I have concluded that mindful study of the Bible, doing, not just hearing the instructions given by Jesus himself, as well as the Apostles, results in a very stable and calm demeanor, subtle enjoyment and pleasure in virtually all circumstances, and causing an attractive aura that inspires confidence from others. It also promotes a blood pressure of 110/70 and a resting pulse worthy of coveting. Daily deportment leads to habit formation...leading further to entrenchment of character...what character would you like to be described as? Well, then get on it...daily. Aristotle was obviously not a Christian...(there were none in times before Christ), but he was onto the truth was he not? The truth is what Christianity is all about. Freshness in a world filled with lies, liars and Gate's funded "fact-checkers". Dopamine assignment is a reward, in your brain, for doing right...and the more you do it the greater the reward. Praise God for Aristotle's faithfulness in reporting the truth.
Aristotle said that intelligence is proportionate to touch sensitivity. IQ goes with touch!
He was a giant!
Socrates lamented that “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Later on, Aristotle further added, “An unplanned life is not worth examining.” What do we plan our life for? only pleasure, power, having? Are we planning it for the eternal life proven by Near Death Experiences?
Atheists and agnostics would start to find answers in peer-reviewed Near Death Experiences. Consciousness, intelligence, will, are all spiritual properties of the spiritual immortal soul. How do we know that? some of the blind from birth see in colors for the first time when they are brain dead (no electricity, no activity, no bloodflow, no oxygen) and also no heartbeat and no breathing. The same happens with some of the deaf: they listen for the first time to conversations around or if they go up, even celestial music!
“there are characteristic features that are commonly observed in NDEs. These characteristics include a perception of seeing and hearing apart from the physical body, passing into or through a tunnel, encountering a mystical light, intense and generally positive emotions, a review of part or all of their prior life experiences, encountering deceased loved ones, and a choice to return to their earthly life.”
"God is love" says the Bible, the Word of God (1 John 4:7-12) Do you believe in love? then you believe in God. How do you prove love to yourself? If you prove love, you prove God! There’s no love without God, the source of all true love. He’s not only the love of my life, He’s the life of my love!
Jesus said “I’m... the life.” (John 14:16)
“God gives life to everything.” (1 Timothy 6, 13)
Do you believe in life? You prove life, you prove God, eternal life, source of all life:
That is where you should start your journey of discovery, but first pray: "God, life of my love, if you exist, please show me the way to find the bliss of knowing You"
or even better:
Think this with your heart: “Jesus, if you are the Son of God, I consecrate my heart to your Heart. Please send me the Holy Spirit so I can see Truth and have the courage to convert and follow Him wherever He leads”
Mathematical proof of God’s mind
Who could have imagined that mathematical images could be so beautiful?:
If you want to find the true Church, among 40 thousand denominations, start reading the writings of the first Christians, before the Roman Empire, like Augustine of Hippo (start with Confessions):
You'll discover which Church is the most faithful to the Bible and early Christianity before the Roman Empire. Hint: which religion you would belong to, if you were born 600 years ago, continuing uninterruptedly the teachings held by the early Christians?
And yet .... Aristotle's remarks about habit formation and the balance between pleasure and pain strike me as spot on. Man is obviously a creature of habit -- even the acts of reading scripture, reflecting on its lessons, and putting them into practice become regular and fortified through repetition, precisely as Aristotle described. As always, thanks for reading and for your commentary. Regards, JSL
Ah, Aristotle. The source of so much destruction when it comes to Christian theology. Early "patristic" theology married Platonic or Neo- Platonic philosophy with theology. Idealism was compatible with the idea we find in Christian faith that the world exists in the Mind of God. In the beginning was The Word. Solutions to the nature of creation and Reality are found in this marriage. However, Aquinas, hijacked theology with a heavy dose of Aristotle and took it off path. The battle between Aquinas and Bonaventure that took place is key for understanding theology. Bonaventure had it right when he complained about the over emphasis Aquinas placed on Aristotelian realism. In the end, Aquinas agreed and stated his work has been as so much straw. But huge damage was done. The analysis in this video leads us into the man is an animal camp...
A case could be made that seed-wise, Aristotle made global data communication possible today - and all that subsumes. Sadly, Irrationality and acting on one's feelings still rule our planet. As such, we continue to be a species under construction by evolution - while mankind limps from the current war to the next one ad infinitum.
