Wolfean theologies

John Watkins · 05 Feb 2009, 04:08 · from 2009-February.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: john.watkins04 at gmail.com (John Watkins)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:08:32 -0500
Subject: (urth) Wolfean theologies
In-Reply-To: <08685A67-7D57-4D71-BB71-A58BCFC39560 at butcherbaker.org>
References: <208634.96534.qm at web59603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<08685A67-7D57-4D71-BB71-A58BCFC39560 at butcherbaker.org>
Message-ID: <93d4039f0902042008u39d63021lc29e50c0e36cdcf3 at mail.gmail.com>

Actually, Son of, as someone who happens to believe in those doctrines
(like about a billion others), I do feel like you were "harshing" on
me--it seems as though you blame my beliefs for the rape of children.

No doubt you don't mean it. But that is what it sounds like, just a bit.



On 2/4/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:
> I'm not harshing on Catholics,
> I'm harshing on the Catholic Church. Like I might bag on Iran without
> offense to Iranians.
> I've couched any critique with apologies to Catholics who might be
> offended.
> I suggested the priest rapists are one step in a chain of errors that
> result from a doctrinal change.
> Papal infaliability, Celibate Clergy, these are insertions and
> distortions and they seem to have led to a lot of problems.
> I don't think what i wrote is vomit at all, it's what MANY people feel
> about the Catholic Church's problems.
> Care to show my how I'm wrong? Lots of people think the Filioque is no
> big deal, and others think it's The Problem that allows all the others
> to come in.  I'm happy to learn your argument.
> I'll admit "It's no wonder all that..." should have been stated as "It
> seems as if all that..."
>
> ~SonOfWitz
>
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Matt Teel wrote:
>
>> Wow ... I don't comment much on this list, but ... damn.  Do you
>> suppose you could lay off the Catholics for a while?  "Priest
>> Rapists" are a result of the Filioque clause?  Come on.  I didn't
>> subscribe to this list to read crap like this.  The conversation was
>> interesting until you felt the need to vomit on the page and share
>> it with the rest of us.
>>
>> Matt Teel
>>
>> --- On Wed, 2/4/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:
>> From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>
>> Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies
>> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 6:31 PM
>>
>> Having a sort of mystic bent to my understandings of this stuff,
>> think the
>> Filioque is a huge change.  It takes the basic form of the Trinity
>> and turns it
>> into a flat, hierarchical line.  Triangles are one of the most
>> fundamental forms
>> in creation, and I think it's no accident that the Trinity is a
>> triangle.
>> It's foundational.  Flatten that out and you've done some serious root
>> level damage to the very structure of the message.  It's no wonder
>> all of
>> the screwed up situations that follow that change.
>> Inquisition,Crusades,
>> Celibate Clergy, PriestRapists, Vatican II, and now the Oecumenical
>> stuff...
>>
>> and, I don't know about all of them, but some of the Orthodox I know
>> DEFINITELY consider Catholicism a heresy.  I find it a little
>> shrill, but
>> that's just me.  I should say for myself I don't consider them
>> heretics.
>> I'm in no position to judge that, my own ideas probably being
>> heretical.
>>
>> ~Witz
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 09:44 AM
>> >To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
>> >Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies
>> >
>> >On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Son of Witz
>> <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>wrote:
>> >
>> >> This is all very interesting.
>> >> I don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of
>> Christ,
>> >> especially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the
>> oldest,
>> >> most traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern
>> Orthodox.
>> >> And even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS.  It's in the
>> Creed, and it's
>> >> the Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Heterodox the RCC may be in Orthodox eyes, but not in its
>> christology.  In
>> >that, at least, the Catholics & Orthodoxen are in full agreement.
>> And
>> >inserting "filioque" into the Creed was just the straw that broke
>> the
>> >camel's back; there had been a long series of misunderstandings and
>> strains
>> >on fellowship before then, on both sides.
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Matt +
>> >
>> >Let early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better
>> able to
>> >find out the natural bent.
>> >Plato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net