Inclusivity

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi again stemelbow. Good questions

As to the first question. Yes. I need to qualify this answer by saying that no one wants pain. I don't believe that anyone chooses eternal pain for pain's sake. There are too many factors to count that might make one opt for eternal pain. God knows. Here is one: The true religion can appear to be and really be, troublesome and painful. Here is one more: Eternity seems far away. But yes, with qualifiers, I am willing to say that only those who truly pick an eternally painful destination, could be present in hell. That has to be the only way to get in to hell. Hell isn't for those who through no fault of their own, are ignorant about religious truth. Nobody goes to hell except those whose own consciences accuse them in the light of every secret thought, word, and deed and in the light of every actual grace that was offered to them by God and rejected. Nobody will be screaming foul. God will not be partial and the condemned will know it clearly and accept the sentence given in the sight of every rational creature. There will not be the slightest shadow of a doubt in anyone's mind that God is just, and even more so when they see the many ways that were tried to help those who are saved as well as the condemned to save themselves.

What makes you so certain of all of this?  

21 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hypothetically, if someone "went to hell" with a clear conscience, knowing that a mistake was made, or an unfair sentence was given, guess what? It wouldn't be hell! The worst pains of hell we understand precisely as the accusation of the soul's own conscience for misusing the liberty which God gives to men. As with heaven, I hold that hell is in some geographical place, but it could not be very painful to someone who knew perfectly that they were innocent before God. There would be joy in that knowledge. There would be love for the good and the true which is God, and so that geographical place, could not be hell for such an individual. And on the other side, if a guilty person were hypothetically misplaced in to heaven? A guilty person would not, misplaced in the geographical location of heaven, have the slightest joy in it.  

No one will be judged for what they do not know. As far as our knowledge goes, we will be judged for what we avoided knowing and for what we did know. Nothing else. The same free will is at work whether one is ignorant or informed, and God will hold no one accountable for what they could not have known. Why would God want to be bad or unfair? Those who can think of a reason for why God would be bad, as well as those of us who can't, will have to wait until the time comes for judgment and then I am expecting that all will see God's wisdom, mercy, and justice for all. He "likes it" when He can get souls "off the hook", if I may use such homely expressions. I use them because we will judge God, while He judges us (Rom. 3). There will be no doubts about God's "good character" to use another human expression, since God wills that we judge Him. Why would He want an audience to judge His judgments if He were not good? We should be able to see already, now, that God must be good. It will be even clearer in the great day. Why would He punish someone for "not know what they are signing up for"? As much as God wills to pardon sinners, He is equally concerned to maintain His own justice in the eyes of creation. God is willing to be held to a perfect standard...if God made one unjust judgment, or if He once betrayed malice towards a single human soul, He would cease to be God. Who would worship, freely obey, give thanks to, and love an almighty tyrant? All creation would despise such a being, howsoever powerful, the contempt of all the universe.

 

 

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I know you are conservative as a Catholic, I am just wondering how much of this would be palatable to say, Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger?  I must admit I have not followed the internal issues within Catholicism so I kind of don't know how to ask this question

This is really a weird state of affairs for me to be questioning someone on their source of "doctrine" since we are so used to being on the defensive since our doctrine is really quite basic.

All I am asking is- how much of this is is from Rory and how much could be proven to be in some sense Catholic doctrine?

I am not doubting you, I am not asking you to cite sources or back up your comments.  I am just wondering how much of this would seem to be "right" to Catholics in a typical parish (conservative or not- please specify).   Would the liberals accept this? (I suspect yes, of course)  Would the Pius X Society accept it?

Were I be asked the same question regarding my beliefs, I would call them my interpretation of orthopraxy as practiced in the church, but not necessarily how the average LDS member would see doctrine.

So what is your assessment of how close your position is to "orthodoxy"- not in meaning the groups called "Orthodox" but in the sense of "the regular authorized beliefs of most Catholics"?

 

I tried to be careful in that post. The hypotheticals are of course impossible. But we are instructed that because of the faith, hope, and charity that the souls in purgatory have, there is great joy. If that is so, than how much more the case for someone who was the unintended object of a bureaucratic mistake. Such an one still partakes of the divine nature just as the soul in purgatory. I do not think this could be controversial. If that person could go to hell, it would be impossible to experience hell. Dante speaks of those who are justly condemned to hell that they must abandon all hope. This person would could not ever lose hope.

A word on God "being judged". I did not mean as though He was a defendant. Observers of a trial cannot fail to "judge the judge". I suggest that this will be the moment when all creation realizes how good and great God is. Not only are the secrets of men going to be revealed, but the secrets of God as well, when it will be seen how diligently, gently, and lovingly He urged each soul to choose the good. Keep in mind also that justice requires not merely that He condemn no one who is truly innocent. That is what most of us here think about. But what about Satan and the rest of the fallen angels. Because of the devils who are unpardoned,  He cannot pardon one who is truly guilty. This is why St. Paul talks in Romans 3 about the necessity for God to be just and the justifier of him who has in Jesus Christ. (v.26). See verse 4 for where it says that God will be judged. The judgment will be favorable!  I would not be afraid to present these thoughts to any priest or theologian.

