What Westboro Baptists and "gay" activists have in common is...

[DexUK]

Uncharitable this, uncharitable that…the calling card of CAF progressives and posters who don’t have a valid counterargument.

In that case you shouldn’t be on this forum, since it is a particular rule that posters should be polite and not engage in uncharitable behaviour.

If you want to make generalisations, accusations of ‘hate’ against non-homogenous groups of people and those with whom you simply have a differing moral outlook, then please take it somewhere else. It’s definitely not how you are taught to behave by the Church.

 

[SuperLuigi]

SuperLuigi;10686490:

Dex’s post wasn’t “whiny” at all.

Overuse of the word “uncharitable” counts as whiny any time in my book, as does accusations of stereotyping.

And the only reason people use that word is because it’s in the posting guidelines on this site and is stated in infractions.

 

[livingwordunity]

In that case you shouldn’t be on this forum, since it is a particular rule that posters should be polite and not engage in uncharitable behaviour.

If you want to make generalisations, accusations of ‘hate’ against non-homogenous groups of people and those with whom you simply have a differing moral outlook, then please take it somewhere else. It’s definitely not how you are taught to behave by the Church.

I think it’s uncharitable to falsely accuse someone of being uncharitable. Please see post #18.

 

[agnes_therese]

Overuse of the word “uncharitable” counts as whiny any time in my book, as does accusations of stereotyping.

Dex’s post to which you responded use the word “uncharitable” once. You, on the other hand, keep repeating it. Speaking of overuse.

 

[livingwordunity]

Dex’s post to which you responded use the word “uncharitable” once. You, on the other hand, keep repeating it. Speaking of overuse.

By the way, have you seen post #18?

 

[Julianna]

I have observed that many Catholics don’t understand this either.

I think it serves no purpose to try and create ‘them and us’ situations. People can’t be neatly boxed up this way, not even the WBC.

This thread seems rather uncharitable to me.

I agree.

 

[DexUK]

The other good reason why it’s never a good idea to accuse those who simply disagree with you of ‘hate’ is because it fosters a ‘me against the world’ attitude in you…

You end up dismissing every disagreement with ‘oh they would say that wouldn’t they?’ and never engaging in any discussion, dialogue, outreach or attempts to befriend. You lock yourself up against the world.

We’re not supposed to do that as Catholics. We’re supposed to reach out with love and compassion, not sulk that we’re “hated” and reject everyone who believes differently from us.

As has been pointed out, ‘gay activists’ come in all shapes and sizes and opinions. Some love the church but have conscientious disagreements with some of its teachings, while others do, indeed, reject everything the Church teaches. But it’s worth mentioning those that do have left the Church behind - they don’t hate it because that gives the Church a place in their hearts - to hate something means having an emotional connection to the thing. Plenty of ‘gay activists’ don’t have any connection to the Church and don’t feel anything about it at all.

One simply cannot accuse all “gay activists” of ‘hating the Church’ because that is patently untrue. And, as I’ve said, to do so encourages those within the Church to develop a ‘bunker mentality’ and spend their days hating the ‘fact’ that they’re ‘hated’ when in fact they should be loving the people that disagree with them! That’s not my exhortation, it’s Christ’s!

 

[SuperLuigi]

=DexUK;10686514]In that case you shouldn’t be on this forum, since it is a particular rule that posters should be polite and not engage in uncharitable behaviour.

That (unfounded) allegation would mean more if the word “uncharitable” wasn’t overused just because it shows up across staff posts. And I VERY rarely see posts on here that fit the dictionary definition of it.

I guess I’ll have to change my signature back to remind people what it means.

If you want to make generalisations, accusations of ‘hate’ against non-homogenous groups of

If you’re going to accuse me or any other posters on here (especially if what they said was on a different thread), it would be wise to provide quotes, not just quoting the entire previous message because it’s the easy thing to do.

people and those with whom you simply have a differing moral outlook, then please take it somewhere else.

Bleh, that’s too common of a response, and I don’t need to “take it somewhere else” because this is a CATHOLIC forum.

It’s definitely not how you are taught to behave by the Church.

Interesting how someone who has defended homosexual behaviour is lecturing me on “taught to behave” by the Church.

 

[Julianna]

A lot of them do and I don’t think you need quotes around gay activists; it would be more accurate to put quotes around gay because a lot of these activists are just straights who are trying to show off how tolerant they are thinking they’ll get some kind of ovation from GLBTQ folks.

Really, it’s quite transparent.

So did you when you said this thread was *(drumroll…) *uncharitable.

No it’s not, so dump the Western PC nonsense.

Uncharitable this, uncharitable that…the **calling card of CAF progressives **and posters who don’t have a valid counterargument.

