Where do you find rest?

robindch

Donatello wrote: »

If you haven't got the maturity to discuss this with a respectful attitude (i.e. one that would respect the beliefs of others)

Here in A+A, we respect completely the right of people to believe whatever they like. But that does not imply or require -- as you seem to think -- any respect for the belief itself.

If you feel that you, rather than your opinions (which do not have feelings), have been insulted, then please report the post using the hazard warning triangle icon to the left of the post panel and the forum moderators will be happy to take whatever remedial action they feel is appropriate.

Ambersky

Donatello respect is indeed a two way street.
I found your description of god and your attatude to anyone who did not believe in it like you do to be patronising.
I find your addressing of my points again patronising and dogmatic, written in a tone of one citing, well, dogma.

Ive made some changes to my origional post and you replied quicker than I edit but that dosent matter I still stand over what I wrote, edits were just to help it read better.

Of course I didnt expect you to like what I wrote, but I dont suppose you have ever written anything on the position of women in religion thinking I or women like me would like it either.
Just in case you are actually unaware all this generic maleness, "but of course we mean women too" and "mystical bride" stuff and "no women priests because that would be lesbian", is offensive to women, is offensive to this woman and my beliefs.

The again patronising
"If you haven't got the maturity to discuss this with a respectful attitude (i.e. one that would respect the beliefs of others), then kindly don't bother. Take that in the spirit in which it is said. "

Questioning my maturity because I am not respectful to your beliefs while you can run roughshod over mine, well its to be expected, its in line with the organised religion that stands behind you, all that you are use to, but many of us wont be spoken down to anymore.

Undergod

Donatello wrote: »

No. The litany of smart remarks, really just a form of aggression, confirms that I am on to something.

Undergod wrote: »

I really don't think there's any "women as objects" mentality in Donatello's post.

To address the OP, even if it was the case that people who don't believe in any religion are incapable of a fulfilling life, that doesn't itself mean religion is true.

To address another point, if your solace comes from the fact that you have a personal relationship with God, are religious people of beliefs different to yours unable to fill their spiritual void?

The first thing I wrote was in your defence.

I was perfectly polite, made one point, and asked one question. No aggression or snark, and I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

b318isp

Souls are part of the Mystical Bride of Christ, the Church. Christ is male, the Church is female. The reason ordained priests must be male is because they must represent the male Christ, who is the head of the Church.

I'm not up to speed on this. Can you summarise where is this MUST defined, who defined it and when was it first defined? Thanks.

GO_Bear

Donatello wrote: »

This link explains further the reality behind our human condition and this one the way to freedom.

Some Bollox From that website wrote:

“Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” (CCC 2351).

Some Bollox From that website wrote:

“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’ ‘The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.’ For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved’” (CCC 2352).

Some Bollox From that website wrote:

“Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young” (CCC 2353).

Some Bollox From that website wrote:

“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials” (CCC 2354).

AND IN THAT SAME LIST

Some Bollox From that website wrote:

“Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them” (CCC 2356).

On another note Chastity if for those not fit enough to score

Galvasean

Undergod wrote: »

The first thing I wrote was in your defence.

I was perfectly polite, made one point, and asked one question. No aggression or snark, and I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

I think by now it should be obvious to everyone that this Donatello character has no intention in engaging with those who engage him politely, possibly for fear that his points will be rebutted.
He seems to prefer to whine about people being smug, 'smart', rude or whatever buzz word he's latching onto so he can avoid engaging in proper debate. It's classic example of avoiding uncomfortable points, avoiding them entirely while focusing on some sort of irrelevant persecution. It's like when a criminal consistently accuses the judge / jury / media of being biased against him. Generally such tactics are only used to avoid facing the real issue at hand, ie: being wrong.

liamw

Galvasean wrote: »

I think by now it should be obvious to everyone that this Donatello character has no intention in engaging with those who engage him politely, possibly for fear that his points will be rebutted.
He seems to prefer to whine about people being smug, 'smart', rude or whatever buzz word he's latching onto so he can avoid engaging in proper debate. It's classic example of avoiding uncomfortable points, avoiding them entirely while focusing on some sort of irrelevant persecution. It's like when a criminal consistently accuses the judge / jury / media of being biased against him. Generally such tactics are only used to avoid facing the real issue at hand, ie: being wrong.

