Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: jman123 on November 13, 2017, 03:11:13 PM
-
I find some trads think that it's morally acceptable to use against wives. I think it's reprehensible. Wives don't deserve beatings ever. What do you think?
-
From what I understand, female or male, any pushing or to shoving is enough to send one to jail. If the cops are called to a domestic violence call, the question asked would be: any shoving or pushing, that slight and that is enough. If the police sees any touching of that sort, he must take that person in.
Is it wrong? Sure it is in God's eyes and the civil authority as well.
-
I find some trads think that it's morally acceptable to use against wives. I think it's reprehensible. Wives don't deserve beatings ever. What do you think?
I'd prefer not to shoot or stab one, if a booger hook will do; but, if you think that stopping unjust violence, wife or no, is out of line then "all you".
Besides that, why come "wives"? Still open season on husbands?
-
I find some trads think that it's morally acceptable to use against wives. I think it's reprehensible. Wives don't deserve beatings ever. What do you think?
There are a couple threads on this subject already. Yes, some Trads do think that it's OK. Look in the "Anonymous" section.
-
I think for men to think that it is ok to use 'corporal' punishment against their wives is asking for trouble.
-
I find some trads think that it's morally acceptable to use against wives. I think it's reprehensible. Wives don't deserve beatings ever. What do you think?
Women, like men, deserve to burn eternally in Hell. Why wouldn't we ever deserve the significantly lesser punishment of a beating. I am quite sure that I deserve much worse than a beating.
It's just that we live in a culture that has almost completely eliminated corporal punishment so it seems strange to us for it to be used on adults. There is no reason to think it is intrinsically wrong or displeasing to God. This was accepted by the Church for centuries. Only our culture has a problem with it.
One can make a case that it is imprudent in our current situation or that the practice risks misuse, but there are no grounds in traditional Catholic teaching to call it reprehensible. In the past most authority relationships were enforced with corporal punishment, including the husband's authority over his wife. I see no reason to believe that our ancestors who taught and practised this were sinning by doing so.
-
I think for men to think that it is ok to use 'corporal' punishment against their wives is asking for trouble.
"Credo" is asking for trouble; so what?
-
Women, like men, deserve to burn eternally in Hell. Why wouldn't we ever deserve the significantly lesser punishment of a beating. I am quite sure that I deserve much worse than a beating.
Lame. It's not about what we deserve but about who has the right to administer the punishment. Indeed, my parents are no less deserving of punishment than anyone else ... except that I do not have the right to administer said punishment.
-
I find some trads think that it's morally acceptable to use against wives. I think it's reprehensible. Wives don't deserve beatings ever. What do you think?
-
Women, like men, deserve to burn eternally in Hell. Why wouldn't we ever deserve the significantly lesser punishment of a beating. I am quite sure that I deserve much worse than a beating.
It's just that we live in a culture that has almost completely eliminated corporal punishment so it seems strange to us for it to be used on adults. There is no reason to think it is intrinsically wrong or displeasing to God. This was accepted by the Church for centuries. Only our culture has a problem with it.
One can make a case that it is imprudent in our current situation or that the practice risks misuse, but there are no grounds in traditional Catholic teaching to call it reprehensible. In the past most authority relationships were enforced with corporal punishment, including the husband's authority over his wife. I see no reason to believe that our ancestors who taught and practised this were sinning by doing so.
So the play the Taming of the Shrew by Shakespeare is not immoral? Women are not animals to be tamed. They are human.
-
So the play the Taming of the Shrew by Shakespeare is not immoral? Women are not animals to be tamed. They are human.
Taming of the Shrew is my favourite play by Shakespeare. Poor Kate was miserable until Petruchio tamed her. She had no self-control and had destroyed all the relationships in her life with her tantrums and bad temper. Petruchio gave her peace and happiness by teaching her to accept his authority. I actually relate to this story a lot and sometimes even call my husband Petruchio as a nickname.
However the play does not portray Petruchio using corporal punishment to tame Kate. He uses psychological methods. So I am not sure how it is relevant to the topic.
There was a 1953 movie called Kiss me Kate about actors putting on a production of Taming of the Shrew. It contained a scene in which one of the actors spanked his divorced wife. This was portrayed as a positive thing which led to the couple reconciling. I do not think that the movie was immoral for portraying corporal punishment positively. The movie even did some good by portraying divorce negatively.
