I
inocente
Guest
I can’t read minds.
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
If you want me to discuss that topic, which has nothing to do with the thread and nothing to do with philosophy, you’ll first need to give me a good reason to play what I currently see as a childish sectarian game.
btw I noticed that this thread is in this month’s CAF Hot Topics email under the philosophy tagline “Thinking with the masters”. Indeed.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
If you want me to discuss that topic, which has nothing to do with the thread and nothing to do with philosophy, you’ll first need to give me a good reason to play what I currently see as a childish sectarian game.
Well, you certainly seemed willing to play for a while. I don’t blame you for slamming the door.
If you want me to discuss that topic, which has nothing to do with the thread and nothing to do with philosophy, you’ll first need to give me a good reason to play what I currently see as a childish sectarian game.
Well, you certainly seemed willing to play for a while. I don’t blame you for slamming the door.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You obviously didn’t respond!
You posted your claim in the form of a rhetorical question:
I
inocente
Guest
You obviously didn’t respond!
You posted your claim in the form of a rhetorical question:
inocente;8597791:
And in contrast CAF demonstrates daily the firm agreement between Catholics?
Baiting isn’t very nice tony, and when you disrespect other religions you disrespect your own.
Anything to say that’s on-topic?
I already reminded you in post #155 that I responded in post #135 (first para).On this thread alone see, for instance, post #17 and the whole of pages 4 and 5. If you and the other posters concerned agree that you were just passing time making smalltalk about frivolous nonsense on which you all agree anyway then I’ll withdraw the claim, but I remind you I already said “I could point out some posts just a few pages back, but let’s not go there as it seemed tempers were raised”.
Anything to say that’s on-topic?
G
grannymh
Guest
As a religion, per thread’s title, Catholicism is not “frivolous nonsense.” The Catholic Church has done its very best to point out the difference between allegory, symbolism, figurative language and Catholic doctrine. Free speech allows anyone to discuss the issues. The fact that we, including the world’s population, are not clones of each other’s brains and perceptions does not alter Catholic doctrine.
I
inocente
Guest
I don’t know whether you’re implying I said that, which I didn’t, but you may not have realized it’s a great excuse for those who don’t read what is written to start another round of sectarianism.
That sentence implies doctrine can neither use nor be based on symbols, etc., and therefore cannot contain any abstractions. Is that the case?
Sure don’t feel that way on this thread. Free speech dies the moment people stop listening to each other.
G
grannymh
Guest
I rarely imply… original sentence is: As a religion, per thread’s title, Catholicism is not “frivolous nonsense.” from post 164I don’t know whether you’re implying I said that, which I didn’t, but you may not have realized it’s a great excuse for those who don’t read what is written to start another round of sectarianism.
Source of the phrase: "If you and the other posters concerned agree that you were just passing time making smalltalk about frivolous nonsense on which you all agree anyway then I’ll withdraw the claim, but I remind you I already said “I could point out some posts just a few pages back, but let’s not go there as it seemed tempers were raised”. from post 163
One more sentence from granny’s post 164.
The Catholic Church has done its very best to point out the difference between allegory, symbolism, figurative language and Catholic doctrine.
The Catechism used the word difference to imply difference.That sentence implies doctrine can neither use nor be based on symbols, etc., and therefore cannot contain any abstractions. Is that the case?
Interesting. I always considered “free speech” to be under the control of the speaker. Unless someone had a gun to the head of the speaker.
G
grannymh
Guest
I rarely imply…
Sentence from my post 164.
"As a religion, per thread’s title, Catholicism is not “frivolous nonsense.”
“The Catholic Church has done its very best to point out the difference between allegory, symbolism, figurative language and Catholic doctrine.”
That sentence implies doctrine can neither use nor be based on symbols, etc., and therefore cannot contain any abstractions. Is that the case?
The Catechism used the word difference to imply difference.
Sentence from my post 164.
"As a religion, per thread’s title, Catholicism is not “frivolous nonsense.”
Another sentence from granny’s post 164.I don’t know whether you’re implying I said that, which I didn’t, but you may not have realized it’s a great excuse for those who don’t read what is written to start another round of sectarianism.
“The Catholic Church has done its very best to point out the difference between allegory, symbolism, figurative language and Catholic doctrine.”
That sentence implies doctrine can neither use nor be based on symbols, etc., and therefore cannot contain any abstractions. Is that the case?
The Catechism used the word difference to imply difference.
Interesting. I always considered “free speech” to be under the control of the speaker. Unless someone had a gun to the head of the speaker.
G
grannymh
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
Speaking about religion in the U.S., here is a bit of history.
I was fortunate enough to attend Thanksgiving’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. For his homily, Father read the “First Thanksgiving Proclamation” given by President George Washington, October 3,1789. This is food for thought on CAF.
gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanksgiving/transcript.html
Blessings,
granny
God has given us many gifts.
Thank God! Everyday!
I was fortunate enough to attend Thanksgiving’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. For his homily, Father read the “First Thanksgiving Proclamation” given by President George Washington, October 3,1789. This is food for thought on CAF.
gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanksgiving/transcript.html
Blessings,
granny
God has given us many gifts.
Thank God! Everyday!
T
tonyrey
Guest
I don’t know what you mean by “frivolous nonsense on which you all agree”. Catholics have been sharply divided on serious issues like the origin of the soul. My posts were directly related to the topic: Religion and Science - which I continued from another thread. I stated an indisputable fact about the multiplicity of Protestant sects which adds to the confusion of what Christianity is and how it is consistent with science. If that’s not on topic I don’t know what is!
On this thread alone see, for instance, post #17 and the whole of pages 4 and 5. If you and the other posters concerned agree that you were just passing time making smalltalk about frivolous nonsense on which you all agree anyway then I’ll withdraw the claim, but I remind you I already said “I could point out some posts just a few pages back, but let’s not go there as it seemed tempers were raised”.
Anything to say that’s on-topic?
G
grannymh
Guest
As I recall, the “frivolous nonsense” originally referred to granny’s defense of two, real, sole founders of the human species and to the fact that posters do not agree on all points of the “story.”
I do not believe that the original issue had anything to do with Protestant sects. This is because Catholicism is unique in that it has doctrines about all the issues relating to human nature, God as Creator, original sin, Satan, and the requirement of a Savior. Other Christian faiths vary in what, which, why and how they believe in the individual parts. Unfortunately, a few, not all, Catholics are attempting to change the Catholic Church by rewriting Divine Revelation according to their personal wishes.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thank you for refuting the “frivolous nonsense” hypothesis.
Some Protestants have rejected the divinity of Christ and the reality of the Resurrection - and regarded God as an impersonal Ground of Being which is hardly consistent with the loving Father described by Jesus.
I
inocente
Guest
Now I’ve no idea what’s going on. First you challenge me for asking “and in contrast CAF demonstrates daily the firm agreement between Catholics?” and now you say that “Catholics have been sharply divided on serious issues like the origin of the soul”.Logically you now admit that in post #17 and on pages 4 and 5 of this thread you and the other posters concerned were not just “passing time making smalltalk about frivolous nonsense”, and have therefore withdrawn your challenge.
Not sure it’s in keeping with the OP of the original thread, but as you pulled a rabbit out of the hat:
- I don’t call myself a Protestant, that’s a label which others give me.
- I believe that if we ever catch ourselves thinking of someone as a label instead of a sacred person then we’re no longer following Christ.
- See post #136 for some Baptist principles – soul freedom, Bible freedom, church freedom, freedom of religion. You’ll see that we join local churches. For reasons best known to themselves the accountants of this world count every one of these churches as a separate denomination. But we preach Christ crucified, to us Christ came to set us free, freedom is at the heart of Christ, so you’ll see that I’ve no sympathy whatsoever with bean-counters who would place neatness before freedom.
- Physician heal thyself – in project management terms you first get your own house in order before taking on the rest of the world. So first get everyone in your church to visibly agree on “what Christianity is and how it is consistent with science”. But given that science depends on freedom of thought, and for me freedom is at the heart of Christ, I’m wondering how Christianity could be inconsistent with science anyway unless we contrive to make it so?
I
inocente
Guest
I sent you a private message to say how upset this post has made me, with the cleverly polished economy of words that make me out to say something I didn’t. You were in advertizing, right?
Cleverly done. I was asking you about what you said, nothing at all to do with the Catechism, but who would ever believe me now?
As if free speech isn’t dead in the water when the speaker’s words are manipulated. The quiet malice of “a gun to the head” was magnificent.
Or am I over-reacting? I was the target of a witch hunt in the past (the ring leader got himself suspended a short while after) and am possibly hypersensitive, but I don’t know how else to read that post.
I
inocente
Guest
That’s more or less how the other witch-hunt began, getting ultra-defensive and putting two and two together to make five. I referred tonyrey to your post #17:
I never said that was frivolous nonsense. What I actually said was “On this thread alone see, for instance, post #17 and the whole of pages 4 and 5. If you and the other posters concerned agree that you were just passing time making smalltalk about frivolous nonsense on which you all agree anyway then I’ll withdraw the claim”. In other words I was challenging tonyrey to admit you were sincere in what you said, nothing whatsoever to do with the Church or the Catechism.
But if the pair of you want a witch-hunt then what I actually said won’t matter any more will it?
And that’s more or less how the other witch-hunt continued, piling falsehood on falsehood.Thank you for refuting the “frivolous nonsense” hypothesis.
Some Protestants have rejected the divinity of Christ and the reality of the Resurrection - and regarded God as an impersonal Ground of Being which is hardly consistent with the loving Father described by Jesus.
I suggest the next step should be for someone to wade in with a reductio ad Hitlerum and then I’ll be an auntie Christ again.
T
tonyrey
Guest
No one is referring to you or the Baptists in particular. I’m sorry if you believe it was a personal attack.
Do you believe it is impossible for a scientific theory to be inconsistent with the teaching of Christ?
I
inocente
Guest
Yes. Truth cannot contradict truth.
And since you “stated an indisputable fact about the multiplicity of Protestant sects” and a large number of those which make up that silly statistic are Baptist churches, of course you were referring to Baptists.
btw since I took the time to respond to you, thanks for spending so much time answering me, responding just six minutes after I posted - and there was me thinking you might just give a knee-jerk reaction.
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Status