Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Momentary Life...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    You are such a Democrat.
    That will come as some surprise to most of the candidates I've voted for in my life.

    You talk about PBS (and probably NPR if I'm not mistaken) like how I gush on about Catholic TV.
    I do enjoy it and it's on our local classical station, which has a disappointingly narrow window on jazz. PBS is great when it comes to science programming and I love the way it gets my son excited about the topic. The programming tends to be beautifully photographed.

    Aside from baseball, I don't know of television that is more grabbing for me than Catholic television---with a possible exception being this Netflix I'm watching now; just video of an actual wood fire burning, real time, which is honestly just about the best television ever in some ways. I have stared with intense interest at fires my whole life, and even the most gripping television hasn't had a hold on me like one of God's own creations, fire. I can and have watched it for hours. Even Major League Baseball hasn't held my interest like fire does, not even five Patriots Super Bowls, and three MLB World Series (the last of which I didn't even watch, this is how humdrum world championships have become in Boston), can entrain me like how fire does.
    I've largely fallen off the sports wagon. I watch the World Series, maybe some of the games leading up. I watch a little more of the NBA, but nothing like I did a few years ago. Looks like my Celtics are on their way back. It would be nice if they and the Lakers could get really good and tangle again in an NBA finals. I like college and NFL football, but again don't spend the time I once did. I don't have a particular team in the pros, though I've been fond of the Saints since Brees showed up. Maybe he'll have one last run. In college ball I follow Alabama.

    The other matter wrt which you're a Democrat, along with your penchant (de facto French pronunciation) for 'public' television and radio, is gun control. You believe in an inalienable right to bear arms, I believe, like @The Barbarian does, but you don't believe in the Second Amendment, so please stop being dishonest---you think the Second Amendment should be repealed or at least amended.
    I don't answer anything that contains a "you're not being honest" clause. Drop that and I'd be happy to talk about it with you. Add it and there's no point in talking about it to you. Why would you believe anything I have to say?

    The only thing that makes you a non-Democrat is that it sounds like you vote Republican on the matter of abortion.
    Actually, I'm a registered Republican. In my state we have to declare and most of the local candidates I like and judiciary candidates are conservative Republicans. The Democrats have only managed to win my support for a handful of elections, but I don't consider myself in either camp. They're both too extreme for me these days and I'm an independent by nature. I have a number of issues where I'm fairly conservative and a number where I'm fairly progressive. It's issue by issue for me.

    You believe that abortion ought to be statutorially outlawed, you just believe in case law to sort out when it ought to be de facto decriminalized. I believe that it ought to statutorially be decriminalized in particular form, like killing people; which is statutorially outlawed as murder among other specific forms, and, in free states, decriminalized in the form of self defense or in defense of other innocent people. And even sometimes, perhaps immorally, in defense of property, even particularly worthless property.
    I've put up a couple of different arguments against abortion for years. Both center on right, agreement, and the logical necessity of defending against a thing we all agree at some point cannot be permitted, as it would work an abrogation of right on the part of a vested citizen. The only exception I can see to that would be the life of the mother being immediately imperiled where the infant cannot live independently and the basis for the exception would be self-defense, but it's complicated and there's more to unpack on the point.

    The Catholic Church is Jesus's Church...
    I certainly hold that it's one of them. I'm not qualified to speak on Catholic doctrine, though my Episcopal background isn't very far removed (I'm not longer an Episcopalian, though I was reared as one). But my understanding is that he's really only moving the margin a bit and he's within his rights to do so.

    I oppose the death penalty on less philosophical grounds. We have and likely will continue to kill innocent men and women in the name of justice. That should be unacceptable. Unlike being falsely imprisoned, there's no restitution for someone deprived of every right. If we feel that strongly about the infringement we should protect against our own fallible capacity to err on the point.

    The Netflix fire is excellent, in part because what you've missed, you feel no need to go back and watch. It's fine right where you're picking it up, right now is a good time to start watching that sucker. It's God's direct creation, fire, and it is like watching Rick Porcello one-hit the Yankees for nine straight innings. There's nothing else like it.
    I live in the country and have acreage. With all the soft wood (darn pecan trees) about I never lack something to put on the fire if I'm of the mind for one, though I tend to use the pit these days, as the fireplaces are ancient and we have central heating and air.

