United States of Sodom and Gomarah

[Ontheway]

I should do that? Should we ALL not do that?

I read over and over here about how upset Catholics are with the media that slanders them, with people who disagree with them and how rude they are…and at the SAME time I see people here slandering non-Catholics, name-calling and using degrading language to refer to any public figure or group they disagree with.

If we want people to respect us, to treat us with dignity, and speak about us charitably-we MUST do that for others. We should be the example of charity in speech-no matter how much we disagree with another person. Even if we are insulted, or spoken to uncharitably-we are called to respond with charity.

I’m not suggesting that we water anything down or lie…I’m only saying that we too often get caught up in our zealousness to defend the truth and forget about treating others with charity.

Dear seeker,
Really? Have you been slandered here?
I challange you to provide proof of Catholics slandering and calling names and using degrading language.

BTW. When we quote from the Bible or state what the Catholic church teaches, we refere to the source of our faith. If you call THAT slander and demeaning, then who are you and what is your mission here?

 

[Publisher]

If you read in the Book of Leviticus, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah for their sins of adultery and homosexuality. Since America is the largest country-advocate for homosexuality, abortion, contraception, fornication, and divorce; doesn’t that mean that America could fall the same way that Sodom and Gomorah did?

God does not change! He is all-just!

The myth occrued in Genesis…not Leviticus. If God destroyed Sodom, I’m sure Lot played a part in that decision to destroy it since he was willing to give his daughters to a mob to be raped repeatedly by that mob to keep the strangers from harm…and Lot’s daughters morality was deficient in that they and their father had a drunken orgy the night after Sodom’s desturction.

So far “righteous Lot” and his spared daughters don’t seem much to emulate and hold up as “righteous”…but they were spared…God “missed” a few things it would seem to me.

 

[ephesians4]

The myth occrued in Genesis…not Leviticus. If God destroyed Sodom, I’m sure Lot played a part in that decision to destroy it since he was willing to give his daughters to a mob to be raped repeatedly by that mob to keep the strangers from harm…and Lot’s daughters morality was deficient in that they and their father had a drunken orgy the night after Sodom’s desturction.

So far “righteous Lot” and his spared daughters don’t seem much to emulate and hold up as “righteous”…but they were spared…God “missed” a few things it would seem to me.

Yet this man, this terrible man, is who was more righteous than a community that endorsed things like homosexuality in its society and its law.

That among other sins that are sadly rampant in some of the world now, and some absent but which are topped by even more obscene/murderous current behaviors.

Thanks for your perspective, I never thought of it as quite that bad. Food for thought.

 

[Walcot]

You don’t know how lucky you are!!!
Some of you sound so miserable… I prescribe a trip out to some beautiful countryside - walk, get the wind in your face, see the beauty that exists around you, take photos of the wonderful plants and fellow creatures that share this planet with us! Give thanks for the freedom and ability to be able to do this…if you’re disabled, as some of my friends are, get someone to take you and share it.
If you’re depressed about the beliefs and behaviour of other people, just resolve to set a good example, and then, get over it! Because it’s never been any different - it takes all sorts to make a world, never, never will we all agree on ANYTHING!
To those doomsters on this thread I say…Thank your God, do your bit as best you can and lighten up. It’s definitely not your place to practically challenge God to destroy the world because it isn’t going the way you want… ‘Who are you to tell us that?!’ you’ll cry…to which I’ll reply 'who are you to know the mind of God?!
I thought it was all about trust?
I repeat, I’m agnostic, not atheist and I don’t mean to sound disrespectful - really. I just think some people must have had a sense of humour bypass, and maybe ought to appreciate the good things they do have.

 

[Seeker1961]

Dear seeker,
Really? Have you been slandered here?
I challange you to provide proof of Catholics slandering and calling names and using degrading language.

BTW. When we quote from the Bible or state what the Catholic church teaches, we refere to the source of our faith. If you call THAT slander and demeaning, then who are you and what is your mission here?

Spend a little time on the World News section and read there-or on any of the gay marriage threads. There are far too many for me to quote here. And no, nobody is foolish enough to attack other posters directly, you get points for that. The labels are attached to groups and public figures who don’t post here.

And once again, the point sails on by…once more with feeling.

I’m not suggesting that we water anything down or lie…I’m only saying that we too often get caught up in our zealousness to defend the truth and forget about treating others with charity.

 

[speakttruth]

Dear seeker,
Really? Have you been slandered here?
I challenge you to provide proof of Catholics slandering and calling names and using degrading language.

BTW. When we quote from the Bible or state what the Catholic church teaches, we refer to the source of our faith. If you call THAT slander and demeaning, then who are you and what is your mission here?

Thank you. That is what I have been wondering all along.
So I ask the same question. What is the mission of some of them here?

Here is some that I found. I was looking up Michelle Arnold one of the moderators answers to peoples questions and I noticed one of the questions about whether or not someone should attend a Same Sex Marriage if it goes against our Catholic teachings.
.
So I started reading the comments and the very people who claim to be chaste Catholics, I reconized, lambasted her for not being charitable because they didn’t agree with her answer, they in turn were not really charitible by the same standards they use against people they feel that are uncharible. So isn’t that a double standard?

Why? This is my observation. Because supposedly some not all, who claim to be chaste people still don’t want to listen to all the truths if they don’t conform to their feelings of PC. This is their mission. We are outdated. To change the Catholic church teachings on certain subjects especially on homosexuality and for Catholics trying to be faithful, to just keep quiet. All in the name of love.??? Are we going by feelings or using our intelligence to see the truths? Of course we are to be respectful to everyone’s dignity, that’s a given, and unChrist like if we don’t , but that doesn’t mean there isn’t consequences to unrepentent sins. We can’t go along just to get along. That would not be charitable to their soul. We want everyone to go to heaven. We don’t have to be passive about our faith we are fighting for souls including our own. Isn’t that the goal?

.
Just my thoughts.

GB

 

[Seeker1961]

Thank you. That is what I have been wondering all along.
So I ask the same question. What is the mission of some of them here?

Here is some that I found. I was looking up Michelle Arnold one of the moderators answers to peoples questions and I noticed one of the questions about whether or not someone should attend a Same Sex Marriage if it goes against our Catholic teachings.
.
So I started reading the comments and the very people who claim to be chaste Catholics, I reconized, lambasted her for not being charitable because they didn’t agree with her answer, they in turn were not really charitible by the same standards they use against people they feel that are uncharible. So isn’t that a double standard?

Why? This is my observation. Because supposedly some not all, who claim to be chaste people still don’t want to listen to all the truths if they don’t conform to their feelings of PC. This is their mission. We are outdated. To change the Catholic church teachings on certain subjects especially on homosexuality and for Catholics trying to be faithful, to just keep quiet. All in the name of love.??? Are we going by feelings or using our intelligence to see the truths? Of course we are to be respectful to everyone’s dignity, that’s a given, and unChrist like if we don’t , but that doesn’t mean there isn’t consequences to unrepentent sins. We can’t go along just to get along. That would not be charitable to their soul. We want everyone to go to heaven. We don’t have to be passive about our faith we are fighting for souls including our own. Isn’t that the goal?

.
Just my thoughts.

GB

Once more…with feeling, just in case that veiled comment was directed at me. If you can find any post of mine that suggests the Catholic Church should change I would like to see it.

I’m not suggesting that we water anything down or lie…I’m only saying that we too often get caught up in our zealousness to defend the truth and forget about treating others with charity.

 

[fix]

Thank you. That is what I have been wondering all along.
So I ask the same question. What is the mission of some of them here?

Here is some that I found. I was looking up Michelle Arnold one of the moderators answers to peoples questions and I noticed one of the questions about whether or not someone should attend a Same Sex Marriage if it goes against our Catholic teachings.
.
So I started reading the comments and the very people who claim to be chaste Catholics, I reconized, lambasted her for not being charitable because they didn’t agree with her answer, they in turn were not really charitible by the same standards they use against people they feel that are uncharible. So isn’t that a double standard?

