I think my uncle is a Heretic

[Clonereject1138]

Alright, I was talking to my uncle today, and he came across as rather heretical to me, mentioning all manner of evils and doubts, some of which were:

Not believing in answering to and serving the Roman Catholic Church first and foremost.

Doubting the infallability of the Papacy.

Doubting the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures (even going so far as to claim that the words of Our Lord were in fact manufactured years later(which, okay, they were written later, but he’s claiming that they weren’t the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ AT ALL))

Well thats about it. We were dicussing the various merits of the rather extream form of fundamentalist Islam practiced abroad.

He says that just because a girl hugs you doesn’t mean she intends to partake of sinful acts of the flesh with you, and he then notes the wearers of bikinis in the same way.

I maintain that dressing (or acting) like a whore can only lead to sin, and its not fair (nor right) to confuse people.

Now, I don’t belive in killing people for such things. The current Church is against the practice of capital punishment, and so am I. So long as She is. But I still find such things to be altogether trivial, even if they do lead to an offense that is worthy of capital punishment. And I respect them for trying to keep order and decency.

He, however, believes that by restricting these peoples sinful urges, we only cause them to rebel in greater ways. It seems to me that he is calling for a lawless, immoral anarchy.

Which is what I call for as well. No one above you but the Most High, and if someone assails you, God Himself will judge who is just and unjust, and you can defend your self without fear of persecution of those who value the quick buck. Yes, back to agriculture, and the land; and bartering. No more worthless rags, the time has come for thing of REAL worth, such as pounds of salt, goats, and hunks of cheese. Yes, things will be harder. Bands of likeminded hooligans will no doubt run amok causing trouble. But self reliance will cause the peasantry to band together and defend themselves in the only just war, a defensive one.

Woo! Am I off subject. Anyhow, poor uncle, so confused. Pray for him, please.

 

[TraditionalCath]

well, here is my suggestion for you, stay off anti Catholic sites that are heretical. it doesn’t serve any purpose to visit them. i do not visit anti catholic sites. i prefer to spend my time worshiping God, and concentrating my life on pleasing Him and trying to do His will.

as for your uncle, pray for him. show him the truth that is the Catholic faith. and say, Jesus I trust in You!

 

[OldAgeGuru]

He says that just because a girl hugs you doesn’t mean she intends to partake of sinful acts of the flesh with you, and he then notes the wearers of bikinis in the same way.

I maintain that dressing (or acting) like a whore can only lead to sin, and its not fair (nor right) to confuse people.

.
I’ve hugged a lot of people, and I can honestly say that most of them, I haven’t wanted to "partake of sinful acts of the flesh with them. I mean I hug my dad and my brothers, for crying out loud. I also wear bikinis. I have a good body, which I work hard on, and frankly like it better when I have some color and am not all pasty during the summer. I never realized I was such a whore.
Which is what I call for as well. No one above you but the Most High, and if someone assails you, God Himself will judge who is just and unjust, and you can defend your self without fear of persecution of those who value the quick buck. Yes, back to agriculture, and the land; and bartering. No more worthless rags, the time has come for thing of REAL worth, such as pounds of salt, goats, and hunks of cheese. Yes, things will be harder. Bands of likeminded hooligans will no doubt run amok causing trouble. But self reliance will cause the peasantry to band together and defend themselves in the only just war, a defensive one.

For real? You want to go back to having 99% of the population be "peasants? Pounds of salt, goats, hunks of cheese? Good Lord, it’s 2007. I hope it never goes back to the way you want it. I don’t feel like toiling away in the fields and living by candle light, and wearing rags and never bathing.

 

[maria29]

Alright, I was talking to my uncle today, and he came across as rather heretical to me, mentioning all manner of evils and doubts, some of which were:

Not believing in answering to and serving the Roman Catholic Church first and foremost.

Doubting the infallability of the Papacy.

Doubting the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures (even going so far as to claim that the words of Our Lord were in fact manufactured years later(which, okay, they were written later, but he’s claiming that they weren’t the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ AT ALL))

Well thats about it. We were dicussing the various merits of the rather extream form of fundamentalist Islam practiced abroad.

He says that just because a girl hugs you doesn’t mean she intends to partake of sinful acts of the flesh with you, and he then notes the wearers of bikinis in the same way.

I agree with him. There are tons of people I hug who I don’t want to have sex with.

I maintain that dressing (or acting) like a whore can only lead to sin, and its not fair (nor right) to confuse people.

**So are you saying a woman who wears a bikini deserves to be raped because she is dressing like a whore? **

Now, I don’t belive in killing people for such things. The current Church is against the practice of capital punishment, and so am I. So long as She is. But I still find such things to be altogether trivial, even if they do lead to an offense that is worthy of capital punishment. And I respect them for trying to keep order and decency.

He, however, believes that by restricting these peoples sinful urges, we only cause them to rebel in greater ways. It seems to me that he is calling for a lawless, immoral anarchy.

Which is what I call for as well. No one above you but the Most High, and if someone assails you, God Himself will judge who is just and unjust, and you can defend your self without fear of persecution of those who value the quick buck. Yes, back to agriculture, and the land; and bartering. No more worthless rags, the time has come for thing of REAL worth, such as pounds of salt, goats, and hunks of cheese. Yes, things will be harder. Bands of likeminded hooligans will no doubt run amok causing trouble. But self reliance will cause the peasantry to band together and defend themselves in the only just war, a defensive one.

**Are you advocating communism? A redistribution of wealth so that no one is richer than the next? BTW I believe that the USSR tried this experiment and it failed. **

Woo! Am I off subject. Anyhow, poor uncle, so confused. Pray for him, please.

 

[Hastrman]

For real? You want to go back to having 99% of the population be "peasants? Pounds of salt, goats, hunks of cheese? Good Lord, it’s 2007. I hope it never goes back to the way you want it. I don’t feel like toiling away in the fields and living by candle light, and wearing rags and never bathing.

Well, since you both have no more idea what a peasant is than a weasel, you really shouldn’t have an opinion about it.

A peasant, as you obviously don’t know, is a person who works in agriculture on land that he himself owns. If he hires people to work it with him, if he uses machines to work it, he’s still a peasant. If you own your own means of production and work outside of agriculture, you’re still a craftsman even if the craft is web design. Any reform movement that refuses to deal with things as they are, and reform them, is doomed to failure–and I for one will kick it when it’s down.

The problem I had with Clonereject’s post is, he’s an anarchist. You remove the institutions between you and God, and I guarantee you you’ll be meeting God a lot sooner than you expected. And I’ll laugh. Anarchy is only the most painful path between aristocracy and aristocracy.

 

[actorgirl]

the wearers of bikinis in the same way.

I maintain that dressing (or acting) like a whore can only lead to sin, and its not fair (nor right) to confuse people.

.

bikinis are whorish? I never did like how the term whore is thrown around.

And hugs are also a sign of friendship. I kinda feel for a person who cannot enjoy a bg ol hug from a friend.

 

[OldAgeGuru]

Well, since you both have no more idea what a peasant is than a weasel, you really shouldn’t have an opinion about it.

A peasant, as you obviously don’t know, is a person who works in agriculture on land that he himself owns. If he hires people to work it with him, if he uses machines to work it, he’s still a peasant. If you own your own means of production and work outside of agriculture, you’re still a craftsman even if the craft is web design. Any reform movement that refuses to deal with things as they are, and reform them, is doomed to failure–and I for one will kick it when it’s down.

.

He was the one who called people peasants. He said his way would cause the peasants to band together and rise. I just dislike his idea of peasantry. It’s pedantic. I prefer to be an aristocrat. Or an Aristocat, either or really, I wouldn’t mind being a cartoon. He at least could have tried for a better/less insulting word like proletariat.
( I didn’t spell that word right, I never could. Thank God none of my professors never took points off for spelling)

 

[jrabs]

He says that just because a girl hugs you doesn’t mean she intends to partake of sinful acts of the flesh with you, and he then notes the wearers of bikinis in the same way.

I maintain that dressing (or acting) like a whore can only lead to sin, and its not fair (nor right) to confuse people.

Ugh - see…it’s these all or nothing kind of extreme posts that make me crazy.

Hey Clone…I am a bikini wearer.
You would never ever dare call me a whore to my face. It would not be a wise move when I sit next to you in the Adoration chapel.

Why call your uncle names and label him? Instead just pray for him. I am betting he is not calling you names but loves you as him wonderful relative.

 

[Hastrman]

He was the one who called people peasants. He said his way would cause the peasants to band together and rise. I just dislike his idea of peasantry. It’s pedantic. I prefer to be an aristocrat. Or an Aristocat, either or really, I wouldn’t mind being a cartoon. He at least could have tried for a better/less insulting word like proletariat.
( I didn’t spell that word right, I never could. Thank God none of my professors never took points off for spelling)

Okay, you need to understand these words before you react.
Peasant is the nicer of the two words; proletarian is almost an insult!

Saying you’d rather be called “proletarian” rather than “peasant” is completely backward, like someone who’d rather be called “murderer” than “soldier”.

Proletariat means “Slave with no job security.” You don’t own the means of production, so you have to work for those who do, for their profit. All the same, though, you’re legally free, so you can be fired at any time. You have all the indignity of a slave but none of the safety.

Peasants own their own means of production (land in this case), they work when they want, they grow what they want (subject to economic necessity, of course). They don’t work for anyone else, and are not employees. A peasant is a citizen, a free and independent person.

The word ‘peasant’ is not pedantic; in this context it would be old fashioned, except there’s no other word that means that. Except ‘Yeoman’, and that really is pedantic, and even more old fashioned.

 

[Mirdath]

Clonereject, your uncle isn’t a very good Catholic (if he is one at all, you didn’t say), but in matters of morality and scrupulosity he seems to still have most of his marbles. You, I’m afraid, seem to have lost yours completely.

 

[manualman]

Peasants, formally defined, did not often own their own land. More often, they rented or sharecropped for the local land-owning nobility and the system generally took most of the yield of the land with barely more than survival levels left for the family that did all the work.

Not any better than today’s corporations and robber barons, IMO. What am I saying? Quite a bit worse, actually, since such peasants had no real medical care, no AC, no indoor plumbing, no or few legal rights, etc. Nope, not trading.

 

[Clonereject1138]

maria29:
(In response to being called a communist)
NO! NEVER!! I’m advocating everyone having their own wealth, and none of it belonging to anyone above them. If people want to share and stockpile and feed those who don’t work that’s up to them. No dictators keeping all the spoils of the worlds labor to themselves. Everyone works for their OWN food, not the States, so they reap what they sow, and do what they will, according to God’s will.

In response to jrab
1 I assume your female ( t’would be unbelivable frikin gross if you weren’t

and

2 You wouldn’t were a bikini to “adoration chapel” would you?

3 I didn’t call everyone that wears bikinis whores, I’m simply stated that they dressed like em. And that dressing like em is a bad thing.

And to all that bit of peasentry

I simple meant to state how people would be working the land, and by no means wanted to re-establish a serfdom. Notice how I said

NO ONE ABOVE YOU BUT THE LORD!!!

I was trying to show how God would guide man personally, instead of having man lead himself (which leads to predicatable disasters)

“Anarchy is only the most painful path between aristocracy and aristocracy.”

But a alot more fun! Nations need a good revolution every 200 or so years. Keeps things fresh, and makes people re-focus on what important.

And about the term whore

I rather like the way you can’t say it nicely. It always comes out with spite. Harlot is rather tricky (doesn’t roll off the tounge IMHO), prostitute is just to big, and strumpet is just weird. I guess I should just say “persons of ill repute” Sorry if I offended anyone.

AND I didn’t call him a heretic, I just said he might be. He thinks I’m nuts. Which most of you do too. Hmmm…

And its not like I’m advocating some sort of revolt! I just think it would be nice to not have people telling you what you can and cannot do (that is to say, playing God) when we can just leave it up to Him.

Besides. It might buy us time from that one-world-government the Protestants so fear. Or it might just give the Anti-Christ the chance to prove his worth. Doesn’t matter! What will happen will happen according to His will!

 

[OldAgeGuru]

3 I didn’t call everyone that wears bikinis whores, I’m simply stated that they dressed like em. And that dressing like em is a bad thing.

So your saying I’m a bad person because I wear a bikini, and that I dress like a whore.

And about the term whore

I rather like the way you can’t say it nicely. It always comes out with spite. Harlot is rather tricky (doesn’t roll off the tounge IMHO), prostitute is just to big, and strumpet is just weird. I guess I should just say “persons of ill repute” Sorry if I offended anyone.

I hate that word just like actor girl does. It’s just the fastest way to insult a woman. It takes no effort or thought. It’s such a nasty loaded word. Frankly, I resent you implying that I may dress or be a whore.

 

[Clonereject1138]

OldAgeGuru:
Once AGAIN, I’m not saying YOU ARE BAD, or a person of ill repute, I’M just saying that wearing them is BAD, not you, them, okay? Your not bad. You’re nice. The bikini is bad and person of ill repute-ish. Not you, it. Okay? Just cause you dress that way, doesn’t mean you ARE that way. You ARE NOT A person of ill repute. All I’m saying is that the male forms are especially weak and sinful, and are wont to lust after the female form. As our Lord stated the only cure for this is to gouge out their eyes. And castrate them.

Of course, many here seem to believe that He wasn’t being literal when He said that. Well what if He was being literal when He said He was the Son of God, huh? What then?

I jest.

 

[OldAgeGuru]

Once AGAIN, I’m not saying YOU ARE BAD, or a person of ill repute, I’M just saying that wearing them is BAD, not you, them, okay? Your not bad. You’re nice. The bikini is bad and person of ill repute-ish. Not you, it. Okay? Just cause you dress that way, doesn’t mean you ARE that way. You ARE NOT A person of ill repute. All I’m saying is that the male forms are especially weak and sinful, and are wont to lust after the female form. As our Lord stated the only cure for this is to gouge out their eyes. And castrate them.

Of course, many here seem to believe that He wasn’t being literal when He said that. Well what if He was being literal when He said He was the Son of God, huh? What then?

I jest.

But if wearing them is bad, and I’m wearing one then it’s safe to assume that I am bad.

And whatever with guys are wear and sinful. I don’t wanna hear it. 100 years ago it was thought that just seeing the inside of a woman’s wrist was an enormous turn on and that they would be raping and pillaging innocent young virgins at an exposed forearm. Guys are perfectly capable of controlling themselves, and if they are that desperate they can imagine what I look like naked wheter I’m wearing pasties or a burqa. Why do I have to cover up every square inch of skin and cover my hair? Why can’t guys wear blindfolds and use seeing eye dogs instead?

 

[Clonereject1138]

Why can’t guys wear blindfolds and use seeing eye dogs instead?

Did you miss that part about the gouging?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Alright, I was talking to my uncle today, and he came across as rather heretical to me, mentioning all manner of evils and doubts, some of which were:

Not believing in answering to and serving the Roman Catholic Church first and foremost.

I should hope he doesn’t - God is God, the Church is not.​

Doubting the infallability of the Papacy.

Doubting the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures (even going so far as to claim that the words of Our Lord were in fact manufactured years later(which, okay, they were written later, but he’s claiming that they weren’t the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ AT ALL))

A doubt is not a sin - it was Job’s oh-so-orthodox friends who were rebuked by The Lord - not Job: he had “spoken rightly of Me”, yet he was full of doubts.​

Well thats about it. We were dicussing the various merits of the rather extream form of fundamentalist Islam practiced abroad.

It has no merits - anything but.​

He says that just because a girl hugs you doesn’t mean she intends to partake of sinful acts of the flesh with you, and he then notes the wearers of bikinis in the same way.

And that is heretical or wrong ? Not at all​

I maintain that dressing (or acting) like a whore can only lead to sin, and its not fair (nor right) to confuse people.

You’re both right​

Now, I don’t belive in killing people for such things. The current Church is against the practice of capital punishment, and so am I. So long as She is. But I still find such things to be altogether trivial, even if they do lead to an offense that is worthy of capital punishment. And I respect them for trying to keep order and decency.

He, however, believes that by restricting these peoples sinful urges, we only cause them to rebel in greater ways. It seems to me that he is calling for a lawless, immoral anarchy.

He has a point. All we have is your (unfriendly) version of what he said - you may have missed out important details without realising it. No ?​

 

[Hastrman]

Peasants, formally defined, did not often own their own land. More often, they rented or sharecropped for the local land-owning nobility and the system generally took most of the yield of the land with barely more than survival levels left for the family that did all the work.

Not any better than today’s corporations and robber barons, IMO. What am I saying? Quite a bit worse, actually, since such peasants had no real medical care, no AC, no indoor plumbing, no or few legal rights, etc. Nope, not trading.

In the science of economics, what you’re talking about is a serf, not a peasant. Your argument about their situation is based on stereotypes, not history (unless you count the partisan “everything is better now, not coincidentally because of the system we serve” history you’re taught by the schools).

The most powerful people in France from the Revolution right up to the Franco-Prussian War were the peasants–the Revolution actually happened because the peasants got to vote, as did the church and the aristocracy, but the urban tradesmen didn’t, so they revolted. The yeomanry in England were a proto-peasantry (they got wiped out by the enclosures); the lowest ranking Polish szlachta were essentially peasants.

 

[John_Lavelle]

This is the weirdest discussion I have ever read. I felt like I was driving past an accident and looking despite my desire to not do so. Did Jesus recommend eye gouging and castration? Does the Church? How about custody of the eyes and holy charity? When I see a woman in a bathing suit, my instincts collide with the moral sense I have been given by God’s grace through the Church and the Gospels and which seems (so far) to lead to a greater sense of happiness and peace than I would find were I to follow my instincts.

Living a chaste life is not always easy but it always worth it.

The arguments in favor of a return to peasantry don’t make much sense to me and seem to echo a little of the terrible teachings of the fratracelli (sp?) and d don’t expect most people (orthdox Catholic, heretical, or otherwise would be anymore likely to embrace it these days than they would accept imposed blindness or castration or burkhas…

Pray for your uncle and avoid inflammatory arguments when you discuss our faith with him. Sad to say, he sounds more reasonable than some of your statements.

 

[JimmyJeff]

Now, I don’t belive in killing people for such things. The current Church is against the practice of capital punishment, and so am I. So long as She is.

Thank you for not wanting to kill me for wearing a two piece. That is mighty, mighty kind of you (even if it IS only because the Church says that it would be wrong).