    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    How was it not a reprimand?
    In what way was it not a reprimand.
    You're choosing one word that can be softer than a list that gives you the clear context for usage. I can't help you see what you're determined not to but I've said what I can about that prior.

    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    I have to engage you in your non-Catholicism. It's in the nature of the site. 'Theology Online' means, from the start, way back at the beginning, 'We're going to fight about theology.'

    Your non-Catholicism is de jure wrong.
    We're not going to fight about it. I have no problem with you getting the non-salvific wrong and so I'm not often engaged in arguing those sorts of particulars. I'm a Presbyterian. We have a kind of mantra: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life






    Comment


    • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      We're not going to fight about it.
      Will you give me odds on that?
      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      I have no problem with you getting the non-salvific wrong and so I'm not often engaged in arguing those sorts of particulars. I'm a Presbyterian. We have a kind of mantra: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.
      I used to be a Presbyterian. RPCNA. Small, ultraconservative, we only sang Psalms, and only unaccompanied (acappella; it is beautiful). The Catholic Church leaves it up to us to self-police wrt Holy Communion, largely. An exception is formal excommunication, in which case Communion is not served. Another case is invalid marriage, such as same-sex marriage, or marriage after divorce. Beyond that, each individual Catholic is trusted to decide for themselves whether or not they are in full communion with the Church. Disagreeing with an infallible teaching of the magisterium's on a matter of faith or morals constitutes a break in communion, and so should correspond with abstaining from the Eucharist, just as I do, me not being Catholic. That is the technically correct course. But even those who violate 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV or 1st Corinthians 11:29 KJV, just commit another sin, and there's a reason that the Church is so quick to construct and raise up crucifixes, beyond the scriptures in support of this practice of hers (Jn3:14KJV Jn 8:28KJV Jn12:32KJV 1Co1:23KJV 1Co2:2KJV), and that is to remind us of 'how that Christ died for our sins' (1Co15:3KJV).
      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

      @Nee_Nihilo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
        Will you give me odds on that?
        It's an undread certainty.

        I used to be a Presbyterian.
        I once belonged to the Rotary. I don't recall any singing, but there was always a chicken dinner.
        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

        Pro-Life






        Comment


        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          It's an undread certainty.


          I once belonged to the Rotary. I don't recall any singing, but there was always a chicken dinner.
          For 1000 years there was one Church Town, it was the one that Jesus Himself founded, and more importantly, wrt historical validity, the one that all His Apostles worked to build.

          Are you of the opinion that that one Church is no longer extant? Do you think that His one Church is now a multitude of Churches instead? Or do you believe the Reformers, who say that the one Church He founded was actually 'invisible?' Is there another option?
          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

          @Nee_Nihilo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
            For 1000 years there was one Church Town, it was the one that Jesus Himself founded, and more importantly, wrt historical validity, the one that all His Apostles worked to build.
            When I was a kid, the only fast food place in the county seat was a Hardee's.

            Are you of the opinion that that one Church is no longer extant?
            I'm of the opinion that things change. Now we have a McDonald's, Arby's, even a Ruby Tuesday's.

            So many places and they all serve food, even if they didn't serve it first.

            Is there another option?
            Sure. Wendy's...though as with most they're fond of possessives.
            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

            Pro-Life






            Comment


            • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
              When I was a kid, the only fast food place in the county seat was a Hardee's.


              I'm of the opinion that things change. Now we have a McDonald's, Arby's, even a Ruby Tuesday's.

              So many places and they all serve food, even if they didn't serve it first.


              Sure. Wendy's...though as with most they're fond of possessives.
              OK. I'll play along.

              So McDonald's we'll say is the first fastfood drivethrough hamburger chain.

              This'd be the Church that Christ founded, and the one that His Apostles developed, and that was the only fastfood drivethrough hamburger chain for 1000 years.

              In AD 1054, McDonald's experienced a rift, we'll call it a 'schism,' and so, we'll say, Hardee's was born in AD 1054.

              The McDonald's managers were the only authentic fastfood drivethrough hamburger restaurateurs until AD 1054, and they were in lockstep with the Roman McDonald's restaurateur, who was the successor of Peter the Apostle, who managed the Roman McDonald's, until his death at the hands of Nero, around AD 65-66.

              No matter what else happened, the Roman McDonald's is the McDonald's that Peter managed, that's just historical fact.

              The Hardee's managers were otherwise still authentic McDonald's restaurateurs, except that they were no longer in lockstep with the Roman McDonald's restaurateur, which was enough to make Hardee's a distinct fastfood drivethrough hamburger chain from McDonald's.

