Why do you post here?

lugha

Don’t know if this is a novel question or if it is appropriate (if no and no, mods feel free to cast the thread in to the fiery pit). But why do you post here?
In particular, in the exchanges between those with faith and those without it seems evident that few people if any change their position one iota no matter how good or detailed the arguments put by the other side might be. It seems no one is for turning. So why bother with an extensive post if you must surely expect that it will be summarily dismissed? Do believers feed obliged to defend their beliefs? Do they feel that atheism will expand if it is not vigorously challenged? Would some prefer if it was a Christians only forum? In the other camp, do atheists see it as part of some noble and necessary battle against religion? On either side, is it a means of acquainting oneself with the arguments of the other camp in order to be better prepared to rebut them? Or heaven help us, does anyone really thing that they will turn someone? Or is it all just a jolly good diversion?
Personally, it is none of the above. I don’t believe, but am genuinely curious as to why people do. Alas, I am impeded in seeking an answer to my question because like the creatures in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I don’t know what the question is! So I lurk about to see if I can learn anything.

BTW, this is not about the merits of either side’s argument. I am interested to know “why do you fight?” rather than “why are you right?” so perhaps you could leave the grenades at the front desk.

xp90

kelly1

lugha wrote: »

Don’t know if this is a novel question or if it is appropriate (if no and no, mods feel free to cast the thread in to the fiery pit). But why do you post here?
In particular, in the exchanges between those with faith and those without it seems evident that few people if any change their position one iota no matter how good or detailed the arguments put by the other side might be. It seems no one is for turning. So why bother with an extensive post if you must surely expect that it will be summarily dismissed? Do believers feed obliged to defend their beliefs? Do they feel that atheism will expand if it is not vigorously challenged? Would some prefer if it was a Christians only forum? In the other camp, do atheists see it as part of some noble and necessary battle against religion? On either side, is it a means of acquainting oneself with the arguments of the other camp in order to be better prepared to rebut them? Or heaven help us, does anyone really thing that they will turn someone? Or is it all just a jolly good diversion?
Personally, it is none of the above. I don’t believe, but am genuinely curious as to why people do. Alas, I am impeded in seeking an answer to my question because like the creatures in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I don’t know what the question is! So I lurk about to see if I can learn anything.

BTW, this is not about the merits of either side’s argument. I am interested to know “why do you fight?” rather than “why are you right?” so perhaps you could leave the grenades at the front desk.

Good questions Lugha. I've given up debating here. It does no good at all as far as I can see. I prepared to answer questions but I've given up trying to convince people of the truth of Catholicism. I've learned the hard way that only God can lead us to the truth.

Fanny Cradock

I've long ago decided that you can't talk someone into belief, but there remains three reasons as to why I stick around.

1) To learn from believers and non-believers alike.
2) To defend my belief from what I see as crude caricaturisation and bitter attack.
3) It's my job, and I get paid handsomely for it.

PDN

1. Because I'm a crashing bore who loves pontificating about matters religious.

2. I originally started posting here because I saw so many strawmen, misrepresentations, and caricatures being presented by opponents of Christianity that I couldn't resist correcting them.

Hotspace

I post here because…

I honestly struggle daily as to how someone can believe in God. I believe that if all the data and arguments presently knowable were presented side by side then the religious would begin to see outside of the delusion. I’m more interested in truth and getting at it. If that involves me regaining my once born-again religion (if it is possible to be born-again then dead-again and then born-again – that’s another question for the forum) then so be it.

I am intensely interested in religion because of its obvious affect on humanity.

I don’t for one second believe that any one argument or one post will deflect people instantly away from a belief in Jesus Christ. I know, through experience, that the hardest thing to change is a mind. But, they can be changed; there are many testimonies to that on ex-christian.net. Like I said in one of my posts the commonality between most of the anti-testimonies on ex-christian.net is a conflation between three points.

1. An open and questioning mind, perhaps philosophical in nature
2. New information that seems to contradict the current knowledge framework held by the believer
3. A personal crisis.


Presumably an open and questioning mind is already held by posters here; otherwise they wouldn’t be here. If I present new information/angles and number 3 hits them at the same time then I believe success could be had. However, I’m conscious that a mind can never be led it must come to the conclusions itself.

The frequency of my posts will never be great. That’s more to do with the amount of time not available to me rather than caring to correct anyone.

lugha wrote: »

In the other camp, do atheists see it as part of some noble and necessary battle against religion?

No, Mmm...maybe. I see it more as a challenge, something that I enjoy. A battle of wits is the only battle worth having. And there is no other topic that causes more confrontation than religion. Now, isn’t that ironic.

Also – and on a personal level – I see it as a way to keep my levels of expression and use of the English language in a constant state. In my line of work (software engineering) they can atrophy very easily.

JimiTime

A few reasons.

1. Education. Some posters have great knowledge on certain things which can be tapped into.

2. Discussion. Good honest discussion about interpretations, history etc. The key is identifying honesty IMO. Those who I feel are honest, whatever their view, can usually add to constructive discussion.

3. Getting rid of ignorance, or confirming pre-conceptions. There are many things which I would have thought based on things I've been told in the past etc, which can be confirmed or shown to be false.

4. Insight. It gives good insight into the workings of peoples of different views. From the most cutting, sarcastic atheist, to the most institutionalised of religious.

