Friday, April 20, 2007

Purity



"For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline: think on these things." Philippians 4:8

The importance of purity cannot be overstated in our current decadency. I'm still surprised when I see the so-called "Mommy blogs" with language that would make a rapper blush. The excuses for it are weak- that's just me, it's who I am. Well a picture of your dirty laundry is really "you" and I don't see anyone taking pictures of that and posting it on their blog. (And I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas!)

When we look for a picture or a portrait to hang on our wall to gaze at and to brighten the room we look for something beautiful. We look for something uplifting. We can be that to the people in our lives. And if we are mothers we should be

I have the following Bible verse hung in my kitchen. "Lord, let the mediation of my heart and the words of my lips be acceptable in Thy sight." It's a good reminder.

St Francis de Sales (who may be the most quotable Saint)wrote this short commentary on purity.

50 comments:

Edward said...

O Purity! Purity!
It is through the spirit that we go to God.
What a heart-rending misfortune.
- Arthur Rambeau

Surely anyone who has been "real" at some point in their life, can at least feel some sypathy for this pagan's pining away?
'To understand all is to forgive all', what?

Petrus said...

I just saw a "Christian family" movie last night in which the couple was having a hard time conceiving. I couldn't believe that anyone thought this was appropriate as a family movie. It was entirely embarrassing from my perspective.

Petrus said...

Edward,

I completely disagree with you. For one thing, God created man both body and soul - and we need to be pure in both. That is, it is wrong to think that purity is about being disconected to the body. In "reality", purity is directing the body towards those things that it was truly meant for.

If by being "real", you mean, having committed a mortal sin, then it is obvious that you have no idea what "real" is. Real, according to the saints, is fulfilling what God has intended for you. Real is living up to the potential that God has placed in you. Impurity, decadence, and all of the seven deadly sins actually takes you away from reality, and from the eternal and absolute "realness" of the "I AM".

In having turned from sin, to think it alright to still dabble in the impure, indicates that the sinner has not truly given up their ties to the sin. They may rationalize that they have curbed some of their behavior, but I imagine that their soul is still being damaged by refusing to really and truly turn from the particular sin, and point their gaze towards heaven.

We love our vices, and even if we've begun to live "better" lives, we often refuse to commit to living the best life- and as Christians, we need to challenge each other not to just be "pretty good", but to be holy.

Edward said...

'Twas merely a passing fancy, Petrus, a la Waugh.
Don't take it seriously. I didn't when I jotted it down.:)
I lived a VERY dissolute life, once upon a time. Therefore I still on a whim find myself engaging in a little sarcastic humour - much to my often being misunderstood, as on this occasion.

I agee whole-heartedly with all you have written, and apologize for the insensitivity of 'my little joke'.

ablondeblogger said...

*sigh*

Anonymous said...

Just a note to 'blondeblogger' - you don't get the gist of the purity discussion, do you? If so, it would be a gift to all of us to get the avatar of a dame with mega-cleavage off your comments. This is not an example of the Catholic idea of 'purity'. I, for one, am offended and frankly surprised at you - you should know better. There. I said it.

ablondeblogger said...

Just a note to....oh, hmm....I don't know who left this nasty comment for me. Surprise, surprise.
For the record, the reason I left a *sigh* is because I know this post was written for me (and no, I'm not paranoid...I'm sure Mary will be happy to verify this for you all).

Now on to the "comment".... Judgemental much? Hmmm...now that's not very Catholic is it?
You don't know a thing about me. I'd be happy to go head-to-head with you at the gates of Heaven. I'm quite proud of my life, how I live it, how I've raised my children, etc.

I pray my rosary every day, I go to church every weekend, I have a close relationship with the Lord and have raised my children to do the same.

I know what purity is, and I have lived my life quite purely, frankly.

I've raised my children to be pure. My 17-year-old daughter is very strong in her faith. She is a virgin and plans to stay that way until she gets married, because I raised her to respect the body that God has given her.

There are different takes on all things, including purity.

Now, if I were to be judgemental, hateful, and "holier than thou," I might say that you are the one who doesn't get the idea of purity. That you are too prudish to make an intelligent decision on the issue and that you go a little overboard on what offends you.

