Posted on 05/29/2009 8:21:39 AM PDT by NYer
There may well be no greater, nor no sadder, hypocrisy than claiming membership in a religion in whose tenets one publicly disagrees.
“How do you know that SHE made the advances?”
Mary wrote: A bimbo? So you know this woman and are a judge of her character? She fell in love with a very handsome man, who obviously returned her love. That’s not being a bimbo. Too bad it was a priest. It complicates things, but love is love. You don’t always choose WHO to love.
114 posted on Friday, May 29, 2009 6:25:09 PM by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL.)
Mary, you led the way by inference. Now in the interest of continuity why don’t you answer marshmallow’s question.
You wrote:
“Nope. You have no grasp of distinctions, vlad.”
No, you’re completely wrong. Again, since ALL people are celibate at some time or another in their lives, celibacy cannot be called unnatural. It is simply a part of life. For some people it is practiced their whole lives. Christ commends it as well. Christ commends nothing that is unnatural.
You wrote:
“Sorry but your protestant remarks aren’t true. We, as Christians, believe fornication IS sin, lust IS sin.”
Untrue. Some Protestant sects teach that there is such a thing as fornication. Others do not and accept fornication, gay marriage, etc. Look at the Episcopal Church.
“We don’t overlook it but we do trust God to forgive us when we repent, confess it to the Lord, and turn away from it.”
And where is this erring priest or his bimbo shown repenting, confessing and turning away from sin? Oh, yeah, they’re not. Instead they’re embracing a sect that tells them there is no need for repentence in regard to fornication. Episcopalians. Protestants. Get the picture yet?
“We don’t hold it over someone’s head for eternity like some who aren’t “protestants”.”
Has eternity gone by yet? That’s strange. I thought it was less than four weeks. Gee, it is less than four weeks!!! And he admitted that this “affair” has been going on for TWO YEARS. So, odds are that they are fornicating even now. Eternity’s a long time. Four weeks is not. Get a grip.
“I can understand that Catholics are hurt and disappointed over their actions and maybe he never should have gone into the priesthood in the first place.”
I am not hurt by his actions at all. I don’t know the man and I have nothing invested in him whatsoever. I am disappointed but it’s not a personal disappointment on my part. I feel sorry for him and the poor woman. Instead of doing the right thing, they are compounding their errors. And you’re - of course - excusing them.
“I’m sure he didn’t plan this.”
What? They had an affair for two years. Where was the lack of planning? You keep making these outrageous excuses. THEY HAVE BEEN FORNICATING FOR TWO YEARS. They have all but publicly stated that they will continue to fornicate. Planning? They are clearly planning to continue their sinfulness.
“I pray he will find happiness with her.”
I pray he will find happiness with God. Isn’t that more important?
“What they do is certainly not any of my business.”
Could have fooled me by your presence in this thread.
Marysecretary wrote this:
“You don’t always choose WHO to love.”
Actually you do. Love is an act of the will. It is to will the good of another. It is not infatuation. It is not lust. It is not a crush. And it is not an affair. And it most certainly is not fornication.
Love is an act of the will. Therefore, we all choose WHO we love. Period.
There is a Catholic priest in our town who was a priest from another faith. He converted and is currently married with four children and is pastor of a parish.
ok
Yawn.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I’m not trying to argue, but why is it making it personal when you note that [a Protestant] failed to respond to an argument and thereby helped prove one of your frequently made points?
Strange then how post #94 is still up in this thread.
What you said is that he personally "can't refute" - and that is making it personal because it is reading his mind.
Again, I’m not trying to argue, but when you say:
“What you said is that he personally “can’t refute” - and that is making it personal because it is reading his mind”
does that mean when someone absolutely can’t refute something that that will be viewed as making it personal?
Today is May 30th. If someone denies it, and I tell him he can’t refute that, that will be viewed as “making it personal”?
So what happens to truth?
No doubt there are physicists and philosophers and others on the forum who could and would refute the claim that "today is May 30th."
It is not reading another Freeper's mind to say that he has not refuted something. That is your own observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.