Guard Our Priesthood. Get better Priests

[DasErlibnis]

There is no concession. You’re not rational. You’re a conjuror. You conjure imaginary statistics, you conjure false conclusions, you conjurer words to put in my mouth, and you conjure false assumptions, deliberately, about other people, not once speaking a single true word. You are behind me Satan.

 

[Baelor]

Really? For the sake of everyone, so that my evil may be laid bare, please point out specific instances, quoting, and explain.

 

[Lamentation]

“Bleibt ist bleibt, nein kumpf fur das.”

In what world does this make sense?

For starters, there is no word “kumpf” in Deutsch, unless you’re using Mitteldeutsch or something…

 

[DasErlibnis]

“Bleibt ist bleibt, nein kumpf fur das.”

-Deutsch Heute, 6th Edition

 

[DasErlibnis]

I am never out of my league Baelor. Regardless of how French or German you can copy and paste from Google Translator. And yes, it was obvious that your German was not so good.

And when I say “logic and statistics are not the same” and you follow with “…I equate them”,

It’s not a very meaningful conversation.

And besides that, you’ve drug this conversation into nothing more than personal attacks.
Inferring that I’m “out of my league”, “stupid”, unable to comprehend" (that one was in French), and having “something to deal with” (which means what exactly?)

It’s not for concession, but for lack of maturity on your behalf that I don’t want to have a conversation with you.

Yes, you may be right, I may be out of my league, and that would be only because you have turned this into a very sophmoric conversation fit only for teenage children. You argue like a child. And I won’t five credibility to your projections by addressing them. I’ll treat you from now on like the aingst-ridden youth that you are. And I’ll ignore you.

I don’t answer to you, and that does not give you a victory in argument. It would not follow that because someone does not answer it is thus only and exclusively because they cannot argue. That is fallacy.

 

[Baelor]

I am never out of my league Baelor. Regardless of how French or German you can copy and paste from Google Translator. And yes, it was obvious that your German was not so good.

Yes, in keeping with what I said. Anyway, I speak French fluently, so no need for Google.

And when I say “logic and statistics are not the same” and you follow with “…I equate them”,

It’s not a very meaningful conversation.

They are not the same. I never said that. I never said that I equated them. I asked you to quote me where I equate them, which you are clearly unable to do because I never did. Note that you still have not quoted me where I equated them.

Is English your first language? You seem to have problems understanding my posts at a very basic level, vis-a-vis reading comprehension.

Furthermore, this entire line of reasoning, started by you, of course, is irrelevant.

And besides that, you’ve drug this conversation into nothing more than personal attacks.
Inferring that I’m “out of my league”, “stupid”, unable to comprehend" (that one was in French), and having “something to deal with” (which means what exactly?)

Actually, I never said in French that you were unable to understand. My statement was as follows:

“Je crois plutot qu’on devrait parler en francais, ou, encore mieux, en anglais – que les autres puissent comprendre.”

In English,

“I think that we ought rather to speak in French, or, even better, in English – that the others may understand.”

This was obviously a response to your German statement, for which you have still have not provided a translation. It is also clear that you do not speak French, so I would recommend just stating that instead of guessing what I was saying. My best guess is that it means, “stupid people remain as such and there is no remedy for them.” I suggest that you take those words to heart.

It’s not for concession, but for lack of maturity on your behalf that I don’t want to have a conversation with you.

You can do whatever you want and think whatever you want. No one is stopping you. But whatever attitude you may assign to me does not change the validity of the content of my posts, posts to which you have still have not offered any response whatsoever.

Yes, you may be right, I may be out of my league, and that would be only because you have turned this into a very sophmoric conversation fit only for teenage children.

Teenagers are by definition not children. And if it were sophomoric (with an “o”), then it is also by definition fit for children, so I will chalk up the redundancy to an emphatic repetition.

You argue like a child. And I won’t five credibility to your projections by addressing them. I’ll treat you from now on like the aingst-ridden youth that you are. And I’ll ignore you.

It is spelled, “angst.” And do whatever you like – my posts were reasonable, well-supported, and still unproven. I welcome a logical, methodical challenge to them, that we may reach middle ground.

I don’t answer to you, and that does not give you a victory in argument. It would not follow that because someone does not answer it is thus only and exclusively because they cannot argue. That is fallacy.

Then prove me wrong. The validity of my posts is independent of whether they are addressed, but neither you nor anyone else has actually presented a concrete problem with them. Your rantings are no substitute for an actual response. You have not been able to identify even a single specific flaw in them. I would welcome this, as I mentioned earlier.

tl;dr: Do what you want. Just be aware that my posts have not been disproven, discredited, or challenged, even though I have no doubt that there are likely to be grounds for doing so. Instead of calling me immature, childish, an idiot, irrational, a bully, etc., why not just prove me wrong? It would make everything so much easier, and it would accomplish all of those other things anyway.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I think I’d recommend Deacon Bob MacDonald for you, “Anger and Forgiveness”. It’s available by Lighthouse Media. You have serious issues, I’d strongly recommend that you not enter seminary until they are resolved.

 

[DasErlibnis]

…and I think it Socrates who said, “there is something lowbred about being too precise.”

 

[bobballen_18]

This conversation makes me laugh.

I’m just going to throw this out there: Baelor is making perfect sense to me!

 

[Baelor]

…and I think it Socrates who said, “there is something lowbred about being too precise.”

Whatever.

“Wish I had time for just one more bowl of chili”
-Kit Carson

That is just as relevant as yours. And more fun.

 

[Ocarm]

I’m just going to throw this out there: Baelor is making perfect sense to me!

I agree.

DasErlibnis: you have not constructed anything resembling a cogent and logically consistent argument. That is without prejudice to whether, in fact, you are right and Baelor is wrong; we don’t know, because you haven’t presented an argument.

Baelor has constructed a cogent and logically consistent argument. That is without prejudice to whether, in fact, he is right and you are wrong; we don’t know, because you haven’t presented an argument.

What we do know is that Baelor is following the rules of debate, and you aren’t. Refuse to do that very basic thing, and even objective truths can become hopelessly obscured.

Think about it.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I’ve already said that I don’t think it a worthy conversation to discuss the randomly generated possibility that some saint at some point in time entered heaven having never overcome SSA. And I don’t consider anything based on that “premise”, which is unprovable, a conversation adequately able to be discussed. I don’t want to argue from the framework of his imagination.

Now, WHY is attempting to use “statistics” not worthy?

Firstly, there have been many many saints who entertained lust, and this is well documented. There are Augustine and Francis to name a few. However, equally as well documented is the FACT, and not my opinion, that they perfectly overcame their lust. And this IS the model.

Now he asks “is it even possible to overcome…?”

Yes it is, and that is precisely what is expected of us. Moreover, it is well documented that we CAN overcome our temptations. But more important than the historical fact that it can happen is the fact-of-faith that “with Jesus Christ all things are possible” PROVIDED that we are a) in communion and b) righteous (not self-righteous either, so don’t anybody ‘go there’".

But then there is this anxious kid eagerly willing to out possibilities that someone could get into heaven carrying SSA, but not willing to accept (see quote above) that it is possible to overcome, and I would presume that he does not think that it SHOULD be overcome. And I would appreciate a direct answer to that.

But another thing is this, it is not the function of statistics to look at “possibility”, rather it is the function of statistic to examine “probability” and just using a multiplication table does.not create a valid statistical model for discovering that probability. What is standard deviation in this case? How shall we discover its outliers? Whom shall be included in the sample? No parameters are adequately defined. How has SSA been defined and was it exclusive from Gay?

But my point really isn’t any of this. My point is this:

Faith does not rely on statistical model, and especially not inadequate models with false premises and undefined terms. Neither does hope. Further, psychology has never proven our religion wrong. Never.

Psychology likes to use statistics to rationalized unprovable theories in order to promote agendas. Reference: look at the folks who lied about having found the gay gene. They were gay too. They never did find that gene, and it wasn’t in the medulla oblongata either.

What we DID discover was this: the part of the brain that is most influential regarding our so-called sexuality was no where close to where they thought it was. It was all the way up front in the frontal cortex, just over the eyes. And what they discovered is that it is also the last part of the brain to develop, and further, that its development was also as easily influenced by what we SEE. Now make this part clear. How much we have seen and how .much has influenced its development, while it is not infinite, its pretty far out there, so you’re not gonna nail this down to a single repeatable experiment to determine why SSA develops. You’re just not even with Baelor’s so-called statistics.

But Baelor’s Determinism is in itself a contradiction to faith. For, Determinism has always been rejected by the Church, both historically and at present. What is the point of Faith if it cannot overcome sin or temptation? For that reason alone is sufficient to discount the possibility, oh, excuse me, the PROBABILITY that one has gone to heaven having never.overcome SSA.

