a response to 2nd Gen's thread title about a particular kind of prayer...

[paidion]

2nd Gen:

You’re posting the thread on a non-Catholic forum, as you already know. As a non-RC, I’ve never heard those particular words used to describe a form of prayer. I’ve no problem reading about the discussion of various kinds of prayer; the point is the word you used to describe it has obvious connotations. Given your “smiley face” after 6glargento’s post, one cannot assume you did not know the wording of the title of the thread would be especially provocative.

G-D alone knows whether you were at all serious in your question about prayer. However, IMO you are showing an incredible lack of maturity in that you are purposely drawing peoples’ thoughts to one idea - which for some is a great stumbling block.

Ephesians 4:29 says it best, “Let no foul language, or unwholesome or worthless talk come out of your mouth, but only such as is good and beneficial to the spiritual progress of others, as is fitting to the need and occasion, that it may be a blessing to those who hear it.”

For the sake of all, I pray you would carefully consider the words you select before posting them on a forum which all sorts/ages of people may view.

(I posted this as a new thread because I did not want your original post to hit the top again.)

shalom

 

[Harpazo]

That word has those connotations because of what society made it into. It’s a medical term as well. It has been in use to describe that type of prayer for centuries, and was clearly used in the early days of the Church, as history will attest to.

I see no problem with it at all. You have to be thinking in a different fashion in the first place for you to think about it in a “dirty” context.

Alaha minokhoun!
Andrew

 

[wow]

2nd Gen:

You’re posting the thread on a non-Catholic forum, as you already know. As a non-RC, I’ve never heard those particular words used to describe a form of prayer. I’ve no problem reading about the discussion of various kinds of prayer; the point is the word you used to describe it has obvious connotations. Given your “smiley face” after 6glargento’s post, one cannot assume you did not know the wording of the title of the thread would be especially provocative.

G-D alone knows whether you were at all serious in your question about prayer. However, IMO you are showing an incredible lack of maturity in that you are purposely drawing peoples’ thoughts to one idea - which for some is a great stumbling block.

Ephesians 4:29 says it best, “Let no foul language, or unwholesome or worthless talk come out of your mouth, but only such as is good and beneficial to the spiritual progress of others, as is fitting to the need and occasion, that it may be a blessing to those who hear it.”

For the sake of all, I pray you would carefully consider the words you select before posting them on a forum which all sorts/ages of people may view.

(I posted this as a new thread because I did not want your original post to hit the top again.)

shalom

I am RC and sadly I have to agree with you, I think I know which posts you’re referring too. It seems the titles are to “shock and awe”.

I pray he considers his titles in the future.

Peace,

 

[Tonks40]

That word has those connotations because of what society made it into. It’s a medical term as well. It has been in use to describe that type of prayer for centuries, and was clearly used in the early days of the Church, as history will attest to.

I see no problem with it at all. You have to be thinking in a different fashion in the first place for you to think about it in a “dirty” context.

Alaha minokhoun!
Andrew

Totally agree. Plus, in the thread, a definition in the context of the topic of the post was given. This term for the type of prayer has been used for a long time…there was no malice intended in the OP’s original post.

 

[wow]

Totally agree. Plus, in the thread, a definition in the context of the topic of the post was given. This term for the type of prayer has been used for a long time…there was no malice intended in the OP’s original post.

Don’t you think he could have used the definition in the title though?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Totally agree. Plus, in the thread, a definition in the context of the topic of the post was given. This term for the type of prayer has been used for a long time…there was no malice intended in the OP’s original post.

I disagree. He knew what he was doing. I keep hoping people will ignore his threads but they keep feeding the flames.

 

[Indyann]

I disagree. He knew what he was doing. I keep hoping people will ignore his threads but they keep feeding the flames.

I think the thread is a positive. A few more people now know what the term means. Most Catholics already knew to what he was referring, and now a few others do also.

 

[wow]

I think the thread is a positive. A few more people now know what the term means. Most Catholics already knew to what he was referring, and now a few others do also.

If it reflects badly on our Church it’s hard to see a positive for me. I still think he could have used the definition in the title and avoided the risk of offending anyone.

 

[paidion]

That word has those connotations because of what society made it into. It’s a medical term as well. It has been in use to describe that type of prayer for centuries, and was clearly used in the early days of the Church, as history will attest to.

I see no problem with it at all. You have to be thinking in a different fashion in the first place for you to think about it in a “dirty” context.

Alaha minokhoun!
Andrew

Harpazo:

I beg your pardon. The post within the thread to which I was referring was very clear about what someone else thought about the title too. And again, as I stated earlier, I have never seen/heard prayer described in that way. Think what you will about me, but I would dare say there are many people who draw similar conclusions based on the common usage of the word and not because they have a “dirty” mind.

Again, my point in bringing this up is to “publicly” address the issue of purposely provocative titles. I think the discussion of prayer is a fantastic idea. But do we really have to use double-entendres to get people to read the thread?

shalom

 

[DDClark]

I am RC and sadly I have to agree with you, I think I know which posts you’re referring too. It seems the titles are to “shock and awe”.

I pray he considers his titles in the future.

Peace,

One of the threads using the same “words” has been removed from the board already, presumably by the CA staff. I think that speaks volumes.

It’s offensive, and was meant to be. It also shows a lack of Christian maturity.

I think that means he still needs prayer regarding his thread title choices:shrug:

ddc

 

[Harpazo]

One of the threads using the same “words” has been removed from the board already, presumably by the CA staff. I think that speaks volumes.

It’s offensive, and was meant to be. It also shows a lack of Christian maturity.

I think that means he still needs prayer regarding his thread title choices:shrug:

ddc

What shows a lack of Christian maturity is the fact that there is even a thread discussing this! He clearly meant no harm by it at all, considering it’s a term used in Catholic spirituallity. Like or not, it’s there. It refers to prayers that are said at random when a person is moved to say them. Nothing more nothing less.

Baptists and other religions like them do it as well, we just have a term for it. If you and others can’t accept it and have to be dirty minded about it, then the problem is with you all.

I have nothing further to say on the matter.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[2ndGen]

2nd Gen:

You’re posting the thread on a non-Catholic forum, as you already know. As a non-RC, I’ve never heard those particular words used to describe a form of prayer. I’ve no problem reading about the discussion of various kinds of prayer; the point is the word you used to describe it has obvious connotations. Given your “smiley face” after 6glargento’s post, one cannot assume you did not know the wording of the title of the thread would be especially provocative.

 

[2ndGen]

That word has those connotations because of what society made it into. It’s a medical term as well. It has been in use to describe that type of prayer for centuries, and was clearly used in the early days of the Church, as history will attest to.

I see no problem with it at all. You have to be thinking in a different fashion in the first place for you to think about it in a “dirty” context.

Alaha minokhoun!
Andrew

Good point…what makes the word dirty?

The definition?

Or the reader’s mindset?

Thank you.

 

[2ndGen]

I am RC and sadly I have to agree with you, I think I know which posts you’re referring too. It seems the titles are to “shock and awe”.

I pray he considers his titles in the future.

Peace,

Then no one would’ve know what Ejaculatory Prayer meant and they (in that sense) would’ve been robbed of one more thing that Catholics and Protestants share.

It’s thinking like that that spawned The Spanish Inquisition.



Why live in darkness because the light might hurt our eyes initially when not used to it?

 

[2ndGen]

Totally agree. Plus, in the thread, a definition in the context of the topic of the post was given. This term for the type of prayer has been used for a long time…there was no malice intended in the OP’s original post.

Thank you.

Of course I intended no malice.

And it was The Protestants that were mostly charitable to me on bringing up the topic expressing gratitude despite the usage of the “correct” and truthful term.

There was once a time when to say “Catholic” would mean certain discriminiation in this country because of the ignorant wanting to remain in their ignorance.

But with time and with exposure, America was shown that Catholics were not some alien race, but just normal human beings with a different way of worshipping.

“Catholic” was once a dirty word (even though it was never a dirty word in reality).

 

[2ndGen]

Don’t you think he could have used the definition in the title though?

I did…in the original post (actually, within the first 2 or 3 posts, and it was posted by a Protestant).

So there should’ve been no confusion for those returning to the thread a 2nd time.

 

[2ndGen]

I disagree. He knew what he was doing. I keep hoping people will ignore his threads but they keep feeding the flames.

You shouldn’t be so presumptuous.

It’s really “not” your place to tell people what I was intending.

Besides, the results speak for themselves.

Those who weren’t afraid to learn, learned something new that united us just a little more.

I’m sure that people considered Jesus as blasphemous and vulgar when He claimed to be The Messiah and God Himself.

Imagine if He was shut down just because “some” people didn’t want to hear what he had to say.

Ultimately, none of those who responded with such nastiness had to submit their off-topic and uncalled for responses.

 

[2ndGen]

I think the thread is a positive. A few more people now know what the term means. Most Catholics already knew to what he was referring, and now a few others do also.

Thank you.

It did produce “postitive” fruit which is more than I can say for this thread unfortunately that is pitting us against each other.

At least my thread brought Catholics and Protestants together on “something”.

What was the purpose of this thread?

To espouse judgment?



Again, thank you.

 

[2ndGen]

If it reflects badly on our Church it’s hard to see a positive for me. I still think he could have used the definition in the title and avoided the risk of offending anyone.

Whoever is offended by the truth without knowing it,
then that is their lacking.

I know this, I (before I judge something I don’t know),
do my best to look into it before I form an opinion.

You sound like one of those that care more about
appearance than truth, especially since you never
once commended the understanding that was expressed
there by Catholics and Protestants…only your “fear” of
our public image.

It was that “fear” that kept the dirty little secrets fo the
sexual scandals growing silently.

Not comparing the two events, just the two parties
focus on what we look like to the public instead of
allowing the truth to be revealed and allowing healing
to take place.

I would submit that the Protestants who learned from
my thread would say that while it’s odd that such a prayer
would be called and ejaculation, it is beautiful that they do
it too along with us.

 

[jmcrae]

I would submit that the Protestants who learned from
my thread would say that while it’s odd that such a prayer
would be called and ejaculation, it is beautiful that they do
it too along with us.

It’s called an “ejaculatory prayer;” not an “ejaculation.” Just FYI.