Fatima ? I'm beginning to doubt

[Bookcat]

The fashion comment was not part of the Fatima message.

As I recall such was asserted to be part of later aspects.

 

[ialsop]

Ancient history is full of brutality so when you compare it to today’s standards we are much more aware and defend human rights. You have to consider things like:

Slavery
Child labor
Women’s rights

These things are upheld IN AMERICA. And most of Europe. And some other countries. For the most part.

But look at Africa and the Middle East and many Asian areas.

This past century has had more shootings, more terrorist attacks, and more genocides than any other in history.

 

[ialsop]

As a matter of fact, “this doesn’t suit me” is a perfectly fine reason for rejecting any private revelation. One can reject Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, whatever without sin. Private revelation binds no one, and while one can make the argument of prudence, what is not binding is not binding. It may not be wise to reject this or that private revelation especially if the message is good, but even to reject it would not be sinful. Difference in opinion is always permissible with private revelation, and if one rejects an apparition such as Fatima solely because one does not like it, he is most free to do so.

This DOES become a problem where divinely revealed public revelation is involved, then the relativism card gets played.

You didn’t quote my whole message. I admit that it is not SINFUL to reject private revelations. Of course, you are free to. Go ahead. If it doesnt suit you, you are free to reject it.

But why would you, on a base of “it doesnt suit me”? That seems to be totally illogical. If something happened, or didnt happen, it happened or didnt whether you believe that or not. So it’d be ludicrous to reject a private revelation if you don’t have some real reason other than “I dont like it”. Why don’t you like it? Do you have some scientific or historical reason, or do you just not want to follow it’s recommendations on modesty?

 

[ialsop]

As a matter of fact, “this doesn’t suit me” is a perfectly fine reason for rejecting any private revelation. One can reject Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, whatever without sin. Private revelation binds no one, and while one can make the argument of prudence, what is not binding is not binding. It may not be wise to reject this or that private revelation especially if the message is good, but even to reject it would not be sinful. Difference in opinion is always permissible with private revelation, and if one rejects an apparition such as Fatima solely because one does not like it, he is most free to do so.

This DOES become a problem where divinely revealed public revelation is involved, then the relativism card gets played.

ALSO, devotions are personal and subjective.

But TRUTH is never subjective. You are FREE to reject Fatima. Just as it would NOT be a sin to say the sky is pink. You are free to say that, no sin.

But if it is not grounded in reality or logic, why say it?

 

[LethalMouse]

The problem is that you find no beauty in modestly, only in a person(man or woman) flaunting themselves to the whole public.

Eh, “modesty” isnt beautiful… virtue is. What one wears only affects virtue when the virtue isn’t real.

Jesus walked with sinners without sinning = respect

Humans who hide from sinners to avoid sinning = eh you are behind a wall and unimpressive

 

[roseofshannon]

That it offends God greatly for women to expose their bodies immodestly, etc. is quite puzzling to me. If you believe your Bible, God created women and men completely naked. Some of you probably still feel uneasy about that. Your ancestors probably painted the Sistine Chapel figures to cover their nakedness. He made this nakedness very attractive to both parties. He wanted them to reproduce. Since they were novices, He might even have shown them ways to encourage each other to complete the sex act. That thought is probably pornographic to some of you. Their interaction most likely involved every act you might observe on the porn channel. Why would it offend God if, after Eve started wearing clothes, she decided to show a little cleavage to attract Adam?? Our sexual morals contain some very silly notions.

Again I’ll say, God complaining about women’s fashions at a time when millions of Germans and Russians were laying rotting in the fields of Europe seems banal and ludicrous. Someone mentioned in Fatima’s time women were covered from head to toe in clothing like that was a good thing. Women’s bodies were designed to cause arousal in men and also the other way around. Why not accept it and note that sexual needs must be controlled like all the other human appetites.

I understand where you are coming from. It is pretty hard to wrap your head around, but let me give this a go.

