Recommended Posts
sinker 0
i don't know how else to explain this other than what I've said already, sorry I'm not doing a better job.
one distinction that may help... yes, a sin is a sin is a sin, in that they all rob the soul of grace, they are all bad. BUT... some are clearly worse than others... jurisprudence bears this out...
what is worse? stealing a pack of gum or killing the gas station attendant? they are both wrong, yes, but not to the same degree... you wouldn't get probation for the murder and the death penalty for the gum...
-the artist formerly known as sinker
one distinction that may help... yes, a sin is a sin is a sin, in that they all rob the soul of grace, they are all bad. BUT... some are clearly worse than others... jurisprudence bears this out...
what is worse? stealing a pack of gum or killing the gas station attendant? they are both wrong, yes, but not to the same degree... you wouldn't get probation for the murder and the death penalty for the gum...
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Quotei don't know how else to explain this other than what I've said already, sorry I'm not doing a better job.
I understand you, i think. Let me try. It is symbolic of the Trinity right? Since that trinity consists of males and a ghost (a MALE ghost
) you might be inclined to want your representative to be male too.
I just fail to see how having a male helps anyone realize that God is the Father. If you need to see a male priest to feel god's embrace, you are a long way from getting close.
In summary, I think the symbol is worthless.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
sinker 0
well, thanks for trying to understand. not
the symbolism is worthless to you only b/c you don't get it. that's ok... we'll move on... better luck next time... thanks for the sarcasm, it always helps the conversation!
-the artist formerly known as sinker
not
the symbolism is worthless to you only b/c you don't get it. that's ok... we'll move on... better luck next time... thanks for the sarcasm, it always helps the conversation!
-the artist formerly known as sinker
kallend 2,148
Quotei don't know how else to explain this other than what I've said already, sorry I'm not doing a better job.
You can't do a better job because you are arguing without logic on your side.
In order to appear consistent you have to play games with the meaning of words.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
please excuse me for chipping in again.....
I can see that the symbolism is really complex, but surely that isn't a very good way of getting the message across, if people who have been studying for years cannt explain it to the less enlightened.
It seems to me that this affect would only have been exagerated as we go back in history (there were, we assume, many more poorly educated people way back when) - maybe they could spell tho unlike me
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
I can see that the symbolism is really complex, but surely that isn't a very good way of getting the message across, if people who have been studying for years cannt explain it to the less enlightened.
It seems to me that this affect would only have been exagerated as we go back in history (there were, we assume, many more poorly educated people way back when) - maybe they could spell tho
unlike me(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
sinker 0
QuoteQuotei don't know how else to explain this other than what I've said already, sorry I'm not doing a better job.
You can't do a better job because you are arguing without logic on your side.
In order to appear consistent you have to play games with the meaning of words.
do words ever have more than one meaning? all you are is an antagonist john. i don't have much to say to you other than to kiss off.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
sinker 0
Quoteplease excuse me for chipping in again.....
I can see that the symbolism is really complex, but surely that isn't a very good way of getting the message across, if people who have been studying for years cannt explain it to the less enlightened.
It seems to me that this affect would only have been exagerated as we go back in history (there were, we assume, many more poorly educated people way back when) - maybe they could spell tho
it's actually very simple... it only seems complex b/c i'm very poor at explaining it
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Quotewell, thanks for trying to understand.
the symbolism is worthless to you only b/c you don't get it. that's ok... we'll move on... better luck next time... thanks for the sarcasm, it always helps the conversation!
If you ever met me in person you would find out just how sarcastic I really am.
And don't worry. I think all symbols in Christianity (not just catholicism) are not very worthwhile, not just the symbol of the priest. If you cannot have faith without them, the what exactly is your faith in?
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
sinker 0
what does your first line mean? are you very sarcastic in real life? I sure am, but I sure try to keep it at bay here, unsuccessfully so at times, since it usually just hurts the conversation.
faith is possible w/o the symbols. however, the symbols are their as catechetical tools, as assists. not always necessary, but useful nonetheless.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
faith is possible w/o the symbols. however, the symbols are their as catechetical tools, as assists. not always necessary, but useful nonetheless.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Quotewhat does your first line mean? are you very sarcastic in real life? I sure am, but I sure try to keep it at bay here, unsuccessfully so at times, since it usually just hurts the conversation.
faith is possible w/o the symbols. however, the symbols are their as catechetical tools, as assists. not always necessary, but useful nonetheless.
Yes, I a unbelievably sarcastic.
And that is our fundamental difference right there. I think symbols are extraneous and unneeded additions added by the Church.
Kind a like the Pope's hat or all that gold they aquire and flaunt.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
sinker 0
all the gold they acquire and flaunt... says alot about your perceptions right there...
and the pope's hat... instead of dismissing it as worthless sillyness, why not try to understand where it comes from, why it exists? you miss out on a lot of richness in patently dismissing all of it. have you ever been to Rome?
