Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Momentary Life...

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

  • Apologies for the delay in reply, if any of my questions or comments exceed your memory of this conversation, mea culpa.
    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.
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    But that 'particular shape' is one of many local churches, all being a part of the one Church.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Well, the one Catholic Church, to be sure. I'm equally sure they aren't Baptists, by way of.
    I don't understand what you mean here.

    But I'll add to my answer. Not only is the 'particular shape' a number of parishes all in communion with each other, but it is also that all Christians are under the authority of her supreme pastors. Those pastors are called bishops, and they were created by the Apostles themselves. Nobody could become a bishop until the Apostles created the first one, through the imposition of their own hands, which is what we now call the sacrament of Holy Orders, 'Orders' being akin to the word 'Ordain,' as in 'ordained priest' or 'ordination.'

    So the bishops are also integral to the 'particular shape' of the Church. And the physical lineage (through the physical imposition of hands) of the Apostles are only so many men right now, and they are all Catholic and Orthodox clergymen, since both have celebrated the sacrament of Holy Orders from the beginning, with both Catholic and Orthodox churches being the originals.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What are they all selling? Christianity, to continue to use the model.
    What's 'Christianity?'

    Here's my own view, and it's the Catholic (and Orthodox; although it's not so easy to tell what the Orthodox believe, because they don't publish anything approaching the depth, breadth, and thoroughness of the Catholic Church's 'Catechism of the Catholic Church') view. The Eucharist, or 'Lord's Supper,' is the center of Christianity. Everything else about the Christian faith emanates out from the celebration of this sacrament, for Christians.

    More below.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    A Biblical literalist in what sense? That it's the literal word of God? I think Protestants are on board with that one too...
    In the sense that unless the genre of the text indicates otherwise, that the Word of God should be taken in its plainest, 'literal,' ('wooden,' even) sense, taking into account the whole witness of all of the Scripture (perspicuity; comparing/interpreting Scripture with Scripture). And, no, Protestants are not on board with that one, because of the Eucharist.

    I laid out Christ's words on the matter, when He instituted the Eucharist; He said, "This is My body." Only the Catholics (and the Orthodox) take Him literally. That is what I mean in calling myself a biblical literalist. The Scripture is the literal Word of God, and I take it literally.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    , though most Protestant denominations would argue against the elevation of tradition found in the Catholic understanding.
    The Gospel of Luke is admitted to be the written version of Sacred Tradition. It has since been authoritatively declared to be Scripture. This gives some idea of how the Church views Sacred Tradition; it is a body of knowledge, a knowledge base, that has come either directly from the Apostles, or it is knowledge that was authorized by the Apostles, much like how Peter authorized Paul's epistles to be declared Christian Scripture. Peter didn't write Paul's epistles, but Romans-Philemon have been given Peter's authorization, and so they have the same authority as if Peter himself wrote them.

    The Church from the beginning kept this Apostolic knowledge base safe, through word-of-mouth, through oral tradition, but now we have possibly the whole Sacred Tradition recorded for us in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' which was the first new catechism the Church has published since the 1500s.

    So in short, the place of Sacred Tradition is on par with Sacred Scripture, and there is no disagreement between these two authorities, but rather they integrate together to form the full Word of God. Both Tradition and the Scriptures have come down to us through the authority of the Apostles, which is Christ's own authority. And the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is on full display in the introduction to Luke.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    My attitude is that so long as it isn't salvific I'm not going to get bent out of shape by it.
    No one's trying to bend you out of shape. My gift is the desire to see the one Body of Christ, the one Church, His Bride, reunited. If I can change your mind, then you'll be an asset.
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    Our Lord said, "this is my body."
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    You're talking about the Body of Christ who are the Church. In this quote, Christ is talking about the body of Christ that is 'this bread,' as in, "For as often as ye eat this bread . . . ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come" (1Co11:26KJV).

    Along with bolstering the place of Peter's pastorate in the Church, John also in his Gospel, written after Peter's murder, bolstered the notion of the 'Real Presence' of Christ in the Eucharist, in chapter 6 of that book. Yet again, an example of what had been only Sacred Tradition, that knowledge base that hadn't been written down, being committed to writing, and it then turning into Sacred Scripture.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    The whole notion of there being a choice in the matter, is not scriptural. For 1000 years in fact, there was no choice. Back then, if you believed the one Christian Gospel, then there was only one choice, and that was the one Christian Church, which is today known as the Catholic Church.

    You're a JD. You understand probably better than most that the Reformation was primarily about the human right of religious liberty, and that at the time, Christians in their civic capacity (not acting as the Church, iow, but as citizens) did not recognize, affirm, or protect the right to religious liberty, because they condemned Martin Luther to death, and only through the assistance of a powerful friend did he avoid execution.

    The Reformation of course also produced a competing theological position to Catholicism, but it had to, in order to justify the legitimacy of Protestants, because as I said, the notion of there being a choice in 'which church,' is not scriptural (cf. 'Sola Scriptura').

    And as to "outside of their membership is to be outside of the body after one form or another," I suppose you could accuse the Catholic Church of this, but what I find in her authorized teachings on the matter is extreme grace, and reason. Her position is that she is the Body of Christ, full stop. But, she believes and teaches that membership in the Body is not identical to membership in the Catholic Church, because it depends upon Christian faith, believing the Gospel. As such, she describes those of us who are not Catholic as "separated brethren," with more emphasis on 'brethren,' and "imperfectly united"* with her, but with more emphasis on 'united.' She calls us 'Christians.'

    (* I believe this is the precise phrase, but I have not double checked at the time of this writing.)
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    I'm not sure if you're referring to entanglements between the Church and civil authorities, or the Church's magisterium claiming to teach authoritatively and infallibly in matters of faith and morals.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    See, I think you're wrong about Peter too.
    Fair enough.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You're narrowing your understanding to fit your need.
    I'm not sure which 'need' you're talking about. I set out how I've arrived in the Catholic school of theology, coming from a Protestant school. I used Protestant methods to get here. My only need is to know my faith. And being a history buff, as I learned more of the history of 'Christianity,' what I saw was that it was the same as the history of the Catholic Church, for the first 1000 years of the Church's existence. Using this fact, I dove back into Sacred Scripture, and found that the only Christian traditions that take the Lord literally at His word, when He said, "This is My body," are the Catholics and the Orthodox. Settling on Catholicism was simply acknowledging both the historical and the biblical data on the matter of Peter's primacy as supreme pastor of the Church. The Church was the Catholic Church in the beginning, and there is no compelling reason to doubt that she remains that, to this day.
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    ...I'd say Jesus built a stand and men have been mistakenly trying to improve it ever since.
    So here's one way I read that: You acknowledge that the Catholic way, is the same way that Christ Himself instituted. But I doubt that's what you meant. Instead, here: 'McDonald's' serves drivethrough hamburger sandwiches, and then there are a wide variety of other drivethrough hamburger restaurants. The difference between them is that at McDonald's, you actually get a hamburger sandwich, but at the other non-Orthodox drivethrough hamburger restaurants, they don't actually give you anything, and it's your job to imagine, like Peter Pan's Lost Boys, that you're enjoying a hamburger sandwich, but there's actually nothing there. And that is because 'McDonald's' (and the Orthodox 'drivethrough hamburger restaurants') only employs authentic restaurateurs, the ordained priests, who consecrate 'this bread,' and when you receive communion, you are actually ingesting the body of Christ, just as He taught when He said, "This is My body."

    When we repeat something over and over again, the repetition physically changes us, and this change infects everything that we do, think, and say. The Lord Jesus instituted the Eucharist, and it is explicitly celebrated in His memory, so it is His original plan for all of us believers to continually receive Holy Communion, and to me, speculatively, it is due at least in part to the physical change that repetition imparts upon us, and imprints within us. When we remember Him, we get better at everything. He feeds us with His own body, in the Eucharist, which is a thing that in many, many Protestant churches, has been relegated to mimicking once a month, or even as infrequently as once a year. Categorically different from the Catholic (and Orthodox) thinking, which is that the gathering together to worship Christ centers around the Eucharist, just as it always has, going all the way back to Acts 2:42 KJV, "they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

    So, fwiw.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
      ...Not only is the 'particular shape' a number of parishes all in communion with each other, but it is also that all Christians are under the authority of her supreme pastors. Those pastors are called bishops, and they were created by the Apostles themselves....
      Apostolic succession was for centuries the litmus test for whether or not a 'church' was Christian, or was rogue. If they did not have apostolic succession, in the person of an ordained bishop, then they were out of full communion with the one Church that Jesus Himself founded. This was the only test of authenticity until Nicaea, when the first authorized confession of the one Christian faith was written into history (before this, what is now the Nicean creed was only known among the bishops who received it orally from their elder bishops, who ultimately received it from the Apostles themselves, who received it from Christ).

      Town, I wanted to point out something.
      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      I'm ahead of 97% of the folks playing the ESPN Pick'em against the line.
      To someone unfamiliar with you, this comes across as bragging/boasting. But I know you, and I also know that the context here indicates that you are merely providing/volunteering relevant/pertinent information to the discussion, so that others know that you're not just making things up in what you're sharing. It's helpful to provide it. You've got an algorithm that is performing really well, and you rightly think that's helpful for others to know. It's like offering up that you're a lawyer or a doctor, when the topic is law or medicine.

      And that is the same spirit in which I've mentioned how long I've been at the diligent and faithful study of both theology and of Sacred Scripture. I've got to the bottom of the rabbit hole. It's Holy Catholicism.

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

      @Nee_Nihilo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
        Town, I wanted to point out something. To someone unfamiliar with you, this comes across as bragging/boasting. But I know you, and I also know that the context here indicates that you are merely providing/volunteering relevant/pertinent information to the discussion, so that others know that you're not just making things up in what you're sharing. It's helpful to provide it. You've got an algorithm that is performing really well, and you rightly think that's helpful for others to know. It's like offering up that you're a lawyer or a doctor, when the topic is law or medicine.
        I do, though the math I'm using this year isn't up to it. Takes a lot of time to set up and I haven't had it. I'm using an old and preliminary approach, mathematically, coupled with experience and observations about trends that do have some statistical backing. So far it's given me two even weeks and three statistically fantastic weeks against the line. And you're right, I don't see it as bragging, only setting out qualifiers.

        I only do this for fun. There's no real ego involved and I don't bet or believe in wagering. My only reservation about doing this publicly was that someone might use it that way. I try to let people know that especially this year I could crash and burn any given week. I'm not running the more tried and true system because of the time/work constraints and I don't want anyone relying on years of similar performances set out here to use my work in a speculative bid to enrich themselves by risking capital. It could turn ugly at any moment. I'm half guessing/half figuring this year. That's actually making it more fun for me, but the downside is enormous for anyone relying on it.

        There. That should at least give anyone tempted reason to refrain from gambling on this hand. I'll probably do pretty well. I should. I've been studying the game for decades, but don't rely on me this year. I'm not really trying to win so much as make the game interesting for me.

        And that is the same spirit in which I've mentioned how long I've been at the diligent and faithful study of both theology and of Sacred Scripture. I've got to the bottom of the rabbit hole. It's Holy Catholicism.
        I can fully appreciate your perspective. And I love Brother Lawrence, Merton, and any number of Catholic thinkers and writers. I just don't share your notion of exclusivity after a fashion. I don't find it necessary for a rich walk that is sufficient for me in my small corner of the world at present.

        I am happy for you though. Be happy for me. We can meet at the cross and celebrate our unity in matters salvific.
        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

        Pro-Life






        Comment


        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          I do, though the math I'm using this year isn't up to it. Takes a lot of time to set up and I haven't had it. I'm using an old and preliminary approach, mathematically, coupled with experience and observations about trends that do have some statistical backing. So far it's given me two even weeks and three statistically fantastic weeks against the line. And you're right, I don't see it as bragging, only setting out qualifiers.

          I only do this for fun. There's no real ego involved and I don't bet or believe in wagering. My only reservation about doing this publicly was that someone might use it that way. I try to let people know that especially this year I could crash and burn any given week. I'm not running the more tried and true system because of the time/work constraints and I don't want anyone relying on years of similar performances set out here to use my work in a speculative bid to enrich themselves by risking capital. It could turn ugly at any moment. I'm half guessing/half figuring this year. That's actually making it more fun for me, but the downside is enormous for anyone relying on it.
          I like to talk about sports without mentioning the line, but you helped me to get a handle on the vocabulary so that I could continue to talk sports with you all, and how to transform what I wanted to say into this new way for me of talking sports. So I appreciate that.

          'Too bad about not believing in wagering, since 'I bet' you could earn a living doing it, if you were sharp with your betting,* on each game each week.


          *-Which games to bet and which ones not to bet, and the bet sizes to place, basically.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          There. That should at least give anyone tempted reason to refrain from gambling on this hand.
          'Not sure that's how they think, people 'allergic' to gambling. If they think they've got even the smallest edge, I think they just jump all over it.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          I'll probably do pretty well. I should. I've been studying the game for decades, but don't rely on me this year. I'm not really trying to win so much as make the game interesting for me.
          I've enjoyed football intrinsically from my youth, when I played it. And then Tom Brady happened on my watch as a fan, so I was a goner.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          I can fully appreciate your perspective.
          Well obviously you can't 'fully' appreciate it, since you'd then share it with me. There isn't an alternative opinion that fits with the facts. And I mean There is Not one. I searched for one, compared notes with others who have searched also, and also tried to construct one, and it's logically impossible, again given the facts.

          Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. My perspective is that all Christians are either 'Catholics on the way to full communion,' or Catholics in full communion. There's other ways to express it, but that will do.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          And I love Brother Lawrence, Merton, and any number of Catholic thinkers and writers.
          When you are of the Catholic school of theological thought, it is like reading the writings of blood relatives, to read Catholics. They all believe that Christ is really in the elements of Communion, did you read them with full knowledge that that is true for each of them? That they each admit to serious belief in what can be honestly described as a bit of bald mysticism? Speaking from the Protestant's perspective of course.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          I just don't share your notion of exclusivity after a fashion.
          But we are exclusive. We and we alone believe in the Empty Tomb, we believe Easter, we believe Christ's Resurrection is nonfiction fact of history. Nobody else is that, that's exclusive to us and us alone, all by ourselves. Anybody who believes in Christ but insists they're not of us, is simply and just and flat-out wrong about that.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          I don't find it necessary for a rich walk that is sufficient for me in my small corner of the world at present.
          It's your right as a human to hold to that view, and it doesn't cost your salvation to do it. But it's not your right as a Christian. You believe in Christ; you pledge allegiance to a King, and He has royal rights over you, as His subject. I'm a fellow subject, and I can't pull rank on you. But religious liberty is not a Christian right, it's a human right, and Christian faith forfeits it. I'm just saying keep it in mind.

          Your small corner of the world has a microphone recording to a 'podcast' that's 'broadcast' the world round. There's never been greater leverage in small corners of the world as there is today.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          I am happy for you though. Be happy for me.
          I'm happy.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          We can meet at the cross and celebrate our unity in matters salvific.
          I'd rather meet at the Empty Tomb. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches lay claim to it. To the literal it, mind you, the location where He rose, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Of course we're brothers and sisters, and of course we'll meet in glory. And the king of the universe, the Pantocrator, is seated at the right hand of the Father. Until He makes His enemies His footstool. 'Footstool''s the earth, it's from Isaiah, where heaven is God's throne, and the earth is His footstool. We're on the earth.
          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

          @Nee_Nihilo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
            I like to talk about sports without mentioning the line, but you helped me to get a handle on the vocabulary so that I could continue to talk sports with you all, and how to transform what I wanted to say into this new way for me of talking sports. So I appreciate that.
            De nada.

            'Too bad about not believing in wagering, since 'I bet' you could earn a living doing it, if you were sharp with your betting,* on each game each week.
            A long time ago I dabbled, before my conversion. It took some of the fun out of it, though I enjoyed the money. The thing about gambling is that it's mostly done by people with poor impulse control and no system. Then you have a few, a sliver of people, who have a measure of both and do well. The powers that be can absorb this easily because it's exceptional.

            I've enjoyed football intrinsically from my youth, when I played it. And then Tom Brady happened on my watch as a fan, so I was a goner.
            Greatest system quarterback of all time. I'm kidding. That's Peyton payback. Can't be helped. I think Brady is a lot like the NBA's Jabar. The only person who has been as good for nearly as long is Brees, who may take that title from him.

            I love the whole GOAT debate. I don't put any modern qb on that pedestal though. I mean rules changes 90s on modern. Marino breaks 5k and it stands for nearly a quarter century, until those offense friendly changes gave birth to Manning, Brady, and Brees. Okay, Stafford got one too. And that alone tells you how much easier it was. Brees managed it 5 times.

            If there's a GOAT, to me it's Montana. Four Super Bowls, four wins. No ints. No losses. Not a single game where his quarterback rating was under 100. Freakish.

            Well obviously you can't 'fully' appreciate it, since you'd then share it with me.
            I fully appreciate your perspective on faith, your conviction, if not your particular expression of it. Better?

            But we are exclusive. We and we alone believe in the Empty Tomb, we believe Easter, we believe Christ's Resurrection is nonfiction fact of history.
            Though it amazes me what some of us believe beyond the salvific from time to time.

            Your small corner of the world has a microphone recording to a 'podcast' that's 'broadcast' the world round. There's never been greater leverage in small corners of the world as there is today.
            I believe in the moment and the face I'm staring into. There is where I see my obligation and there is where I find Christ more often than not.

            I'm happy.
            That, as we say in the hinterlands, ain't hay.

            I'd rather meet at the Empty Tomb.
            Then take Christ off of the cross already. I really had to.

            Then again, ever since we did that men have been doing their darndest to fill the vacancy.

            The Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches lay claim to it.
            Going to get crowded in there.

            Everything beyond grace and gratitude is a mystery to me, but I'm ecstatic in that revelation.

            Of course we're brothers and sisters, and of course we'll meet in glory.
            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

            Pro-Life






            Comment


            • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
              ...I used Protestant methods to get here....
              This is an important point. I followed the Protestant playbook, ran Protestant plays, in all three aspects of the game . That's Why I'm Catholic now in my theology, because of Protestantism. I believed (still do!) in the 'Five Solas,' including 'Soli Deo Gloria,' and 'Sola Scriptura.' First thing, since it is all for God's glory alone, why would we presume that God Himself doesn't instruct us as to how best to glorify Him? Why would we assume that He leaves it to us to 'figger out' how to do that? In fact He does instruct us, and He does so through His own chosen pastorate, the men ordained as authentic pastors over God's own Church. He set it in motion Himself, and we have the biblical record of it occurring. And those pastors, who are linked Physically to the Apostles, through the physical imposition of hands, the sacrament of Holy Orders, celebrate Mass. Mass is how He instructs us to glorify Him; He wants us at Mass.

              And 'Sola Scriptura' is a powerful measure of theological thought, and helps to weed out plainly deviant thoughts, when honestly employed. To get the most of 'Sola Scriptura,' the most important thing to do is to disregard whatever has happened in the past; you need to disregard and discard every notion that you find conquered somewhere in Scripture. You must be ruthless and brutal, and then you can be said to be honestly believing in 'Sola Scriptura.'

              And the primary reason that I walked away from Clavinim is because the scriptural argument for it is more difficult to make, than the scriptural argument for authentic pastors who are created through the imposition of hands, by the Apostles first, and then by those ordained by the Apostles. Paul instructs Bishop Timothy concerning the practice (1Ti5:22KJV). We have the very inception of this sacrament recorded for us right in the Bible.

              Beyond Clavinism having a difficult time proving its own tenets in Scripture, the Clavinists have the additional task of somehow showing scripturally that the practice of Holy Orders has ceased. Thankfully bishops have been maintaining themselves just as in the beginning, all these many centuries, so it's not as if we believers need to build something brand new. It's already built, and in pretty good shape, her current horrible child abuse scandal notwithstanding.
              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

              @Nee_Nihilo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                This is an important point...
                I'd suggest that what you're doing at that point is better served in a thread created for its purpose and within the section that draws people looking for it. I don't mean to be at all acrimonious and I've appreciated our conversation, though I was beginning to consider it needed a new home...but this last wasn't really even that or in keeping with the point and spirit of this thread.

                Or, barring the odd and hopefully brief conversations between parties on a point of note, the idea behind this particular thread, as established in the OP is to create:

                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                A place to make brief observations of the moments in your life that speak to you.

                #1

                I don't know their names these
                birds at my window singing

                some thing joyful

                I'd rather it largely remain that.
                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                Pro-Life






                Comment


                • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  The thing about gambling is that it's mostly done by people with poor impulse control and no system. Then you have a few, a sliver of people, who have a measure of both and do well.
                  I tried my hand at poker for a while back in the day. I couldn't make a go of it, but in the process of learning how poor I am at the game, compared with better players, it did teach me a lot about gambling as a trope. You wager something, it doesn't have to be money, and there are odds at winning something more in return. The better you know how to use those odds, particularly in estimating the 'expected value' of your bets, the better choices you can make in your wager. For me and poker, it became clear that my best poker decision was to stop playing poker.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Greatest system quarterback of all time. I'm kidding. That's Peyton payback. Can't be helped. I think Brady is a lot like the NBA's Jabar. The only person who has been as good for nearly as long is Brees, who may take that title from him.

