Posted on 01/03/2010 10:30:30 PM PST by Gamecock
Claiming “Presbyterianism is fractured” is an insult?
Typical.
You said: Do you actually think what's in the article is more important than the oh so provacative title? The article could be about different styles of pews in Catholic and Presbyterian churches and it wouldn't change the content of the thread one bit.
Actually, yes, I think what is IN the article is much more important than the title. If we can't get past a title that may prick the flesh a little, then how in the world can we have a decent discussion about it. Are you here to discuss titles or the meat of articles? If the titles, then what really is the difference between FR and Twitter?
Personally, I think the title is appropriate for the context in which it was written and it gives some good statements that could generate some good, enlightening discussion if people would not so easily get their shorts in a wad over a title, or use it as an excuse to springboard into their favorite discussion area. IN that respect then, I agree that it could be about pews or whatever and there would be many tangents followed.
Sad to say that is the way most forums are. FR is often an exception in that at least once upon a time, it could get past that. Maybe it is selective memory on my part, but it used to be on FR, that even though the tangents are posted with the normal rantings on both sides, at least there would be some meaty discussion going along in the midst where one could actually learn something. To be honest, I don't read much of these threads anymore because it quickly resorts to name-calling and ad-hominens, or lately, ways to be politically correct according to the moderator's rules and still be name-calling and ad-hominens.
That is why I usually just read the article and maybe skim through some posts looking for certain names that I know who will hold decent discussions (either side of many issues). But those people post less and less. :(
There is no truth value in epithets, stating simply that a group is ‘fractured,’ particularly when it is not the whole truth to so state.
"Fractured" is the truth, and even if they all do adhere to the confession, as you claim, it hasn't done much good for unity of belief. From the posted article:
You must be new here, eh? Back in the day, those were all the rage. We even called one such thread the neverending story. Aptly named because these discussions will go on until the end of time.
Which versions for each?
The title IS the problem.
By its very nature the term "versus" presumes that one side will win and the other will lose. Why SHOULDN'T that be discussed?
Sad to say that is the way most forums are. FR is often an exception in that at least once upon a time, it could get past that.
Regarding anti-Catholicism? I doubt it.
If all Presbyterian denominations adhered to the Westminster Confession then there wouldn’t be any noticable difference between them.
I never made the claim that any of the Presbyterian churches are the "one true church."
esquirette WROTE:
All of those Presbyterian groups respect and adhere to the Westminster Confession, just as all the RC groups adhere to and respect the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
verdadjusticia ANSWERS:
A catechism contains very basic material for the neophyte. They are published by private companies and can contain errors. Catechisms are not infallible, by itself it is useless without a final authority.
The difference in “adherence” to doctrines between Catholicism and so-called Protestantism, is that Protestants can and do CHANGE (don’t adhere for very long) what they “adhere” to. Catholics can’t change doctrines, they have not changed doctrines in 2000. Once the Catholic church has decided on a matter infallible, there is no change.
Haven’t time for the thread but this seems to me to be a very judicious and fair article — except for the part where it neglects to say that I’m right. My wife often neglects to do that too, so I”m figuring it’s part of the human condition.
It’s too bad we’re unable or unwilling to discuss articles like this without the fur flying.
Thanks for posting it.
I'm sure some believe George was infallible when he spoke of Calvin.
I think it's great that the Presbyterians are "Christian", however, they are simply a denomination that came along apprx 1,500 years after Christ had already founded his Church.
You must be new here, eh? Back in the day, those were all the rage. We even called one such thread the neverending story. Aptly named because these discussions will go on until the end of time.
You can not discuss the founding of America That thread was the genesis of the religion forum.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
without understanding the influence of the Bible and Calvin.
Catholics, live with it, and learn from the questions and arguments thrown at you, don't loose your temper just because you don't have the answer. God has put these people in front of you so that you are forced to learn your faith better.
oops.. sorry about the double post. Don’t know how that happened.
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.