michaelp:
Please, let’s not start a 20 post discussion on the definition of “charismatic.”
That’s up to you. I’ve requested that we use the terms Pentecostals or Evangelicals for those in the pentecostal movement – except for Charistmatics because Charismatics are generally understood to be Catholic. It’s no skin off your back to concede to this reasonable request for common language.
michaelp:
I appreciate your desire to be precise, but it becomes pedantic and creates too many red herrings to keep this discussion interesting.
This is a self-contradictory, disingenuous, and unwarranted statement. If you claim that precision in terminology is pedantic and creates too many red herrings to keep this discussion interesting, then indeed you do **not **appreciate my desire to be precise.
Some precision in terminology can be pedantic sometimes. As Tea has pointed out astutely, discussion needs some common ground in order to gain momentum. Common ground needs common language. So certainly some precision is necessary. Otherwise there is a risk of people using terminology in ‘special’ senses out of context, without explanation, and without negotiation. Misunderstanding ensues. Misunderstanding breeds conflict. We don’t want that.
As for my desire to be precise creating too many red herrings: in the specific question at hand my request for precision was legitimate. I have demonstrated above that it was legitimate. Because it was legitimate, it could not have been a red herring.
As for keeping this interesting: interesting to whom? To everyone who happens by? To you and Phil? To you? This discussion is an open discussion. Some people are going to make requests for clarification. Some people are going to disagree with what you are saying. This is normal in a discussion. To condescend to such people (or to take personally things which are mere disagreements and not intended to be personal) is to harm the spirit of inclusivity which in turns harms the spirit of the discussion.
michaelp:
You really need to look up what a question begging statement is.
Please do not condescend to me by telling me what I ‘really need’ to do.
michaelp:
You have accused me of this multiple times and in none of the cases did it qualify.
Not so. I used this term once in reference to your posts. Secondly, I suggest that it is useful to distinguish between ‘accusing’ you of something and responding to what you are saying. You are not the same as what you say. You may not agree with someone’s response, but your disagreement does not justify your decision to take what that person says personally.
Your repetitive insistence that I look up things in the dictionary is unwarranted and condescending. Particularly in the light of the reality. The reality is that I have given dictionary references. The reality is that you have
not given dictionary references.
Also, pardon me if I point out the obvious: having just suggested (rather uncharitably) that my request for precision is pedantic and a red herring,
you are now making a similar request for precision by claiming that I ‘need’ to look things up. That is a double standard. (Double standard: a set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another. – Websters)
Please be mindful of the following two board rules:
- Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
- Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
We have done your poll. We have taken pains to explain why we disgree with the notion of ‘scriptural sufficiency.’ We have also taken pains to explain the focus of Catholicism concerning the Church over the individual and that, while individual Catholics may strive to understand scripture through their own studies and reading, the final word rests in the Magisterium. That’s it. We shall continue to mourn those who have left communion and pray for their souls.
