A Momentary Life...

[Town Heretic]

Children don't have rights, they have permission

Children have all sorts of rights and the same essential rights as an adult, but recognizing their experiential lack and the ongoing development of the organ responsible for sound decisions, we govern their exercising of rights and deny them full access to that exercise until we're reasonably sure they're capable of bearing the responsibility for their actions soundly.

and I don't grant my kids permission to scold adults for light errors.

I don't believe it's good manners for children to scold adults for any reason. But scolding is typically a thing done in anger and from some personal sense of authority. That wouldn't be an apt description of my son's contribution, though it comes closer to my response regarding the smoking woman's subsequent behavior.

Not only that, I don't permit them to say anything at all about light errors, to anyone, not even to their peers---that's their peers' parents' job, not my kids.'

Jack told me that he had a friend who used a word I don't even believe adults should find in their mouths. He said that he then told his teacher. I said to him, "If you want to be a better friend, tell your friend first and try to influence his behavior. I know how all of you (kids) are about telling on one another, but do you think that when you do that first you're giving your friend the chance to do better? And shouldn't that be your first concern? Do you think you're telling your friend that you care about them by going straight to authority?"

I don't have a problem with bringing authority into the mix when the person in need of discipline refuses to discipline themselves, but otherwise I think we need to align our actions with concern first, and personal offense second. That was part of the problem in Jack's well-intentioned remark about smoking. It put the offense first and concern second when you consider the probable responses to it. His inability to understand that, mostly a matter of a lack of experience, is one reason for him to come to me and to let me address it. Among peers he has a better understanding, though even that was in need of some guidance.

There's much to gain from teaching your children to avoid light errors though. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." You yourself are testament to this proverb, Town. It's a light error to be sloppy about details, and about thinking, but you were trained up as a child to avoid this light error, and as far as I can tell, with you being an an officer of the court and all, which wouldn't be possible had you been a practitioner of the light error of sloppy and un-detailed thinking, it is serving you very well.

I was given instruction in both morals and manners by my family. In our household my son's actions would have been seen as a failure on the second part, abrogated somewhat by an intention in line with correct consideration on the first part. Or, it is sinful to smoke. It is sinful to harm your child. It is poor manners to tell someone how they ought to behave if they are within their rights. The woman Jack spoke to was doing both of the former, willfully. She compounded her error subsequently, as moral actions go. But as a social convention, Jack should have brought the matter to me to deal with and he understands that now. And because he didn't he encouraged, however inadvertently, a compounding of her error, a thing no longer lost on my son.

It's easy to encourage stumbling, especially among those whose inclination or maturity is suspect. It's much harder to appeal to a better angel. This is frequently true in debate. I try to focus on issues and use humor to soften the blow of difference, but even then the invitation to conflict and poorer behavior, both in myself and others, makes it a practice fraught with pitfalls at best.

 

[annabenedetti]

Children have all sorts of rights and the same essential rights as an adult, but recognizing their experiential lack and the ongoing development of the organ responsible for sound decisions, we govern their exercising of rights and deny them full access to that exercise until we're reasonably sure they're capable of bearing the responsibility for their actions soundly.

This was what caught my attention, and I'm glad you've answered it well.

As for Jack, he's a kid. This was one of a million learning moments ahead as he goes through his life, and you explained things with love. I like how you talk to Jack while showing him you value his input. I wish more parents did that.

 

[Town Heretic]

This was what caught my attention, and I'm glad you've answered it well.

Why thank you, kindly.

As for Jack, he's a kid. This was one of a million learning moments ahead as he goes through his life, and you explained things with love. I like how you talk to Jack while showing him you value his input. I wish more parents did that.

I've always spoken to Jack the way I would to any adult whom I love and respect. People have a way of rising to meet great expectations. Jack has consistently overwhelmed my own. He's smarter than I am. Smarter than his mother even. It will be a great pleasure to guide that and the good heart he has at his center into maturity.