What is a "nice" mediator, such as yourself [Taming the Wolf Institute is dedicated to peacemaking, integrating spirituality with contemporary dispute resolution. ] trying to do by suggesting that Aquinas and Bonaventure were ever in "a battle"? They were very good friends. The minor friars were more poetic and less logical. The preachers were more logical and less poetic. But they all sang from the same hymnals --- well too!
You would have never heard of either guy had Aquinas failed to convince Bishop Stephen Tempier that both sets of mendicant friars (St. Dominic's Predicators/Preachers, of which Aquinas was a member and St. Francis' Minor Friars of which Bonaventure was a member) ought to be granted licences to practice theology in the medieval universities --- rather than both men being ordered to stay obediently silent or even burnt as heretics, given that both Orders clearly resembled the roving bands of heretics of the time.
In short and in sum, without Aquinas and his pious and logical defense of both Orders you would know nothing [not even falsehoods] about either man. As to "straw", some kinds are fed to donkeys and other "straw" may be found in "straw man" arguments. You may be able to figure out which is which --- or not. [This was not poetry. It was logic.]
Benedict XVI wrote an interesting PhD thesis, now available tin book form that captures many of the differences and signals the importance of the future Franciscan Order, a Seraphic Order, which Ratzinger knew well. See The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure. There can be no doubt that Bonaventure (and Benedict XVI ) were critical of the over reliance of Aquinas on Aristotle and his realism in contrast to the Idealism that was so important to theologians such as Origen, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Ratzinger himself. The differences are vital to theology and the future of the faith.
St. Bonaventure was the seventh general minister of the Franciscan Order and we are certainly aware of him without any help from the Scholastics and Neo-Scholastics out of Paris (who did the bidding of the King). We know of Bonaventure and many great Franciscans without the help of Scholasticism. Those doing the burning at the stake were the Dominicans! They began the First Inquisition. Yes, Aquinas, being a Dominican, had his works used as a checklist for who was burned and who was spared such death. But that is not something about which to brag. Francis was the original "poor little man" in the vision of Innocent III that held up the Church. When Dominic later claimed he must have been the person in the vision, well, I would not brag about that either.
Had the Bishop of Paris suppressed those mendicant Orders, you would know nothing about any such Franciscan Order, nor the Domicans. They were called Episcopal Inquisitions which began in the late 12th century (1184) conducted by Episcopes/Bishops. They were the same things as modern law courts with the exception (to modern courts) of some religious offences along with mostly civil offences. Putting any "terrorist" organization on a modern "watch list" is the logical equivalent of medieval "excommunications". Sending Abelard and Heloise to monasteries provided them with arguably better treatment than being water-boarded at Gitmo. YAWN. Your sentences repeated below are both patently and egregiously false. Quote:
TAME WOLF: Those doing the burning at the stake were the Dominicans! They began the First Inquisition.
When the Dominicans were put on trial along with the Franciscans neither were doing any burning. The first Inquisitions were done by Bishops to prevent the burnings of heretics by the laity. Then time marched on to Papal Inquisitions where saints like Joan of Arc and sinners like Giordano Bruno were burned by lay English soldiers who thought Joan was a witch or Italian "gentlemen" who disliked heretics with much better memories than themselves.
Buddhist monks (1970s) and, lately American soldiers have done and are doing the same things to themselves without any help from either Dominicans or lay folks --- without even religious inquisitions or civil trials. People are strange. And this a silly conversation. I admit I'm a part of it. But I seem to have found a Dr. McCullough when I actually intended to join the Astronomer McCullough's site. Oh dopey me!
HERESY ALERT! There are theological mediators among you doctors. Send them away, but do not cauterize them.
Aquinas and Bonaventure were at the Academy in Paris at the same time. The use of the term "battle" refers to their disagreements over theology and religious practice, and Bonaventure's criticism of Aquinas for his over-reliance on Aristotle. Bonaventure capped off his disagreements with Aquinas and the Academy by leaving Paris and returning to the Franciscan tradition of hermitage initiated by Francis. The Franciscans were not "more poetic and less logical." They were dedicated to a mystical tradition. Scholasticism was not more logical, bur rather more pedantic, argumentative, and more attuned to Realism rather than Idealism. The Dominicans rejected many of the more spiritual aspects of religious practice and put the First Inquisition into play, revealing their temperament. Aquinas at the end of his life turned to the mystical path advance by the Franciscans.
The first sentence is correct. Well done. The second sentence is misleading because the actual "battle" in which both men were engaged, on the same side, was between clerical Augustinian Canons, who wanted Aristotle's works burned, and secular Latin Averroists (Islamists?), who wanted Aristotle "canonized" ex-post-facto as a Catholic Bishop, without ever being baptized (BOING)!