-
Taming of the Shrew is my favourite play by Shakespeare. Poor Kate was miserable until Petruchio tamed her. She had no self-control and had destroyed all the relationships in her life with her tantrums and bad temper. Petruchio gave her peace and happiness by teaching her to accept his authority. I actually relate to this story a lot and sometimes even call my husband Petruchio as a nickname.
However the play does not portray Petruchio using corporal punishment to tame Kate. He uses psychological methods. So I am not sure how it is relevant to the topic.
There was a 1953 movie called Kiss me Kate about actors putting on a production of Taming of the Shrew. It contained a scene in which one of the actors spanked his divorced wife. This was portrayed as a positive thing which led to the couple reconciling. I do not think that the movie was immoral for portraying corporal punishment positively. The movie even did some good by portraying divorce negatively.
Never mind that "Shrew" is used in the sense of "shrewish", and not a depiction of women as actual shrews.
What a time, when people "think" like this, and that there is a need to actually point out distinctions such as that between the literal and the figurative.
-
Taming of the Shrew is my favourite play by Shakespeare. Poor Kate was miserable until Petruchio tamed her. She had no self-control and had destroyed all the relationships in her life with her tantrums and bad temper. Petruchio gave her peace and happiness by teaching her to accept his authority. I actually relate to this story a lot and sometimes even call my husband Petruchio as a nickname.
As I've said before, you've overreacted in the other direction due to regrets about your past behaviors and past mentality. I speculated about this earlier, and this post simply confirms it. Unfortunately, however, you've overgeneralized your own experiences into principles. For every man who has to "tame" a woman, there's a woman who has to work on helping a man. Your default reaction is that the woman is always in the wrong and the man always in the right. And you thereby do damage by promoting the misogynist attitudes that exist among a significant number of Traditional Catholic men.
This is so darn typical among Traditionalists ... an overreaction to the OPPOSITE EXTREME when confronting some evil. So to combat your prior tendencies towards feminism you swing towards misandry. Can't you try to find a balance? People overreact against the evils of the Novus Ordo by becoming almost dogmatic about the enforcement of liturgical proprieties ... considering the slightest rubrical misstep tantamount to apostasy. People react against the Novus Ordo religious indifferentism by becoming dogmatic anti-BoDers (as per another thread where I'm duking it out). You've made the mistake of responding to feminism with misandry. It's also a form the "self-punishment" on your part. Unfortunately, however, you are thereby simultaneously encouraging the punishment of other women as well because of your own misdeeds.
-
There are a couple threads on this subject already. Yes, some Trads do think that it's OK. Look in the "Anonymous" section.
I think that is just baiting. People think up a topic they believe will generate controversy just for some twisted sense of satisfaction.
-
Women, like men, deserve to burn eternally in Hell. Why wouldn't we ever deserve the significantly lesser punishment of a beating. I am quite sure that I deserve much worse than a beating.
It's just that we live in a culture that has almost completely eliminated corporal punishment so it seems strange to us for it to be used on adults. There is no reason to think it is intrinsically wrong or displeasing to God. This was accepted by the Church for centuries. Only our culture has a problem with it.
One can make a case that it is imprudent in our current situation or that the practice risks misuse, but there are no grounds in traditional Catholic teaching to call it reprehensible. In the past most authority relationships were enforced with corporal punishment, including the husband's authority over his wife. I see no reason to believe that our ancestors who taught and practised this were sinning by doing so.
Well said Jaynek.
To answer the original question myself, I will say it is not what we think, but what the Church thinks and has practiced for 2000 years.
-
As I've said before, you've overreacted in the other direction due to regrets about your past behaviors and past mentality. I speculated about this earlier, and this post simply confirms it. Unfortunately, however, you've overgeneralized your own experiences into principles. For every man who has to "tame" a woman, there's a woman who has to work on helping a man. Your default reaction is that the woman is always in the wrong and the man always in the right. And you thereby do damage by promoting the misogynist attitudes that exist among a significant number of Traditional Catholic men.
This is so darn typical among Traditionalists ... an overreaction to the OPPOSITE EXTREME when confronting some evil. So to combat your prior tendencies towards feminism you swing towards misandry. Can't you try to find a balance? People overreact against the evils of the Novus Ordo by becoming almost dogmatic about the enforcement of liturgical proprieties ... considering the slightest rubrical misstep tantamount to apostasy. People react against the Novus Ordo religious indifferentism by becoming dogmatic anti-BoDers (as per another thread where I'm duking it out). You've made the mistake of responding to feminism with misandry. It's also a form the "self-punishment" on your part. Unfortunately, however, you are thereby simultaneously encouraging the punishment of other women as well because of your own misdeeds.
