homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Hell: Come on down, Trisagion (Page 0)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  ...  10  11  12 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hell: Come on down, Trisagion
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
OK, follow up question - do you trust yourself to make decisions for the right reasons? To be, if you like, wrong in a good way?

I guess I should also ask if you think "being wrong in a good way" is even a category that makes sense to you, or that you think factors into God's judgement.

Yes, I do understand that someone can mean well, but in reality be doing the wrong thing. That makes looking for objective criteria all the more important. I can feel that a certain course of action is the right one, but how am I to know that it is actually the right one?

Personally, I think a person can look to the Word of God. Roman Catholics look to the teachings of the Magisterium. Even then, though, I am not denying the possibility of being wrong. I am just asserting the possibility of being right and knowing one is right. The moral law is available to us.

quote:
We need God's forgiveness because of what we are, not because of what we've done. What you say here implies that it is theoretically possible for a person to completely avoid breaking God's Law and thus not need forgiveness, but that's not true.

It's not about God going through the list of sinful acts we have committed and forgiving each of them in turn, it's about God redeeming our very nature so that it will be compatible with His. Try to learn to let go and let Him perform this work in you.

I agree with all that. But it is because we are sinners that I believe we need to rely on God's Word and not just our own moral intuitions.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Then your parents were forgiving you for rules they hadn't bothered to make clear to you in the first place. Sounds like low level psychological manipulation to me, though I suppose it's better than punishing you for rules they hadn't bothered to establish.

It's OK (and positively encouraged!) to hug your little brother. It is not OK to bear hug your little brother so hard that you hurt him.

If the parents laying down those rules were to follow your approach to this, they'd have to define a specific pounds-per-square-inch force at which one becomes the other, and then to find some way of measuring every hug so that they can determine which are OK and which are naughty (this would, of course, also make the feelings of the little brother irrelevant, which should appeal to you). Simply saying "be nice" or "be gentle" certainly isn't making it clear, is it?

Is that the level of clarity you crave in every rule you have to follow? Is it not enough to know that your Father wants you to be nice?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Marvin the Martian: If the parents laying down those rules were to follow your approach to this, they'd have to define a specific pounds-per-square-inch force at which one becomes the other, and then to find some way of measuring every hug so that they can determine which are OK and which are naughty
(If this were the case, then 6 year old LeRoc would probably find a way to hug his brother so that he'd keep exactly within the pounds-per-square-inch limit, but where my brother'd still feel it. In a brotherly way of course [Biased] )

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
It's OK (and positively encouraged!) to hug your little brother. It is not OK to bear hug your little brother so hard that you hurt him.
You shouldn't take LeRoc's account of my ethical system, since it isn't founded on the profoundest understanding of ethics or even vocabulary.

Naturally there is a difference between hugging gently and hugging to hurt someone. But here I do not add another rule or complicate the rule. I ask "Why is this the case? What is the moral principle behind the difference?"

[ 05. July 2012, 13:49: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yes, I do understand that someone can mean well, but in reality be doing the wrong thing. That makes looking for objective criteria all the more important.

Do you think God actually minds if we do the wrong thing for good reasons?

quote:
I can feel that a certain course of action is the right one, but how am I to know that it is actually the right one?
Trust your feelings, and trust God to understand that even if it was the wrong, it was done out of a desire to do right.

quote:
Personally, I think a person can look to the Word of God. Roman Catholics look to the teachings of the Magisterium. Even then, though, I am not denying the possibility of being wrong.
Then you agree with me? Surely if you accept the possibility of either of those sources of authority being wrong then you must also accept that they are not always completely and infallibly correct?

quote:
I am just asserting the possibility of being right and knowing one is right.
I still don't know why you need to. Isn't faith enough for you?

quote:
I agree with all that. But it is because we are sinners that I believe we need to rely on God's Word and not just our own moral intuitions.
Our own informed moral intuitions. The Spirit of God inside each one of us, if you will.

