Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Telesphorus on August 19, 2010, 06:04:04 PM
-
I had forgotten what a wreck that place has become.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3432097.0.html
-
What a sick looking Avatar. Matthew would not allow that
on this Forum.
-
Some people claim to be Traditional when they really aren't. Novus Ordites on CAF did that all the time. As RomanCatholic said, that was a sick avatar. What was that even of? It looked like some trashy-dressed cartoony woman walking with a dark background. Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
-
I read a few pages of that thread. I would have read more, but I felt it was becoming an occasion to sin. I would definitely qualify as an extreme "candyland trad". I do have a problem with watching slasher movies, listening to devil music, wearing tight jeans, going to public beaches, and all of those other sins mentioned. I actually threw away my DVDs and CDs, even the ones that were not blasphemous. I did not sell them, because I figured that would be selling my sins to another person and causing them to sin. Maybe I am a Jansenist (though I don't really know what a Jansenist actually is).
-
I read a few pages of that thread. I would have read more, but I felt it was becoming an occasion to sin. I would definitely qualify as a "candyland trad". I do have a problem with watching slasher movies, listening to devil music, wearing tight jeans, going to public beaches, and all of those other sins mentioned. I actually threw away my DVDs and CDs, even the ones that were not blasphemous. I did not sell them, because I figured that would be selling my sins to another person and causing them to sin. Maybe I am a Jansenist (though I don't really know what a Jansenist actually is).
Those of us who try to live a good Catholic life are the Candyland trads this poster mentioned. He cant seem to distinguish the world from Catholic principles.
-
Yes, that has been quite the thread. I don't think the whole site has been going for his idiocy though. Many have raised great points to the contrary. I joined up there at the same time as here and there are definitely some laxer people up there but not everyone is falling for Scipio's nonsense. Some are putting up weak arguments in his defense but many others are smoking them.
Telesphorus, are you telemaque? Just asking because of the "tele" part. Anyway I like his fearlessness. We're all tired of the tip-toeing PR and he comes out pulling no punches. Bikinis are not Catholic period. Sad that that's even an argument really.
-
Maybe I am a Jansenist (though I don't really know what a Jansenist actually is).
Hahaha, yeah, most of the people who call other devout people Jansenists don't know what it means either.
-
The OP of the of that thread ought to be called a "jellyfish trad."
Candyland trads are very much like the folks who attend Pentecostal services who wave their arms and flail and make noises to appear as if they have a direct line to God. It is a put on, an attempt to win an argument, even when this is none...to create an argument/atmosphere where they take the "holy high ground" and must maintain it at all costs, because that is the "Catholic position".
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Trads are not into charismatic feelings or the consumerist prosperity gospel. On the other hand, Neo-Trads are like Neo-Evangelicals who care more about "winning souls" at any cost, than about sanctity.
-
asking because of the "tele" part. Anyway I like his fearlessness. We're all tired of the tip-toeing PR and he comes out pulling no punches. Bikinis are not Catholic period. Sad that that's even an argument really.
Yeah, I am.
They used to have a rating system and I was one of the lowest rated members.
-
I actually threw away my DVDs and CDs, even the ones that were not blasphemous. I did not sell them, because I figured that would be selling my sins to another person and causing them to sin.
quote]
It would not have been selling your sins, but if the DVDs and CDs were sin-inducing it would have been selling things that would have induced others to sin.
What you did was the intelligent and moral thing to do.
I have been aware of situations in the past where people converted but then wanted to sell immoral things they had, claiming the collection was worth a lot of $$$. So what?
I remember one situation when someone would not sell the filth but instead wanted to donate the collection to a Goodwill type store because the person could not bear to ditch the collection. Even though he knew the material was an occasion of sin; he thought it was ok to facilitate it getting into the hands of someone else, and for the charitibale organisation to make money from selling the filth.
:stare:
-
asking because of the "tele" part. Anyway I like his fearlessness. We're all tired of the tip-toeing PR and he comes out pulling no punches. Bikinis are not Catholic period. Sad that that's even an argument really.
Yeah, I am.
They used to have a rating system and I was one of the lowest rated members.
Being the Traditional Catholic you are, I can imagine why you had such a low rating there.
-
I had forgotten what a wreck that place has become.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3432097.0.html
a lot of smells/bells Neocon, Neoacths there, little real substance from majority....like wars? bombing whoever teh US of A hates? like capitalism? Libertarians? heavy metal?
FE is your hizzie my friend..
true, Matthew has sense and class...
Vox is not running the show as much as she used to...Roscoe, sicne you feel most of us here are "Jansensits", perhaps...FE for you!
Long as you hate arabs, open to jews, like wars, hate Democrats, silent on or love GOP, then it is the hippist, man!! :smoke-pot: :smoke-pot: :smoke-pot: likely a-ok too
-
asking because of the "tele" part. Anyway I like his fearlessness. We're all tired of the tip-toeing PR and he comes out pulling no punches. Bikinis are not Catholic period. Sad that that's even an argument really.
Yeah, I am.
They used to have a rating system and I was one of the lowest rated members.
Well I don't know about other discussions you've had, but on this one we are in agreement.
-
Some people claim to be Traditional when they really aren't. Novus Ordites on CAF did that all the time. As RomanCatholic said, that was a sick avatar. What was that even of? It looked like some trashy-dressed cartoony woman walking with a dark background. Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
glad to have you here, instead!
Scipio is a prime exmaple there, sh (or he?) is a supposed trad, but denies most obvious things, like the NWO,etc....read her (his?) stuff long enough, all of it is brushed off...
-
FE is what it is, and some of the problems are just a natural part of having become so large. Such is life...move on, don't look back.
-
Some people claim to be Traditional when they really aren't. Novus Ordites on CAF did that all the time. As RomanCatholic said, that was a sick avatar. What was that even of? It looked like some trashy-dressed cartoony woman walking with a dark background. Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
glad to have you here, instead!
Scipio is a prime exmaple there, sh (or he?) is a supposed trad, but denies most obvious things, like the NWO,etc....read her (his?) stuff long enough, all of it is brushed off...
Thanks! I'm glad to be here, as well.
-
I had forgotten what a wreck that place has become.
Why go back and remind yourself?
-
FE is what it is, and some of the problems are just a natural part of having become so large. Such is life...move on, don't look back.
oh, here here my friend....when I first joined here, I still posted there, took awhile to de-couple myself there,etc...one of those stages of loss :really-mad2: i guess
Still look in there for news, occ, something worthwhile....
recall long before I left, whther as Belloc or one of many other posting names, you had left..
CI is only forum I post on.. :dancing-banana:
-
CI is only forum I post on.. :dancing-banana:
Same here. :dancing-banana:
-
I fear the mercury levels in all that fish.
-
...Roscoe, sicne you feel most of us here are "Jansensits", perhaps...FE for you.
I have never said that and btw I was banned from FE long ago.
-
The problem with FE Forum, in my humble opinion, is that there are far too many posters there who don't share the fundamental outlook 90% of us have on the crisis. There are some, to be sure, like Tele, but not a majority by any means.
There also seems to be a large contingent of youth there, which is fine, but it seemed to me to be a large number of immature youth.
It basically had the feel of CAF Trad section. Except at CAF you had a bunch of Novus Ordites getting into it with Traditionalists. At FE it seemed , at least by '09, a bunch of Novus Ordite liberals who happened to prefer the TLM getting into it with Trads. Again, not everyone but a lot of them.
This creates an environment where people like us have to spend a lot of time on the FE thread responding to a lot of liberal and/ or inane commentary, some intentionally meant to derail threads, which is frustrating and counterproductive.
It must be said that the choices of who to ban, by their nature have contributed to the types of posters who remain. There are still some good ones left but the numbers are so stacked against our mindset posting there starts to become futile. Then you have to contend with the trolls and unscrupulous posters who take ad hominem shots etc.
Obviously the owners can ban who they will, yet look at the mindset of those chosen. Matthew, Caminus, Gladius, Belloc, probably a lot more I haven't mentioned. Though none of us agree 100% the areas of discussion here are such that they are productive for us. For instance we aren't wasting page after page wondering if death metal or Life-Teen Masses are Catholic.
And this is why it is a blessing in diguise we all ended up here. At FE it seems we would all be hopelessly trying to convince the immature, the insincere, the Neo-Trad, and the liberal of the obvious.
-
There are a lot of newbies on there so it's not a bad idea post over there once and a while, do a little fishing, if you know what I mean.
-
...Roscoe, sicne you feel most of us here are "Jansensits", perhaps...FE for you.
I have never said that and btw I was banned from FE long ago.
I have called some here Jansenist because they are obviously card carrying members of the teatotaling, puritanical WCTU
-
I actually threw away my DVDs and CDs, even the ones that were not blasphemous. I did not sell them, because I figured that would be selling my sins to another person and causing them to sin.
quote]
It would not have been selling your sins, but if the DVDs and CDs were sin-inducing it would have been selling things that would have induced others to sin.
What you did was the intelligent and moral thing to do.
I have been aware of situations in the past where people converted but then wanted to sell immoral things they had, claiming the collection was worth a lot of $$$. So what?
I remember one situation when someone would not sell the filth but instead wanted to donate the collection to a Goodwill type store because the person could not bear to ditch the collection. Even though he knew the material was an occasion of sin; he thought it was ok to facilitate it getting into the hands of someone else, and for the charitibale organisation to make money from selling the filth.
:stare:
As a novus ordo youth I had a lot of books and paraphernalia dealing with the occult. When I "converted" to the true faith I burnt the lot in the fire. My mother tried her best with us all despite the novus ordo and when she found a book I had of Aleister Crowley she tore it to pieces and threw it away.
-
...Roscoe, sicne you feel most of us here are "Jansensits", perhaps...FE for you.
I have never said that and btw I was banned from FE long ago.
I have called some here Jansenist because they are obviously card carrying members of the teatotaling, puritanical WCTU
What is WCTU? :confused1:
-
Womans Christian Temperance Union( Prot)-- from prohibition era.
-
Womans Christian Temperance Union( Prot)-- from prohibition era.
Thank You! :smile:
-
We have to understand that there are going to be substantial 'papal fan clubs' which is our time are claiming the Latin Mass and the traditional Church as their property. Every argument they pose will have that as its foundation. Thus, the concerns of independent and exiled trads will have no place in their company. Of course, they will be nervous of any criticism of Vatican 2 and Novus Ordo, their true masters.
-
We have to understand that there are going to be substantial 'papal fan clubs' which is our time are claiming the Latin Mass and the traditional Church as their property. Every argument they pose will have that as its foundation. Thus, the concerns of independent and exiled trads will have no place in their company. Of course, they will be nervous of any criticism of Vatican 2 and Novus Ordo, their true masters.
True. In fact, CAF now has it to where you get banned if you criticize Vatican II (why I got banned from there).
-
...Roscoe, sicne you feel most of us here are "Jansensits", perhaps...FE for you.
I have never said that and btw I was banned from FE long ago.
I have called some here Jansenist because they are obviously card carrying members of the teatotaling, puritanical WCTU
What is WCTU? :confused1:
Doubt FE put up with Roscoe's own sacremental :smoke-pot: :roll-laugh1:
or his calumny of labelling everyone outside of his :smoke-pot: Jansenists...
silly me, not wanting the lab-souped up THC and all...wow, how "jansensist" of me not to want to be under control of a Govt controlled/regualted, suped up THC, a ..wait for it....MK ultra expriement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why Roscoe, you are your own MK ultra slave, slave to de weeed :smoke-pot: :smoke-pot:
you do realize the pot of today is not naturally grown most of it at least, but bio-engenred?!?!?
-
The problem with FE Forum, in my humble opinion, is that there are far too many posters there who don't share the fundamental outlook 90% of us have on the crisis. There are some, to be sure, like Tele, but not a majority by any means.
There also seems to be a large contingent of youth there, which is fine, but it seemed to me to be a large number of immature youth.
It basically had the feel of CAF Trad section. Except at CAF you had a bunch of Novus Ordites getting into it with Traditionalists. At FE it seemed , at least by '09, a bunch of Novus Ordite liberals who happened to prefer the TLM getting into it with Trads. Again, not everyone but a lot of them.
This creates an environment where people like us have to spend a lot of time on the FE thread responding to a lot of liberal and/ or inane commentary, some intentionally meant to derail threads, which is frustrating and counterproductive.
It must be said that the choices of who to ban, by their nature have contributed to the types of posters who remain. There are still some good ones left but the numbers are so stacked against our mindset posting there starts to become futile. Then you have to contend with the trolls and unscrupulous posters who take ad hominem shots etc.
Obviously the owners can ban who they will, yet look at the mindset of those chosen. Matthew, Caminus, Gladius, Belloc, probably a lot more I haven't mentioned. Though none of us agree 100% the areas of discussion here are such that they are productive for us. For instance we aren't wasting page after page wondering if death metal or Life-Teen Masses are Catholic.
And this is why it is a blessing in diguise we all ended up here. At FE it seems we would all be hopelessly trying to convince the immature, the insincere, the Neo-Trad, and the liberal of the obvious.
Vlad too!!
after awhile, you post something decent or make a statement, and you get derided, laughed at, lampooned-it is like junior high jocks and preppy girls...but after childishness, no real conversation, no good debate even of ideas, just juvenile-isms
Beleive that 9/11 is a fraud? that V2 sucked? that capitalism is same liberal strain that was condmned in 19th century? that Republican does not = Godly? That Catholics should---drum roll please-act like Catholics and fight for the CSO?
you are under attack like fresh meat to a pack of rabid dogs...
after Stevus left,he was viciously attacked and made fun of, derieded....etc..
-
It is a hysterical Jansenist myth that 'the pot of today is not naturally grown most of ot at least, but bioengenerd'( what ever that is)
And how would the judaic Belloc know that anyway?
-
still gotcha on hide Roscoe, was commenting via someone elses quoting you....
oops, looked at your post-I am Judic?? F_ off you MK ultra pot smoking wannabee Catholic, how dare you F__ calumnist
-
and yeah, Roso deserved it and yeah I will not apologizze...how dare he! that accusation is fighting words and as a Celt, if you were here Roscoe, I would have :light-saber: :fryingpan: :dwarf:
so, all, dont whine at me about my use of language, this shitty little pot head just called me a judic, meaning I was in league with ѕуηαgσgυє of satan and a тαℓмυdist
that, dear folks, I will NOT stand for at all. so yes, Roscoe, you can fuck off!!!
-
actually, Matthew, hate to put you in this-but Roscoe or I, please ban and block one of us so we can move on.
I have promoted your site and have a sane mind, but, up to you, will respect your decision either way...
Will not stand for some ganja smoking SOB calling me a judic, not in the least.
(note, if I am sinning in my responses, then this site is a stumbling block and one that not only I, but others will ahve to answer for)
-
For the record, I have never had Belloc on 'hide'. At any rate, could a source for the Jansenist hysterical accusation that 'most pot today is bio-engenered'( what ever that means) be provided?
Let the Forum keep in mind that it is Belloc who has called St Luke and Fr Torqeumada judaics and still cannot admit that Savanarola was a heretic.
He has also called Catholics 'the true Jews' This in opposition to our great right wing Pope, Leo XIII who understands that Catholics are in fact the True Romans.
-
hey, dumbass poot head-if you feel the big man (you aint) by responding, go for it...not listening, so talk to the air or whatever fan club you got here and whatever people you are supposedly are talking to (pot and other drugs make you see folks)
-
For certain reasons, some people have taken to growing MJ indoors with lights. Apparently this classifies as 'bio-engenred'-- whatever that means-- to the Jansenist Belloc. :smoke-pot:
-
Belloc, I understand you are frustrated with roscoe, but you still shouldn't cuss. I once read where cussing greatly offends Our Lord. And really, when you think about it, why wouldn't it?
I have no problem with either you or roscoe. I don't know if Matthew will ban either one of you. Even if he does, it could be a few days. And if you really want roscoe banned, you'd be better off sending a PM to Matthew about it. Matthew doesn't come on this section of the forums all that often.
-
He didn't actually swear-- he is just crude and rude.
-
How ironic that the name of this thread is:Fisheaters trashy posts., With Trads like this . . .
:stare:
-
this ####ty little pot head just called me a judic,
What do you expect?-- U are the one who has referred to Catholics as 'the true jews'.
-
With Trads like this . . .
:scared2:
-
He didn't actually swear-- he is just crude and rude.
Saying the F word is considered cussing.
-
How ironic that the name of this thread is:Fisheaters trashy posts., With Trads like this . . .
:stare:
Indeed. :popcorn:
-
Yes, just gives us a glimps into someones actually life too! How they relate to situtations out there when off the computer.
Then again, I remind myself of some advice I read on a bumper sticker of all places. "God is not finished with me"
St. Augustine, a good example.
-
I do have a problem with watching slasher movies, listening to devil music, wearing tight jeans, going to public beaches.
What? I always thought that it was a defenite word of God to avoid such things as public beaches, not just us having or not having problem with it.
How is it that they attribute all such sins to human weakness and not asking for grace and strenght when so many pagans easily avoid such things?
Is it just they who are born with original sin?
-
Swearing and cussing are not the same thing. Ask a notary public if you don't believe me.
Is it just they who are born with original sin?
That's everybody, except the King and Queen (and the Prophet who was sanctified in the womb, and perhaps rare others we may not know of). :wink:
-
And yet nobody has a waeker human nature than some trads who have access to Mass and Confession....
-
Swearing and cussing are not the same thing. Ask a notary public if you don't believe me.
I said the F word was considered cussing. Roscoe said Belloc didn't swear, and I never said he swore, I said he cussed. Of course, both cussing and swearing greatly offend Our Lord.
-
I was not directing that comment at you in particular.
Yes, swearing (a.k.a. taking oaths) is offensive to God when done frequently, lightly or about trivial or untruthful matters (Leviticus 6:3, 19:12). However it has lawful uses (e.g. Genesis 21:23-24, Genesis 25:33, Josue 2:12, 17, Jeremias 4:2).
-
FWIW It didn't occur to me that cussing and swearing were 2 diff things.
-
FWIW It didn't occur to me that cussing and swearing were 2 diff things.
In a way they are, though I have heard people refer to using the F word as swearing as well as cussing. I gues it doesn't really matter, people just shouldn't use those words.
-
Swearing and cussing are not the same thing. Ask a notary public if you don't believe me.
I said the F word was considered cussing. Roscoe said Belloc didn't swear, and I never said he swore, I said he cussed. Of course, both cussing and swearing greatly offend Our Lord.
so too offensive is what Roscoe pablems here daily and is allowed to do so, which in effect, then, this site aids Roscoe in offending God...guess, a a Celt and a man, I got sick of it.....
-
It should be of interest that the prev poster has referred to St Luke and Fr Torquemada as judaics. Now there is something for a 'celt' to be sick over.
-
this ####ty little pot head just called me a judic,
What do you expect?-- U are the one who has referred to Catholics as 'the true jews'.
I don't see anything wrong with this. The Catholic Church is Israel, the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of God, what-have-you. αѕнкenαzι/Sephardic Jews are Israel according to the flesh (I'm not interested in hearing theories about the 13th tribe, Khazaria, etc.), but have no part in the Kingdom of God unless they convert to the Catholic faith.
Now I'm going to post a quote attributed to Pope Pius XI, and I know it's Wikipedia, yet I could of sworn I've seen it elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI_and_Judaism#cite_note-6
Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites".
I'm sure everyone is aware there is a difference between being an αnтι-ѕємιтє and anti-Zionist.
It should be of interest that the prev poster has referred to St Luke and Fr Torquemada as judaics. Now there is something for a 'celt' to be sick over.
This is all going to be confusing if we don't all understand the terms which are being used in the discussion. What do you mean by "judaics", Roscoe? I don't know much about Fr. Torquemada; I think he was a convert from Judaism and had some participation in the Spanish Inquisition (I'm not going to debate whether he was a crypto-Jew as I've seen elsewhere--not necessarily on this forum.) Stating that St. Luke and Fr. Torquemada are Jews, I believe, is perfectly correct, ethnically they are. I'm sure everyone knows that Einstein was either an atheist or agnostic, but do you really think that Jews around the world believe he's less Jєωιѕн because he was not religious? I'd say the majority of Jews would never state such a thing.
Words have multiple meanings, and "to swear" can mean "to curse", and it can also mean to take an oath. Perhaps at one point in the English language "to swear" only had one definition, but words evolve, that's why it's very important that the official language of the Church and her liturgy is in Latin, which thankfully is a so-called "dead language".
-
Words have multiple meanings, and "to swear" can mean "to curse", and it can also mean to take an oath. Perhaps at one point in the English language "to swear" only had one definition, but words evolve, that's why it's very important that the official language of the Church and her liturgy is in Latin, which thankfully is a so-called "dead language".
This is all true. Good point about Latin.
and I know it's Wikipedia, yet I could of sworn I've seen it elsewhere:
Testing to see if I'd respond to this (you probably weren't but I'll respond anyway)? My response is twofold:
1)
Yes, swearing (a.k.a. taking oaths) is offensive to God when done frequently, lightly or about trivial ... matters
Read John Vianney's sermon (http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Sermons/JdVianey/Sermons2.htm#ALL%20THAT%20YOU%20SAY%20OVER%20AND%20ABOVE%20THESE%20IS%20OF%20EVIL).
2) and I know it's Wikipedia, yet I could of...
Either you meant to say "I could have", or the language is evolving before our very eyes!
-
Either you meant to say "I could have", or the language is evolving before our very eyes!
:laugh1: Whenever I chat with Brits I get chewed out for that.
-
What, they own the language or something!? :judge: :read-paper: :drillsergeant:
-
I could of sworn
Pfft, reading that over again I never thought of the expression like that; got to stop using it. Sworn, swear.... sigh.
-
Where is the shaking hands smilie when you need it?
-
this ####ty little pot head just called me a judic,
What do you expect?-- U are the one who has referred to Catholics as 'the true jews'.