It is exercises like these here at MDDB that make me put flesh to the skeleton of Catholic doctrine in a way that Catholic lay people are excused for not doing. I would call it speculative on my part, following from the truth that you know the Catholic Church teaches. God is good. There is no way that people can go to Hell unless they hate God and reject His gracious offerings of love and mercy. People who consider themselves decent because "I never murdered anybody" will have to agree with God about how it is good to never murder. But less serious sins are nevertheless monstrous. Man was not made to sin, and if we approach God without having taken on the mantle of His Son who came to claim us back from our wretched condition, God will be forced to judge us as what we are, monstrosities. Creatures that do not act in accord with what they are.    

As far as Catholic liberals go, I don't think they would ever ponder something like this. They are mostly into this world and politics and changing morals, not theology that claims to be specific about what a future heaven or hell are like. I do not think they could even relate to the subject. John Paul II was pretty close to a more thoughtful, in some ways, conservative universalist. He seemed to confuse the Incarnation with the Atonement. He seemed to think that since God's Son became incarnate, that all human beings were united with Him. There are probably a few thoughtful Catholics who have believed that. But it is a novelty. If it is true it would mean the Catholic Church is apostate because it taught otherwise for its first 250 or 260 plus popes. I get those ramifications because I hang around you guys! Liberal Catholics think there are no consequences if the Church was wrong for 2,000 years. They are wrong. It would mean something. It would make me LDS or a Restorationist-in-Waiting. Come to think of it, St. Pius X spoke of restoring all things in Christ, and he also talked about apostasy in the Church. Here is the deal I guess and I am thinking on my feet now. If only in the times since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has apostasized, it would be too late for the LDS Restoration. As we see Francis I tearing down the teaching of the Church line by line, perhaps I am best defined as a Restorationist.  

I have answered in generalities, and without references, (Thank you for excusing me of that, when I don't have much time. My Mrs. is baby sitting the grands tonight or we would probably be watching an episode of Poirot together right now). You are welcome to point to any of the specifics that you might think problematic for Pope Benedict, the SSPX, or conservatives in general. I think I would defend every word to them. I have re-read it several times. But maybe I have forgotten something. I would appreciate help from you or from any quarter that could point to how anything I wrote might be incompatible with the Catholic faith. Gotta go. I hear Grandma upstairs.

Thanks much for your inquiry. Help me out if I seem blind about something.

Rory

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What makes you so certain of all of this?  

 

Hey!

I am only 99% certain that the Catholic religion teaches this. I am not presenting it as truth that you could be certain about in the least when I am only at 99%.

But what if it were true? What about it would it be necessary to criticize? What about it, if anything, would you find to be satisfactory?

Later, Rory 

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey!

I am only 99% certain that the Catholic religion teaches this. I am not presenting it as truth that you could be certain about in the least when I am only at 99%.

But what if it were true? What about it would it be necessary to criticize? What about it, if anything, would you find to be satisfactory?

Later, Rory 

I did not previously notice your location.  St. Marys, KS?  I was one of those Mormon missionaries in KS 25 years ago.  A special place to me.  So I google earthed St Marys and strolled the streets virtually.  It was very reminiscent of small town Kansas generally.  I imagined strolling down some of the streets and enjoying the people.  I noticed a fellow out in front of his house (caught unexpectedly by the camera rolling by) on 4th and Maple. That's what we were, quite often, unexpected passer-bys catching folks by surprise, hoping that sneaky spirit preceded us, as we saw it.  Ah...the memories.

As to your questions, honestly, I don't know.  I think in some measure I'm curious why I can't help myself but return to these topics of religion, wondering if something springs at me.  

  

 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey!

I am only 99% certain that the Catholic religion teaches this. I am not presenting it as truth that you could be certain about in the least when I am only at 99%.

But what if it were true? What about it would it be necessary to criticize? What about it, if anything, would you find to be satisfactory?

Later, Rory 

OK - though this was not addressed to me-  thanks for answering my question.  I have no problem with that- I do it all the time but try to hedge it with phrases like "one might take the position that...." or "one possibly useful paradigm would be to see the question as..."

So with that in mind, I will take a look at your paradigm- which might or might not correspond with the "official" version- and evaluate it as it is.

Thanks for the clarification.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

OK - though this was not addressed to me-  thanks for answering my question.  I have no problem with that- I do it all the time but try to hedge it with phrases like "one might take the position that...." or "one possibly useful paradigm would be to see the question as..."

So with that in mind, I will take a look at your paradigm- which might or might not correspond with the "official" version- and evaluate it as it is.

Thanks for the clarification.

Mark...I am not following. How did I answer your question? I was hoping you would challenge me about some comment or other that allegedly could not be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. That is when it gets fun. I am disappointed. What have I unknowingly admitted? As usual, I am lagging behind you.

I feel like in my haste last evening, I botched my answer to stemelbow a little. If I understand stemelbow, it isn't really about truth at all. He has expressed dismay with religion regardless of whether it be true. With him, religon cannot be important if it is ugly and disformed, regardless of whether it has correct facts. I am with him on that. Ugly, disformed reality must be rejected, if I understand him correctly. It can not be a "true religion", if it is not also good. My discussion with him should not have mentioned if what I said was true. It didn't matter. The question I asked him was about the parts of the religion I had presented, whether it seemed ugly and distasteful, or whether it seemed tolerable, or even perhaps satisfying. Truth is important, but can not be the whole package. No one will worship ugly truth. Religion does need to be true, a reflection of reality, but that can only be part of it. We cannot worship something just because it is true. It has to be also wonderful, joyous, and praiseworthy before all. Even if we think it is true, we must still judge the religion critically, before we can happily worship the proposed "god" of the religion. 

Anyway, I await the morrow or some day or other time frame following when I might be enlightened by either of you as to my misunderstandings of your comments.

Thanks to all. Regards,

Rory

 

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I did not previously notice your location.  St. Marys, KS?  I was one of those Mormon missionaries in KS 25 years ago.  A special place to me.  So I google earthed St Marys and strolled the streets virtually.  It was very reminiscent of small town Kansas generally.  I imagined strolling down some of the streets and enjoying the people.  I noticed a fellow out in front of his house (caught unexpectedly by the camera rolling by) on 4th and Maple. That's what we were, quite often, unexpected passer-bys catching folks by surprise, hoping that sneaky spirit preceded us, as we saw it.  Ah...the memories.

As to your questions, honestly, I don't know.  I think in some measure I'm curious why I can't help myself but return to these topics of religion, wondering if something springs at me.  

  

 

Hey stem,

My post to Mark was certainly about you too. I don't have time to edit, edit, edit as I would like. Sorry. Correct me where I am off about how I perceive your misgivings regarding religion. If you say I am wrong, I am wrong, because you know you better than I do. I only know one religion well enough, that I also think is good, to present as a possible candidate for a "true religion", even if it has no basis in reality! Heh. Not trying to be flippant here. I obviously think the Catholic faith has a basis in reality, but more importantly, could it be good, IF it was true? 

R   

PS: I moved to small town, KS only two years ago from a suburb of Portland, OR, where I had lived for most of my previous 62 years. I do not regret it! I am glad you have good memories. I can appreciate why.

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Mark...I am not following. How did I answer your question? I was hoping you would challenge me about some comment or other that allegedly could not be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. That is when it gets fun. I am disappointed. What have I unknowingly admitted? As usual, I am lagging behind you.

I feel like in my haste last evening, I botched my answer to stemelbow a little. If I understand stemelbow, it isn't really about truth at all. He has expressed dismay with religion regardless of whether it be true. With him, religon cannot be important if it is ugly and disformed, regardless of whether it has correct facts. I am with him on that. Ugly, disformed reality must be rejected, if I understand him correctly. It can not be a "true religion", if it is not also good. My discussion with him should not have mentioned if what I said was true. It didn't matter. The question I asked him was about the parts of the religion I had presented, whether it seemed ugly and distasteful, or whether it seemed tolerable, or even perhaps satisfying. Truth is important, but can not be the whole package. No one will worship ugly truth. Religion does need to be true, a reflection of reality, but that can only be part of it. We cannot worship something just because it is true. It has to be also wonderful, joyous, and praiseworthy before all. Even if we think it is true, we must still judge the religion critically, before we can happily worship the proposed "god" of the religion. 

Anyway, I await the morrow or some day or other time frame following when I might be enlightened by either of you as to my misunderstandings of your comments.

Thanks to all. Regards,

Rory

 

Relax- it's no biggie

The question was simple and as usual I guess I made it more complex than it needed to be.

I was trying to figure out how much of your answers were " Standard Catholic Perfect Doctrine" and how much was the "Gospel According to Rory" and admitting that I am often if not always preaching the "Gospel According to MFB" as opposed to a mythical "Perfect Mormon" response.

But of course everyone bends their doctrine to fit their beliefs- so of course such people do not exist.   But I was trying to figure out how "standard" your views are.

I know you favor a conservative Catholic position just from talking to you, but I was wondering if your position was kind of a "standard conservative" view or an exceptionally conservative view.

