Posted on 01/13/2012 10:31:42 AM PST by RnMomof7
But what if those supposed facts are in error and we posot the Catholic links that prove it is in error?
You do not have to accept Dr. Eckleburg's statements as truth. You can quote her, dispute her statements, explain what you think she believes and so on.
But what you and every other RF poster must do to avoid flame wars is: discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
To turn the tables, if someone had said to you that "you disagree with it because you believe" I would be having this conversation with him.
He sounds like a public school teacher.
There can be no error when posting on Catholic faith and practice. No posts about the Catholic faith are to be taken as being what a person believes or opines regarding the Church.
No one has their own opinions or beliefs, they now all have their own facts and posts are to be treated as such.
Where it ends, what we see happening here is from Church to churches to splits on splits to ever smaller, fragmented, heterodox churches to, finally, the individual as 'church.'
I.e., inexorably to unchurched.
But what sound people (Protestants) post are not facts. What are we to do then?
Can we ask them for the source of their information? Why they might believe this about the Catholic Church? Was that information passed to them through a pamplet or a preacher? How do they know the preacher was a valid preacher and really knew the Scriptures? Or was the preacher using sola scriptura and voicing his own opinion?
Objective truth appears to have no place on a conservative website. How odd.
“But what you and every other RF poster must do to avoid flame wars is...”
Tell the truth? Objectively speaking that is.
All that I have required is that RF posters separate the message from the messenger, i.e. "discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal."
People can hold beliefs - even false ones - deeply and in good conscience. Ad hominems incite flame wars in religious debate.
“People can hold beliefs - even false ones - deeply and in good conscience.”
Of course, but FACTS are objective.
People are entitled to their own opinions - but not their own facts, except apparently here.
I’m chuckling to myself, for couldn’t this lead to a “FALSEHOOD” caucus?
Let’s assume that somebody writes.
“Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.”
and I write.
“Blasphemy!”
And they write. “You don’t agree with that theory because you believe it is blasphemy.”
I would 100 percent agree that the reason I disagree with the statement is because I believe it is blasphemy. They did not read my mind. They did not attribute motive. They made no false claims against me.
It is my belief. They certainly can challenge that belief. But if we leave out it being a question of belief and can offer no other reason we are left with
“That theory is blasphemy” See no mention of belief, no mention of why I disagree. Personally acknowledged reasons have given way to public statement of fact.
It would be exhausting and nonsensical to always respond to clear statements of belief with,
“I may be misktaken, but it seems by what you wrote that perhaps you are of the opinion that such a practice/theory may be blasphemous if one regards it in a certain light. Am I correct in thinking this?
I guess I could just always just put a question mark on the end of their own statement and let them provide the answer.
This is blasphemy! You believe this is blasphemy? Yes. Yes? Yes it is blasphemy. Yes it is blasphemy? It is blasphemy! It is blasphemy?
That could be a labyrinth from which we would never emerge.
I honestly would like to know what word besides believes conveys a strong opinion especially one based on religious faith and doctrine?
Oh and I sure as heck was not trying to start a flame war. I am a rank amateur in that matter as can be evidenced by the many flames thrown by other not to be named posters here.
“Their priests rape them and their parents do not protect them.”
That is not a flame war toss?
“Ad hominems incite flame wars in religious debate.”
So do outright lies about the official and verifiable teachings of a religion. So for example, if I posted claims from the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a known forgery and claimed that they were actual teachings of Judaism, that would be objectively false. I am assuming that your guidelines would allow that kind of rabid antisemitism here?
“Unfortunately, a lot of what people call “truth” and “fact” are highly subjective.”
When an objective reality exists - such as the published teachings of the Church, that argument no longer has any weight. See my point about antisemitic polemics above.
And likewise, many posters here in good conscience would say that statement is an abominable lie and would offer evidence to support it.
It is not an objective fact like "2+2=4" and I will not arbitrate between the sides.
We only think we know what somebody believes based on them posting their very strong opinion on a matter.
What a rank assumption on our part. They could just be having a go at us.
Fair enough, but if they claimed that:
“Catholics worship Mary because that is the official teaching of the Church”, your position fails.
Will you allow antisemites to post the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, or claims of a similar nature here?
To many here, the published teachings of the Church are dispositive. To many others here, they are not dispositive.
Could I write to that poster. “You believe Catholics worship Mary.” or would I have to write “I think you might believe that Catholics worship Mary?”
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.