Came across some quotes of G.K. Chesterton and thought to pass them on for discussion. -

" The past is not what it was " -

" Moderate strength is shown in violence - supreme strength in levity - ( Hello Fred and Eugene on that one. )

" Let all babies be born then drown the ones we do not like "

" There are some desires that are not desirable "

" It is not that we don't have enough scoundrels to curse; it's that we don't have enough men to curse them "

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 05, 2002

Answers

Dear Jean:

Let Fred answer for himself. I have a completely different attitude from his. You just dislike being contradicted. In fact, many of my posts in this forum rely on ''levity''.

Fred is belligerent; I'm only confrontational, and I try to be fair to others when we disagree.

If you're subject to a correction, or to a rebuttal, take it like a man, Jean. Whimpering men seem effeminate in public forums.

I happen to love Chesterton, BTW. He would've loved poking fun at make believe Catholics like you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 05, 2002.

I say, my dear Eugene, rather harsh don't you think? tsk, tsk...we should not try to make enemies when it would be so much easier to make friends. I think that perhaps the most interesting quote to me is the first one...it reminds me of when I was in highschool learning about Bloody Mary and Good Queen Bess, Hmmmm, I say, no wonder that Pontius Pilate could ponder on what truth was.

-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 05, 2002.

Dear Maggie:
El Bocado and I are already well-acquainted. You are new, I think, to this forum. I'm only harsh on the outside. Inside I'm a softy; and Bouchard knows this. He is a make believe Catholic. He needs the truth and I can give it to him. He spoke my name first, with no good intentions. Pay attention please, to the serve-and-volley of this match. It gets even better, sometimes.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 05, 2002.

Gene

Thanks a bunch for the speech and your words about me. I do not care for Jean's writings basically because of his intentional twisting of our Catholic beliefs. Belligerent? I have seen you show your belligerent side many times as well. So what is the big deal? If slanderous commentaries is considered confrontational then We will have to work on trying to figure out what is so truly confrontational with your choice of language and words.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 05, 2002.

Jean

Your cut and paste of G.K. Chesterton's writings is in the manner you have done a true slander of one of the best writers of the church. All you have done is damaged the true greatness of that man's love for GOD and his Creative Power. Your retraction of those quotes is not only harmful, but a sign of your mortal sinfulness.

G. K. Chesterton does not deserve the damage to his reputation that you have dealt. I recommend you to remove this thread as soon as possible.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 05, 2002.

LMAO here as there is lack of both humility and humour on this site which needs some sunlight. Sooooo serious this religious business. Not foe me though as I am blessed with laughter.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 05, 2002.

Jean

" Your retraction of those quotes is not only harmful, but a sign of your mortal sinfulness"

Replace it with this: Your failure to remove this thread is a sign of your mortal sinfulness.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 05, 2002.

Well-- The mention of serve-and-volley is apropos now. Fred has committed a double-fault. But Jean is capable of seeing what the real point is. You understand, Jean. It has nothing to do with ''serious''. You made a remark:

''. . . strength is shown in violence - supreme strength in levity - ( Hello Fred and Eugene on that one. )--''

You have little enough ''strength'' without squandering it on mild insults. Can't you do a little better?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 05, 2002.

Shall sheath my sword for now Eugene as there is now battle here. Find another to play with.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 06, 2002.

"serve and volley" were definitely applicable in this place. you all make me smile (not in a bad way)

-- magdalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 07, 2002.

Thoughts on Chesterton "Orthodoxy"

Excuse the cut and paste but Chesterton is often OTM...

"But if [Jesus'] divinity is true it is certainly terribly revolutionary. That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point--and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologise in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. . . He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay, (the matter grows too difficult for human speech,) but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist."

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@h...), October 30th, 2002.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The problem with Chesterton's argument is that for me the division of divinity into the Trinity, and the fact of the Resurrection, reduces Jesus' moment of doubt (and his sacrifice) to the level of an army training exercise, where the soldier doesn't know it's only training and the commander does. Or maybe a fire drill. -- Tom (ebros@n...), October 30th, 2002.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Also the "choosing a God" stuff is nonsense - does Chesterton really think people should select who to worship on the basis of who they identify with, as if God was a character in a soap? -- Tom (ebros@n...), October 30th, 2002.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The Mystery of the Trinity is just what it says it is. -- Kiwi (csisherwood@h...), October 30th, 2002.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

that sounds like the typical christian cop out to the tough questions but its the best I can do. part of faith to me is accepting I am born in time with my own limitations in trying to understand everything rationally- thats sounds crazy to most people here but it is something I accept. humility and honesty in the fact that the knowledge to understand everything will always elude us.it is the essence of religion maybe? -- Kiwi (csisherwood@h...), October 30th, 2002.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

is accepting I am born in time with my own limitations in trying to understand everything rationally I sympathise strongly with that Kiwi. But maybe faith in anything but the most amorphous of gods is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

-- N. (nickdastoor@h...), October 30th, 2002.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

"Faith" in the context of the Passion seems to me to be a bit like "suspension of disbelief" in a Hollywood thriller, though. Faith in the existence of God is one thing; faith in the concept of the Trinity, and in the idea that one aspect of this Trinity can risk another aspect, and the idea that despite the Resurrection this is somehow a risk, is faith of a whole different order. That said Kiwi I appreciate what you're saying. I remember getting in trouble at school for being cheeky when the chaplain told me Jesus died for our sins and I said, yes, but he came back three days later. I was being cheeky but I was also being proto- serious - the happy-ending part of the central story of Christianity diminishes it (and has I think vast and often negative repercussions for Western culture ever since but that's a different thread), which is why I've always had sympathy with radical clergy who've tried to turn the Resurrection into a metaphor rather than literal truth.

-- Tom (ebros@n...), October 30th, 2002.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I think N. is right. Part of the problem is that the Passion is given by people (eg that long-ago chaplain) as a reason to be Christian, as an argument - and an argument invites counter-arguments. -- Tom (ebros@n...), October 30th, 2002.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 01, 2002.

Tom:,br>Chesterton says as an afterthought :'' And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find-- ''

They will not find Jesus Christ --it's true. Because GKC has seen Him as breaking the stereotypical image most ''creeds'' outside Christianity are always attached to, the predominant god, all-powerful and demanding. Jesus is God placing all the demands on Himself for our sake. Chesterton is asking us to remember this and realise no other creed has the ring of truth. The Holy Gospel is unimagineable. It would never have occurred to anyone but God Himself to ''empty'' Himself and die the death of a slave. All for love of us.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2002.