@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

				

User ID: 359

OracleOutlook

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 359

I think people appreciate experience and expertise in AAQCs. Things that show a new insight or perspective get nominated, in order the whole community can update on them. Also, even if there are only 5 liberals, if they all nominate each other's work, the mods will approve them. AAQC isn't a popularity contest so more diverse thoughts get through.

Honestly, the only difference that is consistent between Protestants and Catholics is that one group holds the Pope as a sign of unity and one group doesn't. Every other blanket statement I or anyone else makes will be met with exceptions and avowed rejections.

I can speak to my experience with confession, examinations of conscience, etc. I have found it very positive for a lot of reasons, and like anyone who found the "one weird trick that works" I will extol its virtues without self-restraint.

It is good hygiene to do an examination of conscience before bed. I like the Ignatian way of reviewing the day and praising God for all that you did that was good, asking forgiveness for the good you failed to do, etc. I don't see how anyone can progress without these kinds of progress reports. Or maybe that's the point in contention itself, is progress possible or desirable?

I think progress is both possible and what God wants for us. God calls us to prayer and deep prayer is only possible by hating that which is antithetical to God - sin. There is no sin in God. That's putting it mildly. God hates sin. We cannot enter deep communion with God while still harboring deep attachments to sin. The sin in us will repel us from God. This is something I have experienced in myself and witnessed in others.

Is progress possible? Yes, it is. I understand your repulsion towards the idea of listing sins like they're a grocery list or something like that. That is unappealing to me as well.

For a penitent, they might start with a written examination of conscience, with a list of sins and checkmarks next to them. That's fine for someone still learning. But what most people discover, if they actually go with the recommendation of confessing every month (and this is probably only around 10% of active Cathoilcs who do this) is that they check fewer and fewer boxes until eventually they show up to their monthly confession and stare at the paper and realize... they don't know what to confess!

This happened to me. It's happened to many others I've spoken with. I had a few mortal sins that I kept repeating, or things that I hadn't realized was a mortal sin but once I learned that it was I found it hard to stop the habit. To be forthright about one of the sins, I lied a lot. Often because someone would assume something and I would go along with it because it was easier. Or because I made a mistake and wanted to cover it up. Little lies, big lies, it was hard for me to face the truth. I did this since childhood.

One family dinner, when I was 6 and my sister was 9 months old, my parents were asking if anyone would finish off a loaf of bread. I said, "I'll eat it!" but in a quiet voice. My parents thought it was my sister who said it! And I just went along with it, even after my mom would bring it up over and over again the next couple decades as a sign she knew my sister would be a great communicator.

It honestly felt like I couldn't help myself, this was a trait ingrained into me.

When I came back to the Church as an adult, I wanted to get serious about pursuing holiness. This meant regular examinations of conscience and regular confessions. And for the first time in my life I took it very seriously, humbling myself to say everything wrong I could think of without trying to excuse or justify myself.

And over the course of about two years, slowly, painfully, sometimes dragging myself to confession every week, sometimes once a month, finally, these persistent sins were uprooted in me, to the point where they are no longer even tempting.

And then what happened? Was I perfect? Oh, no.

Instead, examinations of conscience started to look very different. What was I failing to do? What virtues did I lack? Where did I resist the call of God today? The better I became the more there was to see. I may have remained in a state of grace for years now, but that doesn't mean I'm "done."

The sacrament of confession keeps you on that spiraling path of going forward, going further, seeing new things and new horizons. Healing your soul, hating your sin, finding God in unexpected places.

Once you're not confessing mortal sins, you get freedom and latitude to focus on a specific area of failure in your life. "I get distracted by my phone too much." "I'm being called to pray more and I'm not setting time for it." "My finances are ordered towards my own gratification instead of what is best for the Kingdom." Etc.

And then you hunker down and just focus on that one thing for the next however long it takes. The same way you got rid of your mortal sins, repeated confession, absolution, examining your conscience every day, keep going, keep progressing, see the virtue grow.

Christic communion cannot be produced by techniques, because it is above all a love matter before it is anything elseโ€”and precisely because interpersonal intimacy is its heart, it is suffocated, even killed, by selfishness in any form. Hence, in writing of the first three mansions, the saint wisely spends much time explaining how the beginner, even though in the state of grace, can and must emerge from a whole web of more or less petty faults. (Fire Within, Fr. Dubay.)

TL:DR, I don't think confession would impair what you already have going on, but add more horsepower to what you are already doing. If it's real, if Catholics are right, it actually is a means of getting graces you wouldn't get otherwise. It doesn't mean you stay on a checklist confession forever, or ever need to go to a checklist at all.

From my perspective, the biggest difference is Catholics have the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which provides definitive ways to know a sin has been forgiven. Whereas Protestants have to hope they've been forgiven, and that ambiguity doesn't seem like a positive to me.

