Are Phatmassers Role Models

[N/A Gone]

im new'er, and I know there are certain posters I respect and trust already.

[Theoketos]

im new'er, and I know there are certain posters I respect and trust already.

[tojo]

Should the be? Yes.

Are they? Not all of them, including some with flags.

And, btw, I would like to go on the record that while I think the drinking age should be 18, I had no problem waiting to drink alcohol in until I was 21, and Phatmassers, especially moderators, shouldn't flaunt disobediance to this law.

[N/A Gone]

Theoketos whats with the quote?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 12 2005, 10:24 AM']Well here's where it becomes simple.   If one believes something that is contrary to civil or Church teaching, don't encourage others to "take up the cause".  or even easier
[right][snapback]821551[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Lumping Church teaching in the same category as highly relative civil legislation (the enactments even vary from state to state, its relative in nature), is a highly dubious and implicitly heretical thing. Just fyi.

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 12 2005, 10:24 AM']Don't start a thread about it.
[right][snapback]821551[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't remember starting any threads about this sort of thing. I remember participating intermittently in a thread of Al's and one that Cam started. That's about it.

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 12 2005, 10:24 AM']While I don't know for sure, I would be willing to bet that there are a few Phatmassers who have smoked pot in their lives and don't think its a big deal.  However, I have yet to see anyone posting about how much they like it.  Why? Because its illegal and it would be inappropriate to talk it up on a public forum where there are young people.
Its called being responsible and showing discretion
[right][snapback]821551[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ha! I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I don't think any of these outlandish comments have anything to do with the views I've expressed.
This entire series of discussions has been largely absurd if you ask me.
For whatever reason, these are subjects that people around here cannot discuss in an objective and reasonable manner. The conversation instantly degrades to the point of emotional rubbish. I'm pretty disgusted actually.

[Jaime]

[quote]Lumping Church teaching in the same category as highly relative civil legislation (the enactments even vary from state to state, its relative in nature), is a highly dubious and implicitly heretical thing. Just fyi.
[/quote]

I don't know what assumptions you're making. But my statement did not even come into the same ballpark as heresy. Just fyi

[philothea]

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Dec 12 2005, 07:48 AM']We are all called to set good examples and be role models for others, no matter where we are, at home, work, school and online.

We are all to rep the Church, we are the mystical body of Christ. By not setting good examples we in fact move against Christ and his Church.

If we want people to take what we say seriously we need to practise what we preach. Here on Phatmass we preach traditional Catholic teaching and views. If we do not live up to what we say and do here we would be hypocites, especially those who are Catholic.
[right][snapback]821421[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What he said. (Thanks for saving me all that typing. )

[Sojourner]

L_D, just for clarities sake, none of the comments I made were directed specifically to you -- I had Al in mind with what I said in my initial comment and several subsequent ones.

And my problem here isn't that we discuss the relative rightness or wrongness of underage drinking -- I'm all for opening up that topic. My issue is that Al was flaunting his disobedience to the civil law on a public forum in which he's in a leadership position.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 12 2005, 10:47 AM']I don't know what assumptions you're making.  But my statement did not even come into the same ballpark as heresy. Just fyi
[right][snapback]821586[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, while believing something contrary to Church teaching would constitute heresy, believing that a matter of civil law was superfluous, or even evil and oppressive, is in no way problematic. I believe that abortion on demand is evil and I'm not afraid to express this view. This is hardly the same as being in heresy. That's my point.

[Era Might]

Just a clarification of hypocrisy:

Hypocrisy is not the belief and propogation of a standard, Rather, hypocrisy is the claim to live up to that standard, when in fact, you do not.

It would be possible for someone to defend the Catholic faith (eg, on Phatmass) while they don't live up to it themselves, in whatever way. If they claim to live up to it, and don't, it would be a case of hypocrisy. Otherwise, if they defend the faith, and do not bring their personal faithfulness into the discussion, they are not hypocrites.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 10:48 AM']What he said.  (Thanks for saving me all that typing.   )
[right][snapback]821589[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well honestly, to my mind I am trying to embody an authentic Catholicity, in opposition to a prevailing neo-Marxist Americanism. (I'm speaking of the culture, not indivuals on phatmass so don't take offense anyone)

I realize a lot of the older encyclicals are ignored these days, but there are teachings of the Church that play into this sort of thing. I'm not the rebellious rogue people may see me as at this moment.

[morostheos]

my my...I wonder how long this could go on...

[Jaime]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 12 2005, 11:49 AM']Well, while believing something contrary to Church teaching would constitute heresy, believing that a matter of civil law was superfluous, or even evil and oppressive, is in no way problematic. I believe that abortion on demand is evil and I'm not afraid to express this view. This is hardly the same as being in heresy. That's my point.
[right][snapback]821594[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And your point has the sole purpose of convoluting the issue. And you were suggesting that my statement was borderline heretical. And you were wrong.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 12 2005, 10:52 AM']And your point has the sole purpose of convoluting the issue.  And you were suggesting that my statement was borderline heretical.  And you were wrong.
[right][snapback]821601[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I indicated that is was a possible implication of your statement.

"If one believes something that is contrary to civil or Church teaching, don't encourage others to "take up the cause"."

I stand by that. The difference between these two realms is vast. That's all.

And it conjured an impression of the neo-Marxist mindset, namely that the state "defines" good and evil. Thus phrasing the states enactments in same way as Church "teachings", stirred a reaction in me.

And putting aside the issue of underage drinking, I would certainly affirm that we can dissent and deny assent to civil legislation. In a sense its our duty as Catholics to discern and make conscientious decisions regarding the activities of the state in which we live. And there are times when rebellion can be justified or even become a moral imperative.
Obviously the principles at work are categorically different from that which we owe God and the Church, so I don't appreciate these two spheres being held in such close conceptual proximity.

[tojo]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 12 2005, 12:49 PM']And my problem here isn't that we discuss the relative rightness or wrongness of underage drinking -- I'm all for opening up that topic. My issue is that Al was flaunting his disobedience to the civil law on a public forum in which he's in a leadership position.
[right][snapback]821593[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

:applause:

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 12 2005, 10:51 AM']Well honestly, to my mind I am trying to embody an authentic Catholicity, in opposition to a prevailing neo-Marxist Americanism. (I'm speaking of the culture, not indivuals on phatmass so don't take offense anyone)

I realize a lot of the older encyclicals are ignored these days, but there are teachings of the Church that play into this sort of thing. I'm not the rebellious rogue people may see me as at this moment.
[right][snapback]821598[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I believe you! And I want to see some documents. But careful, or we'll get shut down.

We should probably start a topic (perhaps a poll?) discussing whether law is binding on Catholics. I would if I wasn't really busy and distracted right now.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 11:02 AM']I believe you!  And I want to see some documents.  But careful, or we'll get shut down.  

We should probably start a topic (perhaps a poll?) discussing whether law is binding on Catholics.  I would if I wasn't really busy and distracted right now.
[right][snapback]821614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm actually dying to get into that topic.. I'm kind of devoted to open theism right now and I consider it to be an issue of importance.. but so is this.. oh decisions decisions.. hehe

Let's start a thread. :

[philothea]

Alrighty then... I'll start one. Give me a moment. :

[cmotherofpirl]

Enjoy

[Jaime]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 12 2005, 11:54 AM']I indicated that is was a possible implication of your statement.

"If one believes something that is contrary to civil or Church teaching, don't encourage others to "take up the cause"."

I stand by that. The difference between these two realms is vast. That's all.

[/quote]

Not vast when it comes to obedience. Or more to the point, encouraging disobedience.

[quote]
And it conjured an impression of the neo-Marxist mindset, namely that the state "defines" good and evil. Thus phrasing the states enactments in same way as Church "teachings", stirred a reaction in me.

[/quote]

Those are your issues. As a society, we are responsible to uphold the laws. If we do not, there are punitive results. As a Church, we are responsible to uphold the laws. If there are doctrines that we struggle with, there can be punitive results.

There lies the parallel. Nothing marxist about it.

[quote]
And putting aside the issue of underage drinking, I would certainly affirm that we can dissent and deny assent to civil legislation. In a sense its our duty as Catholics to discern and make conscientious decisions regarding the activities of the state in which we live. And there are times when rebellion can be justified or even become a moral imperative.
Obviously the principles at work are categorically different from that which we owe God and the Church, so I don't appreciate these two spheres being held in such close conceptual proximity.
[right][snapback]821603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And you would you like to give a modern day example? Something concrete here in the US?

Please name for us a law that us currently being upheld that we should break. Moreover that you would encourage minors to break as well?