Now, it was asked earlier, by myself, if we were discussing whether someone does on fact rest in Heaven having had SSA or if what we meant was that they did overcome SSA. I did not receive an answer to that, instead what we got was another non-answer from Baelor. And that was when, in his doubt, he asked if SSA could even be overcome.

But here’s the deal. Gay is defined by the Church as “intrinsically disordered”, a disorder is a psychological phenomenon. However, SSA is not described in the same way. For that reason, my understanding is that SSA is most aptly categorized as the “entertainment of a temptation toward homosexually oriented sodomy.” I know that few will approve of the use of the term “sodomy” , but that is what we are talking about. Now, if Baelor and Bycath want to have a logical conversation regarding the terms, I’m all in. But again, logic deals only, and exclusively with the statements. People like to confuse it with math, but it is not math. It is not merely x + y = z. It’s a whole lot more than that. And seeing how many fallacies he has committed, it does not seem “probable” that he has.studied logic yet. In fact, it doesn’t look like he’s even studied statistics, at least not at the collegiate level, but I hear they teach it in high school these days. I don’t mean this as an insult. It is just that what I observe I’m his often accusatory writings is not consistent with what statistics actually does. It’s a little more than simple multiplication.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Continued…

As for all the accusations, its boring.

“Out of your league”, “maybe you have SSA (but that’s why I would attack it)”, these are decidedly typical of what people say when they can’t have a straight argument. When there is nowhere to turn, be insulting.

As for my own, well, I’m not a pro-active person, I’m deliberately reactive. If you wont listen to reason, and you also won’t go away, and you continue to insult and accuse and infer and insinuate and make “suggestions” regarding who he thinks I am, them I’ll recourse to stupid things which he will understand better, even if it is in another language…

But I don’t want to. And I don’t want to entertain devils’ ideas about the mathematical suggestion that a gay is in heaven. Again, its “asssssinine”.

Now, by now, I know the dude is just in his chair, he’s chomping at the bit. But I’m bored. I totally disagree that he actually has made a valid point. I’ve provided the reasons for this above. If there is anything new to discuss, then let’s go forward, but if hr just wants to rehash stupid treatises that have no solid foundation, well, whatever. Rant, rave, and get as excited as you want. It doesn’t bother me one bit.

And p.s. as for my punctuation and spelling, I do this from a little tiny cellphone, not a computer, so there are often misspellings because of auto-correct and whatnot, sometimes it forms words I didn’t intend, but its too small to proofread, or to read long)winded comments that try to break down every single word, so I simply don’t care if it is not 100%. Hey! There’s a statistic! Oh, nope. It’s just a percentage. Not the same thing. Point made. But I’m not keeping score.

But please, for the sake of my thumbs, that I don’t have to call upon all the holy men and women, I don’t want to do anymore LOOONNNNGGG messages. Let’s deliberate one point at a time, and not breakdown every word fragment, cuz I’m.not gonna read them all.anymore.

Thanks, and good debating.

Das Erlebnis - The Raw, Brute, Lived, Concrete Experience

 

[DasErlibnis]

Hey. Here’s a good starting point for anyone who is interested:

Premise: Augustin wrote, in his confessions, regarding his own lusts, passions, and sexuality:

“The consequence of a distorted will is passion. By servitude to passion, habit is formed, and habit to which there is no resistance becomes a compulsion.”

Based on this, where should we say lies each:

Temptation,
SSA,
and
Intrinsic Disorder?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve already said that I don’t think it a worthy conversation to discuss the randomly generated possibility that some saint at some point in time entered heaven having never overcome SSA.

You have yet to show that SSA is a mortal sin.

That is what you seem to be claiming here, that no one can enter into heaven without overcoming SSA.

The Church does not teach that SSA is a sin. No temptation is a sin.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And even if suffering from SSA was a bar against entry into heaven that in no way means that a saint could not have suffered from SSA and over come it before their death.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Finally we agree! I’ve maintained all along that it can be overcome! But I add that it must needs be overcome. As to the question regarding its sinfulness, well, that’s why I posed the last question in the framework of St Augustine’s confession.

What do you say?

