What's the most face-palm-worthy statement you have ever heard from a priest/preacher

[Cyberman]

There are no fake priests. Once a man has been ordained, the sacrament leaves an "indelible mark" on the soul of the person who is forevermore a priest.

So what does that mark do? If he fails the requirements of his vocation. You see, you're making a supernatural claim. Without going into the discussion about pedophile priests again, since there are many ways to fail what catholics call a vocation. What does it do, besides being a claim? What are the real life conseuquences of failing?

And how can we know this mark is there at all? Has it ever been seen? Can it be detected?

[Randy Carson]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624).

1317 Confirmation, like Baptism, imprints a spiritual mark or indelible character on the Christian's soul; for this reason one can receive this sacrament only once in one's life.

1582 As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ's office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily.


http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/tex...earch&s=SS

[Cyberman]

Was that meant to answer my questions? Because it doesn't.

[Randy Carson]

Was that meant to answer my questions? Because it doesn't.

Have I EVER answered one of your questions, Steve?

Would you admit it if I had?

[Cyberman]

So you're just trolling me. I so love it when they confess.

[Randy Carson]

So you're just trolling me. I so love it when they confess.

Have I ever answered one of your questions, Steve?

Have you ever said (to yourself), "Damn, that makes sense?"

[Cyberman]

Of course I have. Many times. When someone says or does something that makes me think twice, I learn from it. Now you try answering your own question - have you ever answered one of mine?

[Randy Carson]

Of course I have. Many times. When someone says or does something that makes me think twice, I learn from it. Now you try answering your own question - have you ever answered one of mine?

First, I want to be sure I understand what you're saying above. Are you saying that I actually have answered one or more of your questions about theism or Christianity adequately?

Wow. I had no idea.

As for answering your questions, I only rarely skip over your posts. Obvious trolling, yes, but when you ask a decent question, I give my full attention.

[Cyberman]

I don't recall saying the response which you attribute to me. Here's the point. If I ask a straightforward question, honestly and sincerely, and the questioned party points to something that doesn't address the question, can I then be castigated for not finding such a response satisfying?

Couple of years ago I was in the position of helping and supporting a friend who was being threatened by social services with having her child taken for adoption. Unjustly, I will add, purely for financial gain and because she was herself in the care system as a child. Two social workers were assigned to vet her parenting abilities during home visits over a period of about a month; they would bring the little boy - when it suited them - and assess her for a couple of hours. Eventually they produced a final report from their notes, a document filled with weasel language, emotional appeals, blatant misrepresentations and subjective opinion. I was able to pick it apart and produce our own report on their report, saving her defence attorney weeks of work.

I mention this to set up the background for a telephone exchange I had with the boy's guardian, who insisted on pointing to the assessment report for every flaw I pointed out in it. It was farcical, actually:
"Well the report says a, b and c..."
"Yes I know, but the report is wrong for the following reasons..."
"But the report says..."
And so on.

She did the same thing that you did a couple of posts ago, only she did it way before you. I asked how we can know that this special mark is actually there as you claim and if it can be or has been tested for its existence; you pointed to a document that affirms your claim. A response, but hardly an answer.

[Rhondazvous]

I don't recall saying the response which you attribute to me. Here's the point. If I ask a straightforward question, honestly and sincerely, and the questioned party points to something that doesn't address the question, can I then be castigated for not finding such a response satisfying?

Couple of years ago I was in the position of helping and supporting a friend who was being threatened by social services with having her child taken for adoption. Unjustly, I will add, purely for financial gain and because she was herself in the care system as a child. Two social workers were assigned to vet her parenting abilities during home visits over a period of about a month; they would bring the little boy - when it suited them - and assess her for a couple of hours. Eventually they produced a final report from their notes, a document filled with weasel language, emotional appeals, blatant misrepresentations and subjective opinion. I was able to pick it apart and produce our own report on their report, saving her defence attorney weeks of work.

I mention this to set up the background for a telephone exchange I had with the boy's guardian, who insisted on pointing to the assessment report for every flaw I pointed out in it. It was farcical, actually:
"Well the report says a, b and c..."
"Yes I know, but the report is wrong for the following reasons..."
"But the report says..."
And so on.

She did the same thing that you did a couple of posts ago, only she did it way before you. I asked how we can know that this special mark is actually there as you claim and if it can be or has been tested for its existence; you pointed to a document that affirms your claim. A response, but hardly an answer.

Documents are all they can point to besides thin air.