5. It raises questions that I would not have thought of.

6. Tempering my knowledge and debateing skills in a melting pot of differing positions. It has helped me distinguish the type of folk to engage with, and those who not to engage with. This being a faceless medium, alot of those who would not be so ferocious face to face, vent what they truly feel in some circumstances. This once again can give a better insight to certain anti-religious bitterness.

7. Fellowship. Its not ideal, but it is nice to have some like minded folk to share faith with. Be it in the real or the cyberworld.

On a side note, if ones reasons for posting here were that you felt like you have it all licked and you want others to know this 'truth', I think you'd go off your rocker. A case in point below.

Kelly1 wrote:

I've given up debating here. It does no good at all as far as I can see. I prepared to answer questions but I've given up trying to convince people of the truth of Catholicism

Certainly there are times when we feel that we are correct and we try to convince others. However, if your goal here is just this, it is a worthless venture I feel.

I think also, that there was a time here that it became so full of trolly behaviour, that I felt the whole forum was losing its worth. Thankfully, thanks to the mods, and some folk showing a bit more decorum at times, it has become a better place again.

philologos

I find the most value in the Christianity forum than on any other forums on boards. Why? Simply because we have a lot of people who have a solid basis in Christianity posting here.

I originally posted here when I was just walking in the new faith that I had found in God. As I read the posts, and as I started posting myself my faith in God strengthened and I learned a lot about the Bible as I did so. People like PDN have provided solid and rational explanations for several Christian teachings, often without much appreciation.

This forum offers a place for Christians to offer support to one another, answer questions from non-believers, to offer advice in situations that might be challenging in our faith, to help guide us in any difficulties we encounter when reading the Bible. The prayer request section allows us to empathise with people who are going through stuggles, the Praise the Lord thread allows us to celebrate with others. The truly Christian ethic of "Weep with those who are weeping, and rejoice with those who are rejoicing". Like everything else, this forum has its ups and downs, but they are mostly ups.

The real advantage of this forum is entirely dependant on this question:
Do I really want to know and walk with God?

If the answer is yes, you will find this forum beneficial.

postcynical

I read this thread for the quality of the posters. There are some very well informed, enthusiastic and generous posters who frequent this forum.

I've no interest in converting others whether atheists to Christianity or Christians to Catholicism. I leave all that to God. I'm happy He has made Himself known to me and I see fellow pilgrims in this forum.

This forum helps me develop my relationship with God. We can all learn from each other. There are some excellent teachers here too. It also helps me explore my Catholic faith, in part by offering some very convincing Protestant perspectives to contrast my untested beliefs.

The forum is positive and affirming of Christianity. I am amazed how much Christians have in common. Some posters show great sensitivity and tact. There is great honesty and openness. For instance, I enjoy many of Wolfsbane's posts yet his views in another's mouth (or avatar) would offend me deeply. I don't encounter such people in the real world, or we don't discuss such issues (thankfully!)

Tim Robbins

1.
I am interested in the pyschology of people with what I would see as cocksure religious views.

2.
Outside their religious views, I would have a softspot for most of the Christian posters. I would find most of them to be very nice people who have some sort of belief system that doesn't involve wealth accumulation.

3.
I like trying out my various arguments against Christianity.
I don't really know anyone who'd be comfortable taking these arguments and who would attempt to rebutt them.

4.
Educational and skill development.

I would occasionally learn something about Christianity that I didn't know. I have found that since arguing with people in this forum if I met a Bible basher say in town or in Speaker's corner I'd hammer them in a debate in record time.

5.
Many of the other forums on boards allow very little debate. If you take a view against the mods or the regulars you get banned. Here the mods are probably the most tolerant on the net.

6.
I find it incredible the way the Christians just keep going. You get what appears to be a killer argument usually from Robindch and they just keep going. I think if you could convert their resilience into energy we would have no need for fossil fuels.

7.
I'm sorry, but some of the far fetched miracles claims are entertaining especially if I am looking for a pick up at 3.00

Soul Winner

Good post:

I started to post here for sort of the same reason PDN did. Reading a lot of stuff that needed correction both from believers and non believers. But I also wanted to do some pay back as I have also learned a lot and still do from believers and non believers. It is a great place to have your faith challenge and not undermined. The contributions from all sides are great even if some of them make you look silly at times. That's what its all about, living and learning. What an age we live in to be able to communicate like this with people from all walks of life and different parts of the world.

Also I found that some of the non believers have very valid questions which needed explanation. On the face of it they would look damaging to the faith but usually when one investigates more one can find adequate answers which end up helping you more than the person asking the questions.

Another reason I post here is because you just don't know what you're gonna get. Some weeks can be pretty boring and then others are a hive of activity. And if it wasn't for Boards I would probably never have heard of the likes of William Lane Craig. Nice one Kelly1 (Noel) it was one of your posts that first linked me to his debates. You see you do make a difference even though you can't always see it . Don't give up posting young sir.

As much as we argue with the atheist’s camp I do think that behind it all they are honest in their endeavors and have very valid reservations about religion. It's not like it hasn't got a checkered past or anything, just don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Listen to Jesus dudes

Posters who I think contribute the most in no particular order are Wolfsbane-Jackass-PDN-Jimitime-Fanny Cradock-Kelly1 and on the other side of the fence the warriors are Wicknight-Sam Vimmes-Robinch-Mobert-Mark Hamil-Atomic Horror, all to name but a few on either side. On our side the most articulate is PDN imo, his knowledge of Chuirch history and just his general knowlege is very helpful, and on the other side it has to be Wick even though he confuses me at times but heck he puts in the posts in fairness.

