/ Subject > Re: More Losers & Such / 30 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] textman previously say: <snip> I would give anything to be accepted by the woman I love. Unlike you, I
] don't consider lesbianism to be a thing like eye color. It is, rather, an acquired habit (ie. learned behavior),
] or a self-generating program that lesbians indulge themselves in because it pleases them to do so. If my
] Dove [Would you prefer I constantly use 'She of the Warm Blue Voice' instead?] has the strength of will to
] quit smoking, then she can surely do likewise with her 'orientation' (or 'chemistry', as she puts it) ...
.
> frank w elliott jr wrote: Aside from the specific issues involved, you claim to be in love with
> someone not for what she is but for what you can make of her.
.
  Actually, I have never made any such outrageous claims. In fact, I fell in love with her long before I even suspected that she might be a lesbian. In the same way, I love her for who she is, not for what I can make out of her.
.
> Your obsession with her is adolescent and narcisistic.
.
  Yes, it's very true. Many Christians hate and despise love, thinking it selfish and childish. I guess the only kind of love that the church approves of is mutual-love. No hetero contamination there!
.
> Your insistence on pursuing it is frighteningly selfish and dangerously irrational.
.
  Oh, of course. Much better to be apathetic and uncaring like all the other false and hypocritical Christians who fancy that their hardened hearts are pleasing in the eyes of God.
.
> If you were a disinterested party, or even someone who loved her but was not in love with her, your
> belief that she should change her life might at least be entertained as respectable, if presumptuous.
.
  Huh? How does that work exactly?
.
> Since you are interested in having her for yourself and, indeed, you won't take "no" for an answer, your
> involvement can hardly be defended as purely altruistic.
.
  I never said it was.
.
> My advice to you is to seek the help of a therapist in recovering from this obsession,
> which is harmful to you.
.
  Harmful to me? Maybe harmful to a corrupt and sinful church that will do anything to keep the truth of these matters from being known to the people of God.
.
> Ultimately, you should seek help to avoid hurting her. - Frank
.
  "Avoid hurting her", huh? Well for the last six years she seemed to have no problems hurting me. Her and her many supporters and approvers fairly indulged themselves in hostility and sadism once it became open season on ol textman. Oh yes, textman is very very dangerous to beautiful women. Why you just never known but that some day he might actually go ahead and send you a dozen roses. Good Lord!

/ Topic > Re: More Losers & Such / Date > 30 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] textman wrote: <snip> I would give anything to be accepted by the woman I love. Unlike you, I don't
] consider lesbianism to be a thing like eye color. It is, rather, an acquired habit (ie. learned behavior),
] or a self-generating program that lesbians indulge themselves in because it pleases them to do so.
] If my Dove [Would you prefer I constantly use 'She of the Warm Blue Voice' instead?] has the strength
] of will to quit smoking, then she can surely do likewise with her 'orientation' (or'chemistry', as she puts
] it) <snip>
.
>>> frank w elliott jr replied: Aside from the specific issues involved, you claim to be in love with someone
>>> not for what she is but for what you can make of her.
.
>> textman answered: Actually, I have never made any such outrageous claims. In fact, I fell in love with
>> her long before I even suspected that she might be a lesbian.
.
> elliott replies: You fell in love with her before you really knew very much about her and what she
> wanted from life. This isn't too unusual.  It happens to lots of people.
.
 tx: That's right. It's called love at first sight. And yes, I'm sure it happens a lot; but it's not always genuine and lasting. Phony love vs. real love ... which is which, and which way is up? hmmmm? ... That's the 64,000 thousand dollar question. $$$???$$$
.
>> In the same way, I love her for who she is, not for what I can make out of her.
.
> elliott: Changing someone's sexual orientation is a major change. It's not usually possible.
.
 But with God, all things are possible. Faith can move mountains!
.
> Would you be willing to see her make this change and marry another man?
.
 Hell NO!!!
.
> If not, your motives for demanding this are far from selfless.
.
 Yeah, so? Selfless love is for angels and hypocrites, not real live Christians. In the same way, there are many Christians who make clear distinctions between human love and divine love; demonstrating how superior the latter is, and showing also how how feeble and unworthy is human love. But God loves love in all its forms; especially the passionate and romantic and extreme love of the human heart. Nowhere is this extreme love made more plain to see than in the Son of Man! Indeed, God is not at all impressed with the benevolent and 'fatherly' and dispassionate and disinterested 'love' that the clergy excel at.
.
>>> elliott: Your obsession with her is adolescent and narcisistic.
.
> elliott: I could have put this in a kinder way.
.
 Oh no. Don't do that! It's perfect just the way it is. It may gratify you to know that the Beast (ie. the Woman-Church of Canada) agrees with your assessment 1000%. They too think hetero-love is a childish obsession; and a very evil and oppressive one at that!
.
> This kind of love is characteristic of someone's first love. It is quite painful.
.
 Yeah, I know. As the rock stars put it: 'Love Hurts'.
Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the Cross of the Son of Man.
.
>> tx: Yes, it's very true. Many Christians hate and despise love,
.
> elliott: Your telling ME? :-)
.
 Yes, I am telling you. ... Are you not one of them?
.
>> thinking it selfish and childish. I guess the only kind of love that the church approves
>> of is mutual-love. No hetero contamination there!
.
>>> elliott: Your insistence on pursuing it is frighteningly selfish and dangerously irrational.
.
>> tx: Oh, of course. Much better to be apathetic and uncaring like all the other false and hypocritical
>> Christians who fancy that their hardened hearts are pleasing in the eyes of God.
.
> elliott: Being over a romantic obsession doesn't make one uncaring or loveless. Taking away the
> obsession will allow you to see what the object of your love needs more clearly.
.
 The Church of Canada sees that 'the object of my love' needs only to be kept very far far away from anything even remotely resembling heterosexual affections. The church sees that all she needs is more and more and more and always more mutual-love.   . . .  Such is the 'love-theology' of the Beast!
.
>>> If you were a disinterested party, or even someone who loved her but was not in love with her, your
>>> belief that she should change her life might at least be entertained as respectable, if presumptuous.
.
>> tx: Huh? How does that work exactly?
.
>>> elliott: Since you are interested in having her for yourself and, indeed, you won't take "no" for
>>> an answer, your involvement can hardly be defended as purely altruistic.
.
>> tx: I never said it was.
.
> elliott: It has to be in order for her to make such a major, if not impossible, life change.
.
 Actually Frank, you couldn't be more wrong. If any lesbian seriously considers giving up her 'intense joy' for something so nebulous and intangible as mere hetero-love, she will have to know, beyond all doubt, that the love he has for her will be intense, involved, passionate, and above all, that it will last for the rest of her life. If this is NOT the sort of love that tempts her, where is her motivation to give up her abundant and convenient (albeit cold and unfeeling) mutual-love?
.
> We're not talking about giving up smoking. We're talking about having her turn her
> back on people she has loved,
.
 My dear Frank, you are way off base here. Being a lesbian has nothing whatsoever to do with love. It has everything to do with 'chemistry' and finding your thrill on Lesbian-Hill. My beloved was introduced to the 'wild-side' round about the age of seven by her incestuous sisters; and she took to lesbianism the way a pig takes to slop. In the same way, a successful lesbian is not one who understands what love is (for they are the very opposite of love), but rather: she who has the most orgasms when she dies, wins! Being a lesbian therefore means having not the vaguest notion what true love is.    . . .  How then do they dare to call themselves Christian?
.
> not merely because she has found another but because she will be expected to HATE that love.
.
 Why should she be expected to hate love? This is just silly.
.
> Will she really be able to do so? Will she be able to convince you, or her therapist, or herself?
.
 'Her therapist', you say? Why should she need one? Christ will be quite enough for both of us.
.
>>> My advice to you is to seek the help of a therapist in recovering from this obsession,
>>> which is harmful to you.
.