Well said, especially the part about it being typical among trads to overreact to the OPPOSITE EXTREME when confronting some evil.
-
Well said, especially the part about it being typical among trads to overreact to the OPPOSITE EXTREME when confronting some evil.
While it might or might not be true in general, it is not an accurate assessment of the views I have expressed on this subject. My conclusions are based on a cold academic analysis of the sources. What the Church practiced and taught about corporal punishment in the past is a matter of historical reality.
The only emotion I bring to this subject is my reluctance to judge the past based on modern values. I do not want to claim that our ancestors in the Faith were sinning for believing what they did.
I have repeatedly expressed my belief that attempting to use corporal punishment in our contemporary situation is problematic. My alleged over-reaction exists only in the imagination of Ladislaus.
-
I have repeatedly expressed my belief that attempting to use corporal punishment in our contemporary situation is problematic. My alleged over-reaction exists only in the imagination of Ladislaus.
I'm not referring to this issue alone but to your overall attitude towards men and women.
-
My alleged over-reaction exists only in the imagination of Ladislaus.
And my alleged overall attitude to men and women exists only in the imagination of Ladislaus. It is a fabrication of speculation and inferences with almost no correspondence to reality. I find his behaviour highly objectionable.
-
And my alleged overall attitude to men and women exists only in the imagination of Ladislaus. It is a fabrication of speculation and inferences with almost no correspondence to reality. I find his behaviour highly objectionable.
Not at all. If I cared enough to devote the time to it, I could go dig through all your previous postings to demonstrate your attitude.
-
I ask that people not believe anything that Ladislaus says about what I think or feel unless he supports it with a quote of me actually saying that. He has created a chimera and given it my name.
-
I ask that people not believe anything that Ladislaus says about what I think or feel unless he supports it with a quote of me actually saying that. He has created a chimera and given it my name.
Ma'am, that's somewhat comparable to asking that we not use animals for pinatas; decent people don't need telling, and it won't do any good otherwise.
These attacks are getting your goat.
With all due ma'am, where's your man? In his shoes, I'd want to know about this, and step in.
It's past time, and his place.
-
These attacks are getting your goat.
With all due ma'am, where's your man? In his shoes, I'd want to know about this, and step in.
It's past time, and his place.
This sort of thing is part of participating on forums. He will say that if I am not prepared to deal with it, then I should get off the forum. He is too busy with important things to waste time on my hobby and I would not ask it of him.
However if forum nonsense bothers me, I can always get a hug from him and that is enough to make me feel better. I am away from home now, working on settling my father's estate, so I am a bit hug-deprived. That may be why this is getting to me more than it ought.
-
This sort of thing is part of participating on forums. He will say that if I am not prepared to deal with it, then I should get off the forum. He is too busy with important things to waste time on my hobby and I would not ask it of him.
However if forum nonsense bothers me, I can always get a hug from him and that is enough to make me feel better. I am away from home now, working on settling my father's estate, so I am a bit hug-deprived. That may be why this is getting to me more than it ought.
Odd hobby ma'am, but it's your show.
Besides, if you get too crazy he can always beat some sense back in...
j/k.
Other people gots goats too.
-
Odd hobby ma'am, but it's your show.
Besides, if you get too crazy he can always beat some sense back in...
j/k.
Other people gots goats too.
:laugh1:
I am like Charlie Brown and the football. Just like he kept thinking, "This time Lucy won't pull the football away," I keep thinking, "This time people will be logical, stay on topic, and be civil."
-
:laugh1:
I am like Charlie Brown and the football. Just like he kept thinking, "This time Lucy won't pull the football away," I keep thinking, "This time people will be logical, stay on topic, and be civil."
... and maybe not call you a Jєω for at least trying to do things the Catholic way, whilst giving you the Freud und Jung Sturm und Drang....
"Meshuggeneh"
-
... and maybe not call you a Jєω for at least trying to do things the Catholic way, whilst giving you the Freud und Jung Sturm und Drang....
"Meshuggeneh"
I don't think anyone has called me a Jєω in regards to this subject, but I have been accused of trying to convince men to beat their wives. That is just as crazy.
How does anyone make the leap from "corporal punishment is not intrinsically wrong but imprudent in our situation" (my actual position) to "all you men ought to beat your wives" ? And then, having ascribed such a distasteful view to me, he comes up with an absurd psychoanalysis to explain why I think a thing I don't actually think.
Anyhow I talked it all over with my husband last night and he got me laughing about it. There is no reason to get upset about these accusations. They are just too silly to take seriously.
-
but I have been accused of trying to convince men to beat their wives
That's a complete distortion. What I actually WROTE was that your crusade in favor of your position on this matter and your overall negative attitude towards women will only serve to condone and encourage abusive behavior from Traditional Catholic men towards their wives. Nobody said you were trying to convince them to beat their wives. I clearly said that you'll never convince anyone who does not share your views to lay a hand on his wife. But in the case of those men already inclined to denigrate and abuse their wives, you're helping to put their consciences at peace. And this is absolutely true; there's no question about that.
-
This sort of thing is part of participating on forums. He will say that if I am not prepared to deal with it, then I should get off the forum. He is too busy with important things to waste time on my hobby and I would not ask it of him.
However if forum nonsense bothers me, I can always get a hug from him and that is enough to make me feel better. I am away from home now, working on settling my father's estate, so I am a bit hug-deprived. That may be why this is getting to me more than it ought.
This is another reason why women should not argue with men. They can't get into a heated debate without it having an emotional impact on them. Women take things personally. As for me, I routinely get called an idiot, a "puke", a flaming liberal, a pervert (for saying that it's a sin for men to disrespect their wives), and a split-tongued devil (from another thread in the BoD forum where I'm arguing that BoD is not heresy). I was trying to make a distinction for someone who didn't understand what one was and was therefore said to have a forked tongue. Doesn't bother me in the least bit, and it has absolutely no emotional impact on me. At most I'll get irritated with stupidity, but even that passes quickly.
-
"This time people will be logical, stay on topic, and be civil."
Well, it's rather arrogant to accuse people of not being "logical" whenever they disagree with you. I laid out a very strong logical argument against wife-beating, and yet you accuse me of being illogical and not making an argument ... because I don't agree with your views. Yet, interestingly, you never accused the Anonymous blowhard on that other thread of being illogical and uncivil; he didn't make a single substantial or logical point, but simply vented insults and contempt for people who didn't agree with his views. He got a pass from you ... because he happened to agree with you. But then someone who does make a logical argument is accused of being illogical and uncivil ... because he doesn't share your opinion.
-
Nobody said you were trying to convince them to beat their wives. I clearly said that you'll never convince anyone who does not share your views to lay a hand on his wife.
It was not clear to me. This passage sounded like you were saying I was trying to convince men to beat their wives.
"Guess what, Jaynek, nobody's really going to listen to you. None of us who believe that we should honor our wives and not degrade them like children by beating them is going to suddenly start beating our wife. There's no REQUIREMENT anywhere in Church teaching or in the teaching of St. Thomas to beat our wives. So I'm not going to beat my wife. "
Now that I've seen your explanation of what you meant I can see that I misunderstood. I apologize.
This is another reason why women should not argue with men. They can't get into a heated debate without it having an emotional impact on them. Women take things personally. The
If you know that women take things personally and get upset, why aren't you taking that into consideration when dealing with women?
I have not been arguing with you. I have been making a point to avoid addressing you at all. You have been following around my posts and saying mean untrue things about me.
I don't want to have discussions with you because I find it unpleasant but you aren't letting me avoid you. You are too rough for me so can't you please leave me alone.
-
If you know that women take things personally and get upset, why aren't you taking that into consideration when dealing with women?
I have not been arguing with you. I have been making a point to avoid addressing you at all. You have been following around my posts and saying mean untrue things about me.
I don't want to have discussions with you because I find it unpleasant but you aren't letting me avoid you. You are too rough for me so can't you please leave me alone.