As for me, I just hope I can help those who just read the posts and don't participate that much. I'm sure there are a lot of them. Sorry if I don't come across as well as I should and praise God if you learn anything from any of us that will help you in your daily walk with Him.

EDIT: My word. How could I have forgotten to mention the one and only J C. J C - you the man

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1.
5.
Many of the other forums on boards allow very little debate. If you take a view against the mods or the regulars you get banned. Here the mods are probably the most tolerant on the net.

You're darn tootin' we are!

antiskeptic

The book of Romans tells us that "the gospel (and not argument aimed at the intellect), is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe". That is not to say that intellectual argumentation can't be used in Trojan Horse-like fashion to deliver the essence of the gospel behind the defensive lines of the unbeliever.

Christianity is intellectually satisfying once the light has gone on sufficient to get it - and intellectual nonsense until that point. The blinded intellect of the unbeliever simply can't understand the things of God - so there's little point in attempting to travel this route with him imo.

Handsome Bob

I'd agree with you OP in the sense that I do think debate is somewhat futile. No-one is going to change their mind, especially on such a heated subject such as religion. I do feel that only through personal experiences will anyone begin to doubt their beliefs.

I guess I post in this forum as well as in A&A because there is nothing that aggravates me more than strawman arguments. There is just something about misrepresenting someone and manipulating the facts that I absolutely detest.

Fanny Cradock

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'd agree with you OP in the sense that I do think debate is somewhat futile. QUOTE]

Socrates had it when he said that "the unexamined life is not worth living". I'm not pointing fingers or casting stones in this matter, but it seems to me that there has historically been a distinct lack of examination amongst the most people when it comes to examine what it is they believe, and not only in terms of religious faith but over a range of general issues. Arguably this has been particularly evident amongst the "cultural Christian" types and the devout, but it also seems to be discernable amongst what I see as a new breed of "cultural atheists".

The internet is as much a battlefield as any other front of the public square. And while I don't believe that you can win anyone to faith through argument alone, it might be a step on the road to faith (or the loss of it). There is undoubtedly a need to engage people at an intellectual level and to right wrongs. Hopefully, whatever your stance, this forum serves some part in that engagement.

lugha

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

… but it seems to me that there has historically been a distinct lack of examination amongst the most people when it comes to examine what it is they believe, and not only in terms of religious faith but over a range of general issues ….

Perhaps, but it is worth remembering that we live in a fairly privileged time when we have the luxury and opportunity to muse over such matters. Previous generations, and even many of the present one, did not have the same access to the mass of information that we do and often might not have been sufficiently literate to exploit it even if they had.

If any idea is worth embracing, then however sound the philosophy on which is it is based and however well versed its advocates might be in its finer detail, surely there also has to be a “simple sell” if it is to be available to all and not be the exclusive preserve of the intellectual elite?

peakpilgrim

lugha wrote: »

Don’t know if this is a novel question or if it is appropriate (if no and no, mods feel free to cast the thread in to the fiery pit). But why do you post here?
In particular, in the exchanges between those with faith and those without it seems evident that few people if any change their position one iota no matter how good or detailed the arguments put by the other side might be. It seems no one is for turning. So why bother with an extensive post if you must surely expect that it will be summarily dismissed? Do believers feed obliged to defend their beliefs? Do they feel that atheism will expand if it is not vigorously challenged? Would some prefer if it was a Christians only forum? In the other camp, do atheists see it as part of some noble and necessary battle against religion? On either side, is it a means of acquainting oneself with the arguments of the other camp in order to be better prepared to rebut them? Or heaven help us, does anyone really thing that they will turn someone? Or is it all just a jolly good diversion?
Personally, it is none of the above. I don’t believe, but am genuinely curious as to why people do. Alas, I am impeded in seeking an answer to my question because like the creatures in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I don’t know what the question is! So I lurk about to see if I can learn anything.

BTW, this is not about the merits of either side’s argument. I am interested to know “why do you fight?” rather than “why are you right?” so perhaps you could leave the grenades at the front desk.

This is a very good question and one worth answering.

I started posting here a few months ago because I had a few questions about Scripture and, also, the thoughts of extremists Christians that I wanted to investigate, and I got some very illuminating responses from Non-Catholic posters. I was brought up in the Catholic faith and I am quite ignorant of the various Non-Catholic Churches and would be very interested in discussing religion on a Christian to Christian basis.

However: I have discovered that the forum is blatantly, and unapologetically, Anti-Catholic and there is often far too much ’Taig-Bashing’ going on to be able to have any reasoned debate.

So, in answer to your question, posting here is often pointless really if one is not prepared to leave one’s prejudices aside; you really will not achieve anything or learn anything.

It should be possible to disagree without being disagreeable; you can have a row with a ‘bigot’ on any street corner; but these are best avoided.

JimiTime

peakpilgrim wrote: »

However: I have discovered that the forum is blatantly, and unapologetically, Anti-Catholic and there is often far too much ’Taig-Bashing’ going on to be able to have any reasoned debate.

