Attention Catholic FReepers (OPEN)

6/14/2008 | vanity

[Quix]

The NARROW, RIGID, UNBIBLICAL BLIND irrational DOUBLE STANDARD DUPLICITIES

of some folks . . .

is beyond mind-boggling . . .

[Malacoda]

I’m certainly interested, but with reservations. Several posts above illustrate my concerns.

[Mad Dawg]

I think you post the alternatives tendentiously.

We know that some of the Protestants are interested in "Driving [us] nuts." A number of them are quite good at pretending to exhibit a real interest and then perverting one's answers into an excuse for far more the "scrutiny and attack."

Paul may have made his initial pitch in the synagogues, but when he was rejected he went maybe first to the market place. But he didn't remain there and he didn't advise that his epistles be read in the marketplace or in the presence of enemies.

The topics and level of detail of the Catechism will not get the attention they deserve if we have to deal with cartoons and people who think they've "witnessed" when all they've done is contradict.

[markomalley]

But it would be nice to have discussions of the Catechism where we could dig deeper into the teaching presented.

Well said.

[Running On Empty]

YOu have a point.

And I am already uneasy with the scenario you’ve offered, as I indicated in earlier posts.

[Running On Empty]

PS

A number of the anti-group are also proficient in keeping personal remarks just barely enough under the radar screen to escape notice. I perceive it as a very fine art form.

I have often wondered how it is that those kinds of posts are rarely ever corrected. They are certain to surface in any lively debate.

[Petronski]

I’m interested, I’d hope to take part, and I recommend ecumenical.

[Petronski]

I actually believe that if we are going to post topics of a theological or apologetics nature, that those threads should be able to stand up to scrutiny and attack. St. Paul did not shy away from open discussion.

Serious intellectual attack?

Or "drive them nuts" attacks designed mostly to drive the signal-to-noise ratio into the dirt?

[Petronski]

Secondly, I believe that it is important to reveal the true character of the souls involved. Derision, detraction, calumny reveal the true character of the souls who post such things. It already exists in their hearts. It needs to be laid bare for all to see.

Now here you have a very good point. Sunlight is a superb disinfectant.

[Petronski]

Still thinking about doing these threads OPEN?

I give you posts 19, 20 and 21.

[Salvation]

**And again, bad posting drives out good.**

Wiser words were never said! Thank you!

[ChurtleDawg]

I am interested. I would like to discuss and debate, in a friendly and civil matter, the teachings of the Church.

Also, it would be like a study class of the catcheism.

the best way to debate the evangelicals about Catholicism is to actually know what Catholicism actually teaches.

[Salvation]

With all the remarks from fellow Catholics, it would seen that an Ecumenical thread would be a better choice than an OPEN thread.

On an Ecumenical thread, people can offer the points they disagree with in a congeinial manner, but they may NOT disparage another religion or be antagonistic in their remarks.

Thoughts from all????

Religion Moderator also pinged.

[ChurtleDawg]

sado-evangelicals!

I couldn’t have thought of a better name myself.

[1000 silverlings]

sado-evangelist mob

lol, "so you can come here, don't bring any bibles and don't post them pesky little scriptures, we don't read it anyhow"... is that 'bout right?

[Quix]

Sometimes, it seems like

the

RAISON D’ETRA

for some RC’s

is to mount unbridled hostility at some of us Prottys.

. . .

i.e. after their loyalty, devotion, adoration, veneration and denied worship of the focus of the Order of The White Hanky,

of course.

[Quix]

Sounds like their

RUBBER MATH BOOK

is still the reigning reference book in all the edifice . . .

First a few = 66

now several = a mob.

LOL.

I feel so powerful.

[Petronski]

lol, "so you can come here, don't bring any bibles and don't post them pesky little scriptures, we don't read it anyhow"... is that 'bout right?

It is if you want to engage in a broad smear.

[Mad Dawg]

please do me the honor of checking our my exceedingly humble web site (The “Forum” doesn’t work, because I’m lazy).

http://www.rockhousefarm.com/vfsewhat.shtml

[OpusatFR]

“But it would be nice to have discussions of the Catechism where we could dig deeper into the teaching presented.”

Definitely. There are deeper theological aspects that I would like to discuss and understand better without the kneejerk stock phraseology.