But, lucky for you, I'm not judgemental.

And if you're going to try to insult someone, at least have the courage to not hide behind an anonymous comment when you do it.

ablondeblogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amanda said...

Glad you got that off your chest mrs. annonymous?

"Do not judge lest you be judged. "For in the way that you judge you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge one another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. (Romans 2:1-2)

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each mans praise will come to him from God. (1 Corinthians 4: 5)


Ever hear of the Pharisees? They preached about holiness and they followed all the rules. Did this make the Lord happy? No, simply because they did not practice what they preach.



There. I said it.

ablondeblogger said...

I am VERY proud to say that the comment above is from my daughter.

Thank you, Amanda. I love you and am SO proud of you! :)

Edward said...

"If so, it would be a gift to all of us to get the avatar of a dame with mega-cleavage off your comments."

'Though she be but little, she is fierce'
- A Midsummer-Nights's Dream. I think.

Greinne Carrig said...

I am a little confused. I am glad that Blonde Blogger has raised her children so well, but I still wonder why the picture of the curves(cartoon clevage) being so dominant...Is it to attract attention and then to set the record straight? I just don't get it...please explain. And Dear Blonde Blogger, I also wonder, why you are so sure that the item was intented for you. Is it a guilty conscience or just a chance to slam Mary(?)...just wondering...

ablondeblogger said...

Dear Confused Greinne, it always amuses me when people try to argue about something they know nothing about (re: your comment that I'm either trying to "slam" Mary or have a guilty concious. Answer: None of the above, but thank you for trying to limit my choices when, again, you have no idea what you're talking about)

If you want to clear up any confusion on the subject of my avatar, I have explained it in depth on my blog:

http://ablondeandherblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-defense-of-my-purity.html

You'll also see there why I'm "so sure" this post is for me. But since that's a simple explanation, I'll repeat it here, as well.

Before this post appeared, Mary was emailing me personally telling me these things. I didn't take offense at the time and figured she was only concerned for me.

Then this post happened, and I merely said *sigh* because I was frustrated that it had now gone public.

Despite the fact that my name was not mentioned, I knew it was written because of me and I knew that she would know why I was sighing.

Then came the personal attacks on me in the comments...

I didn't slam anyone.

To the contrary, I myself was slammed and I'm merely defending myself (funny how a *sigh* was a "slam" yet all of the personal attacks on me here are not).

Once again...how "Christian" of you all.

As someone said on my blog...wasn't it the hypocrites that Jesus refused to associate with?

For you, Grienne, and all of the others here who have sat in judgement of me:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

4 How can you say, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from the other person's eye.

If you need any help removing that plank, I'd be happy to help. :)

Petrus said...

Blonde:

I think if you take a step back, and see how this blog appears to someone who knows nothing about you, then you'll see why the readers of this blog are sort of amazed that you are taking this so personally.

I thought the comment that sparked your rant was the note from anonymous who didn't like your icon, and seemed ironically out of place on this post. I'm betting that if you had not piped up, then no one would have any idea of your personal contact with Mary.

And the icon, its obvious that you like it, don't see anything wrong with it, and are angry at those who intrepret it to look like slutty woman rather than a strong woman. This is where people who are the internet, but don't want to hear how they "appear" on the internet amaze me. Its true that people judge you by the images that you project, especially on the internet. Since people don't see you, hear you, see your family or your kids, then they make jugdments based on what they see ON THE INTERNET.

So, its not rocket-science to come to the conclusion that people judge the images of "mouth of a sailor", and "slutty woman picture" to indicate that the person who put this image out there is, shall we say, not yor average cookie-mom or, at the very least (which, is what Mary was pointing out) doesn't "get" purity or modesty.

The ironic thing is that the "anonymous" comment indicted nothing about how you live your life or raised your kids, but concluded FROM YOUR ICON that you don't get the discussion, and that she/he found the picture offensive. Your defense of your prayerlife, raising your kids, your purity, et al - yes, seemed way out of place - and ths is from someone who knows nothing about you except what you CHOOSE to post and the little that I've read (read: LITTLE).

Now, you're offended by this conclusion, and cry "how could they judge me so!!!!" Well, that's the nature of the internet. If you don't want to be "judged", don't be on the internet, and its got NOTHING to do with being a Christian or not.

Perhaps a more fruitul discussion would be your "different take" on purity. That's what the discussion is about.

Petrus said...

Ohhh, Blondeblogger, I get it. I'm a little slow. I just clicked on the link in this post to the "Mommy Blogs" section of the Blog awards. If you had done that, you would have seen that the presence of foul language, and the oversexualization of mothers it the theme of ALL of the "Mommy Blogs" - and I didn't even see yours there.

So, I get it, you say its about you, people go to your blog, and hopefully vote for yours. Starting a fight is always the best way of drumming up traffic on your own blog.

Please, the tears, the whining... this is not your local mommy-social - this is the internet.

Amanda said...

Dear Petrus. Maybe you skipped over the comment that she left saying that this was a personal debate between the two of them for a long time via private messages. Any person that had half of a brain would realize this is for them.

It is hilaaarious that this woman who makes a judgement on her is saying that blondeblogger needs to be more Christian like. A woman that makes it known that she is very christian and tries to follow the rules is judging someone. It's very ironic.


It was not out of place. The woman made a judgement on her. She was showing how one can draw false conclusions.


She doesn't care about being judged. That is not the issue. She is pointing out that a judgemental woman is trying to preach to her about being christian like. Get it yet?

Amanda said...

Oh did Petrus run out of reasoning? Your mind can only hold so many conclusions at a time. And of course they always have to be negative. Of course she is drumming up traffic for her site because, she like, couldn't be pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of someone. Naaaa.

Edward said...

C'mon guys.
Can't we all just be friends?
I'm OK, you're OK.
Can't we just agree to disagree?
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) ;)

I don't know about you, but I'm DEFINITELY feeling warmer and fuzzier inside now.

Petrus said...

Amanda:

If you go to Blonde's blog, you'll realize the big hoorah she's making of this whole thing.

There are lots of people that I speak to privately about issues, but if I choose to discuss these issues on my blog, they don't immediately think that I'm referring to them. Furthermore, the author of this blog, DID link the blogs that she was talking about. So, why should we delve into deeper and darker reasons that have no evidence.

I don't understand your second comment. Are you upset because I didn't respond to your first post within the TWO minutes it took you to post again? Although I often WISH I had time to do nothing but blog, alas it is not the case.

I'm still not seeing where everyone is running around saying that Blonde has been (gasp) 'judged'.

Anonymous said that the cartoon is not representative of 'purity'. Its not. And no one has ever addressed that point - because its obvious.

Petrus said...

Amanda:

If you go to Blonde's blog, you'll realize the big hoorah she's making of this whole thing.

There are lots of people that I speak to privately about issues, but if I choose to discuss these issues on my blog, they don't immediately think that I'm referring to them. Furthermore, the author of this blog, DID link the blogs that she was talking about. So, why should we delve into deeper and darker reasons that have no evidence.

I don't understand your second comment. Are you upset because I didn't respond to your first post within the TWO minutes it took you to post again? Although I often WISH I had time to do nothing but blog, alas it is not the case.

I'm still not seeing where everyone is running around saying that Blonde has been (gasp) 'judged'.

Anonymous said that the cartoon is not representative of 'purity'. Its not. And no one has ever addressed that point - because its obvious.

Amanda said...

If you go to Blonde's blog, you'll realize the big hoorah she's making of this whole thing.

So? Who cares? That's her blog. It's not what is going on HERE.

There are lots of people that I speak to privately about issues, but if I choose to discuss these issues on my blog, they don't immediately think that I'm referring to them.

Ok and? That's awesome.


I don't understand your second comment. Are you upset because I didn't respond to your first post within the TWO minutes it took you to post again? Although I often WISH I had time to do nothing but blog, alas it is not the case.

No my dear. It was referring to YOUR second post. The post that said blondeblogger was doing this for votes.

I'm still not seeing where everyone is running around saying that Blonde has been (gasp) 'judged'.

Anonymous said that the cartoon is not representative of 'purity'. Its not. And no one has ever addressed that point - because its obvious.

Purity is subjective. You believe it is against purity, I do not. This is a separate argument in itself.