Well, I apologize if my forceful style has caused you some grief. As you know, however, I strongly believe that your crusade has the potential to cause great harm. It's not personal. As I said, if I saw you, I'd say hello with a smile. But I know that your aggressive defense of corporal punishment by husbands against wives will condone, aid, abet, enable those Trad men who use subjection theology as an excuse to be derisive, disrespectful, and even abusive towards their wives. You say that you've never seen any of that. Well, I have. And I know how they're going to react to your posts ... by giving themselves and each other high fives over your defense, as they see it, of their abusive behavior. Heck, we even saw that with a couple of those guys on that Anonymous thread. They were exulting over your posts. I have seen way too many women suffering greatly with such men ... to the point of even questioning their faith, or at the very least their allegiance to Traditional Catholicism. Consequently, I am going to set myself very forcefully against this position. Now, if I agreed with it in principle -- which I don't -- even then I would ask you to tone it down. In addition, don't you realize that, when Trad Catholics start condoning wife-beating in principle, it makes us look really bad to those outside our little circle. If there's someone who might otherwise be inclined to look into Traditional Catholicism, he might get turned off by this kind of stuff and run the other way. I know, your objection is that truth is truth and it doesn't matter who gets turned off. To a point, yes. But there are considerations of prudence where it comes to the presentation of that truth. We don't defend the truth just for truth's sake. Truth is truth whether we defend it or not. We defend it because we desire to bring others to it and, to that end, it's very imprudent to aggressively defend corporal punishment against wives. You know that even if someone agrees to it in principle it would be sinful to practice due to prudential considerations -- you'd end up destroying the family, in jail, etc. So it's wrong and sinful to do this ... if just because it's incredibly imprudent. Likewise, it's wrong to go on a crusade defending this kind of behavior because it's imprudent vis-a-vis how it would reflect upon Traditional Catholicism. You argue that it's because you're fighting against feminism and upholding the male prerogative to be superior to women ... but the advocation of corporal punishment is not necessary to make that case. You can make the case against feminism in other ways.
-
...
I don't want to have discussions with you because I find it unpleasant but you aren't letting me avoid you. You are too rough for me so can't you please leave me alone.
Lad, you're reading more than a little "stalky" and "harrassy"
You won't do it, will you?
She asked you to leave her be, so leave her be.
Don't hit them, but "no" means "yes"?
You're the very kind of creature you describe, and what's alarming is you're very "good" at it.
-
Lad, you're reading more than a little "stalky" and "harrassy"
You won't do it, will you?
She asked you to leave her be, so leave her be.
Don't hit them, but "no" means "yes"?
You're the very kind of creature you describe, and what's alarming is you're very "good" at it.
And, DZ, you're reading more than a little "loopy" and "druggy". Your posts are nearly incoherent ... to the point where I had to ask you at one point if you're a native speaker of English.
Read my previous response. If someone were on here, say, blaspheming Our Lady and requesting that he be "left alone", I would not comply. For every post he made attacking Our Blessed Mother, I would respond. Similarly, I believe that Jaynek is causing harm with her posts on this issue. Very much like a woman, you're making this personal. It's not personal.
-
And, DZ, you're reading more than a little "loopy" and "druggy". Your posts are nearly incoherent ... to the point where I had to ask you at one point if you're a native speaker of English.
Read my previous response. If someone were on here, say, blaspheming Our Lady and requesting that he be "left alone", I would not comply. For every post he made attacking Our Blessed Mother, I would respond. Similarly, I believe that Jaynek is causing harm with her posts on this issue. Very much like a woman, you're making this personal. It's not personal.
No, that wasn't personal. This is personal.
You're a lying sack of shit hypocrite, consumed by his own tacitly assumed innerancy at least as regards all things Catholic.
There, that was personal and, hopefully, "coherent and clear" enough for your Lordship, savior of the universe.
-
Well, I apologize if my forceful style has caused you some grief. As you know, however, I strongly believe that your crusade has the potential to cause great harm. It's not personal. As I said, if I saw you, I'd say hello with a smile.
Thank you. I accept your apology. I'd say hello and smile too. I would much rather get along with you than have all this hostility between us. You seem smart and interesting and these are qualities I like.
There is something I hope you will think about. You are concerned that my words encourage men to be abusive. I suggest you also consider what your example does. Because I have written things you disagree with, I feel like they you have been, in effect, trying to verbally beat me into submission. If you think that men should not hurt women, then it would be good to show it by not hurting my feelings.
You could make the same points without denouncing me as a misogynist with psychological problems. This argument from your last post is one I find very compelling:
It In addition, don't you realize that, when Trad Catholics start condoning wife-beating in principle, it makes us look really bad to those outside our little circle. If there's someone who might otherwise be inclined to look into Traditional Catholicism, he might get turned off by this kind of stuff and run the other way. I know, your objection is that truth is truth and it doesn't matter who gets turned off. To a point, yes. But there are considerations of prudence where it comes to the presentation of that truth. We don't defend the truth just for truth's sake. Truth is truth whether we defend it or not. We defend it because we desire to bring others to it and, to that end, it's very imprudent to aggressively defend corporal punishment against wives.
I don't recall this point coming up before but it makes slot of sense to me. I need to rethink how I talk about this subject.
Let's be at peace with each other. Just remember that I respond better to reason than to force.
-
Lad, you're reading more than a little "stalky" and "harrassy"
You won't do it, will you?
She asked you to leave her be, so leave her be.
Don't hit them, but "no" means "yes"?
You're the very kind of creature you describe, and what's alarming is you're very "good" at it.
It's OK, DZP; he apologized.
I really appreciate how protective you are. Thank you.
-
It's OK, DZP;
>> No ma'am, it is not
he apologized.
>> As any other abuser might do that is, which is not at all. Mark words, he'll do it again, and then keep saying "sorry", then do it again, for as long as others let him.
I really appreciate how protective you are.
>> Ma'am, I'll tell you again; that is an effect in this instance, and not my nature. I may no longer be a bad guy, I may no longer be a monster but, much as being a convert from an enemy camp, such as from being a Jєω, I still remember what being one is like, and what they "smell" like.
>> I'm not a good Catholic, if I am one at all. I'm a "filthy trashy sinner" as one sadly still most dear once said. I'm no scholar, and I'm often also otherwise wrong.
>> So, don't appreciate an accident as something of substance, of my nature.
>> Perhaps this is another instance of hating most a thing of another which is most loathed in oneself; but, make no mistake, and again mark words, it is there either way.
>> I'd rather know more of good than evil but, sadly, this is still not yet the case. I know bad, cause I've been and still may be so, much as any other criminal.
...
-
Ma'am, I'll tell you again; that is an effect in this instance, and not my nature. I may no longer be a bad guy, I may no longer be a monster but, much as being a convert from an enemy camp, such as from being a Jєω, I still remember what being one is like, and what they "smell" like.
>> I'm not a good Catholic, if I am one at all. I'm a "filthy trashy sinner" as one sadly still most dear once said. I'm no scholar, and I'm often also otherwise wrong.
My family could tell you that reformed bad guys are my favourite kind of hero.
I have seen a lot of instances of you being sweet and kind. That is how I think of you.
-
My family could tell you that reformed bad guys are my favourite kind of hero.
I have seen a lot of instances of you being sweet and kind. That is how I think of you.
Which is a very NON-тαℓмυdic, very Catholic assessment ma'am.
Thanks regardless.
-
Thank you. I accept your apology. I'd say hello and smile too. I would much rather get along with you than have all this hostility between us. You seem smart and interesting and these are qualities I like.
There is something I hope you will think about. You are concerned that my words encourage men to be abusive. I suggest you also consider what your example does. Because I have written things you disagree with, I feel like they you have been, in effect, trying to verbally beat me into submission. If you think that men should not hurt women, then it would be good to show it by not hurting my feelings.
You are right, and I am sorry. I think that the relative anonymity of the forum makes it so I don't often consider the person on the other end ... i.e. the fact that you're a woman and that my harsh tone might hurt your feelings. I apologize for that and I'll make every effort to adjust my tone. I'm just used to going at it hard with some of these guys, especially in the Crisis section. I guess it might be like a woman coming on to a football field to play against the men. I'm used to hitting hard but now have to think about hitting a particular person because she's a woman. And I apologize for the statements I made regarding your motivations ... though I didn't mean to suggest psychological "problems" per se, but rather a more general overreaction, due to emotional reasons, against feminism ... a pattern I have seen on many other issues as well.
-
Thank you, Ladislaus. I was moved to tears by your words.
-
You're a lying sack of shit hypocrite, consumed by his own tacitly assumed innerancy at least as regards all things Catholic.
Now, now, you shouldn't subject ladies to that kind of foul language. :)
You're confusing my forceful advocation of arguments and positions I believe in with "tacitly assumed inerrancy". Obviously your hostility is spilling over from the BoD threads where I am challenging many of your deeply held beliefs. Your convictions on these matters are just as strong, to the point that you too could be accused of "tacitly assumed inerrancy". I think that you're threatened by the fact that I make strong arguments using reason and actual syllogisms whereas you're almost entirely going on emotion. Yes, I'm very forceful in making my arguments, but you seem rather emotional for a man.
Jaynek, that was the other thread where I was called a devil, a puke, a diabolical liar. Now I'm a "lying sack of shit hypocrite". I've been getting that kind of reaction for years, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. When I'm wrong, I'll admit that I'm wrong ... as I just did to you, and it doesn't bother me one way or the other. I regularly admit mistakes. I'm seeking the truth. What's interesting is that on both the Sedevacantist vs. R&R and the BoD vs. Feeneyite positions, I take a middle of the road view, seeing validity to some of the arguments made both sides ... and so I get attacked violently by both sides. I myself am a great fan of St. Augustine (even over Aquinas) -- my avatar -- and he too was of the belief that very often veritas in medio stat. Not always, but most of the time, that turns out to be true ... usually because those on the extreme edges are their because of there failure to make distinctions. In college I read nearly every word written by St. Augustine in the original Latin and then was disappointed that I couldn't get more ... and I chose his name as my confirmation name.
-
Thank you, Ladislaus. I was moved to tears by your words.
And thank you for forgiving me. I apologize also (and retract the statement) for calling you a liar a while ago. See, I don't mind being corrected by a woman; I thank my wife for doing it when I'm wrong or have misbehaved. I admit that I can get pretty hot-headed sometimes, especially when arguing for something I believe in. I wasn't trying to put a trick question out there earlier. I regularly use the "Socratic method" as a form of argument, especially when I sense that I've reached an impasse with someone, and I can see how that can be perceived as tricky.
-
What's interesting is that on both the Sedevacantist vs. R&R and the BoD vs. Feeneyite positions, I take a middle of the road view, seeing validity to some of the arguments made both sides ... and so I get attacked violently by both sides.
I am thankful that I don't know enough about them to express an opinion on those topics. And I am not much tempted to learn more. Those are such violent discussions. Although I know there were Saints who did it, I am not comfortable with polemical discourse.
As for St. Augustine, he qualifies as a reformed bad guy, so, of course, I like that about him.
-
It's OK, DZP; he apologized.
I really appreciate how protective you are. Thank you.
That is what I would call a "white knight". Generally you see that when a woman acts like a man, gets treated like a man by another man, and then the white knight rides in to "save" the woman from the confrontation she instigated.
-
And thank you for forgiving me. I apologize also (and retract the statement) for calling you a liar a while ago. See, I don't mind being corrected by a woman; I thank my wife for doing it when I'm wrong or have misbehaved. I admit that I can get pretty hot-headed sometimes, especially when arguing for something I believe in. I wasn't trying to put a trick question out there earlier. I regularly use the "Socratic method" as a form of argument, especially when I sense that I've reached an impasse with someone, and I can see how that can be perceived as tricky.
Thank you very much for this. This means a lot to me.
-
Laudislaus,
I keep finding glaring omissions in emoticons.
Anyway, we needs a hat's off emoticon. Very impressive.
When I went to college, I actually found that I had a lot of extra time on my hands. I took Latin and Greek classes and was required to read St. Augustine for one of them. After I got a taste of his writing and thinking and his spirit, I wanted to read everything I could get my hands on. It's interesting to watch his progression from his early days, where he sounded more like a secular philosopher who happened to believe in God to his later days when he was an incredibly mature theologian. From beginning to end, however, he was a deep thinker. And, most likely due to his own past, he was an extremely humble and compassionate man. He's often depicted as holding his heart.
(https://stjosemaria.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/st-augustine-1014x487.jpg)
(http://www.piercedhearts.org/z_imagenes/saints/san_agustin.jpg)
-
Similarly, St. Anthony was not only known for his incredible compassion, he was at the same time known as the "Hammer of Heretics".
If only we could find that balance between love and contempt for heresy.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2cSrDY8p_hw/VGYuN1zM3fI/AAAAAAAAWIQ/ZTlxlxcBrCw/s1600/z13.jpg)
-
As for St. Augustine, he qualifies as a reformed bad guy, so, of course, I like that about him.
We all have a little of "reformed bad guy" in us ... except that some of us are still in the process of reforming.
-
Ladislaus, I was thinking about your affinity for St. Augustine and his reputation as a polemicist. I think I detect his influence on your writing style.
-
We all have a little of "reformed bad guy" in us ... except that some of us are still in the process of reforming.
Probably most of us.
-
We all have a little of "reformed bad guy" in us ... except that some of us are still in the process of reforming.
All of us, I hope.