That Old Freemason Question...

[PRmerger]

In this country the rich and powerful so-called Catholics (in name only) have never been adequately challenged by the Church. Pelosi, Kennedy, Biden, all spew out support for abortion, have taken part in the elimination of conscience and religious rights and the Church rants and raves, then does nothing. They should be excommunicated.

Perhaps you are correct on this. I don’t know.

 

[PRmerger]

I reject that the RCC is “the Body of Christ.” That’s idolatrous.

I choose to ignore this comment.

And I will just go about the rest of my evening with a smile, comforted by the fact that you have proclaimed this:[SIGN] I think that at a Catholic university no teacher should teach Catholic doctrine improperly. [/SIGN]

And I can be happy that you have gotten it 100% right here.

 

[PRmerger]

I have avoided making the Church into my graven image of God. You are very attached to the test of “well did I ever admit I was wrong and the Church right?” I’m sorry but you’re just going to have to guess on that one. If I don’t give you an example it doesn’t demonstrate anything.

You *don’t *have to give me an example.

I’d just like to know if there ever was a concept that you did conform, despite your own preferences? A yes or no would be satisfactory to me. But I wouldn’t dream of prying into what it was.

Because, really, you do see that if you keep saying, “God wouldn’t care if…” and it just so happens it’s because *you *believe that it wouldn’t really matter if…

then you’ve just created a god who happens to believe, conveniently, all the same things that you believe.

How could that be?

It doesn’t make sense that God would “obligate” me to believe anything.

Then the corollary is that God lets you believe whatever you want…

and that’s creating a god in your own image.

Someone believes that God does not obligate him to have only 1 wife, he can, by your paradigm, cheerfully take another one because God didn’t want him to be unhappy.

Someone believes that God does not obligate him to worship Him alone, she can, by your paradigm, cheerfully worship Satan and do so knowing that God does not care. He’s just not that judgemental, right?

I don’t see God as an aggressive, controlling, judgmental God. If I’m wrong then I’ll take my chances with my soul. But I know I’m not wrong.

Well, of course you’re not wrong, Alan! You have become quite consonant with Catholic teaching when you say that!

 

[PRmerger]

I reject that the RCC is “the Body of Christ.” That’s idolatrous.

Hah! I happened to be doing a search tonight on the CAFs for something completely unrelated…

and I just happened (?) to come across this post that I had written back in February, in an unrelated thread.

I think it’s very appropriate and trenchant, as it applies to your comment above, Alan. So I will re-post:

Originally posted by me, on a totally different thread, in a discussion with another member, but entirely apropos here:

I find it odd that people want to separate the Church from God or Christ from His Church, creating a dichotomy as if they’re 2 separate entities. When the body of Christ speaks (that is, the Church) how can it be said to be less authoritative than its head, Christ?

We can’t have one without the other.

A Church without Christ is a decapitated corpse (a body without a head).

Christ without a Body is a floating head without any means to relay the Good News.Thank goodness we have both: the Church AND Christ!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If you’re going to claim that the Church and the Body of Christ and God are all the same, then I don’t have to worry about it because as a part of the Body of Christ, that makes me the Church and that makes me God, by you’re reasoning.

So I get to say what I will.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re going to claim that the Church and the Body of Christ and God are all the same, then I don’t have to worry about it because as a part of the Body of Christ, that makes me the Church and that makes me God, by you’re reasoning.

So I get to say what I will.

Alan

You would be in hog heaven, wouldn’t you?

However, the “Church”, like “love” and “faith”, has some very nuanced definitions.

Sometimes, “love” means you wish for the greatest good of the other. Sometimes, it means that you want to have some cookie dough ice cream. Same word. Totally different concepts, yes?

Sometimes, “Church” means one thing: the Body of Christ. Sometimes it means “a brick building.” Same word. Totally different concepts.

So you can’t simply replace it, as you’re attempting to do, and claim that you are God and can now decide, like Adam and Eve desired (with such catastrophic results), to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

You can’t claim to decide what’s right and wrong.

That’s the purview of God.

We can only discern that which has already been decided.

And obey.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You would be in hog heaven, wouldn’t you?

And it is that way. I actually am in “hog heaven,” as you say. So the way it is, is good. That’s Biblical BTW. I am called to God’s purpose, and take delight in Rom 8:28 “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” So how can anything be wrong. Therefore, all must be right, right? So that means I’m experiencing fruit of the spirit even as I type.

:harp: :heaven:

Oh yeah. That reminds me; I just got my piano tuned. Praise to the Lord, the Almighty!

See, we use the same Bible. We just underline different parts.

However, the “Church”, like “love” and “faith”, has some very nuanced definitions.

Sometimes, “love” means you wish for the greatest good of the other. Sometimes, it means that you want to have some cookie dough ice cream. Same word. Totally different concepts, yes?

Different or not, depends on your level of abstraction. For example, I could say that for me the Whole Truth of Everything I Believe that I Know, can be reduced to a dualistic compare/contrast game.

For your example, they are different concepts because one is being drawn by perceived benefit of another member of the Body of Christ. The other is being drawn by perceived benefit of self. So you could say one is self-centered and the other, other-centered. Also there is a sneaky little program trying to run in my mind when I read this, that somehow we believe that self-motivated is inferior to other-motivated. You didn’t say that, but based on the unfortunately judgmental term “selfish” this is a tendency. So I try to reject such influences which cause interpretations with no facts. So one form of love is “worldly” and another “altruistic” perhaps.

Anyway yes there is plenty to contrast. But there are also certain elements that compare:

For example, both forms of love are motivating. Both give rise to hope for a better future for having acted on it. Both of them are attractive … we are “attracted” to the needs of others, and we are “attracted” to ice cream.

So if I’m doing spiritual engineering on myself, I consider these types of love “similar” or “different” based on what it is I’m trying to accomplish with my soul.

Sometimes, “Church” means one thing: the Body of Christ. Sometimes it means “a brick building.” Same word. Totally different concepts.

Here’s where I have to ask you in sincerity to work with me here. I try to use “RCC” rather than “Church” but you say that “Church” equals “God,” without having defined it, knowing as you presently demonstrate that it needs to be defined, but use an undefined characteristic of the term to beat me up with. And when you say “Body of Christ,” some people claim that means only Christians, some only Catholics, and some say it’s everybody.

But when you say “Church” to me you’re usually talking about obedience to the Church, which to me clearly means the RCC, NOT the mystical Body of Christ. After all, how can I possibly agree to conform and assent to an entire species? That means I’d be Adam, before the Tree incident.

By RCC I mean the pope, the religious and lay people baptized or accepted in the RCC, the buildings, the Tradition, all the worldly accidents attributable to the handing of the keys to St. Peter.

And I say to make the RCC the same as God, is idolatrous. Non-negotiable. :hey_bud:

You can’t claim to decide what’s right and wrong.

Then you decide. A person is born. A person dies. A person plants/reaps. There is a time to kill, and a time to heal. Which ones are right and which ones are wrong? You are very concerned with the good/bad, right/wrong duality – you can have it that way if you want but to me it reduces the bandwidth of my experience on earth.

We can only discern that which has already been decided.

And obey.

In essence, this means there is no Holy Spirit.

C’mon, PR. I know there’s more to you than this linear thinking you keep trying to cover yourself with.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And it is that way. I actually am in “hog heaven,” as you say. So the way it is, is good. That’s Biblical BTW. I am called to God’s purpose, and take delight in Rom 8:28 “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” So how can anything be wrong. Therefore, all must be right, right? So that means I’m experiencing fruit of the spirit even as I type.

:harp: :heaven:

Oh yeah. That reminds me; I just got my piano tuned. Praise to the Lord, the Almighty!

See, we use the same Bible. We just underline different parts.

Different or not, depends on your level of abstraction. For example, I could say that for me the Whole Truth of Everything I Believe that I Know, can be reduced to a dualistic compare/contrast game.

For your example, they are different concepts because one is being drawn by perceived benefit of another member of the Body of Christ. The other is being drawn by perceived benefit of self. So you could say one is self-centered and the other, other-centered. Also there is a sneaky little program trying to run in my mind when I read this, that somehow we believe that self-motivated is inferior to other-motivated. You didn’t say that, but based on the unfortunately judgmental term “selfish” roughly meaning “greedy” this is a tendency. So I try to reject such influences which cause interpretations with no facts. So one form of love is “worldly” and another “altruistic” perhaps.

Anyway yes there is plenty to contrast. But there are also certain elements that compare:

For example, both forms of love are motivating. Both give rise to hope for a better future for having acted on it. Both of them are attractive … we are “attracted” to the needs of others, and we are “attracted” to ice cream.

So if I’m doing spiritual engineering on myself, I consider these types of love “similar” or “different” based on what it is I’m trying to accomplish with my soul.

Here’s where I have to ask you in sincerity to work with me here. I try to use “RCC” rather than “Church” but you say that “Church” equals “God,” without having defined it, knowing as you presently demonstrate that it needs to be defined, but use an undefined characteristic of the term to beat me up with. And when you say “Body of Christ,” some people claim that means only Christians, some only Catholics, and some say it’s everybody.

But when you say “Church” to me you’re usually talking about obedience to the Church, which to me clearly means the RCC, NOT the mystical Body of Christ. After all, how can I possibly agree to conform and assent to an entire species? That means I’d be Adam, before the Tree incident.

By RCC I mean the pope, the religious and lay people baptized or accepted in the RCC, the buildings, the Tradition, all the worldly accidents attributable to the handing of the keys to St. Peter.