I don't see anything wrong with this. The Catholic Church is Israel, the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of God, what-have-you. αѕнкenαzι/Sephardic Jews are Israel according to the flesh (I'm not interested in hearing theories about the 13th tribe, Khazaria, etc.), but have no part in the Kingdom of God unless they convert to the Catholic faith.
Now I'm going to post a quote attributed to Pope Pius XI, and I know it's Wikipedia, yet I could of sworn I've seen it elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI_and_Judaism#cite_note-6
Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites".
I'm sure everyone is aware there is a difference between being an αnтι-ѕємιтє and anti-Zionist.
It should be of interest that the prev poster has referred to St Luke and Fr Torquemada as judaics. Now there is something for a 'celt' to be sick over.
This is all going to be confusing if we don't all understand the terms which are being used in the discussion. What do you mean by "judaics", Roscoe? I don't know much about Fr. Torquemada; I think he was a convert from Judaism and had some participation in the Spanish Inquisition (I'm not going to debate whether he was a crypto-Jew as I've seen elsewhere--not necessarily on this forum.) Stating that St. Luke and Fr. Torquemada are Jews, I believe, is perfectly correct, ethnically they are. I'm sure everyone knows that Einstein was either an atheist or agnostic, but do you really think that Jews around the world believe he's less Jєωιѕн because he was not religious? I'd say the majority of Jews would never state such a thing.
Words have multiple meanings, and "to swear" can mean "to curse", and it can also mean to take an oath. Perhaps at one point in the English language "to swear" only had one definition, but words evolve, that's why it's very important that the official language of the Church and her liturgy is in Latin, which thankfully is a so-called "dead language".
I once looked up the word jew in a dictionary and it said that it is a term that some take offense to. So not wanting to upset these special, chosen people, I started using the term Judaic.
Semites show up in the Bible b4 Judaics-- If the Pope had meant to say that we are all spiritually judaics, then he would have said so
Fr Torquemada was a Spaniard-- not a converso. I do not even believe that his uncle, Card Juan Torquemada was a Judaic either.
-
I forgot to clear St Luke-- the one Gospel writer who was not a Judaic.
trad-- are U a converso?
-
Judean.
-
CM-- are U a converso?
-
A converted Jew? No. No Jєωιѕн or Judean or Judaic blood in me that I am aware of. And I'm certainly not a Judaizer.
-
U are referring to St Luke as a Judean....
-
Let's simplify this roscoe, because I know very well that St. Luke was a Greek speaking Syrian. Are you ready?
I forgot to clear St Luke-- the one Gospel writer who was not a Judaic.
Agreed. Moreover it is clear St Luke was not a Judean.
THAT is what I meant. Miscommunication avoided. :wave:
-
I forgot to clear St Luke-- the one Gospel writer who was not a Judaic.
trad-- are U a converso?
I'm not ethnically Jєωιѕн, I'm Polish. I've never read a biography of St. Luke, I assumed he was of Jєωιѕн descent. I just looked through my volumes of Butler's Lives of the Saints and I couldn't find St. Luke in any of the indexes. If he was Greek I was merely unaware of that fact.
-
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
This is my first post here. I was looking around at CathInfo for the first time tonight and found this thread.
I am the same Walty with the Office avatar at FE. My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show? I could see if this was Baywatch or the Real World or something particularly over the top like that, but really? This is enough to get you to not join a particular forum?
-
I forgot to clear St Luke-- the one Gospel writer who was not a Judaic.
trad-- are U a converso?
I'm not ethnically Jєωιѕн, I'm Polish. I've never read a biography of St. Luke, I assumed he was of Jєωιѕн descent. I just looked through my volumes of Butler's Lives of the Saints and I couldn't find St. Luke in any of the indexes. If he was Greek I was merely unaware of that fact.
Where did U get the info re: Fr Torquemada?
-
Where did U get the info re: Fr Torquemada?
On other forums, not from any particular authoritative source.
-
This is innaccurate.
-
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
This is my first post here. I was looking around at CathInfo for the first time tonight and found this thread.
I am the same Walty with the Office avatar at FE. My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show? I could see if this was Baywatch or the Real World or something particularly over the top like that, but really? This is enough to get you to not join a particular forum?
:wave: Hi Walty! I am the same everywhere.
-
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
This is my first post here. I was looking around at CathInfo for the first time tonight and found this thread.
I am the same Walty with the Office avatar at FE. My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show? I could see if this was Baywatch or the Real World or something particularly over the top like that, but really? This is enough to get you to not join a particular forum?
:wave: Hi Walty! I am the same everywhere.
Hey there. I thought I recognized the name from FE. They let you in too, huh?
-
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
This is my first post here. I was looking around at CathInfo for the first time tonight and found this thread.
I am the same Walty with the Office avatar at FE. My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show? I could see if this was Baywatch or the Real World or something particularly over the top like that, but really? This is enough to get you to not join a particular forum?
Here's an interesting side question -- perhaps I'll start a poll thread... how many here have a Traditional priest who's never mentioned television and whether or not a Catholic should be watching it?
Our current priest mentions that parishioners should be ditching the TV probably at least once every 3 months or so. Unfortunately, it's not just the newcomers who still have one around.
-
Not that I have read this thread all that closely, but I do not recall the avatar being central to the discussion. I believe the majority of those who are now here, but were once at FE, have had various, problematic experiences there which form the basis of their present opinions, whatever those may be.
Welcome, Walty.
-
Not that I have read this thread all that closely, but I do not recall the avatar being central to the discussion. I believe the majority of those who are now here, but were once at FE, have had various, problematic experiences there which form the basis of their present opinions, whatever those may be.
Welcome, Walty.
Thanks, GV. FE is far from perfect. There are a lot of things that are ridiculous over there. There are many posters who I certainly don't see eye to eye with. I didn't come to bad mouth other forums nor did I come to bad mouth FE. To be honest, I love the place for various reasons.
I'm interested in CI, too, however, and am looking forward to checking out the topics discussed here.
My original question wasn't necessarily a personal one nor was it meant to inflame. It does seem, however, that FE and all the posters there are thrown out wholesale with little actual reasoning behind the condemnations. And that's part of the reason I signed up and posed the question to begin with.
-
I am pretty familiar with FE, FWIW. I was there for a while, making a few thousand posts, most of which are in a folder that is now in the archives. Vox, with whom I never had a bad experience, told me that I simply did not harmonize with the direction she wanted to take the site. C'est la vie.
Be here, be there, be at both, drop them both...no biggie. Pax tecuм.
-
FE's not that bad of a place. I rather enjoy it. I don't see the problem that some of y'all have with it.
I do rather enjoy the heretic burning emoticon. Although, I cannot seem to figure out where it is at.
Also, Hi. I know rather droll for my first post, but eh, I've got to start.
-
Welcome, Virgil.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I know some of us were asked to leave FE -- versus us being "fed up", etc. I only know my own case in detail, but I apparently did not fit into Vox's vision for the future of FE. No biggie, as it is her baby, not mine.
Again, welcome.
-
My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show?
Hi Walty.
If a television show is immoral, people should not use an image from it as an avatar. A television show does not have to be very bad, like the real world or baywatch, for the show to be immoral. For example, if the show was perfectly fine, except that one of the female characters wears a short skirt, the show would be immoral. Just because the show is not as bad as the real world, does not necessarily make it okay. It may mean you only commit one or two mortal sins while watching it instead of a hundred. We would be much better off if aliens came down from the sky and stole all of our televisions.
-
My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show?
Hi Walty.
If a television show is immoral, people should not use an image from it as an avatar. A television show does not have to be very bad, like the real world or baywatch, for the show to be immoral. For example, if the show was perfectly fine, except that one of the female characters wears a short skirt, the show would be immoral. Just because the show is not as bad as the real world, does not necessarily make it okay. It may mean you only commit one or two mortal sins while watching it instead of a hundred. We would be much better off if aliens came down from the sky and stole all of our televisions.
My argument was about kind, not degree. I certainly understand that The Office is not acceptable simply because it is better than Baywatch.
What I don't understand is how one could be sinning mortally by watching The Office or how having an avatar of a guy in a tie giving a thumbs up is scandalous or offensive. Perhaps you could clarify.
-
Walty,
Do you think a Catholic would sin venially by watching some or all episodes of The Office?
-
Walty, I forgot to mention in my post that I was not referring to your avatar or your television show specifically, but was just answering the question you asked about whether it was okay to have avatars from TV shows. But now that you ask, if the television show your avatar represents is sinful, then it would be scandalous to use it because it would remind others of the sins in the show and would make people think you watch and enjoy a sinful show.
I have never watched the office, so I cannot say if it is sinful or not, but I will try to answer your question anyway. If there are actresses dressed immodestly on the show and you look at them with lust, you could be guilty of mortal sin, if there are any dirty jokes and you laugh at them and you continue watching the show knowing that there will be more dirty jokes, you may be guilty of mortal sin. If there is any blasphemy or use of the Lord's name in vain and you laugh and continue to watch the show despite the blasphemy or use of the Lord's name in vain, you could be guilty of mortal sin. If any of the characters hold any erroneous opinions or have bad morals, and you are influenced by these erroneous opinions and bad morals, endangering your faith, and you continue to watch the show, you may be guilty of mortal sin. If there are immoral characters who commit sins or pretend to commit sins on or off the screen and you sympathize with them and vicariously enjoy these real or simulated sins you may be guilty of mortal sin. Of course, I have never seen the show so I do not know if it has any of these elements or not.
-
By the way. Anyone who reads my post above should know I am not an expert and may very well be wrong about what I say.
-
Walty, I forgot to mention in my post that I was not referring to your avatar or your television show specifically, but was just answering the question you asked about whether it was okay to have avatars from TV shows. But now that you ask, if the television show your avatar represents is sinful, then it would be scandalous to use it because it would remind others of the sins in the show and would make people think you watch and enjoy a sinful show.
I have never watched the office, so I cannot say if it is sinful or not, but I will try to answer your question anyway. If there are actresses dressed immodestly on the show and you look at them with lust, you could be guilty of mortal sin, if there are any dirty jokes and you laugh at them and you continue watching the show knowing that there will be more dirty jokes, you may be guilty of mortal sin. If there is any blasphemy or use of the Lord's name in vain and you laugh and continue to watch the show despite the blasphemy or use of the Lord's name in vain, you could be guilty of mortal sin. If any of the characters hold any erroneous opinions or have bad morals, and you are influenced by these erroneous opinions and bad morals, endangering your faith, and you continue to watch the show, you may be guilty of mortal sin. If there are immoral characters who commit sins or pretend to commit sins on or off the screen and you sympathize with them and vicariously enjoy these real or simulated sins you may be guilty of mortal sin. Of course, I have never seen the show so I do not know if it has any of these elements or not.
You cannot condemn entertainment which involves sinful characters. What is important is how that sin is portrayed. Are we morally obliged to steer clear of Shakespeare?
-
Walty,
Do you think a Catholic would sin venially by watching some or all episodes of The Office?
I think The Office is often just fine. I can't remember immodesty ever being an issue. The show takes place in an office (go figure) and people are likewise dressed appropriately. There may be some swearing, but no more than I hear walking around the grocery store. It does not, to my memory anyway, promote anything scandalous or sinful.
-
There is a scene in Hamlet where the prince is about to murder his uncle while he is praying. He decides not to kill him then for fear that because he is praying his soul might go to heaven and decides to kill him later while he is drunk so he will be damned. That is one of the most wicked thoughts ever put into a play. If you, in the audience, sympathize with Hamlet and think, yeah, Hamlet, kill him while he's drunk so he will be damned, are you not guilty of sin?
I am not saying that all art that portrays sin should be condemned, but it is certainly very dangerous, especially when we sympathize with the evil characters, and very often we are guilty of sin when we do so.
-
You cannot condemn entertainment which involves sinful characters. What is important is how that sin is portrayed. Are we morally obliged to steer clear of Shakespeare?
I've only read Othello, and I've never seen the Office series so I can't comment on those, but I don't think the criteria is how a sin is portrayed, it's whether or not watching the show is an occasion of sin.
A person might not be tempted to the sin of lust at seeing a women in a short skirt or be having second thoughts when they consistently hear the name of God taken in vain, but I boldly say that such a person is very likely to be in a spiritual state of lukewarmness.
-
My grammar has been pretty bad today :facepalm:
-
You cannot condemn entertainment which involves sinful characters. What is important is how that sin is portrayed. Are we morally obliged to steer clear of Shakespeare?
I've only read Othello, and I've never seen the Office series so I can't comment on those, but I don't think the criteria is how a sin is portrayed, it's whether or not watching the show is an occasion of sin.
A person might not be tempted to the sin of lust at seeing a women in a short skirt or be having second thoughts when they consistently hear the name of God taken in vain, but I boldly say that such a person is very likely to be in a spiritual state of lukewarmness.
Yes, there are two ways to look at something. If it presents an occasion for sin directly (such as showing something pornographic) or if it promotes or is complacent with immoral behavior (making pornography look ok). My argument is that certain shows are being labelled as immoral without proof of either sort of transgression.
-
There is a scene in Hamlet where the prince is about to murder his uncle while he is praying. He decides not to kill him then for fear that because he is praying his soul might go to heaven and decides to kill him later while he is drunk so he will be damned. That is one of the most wicked thoughts ever put into a play. If you, in the audience, sympathize with Hamlet and think, yeah, Hamlet, kill him while he's drunk so he will be damned, are you not guilty of sin?
I am not saying that all art that portrays sin should be condemned, but it is certainly very dangerous, especially when we sympathize with the evil characters, and very often we are guilty of sin when we do so.
And what is Shakespeare trying to say by this? Is he not pointing out the folly and immorality of such an act?
If one were to identify with Hamlet in that decision then they would be both immoral and quite stupid for missing the point entirely.
-
I just know took a look at the thread at FE. It all just sounds like to me that the point he/she is trying to make is that we have to re-evaluate what is acceptable. Like the example given about tattoos. (It's forbidden in Leviticus--pretty sure--, but I don't think it would constitute a mortal sin, depending on the tattoo at least).
I use to listen to rock, but I never did pay attention to the lyrics, I merely enjoyed the melody, but even now I wouldn't go back to my same old habits. Although, talking with my confessor he tells me to avoid that music anyway.
I understand most people's lots in life are not as a religious (monk/nun), but can't we all agree we're at least called to live in the world, but remain separate from it?
I remember the old arguments on that forum about pants. Personally, as a young man, tight clothes on a woman which explicitly defines a woman's curves I believe is sinful for them to wear. I have to constantly avert my eyes while at college.
-
The OP says this:
We have seen dress turned into a holy crusade by Candylanders, anyone who dresses in the current fashion is a supporter or an enabler of the abortion culture or immodest and likely to make men jizz the toilet...self serving never had so good a counter even at Golden Corral
I should give them a book of sermons by the Cure of Ars. Current fashions.... UH, DUH. Take the time to truly consider your conscience to determine if your attire will be an occasion of sin to others.
-
I have never seen the show but from the little I have read about it, it does not look like a suitable show to me. Considering that The Office is a modern tv comedy show and not a Shakespearean morality tale, I would be very surprised if there are not more problems with it besides those indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Michael Scott, regional manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise. His former co-manager, sales representative Jim Halpert is newly married to the former receptionist turned sales representative, Pam Halpert (née Beesly). Their relationship comes after three seasons of friendship laced with romantic tension.
The accounting department features the uptight Angela Martin, who wishes to keep things orderly and make sure situations remain as serious as possible; Kevin Malone, a sardonic, overweight man who revels in juvenile humor and is addicted to gambling and M&Ms; and the patient Oscar Martinez, whose ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mexican American heritage make him a favorite target for Michael's off-hand comments. ...
A story arc at the start of the fifth season has Holly Flax transferred to the office as Toby's replacement. She acts as a love interest for Michael, as they share very similar personalities. However, Holly is transferred away after corporate discovers that Michael and Holly are involved, resulting in their break up.
Former main characters no longer part of the show include Pam's ex-fiance, Roy Anderson, who left the show in the third season after nearly assaulting Jim in the workplace; and Michael's former love interest—and former Vice President for Regional Sales for Dunder Mifflin -- Jan Levinson, who broke up with Michael in season four and subsequently became pregnant via sperm donation. Both characters returned for brief appearances in season five, but neither was seen in the sixth.
-
The Forum is gone.
-
I like Gerard's posts most of the time over there at FE. I'd guess he shows up around here once and a while.
-
I just know took a look at the thread at FE. It all just sounds like to me that the point he/she is trying to make is that we have to re-evaluate what is acceptable. Like the example given about tattoos. (It's forbidden in Leviticus--pretty sure--, but I don't think it would constitute a mortal sin, depending on the tattoo at least).
This is included with a number of forbidden things including not eating anything with blood and not cutting one's hair or shaving one's beard. Do you follow those practices as well?
-
I have never seen the show but from the little I have read about it, it does not look like a suitable show to me. Considering that The Office is a modern tv comedy show and not a Shakespearean morality tale, I would be very surprised if there are not more problems with it besides those indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Michael Scott, regional manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise. His former co-manager, sales representative Jim Halpert is newly married to the former receptionist turned sales representative, Pam Halpert (née Beesly). Their relationship comes after three seasons of friendship laced with romantic tension.
The accounting department features the uptight Angela Martin, who wishes to keep things orderly and make sure situations remain as serious as possible; Kevin Malone, a sardonic, overweight man who revels in juvenile humor and is addicted to gambling and M&Ms; and the patient Oscar Martinez, whose ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mexican American heritage make him a favorite target for Michael's off-hand comments. ...
A story arc at the start of the fifth season has Holly Flax transferred to the office as Toby's replacement. She acts as a love interest for Michael, as they share very similar personalities. However, Holly is transferred away after corporate discovers that Michael and Holly are involved, resulting in their break up.
Former main characters no longer part of the show include Pam's ex-fiance, Roy Anderson, who left the show in the third season after nearly assaulting Jim in the workplace; and Michael's former love interest—and former Vice President for Regional Sales for Dunder Mifflin -- Jan Levinson, who broke up with Michael in season four and subsequently became pregnant via sperm donation. Both characters returned for brief appearances in season five, but neither was seen in the sixth.
Half of the things that you have highlighted here are mere mentionings of two people being in a relationship. I'm not sure how that's sinful. The first couple mentioned get married and have a baby.
There is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ character but he never prostelytizes about it. It's more or less there as something that he gets ragged on for.
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
-
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
This is my first post here. I was looking around at CathInfo for the first time tonight and found this thread.
I am the same Walty with the Office avatar at FE. My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show? I could see if this was Baywatch or the Real World or something particularly over the top like that, but really? This is enough to get you to not join a particular forum?
I have never watched a full episode of The Office. All I know that is bad about it is that it has cussing and swearing in it (and I've heard them use God's Name in vain before). I personally feel the show, like 90% of other tv shows, should be avoided. In my opinion, if you're going to use an avatar on a Traditional Catholic site, you should use something religious like a picture of Jesus, Mary, etc. as long as the picture is not blasphemous. If you don't have one, you could always post a picture of yourself like Gladius and Myrna have done.
-
I have never seen the show but from the little I have read about it, it does not look like a suitable show to me. Considering that The Office is a modern tv comedy show and not a Shakespearean morality tale, I would be very surprised if there are not more problems with it besides those indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Michael Scott, regional manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise. His former co-manager, sales representative Jim Halpert is newly married to the former receptionist turned sales representative, Pam Halpert (née Beesly). Their relationship comes after three seasons of friendship laced with romantic tension.
The accounting department features the uptight Angela Martin, who wishes to keep things orderly and make sure situations remain as serious as possible; Kevin Malone, a sardonic, overweight man who revels in juvenile humor and is addicted to gambling and M&Ms; and the patient Oscar Martinez, whose ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mexican American heritage make him a favorite target for Michael's off-hand comments. ...
A story arc at the start of the fifth season has Holly Flax transferred to the office as Toby's replacement. She acts as a love interest for Michael, as they share very similar personalities. However, Holly is transferred away after corporate discovers that Michael and Holly are involved, resulting in their break up.
Former main characters no longer part of the show include Pam's ex-fiance, Roy Anderson, who left the show in the third season after nearly assaulting Jim in the workplace; and Michael's former love interest—and former Vice President for Regional Sales for Dunder Mifflin -- Jan Levinson, who broke up with Michael in season four and subsequently became pregnant via sperm donation. Both characters returned for brief appearances in season five, but neither was seen in the sixth.
Half of the things that you have highlighted here are mere mentionings of two people being in a relationship. I'm not sure how that's sinful. The first couple mentioned get married and have a baby.
There is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ character but he never prostelytizes about it. It's more or less there as something that he gets ragged on for.
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Why would God approve of a show that has gαy characters in it? Should someone watch a tv show that has a Satan worshiper in it just because he never talks about worshipping Satan? It's now official: The Office should be avoided AT ALL COSTS.
-
I have never seen the show but from the little I have read about it, it does not look like a suitable show to me. Considering that The Office is a modern tv comedy show and not a Shakespearean morality tale, I would be very surprised if there are not more problems with it besides those indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Michael Scott, regional manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise. His former co-manager, sales representative Jim Halpert is newly married to the former receptionist turned sales representative, Pam Halpert (née Beesly). Their relationship comes after three seasons of friendship laced with romantic tension.
The accounting department features the uptight Angela Martin, who wishes to keep things orderly and make sure situations remain as serious as possible; Kevin Malone, a sardonic, overweight man who revels in juvenile humor and is addicted to gambling and M&Ms; and the patient Oscar Martinez, whose ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mexican American heritage make him a favorite target for Michael's off-hand comments. ...
A story arc at the start of the fifth season has Holly Flax transferred to the office as Toby's replacement. She acts as a love interest for Michael, as they share very similar personalities. However, Holly is transferred away after corporate discovers that Michael and Holly are involved, resulting in their break up.
