Agenda: The Word of Forums

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m claiming the church has no mass organized opposition or powerful entity strong enough to singularly threaten the church.

Well, Chinese Communism…

I know God’s church wins in the end, but we do battle powerful forces.

I personally don’t think gays or drag queens are those “powerful forces” but there are some out there, particularly political forces.

 

[PetraG]

Let’s look at the complaint point by point:

We use it [the word agenda] to describe the gay, transgender, satanic, and whatever else we are posting links from [snark-named-website . com]

We also use it to describe meetings that hope to get anything done. I’m curious why you think it is uncharitable to imply someone else has an agenda.

We do not behave very Christain acting like everything anti church is a conspiracy.

How exactly would people outside the Church expect us to take “everything anti-Church”?

The only one who can plan a conspiracy is Satan. Those who are played by the devil are just disposable pawns. Painting them as the enemy only drives them further away.

If you’re saying that painting everyone who unwittingly buys into any part of the glamour of falsehood has nothing good about them and cannot possibly be driven by a misguided motive to do good and may as well be a flying monkey for the devil for all the difference it makes, I agree that over-the-top rhetoric concerning people who are mistaken about the difference between good and bad is usually counter-productive and sometimes extremely counter-productive.

If you’re saying that it is rude and inapproproate when evil that is unwittingly evil is actually called an evil, I think that is itself over the top.

cont

 

[PetraG]

We all are humans, children of God, astray or otherwise it behooves us to act like Christains.

Well…Our Lord Himself said “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do” (Matt. 16:23), and this to the one to whom He had just said “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”!! (Matt. 16:18)

I mean, really, count: Verse 18 to Verse 23 is five verses. It is obviously false to say that it is not like Christ to connect a speaker to Satan when the speaker is well-meaning but unwittingly playing into thinking promoted by the devil. No, that is literally and exactly what Christ did.

[Jesus said] “He who sows good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world, the good seed the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. (Matt 13:37-39)
So even Our Lord refered to people who lead others astray as “children of the evil one” not childre of God. We have the agency to choose whose house we want to belong to, whether to Heaven or to Hell.

And what did Our Lord say about the Gentile unbelievers when He called Paul? Our Lord Himself said they were under the power of Satan:
I said, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. Get up now, and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness of what you have seen and what you will be shown. I shall deliver you from this people and from the Gentiles to whom I send you, to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may obtain forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been consecrated by faith in me.’ Acts 26:15-18
Yes, St. Paul heard from Our Lord that those who ignorantly followed the evil way out of blindness were under the power of Satan.

And again St. Paul:
You were dead in your transgressions and sin in which you once lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the desires of our flesh, following the wishes of the flesh and the impulses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest. Eph 2:1-3

So–do I agree that just because people fall into the same behaviors and defending the same empty glamorous ways that they are all literally meeting up and making alliances with each other? No, of course not. We ourselves know that we can fall into the same errors as people we have never met and have never talked to us.

Make no mistake, though: There is nothing the enemy of God would like more than to make any of us into a slave, a pawn and a disposable failure at what we were meant to become. That is what the Evil One always tries to do.

 

[Anrakyr]

Well…Our Lord Himself said “ Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do ” (Matt. 16:23), and this to the one to whom He had just said “ you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it ”!! (Matt. 16:18)

Context is king, do you think your friends are devils when they pull a prank on your and you call them as such?

I mean, really, count: Verse 18 to Verse 23 is five verses . It is obviously false to say that it is not like Christ to connect a speaker to Satan when the speaker is well-meaning but unwittingly playing into thinking promoted by the devil. No, that is literally and exactly what Christ did.

Context…

[Jesus said] “He who sows good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world, the good seed the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. (Matt 13:37-39)
So even Our Lord referred to people who lead others astray as “children of the evil one” not children of God. We have the agency to choose whose house we want to belong to, whether to Heaven or to Hell.

Doesn’t make them an organized league of evil.

 

[PetraG]

Context is king, do you think your friends are devils when they pull a prank on your and you call them as such?

I’m a little old to have friends pranking me, but trust me I would not call them the devil if they did.

Speaking of context, the context of the forum complaint by the OP had zero to do with friends pranking other friends, nor was St. Peter being gently chided for “pranking” Our Lord.

Doesn’t make them an organized league of evil.

