Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 28 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: "Total Self-Gift"
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:26 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 9:16 pm
Posts: 558
Religion: Catholic
Have you never read the "Song of Songs?" Do you really think there is something wrong w/desire?

_________________
One of the most amazing things about the bible is that so much of it is scriptural!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Total Self-Gift"
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:05 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6499
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
Sabbath wrote:
Have you never read the "Song of Songs?" Do you really think there is something wrong w/desire?


I didn't say it was wrong, I explicitly said it was not sinful.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Total Self-Gift"
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4224
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Sabbath wrote:
Have you never read the "Song of Songs?" Do you really think there is something wrong w/desire?

Alex's argument (which I find patently absurd) is that if you want your spouse then you can't give yourself "totally" to them. Since it's okay to want our spouse, it is impossible to say we should give ourselves "totally" to them.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Total Self-Gift"
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:33 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6499
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
theJack wrote:
Sabbath wrote:
Have you never read the "Song of Songs?" Do you really think there is something wrong w/desire?

Alex's argument (which I find patently absurd) is that if you want your spouse then you can't give yourself "totally" to them. Since it's okay to want our spouse, it is impossible to say we should give ourselves "totally" to them.


That's only a part of the argument - but perhaps that is what you meant. There is certainly more to it than this.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Total Self-Gift"
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:59 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4224
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
I was responding to the particular part with reference to concupiscence. I don't think anything else in your argument is any more persuasive, either. I think, rather, you are being incredibly uncharitable in your reading of JPII and that you are inventing non-existent problems. When you're the only one that sees something, perhaps you should take very seriously the possibility that what you are seeing isn't there.

Or, sure, perhaps you know better than JPII on this issue.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Total Self-Gift"
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:06 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6499
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
theJack wrote:
I was responding to the particular part with reference to concupiscence. I don't think anything else in your argument is any more persuasive, either. I think, rather, you are being incredibly uncharitable in your reading of JPII and that you are inventing non-existent problems. When you're the only one that sees something, perhaps you should take very seriously the possibility that what you are seeing isn't there.

Or, sure, perhaps you know better than JPII on this issue.



You gave an interesting response in your first post here, which I appreciate. After that, your responses have had no substance.
I’m not sure why you are sticking around, because you don’t seem to be able to go further in the subject matter.

Secondly, I am not the only one that sees this as I have reading some analysis from other theologians. It's not like I am making this up out of thin air.

Finally, John Paul II is not some kind divine super being capable to no error. He has done and said a lot of bizarre things, which even his supporters admit were imprudent. But, I am not going to bring them up here, as it's probably not a good idea.

Anything else?

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Total Self-Gift"
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:21 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4224
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
I've not given you any substantive responses because you haven't given anything substantive. My initial reply answered your question. You simply chose to ignore it, with one minor admission (and you did not follow up on that admission and what it means based on my own words). So if you aren't going to take me seriously, why should I offer you the same respect? As far as sticking around, I was actually addressing Sabbath, as he misunderstood your "argument." He's been kind enough to try to continue to engage you, and my offering was to him to help him, as much as he so wishes, to engage with the "point" you are actually making. In any case, the fact remains that you've been answered numerously and your responses are essentially to ignore what's in front of you. There's nothing substantive to respond to. And to say this, on my part, is not lacking substance. I'm giving you a substantive answer in this very post that you should, frankly, take seriously (as I did, in fact, in my last post, which you did not, as has been your habit in this thread).

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Total Self-Gift"
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:56 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6499
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
theJack wrote:
I've not given you any substantive responses because you haven't given anything substantive. My initial reply answered your question. You simply chose to ignore it, with one minor admission (and you did not follow up on that admission and what it means based on my own words). So if you aren't going to take me seriously, why should I offer you the same respect?


I have responded to all of your points. But even if it was not satisfactory, your reaction is not productive at all. In a discussion, if one person misses the point in responding, then the other chimes in and helps clarify. That is communication 101. If I missed something then point it out. Simply claiming I ignored you doesn’t make any sense, it seems like a copout. If it seems like I ignored you, then I apologize for coming across like that. But I really don’t see what you are talking about. Accusing me of intentionally ignoring you is jumping the gun.


Quote:
As far as sticking around, I was actually addressing Sabbath, as he misunderstood your "argument."


Actually, you responded to me directly above. So, you are not isolating your responses to just Sabbath.

Quote:
In any case, the fact remains that you've been answered numerously and your responses are essentially to ignore what's in front of you.


I really don’t see what you are talking about and I apologize if my responses have been insufficient. It would be more productive to simply point it out instead of making *one* response to me, and then nothing else except to chime in with “thread winner,” which is off-putting.

In fact, I have responded thoroughly, making numerous points to why the phrase is bad, more points than you and Sabbath combined.

I am not infallible, so I can miss a few things, that is all I am saying. So, I ask again, where is the deficiency? Please point it out.


Quote:
There's nothing substantive to respond to. And to say this, on my part, is not lacking substance. I'm giving you a substantive answer in this very post that you should, frankly, take seriously (as I did, in fact, in my last post, which you did not, as has been your habit in this thread).


So, again, I will disagree. However, in any written or verbal discussion, when one party appears to not understand the other, there are attempts at clarifications at least a few times. You made *one* attempt and then gave up.

In fact, if you are going to point out how charitable Sabbath is, then why not give me the benefit of the doubt and post a real response instead of accusing me of ignoring/not taking you seriously?? Accusing me of ignoring you is not productive and is uncharitable.

I have not ignored you at all, at least in my perception. But, since I am fallible I could have missed something – because everyone misses something now and again, right?

So, the real charity here is not to make assumptions and accusations that I am ignoring someone or being uncharitable to a Pope, but to do what normal people of in discussion that they have the ability to carry out: respond and clarify.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 28 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


Jump to:  
cron