Negative Criticism Of Other Religions

[GeorgiiMichael]

Each person will state the truth in the manner that he is capable of doing. Judging the presentation is just a nice way of trying to enforce a politically correct viewpoint and stifle debate.

 

I am not going to be offended by your presentation of the truth, even if - say - I think it could be presented differently or better.

 

There's presenting the truth in different ways, then there is being uncharitable when presenting the truth. Hiding behind "but I'm only telling the truth" when being a jerk doesn't stop you from being a jerk. 

 

Everyone who has posted in this thread would agree that the Catholic Church is fully true and that other denominations and faiths are less true in varying degrees (from the almost-but-not-quite truth of the Orthodox Churches to the false faiths of Buddhism, etc.). Basilia is simply asking about circumstances where that rule is seen to have been broken.

 

And quite frankly, she's asking the mods, seeing as they're the ones who enforce the rules.

[Maggyie]

After all, every man will be judged by Christ based upon what he has said and done and if he failed to stand up for the truth as he knew it, he will be judged accordingly.

 

Yes clearly at one's judgment, the Lord will pull up a copy of one's internet postings and say "Rick12764, your posts on this online message board were inadequate. You were not sufficiently negative about other faiths. In other words you were WRONG ON THE INTERNETZ. Now depart from me to the land of wailing and shrieking."

[Apotheoun]

There's presenting the truth in different ways, then there is being uncharitable when presenting the truth. Hiding behind "but I'm only telling the truth" when being a jerk doesn't stop you from being a jerk. 

 

Everyone who has posted in this thread would agree that the Catholic Church is fully true and that other denominations and faiths are less true in varying degrees (from the almost-but-not-quite truth of the Orthodox Churches to the false faiths of Buddhism, etc.). Basilia is simply asking about circumstances where that rule is seen to have been broken.

 

And quite frankly, she's asking the mods, seeing as they're the ones who enforce the rules.

Is it uncharitable to say that Islam teaches that God is the cause of good and evil, and that this teaching is repugnant to the Gospel? I don't think so. Once again people can like or dislike writing styles. But the tendency  sometimes here at Phatmass is to try and stifle any debate on issues that some people would rather avoid. 

 

Do I like wimpy styles of passive writing that try to find good in evil? No, I don't, and I don't hide the fact that I find that approach to be insipid and counter-productive. Quite honestly when I tried the irenic approach with the Muslims I knew at SFSU they came away thinking that I was ripe for conversion to Islam. It was only when I abandoned the weak approach of modernist theology that I started actually having some success with Muslims, because they were finally challenged to actually think about the teachings of their own religion.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Lilllabettt]

[Apotheoun]

Yes clearly at one's judgment, the Lord will pull up a copy of one's internet postings and say "Rick12764, your posts on this online message board were inadequate. You were not sufficiently negative about other faiths. In other words you were WRONG ON THE INTERNETZ. Now depart from me to the land of wailing and shrieking."

Actually the Lord knows everything we think, write, say and do, or to put it another way, the Lord is omniscient.

[Winchester]

SFSU

Who thinks of these acronyms?

[Apotheoun]

Who thinks of these acronyms?

The schools in question.

[GeorgiiMichael]

Is it uncharitable to say that Islam teaches that God is the cause of good and evil, and that this teaching is repugnant to the Gospel? I don't think so. Once again people can like or dislike writing styles. But the tendency  sometimes here at Phatmass is to try and stifle any debate on issues that some people would rather avoid. 

 

Do I like wimpy styles of passive writing that try to find good in evil? No, I don't, and I don't hide the fact that I find that approach to be insipid and counter-productive. Quite honestly when I tried the irenic approach with the Muslims I knew at SFSU they came away thinking that I was ripe for conversion to Islam. It was only when I abandoned the weak approach of modernist theology that I started actually having some success with Muslims, because they were finally challenged to actually think about the teachings of their own religion.

 

I didn't accuse you of lacking in charity. But okay.