              Hardee's restaurants are the Orthodox churches, the Greek, the Antiochan, Georgian, etc. There are about a dozen of these organizations, all in communion with each other, but each operating as independent organizations. I suppose it could be like if Hardee's had regional organizations, but that Hardee's itself was not a single entity.

              So back to Rome, to McDonald's. In 1517 McDonald's lost a bunch of customers, all because a McDonald's employee (Martin Luther was a monastic priest, not a bishop, so not a 'McDonald's restaurateur') didn't like McDonald's corporate policies. He began another fastfood drivethrough hamburger chain, let's say that was Arby's. Then other people who weren't even McDonald's employees created their own fastfood drivethrough hamburger chains, like the Presbyterian ecclesial communities, maybe this was Wendy's. The Anglicans were maybe Burger King (seeing as how the king of England is the head of that ecclesial community, 'seems apt).

              So, sure, things change, and now instead of just McDonald's, we have choices as to where we get our fastfood hamburgers. But the historical fact remains that Jesus Christ and His Apostles founded and built up only McDonald's, and Peter was the restaurateur of the McDonald's in Rome when he died, and for 1000 years there wasn't any dispute that Peter's successor was the 'first among equal' McDonald's restaurateurs, and that this management position was the standard for how every McDonald's was to be managed.

              Since your parallel is limited, and Church isn't about eating and drinking, but is a single Body (of Christ), then we may have to leave it at this.

              Thoughts?
              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

              @Nee_Nihilo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                OK. I'll play along.
                Great job, by the way. Very entertaining particulars.

                So, sure, things change, and now instead of just McDonald's, we have choices as to where we get our fastfood hamburgers. But the historical fact remains that Jesus Christ and His Apostles founded and built up only McDonald's, and Peter was the restaurateur of the McDonald's in Rome when he died, and for 1000 years there wasn't any dispute that Peter's successor was the 'first among equal' McDonald's restaurateurs, and that this management position was the standard for how every McDonald's was to be managed.
                I think it's hard to argue against the Catholic church as the oldest organized standard of the Body, at least in terms of pulling the whole thing into that particular shape. Sure. The first among equals franchising argument is apt. I think Christ in this was the founder of the product, not the particular chain in the form it evolved through tradition and consideration, but that's a longer bit.

                Since your parallel is limited, and Church isn't about eating and drinking, but is a single Body (of Christ), then we may have to leave it at this.

                Thoughts?
                I think the limitation applied to the principle is all we need to understand that no matter how loyal some are to McDonalds, being first isn't a guarantee of being best, or at least best for every customer. The product is the thing, not the wrapper.
                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                Pro-Life






                Comment


                • Love someone without reservation. Give without a thought to yourself. Connect who you are, meaningfully, with the moment you find yourself in. Dare to risk what matters for what matters more.

                  If you fail, you can laugh to yourself about it. And if you succeed then others can laugh with you too...which is a bit wonderful.
                  Last edited by Town Heretic; August 13, 2018, 09:57 PM.
                  You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                  Pro-Life






                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    It's an undread certainty.


                    I once belonged to the Rotary. I don't recall any singing, but there was always a chicken dinner.
                    My local activity that keeps me busy is my church Worship Team. I can't claim anything as classy as the rotary. My husband and I used to be with the Elks way back when.

                    June is Gay Pride Month.Tolerance and diversity? ☞ More like tolerate perversity.☠

                    Comment


                    • Almost every great success story is a study in aspiration, hard work, disappointment, and perseverance. We may stumble in our journey, but so long as we stumble forward we will eventually arrive.
                      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                      Pro-Life






