Question:
I have to wonder why non-catholics have to come to our ng and attack our faith. Further, I have to wonder why people get so
upset about their posts. Here’s an idea – ignore them.
Ever hear a rumor or reported ‘fact’ that was not challenged? Kind of says the ‘fact’ is accepted doesn’t it? So, when anti-catholics come here and begin spreading their ’facts’, we need to refute them. More people have been lost to the fables of anti-catholics because no one challenged them than any other reason. Pax Christi, Pat
Response:
[to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic] following: "Truth" is a two-edged sword. To me, Paddy, you unmistakably represent the modern equivalent of those who sought the death of Jesus. You are anything but ‘controversial’, as Jesus was. Jesus railed against folks like you, who make such exclusive claims to the truth. You are staid, stale and wholly predictable–exactly like the Scribes and Pharisees, and unlike the Gospel, which is a topsy-turvy reality that re-orders the world as we know it.
"Truth" is only a two-edged sword to those who think truth ought to be put in quotation marks. I suggest that you "re-order" your world so that truth is truth, not "truth". I welcome e-mail replies. 
But I have no time for e-mail debates. 
"No one likes bad news, no one welcomes what condemns him; the world slanders the Truth in self-defence, because the Truth denounces the world." John Henry Newman, "The Salvation of the Hearer the Motive of the Preacher" (1849)
Response:
[to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic] following: I have to wonder why non-catholics have to come to our ng and attack our faith. Further, I have to wonder why people get so upset about their posts. Here’s an idea – ignore them. Ever hear a rumor or reported ‘fact’ that was not challenged? Kind of says the ‘fact’ is accepted doesn’t it? So, when anti-catholics come here and begin spreading their ’facts’, we need to refute them. More people have been lost to the fables of anti-catholics because no one challenged them than any other reason.
I agree with that 100%. For example, Nicholas goes about telling people how some unspecified Catholic at some unspecified time in some unspecified place for some unspecified reason said that murdering heretics is a fine and noble thing to do–and then states that Vatican Council II had nothing to say about that. The former charge is difficult to "refute" because Nicholas has NEVER told us who he is supposedly quoting. The latter charge is easy to refute…. Here is what the "Vatican II Council" actually said about religious freedom: "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits. The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right." Vatican Council II, 7 December 1965, Declaration on Religious Liberty, _Dignitatis Humanae_ ("The Dignity of the Human Person"), Article 2, Paragraph 1. I welcome e-mail replies. But I have no time for e-mail debates. "It is by wholesale, retail, systematic, unscrupulous lying, for I can use no gentler term, that the many rivulets are made to flow for the feeding the great Protestant Tradition." John Henry Newman, "Fable the Basis of the Protestant View" (1851)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have to wonder why non-catholics have to come to our ng and attack our faith. Further, I have to wonder why people get so upset about their posts. Here’s an idea – ignore them. Ever hear a rumor or reported ‘fact’ that was not challenged? Kind of says the ‘fact’ is accepted doesn’t it? So, when anti-catholics come here and begin spreading their ’facts’, we need to refute them. More people have been lost to the fables of anti-catholics because no one challenged them than any other reason. Pax Christi, Pat
Sure have. But most of the arguing here that I’ve read is not arguing rumor. You’re arguing key points on the faith itself. This is a Roman Catholic forum. To those who with to use this as a conversion ground for your favorite belief, please take your arguing and attacking elsewhere and let us share with one another and with those who wish to carry on intelligent conversation about the _F_aith. Doug Delorge
Response:
No, but then he was brilliant.
Response:
No, but then he was brilliant.
doesn’t the bible use the term "perfect"?
Response:
[to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic] Brilliant! following: I think that the original poster of this thread is basically saying, "In the name of Jesus, (which he thinks means "niceness") let’s accept any idiotic thought that comes down the pike." So, let’s not argue about abortion, divorce, murder, adultery, the Mass, the sacraments, the priesthood, the Pope, the Trinity, the saints and Purgatory – let’s just be "Christian". And if anyone knows what "Christian" means after that, I’d love to hear his definition. Oh wait, that might instigate an argument – never mind. BAM
I welcome e-mail replies. But I have no time for e-mail debates.
Response:
However, IF Christ did not stand firm for the truth, would the Scribes and the Pharisees have sought His death? If He was not ‘controversial’, would He have been seen as such a threat? Teaching the truth invites controversy. Standing for the truth invites attacks. No one was martyred for being ‘nice’. But many were martyred because they refused to deny the truth for the sake of ‘political’ niceties.
"Truth" is a two-edged sword. To me, Paddy, you unmistakably represent the modern equivalent of those who sought the death of Jesus. You are anything but ‘controversial’, as Jesus was. Jesus railed against folks like you, who make such exclusive claims to the truth. You are staid, stale and wholly predictable–exactly like the Scribes and Pharisees, and unlike the Gospel, which is a topsy-turvy reality that re-orders the world as we know it. Have a nice day. Oscar "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" -O. Wilde-
Response:
group is doing in the name of religion?
