Posted on 12/18/2010 6:01:48 PM PST by Gamecock
bmp
You deserve more than just a deletion of your reply for this, you deserve a zot. In my opinion, of course.
Yet I do not consider this anywhere near as offensive as what John MacArthur says about Catholics and the Catholic Church. It speaks to the anti-Catholic "Church lady" mentality that certain words are considered worse than hatred and slander gently spoken. What a strange and pitiful code of conduct.
MacArthur is a lightweight, not a scholar but just a pompous windbag. He played football in college and apparently got hit on the head too many times...then went to that great high institute of learning “Talbot” and got some kind of PhD....I guess he saw his dad, a fundamentalist preacher made a pretty easy living so went that route. Of course he has that kind of Baptist testimony you often hear - “ I was a drunkard, a derelict, didn’t care ...then I met Christ....blah, blah, blah...”
He has flipped and flopped over the years on many things. He started out KJV only, then switched. He taught Christ was not the ETERNAL Son of God - in his first NT commentary on Hebrews and then “whoops” he changed his mind. He taught we are and are not saved by the blood of Christ.
Finally, he became a sort of near Calvinist....4.5 points or so....Many Calvinists disown him. However, one cannot tell if he is supra-lapsarian, infra-lapsarian, or what.
He is extremely confused on salvation. He wrote books on so-called “Lordship Salvation” that pleased some Calvinists, and also alarmed many. Fundamentalists disowned him - Charles Ryrie and others wrote rebuttals on this. Trinity Foundation wrote a three part essay on what a heretic he was for he cannot even define Faith...as assent to propositions understood and believed or where/if/how works relate to Faith
He is the champion of coming up with confusing phrases about faith - saving, weak, strong, temporary, lasting, etc....He radically separates justification and sanctification so being “saved” is a momentary act, salvation is a long, long process...and we judge how that is going to determine if the momentary “act” of justification was “real” or not...He can’t get a grip on assurance and he isn’t sure who outside his little cult of Grace Community Church measures up.
MacArthur thinks the church is “invisible” and not an institution, yet his ecclesiastical community appoints “Elders” and tries to enforce discipline, rules, etc.
I think I heard Robert Sungenis mop the floor with MacArthur once....the guy is just confused.
I’ve seen the concept of a “town square” debate format explained to you before, Natural Law. There are people who disagree profoundly with certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, just as there are Roman Catholics who disagree profoundly with Protestants or any Christian group outside their church.
I assume you support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We have the right to free speech and freedom of religion. That freedom includes criticisms of those with which you, or I, disagree. This forum appears to me to be very carefully set up to protect and allow both, via the simple choice of determining whether it’s open/town square, caucus, devotional, ecumenical, etcetera.
But, foul language is prohibited, period. That short paragraph was over a quarter potty language or curse words. Individuals who cannot express themselves without the use of such really don’t belong on the RF and likely not even on FR, imho.
You’re certainly free to disagree, but facts are facts.
I see that Mac Arthur brings out the best in the Catholics.
I suppose it comes down to your sensibilities. Some are calloused to the language that demean the soul, but are hung up on words that demean the body.
I do support the Constitution and Bill of Rights and know that no one a right to not be offended. As a former combat infantryman I am not offended by strong language and expletives but I am offended by blasphemy. I also know the definition of profane and profanity and it has nothing to do with four letter words. I don't have a right to not be offended, but neither do those who don't have thick enough skin to handle rough language.
But he brings out the very worst in anti-Catholics. InternetTuffGuy said he has no religion (doesn't that make him a Calvinist?). Nowhere in his posts or posting history does he state, or imply he is a Catholic, but the prejudices of the anti-Catholics prohibit them from reading critically and the assume the worst. How typical.
Leave the thread.
Your tagline says what? Lol
I reckon he gets just a wee bit too close to the truth.
I’d rather not be subjected to foul language, but I certainly am, almost daily. It’s all but unavoidable in popular music and entertainment, not to mention normal daily discourse.
The site sets the rules in this regard, though, despite the obvious effort to accomodate a diversity of religious views.
Maybe there are those who would prefer a Religion Forum filled with four letter words but no criticism of one’s own church allowed. Maybe such individuals can found a site with a religion forum organized in that manner, but I suspect it won’t attract much of a following.
This one obviously isn’t organized in that manner. I deal with it reasonably well, as do most, on either side of the recurring debate over the role of Mary in Christianity. Some on your side appear to double down and become much more vocal regarding Mariology.
Hopefully there are others who understand that the concern and even alarm is scripturally based, and who will practice a more restrained form of veneration for her. She is certainly deserving, but in some quarters at least, this veneration has veered into worship, and Mary appears to be rising to something she was not ever intended to be.
On either end of the scale, you encounter rhetorical bomb-throwers. The author of the article that is the subject of this thread would seem to fit that categorization.
Ping for tomorrow
Except the one who crossed the line was, by his/her own confession, one with no religion at all. Funny how so many anti-Catholics assumed him/her to be a Catholic because he found an anti-Catholic posting to be destructive to unity in the face of common enemies.
Well, the peculiar thing here is that just about every admitted agnostic or atheist who participates on an ongoing basis engages in apologetics for the Roman Catholic Church.
Have you ever wondered why? It’s puzzled me since I began participating myself, years ago. The particular, now-deleted outburst under discussion certainly did little to undermine that perception, and so the mistake is perhaps understandable.
Common sense and common decency are a stunning contrast to baldfaced anti-Catholic biases.
Haven’t been on it since, Jack.
Won’t be back.
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.