Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Momentary Life...

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

  • Idolater
    replied
    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 So please do, instruct me as to why you don't believe that 'the Second Amendment should be repealed or at least amended.'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.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Town Heretic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sherman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Town Heretic
    replied
    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 13th, 2018, 10:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Town Heretic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Town Heretic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Town Heretic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X