Let us see what the Saints say first,

“Just as it is the work of charity to make us us keep all the Commandments of God in general and without any exception, so it is the work of devotion to make us do so promptly and earnestly. Therefore, whoever does not keep ALL of God’s Commandments cannot be considered good.” -Saint Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life (just read that part yesterday actually! )

And Jesus says,

“a man who keepeth anger in his heart is guilty of murder”,

and again,

“a man who looketh after a woman with lust in his heart hath already committed adultery”.

Seems to me that entertaining a sin, even if not acting on it directly, is still a sin. Archbishop Fulton Sheen, referencing the sacrifice of a Lamb, said, “sin is in the blood!” So, by way of an analogy, blood is generated by the heart.

Using this, I would say SSA, if it is more than the mere inflicting of a temptation, would be therefore similarly sinful.

Why not then?

But I’ll defer. I’ll wait to hear what you have to say.

 

[TrueLight]

Finally we agree! I’ve maintained all along that it can be overcome! But I add that it must needs be overcome. As to the question regarding its sinfulness, well, that’s why I posed the last question in the framework of St Augustine’s confession.

What do you say?

Let us see what the Saints say first,

“Just as it is the work of charity to make us us keep all the Commandments of God in general and without any exception, so it is the work of devotion to make us do so promptly and earnestly. Therefore, whoever does not keep ALL of God’s Commandments cannot be considered good.” -Saint Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life (just read that part yesterday actually! )

And Jesus says,

“a man who keepeth anger in his heart is guilty of murder”,

and again,

“a man who looketh after a woman with lust in his heart hath already committed adultery”.

Seems to me that entertaining a sin, even if not acting on it directly, is still a sin. Archbishop Fulton Sheen, referencing the sacrifice of a Lamb, said, “sin is in the blood!” So, by way of an analogy, blood is generated by the heart.

Using this, I would say SSA, if it is more than the mere inflicting of a temptation, would be therefore similarly sinful.

Why not then?

But I’ll defer. I’ll wait to hear what you have to say.

Well, I’m glad we shifted awar from the personal attacks. They were becoming quite tiresome.

This is an nteresting topic for me. I see it as one of those issues where the Church relaxed its stance somewhat. I understand it is due to increased understanding of homsexuality.

So I think we have to make a distinction between entertaining a thought and having thoughts.

If a sexual thought enters my mind about someone I’m seeing, I have two choices:

• I can dismiss it from my mind or think about something else or say a prayer or begin an activity that will remove it from my mind. OR
• I can relish it, explore it and take the thought to a more lustful conclusion. That would be sinning while the former would not be sinning.

So this also would apply to thoughts of the same sex.

My issue with the SSA definition has been the following:

The Church says that it is disordered,on the one hand but then says that we are all called to chastity anyway. Okay true we are. I too have my temptations. However there is a difference between me and someone who has SSA. I can choose to become married, in which case, I would be able to have heterosexual sex.

Someone with SSA cannot ever get married and their SSA is a “cross”.

So there is a big difference. It’s more than just being called to be chaste in one’s state of life.

 

[Baelor]

I’ve already said that I don’t think it a worthy conversation to discuss the randomly generated possibility that some saint at some point in time entered heaven having never overcome SSA.

Say whatever you want. It may not be a worthy conversation to you, but that does not change the fact that it is reasonable.

And I never claimed that a saint “entered heaven having never overcome SSA.” Can you quote me on that?

Also, define “to overcome SSA.” I present two definitions that I will use by number henceforth in my post:

I also assume that you are using the definition of SSA provided on the first page:

(SSA) Same-sex Attraction is the very same as a same-sex (homosexul) tendency.

Which means that having SSA is in no way sinful, by the way.

1. Not succumbing to the SSA, i.e. not engaging impure thoughts or acts with others of the same sex
2. Becoming non-SSA

Firstly, there have been many many saints who entertained lust, and this is well documented. There are Augustine and Francis to name a few. However, equally as well documented is the FACT, and not my opinion, that they perfectly overcame their lust. And this IS the model.

So? Every human has a sexual orientation, whether it be straight or other. My model said nothing about the actions of the saints, nor did it touch on whether they were moral or not. It asked one thing, and one thing only: what is the probability that no saint was non-straight? The answer is that this chance is essentially zero given the probability I used for any given saint, 99.9%.

Again, I made no comment on their morality, because the Church does not condemn SSA, only entertaining SSA impure thoughts (as She does with straight impure thoughts) and SSA impure acts.

Yes it is, and that is precisely what is expected of us. Moreover, it is well documented that we CAN overcome our temptations.

Define “overcome our temptations” in the context of SSA; cf. first part of my post.

But then there is this anxious kid eagerly willing to out possibilities that someone could get into heaven carrying SSA, but not willing to accept (see quote above) that it is possible to overcome, and I would presume that he does not think that it SHOULD be overcome. And I would appreciate a direct answer to that.

I cannot discuss this with you when you have not made it clear what you actually stating. I will do my best. First, point to where the Church teaches that having SSA is a sin, which you imply by stating that getting to heaven with SSA is somehow a challenge. Second, point to where the Church teaches that someone with SSA needs to become non-SSA.

Assuming that you followed my first definition and not my second (provided at the beginning of my post), I agree that entertaining impure thoughts – whether SSA or not – is bad, and engaging in impure sexual acts – whether SSA or not – is bad. Each individual has the moral obligation to be sexual pure, something that can be fulfilled regardless of sexual orientation.

But another thing is this, it is not the function of statistics to look at “possibility”, rather it is the function of statistic to examine “probability” and just using a multiplication table does.not create a valid statistical model for discovering that probability. What is standard deviation in this case?

The standard deviation is useless, since we are using a binomial model. You are more than welcome to calculate the standard deviation, but you will have to pick a particular outcome. Do you know what the standard deviation does? It measures the spread of the results from the expected results. You use it with samples that include the results. We have no such sample.

How shall we discover its outliers?

It is a binomial model. All outcomes fit into one of two boxes. How would you propose defining the outliers? This is a definition of an outlier:

An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs.

Given that the saints are either straight or non-straight according to my model, there is no possibility of a meaningful outlier. Could you suggest one?

Whom shall be included in the sample?

All saints were included. You are more than welcome to take out any saints we know absolutely to be straight, and then recalculate the probability. Work us through it!

No parameters are adequately defined. How has SSA been defined and was it exclusive from Gay?

The parameters were perfectly well-defined. I used your definition of SSA above:

(SSA) Same-sex Attraction is the very same as a same-sex (homosexul) tendency.

In other words, people who are attracted to people of the same sex. A same-sex attraction, if you will. Since I did not mention gay, the SSA/gay distinction is irrelevant to my model.

 

[Baelor]

Faith does not rely on statistical model, and especially not inadequate models with false premises and undefined terms.

I am glad that my model is none of those things. I am also glad that I never argued that faith should be abandoned in favor of statistics. I am especially glad that faith does not compel us to believe that the saints were or were not SSA. If you believe differently, could you point out where it does?

Neither does hope. Further, psychology has never proven our religion wrong. Never.

My model was not arguing something that would be in conflict with the faith.

Psychology likes to use statistics to rationalized unprovable theories in order to promote agendas.

That does not make the field irrelevant or wrong, any more than an international sex abuse scandal makes the Church irrelevant or wrong.

Reference: look at the folks who lied about having found the gay gene. They were gay too. They never did find that gene, and it wasn’t in the medulla oblongata either.

So? Some people were wrong. Get over it.

What we DID discover was this: the part of the brain that is most influential regarding our so-called sexuality was no where close to where they thought it was.

Source? It must include definitive proof that this part of the brain controls our sexual orientation.

But Baelor’s Determinism is in itself a contradiction to faith.

Where did I argue for Determinism? Please include specific quotations.

What is the point of Faith if it cannot overcome sin or temptation?

Where did I argue that Faith cannot overcome sin or temptation? Please include specific quotations.

For that reason alone is sufficient to discount the possibility, oh, excuse me, the PROBABILITY that one has gone to heaven having never.overcome SSA.

Define “overcome SSA.”

Now, it was asked earlier, by myself, if we were discussing whether someone does on fact rest in Heaven having had SSA or if what we meant was that they did overcome SSA.

I must have missed this question. I will answer it now. Point out the Church teaching that states that people without SSA cannot enter heaven. Alternatively, point out the Church teaching that states that SSA can be eliminated in a living human being. One more option: point out the Church teaching that states SSA is sinful.

Assume the definition of SSA you provided on the front page.

But here’s the deal. Gay is defined by the Church as “intrinsically disordered”, a disorder is a psychological phenomenon. However, SSA is not described in the same way. For that reason, my understanding is that SSA is most aptly categorized as the “entertainment of a temptation toward homosexually oriented sodomy.”

That is not objectively false. The Catechism has this to say:

CCC:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. **Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I bolded the parts most relevant to this discussion/you.