Thank goodness that I have good friends on the case when I am away from my computer. So, the deal here is that anti-Catholic views…even when Evangelicals veil them as being Catholic, still are without merit and baseless. Try again, sister.
That was pretty weak. You are going to have to do better. “It sounds like it deals with conspiracy theories.” Come on. Ever think that it might be there to deal with conspiracy theories like the one you are submitting here?
I love CMs testimony about how he was in a book store and how he was confronted by an anti-Catholic bigot.I guess it was the first time in his 34 years of being an Evangelical that he ever heard any anti- Catholic statements.Apparently he never heard any in the various Protestant churches he attended. It sounds like he just had the moanies.
So what does that have to do with the topic that we are talking about here?
I noticed you skipped over the very “un-bogus” quote from Albert Einstein to tell me how bogus my sources are.
That’s just nonsense. I consider myself an evangelical, and I am (with all due modesty) quite capable of having an academic discussion about matters. But don’t take me as an example. Go visit Telford Work’s website. He is definitely an evangelical (member of a Pentecostal church, professor at an evangelical college) and he can have academic discussions with the best of them. I know this because we were in grad school together.
No, that is not the reason for Noll’s book. The reason for Noll’s book was that Noll was an evangelical and wanted to stimulate his fellow evangelicals to pursue the life of the mind and to consider why they haven’t previously been doing so. He also, as a Calvinist, took some potshots at revivalism and the Wesleyan tradition, which other evangelical academics (such as Donald Dayton or my wife, or myself for that matter though I see more merit in Noll’s thesis than they do) think are quite unfair.
I agree. Which is why it’s a good thing that evangelicalism is based not on personal opinion but on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Fortunately many of your fellow Catholics have a broader and wiser view.
I am sorry that evangelicals you have encountered have thrown lies at you. But you ought to know better than to extrapolate from unfortunate personal experiences to a generalization about a large group of your fellow Christians. People do this about Catholicism all the time–they say “that nun was mean to me so Catholicism is no good.” You surely recognize how unfair this is when others do it to you. Why can’t you also see how unfair it is when you do it to others?
When people say this sort of thing I am tempted to buy them a gift subscription to *Christianity Today. *But I’m not that rich, and besides you can read it on the Internet. Browse a few articles and tell me if you see an obsession with hating Catholicism.
Alfie,
Hey Edwin,
In other words, I have pointed out that you are blatantly violating the Golden Rule, and you can’t defend yourself.
You’re violating the Golden Rule blatantly. You are using a tactic against evangelicals that you would find highly offensive if it were used against Catholicism. That is a “nasty game.” I’m simply calling a spade a spade, and I do not apologize for it. I don’t have personal feelings about you–no doubt I ought to, since you are my brother (sister?) in Christ, but I only know you as a name on the Internet. I do have very strong feelings about Christians treating their brothers and sisters uncharitably. (And no, please don’t insult my intelligence by trying to argue that my strong language about you is uncharitable. I’m not being unjust to you–I’m simply pointing out in plain language what you are doing. I don’t object to strong language–you can call us heretics all you like and I won’t take offense. But I do object to unfairness and double standards.)
That’s just nonsense. I consider myself an evangelical, and I am (with all due modesty) quite capable of having an academic discussion about matters. But don’t take me as an example. Go visit Telford Work’s website. He is definitely an evangelical (member of a
Contarini:
Pentecostal church, professor at an evangelical college) and he can have academic discussions with the best of them. I know this because we were in grad school together.
Contarini:
Contarini:
No, that is not the reason for Noll’s book. The reason for Noll’s book was that Noll was an evangelical and wanted to stimulate his fellow evangelicals to pursue the life of the mind and to consider why they haven’t previously been doing so. He also, as a Calvinist, took some potshots at revivalism and the Wesleyan tradition, which other evangelical academics (such as Donald Dayton or my wife, or myself for that matter though I see more merit in Noll’s thesis than they do) think are quite unfair.
Contarini:
Contarini:
Anyone who thinks that evangelicals are unable to carry on an intellectual dialogue with Catholics or anyone else is simply ignorant of evangelicalism. There is plenty of shallowness and anti-intellectualism, but that’s not all there is.
Contarini:
Contarini:
of Jesus.I agree. Which is why it’s a good thing that evangelicalism is based not on personal opinion but on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Contarini:
Contarini:
Fortunately many of your fellow Catholics have a broader and wiser view.
Contarini:
Contarini:
I am sorry that evangelicals you have encountered have thrown lies at you. But you ought to know better than to extrapolate from unfortunate personal experiences to a generalization about a large group of your fellow Christians. People do this about Catholicism all the time–they say “that nun was mean to me so Catholicism is no good.” You surely recognize how unfair this is when others do it to you. Why can’t you also see how unfair it is when you do it to others?
Contarini:
Contarini:
But I’m not that rich, and besides you can read it on the Internet. Browse a few articles and tell me if you see an obsession with hating Catholicism.
Contarini:
Oh my goodness, I would love to wrap up the energy, the emotion, and the missionary zeal of Evangelicals into the Catholic Church! Forgive me, this may be my own bias based on my parish but when I look around at the lukewarm, stoic-faced folks in the pews I think there is a definite “need”…
My statement that Evangelicalism teaches error stands independently from the second premise which is that Evangelicalism is anti-intellectual. Are you saying that I violate the Golden Rule by calling an error, error?
Again, what is the “nasty game”? I referenced a book written by an Evangelical about the anti-intellectualism pervasive in the Evangelical movement - a thesis to which you agree has some merit. So, where have I violate the Golden Rule?
Let’s be honest, your strong feelings are not about my perceived “lack of charity” but about the fact that you don’t like my premise that Evangelicalism teaches error and that it has a problem with anti-intellectualism.
Well, I guess if someone was saying that I was teaching in error, I might get a little heated too. Still, error is error, and it is part of our duty as Christians to point it out where we see it. How in the world that the Golden Rule plays into that is kind of interesting. And what is all this Nasty Game business? I personally think it is a nasty game when you lead people in error.
Agreed.
It is not. But, there are some out there that have a hard time focusing on the facts, as those facts don’t support their arguement, so they tend to resort to name calling. Let us take, for example, the Alfie arguement about Catholic Church being supportive of the Nazi effort. Well, when push came to shove, no sources of credit could be brought to the table. So, she resorted to changing the arguement to a personal attack on a friend of the forum…Church Militant.Agreed.
Remember what the premise of this thread was? Alfie accused the Church of being complicit with the Nazis but could not provide the author or title of the supposed book from which this information came.
I’m being accused of engaging in a nasty game?
I’m just pointing out that Evangelicalism teaches error (since it does not claim to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, how is this nasty?) and I am stating that Evangelicalism has a problem with anti-intellectualism - something both Contarini and a source (Mark Noll) he called “respected” agree is present in Evangelicalism. How is that nasty?
An interesting point…
I have no problems with being accused of teaching error. That’s how you see it, and I’m willing to listen and to be reproved. I have changed many of my views in the course of my life because people showed me that I believed error.
The “nasty game” to which I referred is one of trying to prove that the other side’s less intelligent and admirable proponents are representative, while the failings of one’s own side are irrelevant. It has nothing to do with simply pointing out error.