                  I love the whole GOAT debate. I don't put any modern qb on that pedestal though. I mean rules changes 90s on modern. Marino breaks 5k and it stands for nearly a quarter century, until those offense friendly changes gave birth to Manning, Brady, and Brees. Okay, Stafford got one too. And that alone tells you how much easier it was. Brees managed it 5 times.

                  If there's a GOAT, to me it's Montana. Four Super Bowls, four wins. No ints. No losses. Not a single game where his quarterback rating was under 100. Freakish.
                  There are ways to see it, that Brady getting into 8 SBs while only winning 5 is more impressive even than Montana's spotless record on that biggest stage, since the seasons that he didn't get there involved him losing somewhere earlier in the tournament.

                  But even as an NE homer, watching Brady's entire career, I won't die on this hill. 'Montana is the GOAT' is a reasonable claim, and barring something bordering on miraculous, it'd be impossible for Brady to definitively unseat that reasonable claim with whatever's left in his career.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  I fully appreciate your perspective on faith, your conviction, if not your particular expression of it. Better?
                  Sure.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Though it amazes me what some of us believe beyond the salvific from time to time.
                  That's just another item on the list of reasons to suspect---just to suspect---that perhaps the Lord instituted an organ of His Body the Church, specifically responsible for safeguarding and disseminating the actual Truth. We read that it is the Church, surprisingly not the Scripture, that is 'the pillar and ground of the truth' (1Ti3:15KJV). And we just as plainly read that Christ Himself promised 'the Spirit of truth' (Jn14:17KJV, Jn16:13KJV), so how can so many believers believe so many 100% conflicting things about what the Truth is? It's just another rock solid proof that the Catholics are, and always were, onto something. To me, the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' is the culmination of the combined effort of all the Church's authentic pastors, all throughout the Church age, to teach the Truth, and imo they've done a stupendous, outrageously good job at it. That's the Protestant in me, saying that. It's presumptuous for me to say such a thing if I were Catholic, since I'd then be deigning to judge those whose sacred duty is above my paygrade to inspect and assess. But as a non-Catholic, according to Protestant principles, I can say such a thing.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  I believe in the moment and the face I'm staring into. There is where I see my obligation and there is where I find Christ more often than not.
                  So go to Mass. If I'm right, and there's no ego in me making this claim, since all glory is God's alone, and it's His Church who I'm arguing for, and not my own view; then going to Mass will sharpen this gift that you already manifest, and more precisely direct it at that which will best advance His kingdom.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  That, as we say in the hinterlands, ain't hay.
                  No it's not. We live in a world that has been imo irrefutably improved by the presence of the Church over the past 2000 years or so, and I intend to do my part to continue her grand tradition of making over this world, all for Christ's glory---our King.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Then take Christ off of the cross already. I really had to.
                  But 1st Corinthians 2:2 KJV!
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Then again, ever since we did that men have been doing their darndest to fill the vacancy.
                  I'd say that that again is evidence of a lack, not of authentic pastors, but of our deference to them. The only martyrs the Church celebrates are those who die for their confession of Christian faith in Christ's Resurrection. No other martyrs need apply. If you find yourself a martyr for any other reason, then you're doing it wrong.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Going to get crowded in there.
                  I think around Easter it is very crowded, yes.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Everything beyond grace and gratitude is a mystery to me, but I'm ecstatic in that revelation.
                  OK.
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  I meant to finish that with, "...we'll meet in glory where we'll be celebrating the heavenly Mass."

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

                  @Nee_Nihilo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I'd suggest that what you're doing at that point is better served in a thread created for its purpose and within the section that draws people looking for it. I don't mean to be at all acrimonious and I've appreciated our conversation, though I was beginning to consider it needed a new home...but this last wasn't really even that or in keeping with the point and spirit of this thread.
                    Fair enough, and I'll do my able best to accommodate you. Part of the reason this thread sort of became home for this discussion is this is where you are, plus, when they're here, I like the rest of the audience, like Barbarian and Anna and Arthur. They may find the discussion tedious and boring and not chime in, but I don't get the impression that they hate it either.

                    But I will adjust my approach to the thread, in honor of its OP, yes.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Or, barring the odd and hopefully brief conversations between parties on a point of note, the idea behind this particular thread, as established in the OP is to create:



                    I'd rather it largely remain that.
                    I've taken to gardening this year. I also have a longstanding habit of spitting tobacco. What I realized recently is that snuff and chew are like tobacco Compost, and that the spit is therefore a parallel to what plants actually 'eat.' It's that dirty water that the organic material in soil (e.g. compost) creates that serves as a vehicle upon which all the nutrients in the soil are transported into the plant as it imbibes it.

                    It's nice when seemingly disparate things reveal themselves to be more connected to everything else than you originally think.

                    And on another note, I'm watching the night sky and trying to understand the earth's place within it. The Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. By now, it's hidden under the horizon where I'm at, but I did notice recently, emerging out of the east, the constellation Orion. He's lying on his back right now, but soon, he'll stand up and run across from the east to the south and then to the west, where he'll hide until next fall, when he'll once again rise up from his slumber, to make his annual walk across the sky once again, as he's been doing for millennia.

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

                    @Nee_Nihilo

                    Comment


                    • Thank you and what followed was both in the spirit of the thing and lovely to boot.
                      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                      Pro-Life






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                        I tried my hand at poker for a while back in the day... For me and poker, it became clear that my best poker decision was to stop playing poker.
                        I prefered games where I could use math to make my gamble less dependent. It started with dog racing for me. I realized that if I bought a book in advance and wasn't greedy I could routinely have a night out with excellent food and drink for free, that it wasn't all that hard to win modestly at the track if you were serious and prepared. Then I decided to expand the observation and the larger realization came to me.

                        There are ways to see it, that Brady getting into 8 SBs while only winning 5 is more impressive even than Montana's spotless record on that biggest stage, since the seasons that he didn't get there involved him losing somewhere earlier in the tournament.
                        I don't see making the SB as being decisive. I mean, only one qb in the history of the game has led a team to 4 consecutively and no one begins to put him into the conversation. And who argues Bill Russell is the NBA GOAT? No one, really, though he has more rings than anyone in the history of his sport or any other.

                        The value of the SB for me is what you do when you get there. Montana is untouched in that regard. Brady, let's be honest. The first ring he wasn't really good in the game and the first three were delivered by his future HOF kicker. We've seen him go into SBs and lose while fielding history making offenses in terms of production. He lost with Randy Moss on board. So let's stop the does more with less at that point. And he won a couple of those rings with head scratchers. An errant pass by Seattle, a historic second half collapse by Atlanta.

                        I'd argue that at least three different qbs from his era are better and would have, with the level of coaching and stability within the organization done better by New England fans. Brady goes down for a season and the back up wins almost as many games before getting a big contract with KC that his play never justified again. Bill and company have a system. It's a bit like moneyball. A few flashpoints and a qb who can do just about anything you need done. It works. And more, Tom turned out to be legitimately great at the position. But Tom isn't Rodgers. He isn't Manning in his prime (no, not Eli, even though the lesser Manning has his number) and he arguably isn't Brees.

                        I suspect history will approach the current given a bit differently. And it should.

                        But even as an NE homer, watching Brady's entire career, I won't die on this hill. 'Montana is the GOAT' is a reasonable claim, and barring something bordering on miraculous, it'd be impossible for Brady to definitively unseat that reasonable claim with whatever's left in his career.
                        Joe Cool. Undefeated AND won half of his rings without Rice (people forget that).

                        Sure.
                        Then I'm content.

                        That's just another item on the list of reasons to suspect---just to suspect---that perhaps the Lord instituted an organ of His Body the Church, specifically responsible for safeguarding and disseminating the actual Truth.
                        I suspect we understand the thrust of the thing, all of us, which is our reconciliation to God in Christ and through his sacrifice, by which men receive grace and should live out their lives in love and gratitude, taking their pleasure where He finds it and being mindful of our failure to find it alone.

                        So go to Mass. If I'm right, and there's no ego in me making this claim, since all glory is God's alone, and it's His Church who I'm arguing for, and not my own view; then going to Mass will sharpen this gift that you already manifest, and more precisely direct it at that which will best advance His kingdom.
                        I'm mostly color blind, but I love sunsets. Some may feel that I'm cheated of a larger thing, but I never have.

                        And you'd think if it that was an advantage you wouldn't be so in the hole between us, rep giving unto others wise. Okay, no, but you have to admit it's funny though.

                        No it's not. We live in a world that has been imo irrefutably improved by the presence of the Church over the past 2000 years or so, and I intend to do my part to continue her grand tradition of making over this world, all for Christ's glory---our King.
                        And who could fault that? (no, squeaky, it's rhetorical)

                        You know the squeak, I hope.

                        But 1st Corinthians 2:2 KJV!
                        You think people see an empty cross and think, "Plus what?"

                        I think around Easter it is very crowded, yes.
                        And there's always a crowd at supper.

                        I meant to finish that with, "...we'll meet in glory where we'll be celebrating the heavenly Mass."
                        Well, that has gravity (either).
                        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                        Pro-Life






                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          A place to make brief observations of the moments in your life that speak to you.

                          #1

                          I don't know their names these
                          birds at my window singing

                          some thing joyful
                          For focus.

                          There are many things about the Catholic Church, that did not bring me to her, but that I'm only now perceiving and appreciating about her, now that I'm mentally on board. One of those things is how she handles death.

                          It's comforting, and beautiful, how the Church handles this most grave of topics. You really get the feeling like, when it comes times for me to die, that I'm in good hands, that my family will be in good hands.

                          It's something that most other Christian church traditions do not have, and cannot approach. Most non-Catholic churches began far more recently than the Catholic Church, and one of the most significant things about that, is the sheer number of deceased Catholics that there have been, necessarily. It makes sense that an organization as old and large as the Church would have a lot of time to consider death, and to address it in an intelligent, merciful, and loving manner.

                          I realized that this fits into the spirit of the OP in this thread, which is why I share it here. Again, this wasn't one of the things that brought me to Catholicism, to the theological school of the Catholic Church, it's only one of the many things I've been able to now appreciate about her, since I've mentally 'crossed the Tiber.'
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          I prefered games where I could use math to make my gamble less dependent.
                          There's a lot of math in poker. The best players are mathematicians, some of them even credentialed mathematicians, but they are all mathematicians, to win at the biggest stakes reliably.

                          Poker boils down to betting, folding, and raising. The only thing that matters is betting, folding, and raising. When to best bet, fold, or raise, for successful players, is determined by math. It's about odds.

                          There's pot odds, which is the size of the pot, compared with the size of your bet. There are the odds of drawing out and making a hand on a future street, which depends upon how many 'outs' you have in the deck, and how many cards are left. There are 'implied odds,' which attempts to take into account the future size of the pot, comparing it also to the required bets to stay in the hand to win that larger pot. There are also things like the rake, and tipping on winning hands, that all go into successfully determining odds that guides successful betting, folding, and raising.

                          There's also the notion of 'tropes' that appear in poker, but also irl, where instead of a card game and chips, the situations and currency is substituted for other things. In betting on sports and racing, there is really only betting, which is similar to stock picking, but is only applicable in limited areas irl.

                          There are obvious poker tropes like 'bluffing,' 'betting,' 'folding,' but also more nuanced ones like 'slow-playing,' 'check-raising,' and 're-raising-over-the-top-all-in.' But the one that I'm going to mention now is 'pot-committed.' It's when a player has already put most of their stack of chips into the pot, and other players therefore can perceive that they aren't going to fold, but will push the rest of their stack into the pot rather than leave all the chips they've already put into it out there for someone else. Pot commitment is a tell, a telegraph, that can be seen by other players. The other players in the pot with a pot-committed player need to figure on there being a 'show down,' which means that the pot-committed player will not fold to a big raise, but will call all the rest of their chips, forcing a show down of all the players' hands to determine who wins.

                          And that is a problem that has been identified by psychologists as a 'cognitive error,' like the Fundamental Attribution Error that we are all susceptible to. It's related to the 'sunken cost fallacy,' which is a cognitive error that falsely believes that currency that has already been spent or 'sunk,' is actually still in your possession. When we make choices according to these errors, we make poor choices, and wind up costing ourselves more dearly than if we remain rational.

                          Deception is of course part of poker. Many of the poker tropes involve deception, and poker helps us to characterize deception according to real patterns that play out in poker, but also, again, irl. Most people deceive with standard poker bluffs, making a bet that requires others to 'fold' to win. If they are called, then their deception is revealed, just like in poker. But 'slow-playing,' 'playing fast,' and 'check-raising' are also poker tropes, patterns of deception, that appear irl. 'Slow playing,' for example, is when a player has a strong hand, and wants to get as many chips into the pot from other players as possible, so as not to scare them away with aggressive betting, and instead they place smaller bets, to entice players with medium strong hands, or those on draws, to remain in the hand, but to pay a price for it. A price that the slow-player, with a strong hand, hopes to win at the end of the hand.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          It started with dog racing for me. I realized that if I bought a book in advance and wasn't greedy I could routinely have a night out with excellent food and drink for free, that it wasn't all that hard to win modestly at the track if you were serious and prepared. Then I decided to expand the observation and the larger realization came to me.
                          It's like stock picking, or just general investment. You examine the situation, gather the facts, and assign something like pot odds, the cost/benefit analysis, and place your bets accordingly.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          I don't see making the SB as being decisive. I mean, only one qb in the history of the game has led a team to 4 consecutively and no one begins to put him into the conversation.
                          Well, Kelly and Montana only reached the championship game four times each. Results were stunningly different, but the fact remains. And it also remains that Brady's reached eight.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          And who argues Bill Russell is the NBA GOAT? No one, really, though he has more rings than anyone in the history of his sport or any other.
                          Apples and oranges, really. No position in all sports is parallel to football's quarterback. You can make an argument that soccer's and hockey's goalie, and if starting pitchers in baseball could pitch each game then them, are close, but there's nothing like football's quarterback position in basketball. No other single position influences the wins and losses like the QB. Confer Joe Montana.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          The value of the SB for me is what you do when you get there. Montana is untouched in that regard. Brady, let's be honest. The first ring he wasn't really good in the game and the first three were delivered by his future HOF kicker.
                          Vinitieri's biggest impact was in the AFC championship game against Oakland in the 2001 season. He had to kick it off a snowy, sloppy field, from far enough away to make it interesting. His other kicks were clutch, but that's not entirely unusual in the NFL. There've been far tougher kicks made by other kickers in the intervening years, ones that were far longer than any of Vinitieri's clutch kicks.

                          And we all know that kickers don't get the line of scrimmage to within their range. That takes an offense, run by a QB.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          We've seen him go into SBs and lose while fielding history making offenses in terms of production.
                          Once.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          He lost with Randy Moss on board. So let's stop the does more with less at that point.
                          I'm not arguing that point.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          And he won a couple of those rings with head scratchers. An errant pass by Seattle, a historic second half collapse by Atlanta.
                          Games are 60 minutes long.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          I'd argue that at least three different qbs from his era are better and would have, with the level of coaching and stability within the organization done better by New England fans.
                          Brady himself said that Rodgers could have done more than him in NE.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          Brady goes down for a season and the back up wins almost as many games
                          Didn't win the AFC East, and didn't qualify for the playoffs too.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          before getting a big contract with KC that his play never justified again. Bill and company have a system. It's a bit like moneyball. A few flashpoints and a qb who can do just about anything you need done. It works. And more, Tom turned out to be legitimately great at the position. But Tom isn't Rodgers. He isn't Manning in his prime (no, not Eli, even though the lesser Manning has his number) and he arguably isn't Brees.

                          I suspect history will approach the current given a bit differently. And it should.


                          Joe Cool. Undefeated AND won half of his rings without Rice (people forget that).
                          That Brady's got national broadcast announcers talking about him as the GOAT ain't hay. He's forced the argument, even if the right answer is Montana. That ain't hay.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          Then I'm content.


                          I suspect we understand the thrust of the thing, all of us, which is our reconciliation to God in Christ and through his sacrifice, by which men receive grace and should live out their lives in love and gratitude, taking their pleasure where He finds it and being mindful of our failure to find it alone.


                          I'm mostly color blind, but I love sunsets. Some may feel that I'm cheated of a larger thing, but I never have.

                          And you'd think if it that was an advantage you wouldn't be so in the hole between us, rep giving unto others wise. Okay, no, but you have to admit it's funny though.
                          Are you talking about TOL rep giving?
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          And who could fault that? (no, squeaky, it's rhetorical)

                          You know the squeak, I hope.


                          You think people see an empty cross and think, "Plus what?"
                          No, just that Protestants protesting Catholics displaying the crucifix are protesting the Bible.
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          And there's always a crowd at supper.


                          Well, that has gravity (either).
                          I'm sucking on a wad of tobacco compost right now.
                          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                          @Nee_Nihilo

                          Comment


                          • Spoiler
                            Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                            A place to make brief observations of the moments in your life that speak to you.
                            Spoiler


                            #1

                            I don't know their names these
                            birds at my window singing

                            some thing joyful
                            For focus.

                            It astounds me to think of an object, like an asteroid, traveling over 10,000 MPH.
                            Passenger jets travel many hundreds of miles per hour. I see them, five or six miles high, inching across the sky.

                            I see shooting stars. They're going 10,000 miles per hour, and they're a lot higher up there than the jetliners, that are going 500-600 MPH, and inching patiently across the sky. Those things are Moving as they 'burn up' from impacting all the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen suddenly. It's a mechanical disintegration, it's not a flame kind of burn up, it's just happening so fast that it's making light.

                            It feels a bit naked to see outer space, and especially the shooting stars, which is outer space kind of tapping on the door to earth. It's not the 'big bad wolf' yet. There's some critical size, higher than which, the object will survive our atmosphere and hit the ground. And it's going to be moving at 10,000 MPH. That's like Four Times faster than a rifle bullet. That's what they figured got the dinosaurs. Something huge that came in Four Times faster than a rifle bullet, and crushed the earth.

                            But during the day, the blue sky hides all the shootings stars, that are happening all the time. They don't wait for night time. They don't care which side of the earth it is, light or dark. At night we can see them, and during the day we never see them, like we never see the stars. Shooting stars are part of outer space, and we can only see outer space when it's dark.

                            It occurs to me that it's the perfect natural reminder to go to bed. 'If you can see outer space, go to bed.' It's like the day is our clothing, and at night we remove our clothing to go to bed, and so, I feel naked looking at the night sky, seeing outer space through the giant lens of our atmosphere.

                            But it's the universe that's really naked at night. It's when we can see what it's all up to. During the day, we can't see it, because it's modest and is wearing clothes. And at night it takes them off.
                            "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                            @Nee_Nihilo

                            Comment


                            • There are many different angles from which to see things. From each angle, the thing looks a bit different. I've mentioned the Fundamental Attribution cognitive error that psychologists have identified statistically as an error that befalls mankind. It's just one example of a thing being seen from different angles.

                              So from one angle, each of us are supported by our blood. This really clever fluid contains everything our bodies need, and the blood also transports waste products that occur naturally as we metabolize, which is, as we live and breathe. Blood absorbs the nutrients from our gut, and the carbon dioxide from all of our cells as they work. It deposits the carbon dioxide at our lungs, where our breath removes it and replenishes it with fresh air, and it deposits nutrients with our cells, energy, minerals, vitamins, along with the oxygen that it absorbs at the lungs.

                              Every organ and muscle in our bodies needs support, and it comes from our blood. Even our hearts need blood, and again, a very clever design, where the heart itself supplies the blood that it needs. The heart is a phenomenal contraption. It doesn't need any other organ in the body to help it get its blood, it does it itself, and it does it through a spontaneously depolarizing mechanism, where special cells in the body develop a voltage, and then that voltage is released spontaneously, and this is why the heart pumps, supplying pressurized blood (blood pressure) to each part of us.

                              The Old Testament says that life itself is in the blood, which is why blood sacrifice was prominent. It is also why Christ's blood is so important for Christians, His blood sacrifice.

                              And we are the Body of Christ, and a body is flesh and blood, and the Eucharist is Christ's flesh and blood, and the Church is to consume His flesh and blood, in order to be His Body, not just spiritually, or ethereally, or abstractly, but physically. It's how we are the Body of Christ, because we ingest His literal flesh and His literal blood, in receiving Holy Communion.

                              Blood is a lot more complex than, but somewhat like a car's engine oil. There are five quarts of oil sloshing around constantly inside the motor, and if it were to all spill out, or if it were to become too contaminated (kidney failure, for example), then the motor (the body) will not be able to continue and will seize (death).

                              And it's just magnificent how our bodies keep plugging away, through this eminently clever system of constantly delivering this eminently clever fluid, pressurized, to the farthest reaches of our bodies.
                              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                              @Nee_Nihilo

                              Comment


                              • A good friend of mine lost his mother a month ago and today found out his sister has also died. life is momentary and also fragile indeed.
                                Well this is fun isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X