Equility

[teancum79]

I’ve noticed here (and elsewhere) that people tend to want different rules for discussions depending on what side they are on. for example a person defending catholicism would be very offended if the Pope (past or present) is called names, but is happy to call other religious leaders all sorts of names.

Thoughts on what should be done?

 

[Lilyflower]

I’ve noticed here (and elsewhere) that people tend to want different rules for discussions depending on what side they are on. for example a person defending catholicism would be very offended if the Pope (past or present) is called names, but is happy to call other religious leaders all sorts of names.

Thoughts on what should be done?

I would be offended if His Holiness was called names. Equally, I would not offend anothers belief system whether or not I agreed with them. They are simply at a different stage of their journey that is all.

I think it is actually anti-Catholic to name-call and or be offensive towards someone else just because their personal construction of the world is different to one’s own because Christ commands us to love one another Jn 15:17 and not to judge others Mt 7:1-2

 

[ibkc]

I respect everyone’s right to worship as they wish as long as they stay within basic standards of decency. And, if I were sitting with Mormons at lunch or whatever, I would be gracious. I have known many Mormons over the years, and I don’t talk about my opinions about their religion around them. But in a forum which is set up for the debate of different religions, I will call it as I see it. I think Joseph Smith and his cronies were con men.

 

[Lilyflower]

I respect everyone’s right to worship as they wish as long as they stay within basic standards of decency. And, if I were sitting with Mormons at lunch or whatever, I would be gracious. I have known many Mormons over the years, and I don’t talk about my opinions about their religion around them. But in a forum which is set up for the debate of different religions, I will call it as I see it. I think Joseph Smith and his cronies were con men.

I agree with you that matter should be up for debate. But I do not see any need to be offensive towards individual contributors just because what they say is at variance with what we believe.

Blessings and peace

 

[teancum79]

It is an interesting question I’m kind of new here, but I find it interesting how quick people are to call leaders of my church all sorts of nasty things, but I’m told I’m committing blasphemy if I don’t accept a CC opinion on something.

If people are really so secure in their beliefs such defensiveness would not be needed.

I can see getting upset if I call the Pope the Antichrist or if I where to claim that all nuns are child molesters, but to get bent out of shape for none agreement strikes me as rather odd.

 

[ralphinal]

Here is the issue with some posters on here: they cannot tell if you hold true anti-CAtholic views or if you disagree with the Church and that is all. I have ended up on the wrong side of some of them a time or two myself, and I am CATHOLIC.

I try not to name call. I will point out issues with folks, and I do not mind if the same is done to Catholics, but I want the proof to go along with it. that is fair.

 

[ibkc]

I make no apologies for saying that some Mormon interpretations of the Bible seem blasphemous to me.

I’m told I’m committing blasphemy if I don’t accept a CC opinion on something.

It is a problem unique to Mormonism for me. I don’t think Protestants are being blasphemous even though they don’t accept a Catholic opinion on something. Protestants are still Christians, and that doesn’t change even if they are in error. Jewish beliefs and non-radical Muslim beliefs don’t bring out the same reaction in me, either.