Posted on 05/03/2008 6:58:15 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
You have stated it perfectly. Many thinaks to you.
Good example of iconoclasm, and the falsehoods that arise therefrom.
sitetest
thinaks= thanks————
Blame it on zerissenheit :-)
I should add that there is no doubt at least one Catholic in this world who, through improper catechesis, ignorance, etc. does worship Mary. But they are committing a mortal sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church and should be counseled to stop immediately. This too is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and demonstrably so, and in no event should that behavior be conflated with veneration or honor paid by other Catholics. None of this is anything that cannot be handled by Catholic posters and as far as I'm concerned should not be proscribed.
1. Cathoics worship Mary.
2. Mary was not ever-Virgin
3. Cathollcs blindly follow the Magesterium.
4. Deliberate distortion of words calculated to inflame:
i.e. “Magicsterium”
5. Catholics pray to and ask the intercession of dead people
in opposition to scripture.
6. Holy Scripture refutes Catholic beliefs
There are plenty more.
I understand what you are saying here. I also think a re-read of #168 and its reference to the Mystical Body very well expresses the position in which Catholics on this forum find themselves. If they respond they are labeled whiners, perceived as “thin-skinned” and—God forbid—believers in and bearers of a lying, corrupt and evil religion.
No wonder Catholics feel the “personal” in the attacks on the Mystical Body of Christ, of which we are members.
That is the "anti" position in the religious debate town square. If you are suggesting that no Freeper be allowed to destroy the beliefs of another then you are indeed arguing for an "ecumenic" style of discussion.
Yes.
Pot-kettle-black
You’re here? I’m gone.
Nevertheless, there are quite a few highly articulate and competent Catholic debaters.
But is the solution to make Catholicism "untouchable" - beliefs not to be spoken in public, in the town square? Or is the solution to do away with the town square altogether and go to ecumenicism?
See ya
***************
That's not what I want, but rather that the RF be treated more like the other forums, with spamming and trolling not accepted.
I agree. I think that is the very simple solution. It doesn’t have to be any more difficult than that.
Once “spamming” and “trolling” are as clearly defined as “potty language” and “personal attacks”, things could/should/would get (somewhat) better.
Some Freepers evidently believe the statement is true. And they will continue to believe that statement is true until you become "iconoclastic" and destroy that belief with reasoned "open" religious debate.
In an ecumenic format, the statement could not be made - or if made, it could not be rebutted, only removed.
And they will continue to derail other Catholic threads with it, no matter what the original topic is. That's trolling, demanding an off-topic debate. Then add "Mariolatry" and "magicsterium," and the thread, no matter what the religious topic, is effectively ruined for serious discussion of the original topic of the thread. Can you not see that? It happens nearly daily around here.
Back to lurking.
"Spamming" is when the poster posts the exact same thing, over and over again.
"Trolling" is when the poster goes from thread to thread, picking the same fight or carrying the same argument from thread to thread.
"Stalking" is when the poster targets another poster specifically and follows him from thread to thread, needling him.
"One note Johnny" is the poster who has no other contribution to the forum than the same thing he keeps saying although perhaps with different words, graphics, etc.
Would you like to have a middle ground between “open” and “closed” threads? Something like “no sidebars?”
No one's stopping them from posting a thread on that topic (or any other), rther than acting like opportunistic viruses on other threads. I've stayed off the religion forum for months at a time because sometimes it seems like there are no discrete threads (anyway Catholic ones) -- just one long, repetitious continuous loop!
“By ‘iconoclastic’ I take it to mean ‘attempting to destroy the beliefs of others’.”
If by “attempting to destroy the beliefs of others,” you mean to use reason, evidence, facts, logic, to show that one's belief is superior to another, more likely to be true than the others, to intellectually eviscerate the other fellow's beliefs, oh, heck no. I'm all in favor of that.
But if by “attempting to destroy the beliefs of others,” by resort to mocking, ridicule, derision, emotionally attempting to degrade what is holy to others, direct, flamboyant disrespect for, to “tear down the icons” of what the other holds holy, then, yes, that is the iconoclasm that I mean.
Are you saying that the purpose of the Religion Forum is to mock, ridicule, deride, emotionally degrade what is holy to others, direct, flamboyant disrespect for what the other holds holy?
If you do, then you make my point for me.
If that is the case, then the Religion Forum is inherently anti-Catholic in its rules.
sitetest
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.