Questioning the doctrines of so-called Christian churches is not abuse and when I am told (all the time by the way, what I believe) I don't consider it such. Some of the most intense debating here sometimes goes on between believers of the same denominations. Quoting the bible in defense is "iron sharpening iron", not abuse and is healthy and a way of learning. Getting threads closed or shut-down because someone doesn't like what is posted, is very childish, in my opinion.
Attributing sadistic motives to long-time, and respected posters, especially those who feel they are called to preach the Word, and whom we do not know personally, is in itself highly suspicious of a defect in one's own personality, wouldn't you agree?
Spending too much time online probably can't be constructive to one's physical and mental health anyway, as it might lead to an obsession of sorts. Some people might tend to take some matters a little too seriously. One thing about online posting that I do know from experience, one's posts that they themselves care so much about and are so invested in, can be not even read and quickly dismissed and forgotten.
However, God has promised that when He sends out His Word, it does not return empty-handed. The posters who cite scripture so faithfully and repeatedly, which does tend to antagonize others for reasons we are aware of, are not doing it to abuse anyone, but using it instead of their own opinions and words in fruitful debate.
Amen, silverlings. Most of us want those in other denominations to know the truth about the gospel and get away from church doctrinal errors. Love, Mxxx
well evil is evil, whether interesting to you or not.
never said ti wasn't. Are you saying that I have to drop a field of enquiry that interests and concerns me because you have one that interests and concerns you, or what?
Questioning the doctrines of so-called Christian churches is not abuse and when I am told (all the time by the way, what I believe) I don't consider it such.
I never once, never in my life, have said that questioning what we teach is in itself abuse, I resent any implication that I have so said, and I would cite such an implication as an example of the very abuse with which I am concerned.
What ever you think, if A absolutely and persistently refuses to listen to an account of what B believes, persistently misconstrues what B is saying, calls B a liar, wrenches quotes out of context to tell B that he does not believes what he says he believes, whatever you consider it, I call it abuse. If one responds without explanation "HOGWASH!" to another's statements, if one consistently describes the other's arguments and "denomination" as evasive so that one must either be a fool or scoundrel to remain in the denomination, I'd call it abuse.
Some of the most intense debating here sometimes goes on between believers of the same denominations. Quoting the bible in defense is "iron sharpening iron", not abuse and is healthy and a way of learning.
To me that is not relevant. And your mentioning quoting the Bible indicat4es how little understanding there is of the issue AND how little desire there is to increase understanding.
Further, Iron doesn't sharpen iron by beating on it. It does so by friction in a controlled way. I would say some of you don't understand the image. Quoting the Bible incessantly using the same lengthy selection of verses over and over again has no use that I can see. To those who worship idols, maybe Isaiah's passage about the guy who cooks with some of his wood and worships the rest is useful. To me it's just another way of calling me an idolater. And once that charge is made, what is the good of making it over and over and over again? At the first or second instance of yelling "Idolater" it's understandable. At the twentieth, I look for other reasons for the repetition. And I think I've found 'em.
Getting threads closed or shut-down because someone doesn't like what is posted, is very childish, in my opinion.
If I ever meet anybody who has done that, I'll be sure to tell them what you think. I don't get 'em closed -- never set out to get one closed in my life, but I rejoice when a "Let's abuse the RC's for Christ" thread meets its belated end.
Attributing sadistic motives to long-time, and respected posters, especially those who feel they are called to preach the Word, and whom we do not know personally, is in itself highly suspicious of a defect in one's own personality, wouldn't you agree?
Making uninformed and snarky insinuations certainly leads one to look further for some pathology, wouldn't you agree? Do you want to make insinuations or do you want to converse?
In my religion, a "Feeling" is not a sign of anything, pro or con, good or ill. It is certainly not a justification for anything and most certainly not proof of a call. It's the Calvinists that are all over Total Depravity, and will we now look to our affections for a proof of a call? Or am I misunderstanding you?
But if someone does NOT have a call and takes to himself the admitted purpose of provoking others, engages in perseveration, engages in attention getting behavior, ignores feedback which might be useful -- counting the advice that what he does is painful as a good reason to persist -- yes, such a one I would, after more than a year of such behavior begin to think was manifesting a syndrome.
Leaping ahead of one's data to a conclusion -- like for instance, the absence of a personal acquaintance --also is a mild and common error which MIGHT be considered pathological if it were persisted in. Sometimes it's good to be sure of one's facts.
Spending too much time online probably can't be constructive to one's physical and mental health anyway, as it might lead to an obsession of sorts. Or it might suggest a pre-existing obsession or tendency to obsession.
Some people might tend to take some matters a little too seriously. One thing about online posting that I do know from experience, one's posts that they themselves care so much about and are so invested in, can be not even read and quickly dismissed and forgotten.
No argument there, A little query of relevance, but whatever.
However, God has promised that when He sends out His Word, it does not return empty-handed. The posters who cite scripture so faithfully and repeatedly, which does tend to antagonize others for reasons we are aware of, are not doing it to abuse anyone, but using it instead of their own opinions and words in fruitful debate.
This is an opinion about which we will have to disagree, unless you count my finally realizing that there is a pathology here among some posters a "fruit". I have read Isaiah 55, and portions of it have been a regular part of my prayers for long periods. To me every citation brings with it a question about its aptness to a situation.
Again, IF I worshipped idols, which God forbid, MAYBE the evidently favorite passage would pluck at my conscience. But when it is repeated incessantly and with imperceptible relevance, all it does for me is remind me that someone is SO very sure of his or her beliefs that no amount of evidence to the contrary is even deemed admissible, much less considered. To me it conveys anger and contempt, like someone in a mob yelling a slogan at someone.
If I were to quote to you, "The wicked flee when no one pursues," (Proverbs 28:1a) every time or every other time you said something fonky about Catholics, what would you begin to conclude? Maybe that I thought (as I do NOT) that questioning Catholic beliefs is wicked and that persistent enquiry is somehow tantamount to feeling?
And finally, I'll make this offer: I'll cop to some degree of chauvinism if you will at least consider doing the same.
Here's what I mean. I see you all judging the, say 12th-13th century Church from the vantage point of 700-800 years of development in political thought and in technology. All this bazz-fazz about chaining up Bibles assumes or seems to assume paperback Good News for Modern Man editions were not produced only because nasty old men in Rome didn't want them.
While St. Dominic continued and developed a democratically representative tradition among monks and friars, there wasn't a whole lot of representative government around and not a whole lot of seeing why such might be a good or desirable thing.
Further the nonsense about "control" from Rome suggests to me that people have failed to learn from trying to control their families, or businesses, or political offices, or schools. It's just, I think, the aversion that we who have been brought up in a representative republic after more than 200 years of more or less successful constitutional government - just the aversion all who are so blessed would naturally feel toward an autocracy or aristocracy.
But the problem is that quite intelligent and good people lived for a long time under the system, we abhor, and probably would have thought us crazy, and would have looked at B.J. Clinton and poor Brittany and said, "See there? Told ya!" SO part of the work we all have to do is to get into the head of people who think WAY differently from the way we do, especially if we're going to look down on them from a position of assumed superiority.
In my background and tradition. trying to dope stuff out through "The art which the vulgar call talking" is a good thing. With the limitations of my Episcopalian background, my academic training, and the work, from Parish ministry to chaplaincy to running 100 ewes to law enforcement (and law enforcement chaplaincy) all give me an (oh yeah, and custom software to balance the family budget) an outlook whole limitations I probably don't perceive.
But I tell you. Saying what I think i Hogwash and laughing at it, or quoting for the 45th time some piece of Scripture just is NOT going to get through to me OR give me a good opinion of the benevolence (in the strict sense of the word) or, indeed, the thoughtfulness of the person doing the laughing and quoting.
Have a nice Game
“Questioning the doctrines of so-called Christian churches is not abuse”.
I am not sure what you mean by “so-called” Christian churches. Perhaps you can clarity that category.
I agree—questioning is not abuse. I don’t believe that a thinking person would call questioning abuse—with the proviso that the questioning is a sincere desire to learn something about another’s beliefs, and not just a fulcrum with which to agitate against the other’s beliefs.
“Getting threads closed or shut down because someone doesn’t like what is posted, is childish-—”
I’ve been here since 2002 (I asked for a screenname change) and rarely have I seen it to be the case that someone personally actually had a thread shut down. Some may have wished that a certain thread would come to an end, but I would think that it is quite rare for a thread to be shut down by request of a poster. It seems that they are more often shut down by the Moderator due to the general behavior of all.
As for attributing motives—I have seen so many occasions of that happening on this forum, when the Moderator was either off-duty or on vacation or SOMETHING—and these types of posts often get swept under the radar screen.
It’s all too apparent to me that we all have defects in our personalities. I belong to that unfortunate club along with everyone else. I also think that if someone is called to “preach the word”—if they feel they must on a self-proclaimed discussion/debate forum—then it should at least be done in a way that is not openly offensive (which I would not consider “preaching”)
I agree with everything you wrote in the third full paragraph of this post and could have written it myself.
“The posters who cite Scripture so repeatedly and faithfully...are not doing it to abuse anyone.....but using it instead of their own opinions and words in fruitful debate”.
Heavens, I wish it were so. But many Scriptural quotes are accompanied by demeaning remarks that ARE the poster’s own opinions and words. They come as personal embellishments to the Scipture quotes. That is not part of fruitful debabte.
I don’t understand why you have this embedded in your last paragraph: “....which does tend to antagonize others for reasons we are aware of”.
I don’t understand the inference in that phrase. Who are the “others” who are antagonized? Why do you charge those “others” with being antagonized (by Scripture)? And what are the reasons for the so-called antagonism you mention—the reasons that “we” are aware of?
And who is “we” in that phrase you wrote?
However, God has promised that when He sends out His Word, it does not return empty-handed.
The actual words of Scripture are (after a comparison to rain and snow) -- so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and proser in the thing for which I sent it.
Now, Dr. E. condemns the idea of a priest being in some sense "another Christ", though I can't shake the notion that she won't be giving a coherent explanation of that idea any time soon.
But I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on confusing oneself for God's mouth?
1k silverlings (much of whose conversation I have very much enjoyed lately)is justifying the repetition time and time gain of text after text after text, on the grounds that God's word will not be feckless, but for that to work then the those who post all the excerpts from the Bible and who identify the Bible with God's word, are implying that they are God's mouth. There seems to be a kind of ex opere operato notion of the articulation of parts of Scripture.
Now I, who understand to some extent what it means for a priest to be another Christ, don't have problem with that. I would like to learn how it fits into the thinking of those who do not have a sacramental view of the Church or her members.