I don't know what 'Taig-Bashing' is, but The 'forum' being 'Anti-catholic'? I don't think there are many catholic posters here, and alot of the Christians disagree with alot of RC doctrine. To be expected really, seing how most of us aren't RC. Personally, I think alot of the trouble arises when RC's start making claims about it being the 'One true church', 'Apostolic sucession' etc. Non RC's will usually respond in a manner that forcefully opposes such doctrines. If the Catholics here decided to be more inclusive, and rather than proclaiming the truth of RC, used the forum as a place of 'Christian' discussion. They may find the place a bit more peaceable and less frustrating. At the end of the day, the non-catholic Christians here disagree on stuff all the time.

It should be possible to disagree without being disagreeable; you can have a row with a ‘bigot’ on any street corner; but these are best avoided.

Are you still talking about the other Christians here? If you are, I think you should do the honourable thing and back this statement up. I personally think this is harsh.

Personally, I think this forum is Christian friendly. So many Catholics though who have appeared here have complained like you have done. MichaelG, Calibos(I think that was the name), Kelly1 and now yourself. If you approached the forum with the motivation of discussion, and not of directing us to the truth of the RCC I think you'll have a better time. I don't think any of the non-catholics here are going to turn into RC's. We have our reasons, of which there are many. If you want to engage in discussion with such Christians though, using the RCC as an authority is obviously not going to cut it. Personally I think this is where most of the RC's frustration lies. Though talking about us being bigotted against you is quite harsh, and wrong IMO.

I must say I'm disappointed. I did enjoy your input in the forum, and its always good to have new Christians come in and give their take on things. It would be very disappointing if you are another RC with a persecution complex:( Though I may have spoken too soon as you may provide backup to your statements and make me look like a right idiot:) Either way though, I hope you reconsider.

Phototoxin

erm because I'm a curious B@$74D and I'm sympathetic to Chritianity even if I cannot belive in it. Also I find many atheists i meet quite arrogant and condescending in manner and tone. Agnostics tend to be like meself though (seeing as how I am one it helps to be like one =p )

peakpilgrim

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know what 'Taig-Bashing' is, but The 'forum' being 'Anti-catholic'? I don't think there are many catholic posters here, and alot of the Christians disagree with alot of RC doctrine. To be expected really, seing how most of us aren't RC. Personally, I think alot of the trouble arises when RC's start making claims about it being the 'One true church', 'Apostolic sucession' etc. Non RC's will usually respond in a manner that forcefully opposes such doctrines. If the Catholics here decided to be more inclusive, and rather than proclaiming the truth of RC, used the forum as a place of 'Christian' discussion. They may find the place a bit more peaceable and less frustrating. At the end of the day, the non-catholic Christians here disagree on stuff all the time.


Are you still talking about the other Christians here? If you are, I think you should do the honourable thing and back this statement up. I personally think this is harsh.

Personally, I think this forum is Christian friendly. So many Catholics though who have appeared here have complained like you have done. MichaelG, Calibos(I think that was the name), Kelly1 and now yourself. If you approached the forum with the motivation of discussion, and not of directing us to the truth of the RCC I think you'll have a better time. I don't think any of the non-catholics here are going to turn into RC's. We have our reasons, of which there are many. If you want to engage in discussion with such Christians though, using the RCC as an authority is obviously not going to cut it. Personally I think this is where most of the RC's frustration lies. Though talking about us being bigotted against you is quite harsh, and wrong IMO.

I think when you get a ‘Moderator’ on a ‘Christianity Forum’ who declares: ‘ I am not a fan of The Catholic Church’ (Ecumenism Thread. Post 35 )

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee!

I also think that Atheists must be pissing themselves laughing when they see all the pointless bickering that goes on between Christians of different shades.

I am not trying to convert anyone; that's not my job; as far as I am concerned Non-Catholics are just Christians on a different path to God, as I stated on the Ecumenism Forum; I have never made a derogatory remark against any other Church and would not do so; unless they are extremists.

However, since I started posting on this Forum I have found myself having to defend The Catholic Church against vitriolic attack time and again from people who should know better.

I am not an Apologist for The Catholic Church and that was not the reason why I came on this Forum originally.

I have not got a persecution complex; I would just prefer to have proper dialogue.

philologos

peakpilgrim: Not every Christian has to be a fan of the Catholic Church.

It's a bit more of a mixed bag for me. I find elements of RCC teaching to be Biblically incorrect, but I think the Catholic Church has done a lot of good in our communities. I think in comparison to other sections of this site anti-Catholicism is not an issue.

Bear in mind, you will occasionally find anti-Anglicanism (see the post I respond to here), and people who have disagree with different denominational practices.

If we can express our views in a calm and collected manner, I don't feel anything wrong with discussing denominational disagreements.

JimiTime

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I think when you get a ‘Moderator’ on a ‘Christianity Forum’ who declares: ‘ I am not a fan of The Catholic Church’ (Ecumenism Thread. Post 35 )

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee!

Honestly, I don't see the issue. He's not a fan of the church. Neither am I, nor are many. It doesn't stop me from calling a Catholic Christian 'brother'. If I was a 'fan' of the RCC I'd likely be one. You may be taking too much out of that.

I also think that Atheists must be pissing themselves laughing when they see all the pointless bickering that goes on between Christians of different shades.

I'm sure they do. What can I say though. We disagree about alot:)

I am not trying to convert anyone; that's not my job; as far as I am concerned Non-Catholics are just Christians on a different path to God, as I stated on the Ecumenism Forum; I have never made a derogatory remark against any other Church and would not do so;

If thats the case great. It would be good if it could continue. Honestly, I don't think anyones 'out to get the RCC'. Some may be more forcefully opposed than others to their doctrines, but hey ho the forum is a melting pot.

unless they are extremists.