Why? This is my observation. Because supposedly some not all, who claim to be chaste people still don’t want to listen to all the truths if they don’t conform to their feelings of PC. This is their mission. We are outdated. To change the Catholic church teachings on certain subjects especially on homosexuality and for Catholics trying to be faithful, to just keep quiet. All in the name of love.??? Are we going by feelings or using our intelligence to see the truths? Of course we are to be respectful to everyone’s dignity, that’s a given, and unChrist like if we don’t , but that doesn’t mean there isn’t consequences to unrepentent sins. We can’t go along just to get along. That would not be charitable to their soul. We want everyone to go to heaven. We don’t have to be passive about our faith we are fighting for souls including our own. Isn’t that the goal?

.
Just my thoughts.

GB

You are brave to speak the truth in these matters. You have hit on a delicate topic but one I suspect has been identified by many who lurk here.

 

[speakttruth]

Once more…with feeling, just in case that veiled comment was directed at me. If you can find any post of mine that suggests the Catholic Church should change I would like to see it.

I’m not suggesting that we water anything down or lie…I’m only saying that we too often get caught up in our zealousness to defend the truth and forget about treating others with charity.

I was reading this in a Catholic encylopedia about faith. what do you think?

d) Further, the habit of faith may be stronger in one person than in another, “whether because of the greater certitude and firmness in the faith which one has more than another, or because of his greater promptitude in assenting, or because of his greater devotion to the truths of faith, or because of his greater confidence” (II-II:5:4).(e) We are sometimes asked whether we are really certain of the things we believe, and we rightly answer in the affirmative; but strictly speaking, certitude can be looked at from two standpoints: if we look at its cause, we have in faith the highest form of certitude, for its cause is the Essential Truth; but if we look at the certitude which arises from the extent to which the intellect grasps a truth, then in faith we have not such perfect certitude as we have of demonstrable truths, since the truths believed are beyond the intellect’s comprehension (II-II, Q. iv, 8; de Ver., xiv, and i, ad 7).
.

.

 

[Seeker1961]

I was reading this in a Catholic encylopedia about faith. what do you think?

d) Further, the habit of faith may be stronger in one person than in another, “whether because of the greater certitude and firmness in the faith which one has more than another, or because of his greater promptitude in assenting, or because of his greater devotion to the truths of faith, or because of his greater confidence” (II-II:5:4).(e) We are sometimes asked whether we are really certain of the things we believe, and we rightly answer in the affirmative; but strictly speaking, certitude can be looked at from two standpoints: if we look at its cause, we have in faith the highest form of certitude, for its cause is the Essential Truth; but if we look at the certitude which arises from the extent to which the intellect grasps a truth, then in faith we have not such perfect certitude as we have of demonstrable truths, since the truths believed are beyond the intellect’s comprehension (II-II, Q. iv, 8; de Ver., xiv, and i, ad 7).
.

.

I’m not suggesting that we water anything down or lie…I’m only saying that we too often get caught up in our zealousness to defend the truth and forget about treating others with charity.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

The myth occrued in Genesis…not Leviticus. If God destroyed Sodom, I’m sure Lot played a part in that decision to destroy it since he was willing to give his daughters to a mob to be raped repeatedly by that mob to keep the strangers from harm…and Lot’s daughters morality was deficient in that they and their father had a drunken orgy the night after Sodom’s desturction.

So far “righteous Lot” and his spared daughters don’t seem much to emulate and hold up as “righteous”…but they were spared…God “missed” a few things it would seem to me.

Lot wasnt offering his daughters to be raped. Its more like what we call arranged marriages today.

And reading the account further, it didnt end up happening anyway.

 

[speakttruth]

Once more…with feeling, just in case that veiled comment was directed at me. If you can find any post of mine that suggests the Catholic Church should change I would like to see it.

Charity. What do you think?
Love of neighbour

The Christian idea of brotherly love as compared with the pagan or Jewish concept has been touched upon elsewhere (see CHARITY AND CHARITIES). Briefly, its distinctive feature, and superiority as well, is to be found less in its commands, or prohibitions, or even results, than in the motive which prompts its laws and prepares its achievements. The faithful carrying out of the “new commandment” is called the criterion of true Christian discipleship (John xiii, 34 sq.), the standard by which we shall be judged (Matthew 25:34 sqq.), the best proof that we
love God Himself (1 John 3:10), and the fulfilment of the whole law (Galatians 5:14), because, viewing the neighbour in God and through God, it has the same value as the love of God. The expression “to love the neighbour for the sake of God” means that we rise above the consideration of mere natural solidarity and fellow-feeling to the higher view of our common Divine adoption and heavenly heritage; in that sense only could our brotherly love be brought near to the love which Christ had for us (John 13:35), and a kind of moral identity between Christ and the neighbour (Matthew 25:40), become intelligible. From this high motive the universality of fraternal charity follows as a necessary consequence. Whosoever sees in his fellow-men, not the human peculiarities, but the God-given and God-like privileges, can no longer restrict his love to members of the family, or co-religionists, or fellow-citizens, or strangers within the borders (Leviticus 19:34), but must needs extend it, without distinction of Jew or Gentile (Romans 10:12), to all the units of the human kind, to social outcasts (Luke 10:33 sqq.), and even to enemies (Matthew 5:23 sq.). Very forcible is the lesson wherein Christ compels His hearers to recognize, in the much despised Samaritan, the true type of the neighbour, and truly new is the commandment whereby He urges us to forgive our enemies, to be reconciled with them, to assist and love them.

The exercise of charity would soon become injudicious and inoperative unless there be in this, as in all the moral virtues, a well-defined order. The ordo caritatis, as theologians a term it, possibly from a wrong rendering into Latin of Cant., ii, 4 (ordinavit in me charitatem), takes into account these different factors:

1. 
   *]the persons who claim our love,
   *]the advantages which we desire to procure for them, and
   *]the necessity in which they are placed.
   
   Continued

 

[speakttruth]

Seeker1961;10456875:

Once more…with feeling, just in case that veiled comment was directed at me. If you can find any post of mine that suggests the Catholic Church should change I would like to see it.

Seeker What do you think?

Charity

Love of neighbour

• Continued

The precedence is plain enough when these factors are viewed separately. Regarding the persons alone, the order is somewhat as follows: self, wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters, friends, domestics, neighbours, fellow-countrymen, and all others. Considering the goods by themselves, there is a triple order:

1. 
   *]the most important spiritual goods appertaining to the salvation of the soul should first appeal to our solicitude; then
   *]the intrinsic and natural goods of the soul and body, like life, health, knowledge, liberty, etc.;
   *]finally, the extrinsic goods of reputation, wealth, etc.
   
   Viewing apart the various kinds of necessity, the following order would obtain:
   1. 
      *]first, extreme necessity, wherein a man is in danger of damnation, or of death, or of the loss of other goods of nearly equal importance and can do nothing to help himself;
      *]second, grave necessity, when one placed in similar danger can extricate himself only by heroic efforts;
      *]third, common necessity, such as affects ordinary sinners or beggars who can help themselves without great difficulty.
      
      When the three factors are combined, they give rise to complicated rules, the principal of which are these:
      1. 
         *]The love of complacency and the love of benefaction do not follow the same standard, the former being guided by the worthiness, the latter by the nearness and need, of the neighbour.
         *]Our personal salvation is to be preferred to all else. We are never justified in committing the slightest sin for the love of any one or anything whatsoever, nor should we expose ourselves to spiritual danger except in such cases and with such precautions as would give us a moral right to, and guarantee of, God’s protection.
         *]We are bound to succour our neighbour in extreme spiritual necessity even at the cost of our own life, an obligation which, however supposes the certainty of the neighbour’s need and of the effectiveness of our service to him.
         *]Except in the very rare cases described above, we are not bound to risk life or limb for our neighbour, but only to undergo that amount of inconvenience which is justified by the neighbour’s need and nearness. Casuists are not agreed as to the right to give one’s life for another’s life of equal importance.

 

[Seeker1961]

I think you do a very good job of quoting things other people have written.

 

[speakttruth]

I’m not suggesting that we water anything down or lie…I’m only saying that we too often get caught up in our zealousness to defend the truth and forget about treating others with charity.

Our versions of Charity are different. My approach is not always sweet and syrupy, but sincere and trying to be truthful, but it doesn’t mean I am uncharitable, I believe I am being very charitable. I am trying to save souls and informing some of the truths that I see missing that are from the Catholic faith.
Peace.

 

[speakttruth]

I think you do a very good job of quoting things other people have written.

Of course, I am not that smart to write an encyclopedia, but I can read. I may be a slow processor, but I still can process.

 

[speakttruth]

I just got over a foot of snow. I have to wait for the spring to go in my garden and I won’t be on here then, I don’t like the cold.

I love yours and my God with all my heart my mind and my soul. That is true happiness
I pray you find it some day.
GB

Just for you

the Lord safeguard his faith" (Enarration on Psalm 120).
Faith is reasonable

(a) If we are to believe present-day Rationalists and Agnostics, faith, as we define it, is unreasonable. An Agnostic declines to accept it because he considers that the things proposed for his acceptance are preposterous, and because he regards the motives assigned for our belief as wholly inadequate. “Present me with a reasonable faith based on reliable evidence, and I will joyfully embrace it. Until that time I have no choice but to remain an Agnostic” (Medicus in the Do we Believe? Controversy, p. 214). Similarly, Francis Newman says: “Paul was satisfied with a kind of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus which fell exceedingly short of the demands of modern logic, it is absurd in us to believe, barely because they believed” (Phases of Faith, p. 186). Yet the supernatural truths of faith, however they may transcend our reason, cannot be opposed to it, for truth cannot be opposed to truth, and the same Deity Who bestowed on us the light of reason by which we assent to first principles is Himself the cause of those principles, which are but a reflection of His own Divine truth. When He chooses to manifest to us further truths concerning Himself, the fact that these latter are beyond the grasp of the natural light which He has bestowed upon us will not prove them to be contrary to our reason. Even so pronounced a rationalist as Sir Oliver Lodge says: “I maintain that it is hopelessly unscientific to imagine it possible that man is the highest intelligent existence” (Hibbert Journal, July, 1906, p. 727).Agnostics, again, take refuge in the unknowableness of truths beyond reason, but their argument is fallacious, for surely knowledge has its degrees. I may not fully comprehend a truth in all its bearings, but I can know a great deal about it; I may not have demonstrative knowledge of it, but that is no reason why I should reject that knowledge which comes from faith. To listen to many Agnostics one would imagine that appeal to authority as a criterion was unscientific, though perhaps nowhere is authority appealed to so unscientifically as by modern scientists and modern critics. But, as St. Augustine says, “If God’s providence govern human affairs we must not despair or doubt but that He hath ordained some certain authority, upon which staying ourselves as upon a certain ground or step, we may be lifted up to God” (De utilitate credendi); and it is in the same spirit that he says: “Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas” (Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6 — “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not oblige me to believe”).

 

[Walcot]

I just got over a foot of snow. I have to wait for the spring to go in my garden and I won’t be on here then, I don’t like the cold.

