Offending People

[KiwiChristian]

It appears my catholic posts offend several people, even though i provide sources and references which show what i am saying is the truth.

Therefore, i will not make any new posts regarding catholicism for some time.

I will still reply to comments.

My apologies for offending you.

[Alan]

It isn't as much about offending people as it is a self-righteous charge against another denomination. Theological discussions are one thing but posting your opposing views of another denomination in their board is nothing short of provocation. You've been doing the same thing since the day you joined this site, it's old and unappreciated. You aren't about to change anyone's mind nor do you offer anything that they haven't heard before. It's a very sad way for a christian to act.

[AVZ]

It isn't as much about offending people as it is a self-righteous charge against another denomination. Theological discussions are one thing but posting your opposing views of another denomination in their board is nothing short of provocation. You've been doing the same thing since the day you joined this site, it's old and unappreciated. You aren't about to change anyone's mind nor do you offer anything that they haven't heard before. It's a very sad way for a christian to act.

Alan,

The header of the Catholic Forum reads as follows:
"Catholic forum for discussion of Catholicism's doctrines, issues, beliefs, history and other specifics."

Are you suggesting Kiwi should post his comments of Catholic doctrine etc in the Protestant Forum?

[KiwiChristian]

It isn't as much about offending people as it is a self-righteous charge against another denomination. Theological discussions are one thing but posting your opposing views of another denomination in their board is nothing short of provocation. You've been doing the same thing since the day you joined this site, it's old and unappreciated. You aren't about to change anyone's mind nor do you offer anything that they haven't heard before. It's a very sad way for a christian to act.

Oh, if i come across as "self righteous", then i apologize.

I am a dirty rotten filthy sinner just like everyone else.

Oh, it is not my aim to change anyones' mind.

Please, show me one thing i have said about catholicism that is actually wrong.

[KiwiChristian]

Alan,

The header of the Catholic Forum reads as follows:
"Catholic forum for discussion of Catholicism's doctrines, issues, beliefs, history and other specifics."

Are you suggesting Kiwi should post his comments of Catholic doctrine etc in the Protestant Forum?

Exactly. WHERE should i post?

Also, the catholics dont WANT to engage in dialog. They just get offended by the facts, they wont show me WHERE i am wrong, and instead attack ME.

Jesus offended ALL false religions and religous peoples.

As i said to my pastor the other day, if Jesus was to return today, especially to the USA, He would be arrested for "hate speech"!

[KiwiChristian]

It isn't as much about offending people as it is a self-righteous charge against another denomination. Theological discussions are one thing but posting your opposing views of another denomination in their board is nothing short of provocation. You've been doing the same thing since the day you joined this site, it's old and unappreciated. You aren't about to change anyone's mind nor do you offer anything that they haven't heard before. It's a very sad way for a christian to act.

Also, remember what Jesus said to people.

"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? "

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

[winsome]

It appears my catholic posts offend several people, even though i provide sources and references which show what i am saying is the truth.

But you do  not provide references.

Saying the Council of Trent says 'X' is not a reference any more than my saying the Bible says 'X' is a reference.

You would expect a chapter and verse. I expect the same.

[winsome]

Also, the catholics dont WANT to engage in dialog.

I would be very happy to engage in  a dialogue. But you just copy and paste garbage from catholic bashing sites.
That's not dialogue.

They just get offended by the facts

I don't get offended by facts.

I get offended by your lies.

[Ladonia]

Exactly. WHERE should i post?

Also, the catholics dont WANT to engage in dialog. They just get offended by the facts, they wont show me WHERE i am wrong, and instead attack ME.

Jesus offended ALL false religions and religous peoples.

As i said to my pastor the other day, if Jesus was to return today, especially to the USA, He would be arrested for "hate speech"!

As Winsome pointed out in the other thread your "facts" are lacking - you fail to quote the entire wording of what you post as your example.

[Ladonia]

Oh, if i come across as "self righteous", then i apologize.

I am a dirty rotten filthy sinner just like everyone else.

Oh, it is not my aim to change anyones' mind.

Please, show me one thing i have said about catholicism that is actually wrong.

Look, if I went to the Baptist or other non-Catholic faith tradition section and just started threads that contained the worst of those sects, that is not dialogue, that would be just an ad hominem attack that really serves no purpose. . Now if I went there with an earnest desire to find out what they are all about, now that would be a sincere attempt at dialogue. You know what you are doing here.

[Alan]

Are you suggesting Kiwi should post his comments of Catholic doctrine etc in the Protestant Forum?

