Jesus in the Modern World

Ramman

Registered Member
#1
Rather than reply to the numerous nonsensical "hypothetical" threads all of which pose the following question "What if JESUS came today , What would it be like" et al.

What do they hope to accomplish by asking hypotetical questions such as these. Do they think it a justification for ignoring how GOD Himself decided to reveal the CHRIST?

Do they attempt to minimiize the Cross?

Do they attempt to deny the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist?

Do they deny the need for the Salvic nature of the Sacraments and JESUS presence in all of them?

Do they attempt to deny that the Catholic faith is a Living Faith not a Dead Historic Faith?

Do they understand that the Church is comprised of the Church Triumphant - the Church Suffering and not only the Church Militant and that these three are one always.

Are they totally ignorant of the ramifications of the resurrection?

It seems apparent that rather than seek GOD through hypotheticals - seeking him through HIS revealed truths might be the better course of action - assuming of course that this is their Goal to begin with. If not - then I expect this Thread will elicit numerous individuals attempting to justify their reasons for not doing so.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#2
Ramman said:
What do they hope to accomplish by asking hypotetical questions such as these.
I don't know. It might just be a fun to speculate about things and find out what people think about stuff. Do you enjoy discussing things? Or, you know, are you just here to preach?
 
Last edited:

EllyDicious

made of AMBIGUITY
V.I.P.
#3
EllyDicious: Given that everyone is free to discuss whatever / however they want to, I see no big deal in hypothetical questions. It's another way to know everyone's thoughts about certain situations.
If you think those threads are a waste of time, don't respond.
Everyone is free to express/ask anything about everything.


Elida.
 
Last edited:

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
#4
In line with this thread discussing reasons for talking about religion on this forum, I would like to ask one better:

"Ramman, what is it that you hope to accomplish (in discussing religion) by talking about/to people they way you do?" I have noticed alienation, belittling, non-contextualized quoting, extrapolations, (apparent) passive-aggression, and direct-confrontation. What is your "goal"?
 

Ramman

Registered Member
#5
I don't know. It might just be a fun to speculate about things and find out what people think about stuff. Do you enjoy discussing things? Or, you know, are you just here to preach?
Ram: It would appear that preaching is in the eye of the beholder wouldnt it?
------
EllyDicious: Given that everyone is free to discuss whatever / however they want to, I see no big deal in hypothetical questions.

Ram: The question posed in this thread however - is what do they hope to accomplish. You havent answered that question have you.

It's another way to know everyone's thoughts about certain situations.

Ram: Not really. Thoughts" are not truths. Certainly if someone poses a question and the goal is to arrive at a consensus or to debate the finer points of that question so that good can come of it for all parties concerned using theology , philosophy , apologetics , history et al - thats one thing - but to deny revealed truths as opinion and providing not a shred of documentation to justify it , historical or otherwise to back up that opinion is an utter waste of time that benefits no one.

If you think those threads are a waste of time, don't respond.

Ram: I didnt. I posted my own thread to which you responded.

Everyone is free to express/ask anything about everything.

Ram: And those who disagree are free to pose their rebuttles. Hense this thread. .............................................
 
Last edited:

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
#6
Ram: It would appear that preaching is in the eye of the beholder wouldnt it?
"Preaching" - Google Dictionary

If the topics and grammar of your sentences are structured as thus, then no—the qualifications for classifying a statement as “preaching” are actually quite objective.


------

Ram: The question posed in this thread however - is what do they hope to accomplish. You havent answered that question have you.
Yeah...you really haven't answered ours in return, either. Would you like me to make a thread specifically asking you? (No sarcasm here, I swear. I will do so if you will answer in that thread):stare:
 

Ramman

Registered Member
#7
In line with this thread discussing reasons for talking about religion on this forum, I would like to ask one better:

Ram: One better? As judged by whom?

"Ramman, what is it that you hope to accomplish (in discussing religion) by talking about/to people they way you do?"

Ram: Challenging people is not uncharitable. In fact - it benefits them. the only people who are threatened when challenged are the insecure - the untruthful - the ignorant and the proud. Challenge me. I welcome it. As stated I am a Traditional Catholic. Feel free to challenge my beliefs but be forewarned - if you do - make certain you can back up those challenges with facts not opinion. I post to content not to individuals. Perhaps if you are threatened by that - you should try to discover why you are. And what it is that makes you feel this way. Wouldnt you say?

I have noticed alienation, belittling, non-contextualized quoting, extrapolations, (apparent) passive-aggression, and direct-confrontation.

Feel free to cite specific examples

alienation? Post proof

belittling ? Post Proof

non-contextualized quoting ? ( One of my Personal favorites BTW PLEASE POST PROOF and then wait for the flood gates to open. )

extrapolations ? Post Proof:

(apparent) passive-aggression ? Apparent? Pretty much admits no proof doesnt it

direct-confrontation ? Yes a Challenge is a direct confrontation - but you have failed to define intent. Dont worrry - I just stated in this post my intent. So the only real question reamining seems to be - Can you prove your direct challenge to me in this post - your intent - the substantiation for these charges - the motive and whether or not you can support your positions if they differ with my positions.

What is your "goal"?
Ram: The TRUTH - not erroneous opinion
 
#8
If you think those threads are a waste of time, don't respond.

Ram: I didnt. I posted my own thread to which you responded.

You have posted in the hypothetical threads, don't be a hypocrite.

http://www.generalforum.com/search.php?searchid=375431

I don't think anyone is here to minimalize anything. These threads are created in order for everyone to try and understand what others feel and think. It's a forum board with many opinions.
There are believers and non-believers both here. This isn't a place to try to convert anyone or make them think your way is the only way. It's about discussing why you believe what you do. If posing hypothetical questions helps someone to better understand something, can you share the harm in it?
 

Ramman

Registered Member
#9
"Preaching" - Google Dictionary

If the topics and grammar of your sentences are structured as thus, then no—the qualifications for classifying a statement as “preaching” are actually quite objective.

Ram Under whose parameters? Yours? In fact - whose thread is this anyway? Is Preaching the subject matter of this thread? Has it ever been? In fact if preaching is of such interest to you - perhaps you might want to formulate a thread and discuss that subject in depth there. If I had a personal interest in preaching - I most likely would have had a calling from GOD to do so and perhaps even have entered a seminary for 6 years so as to be Ordained to the Priesthood and thus have free reign of the pulpit every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation. But alas , i am but laity and here to DEFEND the faith in Charity as in keeping with the Second Spiritual work of Mercy as Taught by the CHURCH. But dont worry , I am not offended by your inquiry. Now as for my speeling punctuation and grammar - I'll leave that for the simple minded. I realize it bothers them to no end.

Yeah...you really haven't answered ours in return, either.

Ram: Your what? Opinion? You are free to it even if you cannot defend it.

Would you like me to make a thread specifically asking you?

Ram: I'll participate in a DEBATE with you. But keep in mind - it will be fair. You will have to state your theological Position point by point and be prepared to defend same and answer my inquiries regarding what you do or do not believe. If you are willing to do that I will as well. What it wont be is a pot shotting attack the Catholic without defending anything yourself farce. You can do whatever you want to do. But what you cannot do is stand for anything. If that were not true - you wouldnt be here in this thread with your attitude , would you?

(No sarcasm here, I swear. I will do so if you will answer in that thread):stare:
Ram : I just set the ground rules. If you agree to them - then let the fun begin.
------
You have posted in the hypothetical threads, don't be a hypocrite.

http://www.generalforum.com/search.php?searchid=375431

Ram: And thought better of it. It isnt hypocritical to realize the folly of an unproductive activity. Perhaps I should have stated - that I NO LONGER Will answer in HYPOTHETICAL Threads. Now are you happy? And what has changed other than nothing. The points at the beginning of my thread still have not been addressed by you have they?

I don't think anyone is here to minimalize anything. These threads are created in order for everyone to try and understand what others feel and think. It's a forum board with many opinions.

Ram: And I will not participate (FROM THIS POINT FORWARD lest I be accused of hypocricy) in your "opinion fests" . I'll simply create my own threads that you "opinion niks" can either contribute to or ignore as is your free will to do. But if you come to my thread with "opinion" - you will be challenged to defend that opinion. Yes we can coexist. And just as you have the right to dicuss whatever you want in your threads - so too am I.

There are believers and non-believers both here. This isn't a place to try to convert anyone or make them think your way is the only way.

Ram: Thats your opinion.

It's about discussing why you believe what you do.

Ram : Once again , opinion.

If posing hypothetical questions helps someone to better understand something, can you share the harm in it?
Ram: The harm is obvious. It makes MAN self reliant and not dependant on GOD for Truth.
 
Last edited:
#10
------


Ram: The harm is obvious. It makes MAN self reliant and not dependant on GOD for Truth.
But for those of us who truly believe, where have we sought most of our teachings? Through man. Without discussion and teachers, most of us would be wandering around without knowing TRUTH.
Being self reliant in a way that allows us to find God is not such a bad thing, is it?