I'm starting to get the idea that our respective definitions of "plain meaning" are worlds apart.To which I offer a hearty, "Amen, yeah, howdy!"
Finally, for a moment, someone gets it! We are very far apart in our weltanschaaungen. Yes. Very Very far apart.
To return to my artillery duel metaphor, we are so far apart that we can't tell if our shots hit their targets. But a difference between this and an artillery duel is that artillery folks, send out spotters, get information on the relationship between where shell landed and where the target is, and make corrections. Here however most participants just fire random shells and then get accuse the target of cheating when it doesn’t blow up.
And evidently some think that by firing lots of shell they are pleasing God and being obedient to their call, whether or not they hit the target. In related news, the_conscience saith: in post 881
I guess we can all shut off our computers and the debates are over since neither of us can know anything about the other., and earlier:
[I guess it got pulled - it was in a post that described me as "nauseating, as I recall. Anyway it was a response to my assertion of the syllogistic impossibility that if someone makes a statement about every member of a class, the expectation around here seems to be that the members of the class should not view that statement as being about them. I BELIEVE that the response was a complaint to the effect that if one could not make disparaging personal remarks about a class of people then we could not have a conversation on these matters.]For adumbration of how easily one falls into personal attacks we have in Post 556
Romanists prefer playing in the shadows which satisfies their idolatrous nature.and in post 280
***Who’d be dopey enough to believe that?***And in post 288Ask MarkBsnr.
Then I pointed you to the one “dopey enough”.So what is that? The first post is a group mind-reading, the implication of which is that individual "Romanists" such as, say MarkBsnr, prefer playing in the shadows. The other two comprise directly calling a poster "dopey".
Personally, I don’t think we have to characterize the members of one another’s groups as dopey (or as anything else) to learn about one another. It IS possible to express the criticism of one another’s beliefs without making even general personalization.
Are we really to believe that calling a particular person “dopey enough” or saying a whole group of people have or want martyr complexes is going to help us know more about each other. Is it? Isn’t there another way that is likely to be more fruitful? Isn’t there a way which would ensure that subsequent “artillery duels” would have a higher percentage of actual hits?
In my exile I have had the salutary experience of watching the posts go by. And it is simply astonishing not only how little our thinking is understood, but how those who misunderstand seem to prefer not understanding the enemy (for such they think we are) to knowing the truth about us.
I think there is another way. I think it would involve not the intentional goading of others until they come around to one’s point of view but rather probing, patient, and intelligent questioning, questioning intelligent enough to deal with Forest Keeper’s perception of two groups with two very different “plain meanings” for a particular text.
It seems to me that once one sees that we are so very far apart that it seems that we don't even agree on the plain meaning of "something", then the whole paternalistic provocation to which Quix admitted, not only to no consequence, but to the acclaim of his co-religionists, in post 410 has got to be seen as worse than useless.
For those who came in late, here it is: a clear unabashed declaration of intent to provoke:
What loving purpose can my fiesty fierce provocative postings serve?It might be useful and it might generate less heat than light if we tried to understand one another’s POV, rather than intentionally provoke them. Now that may be viewed as trying to make the RF "ecumenic", but I'm kind of wishing it would just be less disgraceful.
At least let the charges you all levy at us have some discernible relationship to the facts.
But, I really honestly believe, and Quix's #410 cited above confirms me in this opinion, that there are some here who intend insult and bad-feeling – all for our own good, of course.
Consider this, please: At Mass on Monday, before the service I was talking with a brother, who is doing advanced degree work in Patristics. I mentioned the new "diagnosis" of “Sado-Evangelism” to him, and he just shook his head, and then laughed ruefully.
Why do you suppose he reacted like that? Why the rueful laugh? I didn't have to give him any details. I just mentioned the coined word. It certainly resonated with him. As we chatted we began to share experiences of people showing that they assume that we don't know zip about the Bible, that we, well, do all the things we are accused of here, and, especially of people seeming to get a pleasure out of behaving in a condescending, insulting, impolite, aggressive, controlling manner, seeming to use “Evangelism” as a cover to hurt and control people.