God looks at things from an eternal perspective.
We are all going to die one way or another.
Death is not the worse thing that can happen to you.
Hell is.
Therefore sin is.

War is evil.
Fatima warned of wars.
Although war is evil good can actually come out it.
War can actually cause many people to repent from their sins before they die.
It can cause many acts of valor.
There is no greater love than laying down one’s life for their friends.
Many sacrifices for the good of the country are made by civilians.
Many corporeal works of mercy are performed by doctors, nurses etc.
Many improve their prayer life and are humbled enough to come to an understanding of their utter dependence on God.

Lust is not love.
BUT neither is overt PRUDISHNESS!
Virtue is a means between two extremes.
God made the body beautiful.
It is the pinnacle of his creation.
The naked bodies of the Cistine Chapel reveal this truth.
However, they are not taking part in any sex acts.
The psychology of the characters are not portrayed in a way so as to incite lust in the viewer. (think: Come on baby, you know you want it!)

The body is a gift for one’s husband or wife.
If a man looks at a woman with lust he has committed adultery with her.
Men do need to keep custody of their eyes to avoid committing this sin.
Women need to be careful to not intentionally cause men to lust.
Both parties are responsible.
Sexy clothes are a lovely gift to one’s husband when worn in private.
Sexy clothes in public are an invitation to adulterous thoughts.
Even if a woman wears sexy clothes, a man is still responsible for his thoughts and actions.
Women can still look extremely pretty and attractive without looking hot or sexy.

Married sex is holy.
It is a symbol of the Blessed Sacrament.
Both parties are handing themselves over to the other completely.
The church does not condemn any particular mutually consenting sexual foreplay (in private) as long as consummation and openness to life are included.
Pope JPII encouraged mutual orgasm and employment of sex therapy if needed.
Married sex is foretaste of heaven where we and God will become as one.
The Church doesn’t think married sex is dirty.
It does believe it should be private.

CCC 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other.

Families are where souls are formed.
Societies are built by families.
Lust and all that comes from it destroys families.
Therefore it’s a big sin and causes many, many sins to follow.
Many souls perish.

 

[roseofshannon]

Oh, one more thing to consider:

It would be better for 1,000 men to die on a battlefield in a state of grace than for one soul to be lost to the eternal fires of hell.

 

[truetofaith]

That it offends God greatly for women to expose their bodies immodestly, etc. is quite puzzling to me. If you believe your Bible, God created women and men completely naked. Some of you probably still feel uneasy about that. Your ancestors probably painted the Sistine Chapel figures to cover their nakedness. He made this nakedness very attractive to both parties. He wanted them to reproduce. Since they were novices, He might even have shown them ways to encourage each other to complete the sex act. That thought is probably pornographic to some of you. Their interaction most likely involved every act you might observe on the porn channel. Why would it offend God if, after Eve started wearing clothes, she decided to show a little cleavage to attract Adam?? Our sexual morals contain some very silly notions.

Again I’ll say, God complaining about women’s fashions at a time when millions of Germans and Russians were laying rotting in the fields of Europe seems banal and ludicrous. Someone mentioned in Fatima’s time women were covered from head to toe in clothing like that was a good thing. Women’s bodies were designed to cause arousal in men and also the other way around. Why not accept it and note that sexual needs must be controlled like all the other human appetites.

You say God created men & women completely naked…but you fail to state that was before they sinned!
After the fall…God made coverings for their bodies out of animal skins.
They weren’t the same creatures as before the fall.

 

[multitude]

Eh, “modesty” isnt beautiful… virtue is. What one wears only affects virtue when the virtue isn’t real.

Jesus walked with sinners without sinning = respect

Humans who hide from sinners to avoid sinning = eh you are behind a wall and unimpressive

Nope, don’t buy it. This is actually rather demeaning considering that avoidance of near occasions of sin is precisely what we are meant to do, if you are actually sincere in praying the Act of Contrition after every confession. It’s actually more impressive and respectable breaking a bad habit through avoidance of sins, than pretending that one is so Christlike that one would be unable to be influenced by other sinners.