But to a Catholic, knowing that a specific sin has been forgiven does not equate to knowledege that one has sanctifying grace. Instead:

โ€œSince it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and savedโ€ (CCC 2005).

โ€œno one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to mistake, that he has obtained the grace of Godโ€ (The Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter IX).

We can have very good reason to believe we are in a state of grace, and this belief is a requirement to receive communion worthily. We can't know we are with unmistakable divine faith. We can be mistaken about it.

You've inserted the word 'mortal' there.

Because you contrasted "State of Grace" vs "State of Sin." A person who has committed a venial sin is still in the state of grace. To contrast the State of Grace with a State of Sin I have to add the word "mortal" in there.

Catholic laity sometimes bay for this politician or that celebrity to be refused communion because of what looks like a public sin. You will note that these calls are almost never answered by the leadership. Even excommunication is not The End - a few people who were excommunicated are officially recognized saints!

Are you telling me that Protestants don't believe they can even tell what constitutes a sin or not, even when examining their own consciences?

Catholics have 0 confidence that any given person is in a state of mortal sin. I see people ask priests all the time if something was a mortal sin and they say something like, "that is grave matter but I cannot tell you if you committed a mortal sin. You need to tell me, what did you know at the time? Was there any cohersion, were you in a good state of mind..."

I think Catholics are very confident in their ability to guide people in examining their own consciences, but not in their ability to judge others.

And case in point with Saints, we don't cannonize saints on the strenth of how they appear on the outside but only after a confirmation from God in the form of an attributes miracle.

That is a topic of massive debate among Catholics. There is the "Dare we hope?" camp that says we should hope that any given individual is saved, and yes that includes Judas. And there is the camp that says "Jesus wouldn't have said that unless Judas was going to Hell."

See the "What about Judas?" question here: https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/

Barring the most extreme circumstances, it is not for you to judge another person non-Muslim, because you cannot see into their heart. It is not for you to ever say that so-and-so is going to heaven and so-and-so is going to hell, because you cannot know the condition of their soul, and their final fate rests in God's hands only.

This is the official stance of Catholics as well. We know all people are saved through the Catholic Church, but we cannot judge if someone isn't a mystical member of the Catholic Church or not. We can tell you what makes up the matter of a grave sin, but we cannot tell you if any individual person has actually committed that sin which requires full knowledge and their own volition. We do not affirm that any specific person is in Hell or damned.

I think God does that all the time...

There are lots of conditionals God has built into the world, "If so and so responds to this prompt of grace to pray for this thing or do this thing, then I will send this other grace." Signal graces, etc.

Why would we be against God giving guidance on figuring out your vocation? Instead, He's supposed to be a critical part of discernment.

It's not like I was praying for God to conjure up a husband out of thin air or to make someone fall in love with me. I prayed that, if I was to be married at some point in the future, that that man be blessed. I prayed for the well-being of my hypothetical future husband.

Iran is losing their ability to finance and supply their Houthis who also cause shipping problems all the time. Iran is losing their ability to finance and supply Hezbollah and Hamas, who create instability in the region. Iran is losing their ability to influence US elections.. Iran is losing their ability to fund protests at US colleges.

Is it worth it? Maybe not but I think we'll find all kinds of things Iran was doing we didn't like once they run out of funds. Taking out Iran is about the same as taking out USAID, but with a lot more upfront costs. We're taking a rook off China's chessboard. Attacking Iran will never win politically because we cannot compare it to the counterfactual world.

It's one of those "coincidence that felt too perfect" that most people probably don't consider miracles, but after having atrociously bad romantic success, to the point I thought I must be asexual because I felt 0 interest in any of the men I tried to date, I began what Catholics call a "novena" (nine days of prayer) for my future spouse, if I had one.

As I wrapped up the prayer at the end of day 9, my cell phone rang. It was my coworker who worked the night shift, he needed help with something. I assisted him and then we got to talking on our company chat for hours and hours and... 10 years later we are married, have four kids and still say goofy things like how lucky we are to have found each other. We have arguments that the other is "the best." Sure, I was primed by my prayer to look for a spouse, but also consider that my husband had no such priming and we have had a very high compatibility - more than seems possible from random chance.

Gary is at least a tributary of the blue tribe, and Blacks have allied themselves with the Blue Tribe. The mayor of Gary is a Democrat, his predecessor was a Democrat, his predecessor was a Democrat, her predeccesor was a Democrat, his predecessor was... a Democrat and convicted of fraud. You'd have to go back to 1943 to find a Republican mayor. I know Democrat is not the same thing as Blue Tribe, but I didn't say Blue Tribe, just Blue.

Indianapolis is pretty Blue Tribe and they have all kinds of complaints that their government did not do enough to warn people of the flood dangers. Which itself is kind of amusing, the idea that some more up-to--date facebook posts are the fix to massive flooding.

To speak to this, in the middle of historic flooding, red town Carmel, Indiana "built a makeshift dam out of Sycamore trees and concrete." That's the kind of thing Red places just do, without worry for environmental studies or which contractor will get the kickback. And building levys and dams is something humans have done for millennia. Blue areas in Indiana did not fair as well.