Former main characters no longer part of the show include Pam's ex-fiance, Roy Anderson, who left the show in the third season after nearly assaulting Jim in the workplace; and Michael's former love interest—and former Vice President for Regional Sales for Dunder Mifflin -- Jan Levinson, who broke up with Michael in season four and subsequently became pregnant via sperm donation. Both characters returned for brief appearances in season five, but neither was seen in the sixth.
Half of the things that you have highlighted here are mere mentionings of two people being in a relationship. I'm not sure how that's sinful. The first couple mentioned get married and have a baby.
There is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ character but he never prostelytizes about it. It's more or less there as something that he gets ragged on for.
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Why would God approve of a show that has gαy characters in it? Should someone watch a tv show that has a Satan worshiper in it just because he never talks about worshipping Satan? It's now official: The Office should be avoided AT ALL COSTS.
If you're going to avoid anything which has an immoral character (despite even whether they are shown in a positive or negative light) then you certainly can't watch Shakespeare, Little House on the Prairie, It's a Wonderful Life, or even movies about Fatima, Lourdes, and the life of our Lord.
-
I used to watch the British (original) version of The Office, and I must admit it was often hilarious!
However, as with a lot of really entertaining stuff, it is a bit of a Trojan horse for unsavoury things. So, I can quite appreciate people's objections to it.
There were some very funny moments in it though!
(Trojan horses are like that.)
-
Walty, you still posting at FE?
-
I have never seen the show but from the little I have read about it, it does not look like a suitable show to me. Considering that The Office is a modern tv comedy show and not a Shakespearean morality tale, I would be very surprised if there are not more problems with it besides those indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Michael Scott, regional manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise. His former co-manager, sales representative Jim Halpert is newly married to the former receptionist turned sales representative, Pam Halpert (née Beesly). Their relationship comes after three seasons of friendship laced with romantic tension.
The accounting department features the uptight Angela Martin, who wishes to keep things orderly and make sure situations remain as serious as possible; Kevin Malone, a sardonic, overweight man who revels in juvenile humor and is addicted to gambling and M&Ms; and the patient Oscar Martinez, whose ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mexican American heritage make him a favorite target for Michael's off-hand comments. ...
A story arc at the start of the fifth season has Holly Flax transferred to the office as Toby's replacement. She acts as a love interest for Michael, as they share very similar personalities. However, Holly is transferred away after corporate discovers that Michael and Holly are involved, resulting in their break up.
Former main characters no longer part of the show include Pam's ex-fiance, Roy Anderson, who left the show in the third season after nearly assaulting Jim in the workplace; and Michael's former love interest—and former Vice President for Regional Sales for Dunder Mifflin -- Jan Levinson, who broke up with Michael in season four and subsequently became pregnant via sperm donation. Both characters returned for brief appearances in season five, but neither was seen in the sixth.
Half of the things that you have highlighted here are mere mentionings of two people being in a relationship. I'm not sure how that's sinful. The first couple mentioned get married and have a baby.
There is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ character but he never prostelytizes about it. It's more or less there as something that he gets ragged on for.
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Why would God approve of a show that has gαy characters in it? Should someone watch a tv show that has a Satan worshiper in it just because he never talks about worshipping Satan? It's now official: The Office should be avoided AT ALL COSTS.
If you're going to avoid anything which has an immoral character (despite even whether they are shown in a positive or negative light) then you certainly can't watch Shakespeare, Little House on the Prairie, It's a Wonderful Life, or even movies about Fatima, Lourdes, and the life of our Lord.
Not the same thing, not what he is saying and you know it...thanks, thoug, for giving some here a glimpse of the moral relativism that goes on at FE....open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is not proper for TV and those other shows/movies you noted, notice how there is always a right and wrong and right wins out in the end? Not so in the Office type programs, that are used to inundate us all with immoral programming of acceptance of sodomy, etc,etc..
again, thanks for showing some here that have never posted at FE the moral relativism and lack of Catholicism that often passes there!!!
-
FE's not that bad of a place. I rather enjoy it. I don't see the problem that some of y'all have with it.
I do rather enjoy the heretic burning emoticon. Although, I cannot seem to figure out where it is at.
Also, Hi. I know rather droll for my first post, but eh, I've got to start.
they support non and un Catholic thinking, as long as there is a latin Mass, that is all that is important.....sorry, but maybe some day you, like me, will leave FE and see it for what it is, hypocritical "catholic"
-
Walty, I forgot to mention in my post that I was not referring to your avatar or your television show specifically, but was just answering the question you asked about whether it was okay to have avatars from TV shows. But now that you ask, if the television show your avatar represents is sinful, then it would be scandalous to use it because it would remind others of the sins in the show and would make people think you watch and enjoy a sinful show.
I have never watched the office, so I cannot say if it is sinful or not, but I will try to answer your question anyway. If there are actresses dressed immodestly on the show and you look at them with lust, you could be guilty of mortal sin, if there are any dirty jokes and you laugh at them and you continue watching the show knowing that there will be more dirty jokes, you may be guilty of mortal sin. If there is any blasphemy or use of the Lord's name in vain and you laugh and continue to watch the show despite the blasphemy or use of the Lord's name in vain, you could be guilty of mortal sin. If any of the characters hold any erroneous opinions or have bad morals, and you are influenced by these erroneous opinions and bad morals, endangering your faith, and you continue to watch the show, you may be guilty of mortal sin. If there are immoral characters who commit sins or pretend to commit sins on or off the screen and you sympathize with them and vicariously enjoy these real or simulated sins you may be guilty of mortal sin. Of course, I have never seen the show so I do not know if it has any of these elements or not.
You cannot condemn entertainment which involves sinful characters. What is important is how that sin is portrayed. Are we morally obliged to steer clear of Shakespeare?
actually, Gerry Matatics would say yes, avoid Shakespeare, he feels it is a Trojan Horse to push poor morals and was a part of the attack on the Church in 16th C England....
-
He didn't actually swear-- he is just crude and rude.
Saying the F word is considered cussing.
Roscoe, mayb that particular post was "crude and rude", maybe not-men, we tend to hunt and gather, make war, etc..so pansy responses sometimes not in line.
that said, likely I am far more educated then you, etc-so occ crude and rude, oh well!!
that said, you are purposely ignorant of MJ, the issues with it at hand, problems and as you are a pot head, likely, reasoning at this point is not likely with you, hence, the more "crude/rude" approach....
-
I forgot to clear St Luke-- the one Gospel writer who was not a Judaic.
trad-- are U a converso?
I'm not ethnically Jєωιѕн, I'm Polish. I've never read a biography of St. Luke, I assumed he was of Jєωιѕн descent. I just looked through my volumes of Butler's Lives of the Saints and I couldn't find St. Luke in any of the indexes. If he was Greek I was merely unaware of that fact.
ask Roscoe what is his burn with who a jew is or not...was not Mary,Christ, peter all jews?
in his Ganjaism, does he now subscribe to Rastafarianism??
-
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
This is my first post here. I was looking around at CathInfo for the first time tonight and found this thread.
I am the same Walty with the Office avatar at FE. My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show? I could see if this was Baywatch or the Real World or something particularly over the top like that, but really? This is enough to get you to not join a particular forum?
rading backwards, mea culpa, but welcome and why did you join CI? what is your hope for participating?..why would "you not join a particular forum"??
-
I am pretty familiar with FE, FWIW. I was there for a while, making a few thousand posts, most of which are in a folder that is now in the archives. Vox, with whom I never had a bad experience, told me that I simply did not harmonize with the direction she wanted to take the site. C'est la vie.
Be here, be there, be at both, drop them both...no biggie. Pax tecuм.
as I was opposed to the Neocon NWO agenda, was ridiculed and laughed at, most there are happy to bomb and attack anyone that Pax Americana has lablled dangerous.
Despite having pro_distributist articles at FE, when I tried to promote that view and post in response to objections to that view, wa attacked, harangued and told by Joe it was my pet project-or something like that-and was told too bad, so sad..while said attackers went on, uncorrected nor banned,etc..
I also was not popular for promoting a Catholic Social Order, as teh US of A was God;s gem, apparently..
I could, Walty, tell you much more, but why bother, it is over and done with....if interested, you could look at my first few months worth of psots here and conversations w/Stevus and GV, both that cured me of my FE bug.....
-
I just know took a look at the thread at FE. It all just sounds like to me that the point he/she is trying to make is that we have to re-evaluate what is acceptable. Like the example given about tattoos. (It's forbidden in Leviticus--pretty sure--, but I don't think it would constitute a mortal sin, depending on the tattoo at least).
This is included with a number of forbidden things including not eating anything with blood and not cutting one's hair or shaving one's beard. Do you follow those practices as well?
not the same as trashing your skin, Peter in Acts is clear about eating foods and the hair stuff, that is old, added stuff that is out w/New Covenant, as is avoiding bloody foods.....must discern and hence, yo uare here at CI and in the right place, just avoid village idiots like Roscoe.....
-
I have never seen the show but from the little I have read about it, it does not look like a suitable show to me. Considering that The Office is a modern tv comedy show and not a Shakespearean morality tale, I would be very surprised if there are not more problems with it besides those indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Michael Scott, regional manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise. His former co-manager, sales representative Jim Halpert is newly married to the former receptionist turned sales representative, Pam Halpert (née Beesly). Their relationship comes after three seasons of friendship laced with romantic tension.
The accounting department features the uptight Angela Martin, who wishes to keep things orderly and make sure situations remain as serious as possible; Kevin Malone, a sardonic, overweight man who revels in juvenile humor and is addicted to gambling and M&Ms; and the patient Oscar Martinez, whose ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mexican American heritage make him a favorite target for Michael's off-hand comments. ...
A story arc at the start of the fifth season has Holly Flax transferred to the office as Toby's replacement. She acts as a love interest for Michael, as they share very similar personalities. However, Holly is transferred away after corporate discovers that Michael and Holly are involved, resulting in their break up.
Former main characters no longer part of the show include Pam's ex-fiance, Roy Anderson, who left the show in the third season after nearly assaulting Jim in the workplace; and Michael's former love interest—and former Vice President for Regional Sales for Dunder Mifflin -- Jan Levinson, who broke up with Michael in season four and subsequently became pregnant via sperm donation. Both characters returned for brief appearances in season five, but neither was seen in the sixth.
Half of the things that you have highlighted here are mere mentionings of two people being in a relationship. I'm not sure how that's sinful. The first couple mentioned get married and have a baby.
There is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ character but he never prostelytizes about it. It's more or less there as something that he gets ragged on for.
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Why would God approve of a show that has gαy characters in it? Should someone watch a tv show that has a Satan worshiper in it just because he never talks about worshipping Satan? It's now official: The Office should be avoided AT ALL COSTS.
If you're going to avoid anything which has an immoral character (despite even whether they are shown in a positive or negative light) then you certainly can't watch Shakespeare, Little House on the Prairie, It's a Wonderful Life, or even movies about Fatima, Lourdes, and the life of our Lord.
Not the same thing, not what he is saying and you know it...thanks, thoug, for giving some here a glimpse of the moral relativism that goes on at FE....open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is not proper for TV and those other shows/movies you noted, notice how there is always a right and wrong and right wins out in the end? Not so in the Office type programs, that are used to inundate us all with immoral programming of acceptance of sodomy, etc,etc..
again, thanks for showing some here that have never posted at FE the moral relativism and lack of Catholicism that often passes there!!!
This is absolutely ridiculous. Nowhere in this post or anywhere have I espoused moral relativism (something that I abhor). There may indeed be a difference between The Office and Shakespeare from a moral standpoint (and there is), but I was trying to suss out exactly what this other poster's issue with the show was. He claims that you cannot watch anything with an immoral character and Shakespeare is a great example of entertainment which shows immorality in a satirical or admonishing sort of way, thus promoting a Christian worldview.
This is the type of sanctimoniousness that makes FE seem appealing to many trads. There is much less of jumping to conclusions there. I have hardly begun posting here before claims about my personal morality and philosophy are thrown around without a care in the world.
Are you really positive that I'm espousing moral relativism? Why risk the calumny until one knows for sure?
I do still post at FE. And I remember many of your threads. For some reason, many did not take well to you over there. And I'm not sure why because I remember liking the things you posted quite often.
-
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Did someone condemn you here? Or is a show being condemned?
-
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Did someone condemn you here? Or is a show being condemned?
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show?
Again, I really don't care what certain people think of my avatar. What was annoying, however, is how people will look at one thing (one avatar, a poster etc.) and deduce that a whole group of people are somehow less Catholic because of it.
There does appear to be a serious bias against FE and anyone who comes from there with anything but the harshest words for it. And I simply think that's unfair.
Again, I came here to discuss not only this, but also other issues. I just think it would be too bad if myself or anyone else wasn't given a fair shake at the forum simply because they like FE.
-
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Did someone condemn you here? Or is a show being condemned?
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show?
Again, I really don't care what certain people think of my avatar. What was annoying, however, is how people will look at one thing (one avatar, a poster etc.) and deduce that a whole group of people are somehow less Catholic because of it.
There does appear to be a serious bias against FE and anyone who comes from there with anything but the harshest words for it. And I simply think that's unfair.
Again, I came here to discuss not only this, but also other issues. I just think it would be too bad if myself or anyone else wasn't given a fair shake at the forum simply because they like FE.
I would categorize that more as as a judgement than a condemnation. But moving on...
I've never been a member of FE myself. But it appears some people here think FE is so bad that anyone who likes it must be off-beam.
I can't see why you should not be given a fair shake here either. Whatever you post here should determine how people here react to you.
-
I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
No, I did not read this entire exchange...
FWIW, condemning a show is not the same as condemning those who watch it.
Carry on...
-
There does appear to be a serious bias against FE and anyone who comes from there with anything but the harshest words for it. And I simply think that's unfair.
This is ONE thread, yet it seems pretty clear you are taking your impressions from it alone. Is this correct?
Quis ut Deus (Joe) is a member here. He came over during the blowup surrounding SGG (sgg.org/cult) and there were no real problems.
FWIW, it seems -- not "is certain" but seems -- as if you are, in a way, doing the same kind of thing that you are calling unfair.
Frankly, even if some here were certainly bashing ALL at FE, and they were tearing you apart over your avatar, so what? The world is a big place...having said your peace, let it go...hashing it out, in this case, is not really worth it...just enjoy CI and go about your business, knowing that CI, in some ways, is just like FE or anywhere else -- we will never all see eye to eye on everything.
Godspeed :)
-
Again, I really don't care what certain people think of my avatar. What was annoying, however, is how people will look at one thing (one avatar, a poster etc.) and deduce that a whole group of people are somehow less Catholic because of it.
Of coarse because if they were responsible catholics, they would object, or moderate it if they could.
Silence is a way we participate in the sins of one another.
-
Some people there you can tell aren't Traditional just by looking at their avatars. Really avatar pictures from The Office tv show? Give me a break. To think I almost signed up there back in April...
This is my first post here. I was looking around at CathInfo for the first time tonight and found this thread.
I am the same Walty with the Office avatar at FE. My question is this: Are you really going to claim that someone isn't a traditional Catholic because they have an avatar of a particular television show? I could see if this was Baywatch or the Real World or something particularly over the top like that, but really? This is enough to get you to not join a particular forum?
:wave: Hi Walty! I am the same everywhere.
Hey there. I thought I recognized the name from FE. They let you in too, huh?
I joined both places at nearly the same time. I am on The Incorruptibles too, which is a little slower but calmer. I don't know what their history is in respect to these two forums or if they even have a history. I found that there a few more hardliners here than at FE, (not that the FE is all soft, they have phenomenally balanced people there too, as you know) but there's an interesting flavor to this forum as well.
-
There does appear to be a serious bias against FE and anyone who comes from there with anything but the harshest words for it. And I simply think that's unfair.
This is ONE thread, yet it seems pretty clear you are taking your impressions from it alone. Is this correct?
This isn't the only thread that is dedicated to finding fault with FE, though, is it? It does seem to be a bit of a motif here!
-
Vlad too!!
after awhile, you post something decent or make a statement, and you get derided, laughed at, lampooned-it is like junior high jocks and preppy girls...but after childishness, no real conversation, no good debate even of ideas, just juvenile-isms
Beleive that 9/11 is a fraud? that V2 sucked? that capitalism is same liberal strain that was condmned in 19th century? that Republican does not = Godly? That Catholics should---drum roll please-act like Catholics and fight for the CSO?
you are under attack like fresh meat to a pack of rabid dogs...
after Stevus left,he was viciously attacked and made fun of, derieded....etc..
When Stevus left, one of his very favorite posters was Devotedknuckles. DK's and my world view and view of what is Catholic and allowed under the faith is a virtual lock step.
I was one of the loudest lamenters of the loss of Stevus at the time and many times there after, almost all of your other assertions here are unfounded...you have a personal bone to pick because as a virtual socialist/communist under the guise of distributheft you took a major thrashing on the board that you were unable to answer, specifically from James02
The rest of this thread is quite humorous, I see the word modesty being thrown around and am quite certain that most of you using it have no idea what it really means or what contitutes it. If you care to find out you can always do a search for modesty discussions at FE, I have made it quite plain...
The accusations about the other forum being full of neocath or whatever is laughable, one of my polls shows clearly that 2/3 of FE members would rather attend a sede chapel while on vaction in an unknown area than attend a NO of any sort.
Fe does get NO anti-trad trolls from time to time, and they are usually run off pretty quickly. With the advent of S.P. we have more folks new to tradition or who are interested in it...so the dynamic switches up a bit.
A hint about the immodest...it does not include short skirts.
-
Someone with an avatar from a morally offensive movie has problems representing themselves as a Traditional Catholic.
It's obvious.
Pope Pius XII:
A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees.
-
“As long as modesty will not be put in practice, the society will
continue to degrade,” Pope Pius XII said. “Society reveals
what it is by the clothes it wears.”
-
Hi Fisheaters! :jumping2: :jumping2: :jumping2:
There are lots of very interesting posters there; I was a member there some years ago, briefly joined again, etc. but--I do enjoy reading over there!
-
you have a personal bone to pick because as a virtual socialist/communist under the guise of distributheft you took a major thrashing on the board that you were unable to answer, specifically from James02
actually, you too I hada "bone to pick" with,a s you are a fake traditionalist that seems to revel in every absurdity and debunk a lot.
Distributism is NOT socialistic, thank charge hasbeen refuted multiple times and if you recall, I posted copious amounts of material on it..
James02 seems to surface whenever his unCatholic economic views were challenged...
Capitalism is founded as a values free system and promoted at large by jews and Prots....there can be no system that is value free
the charge that James02 "thrahsed" me is rather juvenile nad thanks , for you show again how sophmoric FE and its posters are.
odd, here you are, right after Wally and others begin to lurk..
for those really interested, bored or a lot of time on their hands, go to FE and read Scipio's posts, they have no Catholic world view nor mindset at all....
surf her/his posts, check them out and you weill see that Scipio beleives all the pablem being dished out today...
but hey, as long as there is a TLM nearby, why worry about economics, Social Orders,etc....
I have long opposed communism/socialism, that is why I cannot accept capitalism, which is the same, control by a few, often the same few that gave us Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Marx and funding to Hitler and USSR
the only economic system in line with Catholic thought is Distributism..Ferrera does a ood job debunking Libertarian capitalism lately....soo, too Remnant supports Distributism (last fall, I had lunch w/Michael Matt at a distributism conference)
thaks Scipio for :gandalf: :gandalf: here nad showing us how truly Catholic-lite to unCatholic FE posters are, another great example...but,dear CI readers, just go to FE and check out Scipio's posts,,,or Wally's...or the "bomb and kill every arab/Muslim" DK.....
trying to read DK, btw,is difficult, as he speaks like some cheesy,B-rate mobster from a 30's movie....
Scipio, thanks a final time for showing us how asinine, inane and juvenile FE psoters can be :roll-laugh1: I suspect an invasion of FE :gandalf: :gandalf: not content with their own Americanist, capitalist (read-nonCatholic economics) and Neocons site.....
-
A hint about the immodest...it does not include short skirts.
inane and dumb post, as I a man, yes it can be tempting nad immodest.....!!
-
The rest of this thread is quite humorous, s.
then laugh by all means.and please, leave!
btw, how do you explain how, after Stevus' departure, the juvenile and cruel comments about him and such, like Erinis notnice saying he wigged out and seemed to find humor in the whole event??
or again, your charade of traditionalism?
again, have agood :roll-laugh1: and please, leave...
-
I have never seen the show but from the little I have read about it, it does not look like a suitable show to me. Considering that The Office is a modern tv comedy show and not a Shakespearean morality tale, I would be very surprised if there are not more problems with it besides those indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Michael Scott, regional manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise. His former co-manager, sales representative Jim Halpert is newly married to the former receptionist turned sales representative, Pam Halpert (née Beesly). Their relationship comes after three seasons of friendship laced with romantic tension.
The accounting department features the uptight Angela Martin, who wishes to keep things orderly and make sure situations remain as serious as possible; Kevin Malone, a sardonic, overweight man who revels in juvenile humor and is addicted to gambling and M&Ms; and the patient Oscar Martinez, whose ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mexican American heritage make him a favorite target for Michael's off-hand comments. ...
A story arc at the start of the fifth season has Holly Flax transferred to the office as Toby's replacement. She acts as a love interest for Michael, as they share very similar personalities. However, Holly is transferred away after corporate discovers that Michael and Holly are involved, resulting in their break up.
Former main characters no longer part of the show include Pam's ex-fiance, Roy Anderson, who left the show in the third season after nearly assaulting Jim in the workplace; and Michael's former love interest—and former Vice President for Regional Sales for Dunder Mifflin -- Jan Levinson, who broke up with Michael in season four and subsequently became pregnant via sperm donation. Both characters returned for brief appearances in season five, but neither was seen in the sixth.
Half of the things that you have highlighted here are mere mentionings of two people being in a relationship. I'm not sure how that's sinful. The first couple mentioned get married and have a baby.
There is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ character but he never prostelytizes about it. It's more or less there as something that he gets ragged on for.
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Why would God approve of a show that has gαy characters in it? Should someone watch a tv show that has a Satan worshiper in it just because he never talks about worshipping Satan? It's now official: The Office should be avoided AT ALL COSTS.
If you're going to avoid anything which has an immoral character (despite even whether they are shown in a positive or negative light) then you certainly can't watch Shakespeare, Little House on the Prairie, It's a Wonderful Life, or even movies about Fatima, Lourdes, and the life of our Lord.
Not the same thing, not what he is saying and you know it...thanks, thoug, for giving some here a glimpse of the moral relativism that goes on at FE....open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is not proper for TV and those other shows/movies you noted, notice how there is always a right and wrong and right wins out in the end? Not so in the Office type programs, that are used to inundate us all with immoral programming of acceptance of sodomy, etc,etc..
again, thanks for showing some here that have never posted at FE the moral relativism and lack of Catholicism that often passes there!!!
This is absolutely ridiculous. Nowhere in this post or anywhere have I espoused moral relativism (something that I abhor). There may indeed be a difference between The Office and Shakespeare from a moral standpoint (and there is), but I was trying to suss out exactly what this other poster's issue with the show was. He claims that you cannot watch anything with an immoral character and Shakespeare is a great example of entertainment which shows immorality in a satirical or admonishing sort of way, thus promoting a Christian worldview.
This is the type of sanctimoniousness that makes FE seem appealing to many trads. There is much less of jumping to conclusions there. I have hardly begun posting here before claims about my personal morality and philosophy are thrown around without a care in the world.
Are you really positive that I'm espousing moral relativism? Why risk the calumny until one knows for sure?
I do still post at FE. And I remember many of your threads. For some reason, many did not take well to you over there. And I'm not sure why because I remember liking the things you posted quite often.
I was "unpopular" if you will as I espoused a economic view that has supporter of most Trads, Popes,etc...I was also anti-Americanist, anti-Neocon and had teh audacity, I know, of thinking the world shold be Catholic, and have a CSO...also, the warmongering blood lust a bit much and disturbing...also, many posters, then and even now, are pro-Israel, just other day, someone was saying Muslims are a threat, Isreal is not...
thanks for your support of my posts there....
and no, not ridiculous to oppose homoe-promoting by having show after show after show with the obligatory gαy character in it...a "in your face" if you will
I saw the Tv show "Office" one time and found it rather boring, despite liking Steve Correll(?)...the movie a bit funnier...
and your avatar, not really an issue for me.....
I invite you to stay if you want, but after reading 1000's of posts by Scipio, tell her (him?) to "see ya" here, not caring to interact with her/him....actually, will hide her/him now....
You seem easy enough to talk with, Scipio is a juvenile, again other CI posters, read her/his posts at FE, take teh time to read many of them on different topics and you will agree to some extent with me
Scipio, once I hide someone, generally do not respond, unless another quotes that person...so, if you feel great, feel free to post, but like a snotty juvenile, do not have to respond and it is obvious, you are here to :gandalf:
have that laugh and go back to the cesspool you came from (FE!).maybe yo ucan foam a the mouth and call for someone to be bombed along with cheesy mobster DK...tell Spouse of Jesus, here, how she deserves to be bombed, as you noted, you and DK are in lock step in your views and he has-last I heard-cheered for that blood lust and bombing...
Wally, look foward to future interactions! Scipio, not wanted here, by me at least!!!!
-
Scipio, hidden..if I want distasteful posts, lacking in Catholic mindset,will go back to FE...NOT!!!
-
hey, thoughts on Distributism:
if Distributism is communism, then why is it we believe that productive property should be as widely distributed, with the majority of people owning their own property, working their own businesses and centered on the family?
Fi Distribs are commies, then why is it we support subsidiarity? instead of the system we have now, where most property is owned or controlled by a few, or the Govt or the Federal reserve?
why is it we call for the family as a basic building block of society, coupled with a strong vibrant Catholic faith?
For those who actually know anything about Communism, these are not hallmarks of communism, which crushes fath, the family and calls on the state to own almost everything, save personal property....
Plenty of talks, writings,etc that if one actually read and lsitened, would see that Distributists are the bane and anathema to communism and socialism, but also, its cousin capitalism-again, a system where there are no moral values, no Church to enforce them, nor state to protest people from...For starters, lsiten to and/or watch anything by John Sharpe (talks in many places, inclduing Keep the Faith, ISOC, Catholicism.org), Peter Chonkoski(?), Paleocrat, John Medaille (who owns nad runs his own real estate business-hardly a commie!!).start with that and you will see the history of Catholic thought is NOT capitalist, nor marxist, nor socialist....
James02 is outside of the faith in his views, as I had stated many times while at FE....again, even FE has pro-Distributist articels,s o hence, guess Vox-to James02 and his allies, is a commie then, right?
NeoCaths exactly, thanks to Stevus for that term!!! Meaning? traditional Catholics w/o any Catholic world view at all!
-
this ####ty little pot head just called me a judic,
What do you expect?-- U are the one who has referred to Catholics as 'the true jews'.
I don't see anything wrong with this. The Catholic Church is Israel, the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of God, what-have-you. αѕнкenαzι/Sephardic Jews are Israel according to the flesh (I'm not interested in hearing theories about the 13th tribe, Khazaria, etc.), but have no part in the Kingdom of God unless they convert to the Catholic faith.
Now I'm going to post a quote attributed to Pope Pius XI, and I know it's Wikipedia, yet I could of sworn I've seen it elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI_and_Judaism#cite_note-6
Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites".
I'm sure everyone is aware there is a difference between being an αnтι-ѕємιтє and anti-Zionist.
It should be of interest that the prev poster has referred to St Luke and Fr Torquemada as judaics. Now there is something for a 'celt' to be sick over.
This is all going to be confusing if we don't all understand the terms which are being used in the discussion. What do you mean by "judaics", Roscoe? I don't know much about Fr. Torquemada; I think he was a convert from Judaism and had some participation in the Spanish Inquisition (I'm not going to debate whether he was a crypto-Jew as I've seen elsewhere--not necessarily on this forum.) Stating that St. Luke and Fr. Torquemada are Jews, I believe, is perfectly correct, ethnically they are. I'm sure everyone knows that Einstein was either an atheist or agnostic, but do you really think that Jews around the world believe he's less Jєωιѕн because he was not religious? I'd say the majority of Jews would never state such a thing.
Words have multiple meanings, and "to swear" can mean "to curse", and it can also mean to take an oath. Perhaps at one point in the English language "to swear" only had one definition, but words evolve, that's why it's very important that the official language of the Church and her liturgy is in Latin, which thankfully is a so-called "dead language".
Thanks for trying to correct the pothead, for we who have faith in Christ ARE THE TRUE JEWS!!!!
-
FE's not that bad of a place. I rather enjoy it. I don't see the problem that some of y'all have with it.
I do rather enjoy the heretic burning emoticon. Although, I cannot seem to figure out where it is at.
Also, Hi. I know rather droll for my first post, but eh, I've got to start.
welcome Virgil, yes, FE has a few decent folks still there and joining, and their articles are good.... iavoid the forum, not really much Catholic thoughts there, the few that are are trounced 10x by non-Catholic thoughts...
-
There is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ character
that is the problem, many of us are saying!! why is he there to begin with??? ask yourself, what purpose does he serve????
-
Apocalypse 2:9 I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id288.html
--- Poverty. He was poor in temporal things, but rich in grace and merits. --- Thou art blasphemed by those false teachers, who call themselves Jews and Israelites, and the chosen people of God, waiting for the coming of the Messias, but are not to be looked upon as such; having refused to own their true Messias, Jesus Christ, they are the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, the greatest enemies of the true faith.
-
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Did someone condemn you here? Or is a show being condemned?
I condemn the show, not walty-is Walty on the show? likely, no...even so, is he at fault if so for the characters and content?
I like somethings that I should not watch, but I have to bear that fault or sin.soooo, walty, no one is trashing you for being you or watching the Office....just trashing the Office show itself...
-
on and thanks again Matthew for this forum!! and putting up some of us cantankerous :cussing: :argue: folks!!! :applause: :dancing-banana:
-
Apocalypse 2:9 I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id288.html
--- Poverty. He was poor in temporal things, but rich in grace and merits. --- Thou art blasphemed by those false teachers, who call themselves Jews and Israelites, and the chosen people of God, waiting for the coming of the Messias, but are not to be looked upon as such; having refused to own their true Messias, Jesus Christ, they are the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, the greatest enemies of the true faith.
Perhaps someone should alert Benedict XVI to this.
-
I just know took a look at the thread at FE. It all just sounds like to me that the point he/she is trying to make is that we have to re-evaluate what is acceptable. Like the example given about tattoos. (It's forbidden in Leviticus--pretty sure--, but I don't think it would constitute a mortal sin, depending on the tattoo at least).
This is included with a number of forbidden things including not eating anything with blood and not cutting one's hair or shaving one's beard. Do you follow those practices as well?
One is obliged to still follow the Old Testament, concerning morals that is, after all in Leviticus it forbids bestiality along with other moral laws. I suppose you could argue that tattoos don't fall under that scope.
Our bodies are temples of God, where as long as a person is in a state of sanctifying grace the Holy Trinity dwells within them.
If when we die we have to answer our Judge concerning idle words, which harm no one, what will we say when we have essentially graffiti on our bodies?
I'm not offended by modest or religious tattoos, it's merely that tattooing one's self is a pagan practice.
-
You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord
We would be much better off if aliens came down from the sky and stole all of our televisions.
Correction: "We would be much better off if angels came down from the sky and destroyed all of our televisions."
If you're going to avoid anything which has an immoral character (despite even whether they are shown in a positive or negative light) then you certainly can't watch Shakespeare, Little House on the Prairie, It's a Wonderful Life, or even movies about Fatima, Lourdes, and the life of our Lord.
Some of those you are right about and others you seem to miss the point that the MORAL of the story is what counts.
Does "The Office" condemn sin and promote virtue? I think not. I complacently embraces mediocrity and sin.
I can't see why you should not be given a fair shake here either. Whatever you post here should determine how people here react to you.
Yep.
The rest of this thread is quite humorous, I see the word modesty being thrown around and am quite certain that most of you using it have no idea what it really means or what contitutes it. If you care to find out you can always do a search for modesty discussions at FE, I have made it quite plain...
Your avatar at FE says more than enough to know that you would have UTTERLY BOTCHED any attempt at describing Catholic Modesty. I type this without even having to read your posts. And what Catholic publicly uses the word "j**z"? You show horrible manners, a seared conscience and a potty mouth.
I just checked one of your posts, and the picture to which you said
And scipio_a thinks it's too long...LOL
No really, I think it is pretty and no need to cover anything...unless you walk into Church and need a little sweater over it (cardigan)
was INCREDIBLY immodest. Knees and below were showing and the neckline was right down to the cleavage level, not to mention the whole upper arm and shoulder were bare and her head was completely uncovered revealing her long hair... Her entire demeanor was geared towards exciting male arousal (and she knows it).
My suspicions are confirmed, you have a seared conscience.
Scipio, hidden..if I want distasteful posts, lacking in Catholic mindset,will go back to FE...NOT!!!
Belloc, you said it. As far as her position on distributism, she is a crank. Distributism is the OPPOSITE of communism and theft, and is in fact very similar, if not the same as, how many, if not most people are portrayed as living in the Bible.
-
Thanks for trying to correct the pothead, for we who have faith in Christ ARE THE TRUE JEWS!!!!
Belloc is in defiance of Pope Leo XIII who says that ' Catholics are the True Romans'.
The Forum should take note that i would not even have brought this up but for Belloc's absurd comments re: St Luke and Fr Torquemada being Judaics.
-
Take note: I do not care that you brought it up.
-
I have never seen the show but from the little I have read about it, it does not look like a suitable show to me. Considering that The Office is a modern tv comedy show and not a Shakespearean morality tale, I would be very surprised if there are not more problems with it besides those indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)
Michael Scott, regional manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, feels he is the life of the office; his employees feel otherwise. His former co-manager, sales representative Jim Halpert is newly married to the former receptionist turned sales representative, Pam Halpert (née Beesly). Their relationship comes after three seasons of friendship laced with romantic tension.
The accounting department features the uptight Angela Martin, who wishes to keep things orderly and make sure situations remain as serious as possible; Kevin Malone, a sardonic, overweight man who revels in juvenile humor and is addicted to gambling and M&Ms; and the patient Oscar Martinez, whose ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mexican American heritage make him a favorite target for Michael's off-hand comments. ...
A story arc at the start of the fifth season has Holly Flax transferred to the office as Toby's replacement. She acts as a love interest for Michael, as they share very similar personalities. However, Holly is transferred away after corporate discovers that Michael and Holly are involved, resulting in their break up.
Former main characters no longer part of the show include Pam's ex-fiance, Roy Anderson, who left the show in the third season after nearly assaulting Jim in the workplace; and Michael's former love interest—and former Vice President for Regional Sales for Dunder Mifflin -- Jan Levinson, who broke up with Michael in season four and subsequently became pregnant via sperm donation. Both characters returned for brief appearances in season five, but neither was seen in the sixth.
Half of the things that you have highlighted here are mere mentionings of two people being in a relationship. I'm not sure how that's sinful. The first couple mentioned get married and have a baby.
There is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ character but he never prostelytizes about it. It's more or less there as something that he gets ragged on for.
Again, I just think it's a little much when people condemn others for watching a television show which they've never seen and have little evidence to back themselves up.
Why would God approve of a show that has gαy characters in it? Should someone watch a tv show that has a Satan worshiper in it just because he never talks about worshipping Satan? It's now official: The Office should be avoided AT ALL COSTS.
If you're going to avoid anything which has an immoral character (despite even whether they are shown in a positive or negative light) then you certainly can't watch Shakespeare, Little House on the Prairie, It's a Wonderful Life, or even movies about Fatima, Lourdes, and the life of our Lord.
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
-
Having a gαy character doesn't necessarily mean the show is a front for the LGBT.
-
Having a gαy character doesn't necessarily mean the show is a front for the LGBT.
Just another typical modern show that helps inoculate the masses from thinking that the perversion is abbhorent.
Keep 'em lauging about it, keep 'em sympathizing with the characters, keep the immoral behaviour appearing to be normal. The same goes for all the other innuendos and "relationships" in most modern shows and movies.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
-
And you can bet that when the "good TV shows" air, one of those bad shows in the list will be inculcated in the commercial breaks.
-
I do not have the time nor the energy to read all of this right now but I have to say that I love, love, love the humor of The Office. There is very little swearing -- I can't remember any off the top of my head, the love story between Jim and Pam was exceptionally well done with no sɛҳuąƖ under or overtones -- that's actually what people loved about it, other "love" stories that were strange were in fact portrayed as strange, modesty is a secondary issue as it is an office and that's the general garb.
The Office expressly portrays how strange behavior is actually strange and that is the crux of the humor. They highlight ridiculously socially unacceptable or awkward behavior (that we've all experienced in some way, shape or form, so we can relate and that's what makes it hilarious), and show it up for what it is.
But I did get uncomfortable when they started developing the gαy character. They use Michael to portray "homophobic" views towards Oscar as being socially unacceptable. Then they use other characters to encourage Oscar, seek to "understand" him and even set him up. I wish they had not done that because then it isn't funny anymore. That's when you know they are inoculating, as a PP mentioned. It's a tricky, tricky world out there.
Then we get the battle of the conscience...do I allow myself to be entertained by this 90% good and try to ignore the 5% bad or do I give it up altogether? When it comes to how great that 90% is, it's a tough question to answer. But then I look at the 5% that I'm supporting and I know what I have to do. :cry:
-
Hey Bellroc...I'm not going any place, I tend to like cathinfo a bit too. I have plenty of practice with holirthanthous at FE, you're nothing new to me.
Besides, I like to keep up periodically with what Stevus is thinking.
Isn't it interesting that we have been members here the same amount of time.
-
Hi Fisheaters! :jumping2: :jumping2: :jumping2:
There are lots of very interesting posters there; I was a member there some years ago, briefly joined again, etc. but--I do enjoy reading over there!
some crazy stuff...lol
btw, the jumping guy is funny
-
But I did get uncomfortable when they started developing the gαy character. They use Michael to portray "homophobic" views towards Oscar as being socially unacceptable. Then they use other characters to encourage Oscar, seek to "understand" him and even set him up. I wish they had not done that because then it isn't funny anymore. That's when you know they are inoculating, as a PP mentioned. It's a tricky, tricky world out there.
Then we get the battle of the conscience...do I allow myself to be entertained by this 90% good and try to ignore the 5% bad or do I give it up altogether? When it comes to how great that 90% is, it's a tough question to answer. But then I look at the 5% that I'm supporting and I know what I have to do. :cry:
Yes, you know what you have to do.
The show that gets broadcast is an entire show. It has to be treated as a whole. If part of it is bad (potentially sinful to view- even possibly mortally sinful) then the show is bad.
-
Yo Scorp,
Before you showed up at this thread I was starting to think to myself, "This must be what it feels like to be scipio."
I think I should maybe leave CI before I end up agreeing with you all the time.
-
It does seem to be a bit of a motif here!
It seems to be a bit of a seasonal thing. It happens from time to time, in various ways and degrees. So be it. I say, "Move on," as there are more interesting things to talk about.
-
Thanks for trying to correct the pothead, for we who have faith in Christ ARE THE TRUE JEWS!!!!
Belloc is in defiance of Pope Leo XIII who says that ' Catholics are the True Romans'.
The Forum should take note that i would not even have brought this up but for Belloc's absurd comments re: St Luke and Fr Torquemada being Judaics.
Ever since the Old Covenant was abolished by Christ when He instituted the New Covenant; the Chosen People have been Catholics.
In light of the New Covenant, the true Chosen Race consists of Catholics - members of the Mystical Body Of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.
I am a true Catholic, not a true Jew. Maybe the terminology: Catholics are true Jews has been used loosely and figuratively by some Catholic authorities, but I have never seen it. It would certaimly require an explanation of exactly what is meant by it.
Belloc, do you have any support for it?
-
Yo Scorp,
Before you showed up at this thread I was starting to think to myself, "This must be what it feels like to be scipio."
I think I should maybe leave CI before I end up agreeing with you all the time.
:laugh1:
-
hey, thoughts on Distributism:
if Distributism is communism, then why is it we believe that productive property should be as widely distributed, with the majority of people owning their own property, working their own businesses and centered on the family?
!
If calling distributism communist isnt candyland I dont know what is. The only problemn with distributism is the question can it work for a complex technological society?
-
Thanks for trying to correct the pothead, for we who have faith in Christ ARE THE TRUE JEWS!!!!
Belloc is in defiance of Pope Leo XIII who says that ' Catholics are the True Romans'.
The Forum should take note that i would not even have brought this up but for Belloc's absurd comments re: St Luke and Fr Torquemada being Judaics.
Ever since the Old Covenant was abolished by Christ when He instituted the New Covenant; the Chosen People have been Catholics.
In light of the New Covenant, the true Chosen Race consists of Catholics - members of the Mystical Body Of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.
I am a true Catholic, not a true Jew. Maybe the terminology: Catholics are true Jews has been used loosely and figuratively by some Catholic authorities, but I have never seen it. It would certaimly require an explanation of exactly what is meant by it.
Belloc, do you have any support for it?
yeah, its called a book by the name Galatians, that we in Christ are the true seed of Abraham, not those running around claiming some bloodline to the Jews 1st C...We are teh children of a promise and as Christ was the King of Israel and in the line of David, King of Israel, there ya go....
Jews are not by blood, but by the Covenant with God, a forshadow in the OT and now, complete and everlasting in the New Covenant....it was never about geography, bloodlines, ethnic pride,etc.....thew Jews of OT were united by Covenant....
Roscoe is equating and playing w/terms as to Jews then and Jews now, not the same!!! Whether Luke was a Jew in 1st C standards or not, who really cares! He was unitd in Christ by the NC and hence, is part of Israel, the Lords portion (1)
and no, not "all are Romans", for Rome was not in the Old Covenant and not the Lords portion...also, the Eastern Rite is united w/Rome, but not Romans..
(1).Ecclesiasticus : [14] Over every nation he set a ruler. [15] And Israel was made the manifest portion of God.
God divided up the nations into 70 and Christ was appointed the ruler of Israel, unlike hte other 69 that had Angelic beings over them (think, Angel of Portugal!)
If we look at OT prophecies about hte nations coming to Christ and people there becoming priests, plus Galatians, plus the firs few chapters of Apocalypse, we see that we Catholics are ruled by Christ, we are his portion-his bride and Church and those outside are not...
SOoooooo, if the term "jews" is so offense and we wil ljsut throw in the towel and leave it to racists that likely have little to no bloodline to Christ and those of the 1C, fine.....I find it gauls "jews" to say that I, as a child of the New Covenant are the real jew! The real son of Abraham...
Also, of note, Catholcis are forbidden to hate jews due to their race and it would seem Roscoe, in between smoking :smoke-pot: is perhaps letting his hatred show.....
as for Fr Torquemada, I did not bring him up this time, do not think, though have in the past, as his family, part of it, were "jews"-those тαℓмυdics clinging to OT-but honestly converted and lived far more Catholic lives then most today (alos, Eith Stein,etc)....is Roscoe now joining in the bashing that CM/Raoul gave us several months ago, laughing at the nose of Pius XI, etc...I think "hawk nose" is the term, something similar
In conclusion, we are nto "judics", whatever the hell that means- maybe тαℓмυdists?-but Judic is not the same as jew...
Perhaps the pot has truly now affected him brain, ti can ya know!
I am much too busy today to dredge up copious links, etc and statements, but consider this:
Pius XI:
"Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [Christians] are all Semites"
-
I think the the problem lies with the phraseology "Catholics are the true Jews"
-
Could be right. so. can anyone offer a alternative statement that is theologically true??
FYI-for the record, no known "Jєωιѕн" blood in my family, on either side and I do reject тαℓмυdic judiasm....accepting the New Covenant as the one and only binding means of salvation in Christ.....