You can say it as often as you like, and that seems to be pretty often, but I don’t worship our nice icon of Dominic or our tacky statue of Mary. I just don’t. You can say it 10,000 times and it won’t be any truer than it is now.
But, evidently the “provocation camp” is content to make accusations of us that we simply do not recognize, because somehow it’s good to upset us. Breaking the noses off statues in Anglican Churches won’t heal the wounds in hearts. But the evidently some think that spiritual warfare and healing is best carried out by destroying the beautiful.
So I think that Forest Keeper's highly useful comment will probably do no good. To establish some kind of meaningful communication -- even if only as a means which some Protestants might use to argue more persuasively about how very wrong we are -- seems to be a goal too few people would embrace. Much more fun just to keep on provoking.
So the Prots will continue to tell us what we think and do, and we will continue to deny it, and threads will become heated and some will be closed.
Whom that is supposed to serve or glorify is completely escapes me.
And yes, I quite seriously think that some of the posters here have serious "issues" such as I have described. I think trying to excuse a non-stop barrage of intentionally offensive posts on the grounds that it might save souls is, at the very kindest, eccentric.
I will be putting up a moderated forum on the topic of S-E within 10 or so days. I'm going to be gathering anecdotes from people who have been targeted by people claiming to be presenting the Gospel of Christ, especially those who explicitly or implicitly say that they are being intentionally cruel for the sake of our souls, and trying to classify and organize them and then I’m going to run the observations by some pros I know.
Mad Dawg, my conscience prohibits me from responding to all your contentions on the Lord's Day but I will leave some Scripture upon which we can all ponder.
Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves. You lust for what you don't have and are willing to kill to get it. You want what isn't yours and will risk violence to get your hands on it.You wouldn't think of just asking God for it, would you? And why not? Because you know you'd be asking for what you have no right to. You're spoiled children, each wanting your own way.
You're cheating on God. If all you want is your own way, flirting with the world every chance you get, you end up enemies of God and his way. And do you suppose God doesn't care? The proverb has it that "he's a fiercely jealous lover." And what he gives in love is far better than anything else you'll find. It's common knowledge that "God goes against the willful proud; God gives grace to the willing humble."
So let God work his will in you. Yell a loud no to the Devil and watch him scamper. Say a quiet yes to God and he'll be there in no time. Quit dabbling in sin. Purify your inner life. Quit playing the field. Hit bottom, and cry your eyes out. The fun and games are over. Get serious, really serious. Get down on your knees before the Master; it's the only way you'll get on your feet.
Don't bad-mouth each other, friends. It's God's Word, his Message, his Royal Rule, that takes a beating in that kind of talk. You're supposed to be honoring the Message, not writing graffiti all over it. God is in charge of deciding human destiny. Who do you think you are to meddle in the destiny of others?
Nicely said.
Bravo.
Did you ping Quix, seeing as you used his name in your thread?
well you will have no way of knowing if these "anecdotes" are real or not. There are plenty of us who have suffered real injury as children at the hands of Catholic school teachers and I'm one of them. Not being Catholic at a Catholic school was no picnic, believe me.
I also have friends in HongKong who were beaten with bamboo canes for being Chinese and Buddhist, but their parents sent them to private Catholic schools for the English. I don't know where you want to draw the line.
Your presumed "abuse" on these threads is mostly your imagination. Having survived really abusive threads re other subjects, I do know what I'm talking about. Some here, even the owner of the site, is skewered on a daily basis on other websites, subjected to the most repulsive and often obscene ridicule.
Starting a thread on supposed psychological disorders of posters I contend, is akin to what happens on these other sites and is character defamation, isn't it?
Then I suggest you post your thread about your self-titled term, S-E ("sado-evangelism") in Chat, because it certainly doesn't belong on the Religion Forum.
Time-off is for letting go and putting aside, MD. Holding on to resentments and anger isn't healthy or productive.
Mass on Monday, before the service I was talking with a brother, who is doing advanced degree work in Patristics. I mentioned the new "diagnosis" of "Sado-Evangelism" to him, and he just shook his head, and then laughed ruefully. Why do you suppose he reacted like that?
Since you're asking for an opinion, then I think your friend was probably thinking you were being awfully defensive about something and that your attempted humor in coining the term "sado-evangelism" was pretty sick, and that finally you'd be much better off "letting go" and doing as Peter instructed us...
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." -- 1 Peter 3:15
Or perhaps your friend was thinking of Paul's advice...
(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)" -- 2 Corinthians 6:1-2"We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
Quick-tempered leaders are like mad dogs— cross them and they bite your head off.
Don't eavesdrop on the conversation of others. What if the gossip's about you and you'd rather not hear it? You've done that a few times, haven't you—said things Behind someone's back you wouldn't say to his face?
Why do you feel the necessity to carry water for MarkBsnr? He seems like a intelligent enough person to handle his own affairs. If he felt slighted in some way he could have responded directly to me. Are you the den mother for the Romanists? Mark threw some bombs my way as well yet your scales seem to be rigged when it comes to finding fault. Did I waste Megabytes of webspace to whine about a perceived fault? No. When my comment was called a joke I made a joke.
Be especially careful when you are trying to be good so that you don't make a performance out of it. It might be good theater, but the God who made you won't be applauding. 2-4"When you do something for someone else, don't call attention to yourself. You've seen them in action, I'm sure—'playactors' I call them— treating prayer meeting and street corner alike as a stage, acting compassionate as long as someone is watching, playing to the crowds. They get applause, true, but that's all they get. When you help someone out, don't think about how it looks. Just do it—quietly and unobtrusively. That is the way your God, who conceived you in love, working behind the scenes, helps you out.
The other two comprise directly calling a poster "dopey".
The "dopey" comment was brought up by another Romanist and I merely used his terminology but you already knew that, right? Acknowledging that would not help your case so you think it wise to slander me through omission.
When you see God reach out to those you consider your inferiors—outsiders!— you'll become insanely jealous. When you see God reach out to people you think are religiously stupid, you'll throw temper tantrums. Isaiah dared to speak out these words of God: People found and welcomed me who never so much as looked for me. And I found and welcomed people who had never even asked about me. Then he capped it with a damning indictment: Day after day after day, I beckoned Israel with open arms, And got nothing for my trouble but cold shoulders and icy stares.
In my exile I have had the salutary experience of watching the posts go by. And it is simply astonishing not only how little our thinking is understood, but how those who misunderstand seem to prefer not understanding the enemy (for such they think we are) to knowing the truth about us.
Yes, we understand your position. Any criticism of Romanism is wrong and no one outside of Romanism can really understand all her subtle nuances, even trained ministers. Romanists never engage in polemics against protestants and always understand Protestantism completely. "Heal thyself".
Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor.
And yes, I quite seriously think that some of the posters here have serious "issues" such as I have described.
Your continual portrayal of person(s) on this forum as mentally unstable is disgusting. I believe a public apology is in order.
God, they murdered your prophets, They trashed your altars; I'm the only one left and now they're after me! And do you remember God's answer? I still have seven thousand who haven't quit, Seven thousand who are loyal to the finish. It's the same today. There's a fiercely loyal minority still—not many, perhaps, but probably more than you think. They're holding on, not because of what they think they're going to get out of it, but because they're convinced of God's grace and purpose in choosing them. If they were only thinking of their own immediate self-interest, they would have left long ago.
I mentioned the new "diagnosis" of “Sado-Evangelism” to him, and he just shook his head, and then laughed ruefully....I will be putting up a moderated forum on the topic of S-E within 10 or so days. I'm going to be gathering anecdotes from people who have been targeted by people claiming to be presenting the Gospel of Christ, especially those who explicitly or implicitly say that they are being intentionally cruel for the sake of our souls, and trying to classify and organize them and then I’m going to run the observations by some pros I know.
I'm sure you'll all have a great time in the echo chamber. No doubt the Jews of old held similar forums discussing those nasty prophets. Evangelism will always be sadistic because it cuts to the bone and heart of the natural man. He cannot help but feel offended because his pride is crushed by his sinfulness. Then the natural man will either fall to his knees or "kick against the goad". Here's my sophisticated evangelical methodology.
1. Speak the truth.
2. Let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
Here's the message
Repent: Throw away the idols and superstitions of Rome.
Believe:
REST IN CHRIST ALONE
REST IN CHRIST ALONE
REST IN CHRIST ALONE
Believe that Christ, not only paid for your sins, but also is your perfect righteousness.
I repeat, I don't get it. And I'd guess that if it's too bad to say on Sunday, it's probably not going to be good enough to say on any other day.
Yes, I know. The Regulative Principle of Worship says that only God can determine true worship through his special revelation and all the manmade additions of Rome are an abomination to God. Part of the RPW is to rest from our work on the Sabbath and enjoy God. It has nothing to do with whether it was "good" or "bad" to say on the Sabbath.
Yes, on many issues there is no common frame of reference. The speaker frames the position of the other side on the speaker's own terms. That has certainly been done to me, and I freely admit that I have done it to others. I think we can all do better to intellectually understand the other side, but to really "get it" may take something more than any of us have to give. :)
In my exile I have had the salutary experience of watching the posts go by. And it is simply astonishing not only how little our thinking is understood, but how those who misunderstand seem to prefer not understanding the enemy (for such they think we are) to knowing the truth about us.
Well, I think it would be fair to say that goes on from all sides. After all, for almost all of us our faith is the most personal part of our being. It's interesting, when someone from my church witnesses to a non-believer, one of the conversation-starting questions that is suggested to us is to ask the person: "If it was true that most of your views about God were incorrect, would you want to know"? One possible answer would be "No, that's not possible because I know there is no God". But the question is obviously designed to catch a fair and open-minded person who might say "Sure, I would want to know". He might well be receptive to hearing the truth. He still might not become a believer, but we can never ask for more from the person than an open mind, as far as witnessing goes.
Now, if FR Christians asked EACH OTHER the same type of question, I wonder how many would give an answer more like the first answer (above) or the second. :) Probably more so like the first. However, to me this is very understandable. All of us have very positive and definite beliefs IN SOMETHING. Many around here have years and decades invested. I think it is very normal and natural for us to want to protect that investment. (Many non-believers start with "nothing" so they have nothing to protect.) So, maybe every side could slide a little slack to the others because of this.
You can say it as often as you like, and that seems to be pretty often, but I don’t worship our nice icon of Dominic or our tacky statue of Mary. I just don’t. You can say it 10,000 times and it won’t be any truer than it is now.
I appreciate what you're saying and I can MORE than identify with it. :) One of many examples would be the Apostolic claim I have heard 10,000 times that we have 33,000 denominations. It must go back to our respective sides having very different ideas about what "worship" is and what "denominations" are.
Of course that passions and sensitivities have been provoked by and against all sides is no excuse for any of it. I am no less guilty than anyone else. One thing we can all do is just to recognize that the other guy (whom we honestly believe to be wrong) is just as passionate about his position as we are about ours. Everyone has his kryptonite. There are some subjects that really do make me angry, while at the same time those same subjects do not particularly provoke others of a like mind to mine. I need to work on getting those subjects down to a minimum, and then eventually eliminating them altogether, by God's grace. I also need to work on recognizing the other guy's sore spots and then try harder not to pour salt in the wound.