After all, at the end of the day the people who lead our churches are only sinful humans. And the writers of the Bible were only sinful humans. If our Spirit-led moral intuition cannot be trusted, how can theirs?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And I do think that through a glass darkly can be applied. If we know God imperfectly it is likely we have an imperfect understanding of his ethics.

Precisely. I'm amazed that anybody could think otherwise...
What evidence is there that this passage is meant to point to moral ambiguity, other than mdijon's thinking so?

"He has shown thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of thee."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You shouldn't take LeRoc's account of my ethical system

I wasn't, I was replying to your post.

quote:
Naturally there is a difference between hugging gently and hugging to hurt someone. But here I do not add another rule or complicate the rule. I ask "Why is this the case? What is the moral principle behind the difference?"
But that's so subjective! Surely you need an objective definition of what the rule is so that the feelings of those concerned don;t come into it!

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Zach82: Naturally there is a difference between hugging gently and hugging to hurt someone.
You're being very ambiguous. Where lies the line between them? What is the objective criterium?

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Do you think God actually minds if we do the wrong thing for good reasons?
Yes. I do.

quote:
Trust your feelings, and trust God to understand that even if it was the wrong, it was done out of a desire to do right.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Philippians 2:12

quote:
Then you agree with me? Surely if you accept the possibility of either of those sources of authority being wrong then you must also accept that they are not always completely and infallibly correct?
If you will recall, I was the one that told you that you agreed with me. But those are the same things. The Word of God isn't wrong. We are.
quote:
I still don't know why you need to. Isn't faith enough for you?
I think faith bears on how we live our lives.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What evidence is there that this passage is meant to point to moral ambiguity?

It's saying we can't fully understand God in this life. Surely that extends to understanding His ethics as well?

Yes, He has shown us what He wants from us: to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with Him. To "be nice", as my recent conversation with Zach would have it. But that's a list of principles, not an objective set of laws and rules which we must obey whether we think they're nice or not.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Yes, He has shown us what He wants from us: to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with Him.
Notice that you reached for a source of authority for that list. When I said one needs to do that, you cried, and I quote, "Bullshit."

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Do you think God actually minds if we do the wrong thing for good reasons?
Yes. I do.
Hm. OK. I think He's more forgiving than that, but whatever.

quote:
quote:
Trust your feelings, and trust God to understand that even if it was the wrong, it was done out of a desire to do right.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Philippians 2:12
"Work out your own". Significant phrase.

quote:
The Word of God isn't wrong. We are.
We wrote the Bible. We are the Magisterium.

If anything, you're arguing in favour of following one's own Spirit-led conscience. At least that way there's only one flawed human forming a barrier between the Word of God and your actions (namely, yourself).

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Yes, He has shown us what He wants from us: to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with Him.
Notice that you reached for a source of authority for that list.
You're not going to appreciate the difference, but what I did was reach for a very useful source of information about what God is saying to us. A guide that, while flawed in many areas, is nevertheless pretty good overall.

It's not right about everything, but that doesn't mean it's not right about anything. [Smile]

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

 - Posted      Profile for Uncle Pete     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Grumpy host hat on

Could you take discussion of Zach82's comprehension or lack of it to his very own, and still open, thread, and leave this one to those who wish to have a go at Trisagion (or support him whatever)?

Grumpy Host Hat off
PeteC


--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Hm. OK. I think He's more forgiving than that, but whatever.
Gee wiz, you too? Just because God forgives us doesn't mean what we've done wasn't a big deal.

quote:
"Work out your own". Significant phrase.
Indeed, though you've made it hard for me to take your powers of interpretation seriously.

quote:
We wrote the Bible. We are the Magisterium.

If anything, you're arguing in favour of following one's own Spirit-led conscience. At least that way there's only one flawed human forming a barrier between the Word of God and your actions (namely, yourself).

I will not make the revelation of the Spirit some vague conviction one has on one's own. The Word of God is authoritative because it is the experience of the whole Church, not just of an individual.

