OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 11:18:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bad jobs  (Read 7581 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« on: October 06, 2011, 09:56:30 AM »

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2011, 10:00:55 AM »

Well, that would have saved me a lot of grief if I heard that story when I was unemployed.  laugh
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,899


« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2011, 10:06:52 AM »

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

Pasadi, pasadi... where does this one come from? 
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,428


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2011, 12:16:40 PM »

Somehow I think God would not approve of a woman using herself as a tool for men to sin. Mcdonalds is always hiring.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2011, 12:36:55 PM »

Somehow I think God would not approve of a woman using herself as a tool for men to sin. Mcdonalds is always hiring.

PP

If you don't think eating Micky D's is a sin you ain't been to one in a long time.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,428


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2011, 12:47:09 PM »

Somehow I think God would not approve of a woman using herself as a tool for men to sin. Mcdonalds is always hiring.

PP

If you don't think eating Micky D's is a sin you ain't been to one in a long time.
Oh yeah?!?!?!? Well......your face is!!!!!! THERE!
 Cheesy

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2011, 02:47:35 PM »

Somehow I think God would not approve of a woman using herself as a tool for men to sin. Mcdonalds is always hiring.

PP

If you don't think eating Micky D's is a sin you ain't been to one in a long time.
Oh yeah?!?!?!? Well......your face is!!!!!! THERE!
 Cheesy

PP

See how this level of witty back and forth between us just doesn't translate into written words on a screen?

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2011, 02:48:23 PM »

You guys are witty?  Huh
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2011, 02:55:55 PM »

You guys are witty?  Huh
In an elementary school sort of way.
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2011, 02:59:05 PM »

I was jking, they are witty, but not in this particular conversation.  laugh

Mm...McDonalds.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2011, 02:59:57 PM »

You guys are witty?  Huh

Never ceases to fail the only time people don't understand irony around here is when it is irony and not whatever people . . .
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2011, 03:00:51 PM »

You guys are witty?  Huh

Never ceases to fail the only time people don't understand irony around here is when it is irony and not whatever people . . .
I hope that you are commenting on the comment of my comment because I was joking.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,833



« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2011, 03:06:07 PM »

Let's give Pasadi a break: the man asking God could indeed be a worse sinner than the dancer--he could be her pimp for example. Then the Lord's answer would be true and remind the man that he is a very bad person.

Pasadi--Why did you think that this was "interesting" and why did you expect from us in the way of replies?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2011, 03:07:14 PM »

I was jking, they are witty, but not in this particular conversation.  laugh

Mm...McDonalds.

New thread topic: what have people said recently that made you wish nothing ever existed?

Yesterday in line for something. After an obviously ironic comment that wasn't funny at all. A guy said to the girl he was with (on an obvious first date):

jk

I felt terrible for her, until I heard her say:

This is like the only time ever I've lived with non-athletes. Its like so different. I mean everything is so casual. I literally can't believe I like it better than when I lived with x, y, z, etc. It is harder though to keep up the dis though.

x, y, z, etc. Known local relatively famous (to the degree a woman athlete at university can be famous) women athletes. And I imagine dis was short for discipline.

My brain came to such a stand still of dis-belief, I nearly stroked or something.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 03:09:29 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2011, 03:08:58 PM »

Let's give Pasadi a break: the man asking God could indeed be a worse sinner than the dancer--he could be her pimp for example. Then the Lord's answer would be true and remind the man that he is a very bad person.

Pasadi--Why did you think that this was "interesting" and why did you expect from us in the way of replies?

Second, my dear friend, here we agree.

Some of us here are Solo Pasadists.

Let's give him more than a break. Let's give him our unquestioning devotion.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2011, 03:11:58 PM »

I was jking, they are witty, but not in this particular conversation.  laugh

Mm...McDonalds.

New thread topic: what have people said recently that made you wish nothing ever existed?

Yesterday in line for something. After an obviously ironic comment that wasn't funny at all. A guy said to the girl he was with (on an obvious first date):

jk

I felt terrible for her, until I heard her say:

This is like the only time ever I've lived with non-athletes. Its like so different. I mean everything is so casual. I literally can't believe I like it better than when I lived with x, y, z, etc. It is harder though to keep up the dis though.

x, y, z, etc. Known local relatively famous (to the degree a woman athlete at university can be famous) women athletes. And I imagine dis was short for discipline.

My brain came to such a stand still of dis-belief, I nearly stroked or something.


I need to talk to you in person because when you type online, sometimes I don't know the **** what you are saying. I had to read this three times. You need to utilize quotation marks or something.

I am trying to think of something to top that statement, but I will not say it or I will end up revealing what I did last weekend. And I am tres ashamed.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2011, 03:18:15 PM »

I need to talk to you in person because when you type online,

Quote
we had joy we had fun we had
seasons in the sun
but the wine and the song like the
seasons have all gone
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2011, 03:23:22 PM »

So that's a no. Wink

Okay, I'll partially reveal where I was. I was at some live event for a reality TV show that my family and I watch religiously (well, I haven't in months, but it still has a place in my heart). I thought that there would be fans like us, fans who loved the show yet basically spent the entire time mocking the characters (I know, not very Christian of me).

Oh, but no. Everyone in the audience was dolled up to the nines at 3 PM or whatever time the show was, and they were the fans of the worst kind. They actually wanted to be these botoxed, catty women. The Q&A session was just awful, and we couldn't stop tittering in the back of the room.

One of the questions:
"You all are the most inspiring women in the world and I hope to be like you someday! What's your secret?"

If they had answered "Botox," I would have respected them more.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2011, 03:30:57 PM »

I need to talk to you in person because when you type online, sometimes I don't know the **** what you are saying.

I would publish here the only "chat" I've ever had with my best non-friend. He is the 5th smartest human I've met.

I would defy you to make sense of it. It lasted about 65 words and yet we said more than most people I write to in years.

But it has bad words in it.

Now all of the above has everything to do with try to do three things at once and having a brain injury that still affects my typing when I drop words, inflect, decline, homo, you know the problem.

But my brain injury did give me the ability feel sounds more clearly, so that sucks even more.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 03:31:32 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2011, 03:35:09 PM »

I don't mean to make you feel bad about your brain injury, although you are still smarter than i'll ever be. I'm just talking about quotation marks here.

But yes, it's the doing three things at once. The maintenance man just gave me a weird look (they're invading my apartment).

And I expect a transcript of that chat by 5 PM, thanks.  Kiss Tongue I'm kind of mystified. If it was 65 words long, let me guess that at least 25 words are cuss words...

« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 03:35:28 PM by IsmiLiora » Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2011, 10:23:52 PM »

Saw thread title. Expected place to complain about crappy jobs you've had. Son i am disappoint.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
John Ward
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Korea
Posts: 217



« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2011, 01:54:46 AM »

A thought:

Perhaps the guy was asking with an attitude of "I'm so great. There can't be anyone better than me." And perhaps the woman truly regretted what she was doing but maybe there was absolutely no job available and that's why she did what she had to do to take care of her children.

Perhaps the moral of the story is humility. No matter how great we think we are, someone who, in our eyes is a bad person, is much, much closer to God than we are.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2011, 02:31:06 AM »

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

Very Crime and Punishment.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,899


« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2011, 10:57:49 AM »

A thought:

Perhaps the guy was asking with an attitude of "I'm so great. There can't be anyone better than me." And perhaps the woman truly regretted what she was doing but maybe there was absolutely no job available and that's why she did what she had to do to take care of her children.

Perhaps the moral of the story is humility. No matter how great we think we are, someone who, in our eyes is a bad person, is much, much closer to God than we are.


I find the story to be problematic and I do not think we should discuss it or give it credence unless and until pasadi provides the relevant source information.  Is this found in a collection of the sayings of the Fathers, or is it just a story heard one day out on the street, or from a guy at the bar, or from woman who chose the same "occupation" referred to in the story?  The origin and source certainly matters.
Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2011, 11:32:49 AM »

Saw thread title. Expected place to complain about crappy jobs you've had. Son i am disappoint.

This is exactly what I thought too....

But to the OP, where do these stories come from?
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2011, 08:59:34 AM »

This story come from a monk when I told him that I did a job that indirectly may push some people to some sins.
The man asking was a hermit that was thinking he is the greatest man alive as far as orthodoxy goes and the answer was from God. Big Mac does not exists at that time.
Just God is great. Recently I found a great prayer in a book, something like: Dear God act through me, speak thorugh me and help my neighbopur through me. Anybody can say it and God can do marvels.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 09:04:23 AM by pasadi97 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2011, 10:24:11 AM »

Let's give Pasadi a break: the man asking God could indeed be a worse sinner than the dancer--he could be her pimp for example. Then the Lord's answer would be true and remind the man that he is a very bad person.

