December the Eighth

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

I note that you hardly ever refer to the Holy Spirit in your interpretations or postings. There is however an awful lot of "I interpret" along with "my God given intelligence".
One can only presume that in the absence of your reliance on the Holy Spirit and excessive reliance on self then much of what you believe to be true is only really half-truth.

It would have been the ecumenical decision to just put your hands up and say "I can't convince you of my position, so I suggest that we will have to agree to disagree". Instead, you attempt to besmirch another Christian by calling into question the foundations of his faith. None of this has anything to do with valid criticism. It all just a little game whereby you try to convince us that you are more righteous than your Christian brother and therefore correct in any argument.

I think you should be trying to remove the plank from out of your own eye, Festus.

santing

Festus wrote: »

That would be the Assumption. The Ascension is in the Bible.

Mary's ascention in the Bible? Where?

Onesimus

I must say, although I'm to blame for adding to it, it is sad to see a thread that began with the question of the op turn into yet another debate or attack upon the Catholic doctrine of Mary.

Peace

Onesimus

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

I must say, although I'm to blame for adding to it, it is sad to see a thread that began with the question of the op turn into yet another debate or attack upon the Catholic doctrine of Mary.

Peace

Onesimus

I agree. It was going pretty well OK until someone started taunting non-Catholics for not agreeing with Luther.

Onesimus

PDN wrote: »

I agree. It was going pretty well OK until someone started taunting non-Catholics for not agreeing with Luther.

Yeah I know, which is a topic for somewhere else obviously. *thumbs up*

We are all to blame for not keeping it focused and centred. I'll try to be as humble as possible and take most of the blame. :pac::o

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It would have been the ecumenical decision to just put your hands up and say "I can't convince you of my position, so I suggest that we will have to agree to disagree". Instead, you attempt to besmirch another Christian by calling into question the foundations of his faith. None of this has anything to do with valid criticism. It all just a little game whereby you try to convince us that you are more righteous than your Christian brother and therefore correct in any argument.

I think you should be trying to remove the plank from out of your own eye, Festus.

That's a fair point Fanny and I accept it.

What I will not accept is someone calling the Mother of God a sinner.

Do that in private if you want to but to do it in public is blatant anti-Catholicism. Everyone knows, and if they don't they can find out easily enough, what the Catholic Churches position on Mary is. If you don't agree, fine. If you want to understand where our belief comes from, fine - I understood that was one of the aims of this discussion.

But if someone takes it upon themselves to overtly or covertly label the Mother of God a sinner... that's a different matter.

It is unfortunate that it descended to the level it did and that is my fault. I should have realized where it would go and that is my fault.

My response was inappropriate when the honour of Our Lady was besmirched.

efb

Festus wrote: »

That would be the Assumption. The Ascension is in the Bible.

Yeah meant her one.

philologos

Onesimus: You claim it has already been dealt with, but I still find your argument problematic which is the reason why I have responded to it. It's an awful shame that you won't even entertain people bringing up valid objections to things such as this.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

That's a fair point Fanny and I accept it.

What I will not accept is someone calling the Mother of God a sinner.

Do that in private if you want to but to do it in public is blatant anti-Catholicism. Everyone knows, and if they don't they can find out easily enough, what the Catholic Churches position on Mary is. If you don't agree, fine. If you want to understand where our belief comes from, fine - I understood that was one of the aims of this discussion.

But if someone takes it upon themselves to overtly or covertly label the Mother of God a sinner... that's a different matter.

It is unfortunate that it descended to the level it did and that is my fault. I should have realized where it would go and that is my fault.

My response was inappropriate when the honour of Our Lady was besmirched.

In that case I think you really need to think long and hard over whether you should be participating in any internet fora that are not exclusively Catholic.

On this forum we have Christians from a wide range of traditions and schools of thought, and they are encouraged to discuss their differences honestly, but without breaching the Charter by lapsing into unreasonable antagomism or bigotry.

So, posters can (and frequently) do, state their disagreement with Creationism, with speaking in tongues, with the priesthood of all believers and with the Immaculate Conception. This is standard fare for the forum - it is not blatant anti-Creationism, anti-Pentecostalism, anti-Protestantism, or anti-Catholicism.

We are not going to make a special case for any one denomination or theological tradition whereby their doctrines become sacred cows that no-one is allowed to disagree with. Nor is it acceptable to launch personal attacks if someone happens to hold different theological beliefs to yourself.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

In that case I think you really need to think long and hard over whether you should be participating in any internet fora that are not exclusively Catholic.

On this forum we have Christians from a wide range of traditions and schools of thought, and they are encouraged to discuss their differences honestly, but without breaching the Charter by lapsing into unreasonable antagomism or bigotry.

So, posters can (and frequently) do, state their disagreement with Creationism, with speaking in tongues, with the priesthood of all believers and with the Immaculate Conception. This is standard fare for the forum - it is not blatant anti-Creationism, anti-Pentecostalism, anti-Protestantism, or anti-Catholicism.

We are not going to make a special case for any one denomination or theological tradition whereby their doctrines become sacred cows that no-one is allowed to disagree with. Nor is it acceptable to launch personal attacks if someone happens to hold different theological beliefs to yourself.

and you should think long and hard before shouting down requests for a Catholic forum.

I would much prefer it if there was a Catholic forum then where people can come in a discuss issues relating to Catholicism without having to deal with dergatory comments on Catholic beliefs and having to be constantly on the defensive.
How do we go about requesting one?

if your nose is out of joint maybe you should think twice before making the kind of statements you did. It was not a statement of a different theological view, it was a statement designed to be deeply hurtful to Catholic sentiment.
if you don't believe in the Immaculate conception that's fine, you could have said that and left it there.

Instead you called the Mother of God a sinner.
And you think that's fair game? That's not just anti-catholic. It's a belief held by many Protestant churches so it is also anti-christian and strikes at the heart of the Divinity of Christ.

what else is fair game and not in your opinion "anti-catholic" ?

#15 "The early Reformers still carried a lot of superstitious baggage from the Roman Catholic Church - they didn't go nearly far enough. Luther inherited a lot of thinking that he never shook off. It took later generations to shake off a bit more of the junk."

#22 "I rather think that it is some of the stuff that you refer to as 'Sacred Tradition' that is offensive to the good Lord."

#23 "I'll keep it on topic by confining my opinion to the unbiblical doctrine of the immaculate conception."

#40 " So, Mary being the recipient of grace is not an indication of her sinlessness or worthiness, but rather that God chose her despite her sinfulness and unworthiness."

That kind of language is not ecumenical. It is taunting and provocative and the only other places I see it are on virulently anti-catholic and antichristian websites.

The thread was going fine until #15. Even Jakkass had the good sense to describe it as "extra-biblical" in preference to your derogatory slur.

If you want respect for your particular form of theology earn it.

If you don't want your lies and half truths exposed and challenged here then it's time there was a Catholic forum, or at the very least a Catholic mod who can spot sectarian attacks and stop them before the trolls get in on the act.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

and you should think long and hard before shouting down requests for a Catholic forum.

Get your facts straight. I have never shouted down any request for a Catholic forum. The Forum Request forum is here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=461

if your nose is out of joint maybe you should think twice before making the kind of statements you did. It was not a statement of a different theological view, it was a statement designed to be deeply hurtful to Catholic sentiment

My nose is not out of joint. In fact, it was the fact that the insult was aimed at me and not at another poster that saved you from being infracted. I try to be much slower in infracting if I am personally involved in a debate as I don't want personal feelings to interfere with my moderating. If you had launched a similar attack on any other poster then you would have been infracted straight away.

You need to stop being so precious. Disagreeing with Roman Catholic dogma, and stating that disagreement when RC posters try to pick a quarrel (as Jester Minute clearly did) is in no way trying to be hurtful. I'm sorry iof you get hurt when everyone else fails to agree with you - but that is the nature of an internet discussion board.

If you want to argue that Mary was sinless, then you may expect those who disagree with you to state their belief that Mary was a sinner. If you can't handle that without resorting to personal attacks then you would be much better off avoiding the subject.

if you don't believe in the Immaculate conception that's fine, you could have said that and left it there.

Instead you called the Mother of God a sinner

If you want to be free to argue that Mary was sinless, then you must accept that those on the other side of the debate are free to argue that she was a sinner.

And you think that's fair game?

Yes, I think it is extremely fair that both sides in a debate are allowed to state their beliefs.

That's not just anti-catholic. It's a belief held by many Protestant churches so it is also anti-christian and strikes at the heart of the Divinity of Christ.

It is no more anti-Christian than when people state that their belief that the world was not made in 6 days, or when others state their belief that speaking in tongues is nonsense.

And, the Deity of Christ is in no way threatened by my belief that Mary was a sinner. Millions of Christians reject the Immaculate Conception but are solidly committed to the Deity of Christ.

That kind of language is not ecumenical. It is taunting and provocative and the only other places I see it are on virulently anti-catholic and antichristian websites.

Unfortunately this exagerrated claim is undermined by the antics of certain posters who label as 'anti-Catholic' anyone who doesn't agree with them.

The thread was going fine until #15.

No, it was going fine until numbver 14. Then Jester minute tried to piuck a quarrel by posting nonsense about Luther and Protestants. Here's a wee bit of advice. If you don't want anyone questioning your dogma then you should try to avoid poking fun at others or picking quarrels with them.

If you want respect for your particular form of theology earn it.

I am not asking for respect for my theology. I am instructing you that personal attacks are not acceptable when someone disagrees with your theology. The only person demanding respect for their theology here is you - and you won't earn it by getting personal or pretendiong to be a martyr by continually playing the "anti-Catholic" card.

If you don't want your lies and half truths exposed and challenged here then it's time there was a Catholic forum, or at the very least a Catholic mod who can spot sectarian attacks and stop them before the trolls get in on the act

I have stated my disagreements with your beliefs. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that you choose to portray different theological points of view as lies'.

As for sectarian attacks, the mods are well able to spot them Therefore I would strongly advise you and Jester Minute to refrain from such attacks in the future. This is a board where Christians of all denominations and traditions can express their opinions. Deal with it.