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        That will come as some surprise to most of the candidates I've voted for in my life.
                        My kingdom for any politician who would stand for, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Democrat or not. But there's no such thing as a Democrat who stands for that, at least not around here. (Where's the 'tumbleweed' smilie?)
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        PBS is great when it comes to science programming and I love the way it gets my son excited about the topic. The programming tends to be beautifully photographed.
                        I like the science too, and I hate the gun hating.
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        Looks like my Celtics are on their way back.
                        That's funny. They're 'my' Celtics because I live here. You?
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        ...I've been fond of the Saints since Brees showed up. Maybe he'll have one last run.
                        He is great. No Brady (or Rodgers), but great nonetheless.
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        I don't answer anything that contains a "you're not being honest" clause. Drop that and I'd be happy to talk about it with you. Add it and there's no point in talking about it to you. Why would you believe anything I have to say?
                        You've said that gun control does not infringe the right, and instead equate possession of machine guns, assault weapons, and rocket launchers, to libel, slander, or yelling 'fire' in a crowded, non-burning theater. You've further depicted the prefatory clause of the Second as anachronistic and obsolete. So please do, instruct me as to why you don't believe that 'the Second Amendment should be repealed or at least amended.' I'll believe you---promise.
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        ...I'm an independent by nature. I have a number of issues where I'm fairly conservative and a number where I'm fairly progressive. It's issue by issue for me.
                        I'm one-issue, until that one issue becomes more commonly supported and defended: Guns/weapons/'all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.'
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        The only exception I can see to that [prohibiting abortion] would be the life of the mother being immediately imperiled where the infant cannot live independently and the basis for the exception would be self-defense, but it's complicated and there's more to unpack on the point.
                        I don't think it's complicated. Coming from today, where any pregnant person can elect to abort for no reason at all, it'd be a step in the right direction to at least compel the person to testify that they feel endangered to continue with their pregnancy. Pregnancy while of course natural and necessary to propagate the species, is traumatic for the pregnant person, radically altering their bodies and body chemistry, and while we Christians might prefer to force them to endure it to full term, being that it's natural and not an ailment or disease or illness, it would be a step in the right direction to at least compel them to testify that the prospect is too daunting for them, for whatever reason.

                        Perhaps in effect, it's largely what we already have.
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        I oppose the death penalty on less philosophical grounds. We have and likely will continue to kill innocent men and women in the name of justice. That should be unacceptable. Unlike being falsely imprisoned, there's no restitution for someone deprived of every right. If we feel that strongly about the infringement we should protect against our own fallible capacity to err on the point.
                        The primary reason in the Holy See now condemning the death penalty as I see it, has to do with the state of modern prisons, and our ability to with virtually 100% reliability, contain capital criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.) and protect other innocent people from them. In the past, this was less reliable, and it was due to these conditions that the Church previously permitted the death penalty, in order to best protect other innocent people from capital criminals.
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        I live in the country and have acreage. With all the soft wood (darn pecan trees) about I never lack something to put on the fire if I'm of the mind for one, though I tend to use the pit these days, as the fireplaces are ancient and we have central heating and air.
                        Fire is glorious, do you enjoy watching them?
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        You're choosing one word that can be softer than a list that gives you the clear context for usage. I can't help you see what you're determined not to but I've said what I can about that prior.
                        You're the one who brought up 'reprimand.'
                        "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                        @Nee_Nihilo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          I think it's hard to argue against the Catholic church as the oldest organized standard of the Body, at least in terms of pulling the whole thing into that particular shape. Sure.
                          But that 'particular shape' is one of many local churches, all being a part of the one Church. They are all one, for, as I said, 1000 years. They were all one during the Apostolic era, all united and all under the authority of the Apostles as their supreme pastors. That there is more than one, is a new thing, a thing that appeared first 1000 years ago, and that seed then sprouted and grew into a wide range of different ecclesial communities and traditions, none of which operating as a single body with any others, starting in the 1500s.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          The first among equals franchising argument is apt. I think Christ in this was the founder of the product, not the particular chain in the form it evolved through tradition and consideration, but that's a longer bit.


                          I think the limitation applied to the principle is all we need to understand that no matter how loyal some are to McDonalds, being first isn't a guarantee of being best, or at least best for every customer. The product is the thing, not the wrapper.
                          Then what is the product? What is the 'hamburger?'

                          My submission: It's either the Eucharist, or it's the teaching.

                          Background on me: I took to the study of Christian theology like a fish to water. I buried myself in the study of Scripture and of works of theology for decades. I am a biblical literalist. I used to be a staunch, convinced Clavinist. And my conclusion, after all this, is that Holy Catholicism is the only authentic expression of the one (Eph4:5KJV) Christian faith. It's because of the biblical literalism. Our Lord said,

                          "this is my body" Mt26:26KJV
                          "this is my body" Mk14:22KJV
                          "This is my body" Lk22:19KJV
                          "this is my body" 1Co11:24KJV

                          and there's only one ecclesial community/tradition that teaches this literally, and that is the Catholic Church. There are the Orthodox churches also, who also lay claim to being ancient, original communities/traditions, and I conclude that Catholicism is the authentic Church because of the first 1000 years of unity around the papacy, and, again due to my biblical literalism, John's Gospel, written after Peter died, vacating his pastorate over the church in Rome, him being succeeded by Linus, a non-Apostle, a bishop, created by one of the Apostles, when John could have, being the last surviving Apostle, claimed the supreme pastorate of the Church for himself. Instead, John provides Christ's verbatim commission to Peter, in chapter 21, where He said to Peter and to Peter alone, "Feed My sheep." Here, John bolstered the office of the Roman archbishop, cementing it and its holder, as the first [bishop] among equals. A thing undisputed for 1000 years.

                          So my answer is that whether it is the Eucharist that is the 'hamburger,' or the teaching, either way, 'McDonald's' is the Church that Jesus Himself built, the one that the Apostles developed, cultivated, and presided over, and the one that Paul and other New Testament authors meant whenever they invoked 'the Church.'
                          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                          @Nee_Nihilo

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                            But that 'particular shape' is one of many local churches, all being a part of the one Church.
                            Well, the one Catholic Church, to be sure. I'm equally sure they aren't Baptists, by way of.

                            That there is more than one, is a new thing, a thing that appeared first 1000 years ago, and that seed then sprouted and grew into a wide range of different ecclesial communities and traditions, none of which operating as a single body with any others, starting in the 1500s.
                            Then what is the product? What is the 'hamburger?'
                            What are they all selling? Christianity, to continue to use the model.

                            Background on me: I took to the study of Christian theology like a fish to water. I buried myself in the study of Scripture and of works of theology for decades. I am a biblical literalist. I used to be a staunch, convinced Clavinist. And my conclusion, after all this, is that Holy Catholicism is the only authentic expression of the one (Eph4:5KJV) Christian faith. It's because of the biblical literalism.
                            A Biblical literalist in what sense? That it's the literal word of God? I think Protestants are on board with that one too, though most Protestant denominations would argue against the elevation of tradition found in the Catholic understanding. My attitude is that so long as it isn't salvific I'm not going to get bent out of shape by it.

                            Our Lord said, "this is my body."
                            The Body was never meant to be a structure, but the people who rely on Christ and on grace. And in that there is one body, one catholic and apostolic faith.

                            and there's only one ecclesial community/tradition that teaches this literally, and that is the Catholic Church.
                            No, there's one body that teaches that it is the only body (actually, the Church of Christ does that too)...at least a couple that teach they are literally that thing and that outside of their membership is to be outside of the body after one form or another. I think that's lamentable.

                            There are the Orthodox churches also, who also lay claim to being ancient, original communities/traditions, and I conclude that Catholicism is the authentic Church because of the first 1000 years of unity around the papacy, and, again due to my biblical literalism
                            I conclude that men have a way of turning nearly everything into politics, after a fashion. True when a couple were arguing over seating arrangements and true in too many expressions of faith today.

                            , John's Gospel, written after Peter died, vacating his pastorate over the church in Rome, him being succeeded by Linus, a non-Apostle, a bishop, created by one of the Apostles, when John could have, being the last surviving Apostle, claimed the supreme pastorate of the Church for himself. Instead, John provides Christ's verbatim commission to Peter, in chapter 21, where He said to Peter and to Peter alone, "Feed My sheep." Here, John bolstered the office of the Roman archbishop, cementing it and its holder, as the first [bishop] among equals. A thing undisputed for 1000 years.
                            See, I think you're wrong about Peter too. You're narrowing your understanding to fit your need.

                            So my answer is that whether it is the Eucharist that is the 'hamburger,' or the teaching, either way, 'McDonald's' is the Church that Jesus Himself built, the one that the Apostles developed, cultivated, and presided over, and the one that Paul and other New Testament authors meant whenever they invoked 'the Church.'
                            And I'd say Jesus built a stand and men have been mistakenly trying to improve it ever since.
                            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                            Pro-Life






                            Comment


                            • If we only delight in God when the sun is on our face and the wind is fair then we might as well have worshiped the weather.
                              You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                              Pro-Life






                              Comment


                              • I told Jack that my idea of heaven was a library filled with great books that I haven't read.

                                Jack told me his idea of heaven was riding around in a tank...but he allowed it could have a book or two.
                                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                                Pro-Life






                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X