She was judged by the annonymous comment and has been judged by Mary herself.

Anonymous said...

This string of comments started off as interesting, then got a little amusing, but deteriorated badly. I checked out the blonds blog and saw that she is "faith filled." I think that sums it up. I think to be fair we should all see what the private conversations (e-mails) have been so we can judge for ourselves who is right and who is luke warm.
PGR in DE

Anonymous said...

"Purity is subjective."

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

The problem is that this issue never gets discussed, because people are afraid they are being "judged".

M. Alexander said...

I was standing back and watching this unravel but now that Amanda is accusing me of judging her mother I have a few things to say.

1. Blondeblogger- you did not have to come to my blog
2. You did not have to read the post about purity (especially as you do not believe it applies to you)
3. I do not see any mention of you or your blog in the post.
4. In all actuality I was reading Rock Star Mommy and that in addition to your blog were what made me think about this topic.
5. We have had many personal email exchanges. I have never and would never reveal personal information on a blog posting. Unlike you have chosen to do.
6. I have never written anything on your blog that was negative or critical. Any concerns that I have had I wrote to you personally and directly. You have not chosen to do that out of consideration for me.
7. You and Amanda have taken the concept of "judgment" completely out of context. You ignore any Biblical quotes on purity but are ready to take your quotes as literal and applicable. That seems a little arbitrary doesn't it?

Blondeblogger- you came here and posted and now are upset but it seems like you "signed up for it"- doesn't it?

M. Alexander said...

Now onto Judgment - I hate to see such long combox posts. Here are a few more Bible verses on judgment that give the proper context. But first let me say that the Bible is speaking of judging others hearts and minds and intentions. If someone robs a bank, he or she is a bank robber. That is a judgment; a correct judgment.

When a man was stalking you in the grocery store a few weeks ago Blondblogger you said he was a stalker and intent on doing you harm. That was a judgment. A judgment that was probably correct and was based on his actions.

2 Timothy 4:2 NIV says: “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage- with great patience and careful instruction.”

Titus 2:15 NIV says: “These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.”

1 Corinthians 2:15-16 NIV says: “The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

I see a lot of personal attacks but I don't see anyone discussing the concept of purity. It's easier to attack and criticize personally than discuss the issue. Maybe you should try that Amanda.

Amanda said...

To annonymous- no one is afraid to discuss it

it looked like it was about blondeblogger because of the private messages

therefore rather than a discussion it looked more like an attack

what do you not understand? lol

Amanda said...

1. Blondeblogger- you did not have to come to my blog

If this indeed was some kind of attack and she saw it, it really doesn't matter does it?


2. You did not have to read the post about purity (especially as you do not believe it applies to you)

Read answer to number 1

3. I do not see any mention of you or your blog in the post.

Doesn't need to be. You were having private messages with her that were much like this post.

4. In all actuality I was reading Rock Star Mommy and that in addition to your blog were what made me think about this topic.

So there we go folks ^ The reason why blondeblogger was upset.


6. I have never written anything on your blog that was negative or critical. Any concerns that I have had I wrote to you personally and directly. You have not chosen to do that out of consideration for me.

Why the hell should she have consideration for someone who is questioning her purity and makes a post about it? Yes you did not mention her name but it was for her as well as others. I know I wouldn't have any for you at that point.

7. You and Amanda have taken the concept of "judgment" completely out of context. You ignore any Biblical quotes on purity but are ready to take your quotes as literal and applicable. That seems a little arbitrary doesn't it?

How have we taken it out of context! LOL. Pray tell how we got those wrong? Are they wrong because you would be guilty of not following them? We havn't brought up purity because that is not the point. I could argue purity all day long with you. The point is this post was hypocritical.

Amanda said...

Robbing a bank is leaves no interpretation. If purity is subjective then claiming someone is unpure is a judgement. Think of Mary Magdalene. People were judging her for being unpire. What did Jesus say? "Whoever has not sinned, cast the first stone."

If that isn't clear I don't know what else is.

Stefanie said...