Pasadi--Why did you think that this was "interesting" and why did you expect from us in the way of replies?
Second, my dear friend, here we agree.

Some of us here are Solo Pasadists.

Let's give him more than a break. Let's give him our unquestioning devotion.

I would not consider myself a "Solo-Psadist", but I do like the comment about the lions on the other thread.

This story seems like a revision of the story of the monk and the doctor/shoemaker (I've heard two versions of the story, now three).
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2011, 06:44:27 PM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 06:48:04 PM by FountainPen » Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
John Ward
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Korea
Posts: 217



« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2011, 07:41:19 PM »

A thought:

Perhaps the guy was asking with an attitude of "I'm so great. There can't be anyone better than me." And perhaps the woman truly regretted what she was doing but maybe there was absolutely no job available and that's why she did what she had to do to take care of her children.

Perhaps the moral of the story is humility. No matter how great we think we are, someone who, in our eyes is a bad person, is much, much closer to God than we are.


I find the story to be problematic and I do not think we should discuss it or give it credence unless and until pasadi provides the relevant source information.  Is this found in a collection of the sayings of the Fathers, or is it just a story heard one day out on the street, or from a guy at the bar, or from woman who chose the same "occupation" referred to in the story?  The origin and source certainly matters.

Where the story came from doesn't matter. The point remains the same....humility. How often do we jump to condemn someone despite the fact that we have a huge log in our eye. No where did the story say that it was good to pick this kind of job. Instead, the man is shown that there are others that we may condemn who are closer to God then we are. It's a good reminder that we have no right to judge anyone. Let God deal with that.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2011, 07:57:01 PM »

Anyway....


My first job, at about age 13, was a "bad job". Summer job working for the local school district cleaning up the schools. Worst part was perhaps the gum under the desks. Yuck. Even though they gave us this freeze stuff we could spray on it to make it easier, it was still quite disgusting. The other contender was hand scrubbing every single locker. I later washed dishes at a Denny's, and washing dishes was like a dream job compared to washing out lockers.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2011, 09:06:10 PM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.

Agreed. Humility is certainly a Christian virtue, in fact one of the most important. And the provocative display of one's body in order to entice others to lust so that one may personally profit is quite the antithesis of humility.


Selam
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 09:06:38 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2011, 09:11:07 PM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.

Agreed. Humility is certainly a Christian virtue, in fact one of the most important. And the provocative display of one's body in order to entice others to lust so that one may personally profit is quite the antithesis of humility.


Selam

I don't know that i'd go that far. "Men", yes i agree but if it was your husband then that's a diifferent matter which is why i edited my post to add "...in public places."
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2011, 09:29:18 PM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.
Agreed. Humility is certainly a Christian virtue, in fact one of the most important. And the provocative display of one's body in order to entice others to lust so that one may personally profit is quite the antithesis of humility.


Selam

I don't think the point of the story was to justify dancing, but to condemn slf-righteousness.

You can say that the dancing was as sinful as dancing can possibly get without justifying it, and still suggest that the "no one is more holy than me" self righteousness could be more sinful.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2011, 09:41:27 PM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.
Agreed. Humility is certainly a Christian virtue, in fact one of the most important. And the provocative display of one's body in order to entice others to lust so that one may personally profit is quite the antithesis of humility.


Selam

I don't think the point of the story was to justify dancing, but to condemn slf-righteousness.

You can say that the dancing was as sinful as dancing can possibly get without justifying it, and still suggest that the "no one is more holy than me" self righteousness could be more sinful.

That's not the problem, it's the justification of it that's the issue. They are only feeding their children etc., is implicit that the speaker <God> is saying it's okay then in that case.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
FantaLimon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


Inquirer


« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2011, 10:49:16 PM »

Let's say the woman danced because she liked to turn men on.

Show of hands who thinks they are better than her?
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2011, 11:43:34 PM »

Let's say the woman danced because she liked to turn men on.

Show of hands who thinks they are better than her?


Raise your hand if you think you are better than those who think they are better than a woman who dances to turn men on.



Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2011, 11:58:12 PM »

Let's say the woman danced because she liked to turn men on.

Show of hands who thinks they are better than her?
ha ha ha thats a good one ! an excellent use of double entendre laugh
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2011, 12:55:09 AM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.
Agreed. Humility is certainly a Christian virtue, in fact one of the most important. And the provocative display of one's body in order to entice others to lust so that one may personally profit is quite the antithesis of humility.


Selam

I don't think the point of the story was to justify dancing, but to condemn slf-righteousness.

You can say that the dancing was as sinful as dancing can possibly get without justifying it, and still suggest that the "no one is more holy than me" self righteousness could be more sinful.

That's not the problem, it's the justification of it that's the issue. They are only feeding their children etc., is implicit that the speaker <God> is saying it's okay then in that case.
It's okay, or it's a mitigating factor that you know nothing about?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2011, 12:56:28 AM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.

Agreed. Humility is certainly a Christian virtue, in fact one of the most important. And the provocative display of one's body in order to entice others to lust so that one may personally profit is quite the antithesis of humility.


Selam

In that case, I need a burka ASAP! //:=)
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2011, 01:09:17 AM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.

Agreed. Humility is certainly a Christian virtue, in fact one of the most important. And the provocative display of one's body in order to entice others to lust so that one may personally profit is quite the antithesis of humility.
Who has the greater sin? The pole dancer trying to earn enough money to feed her children, or those who, having the power to rescue her from the circumstances that force her to sell herself, do nothing?

Do you honestly think that it's out of pride that a woman would take on such humiliating work?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 01:36:04 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2011, 06:04:03 AM »

It's a ridiculous story. God is not down with exotic dancing in public places.
Agreed. Humility is certainly a Christian virtue, in fact one of the most important. And the provocative display of one's body in order to entice others to lust so that one may personally profit is quite the antithesis of humility.


Selam

I don't think the point of the story was to justify dancing, but to condemn slf-righteousness.

You can say that the dancing was as sinful as dancing can possibly get without justifying it, and still suggest that the "no one is more holy than me" self righteousness could be more sinful.

That's not the problem, it's the justification of it that's the issue. They are only feeding their children etc., is implicit that the speaker <God> is saying it's okay then in that case.
It's okay, or it's a mitigating factor that you know nothing about?

From the sketchy information we were given by pasadi, it was the justifying factor or it wouldn't have been mentioned.

Quote
Who has the greater sin? The pole dancer trying to earn enough money to feed her children, or those who, having the power to rescue her from the circumstances that force her to sell herself, do nothing?

So your ability to judge only swings one way?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 06:06:28 AM by FountainPen » Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,833



« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2011, 08:52:29 AM »

I don't know about you all, but I am starting to be irritated by Pasadi's lack of participation in a thread that he started. Of course, as there are a myriad of reasons why he may not have been able to participate, I hope and pray that he is OK.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2011, 08:56:47 AM »

^The Pasadi works in mysterious ways...  Cool
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2011, 09:19:06 AM »

Somehow I think God would not approve of a woman using herself as a tool for men to sin. Mcdonalds is always hiring.

PP

Contrary to what you may think, jobs that are "easy to get" are not always so. I finished my graduate degree this summer, and despite my efforts, I was not able to have something lined up for when I graduated, and I was out of work until early this month. The interviews have been slow and lagging (only three companies in almost 2 months). But the real point is this: while looking for a 'real' job, I also looked at every grocery store and about 3 dominoes and papa johns to find a "tide me over" job. The companies known for "easy to get jobs" were even less receptive than the companies recruiting for more 'professional' positions.

Thank you Lord for grabbing me when I cried out for help
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2011, 10:19:33 AM »

Hi I am fine. I asked God how I can find a job and I did what I was told and 4 companies accepted me and I accepted 1 full time with overtime job and one half time job. On top of this are my studies and even my nights are busy and I want to do a great job on everything. I am very happy for these jobs.
The woman did not dance topless or something like this. I believe that the idea is this, if you have to choose between 2 sins, one to let your children lifes be destroyed by hunger and to dance, choose the smallest sin possible. And who knows, when dancing she may have prayed for people on the hall to be saved.

I think I wrote in another thread. There is in this world a bank that returns more than 100 $ for every $ you deposit. That is the bank of God.  That is giving money to the neighbour, prayers for the neighbour. Giving clothes , food, drinks and such to your neighbour works as well.I don't know how many of you did read that thread. So when God returns the money to you is not always cash. It is sometime through jobs sometime through gratuities in finding a new home, through gifts you receive , sometime even through wind bringing money to you or finding money on the ground and such. One day this year I made a deposit in that bank and now God is allowing me to do a withdrawal through these jobs.