No, I'm suggesting that Kiwi's constant barrage of anti-<insert denomination here> rants are well overplayed. This seems to be his only form of interaction on this site. At one time it included SDA's, JW's, Mormons, etc but I think the lack of response cooled those discussions. Huge waste of time IMHO, but as TC has pointed out, he isn't breaking any rules (now) so if others enjoy defending their faiths or joining arms with Kiwi, then have at it. 

[winsome]

No, I'm suggesting that Kiwi's constant barrage of anti-<insert denomination here> rants are well overplayed. This seems to be his only form of interaction on this site. At one time it included SDA's, JW's, Mormons, etc but I think the lack of response cooled those discussions. Huge waste of time IMHO, but as TC has pointed out, he isn't breaking any rules (now) so if others enjoy defending their faiths or joining arms with Kiwi, then have at it. 

Is Rule 1.3 void or does it only apply to Catholics?

[MeMyself]

Oh, it is not my aim to change anyones' mind.

May I ask, what *is* the aim then, if not to change the mind of those you see as in error?

[Alan]

Is Rule 1.3 void or does it only apply to Catholics?

As much as I dislike all of this banter, I do believe Kiwi has made an attempt to provide evidence for his claims. It may be appropriate if the sources were listed but that won't change anything if he believes those sources to be truth.

1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual's belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say "The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence.

[Texas Conservative]

As much as I dislike all of this banter, I do believe Kiwi has made an attempt to provide evidence for his claims. It may be appropriate if the sources were listed but that won't change anything if he believes those sources to be truth.

1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual's belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say "The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence.

Exactly!

I used the power of the google to verify some of what Kiwi posted.   Not all iron clad but enough to know kiwi is not breaking the rules.

[winsome]

As much as I dislike all of this banter, I do believe Kiwi has made an attempt to provide evidence for his claims. It may be appropriate if the sources were listed but that won't change anything if he believes those sources to be truth.

1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual's belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say "The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence.

Kniwichristian has made little or no attempt to provide evidence of any kind - see my post #21 in this thread:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/roman-catholic-lies-immorality-and-corruption/

So I can just make up stuff about Protestants? I don't have to give any sources. reliable or not?

For example:
In 1530 Martin Luther buggered 10 boys one after the other.
John Calving had a harem of women.

There is a serious issue here that is not being taken seriously.

[winsome]

Exactly!

I used the power of the google to verify some of what Kiwi posted.   Not all iron clad but enough to know kiwi is not breaking the rules.

Of course you find it via Google. These anti-Catholic lists are all over Catholic bashing web sites. They feed off each other.
All KiwiChristian does is cut and paste them in. That's not evidence.

And can I point out that giving NO reference whatsoever should be considered breaking rule 1.3 or what is the point of the rule?

[Alan]

Of course you find it via Google. These anti-Catholic lists are all over Catholic bashing web sites. They feed off each other.
All KiwiChristian does is cut and paste them in. That's not evidence.

And can I point out that giving NO reference whatsoever should be considered breaking rule 1.3 or what is the point of the rule?

Well, we know that he has copied and pasted his charges from random websites. We can enforce the rules by asking for the sources to each of his claims. You would then have to take up issue with the websites and their sources. Not sure if that's the direction you wish to go.

[Texas Conservative]

Of course you find it via Google. These anti-Catholic lists are all over Catholic bashing web sites. They feed off each other.
All KiwiChristian does is cut and paste them in. That's not evidence.

And can I point out that giving NO reference whatsoever should be considered breaking rule 1.3 or what is the point of the rule?

Found some on non-Catholic bashing sites like wikipedia.

[Alan]

Found some on non-Catholic bashing sites like wikipedia.

Didn't you say that wiki was ....   

[Texas Conservative]

Didn't you say that wiki was ....   

Not a great site either, but bad popes are history, not just bashing.

[winsome]

Well, we know that he has copied and pasted his charges from random websites. We can enforce the rules by asking for the sources to each of his claims. You would then have to take up issue with the websites and their sources. Not sure if that's the direction you wish to go.

Why would I have to take it up with these web sites. Why can't the poster be expected to find reliable historical sources for their accusations?

[winsome]

Not a great site either, but bad popes are history, not just bashing.

I know bad popes are history. I have a book on the popes (Encyclopedia of the Papacy by Hans Kuhner PhD - 1959 edition). It doesn't gloss over the bad popes.
But the only one of KiwiChristian's claims I checked out was fraudulent.

If someone is going to go catholic basking then they should check out their claims. There are a lot of fraudulent claims out there.

[AVZ]

I know bad popes are history. I have a book on the popes (Encyclopedia of the Papacy by Hans Kuhner PhD - 1959 edition). It doesn't gloss over the bad popes.
But the only one of KiwiChristian's claims I checked out was fraudulent.

If someone is going to go catholic basking then they should check out their claims. There are a lot of fraudulent claims out there.

