I try to avoid posting to some on these threads because I would find it difficult to retain Christian love in the tone I might take. In other words, I control myself and don't allow others to "drag me down to their level". This is because it is no excuse for being hateful, hurtful and churlish and others will read my posts and not see the context to which it replied.
To set the record straight, "Catholic Topic Threads" are often started as open threads. This means they are open to anyone to comment and not just to those within a select "caucus". If theology is proclaimed that others find is not their understanding it is their right as Free Republic members to post, within guidelines, their own opinions of the subject. As often happens, the original post subject gets subdued as other topics are brought up in connection to the discussion - this often happens in normal conversations.
I think it is unfair and disengenous to describe such discussion as "hijacking" since the thread is open and as such invites opposing views. To describe other's opinions as "litter box" contributions is to show a high opinion, even a snootiness, to your own and a low one to others you don't agree with. People who think this way should NOT even be on open threads because they are too easily offended and disrupt the discussion. They usually have nothing serious to add and only seek to make the thread about individuals, which is against the posting rules. Some may do this intentionally, I understand, in order to get threads they dislike closed or posters they dislike reprimanded, banned or ordered off the thread as a sort of "badge of honor". I have no respect for them and try to ignore them as much as possible. I think the moderators do a good job and I let them do what they are assigned.
Finally, judging others' motives for posting as soley for the purpose of "slandering" and intentionally "insulting" just because we don't agree with their theology is childish and shows a level of immaturity not up to the standards of Free Republic. I know my intent when I post an opposing view and it is not to slander nor insult. I may not like what others believe, but I have a responsibility to speak online just like I would face-to-face and my Mama taught me right! Let's try to give others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motives. Their intent will be clear enough.
But when the posting history of non-Catholics show that they are attracted almost exclusively, like flies to a dung heap, to Catholic topic threads it speaks volumes about intent and motivation and I am perfectly free to draw the obvious conclusions.
Finally, judging others' motives for posting as soley for the purpose of "slandering" and intentionally "insulting" just because we don't agree with their theology is childish and shows a level of immaturity not up to the standards of Free Republic. I know my intent when I post an opposing view and it is not to slander nor insult. I may not like what others believe, but I have a responsibility to speak online just like I would face-to-face and my Mama taught me right! Let's try to give others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motives. Their intent will be clear enough.
Excellent, as usual. Thx.
As usual, I'm torn about using satire and the like. Some notice I TEND to avoid it enormously more with those who post civilly, to me. And, I'll likely continue to use it in highlighting absurd, blasphemous, idolatrous, double standard, horrific heresies etc. I also tend to use it to slap-down pontifical arrogance on the part of the rabid clique sorts. And, it probably makes certain truths somewhat more likely to be read by some personalities and certainly to be remembered longer by a wider range of personalities. I don't consider those things bad.
Folks, however, have no clue about me, if they think that my satire and the like are evidence of hate. Thankfully, even some RC's realize that's just NOT the case. I don't hate individuals hereon. I hate horrific heresies, particularly idolatry and blasphemy. I hate double standards and pontifical self-righteous arrogance.
I will likely continue to do all I can with whatever poor writing skills I have to highlight the absurdities and horrors of such things.
As to hating persons, I'd have to work at it to hate even OThuga and Shrillery. They do, however, have a head start in that direction.
Your post triggered a little research I’ve been meaning to do again for sometime.
Joya helped me. We both counted the RC threads in the first 3 pages of the listing of threads in the RELIGION FORUM.
We did not count RC topic threads posted by non-RC’s nor RC threads that seemed to be strictly about abortion, homosexuality etc. more or less devoid of major trumpeting of RC dogma.
We came up with slightly different counts and I averaged them for a total of 49 threads out of 150 threads for a 33% of the RELIGION FORUM threads being clearly and overtly Roman Catholic. I think sometimes it runs closer to 50%. That’s not a big deal. There are likely more RC’s and they are certainly more prolific.
However, it does show that their wailing about all their “poor attacked me” stuff is unmitigated hogwash. They flood the system with RC dogma 24/7.
They have NO LEGITIMATE GROUNDS WHATSOEVER
to wail about Proddys standing up and being counted for what Proddys believe about the issues the RC’s pontificate so relentlessly and exhaustively about 24/7.
This indeed is an open thread, which is why I took the liberty to ask if anyone opposed to the idea of Catholic priesthood on scriptural grounds could apply the same rigor of scriptural exegesis to the cardinal Protestant error of Sola Fide.
However, the readers benefit more if the discussion remains more or less on topic.