It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
charles1952
reply to post by WarminIndy
Dear WarminIndy,
Perhaps you can explain a mystery to me. I've seen it occur over and over, and I only have a rough guess as to why.
Why is it, that when a criticism is leveled against the direction of a thread, the people who are behaving themselves perfectly properly are the ones who apologize? Somewhat surprisingly, the ones who are causing the trouble never seem to.
My rough guess is that the problem posters don't care for reason, respectful behavior, or discussion that actually gets anywhere, while the good posters are acutely sensitive to it. The good posters find fault where none exists, and the bad posters ignore their faults, even when it's shoved in their face.
With respect,
Charles1952
"You shall not kill" is a mistranslation. In the Hebrew it is "you shall not murder". There is a huge difference between killing and murdering, that difference is the intent.
charles1952
reply to post by SyphonNexus
Dear SyphonNexus,
You have one response, may I offer another?
Why do perfect beings need the worship of imperfect beings?
The problem is in the use of the word "need." God doesn't, of course, He doesn't need anything.
Here are some examples. A child has a bowl of cereal in front of him, but reaches over, tears a piece off the box, and starts eating it. The parent says "Hey! Don't do that, it's not good for you. Eat the cereal." No one thinks the Mother needs to have the child eat cereal, she wants him to avoid eating the wrong things and eat the good instead. It's for the child's benefit, not hers.
Several years later, about 10 p.m., the child says to the Mother "I've got a paper due in the morning. It'll take me about two hours. I think I'll go over to Bill's and party tonight." I would expect the Mother to say, "No, you don't. You're going to sit here and finish that paper." It's not said because the Mother needs to control the kid's movements, or make him a slave. She has a better perspective of what the results will be if he goes to the party. She wants goodness for the child.
So it is with God. He doesn't "need" people to pray, or follow Him. It's not for His benefit, it's for ours. He knows it will be better for us to align ourselves with Him than with the Deceiver. He love us and wants what's best for us. But with all that, He still leaves the choice to us. He loves us too much to make us slaves.
With respect,
Charles1952
So it is with God. He doesn't "need" people to pray, or follow Him. It's not for His benefit, it's for ours. He knows it will be better for us to align ourselves with Him than with the Deceiver. He love us and wants what's best for us. But with all that, He still leaves the choice to us. He loves us too much to make us slaves.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by charles1952
So it is with God. He doesn't "need" people to pray, or follow Him. It's not for His benefit, it's for ours. He knows it will be better for us to align ourselves with Him than with the Deceiver. He love us and wants what's best for us. But with all that, He still leaves the choice to us. He loves us too much to make us slaves.
God loves us so much, he made hell in case we didnt love him back.
Or how about...
"Its Jesus! Let me in!"
"Why?"
"So I can save you from what I'll do to you if you don't let me in!"
AfterInfinity
reply to post by orangetom1999
Was there a point to your post? I'm afraid I may have missed it.
AfterInfinitySo...there wasn't a point? Okay then...
syponnexus Euphemism. *whispers* You're supposed to let them connect the dots. It's "rude" otherwise.
charles1952
I'd like to add some information to the subject of the Seal of the Confessional. It is governed by Church law, also known as Canon law. It has been around from very early times. Here's what the law said in 1215 A.D.:
Canon 21 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), binding on the whole church, laid down the obligation of secrecy in the following words:
"Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance"
— Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles" at the year 1215; Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum"
en.wikipedia.org...
That was not the first or the last condemnation of breaking the seal, but it is certainly dramatic. Here is the current law:
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.
Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
Can. 1389 §1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.
www.vatican.va...
That latae sententiae business means no trial or hearing is needed. As soon as the act is done, he is excommunicated, out of the Church, and the only way to get back in is by going through the Pope or his representative. (And there's only a couple of those, all in the Vatican.) This is serious stuff, and always has been.
vethumanbeing
I promised myself I would not dip into this sort of frey but Ive told (asked) you before, are you seeking clarification of OrangeToms statement? You do this and its insulting (a more refined simpler model expected?) I completely understood what he was expressing. I completely understood the irony in yours as well. I wouldnt imagine Jesus having to rattle the gates of heaven OR HELL to be let inside (could be either; but Judas should be standing shoulder to shoulder with him, a 2 in one package deal). Apologies in advance.
VHB
I promised myself I would not dip into this sort of fray but Ive told (asked) you before, are you seeking clarification of OrangeToms statement? You do this and its insulting (a more refined simpler model expected?) I completely understood what he was expressing. I completely understood the irony in yours as well. I wouldnt imagine Jesus having to rattle the gates of heaven OR HELL to be let inside (could be either; but Judas should be standing shoulder to shoulder with him, a 2 in one package deal). Apologies in advance.
OrangeTom
Ahh...my thanks to you for making my point for me. I hesitated to respond or conversely take a bite into AfterInfinity 's post and decided to let it ride in the manner I so did.
At the same time I was also interested to see who here on this board can or could see, hear, and understand as the saying goes. And I thank you for that. For...that is indeed the difference and the point I was making. I too prefer not to dip into this kind of fray ...if it is indeed a fray. I dont happen to so think it is. On the otherhand I dont find it insulting per se. I find it to be human. And yet ..I am not here to tout my human qualities.
the people who are behaving themselves perfectly properly are the ones who apologize? Somewhat surprisingly, the ones who are causing the trouble never seem to.
SyphonNexus
Hence the quotation marks. I'm not familiar with this forum and it idiosyncrasies. It was just a play on words. Normally in a debate you reply with logic to insult not a confirmation of the insult.
SyphonNexus
Was I insulted? did he insult me? Yes see right there *points emphatically* the inflection is clear.Tell me why I'm wrong. Then the conversation grows as we intellectually spar.
Do I sound like a pretentious moron? Why yes I do!?