I love yours and my God with all my heart my mind and my soul. That is true happiness
I pray you find it some day.
GB

Just for you

the Lord safeguard his faith" (Enarration on Psalm 120).
Faith is reasonable

(a) If we are to believe present-day Rationalists and Agnostics, faith, as we define it, is unreasonable. An Agnostic declines to accept it because he considers that the things proposed for his acceptance are preposterous, and because he regards the motives assigned for our belief as wholly inadequate. “Present me with a reasonable faith based on reliable evidence, and I will joyfully embrace it. Until that time I have no choice but to remain an Agnostic” (Medicus in the Do we Believe? Controversy, p. 214). Similarly, Francis Newman says: “Paul was satisfied with a kind of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus which fell exceedingly short of the demands of modern logic, it is absurd in us to believe, barely because they believed” (Phases of Faith, p. 186). Yet the supernatural truths of faith, however they may transcend our reason, cannot be opposed to it, for truth cannot be opposed to truth, and the same Deity Who bestowed on us the light of reason by which we assent to first principles is Himself the cause of those principles, which are but a reflection of His own Divine truth. When He chooses to manifest to us further truths concerning Himself, the fact that these latter are beyond the grasp of the natural light which He has bestowed upon us will not prove them to be contrary to our reason. Even so pronounced a rationalist as Sir Oliver Lodge says: “I maintain that it is hopelessly unscientific to imagine it possible that man is the highest intelligent existence” (Hibbert Journal, July, 1906, p. 727).Agnostics, again, take refuge in the unknowableness of truths beyond reason, but their argument is fallacious, for surely knowledge has its degrees. I may not fully comprehend a truth in all its bearings, but I can know a great deal about it; I may not have demonstrative knowledge of it, but that is no reason why I should reject that knowledge which comes from faith. To listen to many Agnostics one would imagine that appeal to authority as a criterion was unscientific, though perhaps nowhere is authority appealed to so unscientifically as by modern scientists and modern critics. But, as St. Augustine says, “If God’s providence govern human affairs we must not despair or doubt but that He hath ordained some certain authority, upon which staying ourselves as upon a certain ground or step, we may be lifted up to God” (De utilitate credendi); and it is in the same spirit that he says: “Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas” (Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6 — “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not oblige me to believe”).

Crikey…that’s another example of linguistic gymnastics like I come up against when I try to look things up on the Catholic encyclopaedia…I really find it hard to get what’s actually being said. Sorry to be thick here, but can you put that in accessible English please? Basically you’re talking about ‘truth’…theological truth as opposed to more ‘everyday’ truth?..‘truth cannot be opposed to truth’…‘upon which staying ourselves as upon a certain ground or step…’ The way it’s put I don’t understand. It seems like it’s complicating language to obscure it’s meaning - to give it some sort of a sense of mystery?
I’m agnostic because I don’t ‘know’…it’s ‘all too big’ and people have been looking for answers since we were living in caves - naturally enough. Basically, I guess, if your ancestors had gone east instead of west, you’d share a different set of truths and be just as sure of them.
Here’s to spring putting in an appearance soon so that we can get in the garden…and I shall be lambing…

 

[Publisher]

Lot wasnt offering his daughters to be raped. Its more like what we call arranged marriages today.

And reading the account further, it didnt end up happening anyway.

No…just a drunken orgy between Lot and his daughters.

 

[speakttruth]

Crikey…that’s another example of linguistic gymnastics like I come up against when I try to look things up on the Catholic encyclopaedia…I really find it hard to get what’s actually being said. Sorry to be thick here, but can you put that in accessible English please? Basically you’re talking about ‘truth’…theological truth as opposed to more ‘everyday’ truth?..‘truth cannot be opposed to truth’…‘upon which staying ourselves as upon a certain ground or step…’ The way it’s put I don’t understand. It seems like it’s complicating language to obscure it’s meaning - to give it some sort of a sense of mystery?
I’m agnostic because I don’t ‘know’…it’s ‘all too big’ and people have been looking for answers since we were living in caves - naturally enough. Basically, I guess, if your ancestors had gone east instead of west, you’d share a different set of truths and be just as sure of them.
Here’s to spring putting in an appearance soon so that we can get in the garden…and I shall be lambing…

It’ ok. I will still be praying for you to find out. I just thought it might be interesting to you. None the less, I was just trying to help you understand. I know that wasn’t going to convert you instantly. Yesss Spring is coming and we will be renewed and God willing, will be getting into my garden. Have a great day.
GB