Learn From It

Why would you care if a person wants to be born again?

I'd imagine for a lot of people it's a fresh start, kinda like your types coming out of the proverbail closet. Putting the past behind and moving ahead.

Live and let live, right?

For an entry that starts out "Sometimes—oftentimes—..." you sure do assume that I mean all, and that I mean there's only one reason for being Born Again.

Coming out of the closet is a giant step *towards* adulthood and maturity, it's not a reset button.

I don't see the difference.

Maybe it's because you have no frame of reference. You're a straight white male and in this country, that means you don't really have to face any cultural barriers.

As far as the Born Again thing, the Jimmy Swaggarts of the world use it as a giant reset button, as far as I see it.

Preaching on and on about sin and morality while beating off to hookers in cheap hotelrooms. He gets cause, he cries and "repents" until he gets his high-paying, high-profile gig back.

All the while never forgiving those he opposes.

Would you approve of someone changing their name & identity in order to avoid debt?

Obeisance? Particularly abject? No. Love and obedience are not the same thing.

As for the rest, Swaggart is a shameless fool. For you to equate the notion of being "born again" with him is to grossly generalize, in an effort to discredit the idea of being "born again." If one were to take individual examples of perfidy as general reasons for discrediting philosophies, there is no system under the sun, philosophy, theology, science, you name it, that has not been rendered moot by corrupt, individual practitioners.

Weren't you one of the Christians who claimed that the rest of us should fear you? Weren't you the one that said that Catholicism was superior to all other modes of spirituality?

When aren't love and obeisance the same thing when it comes to an Absolute? It's a short circuit!

Again, hoody who links to me on your blog with a nasty insulting bit of text and who bans me and makes ad hominem, ugly posts about me along with more name-calling, please tell me how you're NOT one of those examples of perfidy.

What a pompous, control freak.

Why won't He settle this? Because it interferes with YOUR free will. He is not interested in forcing your belief.

Funny. This is the VERY SAME argument I am facing from sophomores. . . (wise fools).

Funny, but that section was posed text from those who believe there is nothing new under the sun.

I am not one of those people. You seem to be. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you strike me as one of those people who believes that the only true use for free will is abject obeisance to the creator.

Oh, hoody...you passive aggressive mess.

It's your hypocrisy and your duplicity that anger me. For a "humble" christian who sits in judgment on my supposed lack of humility, you certainly have some haughty pose going on there.

You of course follow the church blindly. You start with the notion that the Church is Right in All Things, and then you "cogitate" only in the manner of coming up with a good story for why the church is Right in This Thing.

Call me names, ban me after I follow your silly rules that apply to everyone but yourself (no, no duplicity there) and then lie about it after the fact, and keep on linking to me anyway.

Stay anonymous. Stay in control of your little world. Invite no dissent. Learn nothing other than what is passed down on high.

If you really want to demonstrate your free-will-thinking, tell me something signficant that you actually disagree with the Romans about.

Just one significant thing, hoody, to demonstrate (not prove) you're not a Papist lapdog like all the other RCs who look down their noses at "cafeteria-style" catholics.

...and I wasn't being rhetorical. what WOULD a psychologist have to say about your little setup, hoody?

Physician, heal thyself instead of foisting your ridiculousness on the world.

Back on the carousel. . .

"Oh Biscuits, you condescending, arrogant pile of unwavering nonsense. . ."

You clearly have not the first clue what passive-aggressive really is.

What hypocrisy? You broke the rule, I banned you. Wish you to put your own rules on your blog? I'll follow them or risk banishment. Deal with it.

HOW do you know I follow blindly? For you, to follow the Church automatically means blindness. Coming from an avowed liberal, this is hypocrisy most foul, in that it is a gross generalization. I can just as easily accuse you of just as blindly following the liberal mentality, worshipping at its altar.

As for my area of dissent, I can offer proof from my wife, myself and a third party. But you won't get it, as you are not to be trusted with it. Accept or reject as you see fit. You already will.

I suspect a psychologist would say that I have little tolerance for repetitive MRT nonsense. What might he say about YOUR tendencies? I suspect the following:

AXIS II: Narcissitic Personality Disorder

Passive-aggress: "if you want me to shut up, ban me."

I broke your "rules" before you poste dthem. Then I followed them, but for a self-absorbed, self-righteous Papist like you, anything against the Church is also against you personally. antyhing against god, against republicans, against your own narrow view of reality is ad hom, to you.

I'm waiting for a clear and significant example of how you disagree with the Church's teachings. Just one.

C'mon. It will be liberating.

In the black and white absolutist world tell me: are cafeteria Catholics doing the right thing?

And back on topic, do you think that it's good to use god and eternal-salvation as a reason to dodge responsibility?

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Just for the record, folks.

Hoody,
It is hypocritical for you to ban him then go to his place to post. Rules or no rules.

Assuming that was really gordon who posted, I think you should take it as the direst of proof, hoody, that you are in fact, a hypocrite, if both gordon and I land on the same side of the issue.

Speaking of ad hom arguments. . .

don't like what I say? Feel free to ban me. But don't insert bland character assassinations as a means of cogent argument.

I notice you do that quite a bit.

And I never said you should fear me. And I never said Catholicism was superior to other forms. The Church teaches that. I never said it.

And again, love and obedience are NOT the same thing, even when dealing with "an absolute." Obedience stems from fear. Love promotes a desire to follow. Big difference. One of your supposed learning and profession of familiarity with the goodness of humanity should be able to tell the difference.

Or, is it that with your fear of God the idea of actually LOVING Him is beyond your ken?

While I find the DogSnot form of arguing unproductive, you really do provoke that type of response with your repetitive and tiresome ad hom attacks. Attributing statements that have not been made, and character assassination as rational argument fail the validity tests.

Oh, hoody, you're using exactly the same form of argument. You never address anything about yourself, instead, redirecting to others.

It's your opinion that love and obedience are the same thing. That's also the opinion of many of my friends in the BDSM community. You do your thing with wafers and prayer, they with leather outfits and pain.

Obedience most certainly does not stem from fear alone. Check your marriage vows, hoody. Do you and the wife "love, honor and OBEY" because you're afraid of each other?

It's cute how you sneak in the assumption of existence of a god, though.

Christians today use fear. Hutcherson does it in WA, Bush does it in DC. Pope Panzer does it in Rome.

Fear of eternal damnation. Fear of Them. Fear of Absence of His Divine Presence. Yeah yeah yeah, I get it.

Syllogism for you:

The Church says that its superior to all others
I agree with everything the church says absolutely.
Therefore I believe that it's superior.

Does that work for you?

Now, what might a psychologist say about someone who walls off all dissent while preaching superiority and assassinating the character of others? Control issues? Or just plain cowardice? Or is it hypocrisy?

Or is it too much to expect that you own up to your own choices?

Or maybe the right to choose isn't on your anointed list.

I just got done saying that love and obedience are NOT the same. Is English your native language.?

No. Your syllogism does not work. I did not say it. Further, I do not ABSOLUTELY agree with all church teaching. (Absolutely in this case = blindly, with no attached cogitation)

I don't wall off all dissent. I wall YOU off because you cannot stick to prescribed rules. Not control, not cowardice, or hypocrisy. If it is anything, it is weariness in dealing with the same tired argument, over and over, on a private blog.

Perhaps, if you were EVER to show even a microgram of humility, to admit that you were even once marginally wrong and be truly repentant for that. . .but I more and more feel that the sun will rise in the West before Biscuits shows humility.

If I were running a clearly public forum (such as is found in various newspaper websites across the country), you would have to do much more to get banned. But from my own private blog, your banning is still causing you to stamp your feet in anger?

Wow, you guys are astounding! I saw this right as it was posted yesterday, and decided to come back tonight to comment, and lo and behold! There's already a raging two and a half person debate! So efficient.

WARNING: The following might very well be the longest comment of our times.

Firstly, I'll attempt to go through a bit of the original post, before I get into what is here in the combox.

It is possible, you know, to both change ways (Be "born-again" if you like...) and be held responsible for past actions. Not just possible, but neccesary. To be held responsible, and to be truly sorry and work for change, you must first get rid of the old, corrupt ways. For the Protestants, that's being born again. For us Papists, that's confession.

The realization of wrongdoing and the desire to be forgiven, and to make reparations. Something the Church over here did badly, but still attempted.

Which is yet another point, is that firstly, the sex-scandal was almost wholly and American phenomenon, and the reaction by the Church was the brainchild of some American bishops, not the entire Magisterium and the entire people of the Church. So although you do point out something that is amiss, it wasn't a fault belonging to all Catholics everywhere.

Now, Biscuits, although the one can practically taste the irony in the air, you seem to delight in constantly repeating the mantra about how repitition doesn't equal truth. I would just like to say that I agree wholeheartedly. No matter how much you declare that we Catholics must resort to your tactics for finding truth, it still isn't true. No matter how often we are refered to as sheep, idiots, bigots, and homophobes, I can assure you none of those words apply to myself, at the very least.

Repitition doesn't equal fact. But even fact incessantly repeated remains factual.

As for the issue of God just coming down and showing all of us what is going on, and sorting things out for us, and making us do the right thing, and love him, I have this theoretical situation for you.

If I plent a bomb inside your ribcage, and demand that you be my best friend for the rest of our lives or else I blow you to bits, and you comply, are you my friend?

Of course not! You can't intimidate love into somebody, and such is the case with God. Love needs to be an act of free will, or else it is useless and meaningless. I know that there are plenty of people who do try and fire-and-brimstone people into Christianity, but I am hereby agree with you, that this is the *wrong* way to go about things. Love CANNOT be the result of threats, because such love is no love at all, self-negating and idiotic.

We must love God by ourselves, known Him for ourselves, follow Him for ourselves.

Hmmm...I must depart for bed at the moment, but I'll finish my train of thought tomorrow, and try and address the stuff here in the comments.

Oy gevalt, that exchange gave me a headache.

Walk in love, guys...

Considering all the pedophile priests that have violated boys, the Catholics are wading in murky waters.

How come you guys never held those sick bastards responsible for their actions?

Perhaps this falls into the so-called "moral relativism" hoody loves to talk about?

Perhaps finally I'll understand exactly what he means by it. Let's have a go: "It's not as bad if a priest diddles a boy, because at least a priest does so much good for the community."

Is *that* what moral relativism actually is?

Or maybe it's along the lines of people "getting what they deserve", as hoody wrote:

While I find the DogSnot form of arguing unproductive, you really do provoke that type of response with your repetitive and tiresome ad hom attacks.

Maybe decked out in their cassocks and surplices and lookin' all hot and nubile and shit, they were just askin' for it.

Yeah, I'm being sarcastic.

Masked Avenger, you plant bombs all the time. Hell, your religion, your god plant the biggest bomb of all: worship Me or you'll spend eternity in misery! fire and brimstone!

Now, when someone can lord that kind of thing over your head, how is love possible? It's not, as you clearly point out above.

Saying your not a homophobe, then turning around and wanting homosexuals to be considered second-class, "loving the sinner but hating the sin", and agreeing with what JP2 and B16 have to say about it, is just plain bullshit. More hiding your disgust in "love".

The sex scandal may have been American, but the current Pope is the one that tried to brush it under the table. Then he was surprised that there was *such* an uproar!

If the Catholics (and other religions) simply removed the nettlesome missionary directives/propagation of the faith, I think the world would enjoy a lot more love and a lot less dogma.