The parable of the wedding banquet ought to illustrate this. The king had asked the invited man why he had no wedding clothing, and casted the man out.

 

[ialsop]

Eh, “modesty” isnt beautiful… virtue is. What one wears only affects virtue when the virtue isn’t real.

Jesus walked with sinners without sinning = respect

Humans who hide from sinners to avoid sinning = eh you are behind a wall and unimpressive

Interesting points…I kind of like the way you said that…

But here is what I would say in response.

There is a difference between occasion to sin and sin. And I TOTALLY agree, those with strong virtue will not need to hide. But some of us more humanly Catholics are not yet perfect, and still fall to sin. Now, is that anybody’s fault? Only our own. But those that fall still need to avoid even occasions of sin…this takes humility…child like humility. But Our Lord asked that of us because he knows how weak and in need we are.

 

[multitude]

Interesting points…I kind of like the way you said that…

But here is what I would say in response.

There is a difference between occasion to sin and sin. And I TOTALLY agree, those with strong virtue will not need to hide. But some of us more humanly Catholics are not yet perfect, and still fall to sin. Now, is that anybody’s fault? Only our own. But those that fall still need to avoid even occasions of sin…this takes humility…child like humility. But Our Lord asked that of us because he knows how weak and in need we are.

Tell me, have you ever met anyone who was so completely virtuous as to not need to “hide”? It is extremely arrogant to believe that one is so virtuous, so just, that one will not be influenced by other sinners, almost like one is trying to say he is Jesus Christ Himself. I don’t really respect that. So yes, modesty is actually a very beautiful thing. And it shouldn’t be demeaned.

I urge people to read the parable of the marriage feast, in Matthew 22: 1-14. Christ wasn’t asking for virtue here.

 

[LethalMouse]

Tell me, have you ever met anyone who was so completely virtuous as to not need to “hide”? It is extremely arrogant to believe that one is so virtuous, so just, that one will not be influenced by other sinners, almost like one is trying to say he is Jesus Christ Himself. I don’t really respect that. So yes, modesty is actually a very beautiful thing. And it shouldn’t be demeaned.

I urge people to read the parable of the marriage feast, in Matthew 22: 1-14. Christ wasn’t asking for virtue here.

I think their failure comes when they are alone… making virtue a chain of despair as there are two real options:

1. Good boring people
2. Horrible but fun people
3. So few fun and good people that you can’t find them

So they often succumb after a decade to the only available option of fun and horrible.

The world should be full of awesome fun people who can dress attractive and not fornicate

Gamble for fun, but not away the mortgage

Drink a drink but not drink away a liver…

And so on and so forth. When you are faced with do it all or none you feel lonely and dabble in the bad unless you can actually find a strong enough pull to ignore doubt of God, then you can lean on God.

 

[ialsop]

Tell me, have you ever met anyone who was so completely virtuous as to not need to “hide”? It is extremely arrogant to believe that one is so virtuous, so just, that one will not be influenced by other sinners, almost like one is trying to say he is Jesus Christ Himself. I don’t really respect that. So yes, modesty is actually a very beautiful thing. And it shouldn’t be demeaned.

I urge people to read the parable of the marriage feast, in Matthew 22: 1-14. Christ wasn’t asking for virtue here.

Yes…I absolutely agree with everything you said.

You quoted me…and I thought I was saying exactly what you just did. Were you trying to correct me on something specifically?

 

[multitude]

The world should be full of awesome fun people who can dress attractive and not fornicate

Yeah it should be, but it isn’t

 

[multitude]

Yes…I absolutely agree with everything you said.

You quoted me…and I thought I was saying exactly what you just did. Were you trying to correct me on something specifically?