I don't really know what this means tbh.

However, since I started posting on this Forum I have found myself having to defend The Catholic Church against vitriolic attack time and again from people who should know better.

Of all the denominations, I do think they come under the most scrutiny alright. However, they do make the greatest claims. I can't help but feel you may be going a bit OTT though. If this is what you feel though, thats your perogative.

I am not an Apologist for The catholic Church and that was not the reason why I came on this Forum originally.

Well I'll say it again. Its good to have Christians of different perspectives here. I've enjoyed some of your input, so it would be nice if you stuck around and continued to give us your insights. I've got an extra 'thick skin' you could borrow:) Though if you find it of little value, I completely understand why you'd knock it on the head.

Phototoxin

If the Catholics here decided to be more inclusive, and rather than proclaiming the truth of RC, used the forum as a place of 'Christian' discussion. They may find the place a bit more peaceable and less frustrating. At the end of the day, the non-catholic Christians here disagree on stuff all the time.

LuLz because non catholics are heretics in the eyes of catholicsm. Its difficult to be inclusive if your religon says its so good because its the only right way by default all others must be somewhat lacking

I am not trying to convert anyone; that's not my job; as far as I am concerned Non-Catholics are just Christians on a different path to God, as I stated on the Ecumenism Forum; I have never made a derogatory remark against any other Church and would not do so; unless they are extremists.

Catholics would disagree.

Turtwig

Em, this is probably the shortest answer you'll get. Who knows, maybe I'll expand later.

I post here because the majority of the people here have a firm understanding of the bible. I spent a good deal of time when I was younger marvelling at that book and learning as much as I could about it. Then, I decided I wanted to blank it all out! Now for completely different reasons I want to learn it again from a wholly different perspective

PDN

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I think when you get a ‘Moderator’ on a ‘Christianity Forum’ who declares: ‘ I am not a fan of The Catholic Church’ (Ecumenism Thread. Post 35 )

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee!

I certainly think it is time to wake up and smell the coffee! This is a forum with posters from many different kinds of churches. I'm not sure what kind of church could exist where everybody is a fan of it.

There have been a couple of threads recently where speaking in tongues has been discussed. The majority of posters said they didn't see the point of it etc. So, as a Pentecostal who believes in and practices speaking in tongues, should I accuse everyone of Pentecostal-bashing and throw my rattle out of the pram? Of course not, I'm cool with the fact that most posters aren't into my kind of Christianity - but we can still agree on loads of other stuff and learn from each other.

The difference, of course, is that I am not trying to push Pentecostalism as the one true form of the faith - so I'm hardly going to be offended by the fact that my church is simply a small part of a much greater faith that encompasses many different denominations and movements.

The ironic thing is that the most abusive PM messages I get as a moderator are when I've infracted some atheist troll for hateful comments they made about the RC Church. Then I get told how I'm brainwashed in Catholicism and am afraid to allow any criticism of the Papacy! People are funny.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I certainly think it is time to wake up and smell the coffee!

Exactly. Every Christian should know there are many times of Christianity and stop committing false singularity fallacies in their commentary. Sure haven't I been saying that for ages :-)

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Exactly. Every Christian should know there are many times of Christianity and stop committing false singularity fallacies in their commentary. Sure haven't I been saying that for ages :-)

As an Anglican, I don't think the types are all that different ultimately. :pac:

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

I certainly think it is time to wake up and smell the coffee! This is a forum with posters from many different kinds of churches. I'm not sure what kind of church could exist where everybody is a fan of it.

There have been a couple of threads recently where speaking in tongues has been discussed. The majority of posters said they didn't see the point of it etc. So, as a Pentecostal who believes in and practices speaking in tongues, should I accuse everyone of Pentecostal-bashing and throw my rattle out of the pram? Of course not, I'm cool with the fact that most posters aren't into my kind of Christianity - but we can still agree on loads of other stuff and learn from each other.

The difference, of course, is that I am not trying to push Pentecostalism as the one true form of the faith - so I'm hardly going to be offended by the fact that my church is simply a small part of a much greater faith that encompasses many different denominations and movements.

The ironic thing is that the most abusive PM messages I get as a moderator are when I've infracted some atheist troll for hateful comments they made about the RC Church. Then I get told how I'm brainwashed in Catholicism and am afraid to allow any criticism of the Papacy! People are funny.

I have decide to answer your usual vitriolic post this time PDN

I am sure that you are a well-read individual and a committed Christian; some of your posts have been quite interesting too. However: you are misguided and, unfortunately, a bigot who uses every opportunity, real or imagined, to attack the Catholic Church.

The thin veneer of respectability that you adopt for your attitude to trolls does not impress me; like the wise-arse on the street corner or the drunk in the pub whose prejudiced arguments are, generally, not worth listening to, or engaging in.

I know that there are many Non-Catholics out there that are not fans of the RCC but it is not conducive to productive and informative debate to state the fact; all that does is to help entrench positions.

What does it tell us anyway: ‘I am not a fan of the Catholic Church’ or when you use words like ‘fluffy’, ‘patronising’, ‘condescending’. These are emotional responses that reflect bigotry; there is no reasoned argument or referenced material involved.

When it comes to throwing the rattle out of the pram, when I last answered one of your posts you threatened to take your ball and go home because I ‘dared to tell you what you could and couldn’t post’; you being a Moderator and all. A Moderator on a Christianity Forum who admits to being a bigot.