Aquinas and Bonaventure simultaneously opposed both sets of contrary clerical vs. secular clowns, each using their own so-called charisms. They didn't fight about "theology". They were inventing medieval theology by explicating Aristotelian Logic, and/or Platonic Idealism, rather than Augustinian Rhetoric, since the 3 disciplines (in more than one sense of discipline) had been conflated by "geniuses" like Abelard of seducing-Heloise "fame". Quote:
WOLF-TAMER ( A St. Francis Wannabe no doubt; Read the Legend of St. Francis and the Wolf) 'The use of the term "battle" refers to their disagreements over theology and religious practice, and Bonaventure's criticism of Aquinas for his over-reliance on Aristotle.'
REBUTTAL: No saint ever relies on, let alone "over-relies" on, any stupid pagan for their thinking. Some saints, like Aquinas, patiently explain the better and worse "thinking" of pagans to modern and ancient straw chewing or straw manning donkeys. Other saints prefer wolves and "brother sun sister moon" to the brayings of human donkeys. So they go off to their caves, do penances, develop stigmata etc. etc. in their hermit places, where nobody, except the Deity, knows what they're thinking --- especially not modern mediators or their critics.
The rest of your stuff, above, is non-sense, given that the first inquisitions were conducted by Bishops to prevent secular mobs from burning or lynching Cathar or Waldensian heretics or "framing" their personal enemies as such "heretics" in order to avoid paying debts back to them or for insulting them or whatever.
Do you actually "think" that the Dominicans castrated Abelard before there were such things as Dominicans? Look up "Medieval Inquisition" on Wikipedia and realize that it was, and is, always the secular folks who do the lynchings or burnings, while cancellings are done by everybody. Nasty clerics turn their victims over to secular mobs. Nice clerics rationally convince them of their errors or send them to hermitages to say prayers with Franciscans or listen to lectures from Dominicans.
Wanna see a modern inquisition --- turn on the latest Senate Hearings where stupid U.S. politicians ask loaded questions of U.S. citizens and everybody gossips on Twitter or X, before the FBI rushes in with a SWAT team and seizes everything and sends it all off to Court Inquisitors --- thereby imitating medieval inquisitors. YAWN.
Alternatively they hide everything and some guy named Epstein "kills himself" while the cameras mysteriously "fail". You "wolf" are like the fictional Jesuit in "The Exorcist" who also blamed the Dominicans. Very amusing.
Thanks for your response. I will reply with a few responses, for ease of reading. First, "nice" is not a term appropriate for a mediator. That is a popular misconception. In workshops, for example, I often point out that what people really want is learning "how to fight" better. (Perhaps that is why you used scare quotes.) Mediation is not about appeasement, but rather about collaboration. The model I have developed is called Divine Collaboration, as it includes the baseline Will of God.
I do not know about mediators. But I read your mind. I used the "scare quotes" around the term "nice" because I meant the logical opposite which is NOT-Nice. Since you "include the baseline Will of God" by teaching "how to fight" better, let's look at your techniques above.
Too bad it can't explain why we extort each other for permission to share a planet NONE of us actually own through capitalism. . . and then pretend like we're doing ourselves a favor because of it
Terrific presentation with a highly informed Psychiatrist. Nice to cross paths with those having relevant information for some of the ills tempting society into addictions of variety of types. General society doesn't always receive such great, current data and understanding.
What is the correlative or your "relative" above in 1. "Everything is relative."? Speak up everybody. What are your actual logical positions? Stephen's position or the contrary which is, 2. "Nothing is relative." How about the subcontrary positions 3. Something is relative. or, finally 4. Something is not relative. Yowsa Yowsa, take your pick. This, too, was logic.
I have concluded that mindful study of the Bible, doing, not just hearing the instructions given by Jesus himself, as well as the Apostles, results in a very stable and calm demeanor, subtle enjoyment and pleasure in virtually all circumstances, and causing an attractive aura that inspires confidence from others. It also promotes a blood pressure of 110/70 and a resting pulse worthy of coveting. Daily deportment leads to habit formation...leading further to entrenchment of character...what character would you like to be described as? Well, then get on it...daily. Aristotle was obviously not a Christian...(there were none in times before Christ), but he was onto the truth was he not? The truth is what Christianity is all about. Freshness in a world filled with lies, liars and Gate's funded "fact-checkers". Dopamine assignment is a reward, in your brain, for doing right...and the more you do it the greater the reward. Praise God for Aristotle's faithfulness in reporting the truth.
