| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/11/2010 11:23:29 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 01/11/2010 8:46:31 AM PST by Judith Anne
I don't think it's that simple. I want to be right as much as the next person. In fact, I believe that I am right, regarding the major points of my religious faith (Catholic). (I also think I've probably got some things wrong, points where my understanding of my Faith is erroneous.)
However, I don't feel a need to engage in hostilities with people who have other beliefs. I'll engage in discussion, but if I find myself writing in a way that I wouldn't act in Real Life, I stop myself. I agree with Judith Anne that it is an occasion of sin to participate in discussions that are going to stimulate anger, hatred, or unladylike displays.
“To say that a lie is in the eye of the beholder is the same as saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth.”
Perhaps if we discussed TRUTH instead of calling others liars, and trust the readers of the thread to figure out any dishonesty on their own?
If I offer an interpretation of John 6, and someone disagrees with it, why can’t they disagree instead of calling me a liar, or even claiming on a recent thread that I had added verses when quoting John 6 (???)!
And at some point, I need to learn the patience and restraint to refuse to be baited. Those who know nothing but attack ultimately harm their side.
The simple answer is — like politics, religion is an inherently antagonistic subject. It is, at its base, about the right way to live and the right beliefs to hold. To take a strong position on a religious topic inherently means that you are arguing that people that disagree are fundamentally wrong, misinterpreting scripture, and following false beliefs. Religious declarations will offend nonbelievers, and believers in other conflicting doctrines.
More specifically to the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants on this forum — these are the fundamental arguments that have been occuring since the Protestant reformation.
— Is there true doctrinal infallibility in the Catholic heirarchy?
— Is Christ’s church as referred to in the Bible encompassing of both Protestants and Catholics, or just the one or the other?
— Are Protestants real Christians according to the Bible, or have they heretically abandoned Christ’s true church?
— Has the Catholic church strayed from Christian doctrine, thus leaving true Christianity in the hands of Protestants?
— Does the Catholic heirarchy and Canon Law have any real authority over true Christian doctrine?
Which side you take will dictate the answers to these questions — and the answers to these questions are very personal and sensitive subjects to people on both sides. Answering these questions occasionally leaves someone calling one side or the other not “real” Christians ... which, to a Christian, is offensive to its very core.
Full disclosure — I am a Protestant, Baptist more specifically. I believe the Baptist church teaches the most correct interpretation of scripture, but that Baptist leaders are no more doctrinally infallible than you or I.
I believe Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity which, like the Baptist church, is likely wrong about some things (as I do not believe doctrinal infallibility can reside in any one man or heirarchy). But, I believe Catholicism, Baptism, and most Protestant denominations have the big stuff right. I regard Catholics as no more or less Christian than I, and no less Christian than other Protestant denominations. I disagree with some Catholic doctrines, and agree with others. I am not anti-Catholic any more than I am anti-Pentecostal, anti-Methodist, or anti-Lutheran ... I just think Catholics are wrong about some stuff.
SnakeDoc
OPPS...let me return it S
LOL
Narses..I hope to remember
You don’t want to be addressed as “Nostrils”? Sounds like a Mafia buttonman who picked up his nickname when the boss was having a really bad day ...
True, but 2 people can look at the same information and see it from different perspectives . A difference of opinion is not always a lie.. Calling people liars is not a productive way to debate and issue
They ought to just disagree and not call you a liar.
But if someone insists--falsely--on what MY interpretation of John 6 is, they are either acting in ignorance or lying outright.
>> There are a relatively small and extremely vocal anti-Catholic chorus that chimes in whenever the opportunity presents itself.
True enough. But, in fairness, there is also a relatively small and extremely vocal anti-Protestant chorus that chimes in on occasion as well to belittle the Protestant denominations and declare Catholicism the one true protector of the Christian faith. There are, unfortunately, obnoxious people on both sides.
SnakeDoc
I’d like to know why people do not participate in Ecumenical threads. I have received several FReepmails stating that they will NOT poat to a thread that is marked [Ecumenical].
Any insights, anyone?
It just seems wonderful to me to have a civil discussion, but many refuse. Is it because they cannot “bash” another denomination/profession of faith?
A great mystery to me.
Opinions aren’t facts. Persisting in repeating a lie makes one a liar. Basic, simple English.
:)
I felt so incomplete.
That is a fair position.
Unfortunately, there is a very vocal minority who believe otherwise, or, at least, that a Roman Catholic can be saved in spite of his church.
Would that your numbers would grow.
Thank you, SD. My beloved son in law is Baptist, and somehow we manage to get along. I honor his commitment to his faith and find that we do, indeed, agree on the “Big Things.” We know where we disagree and don’t find it necessary to fight about it.
The various thread tags in the Religion Forum are meant to let posters find their niche, so they can speak comfortably. Trouble happens when they wander into a place where they are not comfortable. If a poster is not comfortable with “ecumenical” style debate, he should stay away.
FWIW most of the things the Baptists I know well enough to talk religion believe is the same thing the Catholic Church teaches. They stripped out the Sacramental and hierarchal but retained the Biblical. Many of the most knowledgeable converts I know started as Baptist to boot. :)
She certainly did not.
She was referring to those who teach lies about the Catholic Church, not those who disagree the Catholic Church.
Your false accusation was very passive-aggressive.
You jest. I mean seriously!!!
We have "doctrinal defense" on "Macro" now simply because we're continually refuting the same doctrinal questions, disinformation and other assorted nonsense, 24/7. We can do it in our sleep. It doesn't matter. The same issues are raised again and again, ad nauseam.
Furthermore, the majority of "Prod" threads are not "doctrinal". They're scandal threads. They fall into the category of "check out what these corrupt Catholics have been up to". Priests accused of molestation, Pope's who've fathered children, Catholics who've embezzled money, left their wives or run around naked. What doctrine is there to debate amongst that pile? It's simply a litany of sins.
As for "making it personal", let's illustrate with an example.
Let's say I post articles regularly on FR about one particular subject. We'll call it "American History". Imagine I post stories about the negative aspects of American history exclusively, while entirely ignoring all positive aspects. Let's also say that I do this several times per week (and sometimes several times per day) for a prolonged period of time.......months or years, in fact.
You think it's unreasonable to state that after a while, people are going to question my motives and wonder why my threads portray only one side of American history? Um.........one can post news about a certain subject and on some days that news will be positive and on some days it will be negative. However, when the news posted is exclusively negative, people start to notice a pattern without even trying. It's then personal because you've made it personal by promoting your agenda rather than a balanced coverage.
Finally, is there really any more doctrine left to debate? After all this time, aren't we all intimately aware of what each profession believes? I know what you believe about "predestination" and you know what I believe. The author or source of the tract which is posted may be different but the content is essentially the same. There are few new ideas.
Ignorant lies about the Catholic Church are taught as if fact.
I agree with the comment, but not that it calls "everyone who disagrees with Catholic doctrine a defensive liar." How am I wrong?
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.