Our Lady’s Gentle Call to Peace

Coming Home Network ^ | Joan Tussing

[magisterium]

Your pro-forma denial runs counter to the evidence I referenced for any reasonable observer. Your posts that I cited (and others since then) are just snarky. They do not substantively address this thread, they just mock what you no-doubt wrap up as "Romanism." I assume you can understand your own writing? Good. Then I suggest you go back to the referenced posts, and objectively read them. You could not possibly do that and take your own rebuttal - to which I am responding here - seriously.

The entire point to Judith Anne's thread from last weekend (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1997474/posts ) was that she needed to leave because of all the sniping, hurtful, baiting and generally disrespectful postings on the Religion Forum. They were getting in the way of her spiritual peace. You seemed to concur completely with her sentiments. Yet, while your posts here are not the most egregious examples by any means, you manage to emulate that which Judith Anne decried five times by post 15 of this thread!

"Please try again" yourself.

[Quix]

I find your assumptions quite inaccurate.

I doubt I have the capacity to demonstrate that through intellectual discourse. I believe God has to show that level of . . . insight.

RC edifice perceptions are not the only possible constructions on reality. They are also certainly not the only ‘real’ or ‘accurate’ ones.

I’m keenly aware of my own words, tones, attitudes. Those closest to me have commonly volunteered comments that they’ve never met anyone else with more insight into his own stuff, person, personality, motives, attitudes, expressions etc.

However, I’m sure the usual number hereon will believe their own biases vs the truth about me and a number of other things.

It’s very fascinating . . . face to face a classroom full of diverse students have little trouble tuning in on such.

Here . . . it seems to take some special people or else people who’ve traveled a similar road—at the very least—people with a certain sort of attitude, perspective, openness to others, empathy for others beyond their own biases. Fascinating.

[magisterium]

BTW, I don’t ‘mouth’ or ‘idly finger’ mea culpas at all.

Did I say anything like "idly finger" in my post to you? That's right, I did not. So why imply, with the use of quotation marks, that I did?

My repentances and confessions are primarily to God.

That's all well and good. But when you insult people or their beliefs routinely and gratuitously, out of context to the discussion at hand, one supposes you could manage at least a grudging acknowledgment of the fact. You could last weekend, when it was part of a general feel-good chorus, and there was a certain "expediency" to doing so.

Part of the problem here, according to your own statement referenced above, is that you just might be too prideful to recognize blatant insensitivity directed to anyone, and retreat behind a silent "apology" to God. I would suppose that something directed to both God and the person(s) in question would be in order.

In the meantime, I doubt an objective observer would consider my "allegations" about posts 7, 9, 11 and 14 to be all that "off the wall."

Have a nice day.

[Ann Archy]

tears...

[magisterium]

Assumptions???

In post 7, you accused Catholics of "Maryanity," simultaneously juxtaposing Catholicism with "Christianity" in such a way as to imply that Catholicism is not Christian at all. That is a gratuitous insult twice over.

In post 9, you further accused Catholicism of engaging in "the Alice-in-Wonderland-school-of-Rubberized-theology." That certainly sounds like a constructive engagement of the issues!

In post 11, the point to the article was at least - finally - acknowledged, but only in order to equate Mary's purported actions with the "New Age." More gratuitousness, for which all of us Catholics are to be quite thankful, no doubt!

In post 14, you finally get to your own point, that the "peace plan" of the article is part-and-parcel with the "world ruler's" false peace plan. That may be your opinion, and you are entitled to express it, but it is boorish and snarky without evidence. In any event - and this is my point - the phrasing you employed runs totally counter to what you were commiserating with Judith Anne about a few days ago, some 20+ posts' worth. Don't expect us Catholics to agree that your equation of a Catholic-centered "peace plan" with Satanic, one-world government is anything but a cheap shot based on absolutely nothing.

Finally, in post 15, you manage to personally attack the soundness of mind of another poster, who conveniently enough, happens to be Catholic. Sure, he took a shot at you first, but I thought, based, again, on your endless commiserating with Judith Anne, that you, at least, "were past that."

Explain, please, in detail, how any of these observations of mine are just "assumptions."

[Quix]

Didn’t mean to imply you’d said “idly finger.” Sorry for that.

You may choose to see my fierceness as insulting to beliefs. Folks may choose to see such as insulting to their person.

I’m certainly derisive etc. to beliefs I find to be hostile to Scripture and high priority Biblical standards . . . with certain folks demonstrating a certain sort of attitude and outrageousness in their own communications.

I’m quite careful in my wording to avoid personal assault and not only in behalf of forum rules. I have no personal nor Christian need to assault persons. Persons, I love.

Blasphemy and idolatry and related outrages I hate. I’ve seen the destructiveness in my own life. It’s truly frightful.

I don’t see my word contributions to be gratuitous, per se, at all. I understand that you do.

The next paragraph of yours is wholesale inaccurate. I’m typically the first to confess and repent to God and man in most situations.

The complexities and distances between our two camps are somewhat symbolized by the distances between the most forceful of the two groups of pontificators. They are not easy to articulate well, much less deal with well.

I’ve seen tons of Protty efforts to do back flips trying to bridge the gap toward RC’s.

It has often appeared that a number of the RC’s in obviously insensitive, blind ignorance of such or hostility to such have appeared to be happy to shred even such efforts in the fiercest, harshest, most abusive terms.

Yet the Prottys are the ones who get the pontifical lectures about their behaviors! LOL.

The Prottys are the ones who get the harsh personal abuse. The Prottys are the ones who get outrageous statements made about their heart motives etc. . . . yet another example of generous . . . even . . . gratuitous . . . personal attack and hostility.

A fair number of RC’s get only or virtually only sweetness and light from me publically and privately. I wonder why that is.

[Quix]

Oh I quite stand behind the accuracy of all those assertions.

It doesn’t appear that you’re very close to ‘getting it.’

[magisterium]

Look, we all get the idea that you are opposed to the tenets of Catholicism. Employ your opposition with some level of "responsibility." Try, at least, to avoid silly and gratuitously insulting coinages like "Maryanity," and your oft-used "magicsterical." The word, BTW, is "magisterial." Try to keep your hostilities at least on-point with the topic at hand, rather than employ the childish and tiresome tactic of loosing a shotgun blast of all of your sound-bite sized objections without evidence, nearly every single time you appear on threads of a Catholic nature. None of these tendencies is particularly conducive to "debate," or even to civilized disagreement. One can disagree with someone else's POV without turning the forum into a circus and/or a cesspool.

[Quix]

without turning the forum into a circus and/or a cesspool.

= = =

Ahhhhh . . . that is uniquely and totally my responsibility! LOL.

I thought that was the attitude and perspective! LOL.

It must be very disconcerting to have all the mirrors in the edifice shattered and God to keep handing you more.

[magisterium]

Didn’t mean to imply you’d said “idly finger.” Sorry for that.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

The Prottys are the ones who get the harsh personal abuse. The Prottys are the ones who get outrageous statements made about their heart motives etc. . . . yet another example of generous . . . even . . . gratuitous . . . personal attack and hostility.

Evidence, please. Yes, there are a few Catholics who get testy, but they are generally doing that on Catholic threads that are in the process of being hijacked or turned into a sewer. They are, at least, defending their own on their own soil, so to speak. And, even then, almost always, the instances are of a low percentage of the total posts. Very little of that behavior is found on Protestant-based threads as perpetrated by Catholics. Yes, it exists, but the examples are minimal, especially when contrasted with what goes on routinely on Catholic-interest threads by non-Catholics. It is simply silly to assert otherwise. Any neutral observer of this forum would concur with this assessment.

[Quix]

BTW, I expect to continue to use vivid terms as long as I perceive a screamed-for-outrageous need for them.

When calmer words seem to work, I’m happy to use them.

[Petronski]

Any neutral observer of this forum would concur with this assessment.

True.

However...

[magisterium]

Ahhhhh . . . that is uniquely and totally my responsibility! LOL

Did I say that? You are being hyperbolic to no good purpose. I merely said what I said to indicate that posts like yours contribute to the problem. You know that. Or is everyone else individually responsible for their comportment besides you? Not that I believe that, of course (it would be hyperbolic on my part!), but, since you demonstrate an all-or-nothing attitude as expressed above, I wonder if, in fact, you believe that.

[magisterium]

Thank you. Then, by default, my assertions stand for all to see, insofar as you made no effort whatsoever to refute them, though you were specifically asked to do so.

[magisterium]

Though...many times on Judith Anne's thread, you decried gratuitous hostility on this forum. Your "vivid" language is often palpably hostile. Disagree with Catholics all you want, but lose the dumb coinages and equations of Catholicism with nether-wordly forces by simple assertion without evidence. We'll get somewhere then, perhaps.

Until then, as you would say, you just don't seem to "get it."

Vaya con Dios.

[Quix]

I’m asked to do a lot of things that don’t seem sufficiently fruitful, to me.

[Quix]

Naw. I’ll probably continue to use them for the foreseeable future. They’ve proven their utility many times over.

Besides, my original reason still stands . . . they are a great shorthand saving many paragraphs of explanation.

[DungeonMaster]

Your lady.

[fortheDeclaration]

It must be very disconcerting to have all the mirrors in the edifice shattered and God to keep handing you more.

Seems the Roman Catholics are getting very touchy!

I guess they never read 1Ki.18:27.

[Quix]

INDEED.

For some reason, that’s long—virtually life long, actually—been a fascinating, humorous and favorite verse of mine.

And it’s not the only one of it’s kind, by far.

Oh, a minor correction . . . I don’t think the RC’s are GETTING touchy . . .

I think it’s dispensed in the ‘holy’ water . . . or maybe with the rosaries? Maybe there’s a quick injection of it in the confessional? Hard to say . . . but it’s probably been a feature of the edifice for its entire 1600 years.

Thanks for understanding.

LUB