I've noticed an anti-Catholic prejudice in many Christian materials - wondering...

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

This is why I, unapologetically, will and pray that all become subject to the Roman Pontiff. I realize that may upset some people. I try not to be an @$$-hole about it (easier on some days than others). But if I love my neighbor, then I must desire what is best for them whether it makes them happy or not.

 

How far would you take that desire?

 

I don't mind your desiring it or praying for it. Certainly your right and it affects me less than none. But would you support, say, legislating it?

[clwcain]

Laura K (NC),

 

I think we are getting into rabbit hole territory, so I'll note that, based on your most recent post we are more in agreement than not. :D

 

Now, what was the OP's question? ;)

[clwcain]

How far would you take that desire?

 

I don't mind your desiring it or praying for it. Certainly your right and it affects me less than none. But would you support, say, legislating it?

 

Depends on the legislation, but I have no qualms or reservations in principle about a Catholic state, whether republican, aristocratic, or monarchical (as defined by Aristotle).

[Laurie]

Oh, dear. I was not at all clear, since several of you read the same thing, which is not what I intended. I meant that the persons involved in the graduate program took seriously the loving your neighbor business. They were the ones who oozed love, not the curriculum.

 

My dh went to a Jesuit high school and I earned my post-BA credits at a Jesuit university. I know that the Jesuits are very liberal. IMO it might be easier to appear to be oozing love/loving your neighbor the more liberal you are, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate. My operational definition of loving my neighbor doesn't mean that I have to accept his/her beliefs and/or behaviors as being just as good as my own. (If we can call other people's reading material "twaddle" why aren't we able to be discriminating in other areas as well!) But if I write curricula that reflects this, then I could be called prejudiced rather than principled.

 

Your post specifically mentioned an anti-Catholic "prejudice" (your word) in Christian curriculum, and I thought it was important to see some specific examples of what this means to you. I appreciated that Cleo was giving a concrete example...she was offended by the way the Apologia (General Sci.) author dealt with Galileo. Since I have that textbook I looked up Galileo and read the pages. Personally, I didn't understand what was anti-Catholic, but everyone has the right to be offended and choose something else.

 

I would like to see accuracy in textbooks. If there's something inaccurate in what the author wrote about Galileo, I'd like to know about it. (And it's not really fair for someone to accuse a textbook/author of somehow fanning flames of hatred or intolerance without having read it first.) There are a lot of things that have happened in the past that different people/groups might prefer to leave out because it wasn't their finest moment. But the Inquisition happened. Slavery happened. The Holocaust happened. Etc. And I just don't want to read textbooks written by deniers or those who want to delete the parts that bother them.

 

I also don't want to see religious textbook publishers attacked because they aren't willing to discard or dilute their principles. Without examples of the prejudice you speak of, I still don't know what you're reacting to. I just don't accept that having beliefs and defending them automatically earns you the title "prejudiced". And I don't necessarily believe that Jesuits make better lovers. (sorry, couldn't resist)

[clwcain]

If there's something inaccurate in what the author wrote about Galileo, I'd like to know about it.

 

Not having the text, I can't comment on the specific passages. But the conventional wisdom regarding Galileo's "mistreatment" by Church authorities is so shot through with Prottie propaganda it is a perpetual irritant.

 

The gist of the truth is that he got in trouble for insisting, despite the complete lack of evidence, that the heliocentric theories of Fr. Copernicus were not only true (this was a debatable point until the space programs of the 1950s furnished conclusive evidence) but that they also contradicted Scripture (an impossibility -- science can not uncover something that contradicts Scripture).

 

That he was backed by the Pope and Cdl. Bellarmine in the course of his trial simply compounds his errors, in that he spit in the eye of powerful benefactors. They had no problem with him advancing a Copernican world view as an unproven theory. Where everyone drew the line was his insistence that he had discovered an error in Scripture.

 

And the net result: he spent some years under house arrest in a villa outside Rome, IIRC.

 

 

And I don't necessarily believe that Jesuits make better lovers. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

I'll say no more on this... :biggrinjester:

[Faithr]

Here's an interesting link explaining what really happened in re Gallileo: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html

[PariSarah]

I don't mind your desiring it or praying for it. Certainly your right and it affects me less than none. But would you support, say, legislating it?

 

Because conversion must be willed in order to be conversion. Christianity was revolutionary in making volition or consent integral to its definition of faithfulness. State-mandated conversion (unlike, say, state-mandated charitable giving or state-mandated marital fidelity or state-mandated respect for property ownership) would destroy the very thing it mandated.

