Posted on 06/10/2007 3:02:20 PM PDT by NYer
Sorry.
But I don’t find that mind-reading very accurate.
I don’t hate much of anything . . . except maybe Shrillery’s traitorousness and seemingly demonized value system.
I have a LOT of fondness for many RC’s—most I’ve met by far.
I’m not particularly fond of -isms of any flavor. I’m not even fond of Pentecostalism.
Pretending that I’m singling out RC’s for unique and special hatred or even rejection or even unusually awful distaste for their theological distinctives
is just NOT true.
It’s not my heart.
It’s not my spirit.
It’s not my mind.
It’s not my attitude.
I think virtually any . . . bureaucratic, even slightly older, large RELIGIOUS organization tends to have AT LEAST as many destructive hazards to it as benefits.
I feel that way about ALL denominations. Pretending I’m singling out RC’s unfairly on such matters is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. And, it leaves many looking like cry babies. I think you are, as a group, much better than that. I hate to see that kind of pettiness tarnish your image. It’s not necessary.
The religion forum . . . by nature and necessity is not the romper room. The issues, dynamics, emotions etc. are significant on all sides. We are NOT AT ALL inclined to avoid the word “no” to avoid wounding little Johnny’s self esteem, ego, personhood. We try, increasingly, I think, to be loving and kind. But not mealy mouthed wimpy dialogers with nothing very assertive or forceful to say about issues and values central to our core beings and reasons for existing.
Perhaps instead of groups . . .
ALWAYS, NEVER . . .
“ALL OR NOTHING” language would be the criteria of prohibition.
Perhaps unless solid research had proved otherwise?
Thanks tons for your faithful work trying to keep us yeahoos within some reasonable bounds.
Prayers for you and yours.
I’m just thinking attacks on a group are often a catalyst for personal attacks.
I guess if you want to just end all debate on the religion forum, that would work.
Why do you participate in these forums if you can't stand hearing people level criticism at your theology?
Just stay on the caucus threads and you should be insulated from any criticism.
I think it would be very difficult to operationally define
a
prohibited
attack on a group.
Folks with thin skins and chips on their shoulders IN ALL DENOMINATIONAL GROUPS will be inclined to construe all manner of forceful statements as attacks on “the most holy and sanctified group”—THEIRS—of course.
ALL OR NOTHING language like “ALWAYS” “NEVER” ETC. would be a LOT easier to monitor, I’d think.
I suppose one could use those words in conjunction with groups as the criteria.
But isn’t that . . . I don’t know . . . taking the monkey bars out of the playground so Johnny won’t scuff his knees or get a bruised something or other?
Personal attacks . . . We are all big enough to know what a specifically personal, personhood attack is. And, avoiding “You” “Your” etc. words is a huge safety, help.
The request somewhat seems to be saying . . . in effect . . .
we hereon are not big enough to hear something startlingly negative about our sacred group without going ballistic, foaming at the mouth and flailing about with knives and arrows.
Hello? Are we THAT pathetic, immature, insecure, brittle, thin skinned???
God help us when the END TIMES REALLY get going in full force. Kid gloves and 4” foam carpet pads and white gloves everywhere will NOT be the order of the day.
I have not attacked RC-ism tonight. I’ve attacked a human tendency—especially a human group tendency of a particular kind of organized group IN ALL DENOMINATIONS. Yet the reaction on the part of a very few has been AS THOUGH I’d attacked the Virgin Mary in the flesh in her eyeballs with a red hot poker!
Why such a disconnect from the reality? That’s NOT REALLY my doing.
On a personal level, I’m saddened by the whole episode. But I can’t take responsibility for the utter nonsense. At some point, I have to leave others their SHARE of responsibility.
Could I have been more loving? I don’t know. Usually there’s always some way to have been a BIT more loving. But I doubt that I could have said anything close to what was true and important for me to say—without triggering at least a similar response from some folks. That may be sad. But I don’t know HOW MUCH of that is my responsibility.
I’m not exactly a new and novel entity hereon. Folks are welcome to take everything I say with a grain of salt. My motives and even my heart are pretty easily discernable by most folks with a microscopic shred of discernment and perceptiveness.
In some ways, I’m . . . me . . . enough . . . a unique, bird of rare plumage, . . . or as my relatives might say—strange—enough . . . that it’s somewhat easy for a variety of folks to be annoyed to irritated just because I’m breathing and with 1,000 feet of them. Sorry about that.
And, I’ve tried to wash behind my ears better and use mints . . . but at some point, nothing will ever be enough for some people. And I cannot remake myself every 30 seconds into someone else’s image of how I OUGHT to be times even a dozen such individuals’ expectations. Tried that long ago. Talk about CRAZY!
Rolling with the punches without taking personal offense is a sign of emotional, psychological AND spiritual maturity. Is it too much to ask that we behave above a 2-4 year old level on such issues?
Just pondering and thinking out loud . . .
Thanks to you both for your thoughtful inputs.
Did you even read what I said? I said beliefs. That is the same as theology. Do you think you have a need to attack groups, instead of their beliefs?
Exactly.
Good points . . .
Though . . . psychologically . . . maybe emotionally . . .
sometimes . . . when we are feeling brittle or gritchy . . . we sort of tend, as humans . . . to go
HUNTING FOR OFFENSE
and, then, of course, to 100% blame the other person.
I don’t think moderators can prevent that. Maybe they can prevent certain over the line expressions of that phenomenon.
But you make an excellent point.
Thx.
BTW, reality check here.
P-Marlowe, we’ve said some strong things at one another the last 6 months, IIRC.
But I still care for you deeply and respect you and your beliefs greatly. Haven’t you been aware of that, regardless?
And, I have at least the fantasy that you respect at least SOMETHING about me. Isn’t that true?
I don’t think it’s all that hard, really.
Groups have beliefs. If we criticize the beliefs, we are criticizing the group and vice versa.
Feel free to criticize my beliefs and my groups. It doesn't bother me at all. It is through the discussion of these issues that we can come to the truth. Unless, of course, someone else has already done the thinking for you.
Unless, of course, someone else has already done the thinking for you.
= = =
LAUGHING AND GRINNING . . .
There you go again . . . attacking that sacred group!
But, truly, Marlowe, that sort of DEFERRING to loftier RELIGIOUS folk—with titles and positions and formal roles . . .that kind of thinking goes on in all denominational—even all congregations older than 1.5-3 years, imho.
It goes with the territory.
But I still care for you deeply and respect you and your beliefs greatly. Haven’t you been aware of that, regardless?
Certainly
And, I have at least the fantasy that you respect at least SOMETHING about me. Isn’t that true?
Just a little bit. :-)
Can't help to get a dig in, can you?
LOL WHAT A SONG! Thx.
However . . . must get the necessary obligatory
HARUMPH
out of the way!
A little bit! sheesh!
See if I ever kiss your toes again. Oh, that’s right, I never did.
Wash your feet again?
Actually, that I would do. Humbled and honored to do so.
Don’t encourage him.
It looks to me like there are certain posters on the forum who are opportunists. They consistently show up on threads where there is a chance to be a protagonist.
It doesn’t seem to be a discussion or debate that they have in mind. It’s warfare. It’s a relentless “gotcha” attitude. I’m willing to bet that it doesn’t leave a good impression on the lurkers—who are probably outnumbering the posters any day.
What you are proposing are two concepts:
1) Stay off the forum if you don’t like criticisms of your particular faith
2) thereby admitting that you can’t take the heat and need to be insulated from it.
These two propositions overlook the fact that anyone would want to come to the defense of their faith if it’s being held in contempt ipso facto. It also falsely takes the position that if one doesn’t like the contemptuous approach, that they’re not capable of reasoned debate.
In other words, if you don’t like seeing your faith maligned, get out.
It’s for sure that this approach has built-in trouble markers—for everyone.
In my experience . . .
it doesn’t matter whether you encourage Marlowe or not.
He’s still going to be Marlowe. Thankfully.
And God is not finished with any of us yet.
imho,
Part of the problem, however, is that
contemptuousness
like beauty
is in the eye, mind, heart, insecurities
of the beholder.
“God is not finished with any of us yet”
...that we know of. He hasn’t let us know for sure.
If a protestant disagrees with those higher powers, then he can always switch Churches. If a Catholic disagrees with the Magisterium, he goes to hell.
We protestants are free to criticize our own churches and everyone else's. Catholics are limited to criticizing everyone else's. As shown by the article above, they are pretty adept at it. Refusing, despite all biblical evidence, to see the heresy in their own church, but eager to point out any perceived heresy in every other church.
But I digress.
Yes, in your humble opinion.
That’s all it is.
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.