Quick! (Take 2)

[Offdoodykcrn]

That’s pretty good. Here’s another one:

. LOL - that’s a good one.

To fbl9 - please proceed with caution about arguing with Alan about Paul. This is a battle of wits, and he is very well armed.

To anyone (but definitely aemcpa) that has read any part of this thread and felt angry and /or insulted when their beliefs are challenged: I would like to share a bit of wisdom that one of my favorite priests gave me when I was taking catechism classes and trying to decide if I should confirm or not. Father Tom was the youngest priest in the parish where I attended school. Out of all the nuns and priests that spoke in the catechism class, he was the only one that patiently answered all of my questions without getting angry at me. Not that the others were awful - they just had a limit to how much questioning they would tolerate before throwing their hands up in disgust, believing I was just trying to be difficult. I asked him why people get so angry when talking about religion - keep in mind, I was about 12 yrs old. He asked me how I might feel if someone were visiting my home and made mean remarks about my family - regardless of the veracity of those remarks. I said I would probably be angry. He said that was a perfectly good example of ‘righteous indignation’. I asked him why he didn’t feel righteous indignation when I asked him questions about the church. He said that when he was in school, he had a lot of questions - he wasn’t trying to make his teachers angry. He just wanted to understand not only the facts, but the reason ‘why’ behind the facts. He said he thought my ‘pestering’ (as others had called it) was evidence of wanting a deeper understanding, and he thought that was a good thing.

The day of my confirmation came and I was very worried about telling my mom that I didn’t want to go (as I explained earlier). She took it a lot better than I thought she would. When I went back to school, I went to see Father Tom - I was worried he might be disappointed in me for not confirming. He said he would rather me make a conscious decision not to do something rather than just ‘go along with everyone else’. I was relieved to hear this, but then Father Tom said to keep in mind that this attitude of mine was bound to make for an interesting, but sometimes difficult life. He was so right…

 

[fbl9]

I don’t think I understand this question. How other people find their way to God, what their understanding of God is - is their choice. I respect each persons right to decide this for themselves, as long as it doesn’t oppress or take away another’s liberty.

In the Gospel written by St.John17:21 “that all may be one,even as thoug, Father,in me and I in thee”.
Clearly we are not one with another that does not hold the same beliefs as ourselves…

 

[fbl9]

You don’t seem to know what I mean. Only in this last generation have the laity even been given the societal nod that it’s OK to even read our own scriptures. I was a 42 year old practicing cradle Catholic, active in parish leadership, before I even heard of an SD, the spiritual journey, contemplative prayer, self-mortification, nor Transforming Union, nor Divine Union. Every Catholic should be made aware of these things, or we are really not offering them what we have.

Did you read 1 Cor 9 and 10 passages I quoted? If you don’t consider a) claiming freedom from any law of sin and death, and b) behaving according to the consciences of those he’s around, rather than himself, and c) acting like whoever he is around, moral relativism, then please tell my what you consider moral relativism.

Alan

again Alan St.Paul condemened many things those around him were doing. Did he not condemn those partaking of the Euchairst improperly? Or did just party it up with them as they were doing… try again.

 

[fbl9]

. LOL - that’s a good one.

To fbl9 - please proceed with caution about arguing with Alan about Paul. This is a battle of wits, and he is very well armed.

To anyone (but definitely aemcpa) that has read any part of this thread and felt angry and /or insulted when their beliefs are challenged: I would like to share a bit of wisdom that one of my favorite priests gave me when I was taking catechism classes and trying to decide if I should confirm or not. Father Tom was the youngest priest in the parish where I attended school. Out of all the nuns and priests that spoke in the catechism class, he was the only one that patiently answered all of my questions without getting angry at me. Not that the others were awful - they just had a limit to how much questioning they would tolerate before throwing their hands up in disgust, believing I was just trying to be difficult. I asked him why people get so angry when talking about religion - keep in mind, I was about 12 yrs old. He asked me how I might feel if someone were visiting my home and made mean remarks about my family - regardless of the veracity of those remarks. I said I would probably be angry. He said that was a perfectly good example of ‘righteous indignation’. I asked him why he didn’t feel righteous indignation when I asked him questions about the church. He said that when he was in school, he had a lot of questions - he wasn’t trying to make his teachers angry. He just wanted to understand not only the facts, but the reason ‘why’ behind the facts. He said he thought my ‘pestering’ (as others had called it) was evidence of wanting a deeper understanding, and he thought that was a good thing.

The day of my confirmation came and I was very worried about telling my mom that I didn’t want to go (as I explained earlier). She took it a lot better than I thought she would. When I went back to school, I went to see Father Tom - I was worried he might be disappointed in me for not confirming. He said he would rather me make a conscious decision not to do something rather than just ‘go along with everyone else’. I was relieved to hear this, but then Father Tom said to keep in mind that this attitude of mine was bound to make for an interesting, but sometimes difficult life. He was so right…

if my posts seeem like i am offended i am sorry. i am not offended rather trying to present “my case” without being wordy. very difficult to do when it comes to the Church.
the bolded section is my defense for the so-called legalism of the Church.

 

[aemcpa]

To anyone (but definitely aemcpa) that has read any part of this thread and felt angry and /or insulted when their beliefs are challenged…

Odd that you think I feel angry or insulted. You think too highly of yourself, perhaps, or you’re not as good as you think you are at reading people.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

again Alan St.Paul condemened many things those around him were doing. Did he not condemn those partaking of the Euchairst imprpoperly? Or did just party it up with them as they were doing… try again.

If you don’t know the answer to my questions, I understand. It’s OK to just say that rather than trying to change the subject. I quoted scripture where Paul described his strategy of “checking his own conscience at the door” when he goes somewhere, by acting according to their behavior and beliefs instead of his own. You have yet to address that. Is that not like what you would call “moral relativism?” If I have quoted out of context then explain to me the correct context. Or if there is a better example of “moral relativism” then let’s hear it; I’m all ears. kpeople:

By “try again,” I take it you mean ask you one more time to respond to what I was saying. If you fail again to respond, then I’ll conclude that you probably agree with me but don’t want to admit it.

[BIBLEDRB]john 18:23[/BIBLEDRB]

You tell me about him condemning of others eating the Eucharist properly. And about whether Paul “partied it up?” I don’t know. It is a different topic and doesn’t make me forget about the question you continue to dodge. I backed up my comments with generous-length quotes from scripture. If you tell me what scriptures you are referencing then maybe I can better reply to your concern. If you need me to do your work for you, maybe for a small fee I’ll jump on your side for a post or two and see if I can help you make your case.

Because as it stands, I get that you believe Paul did not describe morally relativistic behavior in 1 Cor 9-10 because at some other place and time, he was upset about how someone treated the Eucharist. If that’s your point then I understand you.

Alan

 

[fbl9]

If you don’t know the answer to my questions, I understand. It’s OK to just say that rather than trying to change the subject. I quoted scripture where Paul described his strategy of “checking his own conscience at the door” when he goes somewhere, and acts according to their behavior and beliefs instead of his own. You have yet to address that. Is that not like what you would call “moral relativism?” If I have quoted out of context then explain to me the correct context.

By “try again,” I take it you mean ask you one more time to respond to what I was saying. If you refuse again to respond, then I’ll conclude that you agree with me and don’t want to admit it.

[BIBLEDRB]john 18:23[/BIBLEDRB]

You tell me about him condemning of others eating the Eucharist properly. And about whether Paul “partied it up?” I don’t know. It is a different topic and doesn’t make me forget about the question you continue to dodge. I backed up my comments with generous-length quotes from scripture. If you tell me what scriptures you are referencing then maybe I can better reply to your concern. If you need me to do your work for you, maybe for a small fee I’ll jump on your side for a post or two and see if I can help you make your case.

**Because as it stands, I see that you believe Paul did not describe morally relativistic behavior on 1 Cor 9-10 because somewhere else he was upset about how someone treated the Eucharist. **Alan

bolded section yes.
where does StPaul follow those abusing the Eucharist does he not stand against them… yes he does. there fore how can he do as others when clearly he does not.
you are dogding the fact that St.Paul does not check his consciense at the door.
What you have difficulty flipping the page from where you got your moral relevatism from.
The first fifteen verses of chp 9 deal with St.Paul’s needs as a human iow he says he ought to be paid for his teaching as he would need to work in order to have life’s needs met. and by working it takes time out of his preaching.
by being all things to all men does this mean that in order to preach to a prostitute one needs to be one to teach them?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bolded section yes.

I thought so. It was not logical, but it was all I could conclude from your posts.

where does StPaul follow those abusing the Eucharist does he not stand against them… yes he does. there fore how can he do as others when clearly he does not.

I don’t know. We’re all waiting with bated breath for you to show us where he did this. :bluelite:

you are dogding the fact that St.Paul does not check his consciense at the door.

So I’ll put this down as three consecutive non-responsive posts to my point. That’s all I need; further investigation will no doubt run in circles. :whacky:

What you have difficulty flipping the page from where you got your moral relevatism from.
The first fifteen verses of chp 9 deal with St.Paul’s needs as a human iow he says he ought to be paid for his teaching as he would need to work in order to have life’s needs met. and by working it takes time out of his preaching.

I’m glad you read those verses. If nothing else, at least this conversation has inspired that.

by being all things to all men does this mean that in order to preach to a prostitute one needs to be one to teach them?

That’s a good question.

I don’t know if Paul hung around prostitutes; I know Jesus did, but afa I know we don’t have any actual dialog with any of them except when he was forgiving them, driving out their demons, getting foot rubs and foot anointings, etc.

Alan

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Odd that you think I feel angry or insulted. You think too highly of yourself, perhaps, or you’re not as good as you think you are at reading people.

Perhaps I read too much into your earlier post (#6 - page 1) where you stated, “You know exactly what skepticforum.com is going to say, and you know exactly what Catholic Answers is going to say.” Or #21 “if you choose to reject the authority of the Church (which leaves you only with your own fallible self as an authority), then of course you will define marriage in any way you choose and say that the Church treats people unfairly who happen to fall in the group that falls inside your definition but outside hers.”

In regard to #6 - no, I didn’t know what the other forum was going to say, and I’ve heard a LOT of different viewpoints here.

It is easy to get riled up about topics one feels passionate about - look at Alan and fbl9 slugging it out, and they are both Catholic! I ‘read people’ pretty well, but all we have in this forum are the words we have before us. One usually gets clues about subtext from the volume and tone of another’s voice, facial and body expressions - all we have here to stress our point and/or attitude is slight alterations to font and a handful of cute smileys.

What I wrote in post # 41 was intended to soothe any sore feelings from anyone. I felt a tiny amount of liberty to guess at yours because of our previous posts. Quite frankly, your post # 45 sounded a bit snarky to me, but I could be wrong.

Let us all show our devotion to Christ (or God for those who are of different faiths) and be kind to each other. Let us light a candle, rather than curse the darkness - or snarkiness, as the case may be.

Peace and prosperity to all.

 

[cheezey]

Let us all show our devotion to Christ (or God for those who are of different faiths) and be kind to each other. Let us light a candle, rather than curse the darkness…

Peace and prosperity to all.

Let’s.

:getholy:

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I don’t know if Paul hung around prostitutes; I know Jesus did, but afa I know we don’t have any actual dialog with any of them except when he was forgiving them, driving out their demons, getting foot rubs and foot anointings, etc.

Alan

I have a question you might be able to answer: I see the Catholic Church as a male-dominated religion. (I don’t have any problem with that, some of my favorite people are male, I even gave birth to one…). When people talk about choices and attitudes of the church (which, as far as I know is set by the pope), people say things like, “The Church doesn’t decide these teachings. She merely transmits what She has received.” Why is the feminine pronoun used, and why allude to a disembodied entity with it’s own will?