Morality for me, and the Roman Catholic Church, is a community effort, even if its application will ultimately come down to one's own conscience.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What evidence is there that this passage is meant to point to moral ambiguity, other than mdijon's thinking so?

Well my feelings, obviously, which I believe to be the ultimate guide. But seriously, it is simply reasoning on my part rather than evidence. (What evidence would one ask for or hope to supply?)

It just seems to me odd to think that we see through a glass darkly but know ethics clearly.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"He has shown thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of thee."

Well fine. It's just that I genuinely don't know what is required of me. I pass beggars in the street and don't really know whether I should give them anything and if so how much. I was asked by a distant and feckless relation for a modest but unsecured loan of money. I need to consider whether to pay for private schooling for my children while my neighbour's child has no option but to go to the unsatisfactory school my children are opting out of.

Perhaps the Lord really has shown me exactly what is good and what is required of me but it really doesn't feel like it. Now I'm fine with the idea that I need to man up and muddle through making the best decisions I can, and perhaps that is what that verse means, but the straight reading of it doesn't ring all that true for me.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
So by "clear ethical directives" you mean that God would tell you, for every single decision in your life, which way to jump? You would not have to make any ethical decisions at all, just follow the flowchart like an automaton? How is that "ethics" at all?

You appear to be confusing "clear ethical directives" with "absolute certainty on how to apply clear ethical directives in every circumstance and for every decision."

[ 05. July 2012, 21:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
This thread had its distant origins in a claim that because some of you think Catholic Bishops have no moral authority, then they had no right to take disciplinary action against the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Leaving aside the moot point concerning whether or not the members of the LCWR concede to Catholic Bishops any moral authority, the disciplinary action doesn't depend on conceded moral authority, but on the sacramental and canonical authority of the Bishops and the Vatican. Should any member, or indeed the entire membership if LCWR want to cease to be within the ambit of that authority, then the means so to do is in their hands.
(Subsequent correction incorporated.)

So does the bishops' moral authority simply not matter in this case?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
This thread had its distant origins in a claim that because some of you think Catholic Bishops have no moral authority, then they had no right to take disciplinary action against the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Leaving aside the moot point concerning whether or not the members of the LCWR concede to Catholic Bishops any moral authority, the disciplinary action doesn't depend on conceded moral authority, but on the sacramental and canonical authority of the Bishops and the Vatican. Should any member, or indeed the entire membership if LCWR want to cease to be within the ambit of that authority, then the means so to do is in their hands.
(Subsequent correction incorporated.)

So does the bishops' moral authority simply not matter in this case?
Someone above answered that the nuns do have the right to refuse obedience to specific Bishops that have exhibited immoral behavior. But I am interested in Trisagion's answer because as I stated in an earlier post that if this were true I'd take his advice to separate from the RCC. I know I couldn't offer blind obedience to a certain Bishop who actively covered up abuse here or one who actively engaged in other immoral behavior with no penalty from church hierarchy and if my only option to remain withing the organization is blind obedience to such a person, I'd be gone. I've respected nuns all my life for their commitment and ministry and from my perspective this would be a violation of their conscience with obedience to Christ topping that of the Bishop.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The nuns aren't being called to obedience to this or that bishop whose moral authority may or may not be in the can. The LCWR is being called to reform by the body by whose authority it, that is the LCWR, exists.

The criticism made by the CDF is not of nuns or their commitment or their work in social justice: it is a criticism of a conference of religious superiors which exists solely to foster co-operation between the orders who are members, the local bishops and the Holy See, for that conference taking positions that range from those that make that co-operation difficult through to those which make it impossible. Whether those criticisms are fair or not is a metter for debate, of course, but that the body which calls the LCWR into existence in the first place, it hardly seems controversial that the Vatican should not have the right to engage at all. It would be like suggesting that an ad hoc committee of the US Senate could do what the hell it liked and the Senate could not criticise, reform or even close it down.

