RicOlie_2

S-7b

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

Do you consider that God might love every person equally?

 That is what I believe, yes. I don't claim to know how he judges us after we die or how strict he is or how many allowances he makes for those who didn't believe in him on earth.

Catholics do believe in something called a "Baptism of Desire" in which someone who is genuinely searching for the truth can get to heaven, even if they don't believe in God.

 Do you believe that God is unchanging in this love for all persons? To clarify: do you believe there might come a time when God might no longer love all living persons equally?

Additionally, is it your belief that God's love for an individual might change upon said individual's death? Or would it remain consistent regardless of physical state?

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

2) I can't really say for sure what I think about this. I mean, perhaps it would be acceptable, but since he gave a universal and inclusive law to fulfill the more exclusive one, I don't think it will happen. It might be considered unacceptable because God has promised with the Christological law that he won't do that, so if he did, he would be breaking promises.

3) On its own, yes, it could be taken that way. However, since we are taught that God loves everyone more than we could possibly love him or anyone, I don't believe that either of those is the case. We may not understand his love, but I still believe he has love for us.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

 Consider only a contrast that might assist in clarifying the tone derived by others on this subject:

Should you, as a good and loving Catholic, encounter an entity that might suggest you to be neither good, nor loving--based solely on the evidence of your Catholic leanings (teachings which have been with you since your earliest memory)--would you be capable of agreeing with said entity regardless of its kind rationale?

In essence, would not the suggestion that homosexuality might be considered aberrant to an infinite being (punishable by an eternal torment) while at the same time considering said being to be one's own personal protector and comfort create any response other than that of antipathy?

To clarify, were one here to call out a belief that all Catholics necessarily must be ashamed and expect an infinitude of just torment in a future realm--while at the same time seemingly showing little concern for such necessary eventualities--could one such as yourself resist the temptation to clarify your own position on the matter? Would not a silence on your part serve as an affirmation of the statement?

Kindly do not take offense at my interjection as it is my purpose to learn your thoughts and not to belittle them. It is merely my hope that an understanding and a peace might be brokered on this issue that might better reflect the seemingly kind intentions of the majority here on both sides. Rarely have such opposing philosophies been debated so respectfully on an internet forum. I appreciate the effort this takes and hope that it may remain such.

 I take no offense.

Arguably, I have encountered such "entities" in the form of some people (this isn't directed at anyone on this forum) who believe that I am a bad person or have mental issues on the basis of my religion alone. I did argue with these people, and admittedly rarely let hostile attacks on my religion go unanswered.

I think I see what you are getting at, and I'm fine with people voicing their disagreement, as long as they don't get repetitive or insulting. To clarify my beliefs about homosexuality, I don't believe that those people who engage in homosexual sex acts are going to hell necessarily. There are many factors which come into play in determining whether someone goes to heaven or hell, so just because someone does something that is considered a serious sin by the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they will go to hell.

Hopefully I didn't miss the point of your question as I'm pretty tired right now and am finding it difficult to think coherent thoughts. :)

 Thank you for your candor. Kindly understand that while your beliefs regarding homosexuality may appear liberal in your eyes, they may yet cause offense in the same manner as:

"I don't believe that Catholics should be tortured and burned alive for as long as possible necessarily as there are many factors which come into play..."

In admiring your courage displayed in hosting this thread, it is not my wish to cause offense: simply the placing of one's self in the position of others prior to allowing one's convictions to solidify is my keen intent.

 I acknowledge your intent and perhaps should hold put myself in others' shoes more often.

Thank you for your civility in making your point. Some on this forum seem to lack that.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

 If God were infinite love, would anything cause Him to reject a soul into an eternity of suffering?

Alternately, if God were a fact, should anything stop one from worshipping Him fully? For what might be more important than the worship of a being of infinite might?

 The first question is one I can't answer myself, because it's one of mine too. ;)

The second is basically what we believe as Catholics, though most of us do a pretty bad job at making worship such a priority. We believe that our sins can be forgiven in confession if we repent of them, so that is probably part of what causes us to slack off. The other part would be due to a lack of faith in God I guess.

Would worshiping a being of infinite might to the fullest extent possible necessarily allow one any respite from the task? Would not such worship fairly be required to be equally infinite in duration?

 We believe we can worship God with our actions. Every good thing we do can be for the glory of God, so that is considered a form of worship. Working cheerfully and productively can be worship. Satisfying our bodily needs is sort of like that too because it is a good thing that God wants us to do in order to stay healthy. Since we are supposed to take care of ourselves physically as well as spiritually we cannot be expected to pray 24/7. Recreational time can, if used properly also be used to glorify God. It is also part of taking care of ourselves. Hopefully that answers your question.

 Ah, fairly answered--however, to what degree might one expect adherents to truly exist in such a manner? To clarify, how often might one offer up one's enjoyment of a stick of gum to a deity of infinite might?

 Chewing a stick of gum is neither good nor evil, and God does not disprove of things that have a neutral level of morality. If someone is given/purchases a stick of gum they can glorify God in a small way by giving it to someone else. It doesn't do much, but even the small things count.

HotRod said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

I'm also not going to keep my mouth shut when the Gay Cure shit is peddled too.

It's blatantly a lie and totally invented by crooks and swindlers.

Yeah he shouldn't have brought up the gay cure stuff.   

 Yeah, I probably shouldn't have. I don't even know for sure if it's possible, I just saw all the supposed evidence for it and thought it was plausible, so I based my statements on that.

 But this is ok?  

 I believe sexual reorientation is ethical, though I don't believe anyone should be forced to do it, but I think that if they want to make that choice, they should be able to (though they should be informed of any harmful consequences that may occur).

G6a-6b

HotRod said:

Warbler said:

HotRod said:

You all calmed down yet?

Jeez, I phrased a few things incorrectly (blame the bottle of red for that) and I get accused of all kinds of things. What I said was true, the way I said it could have been better!!

 no what you about the majority of Priests being child molesters is false.   There are some Priests that are child molesters, but not the majority.

 Prove it

 My experience indicates that such priests are in the minority.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Prevalence

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2489752/posts

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The chances of sentient life existing elsewhere in the universe are pretty low. Even the universe has limits.

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-chances-intelligent-life-elsewhere-2295217.html

If the universe has limits the only ones we know about are the ones we can detect (the visible universe is almost certainly not all of it and it's accelerating away from us).

Organic material is everywhere. It coats comets, it's found inside meteors, it drifts between Galaxies in clouds bigger than our solar system it can be made very easily on any world where the conditions are right ("Billions and Billions" so sayeth the St Sagan).

Life elsewhere is almost a certainty.

The Church you belong to entertains this high probability.

Add deep time and the scale of the universe the chances of sentient life existing only on Earth are so low as to be barely worth considering. Though the chances of it existing on Earth are pretty low when I'm not here.

The word from Geneva is that distances between planets with advanced civilisations (digital watches etc) are so vaste that meeting them would be unlikely.

 My Church does not entertain a high probability of intelligent, extra-terrestrial life, but rather a possibility of such life existing. More recently, the scientific community seems to be leaning in favour of an only 0.01% chance of sentient extra-terrestrial life existing (as far as I am aware, anyway and I linked to an article earlier which stated that).

 Kindly note only that said article, having been written in 2008, was initiated prior to a time when the scientific community was to witness the wholesale cache of worlds latently discovered over the course of the past 4 years: a spectacle that has proven far more optomistic than most had previously considered possible.

I thought the position was unchanged, but I have largely outdated sources. :P

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I apologize for being a bit irritable in this thread today, but please understand that I face the same criticisms all over the internet and in person, and all people seem to be able to do is repeat themselves, ignore the point of the analogies I make, impress on me the idea that they know so much better than me and I am just an intolerant, self-righteous, stupid jerk. Maybe there's something in that, but do you really think I am going to ever see your point of view in a different light if the people who support homosexuality are so condescending, insulting, and spiteful in their tone? Even if I am doing the same (which I don't intend to if that is the case), don't you think you should prove to me how much better you are instead of degrading yourselves with the use of insults, condescension, and profanity?

Sorry for the rant and I apologize for my behaviour if I sound like a grump today.

 Consider only a contrast that might assist in clarifying the tone derived by others on this subject:

Should you, as a good and loving Catholic, encounter an entity that might suggest you to be neither good, nor loving--based solely on the evidence of your Catholic leanings (teachings which have been with you since your earliest memory)--would you be capable of agreeing with said entity regardless of its kind rationale?

In essence, would not the suggestion that homosexuality might be considered aberrant to an infinite being (punishable by an eternal torment) while at the same time considering said being to be one's own personal protector and comfort create any response other than that of antipathy?

To clarify, were one here to call out a belief that all Catholics necessarily must be ashamed and expect an infinitude of just torment in a future realm--while at the same time seemingly showing little concern for such necessary eventualities--could one such as yourself resist the temptation to clarify your own position on the matter? Would not a silence on your part serve as an affirmation of the statement?

Kindly do not take offense at my interjection as it is my purpose to learn your thoughts and not to belittle them. It is merely my hope that an understanding and a peace might be brokered on this issue that might better reflect the seemingly kind intentions of the majority here on both sides. Rarely have such opposing philosophies been debated so respectfully on an internet forum. I appreciate the effort this takes and hope that it may remain such.

 I take no offense.

Arguably, I have encountered such "entities" in the form of some people (this isn't directed at anyone on this forum) who believe that I am a bad person or have mental issues on the basis of my religion alone. I did argue with these people, and admittedly rarely let hostile attacks on my religion go unanswered.

I think I see what you are getting at, and I'm fine with people voicing their disagreement, as long as they don't get repetitive or insulting. To clarify my beliefs about homosexuality, I don't believe that those people who engage in homosexual sex acts are going to hell necessarily. There are many factors which come into play in determining whether someone goes to heaven or hell, so just because someone does something that is considered a serious sin by the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they will go to hell.

Hopefully I didn't miss the point of your question as I'm pretty tired right now and am finding it difficult to think coherent thoughts. :)

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

I'm also not going to keep my mouth shut when the Gay Cure shit is peddled too.

It's blatantly a lie and totally invented by crooks and swindlers.

Yeah he shouldn't have brought up the gay cure stuff.   

 Yeah, I probably shouldn't have. I don't even know for sure if it's possible, I just saw all the supposed evidence for it and thought it was plausible, so I based my statements on that.

Thanks for the links. I'll have to read up on strategy later.

G4a-5b

This is interesting (I've read this sort of thing in a few places).

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

So God makes people homosexual and then says, oh you can't have sex by the way.

Ludicrous.

 *SPOILER ALERT*

Catholics don't believe that life is about sex.

*END SPOILER ALERT*

Since we believe in an eternal paradise after this world, what is eighty years without sex?

 How convenient that you are allowed to have sex but others aren't.

 I am not married, so I am not allowed to have sex. In the future, if I marry, then I will be able to have sex, but that isn't my situation. I'm not condemning people for doing something the wrong way while I have sex myself the "right way."

Bingowings said:

Lucifer for example is literally the Morning Star (the Planet Venus) the light of which is banished by the Sun. It was a Roman pagan religious ornament woven into the early Christian church like the whole Osiris worship bag you guys have over Mary/Diana/Ishtar.

 Things like this make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. Christians have never worshiped Mary. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us as is embedded in the Hail Mary ("pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"). It's very similar to asking someone on earth to pray for you. It isn't worship.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

 If God were infinite love, would anything cause Him to reject a soul into an eternity of suffering?

Alternately, if God were a fact, should anything stop one from worshipping Him fully? For what might be more important than the worship of a being of infinite might?

 The first question is one I can't answer myself, because it's one of mine too. ;)

The second is basically what we believe as Catholics, though most of us do a pretty bad job at making worship such a priority. We believe that our sins can be forgiven in confession if we repent of them, so that is probably part of what causes us to slack off. The other part would be due to a lack of faith in God I guess.

Would worshipping a being of infinite might to the fullest extent possible necessarily allow one any respite from the task? Would not such worship fairly be required to be equally infinite in duration?

 We believe we can worship God with our actions. Every good thing we do can be for the glory of God, so that is considered a form of worship. Working cheerfully and productively can be worship. Satisfying our bodily needs is sort of like that too because it is a good thing that God wants us to do in order to stay healthy. Since we are supposed to take care of ourselves physically as well as spiritually we cannot be expected to pray 24/7. Recreational time can, if used properly also be used to glorify God. It is also part of taking care of ourselves. Hopefully that answers your question.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

Do you consider that God might love every person equally?

 That is what I believe, yes. I don't claim to know how he judges us after we die or how strict he is or how many allowances he makes for those who didn't believe in him on earth.

Catholics do believe in something called a "Baptism of Desire" in which someone who is genuinely searching for the truth can get to heaven, even if they don't believe in God.

 Do you believe that God is unchanging in this love for all persons? To clarify: do you believe there might come a time when God might no longer love all living persons equally?

Additionally, is it your belief that God's love for an individual might change upon said individual's death? Or would it remain consistent regardless of physical state?

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

darth_ender said:

This should be a helpful link if you have notation questions.

 What link? :P

S-2c

darth_ender said:

You write the abbreviation of the piece, the square it is starting on, and the square it is finishing on.  Example (not applicable to this game): S3f-3e.

But my actual move is R-4e

 OK, thanks.

Jetrell Fo said:

SilverWook said:

Alas, mods are not omniscient. If anyone has proof Mr. Olie the 2nd is a sock, kindly provide it to the mods. Anybody maintaining a sock account at this point is taking a calculated risk. Is it really worth it?

AFAIK, nobody was given special permission for anything, certainly not from me. Joke socks were likely tolerated so long as they were obvious, and didn't stink up serious threads. It takes just one or two people to piss in the pool and ruin it for everyone.

In this forum, I don't believe in coincidence.  Ric Olie 2 didn't just materialize out of nowhere from some newbie that just happened to choose that name blindly when joining.  That name was chosen for a reason, but by whom, I do not know.

It is my guess that these socks probably weren't meant to exist outside the "off topic" forum.  That is why some of us that don't normally have a reason to peruse this section had no real idea who they were ..... making it easier for them to slink around the main forum mostly undetected.  With some of their alter-egos being regulars in the main forum it was only a matter of time before things got out of hand.

 Somehow I missed the last dozen twenty comments before I posted (hence the post being disjointed from the rest of the conversation) so I didn't realize my legitimacy was being questioned here. How dare you! ;)

Frink is right about me. I enjoyed TRM which is what brought me to this site and for lack of a better name, I chose the star of the show: Ric Olie. The name Ric Olie was already taken (unbeknownst to me, by a sock), so I used RicOlie_2 (I think I used an underscore and didn't use a space intentionally, as I didn't want to end up being confused with the other Ric). I've been around since July (I think, maybe it was June). So I that's why I chose the name. I fooled around a bit recently, hinting that I could be a sock intentionally, just to have fun, but I tried not to be convincing enough that I would make people angry at me or end up banned.

I present this serious thread as evidence that I am not a sock:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Ask-the-member-of-the-Latin-Rite-of-the-Roman-Catholic-Church-AKA-Interrogate-the-Catholic/topic/16201/

If I were a sock puppet, then the puppeteer behind me is spending way too much time on me.

TV's Frink said:

timdiggerm said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.

"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."

It's bullshit.

 ^ This.

 Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.

"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"

 I've always thought that Catholic Sexual Ethics does have at least one piece of logic going for it: All sex has to be potentially reproductive in nature. Thus, the prohibition on homosexual acts is consistent, and doesn't necessarily stem from reasoning which doesn't affect heterosexual couples.

 No sex for sterile couples!  No sex for people in their seventies!

God sure does have some illogical rules.

 That isn't true. I gave an answer for that...not sure if it was in this thread or the other one (my Catholic one).

What happens if you have two of the same piece close together that can both move to a square you call? How do you distinguish between the two so the other player doesn't make the wrong move on their board?

Anyway, P-2d

Alright, I think I see our problem. You typed K-7h instead of K-7i. No worries though.

R-8d

darth_ender said:

I hope not.  Sorry if it's my fault.  I'll post a screenshot of what I am seeing.

 No worries (and sorry if I'm mixing up pieces :P). The game is just for funsies anyway. ;)

^I can't move your king to that square with the current board set-up.

Thanks darth_ender. :)

I agree that further discussion on the topic should take place between Duracell's thread, so as of now, only QUESTIONS about what I believe on the topic. No debates, criticisms, insults, etc. Thank you.