Now I wouldn’t have brought that up if I were you PDN it was bad salesmanship on your part.

So I have decided not to engage in any further pointless discussions with you; it is simply not worth the effort and I have better things to do.

Turtwig

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I have decide to answer your usual vitriolic post this time PDN

I am sure that you are a well-read individual and a committed Christian; some of your posts have been quite interesting too. However: you are misguided and, unfortunately, a bigot who uses every opportunity, real or imagined, to attack the Catholic Church.

The thin veneer of respectability that you adopt for your attitude to trolls does not impress me; like the wise-arse on the street corner or the drunk in the pub whose prejudiced arguments are, generally, not worth listening to, or engaging in.

I know that there are many Non-Catholics out there that are not fans of the RCC but it is not conducive to productive and informative debate to state the fact; all that does is to help entrench positions.

What does it tell us anyway: ‘I am not a fan of the Catholic Church’ or when you use words like ‘fluffy’, ‘patronising’, ‘condescending’. These are emotional responses that reflect bigotry; there is no reasoned argument or referenced material involved.

When it comes to throwing the rattle out of the pram, when I last answered one of your posts you threatened to take your ball and go home because I ‘dared to tell you what you could and couldn’t post’; you being a Moderator and all. A Moderator on a Christianity Forum who admits to being a bigot.

Now I wouldn’t have brought that up if I were you PDN it was bad salesmanship on your part.

So I have decided not to engage in any further pointless discussions with you; it is simply not worth the effort and I have better things to do.

Em, I really think you guys need to keep that separate PDN my hero thread to deal with complaints... Seriously, though, I've mostly seen PDN defend the RC by not allowing trollers abuse it??

PDN

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I have decide to answer your usual vitriolic post this time PDN

It really doesn't help matters that you seem to view it as vitriol when someone disagrees with you. The whole point of a forum like this is that we can discuss differences without taking it personally.

I hold very different views to yourself. I don't get offended at you stating your views, and I don't think you should get upset when I state my views. However, it has seemed from day one of your coming to this forum that you want to make things personal. That is unfortunate.

I am sure that you are a well-read individual and a committed Christian; some of your posts have been quite interesting too. However: you are misguided and, unfortunately, a bigot who uses every opportunity, real or imagined, to attack the Catholic Church.

No, I'm a non-Catholic who is prepared to discuss my beliefs. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a bigot. Was everyone a bigot who spoke derisively about speaking in tongues? Is Jimitime a bigot because he says he doesn't believe in the Trinity? Are Catholic posters bigots when they say that my church is defective because it doesn't have apostolic succession? Is everyone who speaks dismissively of American fundamentalists being bigots? Of course not! They are simply expressing their views on an internet discussion board.

Once again you seem intent on making this personal instead of simply accepting that we see things differently.

The thin veneer of respectability that you adopt for your attitude to trolls does not impress me; like the wise-arse on the street corner or the drunk in the pub whose prejudiced arguments are, generally, not worth listening to, or engaging in.

You are entitled to your opinion. It's probably just as well that my motive in posting here isn't to impress you then, isn't it?

I know that there are many Non-Catholics out there that are not fans of the RCC but it is not conducive to productive and informative debate to state the fact; all that does is to help entrench positions.

No, what it does is honestly acknowledge where we are all coming from. Are you a fan of fundamentalist Christianity? Do you really think it would do any harm to state that fact? You have, if I remember correctly, expressed very negative opinions of 'the Christian right' in America. Are you saying that is OK but that the Catholic Church should get a special exemption from anyone expressing disagreement?

What does it tell us anyway: ‘I am not a fan of the Catholic Church’ or when you use words like ‘fluffy’, ‘patronising’, ‘condescending’. These are emotional responses that reflect bigotry; there is no reasoned argument or referenced material involved.

Once again your determination to make this a personal thing causes you to miss pretty obvious truths. I am not a fan of certain types of institutional religion because I have studied church history. If you bothered to listen to what I am saying you would know that I am equally ambivalent towards institutional Protestantism. You are certainly free to disagree with the conclusions I have drawn, but in ascribing it to bigotry or emotion you are just plain wrong.

When it comes to throwing the rattle out of the pram, when I last answered one of your posts you threatened to take your ball and go home because I ‘dared to tell you what you could and couldn’t post’; you being a Moderator and all. A Moderator on a Christianity Forum who admits to being a bigot.

As a Moderator I don't own the ball. I'm simply here to try to help the board run as smoothly as I can. I'm unaware of when I ever admitted to being a bigot - maybe you could reference that?

PDN

I must admit it is rather unpleasant to have someone labelling you as a bigot in a public forum when you feel you haven't actually done anything to merit such an attack.

Actually, if another poster was subjected to a similar attack I would simply delete the thread and issue the abusive poster with an infraction. But if I do that when I am the target it looks personal and leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

So, to provide some clarification, let me remind posters of what peakpilgrim is referring to. And, to quote St. Augustine, "Let the reader decide".

In a previous thread, on ecumenism, postcynical (who is a Catholic) asked me the following question:

postcynical wrote:

In the case of the RCC (and I realise from some of your postings that you are not a fan), how do you feel about the position that other churches are 'deficient'?

I've included my response in full as I think, read as a whole, it gives a very different impression from that given by someone ripping a sentence out of context in order to launch a personal attack.

It would be accurate to say that I am not a fan of the Catholic Church .
I disagree with many RC doctrines and my studies of Church History cause me to be wary of many denominations. However, I feel the RC Church is frequently bashed unfairly by visitors to this forum and most of the outraged PM's I receive are for banning trolls who, in my opinion, were being bigoted and abusive against Catholicism. I also recognise that there are many good and sincere Catholic Christians.

I would engage in ecumenical activities with Catholics where our fundamental points of disagreement are not involved. For example, I have good dialogue with Catholic theologians where we discuss issues in biblical studies etc. However, I wouldn't see the point in, for example, cooperation in evangelism since we disagree on the fundamental issue of how people are actually saved. A fair number of practising Catholics also worship in my church services.

I myself would see churches as 'deficient' if they fail to adhere to fundamental Christian truths (eg the deity of Christ) - but I think that is different from saying that every other church except my own one is deficient. I don't think my own church is the only true church, in fact I don't even believe it is the best church - it's simply the church where I believe God has placed me.

I believe that my response to postcynical was honest and that it did not express bigotry. However, in the end each poster can make their own mind about that for themselves.

Fanny Cradock

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I have decide to answer your usual vitriolic post this time PDN...

Wow! Where did this come from? There is a proper place to discuss such matters. Bring it up in this thread wasn't it.


Aside from that, I'm going to suggest that there was a misunderstanding on your part with regards to PDN's intent on the thread in question. Because as it stands your complaint seems to be without foundation.

Fanny Cradock

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps, but it is worth remembering that we live in a fairly privileged time when we have the luxury and opportunity to muse over such matters. Previous generations, and even many of the present one, did not have the same access to the mass of information that we do and often might not have been sufficiently literate to exploit it even if they had.

No doubt! I was going to say as much in my post. However, I would say that it's not all a blessing. There is a huge amount of misinformation, spin, lies, dubious factoids and the like floating around the web. Sifting through it can be tricky.

lugha wrote: »

If any idea is worth embracing, then however sound the philosophy on which is it is based and however well versed its advocates might be in its finer detail, surely there also has to be a “simple sell” if it is to be available to all and not be the exclusive preserve of the intellectual elite?

No doubt. But one would image that the "simple sell" is the hook. After that there is much more to explore beneath the surface - as much as the individual can. In this regard, I would like to think that even the most strident non-believer wouldn't be so foolish as to claim that religion is simple. Though I've certainly heard a rare claim that Christianity is for the simple minded.

*Drool*

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

I must admit it is rather unpleasant to have someone labelling you as a bigot in a public forum when you feel you haven't actually done anything to merit such an attack.

Actually, if another poster was subjected to a similar attack I would simply delete the thread and issue the abusive poster with an infraction. But if I do that when I am the target it looks personal and leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

So, to provide some clarification, let me remind posters of what peakpilgrim is referring to. And, to quote St. Augustine, "Let the reader decide".

In a previous thread, on ecumenism, postcynical (who is a Catholic) asked me the following question:


I've included my response in full as I think, read as a whole, it gives a very different impression from that given by someone ripping a sentence out of context in order to launch a personal attack.


I believe that my response to postcynical was honest and that it did not express bigotry. However, in the end each poster can make their own mind about that for themselves.

Actually, on reflection, I shouldn’t have used the term ‘bigot’ to describe you; I went a bit over the top there. A ‘bigot’ is a nasty derogatory remark that I should not have used and you were obviously upset by it. I think, in fairness, if it were true, it would have rolled off you like water off a ducks backside.

So; I withdraw that remark; it was very unchristian of me.

Fanny Cradock

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Actually, on reflection, I shouldn’t have used the term ‘bigot’ to describe you; I went a bit over the top there. A ‘bigot’ is a nasty derogatory remark that I should not have used and you were obviously upset by it. I think, in fairness, if it were true, it would have rolled off you like water off a ducks backside.

So; I withdraw that remark; it was very unchristian of me.

Kudios to you, peakpilgrim!

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Is Jimitime a bigot because he says he doesn't believe in the Trinity?

Just to clarify. Its not that I don't believe as such. I hate the term. It sounds disrespectful IMO. I don't believe we fully understand the nature of God, and the idea of Oneness. I believe the trinity doctrine (Which can change from denomination to denomination), is simply an attempt to nail it down. I believe in the divinty of Christ, I believe he is The Word of God. I believe he is the voice from the bush that spoke to Moses 'I AM'. I think that there is too much language like The Father saying to Jesus 'I will sit you on my right hand and put your enemies beneath your feet'. Stuff like this does not make sense with the trinity doctrine IMO. However, I don't 'deny' the trinity doctrine. I simply don't think we truly know the nature of this relationship. There are definately details that suggest Jesus as God, but others that set The Father 'giving' authority to The Son. I just think there's more to it. As I said, I think the trinity is an attempt to nail it down. IMO, if I believe in God, in Jesus as my Lord and saviour, who died and was risen etc, why do I have to declare the trinity doctrine? I'm not into the idea of defining oneself as a 'for or against' the trinity. I'm not Arian, but I'm not trinitarian neither. My statement of faith biblically, is not against God, nor Christ. They are One, I am just not so certain as to the nature of such Oneness, and honestly, even though they say they are, I don't think trinitarians are neither.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

There have been a couple of threads recently where speaking in tongues has been discussed. The majority of posters said they didn't see the point of it etc. So, as a Pentecostal who believes in and practices speaking in tongues, should I accuse everyone of Pentecostal-bashing and throw my rattle out of the pram? Of course not, I'm cool with the fact that most posters aren't into my kind of Christianity - but we can still agree on loads of other stuff and learn from each other.

