Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 225

Thread: Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

  1. #1
    I still care....Really
    churchmouse's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

    And go
    If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn’t

    Forum Rules

    Classified Rules

    FAQ

    http://ingunowners.com/forums/handgu...e-posting.html

  2. #2
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    So is this the... second coming of this thread?
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  3. #3
    I still care....Really
    churchmouse's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    So is this the... second coming of this thread?
    Well played sir. Well played indeed.
    If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn’t

    Forum Rules

    Classified Rules

    FAQ

    http://ingunowners.com/forums/handgu...e-posting.html

  4. #4
    Le mot juste 2A_Tom's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Enter the Tribulation.

    2+2=4



  5. #5
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by churchmouse View Post
    Well played sir. Well played indeed.
    I've only been waiting a couple hundred posts in the old thread to use it.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  6. #6
    Expert abnk's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    I'm not sure what that hint is, but is the typo for "complain" or something about comparing lines? Friendly question, as I really don't know how to understand it.

    But, sure, if you include the parts where he basically calls BLM Satan, then there are allegories to Biblical references. He doesn't quote any chapter or verse, let alone cite it. Which, if you look at his other blog entries, he usually does.

    No biggie, though. I'm sure there are plenty of people, including parishioners, who agree with his sentiments exactly how they were expressed.
    Sorry for the vague hint. Compline is the last major hour (evening prayer) of the Divine Office. It always includes 1 Peter 5:8-9, "Brothers: Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith." Father Rothrock said, "[H]e is prowling like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, strong in your faith." The only differences are in translation. I quoted from DR because that's what my favorite source of the Divine Office uses, but if you look for more modern translations, you'll see that Fr. R. sentence above is a direct quote from 1 Peter 5.
    "Do not overthink it, gentlemen. It's only a gunfight, not an IRS tax audit." - Louis Awerbuck

  7. #7
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by abnk View Post
    Sorry for the vague hint. Compline is the last major hour (evening prayer) of the Divine Office. It always includes 1 Peter 5:8-9, "Brothers: Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith." Father Rothrock said, "[H]e is prowling like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, strong in your faith." The only differences are in translation. I quoted from DR because that's what my favorite source of the Divine Office uses, but if you look for more modern translations, you'll see that Fr. R. sentence above is a direct quote from 1 Peter 5.
    Whew - need more coffee this morning. Totally thought the compline was a typo.

    That speaks to an editorial problem with his entire post. It was like an email he was sending to people that he already knew their position on, NOT something made public on the internet forever.

    He referenced non-Christian and non-Catholic things more explicitly than he did the Bible.

    Either way, if you want to pick that nit with my post (rather than his) that's fine. I concede that he implicitly referenced Biblical passages to make a point that was inconsistent with Catholic teachings on the matter.

    The frustrating part is that with some different editorial choices, he could've easily brought it in line. IMHO, the real problem was lumping the entirety of the BLM social justice movement in with anarchists and opportunists.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  8. #8
    Antigone GPIA7R's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Since this thread got to Part 2 before any of the other religion threads, does that mean Christianity has won the Religion competition, and can be considered the right one

    I think this might be an official-enough metric to solve all religion-based disputes in the world.
    We passed upon the stair

  9. #9
    Le mot juste 2A_Tom's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    All I can say is that it got a Redux before this one got a second post, CIVIL IRRELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Atheist and Secular.

    2+2=4



  10. #10
    Expert abnk's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    Whew - need more coffee this morning. Totally thought the compline was a typo.

    That speaks to an editorial problem with his entire post. It was like an email he was sending to people that he already knew their position on, NOT something made public on the internet forever.

    He referenced non-Christian and non-Catholic things more explicitly than he did the Bible.

    Either way, if you want to pick that nit with my post (rather than his) that's fine. I concede that he implicitly referenced Biblical passages to make a point that was inconsistent with Catholic teachings on the matter.

    The frustrating part is that with some different editorial choices, he could've easily brought it in line. IMHO, the real problem was lumping the entirety of the BLM social justice movement in with anarchists and opportunists.
    What teaching did his message contradict?

    What follows is not central to the discussion, and can be bypassed completely, but it may give a glimpse of my perspective. My apologies if I appeared to nitpick; it was not my intent. The Scriptural component was one of three chief criticisms you had on his message, the other two being that his message was not good and that it did not contain much Catholic content. I thought that if the Scriptural criticism was important for you to write about, it was important enough for me to address. Additionally, I was hoping that if you saw that one of your main objections was not factual, it might (a) gently prick your conscience to be more charitable toward Fr. R. at what is probably the most difficult time of his life, and (b) make you reconsider the condemnation of his message on the remaining two components. As to why I didn't give equal scrutiny to his message, it's mostly because I believe he is the victim in this case. An editorial problem does not warrant his removal; therefore, rallying in his defense is more important to me at this time than considering what he could have done better. There doesn't appear to be a shortage of critics nationally anyway. And finally, he's not here to interact with me. What you can count on though is that if your role and his were reversed, not only would I take your side, but I would do so much more fervently because I know you personally. I did not add this paragraph for discussion, but in hopes of explaining that I wasn't trying to be a jerk. If you think I was taking cheap shots, again, my apologies.

    "Do not overthink it, gentlemen. It's only a gunfight, not an IRS tax audit." - Louis Awerbuck

Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •