Are We Listening Yet? The 13th Day: Our Lady of Fatima.
#21
LOL
Dotard
LOL both gaca and dpinhead got one right
Wow
What's next
Sip
Reply
#22
(01-05-2010, 02:13 PM)dkpintar Wrote: another one of this forum's christian answers.

Are we not our brother's keeper?

Why do your kind (I'll leave 'your kind' as an exercise to the reader) object every time someone expresses an opinion forcefully? Even a bit too forcefully? That seems to bother you so much more than the lack of orthodoxy, or outright heresy in so many posts, since you never post to decry any of that

Your post count is small, and the very few times you do post it is to criticize this sort of thing, but never unorthodox nonsense. You the hand sock-puppeting melkite or something?

I have a self-imposed detente whereby I just don't interact with scipio. He has jumped down my throat at very little provocation, but good Lord, I'd love to have more Catholics so fired up for a change.

Why does "Christian" always mean milquetoast, handwringing, feminized, apologetic nancy-boy to you people??
Reply
#23
(01-06-2010, 02:45 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(01-05-2010, 02:13 PM)dkpintar Wrote: another one of this forum's christian answers.

Are we not our brother's keeper?

Why do your kind (I'll leave 'your kind' as an exercise to the reader) object every time someone expresses an opinion forcefully? Even a bit too forcefully? That seems to bother you so much more than the lack of orthodoxy, or outright heresy in so many posts, since you never post to decry any of that

Your post count is small, and the very few times you do post it is to criticize this sort of thing, but never unorthodox nonsense. You the hand sock-puppeting melkite or something?

I have a self-imposed detente whereby I just don't interact with scipio. He has jumped down my throat at very little provocation, but good Lord, I'd love to have more Catholics so fired up for a change.

Why does "Christian" always mean milquetoast, handwringing, feminized, apologetic nancy-boy to you people??

Orthodoxy doesn't always have to be aggressive, petty, sophomoric, or filled with machismo.

I'll give you that Christ turned over tables but usually He went about things in a different way.  But it's a moot point anyway. Someone will post something about the Charity Police and that'll be that.
Reply
#24
(01-06-2010, 04:00 AM)Walty Wrote: Orthodoxy doesn't always have to be aggressive, petty, sophomoric, or filled with machismo.

I'll give you that Christ turned over tables but usually He went about things in a different way.   But it's a moot point anyway. Someone will post something about the Charity Police and that'll be that.

I think I conceded that orthodoxy doesn't have to be delivered in this way when I mentioned I've been on the receiving end of his bluster as well, but I don't question his Christianity nor his Charity.

And my point is not that is has to be this way, but that some people have a very narrow definition of Christian Charity, and further that their appeals to this principle often are used to rat-hole an argument rather than actually addressing the content itself.

They're easy to spot, their posts are full of NO gibberish that sounds like they composed it thusly: http://www.fisheaters.com/jpiispeech.html

It's intellectual dishonesty-- I hate it.
Reply
#25
(01-06-2010, 04:04 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(01-06-2010, 04:00 AM)Walty Wrote: Orthodoxy doesn't always have to be aggressive, petty, sophomoric, or filled with machismo.

I'll give you that Christ turned over tables but usually He went about things in a different way.   But it's a moot point anyway. Someone will post something about the Charity Police and that'll be that.

I think I conceded that orthodoxy doesn't have to be delivered in this way when I mentioned I've been on the receiving end of his bluster as well, but I don't question his Christianity nor his Charity.

And my point is not that is has to be this way, but that some people have a very narrow definition of Christian Charity, and further that their appeals to this principle often are used to rat-hole an argument rather than actually addressing the content itself.

It's intellectual dishonesty-- I hate it.

No, I definitely agree with you but I think a fair amount of people on FE may appear to be avoiding the meat and potatoes of a discussion only to discuss the charity (or lack thereof) of the delivery when in reality I think it's just that people want to create a fair and Christian playing field before addressing anything. If it can't be talked about civily then it's not worth the time and no good will come of it.
Reply
#26
(01-06-2010, 04:14 AM)Walty Wrote: No, I definitely agree with you but I think a fair amount of people on FE may appear to be avoiding the meat and potatoes of a discussion only to discuss the charity (or lack thereof) of the delivery when in reality I think it's just that people want to create a fair and Christian playing field before addressing anything. If it can't be talked about civily then it's not worth the time and no good will come of it.

Yep.

Funny thing about the meat and potatoes....those discussions are currently pretty much dead...since most things trad are agreed upon by all here..which leaves pretty much discussions that are SSPX vs FSSP.  These are currently in detente as Iuvenalis puts it...since really they are a matter of comfort level with where one goes to Mass.

Everyone -- who is trad, really trad -- knows the pros and cons of both groups....so there is no point in discussing this at all....except as an academic exercise when telling those new to tradition where they can go to Mass and why they might choose one group over another.

Anyone who has PMed me about this can tell you that I fairly outline all groups...and I have had people choose to go to Mass at 4 different kinds of places....no skin off my nose, I'm just glad they're choosing tradition!....FSSP, SSPX, SSPV, or inde.  It's got to do with what they are comfortable with.

Further...Almost all discussions on this forum are civil...rarely do they break down...when they do...I certainly never complain about it...People just get feathers ruffled...it's part of life...Now I might have a little fun at a rufflees expense...but hey...that's life too.


But Walty...if you want to whine...hey you're in good company....there are plenty here that do just that.  But I have to tell you...as I have been trying to for the last few months....it's just not good for you.  It actually undermines you before you get started.

I'm not sure what you think a fair discussion looks like except to say that you seem to define it as a discussion without Scipio where everyone is so syrupy sweet...almost a dance around issues.

It is almost impossible to actually have a discussion where people disagree without showing that the opposing ideas are wrong in some way....that seems to offend people...which is really funny....are they not supposed to be seeking truth?  and if they are...why get offended at being shown to have false notions....they should be thankful to be freed of those shackles...However...many here...and everywhere for that matter...act as if the ideas they hold are an integral part of who they are and as if they are their own...children almost of the idea holder...and so get offended at the least provocation.


Now there is a way to do the almost impossible.  It is the method employed by my dad whenever he engages anyone.  It is very time consuming, and requires an inordinate amount of patience.  INPEFESS uses parts of this method.  It is to present ideas as questions,,,and it can work.  The really skillful will question what the other's intent is and then ask questions showing how their opponents' notions are actually OPPOSED to their intentions and desires.  The easiest example here is to engage a political liberal...rarely with their desires for mankind be of the evil sort...they want the same things for their neighbors that conservatives do....but they hold false ideas about how to get those things...so you proceed to ask questions like "If it could be shown the gov't run healthcare actually delivered worse care to those who receive it and it could be shown that fewer people actually receive care...would you say that it is against your wishes?"...the answer would typically be yes.  then you ask questions that start the cogs rolling and show that socialized medicine is actually bad for people and that the liberal was actually not liberal...but conservative........that way they arrive at the notion that they are against Govt medicine...or high taxes...or welfare...all on their own and the ideas are theirs...then they defend them to the death.


Yeah,,,,I know how to do that....no    I do not want to do that...nor do I have the time...it is not my hobby...it is my dad's profession....I have many other things I want to spend my time doing than hand holding with folks.....could I be more effective with a certain type of person were I to engage the above stated way...yeah....but this is an internet forum....I have hundreds of folks reading what I write...I have to say things in short, sweet, and direct ways that convey as much info as possible in as short a method as possible.  otherwise I lose readers.

Here is an example...You remember Lamentabile Sane...he usually had pretty decent posts....but they were llllllloooooonnnnngggg....so I rarely read them all the way through....sad since he probably had something worthwhile saying...and there may have been a discussion in there somewhere....but time is limited


And I LOVE most of what INPEFESS posts....but again...his posts used to be reallllllyyyy long and so I ended up get lost pat way through as my attentions were demanded elsewhere.

So it's the nature of the beast....grow a pair, and get used to the idea that not all folks argue like Socrates...you should be glad of this...since that is a skill set that would put you and most others at great disadvantage.
Reply
#27
Scipio,

Let's get straight to the point.  I think people on here should argue to their death for the things we discuss.  Nothing is more important than these topics and nothing is more important than getting at Truth.

I'm not looking for hands holding or anything.  You know that.  I don't think anyone should dance around issues and it certainly isn't a personal issue.  I'm sure I agree with 97% of the things you say.  I only take objection to how you say them.  It seems to me that anyone who might take issue with how you approach them is simply said to want to "whine," but that's too easy. 

When you treat an important issue without using respect in discussing it with another you cheapen that issue.  It's not wrong to tell someone that they are wrong and to show them just how they are so.  I hope you never stop that.  But it rarely stays there.  People get offended by being freed of their errors because sometimes people get treated as if they are idiots here instead of fellow Truth seekers who have just got the wrong sort of ideas.  And that conflicts with the Truth we are trying to argue for.  Truth in all things, whether it be questions about the nature of God or different places to go to Mass, must reflect Love... the Love of God and of Christ.  Now, I agree that Love is not simply being syrupy sweet to others.  That can offend Truth and thus harm a person's immortality (thus offending Love).  But being mean-spirited is never an ok way to deal with Truth either.  Kindness is a virtue and for everytime Christ turned over tables he spoke exceedinly kindly and patiently (almost annoyingly so) to those who continually misunderstood Him and rejected Truth.  Christ always treated people as if they were infinitely valuable and worthy of love and forgiveness.

It's fine that you don't emply your fathers method of apologetics.  I don't on here either.  It just takes too long and, to be honest, I'm too lazy to type that much.  But I don't understand your comment about how I (and "most others") would be at a disadvaantage if more used the Socratic way of speaking.  I think that could have some definite benefits and I think everyone here could keep up.  Who, in your opinion, wouldn't be at this great disadvantage and would be able to keep up?

And the bit about growing a pair proves my point well.  If you disagree with me that's fine, but it just seems so pompous to act as if those who disagree with you are less of a man or something than you.  It must be nice.

Reply
#28
Lol
Walty get a funny bone
Sip sip
Reply
#29
I bought the DVD, I thought that the movie was just ok. The story could have been told better. Visually its nice.
And then there is the video with Fr. Apostoli about the messages of Our Lady, of course he says that the consecration of Russia has already been done. That Pope John Paul II did the consecration, although the had to "change it a little." This from a priest that goes on the "History" channel and says that Our Lady came to Fatima to show her thankfullness to the Muslims.
Reply
#30
(01-06-2010, 05:30 PM)51olds Wrote: I bought the DVD, I thought that the movie was just ok. The story could have been told better. Visually its nice.
And then there is the video with Fr. Apostoli about the messages of Our Lady, of course he says that the consecration of Russia has already been done. That Pope John Paul II did the consecration, although the had to "change it a little." This from a priest that goes on the "History" channel and says that Our Lady came to Fatima to show her thankfullness to the Muslims.

???

Don't know about any of that.... as for the rest of the discussion above, about the style of FE, etc, I want to say that I appreciate being back among my fellow Catholics who are not afraid of a boisterous exchange.  My dad and his 7 brothers and all my aunts certainly did a lot of that and so it gives this place a "homey" feeling....
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)