The difference, of course, is that I am not trying to push Pentecostalism as the one true form of the faith - so I'm hardly going to be offended by the fact that my church is simply a small part of a much greater faith that encompasses many different denominations and movements.

A good attitude.

To clarify the whole tongues thing. It's not that I am explicitly opposed to speaking in tongues, it's just that I have never really experienced the practice, and I am a bit wary of it probably because of that. I'm also quite willing to accept that it is probably a personal reservation to it that I have, and I'm also quite willing to accept that I could be very wrong in my interpretation concerning speaking in tongues.

You're clearly more experienced with tongues, and I wouldn't ever argue it as a point of ridicule, or even as a point of fact. What I am sure of is, that God clearly hasn't given me such a skill of speaking or interpreting tongues.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Just to clarify. Its not that I don't believe as such. I hate the term. It sounds disrespectful IMO. I don't believe we fully understand the nature of God, and the idea of Oneness. I believe the trinity doctrine (Which can change from denomination to denomination), is simply an attempt to nail it down. I believe in the divinty of Christ, I believe he is The Word of God. I believe he is the voice from the bush that spoke to Moses 'I AM'. I think that there is too much language like The Father saying to Jesus 'I will sit you on my right hand and put your enemies beneath your feet'. Stuff like this does not make sense with the trinity doctrine IMO. However, I don't 'deny' the trinity doctrine. I simply don't think we truly know the nature of this relationship. There are definately details that suggest Jesus as God, but others that set The Father 'giving' authority to The Son. I just think there's more to it. As I said, I think the trinity is an attempt to nail it down. IMO, if I believe in God, in Jesus as my Lord and saviour, who died and was risen etc, why do I have to declare the trinity doctrine? I'm not into the idea of defining oneself as a 'for or against' the trinity. I'm not Arian, but I'm not trinitarian neither. My statement of faith biblically, is not against God, nor Christ. They are One, I am just not so certain as to the nature of such Oneness, and honestly, even though they say they are, I don't think trinitarians are neither.

I assume the Spirit has a place in there, no?

discostick12

To OP, the reason why I visit this thread so often ( I havn't posted anything yet) is to learn about others views and faiths. I for one am a Catholic but that doesn't mean I cannot learn about other religions and points of views from atheism and so on.

For what I have seen from various post here on boards and on numerous other websites is that people especially christians dent to argue their points more often so. I don't know the reasons for a particular persons reason for such arguements and post so on but I think that they feel as if they have to make their point and really try put their 'all' into their arguments, for one I enjoy learning other peoples views and so on but sometimes they do get out of hand and many people get hurt my small words.

studiorat

1. A lot of good posters on both Christianity and A+A.

2. To be the Devils Advocate.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I assume the Spirit has a place in there, no?

Absolutely. It is 'Gods Holy Spirit' afterall.

postcynical

@PeakPilgrim: As the poster who put those words into PDN's mouth, that he was not a fan of the RCC, I might give a bit of context.

PDN's postings here are brilliant. I learn a lot about difficult aspects of Christian teaching from his posts and he also manages to make things very relevant to today's society and explains the contexts of biblical history in a very accessible way. It's clear that this theology leads to direct Christian action too as he's often posting about far-off places and supporting our forgotten or persecuted Christian brothers.

I also appreciate that he shares his expertise here for free. He's not Catholic but is obviously a respected, well-informed, practicing Christian. I want to know why other intelligent active Christians have issues with the Catholic Church, and then how my church can explain her side. If I thought PDN were a bigot I would not have engaged him in conversation, nor sought his opinion on the RCC. Honest Christian criticism of the RCC is actually good for our church, and good for us, her adherents.

I like the way you can post some counter-arguments to defend the RCC position and this is provocative too. However, I think your personal criticism of PDN was misguided. I've found him to be very even-handed in his moderation. I hope you hang around and we can thank each other's posts to compensate for our unconvinving arguments:pac: ('might is right' seems to be the fashion in debates)

Carpo

PDN wrote: »

I must admit it is rather unpleasant to have someone labelling you as a bigot in a public forum when you feel you haven't actually done anything to merit such an attack.

Actually, if another poster was subjected to a similar attack I would simply delete the thread and issue the abusive poster with an infraction. But if I do that when I am the target it looks personal and leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

Not to stir the pot but didn't you imply Sam Vimes and Wicknight were guilty of bigotry here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61558290&postcount=16907

I am sure they most certainly would "feel [they] haven't actually done anything to merit such an attack" and indeed they went to great pains to refute such an accustion.

Fanny Cradock

Carpo wrote: »

Not to stir the pot but didn't you imply Sam Vimes and Wicknight were guilty of bigotry here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61558290&postcount=16907

I am sure they most certainly would "feel [they] haven't actually done anything to merit such an attack" and indeed they went to great pains to refute such an accustion.

And what exactly are we to learn from that? Really, ripping a single post of an old thread and posting it here is pointless.

It seems that the matter raise in this thread has been resolved, so I would suggest that you are stiring the pot. If you have issues with what was said in another thread then stick to that thread or PM the individuals involved.

BrianCalgary

:pac:

PDN wrote: »

I certainly think it is time to wake up and smell the coffee! .

Tim Hortons coffee???? :pac: