So what. Is beating someone making you "right"?
I know, and you’re right.
Jim’s post is clear and concise.
I’m bailing now and hope I’m not pinged.
I find it interesting that what JRob was talking about would be obvious to anyone who has spent time perusing threads on the religion forum. As I mentioned upthread, there's a reason I rarely post on the religion forum. I also find it interesting that some of the more egregious posters to whom this could apply are wandering about on this thread trying to convince us that they are not the guilty parties. And pretending that they don't understand English. You begin to recognize the names after a while...
I am amused by those here who keep poking the lion to see if he is sleeping. The lion must have more patience than I for I would have toasted several by now because stupidity should hurt, but as I write this it hasn't happened. Yet. Status could have changed by the time I get off the soapbox..
Some years ago I authored a 'devotional' - for want of a better word - titled 'Foundations' (no it's not on my profile page. If you're really interested in what kind of heretic I am, FReepmail me for a copy. Typos and all.) that among other things discussed what foundation we as Christians build our faith on. (I know some will hop in here with a bunch of different answers, but refrain yourselves and follow the line of thought..) When you go back in Church history you find that there was not a church structure with all sorts of rules, traditions, and all that. Why, they didn't even have a King Jimmy Bible, contrary to the thoughts of those that think 1611 KJV is the only true inspired Word of God. They did have a source of reference though. When you look into the Book of Acts and get to around chapter 17 you find some guys named Paul and Silas (if you have read the Bible you know who they are, if not - look it up) stopping in a town called Berea (not the one near Cleveland) where they shared the gospel with those there. The Bereans did not blindly accept what they were being told. They had a foundational source and referred to it. In verse 11 we are given the example that we all should fall back on - it says they "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
So here's the point. Paul and Si didn't blow into town and call everyone heathen. Or talk about their sacrifices. Or call them slaves of the great whore. Or anything like that. They presented the gospel. Paul could have appealed to his authority as an Apostle. He didn't. The Berean's checked their foundational source. Some believed, some didn't.
So today, it's ok to disagree with another Christian's viewpoint. When you do you'd best have a good foundation. It's not ok to to make a blanket pronouncement (you've heard them - sounds something like 'all Catholics go to hell' - and yes that is taught in some circles) which is no more true than saying 'all Baptists go to Heaven'.
I have been involved with a ministry for over ten years now and my partner is (gasp) a Roman Catholic. Over the years we have had many theological discussions. We are in total agreement on almost everything, and on some of those items that cause Catholic bashers to gnash their teeth, her reply almost invariably is 'Well, it's not in the Bible'..
It's only marginally germain to the discussion but my official church membership is in a Presbyterian church. For a long time that congregation was affiliated with the PC-USA (again, if that doesn't ring a bell, look it up) in one of the most liberal Presbyteries within the PC-USA (it has since left PC-USA for a more conservative and Biblical body). You need to know that without a shadow of a doubt, I have more in common with my RC partner who knows Jesus than with almost the entire Hudson River Presbytery of the PC-USA. Period.
Maybe those with a need to bash and contend for the faith and beat someone with their 97 pound Scofield should also take a look at the PC-USA. Or the ELCA. Or the United Church of Christ. Or the Episcopals. You should be catching on.. ;-)
Steps down from soapbox..