On intemperate and indiscreet zeal. (The Primary Fault of many Religion Forum posters)

Various | Various | Various

[reaganaut]

Most of my friends didn’t know any Christians, IRL. Seriously, in Grad school I was an anomaly. And stereotypes are often rooted in some truth, but don’t underestimate the propaganda that is out there.

And I do know a few of those who claim to be Christians and don’t ‘walk the walk’ but I also question their relationship with God. There are far many more people who CLAIM to be Christians but are only nominal Christians at best. That is a problem in the Church today that bothers me.

AFA, how I come across, LOL. I have been called every name in the book by posters here on FR, and attacked for gently speaking the Gospel to the LDS. I have had LDS state I am arrogant and I have had LDS who don’t even consider me an ‘anti’. There is some perception differences on the other end even if my behavior is the same.

But, I do get your point.

[ArrogantBustard]

That presumes 2 things. 1) That the ‘other guy’ is actually telling the truth about his teachings/practices/beleifs and 2) that the person involved does not know the other guys beliefs (or churches beliefs) better or has not been a member of that church.

I have found that presuming those two things is always a good idea. As much as I may be convinced that the other guy is a pathological liar (or worse) and grossly ignorant of everything, I have never seen any good result from introducing that belief into the discussion.

Let us say, for sake of discussion, that I was once a Communist but have since repudiated Communism. I would, I think, discuss what I once believed as a Communist, and the basis of that belief. I would discuss what I considered orthodox Communist teaching. I would not presume to know what a current Communist believes, and I would be sure to interpret Communist writings the way I did as a Communist, when I actually believed them.

If Communism is as bad as we on this forum believe it to be, there's no need to exaggerate, distort, or misrepresent its tenets. They damn themselves well enough without our help.

[small voice in the wilderness]

AMEN! RmMomof7, AMEN!!

BELIEVERS ON THIS side of the Cross treat each other with humility, love, the gifts of the spirit, and we treat other BELIEVERS just as the Word teaches. Just as BELIEVERS on THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CROSS treat each other with humility, love, the gifts of the spirit.

We do NOT believe the same things and are NOT called to travel back and forth, around the cross, in order to make nice.

[Godzilla]

You must have missed all those scriptural references from the writers I excerpted...but thanks for providing a lesson on the thread topic ;-)

Quite frankly your writers included a large dose of chloroform in the mix.

I counted about 11 specific scripture references - with uncountable references by these other 'holy men'.

However, I asked a simple question and now you are stating that I've provided a 'lesson'. I don't see how a question now becomes 'intemperate and indiscreet zeal' good Dr? If a question challenges one's position(s), then there can be absolutely no discussion of anykind in RF that would appear to meet your criteria.

[presently no screen name]

Hmmm. Is highlighting certain words zealousness?

It was meant to be a funny.

[T Minus Four]

I'd encourage you to talk with regular teenagers sometime, about their opinions of Christians.

I talk to lots of teens and there is not one that I would classify as "regular", LOL!

But some of them are Christians, and a couple of them are zealous Christians. And those who are not Christians don't seem to be bothered by those who are.

[Lorica]

Your effort here is appreciated, but reading through the comments so far has provided for a few chuckles as ingrained posting habits are already being made manifest. From questioning who on the religion forum might have voted for Obama, to parsing the religion forum rules, to projecting, to personalizing and internalizing comments which were meant to be generalized; by the time this thread dies, I suspect it will provide a pretty good exhibit of fallen man.

[Religion Moderator]

Speaking your own mind is at the core of religious debate. It is what posters should do on the Religion Forum.

Putting words into the other guy's mouth is "making it personal" - it turns a religious debate into a flame war.

But that's not why I posted the warning on your post at 31.

By saying "If that's your thought, why didn't YOU follow it yourself?" you were making the thread "about" ArrogantBustard instead of the issue he raised which was hypocrisy, i.e. that posters should examine themselves before criticizing the other guy.

Your post wasn't "mind reading" but it was changing the direction of the thread away from the issues and toward an individual Freeper. That is also a form of "making it personal" and can lead to a flame war, i.e. as if to say, let's all hold ArrogantBustard to account.

[RnMomof7]

Ya know Brian, I think Zeal is a positive thing ...I would say it is only a sin if we would go the way of islam and murder and rape ..

My grandma use to say sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.. We have become a society of too tender feelings ... read the debate between 2 friends ..Luther and Erasmus..strong words spoken in love..

I have fondness for many of the Catholic posters.I consider some FRiends .yea even when they mock me.. that has nothing to do with truth seeking.. Our eternity does rest on the truth .

[presently no screen name]

TRUTH BUMP!!!!

[ArrogantBustard]

I suggest that folks should concern themselves more with things they themselves might say, and whether those things are "going too far" ... and concern themselves less with whether someone else is "going too far".

Log.

Speck.

Eye.

Just a thought, not a sermon.

Those who disagree with my "thought" are welcome to express their disagreement. Those who question whether I am actually adhering to my "thought" are "making the discussion personal".

I believe that is how RM interprets/enforces his rule (statement of fact as to what I believe, not mind reading). If, by some chance, I'm misinterpreting the rules, I welcome correction from RM.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

You stated,

So you looked to the wisdom of man rather than the wisdom of God

If you think the Christian spiritual classics represent the wisdom of man and not the wisdom of God, then we don't have much common ground on which to debate.

And if you think insulting and denigrating the writings of the Christian spiritual masters does not represent indiscreet zeal, then you are in need of help I cannot provide.

[presently no screen name]

We have become a society of too tender feelings .

Yes and it appears PC has entered the church with 'tone it down'.

[T Minus Four]

BTTT post #39 and AMEN svitw. You said that so well! (/zeal)

[ArrogantBustard]

Thank you for the clarification.

[presently no screen name]

then you are in need of help I cannot provide

Now isn't that an example of making it personal? I am open to correction on this.

[RnMomof7]

LOL

[ArrogantBustard]

FRiend, as much as we may think the other guy is a louse and a lunatic, insulting him doesn’t do any good.

[reaganaut]

If Communism is as bad as we on this forum believe it to be, there’s no need to exaggerate, distort, or misrepresent its tenets.

- - - — —
But the question remains who is doing the exaggerating, distorting and misrepresenting? The Communist or the Former communist?

In my experience the ‘former communists’ are the ones telling the truth, while the ‘communists’ are the ones lying about or are ignorant of what ‘Communism’ teaches.

I was told when I was preparing to go on an LDS mission to specifically NOT TEACH or outright LIE about certain doctrines because if people knew the truth, they wouldn’t join the LDS church. That was one of the big red flags that got me out of it.

I can provide documentation to teachings of the LDS that directly contradict those LDS who say ‘we don’t believe that’.

[RnMomof7]

He is right