I wonder becuase all his apostles went willingly; Jesus never had to
force himself onto anyone, and did not direct his followers to that I
know of.. That must be a very important aspect of being Christian.
Is anything accomplished. just wondering and thought I’d pass it along.
Much is accomplished. Firstly, Christ’s truth is defended, regardless of the pain such defense may bring. (Christ said that such would be the fate of those who loved and defended Him.) We are not ashamed of our faith, but proclaim it. However, ‘forcing’ oneself is another issue. IF a Catholic were to go to a Protestant newsgroup and ‘force’ themselves onto their discussions, then I can agree that such a reaction is not Christian. However, most of what occurs here is a ‘defense’ of the Church, sadly, even from other ‘relative’ Catholics. No one is ‘forcing’ anything. However, IF Christ did not stand firm for the truth, would the Scribes and the Pharisees have sought His death? If He was not ‘controversial’, would He have been seen as such a threat? Teaching the truth invites controversy. Standing for the truth invites attacks. No one was martyred for being ‘nice’. But many were martyred because they refused to deny the truth for the sake of ‘political’ niceties. Pax Christi, Pat
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – group is doing in the name of religion? I wonder becuase all his apostles went willingly; Jesus never had to force himself onto anyone, and did not direct his followers to that I know of.. That must be a very important aspect of being Christian. Is anything accomplished. I think this medium has it’s limits in that it tends towards controversy. But often you make contacts and exchange private email where it is more civil. But due to some personal defect, I myself learn the Faith best through controversy. I don’t often just site down and read an encyclical or catechism, but a well articulated opposing view often drives me to that! Steel sharpening steel. -Alan Wostenberg
I have to wonder why non-catholics have to come to our ng and attack our faith. Further, I have to wonder why people get so upset about their posts. Here’s an idea – ignore them.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – group is doing in the name of religion? I wonder becuase all his apostles went willingly; Jesus never had to force himself onto anyone, and did not direct his followers to that I know of.. That must be a very important aspect of being Christian. Is anything accomplished. I think this medium has it’s limits in that it tends towards controversy. But often you make contacts and exchange private email where it is more civil. But due to some personal defect, I myself learn the Faith best through controversy. I don’t often just site down and read an encyclical or catechism, but a well articulated opposing view often drives me to that! Steel sharpening steel. -Alan Wostenberg I have to wonder why non-catholics have to come to our ng and attack our faith. Further, I have to wonder why people get so upset about their posts. Here’s an idea – ignore them.
I like to explore and challenge and it seems the apostles did this regularly with Jesus, and even tried his patiences sometimes. But they respected each other and it struck me when I read all these messages that Jesus never directed any apostles to go out and "force" the issues onto people who opposed him. Seems like those opposers didn’t really sway his course at all. I could be wrong though; I am by no means a scholar, and I don’t mean to put anybody down. There are really nice people on this group who reach out if you ask for help. It’s just that there seems also to be vicious people who thrive here and it is curious. thanks,
Response:
I think that the original poster of this thread is basically saying, "In the name of Jesus, (which he thinks means "niceness") let’s accept any idiotic thought that comes down the pike." So, let’s not argue about abortion, divorce, murder, adultery, the Mass, the sacraments, the priesthood, the Pope, the Trinity, the saints and Purgatory – let’s just be "Christian". And if anyone knows what "Christian" means after that, I’d love to hear his definition. Oh wait, that might instigate an argument – never mind. BAM
Response:
[to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic] group is doing in the name of religion? I wonder becuase all his apostles went willingly; Jesus never had to force himself onto anyone, and did not direct his followers to that I know of.. That must be a very important aspect of being Christian……
I am wondering: how on Earth can posting to a newsgroup be considered forcing oneself onto anybody? (That is what you mean, isn’t it?) If anything remotely like that goes on in a.r.c.r-c, it is the Catholic Haters posting their lies who try to "force" something onto others–and, as far as I know, everybody is quite free to ignore them (or laugh at them). I welcome e-mail replies. But I have no time for e-mail debates. "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15 KJV)
Response:
group is doing in the name of religion? I wonder becuase all his apostles went willingly; Jesus never had to force himself onto anyone, and did not direct his followers to that I know of.. That must be a very important aspect of being Christian. Is anything accomplished. just wondering and thought I’d pass it along. thanks for the answers to the "turn the other cheek" question; it really made me change my action.
Response:
group is doing in the name of religion? I wonder becuase all his apostles went willingly; Jesus never had to force himself onto anyone, and did not direct his followers to that I know of.. That must be a very important aspect of being Christian. Is anything accomplished.
I think this medium has it’s limits in that it tends towards controversy. But often you make contacts and exchange private email where it is more civil. But due to some personal defect, I myself learn the Faith best through controversy. I don’t often just site down and read an encyclical or catechism, but a well articulated opposing view often drives me to that! Steel sharpening steel. -Alan Wostenberg
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.