Don't want to rock the boat. (Not a Navy pun) Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Did someone complain, or did you just start to feel uncomfortable with it?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*reads Noemon's post and giggles hysterically*
I'm not sure whether that belongs in OOC or not, but it's funny as heck...
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Oh, come now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you're uncomfortable with it, don't participate in it anymore.
I went to the effort of thoughfully answering your question. Then you deleted it.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Did someone complain, or did you just start to feel uncomfortable with it?
B.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I'm annoyed as well. This is a topic that is frequently not discussed and I found people's responses very interesting and worth reading.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:If you're uncomfortable with it, don't participate in it anymore.
I went to the effort of thoughfully answering your question. Then you deleted it.
Thank you for your effort in answering.
Sorry if you're upset.
If a topic thread that I started noses its way into inappropriate land, I'll feel responsible.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I was enjoying the conversation also, but what's done is done. I'm sure the subject will come up again at some point.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
My apologies if I overstepped your personal bounds, odouls. For what it's worth, I'm always happy to edit my own posts out of respect for the sensitivities of other participants.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Sorry if you're upset.
Are you sorry that I had a negative reaction to your action, or are you sorry that you did what you did?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: My apologies if I overstepped your personal bounds, odouls. For what it's worth, I'm always happy to edit my own posts out of respect for the sensitivities of other participants.
No way, nobody overstepped my personal bounds, least of all you CT
I just didn't want the thread to overstep the bounds of Hatrack
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I'm bummed, because I wanted to read what other people had to say. It was a really interesting thread.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Are you sorry that I had a negative reaction to your action, or are you sorry that you did what you did
Sorry that what I did yielded from you the reaction that it did. Not sorry that I did what I did. I'd do it again. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I'm bummed, because I wanted to read what other people had to say. It was a really interesting thread
I take that as a compliment Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Not sorry that I did what I did. I'd do it again. [Wink]
In that case, I will remember to never seriously participate in any thread started by you.
Not out of spite, but because I can't trust you to not delete my words.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:No way, nobody overstepped my personal bounds, least of all you CT
I just didn't want the thread to overstep the bounds of Hatrack
Good. *relieved
I can understand the desire not to have a thread one started become a source of trial for the moderators. That's why I clearly denoted my "porn thread" as a potential Mayfly.
Touchy stuff. Difficult to discuss. Even more difficult to discuss well, especially if we are examining hidden assumptions -- the hidden assumptions are often those that are the most difficult to examine. They are hidden for a reason. Desire is so private.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I understand, odouls. It was pushing the limits of Hatrack, and I worried about some of the things I said on this forum.
but we could move the discussion to a different forum....
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:In that case, I will remember to never seriously participate in any thread started by you.
Not out of spite, but because I can't trust you to not delete my words.
Sounds fair enough. But if you look closely, you'll find that any words written on Hatrack are transient, as threads are not kept here forever. So, by application of your logic, doesn't that mean that you shouldn't post on hatrack at all? Just a thought.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Hatrack does not delete ongoing conversations.
You do.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Hatrack does not delete ongoing conversations.
You do.
But I also prevent forest fires... Doesn't that count for something? Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Oh, hatrack has locked threads and so on for reasons most members don't agree with on occasion. THIS thread seemed very polite although I didn't see all of it.
I'd have more respect for your decision if you were taking the traditional marriage thread discussion more seriously.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Hatrack does not delete ongoing conversations.
Yes, it does.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I'd have more respect for your decision if you were taking the traditional marriage thread discussion more seriously.
In all sincerity I didn't realize I was being flippant about that thread.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Odd, this is the first week I've posted regularly in close to a year, and in trying to be polite and tactful in my posts I do believe I've managed to anger more people than I did when I originally came to hatrack and posted without any such forethought
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Porter. Chill. The deleted thread and the thoughtful responses are not worth raising your blood pressure and the price you pay when you're mean. He apolgized.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
*sent you an e-mail*
FG
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I found the thread very interesting, as well.
I was looking forward to coming back from class to read more of it.
Oh, well.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:He apolgized.
While he wasn't rude about it, he certainly did not apologize for what he did. In fact, he said he'd do it again.
"Sorry if you're upset" is not an apology.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
This thread reminds me of why I love sakeriver...
Posted by Onanism Thread (Member # 8525) on :
Starting a new thread about your own onanism thread which you deleted... Would this be a meta-onanism thread?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: While he wasn't rude about it, he certainly did not apologize for what he did. In fact, he said he'd do it again.
"Sorry if you're upset" is not an apology.
I would do it again. It was a thread I started, and I felt responsible for the direction it was taking. I thought a trend might continue beyond a place I wanted it to go, and I headed it off at the pass.
Still, sorry you got upset. Wasn't my intention.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Starting a new thread about your own onanism thread which you deleted... Would this be a meta-onanism thread?
Yes. Thou art now obsolete OT
Posted by Onanism Thread (Member # 8525) on :
NooooooOOOOOOOoooooOOOOOOOO!!! </luke>
I am not obsolete until Pop starts posting "I'm glad this wasn't another meta-onanism thread!"
If you strike me down I will rise up more powerful than you can ever imagine.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
And me without my schwartz ring
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Odouls -- let me say that while I meant what I said, I hold no ill-will toward you.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narnia: Porter. Chill. The deleted thread and the thoughtful responses are not worth raising your blood pressure and the price you pay when you're mean. He apolgized.
I don't think Porter was being mean at all. In fact, I completely agree with him. Posters shouldn't be able to delete words that aren't theirs unless the poster is a moderator or administrator.
Does anyone have a copy of the deleted thread? I completely missed it. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Posters shouldn't be able to delete words that aren't theirs unless the poster is a moderator or administrator.
I disagree completely. If someone started a thread, they should be able to delete it. I don't recall ever having deleted a thread before, and I would have disagreed with this statement yesterday the same as today.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I hate meetings. I missed what was apparently a lot of fun.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
in defense of odouls, pop has stated in the other thread that he posted a warning in the one referenced here... so it was definitely pushing the boundaries of what pop was going to allow.
FWIW.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I don't think y'all missed anything:
People posted in spurts.
There was a rest period.
Then they were at it again.
Some people were ragging on each other.
And finally odouls decided to clean it all up.
Oh, and just for the record, back when I was Catholic, the "sin of Onan" was precisely the scripture used to explain to the boys why masturbation was a sin. That was Catholic doctrine as communicated to us back a few decades ago.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Until I post a joke. THANKS! Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Until I post a joke. THANKS!
Sorry.
Posted by Art Vandelay (Member # 8690) on :
Doctrine must have changed since then, Bob.
I went to 13 years of catholic school and was never once told that masturbation was a sin. I don't think it would have made a difference though.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
On Dec 29th 1975 Pope Paul wrote this in his Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics:
quote: β...masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act...the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes βthe full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.β All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.β
Every Catholic friend I've ever had was taught that it's a sin. Perhaps you had a unique priest Art.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Bob:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
::wipes tear::
Posted by Art Vandelay (Member # 8690) on :
I had about 7 priests and a couple dozen nuns in that 13 year timeframe. And every friend I have is Catholic and I know for a fact none of them consider it a sin. Although I guess that doesn't change whether or not the church views it as a sin.
We even had sex-ed and this was never mentioned. I guess they were too busy trying to keep kids from having sex to fight the war against masturbation. Or as I like to call it, the Silent Killer.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: But I also prevent forest fires... Doesn't that count for something?
No. Because it's wild fires now, not forest fires. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's identified as an intrinsically disordered act in the catechism and I'm pretty sure it's considered a sin in every circumstance by the church.
Something that a lot of people miss about the Catholic view of sins, though... you are expected to do some sinning pretty much all the time. That's why weekly confession is encouraged.
However, as I said elsewhere, I always heard Onan discussed WRT being open to children rather than Masturbation.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: And every friend I have is Catholic and I know for a fact none of them consider it a sin
And prety much every catholic friend I have consider it a sin.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My Catholic friends can beat up your Catholic friends.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wanna bet? One of my Catholic friends is Diana (who has posted here a few times).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
only because
<neo> I know kung fu </neo>
edit: this would have been funnier had it come right after Kat's post as I intended...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I had a roommate that I was slightly afraid of. I'd be happy to wage her against anyone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Diana was the only English teacher to ever get me to really work hard in HS.
You are going down.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My roommate got arrested in the first month we knew each other.
AND
She's 5'3" and survived numerous mosh pits. She can take Diana on. She can take anyone on. *shadowboxes*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Diana adopted a Latina gangbanger and helped her turn her life around.
These days, Diana is a guardian ad litem.
Both of these prove she is slightly insane, and a force of nature.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm a Catholic and I don't consider it a sin.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
OH Yeah!! Well my best Catholic friend is my MIL and she is in her seventies, she has lung cancer and well she's been dead since february, but she could still take on any of these other so called Catholics out there with one hand tied behind her back..
So There!!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm pretty sure the Jesuits consider it a sin at my Jesuit university.
But I always thought it had more to do with the "not resulting in children" thing than anything else.
Like the reason they won't prescribe birth control in the health center.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
From the horse's mouth (the Catechism of the Catholic Church):
quote: 2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."[137] "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."[138] To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.
That's the complete, authoritative statement of the church's position.
What individual catholics may or may not believe is, of course, widely variable.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
YYMV, in my experience.
A lot of catholics, maybe even most catholics, don't follow the letter of church law on a wide variety of issues. Which, according to the church, makes them not really catholic.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Which, according to the church, makes them not really catholic.
Well, JT, that's a matter of deep personal import to me at the moment, and one which I am still deciding. If you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on that I'd love to hear them...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think it is possible to count yourself as a true member of any church if you do not live and are not trying to live most, if not all, of its teachings.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What makes someone "really Catholic?"
I mean, how many of the laws do you have to follow to be considered Catholic?
Because I doubt anyone knows and follows all of them all of the time.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
see, it's the "most" vs. "all" part that presents me with an issue at the moment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Anything involving a mortal sin falls into the category of "must be obeyed to be considered Catholic."
Using the name without trying to follow its teachings is being a cultural but not faithful member of the religion.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'm not sure I'd go letter for letter with that, Kat, after all, Joan of Arc was burned as a witch before being canonized as a saint. But, then again, she had visions from God and gave her life in the cause to which she felt called... I'm just questioning some moral teachings because I've suddenly found myself on the back side of them.
I appreciate the candor and the absence of judgement in the way you've shared your thoughts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think you can take issue with whatever rules you would like. However, you can't be a faithful Catholic and not be living its teachings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:A lot of catholics, maybe even most catholics, don't follow the letter of church law on a wide variety of issues. Which, according to the church, makes them not really catholic.
Not true. Many of our "best" Catholics departed from "official" church doctrine. Many of these have later been named cardinals; many of them have become saints. Faithful dissent has always been part of Catholic tradition and practice. And the "church" is not just the hierarchy or the Pope, but the whole body of Christ - in other words, all of us.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Honestly? That sounds like a justification.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, no... there's points to be had for kmb there... Aquinas stood accused of heresy at one point because of his Aristotelean leanings. But his defense of Aristotle is precisely why Aristotelean philosophy dominates Catholic thinking to this day.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think comparing oneself to Aquinas is a tortuous justfication for onanism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes, "honestly".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay - honestly. I think most issues taken up with doctrine regarding the acceptability of practices are taken up after the violation has already occurred.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
um... I'm neither talking specifcally about masturbation nor trying to compare anyone here directly to Aquinas. I'm saying that kmbboots is technically correct in that there is a history of faithful dissent in the church.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was actually making a larger point regarding dissent. I am going to assume that you didn't mean to trivialize my faith.
Jim-Me, if you are interested, I would recommend a couple of books: Faithful Dissent by Robert McClory and Why I am a Catholic by Garry Wills.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you mean your faith as in Catholicism, or your faith as in you? I definitely wasn't trivializing Catholicism, and I don't know anything about you so I wasn't trying to trivialize you.
I don't understand why someone would want to adhere to something that they beleive is mistaken and/or wrong. It seems like it's for reasons other than agreement with the teachings.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
thanks for the recs...
and Katharina is right, at least with respect to me. My die is cast. What I'm wondering is if I have decided that the church got something wrong (and I have), do I have to toss the whole thing? or do I still get to listen to its wisdom and worship through its sacraments, which I *do* find grace-filled?
I really need to discuss the matter with a priest but, until such time as I can, I am listening to people's thoughts on the matter, too.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't understand why someone would want to adhere to something that they beleive is mistaken and/or wrong. It seems like it's for reasons other than agreement with the teachings.
Kat, if someone had taught you a whole slew of life lessons which had been of inordinate value, then they told you something you found out was wrong, would you just stop listening to them entirely?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My faith in Catholicism. Catholicism is considerably bigger than specific, current, teachings. This is especially true of relatively minor teachings like "onanism". And, yes, we do recognize degrees of importance. I'm right there with the big, important Catholic doctrines. And there have been plenty of times that the church (meaning the laity) has disagreed with official church doctrine even on big stuff. And been right.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As a caveat: I have been asked for honest.
If I didn't decide they were wrong until I had violated some of the teachings, I would question my own motives. People like to think they are good; if there's a conflict between behavior and beliefs, one of them has to give. If I had those beliefs before my actions violated them, and I held them for good reasons, I'd like to think I'd change my actions instead abandoning the beliefs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jim-Me,
Any faith structure is bound to get things wrong from time to time. Especially one as big and old and stratified as the Catholic church. The Pope is not the church any more than you and I are the church. Hang in there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
katharina,
Since you don't know me, I'll have to ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt. I believe that when I disagree with official doctrine it is for good reason and after careful, prayerful consideration.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
In my particular case it really is about the beliefs rather than the actions... and really this is common to Catholicism. As I said elsewhere, in Catholic Morality it is implicit and human that there will be sinning. If it's just a matter of actions then you go to confession and try to understand why you shouldn't do that again. Actions are easy to reconcile in the Catholic Church... it's the beliefs that are the tricky thing.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Was rather hoping Dag would chime in on this... I believe I'll make a new thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jim-Me,
Do you mind my asking which beliefs? I would be happy to add whatever perspective I could. A lot of dissent has been about belief. The Arian controversy is a big example of this.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I feel this total superposition of states on this question. On the one hand, I know that faithful adherence means you are part of the covenant. I feel it deeply that it matters. I don't get to pick and choose.
On the other hand, I believe no church leadership is infallible. The more I learn about the history of the church, the more I understand that to be the case. Also, I do not believe we are meant to give up our moral agency to others ever. The process of moral growth and development absolutely requires that our own hearts, minds, spirits, consciences, and deepest selves be straining to understand, to puzzle things out, to put it into practice and see how it stands up, to test, probe, question, and learn daily, even hourly, every day of our lives (and beyond).
That's why my church leaders teach true principles and let people govern themselves. They specifically refuse to make detailed judgements on every issue. We are given the Word of Wisdom, for instance, and then we are told to put it into practice in the way it has meaning for us.
I can do this, I can use my own judgement, in an honest way or a dishonest way. It's up to me to decide which I want to do. Like kat I believe that if I use my own judgement to decide everything I'm doing now is perfectly fine and dandy, then I'm not gaining anything from my time spent on church, prayer, reading, and study. However, if I turn over my agency to someone else, be they ever so holy and wise, I am failing just as much if not more, in the task I'm appointed. God put me in charge of myself for a reason.
There's this superposition and dynamic balance that occurs sometimes, that to me seems to be the ideal state. I'm never 100% sure of what is right. I'm pretty positive about some things and less sure of others. I learn as I go. I learn by doing. And when the prophet or other general authority, or my bishop, says something is right, then I trust them. I have seen them be right about thorny questions too many times to discount what they say. If it's something that seems wrong to me then I take it under deep consideration. I make a trial of their suggestion, and see how it works. I take that leap of faith.
Almost everything I've done this for, I have come to agree with them, usually for reasons totally different than what I assumed up front. Some things you just can't judge until you give them a fair trial. My life has been greatly blessed thereby. I am extremely grateful for the teachings of my church.
But there are some teachings that I have to conclude that for me they don't apply. Perhaps the church moves over time from one position to another, and I like to think I can sometimes be a bit ahead of that curve. At one time the church was strongly in favor of capital punishment, for instance. Now the official position is no position. So if I were an opponent of capital punishment in that former time, I would be at odds with the church teachings, but I would hold my dissent in superposition, trying to understand where I might be wrong or not seeing something the church leadership has been shown.
At one time blacks weren't given the priesthood. That situation deeply grieved many people back then. There was great rejoicing when the revelation came extending the priesthood to all worthy male members of the church. Rather than let such issues separate me from the church, (and there's no telling which teachings today may change in the future), I try to prayerfully and deeply consider the teachings and then decide what I think.
If I didn't believe the church has access to deeper insights and higher understanding than I possess, then I wouldn't be a member, however, I will never give up my free agency to anyone else. It is mine forever. And I know that the church leaders are not infallible.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: My Catholic friends can beat up your Catholic friends.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
kmbboots,
do you mind e-mailing me? jimme04@gmail.com
I'd prefer to keep it abstract out here as I don't think I can go into enough detail to not give people the wrong impression.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Jim-me, I don't remember where I read my earlier statement, but I do know it was harped upon by my high school religion teacher (who was a nun). We got in countless fights over that saying. I took exception to the church's view that you had to agree with everything they said or else you "weren't catholic". Now, my memories from high school are spotty at best (my memories from earlier this week are already fuzzy). But that means I remember things and don't remember the source. I've been looking for one, but kmb seems to have a host of sources all ready.
If my earlier statement is, in fact, not true, then that restores a lot of my faith in catholicism. Although I must say it's a pretty big misconception that's not being addressed at all.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It was a really interesting thread.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)