If someone has been a philosopher for decades at the PHD level, they are probably not going to be convinced by the one specific formulation of the argument from causality or whatever. They have seen the argument go back and forth so many times, what might seem foolproof will get some kind of rebuttal that seems half plausible within a year. I think that's also why Schmid described himself as an agnostic, instead of an atheist, after he started exploring philosophy.

Given that, if anything was going to break the stalemate, it wasn't going to be a philosophical argument.

There is the problem of "miracles might be evidence against Naturalism, but not evidence for a specific religion." (I'm not quoting you or pseudo quoting you, just using quotation marks as a way to organize the sentence.)

There are all sorts of miracle claims ranging from "coincidence that felt too perfect" to "I didn't have a leg and now I do" to "thousands of people miles apart saw the same unexplained phenomena." I think there are some miracles we would expect God to do even outside of a specific religious tradition. Things like healing, or coincidences that lead someone into closer relationship with Him, even if it doesn't take them all the way to the One True Religion.

Vindicatory miracles, miracles that vindicate specific truth claims, is a whole subject of inquiry. What would you expect to see different in these in comparison to general miracles of healing and safety? I think at the least, they would need to be public and come with a message of some kind. A miracle that is only intelligible to one person cannot be vindicatory. A miracle that does not come with an obvious message would likewise not vindicate any particular truth claim. This article goes into the distinction between an "ordinary miracle" and a "vindicatory miracle."

I think agnostics and atheists assume that there must be numerous "vindicatory miracles" that can draw people to any number of religions. But if that is the case, I would like for them to put in the work to show this. Most of the time there is an appeal to a general mysticism or healing ministry, which I wouldn't consider vindicatory in the same way Lanciano or Fatima were.

This is Jonathan Hamilt, co-founder of Drag Story Hour National and the first drag queen to read for Drag Story Hour in New York City. So it does kind of seem founded at least in part by drag queens (the other founder is a lesbian dating a transman.)

Matt Walsh is really pushing it.

Matt Walsh is a public figure who is certainly acting like the reaction to Clancy is a real and present danger to kids and men. https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/2090454704778006688 for example. Or this longer video published to the Daily Wire https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/2092756693759209587

Who are you accusing of forcing the drag queens at gunpoint to do shows for toddlers at public libraries?

I'm not surprised by it at all by the TikTok and agree with you that this is a social media phenomenon. I'm trying to steelman what seems to be an overreaction from men regarding this subject. Clancy may have been psychotic or a stone cold killer, I don't know. That's why we have courts. Why are conservative men treating this like something that necessitates taking away women's rights or like it reveals that the majority of women want to kill their kids?

I think that's where I stand as well. Though, tbh, a dream about killing my kids is the exact thing that would snap me out of my dream, I have never had a dream where I followed through on something terrible. Still, I'm happy to leave this to the professionals, as long as Clancy is kept from ever having power over someone again it's a good outcome.

This is what I wrote at the time Clancy was arrested. It was well received by the community at the time.

The problem is that there are women who are going beyond this general sympathy of, "maybe she's another victim of the psychosis just like her kids." There are women on Tiktok posting videos where they are crying, expressing rage at their kids, throwing ice into the bathtub while screaming, holding infants while looking longingly into the distance, with captions like "Same, Linsday, same." A shocking number of women who are not experiencing psychosis who think that expressing a desire to kill their kids is normal. It's not, and I highly doubt any of these women actually want to harm their kids. They're doing it for attention, as a cry for help, and I recognize this impulse and shudder.

3-5% of men will commit a violent felony in their lifetime. (About 1% of women will commit a violent felony in their lifetime.)

If 2-4% of women find a violent criminal sympathetic and take actions to express their sympathy, then it seems like we are at parity for how deranged each sex is.

If I saw a poll saying that the majority of women think Clancy should be found insane, then I don't think that means that the majority of women support Clancy, lots of men on this forum also agree that it's possible that Clancy was insane.

I doubt that more than 4% of women are actually materially supporting Clancy.

It's been commonly known for a long time that murderers get female groupies. Serial killers get female groupies. Mass shooters get female groupies.

I'm confused by the men who are treating Clancy like a new thing - something which demands a large curtailing of rights and responsibilities of women. I think it's largely an effect of the internet and social media, that it feels like there's a larger number of women who are supportive of Clancy than there really are.

Except people found "not guilty for reasons of insanity" can get weekend passes from their care facilities... https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2026/08/man-found-not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity-in-fairfax-co-killing-flees-on-one-way-flight-while-on-hospital-pass/

I think there's a problem if we think a insanity verdict is a lesser sentence, instead of a heavy sentence where you are still locked up, and additionally subject to medical treatments against your will.

If at first you don't succeed... wait until you've been bombed to shit and try again!