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
-
FYI-for the record, no known "Jєωιѕн" blood in my family, on either side and I do reject тαℓмυdic judiasm....accepting the New Covenant as the one and only binding means of salvation in Christ.....
FYI, same with me and I did not presume any differently with you. :cheers:
-
Could be right. so. can anyone offer a alternative statement that is theologically true??
Catholics are the Chosen People of the New Covenant.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens contain smut. Not always. But regularly. Everybody Loves Raymond contains blasphemy too, and ridicule of Catholicism.
-
This thread is dealing with some diverse issues! :popcorn:
-
Having a gαy character doesn't necessarily mean the show is a front for the LGBT.
Let's look at it this way. If you watch the show knowing there is a gαy character on it, you come off as supporting the gαy movement. Even though you don't support the gαy movement, you're showing you still have no problem with the show. Is watching a tv show just for humor and entertainment worth losing your soul over?
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Any show that supports the gαy agenda belongs on this list, exactly why Modern Family is on this list. I find it interesting how you say that you listen to your conscience and therefore don't watch the show anymore, but you're mighty quick to defend it when someone says it's a bad show.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens contain smut. Not always. But regularly. Everybody Loves Raymond contains blasphemy too, and ridicule of Catholicism.
I never really liked Everybody Loves Raymond anyway, but now that I know it ridicules Catholicism, I definetely will never watch it. Could you please give some examples of it doing so? I'm just curious to know in what way does it blaspheme Catholicism.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Any show that supports the gαy agenda belongs on this list, exactly why Modern Family is on this list. I find it interesting how you say that you listen to your conscience and therefore don't watch the show anymore, but you're mighty quick to defend it when someone says it's a bad show.
I think you are misreading my posts. I am quick to defend that it is not equal in evil to those on that list. Modern Family highlights a "beautiful" gαy family in every single episode. The Office is a far cry from that.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Any show that supports the gαy agenda belongs on this list, exactly why Modern Family is on this list. I find it interesting how you say that you listen to your conscience and therefore don't watch the show anymore, but you're mighty quick to defend it when someone says it's a bad show.
I think you are misreading my posts. I am quick to defend that it is not equal in evil to those on that list. Modern Family highlights a "beautiful" gαy family in every single episode. The Office is a far cry from that.
I never said The Office was equally evil to others on the list. That doesn't mean it isn't evil though. Should someone get involved in buddhism just because it isn't as evil as direct Satan worship? Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Some things are more evil than others, but anything evil we should stay away from.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens contain smut. Not always. But regularly. Everybody Loves Raymond contains blasphemy too, and ridicule of Catholicism.
I never really liked Everybody Loves Raymond anyway, but now that I know it ridicules Catholicism, I definetely will never watch it. Could you please give some examples of it doing so? I'm just curious to know in what way does it blaspheme Catholicism.
It doesn't ridicule Catholicism. It ridicules the laxity in which Raymond lives and was raised. The laxity that we see in the NO which is pretty much all he knows. His comedy is not based on a platform, like some shows are (like the Simpson's or Family Guy that are outright pushing agendas), it's based on his real life experiences and he uses his religious shortcomings and the shortcomings that he observes in Catholics to provide comedy that they can relate to.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Any show that supports the gαy agenda belongs on this list, exactly why Modern Family is on this list. I find it interesting how you say that you listen to your conscience and therefore don't watch the show anymore, but you're mighty quick to defend it when someone says it's a bad show.
I think you are misreading my posts. I am quick to defend that it is not equal in evil to those on that list. Modern Family highlights a "beautiful" gαy family in every single episode. The Office is a far cry from that.
I never said The Office was equally evil to others on the list. That doesn't mean it isn't evil though. Should someone get involved in buddhism just because it isn't as evil as direct Satan worship? Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Some things are more evil than others, but anything evil we should stay away from.
Then why object when I point out that it isn't equally as evil? My only point was that I could see how mature Catholics could take the good and leave the rest. With most shows that is impossible because a Catholic couldn't sit through 10 minutes of it or even the previews without being offended. With The Office you can sit through multiple episodes without being offended. I'm not saying YOU have to, I'm just saying it's possible, for your information, since you don't seem to know that, because you listed it with others that are nowhere near like it. You're making this into a crazy argument that doesn't even exist.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens contain smut. Not always. But regularly. Everybody Loves Raymond contains blasphemy too, and ridicule of Catholicism.
I never really liked Everybody Loves Raymond anyway, but now that I know it ridicules Catholicism, I definetely will never watch it. Could you please give some examples of it doing so? I'm just curious to know in what way does it blaspheme Catholicism.
The Barone family is nominally novus Catholic. One of the characters in the show is a novus priest. He is meant to be funny but the portrayal is despicable. The family mocks Catholicism in some of the shows. The Catholic religion is just a joke to them. There has been more than one show about the young couples' engaging pre-marital sex.
The list goes on. Often the show is very objectionable. The League of Decency would have had plenty to say about it.
-
You know very well that's different. Movies, for instance, that are based on the life of Our Lord are supposed to have immoral characters. I'm talking about things that are intended to promote immorality. The Office is clearly promoting the gαy movement by having an openly gαy character on that show. Let me give you a small list of tv shows that promote immorality. And remember, this is only a small list. There's lots of other bad tv shows out there as well.
The Office
The Simpsons
The Kardashians
Modern Family
Family Guy
The Bachelor
Avatar (cartoon series, movies are bad too)
House
Desperate Housewives
All of these and many other tv shows should be avoided. I gaurantee you that if you were to ask God if He was ok with these shows, He would say "No" to everyone one of them.
Yes, unfortunately a list of the modern tv shows and movies that are suitable would be a very short list indeed.
The Office does not belong in this list. This is like a "pick out the obvious misfit" list. The other shows listed I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The Office fits more into a list of Everybody Loves Raymond, or King of Queens or (I'm not even sure what else is out there). It is certainly a lesser evil and although a Catholic would take issue with an episode here or there, the whole thing isn't bad. There's a lot of good, human, down-to-earth humor. That's why The Office is so popular, because it is so different from that list. The gαy thing has been front and center in maybe 3 episodes in 6 years. In fact I want to say 2 for sure, I'm adding a third just in case. I personally have difficulty supporting it but my conscience is a little pricklier, it always has been. I can easily see how a mature Catholic would be able to take the good and leave the bad in this case.
Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens contain smut. Not always. But regularly. Everybody Loves Raymond contains blasphemy too, and ridicule of Catholicism.
I never really liked Everybody Loves Raymond anyway, but now that I know it ridicules Catholicism, I definetely will never watch it. Could you please give some examples of it doing so? I'm just curious to know in what way does it blaspheme Catholicism.
It doesn't ridicule Catholicism. It ridicules the laxity in which Raymond lives and was raised. The laxity that we see in the NO which is pretty much all he knows. His comedy is not based on a platform, like some shows are (like the Simpson's or Family Guy that are outright pushing agendas), it's based on his real life experiences and he uses his religious shortcomings and the shortcomings that he observes in Catholics to provide comedy that they can relate to.
Context is everything. The show makes fun of Catholicism and of people who have objections to immorality.
-
Wallflower,
Do you agree that Everybody Loves Raymond contains frequent sɛҳuąƖ innuendo and explicit references?
A quick search just produced this which reminds me of how the show makes light of deception and lying, making them out to be funny.
Plot Summary for
"Everybody Loves Raymond" Angry Sex (2004)
Ray plans an evening of sex. But Marie makes Debra lose her temper and she's not in the mood anymore. Ray tries his best to put her back in the mood. Which leads to the best night of sex he's ever had. But when Marie comes over to apologize, Ray lies to them both to make Debra's rage bigger.
-
It doesn't ridicule Catholicism. It ridicules the laxity in which Raymond lives and was raised. The laxity that we see in the NO which is pretty much all he knows. His comedy is not based on a platform, like some shows are (like the Simpson's or Family Guy that are outright pushing agendas), it's based on his real life experiences and he uses his religious shortcomings and the shortcomings that he observes in Catholics to provide comedy that they can relate to.
Context is everything. The show makes fun of Catholicism and of people who have objections to immorality.
Exactly.
-
But what you fail to see it that the context is one of disdain of morality and mockery of Catholicism.
-
These are just samples of brief plot descriptions I grabbed off the web. The elaboration in the shows is worse. The smut is sewn through many other episodes. It is not wholesome viewing.
Everybody Loves Raymond - Season 6
2. No Roll! - When Debra tells Ray that he's too selfish in bed and that she wants a little variety he goes out and buys an adults only board game to spice things up.
5. Marie's Sculpture - Ray and Debra are horrified when Marie presents them with an abstract sculpture she made in art class which bears a striking resemblance to a part of the female anatomy.
25. The First Time - Ray and Debra reminisce about the first time [unmarried] they slept together.
-
Pretty much all of the characters on television are evil people. Watching television is like inviting evil people into your home except there is no chance of converting the evil people to good, only the chance to convert you to evil. Should we enjoy the company of evil people? Should we laugh at their evil jokes? Should we fantasize about their sins?
-
Pretty much all of the characters on television are evil people. Watching television is like inviting evil people into your home except there is no chance of converting the evil people to good, only the chance to convert you to evil. Go ahead, sell you soul for a good laugh.
Yes no doubt there is some very funny material in those very sinful shows.
For some souls the humor is the enticing, almost unresistable bait in the trap.
-
I edited my post that you quoted because I thought maybe I was speaking a little too harshly. But I stand by what I said before and after the edit.
-
Wallflower,
Do you agree that Everybody Loves Raymond contains frequent sɛҳuąƖ innuendo and explicit references?
A quick search just produced this which reminds me of how the show makes light of deception and lying, making them out to be funny.
Plot Summary for
"Everybody Loves Raymond" Angry Sex (2004)
Ray plans an evening of sex. But Marie makes Debra lose her temper and she's not in the mood anymore. Ray tries his best to put her back in the mood. Which leads to the best night of sex he's ever had. But when Marie comes over to apologize, Ray lies to them both to make Debra's rage bigger.
Please refer to my first post about lesser evils and taking issue with an episode here and there as opposed to taking issue with every minute of every episode.
Do you know what comedy is? Comedy is based on incongruity, surprise and the unexpected. The reason Ray can do comedy involving the Church without ridiculing the Church is because there is an inconsistency with his own laxity and the views of the Church. Who gets the brunt of the ridicule? Himself. The Church is portrayed as being the Church and HE and his father (mainly) are the ones who are portrayed as being bumbling and not congruent with the Church. They are not portrayed as good guys bucking this tyrant Church, they are portrayed as lax and wrong. His mother and his wife are portrayed as the good ones who have Faith and go to Church or volunteer etc... His humor is funny to a Catholic because it is self-depreciating. We can all relate to being bumbling and not having all the answers, especially in the NO. That's the context.
You are seriously taking these summaries out of context. Do you know who is portrayed how? Do you know how they end? Do you know how these conflicts are resolved? We could do this with the Bible and countless good literature, take lewd stories out of them and summarize them to be much worse. The point is context. This comedy is based in self-depreciating humor and love of family and finding humor in the common conflicts in daily family life. I can't guarantee every single episode but most of them (considering there are nine years worth) deal with very real and wholesome experiences that even Catholics can relate to.
-
actually, Gerry Matatics would say yes, avoid Shakespeare, he feels it is a Trojan Horse to push poor morals and was a part of the attack on the Church in 16th C England....
This sounds interesting! Can you tell me more about this, Belloc?
-
This is going nowhere because clearly we have dissimilar standards.
The gratuitous sɛҳuąƖ content should be enough to put you off the show.
-
Do you know what comedy is?
The relevant question is, do you know what good, wholesome comedy is?
-
I edited my post that you quoted because I thought maybe I was speaking a little too harshly. But I stand by what I said before and after the edit.
Just as well, you stand by the original, because I can't delete it now! :cheers:
-
Season 6 / Episode 5: - Marie's Sculpture
Marie Barone: [as she realizes her sculpture looks like a vagina] Oh, my God. I'm a lesbian.
Good wholesome viewing?
Or do you prefer this?...
Marie Barone: Fine! You got it out of me. Your father and I... succuмbed to temptation before we got married. I fell for your father's boyish good looks. But, it didn't matter. We were in love. Right, Frank?
Frank Barone: I wanted sex.
I had forgotten that there were episodes about the pre-marital sex of all the main characters.
And the episodes were not morality tales, just impure comedy.
-
This is going nowhere because clearly we have dissimilar standards.
The gratuitous sɛҳuąƖ content should be enough to put you off the show.
Well if that were the case I would have put down the Bible at Genesis and I would not read half the literature I've read. I don't think our standards are different I think our understanding of context is different.
What you are pushing as gratuitous sɛҳuąƖ content is not sex scenes. I know that's what you'd like to believe but it is nothing more than the PDA that I would see in my own home or family. There are no sex scenes that are directed to arouse.
-
This is going nowhere because clearly we have dissimilar standards.
The gratuitous sɛҳuąƖ content should be enough to put you off the show.
Well if that were the case I would have put down the Bible at Genesis and I would not read half the literature I've read. I don't think our standards are different I think our understanding of context is different.
What you are pushing as gratuitous sɛҳuąƖ content is not sex scenes. I know that's what you'd like to believe but it is nothing more than the PDA that I would see in my own home or family. There are no sex scenes that are directed to arouse.
The Bible does not contain gratuitous sɛҳuąƖ content.
I beg to differ about sex scenes in ELR, but I won't post the link here.
Furthermore, besides graphic visual content there are other types of sɛҳuąƖ content that are entirely unsuitable.
It does not need to be pornography to be impure, unchaste or immodest.
-
Wallflower said:
Well if that were the case I would have put down the Bible at Genesis and I would not read half the literature I've read.
I bet you would feel very uncomfortable watching many of the episodes of Raymond with your pastor. But I bet you would not feel the same unease reading Bible passages. :wink:
You will not convince me that Everbody Loves Raymond is a suitable series. (I am not saying every segment of every episode is bad.)
-
Maybe we should start a thread: Not Everybody Loves Raymond.
Jokin' of course. I have had more than enough of Raymond here!
:cheers:
-
Wallflower said:
Well if that were the case I would have put down the Bible at Genesis and I would not read half the literature I've read.
I bet you would feel very uncomfortable watching many of the episodes of Raymond with your pastor. But I bet you would not feel the same unease reading Bible passages. :wink:
You will not convince me that Everbody Loves Raymond is a suitable series. (I am not saying every segment of every episode is bad.)
I'm not trying to. This is the mistake that is causing a useless argument. There are many episodes of Raymond that I would not be uncomfortable watching with my pastor. There are Bible passages that I find explicit enough that I'd prefer not to read them with my pastor. Doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means that he is not the most comfortable company for some subjects. My husband is, however. That's one of the differences context makes.
-
Wallflower said:
Well if that were the case I would have put down the Bible at Genesis and I would not read half the literature I've read.
I bet you would feel very uncomfortable watching many of the episodes of Raymond with your pastor. But I bet you would not feel the same unease reading Bible passages. :wink:
You will not convince me that Everbody Loves Raymond is a suitable series. (I am not saying every segment of every episode is bad.)
I'm not trying to. This is the mistake that is causing a useless argument. There are many episodes of Raymond that I would not be uncomfortable watching with my pastor. There are Bible passages that I find explicit enough that I'd prefer not to read them with my pastor. Doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means that he is not the most comfortable company for some subjects. My husband is, however. That's one of the differences context makes.
The context is that the Church has decreed that the Bible in its entirety is the inspired word of God.
On the other hand the TV series E L Raymond contains smut, immodesty, and impurity - all in the context of stimulating people to be amused by it.
-
This is the mistake that is causing a useless argument.
The useless argument came about because you went in to bat for E L Raymond, and I went into bat against it.
You are not convinced that taken as a whole the series is no good. I am not convinced that taken as a whole the series is good. In fact I think much if not most of it is problematic.
Perhaps we can agree that not everybody loves Raymond.
-
This is the mistake that is causing a useless argument.
The useless argument came about because you wen tin to bat for E L Raymond, and I wen't into bat against it.
You will not be convinced that taken as a whole the series is no good. I will not be e convinced that taken as a whole the series is good.
Perhaps we can agree that not everybody loves Raymond.
Don't put this on me. I merely mentioned it as a lesser evil, as something Catholics could watch that isn't nasty like The Kardashians, Family Guy et al, something that has more basis in our own lives and less political agenda. You couldn't wait to dive in and pretend I said what I didn't say, as well as ignore what I did say about what both shows are not about. You obviously have something against me to start with or you would have taken my correction and moved on rather than googling like a maniac to take things out of context to "prove" me wrong.
-
The episodes of The Office which I have seen were incredibly funny!
Dwight Shroot!!! :roll-laugh1: He reminds me of some of our more priggish and holier-than-thou Catholics!!
We are totally unplugged except for the Internet & phone, and I had no idea the show has been going on for so long, but the show is FUNNY from what I've seen!!
:laugh2:
-
Walflower, please don't jump to conclusions or be paranoid. I did not have something against you to start with. If it is obvious to you that I did, you are delusional, or at least badly mistaken.
Look back calmly; I never pretended you said anything.
Perhaps the discussion was just too robust for you. Never mind. No big deal.
BTW, doing a couple of real quick searches is not googling like maniac. :rolleyes:
Maybe Raymond does not do it for me, but you just made me laugh.
:wink:
-
actually, Gerry Matatics would say yes, avoid Shakespeare, he feels it is a Trojan Horse to push poor morals and was a part of the attack on the Church in 16th C England....
Funny
I'll see you and raise you a bishop and and a lit prof
hows, +Williamson (http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/July2002/To_Be_or_Not_to_Be.htm) and Dr. David Allen White (http://www.edocere.org/articles/importance_of_language.htm)...
+W:
"Bishop Williamson pointed out that Shakespeare was neither a theologian nor a philosopher. He was an artist, one of the greatest artists of all times, the Bishop said."
Dr DAW:
"In teaching Shakespeare, I’ve been fortunate to deal with the greatest writer the English language has every known, a master of language who used it with precision, beauty, depth, and genuine spiritual insight."
-
Pretty much all of the characters on television are evil people. Watching television is like inviting evil people into your home except there is no chance of converting the evil people to good, only the chance to convert you to evil. Should we enjoy the company of evil people? Should we laugh at their evil jokes? Should we fantasize about their sins?
Wow
cooking shows...garden shows...at the very least....LOL
-
Walflower, please don't jump to conclusions or be paranoid. I did not have something against you to start with. If it is obvious to you that I did, you are delusional, or at least badly mistaken.
Look back calmly; I never pretended you said anything.
Perhaps the discussion was just too robust for you. Never mind. No big deal.
BTW, doing a couple of real quick searches is not googling like maniac. :rolleyes:
Maybe Raymond does not do it for me, but you just made me laugh.
:wink:
Oh good. I was really starting to question your ability to recognize surprising, unexpected or incongruous elements without imagining they are sinful.
-
actually, Gerry Matatics would say yes, avoid Shakespeare, he feels it is a Trojan Horse to push poor morals and was a part of the attack on the Church in 16th C England....
Funny
I'll see you and raise you a bishop and and a lit prof
hows, +Williamson (http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/July2002/To_Be_or_Not_to_Be.htm) and Dr. David Allen White (http://www.edocere.org/articles/importance_of_language.htm)...
+W:
"Bishop Williamson pointed out that Shakespeare was neither a theologian nor a philosopher. He was an artist, one of the greatest artists of all times, the Bishop said."
Dr DAW:
"In teaching Shakespeare, I’ve been fortunate to deal with the greatest writer the English language has every known, a master of language who used it with precision, beauty, depth, and genuine spiritual insight."
Not only that but Dr White has witnessed Shakespeare initiate dozens of conversions.
-
Pretty much all of the characters on television are evil people. Watching television is like inviting evil people into your home except there is no chance of converting the evil people to good, only the chance to convert you to evil. Should we enjoy the company of evil people? Should we laugh at their evil jokes? Should we fantasize about their sins?
Wow
cooking shows...garden shows...at the very least....LOL
Matto did start off saying: "Pretty much all of the characters on television are evil people"
A character is a representation of a person, so I think we can deduce that Matto was not referring to cooking shows...garden shows and such like.
-
Walflower, please don't jump to conclusions or be paranoid. I did not have something against you to start with. If it is obvious to you that I did, you are delusional, or at least badly mistaken.
Look back calmly; I never pretended you said anything.
Perhaps the discussion was just too robust for you. Never mind. No big deal.
BTW, doing a couple of real quick searches is not googling like maniac. :rolleyes:
Maybe Raymond does not do it for me, but you just made me laugh.
:wink:
Oh good. I was really starting to question your ability to recognize surprising, unexpected or incongruous elements without imagining they are sinful.
It's ok you can question whatever you want. Doesn't worry me. I know the score. And I recognise when material is unsuitable in varying degrees according to the principles of Catholic moral theology. I am also aware of many decisicions of the League of Decency and the reasoning employed.
-
Dwight Shroot!!! :roll-laugh1: He reminds me of some of our more priggish and holier-than-thou Catholics!!
Eliz-- they are also known as Jansenists.
RC should take note that a character is not always a representative of a person.
WE have Walsh and Belloc whom have written Characters of INQ and the REF. Unless I am mistaken they are writing about real people.
-
roscoe, I don't think you know what a Jansenist is. If you do, please define it for us. If you can not define it, then stop using that term to describe people.
-
A Jansenist is defined in Pope Clement's Unigenitus. One of the tell-tale signs of this cult is a phoney piety that covers for what is in truth a liberal communisim.
-
Unigenitus was a good read, thank you roscoe. I would not consider myself a Jansenist after reading it. Yay! In the past I have wondered about a few of those condemned propositions and now I know that they are wrong. I did not notice where opposition to television and marijuana were condemned as Jansenism.
-
Television and Mary Juanita are 2 different things. If anything I would consider TV itself Jansenistic as almost everything on is liberal.
The term tea( as in the teatotaling of the WCTU) was originally a reference to Mary Juanita. I know because i heard Lt Tragg say so once on Perry Mason.