That's all it was about- sorry if it was confusing

[stemelbow]

On 10/7/2020 at 8:18 PM, 3DOP said:

Hey stem,

My post to Mark was certainly about you too. I don't have time to edit, edit, edit as I would like. Sorry. Correct me where I am off about how I perceive your misgivings regarding religion. If you say I am wrong, I am wrong, because you know you better than I do. I only know one religion well enough, that I also think is good, to present as a possible candidate for a "true religion", even if it has no basis in reality! Heh. Not trying to be flippant here. I obviously think the Catholic faith has a basis in reality, but more importantly, could it be good, IF it was true? 

R   

PS: I moved to small town, KS only two years ago from a suburb of Portland, OR, where I had lived for most of my previous 62 years. I do not regret it! I am glad you have good memories. I can appreciate why.

 

 

On 10/7/2020 at 8:07 PM, 3DOP said:

If I understand stemelbow, it isn't really about truth at all. He has expressed dismay with religion regardless of whether it be true. With him, religon cannot be important if it is ugly and disformed, regardless of whether it has correct facts. I am with him on that.

It is true to me that if religion is ugly and disformed, that is a problem.  But for me, it is all about truth.  That religion, inherently, holds to something ugly and disformed means it can't possibly be true.  A God who commands the murder of others isn't a good God.  And if we are to have any faith God is good, then it can't possibly be that religion has a handle on God.  It's as if all things about God that religion tells us can't be trusted.  So on that, any religion who thinks the Bible is God's word holds to something ugly and disformed.  As per inclusivity.  Any religion who concludes something like, our religion is God's religion, or preferred religion and if you can't accept these certain notions, you simply aren't with God, is a problem.  All because the religion itself can't be trusted, and the truths it espouses are arbitrary standards when compared to world diversity.  Faith in Christ?  There is very little meaning or purpose to Buddhists in China.  It is completely gobbledygook to the person who lived a thousand years ago on a pacific Island.  

[Storm Rider]

On 10/12/2020 at 10:52 AM, stemelbow said:

 

It is true to me that if religion is ugly and disformed, that is a problem.  But for me, it is all about truth.  That religion, inherently, holds to something ugly and disformed means it can't possibly be true.  A God who commands the murder of others isn't a good God.  And if we are to have any faith God is good, then it can't possibly be that religion has a handle on God.  It's as if all things about God that religion tells us can't be trusted.  So on that, any religion who thinks the Bible is God's word holds to something ugly and disformed.  As per inclusivity.  Any religion who concludes something like, our religion is God's religion, or preferred religion and if you can't accept these certain notions, you simply aren't with God, is a problem.  All because the religion itself can't be trusted, and the truths it espouses are arbitrary standards when compared to world diversity.  Faith in Christ?  There is very little meaning or purpose to Buddhists in China.  It is completely gobbledygook to the person who lived a thousand years ago on a pacific Island.  

It sounds like your argument is for truth being subjective to the desires or will of humans. Further, for something to actually be universally true, God must force all humanity from the beginning of God's creation until today to accept all truth. 

I believe that truth is objective and it does not matter whether I, you, or the Pacific Islander believed it from 2000 years ago. Further, I believe that one of the great beauties of God's truths is that he has created a way for all to learn truth and all might be saved IF they choose to accept Him. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

It sounds like your argument is for truth being subjective to the desires or will of humans. Further, for something to actually be universally true, God must force all humanity from the beginning of God's creation until today to accept all truth. 

I believe that truth is objective and it does not matter whether I, you, or the Pacific Islander believed it from 2000 years ago. Further, I believe that one of the great beauties of God's truths is that he has created a way for all to learn truth and all might be saved IF they choose to accept Him. 

What is god but a figment of man's imagination?  To say an unbeliever is somehow in a place different from believers in terms of resources to truth is simply thinking your conscious is particularly blessed by an un-findable character.  

[Glenn101]

On 10/12/2020 at 10:52 AM, stemelbow said:

Faith in Christ?  There is very little meaning or purpose to Buddhists in China.  It is completely gobbledygook to the person who lived a thousand years ago on a pacific Island.  

Of course it means nothing to Buddhists in China or anyone else until they have been taught what it means.

What are your views as to the existence of God? The existence of a Supreme Being that created the universe?

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Of course it means nothing to Buddhists in China or anyone else until they have been taught what it means.

What are your views as to the existence of God? The existence of a Supreme Being that created the universe?

It's simply an undetectable claim, that there is a personal God.  As such I see no reason to accept it, but see tons of reasons to question those who claim to be teaching His truth.  

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What is god but a figment of man's imagination?  To say an unbeliever is somehow in a place different from believers in terms of resources to truth is simply thinking your conscious is particularly blessed by an un-findable character.  

Yeah, no. God is not a figment of man's imagination, but if the opinion works for you today, then be happy. 

A little boy was walking along and found a dime; he picked it up and held it close. Would you say that his access to resources was different from everyone else? Of course it wasn't. The dime was lying on the ground for whoever looked for it. Twenty people passed by that dime, but were too preoccupied with their own affairs to notice the dime. However, the little boy was always seeking for treasures on the ground and, consequently, he found it.

Your personal philosophy seems to always punish those that find truth wherever it is found and regardless of religion. Finders need to punished for the temerity of finding truth and daring to claim they have found it.  You seem to have this strong aversion to anyone daring to claim truth. A Buddhist has some truth; a Muslim has some truth, a Sikh has some truth, and a Christian has some truth, but for you, they are all arrogant, and certainly unfair, because they sought and found these truths.  It always seems bizarre to me. It is like some twisted form of spiritual communism. If one has it then everyone must have it and if everyone does not have it, then that individual that has found it is wrong. 

It is like saying wise men do not exist because they cannot exist. If he were actually wise - if wisdom existed - then everyone must have it equally or it is not wisdom.  Very strange approach to equality. 

[Glenn101]

On 10/13/2020 at 2:39 PM, stemelbow said:

It's simply an undetectable claim, that there is a personal God.  As such I see no reason to accept it, but see tons of reasons to question those who claim to be teaching His truth.  

If you mean by empirical evidence, I will agree. But God is detectable through spiritual means.

[3DOP]

On 10/12/2020 at 9:52 AM, stemelbow said:

 

It is true to me that if religion is ugly and disformed, that is a problem.  But for me, it is all about truth.  That religion, inherently, holds to something ugly and disformed means it can't possibly be true.  A God who commands the murder of others isn't a good God.  And if we are to have any faith God is good, then it can't possibly be that religion has a handle on God.  It's as if all things about God that religion tells us can't be trusted.  So on that, any religion who thinks the Bible is God's word holds to something ugly and disformed.  As per inclusivity.  Any religion who concludes something like, our religion is God's religion, or preferred religion and if you can't accept these certain notions, you simply aren't with God, is a problem.  All because the religion itself can't be trusted, and the truths it espouses are arbitrary standards when compared to world diversity.  Faith in Christ?  There is very little meaning or purpose to Buddhists in China.  It is completely gobbledygook to the person who lived a thousand years ago on a pacific Island.  

Hey stemelbow,

There was a lot in that paragraph. If you would like a focus on any one part, feel free to direct me to that. In the meantime, I was wondering what kind of death, if any, a good God could allow, that would escape the charge of murder.

In consideration of the fact that if there is a God, He could prevent all of our deaths, would you say that such a God murders everyone? ("Murder" implying that it is unjust to allow anyone to die, if one has the means of keeping anyone alive.)

Is there anyone who has ever died, in your opinion, that if there is a God, was NOT murdered by God? (In other words, God either allowed someone to die or acted to cause someone's death, but because it was just, we would not call it murder.)    

I don't have anything up my sleeve, I am just probing to see if you allow that any death is permissible in a just universe ruled by God. That might be a good question to discuss. It seems to me like if you allow that it is okay for God to let people die of natural causes when He could intervene, then it would follow that it would be okay for God to intervene to cause death by unnatural causes. I am thinking that you need to say that no death could be allowed if there is a good God. All death would be murder in that case. I would be interested in your thoughts about the question, but as always, do not feel obliged to open your mind to me unless you are pleased to do so.

Rory

PS: Do you remember Kansas as being the windiest place you have ever been? I just fertilized the lawn before the cold weather comes, and I have to point the sprinkler in to the wind, away from my own yard, so it will go back to where I want it! It has been more or less that way all Summer long and now in to Autumn. Last Summer, our first here, we had no yard to irrigate, and it wasn't as noticeable (or irritating) to me.

Edited October 17, 2020 by 3DOP

[Calm]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Do you remember Kansas as being the windiest place you have ever been?

We had friends come over to hide in our basement during one of the windstorms in Wichita. One was the was visiting and it was all new to her. His apartment was on a slab and she was certain it was going to be torn off. She was so stressed out we gave her a complimentary small bottle of rum my husband had brought back from one of his academic convention trips (they always seemed to think attendees would enjoy the local alcohol, he would bring them home as a joke).  After that she relaxed, but stayed in the basement all night.  Have to admit that was one of the worst while we were there (3 years, daughter born two weeks before we moved to Canada).  Kansas weather was the main reason I was eager to move to Canada.  Summer in my last trimester was hell, with the complex’s pool too warm to float in even.

It was certainly not unusual to see limbs downed.  Winters were miserable because of being both humid and windy so it would just cut right through any coat. I enjoyed winters in Canada more because coverings worked to keep the heat in and cold out. 

However, the windiest place apart from tornadoes and windstorms in my memory was a Chicago suburb where in my youth I remember wanting to hide in the corner of a chimney every morning in winter waiting for the bus (and not doing so as it was someone’s private property).  Then there was the time the walls were iced and I just opened my coat and the wind pushed me pretty much all the way home from the bus spot.   It was so good to move back to San Francisco. 

The other memorable bit about Chicago was the fireflies. If I had realized I would never see them again, I would have adored them even more. 

[3DOP]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

We had friends come over to hide in our basement during one of the windstorms in Wichita. One was the was visiting and it was all new to her. His apartment was on a slab and she was certain it was going to be torn off. She was so stressed out we gave her a complimentary small bottle of rum my husband had brought back from one of his academic convention trips (they always seemed to think attendees would enjoy the local alcohol, he would bring them home as a joke).  After that she relaxed, but stayed in the basement all night.  Have to admit that was one of the worst while we were there (3 years, daughter born two weeks before we moved to Canada).  Kansas weather was the main reason I was eager to move to Canada.  Summer in my last trimester was hell, with the complex’s pool too warm to float in even.

It was certainly not unusual to see limbs downed.  Winters were miserable because of being both humid and windy so it would just cut right through any coat. I enjoyed winters in Canada more because coverings worked to keep the heat in and cold out. 

However, the windiest place apart from tornadoes and windstorms in my memory was a Chicago suburb where in my youth I remember wanting to hide in the corner of a chimney every morning in winter waiting for the bus (and not doing so as it was someone’s private property).  Then there was the time the walls were iced and I just opened my coat and the wind pushed me pretty much all the way home from the bus spot.   It was so good to move back to San Francisco. 

The other memorable bit about Chicago was the fireflies. If I had realized I would never see them again, I would have adored them even more. 

Fireflies! Yes, calm. My wife and I met and dated while attending the same college in the Chicagoland area. I haven't thought of fireflies for some time, but they are magnificent. They always made an early evening seem happy and wonderful. They are a true wonder. Do you suppose they enjoy themselves as much as we enjoy them? I know the answer, and it makes me believe in God and that He is very good. But to not get too serious...Once, to show off to her, I caught one in my mouth when we were on an outing together somewhere. I have never subsequently asked what she thought of my antic. Did it help or hinder my cause? I wonder. Heh.

3

[3DOP]

Just now, 3DOP said:

Fireflies! Yes, calm. My wife and I met and dated while attending the same college in the Chicagoland area. I haven't thought of fireflies for some time, but they are magnificent. They always made an early evening seem happy and wonderful. They are a true wonder. Do you suppose they enjoy themselves as much as we enjoy them? I know the answer, and it makes me believe in God and that He is very good. But to not get too serious...Once, to show off to her, I caught one in my mouth when we were on an outing together somewhere. I cannot recall if I have ever asked what she thought of my antic. Did it help or hinder my cause? I wonder. Heh.

3

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

have never subsequently asked what she thought of my antic.

Not too late.   

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

We had friends come over to hide in our basement during one of the windstorms in Wichita. One was the was visiting and it was all new to her. His apartment was on a slab and she was certain it was going to be torn off. She was so stressed out we gave her a complimentary small bottle of rum my husband had brought back from one of his academic convention trips (they always seemed to think attendees would enjoy the local alcohol, he would bring them home as a joke).  After that she relaxed, but stayed in the basement all night.  Have to admit that was one of the worst while we were there (3 years, daughter born two weeks before we moved to Canada).  Kansas weather was the main reason I was eager to move to Canada.  Summer in my last trimester was hell, with the complex’s pool too warm to float in even.

It was certainly not unusual to see limbs downed.  Winters were miserable because of being both humid and windy so it would just cut right through any coat. I enjoyed winters in Canada more because coverings worked to keep the heat in and cold out. 

However, the windiest place apart from tornadoes and windstorms in my memory was a Chicago suburb where in my youth I remember wanting to hide in the corner of a chimney every morning in winter waiting for the bus (and not doing so as it was someone’s private property).  Then there was the time the walls were iced and I just opened my coat and the wind pushed me pretty much all the way home from the bus spot.   It was so good to move back to San Francisco. 

The other memorable bit about Chicago was the fireflies. If I had realized I would never see them again, I would have adored them even more. 

I had no idea you lived so many places! My uncle and aunt lived in Kansas, it never appealed to me, now Canada...or Nova Scotia sounds like a place I'd like to go someday.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I had no idea you lived so many places! My uncle and aunt lived in Kansas, it never appealed to me, now Canada...or Nova Scotia sounds like a place I'd like to go someday.

San Fran and Chicago as a kid with a few months in Utah I would rather forget (not because it was Utah, family stuff).  Adult Utah, Kansas, Canada, Russia. 
 

So far my favorite places were San Francisco (too crowded now though) and Calgary. I would go back there in a minute if I could talk my son’s family into coming....but not going to happen. Thankfully I love our current spot in Utah (except for weather).

[mfbukowski]

On 10/17/2020 at 4:38 PM, Calm said:

We had friends come over to hide in our basement during one of the windstorms in Wichita. One was the was visiting and it was all new to her. His apartment was on a slab and she was certain it was going to be torn off. She was so stressed out we gave her a complimentary small bottle of rum my husband had brought back from one of his academic convention trips (they always seemed to think attendees would enjoy the local alcohol, he would bring them home as a joke).  After that she relaxed, but stayed in the basement all night.  Have to admit that was one of the worst while we were there (3 years, daughter born two weeks before we moved to Canada).  Kansas weather was the main reason I was eager to move to Canada.  Summer in my last trimester was hell, with the complex’s pool too warm to float in even.

It was certainly not unusual to see limbs downed.  Winters were miserable because of being both humid and windy so it would just cut right through any coat. I enjoyed winters in Canada more because coverings worked to keep the heat in and cold out. 

However, the windiest place apart from tornadoes and windstorms in my memory was a Chicago suburb where in my youth I remember wanting to hide in the corner of a chimney every morning in winter waiting for the bus (and not doing so as it was someone’s private property).  Then there was the time the walls were iced and I just opened my coat and the wind pushed me pretty much all the way home from the bus spot.   It was so good to move back to San Francisco. 

The other memorable bit about Chicago was the fireflies. If I had realized I would never see them again, I would have adored them even more. 

We had fireflies when, as a kid, we lived in a suburb of Buffalo NY.  I loved them!

When I was in grad school in NYC my folks lived in San Diego- so every year I would drive across country twice- once in June and then in September.  One time I remember it was a rainy day on the Kansas Turnpike and it started to rain really hard- and with hail.  Big hail.   It sounded as if I was in a tin can with a hundred monkeys with hammers beating on every part of the car!   It was raining so hard I could barely see, and I slowed way down and was worried about getting rear-ended.

Heck I was a Californian- I had never seen anything like it.  I turned on the radio, but there was so much crackling from lightening I could barely understand what they were saying.  The station was in Wichita 

Next thing I knew, through all the crackling and static,  I heard the news guy announce "We have a weather emergency- a tornado has just touched down on the Kansas Turnpike at the El Dorado exit!   Use extreme caution."

Interesting but what did that have to do with me?  I was just in a very windy and rainy area- I just need to keep moving forward carefully!

I looked around for a sign to let me know where I was, - and I saw a sign through the rain and hail that said "El Dorado- next right"!!   I was right in the middle of where a tornado was touching down or had just touched down!!  Man was I scared!   

I pulled over under the bridge of the road to El Dorado and waited it out.

Kansas weather?  No thanks! 

 

[stemelbow]

On 10/17/2020 at 2:06 PM, 3DOP said:

Hey stemelbow,

There was a lot in that paragraph. If you would like a focus on any one part, feel free to direct me to that. In the meantime, I was wondering what kind of death, if any, a good God could allow, that would escape the charge of murder.

Most kinds.  But the kinds that came at the hands of God's claimed advocates doing God's bidding seem problematic, for starters, and were the scripturally supported ones I intended.  

On 10/17/2020 at 2:06 PM, 3DOP said:

In consideration of the fact that if there is a God, He could prevent all of our deaths, would you say that such a God murders everyone? ("Murder" implying that it is unjust to allow anyone to die, if one has the means of keeping anyone alive.)

No.  Theoretically that is not my point.  

On 10/17/2020 at 2:06 PM, 3DOP said:

Is there anyone who has ever died, in your opinion, that if there is a God, was NOT murdered by God? (In other words, God either allowed someone to die or acted to cause someone's death, but because it was just, we would not call it murder.)  

 

Again, no.  

On 10/17/2020 at 2:06 PM, 3DOP said:

 

I don't have anything up my sleeve, I am just probing to see if you allow that any death is permissible in a just universe ruled by God. That might be a good question to discuss. It seems to me like if you allow that it is okay for God to let people die of natural causes when He could intervene, then it would follow that it would be okay for God to intervene to cause death by unnatural causes.

This is a tough question, I think perhaps addressable a bit differently from a Mormon vs Catholic perspective.  If god's whole plan is dependent on death, then I'm not sure it's reasonable to blame him for death that comes.  Death is meant to be a step for the faithful to progress.  Even if God is said to have commanded slaughtering masses of people, as scripture claims He did, then perhaps he's taking mercy on people whom he knows are just suffering anyway?  I guess, but to me it really just comes off as a really backwards God--a God who has a special place in his heart for some and others he seemingly can care less about.  

On 10/17/2020 at 2:06 PM, 3DOP said:

I am thinking that you need to say that no death could be allowed if there is a good God. All death would be murder in that case. I would be interested in your thoughts about the question, but as always, do not feel obliged to open your mind to me unless you are pleased to do so.

Rory

No, I think murder should be, even if given the God proposition of religion, considered cases where people kill others outside of war or consequently as an effect resulting from an ignorant cause (meaning people don't know that their actions kill another).  My comment was alluding to scripture's claim that God commands or has commanded his followers to slaughter or murder others.  

On 10/17/2020 at 2:06 PM, 3DOP said:

PS: Do you remember Kansas as being the windiest place you have ever been? I just fertilized the lawn before the cold weather comes, and I have to point the sprinkler in to the wind, away from my own yard, so it will go back to where I want it! It has been more or less that way all Summer long and now in to Autumn. Last Summer, our first here, we had no yard to irrigate, and it wasn't as noticeable (or irritating) to me.

SOunds frustrating.  But no, I don't so recall.  The wind never got in the way of me knocking on people's doors.  

[mfbukowski]

On 10/6/2020 at 5:59 PM, 3DOP said:

I tried to be careful in that post. The hypotheticals are of course impossible. But we are instructed that because of the faith, hope, and charity that the souls in purgatory have, there is great joy. If that is so, than how much more the case for someone who was the unintended object of a bureaucratic mistake. Such an one still partakes of the divine nature just as the soul in purgatory. I do not think this could be controversial. If that person could go to hell, it would be impossible to experience hell. Dante speaks of those who are justly condemned to hell that they must abandon all hope. This person would could not ever lose hope.

A word on God "being judged". I did not mean as though He was a defendant. Observers of a trial cannot fail to "judge the judge". I suggest that this will be the moment when all creation realizes how good and great God is. Not only are the secrets of men going to be revealed, but the secrets of God as well, when it will be seen how diligently, gently, and lovingly He urged each soul to choose the good. Keep in mind also that justice requires not merely that He condemn no one who is truly innocent. That is what most of us here think about. But what about Satan and the rest of the fallen angels. Because of the devils who are unpardoned,  He cannot pardon one who is truly guilty. This is why St. Paul talks in Romans 3 about the necessity for God to be just and the justifier of him who has in Jesus Christ. (v.26). See verse 4 for where it says that God will be judged. The judgment will be favorable!  I would not be afraid to present these thoughts to any priest or theologian.

It is exercises like these here at MDDB that make me put flesh to the skeleton of Catholic doctrine in a way that Catholic lay people are excused for not doing. I would call it speculative on my part, following from the truth that you know the Catholic Church teaches. God is good. There is no way that people can go to Hell unless they hate God and reject His gracious offerings of love and mercy. People who consider themselves decent because "I never murdered anybody" will have to agree with God about how it is good to never murder. But less serious sins are nevertheless monstrous. Man was not made to sin, and if we approach God without having taken on the mantle of His Son who came to claim us back from our wretched condition, God will be forced to judge us as what we are, monstrosities. Creatures that do not act in accord with what they are.    

As far as Catholic liberals go, I don't think they would ever ponder something like this. They are mostly into this world and politics and changing morals, not theology that claims to be specific about what a future heaven or hell are like. I do not think they could even relate to the subject. John Paul II was pretty close to a more thoughtful, in some ways, conservative universalist. He seemed to confuse the Incarnation with the Atonement. He seemed to think that since God's Son became incarnate, that all human beings were united with Him. There are probably a few thoughtful Catholics who have believed that. But it is a novelty. If it is true it would mean the Catholic Church is apostate because it taught otherwise for its first 250 or 260 plus popes. I get those ramifications because I hang around you guys! Liberal Catholics think there are no consequences if the Church was wrong for 2,000 years. They are wrong. It would mean something. It would make me LDS or a Restorationist-in-Waiting. Come to think of it, St. Pius X spoke of restoring all things in Christ, and he also talked about apostasy in the Church. Here is the deal I guess and I am thinking on my feet now. If only in the times since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has apostasized, it would be too late for the LDS Restoration. As we see Francis I tearing down the teaching of the Church line by line, perhaps I am best defined as a Restorationist.  

I have answered in generalities, and without references, (Thank you for excusing me of that, when I don't have much time. My Mrs. is baby sitting the grands tonight or we would probably be watching an episode of Poirot together right now). You are welcome to point to any of the specifics that you might think problematic for Pope Benedict, the SSPX, or conservatives in general. I think I would defend every word to them. I have re-read it several times. But maybe I have forgotten something. I would appreciate help from you or from any quarter that could point to how anything I wrote might be incompatible with the Catholic faith. Gotta go. I hear Grandma upstairs.

Thanks much for your inquiry. Help me out if I seem blind about something.

Rory

For some reason, since the switch over to the new software on the board, my notifications have been messed up and I never saw this post until now, Oct 19.  I typically do not read whole threads because there is so much repetition -  so I rely on notifications which now seem to be quite messed up, unfortunately!  Thanks- I think this could be a serious discussion.  I just wanted to get back to you now that I found your reply to tell you that I want to think about it- and appreciate the time you took to help me along the path,

I'll get back to you shortly