To come to the question of obedience. As one bound to obedience to a bishop, a fallible, sometimes foolish, occasionally venal bishop, who often asked me to do things that I might rather not do and go places I'd rather not go, you will, I hope, acknowledge that I have both theoretical and practical experience of the question that has l me to reflect at length on the question and it's personal consequences for me.

Obedience is a word which derives from the Latin verb audire, which translated might be rendered as "to hear". Obedience, therefore, has to it a character in which one speaks and another hears or listens. It is not the automatic response of compliance that one might encounter on a military parade ground. The promise of obedience (or solemn vow for religious) is, therefore, a commitment to hear the voice of ones religious superior and act. For those of us bound to this, we have made a commitment which says that, in all things saving our conscience, the primary and finally determinative way in which we discern the will of God for us, within the scope of that obedience, is through the voice of our religious superior. There are, of course proper limits to the scope of that obedience. For me, then - and this is where the rubber hits the road - when my bishop asks me to do something I would rather not (because it is inconvenient or difficult or unwelcome), if he insists have heard me, then I have to comply, whether or not I think him saintly or wicked. Obedience to a saintly man who is asking you to do something you want to do is obviously not where the shoe pinches.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
when my bishop asks me to do something I would rather not (because it is inconvenient or difficult or unwelcome), if he insists have heard me, then I have to comply, whether or not I think him saintly or wicked.

What if, instead of inconvenient, it's immoral?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The nuns aren't being called to obedience to this or that bishop whose moral authority may or may not be in the can. The LCWR is being called to reform by the body by whose authority it, that is the LCWR, exists.

<SNIP>

To come to the question of obedience. As one bound to obedience to a bishop, a fallible, sometimes foolish, occasionally venal bishop, who often asked me to do things that I might rather not do and go places I'd rather not go, you will, I hope, acknowledge that I have both theoretical and practical experience of the question that has l me to reflect at length on the question and it's personal consequences for me.

...we have made a commitment which says that, in all things saving our conscience, the primary and finally determinative way in which we discern the will of God for us, within the scope of that obedience, is through the voice of our religious superior. There are, of course proper limits to the scope of that obedience. For me, then - and this is where the rubber hits the road - when my bishop asks me to do something I would rather not (because it is inconvenient or difficult or unwelcome), if he insists have heard me, then I have to comply, whether or not I think him saintly or wicked. Obedience to a saintly man who is asking you to do something you want to do is obviously not where the shoe pinches.

My question wasn't being asked to do something I'd rather not do or go somewhere I'd rather not do. That I had plenty of experience with that when I was in an interdenominational and international missions organization. I had the freedom to strongly make my case, though, as to why I felt called to do something they might not agree with, but they had bottom line approval if I was to do it in accordance with that organization. The question was if one is still called to obedience to a Bishop who has immoral actions that put him out of obedience to clear commandments (say sexual sin of any kind) and for whom the RCC may be overlooking those indiscretions or even the active cover up of sins that affect the flock. I can't find it at present, but I say an article this past week that stated that this pope is taking a more active role in the discipline of Bishops even "firing" Bishops who mismanaged their diocese, had been asked to resign and had refused. That I think is a step in the right direction. When there is clear accountability and consequences for leadership hierarchy the question of having to obey an immoral Bishop won't be as much of an issue. If that balance weren't there and I was being punished for work I was doing while being asked to unquestioningly obey someone above me who was actively immoral is where I do (and have) drawn the line. In one case I saw there was recourse and the leader was disciplined for the sin involved. In another case I was personally involved in I left and wouldn't hesitate to do so again. There many people hurt by the leadership in that instance. This is not an RCC/non RCC issue, it's a Christian issue.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if, instead of inconvenient, it's immoral?

Absolutely not. In the first instance that would be an abuse of authority by the bishop or religious superior in question. No one should be asked to do anything that is immoral nor are they bound to obey such an injunction. Secondly, that is what my remark about 'saving only their conscience' was covering.

NiteOwl2, I've got to catch a train, but will return to your question later.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if, instead of inconvenient, it's immoral?

Absolutely not. In the first instance that would be an abuse of authority by the bishop or religious superior in question. No one should be asked to do anything that is immoral nor are they bound to obey such an injunction.
Jolly good.

So if one firmly believes that avoiding contraception is immoral, one should not be bound to obey any bishop who tells one to do so?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
CL
Shipmate
# 16145

 - Posted      Profile for CL     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if, instead of inconvenient, it's immoral?

Absolutely not. In the first instance that would be an abuse of authority by the bishop or religious superior in question. No one should be asked to do anything that is immoral nor are they bound to obey such an injunction. Secondly, that is what my remark about 'saving only their conscience' was covering.

NiteOwl2, I've got to catch a train, but will return to your question later.

Careful Trisagion, I see a reductio ad absurdum coming.

Edit having just seen Marvin's post: And there we have it.

[ 06. July 2012, 12:41: Message edited by: CL ]

--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria

Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if, instead of inconvenient, it's immoral?

Absolutely not. In the first instance that would be an abuse of authority by the bishop or religious superior in question. No one should be asked to do anything that is immoral nor are they bound to obey such an injunction. Secondly, that is what my remark about 'saving only their conscience' was covering.

NiteOwl2, I've got to catch a train, but will return to your question later.

Careful Trisagion, I see a reductio ad absurdum coming.
You know, I truly am interested in discussing the issue and have been involved with the question over the past couple of pages. I wrote a very long reply, then figured you're really not interested in discussion because of your response.

I will say I personally am not a Catholic but that doesn't make me a heretic, or not a true Christian or someone out to smear the RCC. I have genuine respect for the majority of priests, nuns and Bishops who have spent their lives in ministry with integrity and without abusing those under them. The prejudice flowing both ways between the various branches of Christianity isn't helping anyone. You'll also find I've spoken up on threads concerning other churches on the need for accountable leadership as I've personally seen others damaged by or in one instance experienced myself abuse by a leader. In one ministry the offending leader was removed from his position. In another the offending leaders operated with little discipline from above and lives were severely damaged.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Careful Trisagion, I see a reductio ad absurdum coming.

For something to be a reductio ad absurdum it has to be absurd. I don't see how what I posted fits that requirement at all.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if, instead of inconvenient, it's immoral?

Absolutely not. In the first instance that would be an abuse of authority by the bishop or religious superior in question. No one should be asked to do anything that is immoral nor are they bound to obey such an injunction. Secondly, that is what my remark about 'saving only their conscience' was covering.

NiteOwl2, I've got to catch a train, but will return to your question later.

Careful Trisagion, I see a reductio ad absurdum coming.

Edit having just seen Marvin's post: And there we have it.

How is Marvin's question in any way, shape, or form absurd?

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if, instead of inconvenient, it's immoral?

Absolutely not. In the first instance that would be an abuse of authority by the bishop or religious superior in question. No one should be asked to do anything that is immoral nor are they bound to obey such an injunction. Secondly, that is what my remark about 'saving only their conscience' was covering.

NiteOwl2, I've got to catch a train, but will return to your question later.

Careful Trisagion, I see a reductio ad absurdum coming.

Edit having just seen Marvin's post: And there we have it.

Oh look! It's the main man!

HI CL!!!! We've missed you!!!

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So if one firmly believes that avoiding contraception is immoral, one should not be bound to obey any bishop who tells one to do so?

I remember asking Trisagion exactly that a few years ago.

If I recall correctly, he said that if one thought that obeying the prohibition was actually evil, if one could not help but see it as an injustice and injury to another person (such as one's spouse) then there might be a conscience exception in RC ethics. But there wouldn't be merely because one disagreed with the teaching - the conscience point is that one must not do evil, not that one can opt out of duties that are thought to be pointless.

I thought that made sense at the time. But I think it makes more sense for cradle Catholics who inherit the teaching, than for converts who willingly sign up to it, to say that the Church is commanding them to do wrong and therefore that they cannot obey.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if, instead of inconvenient, it's immoral?

Absolutely not. In the first instance that would be an abuse of authority by the bishop or religious superior in question. No one should be asked to do anything that is immoral nor are they bound to obey such an injunction. Secondly, that is what my remark about 'saving only their conscience' was covering.

NiteOwl2, I've got to catch a train, but will return to your question later.

Careful Trisagion, I see a reductio ad absurdum coming.

Edit having just seen Marvin's post: And there we have it.

There's a Hell thread you should be visiting, but this isn't it. You took a wrong turn right at the end of the trip and you've ended up in your neighbour's driveway.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So if one firmly believes that avoiding contraception is immoral, one should not be bound to obey any bishop who tells one to do so?

I remember asking Trisagion exactly that a few years ago.

If I recall correctly, he said that if one thought that obeying the prohibition was actually evil, if one could not help but see it as an injustice and injury to another person (such as one's spouse) then there might be a conscience exception in RC ethics. But there wouldn't be merely because one disagreed with the teaching - the conscience point is that one must not do evil, not that one can opt out of duties that are thought to be pointless.

I thought that made sense at the time. But I think it makes more sense for cradle Catholics who inherit the teaching, than for converts who willingly sign up to it, to say that the Church is commanding them to do wrong and therefore that they cannot obey.

Quite so. I suspect I said something about St Thomas Aquinas and Bl John Henry Newman. Newman certainly had a very high conception of conscience: it was matter that is treated of time and again in his letters and diaries and he preached on it frequently.   Early in the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, written to defend Catholic teaching in the period of foment immediately after the First Vatican Council and the definition of Papal Infallibility, he wrote of it in the following terms: it was ‘the Law of God apprehended in the minds of individual men’, it is ‘the voice of God’, it is ‘the Aboriginal Vicar of Christ’.   We are bound to obey it.   But for Newman, conscience was that faculty which classical Catholic teaching had always presented it to be: it was, as he noted in the words of St Thomas Aquinas, the ‘practical judgment or dictate of reason, by which we judge what hic et nunc is to be done as being good, or to be avoided as evil’.   Newman wrote that ‘conscience is not a judgement on any speculative truth, on any abstract doctrine but bears immediately on something...to be done or not done.’   He goes on: ‘It cannot come into conflict with the Church’s or the Pope’s infallibility, since these are engaged on general propositions.’   So for Newman, our consciences are not about whether we can accept this teaching or that of the Church: he thought the question a nonsense – he called such things ‘counterfeit consciences’ and ‘mere self-will’, because, he wrote: ‘I say there is only one Oracle of God, the Holy Catholic Church and the Pope as her head.   To her teaching I have ever desired all my thought, all my words to be conformed.’   Even when it comes to acting contrary to a Papal instruction – not a teaching you see, but an instruction or injunction – he set the bar very, very high.  He wrote: ‘Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it.’

That being my understanding of conscience, I would argue that I could see a situation where, in good conscience, a Catholic might well choose to use contraception - for example as a prophylactic against conception arising from sexual violence. What I don't concede is that conscience acts in a speculative manner.

Niteowl2, I promised you a response. I can only talk about the situation in the abstract, having not, I'm pleased to say, having had to put my promise of obedience to the test in such circumstances. If a bishop's immorality was so serious that his ministry had, itself, become a scandal, then I suspect that I would find it extraordinarily difficult to obey in a situation where I was being asked to do something that I really didn't want to do. I would, I think, use all the canonical means available to me to get out of the situation, and that would include petitioning the Holy See for the removal of my superior on the grounds that the scandal meant that his ministry had become gravely deleterious. If, of course, I was unsuccessful, then I would have to apply the kind of reflection enjoined by Newman and outlined above. Finally, I should point out that certain acts by a bishop would incur the canonical penalty of excommunication and suspension latae sententiae (i.e. automatically) and then any juridic act made whilst under excommunication and suspension is canonically invalid.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yorrick--

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I continually find all kinds of puzzle pieces. I don't necessarily know where they fit, yet, nor even if they're all from the same puzzle. They might even be from one of those really complicated ones that are printed on both sides, and build up into a replica of the Eiffel Tower.