-
laughing at the nose of Pius XI
Actually, the only nose I commented on would have been Benedict XV's. It definitely looks Jєωιѕн.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Bene15.jpg/250px-Bene15.jpg)
-
If anything I would consider TV itself Jansenistic as almost everything on is liberal.
As prev stated and now proved roscoe does not know how to define Jansenism/Jansenistic.
-
Wallflower,
Do you agree that Everybody Loves Raymond contains frequent sɛҳuąƖ innuendo and explicit references?
A quick search just produced this which reminds me of how the show makes light of deception and lying, making them out to be funny.
Plot Summary for
"Everybody Loves Raymond" Angry Sex (2004)
Ray plans an evening of sex. But Marie makes Debra lose her temper and she's not in the mood anymore. Ray tries his best to put her back in the mood. Which leads to the best night of sex he's ever had. But when Marie comes over to apologize, Ray lies to them both to make Debra's rage bigger.
Please refer to my first post about lesser evils and taking issue with an episode here and there as opposed to taking issue with every minute of every episode.
Do you know what comedy is? Comedy is based on incongruity, surprise and the unexpected. The reason Ray can do comedy involving the Church without ridiculing the Church is because there is an inconsistency with his own laxity and the views of the Church. Who gets the brunt of the ridicule? Himself. The Church is portrayed as being the Church and HE and his father (mainly) are the ones who are portrayed as being bumbling and not congruent with the Church. They are not portrayed as good guys bucking this tyrant Church, they are portrayed as lax and wrong. His mother and his wife are portrayed as the good ones who have Faith and go to Church or volunteer etc... His humor is funny to a Catholic because it is self-depreciating. We can all relate to being bumbling and not having all the answers, especially in the NO. That's the context.
You are seriously taking these summaries out of context. Do you know who is portrayed how? Do you know how they end? Do you know how these conflicts are resolved? We could do this with the Bible and countless good literature, take lewd stories out of them and summarize them to be much worse. The point is context. This comedy is based in self-depreciating humor and love of family and finding humor in the common conflicts in daily family life. I can't guarantee every single episode but most of them (considering there are nine years worth) deal with very real and wholesome experiences that even Catholics can relate to.
Everybody Loves Raymond is NOT a family show and you don't seem to care. Watching a show knowing it contains bad content implies that you support that bad content, whatever it is. Attacks on Catholicism should not be tolerated. So what if two characters on the show volunteer at the Church? The main character of the show constantly bashes Catholicism. If someone were to bash Catholicism right in front of you would you defend it or just sit there? You say you wouldn't touch shows such as The Kardashians and The Simpsons with a 10 foot pole and neither would I, but Raymond is just as bad, and you know it yet ignore your conscience which is clearly telling you it is wrong. Our conscience is the voice of God. Therefore to ignore your conscience is to ignore God.
-
If anything I would consider TV itself Jansenistic as almost everything on is liberal.
As prev stated and now proved roscoe does not know how to define Jansenism/Jansenistic.
It occured to me about an hour ago that I may have Occaisionally used the term Jansenist inappropriately-- thank U CM. My apologises to the Forum.
It should however be kept in mind false piety that hides a true liberalism is still one of the tell-tale signs of the cult.
-
There are some of us who are very tired of the hypocracy of the drug war which is after all a child of prohibition.
One step towards saving Mexico has to be the decriminalisation of all drugs.
-
laughing at the nose of Pius XI
Actually, the only nose I commented on would have been Benedict XV's. It definitely looks Jєωιѕн.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Bene15.jpg/250px-Bene15.jpg)
Some Italians have similar noses to the Jєωιѕн nose. Just look at some portraits of Dante Alighieri.
-
If anything I would consider TV itself Jansenistic as almost everything on is liberal.
As prev stated and now proved roscoe does not know how to define Jansenism/Jansenistic.
It occured to me about an hour ago that I may have Occaisionally used the term Jansenist inappropriately-- thank U CM. My apologises to the Forum.
It should however be kept in mind false piety that hides a true liberalism is still one of the tell-tale signs of the cult.
I occured to me long ago that you should not have accused Catholics of being heretics (Jansenists) when you had no basis.
Nice apology to the "Forum", which I am sure the Forum somehow accepts in its own way. :wink:
But I do not recall you accusing the Forum of being Jansenistic. You did however accuse particular individuals of being Jansenists. You also regularly made sweeping accusations of Jansenism towards people who disagreed with you on various issues.
It should also be kept in mind that you are not the authority on what constitutes false piety.
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there are some educated and intelligent Catholics here with well informed and formed consciences who posssibly, just possibly might know better than you about some things?
-
There are some of us who are very tired of the hypocracy of the drug war which is after all a child of prohibition.
One step towards saving Mexico has to be the decriminalisation of all drugs.
I understand that you are obsessd by the illegal drug issue, but how does it fit into this discussion?
Do you have to keep inserting the drug issue into so many diverse threads?
Even if you are habitually on drugs while you post here; this is not a drug-centric forum.
-
laughing at the nose of Pius XI
Actually, the only nose I commented on would have been Benedict XV's. It definitely looks Jєωιѕн.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Bene15.jpg/250px-Bene15.jpg)
Some Italians have similar noses to the Jєωιѕн nose. Just look at some portraits of Dante Alighieri.
True. Any attempt to refer to the shape of the pope's nose to try bolster a case for his alleged Jєωιѕнness is patently absurd.
-
RC should take note that a character is not always a representative of a person.
WE have Walsh and Belloc whom have written Characters of INQ and the REF. Unless I am mistaken they are writing about real people.
Sure. The term can be ambiguous.
But newsreaders, broadcasters, hosts of shows, presenters of docuмentaries or cooking or gardening shows, are not commonly referred to as characters.
-
Pretty much all of the characters on television are evil people. Watching television is like inviting evil people into your home except there is no chance of converting the evil people to good, only the chance to convert you to evil. Should we enjoy the company of evil people? Should we laugh at their evil jokes? Should we fantasize about their sins?
Wow
cooking shows...garden shows...at the very least....LOL
Matto did start off saying: "Pretty much all of the characters on television are evil people"
A character is a representation of a person, so I think we can deduce that Matto was not referring to cooking shows...garden shows and such like.
Anyway here's upping the ante:
The presenters and celebrities on various gardening, cooking shows etc. are often notorious for their perverted lifestyles, which are applauded and celebrated both on and off-screen. Many people adore the celebrities and glory in their perverted lifestyles.
This is contextually very relelvant. People are influenced by the people they watch. Even if the viewer does not become an over-night pervert, the acceptance of the sinful lifestyles is detimental to souls.
On a cooking show broadcast here recently, two individuals revealed their "gαyness" with viewers being treated to letters written to the lesbian and queer by their partners.
Other heterosɛҳuąƖ participants discussed their situation of living in sin, which of course was not refered to by that terminology. and yet others discussed their second marriages and adulterous affairs.
So disedifying.
-
Um no, none of that is relavent. Their lifestyle or choices off screen have nothing to do with the show you watch. If you choose to not support somone because you don't want to...that's fine, but it does not make watching a particular show a sin. Your choices do not equal "the Catholic" road...they equal your road.
As for your made up conversation that happen on cooking shows...yeah.
And even that does not matter, if there is something outside the Catholic realm it does not mean you can't watch it, you need to do so with a Catholic understanding...I speak theoretically and not of any particular show.
Anyway...put your head back in the sand...
As for the other guy saying pretty much all people on TV are evil...life must hold a lot of excitement for you...I suppose most people are evil seeing as the majority of your neighbors are much like the folks on TV
-
Um no, none of that is relavent. Their lifestyle or choices off screen have nothing to do with the show you watch. If you choose to not support somone because you don't want to...that's fine, but it does not make watching a particular show a sin. Your choices do not equal "the Catholic" road...they equal your road.
As for your made up conversation that happen on cooking shows...yeah.
And even that does not matter, if there is something outside the Catholic realm it does not mean you can't watch it, you need to do so with a Catholic understanding...I speak theoretically and not of any particular show.
Anyway...put your head back in the sand...
As for the other guy saying pretty much all people on TV are evil...life must hold a lot of excitement for you...I suppose most people are evil seeing as the majority of your neighbors are much like the folks on TV
If you think people are not influenced by celebs and what they see or read about them - you are just plain deluded.
And who said anything about not being able to watch things that are not specifically Catholic?
I have never seen a Catholic cooking show.
You accused me of lying when I related the recent occurrence on a cooking show. You are wrong and you have no basis for accusing me of lying. So an apology is in order.
-
laughing at the nose of Pius XI
Actually, the only nose I commented on would have been Benedict XV's. It definitely looks Jєωιѕн.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Bene15.jpg/250px-Bene15.jpg)
Is there much difference between a Jєωιѕн nose and a Roman nose?
-
Here is just one reference to what I wrote earlier about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs flaunting it on a cooking show:
"Both have spoken about being gαy on the show, and there has also been footage of them both with their respective partners"
http://forums.vogue.com.au/showthread.php?p=6183331
BTW Clare, the Australian version of MasterChef is not as sedate as the UK version.
-
If you think people are not influenced by celebs and what they see or read about them - you are just plain deluded.
And who said anything about not being able to watch things that are not specifically Catholic?
I have never seen a Catholic cooking show.
You accused me of lying when I related the recent occurrence on a cooking show. You are wrong and you have no basis for accusing me of lying. So an apology is in order.
People are influenced by EVERYONE they come into contact with, face to face, phone, tv, online...you point is bs in that oyu get to choose to take away the good and leave the bad, I am never deluded.
as for the last sentence...LOL
-
BTW Clare, the Australian version of MasterChef is not as sedate as the UK version.
I wouldn't know. Is the UK version still on? I've not seen it in probably over a decade.
-
You accused me of lying when I related the recent occurrence on a cooking show. You are wrong and you have no basis for accusing me of lying. So an apology is in order.
as for the last sentence...LOL
Well now that I have supplied evidence, maybe you can stop the arrogant obnoxiousness.
-
Although, now that oyu bring up "liar"....you must be prevaricating
there are 2 choices, you tell me which it is...
Yousay you think cooking shows where they talk about poor lifestyles is evil because people will be influenced by this....the consequence would be people think Divorce or whatever...is OK
Now you have a choice to make....Either you have not watched such a show...and ARE making it up....or you are making up the result of watching shows just to make a point....if you are right about folks watching shows that discuss poor lifestles and you watched those shows...presumably you would think poor lifestyles are OK....which is it dude???
Or are you just one of the super chosen who can see thru the ploys and avoid the pit falls....but the rest of us lack the skill set??
-
BTW Clare, the Australian version of MasterChef is not as sedate as the UK version.
I wouldn't know. Is the UK version still on? I've not seen it in probably over a decade.
Not sure if the UK show is still in production, but I saw some re-runs here a while ago.
They had one of the UK judges on the show here, and the Aussie contestants visited the UK this year.
-
You accused me of lying when I related the recent occurrence on a cooking show. You are wrong and you have no basis for accusing me of lying. So an apology is in order.
as for the last sentence...LOL
Well now that I have supplied evidence, maybe you can stop the arrogant obnoxiousness.
Clearly you can't control yourself.
-
that's a double post
-
I grew up watching rubbish on television, and reading awful newspapers, and going to the New Mass.
Somehow, even in my teens, I was never convinced that the lifestyles promoted were ok. I was a fan of Queen and Freddie Mercury, and I always wished that the stories about his lifestyle were not true. I was always disappointed when any Catholic pop star (like Debbie Gibson) "grew up" and decided that, actually sex before marriage is ok after all. I was immersed in all this, and I somehow, by the grace of God presumably, recognised it for what it was, and was never ever tempted to abandon Catholic moral teaching in favour of what all my "heroes" were saying and doing about sex, abortion, birth control, etc.
I don't have TV now, I don't get newspapers, and I don't go to the New Mass.
So, what are the chances that my kids, having not been raised on TV, newspapers, and the New Mass, will go in the opposite direction from me after they grow up??
-
I grew up watching rubbish on television, and reading awful newspapers, and going to the New Mass.
Somehow, even in my teens, I was never convinced that the lifestyles promoted were ok. I was a fan of Queen and Freddie Mercury, and I always wished that the stories about his lifestyle were not true. I was always disappointed when any Catholic pop star (like Debbie Gibson) "grew up" and decided that, actually sex before marriage is ok after all. I was immersed in all this, and I somehow, by the grace of God presumably, recognised it for what it was, and was never ever tempted to abandon Catholic moral teaching in favour of what all my "heroes" were saying and doing about sex, abortion, birth control, etc.
I don't have TV now, I don't get newspapers, and I don't go to the New Mass.
So, what are the chances that my kids, having not been raised on TV, newspapers, and the New Mass, will go in the opposite direction from me after they grow up??
Well Clare, as you rightly said it was by the grace of God that you recognised it for what it was. That grace is unmerited. Not all receive it. Most don't. Especially if they don't pray for it.
Most people are influenced by their intake.
And since we can petition the grace of God, (which surely you do) the chances of your kids, having not been raised on TV, newspapers, and the New Mass, going in the opposite direction from you after they grow up, can be made very slim indeed.
-
that's a double post
Actualy it isn't. I added to the original post after you made another obnoxious reply in between.
But had it been a double post, so what? Would that have been against some rule of yours or been sinful?
-
Although, now that oyu bring up "liar"....you must be prevaricating
there are 2 choices, you tell me which it is...
Yousay you think cooking shows where they talk about poor lifestyles is evil because people will be influenced by this....the consequence would be people think Divorce or whatever...is OK
Now you have a choice to make....Either you have not watched such a show...and ARE making it up....or you are making up the result of watching shows just to make a point....if you are right about folks watching shows that discuss poor lifestles and you watched those shows...presumably you would think poor lifestyles are OK....which is it dude???
Or are you just one of the super chosen who can see thru the ploys and avoid the pit falls....but the rest of us lack the skill set??
:sleep:
Later I may make the effort to address your inanity and lack of logic. But I may not even bother because you appear to be a triggger-happy creature who is also intransigent and impervious to logic.
-
Well Clare, as you rightly said it was by the grace of God that you recognised it for what it was. That grace is unmerited. Not all receive it. Most don't. Especially if they don't pray for it.
Most people are influenced by their intake.
And since we can petition the grace of God, (which surely you do) the chances of your kids, having not been raised on TV, newspapers, and the New Mass, going in the opposite direction from you after they grow up, can be made very slim indeed.
I do hope and pray so.
-
Well Clare, as you rightly said it was by the grace of God that you recognised it for what it was. That grace is unmerited. Not all receive it. Most don't. Especially if they don't pray for it.
Most people are influenced by their intake.
And since we can petition the grace of God, (which surely you do) the chances of your kids, having not been raised on TV, newspapers, and the New Mass, going in the opposite direction from you after they grow up, can be made very slim indeed.
I do hope and pray so.
Well if you are doing so in the name of Jesus with confidence, in God's providence the final outcome is determined already.
-
Wallflower,
Do you agree that Everybody Loves Raymond contains frequent sɛҳuąƖ innuendo and explicit references?
A quick search just produced this which reminds me of how the show makes light of deception and lying, making them out to be funny.
Plot Summary for
"Everybody Loves Raymond" Angry Sex (2004)
Ray plans an evening of sex. But Marie makes Debra lose her temper and she's not in the mood anymore. Ray tries his best to put her back in the mood. Which leads to the best night of sex he's ever had. But when Marie comes over to apologize, Ray lies to them both to make Debra's rage bigger.
Please refer to my first post about lesser evils and taking issue with an episode here and there as opposed to taking issue with every minute of every episode.
Do you know what comedy is? Comedy is based on incongruity, surprise and the unexpected. The reason Ray can do comedy involving the Church without ridiculing the Church is because there is an inconsistency with his own laxity and the views of the Church. Who gets the brunt of the ridicule? Himself. The Church is portrayed as being the Church and HE and his father (mainly) are the ones who are portrayed as being bumbling and not congruent with the Church. They are not portrayed as good guys bucking this tyrant Church, they are portrayed as lax and wrong. His mother and his wife are portrayed as the good ones who have Faith and go to Church or volunteer etc... His humor is funny to a Catholic because it is self-depreciating. We can all relate to being bumbling and not having all the answers, especially in the NO. That's the context.
You are seriously taking these summaries out of context. Do you know who is portrayed how? Do you know how they end? Do you know how these conflicts are resolved? We could do this with the Bible and countless good literature, take lewd stories out of them and summarize them to be much worse. The point is context. This comedy is based in self-depreciating humor and love of family and finding humor in the common conflicts in daily family life. I can't guarantee every single episode but most of them (considering there are nine years worth) deal with very real and wholesome experiences that even Catholics can relate to.
Everybody Loves Raymond is NOT a family show and you don't seem to care. Watching a show knowing it contains bad content implies that you support that bad content, whatever it is. Attacks on Catholicism should not be tolerated. So what if two characters on the show volunteer at the Church? The main character of the show constantly bashes Catholicism. If someone were to bash Catholicism right in front of you would you defend it or just sit there? You say you wouldn't touch shows such as The Kardashians and The Simpsons with a 10 foot pole and neither would I, but Raymond is just as bad, and you know it yet ignore your conscience which is clearly telling you it is wrong. Our conscience is the voice of God. Therefore to ignore your conscience is to ignore God.
It's very tiring when people add their two cents at the end of a conversation without even reading the PPs. I know what I do, that's not the point. The point is that my freak out level is different if someone is watching The Office or ELR or Kitchen Nightmares as opposed to Modern Family or Vampire Diaries or Family Guy. Not all TV is created equal and knowing that we'd all benefit from it gone all together doesn't change that.
-
I am never deluded.
You are nothing but deluded.
-
I am never deluded.
You are nothing but deluded.
Agreed. That person's delusion has been manifested very effectively.
-
Wallflower,
Do you agree that Everybody Loves Raymond contains frequent sɛҳuąƖ innuendo and explicit references?
A quick search just produced this which reminds me of how the show makes light of deception and lying, making them out to be funny.
Plot Summary for
"Everybody Loves Raymond" Angry Sex (2004)
Ray plans an evening of sex. But Marie makes Debra lose her temper and she's not in the mood anymore. Ray tries his best to put her back in the mood. Which leads to the best night of sex he's ever had. But when Marie comes over to apologize, Ray lies to them both to make Debra's rage bigger.
Please refer to my first post about lesser evils and taking issue with an episode here and there as opposed to taking issue with every minute of every episode.
Do you know what comedy is? Comedy is based on incongruity, surprise and the unexpected. The reason Ray can do comedy involving the Church without ridiculing the Church is because there is an inconsistency with his own laxity and the views of the Church. Who gets the brunt of the ridicule? Himself. The Church is portrayed as being the Church and HE and his father (mainly) are the ones who are portrayed as being bumbling and not congruent with the Church. They are not portrayed as good guys bucking this tyrant Church, they are portrayed as lax and wrong. His mother and his wife are portrayed as the good ones who have Faith and go to Church or volunteer etc... His humor is funny to a Catholic because it is self-depreciating. We can all relate to being bumbling and not having all the answers, especially in the NO. That's the context.
You are seriously taking these summaries out of context. Do you know who is portrayed how? Do you know how they end? Do you know how these conflicts are resolved? We could do this with the Bible and countless good literature, take lewd stories out of them and summarize them to be much worse. The point is context. This comedy is based in self-depreciating humor and love of family and finding humor in the common conflicts in daily family life. I can't guarantee every single episode but most of them (considering there are nine years worth) deal with very real and wholesome experiences that even Catholics can relate to.
Everybody Loves Raymond is NOT a family show and you don't seem to care. Watching a show knowing it contains bad content implies that you support that bad content, whatever it is. Attacks on Catholicism should not be tolerated. So what if two characters on the show volunteer at the Church? The main character of the show constantly bashes Catholicism. If someone were to bash Catholicism right in front of you would you defend it or just sit there? You say you wouldn't touch shows such as The Kardashians and The Simpsons with a 10 foot pole and neither would I, but Raymond is just as bad, and you know it yet ignore your conscience which is clearly telling you it is wrong. Our conscience is the voice of God. Therefore to ignore your conscience is to ignore God.
It's very tiring when people add their two cents at the end of a conversation without even reading the PPs. I know what I do, that's not the point. The point is that my freak out level is different if someone is watching The Office or ELR or Kitchen Nightmares as opposed to Modern Family or Vampire Diaries or Family Guy. Not all TV is created equal and knowing that we'd all benefit from it gone all together doesn't change that.
A bad show is still a bad show. Martin Luther wasn't as evil as Obama or the guy who started the church of Satan (can't think of his name) but that doesn't mean he wasn't an evil man. Should we accept an evil just because it's a lesser-evil than something else that is evil?
-
Anton LaVey(Levy).
-
I believe the current head of church of satan is Andre Schlesinger-- most likely kin of Doc Laura.
Alex Jones once told a tale of being in a comedy club in Houston when LaVey took the stage and implored the audience to take the microchip.
-
I believe the current head of church of satan is Andre Schlesinger-- most likely kin of Doc Laura.
Alex Jones once told a tale of being in a comedy club in Houston when LaVey took the stage and implored the audience to take the microchip.
Thanks for giving his name. LaVey was actually featured on the jacket cover of the song "Hotel California", a song apparently referrencing the church of Satan.
-
I'm pretty certain this song was referencing the Novus Ordo!
On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
I had to stop for the night
There she stood in the doorway; I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself this could be heaven or this could be hell
For many people the Nocus Ordo and 20th century-post Catholic Church may seem to be Catholic but is not. Many people are very confused about it, hence it could be either heaven or hell, for all they can tell.
Then she lit up a candle, and she showed me the way
There were voices down the corridor, I thought I heard them say
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place, such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (any time of year) you can find it here
Her mind is Tiffany twisted, she got the Mercedes bends
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys that she calls friends
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget
So I called up the captain; please bring me my wine
We haven't had that spirit here since nineteen sixty-nine
What Spirit is no longer present due to a defect of form in the New Mass, and when was that defect of form introduced?