Thank you for any insight you might share.

 

[aemcpa]

I have a question you might be able to answer: I see the Catholic Church as a male-dominated religion. (I don’t have any problem with that, some of my favorite people are male, I even gave birth to one…). When people talk about choices and attitudes of the church (which, as far as I know is set by the pope), people say things like, “The Church doesn’t decide these teachings. She merely transmits what She has received.” Why is the feminine pronoun used, and why allude to a disembodied entity with it’s own will?

Thank you for any insight you might share.

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church and delivered himself up for her…”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I have a question you might be able to answer: I see the Catholic Church as a male-dominated religion. (I don’t have any problem with that, some of my favorite people are male, I even gave birth to one…). When people talk about choices and attitudes of the church (which, as far as I know is set by the pope), people say things like, “The Church doesn’t decide these teachings. She merely transmits what She has received.” Why is the feminine pronoun used, and why allude to a disembodied entity with it’s own will?

Thank you for any insight you might share.

Like aempca said, and matches what I’ve been told, because it is traditional to think of the Church as the bride of Christ.

So the Pope and all the priests are, like Jesus, married to the Church. Something like that, anyway.

I think the model of the Church as its own being with its own will, is useful but frankly I don’t see “the Church” as being held accountable for either her own actions, or her track record at getting their percentages up in terms of bringing more of her sheep into mystical union with Jesus, in terms of our very prayer and awareness, not “just” in the Eucharist.

Although the model is very convenient, it seems no person – apologist wannabees included – can agree on just what the Church does teach on practically any given issue, much less how to apply that teaching to any given situation.

Alan

 

[fbl9]

I thought so. It was not logical, but it was all I could conclude from your posts.

I don’t know. We’re all waiting with bated breath for you to show us where he did this. :bluelite:

So I’ll put this down as three consecutive non-responsive posts to my point. That’s all I need; further investigation will no doubt run in circles. :whacky:

I’m glad you read those verses. If nothing else, at least this conversation has inspired that.

That’s a good question.

I don’t know if Paul hung around prostitutes; I know Jesus did, but afa I know we don’t have any actual dialog with any of them except when he was forgiving them, driving out their demons, getting foot rubs and foot anointings, etc.

Alan

too funny dude, flip the page from where you seem to get your idea from. volia it’s chapter 11

 

[AlanFromWichita]

too funny dude, flip the page from where you seem to get your idea from. volia it’s chapter 11

So in chapters 9 and 10, Paul detailed how he personally alters his behavior according to the behavior and conscience of others, and I asked you whether it is moral relativism. (Technically I’m not asking any more because this would be the fourth time and I said the third was the last.)

Then in chapter 11, Paul talks about eating the Eucharist unworthily.

So Paul eats and drinks whatever is put before them to avoid matters of conscience, but he has an opinion about receiving the Eucharist.

The only connection I see is they are in the same book of the Bible.

Thank you for zeroing me in; I know some chapters better than others. :tiphat:

Alan

 

[fbl9]

So in chapters 9 and 10, Paul detailed how he personally alters his behavior according to the behavior and conscience of others, and I asked you whether it is moral relativism. (Technically I’m not asking any more because this would be the fourth time and I said the third was the last.)

Then in chapter 11, Paul talks about eating the Eucharist unworthily.

So Paul eats and drinks whatever is put before them to avoid matters of conscience, but he has an opinion about receiving the Eucharist.

The only connection I see is they are in the same book of the Bible.

Thank you for zeroing me in; I know some chapters better than others. :tiphat:

Alan

thick dude thick…
do you not understand since i have taken a stance that St.Paul doesn’t check his conscience at the door he doesn’t do moral relativism.
there is nothing immoral about eating and drinking.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

thick dude thick…
do you not understand since i have taken a stance that St.Paul doesn’t check his conscience at the door he doesn’t do moral relativism.
there is nothing immoral about eating and drinking.

Oh, now it makes sense. I was going by what the Bible actually says. I didn’t realize you had taken a stand on the matter.

My bad! :doh2:

Now I think I finally understand what you were trying to say! :newidea:

I shall not question you again. :bowdown:

Alan

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Thank you, aemcpa & Alan for answering my question.

So, as I am contemplating my position on whether or not the Catholic Church is right for me, there are two hurdles (that I can see at this time and place) that I need to resolve:

1. Can I be Catholic and not believe in the infallibility of the Pope? I’ve talked to several Catholics and I’ve received mixed answers. This is, for me - the biggest hurdle to get past. I know myself well enough to know that I cannot blindly follow any human being. My understanding of world history leads me to believe that all human beings are fallible, and as such - what is said by any human being must be questioned: what are their motives, what are the consequences for acting on information provided by them? I’m not saying the pope isn’t guided by the Holy Spirit, I just have a problem ‘swallowing’ the statement that when a cardinal is elected to be pope, he is given supernatural powers that make everything he says about morals and faith as Truth.
2. Can I be Catholic and not believe that a priest has the power to absolve me of my sins? It is my current understanding that priests are given a supernatural power by the Holy Spirit to absolve sins. Am I wrong in this understanding?

Please know that I ask these questions in earnest. I am not attempting to anger anyone or challenge their belief systems. I appreciate any guidance you might share.

 

[fbl9]

Oh, now it makes sense. I was going by what the Bible actually says. I didn’t realize you had taken a stand on the matter.

My bad! :doh2:

Now I think I finally understand what you were trying to say! :newidea:

I shall not question you again. :bowdown:

Alan

Alan reread your passages again particulary the part where St.Paul says do not eat of it not for your own conscience but that of the other, (the one who offered the food). Does St.Paul do as the other in eating the food offered to an idol. no why? Because by eating this offering he is ediffying the offer of food to an idol in the conscience of the person giving him the food.

When approached by something novel i assume the person presenting this novel idea is knowlegable of the matter. As you are presenting a novel idea of St.Paul i assumed you had a greater knowledge of his writings. But given the fact that you didn’t even know where StPaul wrote against those abusing the Eucharist i know your actuall knowledge of St.Paul is quite petite.

 

[fbl9]

Thank you, aemcpa & Alan for answering my question.

So, as I am contemplating my position on whether or not the Catholic Church is right for me, there are two hurdles (that I can see at this time and place) that I need to resolve:

1. Can I be Catholic and not believe in the infallibility of the Pope? I’ve talked to several Catholics and I’ve received mixed answers. This is, for me - the biggest hurdle to get past. I know myself well enough to know that I cannot blindly follow any human being. My understanding of world history leads me to believe that all human beings are fallible, and as such - what is said by any human being must be questioned: what are their motives, what are the consequences for acting on information provided by them? I’m not saying the pope isn’t guided by the Holy Spirit, I just have a problem ‘swallowing’ the statement that when a cardinal is elected to be pope, he is given supernatural powers that make everything he says about morals and faith as Truth.
2. Can I be Catholic and not believe that a priest has the power to absolve me of my sins? It is my current understanding that priests are given a supernatural power by the Holy Spirit to absolve sins. Am I wrong in this understanding?

Please know that I ask these questions in earnest. I am not attempting to anger anyone or challenge their belief systems. I appreciate any guidance you might share.

Well you can be a catholic and not beleive in the infallibity of the pope’s postion.But you would be a catholic that is in sin/error.
When the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals invovles a more complex mechanism than the simplified terms we have been using.
Basically the pope does not sit down one day and decide hey let’s beleive this.

The ability to do so by the priests is given to them by Christ through the succession of the Church.
You have no trouble beleiving the Apostle’s had this ability. As it was given to them by Christ. Would not Christ’s Church continue to be able to do so?