Ye, but it's annoying that he started the thread and then won't listen to the answers.

opinion guy

Galvasean wrote: »

I think by now it should be obvious to everyone that this Donatello character has no intention in engaging with those who engage him politely, possibly for fear that his points will be rebutted.
He seems to prefer to whine about people being smug, 'smart', rude or whatever buzz word he's latching onto so he can avoid engaging in proper debate. It's classic example of avoiding uncomfortable points, avoiding them entirely while focusing on some sort of irrelevant persecution. It's like when a criminal consistently accuses the judge / jury / media of being biased against him. Generally such tactics are only used to avoid facing the real issue at hand, ie: being wrong.

Oh I think there is alot of fear in him. He is holding onto his faith because it is allowing him to avoid dealing with this void he has. Deep down he fears someone will say something to challenge his faith. The interesting thing is why he is posting here in the first place. I rather wager on some level he wants to have his faith challenged.

Knasher

Donatello wrote: »

If you can understand this, you are doing a lot better than the dissident 'Catholics' who advocate women priests.

Interestingly, all the Christian groups that have gone on to accept female 'priests' have gone on to accept lesbianism - check out the Anglicans with their gay and lesbian bishops.

Is that such a terrible thing? Do you believe the catholic church has strayed from gods path by allowing female alter-servers? Which was exclusively male for a very long time. To be honest I'd have a lot less problem believing that the catholic church was all about inclusion and love if that's what they practised. Instead its all about inclusion, unless you are gay and equal rights unless your female.

To be honest I find your comments particularly weird considering your signature.

Equal opportunities, diversity, and tolerance for unborn babies! (emphasis mine)

Do you only believe in tolerance if the beliefs match your own? Do you only want equal opportunities for only some people? How can you advocate equal opportunities if you don't want it for everybody? And what the hell does diversity mean for unborn babies?

swiftblade

liamw wrote: »

Ye, but it's annoying that he started the thread and then won't listen to the answers.

What's even more anoying is he started a thread with (crazy) strong christian views in the A&A forum and is anoyed he's not getting the responces he wants. What did he expect? It's like polar opposites.

Undergod

Knasher wrote: »

And what the hell does diversity mean for unborn babies?

Could be opposition to abortions that are carried out because the child is disabled or the wrong sex.

Ambersky

And what about lesbian and gay babies are we to respect their diversity too.
Would we be allowed to abort LGBT babies if we could detect it in the womb seeing as its an abberation and all.
Or do we just give respect to the unborn, after that we try to change them or ban them altogether.

Undergod

Ambersky wrote: »

And what about lesbian and gay babies are we to respect their diversity too.
Would we be allowed to abort LGBT babies if we could detect it in the womb seeing as its an abberation and all.
Or do we just give respect to the unborn, after that we try to change them or ban them altogether.

Well as I understand, Christianity in general takes the position that it's okay to be gay, but not to act gay. So aborting gay babies would be out, but they'd not be allowed to act gay once they were grown up.


"Aborting gay babies would be out." That's not a phrase I thought I'd ever write.

TwoShedsJackson

liamw wrote: »

Ye, but it's annoying that he started the thread and then won't listen to the answers.

Pretty standard practice for a believer though, they post something they think will rile up the Godless heathens, then when they find they are being reasoned with or asked questions about their views or opinions, they ignore any and all questions, declare themselves to have fully explained themselves, and never post in the thread and/or entire forum again.

Donatello

GO_Bear wrote: »

AND IN THAT SAME LIST

On another note Chastity if for those not fit enough to score

Why the shock that rape is included in a list of sins? Do you think rape is not a sin?

robindch wrote: »

Here in A+A, we respect completely the right of people to believe whatever they like. But that does not imply or require -- as you seem to think -- any respect for the belief itself.

If you feel that you, rather than your opinions (which do not have feelings), have been insulted, then please report the post using the hazard warning triangle icon to the left of the post panel and the forum moderators will be happy to take whatever remedial action they feel is appropriate.

My warning was just a heads up to all that I wouldn't tolerate mockery or scorn towards my beliefs. In that case I take my ball and go home! I don't mock the atheist creed, nor it's origins, so perhaps the same courtesy should be extended to me.

b318isp wrote: »

I'm not up to speed on this. Can you summarise where is this MUST defined, who defined it and when was it first defined? Thanks.

Well now, my trusty copy of Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is not to hand, but you can root around in the Catechism for starters. To be honest, it's a whole new thread, and its already been done on the Christianity forum. A good concise summary of Church teaching on this matter can be found in Inter Insigniores.

Knasher wrote: »

Is that such a terrible thing? Do you believe the catholic church has strayed from gods path by allowing female alter-servers? Which was exclusively male for a very long time. To be honest I'd have a lot less problem believing that the catholic church was all about inclusion and love if that's what they practised. Instead its all about inclusion, unless you are gay and equal rights unless your female.

To be honest I find your comments particularly weird considering your signature. Do you only believe in tolerance if the beliefs match your own? Do you only want equal opportunities for only some people? How can you advocate equal opportunities if you don't want it for everybody? And what the hell does diversity mean for unborn babies?

Female altar servers was a pastoral mistake, but it's not a matter of dogma. Pope John Paul II was against the idea, but a loophole in Canon Law meant that it was possible. Liberal elements in the Church (the same ones who want women priests) forced the issue. I guess it just goes to show the Pope is not the absolute monarch/dictator he is made out to be by some.

Ambersky wrote: »

And what about lesbian and gay babies are we to respect their diversity too.
Would we be allowed to abort LGBT babies if we could detect it in the womb seeing as its an abberation and all.
Or do we just give respect to the unborn, after that we try to change them or ban them altogether.

Well no, because lesbianism/homosexuality is a developmental thing, rather than something that one is born with.

Anyway, I'm through with this thread, because you lot are like a super hybrid Mormon/Jehovah's Witness who just throws out a lot of distracted and chaotic ideas so that no one idea can possibly be addressed.

swiftblade

Donatello wrote: »

Well no, because lesbianism/homosexuality is a developmental thing, rather than something that one is born with.

Really? I know some people would dissagree with you on that.

Irish Fire

Donatello wrote: »

I wonder where folks who do not believe in God find rest, peace, joy?

I think that the most convincing proof that there is a God is the spiritual void that is in each person. Material goods, drugs, sex, alcohol - none of these things are effective remedies against the emptiness that is inside. Yes, they feel good in the moment, but they do not endure. They exhaust themselves, and the soul grows bored.

If you have a lot of money, you can buy distractions - cars, for instance, or houses. Or women. Whatever.

But you are just distracting yourself. You have the money to do it. Great. But even then, you are fooling yourself if you think this is some kind of permanent solution or an effective remedy.

I see the emptiness of the people around me. I see them doing what I do when I stray from my walk with God. They seek to lose themselves in whatever distractions they can find.

But only in my walk with God have I experienced true joy - an up-welling in my soul of pure joy. This is not something that comes from myself, but rather it comes from my closeness to God and is a gift from Him. If I walk with God, I experience His joy. When I stray from Him, I feel the pull of materialism and sensuality - the desire to fill myself with whatever I can find. I seek to fill the emptiness some other way, though I know it is futile. Only God satisfies.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, for those of you who do not believe in God.

“O Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.”
- St. Augustine of Hippo

Jog on fella Jog on.........

Zillah

Donatello wrote: »

Well no, because lesbianism/homosexuality is a developmental thing, rather than something that one is born with.

This might be easier for you to reconcile with your religious beliefs, but it is simply not the case. This has been confirmed time and again in a variety of ways by the scientific community.

Donatello

Zillah wrote: »

This might be easier for you to reconcile with your religious beliefs, but it is simply not the case. This has been confirmed time and again in a variety of ways by the scientific community.

It hasn't actually.

swiftblade

Donatello wrote: »

Anyway, I'm through with this thread, because you lot are like a super hybrid Mormon/Jehovah's Witness who just throws out a lot of distracted and chaotic ideas so that no one idea can possibly be addressed.

You're comparing us to Mormon/Jehovah's Witness'? :rolleyes:

Well you sound like someone from the deep south. Harsh, but it's true.

swiftblade

Donatello wrote: »

It hasn't actually.

Has your's been proven?

Bloody Nipples

Donatello wrote: »

Anyway, I'm through with this thread, because you lot are like a super hybrid Mormon/Jehovah's Witness who just throws out a lot of distracted and chaotic ideas so that no one idea can possibly be addressed.

Then don't post in A+A if you don't like hearing about people's lack of belief in god.

Irish Fire

Still trying to understand WHY you started this thread??

Go and bash your bible somewhere else........

The R.C.C. are sooooooo perfect and NEVER get anything wrong........ as I said earlier......... Jog on

Bloody Nipples

Donatello wrote: »

It hasn't actually.

Yes it has.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.short

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

Why the shock that rape is included in a list of sins? Do you think rape is not a sin?

I suspect he's hinting at the irony between the passage he quoted and the (almost systematic) rape of young children by priests of the RCC, but I may be wrong.

Zillah

Donatello wrote: »

It hasn't actually.

Er, yes, it has. They still have not mapped the exact confluence of genetics, uterine development and brain structure yet, but dozens of studies have shown that it is absolutely not developmental.

Here, some results from google:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9549243

Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n231h822963713gg/

Twin studies find in general a higher concordance in sexual orientation among monozygotic than among dizygotic twins.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

I bet you, however, have links to far more authoritative peer reviewed studies that show no genetic link whatsoever, because your belief is reasonable and not entirely derived from your irrational religious notions.

The Mad Hatter

We have, it would seem, struck a nerve.

fatmammycat

Zillah wrote: »

Er, yes, it has. They still have not mapped the exact confluence of genetics, uterine development and brain structure yet, but dozens of studies have shown that it is absolutely not developmental.

Here, some results from google:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9549243

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n231h822963713gg/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa



I bet you, however, have links to far more authoritative peer reviewed studies that show no genetic link whatsoever, because your belief is reasonable and not entirely derived from your irrational religious notions.

Oh now stop silly, with your science and intellectual thinking. Donatello KNOWS people, he pretty much said so earlier.

Zillah

I could easily become the greatest troll on earth based on my experiences on this forum. Such...things...I could say to atheists to trigger that twitch.

Irish Fire

He's gone to mass to pray for us......

fatmammycat

My mother offered to pray for me once, I offered to diet for her in return.

Zillah

fatmammycat wrote: »

My mother offered to pray for me once, I offered to diet for her in return.

Ouch.

oldrnwisr

Donatello wrote: »

Well no, because lesbianism/homosexuality is a developmental thing, rather than something that one is born with.

It must be nice to live in a world where everything is a black and white issue. The truth of the matter is that nothing in the real world is ever that simple. You can't assert that homosexuality is developmental and not biological because even those people who study the matter don't have a consensus.

The only agreement is that homosexuality is not a choice:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%22Sexual+orientation+and+adolescents%22&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT#SEC3

There have been studies which have determined biological causes of male homosexuality such as those done by Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer but they are still a matter of debate. There is no one cause of homosexuality but it is likely that it is a blend of factors including, but not limited to, genetic, biological, developmental (in a biological sense), and cultural.

Irish Fire

fatmammycat wrote: »

My mother offered to pray for me once, I offered to diet for her in return.

:)

Galvasean

Donatello wrote: »

It hasn't actually.

Anyone else get this image in their head?

Dave!

Anyone see Donnie Darko? Donatello reminds me of that Jim Cunningham guy played by Patrick Swayze.

All of your happiness and fulfillment and satisfaction is just a product of FEARRRRRR!!!

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

My warning was just a heads up to all that I wouldn't tolerate mockery or scorn towards my beliefs. In that case I take my ball and go home!

And that would be simply tragic.

Donatello wrote: »

I don't mock the atheist creed, nor it's origins, so perhaps the same courtesy should be extended to me.

Seeing as there is by definition no "atheist creed", I can't imagine you do

liamw

Dave! wrote: »

Anyone see Donnie Darko? Donatello reminds me of that Jim Cunningham guy played by Patrick Swayze.

All of your happiness and fulfillment and satisfaction is just a product of FEARRRRRR!!!

LOL, it's him look at 0:50..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3hXKdTmRs

GO_Bear

Donatello wrote: »

Why the shock that rape is included in a list of sins? Do you think rape is not a sin?

Wow I love your little confused smiley, stop being willingly ignorant for 2 minutes and read back over my post again and you might see why I was shocked when I seen rape in the same list of sins as lust

Undergod

Yeah, looks like I'm being ignored by Donatello.

liamw wrote: »

LOL, it's him look at 0:50..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3hXKdTmRs

Hahaha, Seth Rogen at 1:38. I always forget that.

MrPudding

Undergod wrote: »

Yeah, looks like I'm being ignored by Donatello.



t.

Nah. He is done with this thread, remember? You may notice a pattern. He posts a load of bull, people respond, he posts some more sh1t usuall with a link to something the crap wizard of child rapists has said or the catchecism or that other idiotic site, then this challenged, he then says he is finished cos he is right and you are wrong, then be moves on. Don't feel ignored, standard MO.

MrP

The Mad Hatter

fatmammycat wrote: »

My mother offered to pray for me once, I offered to diet for her in return.

Am I the only person who read this in Hannibal Lecter's voice?

fatmammycat

Ah whay hallo Mad Hatter, luv yer hat.

Ambersky

The question, where does one find love, peace, joy, rest, is an interesting one. Its one I find myself addressing in other forums where I write more often.
However the OP states right in the first post that if

“I seek to fill the emptiness some other way, though I know it is futile. Only God satisfies.

So it doesn’t matter what anyone else says, this thread was not started as a listening, two way respectful conversation trying, trying to develop an understanding of those who see the world differently.
In fact the invitation is only put out there in order to knock down the ways anyone else finds peace, love, joy, rest and to prove them wrong.

I find this kind of thing personally irritating but I’m use to it.
I also think I know the Achilles heel of conservative christianity, forget logical argument on the grounds they put forward and go straight to the issue of women. Thats what they cant stand thats when they put their hands to their ears and go la la la la la I cant hear you, or see you, you don’t exist.
In all their language they speak directly man to man
Donatello says

“If you have a lot of money, you can buy distractions - cars, for instance, or houses. Or women. Whatever.”

What! I can buy women as a distraction, me, a woman, uh oh that would be dirty lesbians again and of course he wasn’t addressing me.
They don’t really realise they are speaking as men to men but don’t know how to do anything else.

Women are kept out of it, women = sex sex = base instincts, animal nature and ultimately the devil.
There are only two models for women, the temptress Eve or the obedient virgin and mother Mary.
You will read some really wild stuff if you start looking into the position of wome in religion. Do go and read some of the writing on why women cant be priests.

The all male club that is the catholic hierarchy (and the protestant churches aren’t far behind) hate having to discuss the issue of women, it really shows up the lunacy with talk of brides and us all being female in spirit but no actual living women being allowed.
Then of course there is the implication and fear of homosexuality.

An all male club, male culture, male language, loads of testosterone, suppression of sexuality and a fear of women. How could they not be f****d up. Its sad really.
Im not saying they are all gay, though some certainly are, Im actually saying patriarchy, the rule of the fathers, messes everyone men and women and children up.

Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Patriarchy also has a strong influence on modern civilization, although many cultures have moved towards a more egalitarian social system over the past century

Thats why I had a go at the image put forward of god the father because he of course underpins all this.
If your image is one of a patriarchial father figure all the other structures coming from that mirror that image.
Its archaic I know and we like to think we are far removed from the influences of this but society is very much still influenced by it.
If you get tired of the round and round logic Just keep talking about women it will drive them mad.:D

Zillah

I for one am shocked that Donatello has not returned with convincing evidence for homosexuality being developmental.

fatmammycat

Zillah wrote: »

I for one am shocked that Donatello has not returned with convincing evidence for homosexuality being developmental.

That would require honesty.

recedite

Donatello wrote:

Actually, all souls are ultimately female. Souls are part of the Mystical Bride of Christ, the Church. Christ is male, the Church is female. The reason ordained priests must be male is because they must represent the male Christ, who is the head of the Church. If there were female priests, then that would represent spiritual lesbianism. If you can understand this, you are doing a lot better than the dissident 'Catholics' who advocate women priests

I would have liked to hear more about the spritual lesbians. :pac:
BTW aren't the nuns sometimes referred to as Brides of Christ?
Does this mean that priests, being male, are outside The Church (which is female)?
Or that any man who joins the church becomes female?
When a straight male atheist dies, he turns into a female soul?
Does that make him a dead homosexual :mad:?

So many questions, so few answers