Notice: The daily sport of posting Catholic bashing threads on FR stops today. Thanks.

July 19, 2014 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

That's not the purpose of FR and not the purpose of our Religion forum. Trashing religion is not debate.

Those who cannot live with this are welcome to post elsewhere.

[NoCmpromiz]

Hi Madera, CA!

[verga]

Gloating no, stating facts yes.

BTW suggesting I was gloating sounds a lot like mind reading.

[Tax-chick]

*kiss*

[DJ MacWoW]

Smugly pointing it out is rhetoric with the purpose to inflame. Is that something Christ would do or do you simply enjoy inciting? I thought that was what this thread was about?

[daniel1212]

Unfortunately religious bigots have been allowed to over the place and most of the people that made it what it once was either got the ZOT or just left on their on. It will never again be what it once was because of that single thing!

That kind of thing was almost entirely due to RCs turning FR into an information, advertising and apologetics service, which incited Prot reproffs, and finally one decided to post a series of counter articles in response. I remember the emails.

Take away the papal promotions and you would see few Prot posts, while take away the Prots and you would open the flood gates for more RC propaganda. .

[verga]

I simply stated facts, deal with it.

[onyx]

Thank you so much for asking about the 300 Club.
God bless you “cool guy”!
:)

[xzins]

Obviously, my pushing this change on the religion forum isn’t accepted by some on FR, but it is still the right thing to have done. You KNOW that you don’t act that way in real life.

[MNDude]

Why can’t everyone just be excited about your their faith instead of bashing others?

If your Catholic, celebrate your saints. If your Lutheran, celebrate your Little catechism. If you’re reform church celebrate your tulip.

[wmfights]

At last count 4 of the loudest anti-Catholics had been banned/suspended. That is a fact, not rhetoric.

Do you have a list?

[Springfield Reformer]

I am grateful you attempted a definition of "bashing." However, it is hopelessly subjective. That is the core of our objection to it. For example, theologically conservative evangelicals cannot process that genuflecting to a wafer in a monstrance isn't idolatry. I would argue we are right to have that disability, that it is the correct way to view the situation. We know full well the charge is denied. We simply can't get past the objective fact that the wafer is underserving of worship, no matter what rationalizations are offered, up to and including Aquinas.

Obviously, the RC who is accustomed to this practice lives immersed within what we consider a rationalization, and no doubt thinks we are just being willfully obstinate by insisting they are doing something wrong.

So I get how difficult it is to have these kinds of conversations.

Which is precisely why it is going to be so very difficult to come up with objective criteria for what is "bashing." I think the term is useless. It's root sense is simply to criticize something. As in critical thinking. If you have any personal beliefs about the matter, you cannot compare the Roman version of the Gospel with the evangelical version without critiquing the differences. If truth matters, those differences matter.

So a narrower definition must be sought. I've been struggling with this. I agree that an endless stream of criticism, even if done dispassionately and with the best intentions, may not be the best way to "win friends and influence people." So I'm thinking that a more judicious use of the forum, combined with keeping the tone as friendly as possible, is probably closer to the ideal being sought. But this "definition" is a work in progress. I don't really know if I'm on target or not. Just making my best guess so far.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

You can tell the anti-Catholics by the words they use. You quoted some there. Add Papists to it. Also add RCC There are many Catholic Churches, not just the Latin rite.

Objecting to RCC is simply another example of the hypersensitivity of the perpetually offended. RCC saves typing, which for my stiff pick and peck fingers is far easier, and often makes a necessary distinction btwn RC and EOs.

Of course some RCs deny EOs are Catholic.

[onyx]

God bless you always, dear, sweet Black Elk.

[stanne]

Here’s where the rub comes in: you say, ‘here the rub comes in is that non-Catholics, correctly, I believe, perceive that the Catholic Church believes it is the...’ Bla bla bla

What people ‘perceive’ the Church is... Bla bla

So many of you do this

You go right from ‘what we perceive’ to ‘some passive aggressive, ‘oh it’s not that Catholics are wrong’ bla bla bla bla

Is it your perception? Or is it the tenet of the church? Which is it

You think we’re going to accept that both is the case when you won’t even go so far as to say ‘our perception of the Catholic Church is what the Catholic Church is’

If you think that the Church should as you say want whatever then why don’t you starts a Church and do that?

If you or any other arguer against what the Church would be or do or say or want or look like or be perceived as want to argue against the Church then why don’t you just pick up the catechism and find the heck out just what the church says about it? And leave me out of your weird passive aggressive search to put down the Church

Jim rob wants the bashing to stop. I think it can’t. You won’t stop it

Stop

[DJ MacWoW]

No. You ENJOYED “stating facts”. So where’s your heart?

[johniegrad]

You banned Rnmomof7 ... Praise god, Jim. The single most vile religion poster on FreeRepublic. Outstanding work!!

[metmom]

It goes both ways.

[DJ MacWoW]

Johnny does it too!!!!

[Tax-chick]

“... but it is still the right thing to have done.”

Yes, it is, Chaplain. All indications are that it’s going to get very ugly out there very soon. If we can’t stop attacking - as opposed to disagreeing with - one another, then we have no force to fight our enemies.

[Honorary Serb]

You’re right!