Catholic conservatism on the rise as priest refuses funeral for 'sinner'

[Ani_Ibi]

buffalo:

Contact the Clinton’s, they love to serve on committees. People go gaga over them. And they are so good at defining terms, such as IS. Once we convince people IS isn’t, the rest will be simple.

And they will carry Bibles to convince people of their sincerity. Hillary will get the women for us with her pro-death blather, and her genuine and unselfish service.

I have contacted the Clintons. They have agreed to some synchronized swimming for us. That should shut them up for a while.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

buffalo:

I think as a first politically correct agenda item - I propose funerals for everybody, with plenty of speeches about how “good” they were, and how absolutely sure we are they are in a better place. This even works for atheists!

Oh jolly good! Do we have to be dead to get a funeral?

 

[buffalo]

Ani Ibi:

I have contacted the Clintons. They have agreed to some synchronized swimming for us. That should shut them up for a while.

I was hoping they would be our spokespeople (PC), their doublespeak is just what we need. People trust them. Remember our mission.

 

[buffalo]

Ani Ibi:

Oh jolly good! Do we have to be dead to get a funeral?

If you believe it to be true who are we to question it? Of course not!

 

[buffalo]

To raise some money for our programs I propose that we package the last 100 posts or so and sell them to the public school system. It would be a great teaching tool.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

buffalo:

I was hoping they would be our spokespeople (PC),

Well, Okaaaaay…as long as they use sign language.

buffalo:

their doublespeak is just what we need.

Does mean that they will be saying everything twice (for emphasis) or everything at the same time (to save time)?

buffalo:

People trust them.

No they don’t, but that has never stopped them from voting for them or for inviting them over for an afternoon of conservative-bashing and lattes.

buffalo:

Remember our mission.

Er, mission? Shall I bring the canoe around?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

buffalo:

You are aware that committees are the solution to everything.

Yes, in that way they are like the number 42. Isn’t nature wonderful? Always a backup system for everything.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

buffalo:

To raise some money for our programs I propose that we package the last 100 posts or so and sell them to the public school system. It would be a great teaching tool.

I say we sell them to France.

 

[buffalo]

Ani Ibi:

Well, Okaaaaay…as long as they use sign language.

No they don’t, but that has never stopped them from voting for them or for inviting them over for an afternoon of conservative-bashing and lattes.

I detected the start of a whine. I did not mean to suggest anything that might upset you. Sorry.

You are right people don’t really trust them, they have just bought the lie, er I mean truth, uhhhhh, now I am really confused. (head spinning funny) Maybe this should go to committee.

Sidebar - I haven’t had this much fun on this board. This would be fun to do over a few beers at our annual convention.

 

[buffalo]

Where are all the other committee members? Cat got your tongue?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

buffalo:

I detected the start of a whine.

Yes, I believe whining started without me. A sign of enthusiasm for committee work. I am very much heartened. As for my own whining: better late than never.

buffalo:

I did not mean to suggest anything that might upset you.

I am not upset.

buffalo:

Sorry.

Can fix exist now?

buffalo:

You are right people don’t really trust them, they have just bought the lie, er I mean truth, uhhhhh, now I am really confused. (head spinning funny)

Trust is not a requirement for being on a committee. I would say mutual distrust is a requirement.

buffalo:

Maybe this should go to committee.

I think so.

buffalo:

Sidebar - I haven’t had this much fun on this board.

I apprenticed under the Carmudgeon’s Cavern, the Cyberjunky’s Treehouse, and the Pencynod Wood Working Men’s Institute.

buffalo:

This would be fun to do over a few beers at our annual convention.

Are we having an annual convention? Oh joy! Where? Btw are you thinking what I’m thinking? Homeland? Name? Secret handshake?

 

[felra]

Has anyone else noticed that this thread has run far, far away …but, on sheer entertainment value it has taken a nice detour. Bye the way, where has our relativistic protagonist fled to? (please, no pictures of the Kumbaya group).

 

[buffalo]

felra:

Has anyone else noticed that this thread has run far, far away …but, on sheer entertainment value it has taken a nice detour. Bye the way, where has our relativistic protagonist fled to? (please, no pictures of the Kumbaya group).

see post 339 - the committee has resolved the funeral issue.

 

[felra]

buffalo:

see post 339 - the committee has resolved the funeral issue.

Has the committee drafted and presented for approval what his epitaph should say?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

felra:

Has the committee drafted and presented for approval what his epitaph should say?

Relatively in peace.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ani Ibi:

While it is self-contradictory for a relativist to actually be an absolutist, there is no harm done on this count. A bit of observation will reveal that relativists are really absolutists in some kind of politically correct disguise. The harm comes in the method of wielding the absolutist agenda of the relativist. By what authority is this achieved? Ah! There’s the rub.

Those are some great observations.

In case this is a repeat, I apologize. I’m way behind on this thread.

Perhaps some amateur relativists would fit that description, but I’ve realized that fix was right (even though fix does not exist in the material world doesn’t mean his messages are not valid – they are just heard only by those who want to hear them).