And I say to make the RCC the same as God, is idolatrous. Non-negotiable. :hey_bud:

Then you decide. A person is born. A person dies. A person plants/reaps. There is a time to kill, and a time to heal. Which ones are right and which ones are wrong? You are very concerned with the good/bad, right/wrong duality – you can have it that way if you want but to me it reduces the bandwidth of my experience on earth.

In essence, this means there is no Holy Spirit.

C’mon, PR. I know there’s more to you than this linear thinking you keep trying to cover yourself with.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Oh yeah. That reminds me; I just got my piano tuned. Praise to the Lord, the Almighty!

Heavenly!

See, we use the same Bible. We just underline different parts.

Love it! Quite trenchant. And true.

 

[PRmerger]

Then you decide. A person is born. A person dies. A person plants/reaps. There is a time to kill, and a time to heal. Which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

Which ones are right and which ones are wrong? Well, the ones who do the right things are, well, right. And the ones who do the wrong things are…wait for it…wait for it…
wrong.

You are very concerned with the good/bad, right/wrong duality – you can have it that way if you want but to me it reduces the bandwidth of my experience on earth.

HaHA! You sound very dualistic with your paradigm: it is wrong to be dualistic.

In essence, this means there is no Holy Spirit.

Not seeing that conclusion at all.

C’mon, PR. I know there’s more to you than this linear thinking you keep trying to cover yourself with.

Alan

The above reasoning is pretty linear, Alan.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Not seeing that conclusion at all.

The Spirit it here to guide us. If all decisions have been made before, we don’t need guidance; we just do what we have previously been programmed at any given time. Beep.

The above reasoning is pretty linear, Alan.

Yes, it’s the “more” thing where I have put the “less” and “more” on a linear scale. Sigh.

Conversing with you is like looking through a picket fence half way between us. I see action and color between the pickets, but it’s hard to make out because the pickets keep adjusting themselves to block my view. The pickets think they are the only ones who are supposed to interface with “outsiders.”

Hopefully that will be less linear.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

The Spirit it here to guide us. If all decisions have been made before, we don’t need guidance; we just do what we have previously been programmed at any given time. Beep.

And what do you think of this guy, who also claims to have the Spirit?

Don’t you think that the most “reverend” Fred Phelps claims “I am called to God’s purpose, and take delight in Rom 8:28 “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” So how can anything be wrong. Therefore, all must be right, right?” as well?

:bigyikes:

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it’s the “more” thing where I have put the “less” and “more” on a linear scale. Sigh.

So I don’t get it. You get to be linear but I don’t?

Conversing with you is like looking through a picket fence half way between us. I see action and color between the pickets, but it’s hard to make out because the pickets keep adjusting themselves to block my view. The pickets think they are the only ones who are supposed to interface with “outsiders.”

Hopefully that will be less linear.

Alan

Actually, the above is quite dualistic: adjusting picket fences = bad.



You were dualistic *and *linear, in the above post, Alan!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And what do you think of this guy, who also claims to have the Spirit?

Don’t you think that the most “reverend” Fred Phelps claims “I am called to God’s purpose, and take delight in Rom 8:28 “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” So how can anything be wrong. Therefore, all must be right, right?” as well?

:bigyikes:

Not quite. If Phelps were born of the spirit, he would not behave the way he has. I believe he is too motivated by money, power, and infamy to ever do what’s necessary – which for him would probably be to give away all his possessions. Could be a Saul to Paul, but I’m not putting any money on it.

Of course God loves Phelps and uses even his “ministry” for good. For one thing, under the odd threat the he was to show up at our church for the Sgt. Nettleton funeral, (odd because he is not gay) we had the Patriot Guard out which was so awesome. It totally blew away our DRE, Sandy Nettleton, the mother of the fallen soldier. It was a glorious funeral, and without Phelps’s threat it wouldn’t have been nearly so amazing. My son sang at it, but I couldn’t make it because I had a schedule conflict.

I don’t know whether this is how all works for those who believe, but our believing DRE got quite a treat that Phelps “sent” her way!

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So I don’t get it. You get to be linear but I don’t?

I considered that a concession. You get to be however you want.

Actually, the above is quite dualistic: adjusting picket fences = bad.

You were dualistic *and *linear, in the above post, Alan!

Your linear, structural, fence posts are blocking the scenery. What could I do but to comment on them?

I’m getting bored with this whole thing. Just admit to being a mystic and chances are, by the time you do that, you will be.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Just admit to being a mystic and chances are, by the time you do that, you will be.

Alan

That I have had mystical experiences, you can be assured. The Church has provided ample opportunity for me to do this, thanks be to God!

IOW: I am a mystic because of the Church.

 

[ess1113a]

“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.”

–Voltaire

 

[AlanFromWichita]

“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.”

–Voltaire

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)