 

[Idolater]

Children have all sorts of rights and the same essential rights as an adult, but recognizing their experiential lack and the ongoing development of the organ responsible for sound decisions, we govern their exercising of rights and deny them full access to that exercise until we're reasonably sure they're capable of bearing the responsibility for their actions soundly.

If a kid is verbally belligerent to an adult, is the adult within his rights to defend himself rhetorically against the kid? Is it good for the adult to defend himself thusly? Is it sin? and if so, is it light, or grave?

The reason I ask is because if an adult were to defend himself rhetorically against a verbally belligerent child, there's some chance that the kid will start to cry.

I don't believe it's good manners for children to scold adults for any reason. But scolding is typically a thing done in anger and from some personal sense of authority. That wouldn't be an apt description of my son's contribution, though it comes closer to my response regarding the smoking woman's subsequent behavior.

It was scolding, unless you think that smoking, and smoking near your kids, is grave sin. Is that what you're saying?

Jack told me that he had a friend who used a word I don't even believe adults should find in their mouths.

Swearing is a light error.

He said that he then told his teacher. I said to him, "If you want to be a better friend, tell your friend first and try to influence his behavior. I know how all of you (kids) are about telling on one another, but do you think that when you do that first you're giving your friend the chance to do better? And shouldn't that be your first concern? Do you think you're telling your friend that you care about them by going straight to authority?"

You should just tell him why you want him to think what you want him to think. You've got decades of thought supporting your advice, why do you want him to take decades to figure out something; just tell him why he should think what you want him to think. Lay it all out for him, but tell him what you want him to do.

I don't have a problem with bringing authority into the mix when the person in need of discipline refuses to discipline themselves, but otherwise I think we need to align our actions with concern first, and personal offense second. That was part of the problem in Jack's well-intentioned remark about smoking. It put the offense first and concern second when you consider the probable responses to it. His inability to understand that, mostly a matter of a lack of experience, is one reason for him to come to me and to let me address it. Among peers he has a better understanding, though even that was in need of some guidance.

There's no offense possible, when adults make light errors or commit light sins; habitual light sinners sin lightly habitually. They can change their habits if they care to, but like most of us, they also have weightier issues on their plates than habits that Christ Jesus says are so light, that they are already forgiven wrt communion with His Body, and Church. And kids can know, and I would put forth, should know, that light offenses are the prerogative of the adults committing them, and so long as you are a certain maturity, or immaturity, then you're going to be forced to heed your father's guidance wrt avoiding light errors.

I was given instruction in both morals and manners by my family. In our household my son's actions would have been seen as a failure on the second part, abrogated somewhat by an intention in line with correct consideration on the first part. Or, it is sinful to smoke. It is sinful to harm your child. It is poor manners to tell someone how they ought to behave if they are within their rights. The woman Jack spoke to was doing both of the former, willfully. She compounded her error subsequently, as moral actions go. But as a social convention, Jack should have brought the matter to me to deal with and he understands that now. And because he didn't he encouraged, however inadvertently, a compounding of her error, a thing no longer lost on my son.

Or, she chose to treat a light sin, as if it were grave. Our light sins are forgiven us automatically, but that's eternally---it takes an indulgence to forgive the temporal penalties that our light sins incur, and because she treated a light error on the part of your son severely, which is a light sin itself, she incurred the temporal penalties that the light sin, through the nature of sin itself, requires that she pay.

It's easy to encourage stumbling, especially among those whose inclination or maturity is suspect. It's much harder to appeal to a better angel. This is frequently true in debate. I try to focus on issues and use humor to soften the blow of difference, but even then the invitation to conflict and poorer behavior, both in myself and others, makes it a practice fraught with pitfalls at best.

Light errors are light, even when we commit them on purpose.

 

[Town Heretic]

If a kid is verbally belligerent to an adult, is the adult within his rights to defend himself rhetorically against the kid?

Outside of an environment where that adult's authority is being challenged, as with a teacher, what sort of adult would feel threatened by the words of a child, absent some legitimacy in them? In any event, since belligerence and that doesn't attach to what I have spoken to with my son I'm not sure what is served by going further afield, except to lend a tonal support to the notion of scolding, which wouldn't be fair, so...

It was scolding, unless you think that smoking, and smoking near your kids, is grave sin.

It wasn't scolding for the reason given prior.

Is that what you're saying?

I'm being pretty consistent and I think fairly clear in what I'm saying and that's not it. In any event, what the woman did was wrong, both for herself, her child, and others around her, and her response was ill-mannered and poor as an example for anyone. I hope she makes better choices moving forward. She certainly can't claim ignorance and she's been given reason to reconsider her methodology.

You should just tell him why you want him to think what you want him to think.

I told him exactly what I thought he needed to understand why his choice wasn't the better course of action. I frequently apply the Socratic method with Jack as part of my instruction. It demonstrates respect for his ability to reason and find the best course of action, with a bit of scaffolding.

His response told me that he understood.

 

[Idolater]

Outside of an environment where that adult's authority is being challenged, as with a teacher

Respect your elders isn't a value you hold as necessary, good, or valid for kids. You require some sort of formal superior-subordinate social structure to heed, rather than just kids showing honor and respect for adults who engage in light sins.

, what sort of adult would feel threatened by the words of a child, absent some legitimacy in them?

Why would an adult have to take verbal abuse from a kid? And what lesson does it teach them to bite your tongue when affronted so?

In any event, since belligerence and that doesn't attach to what I have spoken to with my son I'm not sure what is served by going further afield

I specified why, because an adult might in legitimate and justified retort make the rascal cry.

, except to lend a tonal support to the notion of scolding, which wouldn't be fair, so...


It wasn't scolding for the reason given prior.

It was scolding, in common parlance, unless 'scolding' is also legal jargon that I don't know about.

I'm being pretty consistent and I think fairly clear in what I'm saying and that's not it. In any event, what the woman did was wrong, both for herself, her child, and others around her, and her response was ill-mannered and poor as an example for anyone.

Then it is what you're saying. Else, why would it elicit any kind of negative commentary at all, from your son, or from anyone else for that matter? You believe that her behavior warranted scolding, and even from a seven-year-old.

I hope she makes better choices moving forward. She certainly can't claim ignorance and she's been given reason to reconsider her methodology.

Habitual light sinners sin lightly habitually. The point is, it's light sin, unworthy of scolding or reprimanding or even giving them 'reason to reconsider their methodology.' If you're instructing your own kids about avoiding the practice of light sin for themselves, then by all means have at it, since Sacred Scripture and experience both testify that it tends to work, and keeps them from light sins when they're older, which we know will be profitable for them. But others' choice to sin lightly is none of our business.

I told him exactly what I thought he needed to understand why his choice wasn't the better course of action. I frequently apply the Socratic method with Jack as part of my instruction. It demonstrates respect for his ability to reason and find the best course of action, with a bit of scaffolding.

I respect kids' ability to reason, which is why I tell them straight what they should do, think, and feel about things, and the reasons why, but primarily the message is, Because I said so. And primarily my reason is because of my respect for their ability to reason, and to discipline themselves mentally and physically to avoid light sins, for their own good.

His response told me that he understood.

I'm sure he did.

 

[Town Heretic]

Respect your elders isn't a value you hold as necessary, good, or valid for kids.

I don't believe I'd have much respect for Hitler if he was alive today, so it's a case by case. Same for respecting anyone. I approach people respectfully until their practice tells me that I can't or shouldn't continue to do so.

Why would an adult have to take verbal abuse from a kid?

I give up, why? I had to answer it that way because nothing in what I was talking about constituted verbal abuse, except perhaps the woman's use of profanity.

It was scolding, in common parlance, unless 'scolding' is also legal jargon that I don't know about.

No, it wasn't. You just need for it to be so you're digging heels.

Scold: to criticize (someone) severely or angrily especially for personal failings

• He scolded the kids for not cleaning up the mess they had made in the kitchen.

Synonyms of scold
bawl out, berate, call down, castigate, chastise, chew out, dress down, flay, hammer, jaw,keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rag, rail (at or against), rant (at), rate, ream (out),rebuke, reprimand, reproach, score, tongue-lash, upbraid

Those are fairly emotional and sharp. None of that accurately describes the incident, at least my son's part of it.

You believe that her behavior warranted scolding, and even from a seven-year-old.

Rather, my son made a statement to her about smoking. Then she weighed in, including the bit of profanity, in front of her four year old and my son, so I absolutely scolded her. The particular word she used is about as offensive a term for reproduction that can be mustered.

Smoking near enough to people that they can smell the smoke can, with people who have respiratory problems, cause real physical distress. Smoking around a child is reprehensible now that we know the impact of that, with or without allergies entering into it.

Habitual light sinners sin lightly habitually. The point is, it's light sin, unworthy of scolding or reprimanding or even giving them 'reason to reconsider their methodology.'

Your entire weighted sin context isn't one I've accepted as legitimate outside of how you choose to order things for yourself. If that ordering makes dangerous and offensive behavior something that isn't worthy of reprimand I think you need to adjust your scale.

others' choice to sin lightly is none of our business.

If you use foul language in public, in front of me and mine you've made it my business. If you're smoking in public, where I can smell it then you've made it my business. Maybe it's a cultural thing. What part of the country do you inhabit, generally?

I respect kids' ability to reason, which is why I tell them straight what they should do, think, and feel about things, and the reasons why, but primarily the message is, Because I said so.

That's actually the opposite of respecting their ability to reason, so we differ again.

In any event, I understand your context and you've had mine as fully as I can give it.

 

[annabenedetti]

I have a momentary question:

If lay => laid, why not play => plaid, and why doesn't laid rhyme with plaid?

 

[Town Heretic]

I have a momentary question:

If lay => laid, why not play => plaid,

Because then you'd have to wear it out (either) and that's just gosh, by gauche...well, shoot.

and why doesn't laid rhyme with plaid?

Or vague/ague, how/low, wholly/holly, poem/toe, lumber/plumber, kin/kind, mould/would, wind, but wind?

What a language...

 

[Idolater]

Your entire weighted sin context isn't one I've accepted as legitimate outside of how you choose to order things for yourself. If that ordering makes dangerous and offensive behavior something that isn't worthy of reprimand I think you need to adjust your scale.

It's a Christian thing, Town.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's a Christian thing, Town.

It wasn't a part of my traditions and upbringing in a number of churches, all Christian. But then, they were all Protestant as well. So it must be more of a Catholic instruction, which probably means it was in my Episcopal background as well, but I wasn't a particularly keen member in those days and that was decades ago.

 

[Idolater]

It wasn't a part of my traditions and upbringing in a number of churches, all Christian.

Same here---absolutely. Black-and-white.

But then, they were all Protestant as well.

Me too.

So it must be more of a Catholic instruction, which probably means it was in my Episcopal background as well, but I wasn't a particularly keen member in those days and that was decades ago.

I don't know from Episcopal, but it is absolutely Catholic. The idea is that objectively, sins can be ranked or weighted according to gravity, to their seriousness, just objectively. For instance killing, regardless of intent, is the gravest or at least among the gravest of sins, that's regardless of intent, even justifiable killing is still grave offense.

Then the Church does what the law does, which is she weighs free will. How much freedom does the grave sinner exercise, when they gravely sin? There's a pretty long list of things explicitly suggested by the Church's bishops, concerning circumstances or factors present, that tend to diminish, attenuate, and sometimes nullify altogether, human freedom in a moment of human decision---sometimes, it's not a free choice.

And when it's not a free choice, the offense remains grave, but the culpability or guilt goes along with free choice, and if the freedom is diminished, attenuated, or even nullified altogether, then so goes the guilt that's imputed to the sinner.

So the Church teaches that lighter sins can never be 'mortal' or fatal sins; sins that kill the love that would otherwise dwell within you, as a Christian. But the practical matter is that commission of grave trespasses breaks communion with the Catholic Church, and this is the playing out of the Apostles' moral teaching, that straddles their exposition of the Gospel, they come together in the concept of 'in full communion,' which is like a broad side of a barn for some people, and for many it is a struggle, and so the Church's corrective action for those who struggle, is the confessional, where Christians who have committed grave sin, can reconcile with the Church, authorizing him to once again licitly receive Holy Communion.

His freedom may very well have been null, when he chose grave matter. The Church is only interested in the commission, wrt 'in full communion.' The Church understands, and teaches explicitly, that oftentimes, there are circumstances that diminish, attenuate, or nullify altogether our free will, in our otherwise free will choices, to commit grave moral offense. The commission itself though, breaks 'in full communion,' and necessitates reconciliation in order to not run afoul of 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV & 1st Corinthians 11:29 KJV, and Confession is one of the seven sacraments, and the sacraments are all found in Scripture, but they were instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; His Apostles confirm.

Holy Catholicism is everything I didn't know I was actually desperately searching for as a Protestant.

 

[Town Heretic]

The idea is that objectively, sins can be ranked or weighted according to gravity, to their seriousness, just objectively.

I get the idea, but to my mind that's conflating moral truth and something else. What I mean is that the wages of sin is death. So every sin carries that sentence and requires grace. To weigh them as a moral proposition is pointless to my mind and a dangerous invitation to personal vanity and the judgement of others.

Holy Catholicism is everything I didn't know I was actually desperately searching for as a Protestant.

Then I am genuinely happy for you and wish you well in your walk.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have a momentary question:

If lay => laid, why not play => plaid,

They both derive from OE -ede (did) as in "lay-did" or "play-did." Spelling in English was phonetic for a long time; often people would spell their own names in various ways, before orthography became standardized, and dictionaries published. In the 1700s, "plaid" was sometimes used as a spelling for "played."
https://tinyurl.com/ybdo6kav

So it wasn't consistent. And orthography changes over time. "Donut" is becoming more common; it used to be mainly in the United States, but it's becoming used in other English-speaking nations, now.

 

[Idolater]

I get the idea, but to my mind that's conflating moral truth and something else. What I mean is that the wages of sin is death. So every sin carries that sentence and requires grace.

In the beginning, there was one sin, and its penalty was death.

But Adam and Eve did not die when they sinned. So already, in the garden, there was grace. Their sin was forgiven, and the Christian understanding is that it was forgiven only because of Christ's then future sacrifice, that He would successfully offer to pay the eternal penalty for their sin, and for the sins of the whole world.

Regarding Church, is the idea of 'in full communion,' which is being authorized to receive Holy Communion with the Church. Commission of grave sins breaks that communion, and requires reconciliation, through the sacrament of the same name; aka 'confession' and 'penance.'

The commission of light sins does not break communion with the Church, because light sins are 'forgiven' = 'venial.' It is grace, you're right about that. It is a part of Christ's work, that light sins, even when committed on purpose, with full knowledge and with deliberate consent, do not break communion with His Church.

To weigh them as a moral proposition is pointless to my mind and a dangerous invitation to personal vanity and the judgement of others.

I don't understand what you mean by 'invitation to . . . the judgment of others.' If we take Christ's stance on light sins, and if we apply what He already applies to them, iow if we forgive them automatically, immediately, and out of hand, then how does that invite judgment? I would think it'd do the opposite, and encourage inclusion, acceptance, tolerance, and unity.

Then I am genuinely happy for you and wish you well in your walk.

Unsurprising. I've seen you do apologetics for the faith, and you're excellent at it; it may be a gift of the Spirit for you, which is ultimately given by Him for the sake of us, His Church, those who believe in Christ.

So, I want you to examine Holy Catholicism, to see if it's true, because what I've found in my own experience with apologetics, is that Catholicism is a bulwark that cannot be rhetorically defeated, once you know what you need to know about it.

If Catholicism = Christianity, then arguing for Catholicism = preaching the Gospel.

This is all of course fwiw, I am just advertising that in decades of theological investigation, I've come to conclude what many non-Catholics have found themselves, that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Himself founded.

:idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

In the beginning, there was one sin, and its penalty was death.

In the beginning Adam wasn't fashioned to die, but he did surely die. There was the penalty. Among descendants who were born to die in the flesh the penalty exacted would be more or it would be absent.

Regarding Church, is the idea of 'in full communion,' which is being authorized to receive Holy Communion with the Church. Commission of grave sins breaks that communion, and requires reconciliation, through the sacrament of the same name; aka 'confession' and 'penance.'

From this point on you're substituting Catholic teaching for scripture, a thing that Protestants eschew. It's something you believe, but not a belief we share. That said, I won't squabble with those who recognize Christ as God and rely on Him for their salvation.

I don't understand what you mean by 'invitation to . . . the judgment of others.'

When we value one sin over another, odd as that is to even say, we make it easier to say, "Sure, I'm a sinner, but not like Pete. His sins are worse." It invites judgment instead of gratitude and supports the errant notion that men can or will attain something of value by their actions, when our acts have nothing to do with grace, which we cannot earn, but should instead be an expression of our love and desire to follow the example of Christ. And it is human nature to think better of ourselves than we should, within any context. So people tend to believe they're smarter than average when the numbers won't allow for it, and people are the heroes of their own narrative, even within the context of accepting that they cannot be. It's a human impulse that monkeys with our best aims and intentions.

As for Catholicism, it gave me Brother Lawrence and Merton, so that's to the good.

 

[Idolater]

In the beginning Adam wasn't fashioned to die, but he did surely die. There was the penalty. Among descendants who were born to die in the flesh the penalty exacted would be more or it would be absent.

I don't disagree with this, but my point was that God said, "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Ge2:17KJV). They didn't die that day; that's the grace; and as I said, it's the Christian view that the reason that God extended grace even in the garden, was because of Christ's eventual passion on the cross.

From this point on you're substituting Catholic teaching for scripture

There's a difference between 'substituting' and developing the teaching that is seminally within the Scripture. Each of the Church's seven sacraments find their origin within the Scripture somewhere, whether it's from Christ Himself, as with Baptism and the Eucharist, or with another New Testament writer/bishop, such as James instructing the Church to, "Confess your faults one to another" (Jas5:16KJV), which was developed by the Church into the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation/Confession, where confessors (usually priests) were the ones mediating the relationship between Christians and the Body of Christ, especially wrt celebrating Communion or the Eucharist.

I personally have found no examples of Catholic teaching contravening what the Christian Bible teaches. Especially not since the Christian Bible teaches of the beginning of the Catholic Church, which was, objectively, the only Church, for about 1000 years.

, a thing that Protestants eschew.

And the notion of eschewing what the Catholic Church's college of bishops teach, is not found in Scripture. That idea was invented in 1517 or thereabouts.

It's something you believe, but not a belief we share. That said, I won't squabble with those who recognize Christ as God and rely on Him for their salvation.

We all believe the Gospel, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. :thumb:

When we value one sin over another, odd as that is to even say

I doubt that you find it odd to say that murder is a graver sin than is a white lie, Town.

, we make it easier to say, "Sure, I'm a sinner, but not like Pete. His sins are worse."

I've found the opposite is the reality. Catholics don't think like that; they rather think that our sins are all our own business, and the business of the confessor (again, usually the priest). The worse the sin, the more grace that is required, and thankfully, the more grace that is offered as well.

It invites judgment instead of gratitude and supports the errant notion that men can or will attain something of value by their actions, when our acts have nothing to do with grace, which we cannot earn, but should instead be an expression of our love and desire to follow the example of Christ. And it is human nature to think better of ourselves than we should, within any context. So people tend to believe they're smarter than average when the numbers won't allow for it, and people are the heroes of their own narrative, even within the context of accepting that they cannot be. It's a human impulse that monkeys with our best aims and intentions.

The notion of 'in full communion with the Church' is one that in my view handles the universal witness of Scripture well, all those exhortations to the Church against sinning, with many sins named that the Church has gone on to categorize as 'grave matter,' which follows the seminal idea that John gives us in 1st John 5, this idea of 'a sin unto death,' and, 'a sin not unto death' (1Jo5:16-17KJV).

As for Catholicism, it gave me Brother Lawrence and Merton, so that's to the good.

I don't know who those people are, but there has been a lot of good to come from the Catholic Church, which, if like me you believe that she is Jesus's actual Church, shouldn't be and isn't surprising.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't disagree with this, but my point was that God said, "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Ge2:17KJV). They didn't die that day; that's the grace; and as I said, it's the Christian view that the reason that God extended grace even in the garden, was because of Christ's eventual passion on the cross.

Doesn't look like we're separated on the point.

There's a difference between 'substituting' and developing the teaching that is seminally within the Scripture.

I'd say there's a difference between scripture and what men do with it and how they see and connect it within their own mind. When you do that and create traditions born of that, elevating them to equal authority with scripture I think you have a problem, and the Catholic Church has that problem...though to be fair, it's not only a Catholic problem, merely more obvious and institutionalized.

We all believe the Gospel, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. :thumb:

Amen.

I doubt that you find it odd to say that murder is a graver sin than is a white lie, Town.

I'd say that as a pragmatic matter, it is worse to kill a man than to lie to him. The latter robs him of the truth, the former robs him of any hope to approach it. But given any sin is sufficient to warrant my separation from the perfect and good, it's a distinction that matters more to me than it could to God, whom I will not meet save by grace.

I'm omitting a good deal, but consider it read and I appreciate your sharing your particular beliefs, whether or not we are of one mind.

I don't know who those people are, but there has been a lot of good to come from the Catholic Church, which, if like me you believe that she is Jesus's actual Church, shouldn't be and isn't surprising.

Thomas Merton was a Catalan trappist monk and a profound writer who died in the late 60s. His writings were broadly popular and respected. Among them was the book that introduced me to Merton, The Seven Story Mountain. He was probably the most highly regarded and certainly the most well-known Catholic writer of the last century. Brother Lawrence died in the late 1600s and is known for Practice of the Presence of God, put together by the Abbe de Beaufort, envoy to Cardinal Noailles. The envoy was sent by the Cardinal to investigate Lawrence and they had four conversations that were put into written form. I believe you can find them online for free. It's not a lot of writing, but it's a remarkable thing to read.

 

[The Barbarian]

Riding the DART line with my granddaughter (her first train ride), and enjoying her amazed face as the scenery rolls by.

 

[Town Heretic]

Watching a PBS World production with Jack and, of course I'm doing rifftrax for the fun of it...at one point the subject is manatees and the narrator is describing how in the winter it's crucial for the manatee to find really warm waters. At first he speaks to the majority heading for hot springs, then...


Narrator: But some manatee are heading for a surprising hot-spot.


Me: A small nightclub on the outskirts of Tampa.


Jack: And they dance there.


Me: It could happen.


I love PBS.


Oh, the surprising place actually turned out to be the outflow from an electrical power plant.