>> tx: Harmful to me? Maybe harmful to a corrupt and sinful church that will do anything
>> to keep the truth of these matters from being known to the people of God.
.
>>> elliott: Ultimately, you should seek help to avoid hurting her. -- Frank
.
>> tx: "Avoid hurting her", huh? Well for the last six years she seemed to have no problems hurting me.
.
> As a general rule, if I love someone who tells me that he or she never wants to see me again,
> I do so out of love.
.
 That's great, Frank. And if someone you love tells you to 'piss off, I'm going to jump off a building or maybe just prostitute myself', why then I guess you'll just let them go right ahead and do so. After all, it's what she wants, right? What right do you have to say 'no'? So you just leave them to it ... out of love, of course ... The prophet saith: This is NOT love! ... "My beloved Sisters and Brothers; If any one among you wanders from the Truth, and someone brings her back, let them know that whoever brings back a sinner from the Error of Her Way will save his soul from Death, and it will cover a multitude of sins" [James 5:19-20 / Prophet Version]
.
>> tx: Her and her many supporters and approvers fairly indulged themselves in hostility
>> and sadism once it became open season on ol' textman.
.
> elliott: Perhaps, you have been treated harshly, but you should learn the meaning of the word "no."
.
 Huh? Why, whatever do you mean by that? 'No', you say? 'No' what? ... Just say 'no' to love? Just say 'no' to romance and passion and beauty? Just be nice and good and polite, and smile at everyone, and be apathetic and uncaring and unfeeling about everything ... The way the liars and hypocrites and deceivers do (and do so well)? ... I think maybe NOT!
.
> There are other fish in the sea.
.
 The prophet saith: Gag me with a shovel yet!
.
>> Oh yes, textman is very very dangerous to beautiful women. Why you just never known
>> but that some day he might actually go ahead and send you a dozen roses. Good Lord!
.
> It's nice to know you haven't forgotten about other women.
.
 That would be rather difficult, owing to the fact that I see them everyday. But, not being a lesbian, I do not have instant and easy access to their affections. In any case, there is only one that I love like this!
.
>>    the one not impressed by cheap psychobabble:  textman  ;>
.
> Then I'm worried that the next "psychobabble" you hear will be either very expensive
> or state-funded. -- Frank
.
 LOL ... Very funny, Frank. HA! I never suspected that you might have a sense of humor too. ... Actually, there is more than enough psycobabble to be found on this channel. Is it not perfectly obvious to everyone that attacking textman by this simple and easy route is the favorite weapon of the slammers? Indeed, the Wise & Compassionate Ones fairly excel at psychobabble. It seems to me that only one of them had courage enough to (briefly) face textman directly; and Kathlinda just happens to be on her way to a Doctor's degree in Psychobabble. Imagine that! Coincidence? ... I think not.

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Subject > Re: On Losers & Such / Date > 30 June 1998 /
.
] textman previously say: <snip> Cool. I have a certain liking for the Dominican traditions. ... Did you know
] that Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican? He's quite a sharp fellow, that 'dumb ox', wouldn't you say?
.
>>> janet answered: Uhuhn, yes, dear, we know! ;) 1225-1274 ... good guy!
>>> (But NOT the founder, lest anyone be mistaken ...)  ;)
.
>> textman replied: LOL ... Right. That would be St Dominic himself. But note the date of Thomas' birth.
>> It was right around that time that the early Dominicans got their official charter.
.
> janet answers: Ahem. The charter was granted in 1215. Note that, please: 1215, NOT 1216,
> which is the year that Francis' charter was granted...  (gdr)...
.
>> tx: Maybe Stephanie could be persuaded to post a nice section from that document. ... What was Dominic
>> and his merry band supposed to do again? ... A big cyber-kiss goes to anyone who knows more than
>> a little about this fascinating chapter in church history!!!
.
> janet: [Grin] ... They were mandated to praise, bless and preach. They are the Order of Preachers. They
> take no vow of stability, they are to be ready to preach at almost all times, almost all other religious
> observances are to SERVE the preaching ... Textman, guess what I studied there? The spirituality of the
> preacher in the early years of the Friars Preacher...  grin ...
.
 textman say: [Brief C.M.Burns voiceover:] Excellent! [end voiceover] ... So then, Janet; what would you say was Dominic's most defining moment? Under what circumstances did he come to realize what it was that the Lord demanded of him? In his later years, did he judge his mission a success? Was he pleased with what the Dominicans were becoming? What were his thoughts on Francis and the early Franciscans? If Dominic was an exceptional warrior for the Lord ... who are his successors today? Just what is the 'spirituality of preaching' anyway?
.
>>> janet: <snip> this is a sad tale, and not a unique one.
.
>> tx: Thank God! You're the first one to explicitly recognize the truth of my contentions that what happened
>> to me is NOT an isolated aberration, but is, in fact, COMMON throughout the churches in North America.
.
> janet: Common, I don't know, but I know it happens. Been there, done that ... And I don't think it's
> restricted to the churches, if we are talking about the same thing, here...
.
  Oh, I know it's not restricted to the churches. Neither is it restricted to higher (and lower) education in general. That's just the point, Janet. This type of thing is everywhere in our society because the West is deliberately, though not intentionally, mass producing homo's, bi's, transgender persons, transvestites, etc. All this is not because of some vast conspiracy, but is merely a logical consequence and direct result of the driving values (eg. money) and main preoccupations of the vast majority of North Americans. ... So is America a Christian nation then? The People say 'Yea'. The Lord says 'Nay'. And who can blame him for saying so? Is not everyone consumed with greed and lust and the frantic search for personal freedom, liberation, enlightenment, and happiness? And should the Church adopt the twisted ways of a corrupt and apathetic nation? Again the People say 'Yea'. Again the Lord says 'Nay'. But all the churches with all their good Christian saints hear him not ... as they hurry along to make friendship with a World fairly oozing with Sin & Iniquity!
.
>> I regard this as an important admission on your part; being, as you are, a worthy
>> ambassador of 'the church'.
.
> janet: ack
.
>> Indeed, I shall surely hold you to it. Say; you don't mind if I quote you on that?
.
> What, that I was in love with someone who decided he was gay? Quote away, it's hardly news...
.
 It is to me and all the other newbies on this channel! I rather think that maybe this admission comes as something of a minor shock to them ... ???
.
>>> janet: I'm sorry you went through, and are going through this. (I only got into this cause I
>>> was mentioned at the top ... I've missed what led up to it, sorry!) -- janet
.
>> tx: Wut? You mean you haven't been following this thread?! ... I hope that you're not suggesting
>> here that there are some of my postings that you don't read? ... Oh, please don't say that!   :)
.
> janet: Um, as we pay by the second for time on line here, I only read a few threads...
.
 "a few threads" ... yeah, right. I get headaches if I try to keep track of more than three threads at once. You, by comparison, are all over the place. I sometimes get the impression that most of the regular posters live online 18 hours per day. How do they do it? I know, I know. Keep the articles short and sweet! Right, janet?  :)
.
>> tx: the one trying to dig a little deeper yet:  textman  ;>
.
> janet: Here, textman, have a shovel...  ;)  --  janet

/ Topic > Re: On Distortion (long) / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Brian P. Gillespie writes: textman, Thanks for such a thoughtful response.
> I'll attempt my own response to some of your points:
.
>> textman previously wrote: The scriptures proclaim Jesus as the Word of God (cf. Prologue to John's
>> Gospel). It is because of this fact that we can say that the Lord speaks to us from out of his Holy
>> Book (cf. Epistle of James). Thus the Torah, the Prophets, Wisdom, the apostolic epistles, and the
>> gospels are all the Word of God too.
.
> BG: I follow you so far ...
.
>> But nowhere in Scripture does it suggest that the teachings of men (eg. popes and bishops) are
>> also the Word of God in THIS way (ie. in the sense of being a direct incarnation and manifestation
>> of the Lord in a concrete material and spiritual manner)
.
> You lost me, big guy. Scripture doesn't claim that it is a 'direct incarnation and manifestations
> of the Lord in a concrete material and spiritual manner'.
.
 textman answers: Please read the Epistle of James ... VERY CAREFULLY!
.
> It claims to be 'God breathed' but that is much different from being an incarnation of the Lord. And if
> I'm not mistaken Christ said something about the keys to the kingdom and the ability to bind and to
> loose that says that the teachings of the apostles and their successors (the popes and bishops to
> whom you refer) WOULD be the Word of God.
.
 Yes, of course. But only if they are in harmony with Revelation (ie. Jesus Christ & Bible), and with the Tradition that is in harmony with them. My contention is that what the Canadian Church teaches (eg. mutual-love) is NOT in accordance with authentic Faith! Moreover, the Church herself makes a clear distinction between Scripture (which is divine revelation) and all that builds on it, or is drawn out from it (making up the deposit of faith). Thus the teachings of men are in no way equal to (or superior to) the Word of God as it is revealed in the sacred scriptures. Scripture is the canon or rule by which we measure all things Christian, and by which we judge the merits of various doctrines and traditions. If this were not the case, how then would we know if the teachings of any particular bishop are in harmony with Revelation or not?
.
>> tx: In all the World the Christian Scriptures are unique!
.
> BG: I agree completely.
.
>> Therefore we have to make a clear distinction between inspired Truth (ie. revelation), and the falsely
>> 'inspired' fantasies of vain and egotistical men who suppose that their theologies and philosophies are
>> just as much the Word of God as the Scriptures ... and EVEN MORE SO!
.
> BG: I couldn't agree more. But before we make such a distinction, we have to understand what divine
> revelation consists of. The Bible and the Sacred Tradition of the apostles both teach quite clearly that "All
> scripture is God breathed" and that the Church is "... the pillar and foundation of truth".
.
 The only pillar and foundation of truth that I am aware of is divine revelation. Jesus Christ is the Logos of God. He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life! ... Wut? You have found another pillar and foundation of truth? ... Wut? Jesus Christ is insufficient? Not fit, perhaps, to serve as pillar and foundation? ... Wut? The Sacred Scriptures are not revelation enough for you? Do you require something more? ... Well, I guess if Christ and his Holy Word are too small for your faith, you'd best hurry and run to the popes to fill out your expansive 'faith' ...
.
> BG: And along with the fact that the scriptures clearly teach that the apostles and their successors would
> posses the keys to the kingdom with the ability to bind and to loose, it seems that divine revelation has
> been entrusted to the Church. It is therefore, the Church who is responsible for defining the distinction to
> which you refer. And when men like Luther and Calvin rejected the authority of the Church, they became "
> ... vain and egotistical men who suppose that their theologies and philosophies are just as much the Word
> of God as the Scriptures ... and EVEN MORE SO!"
.
 Maybe so, but that is not what I meant ...
.
>> tx: Thus if a bishop teaches that "If it's mad or sad, and not glad, then it''s bad", then it hardly matters
>> that scripture violently disagrees with such a ludicrous joy-joy philosophy since 'the episcopal word'
>> ALWAYS takes precedence over scripture!
.
> BG: Incorrect. No single bishop is infallible except for the Bishop of Rome. I can't imagine what
> the bishop who said that to you meant, but it wasn't an official teaching of the Catholic Church.
.
 You are wrong, Brian. Every bishop is a duly authorized teacher of, by, and for the Catholic Church. Everything that they teach has the full authority of the whole Church behind it. That is what it means to be a bishop! Moreover, this is what the Canadian Church is teaching and practicing and living on a day to day basis. It is the very essence of the joy-joy philosophy that permeates the Church from top to bottom. So unless you are prepared to admit that the entire Church of Canada is heretical, your observation that it is not an official teaching is irrelevant in the extreme!
.
>> tx: Such is the marvelous 'respect' that Catholicism (and Christianity in general these days) has for
>> the sacred scriptures.
.
> BG: Of course it does. After all, it was the Catholic Church that defined the sacred canon in the first place.
.
 Either you are utterly ignorant of the complex historical process that led to the formation of the NT canon ... OR you are a bald-faced LIAR! The Roman Catholic Church did not actually get around to defining the canon in a 'definitive' way until the Council of Trent. And the only reason the bishops did it then was because Luther was playing fast and loose with the canon ... Making silly statements like James did not belong in the canon, and was actually apocrypha! It was Luther's obvious errors in these matters that demanded a response from the bishops at Trent. ... Perhaps you ought to study Church history in far greater depth before you go around making stupid statements like this again. You don't want me to start thinking that maybe you're just another Padraic42 clone ... do you? That could easily result in unfortunate consequences.
.
> If you have not already done so, try reading the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from V2. It
> demonstrates the degree of respect that the Church truly has for the scriptures.
.
 Brian, Brian. Who is not paying attention now? I've only mentioned Dei Verbum about a dozen times already in various articles. I am well aware that it is an amazing document. Not flawless, by any means; but not at all bad (all things considered). The point is that documents are one thing, the Faith of the People is another. There is NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER for the scriptures among Christians anywhere in Canada! That is the prime reality that we must deal with. Pointing to various books and documents proves nothing. We must make a necessary distinction between ink on paper, and the things in the hearts of living Christians. Now this is a distinction that Padraic is simply unable to comprehend, but it is one that I insist is vital to a proper understanding of the Faith (or rather: the Unfaith) of the People of God!
.
>> tx: Not only have I read these citations, but I have read the entire document about a dozen times so far.
>> And although Dei Verbum urges "equal feelings of devotion and reverence", I see very little devotion or
>> reverence on the part of Canadian Catholics toward the Bible.
.
> BG: How Canadian Catholics revere the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with what the Church
> teaches about the Bible.
.
 You are out of your cotton-pickin mind, Mister! The unfaith and disrespect of the People has EVERYTHING to do with what the Canadian Church teaches about the Bible. If you can't even see the truth of that, then I have no respect for you at all!
.
> Believe me, I see a lot of people in the US who claim to be Catholic who really should not be doing so.
.
 LOL ... No kidding! Just try telling that to the priests, and hear them start foaming at the mouth about Unconditional Love & Infinite Compassion. This is the priestly answer to the Unfaith of the People. If the People are ignorant of the Scriptures (and their importance to the Faith), and are (therefore) unworthy Christians, is it not the fault of the clergy who assume the responsibility of teaching and forming the faith of the People? If the priests are unable to do as they should, perhaps it's high time that they step down as the Lords and Masters of the Church!
.
> That doesn't have any impact upon whether or not what the Church teaches is correct.
.
 The prophet of the Lord says that it does!
.
>> tx: What is said in this dogmatic constitution is one thing. What is actually practiced on a daily basis by
>> the vast majority of American/Canadian Christians is quite something other.
.
> BG: But it is still irrelevent.
.
 LOL  ...  Sure it is!  [Very Heavy on the Sarcasm]
.
> Those who fail to practice and believe what the Church teaches are really not Catholic.
> Despite what they claim.
.
 But Brian; they think that they are. And the priests who lord it over them also think that they are. And every other nominal Christian in the world also thinks that they are. And every enemy of the Faith also thinks that they are. And the churches in general also think that they are still Catholic (or whatever). ... So it's just you and Padraic on one side, and the rest of the Cosmos on the other. ... hmmmm ... Tough choice there.
.
> BG: I can find many protestants who would claim that good works are required for salvation, but that
> doesn't change the fact that sola fide is one of the hallmarks of protestantism.
.
 Let us be precise, please. It used to be a pillar (or hallmark) of some branches of protestantism. There are (and were) many free churches that never did rally around the war-cry of 'faith alone'. You have only to stick your nose in the book of James to see that 'faith alone' is never enough for the Lord. We must all demonstrate the reality of faith each and every day in all the things we say and do!
.
>> tx: For the many enlightened and progressive ones in the church, the Bible is mostly just irrelevant
>> to the post-modern world; being, as it were, patriarchal, anachronistic, and misogynistic.
.
> BG: Then they aren't nearly as 'enlightened' as they think.
.
 LOL  ...  No shit!
.
> And you are still attacking a group of people who claim to be in the Church as opposed to the Church itself.
.
 My dear Brian! Art thou utterly dense? There is no church apart from the People of God! ... Yes, it's true that those at the Heart of the Diocese do not make up the majority of the People, but they are the best and the brightest; and, presumably, among the most faithful and outstanding. So if these shining stars do not measure up, what does that say about the church at large (ie. about the faith of the People in general)?
.
>> What the Canadian Woman-Church requires is a new Bible.
.
> BG: I thought we were talking about the Roman Catholic Church.
.
 We are!
.
> Were you just checking to see if I was paying attention?
.
 No. But obviously you aren't.
.
>> tx: But since they can't do THAT, they have to make do with the new and improved inclusive-language
>> version of the scriptures (ie. The New Revised Standard Version), and simply ignore all those passages
>> that are offensive to their delicate sensibilities.
.
> BG: There is no version of the inclusive-language scriptures that is accepted by the Catholic Church.
.
 You sir, are a baboon! The official liturgical text of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada is the NRSV.
Check it out for yourself, if you don't believe me.
.
>> tx: Given the enormous ignorance of, and disrespect for, the scriptures that exists on the part of
>> most Christians (especially those who compose lists of Bible snippets to prove a point), it ought to
>> be apparent that someone needs to teach them what it means. But the church seems to think that
>> ordination is all that is required to make a man an expert on the scriptures.
.
> BG: Ordination and the 7-10 years of training that preceed it (even more in some orders).
.
 Here in Canada, the would-be priest is required to obtain a Master of Divinity degree; which is a four-year program (which can be completed in three if you're clever and ambitious). Now this program includes about a dozen or so courses on the scriptures; all of which are no more than brief and basic introductions to the various units therein. Critical thinking and an in-depth knowledge of biblical scholarship are in no way necessary in order to pass these micky-mouse courses. Indeed, they are deliberately designed so as not to over-strain the adolescent minds and skills of the majority of seminarians and divinity students. ... So do you suppose that an M.Div degree makes the holder a competent bible scholar? I sure as hell don't!
.
>> Yet the plain truth is that most priests are utterly unfit to teach on the Bible.
.
> BG: I'll agree on 'some'. I don't think either of us could support the statement that 'most' are unfit.
.
 I couldn't disagree more!
.
>> Nowhere is this made more apparent than in the Sunday sermon, which has degenerated into little
>> more than entertaining story-telling and amusing folk-tales.
.
> BG: In some parishes this is all too true. More so in the US and Canada than elsewhere. But the official
> position of the Church is that the sermon should 'instruct the faithful on the relevence of the Gospel'.
> The fact that some priests fail to do so, still doesn't dimish the truth of what the Church teaches.
.
 Well, Brian, I figure that what the Church teaches is precisely what the VAST MAJORITY of American and Canadian priests preach in their parishes on Sunday. And what they preach is a watered-down version of the Gospel. A gospel that washes away all the truths of scripture so as not to make the gospel too demanding for the lukewarm faith of an arrogant and hard-hearted People of God. But you think that some obscure and irrelevant papal document nullifies all that because it somehow contains 'the truth'. No, Brian. The truth, as Muldar says, is out there!
.
>> tx: Thus the priests do not teach scriptural truth; they preach only a watered-down gospel that washes
>> away all truth so as to make the Gospel suitable for public consumption!
.
> BG: An accusation of which ministers in ALL denominations are guilty.
> Despite what those denominations may teach officially.
.
 That is precisely my point! It is not only the Cats who piss on the Bible; but rather, ALL the churches do likewise. Especially those that claim to be 'bible-based churches'. All Christians disrespect the Bible because none of them are able to approach the sacred text with a humble heart!
.
>> tx: In other words, because the priestly interpretation of Scripture is the ONLY valid one for all
>> believers, there is really no point in reading the Bible at all, since you have to be a priest to be
>> fit even to understand it!
.
> BG: Are you suggesting that there is more than one valid interpretation of Scripture?
.
 Oh Yes!
.
> And your point about not needing to read at all is completely false. The Church clearly teaches
> (Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, etc.)
.
 Dei Verbum and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation is one and the same document, Brian.
Wuts a'matter 4U?
.
> that the study of the scriptures is imperitive for ALL of the faithful because
> "... ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ".
.
 Halleluyah! St Jerome lives! ... You are aware that that particular quote comes from Jerome  ...  Yes?
.
> But when two people read the same passage very prayerfully and come to different conclusions as to
> what is meant, there must be an authority to correct and teach.
.
 Yes? ...
.
> According to the Scriptures, that authority is the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth" and the bearer
> of the "keys to the kingdom of Heaven".
.
 In other words, the Pope (the bearer of the keys) is the only one who is fit to read the Scriptures! ... What a crock! ... By the way, just exactly where are these all important keys that you and Padraic are always on about? I don't believe that I've ever come across any pictures of them in my history books. Could it be that these are invisible keys? Could it be that these so-called keys exist only in the fevered fantasies of the papists?
.
>> tx: In other words, there is no one who is capable of thinking for themselves.
.
> BG: Wrong. Everyone is capable of thinking for themselves. But that doesn't mean that everyone will
> come to the proper understanding of divine revelation via their own thought processes. The 20,000+
> denominations of the protestant world should make that very clear.
.
 I tend to agree.
.
>> No one who is capable of meditating on the scriptures in an original and constructive,
>> and yet critical, manner.
.
> BG: Of course they are. People (ordained and otherwise) are constantly coming up with new and
> valid ways to apply scripture. It's just when they come up with something that is incompatible
> with defined doctrine that the Magisterium has to step in and correct and teach.
.
 You mean that they have to step in and defend the priestly distortion of scripture!
.
>> tx: No wonder the Bible is in such disarray. We are all rushing about seeking "guidance", looking
>> for experts to explain "difficult passages". All I have to say about that is:   BLOODY GOOD GRIEF!
.
> BG: I agree. 20,000+ protestant denominations. Varying numbers of so-called Catholic organizations
> that defy Church teaching. It is certainly a mess. But it is not the Bible that is in disarray. It is, rather,
> the rampant attempts of individuals to "... meditating on the scriptures in an original and constructive,
> and yet critical, manner".
.
 Oh well; perhaps all this is just part of the necessary growing pains. The scriptures have not yet revealed all that can be revealed. I'll tell you this much, though: it will not be the popes and bishops who dig out the undiscovered treasures that lay buried and hidden in the sacred text. They're much too busy being the Lords & Masters of the Church!
.
>> <snip> No kidding? I am profoundly shocked and dismayed that you do not understand what I am trying
>> to say here. Perhaps I can clarify things for you? Are you aware that in the Tanak there is a collection of
>> ancient songs called the Psalms of David? Have you ever read them? Most of them are not at all oozing
>> with joyful, happy-happy, kiss-kiss type feelings.
.
> BG: I knew what you were talking about when you said that happy-happy, joy-joy types of approaches
> are not biblical. I didn't know what you meant when you quoted the Bishop. It is possible that your quote
> does not convey the Bishop's intention. Since you only provided us with a single, enigmatic phrase, it's a
> little hard to tell.
.
 LOL ... Have you considered the possibility of actually giving the matter some serious thought? Surely you don't expect me to do ALL your thinking for you?!
.
>> tx: No indeed. Quite the contrary, in fact. Are you also aware that the People of God never get to hear
>> these outrageously 'negative' songs in the course of the three year liturgical cycle, but are only offered
>> a carefully selected portion of David's book? ... So as not to unduly upset them? Hey! Are you hearing
>> me OK now?
.
> BG: Yep. But you're still babbling. Are you seriously suggesting that the three year cycle of readings
> is intended to not upset the faithful?
.
 Wut? You can't figure that out on your own?
.
> BG: How about the very first words of John the Baptist: "You brood of vipers...". What a happy-happy,
> joy-joy kind of guy! What about the words of the Lord himself "...Away from me you evildoers..." and
> again "...on that day there will be much crying and gnashing of teeth ..." Not exactly choosen to keep
> the faithful upbeat and happy. And yet these are read in the Mass every year.
.
 WOW! I am overcome with awe and humiliation ... So I guess I was wrong then? ...
On second thought: maybe NOT!
.
>> Do you understand what I am driving at now? No? Then I strongly urge you to read the Psalms directly.
.
> BG: You mean the Psalms that are read at Mass every single day? I do read them. Directly.
> And I still have no idea what you are talking about.
.
 Did you also read those Brueggemann commentaries I suggested you absorb? ... No? Then I'm not surprised that you don't know what it is that I'm hinting at.
.
>> <snip> Well sir, the reason I mention it is that the great and wonderful Woman-Church is not an
>> organization or a denomination as such. Rather it is a descriptive term indicating the main features
>> of many denominations that are geared toward the promotion of women in the churches. Thus the
>> fact that the vast majority of today's divinity students are women is a clear and obvious sign that the
>> Catholic Church is very much concerned with women's issues, and women's concerns within the church.
.
> BG: At Catholic institutions, the vast majority of divinity students are not women.
.
 I'm sorry; I thought that I had made it clear to all that I am speaking of the Church in Canada. Things might be slightly different in the States ... ???
.
> But I fail to see what difference it would make if they were.
.
 You and everybody else.  ...  Blindness, blindness everywhere!
.
> BG: Of course the Church is concerned with women's issues. The Church is concerned
> with the issues that affect ALL of the faithful.
.
 This too is a bald-faced LIE! The Canadian Church doesn't give a flying phuc about unvowed, unemasculated lay-males.  . . .  Indeed, a man has to lob his dick off just to get noticed in the Woman-Church of Canada!
.
> What is your point?
.
 Gee, I just don't know!  ...  I'll have to think about that  ...
.
>> Thus in the church of Canada, feminism and feminist theology are extremely popular,
>> and courses on women's studies abound throughout America (just ask Janet).
.
> What is popular concerns me very little.
.
 Maybe that's your problem right there (ie. rampant apathy)!
.
> What the Church teaches officially is all that concerns me.
.
 LOL  ...  Oh, but for wider horizons ...
.
>> Thus the major characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada can be defined in terms
>> of how pro-female they are, and how pro-feminine biases determine the main features and
>> qualities of the Church in the concrete everyday world.
.
> BG: The major characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church anyway can only be defined in terms of what
> the Church actually teaches. As soon as you do otherwise, you simply attack a straw man. As you have
> been doing throughout your entire post.
.
 Well, excuse me, I'm sure! I thought I was the one who has been repeatedly insisting that what the Church actually teaches, and what various official documents say, are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!
.
>> tx: In other words, the Church of Canada (interdenominational) is a church by and for women. Even the
>> priests are women in all but biology; ie. many can be likened unto vaginally deprived women. Needless
>> to say, one of the main consequences of this violently female-biased ecclesial mentality is that men are
>> neither wanted nor needed in the church.
.
> Time to take a rest. You are definitely over tired.
.
 On the contrary; I am pumped up in the extreme! The Spirit of the Lord energizes me.  ...  Ah, yes; whenever the self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith are at a loss as to what to say, they simply resort to insult. It's the perfect rebuttal to anything and everything that does not compute!  ...  LOL
.
>> <snip> Actually, that's exactly what he did say! Read the opening part of the quote carefully:
>> "... the Word of God includes ...". That means that all those things on his list are ALSO the Word of God.
.
> BG: It depends upon what preceeds the ellipsis. If the opening of the article actually says: "The
> study of the Word of God includes..." then your conclusion would be false. And even if the writer
> did say "The Word of God includes..." it would make no difference unless the document is an
> official teaching of the Church.
.
 This particular teaching is as official as it needs to be ... At least in the eyes of the Church of Canada. In other words, it merely explicitly states what the Church anyways practices in many and various ways. Your concern with what is 'official' and what is not simply misses the point by a wide margin!
.
>> <snip> I beg to differ. I think you BOTH look pretty silly now ...
.
> BG: That's only because you've been attacking a straw man. Anyone who knows what the
> Church really teaches also realizes that you have presented no argument against the Church.
.
 My dear Brian; it is precisely what the Canadian Church REALLY TEACHES that concerns me!
.
>>  <snip>       Paying attention is what prophets do best!!!
.
> But we weren't talking about prophets. We were talking about you.
.
 Owwwww! I am profoundly hurt and dismayed that you should say such a thing.
It's something I would expect of Padraic ...
.
>> tx:  <snip>  Then maybe the problem is not in my talking, but in the Reader's listening ... ???
.
> BG: Nope. I listened just fine. You simply didn't make any valid points.
> Feel free to try again, though. God Bless.
.
 Thx very much indeed ... I believe I will 'try again'. And might I also suggest that some of our other Readers are better listeners than you? ... I certainly hope so!

/ Subject > Reply2MorDis Critics / 14 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.christnet.bible-thumpers.convert.convert.convert /
.
>> textman previously wrote: But nowhere in Scripture does it suggest that the teachings of men
>> (eg. popes and bishops) are also the Word of God in THIS way (ie. in the sense of being a direct
>> incarnation and manifestation of the Lord in a concrete material and spiritual manner)
.
> Padraic42 replied: Oh no? "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he
> who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Lk.10:16)  The Pope and bishops don't receive 'private
> revelations' from God, but they are those God appointed to 'teach' His Word. <much snippage>
.
 textman say: Hell of a job they're doing of it here in Canada. 
.
> "Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses'
> seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you," (Mt23:1-3). So I guess Scripture DOES
> suggest that listening to the Pope and Bishops IS listening to God.
.
 Sure thing P42-dude; but that's not what I mean by 'direct manifestation'. Pay attention U!
.
> Then again, you can set yourself up as 'a' Pope and an infallible interpretor of Scriptures.
> But that isn't Scriptural, is it?
.
 I wouldn't think so, no. ... But then, I never actually claimed to be an 'infallible' interpreter; did I, Paddy? Only 'better than the average bear' ... Which isn't saying a whole lot considering the dismal condition of biblical scholarship. btw: the only infallible interpreter I know of is the Bible itself. Or, to put it another way, the 'mind of Christ' ... or, the Spirit of Truth which was promised to the Church. That's 'to the church', padraic; not exclusively to the pope. And if the Pope is too busy to get around to interpreting scripture after the manner of those arrogant scholars, well then, I hardly think that the Spirit will simply hang around the Vatican waiting for the Pope to find some free time. No; She will much rather seek out someone, anyone who approaches the text with sufficient humilty and respect and openess of mind and heart. Ah yes, if only good Christians could actually read their Bibles ... Maybe then we would see some worthy interpreting going on around here ... eh?

/ Re: More Distortions / June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] long long ago Padraic42 once wrote: NO????? Then you humbly submit to the teachings of the Church?
] ... NO???? ... You can determine God's truth on your own without the Church? Then you are declaring
] yourself above the Church.
.
>> textman answered: Dear Padraic42, I humbly submit to the teachings of the Church ... insofar as they
>> are in accordance with the Revelation of Jesus Christ and his Holy Word. <snip>
.
> Padraic42 replied: Translation: as long as they don't conflict with 'MY' interpretations of the Revelation
> of Christ and Scripture ... I guess St. Paul should have said textman is the 'pillar and bulwark' of truth
> and not the Church?
.
 textman say: No doubt he would have, had he forseen what lay in store for Christians in the age of
The American Babylon. Corinth is small potatoes compared to Hollywood, California!

>> Keith Ng wrote: How about a discussion of the basics. Just why is
>> a homosexual lifestyle incompatible with the Christian lifestyle?
.
> Bob & Martha Vera answered: Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. (To deny this is to decalre
> oneself an idiot.) While most of that condemnation is in the OT, some is found in the NT. Homosexuality
> distorts the natural purpose of sex and one of the first major commands that God gave: "Go forth and
> multiply." Since the Bible is a source of the deposit of faith known to Christians, anything contrary to
> the Bible is contrary to Christianity. (If a club's rules prohibit membership to people named Bill, [then]
> Bill cannot join the club.) BTW, I would argue that [while] homosexual activity is not compatible with
> the fully Christian lifestyle, it does not - and can not - automatically exclude one from claiming the
> Christian faith. We are all sinners. In that light, I'd still like to meet the first perfect Christian.
.
 textman say: Nuff said! ... textman awards the prestigious Top-Notch Bible-Lover trophy to the Vera's
... Very well done!

>> Bob & Martha Vera wrote: Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. <snip>
.
> Mark answers: So is eating pork, lobster and wearing mixed fiber in clothes. When are you
> going to start freeing pigs and lobster from people that are violating the book of Leviticus
> clear instructions? BTW, what type of clothes do you wear?
.
 textman say: There is considerable difference between changing cultural customs,
and the abiding human realities from whence they all spring. Let us never put aside this distinction ... OK?
... Pretty please with sugar on top?

/ Subject > Re: More Distortions / 10 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> Bob & Martha Vera wrote: Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.
.
> Keith Ng replies: I know I'm not a bible scholar, but I'd like to know where it says such a thing.
> This is the fourth time I've asked this, and I haven't had a single reply on the subject.
> "History repeats itself,  first as tragedy, second as farce." -- Karl Marx
.
 textman say: LOL ... Talk about not paying attention! This question is constantly asked and answered
in the various Christian newsgroups. Just look around, Keith. Or get yourself a bible concordance.
btw: I like that Marx quote too. He's a damn fine historian ... but a little too rusty around the edges
(even for a pioneer).

/ Re: StillMore Distortn1 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 15 June 1998 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> Yes, of course. But only if they are in harmony with Revelation
>> (ie. Jesus Christ & Bible), and with the Tradition that is in harmony with them. My contention is that
>> what the Canadian Church teaches (eg. mutual-love) is NOT in accordance with authentic Faith!
.
> Brian P. Gillespie answers: Depends upon what you mean by mutual-love.
.
 Dear Brian, what I mean by mutual-love is irrelevant. It's what the Church's many practicing Catholics mean by mutual-love that matters. Just ask your nearest friendly neighborhood Catholic feminist. And if that doesn't work, ask about freedom and autonomy and the many wonders of liberation. You sure as hell won't find any references to 'mutual-love' in your catechism!
.
> Christ clearly teaches that we have to love ALL men.
.
 Huh? ... Noooo. He teaches that all human males and females are the Children of the same one Heavenly Father ... Who also happens to be the God of Jesus Christ. He also teaches that we must love the Father first, last, and always! Only after that are we to love all of God's Children as our brothers and sisters in Christ. ... Got that? Our love for each other depends upon our prior love for God (and his for us). Only from this boundless love can we rightly know what it means to truly love others.
.
> BG: Those who agree with us and those who do not. If you want to call that mutual-love
> then the Church is teaching exactly what they should be teaching.
.
 My dear Brian, the mutual-love I am refering to is the kind of love that abounds when oriented females get together to do ... errr ... well, those things that they most love to do. In other words: 'mutual-love' and 'mutual-masterbation' are one and the same thing as far as I can tell.
.
>> tx: Moreover, the Church herself makes a clear distinction between Scripture (which is divine
>> revelation) and all that builds on it, or is drawn out from it (making up the deposit of faith).
.
> BG: Then you haven't been reading the documents that you reference so often.
> Scripture is not the entirety of divine revelation.
.
 I never said that it was. On the contrary: I, like VC2, refer to both Jesus and the Scriptures as Revelation.
.
> BG: Scripture along with Sacred Tradition along with the interpretation of the Magisterium
> consitute the entirety of divine revelation.
.
 Oh now this idea is utter nonsense! The Council clearly recognized that revelation is an unfolding and ongoing process that does not, and indeed cannot, cease! In the same way, I would have to maintain that the Catholic episcopal tradition does NOT have an exclusive contract with God to be the ONLY recipients of spiritual truth. ... Nor is their interpretation of scripture the only valid one. ... Bible scholars would be up the creek without a paddle if they could not 'suspend' any and all 'magisterial' interpretations in their pursuit after the truth of things!
.
>> tx: Thus the teachings of men are in no way equal to (or superior to) the Word of God as it is
>> revealed in the sacred scriptures.
.
> BG: The infallible teaching of the Magisterium along with the teachings of Sacred Tradition ARE equal
> to the scriptures as divine revelation.
.
 Well, this seems to be the source of the problem right here! If episcopal teachings and priestly traditions are deemed equal to the Word as given in Christ & Bible, then they become, for all practical purposes, superior to the revelaton of Jesus & and his Sacred Word. ... Am I getting through to anyone? ... After 2000 years of accumulating traditions and theological development and priestly refinements and power gathering, there comes a point, you know, where those darned scriptures just don't zip along like they used to. In fact, they're downright rude in some places, and since God has entrusted all cosmic wisdom and divine knowledge to us, well we'll just overlook this that and the other thing ... For the good of the People of course! ... Is this not exactly what has happened to the Epistle of James and the Song of Songs? Are they not despised and dispensed with because the Church no longer has need of them? And why should that be, eh? Because we are far wiser and better than the Truth as given to us in Jesus Christ and his Holy Word! ... The Lord saith: "What fools these mortals be!"
.
>> tx: The only pillar and foundation of truth that I am aware of is divine revelation.
.
> BG: Then you haven't been reading the scriptures which you so often defend. For they
> identify the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth.
.
 Oh yeah? Is this because a handful of priestly verses in Matthew say so? What about the witness of all the rest of scripture? Do they not warn us constantly not to worship idols of our own devising? Do they mean nothing compared to the mighty Matthew? ... What about the words of the Lord himself? He said 'follow me, for I am the Way'. But now suddenly, thanks to Matthew, the Pope is the way, the truth and the life? ... I think maybe NOT!
.
>> <snip> You are wrong, Brian. Every bishop is a duly authorized teacher of, by, and for the Catholic
>> Church. Everything that they teach has the full authority of the whole Church behind it.
.
> BG: Nonsense. The bishops only have this authority when they teach as a group. The only single bishop
> who posseses this authority is the Supreme Pontiff.
.
 Are you saying that the bishops are not authorized to teach the truth? ... You know what? I do believe you're right about that! ... This is why a bishop must wait until he retires before he can speak out honestly and boldly and without fear of reprisals!!!
.
>> tx: <snip> Either you are utterly ignorant of the complex historical process that led to the formation of
>> the NT canon ... OR you are a bald-faced LIAR! The Roman Catholic Church did not actually get around
>> to defining the canon in a 'definitive' way until the Council of Trent.
.
> BG: You're only off by about 1200 years. Not bad.
.
 Care to elaborate, Herr Brian? ... Care to prove me wrong? ... By all means show us your 'evidence'!
.
>> tx: And the only reason the bishops did it then was because Luther was playing fast and loose with the
>> canon ... Making silly statements like James did not belong in the canon, and was actually apocrypha!
.
> BG: He also felt that his interpretation of scripture was above that of the Church. Sound familiar?
.
 Hey, the plain fact was that Luther made a remarkable discovery because of his insights into Paul. It gave him the courage to do what he knew needed to be done. He made it possible for Christians to take charge of their spiritual lives by putting the Scriptures into their hands. The results of that combination surprised even him. Even the lazy and bloated church of the Italian bishops had to sit up and take note of it. ... As for the rest, I say again that my interpretations are NOT above the church; they are of the church, by the church, and for the church. I just don't happen to equate the church with the priestly vision of all things. I think that the church is bigger than that. I think that the true church (ie. the Kingdom of God) is big enough, and strong enough, to contain prophets. If this Roman Catholic Church cannot accomodate even one puny and wretched prophet, then She is the one that we should ALL be praying for! ... Oh Lord! What shall become of the People of God when they turn their backs on the Truth of your Word?!
.
>> It was Luther's obvious errors in these matters that demanded a response from the bishops at Trent.
.
> BG: Just as I respond to you.
.
 Eh? How's that again? Are we still in the Reformation period then? ... I guess I'd better hurry up and forget those four centuries that stand between us and Trent? It would certainly simplify everything.
.
>> tx: ... Perhaps you ought to study Church history in far greater depth before you go around making
>> stupid statements like this again.
.
> BG: Excellent advice. Please heed it.
.
 Uh, OK. ... Ummm, which of my historical statements was incorrect again?
.
>> <snip> Brian, Brian. Who is not paying attention now? I've only mentioned Dei Verbum about
>> a dozen times already in various articles.
.
> But apparently, you've never actually READ it or you wouldn't make some of the inane
> statements that you do.
.
 Like WHAT for example, please? ... Are you refering to my opinion that the Holy Spirit is not chained up in a box in a dark basement in one of those fancy old buildings that they have over in Vatican city? ... So ok, me and VC2 are certainly of a different mind about that! But other than that, I'd say that we are at least agreeing as to most of the essentials. ... Definitions are SO important don't you know.
.
>> I am well aware that it is an amazing document. Not flawless, by any means;
.
> BG: How could it be flawless if it doesn't agree with you?
.
 LOL ... Exactly! ... :)
.
>> The point is that documents are one thing, the Faith of the People is another. There is NO RESPECT
>> WHATSOEVER for the scriptures among Christians anywhere in Canada! That is the prime reality that
>> we must deal with. Pointing to various books and documents proves nothing. We must make a necessary
>> distinction between ink on paper, and the things in the hearts of living Christians. Now this is a
>> distinction that Padraic is simply unable to comprehend, but it is one that I insist is vital to a proper
>> understanding of the Faith (or rather: the Unfaith) of the People of God!
.
> BG: And if you insist it, it must be true! As soon as all of Canada wakes up and adopts
> your interpretation of scripture, we'll all be better off.
.
 I tend to agree.  :)
.
>> <snip> But Brian; they think that they are. And the priests who lord it over them also think
>> that they are. And every other nominal Christian in the world also thinks that they are.
.
> Including yourself.
.
 If it looks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, AND calls itself a duck, I would look pretty foolish by denying it ... Yes?
.
>> And every enemy of the Faith also thinks that they are. And the churches in general also think
>> that they are still Catholic (or whatever). ... So it's just you and Padraic on one side, and the
>> rest of the Cosmos on the other. ... hmmmm ... Tough choice there.
.
> You forgot the Magisterium. It's me and Padraic and the Magisterium on one side and you
> and your 'intellect' on the other. Not a hard choice.
.
 Not so fast mister! You have yet to demonstrate how the bishops agree with you that Catholics are not Catholics. Please provide some evidence or clarification, or even some brief arguments, to support your contentions. So far all I've got from you is one denial after another.  Saith the prophet, "Where's the beef?"
.
] textman previously say: For the many enlightened and progressive ones in the church, the Bible is mostly
] just irrelevant to the post-modern world; being, as it were, patriarchal, anachronistic, and misogynistic.
.
>>> BG: Then they aren't nearly as 'enlightened' as they think.
.
>> tx: LOL  ...  No shit!
.
> BG: And neither are you as enlightened as you think.
.
 I don't recall ever saying or even suggesting that I am 'enlightened'. In fact, I think that far too many people today are doing wrong by constantly chasing after enlightenment as if it were the only thing in life worth having; the answer to all our problems. 'Get Enlightened', they say, 'and all your dreams will be realized!' Sure they will. So people are running around inventing their own 'post-modern and enlightened' religions, and their own messiahs, and their own new and improved scriptures for the dawning NewAge! ...  The prophet saith, "Gag me with a spoon!"
.
>> tx: <snip> You sir, are a baboon!
.
> BG: What a completely Christian thing to say!
.
 ha ha ha  [ ... textman giggles uncontrolably for several minutes ... Eventually textman manages to whisper an aside to the galleries: "Sheesh! Obviously this guy knows nothing about prophets!" ]
.
>> tx: The official liturgical text of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada is the NRSV.
>> Check it out, if you don't believe me.
.
> BG: And does that version refer to God the Father as our Father-Mother?
> Does it refer to Christ as the 'Offspring' instead of the Son? I didn't think so.
.
 I don't think so either. But maybe they'll get around to that in the next new and improved version?
.
>> <snip> Here in Canada, the would-be priest is required to obtain a Master of Divinity degree; which is
>> a four-year program (which can be completed in three if you're clever and ambitious).
.
> You're forgetting the requirement for pre-theology and the spirituality year.
> It turns out to be a six year minimum.
.
 You could also strech it out to ten years, as you indicated earlier. The point is: it ain't that hard.
.
>> Now this program includes about a dozen or so courses on the scriptures; all of which are no
>> more than brief and basic introductions to the various units therein. Critical thinking and an
>> in-depth knowledge of biblical scholarship are in no way necessary in order to pass these
>> micky-mouse courses.
.
> You could pass them?
.
 Of course! 
.
>> Indeed, they are deliberately designed so as not to over-strain the adolescent minds
>> and skills of the majority of seminarians and divinity students.
.
> BG: Sorry, but this is nonsense. Priestly training is deliberately intended to be intellectually
> challenging in order to prepare the priests-to-be for the run-ins that they are sure to have
> with people who think they know divine revelation better than the Church. People like you.
.
 Wut? Are you saying that priests are trained to communicate online? Trained to think logically? Trained to argue rationally and defend the Faith in a compelling and convincing manner in a real world setting? ... LOL ... No, I'm afraid not. ... But they are trained to give brief non-offensive homilies geared to the eight year old mentality ... So as not to overburden the delicate and feeble concentrating powers of the People of God, you see.
.
>> ... So do you suppose that an M.Div degree makes the holder a competent bible scholar?
>> ...  I sure as hell don't!
.
> BG: Do you hold such a degree?  I thought not.
.
 Actually, no I don't; but then, as I just said, the two things are in no way connected. One becomes a bible scholar not by having your name emblazed on a fancy sheet of paper, but rather by sticking your nose deeply into the text and asking questions about everything you find there.

U
A Matter of Credentials 2

/ Re: StillMore Distortn2 / Date > 15 June 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Well, Brian, I figure that what the Church teaches is precisely what
>> the VAST MAJORITY of American and Canadian priests preach in their parishes on Sunday.
.
> Brian P. Gillespie replies: And you'd be right. Since the vast majority of priests in both the
> United States and Canada are orthodox in their teaching.
.
 tx: Sure they are. ... Maybe the problem stems from the fact that what is orthodox is no longer biblical?
.
>> tx: And what they preach is a watered-down version of the Gospel. A gospel that washes away all the
>> truths of scripture so as not to make the gospel too demanding for the lukewarm faith of an arrogant
>> and hard-hearted People of God.
.
> BG: So now you are the only one in the North American continent who is able to recognize
> "...all the truths of scripture"? Nice to meet you Mr. Luther.
.
 I never claimed to recognize ALL the truths of scripture. I claim, rather, that I am a servant of the Word. So here I am trying to crack open the biblical treasures for the Lord's cyberfolk, while the priests - who also claim to serve the scriptures - make every effort to keep the People away from the more 'disturbing and irrelevant' aspects of the Bible. Lord knows we wouldn't want to actually challenge anybody by affirming too strongly that the rich cannot buy their way into the Kingdom of Heaven!
.
>> tx: But you think that some obscure and irrelevant papal document nullifies all that because it somehow
>> contains 'the truth'. No, Brian. The truth, as Muldar says, is out there!
.
> BG: What you are failing to admit (intentionally?) is that the 'obscure' and 'irrelevant' papal document is
> what the Church actually teaches. The fact that some people fail to follow that teaching is human
> nature. That does not change what the Church's official position is.
.
 What the official position is is meaningless if the priests and teachers charged with training future priests and teachers wind up teaching something other as orthodoxy while claiming to be in harmony with the documents. The problem with orthodoxy is that those with the power get to define what is and is not orthodox. So if your local bishop saith that radical feminism is in harmony with the Faith, then none of the priests under him can say otherwise.
.
>> tx: <snip> That is precisely my point! It is not only the Cats who piss on the Bible; but rather, ALL the
>> churches do likewise. Especially those that claim to be 'bible-based churches'. All Christians disrespect
>> the Bible because none of them are able to approach the sacred text with a humble heart!
.
> BG: And you alone are able to do this?
.
 No. Every True Believer is able to do this. It requires only a repentant and receptive heart, and an unbounded respect for the text. The problem here in America is that people think that the Bible no longer has anything to offer. It's all 'been there, done that' or 'that's been done to death' or 'give me something new'. Well, it's been done all right, but it hasn't been done right! ... Maybe it's time to take a fresh look at everything?
.
] BG previously say: Are you suggesting that there is more than one valid interpretation of Scripture?
.
>> tx: Yes.
.
> BG: And yet you seem to think that YOUR interpretation is the only valid one.
.
 It would be silly of me to proceed without that assumption. While I do recognize the merits and demerits of other understandings of scripture, it is surely not my job to undermine my own readings of this or that text. On the contrary, I forward my views as a viable option for the Reader to take and compare with other scholars and commentators. From there the Christian can make an informed decision as to which is better.
.
>> tx: <snip> Dei Verbum and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation is one and the
>> same document, Brian. Wuts a'matter 4U?
.
> BG: Sorry. I meant Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. And a host of others which clearly demonstrate
> that you have no idea what you are talking about.
.
 LOL ... Oh yeah? Well, if ever those documents come into contact with something resembling reality, by all means do let me know.
.
>> <snip> Hallelujah! St Jerome lives! ... You are aware that that particular quote
>> comes from Jerome  ...  Yes?
.
> BG: And from Acquinas.  And from Augustine.  And from a host of others.
.
 No, I think Jerome was the first. Your 'host' just borrowed it from him. btw: who is Acquinas?
.
>> <snip>  In other words, the Pope (the bearer of the keys) is the only one who is fit
>> to read the Scriptures!
.
> Not at all. The Pope and the bishops are the only ones who are authorized to infallibly
> interpret the scriptures.
.
 That's what I said. ... btw: what happens when one of those infallible interpretations turns out to be wrong?
... Lots of red faces all around, I expect.
.
> But as I pointed out earlier (and you continue to ignore) ALL of the faithful are called
> upon to study scripture.
.
 Yes, I know. It's in the documents somewhere or other. ... Seems to me that the documents have more respect for the Bible than the Christians who don't read either.
.
> BG: If the church really believed as you say, why would there be different readings from scripture
> at each and every Sunday mass?
.
 I believe the idea is to expose the whole Bible to the average Catholic over the course of the three year liturgical cycle. Of course, it's impractical to do ALL of the Bible, but 'most' of it does get heard on three years of Sundays. It's a very strange and complicated process to determine which readings go where. Often there is very little logic behind the choices/selections that are made, and in the overall design of the readings within the context of the liturgical cycle. Basically it all runs on the principle of thematic resonance. As for myself, I'm not much of a fan of the snippet approach to teaching scripture. Indeed, this snippet approach only makes it easier for the People to forget the readings, rather than to retain them! In the same way, the 'fore-shadowing' approach (of the liturgy) to the Tanak does great violence to the spirit and meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. ...
.
 textman wonders if maybe there is a better way to present the Word of God to the People of God?
.
>> tx: ... What a crock! ... By the way, just exactly where are these all important keys that you and Padraic
>> are always on about? I don't believe that I've ever come across any pictures of them in my history books.
>> Could it be that these are invisible keys? Could it be that these so-called keys exist only in the fevered
>> fantasies of the papists?
.
> BG: No, they come from Christ's quote in the scriptures. But given that you seem to value
> your own opinion over the scriptures, I guess that wouldn't matter to you.
.
 It does matter to me. It's not the quote that I dispute. It's the grossly overwhelming significance and importance and authority that is heaped upon that unfortunate verse that I take exception to. If Matthew had any idea what the popes would do to these verses, he would undoubtedly have left them out!
.
>> tx: Oh well; perhaps all this is just part of the necessary growing pains. The scriptures have not
>> yet revealed all that can be revealed. I'll tell you this much, though: it will not be the popes and
>> bishops who dig out the undiscovered treasures that lay buried and hidden in the sacred text.
.
> BG: Of course not. With you and your infallible intellect around, who needs popes and bishops.
.
 Wut? MY 'infallible intellect'? ... The prophet saith, "Huh?" ... [textman trys to recall if he has made any claims (explicit or implicit) to infallibility lately; and after much groaning and headaching finally decides that he hasn't! ... "So where'd you get this idea, Brian?" ... Later that same day: textman briefly considers asking the Lord to send a plague of locusts to Brian's place ... but (sadly) decides not to.]
.
>> tx: <snip>  Have you considered the possibility of actually giving the matter some serious thought?
>> Surely you don't expect me to do ALL your thinking for you?!
.
> BG: At this point, I no longer even expect you to do your own thinking.
.
 OUCH! OW, OW! ... Ooooo, you're such a meany!
.
> It seems that emotional, paranoid responses are your stock and trade.
.
 Well now, I wouldn't put it quite THAT way ...  :)
.
> Thinking of any kind is not apparent in your posts.
.
 Surely you don't mean ALL of my posts ... ??? ... LOL
.
>> tx: <snip> You and everybody else.  ... Blindness, blindness everywhere!
.
> BG: And only textman knows the truth. How reassuring.
.
 I personally am not all that reassured.
.
>> tx: <snip> This too is a bald-faced LIE! The Canadian Church doesn't give a flying phuc about
>> unvowed, unemasculated lay-males.  ...  Indeed, a man has to lob his dick off just to get
>> noticed in the Woman-Church of Canada!
.
> BG: Very rational response. You continue to increase your credibility by leaps and bounds.
.
 LOL ... The prophet saith, "I art truly a wiggly worm!" ... [textman decides that a severe act of repentance is in order, and so proceeds to read ALL of Brian's and Padraic's previous postings! ... Several hours later the Lord tells him to stop before it causes permanent brain damage ... textman reluctantly obeys the Lord.]
.
>> <snip> Thx very much indeed! ... I believe I will "try again" ... And might I also suggest that
>> some of our other Readers are better listeners than you? ... I certainly hope so!
.
> I think everyone is hearing the real you loud and clear.
.
 The 'real' me? ... Huh? ... "What meanest thou?" ... textman is so confused that he hurries to the mirror to see if some malevolent demon has somehow invaded his body and possessed his mind! ... He sticks his tongue out and says "AAAhhhhhhllll." He pulls his ears and looks up his nose. "hhmmmm. All appears to be in order. ... That swine Brian is just trying to scare textman. The nerve of some people!" ...  textman proceeds to throw a hissy fit ... In the process he unwittingly shuts the computer down without bothering to save Brian's file! ... Oh No!