Lots of anger on this forum

[rlg94086]

First, let me say that on a personal level I find that for the most part, the majority of the posters on this site are mild-mannered, polite and frankly “light-weights” in the “forum hostility” department. I can give you links to “forums” where you would be amazed at the brazen arrogance and stupidity show by the denizens of those forums.

Secondly…one must be very cautious when reading another’s words as posted in a forum…don’t try to read any emotion into the post. Its dangerous and often misunderstood. Some people have a dry wit, while others are the opposite. Take all with a grain of salt…its easier and healthier.

Third…don’t take anything too seriously…just go with the flow.

Very well said RobHom! :clapping:

I would like to add that I always find it ironically humorous when people on CAF take a very judgmental stance against their fellow posters’ judgmentalism.

And in the words of Tom Lehrer:
“There are people who do not love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that!”

 

[JReducation]

This is an incorrect statement.

My spiritual director is a nun and she has a master in Theology.

St. Therese of Avila,a Doctor of the Church, studied theology.

Sisters after Vatican II were allowed to get degrees in theology.

St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Therese of Liseaux never studied theology. They are Doctors of the Church. Their theological knowledge was infused through prayer, mystical experiences and grace.

They are not Doctors because they have a degree of any kind.

A Doctor of the Church means a Teacher of the Church. It’s not an academic title. It’s actually higher than an academic title. It implies that the teachings of this person are consistent with the faith and can be used to teach the faith because they contain truth.

JR

 

[wjp984]

When people get to hide behind a computer then they get to say and act however they want with no consequences. If we all knew each other personally then we might have to think twice before posting something. Here is somethig to think about though. Our posts on here are permanately online unless deleted and can be found in a google search. It probably will not be too hard to find out who most of us are if someone had the mission to do so and odds are at least one person knows already. My brother came across this forum in a google search and saw what he thought had to be something I wrote even though he can’t prove it but he is right. I discovered a friend’s screen name on here though once again I can’t prove it but I am almost possitive I am correct. I’m sure the same can be true for most of us. Therefore, anything we write on here very well may come back to haunt us so we should think twice about it anyways.

 

[marietta]

JReducation:

“[R]adial Islamic believers feel very strongly that it is their moral duty to wage a holy war against the West. This is their conscience.* But this is an incorrectly formed conscience. *[my italics] Conscience can never be contrary to revelation.”

“One is not morally culpable for what one does not know. One is only accountable for what one knows and one’s choices based on what one knows, not what you don’t know.”

What Jihadist has ever studied and accepted Christian revelation? If he had not, would he not be “invincibly ignorant” and thus not culpable for this actions? And how is it that he would have an “incorrectly informed conscience”? A different formation of the conscience, certainly; but “incorrect”?

marietta

 

[JReducation]

JReducation:

“[R]adial Islamic believers feel very strongly that it is their moral duty to wage a holy war against the West. This is their conscience.* But this is an incorrectly formed conscience. *[my italics] Conscience can never be contrary to revelation.”

“One is not morally culpable for what one does not know. One is only accountable for what one knows and one’s choices based on what one knows, not what you don’t know.”

What Jihadist has ever studied and accepted Christian revelation? If he had not, would he not be “invincibly ignorant” and thus not culpable for this actions? And how is it that he would have an “incorrectly informed conscience”? A different formation of the conscience, certainly; but “incorrect”?

marietta

Your question about the Jihadist is a very good one and an excellent example of an incorrectly formed conscience. Islam professes faith in the God of Abraham, who is also the God of Jesus and the God of the Church.

The God of Abraham revealed to Moses “Thou shalt not kill.” Therefore, Muslims have been exposed to the Commandments and do believe them.

Secondly, the sanctity of life is inscribed into natural law. A person who has never heard about God or the Commandments, still has knowledge of natural law. Even pagan societies regard murder as serioius matter. Any form of killing must be justified in light of natural law and revelation. Revelation is present in natural law.