I agreed with the OP that it is a mistake to say that because Satan pushes in one direction, away from God, that those who are lead astray by Satan are knowingly pushing in a direction they know to be satanic. In the example of St. Paul’s commission, those under the power of Satan were blind and in darkness, not knowing themselves to be under domination:

If you’re saying that painting everyone who unwittingly buys into any part of the glamour of falsehood has nothing good about them and cannot possibly be driven by a misguided motive to do good and may as well be a flying monkey for the devil for all the difference it makes, I agree that over-the-top rhetoric concerning people who are mistaken about the difference between good and bad is usually counter-productive and sometimes extremely counter-productive.

If you’re saying that it is rude and inapproproate when evil that is unwittingly evil is actually called an evil, I think that is itself over the top.

I stand by that. There is nothing un-Christian about daring to call something an evil when it is in fact an evil, even when it is getting unwitting cooperation from someone who means well. That is the context in which Our Lord used the name of Satan to sternly rebuke St. Peter.

 

[Anrakyr]

Speaking of context, the context of the forum complaint by the OP had zero to do with friends pranking other friends, nor was St. Peter being gently chided for “pranking” Our Lord.

I stand by that. There is nothing un-Christian about daring to call something an evil when it is in fact an evil, even when it is getting unwitting cooperation from someone who means well. That is the context in which Our Lord used the name of Satan to sternly rebuke St. Peter.

The point, you missed it

 

[PetraG]

The point, you missed it

Do tell. What point was missed? (If you read your post and it didn’t mean what I took it to mean, perhaps you’ll find it was just a tad cryptic?)
Or did you miss the point I made that those unwittingly cooperating with evil aren’t “an organized league of evil” and that it is a mistake to characterize them that way?

 

[Anrakyr]

Or did you miss the point I made that those unwittingly cooperating with evil aren’t “an organized league of evil” and that it is a mistake to characterize them that way?

When you use terms like “the gay agenda” you leave the imprint of an organized force. Not unlike a team of lawyers. If they can’t get the corporate buy out by vote they will discreetly turn in evidence to get their enemies assets frozen.

While there are a number of movements that go out of their way to make every fight about the catholic church, they lack the glout to impact the church beyond local means.

The church for lack a better term is too big to fail. 1.5 billion people spread across multiple countries, time zones, cultures and languages.

Even IF a nation say the afore mentioned China was 100% anti catholic (which they aren’t and this isn’t the place to go into how) their power ends more or less at the boarders.

The whole argument about using terms like Agenda colours people into “this is my enemy”.

None of which is charitable or productive. Most people who believe in LGBT, Abortion, End of Life Termination what have very much believe that it benefits. Their aim isn’t in and of itself to stick it to the church but to enhance society.

You want to call a spade a spade fine, but don’t call a person evil. It never ends well.

 

[PetraG]

When you use terms like “the gay agenda” you leave the imprint of an organized force. Not unlike a team of lawyers. If they can’t get the corporate buy out by vote they will discreetly turn in evidence to get their enemies assets frozen.

While there are a number of movements that go out of their way to make every fight about the catholic church, they lack the glout to impact the church beyond local means.

The church for lack a better term is too big to fail. 1.5 billion people spread across multiple countries, time zones, cultures and languages.

Even IF a nation say the afore mentioned China was 100% anti catholic (which they aren’t and this isn’t the place to go into how) their power ends more or less at the boarders.

The whole argument about using terms like Agenda colours people into “this is my enemy”.

None of which is charitable or productive. Most people who believe in LGBT, Abortion, End of Life Termination what have very much believe that it benefits. Their aim isn’t in and of itself to stick it to the church but to enhance society.

You want to call a spade a spade fine, but don’t call a person evil. It never ends well.

Well, there is a gay agenda, and GLAAD says so. The LGBTQ community is full of organizers, and agendas aren’t something that no self-respecting organization ought to have. An agenda is something that every organization that hopes to accomplish anything needs to have.

The church for lack a better term is too big to fail.

Not if it’s own members accuse it of being un-Christian if it actively resists capitulation to agendas that run counter to the truth.

None of which is charitable or productive. Most people who believe in LGBT, Abortion, End of Life Termination what have very much believe that it benefits. Their aim isn’t in and of itself to stick it to the church but to enhance society.

Well, if you’re saying they’re fine if the Church just shuts up and politely pretends that they’re not trying to convince anybody to do anything wring, they no, they don’t want to “stick it to the Church.” They’re idea of enhancing society, however, depends on the premise that Catholic moral teaching ought to have no expression in the rest of society, excepting when Catholic moral teaching in no way challenges what they see as good.

When the Church opposes what these others believe to be true and good, be very sure the Church is painted as “the enemy.”

Most people who believe in LGBT, Abortion, End of Life Termination what have very much believe that it benefits. Their aim isn’t in and of itself to stick it to the church but to enhance society.

What political movement has not convinced its rank and file that it was “enhancing society”? Name one! Nobody comes along with the idea that they’re going to destroy the fabric of society!

 

[Anrakyr]

Well, there is a gay agenda, and GLAAD says so. The LGBTQ community is full of organizers, and agendas aren’t something that no self-respecting organization ought to have. An agenda is something that every organization that hopes to accomplish anything needs to have.

That does not a grand conspiracy globally unified make.
Its one Group

Not if it’s own members accuse it of being un-Christian if it actively resists capitulation to agendas that run counter to the truth.

Didn’t say that, said to call them agendas is counterproductive.

When the Church opposes what these others believe to be true and good, be very sure the Church is painted as “the enemy.”

That’s a them problem, I’m not talking to them here am I?

What political movement has not convinced its rank and file that it was “enhancing society”? Name one! Nobody comes along with the idea that they’re going to destroy the fabric of society!

Maybe they are all just people and should be treated as such?

 

[ZMystiCat]

We do not behave very Christain acting like everything anti church is a conspiracy.

Well I have it on excellent authority that Fr. James Martin is a Jesuit lizard person here to help his lord and master Xenu groom young children into believing the Earth round (i.e. not straight!) and that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job. For on the the day that all children believe these lies, they will throw themselves into the arms of a homosexual cult and join in a raucous cry of Kumbaya, which will herald the long prophesied Coming of Cthulhu, thereby ending humanity before Christ can come back! So I have spoken, so it is!

Spoiler

Obviously, none of this is true, but Poe’s Law and all that.

No, not that. Arminian. The Protestant sect. I’m not familiar with them, admittedly.

I once read a Calvinist that described it as “reintroducing Catholicism to Protestantism”. In reality, Arminians are still generally very Protestant, but they perhaps a bit closer to Catholics soteriologically and anthropologically.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Maybe they are all just people and should be treated as such?

They are…

 

[PetraG]

That does not a grand conspiracy globally unified make.
Its one Group

Their agenda isn’t a “conspiracy” at all, since they do not have a hidden agenda.
When I use the word “conspiracy,” at least, I mean people who have goals and/or projects that (a) they are working on together and (b) that they are hiding either the project itself, an important goal of it or the fact that they are in fact collaborating to accomplish the goal.

Didn’t say that, said to call them agendas is counterproductive.

Why should it be counterproductive to say someone has an agenda?
OK, let’s be clear–if you’re saying it is counterproductive to say that GLAAD or the LGBTQ community has an agenda, I think that is silly.

Maybe we are talking past each other because you’re actually taking issue with this:

Party A and B have an agenda to achieve C
Party D believes that accomplishing C will cause E
Party D claims Parties A and B are engaged in a conspiracy to achieve E.

I agree with you: that is, no, cooperating to achieve one goal does not automatically amount to a conspiracy to achieve a side effect. It depends on whether Party A and B believe they’re actually trying to achieve E and whether they are being covert about their interest in achieving E.

That doesn’t mean that Party D wouldn’t be right to be concerned about the push to achieve C because they are adamantly opposed to having E come to pass. It does mean that the charge of a conspiracy to achieve E is unjust unless Parties A and B actually are covertly cooperating to accomplish E.

Maybe they are all just people and should be treated as such?

Yes. That does include opposing their goals when it is felt their goals are detrimental to society, though. We have to have a mechanism by which we can debate societal expectations.

I am a big believer in the reality of a societal contract. I think there is this fallacious reasoning going around that says “what I do is none of society’s business and the definition of being a decent person is staying out of my face about my choices.” We’re asking for a society and a social circle that celebrates our unfiltered expressions of our inner impulses, but without anyone upsetting us with theirs–that is not realistic! I have to think that the chaos we have in our social expectations has a lot to do with all of the anxiety disorders and depression we have afflicting us.

If the norm is going to be “we are all just people” and “live and let live,” then we’re going to have to be a lot more thick-skinned about people who refuse to give their approval or cooperation to our choices. That may sound easy, but in truth it is asking for a lot.

 

[Anrakyr]

Why should it be counterproductive to say someone has an agenda?
OK, let’s be clear–if you’re saying it is counterproductive to say that GLAAD or the LGBTQ community has an agenda, I think that is silly.

The same way you say someone is acting stupid vs is stupid.

 

[PetraG]

The same way you say someone is acting stupid vs is stupid.

Not that even that distinction is going to appreciated when the someone thinks the action is actually something to be proud of, but yes!! Definitely, it is less inflammatory to make comments on actions.