-the artist formerly known as sinker
and the pope's hat... instead of dismissing it as worthless sillyness, why not try to understand where it comes from, why it exists? you miss out on a lot of richness in patently dismissing all of it. have you ever been to Rome?
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Quoteall the gold they acquire and flaunt... says alot about your perceptions right there...
and the pope's hat... instead of dismissing it as worthless sillyness, why not try to understand where it comes from, why it exists? you miss out on a lot of richness in patently dismissing all of it. have you ever been to Rome?
Yep, been to Rome, The Vatican, all that.
There is splendor in it...of that I have no doubt. It is breathtaking. There is simply no apprieciating the Sistine Chapel till you have seen it
But do you honestly think that Jesus would approve of the enormousness of it all? Of the trasure troves which the church has amassed.
He was a poor carpenter who taught about God. I am pretty sure he did not need inlaid gold, beautiful murals, pomp, and excess to get that across.
It is all nice, but it is not needed.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
sinker 0
does God need it? No... do we? Sure. First, we should give our best to God. Look at Martha and Mary... Mary washed Jesus' feet w/ expensive perfumed oils and was criticized by Martha for it. Jesus didn't say, "what a waste!" We don't serve dinner for the president on paper plates. Second, the riches, the paintings, the statues that are amassed in the Vatican are there as a repository. They are their in preservation. It's like the Vatican is civilization's photo album of sorts. Sure, there has been corruption w/i it and previous Popes have squandered some of the treasures of the vatican, but the proper mindset of the collections of the vatican is that of a steward and nothing else. JPII's mentality was the right one... none of it was his, he was just to watch over it, to help preserve it for man kind. In fact, he commissioned and oversaw the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. He ordered the removal of all the extra loin clothes that were painted on after the fact due to all the prudish cardinals who were scandalized by the nudity. Yet when he died, JPII was penniless. When he was younger, when he would be given a new razor, he'd give it away to a poor person and keep his nasty, dull beat up one. When given new shoes, same thing.
The gold, the gilded cloth, is there for the office, not the person, similar w/ the presidency, etc.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
The gold, the gilded cloth, is there for the office, not the person, similar w/ the presidency, etc.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Quotedoes God need it? No... do we? Sure. First, we should give our best to God. Look at Martha and Mary... Mary washed Jesus' feet w/ expensive perfumed oils and was criticized by Martha for it. Jesus didn't say, "what a waste!" We don't serve dinner for the president on paper plates. Second, the riches, the paintings, the statues that are amassed in the Vatican are there as a repository. They are their in preservation. It's like the Vatican is civilization's photo album of sorts. Sure, there has been corruption w/i it and previous Popes have squandered some of the treasures of the vatican, but the proper mindset of the collections of the vatican is that of a steward and nothing else. JPII's mentality was the right one... none of it was his, he was just to watch over it, to help preserve it for man kind. In fact, he commissioned and oversaw the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. He ordered the removal of all the extra loin clothes that were painted on after the fact due to all the prudish cardinals who were scandalized by the
nudity. Yet when he died, JPII was penniless. When he was younger, when he would be given a new razor, he'd give it away to a poor person and keep his nasty, dull beat up one. When given new shoes, same thing.
The gold, the gilded cloth, is there for the office, not the person, similar w/ the presidency, etc.
Good reply.
But I don't think the best to God is how I look. It is how I act. I am pretty solid in the idea that if I belonged to a church and we were completely poor and had no gold or rings or gilded outfits to show off, but were pious and devout, God would accept us all the same. If that is true, why do we need all the ceremony? JPII may have lived as a monk, but there are plenty of Cardinals and officials who STILL use the power and wealth of the Church to their advantage. If it were not there, then the only thing left would be the Word of God. And in the end, that is all that matters.
After all, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
Just another fundamental difference of opinion.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteQuotei don't know how else to explain this other than what I've said already, sorry I'm not doing a better job.
You can't do a better job because you are arguing without logic on your side.
In order to appear consistent you have to play games with the meaning of words.
do words ever have more than one meaning? all you are is an antagonist john. i don't have much to say to you other than to kiss off.
In that case why do you keep sending me insulting and offensive PMs?
The fact is you can only justify the position you take by playing word games. You know it, and we know it too.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sinker 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotei don't know how else to explain this other than what I've said already, sorry I'm not doing a better job.
You can't do a better job because you are arguing without logic on your side.
In order to appear consistent you have to play games with the meaning of words.
do words ever have more than one meaning? all you are is an antagonist john. i don't have much to say to you other than to kiss off.
In that case why do you keep sending me insulting and offensive PMs?
The fact is you can only justify the position you take by playing word games. You know it, and we know it too.
)o( <----- that's me moonin you john!
just what word games am I playing mr. professor? you've said that over and over... but that's all you say... you peek your head in and take little pock shots at me. i've explained myself to all and you're the only one who's said this. but then again, you're known to be one who's quite hateful towards the catholic church, so I guess it's quite silly of me to expect you to have an open mind.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Quotewhy do we need all the ceremony?
It seperates "Us" from "Them."
Which, ironically, is exactly opposite of JC's message, as I understand it.
sinker 0
Good reply.
But I don't think the best to God is how I look. It is how I act. I am pretty solid in the idea that if I belonged to a church and we were completely poor and had no gold or rings or gilded outfits to show off, but were pious and devout, God would accept us all the same. If that is true, why do we need all the ceremony? JPII may have lived as a monk, but there are plenty of Cardinals and officials who STILL use the power and wealth of the Church to their advantage. If it were not there, then the only thing left would be the Word of God. And in the end, that is all that matters.
After all, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
Just another fundamental difference of opinion.
***
thanks... and an excellent post by you I must say... reminds me of what the pope said when St. Francis went to meet with him to get approval of his order of monks... he said, you in your simplicity, put us to shame.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
But I don't think the best to God is how I look. It is how I act. I am pretty solid in the idea that if I belonged to a church and we were completely poor and had no gold or rings or gilded outfits to show off, but were pious and devout, God would accept us all the same. If that is true, why do we need all the ceremony? JPII may have lived as a monk, but there are plenty of Cardinals and officials who STILL use the power and wealth of the Church to their advantage. If it were not there, then the only thing left would be the Word of God. And in the end, that is all that matters.
After all, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
Just another fundamental difference of opinion.
***
thanks... and an excellent post by you I must say... reminds me of what the pope said when St. Francis went to meet with him to get approval of his order of monks... he said, you in your simplicity, put us to shame.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
sinker 0
QuoteQuotewhy do we need all the ceremony?
It seperates "Us" from "Them."
Which, ironically, is exactly opposite of JC's message, as I understand it.
the ceremony is not to seperate Us from Them. We need the ceremony. Why are there wedding ceremonies after all? Swearing in ceremonies? While it's true there have been abuses, that is not why they exist fundamentally.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
kallend 2,148
Very adult I'm sureQuote
)o( <----- that's me moonin you john!
Quote
just what word games am I playing mr. professor? .
"the priest is a representative, a shadow, a figure of not only christ (who was a man) but of God the Father. How can a woman stand in that place? What does the symbol of woman do when put there? "
Followed shortly thereafter by "God the FATHER has no gender"
You play games with the rules, some of which apply and some don't on account of cultural context (head coverings etc) without eplaining any way that determination can be made except arbitrarily. You explain away inconsistencies by insisting that words have different meanings to God than to us. The list is so long I can't believe you take yourself seriously when you deny doing it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,116
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Why are there wedding ceremonies after all?
To bring people together. Priests don't marry people, people marry other people. The wedding isn't to make their wedding valid or anything, it is to present the couple to the community and (in effect) tell the world "we are together now" which is an important message. But the content of the ceremony isn't important, it's the crowd that gathers to view it and to respect the union of the two people.
To bring people together. Priests don't marry people, people marry other people. The wedding isn't to make their wedding valid or anything, it is to present the couple to the community and (in effect) tell the world "we are together now" which is an important message. But the content of the ceremony isn't important, it's the crowd that gathers to view it and to respect the union of the two people.
Because neither make much sense to me. That is why. Not to mention that it is still picking and choosing what to follow out of the bible. If you can do it with this, why not other things? It has been enforced over and over within the Bible that thins are equal. "No sin is greater than another", "All people are equal", etc. So why would one rule, no matter how insginifcant YOU think it is, be less important. But of course, it is easier to say that women do not have to wear headcovering because of the state of feminism in the world today. But imagine that bak in the early Middle Ages? They would see your acceptance of it as pure and utter blasphemy.
Isimply fail to see how having women as priests would create some kind of fundamental roadblock in the belief and spirituality of followers.
A priest is not supposed to symbolize God. Symbolizing God could easily lead to idolatry of that priest instead of God himself. He is there to help us understand God and His message. Why would you have to male to do that?
And of COURSE God is always refered to by the male pronouns. It was written by men. But you yourself said that God (not Jesus, but God) is not given gender.
My point throughout has been that the Church (and most other branches of Christianity) like to pick and choose and rationalize the things they do. They make HUMAN decisions based on HUMAN feelings about a book that is supposed to be Inspired by God.
If we are going to do, skip the pomp, circumstance, dogma, and all that and just use it as a GUIDE instead of saying it is divine word while picking what is wanted and discarding the rest.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites