As such, ruling out tools and machines is not possible because tools and machines offend the natural order of things in the belief system of many - even outside of religion. Find me an autoworker who didn't feel he was treated wrongly when he was replaced by a machine and you might have an argument there. Belief is a part of natural law. If the belief is offended by tools and machines, then the law is violated.

[Wordsmith]

I blanked out the leters. It could be "fooding" or "fording."

Understood Dave. Try to not rise to provocation. Besides, I need to be especially strict on my fellow "sacramental Christians" in order to maintain my position of objectivity. Angelo and I seem to be the two most regular posters these past few weeks that don't fall neatly in to the NC/RC categories. Oh, and trad_anglican and The_Reader_David. But they seem to have outside lives that prevent them from wallowing in the nitty gritty of this board, unlike me. :(

God Bless.

[IMRight]

If "pompous ass" can warrant and receive an apology, as it did earlier

To be precise, "pompous ass" was retracted when I "redeemed" myself. There was no apology, just a promotion to a less "asslike" grade (or perhaps less "pompous" I'm not sure). :)

I didn't expect an apology in this case (not that I condone improper language), I got the impression that Steven would have chosen different language 10 seconds later...he just has an itchy trigger finger. To be fair, it's difficult to play off of the whole "ignorant" thing without taking the chance of offending. Soemtimes he's jumpy without coffee.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I didn't expect an apology in this case (not that I condone improper language), I got the impression that Steven would have chosen different language 10 seconds later...he just has an itchy trigger finger. To be fair, it's difficult to play off of the whole "ignorant" thing without taking the chance of offending. Soemtimes he's jumpy without coffee.>/i>

What's the big deal? For a couple of posts you were a pompous ass before redeeming yourself. :-) All the sudden we got something against truth telling?

[SoothingDave]

The use of tools and machines does not violate the natural law. I again ask you to show me a violation of the natural law which is not a sin.

Yes they most certainly do. Natural law is a belief system, not a scientific method. For centuries, it was believed that men could not and should not fly. Even at the time that aircraft were invented, it was considered un-natural and a temptation of God.

That is superstition, not natural law. Men shouldn't "naturally" ride around in automobiles, or get into elevators, or any number of things that we do. If the use of tools violates natural law, then you are proposing a return to a pre-sapiens man. This is preposterous.

Tools are not evil. Tools are an extension of man, they are man's mind put to use in solving his problems.

(Disclosure, I am an engineer in the machine tool business. Engineering is nothing other than applying science to solve man's problems. This by necessity involves building tools.)

As such, ruling out tools and machines is not possible because tools and machines offend the natural order of things in the belief system of many - even outside of religion. Find me an autoworker who didn't feel he was treated wrongly when he was replaced by a machine and you might have an argument there. Belief is a part of natural law. If the belief is offended by tools and machines, then the law is violated.

Belief in the idea of a natural law is good. Erroneous belief that certain things are part of the law, are part and parcel to being a flawed race. In other words, just because some steelworker thinks robots are "unnatural" doesn't make it so.

Heck, the cotton gin was "unnatural" to the slaves whose labor it replaced. Should we do away with cotton?

SD

[Wordsmith]

I remember you were "redeemed" for technical expertise! :)

I think Reggie apologized to Reader David for calling him a pompous @ss. Lots of pompous @sses around here lately, it seems! God Bless, and preserve us all from pomposity and assinity.

[IMRight]

Actually. "Natural law" is not used in the fashion you state. The Catholic understanding refers to the law which is written on men's hearts that God has made plain to them. This is why Muslims know that sodomy is wrong. Not because they stumbled upon the truth of the matter, but because God wrote it on their hearts. This is why, for instance, we say that atheism is a moral problem not an intellectual one. God has made plain His eternal nature. When the RCC says that something goes against the natural law it is saying that even if someone is not a Christian they still know tha God forbids certain behavior.