Posted on 06/10/2007 3:02:20 PM PDT by NYer
I do hope, however, that brittleness, sacred shoulder chips and thin skins do not become sacraments in any group.Okay: if somebody insists that I think that priests are God, that the bread in the Eucharist "physically" becomes the body of Christ, that the body of Christ genetically bonds with my DNA, if somebody suggests that Catholics do not think for themselves or want to,
if somebody suggests, as a conclusive criticism that such and such a practice is not Biblical (when an objective review of the scholarship would indicate that the Bible is equivocal on the matter in question) after repeated attempts to discuss the difference between the RC and Bible-believing Protestant approach to Scripture and Tradition,
if the same charge of idolatry is repeated tirelessly, if when one Protestant makes a slur which is based on a mischaracterization of what we think and immediately three other Protestants come up to give verbal high-fives,
if then when we complain about that you think we're tnin-skinned, we're going to have a tough time communicating.
I understand you to say that the term magicsterical has nothing to do with magisterium and the similarity came to your attention after you coined the term. I believe you.
Is is really astonishing or excessively thin-skinned for us to react negatively when it sure LOOKS like the term is a play on Magisterium, magic, and hysterical and it is used in the context of your criticizing the psychology of our allegiance to what we think is God's promise to the Church?
Evidently moving from one thread to another is supposed to mean that everything starts de novo. I don't buy it. If you look at the Rosary thread, where one of us started the nastiness, or the Eucharist thread, where the sacrament we hold most dear is repeatedly mocked and our thinking about it is, well, to be parliamentary, subjected to massive untruth delivered in a contemptuous tone, I think by the time this thread started all of us RC felt like we'd just come out of a debriding session in the burn ward. THIN skin? How about NO skin, having been flayed repeatedly by what is either a massive group communicative disorder or an intentional effort to give offense!
It is simply impossible for me to believe that there is no conscious and intentional hostility in alleging that we think priests are God or in the 359th iteration of "Stock of wood". If one spouse treated the other like this it would be clinically described as abuse. Someone makes derogatory comments about me because after I've studied sacramental theology, and philosophy from The Pre-Socratics to Heidegger with extensive time in amateur study of Buddhist metaphysics (with a pretend major in Dogen Zenji and a manful attempt at the Lankavatara and I actually read the entire Lotus Sutra) I won't say either that the bread IS God or that it is not God. After all in CHinese buddhist metaphysics you get 4 choices, (1)is,(2)is not(3)both is and is not (4) neither is nor is not. But another professorial PH.D. (double risk of God complex) tells me "It doesn't work that way." I'm sorry gang, but I read an entire book called "What is a thing"? (It's great!) and I still have questions about it. I'm not certain about what "presence" is, much less "Real (or thingly - to look at the etymology of the word "real") Presence", much less "Real Presence of the Son of God." I wonder what it means to say God is "there" when omnipresence is one of the things we attribute to God and when Jesus said He'd be with us always.
So the nanny nanny boo boo -- gotcha approach to sacramental theology just isn't going to cut it with me. "It doesn't work that way." One of the tings I love about sacramental theology is that it is the nexus of everything that I like to think about.
So if I insist the subject be approached with the meticulous care and reverence it deserves, whatever one's own doctrine the Eucharist, and in retaliation have PERSONAL disparagement and mockery and mocking misstatements of what I believe hurled at mere, then I think I have a right to complain, and I will consider the suggestion that my being troubled by personal insult and insult (as opposed to argument) to my religion is a thin skin problem as another insult.
You yourself say that something merits a "guffaws to the max". But surely you know that feelings, even the impulse to laughter, are not always a reliable indicator of the nature or value of a person or an idea. And surely you know it is painful to advance a proposition or a thought about something personal and intimate and have it greeted with laughter.
I will readily concede that some RCs are aggressive and rude and disparaging. But I think an objective review of the threads will point out a pack mentality on the part of many Protestants. They make false charges in abusive language and then cpngratulate each other on thier wit and perspicacity. Anybody who has been on more than three of these threads and suggests that the problem with Catholics is that they prefer traditions of men to the Word of God - while, objectively that might be true, though obviously I think not -- either lacks finesse or intelligence., or means to do harm.
