Re: OT: Castro vs. Ahmadinejad



On 2010-10-14 05:52:42 -0700, Tony <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

Well first, let's assume that I believe that God commanded us these
things. Then, if I did your exercise, I'd say "they're all equally
important", which we both know is the correct answer.

They're in order for a reason.

One assumes that because carrying each separately on its own stone tablet would have been cumbersome, and God figured he's already given Moses enough grief scaring him half to death with the bush thing ;)

What makes you think they're in order of importance? Did God say that?



But that's not actually the part I find weird. The part I find weird is the whole "well, this applies under THIS circumstance, but not under THAT circumstance" thing. That's what I mean when I refer to "rules-lawyering."

Mortal sin requires three components.

1. Knowledge of the sin.
2. Free consent of the will.
3. Do it anyway.

1. I knew it was a sin not to go to mass.
2. I freely chose to subject myself to a sailboat ride that I knew would preclude my attending mass.
3. I did it anyway.

Why is this not a mortal sin? (You told me earlier it got an "excused absence.")


I'm pretty sure that there is no Jesus-originated* statement of "keeping
the sabbath requires weekly church attendance, except under the
following excused-absence situations: (A, B, C...)"

Well, when St. Paul was locked in prison, he couldn't very well go to temple, could he. It wasn't like Gitmo there where he gets what he needs to worship properly.

1. Paul knew it was a sin not to go to temple. (Right?!)
2. Paul knew that, if he behaved a certain way, he would be thrown in prison and not be able to go to temple.
3. He did it, anyway.

How is this not a mortal sin?

Just because there's a [rather small, if you ask me!] level of indirection... do you Catholics give a free pass for that?

1. I know it's a sin to murder.
2. I know that, if I don't allow tony to have food or water for long enough, he'll die.
3. I do it, anyway.

But I didn't DIRECTLY kill Tony -- he died of starvation! Is that okey-dokey in your book?!


So the fact that YOU (and the RCC) recognize this rules -- that's the
thing that is in the batch that I collectively call "rules lawyering."

I know. You really don't get that intent is a lot of it.

I do, but you keep putting up straw-men. See next.


Being wiped out with the flu while really wanting to go to church is not the same as skipping it for your kids' soccer practice.

I'm not talking about the flu (and why can't one be carried to mass and put in the quarantine room, amyway?!) I'm talking about:

Paul fully intended to behave in a way that he knew full well would get him imprisoned and not allowed to go to temple. But he decided that was more important than keeping the NUMBER ONE commandment!

....Yet you give him a pass. What's up with that?


God put them in order for a reason.

?! You think that #1 is more important than #10?!?!

I'm saying they're in order for a reason.

They're in order because lists necessarily are in an order. My question to you is: do you feel they're in THAT PARTICULAR order for a reason? Do you feel that the reason is "because the #1 item is more important than the #10 item"?!


C'mon Tony -- you're going to have to be trickier than that to fool *this* old heathen...! ;)

I know. This would give us to clear a window into your thought processes.
My guess would be "No gods before me" would come in dead last. ;)

Well, that your god is so petty as to care whether or not someone worships him does seem a bit odd. I might just leave it off, altogether. It honestly feels like something man added because the repetativeness of worship is an important part of the brainwashing. Really, had God laid down "no hitting, no stealing"*, I'd probably be ok with that. All the rest strike me as either (a) probably a good idea, but not hardly damnable offenses (except as much as they're either hitting, or stealing) or (b) an important part of brainwashing a group to facilitate taking their money.

---
* Or "no stealing, no hitting" ;) BTW, I call fraud "stealing."


But none of that should come as any surprise, in terms of my thought processes! (Unless you're getting VERY old & forgetfull)

--
Please remove your pants if you want to send me e-mail.
Lots of good cigar info, the ASC Birthday page, FAQs, vendors and more at
<http://www.ManyFriends.com/Cigars/>
A "great" review is one with the name of the cigar before the review text in the body of the post. :)

.