Jump to content

MiserereNobis

Contributor
  • Posts

    3,859
  • Joined

Everything posted by MiserereNobis

  1. I’m away from the board for a bit and when I check back in Ahab has returned as b00b00 Do I get the honor of first IDing him? 😁
  2. Sometimes I wonder if you could preach your beliefs in your own sacrament meeting. “Today’s first talk is by Brother Mark and is about relativism and the lack of objective truth. He is also going to extol the virtues of humanism. Oh, and he’s asked us to set up the projector so you can watch a video clip of some Rorty guy…” 😛
  3. If I remember correctly, you also believe you’ll be doing laundry in heaven, right Ahab?
  4. +1 for drinking gin and tonic. And another +1 for using the correct plural form gins and tonic. I’m sure @Scott Lloyd will appreciate it, too 😁
  5. Hi all. I will respond in depth to this issue, but I'm not quite ready yet. I'm still digesting this papal declaration and its short and long term implications. It's the long term implications that are most distressing. I want to be able to give an objective overview of the issue at hand and then give my thoughts on it. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to be objective yet, though. I've actually had a difficult weekend with this. Today's Mass was bittersweet. The priest actually teared up during the homily as he discussed obedience, sacrifice, and devotion to Holy Mother Church, with this papal decree as the context. The most basic issue here is that the pope has severely limited the ability of priests to celebrate the traditional sacraments, including the traditional Latin mass. It appears that in the long term he wishes for the traditional sacraments to go away completely. I think it's important for you to know that 3DOP (Rory) and I are both traditional Catholics. I say this because our views on this particular papal decree are going to be heavily influenced because of it. This motu proprio directly affects traditional Catholics. Generally speaking, a traditional Catholic sees problems with the Second Vatican Council and the reforms in the Church that followed it, especially with the liturgy. Now there is a spectrum of traditional Catholicism. On one side, there are Catholics who prefer the traditional sacraments and who see problems with the council and the reforms, but believe that these problems can and will be cleared up. On the far other side, there are Catholics who believe that the council was invalid, the new sacraments are invalid, and that Pope Francis is not the pope because there is no pope currently. I identify more with the first part of the spectrum. I'll let Rory say where he is, if he is so inclined. If you want to do some googling, I attend an FSSP parish, while Rory attends an SSPX chapel. Again, I point this out so that you can put in context where we are coming from. For the average Catholic, this papal declaration will change very little, though I have spoken with Catholics who are not traditional Catholics who see the Pope's actions here as problematic and even a little cruel. This progressive Pope who speaks of tolerance slammed the traditional Catholic community with the full hammer of his authority, quite contrary to the way he has dealt with openly defiant and heretical actions taken by progressive Catholics, like some German bishops, in that he did nothing at all to them. Ugh, see, this is why I need to sit with this awhile longer and pray for more grace, patience, and understanding. I promise I will get back to you, though. +PAX+ Jesse
  6. 1) This isn’t a Catholic board, so I’ll not say much. I see Rory is typing, and I’m sure he’ll do a good job explaining. 2) Ugh. 3) Popes are not infallible. This is an administrative decision, not a doctrinal one. 4) The Bishop of the diocese where I attend has already reached out to my parish (FSSP) and said there will be no change for us. 5) Ugh.
  7. So let it be written, so let it be done.
  8. Would any LDS here feel uncomfortable buying a drink for a non-LDS friend? For example, you offer to pay for dinner for a group of friends. The non-LDS order some beer or wine to go with their dinner. How would you feel personally about paying for it? I'm not trying to make a point here one way or another. I'm just curious. I'm also curious how widespread in the LDS church is the belief that it is not sinful for non-LDS to drink alcohol. That kinda surprised me, but hey, I'll drink to that tonight!
  9. That you LDS are so nice that when I tease you you feel compelled to upvote it because I’m not a member 😉 1) I like that I feel friendship with the regular posters here. After nearly a decade (wow!) I feel like I know you. Or at least I know your style and probably what you’re going to say on a topic, ha. I like the diversity of LDS, too, from a Brigham Young era loving guy to a post modern relativist and everything in between. I’ve definitely learned that LDS are not as homogenous as you first appeared to me from the outside many years ago prior to this board. I also appreciate the board culture that allows for strong discussions but keeps things from crossing the line. That’s HARD to do on the Internet. Way to go, @Nemesis and other mods. 2) I want to learn things beyond the surface. I’ve googled a lot of stuff about your church because it’s come up in a discussion and I wouldn’t have even known where to start looking and learning if someone hadn’t mentioned it, sometimes just in passing. It’s also good to hear personal stories and understandings of your doctrine and history from such various points of view. And it is entertainment, in the sense that I enjoy it and sometimes things are just downright funny, from Nehor’s ridiculousness to the grand Ahab saga. I also like clarifying the Catholic position, and I’m very grateful to the other Catholics who do this, too, especially @3DOP. It’s intriguing that your long term Catholic posters are traditionalists (and like the Grateful Dead!) Thanks for a great board!
  10. I’m bummed that y’all have more money than the Catholic Church. Now when the Protestants talk about the great whore of Babylon, they’ll no longer point their fingers at us 😎
  11. If people don't recognize it as satire and "fall for it," that's not the fault of the satire, especially if the satire is trying to point this exact thing out -- that these people don't get it. All satire pushes an agenda. An agenda-less satire wouldn't be funny because it wouldn't have a frame of reference from which to mock. It would be like trying to write a parody without anything to parody.
  12. Agreed. I'm right with you there. I have my students write their own modest proposals about issues in the school system. Some of them are fantastic -- I send them along to the principal, ha. I'll add "Catch-22" to your list. I'm personally a fan of "A Clockwork Orange" (both book and movie), but it is a pretty dark satire of heavy issues, so I understand those who do not like it and/or are actively opposed to it.
  13. Satire that explicitly mocks someone certainly isn't going to change that person (or group of people). But it can make broader social change, especially with those who are on the dividing line. Someone mentioned previously in the thread that this controversy could further cement younger Americans into the pro-LGBT camp, not because of the song itself, but because of the reaction against. That is effecting social change. But yes, satire often involves just entertaining the tribe. However, I will say that the ability to laugh at yourself and your beliefs when they are presented satirically can be a good thing. It would be great to see a left satirical comedy group and right satirical comedy group perform together and laugh with each other.
  14. I agree that truth is often present in jokes. That's what makes humor work -- the joke and the truth are somehow incongruous. This is particularly apt with satire on social issues. I remember one satire that showed plans for a massive "abortion-plex" building. It included a nursery, "so the children the mother wants can be watched while she aborts the one she doesn't." Yikes! Yet... some truth. I agree that satire can be malicious taunting and can be mean-spirited, especially as it veers towards Juvenalian satire, like South Park. And I can see why you would hold that view about this satire. It is clearing mocking certain people and their beliefs. I'll add the flip side to what I said before: while good satire often crosses the line of what is appropriate, all satire that crosses that line is not necessarily good. I suppose my main point was that some of the push back against the song didn't seem to realize that it was satire and took it at face value, which actually helped the satire prove its point. A better tack would have been to attack it as satire that misconstrued the position it was satirizing, rather than to say that the gay agenda just admitted it is actually coming for your children (or the variations on that, such as this is an attack on parenting, etc.).
  15. I teach a fairly robust unit on satire in my AP English Language (rhetoric) class. One part the students enjoy is when we look at satire that was taken literally by the people whom the satire was targeting. A classic example is when The Onion named Kim Jung-Un the "sexiest man alive" for 2012. The official paper of the Communist Party of China didn't realize it was satire and so quoted it alongside many pictures of the dictator. See here: "China paper carries Onion Kim Jong-un 'heart-throb' spoof" When the targeted audience of the satire misses that it is satire, it simply reinforces the purpose behind the satire in the first place. In the Kim Jung-Un example, the satire was pointing out how communist propaganda portrays him as a perfect man and leader. Obviously he would be the sexiest man alive! Since the paper in China fell for it, it further reveals their ridiculous propaganda. In this case, the choir was creating satire around the fear that the gays are coming for our children. People who missed the satire and took it literally then expressed outrage, believing that the choir said "the quiet part out loud." This reaction simply further reveals the beliefs and attitudes that the satire was mocking. The right does this to the left, too, in the instances of trolling and/or "owning the libs" (though for whatever reason, the right has a harder time coming with satire that matches the quality of the left's). Some have said that this particular satire went too far. Good satire always rides the edge of controversy and often crosses it, especially when dealing with contemporary issues. Swift seems tame to us today, but I guarantee that the British landlords in Ireland were not pleased with his modest proposal, because it called them out in a graphic way. One example of satire I use in my class is this one: "Nation's Educators Alarmed By Poorly Written Teen Suicide Notes" Does it push the boundary of acceptable and appropriate? Absolutely, and on a very serious topic, too. Is it just humor? Absolutely not. It very effectively satirizes how the education system is not helping prevent suicide and actually outlines some positive steps that could be taken. I'll close with this definition of satire from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary. I think he makes some good points about America's difficulty with satire, and in a wonderfully satirical way, too.
  16. I thought of you when I read the OP.
  17. Have any LDS leaders, perhaps in the early years, attacked the Catholic Church for her wealth? I imagine so, simply because it was the Protestant thing to do. Does it matter? Not sure.
  18. Back in 2014, the Pope said that we'd baptize aliens if they showed up and asked https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-says-he-would-baptise-aliens-9360632.html
  19. I love Shelley, too! Good ol’ Percy Bysshe (great name for a Basset Hound). How about the opening lines of “Mont Blanc” (appeals to the philosopher and mystic in me): “The everlasting universe of things / Flows through the mind and rolls its rapid waves, / Now dark—now glittering—now reflecting gloom— / Now lending splendour, where from secret springs / The source of human thought its tribute brings / Of waters—“ Beautiful 😊
  20. It’s infecting every thread! Is there someway we can package it and sell it to some cable channel in the 600 number range? Or some clickbait website? BuzzFeed news? Here’s a working title: “Ahab gets banned again. See what he does next…” C’mon @Nemesis, you could use the royalties to help pay the bills 😁
  21. Are you calling @Nemesis an arrogant cranky unbeliever and would be destroyer of faith? Because he/she is the one who is doing the banning.
  22. I got it from one of my philosophy professors whose focus was on logic. Boy, he sure did hate the misuse of begging the questions. Me, too! (with a double major in philosophy). I zeroed in on the British Romantics. What a wonderful and zany bunch of poets!
  23. From the Grateful Dead song “Franklin’s Tower”: “If you get confused just listen to the music play!” 😊
  24. From the article: From the LDS point-of-view (doctrinally and/or culturally), is the nuclear family God's ideal view of a family? I ask because I live in an area that definitely focuses on the extended family. Many families have multi-generational homes, and some include aunts/uncles/cousins, too. This was much more prevalent 50 years ago, but is still quite obvious. (I live in Mesilla, in southern NM. My town was originally on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border after the Mexican American war and took in all the people around who didn't want to be Americans. It became part of America after the Gadsden purchase. I like to point this fact out when people complain about Mexican flags being flown in places in America. There's always Mexican flags around here and Cinco de Mayo is a HUGE festival. But hey, we were in Mexico before the US tried to take us in a war of aggression and then bought us out, ha.) I'm sure there are other cultures around the world that place higher value on extended families than nuclear families.
×
×
  • Create New...