So, you go from a position of having odd bits of a puzzle to imagining it might make the Eiffel Tower.

That's quite a leap.

What I was trying to say is that I don't know what the puzzle is. I know I've got puzzle pieces. They may be from one puzzle, or more than one. I’m probably missing lots of pieces, and they may well be crucial in understanding what the picture is. I can try to put it together as a normal, flat, one-sided puzzle. But there are lots of other kinds of puzzles—and my expectations shape the way I perceive the puzzle. So if I assume that I’m dealing with a 2D puzzle, I may not look on the back to see if it’s a two-sided puzzle. I may not consider that it might be a multi-dimensional puzzle, so I’d miss most of the context and be mostly wrong about the whole thing. If I assume all the pieces are for the same puzzle, I may force pieces together that don’t belong together. I might also throw all the pieces to the winds, in frustration!

So, for me, it’s useful to just be aware of all the pieces I have, keep an eye out for more, and be open to possibilities about how they go together—if they do.


LeRoc--

[Smile] re artist's leap.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

Niteowl2, I promised you a response. I can only talk about the situation in the abstract, having not, I'm pleased to say, having had to put my promise of obedience to the test in such circumstances. If a bishop's immorality was so serious that his ministry had, itself, become a scandal, then I suspect that I would find it extraordinarily difficult to obey in a situation where I was being asked to do something that I really didn't want to do. I would, I think, use all the canonical means available to me to get out of the situation, and that would include petitioning the Holy See for the removal of my superior on the grounds that the scandal meant that his ministry had become gravely deleterious. If, of course, I was unsuccessful, then I would have to apply the kind of reflection enjoined by Newman and outlined above. Finally, I should point out that certain acts by a bishop would incur the canonical penalty of excommunication and suspension latae sententiae (i.e. automatically) and then any juridic act made whilst under excommunication and suspension is canonically invalid.

Thanks for answering my question. I think that we are basically in agreement then on this issue.

This Pope seems more willing to ensure the suspension or excommunication of Bishops and this may prove helpful in avoiding abuse of the flock by the few that would. Not the RCC, but in the situations I've been in it's far easier to obey what leadership wants when the confidence is there that any leaders who engage in immoral or abusive behavior will be disciplined and the flock is protected. Any of these situations that call for personal action against Bishops/leadership involve inward reflection, struggle and much prayer.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

So, for me, it’s useful to just be aware of all the pieces I have, keep an eye out for more, and be open to possibilities about how they go together—if they do.


They don't.

Life is not like a jigsaw, however complicated. I believe the 'game' is more like dominoes - we adapt and change as the pieces change. The pieces we are dealt in the first place are rather random, but we can make the most of what we have.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[Newman] wrote: ‘Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it.’

I am unable to understand why anyone would place themselves under such authority. It's like choosing to live in a totalitarian dictatorship rather than a democratic country. Why wouldn't they prefer to be free to decide for themselves how to live their lives?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[Newman] wrote: ‘Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it.’

I am unable to understand why anyone would place themselves under such authority. It's like choosing to live in a totalitarian dictatorship rather than a democratic country. Why wouldn't they prefer to be free to decide for themselves how to live their lives?
One would do it, Newman tried to do it and so do I because we believe that the authority of the Pope comes from God and it is under God's authority and according to His law that we desire to live. If you don't think that the Papal office and the authority claimed for it comes from God then you wouldn't want to place yourself under that authority.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[Newman] wrote: ‘Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it.’

I am unable to understand why anyone would place themselves under such authority. It's like choosing to live in a totalitarian dictatorship rather than a democratic country. Why wouldn't they prefer to be free to decide for themselves how to live their lives?
"So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin." Roman 7:25

The alternative to serving God is serving sin, Marvin. Protestants and Roman Catholics merely differ in where they think the Law of God is revealed, and that only slightly. No Christian is free to decide how to live his life apart from the Word of God.