It is not fully overt, because it requires reflection. Nonetheless, it is there for those who want to know it. Therefore, the sacredness of life is written into the heart of man.

Anyone whose conscience dictates contrary to the sacredness of life has a incorrectly formed conscience.

Coscience is either correctly or incorrectly formed. There is not such thing as differently formed. That would be moral relitivism.

As to culpability, the Catholic Church leaves that up to God. Objectively, such a person has commited a grave sin. But only God knows the condition of each soul and judges the soul, not us. That would be unmerciful on our part.

JR

 

[johncatholic]

This is somewhat true on this forum but then again it is characteristic of today’s society in general. Many people act like they are right about everything and do not respect the other persons viewpoint. Just look at foxnews and you can see the debates raging all the time and how people interrupt the other person just to express their viewpoint. However, the are truths that are undeniable especially those of the Catholic church and faith. These truths are not open to debate or speculation and if one expresses their views differently than that would demand that the truth be defended.

 

[marietta]

JReducation:

Would you say that every soul and every life is equally sacred?

I believe I know what God would say; I would like to know what you would say.

Thanks.

marietta

 

[marietta]

johncatholic:

I know all too well the absolute futility of arguing or debating a different viewpoint with the Catholics who regularly visit this forum. Catholicism is an utterly closed society, and it appears to me to be smug and “safe” within the confines of its truth.

I’ve been labelled a Relativist here, so no use hurling that at me. Some of us outside your snug cocoon are interested in how your beliefs differ from ours. I was raised Catholic but the longer I come to view these posts the faster I run in any opposite direction. Sanctimony has no value; in fact, it devalues the person contaminated with it. I have read here that there is only one truth and the Catholics have the ball. Now you say there are multiple truths within the Catholic Church, undeniable truths. What of the truths of others? Does the fact that you deny them make them any less valid?

Honestly, I cannot understand you people.

marietta

 

[JReducation]

JReducation:

Would you say that every soul and every life is equally sacred?

I believe I know what God would say; I would like to know what you would say.

Thanks.

marietta

Through the entire scripture God has revealed that he created man in his image and likeness. This is not just some men, but all of mankind.

“God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.” Gn 1: 27

If man is created in God’s image, then he is sacred body and soul. There is no man who is more sacred than another.

“And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.” Jn 1: 14

Jesus is the glory and is full of grace and truth. If man is created in his image and likeness, then man can be nothing but sacred. God makes only one distinction for the purpose of redemption that is in the creation of Mary, who was created without original sin.

What man does with his life and soul is man’s choice, not God’s. However, even sin cannot destroy the sacredness of life or its dignity, because human life does not take its dignity from man’s action, but from the nature of his Creator. Sin has no power over the Creator. Therefore, even the life and soul of the greatest sinner is sacred.

When Cain killed Abel the Lord said, “If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold. So the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight.” Gn 4: 15

Even though Cain was a murderer, the Lord preserves his life, for his life is sacred in the Lord’s eyes.

JR

 

[Shoshana]

If you really think there is a lot of anger on this forum, you should try the political forum!!!

 

[Dale_M]

Catholicism is an utterly closed society, and it appears to me to be smug and “safe” within the confines of its truth.

Its the end result of applying systematically applying reason to faith. There are benefits and draw-backs.

I’ve been labelled a Relativist here, so no use hurling that at me. Some of us outside your snug cocoon are interested in how your beliefs differ from ours.

People get called all sorts of things here. I wouldn’t take it to heart. I too share an interest in comparing and contrasting different beliefs. CAF, however, seems heavily populated by people with an apologetic temperment, so this probably isn’t the best place for that sort of thing.

Now you say there are multiple truths within the Catholic Church, undeniable truths.

When I went through RCIA we used the controversial “Dutch Catechism”. It taught that multiple truths do exist in the Church. Some of them are official and others are developing in relation to official doctrine. The Church doesn’t change its teachings, but it does express it differently in different ages. Those who find themselves opposed to official teaching may still be embracing the truth albeit in an unfinished form.

Of course, I don’t think you will find that in the Catechism today.

Honestly, I cannot understand you people.

I find some people hard to understand too!

 

[Dale_M]

If you really think there is a lot of anger on this forum, you should try the political forum!!!

Oh, yes. Or try reading the comments beneath online newspaper articles - they will make you worry about democracy.

 

[Shoshana]

I find some people hard to understand too!

And most people have a hard understanding me!

 

[vern_humphrey]

The first step is to remove the phrase “you think” from our vocabulary. When we use that phrase, we are trying to tell somone else what he thinks. Since we cannot read minds, all we are really doing is arguing with what we imagine the other thinks.

 

[Hilde89]

The few times I have tried to say something in “serious” threads, I have felt attacked sometimes by the replies, even though I’m just looking to understand. And as a Protestant, I feel that some of the things written are hurtful.

But luckily I have met some nice people too.

 

[Dale_M]

But luckily I have met some nice people too.

Yes, and we are lucky to have you here. Thanks for sticking with us!
(and praying for us)

Edit:
You have a Viking Kittens picture on your personal profile. Hooray!

 

[Hilde89]

Yes, and we are lucky to have you here. Thanks for sticking with us!
(and praying for us)

Edit:
You have a Viking Kittens picture on your personal profile. Hooray!

Aw, thank you.
The nice outweighs the not-so-nice as long as I choose the right threads.

And you better watch out for those.

 

[CentralFLJames]

johncatholic:

I know all too well the absolute futility of arguing or debating a different viewpoint with the Catholics who regularly visit this forum. Catholicism is an utterly closed society, and it appears to me to be smug and “safe” within the confines of its truth.

I have been following along with some of your assertions and complaints and wanted to ring in here with a few observations that may give a different viewpoint if you are open to it. A common element in much of your opinion is a theme of judgement. Anyone could make the same subjective statements and generalizations you make here about those in opposition to Catholicism as you do assert to Catholics. It appears that you find it discomforting that Catholics can feel safe and unassailable as if no absolute truths exist. Is it the Catholicism you are against or are you bothered that anyone other than yourself might have possession of an absolute and unassailable truth? Or do you dislike the possibility that absolutes exist and prefer a relative or subjective sort of self modifying truth? Are you prepared to claim that you have a more enlightened judgement that should prevail over the judgement of a 2000 year old institution? In either case can you admit that there are at least some elements of hubris and hypocrisy at work here?

I’ve been labelled a Relativist here, so no use hurling that at me. Some of us outside your snug cocoon are interested in how your beliefs differ from ours. I was raised Catholic but the longer I come to view these posts the faster I run in any opposite direction. Sanctimony has no value; in fact, it devalues the person contaminated with it. I have read here that there is only one truth and the Catholics have the ball. Now you say there are multiple truths within the Catholic Church, undeniable truths. What of the truths of others? Does the fact that you deny them make them any less valid?

The nice thing about truths is that truth can never be divided against itself. If there is a contradiction then this means that something held as true is in fact not a truth or that somone is attemptting to judge infallibly or in a subjective way but is in fact fallable. Truth can not be divided against itself. That said, there is such a thing as deeper dimensions of truth. Denial of truth does not render a truth invalid anymore so than asserting opposition to a truth makes it wrong. Everyone has their own perspective - but not everyone has an objective one. The question resolves to credibility. An opinion rendered as an opposing idea to an established standard only merits consideration if the person rendering it is more credible than those that hold it.

Honestly, I cannot understand you people.
marietta

Honestly, I think you have come to the crux of the complaint. Consider that failure to comprehend does not negate truth either…

James

 

[Jeanette_L]

Aw, thank you.
The nice outweighs the not-so-nice as long as I choose the right threads.

And you better watch out for those.

 

[marietta]

CentralFLJames:

“Everyone has their own perspective - but not everyone has an objective one,” you say. I submit that if everyone has his own perspective, then *no one *has an objective one.

And I am not convinced that there is an “absolute and unassailable truth.”

marietta