And still those voices are calling from far away
Wake you up in the middle of the night, just to hear them say
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place, such a lovely face
They livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise) bring your alibis
Mirrors on the ceiling, the pink champagne on ice
And she said we are all just prisoners here of our own device
And in the master's chambers, they gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast
Last thing I remember I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
Relax said the nightman We are programmed to receive
You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave
All the rest of the song just sounds like hell trying to convince people that there is no hope of escape, all the while seducing them further into sin.
-
This thread illustrates my previous point quite well about the different mindset found in CI vs. FE.
Left to our own devices, CI posters generally discuss/ debate interesting topics related to Traditional Catholicism. 90% of us share the same premises and world view but differ on this or that theological issue which we then explore further in different threads.
Just a few FE posters arrived in this thread and before long, we ended up with 13 pages of time spent trying to figure out whether current pop tv shows, pop tv character avatars, short skirts etc. are Catholic, moral, immoral, occasions of sin, acceptable, commendable, etc. We even had an actual mini discussion about morally distinguishing a sit com from a Shakespearean play.
In my humble opinion, once you get to the state in a forum where these types of discussions are almost unavoidable, it's time to ask yourself if you are in the right forum. It is one thing for others to share a different set of basic premises and assumptions. It is quite another to spend page after page debating such people, delving into technical and painstaking detail trying to convince someone of something you see as obvious and common sense.
The vast majority of CI posters, from what I can see, have already figured out that whatever the precise technical moral status of these shows is, we are better off doing other more edifying things as Traditional Catholics. Thus to spend page after page debating others who just don't see this, at some point becomes counter-productive.
In my opinion, at least at the time of my departure in '09, FE had gotten to the state where the majority of discussion there, at least for me, turned just as counterproductive as this thread. Thus, as I stated before, I feel it was a blessing from God I found Cath Info.
-
Yes, no one knows at the beginning or at any point what will flow from there, so things progress, but often at some point this type of discussion deteriorates to the point where it clearly becomes counter-productive.
Counter-productive is an apt description, rather than simply unproductive.
Time and effort wasted. Emotions and tempers in play. Etc.
To what end?
Some people drink at the fountain of knowledge; some only gargle.
The garglers can't be forced to drink.
-
If anything I would consider TV itself Jansenistic as almost everything on is liberal.
As prev stated and now proved roscoe does not know how to define Jansenism/Jansenistic.
It occured to me about an hour ago that I may have Occaisionally used the term Jansenist inappropriately-- thank U CM. My apologises to the Forum.
It should however be kept in mind false piety that hides a true liberalism is still one of the tell-tale signs of the cult.
I occured to me long ago that you should not have accused Catholics of being heretics (Jansenists) when you had no basis.
Nice apology to the "Forum", which I am sure the Forum somehow accepts in its own way. :wink:
But I do not recall you accusing the Forum of being Jansenistic. You did however accuse particular individuals of being Jansenists. You also regularly made sweeping accusations of Jansenism towards people who disagreed with you on various issues.
It should also be kept in mind that you are not the authority on what constitutes false piety.
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there are some educated and intelligent Catholics here with well informed and formed consciences who posssibly, just possibly might know better than you about some things?
My apologies again as I will in the future confine my comments to being Jansenist in nature or something of the sort.
Yes is the answer to the last question but the historical truth is that white smoke( not white turned to black or white streaked with black or some other scenario) appeared and no Pope did.
-
the historical truth is that white smoke( not white turned to black or white streaked with black or some other scenario) appeared and no Pope did.
I agree with you once again 'rasco.
-
the historical truth is that white smoke( not white turned to black or white streaked with black or some other scenario) appeared and no Pope did.
I agree with you once again 'rasco.
And if that is correct it still proves nothing else about your Siri-theory, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread, does it?
Or was that digression brought up before somewhere along the ride?
-
If anything I would consider TV itself Jansenistic as almost everything on is liberal.
As prev stated and now proved roscoe does not know how to define Jansenism/Jansenistic.
It occured to me about an hour ago that I may have Occaisionally used the term Jansenist inappropriately-- thank U CM. My apologises to the Forum.
It should however be kept in mind false piety that hides a true liberalism is still one of the tell-tale signs of the cult.
I occured to me long ago that you should not have accused Catholics of being heretics (Jansenists) when you had no basis.
Nice apology to the "Forum", which I am sure the Forum somehow accepts in its own way. :wink:
But I do not recall you accusing the Forum of being Jansenistic. You did however accuse particular individuals of being Jansenists. You also regularly made sweeping accusations of Jansenism towards people who disagreed with you on various issues.
It should also be kept in mind that you are not the authority on what constitutes false piety.
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there are some educated and intelligent Catholics here with well informed and formed consciences who posssibly, just possibly might know better than you about some things?
My apologies again as I will in the future confine my comments to being Jansenist in nature or something of the sort.
Yes is the answer to the last question but the historical truth is that white smoke( not white turned to black or white streaked with black or some other scenario) appeared and no Pope did.
Thanks for the apology.
But are your future comments going to be about people being Jansenist in nature, or their posts being Jansenist in nature?
Hint: Either way you still don't seem to know what Jansenism really is.
-
And if that is correct it still proves nothing else about your Siri-theory
Correct.
and it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread, does it?
Did you forget who you're dealing with? :smoke-pot:
Disclaimer: I do not say that itself marijuana is evil, but I do say that the abuse thereof is akin to the abuse of strong drink. (Ps. 103:14-15)
I am not alleging roscoe abuses it, as I have no way of knowing such with any certainty.
-
Hint: Either way you still don't seem to know what Jansenism really is.
Hint #2: Think "Grace and Predestination".
As a matter of fact, Jean Vianney was influenced by Jansenism at one point, but this did not lead him into heresy, but only heightened rigor. Vianney was not a diguised liberal.
-
laughing at the nose of Pius XI
Actually, the only nose I commented on would have been Benedict XV's. It definitely looks Jєωιѕн.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Bene15.jpg/250px-Bene15.jpg)
Is there much difference between a Jєωιѕн nose and a Roman nose?
Why is this even being discussed again?
-
the historical truth is that white smoke( not white turned to black or white streaked with black or some other scenario) appeared and no Pope did.
I agree with you once again 'rasco.
And if that is correct it still proves nothing else about your Siri-theory, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread, does it?
Or was that digression brought up before somewhere along the ride?
It seems another apology is in order as my knowledge of how the smoke works is somewhat off. Apparently black smoke can start out as white for a few moments. At any rate, a full 5 mins of white smoke was seen by about 200 K people and unless I am mistaken, it was announced over Vatican PA system that a Pope was elected.
btw this Forum might be surprised re: how much I know about Jansenism. I prefer Church History to Theology and have been through most historical accounts of the Jansenist/ Jesuit rivalry.
-
My understanding is that the 5 min white smoke did not turn black as the latter comes out seperate and some time later.
-
the historical truth is that white smoke( not white turned to black or white streaked with black or some other scenario) appeared and no Pope did.
I agree with you once again 'rasco.
And if that is correct it still proves nothing else about your Siri-theory, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread, does it?
Or was that digression brought up before somewhere along the ride?
It seems another apology is in order as my knowledge of how the smoke works is somewhat off. Apparently black smoke can start out as white for a few moments. At any rate, a full 5 mins of white smoke was seen by about 200 K people and unless I am mistaken, it was announced over Vatican PA system that a Pope was elected.
btw this Forum might be surprised re: how much I know about Jansenism. I prefer Church History to Theology and have been through most historical accounts of the Jansenist/ Jesuit rivalry.
At least you don't seem to have a problem with changing your mind sometimes, when presented with further information.
What brought about your abrubt change of mind on this one?
LOL. Now we are discussing another one of your pet subjects on this thread. :rolleyes:
-
Why is this even being discussed again?
Obviously the only one who wanted to discuss it was he who brought it up again on this page. Feel free to drop it. Nobody is stopping you.
-
btw this Forum might be surprised re: how much I know about Jansenism. I prefer Church History to Theology and have been through most historical accounts of the Jansenist/ Jesuit rivalry.
Or maybe not. You might be surpised to know that you have provided very effective demonstrations of your lack of logic and inability to comprehend the written word.
I do not doubt that you have read much on the subject. But that does not mean you know much about it.
Your application of the term has been unjustified and just plain wrong.
-
laughing at the nose of Pius XI
Actually, the only nose I commented on would have been Benedict XV's. It definitely looks Jєωιѕн.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Bene15.jpg/250px-Bene15.jpg)
Is there much difference between a Jєωιѕн nose and a Roman nose?
Why is this even being discussed again?
Who nose? But heck, why not? It is no less relevant than Roscoe's dope obssession! :wink:
DISCLAIMER: I am not in favor of discussing THE NOSE here!
-
Who nose?
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
-
btw this Forum might be surprised re: how much I know about Jansenism. I prefer Church History to Theology and have been through most historical accounts of the Jansenist/ Jesuit rivalry.
Your application of the term has been unjustified and just plain wrong.
I have apologised and there is no need to belabour the point.
I would advise all who are really interestred in the 1958 conclave to look at the mountain of evidence assembled at
http://www.thepopeinred.com/1988.htm
-
As a matter of fact, Jean Vianney was influenced by Jansenism at one point, but this did not lead him into heresy, but only heightened rigor. Vianney was not a diguised liberal.
Yes, practicing rigorism, austerity, and asceticism is virtuous if one is not obsessive and unbalanced.
Of course there are those who claim that some saints were obsessive and unbalanced about them. But I will side with the saints even if I personally do not have the same mettle.
"Vianney was not a diguised liberal" :laugh1: Indeed!
-
...there is no need to belabour the point.
It appeared that you intended to belabour the point, but with a different twist on it when you attached this addendum to your apology:
"...I will in the future confine my comments to being Jansenist in nature or something of the sort."
-
As a jesuit I see in your philosophy a jansenistic denial of free will. Please carry the discussion over to the Mary Juanita Post in the Heath Section.
-
As a jesuit I see in your philosophy a jansenistic denial of free will. Please carry the discussion over to the Mary Juanita Post in the Heath Section.
To whom were you addressing that perspicacity about your perception of their philosophy?
And you - a Jesuit? In what way exactly?
-
I didn't say that I was a Jesuit. I have a belief in their philosophy and and have acquired an affection for the order. I am also a competent historian of the order. Much more competent than U are.
I hope this is OK
-
I didn't say that I was a Jesuit.
You wrote: "As a jesuit I see in your philosophy a jansenistic denial of free will"
And you have left unanswered the question about to whom you were addressing the perspicacity about your perception of their philosophy.
Was that addressed to CM or to me?
-
Who nose?
Haha.
And people say trads can't have fun, eh?
-
Left to our own devices, CI posters generally discuss/ debate interesting topics related to Traditional Catholicism.
Like how awful FE is, apparently!
-
Who nose?
Haha.
And people say trads can't have fun, eh?
Do they? Well I say them peeple nose nuthin about it. :laugh1:
-
Left to our own devices, CI posters generally discuss/ debate interesting topics related to Traditional Catholicism.
Like how awful FE is, apparently!
Lol, that's one subject, yes. I've seen enough nonsense in here having nothing to do with FE posters that I can't take stevus' post seriously. He must not have been here much since I registered. The only difference is that the FE has more posters so it looks like more nonsense, but taking that ratio into consideration, the two places are neck and neck.
-
Left to our own devices, CI posters generally discuss/ debate interesting topics related to Traditional Catholicism.
Like how awful FE is, apparently!
From time to time it is interesting for some posters to examine just how off kilter another "Traditional" board is and why. One thing I like about Cath Info is that we have the freedom to do this.
Is any criticism of FE posts upsetting to you? If so, why?
-
Left to our own devices, CI posters generally discuss/ debate interesting topics related to Traditional Catholicism.
Like how awful FE is, apparently!
Lol, that's one subject, yes. I've seen enough nonsense in here having nothing to do with FE posters that I can't take stevus' post seriously. He must not have been here much since I registered. The only difference is that the FE has more posters so it looks like more nonsense, but taking that ratio into consideration, the two places are neck and neck.
This depends on how you define "nonsense". If you see steering clear of modern TV shows, adhering to previous Pope's definitions of modesty, avoiding rock music, etc. as "nonsense", then yes, you will find a lot of nonsense here. However if what I just described is your worldview, then you'll find a lot more nonsense on FE.
-
Left to our own devices, CI posters generally discuss/ debate interesting topics related to Traditional Catholicism.
Like how awful FE is, apparently!
Lol, that's one subject, yes. I've seen enough nonsense in here having nothing to do with FE posters that I can't take stevus' post seriously. He must not have been here much since I registered. The only difference is that the FE has more posters so it looks like more nonsense, but taking that ratio into consideration, the two places are neck and neck.
This depends on how you define "nonsense". If you see steering clear of modern TV shows, adhering to previous Pope's definitions of modesty, avoiding rock music, etc. as "nonsense", then yes, you will find a lot of nonsense here. However if what I just described is your worldview, then you'll find a lot more nonsense on FE.
Granted, there isn't a whole lot of picking apart what TV shows to watch or what 2 fingers vs 3 fingers deep actually means here, but CathInfo has it's own brand of nonsense is all I'm trying to say. This doesn't mean I don't like CathInfo or that I prefer one over the other. They've both been very good for me. But there are things that I perceive to be nonsense here too, like the common "him or me" ultimatums, the multiple threads created specifically to deride or accuse or pick at other members, the unrelenting feuds that get very personal and hijack threads, the more negative tendencies that come from being more serious, etc...
As I said earlier CathInfo has its own flavor but that flavor is not without its own kind of nonsense. You can be happy here and grateful to be here and prefer it to FE, that's not my objection. My objection is simply that the same fallen human nature is just as lively here too. It is just cloaked a little differently.
-
wallflower,
I would agree with you.
-
FWIW, I have been here over four years now. FE is rarely on the radar, and discussions about modern entertainments, for example, are few and far between. When they do happen, people are usually genuine in their search for the right ideas so they can take the right course of action.
The maxim is, "An organization takes on the character of the head." While I have never had any personal difficulties with Vox, it is a well-known, public fact that she likes 'music' that is, by all standards of right order, unacceptable. Matthew, on the other hand, is not so inclined. Each forum takes on the character of its owner, at least to some degree.
A blessed and peaceful Sunday to all.
-
Left to our own devices, CI posters generally discuss/ debate interesting topics related to Traditional Catholicism.
Like how awful FE is, apparently!
Lol, that's one subject, yes. I've seen enough nonsense in here having nothing to do with FE posters that I can't take stevus' post seriously. He must not have been here much since I registered. The only difference is that the FE has more posters so it looks like more nonsense, but taking that ratio into consideration, the two places are neck and neck.
This depends on how you define "nonsense". If you see steering clear of modern TV shows, adhering to previous Pope's definitions of modesty, avoiding rock music, etc. as "nonsense", then yes, you will find a lot of nonsense here. However if what I just described is your worldview, then you'll find a lot more nonsense on FE.
The question is, if someone here posted about how he likes rock, would he be banned?
Roscoe likes the Beatles, I believe.
If someone on FE said he liked the Beatles, there'd be a thread about it here, and about how you won't find anyone on this forum who liked the Beatles!
-
Clare,
Have you become a nomad? Your flag is not the UK flag anymore; now it's a ? flag.
The resident :smoke-pot:-head categorizes early Beatles music as classical music, not rock. :rolleyes:
-
The question is, if someone here posted about how he likes rock, would he be banned?
Well, you answered your own question...
Roscoe likes the Beatles, I believe.
roscoe expresses his opinion from time to time, yet things continue on their merry way. He espouses MJ, yet we all take it in stride.
If someone here said he LOVES Megadeath, some might chime in to tell him he is wrong, the music is disordered, what have you -- but it is unlikely it would develop into an enormous issue.
I am sure some here like this or that aspect of modern culture -- which is understandable, as we have all been raised therein. In the main, however, you do not see promotion of things that are demonstrably disordered.
-
The question is, if someone here posted about how he likes rock, would he be banned?
Well, you answered your own question...
Roscoe likes the Beatles, I believe.
roscoe expresses his opinion from time to time, yet things continue on their merry way. He espouses MJ, yet we all take it in stride.
If someone here said he LOVES Megadeath, some might chime in to tell him he is wrong, the music is disordered, what have you -- but it is unlikely it would develop into an enormous issue.
I am sure some here like this or that aspect of modern culture -- which is understandable, as we have all been raised therein. In the main, however, you do not see promotion of things that are demonstrably disordered.
Well said!
-
Clare,
Have you become a nomad? Your flag is not the UK flag anymore; now it's a ? flag.
Yes, I noticed that. I don't know what happened. Maybe I've been consigned to the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and no flag.
The resident :smoke-pot:-head categorizes early Beatles music as classical music, not rock. :rolleyes:
Well, that's a heresy for a start. Early Beatles stuff is an untidy din! Ban him, I say!
-
Let the forum take note that Clare has manifested her true, Jansenist colors :laugh2:
-
I'm pretty certain this song was referencing the Novus Ordo!
On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
I had to stop for the night
There she stood in the doorway; I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself this could be heaven or this could be hell
For many people the Nocus Ordo and 20th century-post Catholic Church may seem to be Catholic but is not. Many people are very confused about it, hence it could be either heaven or hell, for all they can tell.
Then she lit up a candle, and she showed me the way
There were voices down the corridor, I thought I heard them say
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place, such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (any time of year) you can find it here
Her mind is Tiffany twisted, she got the Mercedes bends
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys that she calls friends
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget
So I called up the captain; please bring me my wine
We haven't had that spirit here since nineteen sixty-nine
What Spirit is no longer present due to a defect of form in the New Mass, and when was that defect of form introduced?
And still those voices are calling from far away
Wake you up in the middle of the night, just to hear them say
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place, such a lovely face
They livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise) bring your alibis
Mirrors on the ceiling, the pink champagne on ice
And she said we are all just prisoners here of our own device
And in the master's chambers, they gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast
Last thing I remember I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
Relax said the nightman We are programmed to receive
You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave
All the rest of the song just sounds like hell trying to convince people that there is no hope of escape, all the while seducing them further into sin.
There was a thread about the song and what it meant by 1969 while I was on CAF. The person who started the thread seemed to think it did mean Vatican II. It's possible, but I believe it was a referrence to the church of Satan. LeVay (founder of the satanic church) appeared on the song's jacket cover. Also the line "You can check out anytime you want but you can never leave" sounds satanic. I don't think the Novus Ordo was being referred to in the song.
-
There are dual, even multiple meanings in many passages of Scripture, and the devil is the most prolific counterfeiter thereof, so surely he imitates this technique also.
-
Let the forum take note that Clare has manifested her true, Jansenist colors :laugh2:
A nomadic Jansenist consigned to the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
And her flag has been confiscated as punishment. Poor Clare - I hope she has not been involuntarily discalced too.
:wink:
In keeping with the original theme here I say: She would never have been treated so badly over the rainbow at FE.
:laugh1:
-
Clare,
Have you become a nomad? Your flag is not the UK flag anymore; now it's a ? flag.
Yes, I noticed that. I don't know what happened. Maybe I've been consigned to the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and no flag.
The resident :smoke-pot:-head categorizes early Beatles music as classical music, not rock. :rolleyes:
Well, that's a heresy for a start. Early Beatles stuff is an untidy din! Ban him, I say!
What does 'untidy din' mean?
-
Clare,
Have you become a nomad? Your flag is not the UK flag anymore; now it's a ? flag.
Yes, I noticed that. I don't know what happened. Maybe I've been consigned to the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and no flag.
The resident :smoke-pot:-head categorizes early Beatles music as classical music, not rock. :rolleyes:
Well, that's a heresy for a start. Early Beatles stuff is an untidy din! Ban him, I say!
What does 'untidy din' mean?
Clare may come in from the outer darkness to give you her own answer.
But in the meantime I can say it's not classical music! :laugh2:
Don't Litter. Place recordings of untidy din in the trash bin.
-
What does 'untidy din' mean?
A fully punctuated sentence - and it even starts with an upper case letter?!?!?!?
-
Yo Scorp,
Before you showed up at this thread I was starting to think to myself, "This must be what it feels like to be scipio."
I think I should maybe leave CI before I end up agreeing with you all the time.
LOL
Somehow I missed this post...my shoes may fit...
-
The resident :smoke-pot:-head categorizes early Beatles music as classical music, not rock. :rolleyes:
Well, that's a heresy for a start. Early Beatles stuff is an untidy din! Ban him, I say!
What does 'untidy din' mean?
Untidy means messy, and din means noise. It was the best description I could think of.
I prefer a more polished sound.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps is quite nice. She Loves You and Love Me Do are a bit of a din.
IMHO!
-
I love the Slainte Band's "Wild Bagpipe set. I just love that band, with Heath the piper.
It is a bit of an untidy din, but it's a joyful and robust Celtic one.
:wine-drinking:
-
Clare-- if U pay very close attention to WMGGW, U will find a very annoying high pitched squeeling noise present throughout almost the whole track. It is like someone has jammed a coin into the keyboard. Except for that, the song would be a classic.
Savoy Truffle, Martha, Glass Onion and USSR are my 4 favs on the White CD.
-
laughing at the nose of Pius XI
Actually, the only nose I commented on would have been Benedict XV's. It definitely looks Jєωιѕн.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Bene15.jpg/250px-Bene15.jpg)
Is there much difference between a Jєωιѕн nose and a Roman nose?
Why is this even being discussed again?
whatever pope, Italians I have known, many have large noses, so what? and again, if his fore-runners were Jews, is it, to CM, inconceivalbe one could be a honest convert?
Walty, true indeed, I was making a point lost on some of them, apparently.....
-
btw this Forum might be surprised re: how much I know about Jansenism. I prefer Church History to Theology and have been through most historical accounts of the Jansenist/ Jesuit rivalry.
Or maybe not. You might be surpised to know that you have provided very effective demonstrations of your lack of logic and inability to comprehend the written word.
I do not doubt that you have read much on the subject. But that does not mean you know much about it.
Your application of the term has been unjustified and just plain wrong.
ask him, if you dare go down that rabbit hole, what is obsession is with Jansenism and why everyone not wanting to :smoke-pot: is laballed one to him....I for one, am not into mind altering drugs that make me a ---wait for it---waaaait-MK ULTRA SLAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dancing-banana: :bob-marley: :jumping2:
-
I am never deluded.
You are nothing but deluded.
Agreed. That person's delusion has been manifested very effectively.
go back to my notes on Scipio, look at her posts at FE for awhile, study them in content, form etc and one wil lsee the woman is highly deluded....CM and I zre in agreement on this one (no, sky not falling-yet!)
-
Um no, none of that is relavent. Their lifestyle or choices off screen have nothing to do with the show you watch. If you choose to not support somone because you don't want to...that's fine, but it does not make watching a particular show a sin. Your choices do not equal "the Catholic" road...they equal your road.
As for your made up conversation that happen on cooking shows...yeah.
And even that does not matter, if there is something outside the Catholic realm it does not mean you can't watch it, you need to do so with a Catholic understanding...I speak theoretically and not of any particular show.
Anyway...put your head back in the sand...
As for the other guy saying pretty much all people on TV are evil...life must hold a lot of excitement for you...I suppose most people are evil seeing as the majority of your neighbors are much like the folks on TV
If you think people are not influenced by celebs and what they see or read about them - you are just plain deluded.
And who said anything about not being able to watch things that are not specifically Catholic?
I have never seen a Catholic cooking show.
You accused me of lying when I related the recent occurrence on a cooking show. You are wrong and you have no basis for accusing me of lying. So an apology is in order.
supporting a show with gαys in affect supporting them, as ratings deterine the show, success, funding,etc...also, thought Walty was noting the character was openly gαy ON THE SHOW, not in real life off it.......
either way, not a good idea to support, why is Ellen still on? because too many claim the name of Christ and continue to give it its ratings,etc....
-
laughing at the nose of Pius XI
Actually, the only nose I commented on would have been Benedict XV's. It definitely looks Jєωιѕн.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Bene15.jpg/250px-Bene15.jpg)
Is there much difference between a Jєωιѕн nose and a Roman nose?
probalby note, but hte original discussion many months ago was juvenile and pedantic in tone and discussion.....
-
actually, Gerry Matatics would say yes, avoid Shakespeare, he feels it is a Trojan Horse to push poor morals and was a part of the attack on the Church in 16th C England....
Funny
I'll see you and raise you a bishop and and a lit prof
hows, +Williamson (http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/July2002/To_Be_or_Not_to_Be.htm) and Dr. David Allen White (http://www.edocere.org/articles/importance_of_language.htm)...
+W:
"Bishop Williamson pointed out that Shakespeare was neither a theologian nor a philosopher. He was an artist, one of the greatest artists of all times, the Bishop said."
Dr DAW:
"In teaching Shakespeare, I’ve been fortunate to deal with the greatest writer the English language has every known, a master of language who used it with precision, beauty, depth, and genuine spiritual insight."
Not only that but Dr White has witnessed Shakespeare initiate dozens of conversions.
maybe so, maybe not-the discussion continues on that, not sure what the "raising" thing is, but I have her now on hide, so really, could care less what the phony Catholic thinks....White's comments do not mention morals of Shakespeare, only writing and use of language, grammer,etc...mechanics, not morals noted.....
-
I did not notice where opposition to television and marijuana were condemned as Jansenism.
:roll-laugh2: oly in Roscoe's mind :roll-laugh2:
-
actually, Gerry Matatics would say yes, avoid Shakespeare, he feels it is a Trojan Horse to push poor morals and was a part of the attack on the Church in 16th C England....
This sounds interesting! Can you tell me more about this, Belloc?
waiting for him to do a show on it, mentioned it in his multi-part talk on the Plot Against the Catholic Church on ISOC site, in particular, the English reformation parts....
-
Having a gαy character doesn't necessarily mean the show is a front for the LGBT.
Let's look at it this way. If you watch the show knowing there is a gαy character on it, you come off as supporting the gαy movement. Even though you don't support the gαy movement, you're showing you still have no problem with the show. Is watching a tv show just for humor and entertainment worth losing your soul over?
we have to realize there is a reason why there is a openly gαy character and why he/she is there!! part of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network push, read Fr. Rueda's book, most everything he predicted to happen came true or is in process...why he was literally thrown out into the dark by hierachy....
-
I did not notice where opposition to television and marijuana were condemned as Jansenism.
:roll-laugh2: oly in Roscoe's mind :roll-laugh2:
I am all for trashing TV with the exception of news/ docuмentaries which alas can now be found on the web. Opposition to the wonder drug indeed smacks of a jansenistic condemnation of free will.
-
actually, Gerry Matatics would say yes, avoid Shakespeare, he feels it is a Trojan Horse to push poor morals and was a part of the attack on the Church in 16th C England....
Funny
I'll see you and raise you a bishop and and a lit prof
hows, +Williamson (http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/July2002/To_Be_or_Not_to_Be.htm) and Dr. David Allen White (http://www.edocere.org/articles/importance_of_language.htm)...
+W:
"Bishop Williamson pointed out that Shakespeare was neither a theologian nor a philosopher. He was an artist, one of the greatest artists of all times, the Bishop said."
Dr DAW:
"In teaching Shakespeare, I’ve been fortunate to deal with the greatest writer the English language has every known, a master of language who used it with precision, beauty, depth, and genuine spiritual insight."
Not only that but Dr White has witnessed Shakespeare initiate dozens of conversions.
maybe so, maybe not-the discussion continues on that, not sure what the "raising" thing is, but I have her now on hide, so really, could care less what the phony Catholic thinks....White's comments do not mention morals of Shakespeare, only writing and use of language, grammer,etc...mechanics, not morals noted.....
I'm not sure what you're saying...it sounds like you are saying +W is a phony Catholic, and while his personal opinions, like everyone else's run the gamut from ridiculous to right on, he is certainly no phony, he is a solid as any of the other SSPX bishops...which is to say, solid.
So no the discussion does not continue...because Dr. DAW would not be teaching WS as some great thing if he were morally offensive. The same does not always apply to +W who has offered up recommendations to view "morally offensive" material before...but that is not the tone of this particular interview of his...so...now you're called...and I'll take all your chips.
-
go back to my notes on Scipio, look at her posts at FE for awhile, study them in content, form etc and one wil lsee the woman is highly deluded...
I thought Scipio was a bloke, and his wife is Underdog... But then I don't pay an awful lot of attention to these things. I am sure I picked up on that though.
-
go back to my notes on Scipio, look at her posts at FE for awhile, study them in content, form etc and one wil lsee the woman is highly deluded...
I thought Scipio was a bloke, and his wife is Underdog... But then I don't pay an awful lot of attention to these things. I am sure I picked up on that though.
not 100% either, just going the the Lucy Liu (or whoever) avatar he or she chose.....
-
actually, Gerry Matatics would say yes, avoid Shakespeare, he feels it is a Trojan Horse to push poor morals and was a part of the attack on the Church in 16th C England....
Funny
I'll see you and raise you a bishop and and a lit prof
hows, +Williamson (http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/July2002/To_Be_or_Not_to_Be.htm) and Dr. David Allen White (http://www.edocere.org/articles/importance_of_language.htm)...
+W:
"Bishop Williamson pointed out that Shakespeare was neither a theologian nor a philosopher. He was an artist, one of the greatest artists of all times, the Bishop said."
Dr DAW:
"In teaching Shakespeare, I’ve been fortunate to deal with the greatest writer the English language has every known, a master of language who used it with precision, beauty, depth, and genuine spiritual insight."
Not only that but Dr White has witnessed Shakespeare initiate dozens of conversions.
maybe so, maybe not-the discussion continues on that, not sure what the "raising" thing is, but I have her now on hide, so really, could care less what the phony Catholic thinks....White's comments do not mention morals of Shakespeare, only writing and use of language, grammer,etc...mechanics, not morals noted.....
I'm not sure what you're saying...it sounds like you are saying +W is a phony Catholic, and while his personal opinions, like everyone else's run the gamut from ridiculous to right on, he is certainly no phony, he is a solid as any of the other SSPX bishops...which is to say, solid.
So no the discussion does not continue...because Dr. DAW would not be teaching WS as some great thing if he were morally offensive. The same does not always apply to +W who has offered up recommendations to view "morally offensive" material before...but that is not the tone of this particular interview of his...so...now you're called...and I'll take all your chips.
Sorry, I missed your comment Belloc, until Scipio brought it up again.
Dr. White often speaks on WS's personal life and morals. "He was not a courageous Catholic..." is a line you'll hear often (referring to the fact that for many years he hid his Faith in his work rather than practice it outright), however he ended well and his works are Catholic to the core. One of my favorite commentaries is the one titled "Shakespeare and the Modern World", if anyone is interested. It goes into Shakespeare's personal life in detail and why he is the perfect instrument for conversions at this time. Had he been a "courageous Catholic" he most likely would have been martyred and we would not have this treasure today, so God allows everything, even our weaknesses, for a reason. Even the religious confusion he endured while his Faith was being tested, the time he spent not practicing, all of it resulted in those works that we can relate to even now, or I should say, especially now.
The thing is they portray good to be good and evil to be evil. It gets complicated but life is complicated and we can relate to that. Literature like this is an instrument we can use to teach ourselves and others the consequences of making the wrong decision or the joys of making the right ones. They are extended parables so to speak. I would much rather teach my child (at the appropriate ages of course) through other people's, or other characters' mistakes in literature than have them go out and make all those mistakes on their own. He'll make his own for sure but if I can mitigate that with a few parables or good works of literature, I will.
Not only, that but most people are so fallen away from God that the mention of anything religious will turn them away even more, or their ideas of religion are so twisted that they cannot grasp Catholic truths, whereas learning through a more veiled instrument can restore them to humanity first so that the ground is fertile for grace to take hold. People can't be saints if they don't even know how to be human and Shakespeare is one who answers many questions of humanity, from the perspective of the Faith, but without making that immediately obvious.
It's too bad there's a crusade against him within tradition. It does not surprise me, but it's really too bad because a lot of good comes of the study of his work.
-
It's too bad there's a crusade against him within tradition. It does not surprise me, but it's really too bad because a lot of good comes of the study of his work.
I'm not familiar with any crusade against Shakespeare in tradCath circles. He's a lionized figure if anything.
-
Wallflower, thanks for the sensitive post on Shakespeare.
Who dares to crusade against him, and why?????
-
Well crusade was probably much too strong a word, but Belloc mentioned that Gerry Matatics speaking against Shakespeare as a Trojan horse against Catholicism. I thought he seemed to agree with him. Maybe I got the wrong impression though.
-
I did not notice where opposition to television and marijuana were condemned as Jansenism.
:roll-laugh2: oly in Roscoe's mind :roll-laugh2:
I am all for trashing TV with the exception of news/ docuмentaries which alas can now be found on the web. Opposition to the wonder drug indeed smacks of a jansenistic condemnation of free will.
Hi:smoke-pot:,
When people use their free will to oppose pot-smoking; you accuse them of Jansenism.
Can you grasp the contradiction?
If not, continue. On with the insane comedy. :smirk:
-
btw this Forum might be surprised re: how much I know about Jansenism. I prefer Church History to Theology and have been through most historical accounts of the Jansenist/ Jesuit rivalry.
Or maybe not. You might be surpised to know that you have provided very effective demonstrations of your lack of logic and inability to comprehend the written word.
I do not doubt that you have read much on the subject. But that does not mean you know much about it.
Your application of the term has been unjustified and just plain wrong.
ask him, if you dare go down that rabbit hole, what is obsession is with Jansenism and why everyone not wanting to :smoke-pot: is laballed one to him....I for one, am not into mind altering drugs that make me a ---wait for it---waaaait-MK ULTRA SLAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dancing-banana: :bob-marley: :jumping2:
I have asked him and all I ever get are the usual flaky Roscoe:smoke-pot:head type of replies.
-
reminds me of a kid I knew in Catholic 9th grade school, nice kid, always came to school smelling like pot and largely zoned out and as you would say, flaky..again, nice kid, but ouuuut there... :plant:
-
Hollywood is the magician’s wand (holly-holy) which has been used to cast a spell on the unsuspecting public. Things or ideas which would otherwise be seen as bizarre, vulgar, undesirable or impossible are inserted into films in the realm of fantasy. When the viewer watches these films, his/her mind is left open to suggestion and the conditioning process begins. These same movies which are designed to program the average person, can give the discerning viewer a better understanding of the workings and the plan of the world agenda. — Alan Watt
-
I wonder if the:smoke-pot: considers the CIA's experiments with MJ to be sacrilegious conduct. :laugh2:
-
Much to the dismay of Illuminut MK researchers it was found that MJ is actually an antidote to Satanic Ritual Progamming. One only has to consult Gen 9:3 to see that this is quite possible.
-
I wonder if the:smoke-pot: considers the CIA's experiments with MJ to be sacrilegious conduct. :laugh2:
Likely not, as his MJ is more important then drawing conclusions like the CIA DID in fact use drugs and the MJ/Reefer Madness thing was Govt ops 100%
-
Much to the dismay of Illuminut MK researchers it was found that MJ is actually an antidote to Satanic Ritual Progamming. One only has to consult Gen 9:3 to see that this is quite possible.
Do :smoke-pot: the MK Ultra variety?
-
Much to the dismay of Illuminut MK researchers it was found that MJ is actually an antidote to Satanic Ritual Progamming. One only has to consult Gen 9:3 to see that this is quite possible.
Do :smoke-pot: the MK Ultra variety?
=======================
Radio personality Katherine Albrecht thinks there is a link between marijuana and schizophrenia. She thinks this illegal drug opens up a Satanic doorway , at least in her experience.
-
Like a bumper sticker I once saw said...
Kill your TV :tv-disturbed:
-
I think Bishop Williamson called it "the Jєωιѕн tabernacle".
It's in the place of honor in every home, front and center in the living room. A person who grew up Catholic might be tempted to genuflect, before stopping himself. Especially if there were seats on both sides of the room with an aisle in the middle!
Matthew
-
I have to stop myself genuflecting when I leave the cinema.
-
Much to the dismay of Illuminut MK researchers it was found that MJ is actually an antidote to Satanic Ritual Progamming. One only has to consult Gen 9:3 to see that this is quite possible.
I suppose you think that :smoke-pot: should be incorporated into exorcisms to help drive the demons out. :rolleyes:
-
I had not thought of that-- what a great idea.
-
I had not thought of that-- what a great idea.
I knew you'd like it since you think dope a type of sacramental.
-
I have never said that " 'dope' is a type of sacramental".
-
Not specifically. We are joking about it because you try to elevate dope to a status that is almost comparable to a sacramental. You know, claiming it's against God and the Bible to blasphemously speak against the revered weed. And attacking anyone who is not pro-dope - calling them Jansenists for denying the doctine of Free To Get Stoned, blah blah etc. etc.
BTW, you have not ever said ANYTHING about "dope" because you would never refer to the sacramental in that way. It would be blasphemy. You must give due reverence to the holy weed that God has commanded us to use. :smirk:
-
I am against the drug war. This is the point of my posts on this topic. I thought it a good idea to cite the Biblical passages where God blesses All of the green herbs in support of that.
You have pretty well freaked out re: my thoughts but have never told this Forum( despite requests) exactly what you think of the drug war. Should those who get high be thrown in Jail etc...???
-
You have pretty well freaked out re: my thoughts
:rolleyes:
Ha ha. No I am not freaked ot regarding your spaced out thoughts.
It is just tragic that you have become so obsessed with your beloved weed that you accuse good Catholics of being Jansenists because those Catholics do not smoke pot or support the smoking of it.
-
Should those who get high be thrown in Jail etc...???
How can anyone properly answer that nonsensical question?
What exactly does the "etc...." mean and entail?
What level of :smoke-pot: do you decree is getting high?
Are you talking about getting jailed BECAUSE they get high, or because they are breaking the law?
Don't people in most jusrisdictions get jailed for possession and dealing, not for getting high?
Do you know of any people who got jailed because they were "high"?
Does your question apply to to getting high per se - to all cases and everywhere, or to some cases only?
Do you get it now? - Roscoe, sorry but you keep demonstrating that you are WAY too sloppy (:smoke-pot: ?)to have decent and reasonable discussions with.
-
OK-- what I am asking is--- if U have time-- pls give us your evaluation of the general effectiveness of the drug laws in USA? Do U support they way things are now?
-
OK-- what I am asking is--- if U have time-- pls give us your evaluation of the general effectiveness of the drug laws in USA? Do U support they way things are now?
What do you mean exactly?
You want me to make generalized and sweeping statements evaluating the "general effectiveness" and "way things are now"?
What do you mean exactly?
About everywhere in USA or just in some or most parts?
Can generalized comments be made concerning everywhere?
Federal or state legislations?
Against traffickers, users, dealers, or heavy users, aiders and abettors?
What contitutes heavy or light use?
"Soft" or "hard" drugs? -- What contitutes hard or soft drugs?
Effective in what ways? -- Punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation?
There are many more aspects and considerations too.
It is more complicated than your question implies.
And even if we cleared up all your imprecisions, I would not have time to do all the research required and then write a valid evaluation.
Sorry mate.
-
If someone will proclaim that they are following the attempted dialogue between RC and moi, I will continue to debate him. If not then I will give up.
-
Good idea Rosco.
Perhaps you are getting the hint, that I am not prepared to run off on another fruitless discussion with you, especially while you will not deal with some outstanding business.
You see, you still have not explained something that a few of us have asked you about many times...
We are still waiting for you to explain exactly what we have written that causes you to label us as Jansenists or Jansenistic.
Please explain, if you can.
How exactly does opposition to your pet ideas (that have nothing to do with Catholicism) constitute heresy --- namely Jansenism?
When we use our free will to disagree with you, how is that a denial of free will, and smacking of heresy?
You see, you can't just go araond calling people heretics without supporting your charges, and then expect them all to continue wasting time on you.
Some will in a limited fashion, but don't expect any willingness to fully engage with you.
I hope you understand.
-
If someone will proclaim that they are following the attempted dialogue between RC and moi, I will continue to debate him. If not then I will give up.
I was not reading it, but I was getting a kick out of someone getting all up in arms about the notion that folks should be allowed to smoke some weed. I mean really, who cares? Legalize....legalize....get the feds out of it.
-
I was not reading it, but I was getting a kick out of someone getting all up in arms about the notion that folks should be allowed to smoke some weed.
quote]
Did someone get all up in arms about the notion that folks should be allowed to smoke some weed?
BTW, Roscoe does not lke people referring to the sacramental as "weed" -- you need to speak much more reverently about it, or he may call you a Jansenist.
-
If ............ I will continue to debate him.
We were not really having a debate anyway.
-
...or he may call you a Jansenist.
That would be a new label I cloud add to my sig line.
-
Why does roscoe think weed is sacramental?
-
If ............ I will continue to debate him.
We were not really having a debate anyway.
It is kind of hard to debate someone who can't decide if S rev around E or E rev around S.
Hey SS-- why do U believe RC when says I think weed is sacramental? Can't U read my posts for yourself? I have never said anything even close to that. BTW-- I smoke grass-- not weed.
SS --aren't U the one who actually takes Classicom seriously?
-
The resident :smoke-pot:-head categorizes early Beatles music as classical music, not rock. :rolleyes:
Well, that's a heresy for a start. Early Beatles stuff is an untidy din! Ban him, I say!
What does 'untidy din' mean?
Untidy means messy, and din means noise. It was the best description I could think of.
I prefer a more polished sound.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps is quite nice. She Loves You and Love Me Do are a bit of a din.
IMHO!
btw Clare i am of the op that the disturbing, screeching 'untidy din' heard in WMGGW was put there on purpose as some sort of subliminal program.
The only stereo version of the classic SLU is found on the American CD remasters-- not the current 09 releases.
-
It is kind of hard to debate someone who can't decide if S rev around E or E rev around S.
Rosco, none of us decide if the Earth revolves around the Sun or vice versa.
God decided it long ago.
The subject is not included in the list of what Catholics must know to be saved.
I never told you if am pro-geocentrism, pro-heliocentrism, or other.
Please don't do your usual accusation act and begin to accuse people who have no opinion, or an opinion that differs from yours on the subject, of being Jansenists or of being any other type of heretics.
Have a good:smoke-pot:weekend.
-
It is kind of hard to debate someone who can't decide if S rev around E or E rev around S.
Rosco, none of us decide if the Earth revolves around the Sun or vice versa.
I have decided that the scientific evidence proves that E rev around S.
-
Show them that you do not have to change your life to be a trad, you don't have stop doing the things you love to do
Well this remark is actually pretty close to Lutheranism, Calvinism, and the position of certain modern day Anabaptists. The one thing it is not, is Catholic.
since people have needs and sometimes give in to temptation
So some people's "felt needs" are more important than God's law? Therapeutic Deism anyone? A low view of sin?
-
That arguement is at FE, your concerns were already addressed in the OP.
But if you want to discuss or argue it...kept Candyland at FE...someone might get back to you.
I encourge you top post to Candyland...
-
If ............ I will continue to debate him.
We were not really having a debate anyway.
It is kind of hard to debate someone who can't decide if S rev around E or E rev around S.
Hey SS-- why do U believe RC when says I think weed is sacramental? Can't U read my posts for yourself? I have never said anything even close to that. BTW-- I smoke grass-- not weed.
SS --aren't U the one who actually takes Classicom seriously?
I don't take Classicom seriously just because I reply to his posts sometimes. The guy has a twisted religion just like CM. It's not like I type long replies to him, I typically type short replies to him that briefly correct his heretic viewpoint(s) and that's about it.
-
Well, FE is back up and running, with some "interesting" points of view on a few choice subjects. I was tempted to sign on again, but it would be too tempting to tear into a couple of liars.