 

That hasn't stopped people from trying. :glare:

[GSMP]

Sorry, but I beg to differ. In this case I think the Brits are not central to the issue. I believe that most of the origins of the relevant protestant movements in the US lie in mainland Europe. There was certainly plenty of disagreement and persecution involved there as well.

 

I have noticed that many religious homeschool publishers have a particular religious bent that reflects a greater set of beliefs. Those beliefs involve a denial that several recognized branches of Christianity are actually Christians. Thus Catholics, Anglicans, and others are considered outside the flock. I can only assume that this is the publishers attempting to present a worldview in line with who they believe to be their consumer base. As to the exact origins of this I am unsure, hopefully someone else will have more information.

 

I apologize and you are correct. It was all over Europe. I had not meant to state that it was only in England. It covered all of Europe. It was just a quick reply and well...Mary was one of the first that popped into my head.

[8filltheheart]

I'm not sure anti-Catholic is the term I would use. I would say that the information that they teach about Catholicism is inaccurate and that the history is presented from a single worldview.

 

There are Catholic sources I won't use b/c I consider them a Catholic equivalent of pure bias and simply do not give any representation of an accurrate history. (Anne Carroll's books for example)

 

Unless you make a conscientious effort to educate yourself on the other POV, you can't recognize the bias simply b/c that is the view you are going to tend to agree with. So, simply b/c the bias isn't obvious to you, does not mean it does not exist.

 

As far as the question about Galileo. Here are some links with a different perspective:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

 

The irony I find in the conversation about Galileo is in the context of objections from those supporting only young earth science. Suppressing alternative view points of scientific theory didn't end with the Catholic Church and Galileo. :)

 

I teach my kids the good, the bad, and the ugly about all cultures, religions, etc we encounter in history, including and especially Catholicism. It only makes me stronger in my Catholicism b/c I have reached my decisions in both faith and reason.

[SnowWhite]

The OP, I don't remember, was she referencing Rod and Staff or Christian Light? It is important to note that both of those are Mennonite publishers. The Mennonites don't have a prejudice against the Catholics any more than they have against the Lutherans. Their "heresy" according to both of those denominations included rejecting infant baptism, embracing adult decisions of faith based upon mature acceptance of Christ's redemptive work, and rejecting outward "show" of religion such as "graven images" and fancy church buildings. They have a very Separatist flavor, plus a strong history of non-resistance. They refused to serve in anyone's army and they have a huge book full of accounts of Anabaptist (their medieval roots) martyrs by *both Catholic and Protestant governments*. IMO this is not so much prejudice as history from another point of view.

[*anj*]

But the conventional wisdom regarding Galileo's "mistreatment" by Church authorities is so shot through with Prottie propaganda it is a perpetual irritant.

 

 

Could you have gotten this point across without using a derogatory term? Let's not start doing that, okay? It is ugly and makes the reader take you less seriously.

[Michelle in MO]

The OP, I don't remember, was she referencing Rod and Staff or Christian Light? It is important to note that both of those are Mennonite publishers. The Mennonites don't have a prejudice against the Catholics any more than they have against the Lutherans. Their "heresy" according to both of those denominations included rejecting infant baptism, embracing adult decisions of faith based upon mature acceptance of Christ's redemptive work, and rejecting outward "show" of religion such as "graven images" and fancy church buildings. They have a very Separatist flavor, plus a strong history of non-resistance. They refused to serve in anyone's army and they have a huge book full of accounts of Anabaptist (their medieval roots) martyrs by *both Catholic and Protestant governments*. IMO this is not so much prejudice as history from another point of view.

 

stated specifically which curriculum she was speaking of. I do know that the bias exists. And, I agree with what you said about the Mennonites not having a prejudice against Catholics any more than Lutherans. Luther wrote some very harsh words against the Anabaptists. BTW, this comment is not meant as a criticism towards the Lutheran church; I was raised Lutheran. But, I'm fairly familiar with some of Luther's writings.

 

I teach my kids the good, the bad, and the ugly about all cultures, religions, etc we encounter in history, including and especially Catholicism. It only makes me stronger in my Catholicism b/c I have reached my decisions in both faith and reason.

 

Excellent attitude; I couldn't agree more. I hope to do the same for our children; to teach them all aspects of the history of the church (both Protestant and Catholic). It doesn't shake my faith; it just shows me how much more we need Christ's salvation.

[clwcain]

Could you have gotten this point across without using a derogatory term? Let's not start doing that, okay? It is ugly and makes the reader take you less seriously.

 

Sorry if you find "Prottie" to be derogatory. It's just shorthand. I can't say I've ever run into anyone who's complained before.

 

But I'll take it under advisement.

 

But I'll also note that if using shorthand leads someone to take my arguments less seriously, I'm not sure I care about their opinion.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Sorry if you find "Prottie" to be derogatory. It's just shorthand. I can't say I've ever run into anyone who's complained before.

 

But I'll take it under advisement.

 

But I'll also note that if using shorthand leads someone to take my arguments less seriously, I'm not sure I care about their opinion.

 

And I'm not sure I care about someone's opinion who apologizes for another person's being offended in the first place rather than for offending.

 

But that's just me.

 

"Proddy" is derogatory, even if you misspell it and even if you don't attach the word "dog" or "waddy" to it.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Legislating conversion would defeat the purpose in any case.

 

Because conversion must be willed in order to be conversion.

 

Well, of course. Even if someone knew, somehow, that it was the best thing for me.

[clwcain]

"Proddy" is derogatory, even if you misspell it and even if you don't attach the word "dog" or "waddy" to it.

 

Never seen or heard is spelled that way. Not sure what the reference to "dog" or "waddy" is, either.

[Laura K (NC)]

"Prottie" is a word like "Romish" or "Papist." In one sense those are not inaccurate terms, but they are both considered offensive, and best not to be used. It's not just a PC thing.

[clwcain]

"Prottie" is a word like "Romish" or "Papist." In one sense those are not inaccurate terms, but they are both considered offensive, and best not to be used. It's not just a PC thing.

 

I've always worn accusations of being "Romish" or "Papist" proudly, fwiw. I understand their origin as insults, like Whig and Tory, but I've never viewed them as such.

 

As to Prottie, I've honestly never run across it as an insult. Really sorry if I gave offense. I'll not use it around here anymore.

[clwcain]

Said something I shouldn't have. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

[*anj*]

That they (Protestants) believed in heresy and supported schism didn't render them unsaved. They were still Christians. They were simply impaired in their access to grace through adherence to the particular heresy or schism in question. That makes achieving the work of salvation much harder.

 

This is still, even post V2, official doctrine.

 

 

For those of us who take these things seriously, and believe that what our church teaches is the Truth, there can be no compromise.

 

The only purpose of real oecumenical dialogue is reunion of our separated brethren under the Supreme Pontiff so that the Church may be unified.

 

 

This is why I, unapologetically, will and pray that all become subject to the Roman Pontiff.

 

Did everyone read these words? How do you feel about these statements? Catholics, I'd really like to know...do you agree with what he's saying?

 

I have to say, clwcain, your statements are certainly in line with the teachings of the Council of Trent and of the present Pope. Still, I find it just jarring to see such things written here. Of course you have a right to your opinion. Of course you're allowed to speak your mind, but I don't know,as a Christian, I would just never say anything like that to people who don't share my beliefs. It's not because I'm ashamed of my views, but it just doesn't feel respectful to me.

 

Do you find that your evangelization tools have won many converts to "the Roman Pontiff"?

[OnTheBrink]

Did everyone read these words? How do you feel about these statements? Catholics, I'd really like to know...do you agree with what he's saying?

 

I have to say, clwcain, your statements are certainly in line with the teachings of the Council of Trent and of the present Pope. Still, I find it just jarring to see such things written here. Of course you have a right to your opinion. Of course you're allowed to speak your mind, but I don't know,as a Christian, I would just never say anything like that to people who don't share my beliefs. It's not because I'm ashamed of my views, but it just doesn't feel respectful to me.

 

Do you find that your evangelization tools have won many converts to "the Roman Pontiff"?

 

I read them and found them especially offensive. I think if an evangelical Christian has written similar thoughts from their world view, the fur would have flown far and fast.

[Pink Fairy]

clwcain, your words are growing more aggressive and less charitable with every post. I repped you earlier and suggested you tone it down, but I see you chose a different path. Please stop. You are not helping the Church, you are being insulting and rude. Frankly, you are giving scandal.

 

ETA: BTW, for what it's worth, I am a practicing Catholic, a convert to the Church since 1991, and no, I would probably not have converted if the "evangelization" I received had been so harsh.

[sarahli]

what's up with that? Does this go all the way back to the Reformation? How did this evolve?

 

I really, really (or as Colleen might say, "rilly. rilly.") am not trying to stir up a religious debate. Or a debate about curriculum materials. Truly, I'm just wondering about the history of this.

 

I'm a Protestant, married to a Catholic and I did my graduate studies in theology at a Jesuit university. Every main line Protestant denomination was represented there, along with, naturally, the Catholics, and know what? It was all about love, bottom line. Serious, rigorous academic inquiry of course, but love just oozed out of that place. I had no idea there was this, what? Prejudice thing.

 

I apologize if my question is naive. If it's a hot button-pusher topic, please direct me to reading materials that would illuminate this for me.

 

I've found, in general, theology students to be more tolerant of catholicism, whereas the more uneducated individuals within fundamentalist denominations to be less tolerant. I think it is easier to be prejudiced against someone else when you don't know why they think the way they do.

 

*disclaimer* this is my experience and a generalization, not true in every circumstance

[Laurie]

Sorry if you find "Prottie" to be derogatory. It's just shorthand. I can't say I've ever run into anyone who's complained before.

 

.

 

I wonder if I'm the only one who has never heard this word before? Now maybe this doesn't help at all here, but I just assumed the word was being used the same way I've seen some people use the word "Aspie" instead of "Asperger Syndrome"...a shorter form but not meant to be insulting.

 

I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that no ill will was intended and that he genuinely plans to refrain from using it again.

 

(I have a hard time following these lengthy discussions in this new format. If I've missed something somewhere, I'm sorry!)

[HRAAB]

I am a 'cradle Catholic'. I'm a well catechized and educated Catholic. The tone this conversation has taken is one of the reasons I've struggled so with religion (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) in the past few years. It hurts me to see anyone, any religion or lack of religion, be offended because of that belief. A person's faith is of the most intimate, personal nature. For many, it is their core, their being. Unfortunately, although it's the 21st century, it is still impossible to have this discussion.

 

I have seen what I would call a bias in certain Protestant materials, but I believe I see it as a bias because I was educated in Catholic schools. Protestants would have viewed the material I learned in school as biased. With my own children I make a point to teach them the good, the holy, the bad, and the ugly on all sides, especially with reference to Catholicism. I would not be serving them well to do otherwise. I often find myself not using specifically Catholic textbooks to do this.

 

Janet

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I wonder if I'm the only one who has never heard this word before? Now maybe this doesn't help at all here, but I just assumed the word was being used the same way I've seen some people use the word "Aspie" instead of "Asperger Syndrome"...a shorter form but not meant to be insulting.

 

I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that no ill will was intended and that he genuinely plans to refrain from using it again.

 

(I have a hard time following these lengthy discussions in this new format. If I've missed something somewhere, I'm sorry!)

 

I didn't so much have a problem with the term, but that he said he was sorry that *anj* thought it was offensive. And then he dismissed her opinion because he found her offense trivial.

 

He subsequently apologized sincerely, so it's moot at this point. :-)

 

I think "Aspie" is used affectionately by parents of kids with AS. But not all shortening of terms are used affectionately. "Retarded" has it's own common shortened term, and that one is simply icky.

 

I would further posit that it is hardly offensive if a Catholic calls himself a "Papist," but very likely is if a protestant calls him that. If *anj* had called herself a "Prottie," it would have been *self*deprecation or very unlikely to be negative. The other direction (though no offense was intended in this case), it's just too easily misconstrued.

[Peek a Boo]

Did everyone read these words? How do you feel about these statements? Catholics, I'd really like to know...do you agree with what he's saying?

 

I have to say, clwcain, your statements are certainly in line with the teachings of the Council of Trent and of the present Pope. Still, I find it just jarring to see such things written here. Of course you have a right to your opinion. Of course you're allowed to speak your mind, but I don't know,as a Christian, I would just never say anything like that to people who don't share my beliefs. It's not because I'm ashamed of my views, but it just doesn't feel respectful to me.

 

Do you find that your evangelization tools have won many converts to "the Roman Pontiff"?

 

 

well, considering i recently posted something similar in the do you lie to your children thread, i do NOT find his words offensive at all. Just blatantly truthful as far as he considers the truth to be. i would encourage everyone to pop over to that thread and read it, esp the second page.

 

i do think we've found clwcain's soapbox issue ;)

 

As someone who does not adhere to the RCC, my views would be pretty similar in how i expect to treat others of different faiths: we pray that others are reconciled to the true body of Christ.

 

and when the Pope finally figures out that I'm right, we'll have an accord. ;)

 

but really, I don't think there's anything he needs to apologize for here. I do hope everyone goes back and re-reads his post --he tried several times to clarify his reasons and style of discourse and posting, and that's just in this one thread.

 

i may not agree w/ his specific theology, but neither do i think he is trying to go out of his way to offend anyway. There can be no real discourse if people are always tiptoeing around how to phrase something. Just get it out in the open so we can learn about it!

 

maybe that's a guy thing, lol.....

 

=======================

eta: and NO, that's not really tongue in cheek. pretty darn literal, actually.

[HRAAB]

 

and when the Pope finally figures out that I'm right, we'll have an accord. ;)

 

 

Hey, a number of years ago I couldn't have laughed about your comment. Right now I'm smiling. See, we all can make progress.

 

Janet

[Gretchen in NJ]

I wonder if I'm the only one who has never heard this word before? Now maybe this doesn't help at all here, but I just assumed the word was being used the same way I've seen some people use the word "Aspie" instead of "Asperger Syndrome"...a shorter form but not meant to be insulting.

 

I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that no ill will was intended and that he genuinely plans to refrain from using it again.

 

(I have a hard time following these lengthy discussions in this new format. If I've missed something somewhere, I'm sorry!)

:iagree:

I have never heard that term used before or these: "Romish" or "Papist." I just thought he was in a hurry to post.

[Peek a Boo]

Do you find that your evangelization tools have won many converts to "the Roman Pontiff"?

 

people hated Christ for His evangelical tools too. They killed Him for them, as a matter of fact.

[HRAAB]

Did everyone read these words? How do you feel about these statements? Catholics, I'd really like to know...do you agree with what he's saying?

 

I have to say, clwcain, your statements are certainly in line with the teachings of the Council of Trent and of the present Pope. Still, I find it just jarring to see such things written here. Of course you have a right to your opinion. Of course you're allowed to speak your mind, but I don't know,as a Christian, I would just never say anything like that to people who don't share my beliefs. It's not because I'm ashamed of my views, but it just doesn't feel respectful to me.

 

Do you find that your evangelization tools have won many converts to "the Roman Pontiff"?

 

I've met quite a few Protestants who truly believe I have no chance at salvation because I'm Catholic and weren't the least bit shy about voicing that concern. In fact, try being a Catholic on some of the Christian homeschooling message board some day. But then again there are Catholic message boards I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole if I were Protestant.

 

I don't believe (of course, I'm not in his mind) that clwcain was trying to be offensive, but I can understand why it felt offensive to some of you - because I've been there in a reversed situation. I think honey gathers more than vineagar, but then I'm in the 'love' camp.

 

Janet

[*anj*]

I would further posit that it is hardly offensive if a Catholic calls himself a "Papist," but very likely is if a protestant calls him that. If *anj* had called herself a "Prottie," it would have been *self*deprecation or very unlikely to be negative. The other direction (though no offense was intended in this case), it's just too easily misconstrued.

 

This pretty much sums it up.

I commented on the phrase he used because I felt that it was unproductive to resort to name calling. I think that in the interest of intelligent discourse it's better to just speak to the other party with respect.

 

In other threads we've acknowledged the acceptability of members of a group referring to themselves in a certain way as opposed to outsiders using those terms.

 

As I said before, he is entitled to his opinion, as we all are.

 

(I have edited this post about 15 times and I'm just going to stop now. I don't think I'm expressing myself very well. It's the best I can do, my brain is fried.)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

people hated Christ for His evangelical tools too. They killed Him for them, as a matter of fact.

 

So you're less on the side of gracious speech, seasoned with salt, and walking in wisdom toward those of us who are outside of the faith and more on the side of "if we're doing it right, they'll be trying to kill us"?

 

I've never understood that one. The more obnoxious one is, the more assuredly one is a Favored One. Easy to achieve, that. Harder to do the whole "be ready to answer... with meekness and fear" route.

[Gretchen in NJ]

well, considering i recently posted something similar in the do you lie to your children thread, i do NOT find his words offensive at all. Just blatantly truthful as far as he considers the truth to be. i would encourage everyone to pop over to that thread and read it, esp the second page.

 

i do think we've found clwcain's soapbox issue ;)

 

As someone who does not adhere to the RCC, my views would be pretty similar in how i expect to treat others of different faiths: we pray that others are reconciled to the true body of Christ.

 

and when the Pope finally figures out that I'm right, we'll have an accord. ;)

 

but really, I don't think there's anything he needs to apologize for here. I do hope everyone goes back and re-reads his post --he tried several times to clarify his reasons and style of discourse and posting, and that's just in this one thread.

 

i may not agree w/ his specific theology, but neither do i think he is trying to go out of his way to offend anyway. There can be no real discourse if people are always tiptoeing around how to phrase something. Just get it out in the open so we can learn about it!

 

maybe that's a guy thing, lol.....

 

Well, stated Peek a boo. :iagree:

[LizzyBee]

... i do NOT find his words offensive at all. Just blatantly truthful as far as he considers the truth to be.

 

As someone who does not adhere to the RCC, my views would be pretty similar in how i expect to treat others of different faiths: we pray that others are reconciled to the true body of Christ.

 

and when the Pope finally figures out that I'm right, we'll have an accord. ;)

 

but really, I don't think there's anything he needs to apologize for here.

 

i may not agree w/ his specific theology, but neither do i think he is trying to go out of his way to offend anyway. There can be no real discourse if people are always tiptoeing around how to phrase something. Just get it out in the open so we can learn about it!

 

:iagree: I also was not offended, even though I don't agree with his theology.

[Peek a Boo]

So you're less on the side of gracious speech, seasoned with salt, and walking in wisdom toward those of us who are outside of the faith and more on the side of "if we're doing it right, they'll be trying to kill us"?

 

I've never understood that one. The more obnoxious one is, the more assuredly one is a Favored One. Easy to achieve, that. Harder to do the whole "be ready to answer... with meekness and fear" route.

 

No.

Your premise is faulty.

 

blatant truth aptly spoken need not be obnoxious.

but many people will see it as such.

 

gracious speech and people wanting to kill us are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's not just an either/or. i can see how trying to reconcile it as such would be frustrating.

 

Not everyone was trying to kill Christ [obviously], but there were plenty that responded to His type of teaching and preaching.

 

We all have different gifts. Some are called to be the wacko wandering loudly in the desert. Others are called to serve quietly at home.

 

Was John the Baptist "meek"? I'll bet he was.

Does meek mean "speak not the truth?" of course not.

 

we are told repeatedly that no matter how kind and gentle we are, there will ALWAYS be people who disagree so vehemently w/ the very idea of which we speak that no amount of seasoned salt will work. Not even fajita seasoning.

 

the whole counsel of scripture.

Go before Pharoah and tell him he's toast. [eta: and tell him he's toast IF he doesn't let my people go....]

be beheaded by Herod.

Crucified on the Cross.

martyred for what they said.

 

is that meek? seasoned w/ salt? gracious?

 

how about the NOW OBSOLETE definition of gracious?

GODLY.

 

Godly speech.

 

let's apply the correct definition of the word to the appropriate context.

 

gracious doesn't mean be a doormat or let people say incorrect things.

 

the Hebrew wives lying to Pharoah.

Rahab lying.

 

are lies gracious speech, seasoned w/ salt?

were these women behaving in a Godly manner?

 

I do agree that there is a season and time for everything thing and purpose: some need to hear law, others desperately need gospel.

 

I for one appreciate people who stand up and give an accounting of what their faith really says --especially those "harder sayings" that tend to rile otehrs. Eliana does a great job of that w/ Judaism. Plaid Dad has offered plenty of good stuff about RCC, PariSarah gives very understandable accounts of Christianity but doesn't water it down. We've even had some give views about pagan practices. Shoot-- even Phred contributes great thoughts to the discourse by explaining so very clearly how HE feels. I'd LOVE --love, Love, LOVE-- to get a Muslim's perception of the crap that's going on. haven't seen that yet. i don't hear or read too much from Muslims about the "harder sayings" of their faith.

[Erica in PA]

well, considering i recently posted something similar in the do you lie to your children thread, i do NOT find his words offensive at all. Just blatantly truthful as far as he considers the truth to be.

As someone who does not adhere to the RCC, my views would be pretty similar in how i expect to treat others of different faiths: we pray that others are reconciled to the true body of Christ.

 

 

i may not agree w/ his specific theology, but neither do i think he is trying to go out of his way to offend.

 

I agree with you, Peek. I think what some people are finding offensive may be his *religious views,* not his manner of discourse. But it's easier to criticize one's speech, than to come right out and say, "I don't like what you believe!!"

 

I don't agree with him theologically either, but I don't think he presented his views in an argumentative manner. He told the truth as he sees it, in response to a direct question that was asked of him. I don't think he should be criticized for that.

 

Erica

[Jami]

I agree with you, Peek. I think what some people are finding offensive may be his *religious views,* not his manner of discourse. But it's easier to criticize one's speech, than to come right out and say, "I don't like what you believe!!"

 

I don't agree with him theologically either, but I don't think he presented his views in an argumentative manner. He told the truth as he sees it, in response to a direct question that was asked of him. I don't think he should be criticized for that.

 

Erica

 

I admit to feeling a little stung. Not by the presentation necessarily, but by the reality of the beliefs if they honestly reflect the teaching of the RCC. I feel like I have really tried as a Protestant (Reformed, Presbyterian) to find and embrace those things I hold in common with my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in faith. And I believe that I share with clwcain at least 1500 years of church history, and that's not to discount writings and teachings of Catholics after the Reformation which have encouraged me as a believer in Christ. Maybe that's false ecumenicalism, I don't know.

 

Jami

[8filltheheart]

Did everyone read these words? How do you feel about these statements? Catholics, I'd really like to know...do you agree with what he's saying?

 

I have to say, clwcain, your statements are certainly in line with the teachings of the Council of Trent and of the present Pope. Still, I find it just jarring to see such things written here. Of course you have a right to your opinion. Of course you're allowed to speak your mind, but I don't know,as a Christian, I would just never say anything like that to people who don't share my beliefs. It's not because I'm ashamed of my views, but it just doesn't feel respectful to me.

 

Do you find that your evangelization tools have won many converts to "the Roman Pontiff"?

 

Anj, I really don't want to get involved in this aspect of the conversation, but here I am.

 

I am wondering if someone posted beliefs *about their own religion* stating that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God and is the only source for Christian doctrine........if those of you who are Christian and are offended by his statements would be offended by that statement?

 

If someone posted that man is saved by faith alone......would you be offended??

 

I am Catholic and I don't agree with the presentation of his statements nor would I ever state views as such if I were hoping to pursue dialogue. BUT I do find a double standard among what is acceptable. I certainly would not be offended by a Protestant posting sola scriptura and sole fide beliefs. Why should I? It is what they believe. It is tantamount to saying I am wrong for believing in the infallibility of the Pope on faith and morals and the role of Tradition. I know that entering into the conversation. I should expect nothing different.

 

FWIW......I believe that Christ came to establish His Church. The Church is His Bride, He is the Bridegroom. He is the head of the body. All are singular. Christ does not relish in division. He wants us all united in Him. We aren't.

 

The Church believes that the Holy Spirit is her guide. That the truth of Christ flows from her (the Church.) It is simply a truth of our faith.

 

The Church also believes that the fullness of faith is found in the teachings of Catholicism. That all other Christians share in that truth, but don't share in the fullness of revelation. That doesn't deny their faith in Christ, nor is it condemning, it is simply that the universal, full faith as taught by Christ and handed down through the apostles is what the Church sees as the "fullness" and that those that deny various tenets of the Catholic faith are missing that piece of the whole.

 

Does my writing what I believe as it is taught by my denomination cause offense? I'm sorry if that is your reaction. But from my POV, it is simply the equivalent of what I read daily about Protestant perspectives of icons, Mary, sacraments, communion of saints, and my list could go on.

 

I do not take offense at Protestant POV posted on this forum. I would hope that others views can be equally respected.

[Peek a Boo]

So you're less on the side of gracious speech, seasoned with salt, and walking in wisdom toward those of us who are outside of the faith and more on the side of "if we're doing it right, they'll be trying to kill us"?

 

I've never understood that one. The more obnoxious one is, the more assuredly one is a Favored One. Easy to achieve, that. Harder to do the whole "be ready to answer... with meekness and fear" route.

 

I also wanted to add:

my response about the effect of Christ's evangelical tools was in direct response to anj's

"Do you find that your evangelization tools have won many converts to "the Roman Pontiff"?

 

not everyone is called to convert everyone. That's the job of the Holy Spirit ;)

so I would posit that her question itself lacks a deeper understanding of each person's role in Christ. It's also ironic --clwcain mentioned that his "evangelical tools" are specifically prayer --not his words. Yet it seems to be his words that anj is assuming are his "evangelical tools." I think we can take some more time later [when poor anj's brain isn't fried, lol] to clarify that.

[Peek a Boo]

I admit to feeling a little stung.

 

:: passing some Holy Triple Antibiotic [i boiled the hell out of it] and some rhino skin to Jami ::

[Peek a Boo]

I am wondering if someone posted beliefs *about their own religion* stating that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God and is the only source for Christian doctrine........if those of you who are Christian and are offended by his statements would be offended by that statement?

 

----

Does my writing what I believe as it is taught by my denomination cause offense? I'm sorry if that is your reaction. But from my POV, it is simply the equivalent of what I read daily about Protestant perspectives of icons, Mary, sacraments, communion of saints, and my list could go on.

 

I do not take offense at Protestant POV posted on this forum. I would hope that others views can be equally respected.

 

I have posted that and yes, there's usually some rebuttal. I should "post it as a personal opinion" that applies only to myself, not try to drag the rest of the world into my religion. basically, anyway.

 

But i still agree with you.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I also wanted to add:

my response about the effect of Christ's evangelical tools was in direct response to anj's

"Do you find that your evangelization tools have won many converts to "the Roman Pontiff"?

 

not everyone is called to convert everyone. That's the job of the Holy Spirit ;)

so I would posit that her question itself lacks a deeper understanding of each person's role in Christ. It's also ironic --clwcain mentioned that his "evangelical tools" are specifically prayer --not his words. Yet it seems to be his words that anj is assuming are his "evangelical tools." I think we can take some more time later [when poor anj's brain isn't fried, lol] to clarify that.

 

 

He'll have to pray a little harder for me, I guess, in order to get me to submit spiritually or politically to a foreign head of state. *shrug* Or do it at the point of legislation, which is why I inquired before.

 

I admit I can't get my brain around the idea that Jesus was an evangelist. But I guess one could argue that. *shrug again*

 

I have no horse in this race. Yet I continue to type. :001_huh:

[Jami]

:: passing some Holy Triple Antibiotic [i boiled the hell out of it] and some rhino skin to Jami ::

 

Thanks Peek. Not *that* stung though, the rhino skin would be overkill this time. :001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

He'll have to pray a little harder for me, I guess, in order to get me to submit spiritually or politically to a foreign head of state. *shrug* Or do it at the point of legislation, which is why I inquired before.

 

I admit I can't get my brain around the idea that Jesus was an evangelist. But I guess one could argue that. *shrug again*

 

I have no horse in this race. Yet I continue to type. :001_huh:

 

 

:D

having no horse in the race makes it kinda easy --check out my posts in the evolution thread lol!:lol:

 

well, Jesus was an evangelist so far as He, uh, evangelized, lol.

 

1 : to preach the gospel to [check.]

2 : to convert to Christianity [uh, check, lol]

 

and remember = it might not be clwcain's job to get you into religion ;)

I think he's in charge of converting Phred....

 

JOKE! really! i think, lol.....:lol:

[Gretchen in NJ]

:D

having no horse in the race makes it kinda easy --check out my posts in the evolution thread lol!:lol:

 

well, Jesus was an evangelist so far as He, uh, evangelized, lol.

 

1 : to preach the gospel to [check.]

2 : to convert to Christianity [uh, check, lol]

 

and remember = it might not be clwcain's job to get you into religion ;)

I think he's in charge of converting Phred....

 

JOKE! really! i think, lol.....:lol:

 

I can't breath. I am laughing too hard!

[*anj*]

 

I have no horse in this race. Yet I continue to type. :001_huh:

 

You know, I really don't either. I don't even know why I'm still reading this thread.

 

I have read the comments directed to me. It would be easier to have this conversation over coffee, or even on the phone. I'm feeling like every word I type is being dissected and misinterpreted.

 

And your horse metaphor is fitting, Pam, because on that note Dover is moving her bloomin' arse up to bed. Nighty night!

[Jenny in Atl]

:D

having no horse in the race makes it kinda easy --check out my posts in the evolution thread lol!:lol:

well, Jesus was an evangelist so far as He, uh, evangelized, lol.

 

1 : to preach the gospel to [check.]

2 : to convert to Christianity [uh, check, lol]

 

 

 

I'm a bit lost here.. convert to Christianity? Did it exist during Jesus' time? Odd, I thought he was a Rabbi? Do the Jews refer to the Old Testament as the Gospel?

[Pink Fairy]

I think what some people are finding offensive may be his *religious views,* not his manner of discourse. But it's easier to criticize one's speech, than to come right out and say, "I don't like what you believe!!"

 

I don't agree with him theologically either, but I don't think he presented his views in an argumentative manner. He told the truth as he sees it, in response to a direct question that was asked of him. I don't think he should be criticized for that.

 

Erica

 

It's not his beliefs that are offensive for me, it IS the tone of his discourse. I am in agreement with his beliefs (assuming he is a practicing, orthodox Catholic, which I gather he is), but because he expresses them in such a flippant, in-your-face manner, he is unnecessarily sewing seeds of discord and resentment. You and some others are not offended--great. But it's not the way Catholics are encouraged to dialog with their brothers and sisters in Christ, and I do believe others--myself included--HAVE found his manner offensive.

[8filltheheart]

I have posted that and yes, there's usually some rebuttal. I should "post it as a personal opinion" that applies only to myself, not try to drag the rest of the world into my religion. basically, anyway.

 

But i still agree with you.

 

LOL.....but I doubt the rebuttal was actually posted by a Catholic! (Unless I have missed the flaming "save the lost brethren" poster somewhere!)

 

Just not a typical evangelical move by a Catholic. ;)