You are absolutely correct.
So what proof do you require the church to provide you when she claims the bodily assumption of Mary?

[RB]

Why would I have to take it up with these web sites. Why can't the poster be expected to find reliable historical sources for their accusations?

Sects have always done what they needed to do to falsified what should be reliable sources! Nothing new under the sun! Ever read:

Matthew 28:11-15~"Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."

The RCC has worked hard to cover up the history of TRUE Catholicism, employing every dishonest tactic under heaven. Following their fathers, the Pharisees, Scribes, etc.  Whose the supposed  chief priests in the religious world of our day?

[winsome]

The RCC has worked hard to cover up the history of TRUE Catholicism, employing every dishonest tactic under heaven.

A claim for which you provide no evidence. Shame on you RB.

[RB]

A claim for which you provide no evidence. Shame on you RB.

Okay my friend...I shall provide proof. Winsome, before the God of heaven I have NEVER been offended at any person who comes hard after what I believe, and I been called just about every name under heaven, some that would not be appropriated for pure ears like you may have. RB

[KiwiChristian]

Well, we know that he has copied and pasted his charges from random websites. We can enforce the rules by asking for the sources to each of his claims. You would then have to take up issue with the websites and their sources. Not sure if that's the direction you wish to go.

There's that label "anti-catholic" again.

Since he/she is able to use that term, can i use the term "anti-Christian" to refer to say catholic sites?

Just because someone posts information about catholicism that is negative, does that make them "anti"?

If so, catholicism teaches that we are NOT saved by faith alone and anyone who says that Jesus paid it ALL is dammed ( anathema ), are they not "anti-Christian" ?

I also see this thread getting way off topic.

I just posted to apologise. :(

[KiwiChristian]

Not a great site either, but bad popes are history, not just bashing.

Exactly. how is presenting TRUTH ( ie: these bad popes ) "bashing"?

Anyhow, all this thread was for was for me to apologise.

But i see people have hijacked it.

[KiwiChristian]

You are absolutely correct.
So what proof do you require the church to provide you when she claims the bodily assumption of Mary?

Maybe that is for another thread?

[KiwiChristian]

Guys?

Please, this post was just to apologise, but it has been hijacked and is turning into a debate on catholic doctrine.

Please. Stop. :(

[MeMyself]

Kiwi, I am wondering if you say your threads about Catholicism is not your aim to change anyone's mind...what is the aim (or purpose) of them?

[Alan]

There's that label "anti-catholic" again.

Since he/she is able to use that term, can i use the term "anti-Christian" to refer to say catholic sites?

Just because someone posts information about catholicism that is negative, does that make them "anti"?

If so, catholicism teaches that we are NOT saved by faith alone and anyone who says that Jesus paid it ALL is dammed ( anathema ), are they not "anti-Christian" ?

I also see this thread getting way off topic.

I just posted to apologise. :(

Just to be clear, "Catholic" refers to a denomination of Christianity, it is not Catholic or Christian, we're all Christians. 


If I post the ill effects of abortion, the fact that it's a lost life, and that it is akin to murder am I anti-abortion? You bet I am! When you post a plethora of information in the negative context of a given subject, it is implied that you are "anti" that subject, this is how literature works. 

[Open Heart]

An anti-Catholic isn't someone who just disagrees with Catholic teachings.  I know Protestants who don't believe in a Pope, won't pray to Mary and the Saints, and think they should confess only to God, and I would say they aren't anti-Catholic.  Why?  Because:
1.  Their disagreements are over things that Catholics actually do/believe in
2.  They don't get bent out of shape and make personal attacks
3.  Despite their feelings about Catholicism, they accept individual Catholics as Christians.




So how are anti-Catholics different?
1.  They disagree with stuff that Catholicism doesn't even teach!  IOW they argue against an IMAGINARY Catholic church.  For example, they will complain that Catholics worship Mary as a goddess.  For crying out loud!  The catechism plainly teaches that there is only one God, and he alone is to be worshiped.  Any one minute conversation with a Catholic would reveal that we venerate Mary, not worship her.
2.  They get nasty.  They make personal attacks against individuals, or against all Catholics.  They attack the sins of the Church, even though all Christians sin, including Christian leaders.  They seem to think if there is a scandal, it somehow proves theology is wrong.  Talk about unwarranted conclusions!
3.  They almost never accept Catholics as their brothers and sisters in Christ.  But at the same time, they are so full of hate that they don't try to save us either.  They only want to condemn us.

[KiwiChristian]

Just to be clear, "Catholic" refers to a denomination of Christianity, it is not Catholic or Christian, we're all Christians. 

What a shame i am not allowed to discuss that topic. Very clever of you to sneak that in.