We KNOW that's what a lot of Protestants think of us. By now I don't think it unreasonable of us to expect that the more active Protestant posters would understand that we think that not all traditions are "of men". That that is where the hinge point lies, and the re-statement of the point of disagreement is not an argument.
Look at how much you posted in response to my brief post last night. Now imagine if I acted as though you STILL intended to mock especially Catholics and the Magisterium with you "Magicsterical". Imagine that I acted as though you had never said that or as though I was SO persuaded that I knew better than you what's REALLY going on inside that twisted mind of yours that it was legitimate for me to ignore what you said and to make mock of you -- to respond with gales of happy laughter or with the 100th repetition of some hackneyed argument.
Then imagine that when you finally complain about that abuse somebody else advises you that maybe, just maybe, you have a thin-skin issue, or, as has happened to me, calls you a cry-baby.
In the post to which this is a response you pretty much give yourself permission to ignore what we say because your experience is that explanations and "objective reality" don't live in the same neighborhood. But you accused someone else of mind-reading when he doubted the objective reality of your explanation.
As my late mother would say, "This can only end in tears."
Or, finally, yeah, when it comes to discussing religion, I have a thin skin. Outside of sadistic fanatics for whom religion is chiefly a club to beat other on the head with, I know of few who don't. I would think that a need to mock and lie about someone else's religion would qualify as pathological, and I would be amazed if you wouldn't agree.
I'll try harder.
wish I had a magic sternum
wish I had a magic sternum
All this was done without controlled substances!
thats pretty good
No.
So you're of the mind that there is more than One Truth? How special. Is that one truth a day, week or hour or what?
And since the article is about one man and his current misinterpretation of Ezekiel 38 and the end of the world for the ... what 20th different date in the last century... have you read Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind
Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
Proclaimed By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964
Are you told to shut off your thinker?
“Puff, the magic sternum,
lived by the ribs
And held them all together
while protecting them from fibs.
Wise old Papa JP
Loved that magic Puff
And wrote him bulls
‘n encyclicals
And other papal stuff.
All this was done without controlled substances!”
You have a way with words! I would have reposted your previous comment (#121, I think) but it was long and not as funny. :o) I’d like to congratulate you on a wonderful post but I’m afraid I may get in trouble. LOL! Okay, back to Lurk mode. Carry on!
"This can only end in tears."
Wise mother.
Good post.
"Awesome post. Captures the absurdity of protestantism. Every protestant has his or her own private magisterium, which of course means there are many “truths..."
Now do you think you can respond to the missing links?
I think this post was at least indelicately phrased.
However, and this is important, Absurdity is not a term of mockery or abuse. It is descriptive of a kind of logical development. So when I read this statement, while I winced, I saw neither mockery nor abuse, but a comment on the appearance to a Catholic of the "System" of Protestant thought. Consequently I don't think it is relevant to my remark. By mockery I would refer mostly to things like (until I learned what he meant by it) "magicsterium", or allegations that priests ware doing some kind of shape shifting transporting so as to, if the allegations are true - which they ain't even close to - be Christ. I would refer to some occasions of saying that a statement somebody made is laughable. "Guffaws to the Max" sure looked like mockery to me.
But to say something is absurd is, IMHO to comment on the logical structure of the system and especially on its relationship to the roots of the system or the way it seems to lead necessarily to a contradiction. Reductio ad absurdum is a technique of proof not necessarily of abuse.
Or maybe not ....
Is that sufficient?
You must have been reading my mind when you posted this.
I tried my best to open the door to my thoughts in my post #55.
But you swung it open wide for me and said everything I was thinking but couldn’t articulate as you did.
Thanks, MD
Hypothesis contrary to fact is such a bad way to make an argument. Despite your quote and citation, it is not a fact, so who can tell if it would be a dig if it were.
Just formally "Decision" and "Thinking" are not the same thing. So if we think, as seems reasonable, that these documents state that a decision has been made for us, that does not mean the thinking has been made for us. Ever study geometry? Calculus? It's similar in that understanding what reliable people tell us is true and coming to see how it is that it's true take a LOT of thought.
Consequently, formally it is a dig, because it is not true and it is offensive.
Let's go further: TO understand the teachings of bishops requires considerable thought, as I said. Not everyone has the skills (I myself am not a very good reader and have difficulty concentrating) to do all the research and examine all the arguments and evidence in every detail. So, yeah, as a matter of fact, all the time I think we allow others to do some thinking for us, in some areas.
For example, somebody was talking about his notion of the unquestionable authority of the autograph MSs of the Holy Bible. We won't even ask where that idea came from. Surely, if he is not going to let others do his thinking for him, he should learn to be a textual critic and examine the various fragments and whatnot in the museums and libraries of the world to make sure that he has the original text. And then he should learn the Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic, and not only Koine Greek but the selection of Greek words used in translating from the Hebrew in the LXX, since that would have influenced the diction of the NT writers. I have an absolutely fabulous dictionary of NT Greek consisting of such articles done about only the most important words of the NT. It's in 11 volumes and takes up about two feet of shelf space. I would expect the person who did all his own thinking about the Bible would write his own dictionary, and do his theological thinking in his spare time.
IN other words, it's a dig because every one of us delegates some of what we consider very important thinking, so to make it out that the RC s are somehow more sheep-like than others is at best misleading or thoughtless, and my guess would be that it was not said with bouquets in mind.
This is all elementary.
Those of us who have active minds and who, despite our handicaps, know a little something about the kinds of things popes and bishops write about find that achieving the prescribed obedience takes a LOT of thought and work. For me the greater encyclicals are pretty much homework assignments.
So the answer to the question of its being a dig is, Yeah, pretty much. I don't even care to know who said it, but whoever it was, he may even have been letting some other Protestant do his thinking for him (that would be a dig) about the difference between deciding and thinking and, probably owing to his not having considered what obedience might be like in this context, made what amounted to a thoughtless, well, dig.
Dig it.
One of my typo’s then! IC oversight groups? LOL.
Sorry. Thanks.
Certainly more prayer tends to be a good thing . . . depending on a few things . . .
such as praying to . . . and in an attitude of faith . . . etc. etc. ah well . . . there we could get going again! LOL.
LUB
I do hope, however, that brittleness, sacred shoulder chips and thin skins do not become sacraments in any group.Okay: if somebody insists that I think that priests are God, that the bread in the Eucharist "physically" becomes the body of Christ, that the body of Christ genetically bonds with my DNA, if somebody suggests that Catholics do not think for themselves or want to, if somebody suggests, as a conclusive criticism that such and such a practice is not Biblical (when an objective review of the scholarship would indicate that the Bible is equivocal on the matter in question) after repeated attempts to discuss the difference between the RC and Bible-believing Protestant approach to Scripture and Tradition, if the same charge of idolatry is repeated tirelessly, if when one Protestant makes a slur which is based on a mischaracterization of what we think and immediately three other Protestants come up to give verbal high-fives, if then when we complain about that you think we're tnin-skinned, we're going to have a tough time communicating.
No, Dear Bro. I'm not per se talking about such. I'm talking about a distinct and clear brittleness, a clear and distinct sizeable-hair trigger-chip-on-shoulderness; thin-skinnedness. It's a tone and attitude. The particulars are probably less important than the tone and attitude, imho. Because they speak of a rot in the heart, mind, soul, spirit or some such . . . and to fling such rot about so fiercely, freely, easily, quickly is just not . . . helpful.
I understand you to say that the term magicsterical has nothing to do with magisterium and the similarity came to your attention after you coined the term. I believe you.
I don't recall saying that. Actually, I probably did come up with it reflecting on the RC variety. But what I say is that ALL RELIGIOUS oversight bodies sooner or later have magICSTERICAL elements, aspects, tones, operations, attitudes, laws, edicts, etc. etc. etc. in ALL religious organizations to some degree or another--INCLUDING BUT FAR FROM LIMITED TO the RC such. And, I believe that the older and larger religious groups are, the worse such gets--all other things being equal.
Is is really astonishing or excessively thin-skinned for us to react negatively when it sure LOOKS like the term is a play on Magisterium, magic, and hysterical and it is used in the context of your criticizing the psychology of our allegiance to what we think is God's promise to the Church?
Reacting negatively in terms of disagreeing or even forcefully countering the inferences, allegations etc. is one thing and quite reasonable. Reacting out of the flesh with pontifical, Inquisitional, absolutest, sanctimonious, assaultive, punitive etc. terms down long noses and fingers . . . just is more than a little over the line and unhelpful. Also tends to sound more than a little silly and more than a little childish.
But so what--folks criticize my psychology; my walk; my style [or lack thereof]; my thought processes etc. day in and day out. Goes with the territory. Doesn't mean I have to become . . . what . . . fleshy-ly irate . . . demonically irate from a super brittle, high and haughty place.
IF FOLKS CHRONICALLY HAVE THIN SKINS AND HAIR TRIGGER CHIPS ON THEIR SHOULDERS, THEY PROBABLY OUGHT TO LIMIT THEIR POSTING TO CAUCUS THREADS FOR THEIR PARTICULAR PERSUASIONS.
RC folks hereon have been assaulting, castigating, often enough sentencing Proties to hell going and coming hereon for virtually the whole of FR's existence. It's more than a LITTLE bit of the pot calling the kettle black for them to then wail about how maligned they are. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
AT LEAST quit throwing BOWLS of gasoline into the kitchen followed by lit fire crackers . . .
AND THEN
I personally don't mind the hyper energetic emotional exchanges EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE SO RIFE WITH A DOUBLE STANDARD ON THE PART OF THE RC FOLKS. However, it's not kosher for FR and less kosher for the religion forum. It also doesn't help us prefer one another in love and compassion a great deal. So, in part because of you and in part because of what I believe God is saying the priorities need to reflect hereon, I've toned way down enormously. Becoming St Francis of Assisi II, is probably not likely, on my part.
Evidently moving from one thread to another is supposed to mean that everything starts de novo. I don't buy it. If you look at the Rosary thread, where one of us started the nastiness, or the Eucharist thread, where the sacrament we hold most dear is repeatedly mocked and our thinking about it is, well, to be parliamentary, subjected to massive untruth delivered in a contemptuous tone, I think by the time this thread started all of us RC felt like we'd just come out of a debriding session in the burn ward. THIN skin? How about NO skin, having been flayed repeatedly by what is either a massive group communicative disorder or an intentional effort to give offense!
That's understandable. I can only take responsibility for me and try and encourage others to watch their tones, too. I don't think you've found me being assaultive on those issues though I probably agree a lot with folks who have been. I also agree with them that there are some serious problems with RC theology and practices. But that's true of every group. Some more seriously than others with a larger group of more serious errors than others.
I'm increasingly of the opinion, however, that God has allowed all that to occur PARTLY to test how we will Love one another in word and deed, OR NOT--that our attitudes TOWARD ONE ANOTHER ABOUT THE THEOLOGICAL DISTINCTIVES ARE A LOT MORE IMPORTANT TO GOD, than the theological distinctives are. OTHERWISE, HE'D HAVE MADE THEM MORE EMPHATICALLY CLEAR, imho.
It is simply impossible for me to believe that there is no conscious and intentional hostility in alleging that we think priests are God or in the 359th iteration of "Stock of wood". If one spouse treated the other like this it would be clinically described as abuse. Someone makes derogatory comments about me because after I've studied sacramental theology, and philosophy from The Pre-Socratics to Heidegger with extensive time in amateur study of Buddhist metaphysics (with a pretend major in Dogen Zenji and a manful attempt at the Lankavatara and I actually read the entire Lotus Sutra) I won't say either that the bread IS God or that it is not God. After all in CHinese buddhist metaphysics you get 4 choices, (1)is,(2)is not(3)both is and is not (4) neither is nor is not. But another professorial PH.D. (double risk of God complex) tells me "It doesn't work that way." I'm sorry gang, but I read an entire book called "What is a thing"? (It's great!) and I still have questions about it. I'm not certain about what "presence" is, much less "Real (or thingly - to look at the etymology of the word "real") Presence", much less "Real Presence of the Son of God." I wonder what it means to say God is "there" when omnipresence is one of the things we attribute to God and when Jesus said He'd be with us always.
Love that paragraph. Thanks. LOL. Easy to agree with most all of it.
So the nanny nanny boo boo -- gotcha approach to sacramental theology just isn't going to cut it with me. "It doesn't work that way." One of the tings I love about sacramental theology is that it is the nexus of everything that I like to think about.
I personally don't have a great concern about your interaction with it. Seems to me you put God first.
But I have known RC's for whom it was an obvious problem. Noting that it's a hazard for the endless parade of lurkers reading such is not an evil thing to do.
RC's similarly relentlessly exhort us about not being part of the REAL church etc. endlessly and with great haughtiness. Ought we to rise up and fling arrows and daggers back about that? Would be just as justifiable.
So if I insist the subject be approached with the meticulous care and reverence it deserves, whatever one's own doctrine the Eucharist, and in retaliation have PERSONAL disparagement and mockery and mocking misstatements of what I believe hurled at mere, then I think I have a right to complain, and I will consider the suggestion that my being troubled by personal insult and insult (as opposed to argument) to my religion is a thin skin problem as another insult.
Oh, I have a lot of grace for dealing with orneriness and mutual rock throwing parties to some degree. Folks ought to be able to receive as much as they dish out. But hereon, we are trying to train ourselves and each other to really ACT LIKE CHRISTIANS WHO TRULY LOVE EACH OTHER BECAUSE WE ARE TRULY BEGINNING TO DO SO IN OUR HEARTS by His Grace and Spirit. Therefore, we ought to be calming such down within and between us and on the part of our cohorts on the various sides of various issues. I think you and I both make a significant effort to do that.
Now if our cohorts would just recognize our superior wisdom . . . LOL. That magicsterical thing lurking again.
I'm not sure when, from God's Standpoint, it's truly justified to be irate back. So, I've tried to give-in to it far, far less. Seems like, by His Grace, we've succeeded, He and I, with me. I do think there IS a place for irately driving the money changers out of the temple and calling the pharisees whited sepulchers etc. But given the hazards of misjudging that and shredding a bro or sis needlessly, I'm wholesale limiting such tendencies far more than usual in the last 30 years.
You yourself say that something merits a "guffaws to the max". But surely you know that feelings, even the impulse to laughter, are not always a reliable indicator of the nature or value of a person or an idea. And surely you know it is painful to advance a proposition or a thought about something personal and intimate and have it greeted with laughter.
TRUE, ENOUGH. HOWEVER, DEAR BRO, I THINK GUFFAWS AND LAUGHTER ARE FAR TOO RARE hereon. And any excuse for them is to the good--even--perhaps--somewhat derisively. OTHERWISE THE STARCH, FOSSILIZATION, SET CONCRETE HARD HEADEDNESS doesn't even get scratched good. And such needs a LOT more than scratched and guffaws. SO YOU HAVE MY STANDING INVITATION--DISH OUT BACK TO ME, GUFFAWS TO THE MAX WHENEVER ANY OF YOU RC'S FEEL IT FITTING.
The worst it will do to me is cause me to pause an extra time and check out whether I'm as kosher in my thinking and attitude as I thought I was. In other words, I won't let it do anything but cause me good, by His Grace. Couldn't we all make such a decision in our own and others' behalf?
I will readily concede that some RCs are aggressive and rude and disparaging. But I think an objective review of the threads will point out a pack mentality on the part of many Protestants.
Sorry, but I think the Proties are Johnny come latelies on the pack mentality Olympics. I think what we learned we learned mostly from copying the RC's.
They make false charges in abusive language and then cpngratulate each other on their wit and perspicacity.
Oh, dear. You mean that's NOT the proper sacrament??? LOL.
So what. If they are as wrong as they can easily be in just those ways--let them bear God's discipline for it. No need to let THEM dictate RC's emotions for the RC's. If they are that wrong--getting all wound up in one's undies over it is giving them and their wrong too much clout, influence.
Anybody who has been on more than three of these threads and suggests that the problem with Catholics is that they prefer traditions of men to the Word of God - while, objectively that might be true, though obviously I think not -- either lacks finesse or intelligence., or means to do harm.
Hmmmm . . . I think the variables are too many and each situation and thread and context too complex to make such an assertion so flatly. Many RC's do. Just as many Pentecostals worship miracles more than God Himself. Those are just facts. RC's and Pents ought to understand, accept and flow with the implications thereof. Anything less is immature and unreal--out of touch with true reality, anyway.
Yeah, there's more than an abundance of meanness--the research indicates it comes MOSTLY and most of the time--from folks who's religiosity is less than . . . on target. Some priorities are askew. Lesser things have become more important than top priority things. And out of that flows all kinds of fleshy outrage; insecurity-based outrage etc. etc. etc. Not pretty. Meanness easily follows.
When spirituality is on target, compassion, grace, graciousness, forgiveness, empathy etc. tend to reign . . . at least more so and more often.
We KNOW that's what a lot of Protestants think of us. By now I don't think it unreasonable of us to expect that the more active Protestant posters would understand that we think that not all traditions are "of men". That that is where the hinge point lies, and the re-statement of the point of disagreement is not an argument.
True enough, Bro. But I think you know as well as I do that RC's are going to continue to feel duty, honor and spiritually bound to restate that Proties are not part of the REAL church; are 1.5 of their feet on banana peels toward hell; are demonized individual papists because they interpret the Bible on their own . . . etc. etc. etc. AS THEIR SPIRITUAL DUTY TO ALL THE NEW LURKERS constantly wandering by . . .
JUST AS PROTIES will continue to feel duty bound to articulate the other side of what they construe as spiritually suspect to horrid RC stuff for the immature, unsuspecting or spiritually ignorant lurkers.
THAT'S FINE WITH ME. I think less of folks who don't feel some duty to speak up for true and right beliefs about God as they see them.
HOWEVER, we certainly ought to be able increasingly to do it with mutual respect even when we are being intense. I'm trying hard and with your help have made progress--I think! Maybe others can grow some on both sides, too.
Look at how much you posted in response to my brief post last night. Now imagine if I acted as though you STILL intended to mock especially Catholics and the Magisterium with you "Magicsterical". Imagine that I acted as though you had never said that or as though I was SO persuaded that I knew better than you what's REALLY going on inside that twisted mind of yours that it was legitimate for me to ignore what you said and to make mock of you -- to respond with gales of happy laughter or with the 100th repetition of some hackneyed argument.
In your case, I suppose I'd be saddened that you and I needed to revisit things I'd thought we'd had an understanding about. BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABOUT TO ALLOW IT TO HINDER MY LOVING YOU, RESPECTING YOU, BEING AS CLOSE A FRIEND TO YOU AS GOD'S PRIORITIES AND MY ABILITIES ALLOW. In other words, I'd insist on it being some variation of water off a duck because the RELATIONSHIP is more important.
Then imagine that when you finally complain about that abuse somebody else advises you that maybe, just maybe, you have a thin-skin issue, or, as has happened to me, calls you a cry-baby.
FIRST, I'D PRAYERFULLY PONDER AND SEEK GOD'S INSIGHT as to whether there was ANY percentage of truth to the allegations. If so, I'd redouble my efforts to clean that part of my person and behavior up.
And the rest would then become relatively a non issue.
IF I felt I was near 100% saintly on such allegations, I might say something about it simply not being true and why I thought so--but I would not let it disrupt the relationship. I care for you too much, to allow that.
In the post to which this is a response you pretty much give yourself permission to ignore what we say because your experience is that explanations and "objective reality" don't live in the same neighborhood. But you accused someone else of mind-reading when he doubted the objective reality of your explanation.
I think I noted that not ALL explanations equal or are identical to "objective reality." Yeah, I reserve the right to differ on such things. So do each of you. Nothing new or different about that. I don't have trouble with folks doubting the objective reality of my explanations. But to IN ABSOLUTIST TERMS DECLARE SUCH THINGS 100% MT SINAI FACT . . . is bothersome to me and I may well protest however creatively.
As my late mother would say, "This can only end in tears."
NOT IF WE PUT LOVE FIRST AND FOREMOST AS CHRIST COMMANDED US TO.
Or, finally, yeah, when it comes to discussing religion, I have a thin skin. Outside of sadistic fanatics for whom religion is chiefly a club to beat other on the head with, I know of few who don't. I would think that a need to mock and lie about someone else's religion would qualify as pathological, and I would be amazed if you wouldn't agree.
Oh, I think it depends on too many variables to make a reliable all inclusive statement about such. But certainly pathology travels such paths frequently. But Christ was not pathological when He mocked the pharisees. And in this day and age, pharisaical people on all sides of issues in all groups sometimes NEED, DESERVE, OUGHT TO BE MOCKED to shame for the absurdity of their pontifications, and arrogance. I do NOT consider having thin skin over spiritual issues to be a gift of The Spirit or a mark of saintliness. Nor is a Rock of Gibraltar sized chip on one's shoulder. imho, of course.
I'll try harder.
Me three.
LUBBB {Love You Big Bunches, BRO]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.