What helps also with jobs:
1. To become a paid member of an Orthodox Church. By doing so you may enter under some prayers that are done for members of the Church and this helps greatly. The best years as jobs are concerned were when I was member.
2. There is a very powerfull prayer for the intercession of Mother of God that one monk told me. The name of the prayer is in Romanian "Paraclisul Maicii Domnului" When I needed something I would say it several times.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 10:53:33 AM by pasadi97 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2011, 10:57:02 AM »

Quote
Who has the greater sin? The pole dancer trying to earn enough money to feed her children, or those who, having the power to rescue her from the circumstances that force her to sell herself, do nothing?

So your ability to judge only swings one way?
I'm not aware that we're called to judge people.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2011, 11:06:06 AM »

Quote
Who has the greater sin? The pole dancer trying to earn enough money to feed her children, or those who, having the power to rescue her from the circumstances that force her to sell herself, do nothing?

So your ability to judge only swings one way?
I'm not aware that we're called to judge people.

What about Matt. 7? That clearly says to judge...
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2011, 12:09:59 PM »

As a teenager, I sold gourmet cheese to snobs for about a month. Got canned because I couldn't fake my way through fancy wine and cheese pairings convincingly enough (when you're not a drinker, it's hard to know what to say when they ask what will go with their year 1930 something-or-other). I tried to take notes even, but with 80+ cheeses and an even greater number of wines (living in "wine country", N. California and all), I just couldn't put it all together fast enough.

It's probably for the best. The owner was quite unbalanced (a bit of a "soup nazi" of the cheese world, she used to tell people who would ask for pepperjack or other "common" cheeses to leave, then talk badly about them once they'd left) and that whole lifestyle just doesn't fit me. So many people picking out food for fancy parties on boats...  Undecided

What's this thread about? Stripping? That might've made me feel slightly less self-conscious...
Logged

FantaLimon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


Inquirer


« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2011, 02:37:41 PM »

Let's say the woman danced because she liked to turn men on.

Show of hands who thinks they are better than her?


Raise your hand if you think you are better than those who think they are better than a woman who dances to turn men on.


Selam


Wait... what?   laugh
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 02:37:54 PM by FantaLimon » Logged
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2011, 02:40:58 PM »

Even myself don'ty trust pasadi however I trust God.
The idea is that to save yourself you must try also to save your neighbour. Everything you do to your neighbour you do to yourself.

Anyhow the way to escape bad jobs is to put money in the bank of God that returns 100$ for every 1$. This is not easy. Even if you know it, even if it is at your fingers you may not do it. To do it is good to pray that is to ask God for help:

Dear God please save me and please save everybody and please bring Creation back to a state without sin. Please give myself enough to have what I need, what you know that I need and also to give to my neighbour and make me take it and give a part to my neighbour. Please let me know the truth about all religions and bring me and my neighbour to best religion in your eyes. Amen.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 02:42:07 PM by pasadi97 » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2011, 04:32:00 PM »

2. There is a very powerfull prayer for the intercession of Mother of God that one monk told me. The name of the prayer is in Romanian "Paraclisul Maicii Domnului" When I needed something I would say it several times.

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."  Matthew 6:7

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #51 on: October 09, 2011, 04:51:15 PM »

A general question for this thread: does something have to be literally true for it to have didactic value? 
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #52 on: October 09, 2011, 04:57:35 PM »

A general question for this thread: does something have to be literally true for it to have didactic value? 

Oddly enough I have heard people argue for the idea that every story in the Bible has to be literally/historically true. So, for example, they will say that parables of Jesus had to really happen, because Christ would be lying and using deception if he was making them up.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #53 on: October 09, 2011, 05:25:39 PM »

Quote
Who has the greater sin? The pole dancer trying to earn enough money to feed her children, or those who, having the power to rescue her from the circumstances that force her to sell herself, do nothing?

So your ability to judge only swings one way?
I'm not aware that we're called to judge people.

What about Matt. 7? That clearly says to judge...

Expressing sound judgement because it's your office or function within the church is very different to being judgemental and having a judgemental spirit.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #54 on: October 09, 2011, 05:26:28 PM »

A general question for this thread: does something have to be literally true for it to have didactic value? 

Oddly enough I have heard people argue for the idea that every story in the Bible has to be literally/historically true. So, for example, they will say that parables of Jesus had to really happen, because Christ would be lying and using deception if he was making them up.

Thankfully my personal Christian background never included this; Jesus was telling what people knew to be illustrative stories, whether they really happened or not
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
FantaLimon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


Inquirer


« Reply #55 on: October 09, 2011, 06:27:55 PM »

Let's say the woman danced because she liked to turn men on.

Show of hands who thinks they are better than her?


Raise your hand if you think you are better than those who think they are better than a woman who dances to turn men on.



Selam
Gebre I don't mean to tempt you when I say your piety is an inspiration.  Thank you for responding.

(I am an inquirer,) I read in John's gospel that God does not thinking me worthy to weigh sins.  I could not damn an adulteress much less a temptress.  I believe a stripper's soul and that of her children are in danger but if she feeds her children I cannot say all is lost.  Hopefully there would be change for the better.  If she was taken immediately I cannot honestly say for certain God will damn her.

I don't know the full meaning of the passage but I think it's fair to remind each other of this if I am correct, that we should recognize the sin but not forget these women.  To think of sinners in a hierarchy is missing the mark as well, that there are "better sinners" (the OP's point, I believe, though I don't think God would truly say she is "better" for his argument to remain intact).  You are right I could be too strident given the spiritual stage I'm at right now.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 06:35:01 PM by FantaLimon » Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #56 on: October 09, 2011, 06:47:18 PM »

Since when did this become about whether it's right to do this job and if that person should be judged?

The implication was that God would condone it -- if it was to feed children or because someone was desperate.

I don't have a problem with people doing a job like this or people taking whatever job they can get to make ends meet. I'd be your friend, i don't really care what you do or why, it's none of my business. Your life is your life, i answer for mine only. What i do have a problem with is suggesting that God would somehow turn a blind eye it if it means they are just trying to feed their kids. In other words, their motive was okay so, that evens everything out.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
FantaLimon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


Inquirer


« Reply #57 on: October 09, 2011, 06:56:46 PM »

I don't think the OP's point was that stripping was condoned by God as long as the stripper feeds her children.  Really, the fact that she feeds her children with it was a throwaway phrase and not relevant to the point that one should not try to "rate" oneself as a sinner.

At least that is the only way that story would make sense to me.

Like I said in the previous post, the fact that God in this story does identify her as "better" is inconsistent with the point and at best poorly worded (which would not be surprising since the OP's posts seem like broken English).
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 07:00:04 PM by FantaLimon » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #58 on: October 09, 2011, 07:26:19 PM »

Since when did this become about whether it's right to do this job and if that person should be judged?

The implication was that God would condone it -- if it was to feed children or because someone was desperate.
I'm not sure the implication was that God would condone such an occupation as exotic dancing. ISTM that the point of the OP was a man comparing himself to others and being told that an exotic dancer was more righteous than he. It's a comparison of two persons relative to each other. (We even see such language of comparison in the Gospel, where Jesus says that the harlots and tax collectors would enter the Kingdom of God ahead of the Pharisees who trusted in their own righteousness.  ~ Matthew 21:31-32)
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 07:37:57 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 09, 2011, 09:51:13 PM »

Let's say the woman danced because she liked to turn men on.

Show of hands who thinks they are better than her?


Raise your hand if you think you are better than those who think they are better than a woman who dances to turn men on.



Selam
Gebre I don't mean to tempt you when I say your piety is an inspiration.  Thank you for responding.

(I am an inquirer,) I read in John's gospel that God does not thinking me worthy to weigh sins.  I could not damn an adulteress much less a temptress.  I believe a stripper's soul and that of her children are in danger but if she feeds her children I cannot say all is lost.  Hopefully there would be change for the better.  If she was taken immediately I cannot honestly say for certain God will damn her.

I don't know the full meaning of the passage but I think it's fair to remind each other of this if I am correct, that we should recognize the sin but not forget these women.  To think of sinners in a hierarchy is missing the mark as well, that there are "better sinners" (the OP's point, I believe, though I don't think God would truly say she is "better" for his argument to remain intact).  You are right I could be too strident given the spiritual stage I'm at right now.


Nothing I said indicates that I am promoting a heirarchy of sins. My concern with the OP is that it seems to suggest that the means of sin is justifiable according to the ends that it may accomplish. I understand that the main point of the OP is about not passing judgment on another, but I just think the example used is a poor one and could unintentionally lead some people to think that immoral acts may be overlooked by God if they are committed with an ostensible greater good such as feeding one's children. While it is noble to sacrifice oneself in order to feed one's children, it is not noble to cause offense to others in the process. Women who strip in order to provide for their own children are causing great harm to other people's children by undermining families and marriages. In using examples and analogies to promote a spiritual principle, we must not violate other spiritual principles that are just as important. The Christian message of "thou shalt not judge thy brother" must not be elevated above the Christian message of "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and He will provide for your needs."

I hope that makes sense. Please know that I am not pious, only a sinner.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2011, 12:54:48 AM »

How about Our Father? Is this a repetitive prayer? Who taught us Our Father?
I would take the moral of the story that between two sins, choose the smallest one. At that time the women did not strip I believe in dancing. She was just dancing maybe in the equivalent of a bar.


"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."  Matthew 6:7


« Last Edit: October 10, 2011, 01:01:59 AM by pasadi97 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #61 on: October 10, 2011, 01:45:59 AM »

How about Our Father? Is this a repetitive prayer? Who taught us Our Father?
I would take the moral of the story that between two sins, choose the smallest one.
Better yet: Don't sin at all, and don't judge.

At that time the women did not strip I believe in dancing. She was just dancing maybe in the equivalent of a bar.
Clothes on, clothes off... What's the difference when it comes to "dancing for men"?
Logged
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #62 on: October 10, 2011, 02:04:11 AM »

I would imagine the pay scale, but yeah, point taken...
Logged

FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #63 on: October 10, 2011, 03:29:13 AM »

Let's say the woman danced because she liked to turn men on.

Show of hands who thinks they are better than her?


Raise your hand if you think you are better than those who think they are better than a woman who dances to turn men on.



Selam
Gebre I don't mean to tempt you when I say your piety is an inspiration.  Thank you for responding.

(I am an inquirer,) I read in John's gospel that God does not thinking me worthy to weigh sins.  I could not damn an adulteress much less a temptress.  I believe a stripper's soul and that of her children are in danger but if she feeds her children I cannot say all is lost.  Hopefully there would be change for the better.  If she was taken immediately I cannot honestly say for certain God will damn her.

I don't know the full meaning of the passage but I think it's fair to remind each other of this if I am correct, that we should recognize the sin but not forget these women.  To think of sinners in a hierarchy is missing the mark as well, that there are "better sinners" (the OP's point, I believe, though I don't think God would truly say she is "better" for his argument to remain intact).  You are right I could be too strident given the spiritual stage I'm at right now.


Nothing I said indicates that I am promoting a heirarchy of sins. My concern with the OP is that it seems to suggest that the means of sin is justifiable according to the ends that it may accomplish. I understand that the main point of the OP is about not passing judgment on another, but I just think the example used is a poor one and could unintentionally lead some people to think that immoral acts may be overlooked by God if they are committed with an ostensible greater good such as feeding one's children. While it is noble to sacrifice oneself in order to feed one's children, it is not noble to cause offense to others in the process. Women who strip in order to provide for their own children are causing great harm to other people's children by undermining families and marriages. In using examples and analogies to promote a spiritual principle, we must not violate other spiritual principles that are just as important. The Christian message of "thou shalt not judge thy brother" must not be elevated above the Christian message of "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and He will provide for your needs."

I hope that makes sense. Please know that I am not pious, only a sinner.


Selam


Like Gebre, i understood the point of the OP Peter and Limon, and like Gebre, i was picking up on the means of sin being justifiable.

I agree with everything Gebre has said except that it's the men who are married who cause themselves and their families harm by being at a strip club. No one compelled their feet to walk in and it's the men who are in covenant to their wives, not the dancer. #wink
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #64 on: October 10, 2011, 05:51:20 AM »

How about Our Father? Is this a repetitive prayer? Who taught us Our Father?

If you are using any set of words as some sort of talisman to be meaninglessly repeated x number of times so that you receive y then yes, even the Lord's Prayer could be a vain repetition. 
Logged
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2011, 06:33:35 AM »

Anyhow, if you have such a situation, ask a priest what to do.
Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2011, 07:42:14 AM »

Let's give Pasadi a break: the man asking God could indeed be a worse sinner than the dancer--he could be her pimp for example. Then the Lord's answer would be true and remind the man that he is a very bad person.

Pasadi--Why did you think that this was "interesting" and why did you expect from us in the way of replies?

I always thought we were to see ourselves as the worse sinner and everyone else better than ourselves. 
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #67 on: October 11, 2011, 05:48:51 PM »

Anyhow, if you have such a situation, ask a priest what to do.

You my friend have learned the get-out-of-jail-no-matter-what-your-polemic-OC.net-caveat.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #68 on: October 11, 2011, 06:20:12 PM »


I agree with everything Gebre has said except that it's the men who are married who cause themselves and their families harm by being at a strip club. No one compelled their feet to walk in and it's the men who are in covenant to their wives, not the dancer. #wink


There is a complicity of evil that makes both parties morally culpable. Indeed, we are responsible for our own sinful choices, and the "entrapment" clause will not exculpate us on the day of Judgment. However, those who provide the opportunity for sin will also not be justified by the excuse, "I didn't make them do it."

"Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" [St. Matthew 18:7]


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,552



« Reply #69 on: October 11, 2011, 11:53:40 PM »

This particular thread is mystifying to me and it has been going on for about five days. I obviously need help in understanding the mindsets of the posters with some exceptions poster-wise,

The original post was:

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

I am sure at least some of you noted that this was an appropriate extension of an observation of Abba Pambo, the gist of which is that upon seeing an actress (possibly a prostitute) during his trip to see Archbishop Athanasius, he started crying at the sight of an actress due to fact that the actress strove to please men who did not deserve it more than he did to please God who did deserve every sacrifice and effort.

But this is not the point. The point is  how and when did the dancer become a stripper in this thread (or pole dancer, lap dancer, choose your own hyperbole). To dance is an intrinsic part of humanity and more often than not geared to the opposite sex. It is an expressive art form and a language that allows us to relate who we are and what we are feeling. It is an expression of us and not the commercial advertisement for sex the former innuendo connotes.

In any case I just wanted to state that I found some of the posts in this thread sickening.

 
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #70 on: October 12, 2011, 09:08:29 AM »


I agree with everything Gebre has said except that it's the men who are married who cause themselves and their families harm by being at a strip club. No one compelled their feet to walk in and it's the men who are in covenant to their wives, not the dancer. #wink


There is a complicity of evil that makes both parties morally culpable. Indeed, we are responsible for our own sinful choices, and the "entrapment" clause will not exculpate us on the day of Judgment. However, those who provide the opportunity for sin will also not be justified by the excuse, "I didn't make them do it."

"Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" [St. Matthew 18:7]


Selam


#laughs, sure i have no problem with the woman being culpable in what she's chosing to do but you didn't mention both parties in your post as being culpable, only the woman. Since you mentioned the man's family, i just thought your post needed a bit of balance added to it, as it is his family not hers.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #71 on: October 12, 2011, 01:50:29 PM »


I agree with everything Gebre has said except that it's the men who are married who cause themselves and their families harm by being at a strip club. No one compelled their feet to walk in and it's the men who are in covenant to their wives, not the dancer. #wink


There is a complicity of evil that makes both parties morally culpable. Indeed, we are responsible for our own sinful choices, and the "entrapment" clause will not exculpate us on the day of Judgment. However, those who provide the opportunity for sin will also not be justified by the excuse, "I didn't make them do it."

"Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" [St. Matthew 18:7]


Selam

But what about the man who exalts his own righteousness by judging the dancer? You're focused on the sins of the publican, which the Gospel clearly teaches us to avoid, but at least he went away to his home justified. The real point of the story of the Publican and the Pharisee, and the real point of the OP, AISI, is that the dancer is more likely to find favor in the eyes of God than the man who exalts his own self-righteousness by judging her.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #72 on: October 12, 2011, 03:47:47 PM »


I agree with everything Gebre has said except that it's the men who are married who cause themselves and their families harm by being at a strip club. No one compelled their feet to walk in and it's the men who are in covenant to their wives, not the dancer. #wink


There is a complicity of evil that makes both parties morally culpable. Indeed, we are responsible for our own sinful choices, and the "entrapment" clause will not exculpate us on the day of Judgment. However, those who provide the opportunity for sin will also not be justified by the excuse, "I didn't make them do it."

"Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" [St. Matthew 18:7]


Selam

But what about the man who exalts his own righteousness by judging the dancer? You're focused on the sins of the publican, which the Gospel clearly teaches us to avoid, but at least he went away to his home justified. The real point of the story of the Publican and the Pharisee, and the real point of the OP, AISI, is that the dancer is more likely to find favor in the eyes of God than the man who exalts his own self-righteousness by judging her.


I am not focused on one sin to the exclusion of the other. In fact it seems that you are focused on the sins of those who judge the dancer without realizing that you are equally guilty because you are judging them for their judgment.

BTW, there is a big difference between calling sin "sin" and self-righteous condemnation of sinners.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #73 on: October 12, 2011, 04:10:59 PM »

BTW, there is a big difference between calling sin "sin" and self-righteous condemnation of sinners.


Selam


If you weren't able to maintain this precarious tightrope act, your identity would fall apart.

Actually, you have a pretty big safety net, since you rarely do maintain the act very well.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #74 on: October 12, 2011, 04:13:40 PM »

The point is  how and when did the dancer become a stripper in this thread (or pole dancer, lap dancer, choose your own hyperbole). To dance is an intrinsic part of humanity and more often than not geared to the opposite sex. It is an expressive art form and a language that allows us to relate who we are and what we are feeling. It is an expression of us and not the commercial advertisement for sex the former innuendo connotes.

In any case I just wanted to state that I found some of the posts in this thread sickening.

 

Agreed on all points. How did St.Mary Magdalene get confused so easily by so many?

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #75 on: October 12, 2011, 04:25:44 PM »


I agree with everything Gebre has said except that it's the men who are married who cause themselves and their families harm by being at a strip club. No one compelled their feet to walk in and it's the men who are in covenant to their wives, not the dancer. #wink


There is a complicity of evil that makes both parties morally culpable. Indeed, we are responsible for our own sinful choices, and the "entrapment" clause will not exculpate us on the day of Judgment. However, those who provide the opportunity for sin will also not be justified by the excuse, "I didn't make them do it."

"Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" [St. Matthew 18:7]


Selam

But what about the man who exalts his own righteousness by judging the dancer? You're focused on the sins of the publican, which the Gospel clearly teaches us to avoid, but at least he went away to his home justified. The real point of the story of the Publican and the Pharisee, and the real point of the OP, AISI, is that the dancer is more likely to find favor in the eyes of God than the man who exalts his own self-righteousness by judging her.


I am not focused on one sin to the exclusion of the other. In fact it seems that you are focused on the sins of those who judge the dancer without realizing that you are equally guilty because you are judging them for their judgment.
And you're judging me for my judgment of their judgment. See how far we can take this?

BTW, there is a big difference between calling sin "sin" and self-righteous condemnation of sinners.
I'm just hoping you'll eventually address the point of the OP, which I think you're still missing. (Am I guilty of judging you simply because I think you're missing the point?)
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #76 on: October 12, 2011, 04:37:10 PM »

I'm just hoping you'll eventually address the point of the OP, which I think you're still missing. (Am I guilty of judging you simply because I think you're missing the point?)

I've addressed the point of the OP numerous times. But I will indulge you once again. The problem I have with the OP is that in the attempt to highlight one Christian principle it seems to condone the violation of another Christian principle. I think there are much better analogies to demonstrate the principle of "thou shalt not judge" than the one used in the OP.

Let me also add that this whole idea about judgment can easily be perverted. Everybody starts running around condemning each other for being judgmental. It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?



Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #77 on: October 12, 2011, 06:09:32 PM »

I'm just hoping you'll eventually address the point of the OP, which I think you're still missing. (Am I guilty of judging you simply because I think you're missing the point?)

I've addressed the point of the OP numerous times. But I will indulge you once again. The problem I have with the OP is that in the attempt to highlight one Christian principle it seems to condone the violation of another Christian principle. I think there are much better analogies to demonstrate the principle of "thou shalt not judge" than the one used in the OP.
Well, what about these analogies:

"The tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."  ~ Matthew 21:31

The parable of the Publican and the Pharisee  ~ Luke 18:10-14

Can these passages be read as condoning the sins of the tax collectors, harlots, and the publican, the way you read the OP as condoning the sins of the dancer? I suppose they can.

Did Jesus condone their sins? No, He did not.

Could Jesus have used better analogies to demonstrate the principle of "thou shalt not judge" than the ones He used? I'm not going to argue with His choice of analogies, since His wisdom is infinite and mine is not.

Seeing the OP as following the pattern set by the aforementioned passages from the Gospel, I still think you're missing the point through your insistent focus on how you think the OP condones the sins of the dancer.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 06:10:54 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #78 on: October 12, 2011, 07:36:02 PM »

I still can't believe people are questioning pasadi.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #79 on: October 12, 2011, 07:49:23 PM »

I still can't believe people are questioning pasadi.

"And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country." - Lk. 4:24
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #80 on: October 12, 2011, 08:35:00 PM »

I still can't believe people are questioning pasadi.
Y'know, not all of us are Sola Pasadists.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #81 on: October 12, 2011, 08:48:18 PM »

I still can't believe people are questioning pasadi.
Y'know, not all of us are Sola Pasadists.

 Undecided  Hmm, no sola pasadi? That's unfortunate. You would at least affirm, I hope, prima pasadi? 
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #82 on: October 12, 2011, 08:50:34 PM »

Let me light some incense and get back to you.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #83 on: October 12, 2011, 09:08:06 PM »

Let me light some incense and get back to you.

While you are thoughtfully and prayerfully meditating on this, I have a question. Your avatar... is that a picture of Veruca Salt, or perhaps her sister?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 09:08:15 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #84 on: October 12, 2011, 10:03:24 PM »

I'm just hoping you'll eventually address the point of the OP, which I think you're still missing. (Am I guilty of judging you simply because I think you're missing the point?)

I've addressed the point of the OP numerous times. But I will indulge you once again. The problem I have with the OP is that in the attempt to highlight one Christian principle it seems to condone the violation of another Christian principle. I think there are much better analogies to demonstrate the principle of "thou shalt not judge" than the one used in the OP.
Well, what about these analogies:

"The tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."  ~ Matthew 21:31

The parable of the Publican and the Pharisee  ~ Luke 18:10-14

Can these passages be read as condoning the sins of the tax collectors, harlots, and the publican, the way you read the OP as condoning the sins of the dancer? I suppose they can.

Did Jesus condone their sins? No, He did not.

Could Jesus have used better analogies to demonstrate the principle of "thou shalt not judge" than the ones He used? I'm not going to argue with His choice of analogies, since His wisdom is infinite and mine is not.

Seeing the OP as following the pattern set by the aforementioned passages from the Gospel, I still think you're missing the point through your insistent focus on how you think the OP condones the sins of the dancer.



Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

BTW, do you agree with the part of my statement that you left out here? Let me state it again: "It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"


Selam


« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 10:03:59 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #85 on: October 12, 2011, 10:09:21 PM »

The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

No, but other Biblical writers, and Church Fathers, argued as much. Not that they would have put it quite like that... but choosing "lesser evils" (ie. sins) was deemed an acceptable--even necessary--path in some cases.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #86 on: October 12, 2011, 10:24:44 PM »

I'm just hoping you'll eventually address the point of the OP, which I think you're still missing. (Am I guilty of judging you simply because I think you're missing the point?)

I've addressed the point of the OP numerous times. But I will indulge you once again. The problem I have with the OP is that in the attempt to highlight one Christian principle it seems to condone the violation of another Christian principle. I think there are much better analogies to demonstrate the principle of "thou shalt not judge" than the one used in the OP.
Well, what about these analogies:

"The tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."  ~ Matthew 21:31

The parable of the Publican and the Pharisee  ~ Luke 18:10-14

Can these passages be read as condoning the sins of the tax collectors, harlots, and the publican, the way you read the OP as condoning the sins of the dancer? I suppose they can.

Did Jesus condone their sins? No, He did not.

Could Jesus have used better analogies to demonstrate the principle of "thou shalt not judge" than the ones He used? I'm not going to argue with His choice of analogies, since His wisdom is infinite and mine is not.

Seeing the OP as following the pattern set by the aforementioned passages from the Gospel, I still think you're missing the point through your insistent focus on how you think the OP condones the sins of the dancer.



Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
And neither did the OP.

BTW, do you agree with the part of my statement that you left out here? Let me state it again: "It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"
Why must I address everything in your post if I'm going to address part of it? Can I not just address that part which serves what I want to say?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 10:26:48 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #87 on: October 12, 2011, 10:34:36 PM »

The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

No, but other Biblical writers, and Church Fathers, argued as much. Not that they would have put it quite like that... but choosing "lesser evils" (ie. sins) was deemed an acceptable--even necessary--path in some cases.


Well, then let's quote the Fathers too. Like I said, I think the example of the OP is flawed for the reasons I mentioned. We don't want to communicate one Christian principle by condoning the violation of another Christian principle. And despite the intent, the OP could lead some to believe that sin is justified by its accomplishments.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #88 on: October 12, 2011, 10:37:51 PM »

BTW, do you agree with the part of my statement that you left out here? Let me state it again: "It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"
Why must I address everything in your post if I'm going to address part of it? Can I not just address that part which serves what I want to say?


You can address whatever you want Peter. But I'm trying to find common Christian ground and focus on a way that we can all affirm the intent of the OP even while disagreeing about the effectiveness and legitimacy of the illustration. But maybe you just want to argue. I don't.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #89 on: October 12, 2011, 11:18:42 PM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #90 on: October 12, 2011, 11:24:17 PM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #91 on: October 12, 2011, 11:27:51 PM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 11:33:12 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #92 on: October 12, 2011, 11:35:53 PM »

The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

No, but other Biblical writers, and Church Fathers, argued as much. Not that they would have put it quite like that... but choosing "lesser evils" (ie. sins) was deemed an acceptable--even necessary--path in some cases.
Well, then let's quote the Fathers too. Like I said, I think the example of the OP is flawed for the reasons I mentioned. We don't want to communicate one Christian principle by condoning the violation of another Christian principle. And despite the intent, the OP could lead some to believe that sin is justified by its accomplishments.

Here is the primary example that I was thinking of:

Quote
"It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean. To give you a proof of what I have said: Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself."

-- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19

This "hospitality" that Rahab is said be justified by--and not only St. Gregory says this but also the Bible (James 2:25) and several Orthodox prayers--what is it besides using lies and deception to bring about a good end? (Also see this thread for a couple other examples of deception used for good ends--by a prophet of God and an Archangel) As St. Gregory says, sometimes we have to pick "evils the lesser and lighter," and God takes into consideration the context when judging us. I think we also see the concept that there are greater and lesser evils in other places, in the Scripture (Jn. 19:11), and also in various Fathers, such as St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2, 30), St. John Chrysostom (Homily 17 on Ephesians; Homily 17 on Matthew), St. Augustine (The Enchiridion, 18), and Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heresies, 5).

Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #93 on: October 12, 2011, 11:39:34 PM »


The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

No, but other Biblical writers, and Church Fathers, argued as much. Not that they would have put it quite like that... but choosing "lesser evils" (ie. sins) was deemed an acceptable--even necessary--path in some cases.
Well, then let's quote the Fathers too. Like I said, I think the example of the OP is flawed for the reasons I mentioned. We don't want to communicate one Christian principle by condoning the violation of another Christian principle. And despite the intent, the OP could lead some to believe that sin is justified by its accomplishments.

Here is the primary example that I was thinking of:

Quote
"It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean. To give you a proof of what I have said: Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself."

-- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19

This "hospitality" that Rahab is said be justified by--and not only St. Gregory says this but also the Bible (James 2:25) and several Orthodox prayers--what is it besides using lies and deception to bring about a good end? (Also see this thread for a couple other examples of deception used for good ends--by a prophet of God and an Archangel) As St. Gregory says, sometimes we have to pick "evils the lesser and lighter," and God takes into consideration the context when judging us. I think we also see the concept that there are greater and lesser evils in other places, in the Scripture (Jn. 19:11), and also in various Fathers, such as St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2, 30), St. John Chrysostom (Homily 17 on Ephesians; Homily 17 on Matthew), St. Augustine (The Enchiridion, 18), and Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heresies, 5).




Thank you brother. Our Lord and the Fathers certainly do a much better job than we do in explaining such matters.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #94 on: October 12, 2011, 11:45:53 PM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP, that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 11:46:17 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #95 on: October 13, 2011, 12:58:02 AM »


The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

No, but other Biblical writers, and Church Fathers, argued as much. Not that they would have put it quite like that... but choosing "lesser evils" (ie. sins) was deemed an acceptable--even necessary--path in some cases.
Well, then let's quote the Fathers too. Like I said, I think the example of the OP is flawed for the reasons I mentioned. We don't want to communicate one Christian principle by condoning the violation of another Christian principle. And despite the intent, the OP could lead some to believe that sin is justified by its accomplishments.

Here is the primary example that I was thinking of:

Quote
"It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean. To give you a proof of what I have said: Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself."

-- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19

This "hospitality" that Rahab is said be justified by--and not only St. Gregory says this but also the Bible (James 2:25) and several Orthodox prayers--what is it besides using lies and deception to bring about a good end? (Also see this thread for a couple other examples of deception used for good ends--by a prophet of God and an Archangel) As St. Gregory says, sometimes we have to pick "evils the lesser and lighter," and God takes into consideration the context when judging us. I think we also see the concept that there are greater and lesser evils in other places, in the Scripture (Jn. 19:11), and also in various Fathers, such as St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2, 30), St. John Chrysostom (Homily 17 on Ephesians; Homily 17 on Matthew), St. Augustine (The Enchiridion, 18), and Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heresies, 5).




Thank you brother. Our Lord and the Fathers certainly do a much better job than we do in explaining such matters.


Selam


Cave
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #96 on: October 13, 2011, 01:00:43 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #97 on: October 13, 2011, 01:06:35 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.

What about this do you not understand?:

"Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19


If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.


Selam
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 01:08:26 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #98 on: October 13, 2011, 01:09:42 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.

PtA, was just writing a "mean" post to say the same thing. As if he looked up whether it was truly from St. Gregory anyhow.

PtA, this is another thread where Gebre has PWN's himself.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 01:10:03 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #99 on: October 13, 2011, 03:18:50 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.

What about this do you not understand?:

"Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19
I think my posts on this thread show that I understand both sides of this issue.

If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.
That's not my point. My point is that you're seeing only one side of this issue, and by continuing to argue with me, you're only closing your mind further to seeing the validity of any point of view other than your own. I think, therefore, that I should bow out of this discussion to give you more time to read this thread again and possibly gain a broader perspective.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 03:20:37 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #100 on: October 13, 2011, 03:47:51 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.

What about this do you not understand?:

"Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19
I think my posts on this thread show that I understand both sides of this issue.

If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.
That's not my point. My point is that you're seeing only one side of this issue, and by continuing to argue with me, you're only closing your mind further to seeing the validity of any point of view other than your own. I think, therefore, that I should bow out of this discussion to give you more time to read this thread again and possibly gain a broader perspective.


For the third time on this thread, I will repeat:

"It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"

It seems to me that this covers all sides of the issue at hand. I have never once argued that it is ok to self-righteously judge and condemn another. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you accuse me of only seeing one side of this issue. I would still like to know if you agree with my statement above. If we focus on these things, then we do well. No debate necessary, unless of course you disagree with my statement.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #101 on: October 13, 2011, 04:20:05 AM »

For the third time on this thread, I will repeat:

"It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"

It seems to me that this covers all sides of the issue at hand. I have never once argued that it is ok to self-righteously judge and condemn another. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you accuse me of only seeing one side of this issue. I would still like to know if you agree with my statement above. If we focus on these things, then we do well. No debate necessary, unless of course you disagree with my statement.
Let me put it to you bluntly, Gebre. I think you misread the OP.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 04:21:37 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #102 on: October 13, 2011, 04:46:51 AM »

For the third time on this thread, I will repeat:

"It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"

It seems to me that this covers all sides of the issue at hand. I have never once argued that it is ok to self-righteously judge and condemn another. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you accuse me of only seeing one side of this issue. I would still like to know if you agree with my statement above. If we focus on these things, then we do well. No debate necessary, unless of course you disagree with my statement.
Let me put it to you bluntly, Gebre. I think you misread the OP.


I have read it and re-read it Peter. I offered my opinion on why I thought it was a bad illustration to make a good point. I guess we disagree on that. It would still be nice if we could at least agree on the statement I have asked you about repeatedly.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #103 on: October 13, 2011, 04:58:12 AM »

Gotta love this bickering.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #104 on: October 13, 2011, 05:03:06 AM »

Gotta love this bickering.


 Huh It ain't me babe.  Wink


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #105 on: October 13, 2011, 05:43:03 AM »

Gotta love this bickering.
No. No bickering here. You have noticed that we're actually discussing the subject of this thread?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 05:51:18 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #106 on: October 13, 2011, 06:14:11 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #107 on: October 13, 2011, 12:47:21 PM »

Quote
The name of the prayer is in Romanian "Paraclisul Maicii Domnului" When I needed something I would say it several times.

Could you help with the 'Merican translation?
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #108 on: October 13, 2011, 01:37:35 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

IOW, y'all need to cut the OP some slack on this.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #109 on: October 13, 2011, 01:51:35 PM »

Gotta love this bickering.


 Huh It ain't me babe.  Wink


Selam

This sentence is false.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 01:51:49 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,899


« Reply #110 on: October 13, 2011, 04:08:36 PM »

This particular thread is mystifying to me and it has been going on for about five days. I obviously need help in understanding the mindsets of the posters with some exceptions poster-wise,

The original post was:

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

[SNIP]

But this is not the point. The point is how and when did the dancer become a stripper in this thread (or pole dancer, lap dancer, choose your own hyperbole). To dance is an intrinsic part of humanity and more often than not geared to the opposite sex. It is an expressive art form and a language that allows us to relate who we are and what we are feeling. It is an expression of us and not the commercial advertisement for sex the former innuendo connotes.

In any case I just wanted to state that I found some of the posts in this thread sickening.


I apologize if someone else has already responded adequately to this, but I wanted to comment on how a “woman dancing for men” became a stripper or equivalent in this thread.  I think the insinuation is made from the fact that the woman was a dancer for men specifically, as opposed to a woman who just generally “danced” or “danced before crowds”  to feed her children.  What kind of dancing would a woman do solely “for men” that would not be of an immoral and seductive quality?  If this dancing is not of an immoral and seductive quality, why would she be a dancer “for men” only, and not for general audiences, crowds, families, both men and women, etc.?  While the point may be taken that even a stripper or otherwise seductive (but clothed) dancer, who by her profession draws men to perdition but who does so reluctantly and with regret out of necessity, may be “better” in the sight of God than any man or woman who is full of pride; nevertheless, I still doubt the patrimony of this text on the basis of the fact that it seemingly justifies such immoral and seductive dancing which inflames the passions of men and leads them to perdition.  In the stories which have come down to us among the Sayings of the Fathers, we learn of monks who have similarly wondered whether anyone alive surpassed them in perfection.  In response to this kind of thought, such monks are usually told of a certain man or couple in the world who surpasses the monk in perfection.  In such cases, the “more perfect” layman or lay couple are indeed very virtuous and are considered “more perfect” before God because while they also lived virtuously and chastely (as did the monk), they also considered themselves more sinful than everyone else.  While the monk tempted by pride wondered if anyone is greater than himself, the “more perfect” laity live uprightly in the world and are convinced that no one is worse than themselves.  In stories from the Fathers which refer to women who were involved in scandalous professions (usually prostitution), they are praised only after departing from such sinful occupations, giving their sinfully-gained incomes to the poor, washing away the filth of their sins in the waters of baptism, and passing the rest of their days in the most extreme forms of asceticism, shedding many tears and undertaking many labors to destroy the passions which formerly enslaved them.  The Lord said that prostitutes were entering into the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees precisely because of the humble and complete repentance of the former in contrast to pride and hypocrisy of the latter.  The Lord told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”.  We have no such stories which justify such sinful occupations, as far as I have read.

In general, I do not think we should discuss such questionable stories from unnamed monks that are at odds with the countless stories from the Fathers which we have on record.  Furthermore, if such an incident did occur wherein a woman could find no respectable occupation to provide for her family, do you really think God would bless her for choosing an occupation which would lead her soul, and the souls of her male clients, to perdition?  If such an occupation was the only occupation available to the woman, would not God greatly bless her and her children, either in this life or in the life to come, for refusing this occupation despite the material and bodily needs of her family?  What good is food, clothing, and shelter, if you lose your soul and help others to forfeit their souls in order to obtain them?         
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 04:14:14 PM by jah777 » Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #111 on: October 13, 2011, 06:21:03 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #112 on: October 13, 2011, 08:53:10 PM »

This particular thread is mystifying to me and it has been going on for about five days. I obviously need help in understanding the mindsets of the posters with some exceptions poster-wise,

The original post was:

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

[SNIP]

But this is not the point. The point is how and when did the dancer become a stripper in this thread (or pole dancer, lap dancer, choose your own hyperbole). To dance is an intrinsic part of humanity and more often than not geared to the opposite sex. It is an expressive art form and a language that allows us to relate who we are and what we are feeling. It is an expression of us and not the commercial advertisement for sex the former innuendo connotes.

In any case I just wanted to state that I found some of the posts in this thread sickening.


I apologize if someone else has already responded adequately to this, but I wanted to comment on how a “woman dancing for men” became a stripper or equivalent in this thread.  I think the insinuation is made from the fact that the woman was a dancer for men specifically, as opposed to a woman who just generally “danced” or “danced before crowds”  to feed her children.  What kind of dancing would a woman do solely “for men” that would not be of an immoral and seductive quality?  If this dancing is not of an immoral and seductive quality, why would she be a dancer “for men” only, and not for general audiences, crowds, families, both men and women, etc.?  While the point may be taken that even a stripper or otherwise seductive (but clothed) dancer, who by her profession draws men to perdition but who does so reluctantly and with regret out of necessity, may be “better” in the sight of God than any man or woman who is full of pride; nevertheless, I still doubt the patrimony of this text on the basis of the fact that it seemingly justifies such immoral and seductive dancing which inflames the passions of men and leads them to perdition.  In the stories which have come down to us among the Sayings of the Fathers, we learn of monks who have similarly wondered whether anyone alive surpassed them in perfection.  In response to this kind of thought, such monks are usually told of a certain man or couple in the world who surpasses the monk in perfection.  In such cases, the “more perfect” layman or lay couple are indeed very virtuous and are considered “more perfect” before God because while they also lived virtuously and chastely (as did the monk), they also considered themselves more sinful than everyone else.  While the monk tempted by pride wondered if anyone is greater than himself, the “more perfect” laity live uprightly in the world and are convinced that no one is worse than themselves.  In stories from the Fathers which refer to women who were involved in scandalous professions (usually prostitution), they are praised only after departing from such sinful occupations, giving their sinfully-gained incomes to the poor, washing away the filth of their sins in the waters of baptism, and passing the rest of their days in the most extreme forms of asceticism, shedding many tears and undertaking many labors to destroy the passions which formerly enslaved them.  The Lord said that prostitutes were entering into the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees precisely because of the humble and complete repentance of the former in contrast to pride and hypocrisy of the latter.  The Lord told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”.  We have no such stories which justify such sinful occupations, as far as I have read.

In general, I do not think we should discuss such questionable stories from unnamed monks that are at odds with the countless stories from the Fathers which we have on record.  Furthermore, if such an incident did occur wherein a woman could find no respectable occupation to provide for her family, do you really think God would bless her for choosing an occupation which would lead her soul, and the souls of her male clients, to perdition?  If such an occupation was the only occupation available to the woman, would not God greatly bless her and her children, either in this life or in the life to come, for refusing this occupation despite the material and bodily needs of her family?  What good is food, clothing, and shelter, if you lose your soul and help others to forfeit their souls in order to obtain them?         



Excellent points my friend. Thank you!


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #113 on: October 14, 2011, 12:11:14 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #114 on: October 14, 2011, 05:37:15 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #115 on: October 14, 2011, 05:39:21 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.


Correct again. Thank you.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #116 on: October 14, 2011, 12:10:17 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 12:11:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,552



« Reply #117 on: October 14, 2011, 04:11:07 PM »

This particular thread is mystifying to me and it has been going on for about five days. I obviously need help in understanding the mindsets of the posters with some exceptions poster-wise,

The original post was:

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

[SNIP]

But this is not the point. The point is how and when did the dancer become a stripper in this thread (or pole dancer, lap dancer, choose your own hyperbole). To dance is an intrinsic part of humanity and more often than not geared to the opposite sex. It is an expressive art form and a language that allows us to relate who we are and what we are feeling. It is an expression of us and not the commercial advertisement for sex the former innuendo connotes.

In any case I just wanted to state that I found some of the posts in this thread sickening.


I apologize if someone else has already responded adequately to this, but I wanted to comment on how a “woman dancing for men” became a stripper or equivalent in this thread.  I think the insinuation is made from the fact that the woman was a dancer for men specifically, as opposed to a woman who just generally “danced” or “danced before crowds”  to feed her children.  What kind of dancing would a woman do solely “for men” that would not be of an immoral and seductive quality?  If this dancing is not of an immoral and seductive quality, why would she be a dancer “for men” only, and not for general audiences, crowds, families, both men and women, etc.?  While the point may be taken that even a stripper or otherwise seductive (but clothed) dancer, who by her profession draws men to perdition but who does so reluctantly and with regret out of necessity, may be “better” in the sight of God than any man or woman who is full of pride; nevertheless, I still doubt the patrimony of this text on the basis of the fact that it seemingly justifies such immoral and seductive dancing which inflames the passions of men and leads them to perdition.  In the stories which have come down to us among the Sayings of the Fathers, we learn of monks who have similarly wondered whether anyone alive surpassed them in perfection.  In response to this kind of thought, such monks are usually told of a certain man or couple in the world who surpasses the monk in perfection.  In such cases, the “more perfect” layman or lay couple are indeed very virtuous and are considered “more perfect” before God because while they also lived virtuously and chastely (as did the monk), they also considered themselves more sinful than everyone else.  While the monk tempted by pride wondered if anyone is greater than himself, the “more perfect” laity live uprightly in the world and are convinced that no one is worse than themselves.  In stories from the Fathers which refer to women who were involved in scandalous professions (usually prostitution), they are praised only after departing from such sinful occupations, giving their sinfully-gained incomes to the poor, washing away the filth of their sins in the waters of baptism, and passing the rest of their days in the most extreme forms of asceticism, shedding many tears and undertaking many labors to destroy the passions which formerly enslaved them.  The Lord said that prostitutes were entering into the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees precisely because of the humble and complete repentance of the former in contrast to pride and hypocrisy of the latter.  The Lord told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”.  We have no such stories which justify such sinful occupations, as far as I have read.

In general, I do not think we should discuss such questionable stories from unnamed monks that are at odds with the countless stories from the Fathers which we have on record.  Furthermore, if such an incident did occur wherein a woman could find no respectable occupation to provide for her family, do you really think God would bless her for choosing an occupation which would lead her soul, and the souls of her male clients, to perdition?  If such an occupation was the only occupation available to the woman, would not God greatly bless her and her children, either in this life or in the life to come, for refusing this occupation despite the material and bodily needs of her family?  What good is food, clothing, and shelter, if you lose your soul and help others to forfeit their souls in order to obtain them?        


Thanks Jah777 for clarifying thought processes that gave rise to some of the statements in this thread. From my perspective John Ward's posts, above, has the correct take home lesson from the original post. The justification for your interpretation of the OP is a house of cards, cemented with newly introduced terms such as "specifically", "solely", "only".  My take is that she danced for men because she was paid by men (whether on the street, in a cafe, taxi dance hall, etc.), it has nothing to do with the setting.

If I have interpreted Pasadi97 correctly (not always a sure thing), a monk told Pasadi about a Hermit back in pre-McDonald's days.  This hermit was spiritually and possibly mentally sick and God showed him the way out of his sickness (whether he accepted the meaning of what God showed him is not known). The woman was probably someone from his past, an abandoned wife, daughter, sister, who knows? Alternatively it could be that the hermit judged all dancing sinful and since I have not come across a culture where the majority of women/girls did not dance at some point in their lives, his thoughts about women were negative.

What I find disturbing is the discussion by some of what is probably the viewpoint of the spiritually sick hermit and not the message provided by God.

This gets into an area that I am not qualified to discuss, but perhaps this will be useful:

Humility And Purity Of Heart: A Lenten Reflection
by Fr. George Morelli

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" ( Matthew. 5:8 ).

What does purity of heart have to do with humility? Everything! Consider the words of St. Isaac of Syria quoted by Allchin (1989): "No one has understanding if he is not humble, and he who lacks humility lacks understanding."

Only someone who is humble can follow the prescription of the spiritual Church Fathers who point out that discrimination and watchfulness are the way to achieve purity of heart. For someone proud, this exercise will be useless. Let us reflect on these assertions.

Mental Status Exam

One of the ways psychiatrists and psychologists asses the mental health of an individual is by the mental status exam. Assessment of their thought content and form is part of the examination process. Thought content includes: delusion (false beliefs about reality), suicidal and homicidal ideations, and obsessions (recurrent, persistent and disturbing thoughts and/or images); thought form includes: circumstantiality (minutely detailed speech), tangentiality (excessive digressions), loosening of associations (lack of relationship between one phrase and another, flight of ideas (skipping from one idea to another unrelated idea), derealization (one's surroundings seem unreal or strange,) depersonalization (lack of feeling pleasant or unpleasant about events around you), dissociative events (a separation of emotions or personalities in the same person as distinct), concreteness (extreme descriptive specificity), grandiosity (boastful self-glory and/or praise) . The mental status examination goes well beyond evaluation of thoughts. It also includes the appropriateness of their appearance: how the person is dressed, posture, coordination and facial expression; the appropriateness of their emotional affect or mood; their speech: volume, length and speed, and the person's judgment and problem solving activity.


continued at:
http://www.antiochian.org/node/17377




Post modified to remove automatic smiley -- "8 )" sans white space = "Cool"  -PtA
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 04:49:37 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,833



« Reply #118 on: October 14, 2011, 05:02:24 PM »


The problem with being succinct or cryptic is that it may boomerang on you. For example, your statement seems to point to itself, but if it is false, then it must be true, in which case it means nothing at all. If you had been clearer, such as "Geb're's sentence" or "above sentence," nobody would have had a problem except to point out that you are not explaining why it is so, just exclaiming a conclusion.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #119 on: October 14, 2011, 05:10:40 PM »


The problem with being succinct or cryptic is that it may boomerang on you. For example, your statement seems to point to itself, but if it is false, then it must be true, in which case it means nothing at all. If you had been clearer, such as "Geb're's sentence" or "above sentence," nobody would have had a problem except to point out that you are not explaining why it is so, just exclaiming a conclusion.

Keep up, you are learning. I AM that clever. Which really ain't.

So internetz for the confused:

It IS pointing to itself, the obvious and clearest form of the liar's paradox.

It is in a response to a post.

What on earth could that mean?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #120 on: October 14, 2011, 05:59:07 PM »


The problem with being succinct or cryptic is that it may boomerang on you. For example, your statement seems to point to itself, but if it is false, then it must be true, in which case it means nothing at all. If you had been clearer, such as "Geb're's sentence" or "above sentence," nobody would have had a problem except to point out that you are not explaining why it is so, just exclaiming a conclusion.

Keep up, you are learning. I AM that clever. Which really ain't.

So internetz for the confused:

It IS pointing to itself, the obvious and clearest form of the liar's paradox.

It is in a response to a post.

What on earth could that mean?
I don't know.

You need to explain that to us, since not everyone on this board is as clever as you.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #121 on: October 15, 2011, 02:01:48 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: October 15, 2011, 03:00:43 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #123 on: October 15, 2011, 07:03:29 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #124 on: October 15, 2011, 02:46:26 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
We can argue hypotheticals all day if you want. I don't see how it makes any difference.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #125 on: October 15, 2011, 03:22:08 PM »

I need to talk to you in person because when you type online, sometimes I don't know the **** what you are saying.

I would publish here the only "chat" I've ever had with my best non-friend. He is the 5th smartest human I've met.

I would defy you to make sense of it. It lasted about 65 words and yet we said more than most people I write to in years.

But it has bad words in it.

Now all of the above has everything to do with try to do three things at once and having a brain injury that still affects my typing when I drop words, inflect, decline, homo, you know the problem.

But my brain injury did give me the ability feel sounds more clearly, so that sucks even more.

May I also request a copy of that transcript by PM? I am intrigued... Smiley
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #126 on: October 15, 2011, 04:49:05 PM »

I need to talk to you in person because when you type online, sometimes I don't know the **** what you are saying.
LOL you're not alone, he's the only guy I have to truly work to understand. But considering it's part of an injury it's understandable.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #127 on: October 15, 2011, 05:56:57 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
We can argue hypotheticals all day if you want. I don't see how it makes any difference.

That would be another thing you don't see then.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 05:57:39 PM by FountainPen » Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #128 on: October 15, 2011, 06:11:48 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
We can argue hypotheticals all day if you want. I don't see how it makes any difference.

That would be another thing you don't see then.
Well, I suppose there are two reasons for that: Either I'm blind or you're seeing things that ain't there.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #129 on: October 15, 2011, 06:32:16 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
We can argue hypotheticals all day if you want. I don't see how it makes any difference.

That would be another thing you don't see then.
Well, I suppose there are two reasons for that: Either I'm blind or you're seeing things that ain't there.

#laughing
Wow, Speech Recognition Software has improved a lot!
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.459 seconds with 157 queries.