[Basilisa Marie]

Do I like wimpy styles of passive writing that try to find good in evil? No, I don't, and I don't hide the fact that I find that approach to be insipid and counter-productive. Quite honestly when I tried the irenic approach with the Muslims I knew at SFSU they came away thinking that I was ripe for conversion to Islam. It was only when I abandoned the weak approach of modernist theology that I started actually having some success with Muslims, because they were finally challenged to actually think about the teachings of their own religion.

 

Yeah, I think the problem with your experience with SFSU is that you guys were approaching it from two different angles. On one hand, you can spar and try to win.  That's when you pull out all the stops and go for all the philosophical logic you can think of. On the other hand, you can try to mutually understand each other. If one person is trying to win and the other is trying to understand, the understanding person is going to come away steamrolled (which, incidentally, is why I got out of doing heavy apologetics). Both people have to be on the same page.  

 

It seems to me from what HSMom said that the forum is trying to strike a balance between the two approaches, so that sparring doesn't eliminate any room for understanding.  The Debate Table seems to be meant for sparring than any other subforum, so that there is actually room for dialogue in other places that is actively trying to be respectful while being truthful. 

[Apotheoun]

I didn't accuse you of lacking in charity. But okay.

I didn't say that you did. I was just pointing out that charity should not be confused with being wishy-washy.   :smile3:

[Winchester]

The schools in question.

 

 

[Apotheoun]

 

 

Yeah, I think the problem with your experience with SFSU is that you guys were approaching it from two different angles. On one hand, you can spar and try to win.  That's when you pull out all the stops and go for all the philosophical logic you can think of. On the other hand, you can try to mutually understand each other. If one person is trying to win and the other is trying to understand, the understanding person is going to come away steamrolled (which, incidentally, is why I got out of doing heavy apologetics). Both people have to be on the same page. 

 

Let me put it this way. The more I said the common refrain of today among Catholics about how we all worship the same God, the more they thought I was ready to become Muslim. Or to put it another way, they actually thought that I was denying the doctrine of the Trinity. Once I stopped doing that, and started pointing out that God is a Trinity even if Muhammed rejected the doctrine, the more they got upset, and the more upset they became the more they had to think about Islamic teaching. Then when I pointed out that Islam itself holds that the Qur'an is uncreated and eternal, and yet that it is not Allah (who of course is also uncreated and eternal), the more concerned they became, because they realized where I was going in our conversations, and they did not have a strong response. As I pointed out to them, I believe that the Father is not the Son, and that the Father and the Son are not the Spirit, and yet these three eternal and uncreated persons are one God, and that Muslims believe that Allah and the Qur'an are both eternal and uncreated, and yet Allah is not the Qur'an, and the Qur'an is not Allah (it is His word). They saw that Islamic teaching lacked internal coherence. As I would tell them, I believe in three eternal and uncreated persons, and yet only one God; and the great schools of Islam believe in two eternal and uncreated realities (Allah and the Qur'an) and yet only one God. It totally smashed their anti-trinitarian arguments, and they had to fall back on the Islamic doctrine of bi-la kaifa. One of the young men I debated eventually joined a non-denominational Church. Sadly I didn't do a good enough job in convincing him of Catholicism, but I wasn't helped by the fact that Catholicism has become theologically relativist in connection with Islam. The non-denominational Church taught clearly that Christ is the only way, and that no one can worship the Father without the Son. Such is life I suppose.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[CatherineM]

It's okay to report stuff and have the mods ignore it. I once reported someone who referred to the Pope as a part of the male anatomy. It didn't get taken down. I lived.

[Apotheoun]

It's okay to report stuff and have the mods ignore it. I once reported someone who referred to the Pope as a part of the male anatomy. It didn't get taken down. I lived.

It didn't get taken down? That is weird because that would qualify as an ad hominem.

[homeschoolmom]

It's okay to report stuff and have the mods ignore it. I once reported someone who referred to the Pope as a part of the male anatomy. It didn't get taken down. I lived.

 

 

It didn't get taken down? That is weird because that would qualify as an ad hominem.

:blink: I have absolutely no recollection of that report at all.