Maybe it would help if I put the position on conscience in a slightly different way. Conscience is not a vague intuition about right and wrong. Conscience is the ability to rightly and rationally apply universal ethical principles to concrete situations. Christians believe that those universal ethical norms are revealed in the life of Jesus Christ in the Word of God.

[ 07. July 2012, 14:14: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
If you don't think that the Papal office and the authority claimed for it comes from God then you wouldn't want to place yourself under that authority.

Bit more complicated for me as a one-time anglo-papalist.

I do believe that papal authority comes from God but i believe that some other authorities also come from God.

Either i am confused or life is more complex - or both.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
This thread has 24hrs to convince me that there is any remaining angst, purgatorial discussion can live in the appropriate purg thread.

Think²
Hellhost

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The alternative to serving God is serving sin, Marvin.

I don't believe that.

And furthermore, I definitely don't believe that following every pronouncement of another flawed and fallible human being (or group thereof) is the same thing as serving God.

[ 07. July 2012, 21:01: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]]I am unable to understand why anyone would place themselves under such authority. It's like choosing to live in a totalitarian dictatorship rather than a democratic country. Why wouldn't they prefer to be free to decide for themselves how to live their lives?

Sentire cum Ecclesia, basically. Istm, like are looking for intellectually-respectabe reasons to quit churchgoing. Having a pop at the RCC of which you aren't a member isn't gonna help resolve that. I know you don't care for me, Marvin, any more than I for you, however, I recognize someone akin to me in the turmoil of doubt and In that, I wish you well.

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am unable to understand why anyone would place themselves under such authority. It's like choosing to live in a totalitarian dictatorship rather than a democratic country. Why wouldn't they prefer to be free to decide for themselves how to live their lives?

People submit to authority all the time, every single day. Anybody who works for a corporation and its (often arbitrary) decisions (that make no freaking sense) has done so. Anybody who joins the military or a police force. Anybody in academia or in civil service. Anybody who pleases his lover.

[ 08. July 2012, 00:42: Message edited by: Pancho ]

--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am unable to understand why anyone would place themselves under such authority. It's like choosing to live in a totalitarian dictatorship rather than a democratic country. Why wouldn't they prefer to be free to decide for themselves how to live their lives?

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post 
It is more like an old-fashioned absolute monarchy (albeit an elective one) than a totalitarian dictatorship.

[ 08. July 2012, 01:25: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am unable to understand why anyone would place themselves under such authority. It's like choosing to live in a totalitarian dictatorship rather than a democratic country. Why wouldn't they prefer to be free to decide for themselves how to live their lives?

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
We also remember:

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep."

eta: It's not like living under a dictatorship and I dispute that we're not free to decide for ourselves how to live our lives but whatever.

[ 08. July 2012, 01:57: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
It is more like an old-fashioned absolute monarchy (albeit an elective one) than a totalitarian dictatorship.

The difference being?

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
It's not like living under a dictatorship and I dispute that we're not free to decide for ourselves how to live our lives but whatever.

If you're RC, you're (officially) not even free to decide whether to use contraception or not!

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
It's not like living under a dictatorship and I dispute that we're not free to decide for ourselves how to live our lives but whatever.

If you're RC, you're (officially) not even free to decide whether to use contraception or not!
I'm free to do so the way I'm free to lie, steal, cheat and murder. People do those things all the time too.

--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
This thread has 24hrs to convince me that there is any remaining angst ...

Think²
Hellhost

Thanks for the warning.

12 pages here and Eliab's rational thread in Purgatory on the authority of the Catholic Church and Purg is still not a liberal anti-Catholic echo chamber, so I'm throwing in the towel. For now.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Fantabadozy !

To purg with the lot of you !

Think²
Hellhost

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  ...  10  11  12 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools