Banning Posters- Effects on Apologetics...

[heisenburg]

I have a Simple question…

Is is smart to ban those that are so absolutely against what we believe, show extreme contempt, and desire nothing but to preach about our wrong doings?

I’m not talking about the normal joe protestant here. There are a large number of very educated, cordial and all together enjoyable to discuss things with protestants. (Zoey, and Allforhim are the first to come to mind)

I’m not talking about these and those like them… I’m talking about people like the recently banned nesmithb

Here is my thought…

1. Obviously, they don’t know what we teach. They may not know how to express their distrust for the church in a charitable way, but they do have what is for them valid complaints. Should we not address their complaints, not with spite as some do, but in love? Sure, they may never agree, but it is not our Job to force agreement, only to offer truth. Not all that are so against the Church stay that way. Sometimes, those that protest the most are the closest to crossing the Tiber. Their seemingly violent response to the church is nothing more than old vestiges of their previous belief throwing one last ditch effort.
2. The more people throw stones at us like this, the more it is an opportunity for us to show what Christs love really is. What better way to witness to them that to respond in Love…
3. Lurkers abound. while i think some of these individuals need to take a course in Christian charity, what better way to answer the questions of lurkers than by people who have nothing but complaints about the church. We get a chance to answer their apologetics question without them even asking… AND we can show them how the Church is SUPPOSE to act. whats more, sometimes its people so angry that drive those that don’t know to ask.

God uses everyone in his own way… I’m not suggesting the moderators change the rules, I’m just asking is it smart to ban those most against us…

Personal opinion… I think the biggest group of ‘banned’ should be Catholics that can’t show Charity. It’s one thing for an ‘outsider’ if you will to act that way, but what does it say when WE act that way…

In Christ

 

[Mannyfit75]

I have no problems with moderators banning posters who clearly lack any charity. This includes Catholics as well. I’m guilty for being uncharitable in the post.

Many times when temptation hits you at the core, you are so tempted to write uncharitable posts. However, to do so would make you liable for your own actions and you may loss some points base on the amount of warnings you received from the moderators.

Charity is necessary. Charity according to the Catechism is:

1822 **Charity is the theological virtue **by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment.96 By loving his own "to the end,"97 he makes manifest the Father’s love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.” And again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."98

1824 Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and his Christ: "Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love."99

So many times, some newbie, usually a Non-Catholic Christian (Protestant) comes along and starts to preach that Catholicism is heretical Church and they start to polyterize in hope in driving Catholics away from their faith.

These individuals who are banned are not only bad examples of what not to be, they are individuals we must not follow. We are all Christians, and we have to respect one another and charity is one of those theological virtues, we hold dear as Christians.

 

[Feedmysheep]

I’ve found that the most striking anti-Catholic posters do little more than drag a thread down, down, down to the point of uselessness.

I’ve seen plenty examples of Charity on threads that never saw an anti-Catholic, Jack Chick wannabe post.

Personally, I say chuck 'em. Their absence makes little impact on the apologetics on this forum- most of us have already seen their arguments on those cheery little Chick Tracts that we find slipped under our windshields after Mass. Their objections to Catholicism are all answered on the main website.

However, I agree, there should be a greater push toward Charity on all posts.

 

[wmscott]

I think that they should be given the chance to present their case. It may be a good time to open someone up to the truth. Although I recognize that the individual we are talking about will never see the truth, at least they have been exposed to it. I feel they should be able to express their views as long as it is not abusive. They can be angry, ignorant, and unwavering however; there should be a limit to intense and abusive language. That is when the moderators need to step in, warn them of their conduct, and then if they persist in abusive language then block them. I do not think that anyone who is secure in their faith will be swayed by their angry and abusive points of view.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Apologetics cannot flourish in an environment bereft of decorum and respect for logic and reason. Where that’s attacked, it must be stopped.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Michael_Francis]

Enough said. Thread closed.
MF