And hard line traditionalist…the extreme goes both ways…

 

[DexUK]

Interesting how someone who has defended homosexual behaviour is lecturing me on “taught to behave” by the Church.

I think you’ll find that I’ve never defended homosexual behaviour. I’ve argued points, but I’ve never defended sexual behaviour carried out outside marriage.

I’ll thank you to retract that.

 

[livingwordunity]

The “uncharitable” card seems to be used often as an emotional silencing weapon when someone can’t refute the truth of what someone else has said. The accusation is often a false one that is not based on what the one accused has actually said as in the case of the one who accused me. “Gay” activism really does promote hate and extremism just as much as Westboro Baptists do. Please see post #18.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Dex’s post to which you responded use the word “uncharitable” once

.

Incorrect.

You, on the other hand, keep repeating it. Speaking of overuse.

It’s the context that matters. I’m not pointing the finger and accusing people of being uncharitable, I’m referencing it’s overuse, and do to that I need to show what word is being overused.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Because the effect of this thread appears to be to encourage readers to “hate the haters”.

That is uncharitable.

No, it actually encourages us to pray harder for them.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The one thing I would urge is that no one consider these people to be Baptists. They are basically a cult, members of one family, and because they use the term Baptist, they get lots of publicity for their insanity. The true Baptist Church does not claim them as members.

 

[livingwordunity]

Secondly, you made a sweeping generalisation. That is usually an indication of a level of prejudice and stereotyping.

It would be sweeping if I would have said “homosexuals”. But I didn’t. “Gay activist” is a very specific term. Please see posts #5 and #18.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The “uncharitable” card seems to be used often as an emotional silencing weapon when someone can’t refute the truth of what someone else has said. The accusation is often a false one that is not based on what the one accused has actually said as in the case of the one who accused me. “Gay” activism really does promote hate and extremism just as much as Westboro Baptists do. Please see post #18.

The uncharitable mention could simply be a questioning of motivations behind intents of some posts, and not a silencing weapon. The silencing accusation, which seems to insinuate support of something, is itself questionable and might be used as silencing any simple reminders for charity.

There are so many ‘gay’ threads, some which are similar to the Pharisees in pointing out one’s own perception of their own holiness by bringing out the ‘truth’ of some else’s wickedness. While it maybe truth, both intents are questionable when searching the scriptures for validation.

An likewise example of this type thread, without explanation, would be a simple comparison of Westboro Baptist Church and some Catholics, both who cannot discuss this issue charitably. Surely that would inflame some on these forums.

We are Catholics and cannot support any sins, but are not called to an ‘activism’ of hated, lack of respect, or a lack of charity towards the sinners.

 

[livingwordunity]

The uncharitable mention could simply be a questioning of motivations behind intents of some posts, and not a silencing weapon. The silencing accusation, which seems to insinuate support of something, is itself questionable.

My motivation was questioned for criticizing the actions of an activist group and comparing their actions to the actions of another activist group.

I was falsely accused of making a sweeping generalization when the OP is about one specific activist group compared to another specific activist group.

Please see posts #5 and #18.

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My motivation was questioned for criticizing the actions of an activist group and comparing their actions to the actions of another activist group.

Please see posts #5 and #18.

.

Collectively, all our posts on a specific topic, in this thread and the many others, speaks to others to question motivations and tones sometimes. Only two know a person’s true intent, themselves and the Lord.

 

[DexUK]

My motivation was questioned for criticizing the actions of an activist group and comparing their actions to the actions of another activist group.

I was falsely accused of making a sweeping generalization when the OP is about one specific activist group compared to another specific activist group.

Please see posts #5 and #18.

.

But no specific ‘gay activist’ group was identified. It was a blanket statement.

As has been pointed out such ‘activists’ may be ‘activists’ on different levels and for different reasons: employment equality, marriage equality, legalisation of same sex behaviour, prevention of violence towards people on the basis of their sexual orientation, etc…

A Catholic who was in full agreement with the Church on everything could well be an ‘activist’ on the basis of non-discrimination and non-violence towards homosexuals - since that itself is required of us by the Catechism!

Hence the topic was drawn to broadly and the effect was to promote a response unbecoming to Catholics.

I suggest you read the Catechism. It might be enlightening and enable you to see where I’m coming from.

 

[livingwordunity]

Collectively, all our posts on a specific topic, in this thread and the many others, speaks to others to question motivations and tones sometimes. Only two know a person’s true intent, themselves and the Lord.

Like the “don’t judge” card, the “uncharitable” card is often a two-edge sword. Someone has to make a judgement to judge that someone else is judging. In the same way, calling someone “uncharitable” isn’t exactly saying something nice about them. And when the charge isn’t true, it can be a way of unjustly vilifying them so that others will question their motivation rather than what they actually said.