Bravo, agree!
Aristotle said that intelligence is proportionate to touch sensitivity. IQ goes with touch!
He was a giant!
Socrates lamented that “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Later on, Aristotle further added, “An unplanned life is not worth examining.” What do we plan our life for? only pleasure, power, having? Are we planning it for the eternal life proven by Near Death Experiences?
Atheists and agnostics would start to find answers in peer-reviewed Near Death Experiences. Consciousness, intelligence, will, are all spiritual properties of the spiritual immortal soul. How do we know that? some of the blind from birth see in colors for the first time when they are brain dead (no electricity, no activity, no bloodflow, no oxygen) and also no heartbeat and no breathing. The same happens with some of the deaf: they listen for the first time to conversations around or if they go up, even celestial music!
“there are characteristic features that are commonly observed in NDEs. These characteristics include a perception of seeing and hearing apart from the physical body, passing into or through a tunnel, encountering a mystical light, intense and generally positive emotions, a review of part or all of their prior life experiences, encountering deceased loved ones, and a choice to return to their earthly life.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/
5 peer reviewed experiences (among dozens):
https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/credible-near-death-experience-stories
Neurosugeon testimony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GsoQRqnwV4
Struck by lighting and came back from near-death to tell us about how we will be Judged:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx5gCAmR4Ss
"God is love" says the Bible, the Word of God (1 John 4:7-12) Do you believe in love? then you believe in God. How do you prove love to yourself? If you prove love, you prove God! There’s no love without God, the source of all true love. He’s not only the love of my life, He’s the life of my love!
Jesus said “I’m... the life.” (John 14:16)
“God gives life to everything.” (1 Timothy 6, 13)
Do you believe in life? You prove life, you prove God, eternal life, source of all life:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/god_is_life
That is where you should start your journey of discovery, but first pray: "God, life of my love, if you exist, please show me the way to find the bliss of knowing You"
or even better:
Think this with your heart: “Jesus, if you are the Son of God, I consecrate my heart to your Heart. Please send me the Holy Spirit so I can see Truth and have the courage to convert and follow Him wherever He leads”
Mathematical proof of God’s mind
Who could have imagined that mathematical images could be so beautiful?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlD2rcm971U
Movie Review: After Death
https://www.catholic365.com/article/32264/movie-review-after-death.html
Scientific proof of God and the soul:
http://www.catholic365.com/article/26227/scientific-proof-of-god-and-the-immortal-soul.html
Scientific proof of religion
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105
What do you believe comes after death (Science backs religion)?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-believe-comes-after-death/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-really-happens-after-we-die/answers/46502105
Which Christian denomination is more Biblical?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-true-Christianity-Protestantism-or-Catholicism/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
Why aren't atheists convinced by miracles which happened, and are scientifically proven?
https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-atheists-convinced-by-miracles-which-happened-and-are-scientifically-proven/answer/Federico-A-Nazar
If you want to find the true Church, among 40 thousand denominations, start reading the writings of the first Christians, before the Roman Empire, like Augustine of Hippo (start with Confessions):
https://www.augustinus.it/links/inglese/opere.htm
Irenaeus of Lyon, etc.:
https://ccel.org/fathers
You'll discover which Church is the most faithful to the Bible and early Christianity before the Roman Empire. Hint: which religion you would belong to, if you were born 600 years ago, continuing uninterruptedly the teachings held by the early Christians?
https://www.catholic365.com/article/35402/jesse-romeros-pearls-of-catholicism.html
Thank you for this.
For your consideration: https://open.substack.com/pub/tamingthewolf/p/the-mind-of-god?r=l015m&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And yet .... Aristotle's remarks about habit formation and the balance between pleasure and pain strike me as spot on. Man is obviously a creature of habit -- even the acts of reading scripture, reflecting on its lessons, and putting them into practice become regular and fortified through repetition, precisely as Aristotle described. As always, thanks for reading and for your commentary. Regards, JSL
Ah, Aristotle. The source of so much destruction when it comes to Christian theology. Early "patristic" theology married Platonic or Neo- Platonic philosophy with theology. Idealism was compatible with the idea we find in Christian faith that the world exists in the Mind of God. In the beginning was The Word. Solutions to the nature of creation and Reality are found in this marriage. However, Aquinas, hijacked theology with a heavy dose of Aristotle and took it off path. The battle between Aquinas and Bonaventure that took place is key for understanding theology. Bonaventure had it right when he complained about the over emphasis Aquinas placed on Aristotelian realism. In the end, Aquinas agreed and stated his work has been as so much straw. But huge damage was done. The analysis in this video leads us into the man is an animal camp...