No no, don’t worry about it. I was arguing more along the lines that modesty shouldn’t be demeaned in place of virtue, I was being a little contentious.

 

[commenter]

As a matter of fact, “this doesn’t suit me” is a perfectly fine reason for rejecting any private revelation. One can reject Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, whatever without sin. Private revelation binds no one, and while one can make the argument of prudence, what is not binding is not binding. It may not be wise to reject this or that private revelation especially if the message is good, but even to reject it would not be sinful. Difference in opinion is always permissible with private revelation, and if one rejects an apparition such as Fatima solely because one does not like it, he is most free to do so.

This DOES become a problem where divinely revealed public revelation is involved, then the relativism card gets played.

I think you have it right, regarding private revelation. The only thing I would add is the need to be sensitive to those who benefit from them. They may be getting insights that others might not be getting. If our fellow Catholics are going off into *unapproved *revelations or unauthorized “add-ons” to approved revelations such as Fatima, we need to clarify what is appropriate, gently try to lead them to public revelation.

 

[laocmo]

Someone said: “Mary was right to warn us that Fashions that are offensive to GOD would come around, The bikini, short shorts…the thong…wearing shorts in a way that it shows your underwear…And yes, God did create our first parents naked. Then when they SINNED and their EYES were opened…they were ashamed of their nakedness and made clothes.”

Study God’s Church accepted attributes. One of them says God cannot be affected by anything or anybody This means he is not offended, and cannot be offended by all those things mentioned above.

So God created our first parents naked. He therefore must have approved of nakedness. Then when Adam and Eve sinned they were ashamed of their nakedness?? What in God’s name has their sin got to do with their new compulsion to cover their bodies. Who told them their nakedness was wrong?? Why would something God approved of suddenly become not approved. Was God wrong when approving nakedness in the first place.

You are putting way too much reality into what is most probably a fairy tale written by some bronze age story teller. They probably decided to wear clothes to keep the scorching Middle Eastern sun from cooking their bodies.

 

[truetofaith]

Someone said: “Mary was right to warn us that Fashions that are offensive to GOD would come around, The bikini, short shorts…the thong…wearing shorts in a way that it shows your underwear…And yes, God did create our first parents naked. Then when they SINNED and their EYES were opened…they were ashamed of their nakedness and made clothes.”

Study God’s Church accepted attributes. One of them says God cannot be affected by anything or anybody This means he is not offended, and cannot be offended by all those things mentioned above.

So God created our first parents naked. He therefore must have approved of nakedness. Then when Adam and Eve sinned they were ashamed of their nakedness?? What in God’s name has their sin got to do with their new compulsion to cover their bodies. Who told them their nakedness was wrong?? Why would something God approved of suddenly become not approved. Was God wrong when approving nakedness in the first place.

You are putting way too much reality into what is most probably a fairy tale written by some bronze age story teller. They probably decided to wear clothes to keep the scorching Middle Eastern sun from cooking their bodies.

You put your religion as Catholic but you call God’s Word ,( the Bible ), a fairy tale.

 

[KidCatholic1]

Ancient history is full of brutality so when you compare it to today’s standards we are much more aware and defend human rights. You have to consider things like:

Slavery
Child labor
Women’s rights

To add to your post, human rights as we know it began only around the rule of Cyrus the Great, which became “Natural Law” with the Romans. Eventually, the concept of natural law evolved to be the fundamental human rights we know of today. The United Nations has “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” which lays out 30 rights that all of humankind is entitled to. The fact that the UN even exists should be evidence alone that ours is a more peaceful era than any other time in history.

But in the end, we can only attain true peace in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[ialsop]

No no, don’t worry about it. I was arguing more along the lines that modesty shouldn’t be demeaned in place of virtue, I was being a little contentious.

Haha you’re fine. I totally agree with you on that.

Obviously modesty is pointless without virtue, but those who say that we should dress immodestly and live with “virtue” are seriously deceived.