Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[Lilllabettt]

I think people can see for themselves, abc.  no argument from me is necessary.

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

Lillabettt, you have confessed to stalking me on another thread here on Phatmass and you continue to spout forth ad hominem attacks.  You don't know me in real life and you are trying to discredit what I have to say based on your emotional response to my words regardless of whether they are truly indicative of who I really am.  I am not basing this on my emotions but on your declaration that you would follow me everywhere.  Are you concerned about the truth of the topics under debate or are you more interested in smearing my name with insinuations whenever you can?  Does it make you look good to always be hounding me over my supposed social inabilities?  Is there any Catholic justification for your continuous ad hominems?  Is there any intellectual basis for your disagreements with my positions or do you simply dislike me and my style?  I am flattered that your only issue appears to be my tone and it saddens me that you seem to be incapable of reading me in a charitable light.  I know you may mean well, but this quack diagnosis is unhelpful.  Why don't you consult with your pastor (or spiritual director if you are fortunate enough to have one) and ask if it is okay to stalk someone online and repeatedly try to smear their reputation by uncharitable judgements about their characters based on nothing but your biased emotional responses to my words?  Based on your other posts about your personal life, is it possible that you are projecting your personal struggles onto me?  I am not an expert in pyschology but it occurred to me that this may be something to look into.

 

Future Priest, instructing the ignorant is part of our vocation.  Our Lady did it, and hopefully we will follow her example.  Do you think that Our Lady would shy from the truth just because it is unpopular with some of the Phamass crew?  When people disagree about marriage do we abolish marriage because some people think it is too much to understand the vocation?  What in your mind consists of instructing the ignorant?  Are you here to obtain more information or are you here to critique but not give any useful insights into the vocation of consecrated virginity?  If you pursue the vocation of the priesthood, will you shut up about your vocation because somebody thinks that you should defend women priests or keep out of the conversation because priests need to be meek and humble like Christ?

 

I don't honestly know a whole lot about consecrated virginity. Seeing as how I am male, I never thought of it as something that I really needed to learn about for the time being. There is a difference, however, between instructing the ignorant with kindness and charity, and hounding them down because you need to reaffirm to yourself and everyone else that you are right. Regardless if that is your intention, that is how you come across. I would know what it looks like because I constantly struggle with it myself. I love winning. I love being right and having everyone else realize how right I am. But if you walk into a theological conversation with the mindset of "I'm going to win", you've already lost.

[abrideofChrist]

I don't honestly know a whole lot about consecrated virginity. Seeing as how I am male, I never thought of it as something that I really needed to learn about for the time being. There is a difference, however, between instructing the ignorant with kindness and charity, and hounding them down because you need to reaffirm to yourself and everyone else that you are right. Regardless if that is your intention, that is how you come across. I would know what it looks like because I constantly struggle with it myself. I love winning. I love being right and having everyone else realize how right I am. But if you walk into a theological conversation with the mindset of "I'm going to win", you've already lost.

 

Do you know the definition of rash judgement?  How dare you say that I need to reaffirm to myself anything when nobody has thus far given a solid and compelling argument against my positions?  I am not saying that you rashly judged me, but you are coming very close to it.   I don't care if the whole world thought that my intentioni is to prove myself right because only God's opinion on this matters.  Is it possible that I misjudged Phatmass because I thought you cared about the truth in a spirited debate but instead I am presented with whining complaints about my tone?  I do think that it is more productive for people engaging in debate to refrain from ad hominems and to actually tackle substantive issues.  Why is it that you, Lillabettt, and others are so concerned about tone and other judgements but you cannot for the life of you seem to be able to pull off an elementary intellectual argument on the vocation of consecrated virginity with any weight and you dare think that this vocation started by the Holy Spirit and Our Lady should be discarded because of your opinion on one CV?  And what about all the wicked priests?  Is the priesthood and any priest who drops in and who rubs you the wrong way to be attacked and stalked also even if nothing he says is theologically off?  This is the debate table not the emotional I'm happy if you agree with me and accuse you of being uncharitable or pyschologically impaired individual if you rub against my emotions the wrong way.  Do you believe that if academics argue that they are automatically uncharitable?  Is this just a clique where everyone has to pat each other's backs with an emotional bond that ties you even if they're wrong and an emotional feel good free for all, or is real conversation forbidden?  Are we back into schoolyard bullying?  (I don't like what you have to say so I'm going to attack your character.) 

Edited February 26, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[PhuturePriest]

Do you know the definition of rash judgement?  How dare you say that I need to reaffirm to myself anything when nobody has thus far given a solid and compelling argument against my positions?  I am not saying that you rashly judged me, but you are coming very close to it.   I don't care if the whole world thought that my intentioni is to prove myself right because only God's opinion on this matters.  Is it possible that I misjudged Phatmass because I thought you cared about the truth in a spirited debate but instead I am presented with whining complaints about my tone?  I do think that it is more productive for people engaging in debate to refrain from ad hominems and to actually tackle substantive issues.  Why is it that you, Lillabettt, and others are so concerned about tone and other judgements but you cannot for the life of you seem to be able to pull off an elementary intellectual argument on the vocation of consecrated virginity with any weight and you dare think that this vocation started by the Holy Spirit and Our Lady should be discarded because of your opinion on one CV?  And what about all the wicked priests?  Is the priesthood and any priest who drops in and who rubs you the wrong way to be attacked and stalked also even if nothing he says is theologically off?  This is the debate table not the emotional I'm happy if you agree with me and accuse you of being uncharitable or pyschologically impaired individual if you rub against my emotions the wrong way.  Do you believe that if academics argue that they are automatically uncharitable?  Is this just a clique where everyone has to pat each other's backs with an emotional bond that ties you even if they're wrong and an emotional feel good free for all, or is real conversation forbidden?  Are we back into schoolyard bullying?  (I don't like what you have to say so I'm going to attack your character.) 

 

Now who is making the rash judgements? I just came in here. I have said nothing about consecrated virginity. I have no opinions on it other than consecrated virginity is great and undervalued.

 

I would be more than happy to debate you on anything we happen to disagree upon. Unless, however, you speak to me with disrespect, as you are doing now. That is why people are speaking about your tone and methods rather than the actual argument. You don't show respect to others who disagree with you.

[brandelynmarie]

No one will ever come close to the purity of our Blessed Mother (Full of Grace!)...but Confession will help us to imitate her...it is the cure, for all our sins & it heals us...reconciles our relationship with God (but no, it cannot "fix" physical virginity that has been lost intentionally)...& I am inclined to believe with others that the CV vocation needs to be deeply discerned on an individual basis ....especially with the help of those in ecclesial (sp?) authority...

[freudianslippers]

Huh. If I were to make a judgment based on charity, I'd have to atheist at this point. You guys are whacked.

 

Personally, the consecrated virgin angle is kind of creepy to me. Not to be rude but in our society today, how does one stay out of trouble, exactly? ABrideofChrist, do you watch tv at all? I think you must live in a tower....

 

But I think it's funny. I'm eating popcorn watching the ping pong ball (metaphorical) go back and forth. Is ABC wrong because of her tone? I've seen many ruder people here who are loved and embraced for being acerbic. She amuses me in her constant attempts here.  You think because she's a consecrated virgin she needs to shut up and just take her lessons from you and this is humility; and her resistance to phatmassers who try to silence her because they're not comfortable with her beliefs is an indication that she is therefore wrong? I think she's wrong because virginity has got to be darn near impossible in our sex saturated society. And I think you guys are proof of it. ABrideofChrist gives an opinion and is promptly accused of being unbalanced? That's kind of messed up, guys. This is my problem here. You guys can't agree on anything unless it's proposed by one of your popular members.

 

So future priest, is this the new religion? Has the Catholic Church changed so much since I walked away? So your good opinion is necessary if you're to debate on this site? And you count that as a challenge worth pursuing? Gotta say, I'm disappointed. I thought you'd have changed by now. Still just siding with popular opinion which is funny to me because Christ almost never was on the side of popular opinion and yet you profess to be his future disciple. I think Phatmass is all about pandering to each other and avoiding any real meaningful conversation though I have a friend who disagrees. And when you do come up, we spiritedly debate it. But hey, no one is perfect, right?

 

And this is why I stopped believing in God. When you want to make a good impression, you send your best emissary. If smug Catholics like you are his best, then I'm going to politely bow out.

 

And if my friend is smart, he'll do the same. :)

 

Love,

Freudian's slippers

 

 

 

 

[brandelynmarie]

I recall Gandhi supposedly made a similar obervation....If you look solely to humans to perfectly represent God & God's love, you will continue to be sorely disappointed. Look to Jesus & His teachings...especially in the Church. We are all in need of continual forgiveness & mercy & we follow Him Who is the Divine Physician...





You can always start another thread in the Debate Table ;)

[freudianslippers]

You are kind. Would to God more Christians were like you. I haven't read anything of Ghandi. Religion has become kind of off putting for me... :D

 

What debate would I start, exactly?

 

I recall Gandhi supposedly made a similar obervation....If you look solely to humans to perfectly represent God & God's love, you will continue to be sorely disappointed. Look to Jesus & His teachings...especially in the Church. We are all in need of continual forgiveness & mercy & we follow Him Who is the Divine Physician...





You can always start another thread in the Debate Table ;)

 

[brandelynmarie]

:) oh goodness, only if you wanted to! You could possibly start one based on your observations that you made above...Of course, no promises or guarantees of what will happen!


Oh, & I believe Jesus was God's best emissary...

Edited February 26, 2014 by brandelynmarie

[BarbTherese]

:popcorn2:

[Aloysius]

Honestly, I really don't understand how this particular topic always blows up like this.  Anyway, we're not your babysitters, folks, so I recommend everyone just simmer down and realize: this is the internet.  you're unlikely to convince the people you're arguing against of what your point is... the best you can do with the person you're arguing against is plant the seeds for your argument and maybe eventually they'll grow in that person's mind.  but they're unlikely to suddenly concede your point in the middle of discussion because people have a tendency to dig their heels in and get stubborn and defensive... actually conceding a point to an opponent does happen, but it's rare.  your audience for your argument is not your debating opponent, but the people who are reading, so if you feel you made a good argument and that your opponent's argument was not convincing, then be happy and hope that you've edified people out there and move on.  this is Debate Table 101 here, I realize many of you don't frequent the Debate Table... though it's a lesson many people (including myself) who do frequent the Debate Table can't be reminded of enough.

 

And while I realize it came from a place of not liking the implications of someone researching the background of a fellow poster, generally insinuating that someone is not mentally stable is not acceptable in a debate and I'd recommend an apology for stepping over that line... I don't know the intricacies of your arguments over time, and I don't care to hear why you think you're justified in thinking it's true or not true, it's just bad debate form to focus ad hominem like that.  I'll go back and review whether I should edit/warn for that, though I largely try to avoid doing that because you're all adults and should be able to take such internet stuff with a grain of salt and work out your differences.

 

And hey, if someone doesn't like your tone and tells you that, well deal with it.  If you're going to be direct and blunt and assertive about a position, understand that it might turn many people off, the people you're trying to convince.  It might make them not want to discuss with you at all.  Rather than getting defensive about your tone, you might just consider that you might be losing your audience... just a suggestion, that's not a moderating thing because you're free to be as abrasive as you want in the debate table, but I think you're likely to lose the audience you're trying to convince.  but if you think it'll convince them, so be it, good luck.   :cyclops:

[NotreDame]

Wow, how did it take me until page 14 find this thread?  It's floopin' awesome.

[freudianslippers]

lol, where did you get that fabulous avatar? Your profile pic is awesome....

 

 

Wow, how did it take me until page 14 find this thread?  It's floopin' amesome.

 

[NotreDame]

lol, where did you get that fabulous avatar? Your profile pic is amesome....

 

yeah, it's a pic of me, but I photoshopped it a bit to be less pedantic, less pompous, and less really, really, good-looking than I am in real life.

 

[Lilllabettt]

And while I realize it came from a place of not liking the implications of someone researching the background of a fellow poster, generally insinuating that someone is not mentally stable is not acceptable in a debate and I'd recommend an apology for stepping over that line... I don't know the intricacies of your arguments over time, and I don't care to hear why you think you're justified in thinking it's true or not true, it's just bad debate form to focus ad hominem like that. 

 

 

 

Mea culpa. Dirty fighting on my part to bring the past into new conflict. mea culpa abc.

sometimes your posts sound pretty "out there." Whether you are or not is not my place to say.

 

 

yeah, it's a pic of me, but I photoshopped it a bit to be less pedantic, less pompous, and less really, really, good-looking than I am in real life

 

bill buckley died of emphysema.

 

kind of.

[NotreDame]

bill buckley died of emphysema.

 

kind of.

 

He had the black lung, pops.
 

[CrossCuT]

Id be kind of flattered if someone stalked me. Is that weird?

 

At least until they showed up in my bedroom and night and murdered me, Then I wouldnt be flattered.

Edited February 26, 2014 by CrossCuT

[freudianslippers]

:popcorn2:

 

Yes, exactly. Except for the missing icon of the head banging against a wall. Which side will give out first: the unstoppable object or the immovable wall it's hitting? ;)

 

[PhuturePriest]

edit

Edited February 27, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[BarbTherese]

Yes, exactly. Except for the missing icon of the head banging against a wall. Which side will give out first: the unstoppable object or the immovable wall it's hitting? ;)

 

Maybe Grace will be responded to and prevail - with members' persons respected and charitable addressing of points raised be established.  I hope.  Whatever the rules of debate might be, they are transcended by the Call of Christ and His Gospel and the Law of Love.

 

Virginity without Charity is a failure.

  "[1] If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing" 1 Corinthians Chapter 13

 

Problem is, threads on Consecrated Virginity seem not to have Charity as prime rather often.
 

Edited February 27, 2014 by BarbaraTherese