Anyway, I’ve realized that my status as a relativist is, in fact, relative.

I am only called a relativist by other relativists who adopt the label “absolutist” so that they can claim moral superiority, and therefore dismiss any logic I present as morally inferior.

In reality, my absolutist instinct will not allow me to defame the name “relativist,” having been thoroughly imbued with that label ever since I first read I read the book Flatland, and consequently studied modern physics in school.

In essence, a self-proclaimed absolutist is usually a relativist with blinders on. A self-proclaimed relativist is usually an absolutist looking for a higher space of truth than those that are familiar to their opponent.

A self-proclaimed relativist is to be trusted more than self-proclaimed absolutists in a religious context, because they have already admitted their lack of omniscience by apply the label, and do so at risk of being despised.

I’ve decided the only honest way to be is to absolutely be both a relativist or an absolutist in any given situation – which one dominates in a particular discussion or reflection is, of course, relative.

I am absolutely bipolar, in that I am both relativist and absolutist, depending on which way the wind blows and which approach the Spirit leads me. By saying bipolar, I’m really not calling myself a label that divides me from the rest of you; you are all that way too it’s just a matter of letting down your guard and being honest with yourself. Of course, I speak in relative terms. Your mileage may vary.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The other day I saw three ants on a ball. One was a relativist, one an absolutist, and the other one a zen master. I’ll call the mTom, Dick, and Harry, respectively.

Tom and Dick were arguing over the path to enlightenment. Tom claimed it doesn’t matter which direction you go as long as you persevere in your journey and do it with love and conviction.

Dick said that According to the Book, one must always head toward the east, and never quit walking in a straight line.

Tom told Dick if he thinks he knows the way, then go ahead without him because he’s not so sure that there are not factors that make heading east a limiting theory, and Dick has his own path to enlightenment anyway.

Dick, furious that Tom would not join him, left on his travels. A few minutes later, he appeared to Tom, approaching from the west. Tom said, "I thought you were going east. What are you doing west of me? What did you do, tell me you were going to do one thing and then went and did another? You hypocrite, you phony, and you absolutist wannabe – now I know you don’t even believe your own Book, so why should I take it seriously?

Dick replied, “you have it wrong. I have been steadfast in my journey. You are wrong to accuse me of hypocracy, for you do not know what I have been through, only that you look up and I seem like I’ve moved west. You have such a limited view.”

Tom replied, “well then can you explain what happened? If I want to move west why can’t I just take five steps and I’m there? If you are at enlightenment now, then I could have gotten there by taking three steps. I appreciate you proving how foolish your path was so that I don’t have to go on it.”

This went on a while, and they finally asked Harry to settle their dispute. They asked him who was right and who was wrong. First he said, “who said I am to be an arbiter between you? Have you no love that you must call an outsider to settle your disputes?”

Tom and Dick performed an antenna dance to show their societal bonds have not completely been lost, and with that Harry was pleased. Of course, it’s hard to tell when Harry is pleased because he is always calm and cool it seems like.

The two ants then pleaded with Harry, “please, we don’t want to fight we just want to know the truth. Dick has gone around the globe seeking enlightenment, and Tom just stayed right here and looks like he got to the same place with less effort. What is the true path to enlightenment?”

Harry said, “I just made some fried chicken and potato salad. Would you boys like to join me for some?”

Both ants were enlightened.

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Those are some great observations.

In case this is a repeat, I apologize. I’m way behind on this thread.

Perhaps some amateur relativists would fit that description, but I’ve realized that fix was right (even though fix does not exist in the material world doesn’t mean his messages are not valid – they are just heard only by those who want to hear them).

Anyway, I’ve realized that my status as a relativist is, in fact, relative.

I am only called a relativist by other relativists who adopt the label “absolutist” so that they can claim moral superiority, and therefore dismiss any logic I present as morally inferior.

In reality, my absolutist instinct will not allow me to defame the name “relativist,” having been thoroughly imbued with that label ever since I first read I read the book Flatland, and consequently studied modern physics in school.

In essence, a self-proclaimed absolutist is usually a relativist with blinders on. A self-proclaimed relativist is usually an absolutist looking for a higher space of truth than those that are familiar to their opponent.

A self-proclaimed relativist is to be trusted more than self-proclaimed absolutists in a religious context, because they have already admitted their lack of omniscience by apply the label, and do so at risk of being despised.

I’ve decided the only honest way to be is to absolutely be both a relativist or an absolutist in any given situation – which one dominates in a particular discussion or reflection is, of course, relative.

I am absolutely bipolar, in that I am both relativist and absolutist, depending on which way the wind blows and which approach the Spirit leads me. By saying bipolar, I’m really not calling myself a label that divides me from the rest of you; you are all that way too it’s just a matter of letting down your guard and being honest with yourself. Of course, I speak in relative terms. Your mileage may vary.

Alan

For purposes of this discussion, which in some tangential way is related to the original post, we should all agree that when we speak of relativism we mean moral relativism only.

Alan, as I stated in another post moral relativists are rigid because they will only accept moral truth as it conforms to their feelings, thus their feelings are their arbiter.

The moral absolutist is more flexible because if it can be shown that the position held by the absolutist conflicts with the objective truth, they will change their position to match the truth.

I believe this is the crux of the matter.

 

[felra]

fix:

For purposes of this discussion, which in some tangential way is related to the original post, we should all agree that when we speak of relativism we mean moral relativism only.

Alan, as I stated in another post moral relativists are rigid because they will only accept moral truth as it conforms to their feelings, thus their feelings are their arbiter.

The moral absolutist is more flexible because if it can be shown that the position held by the absolutist conflicts with the objective truth, they will change their position to match the truth.

I believe this is the crux of the matter.

Exactly. God calls us to be seek, submit to and be obedient to the truth. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, the truth leads us, we do not lead (determine) the truth (or extent thereof). To neglect to do so or choose otherwise is to our peril.

Psalm 119: 105 “Thy word is a lamp to my feet
and a light to my path.”

Proverbs 6:23 “For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light,and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life,”

**2104 **“All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it.” This duty derives from “the very dignity of the human person.” It does not contradict a “sincere respect” for different religions which frequently “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians “to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

For purposes of this discussion, which in some tangential way is related to the original post, we should all agree that when we speak of relativism we mean moral relativism only.

OK, I’m not sure, but probably can figure it out if I reflect a few minutes, precisely what you mean by “moral relativism” as opposed to “relativism.”

I am defending the term “relativism” as a non-dirty word. If you apply certain restrictions to it, then I have no problem with you using the word “relativist” within a narrowly defined context. That is, or course, to the degree that the term is accurately applied.

The problem I have is that I see many, many narrow-minded people (present company (sincerely) excepted) think that absolute and relative are good and evil concepts, respectively, as if wearing a blue shirt or a red shirt can determine your salvation.

Here’s an example of how much it either hurts or is fun to be me. My mind runs 100 miles an hour (relatively speaking of course). I have been trying to assert that “relativism” and “absolutism” are no more than ways of looking at things, and to have a tendency to be better at or more fond of using one or the other to make your logical points, has no bearing on that person’s level of faith or other goodness.

If being “relative” about something was intrinsically and absolutely evil, it would be like contraception. It doesn’t matter what form it takes or what realm you’re speaking. Orthodox, for example, apply the term “contraceptive mentality” to explain all sorts of reasoning that have only an indirect resemblance to physical contraceptive devices or strategies.

Here if we wish to vilify “moral relativism” then I’m game. Tell me What Problem We Need To Fix And In Whom and I’ll help you trash their flawed reasoning right through until it gets recycled as fertilizer, and eventually smellse like a rose.

Just don’t bash my pal, which is the word “relativism.” You may bash me for my flawed thinking, and show how I may be relativistic when I think I’m absolutist, but please don’t consider the evidence of “relativism” as an absolute indicator that my thinking is evil and flawed.

To me, to make the wholesale claim that “relativism” is a wrong way to think, that denies everything I know about physics. Just think, without relativism we could never have destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima."

My profession is engineering, and I specialize in making assumptions that things that are guaranteed to work, may not. Some people may think rebooting is just a nuisance, but if my equipment worked wrong because a part failed even though it was guaranted, a nuclear bomb might be “accidentally” dropped out of a B-52. That is absolutely what I wanted to avoid. Since you cannot “absolutely” depend on anything in this temporal world, as Christ teaches us and some have learned through experience, you have to weigh the risks and decide if you can live with them or go to trouble of improving the risks.

For example, where something you buy from a store has a relay in it, and if the relay fails, the thing quits working. We lose the benefit of it and may be able to take it back for refund or exchange. When the relay we’re talking about connects power to the explosives that break the bolts that hold an atomic bomb in place on its pylon, then if that relay fails we either don’t blow up Nagasaki or we blow up Chicago.

Here’s what I did. First the relays have to be carefully selected for the usage and for the environmental beating they will take over a lifetime of vibration out on a wing of an airplane. While the relays had excellent reliability predictions, they weren’t high enough to meet the system spec for reliability. I used four relays, connected in pairs, where each pair are in series and the two pairs are in parallel. This means that if any relay fails and turn on when it shouldn’t, it will only accidentally drop the bomb if its mate also fails in the same way, the odds of which were astronomical and Close Enough For Government work. If any relay fails and refuses to turn on when it should, then the other pair will go ahead and fire the explosives.

In other words, the system is actually more reliable than the weakest of its parts.

Of course, the equipment has test connections so that my test set can connect up to it and verify proper operation of all four relays individually before the box is put in the airplane.

You want to know that all your parts work perfectly, but that if any one part fails as it inevitably will in time, the system continues to function so the mission can be carried out.

How do you think I’d feel if I read that a bomber missed its target in Baghdad and hit a hospital because of a sticky relay that was in equipment I designed? Sure I can say, “but the relay maker said it was guaranteed to work for 50 years” but that doesn’t help fix the hospital.
(continued)