A case could be made that seed-wise, Aristotle made global data communication possible today - and all that subsumes. Sadly, Irrationality and acting on one's feelings still rule our planet. As such, we continue to be a species under construction by evolution - while mankind limps from the current war to the next one ad infinitum.
What is a "nice" mediator, such as yourself [Taming the Wolf Institute is dedicated to peacemaking, integrating spirituality with contemporary dispute resolution. ] trying to do by suggesting that Aquinas and Bonaventure were ever in "a battle"? They were very good friends. The minor friars were more poetic and less logical. The preachers were more logical and less poetic. But they all sang from the same hymnals --- well too!
You would have never heard of either guy had Aquinas failed to convince Bishop Stephen Tempier that both sets of mendicant friars (St. Dominic's Predicators/Preachers, of which Aquinas was a member and St. Francis' Minor Friars of which Bonaventure was a member) ought to be granted licences to practice theology in the medieval universities --- rather than both men being ordered to stay obediently silent or even burnt as heretics, given that both Orders clearly resembled the roving bands of heretics of the time.
In short and in sum, without Aquinas and his pious and logical defense of both Orders you would know nothing [not even falsehoods] about either man. As to "straw", some kinds are fed to donkeys and other "straw" may be found in "straw man" arguments. You may be able to figure out which is which --- or not. [This was not poetry. It was logic.]
Benedict XVI wrote an interesting PhD thesis, now available tin book form that captures many of the differences and signals the importance of the future Franciscan Order, a Seraphic Order, which Ratzinger knew well. See The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure. There can be no doubt that Bonaventure (and Benedict XVI ) were critical of the over reliance of Aquinas on Aristotle and his realism in contrast to the Idealism that was so important to theologians such as Origen, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Ratzinger himself. The differences are vital to theology and the future of the faith.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzz zzz (hiccup)
St. Bonaventure was the seventh general minister of the Franciscan Order and we are certainly aware of him without any help from the Scholastics and Neo-Scholastics out of Paris (who did the bidding of the King). We know of Bonaventure and many great Franciscans without the help of Scholasticism. Those doing the burning at the stake were the Dominicans! They began the First Inquisition. Yes, Aquinas, being a Dominican, had his works used as a checklist for who was burned and who was spared such death. But that is not something about which to brag. Francis was the original "poor little man" in the vision of Innocent III that held up the Church. When Dominic later claimed he must have been the person in the vision, well, I would not brag about that either.
Had the Bishop of Paris suppressed those mendicant Orders, you would know nothing about any such Franciscan Order, nor the Domicans. They were called Episcopal Inquisitions which began in the late 12th century (1184) conducted by Episcopes/Bishops. They were the same things as modern law courts with the exception (to modern courts) of some religious offences along with mostly civil offences. Putting any "terrorist" organization on a modern "watch list" is the logical equivalent of medieval "excommunications". Sending Abelard and Heloise to monasteries provided them with arguably better treatment than being water-boarded at Gitmo. YAWN. Your sentences repeated below are both patently and egregiously false. Quote:
TAME WOLF: Those doing the burning at the stake were the Dominicans! They began the First Inquisition.
When the Dominicans were put on trial along with the Franciscans neither were doing any burning. The first Inquisitions were done by Bishops to prevent the burnings of heretics by the laity. Then time marched on to Papal Inquisitions where saints like Joan of Arc and sinners like Giordano Bruno were burned by lay English soldiers who thought Joan was a witch or Italian "gentlemen" who disliked heretics with much better memories than themselves.
Buddhist monks (1970s) and, lately American soldiers have done and are doing the same things to themselves without any help from either Dominicans or lay folks --- without even religious inquisitions or civil trials. People are strange. And this a silly conversation. I admit I'm a part of it. But I seem to have found a Dr. McCullough when I actually intended to join the Astronomer McCullough's site. Oh dopey me!
HERESY ALERT! There are theological mediators among you doctors. Send them away, but do not cauterize them.