I understand you point about purity. Christians should strive to lead a life that reflects Him and His love. I agree that we should carry ourselves with dignity - but purity means more than just how we dress or which words we choose to use. Most of what I've taken away from the New Testament in regards to purity has to do with being pure of heart. Pure meaning true, untainted, genuine. Purity - to me - is living your life with honesty, trust, faith, goodness and love. Making it soley about dress (or undress as the case may be) or language is demeaning to the meaning of purity.

At one time it was considered "impure" for a woman to show her ankle in public. Some today believe a woman wearing pants draws inappropriate attention to herself - for others a woman wearing her hair down is inappropriate - for others it's mini skirts and high heels - & for others it's having your bra strap showing - I guess my point is it's a matter of perspective. I feel it's unfair to call into question a person's "purity", or lack of it, unless you can look directly into that person's heart.

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject, Mary. Sorry it has escalated to this point.

Amanda said...

I see a lot of personal attacks but I don't see anyone discussing the concept of purity. It's easier to attack and criticize personally than discuss the issue. Maybe you should try that Amanda.

Love how you missed everyone else's posts but mine. ;) I would like to know what you define as attack. Pointing out the hypocrisy of someone in defending someone from "attacks" is attacking? LOL

Anonymous said...

I know purity when I see it. We have a rabbit in our garage and my eight year old son was taking care of "him." It is in quotes becuase I don't know if the rabbit is male or female. I asked my son and he said, "I don't know if it is a male or female, how can you tell?" I then asked him how he knows he is a boy (thinking I would segueay (?) into the differences between the sexes). His answer was, "my hair." After my curt explanation, I said, didnt' you realize that is what makes you a boy and he repeated, "No, I thought it was my hair and my face." Now that is purity.
As to the remaining items in this comment line, Mary- when do we get to start voting people off the island?
PGR

Anonymous said...

Amanda, the teenager said:

Robbing a bank is leaves no interpretation. If purity is subjective then claiming someone is unpure is a judgement. Think of Mary Magdalene. People were judging her for being unpire. What did Jesus say? "Whoever has not sinned, cast the first stone."

If that isn't clear I don't know what else is.

Amanda...read on..didn't Christ then say to her"Go and sin no more!"? So, it seems, all those judgemental people were RIGHT! What's your point?

I too would like to read all those 'personal'back and forth communications..I think the blonde mom and her daughter over reacted...I had no idea that blondblogger was the center of this posting! I still don't! But now, it is making me think that there is some deep dark secrets involving purity which needed defending! Methinks thou doth protest too much!
Were you REALLY followed by a stalker? How awful!I'm glad your guardian angel kept you safe!

Amanda said...

Amanda, the teenager said:

Oh cool I got a new name. =)

Amanda...read on..didn't Christ then say to her"Go and sin no more!"? So, it seems, all those judgemental people were RIGHT! What's your point?

No what is YOUR point anonymous? Who made the judgement? Jesus did. The point is not if the judgement is right or wrong. How much more off base can you be? Jesus did not care if the people were right or wrong in their judgement. The point of the scripture (and the ones I posted earlier) are to show that no one in this world can make a judgement because none of us are free from sin. I may be a teenager but I feel like i am speaking to a child.

But now, it is making me think that there is some deep dark secrets involving purity which needed defending!

LOL *rolls eyes* you conspiracy theorist you.

Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh, Mary, you totally have a valley girl comenting on your blog how bazzaro is that like really. Oh no, am I like hastily judging Amanda? because that is not cool.

M. Alexander said...

"Missionary to the Valley Girls"

I think I like that because it is so, like, Not Taken.

Amanda said...

Oh mary mary mary. I finally debated purity with you and showed you a verse and what did you do? You used ad hominems. Too predictable. I was hoping for some intelligent remarks. I guess that was too much for you to handle. *le sigh*

What is it with the anonymous comments? I have never seen so many people scared to say who they are.

For a valley girl I do like a totally hell of a like job on here.

Petrus said...

Amanda:

But Mary Magdalene WAS impure, was she not? Surely we can agree that adultery is a sin, and a sin against impurity?

All the Christ said to Mary Magdalene is: SIN NO MORE. So, I think we CAN agree, that Christ did judge her, and told her to stop sinning. As Christians, should we not echo these words?

Amanda said...

According to Jesus she was sinning. But Jesus let the others know that that was not THEIR decision to make. The point of the verse was to show that no one is free of sin and therefore no one should judge her. The only one that was "allowed" to was Jesus who had no sin. That is the point of this verse and why it has become so powerful and used over the years. "Whoever has not sinned, let them cast the first stone." Jesus was clearly telling the people do not be judgemental because YOU have your OWN problems.

Also the verse about the plank in the eye reiterates this. One cannot clearly judge someone when someone has their own sin.


Surely people will have their judgements on others. I certainly am guilty of thinking things about people. But the key thing to rewmember is it IS wrong to judge others and especially by making it public.

I am surprised by the number of people on here who have interpreted the verse as meaning that one should and is allowed to judge. I could not see a more wrong interpretation.

Perhaps it was interpreted as such to justify a certain someone's actions.

Anonymous said...

amanda said: "For a valley girl I do like a totally hell of a like job on here."
Like, that sums is up right there...!?!?

Perhaps when she goes to College and learns the difference between 'judgment and RASH judgment, then there can be a rational discussion,based on real ideas gleaned from the study of Philosophy and Scripture and Theology and life experience, not just a series of quotes from the Bible intended to shoot down all real in depth discussion and sharing of ideas. And, to put LOL, and "holier than thou", and "get it yet"? call people she does not know 'hypocrites'(how she came to that idea is unclear, to be charitable)
shows a glaring lack of respect for the posters on this blog -
As for having "debated purity" on this blog, sorry, she hasn't debated anything at all.Throwing comments and quotes all over the place is not debating. Anyway, this is NOT a debating forum!
I think is it great that she has written a pro-life article. I have judged one of these contests in the past.I hope she keeps up that good work, so needed today.
And, not by way of judgment, but out of charity, I feel sorry for her that yher mom uses the "F" word thrown so liberally on her otherwise 'interesting' blog. Does she really know what the letters of the word stand for??
As for anonymous comments which she judges that persons use to hide their identity, you are right. Even 'amanda' doesn't tell me who she really is, or 'edward' or 'petrus', or 'blondeblogger' or any other name a person choses to use. There are several 'anonymi" on this blog. It does help to keep away personal attacks and is perfectly acceptable IMO. (she would be VERY surprised if I told herwho I really am...)(:~!)

Petrus said...

Amanda: There's also a difference between condemnation and judging. The english translation is 'neither do I condemn you'. Christ doesn't say 'neither do I judge you'. He also doesn't say 'ye without sin, judge' he says 'cast the first stone'.

The difference is that we need to make judgments about actions, not condemn souls.

Thankfully, one of the three theological virtues is hope wherein, despite our sinfulness, we can hope for salvation through the sacraments, particularly through confession. In preparing for this sacrament, we do examine our souls, our conscience, our actions, our intentions etc.

Why didn't you include any of the quotes about pointing out a brother's sin to him? There is a very clear formula in the Bible. I'm surprised that you didn't use any of those.

tradcatholic said...

one of the anonymous ones said:
But Jesus let the others know that that was not THEIR decision to make. The point of the verse was to show that no one is free of sin and therefore no one should judge her.

This is so true. The woman was 'caught' in adultery, a verifiable fact. There is NO rash judgement in this statement. What Christ objected to was the punishment they were going to deal to her because she 'sinned' - the law of Moses sanction for such behaviour. Judging whether a person has 'sinned'or not is God's judgment, not ours. We all agree on this, one would hope.
But the question arises what to do with someone who has broken a just law, say, of the land? If a person robs a bank, he is a robber (as has been posted before). There is no question of this. Is he guilty in the eyes of God? We cannot know, nor should we guess. Judgment it the Lord's, not ours. So, should we say, "Go, don't do this again?" Or should we lock him up and throw away the key? Herein lies the problem. Another example: We know that homosexuality is a grevious sin in the eyes of God and the Church. Should we make laws against it or should we say, 'Oh well, judgment is the Lord's so let it be?" Sexual preditors move into our neighborhood. They are overtly evil in our eyes, but not perhaps in the eyes of God, as He only knows their soul and intentions. Should we try to avoid this evil by moving our family to a place where such persons are not around? Should we flee to the mountains? People commit the grevious act of abortion every day - thousands in this country. Should we allow them the continue or should we 'judge' them murderers and shut the abortuaries down? We make judgments like this every day. It is right we do. To go shoot abortionists is wrong, taking a judgment God should make and placing in on ourselves. But, we call them murdurers, as that is what they are. "By their actions, you will know them" both the good and the evil ones. This is what our Catholic teaching tells us, how to make right judgments in all things. Let us not be confused about this.

Mr. Fabulous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Amanda said...

Perhaps when she goes to College and learns the difference between 'judgment and RASH judgment, then there can be a rational discussion,based on real ideas gleaned from the study of Philosophy and Scripture and Theology and life experience, not just a series of quotes from the Bible intended to shoot down all real in depth discussion and sharing of ideas.

I have noticed anytime I seriously debate that is when the most attacks come. You can't win with people like you.

And, to put LOL, and "holier than thou", and "get it yet"? call people she does not know 'hypocrites'(how she came to that idea is unclear, to be charitable)

Oh wait a second what was that? I called people I don't know hypocrites. But mary saying my mother was impure or anyone else on here know my mom? Youy can point out hypocrisy without knowing osmeone. I have yet to see you bring anything to the debate. Bringing bible verses isn't good? Is that because they don't agree with you? Sorry to tell you honey but the Bible is the best defense.

shows a glaring lack of respect for the posters on this blog -
As for having "debated purity" on this blog, sorry, she hasn't debated anything at all.Throwing comments and quotes all over the place is not debating. Anyway, this is NOT a debating forum!

Please refute my above purity posts. I don't see you doing a thing.

I feel sorry for her that yher mom uses the "F" word thrown so liberally on her otherwise 'interesting' blog. Does she really know what the letters of the word stand for??

Why? Why do you feel sorry? I don't. I am a virgin. My mom taught me that guys who want it arn't worth it. She taught me to read charlotte's web at 5 years old. I get straight A's. I have frieds. And I know I can always come to my mother. So don't feel bad hun. ;)

(she would be VERY surprised if I told herwho I really am...)(:~!)

Unless youre jesus I wouldn't be. I am assuming you are Mary.

Amanda said...

Amanda: There's also a difference between condemnation and judging. The english translation is 'neither do I condemn you'. Christ doesn't say 'neither do I judge you'. He also doesn't say 'ye without sin, judge' he says 'cast the first stone'.

Which is judging through actions. By mary posting this she was judgemental and showed it. She didn't think it in her head. She "cast the first stone." She called her out on it.

The difference is that we need to make judgments about actions, not condemn souls.

Thankfully, one of the three theological virtues is hope wherein, despite our sinfulness, we can hope for salvation through the sacraments, particularly through confession. In preparing for this sacrament, we do examine our souls, our conscience, our actions, our intentions etc.

Why didn't you include any of the quotes about pointing out a brother's sin to him? There is a very clear formula in the Bible. I'm surprised that you didn't use any of those.

Why don't you use them? By the way, Mary was using an alright method of private messaging to tell my mom what she thought. Un private messages she spoke in a nice manner from what I understand. This would be acceptable. I see no problem with someone worrying about their fellow believer. This however, is quite different. Mary's true side came out in these posts. She started in on attacks, she wouldn't debate th efacts as she asked me to.

Though I disagree with you on things you are the only one on here to debate factually.

Amanda said...

one of the anonymous ones said:
But Jesus let the others know that that was not THEIR decision to make. The point of the verse was to show that no one is free of sin and therefore no one should judge her.

This is so true. The woman was 'caught' in adultery, a verifiable fact. There is NO rash judgement in this statement. What Christ objected to was the punishment they were going to deal to her because she 'sinned' - the law of Moses sanction for such behaviour. Judging whether a person has 'sinned'or not is God's judgment, not ours. We all agree on this, one would hope.

I completely agree.


But the question arises what to do with someone who has broken a just law, say, of the land? If a person robs a bank, he is a robber (as has been posted before). There is no question of this. Is he guilty in the eyes of God? We cannot know, nor should we guess. Judgment it the Lord's, not ours. So, should we say, "Go, don't do this again?" Or should we lock him up and throw away the key? Herein lies the problem.

The laws for robbing are so others do not get hurt. Not because we believe God would not like it. Purity is subjectoive and a spiritual matter. A law that is God's alone.

Another example: We know that homosexuality is a grevious sin in the eyes of God and the Church. Should we make laws against it or should we say, 'Oh well, judgment is the Lord's so let it be?"

You know what's funny is I am actually for it. I believe this act does not hurt anyone but if it is a sin it is God to judge.
My line of thinking is usually to outlaw those things which hurt other people.

Amanda said...

Now as for the rest of this...

Hopefully Mary will approve this comment.

The argument first began when others thought blonde wrong for assuming it was about her. Mary later admitted that blonde was one of the blogs she was thinking of. Since that excuse no longer worked, personal attacks came into play as far as questioning blonde's purity based on an avatar. (lol)

Most of this was done soley to chastise her. There was no "blonde i am sorry i didnt mean to sound like i was judging you i dont know you i just thought i would point it out"

No, they came in the form of insults. Then when I appeared and defended her and gave factual information, many joined in on personal attacks of me.

These same people said that I had no right to call them hypocritical because I did not know them. Wait go back...that's right..I did not know them.

How then can you make judgements on my mother or me?

These line of comments has been very hypocritical and unchristian-like for people who claim to be devout christians. It sound like something I would hear in highschool cliques.

Now if you would like to grow up and act your age, please do so and I will respond to your posts on the debate of purity.

Petrus said...

Amanda:

You've already said that you think the topic of purity is subjective, so there's no debate. Once you declare something "subjective" then you immediately democratize everyone's opinions - and no one could possibly have a better insight or understanding than anyone else's because again, its subjective.

Have you read the link that Mary posted by st. Francis de Sales? I think its beautiful and sums up her view of purity, and I agree with it.

What do you think?

And, your timeline is a little off:
1. BB (Blondeblogger) sighed.
2. Anonymous told her that her avator is impure.
3. BB took offense to Anonymous and explained that this post is all about her, and launched a defense of her virtue.
4. I said that I didn't see how it had anything to do with her, and never would have known had she not posted.
5. I then went to BB's site, realized the big deal she was making (can't sleep, crying?), read the awards, and concluded that she's taking this WAY too personally, and using it to drum of traffic and votes (I still stand by that).
After that, chaos.

Anonymous said...

Amanda said: " I have frieds." Now, I suppose that is good..?
And speaking of judgments, you have supposed that anonymous contributions are from Mary...think again, dearie. Mary never comments anonymously on her own blog! You too seem to have at least some errant ideas (even though you get all A's)
As for criticizing those of us who didn't take you up on your lucid debate: "I have noticed anytime I seriously debate that is when the most attacks come. You can't win with people like you. Now, now, when someone says "purity is subjective" dismissing all else out of hand, this is NOT a serious debate! Who can debate such a nonsensical statement?? To go back to the post which launched the tirades of indignation, the low cut dress on the avatar shows a lack of sensitivity to the purity required of the 'good Catholic'. I don't know where this picture came from , perhaps a magazine, but the anon writer thought is a strange and inappropriate choice from a good Catholic mother. That's all. Certainly no personal attack was launched. All in all, some insight ( and lots of 'incite') has been evoked and provoked with this topic. If it hadn't imploded, it would have been informative to have discussed the topic at hand. Maybe next time

Stefanie said...

On a side note...

I didn't know Mary Magdalene was the woman caught in adultery in John, Chap. 8. Where does it say that?

Just curious.

Edward said...

" I believe this act does not hurt anyone but if it is a sin it is God to judge.
My line of thinking is usually to outlaw those things which hurt other people."

Now THERE'S a statement involving what is pure.

Pure nonsense, that is.

And also an object lesson in that it shows how much more merciful God is than man.
Not 'hurting' (whatever that may mean to YOU) someone else is possibly the cacumen of your own vision of a codified system of law.
That's as high as you can go in virtue, I suppose.
But God's laws are based on the reality of pure love: His own Eternal Law. He has legislated against the ways in which we hurt - even destroy - OURSELVES first.

Therefore it is OK, according to your system, to destroy one's self so long as I do not 'hurt' another?

This is not the mind of God.