Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.
I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.
I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.
Sandy Covahey, Baltimore
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
That is what i hope we can do. I do not think it is necessarily wrong to say one is misrepresentation something if that is proven, or is lacking objectivity or negatively exampling something in the light of evidence.
However, is one who makes charges of posting fabrication, finessing the rules by implicitly charging one with being a liar or otherwise denigrating the character of a person, and who does not acknowledge it when show to be wrong (and the do mods do not intervene) care), not to be reproved for it, such as when as a apologetic he insultingly charges other persons with ignorant misrepresentations (and or ill motive) when that is not proved and the opposite is what is substantiated?
Which is how this last exchange began: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2901874/posts?page=50#50
Perhaps you don't bother reading everything that I say in the posts? I think where the point of communication breaks down is when people hear the word "church" and automatically think it must mean an organized religious institution. If you note, I was very careful to say that the church, the Body of Christ is NOT a specific, earthly organization but a spiritual body made up of ALL Christians throughout the last 2000 years. I think the word "catholic", meaning universal, was a good effort to verbalize this reality. That's why I DON'T have a problem fellowshipping with those of different denominations as long as we are unified in the essential doctrines of the faith - and those ARE easily defined. Though Metmom and I do not attend the same denomination, I can't think of even one doctrine that we disagree on. Perhaps in the attempt to define the "unity of the faith", it is best to stick to what Scripture says rather than what men make up.
Some people will read that and reply that there IS no unity of essential doctrines of the faith in Protestantism, but they would be mistaken. They want to insist that only the "magesterium" can define what is or is not doctrine for the Christian faith but I disagree with that. God gave us Holy Scripture in a format that makes it entirely possible to understand the truths of the faith WITHOUT having the filter of a group of fallible men to read it through. It also tells us what is NOT essential doctrines of the faith and even that in some things there is LIBERTY.
So, there IS most definitely ONE truth - that of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And there is only ONE church - the entire spiritual body of believers in Christ. I just do not agree that the Roman Catholic Church is that one church and you, obviously, do believe that. I respect your right to believe what you want. All I ask is the same respect in return and as long as we participate on Religion Forum threads with that attitude, we can avoid offense.
And as has been shown, contrary to what is often portrayed, though both evangelicals and Catholics have historically held to certain core truths, they both allow and see varying degrees of disagreement on other issues, the difference only being a matter of degrees, as even Rome admits noninfallible teachings may contain deficiencies (Donum Veritatis) and error (if not salvific according to her), and both which class a Catholic teaching belongs in as well as aspects of the meaning of such can see dispute.
And on the level of the “laity” Catholics overall show less fidelity and unity than evangelicals (though both are in decline) on many core moral and doctrinal issues.
It is best to remember that posters only use spitwads when they have no ammunition, count it a "win" and walk away.
Firing back - or being righteously indignate - gives the other guy the "win", i.e. the spitwad was effective.
What was too much, if I might ask? it was respect for your mother imho
Exactly. I've never seen either say anything to the non-Trinitarians who would post their objections to the Trinity. Nothing, not a word. it's almost as if they agree with them.
Oh and bb -- for the record, if kosta did say anything that I believed was against my beliefs, I called him out, in contrast I've seen posts by the non-trinitarian one saying the trinity is falsely made up and have pinged you to them, but naught. Do you agree with their interpretation?
If you didn't see anything it was either because you failed to read them or you ignored them because I KNOW that I have on numerous occasions and I was NOT alone in doing so. I can only imagine the motive behind implying we don't care about MAJOR doctrines of the faith!
Oh and bb -- for the record, if kosta did say anything that I believed was against my beliefs, I called him out, in contrast I've seen posts by the non-trinitarian one saying the trinity is falsely made up and have pinged you to them, but naught. Do you agree with their interpretation?
Care to post an example? We can go from there.
Equating my posts with spitwads and implying that my arguments are without merit is hardly maintaining a neutral, but not entirely unexpected position. By the way, whatever happened to the admonishment about needing thick skin?
“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” - Harry Truman
My father, an avowed atheist, would have found the entire spectacle very offensive.
You may remember seeing it before. A poster no longer with us often threw spitwads involving white hankies and other imagery, word smithing (e.g. magicsterium) and graphics. Being righteously indignate and/or firing back at him rather than recognizing it as a spitwad, counting a "win" and walking away - encouraged the next spitwad and the next and so on.
The spitwad speech was appropriate back then and considering the "peeping Tom" imagery of post #50, it was appropriate here. But I don't use it as often as the "thick skin" speech.
If there was any substance to the post after the looking in the window of a house part, it was lost on me - just like anything beyond the use of white hankie imagery was lost on me.
I am smart enough to recognize a veiled threat.
How does someone get off of your ping list, which I never asked to be on?
I wasn’t on this thread and I don’t want you stalking me or pinging me like this.
As to not being respectful to sincere Catholics -- I would to some extent agree, but state that unless the deceased really went against Church teaching (like Kennedy, T), I, personally, would not be offended.
Actually, no. Here's one example where you did not say anything --> and here's another where the argument was raised Since the Scriptures don’t teach a trinity doctrine as a Christian I can’t accept it and I pinged you to it, but not response at all from you -- look at post 2439, not a word. there are lots more -- in fact nearly every one where a non-Trinitarian jumps with a barb against the Trinity on a Catholic thread, there is this stunning silence from the non-Catholic posters such as yourself. Makes folks wonder, you know....
Have you realised that the insistence on "just anyone make their own conclusions" has led to Jehovah's Witnesses, unitarians, etc. etc. and even Oneness Pentecostals? This seems to be ok to the non-c freepers here as when any statement is made by a non-trinitarian attacking Catholic belief in the Trinity, there is a stunning silence on the part of the other non-Cs
And one of the standard pack of non-c's said in reply to Swedenborgians would be a heretical sect based on their teachings of the Trinity so I would not regard them as Protestant since this heresy is rejected by Protestants and Catholics. they said Anybody who disagrees with any Catholic on anything gets the label of *heretic* slapped on them to the point where it's meaningless -- not a peep from you, boatie.. in fact all the defenders of the dogma of sola scriptura defended Swedenborgian doctrine (that The Infinite God of the Universe (Jehovah) came into this world within the human form of Jesus Christ because it was a personal interpretation and because this was a good chance to start a hit them caflix thread.. shame on you'all
Sorry for being occasionally included. I had asked all that are on a list recently if they wanted to continue to receive such, and you are the only one who has replied negatively , and will be removed.
Thanks, for me, I suddenly started getting pinged by you out of the blue, and I had no idea why.
Swedenborg as a product of sola scriptura? Really? It strains credulity. He was an interplanetary soul tripper. Dreams and visions, conversations with angels and demons. I’m sure he would’ve make a fabulous FR poster, but there’s no reasonable way to link Sola Scriptura to his clearly extrabiblical treasure trove of lunacy.
BTW, just as a footnote, I used to work with a fellow who was also a member of the interplanetary set, as he imagined it. A belief system called eckancar, involving astral projection. He said he went to Mars, tethered to Earth by a silver cord issuing from his navel. He was a large, unfit man, and this was an unpleasant image. Sadly, he passed away while shoveling snow. I hate to think about the contrast between his fantasies and the reality that awaited him. Sigh.
Peace,
SR
I had many extended debates with the former Serbian Catholic turned antagonistic agnostic, and do not recall seeing any Catholics except one (rarely seen here) really contend with him, while other Catholics agreed and worked with him despite him being one who posted attacks against basic Bible teaching and its God as well as being in critical rejection of Catholic doctrine.
Thus criticizing Protestants for being aligned so with some who disagree on core truths (which i have rarely seen evident) is somewhat inconsistent. And i have debated Calvinism and the Trinity with other Prots.
But like as we rarely see Catholics debating each other in threads regarding Prot. vs Catholic issues, but which do take place sometimes on threads dealing with that, so also debates btwn Protestants also have taken place on threads regarding divisive Protestant issues.
But the reason these are not often seen is because they are not pushed, in contrast to the near constant threads promoting Catholicism and attacking evangelicals.
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.