Aquinas and Bonaventure were at the Academy in Paris at the same time. The use of the term "battle" refers to their disagreements over theology and religious practice, and Bonaventure's criticism of Aquinas for his over-reliance on Aristotle. Bonaventure capped off his disagreements with Aquinas and the Academy by leaving Paris and returning to the Franciscan tradition of hermitage initiated by Francis. The Franciscans were not "more poetic and less logical." They were dedicated to a mystical tradition. Scholasticism was not more logical, bur rather more pedantic, argumentative, and more attuned to Realism rather than Idealism. The Dominicans rejected many of the more spiritual aspects of religious practice and put the First Inquisition into play, revealing their temperament. Aquinas at the end of his life turned to the mystical path advance by the Franciscans.
The first sentence is correct. Well done. The second sentence is misleading because the actual "battle" in which both men were engaged, on the same side, was between clerical Augustinian Canons, who wanted Aristotle's works burned, and secular Latin Averroists (Islamists?), who wanted Aristotle "canonized" ex-post-facto as a Catholic Bishop, without ever being baptized (BOING)!
Aquinas and Bonaventure simultaneously opposed both sets of contrary clerical vs. secular clowns, each using their own so-called charisms. They didn't fight about "theology". They were inventing medieval theology by explicating Aristotelian Logic, and/or Platonic Idealism, rather than Augustinian Rhetoric, since the 3 disciplines (in more than one sense of discipline) had been conflated by "geniuses" like Abelard of seducing-Heloise "fame". Quote:
WOLF-TAMER ( A St. Francis Wannabe no doubt; Read the Legend of St. Francis and the Wolf) 'The use of the term "battle" refers to their disagreements over theology and religious practice, and Bonaventure's criticism of Aquinas for his over-reliance on Aristotle.'
REBUTTAL: No saint ever relies on, let alone "over-relies" on, any stupid pagan for their thinking. Some saints, like Aquinas, patiently explain the better and worse "thinking" of pagans to modern and ancient straw chewing or straw manning donkeys. Other saints prefer wolves and "brother sun sister moon" to the brayings of human donkeys. So they go off to their caves, do penances, develop stigmata etc. etc. in their hermit places, where nobody, except the Deity, knows what they're thinking --- especially not modern mediators or their critics.
The rest of your stuff, above, is non-sense, given that the first inquisitions were conducted by Bishops to prevent secular mobs from burning or lynching Cathar or Waldensian heretics or "framing" their personal enemies as such "heretics" in order to avoid paying debts back to them or for insulting them or whatever.
Do you actually "think" that the Dominicans castrated Abelard before there were such things as Dominicans? Look up "Medieval Inquisition" on Wikipedia and realize that it was, and is, always the secular folks who do the lynchings or burnings, while cancellings are done by everybody. Nasty clerics turn their victims over to secular mobs. Nice clerics rationally convince them of their errors or send them to hermitages to say prayers with Franciscans or listen to lectures from Dominicans.
Wanna see a modern inquisition --- turn on the latest Senate Hearings where stupid U.S. politicians ask loaded questions of U.S. citizens and everybody gossips on Twitter or X, before the FBI rushes in with a SWAT team and seizes everything and sends it all off to Court Inquisitors --- thereby imitating medieval inquisitors. YAWN.
Alternatively they hide everything and some guy named Epstein "kills himself" while the cameras mysteriously "fail". You "wolf" are like the fictional Jesuit in "The Exorcist" who also blamed the Dominicans. Very amusing.
Thanks for your response. I will reply with a few responses, for ease of reading. First, "nice" is not a term appropriate for a mediator. That is a popular misconception. In workshops, for example, I often point out that what people really want is learning "how to fight" better. (Perhaps that is why you used scare quotes.) Mediation is not about appeasement, but rather about collaboration. The model I have developed is called Divine Collaboration, as it includes the baseline Will of God.
I do not know about mediators. But I read your mind. I used the "scare quotes" around the term "nice" because I meant the logical opposite which is NOT-Nice. Since you "include the baseline Will of God" by teaching "how to fight" better, let's look at your techniques above.
Too bad it can't explain why we extort each other for permission to share a planet NONE of us actually own through capitalism. . . and then pretend like we're doing ourselves a favor because of it
Going to Latin Mass works because the mass is both boring and ritualized.
Terrific presentation with a highly informed Psychiatrist. Nice to cross paths with those having relevant information for some of the ills tempting society into addictions of variety of types. General society doesn't always receive such great, current data and understanding.
Everything is relative, one man’s pleasure is another man’s pain
What is the correlative or your "relative" above in 1. "Everything is relative."? Speak up everybody. What are your actual logical positions? Stephen's position or the contrary which is, 2. "Nothing is relative." How about the subcontrary positions 3. Something is relative. or, finally 4. Something is not relative. Yowsa Yowsa, take your pick. This, too, was logic.