So you think you are doing your job when you are not well-received. Is that a fair inference?
Being well-received means you are not doing your job. That follows, correct?
Then what is your job? Is your job to alienate, is it to FAIL TO make converts, to avoid persuading those who disagree with you that your account is correct?
As far as I can see, all these are implied by the statement in Italics.
Discord, not being well-received, is a sign to you that you are doing your job.
My statement, objectionable to you, is:
any truth that might make for peace is to be avoided — because what really matters is enmity.
Now if discord it the sign of success, if the absence of discord is troubling to you, then concord it to be avoided as a sign that you are not succeeding. That shows the equivalence between what you wrote and what I wrote up to the hyphen.
___
There are two strands of thought (well,okay, gazillions of strands of thought) in the NT. John's writings are very firm on division. We see,for example, that in the healing of the man born blind that his healing 'sets off' and emphasizes the blindness of "the Jews". And when our dear Lord raises Lazarus, that is the final straw for 'the Jews'. It is then that they resolve to put him to death by hook or by crook.
Sight v. blindness // life v. death.
But the other strand, hymned gloriously in Ephesians, is unification: the mystery, hidden until Christ and Paul, is that those who are far off and those who are near will be united.
Now, to me, the division does not need us to make it happen. All we have to do is to be true, and the division will spring up because of the work of our adversary and the poison he has put in the heart of man.
But Paul says God entrusted to him the ministry of reconciliation, and he did everything he could to fulfill the duties of THAT ministry. When he was not heard, when he was scorned, that didn't shake his faith in his proclamation. But he had been trying not to provoke scorn and rejection but to save those who rejected his preaching.
When the non-Catholics reject with abuse and scorn (rarely with real argument) what we proclaim, it does not shake our faith, But WE are not reassured by the rejection that we have done well.
My patron, Dominic, wept over sinners, and pled for them to God. He took no reassurance when he preaching was rejected. He redoubled his efforts.
But you take reassurance from rejection. This is why I say that enmity is more important to you. The issue, it appears,is not to save souls for Christ (insofar as that,which is HIS work,is given to us) but to make plain the division.
That is the ministry of Islam. Not to heal and to save but to convert the compliant kaffir, and to kill, enslave, or burden with second class status the uncompliant.
That is a critical difference. you take reassurance from those you fail to persuade. We pray for them and ask for help to amend what we view as our failure.
What you said was:
INDEED. I’d think we weren’t doing our job . . . if we were well received by most of the RC’s hereon.
Now WHY on earth would I say such a thing? There must be several possibilities. Why on earth did you select the one option you selected?
So you think you are doing your job when you are not well-received. Is that a fair inference?
Not necessarily. Not generally, per se.
I was speaking of a particular context. And, in some respects a particular substrate, back-drop, background, social mileu--one observed and experienced for more than 10 years on FR.
There are a NUMBER OF TENACIOUS, DOGGED, TENACIOUS GIVENS in that context.
One of those most stubborn of givens is that a certain very sizable contingent of RC's will froth at the fingers, rant to low hell and to the mods and JimRob at almost every occasion when their Vatican sensibilities are jangled good.
So, yeah. If they suddenly fell silent, I'd think that the truths of Scripture and the truths of The Gospel as I know them, were not any longer being presented on FR's Rel Forum--i.e. that all the Proddys had suddenly ceased to do their job.
Being well-received means you are not doing your job. That follows, correct?
See the above.
Then what is your job? Is your job to alienate, is it to FAIL TO make converts, to avoid persuading those who disagree with you that your account is correct?
See the above.
As far as I can see, all these are implied by the statement in Italics.
Reading something through grossly distorted glasses can yield all manner of incorrect understandings and assumptions.
Discord, not being well-received, is a sign to you that you are doing your job.
Grossly wrong again. My assertion had nothing to do with discord, per se.
My assertion had to do with the fact that
WHEN Proddys are doing their job of presenting the Gospel and Truths of Scripture as we know and experience them, THEN a sizable contingent of rabid clique and other RC's on FR will wail, whine, froth at the fingers and generally throw a hissy fit--seemingly at the very idea that the Vatican cannot exercise 100% control over FR toward conforming it to comforting RC sensibilities totally.
Therefore, if such 24/7/365 wailing, whining, frothing were to suddenly cease, the ONLY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONs would be of the ilk that Proddys had all been ran over by buses, all gotten their fingers or keyboards broken; been Raptured; all gone fishing; all quit doing their testifying jobs of holding forth in behalf of Biblical Truth or some such.
My statement, objectionable to you, is: any truth that might make for peace is to be avoided — because what really matters is enmity.
That's soo thoroughly false, to me.
I've worked harder and taken more stabs to the tender parts on FR because of it--in behalf of unity and less enmity--more times--more exhaustively--between the two camps--than any other Proddy on FR--perhaps more than all the rest of the Proddys put together. And YOU HAVE EVERY REASON TO KNOW THAT! And still you have the cheek to say that. Amazing.
Now if discord it the sign of success, if the absence of discord is troubling to you, then concord it to be avoided as a sign that you are not succeeding. That shows the equivalence between what you wrote and what I wrote up to the hyphen.
Your assumptions are all wet as per above.
___
There are two strands of thought (well,okay, gazillions of strands of thought) in the NT. John's writings are very firm on division. We see,for example, that in the healing of the man born blind that his healing 'sets off' and emphasizes the blindness of "the Jews". And when our dear Lord raises Lazarus, that is the final straw for 'the Jews'. It is then that they resolve to put him to death by hook or by crook.
Sight v. blindness // life v. death.
But the other strand, hymned gloriously in Ephesians, is unification: the mystery, hidden until Christ and Paul, is that those who are far off and those who are near will be united.
Now, to me, the division does not need us to make it happen. All we have to do is to be true, and the division will spring up because of the work of our adversary and the poison he has put in the heart of man.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
But Paul says God entrusted to him the ministry of reconciliation, and he did everything he could to fulfill the duties of THAT ministry. When he was not heard, when he was scorned, that didn't shake his faith in his proclamation. But he had been trying not to provoke scorn and rejection but to save those who rejected his preaching.
INDEED.
However, he didn't mollify his message in behalf of a pretense of reconciliation or unity.
And in my experience, there are certain types of individuals who will NOT TOLERATE any hint of authentic reconciliation and/or unity UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY HEAR THE TRUTH ABOUT THEMSELVES AND ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS AND CONVICTIONS THEY HOLD MORE DEAR THAN THEY HOLD GOD DEAR.
CHRIST AND PAUL set those sorts of people's teeth on edge every time. I'm in good company.
When the non-Catholics reject with abuse and scorn (rarely with real argument) what we proclaim, it does not shake our faith, But WE are not reassured by the rejection that we have done well.
See above. Your assumption is flawed.
My patron, Dominic, wept over sinners, and pled for them to God. He took no reassurance when he preaching was rejected. He redoubled his efforts.
Of course. Evidently you believe I've not had a similar attitude etc. of heart and behavior. You'd be wrong, in so assuming.
But you take reassurance from rejection. This is why I say that enmity is more important to you. The issue, it appears,is not to save souls for Christ (insofar as that,which is HIS work,is given to us) but to make plain the division.
Your assumptions are wrong on that score. Absolutely wrong.
That is the ministry of Islam. Not to heal and to save but to convert the compliant kaffir, and to kill, enslave, or burden with second class status the uncompliant.
Making that unwarranted comparison is unnecessary and offensive.
That is a critical difference. you take reassurance from those you fail to persuade. We pray for them and ask for help to amend what we view as our failure.
Wrong again. The only reassurance I take is that IF THE RC'S ARE STILL WAILING, PRODDYS MUST STILL BE TELLING THE TRUTH. PRAISE GOD FOR PRODDYS TELLING THE TRUTH!