God Is LOVE

[Ice_nine]

​Are you joking? I haven't had this much fun on Phatmass in ages. :D
(And no, I'm not joking.)

​But it's clear that you are offending and possibly hurting someone with your posts, but you seem keen on proving yourself to be "right" before you consider the feelings of others. You're trying to be holy right? But kindness is the hardest part, and you're not being kind and you're not accomplishing anything righteous by being unkind.

[AccountDeleted]

He's not playing a character, however, when you watch his other content you see that the vortex is a small part of the entire person.  He cares about the Church, he cares about the clergy, and he cares about souls.  You get to see this in the other shows he produces and it's a shame so many judge him soley on his appearance on the vortex.   The vortex segment is the segment which is devoted to talking about the issues and errors being spread in the Church which is why it has the 'hard hitting' vibe to it.  

​

Well, never having seen any of his other shows, I admit that I am limited in how  I view him. But, after having seen this one, it doesn't make me even want to see him in other things. Perhaps if someone posts a less obnoxious (IMO) video of him, I could try again. First appearances can be deceiving. Having been raised as an agnostic though, and having been completely turned off Christianity for years because of the evangelical hellfire and brimstone preachers around my area and on TV, it took a long time for me to open up to Jesus. The fact that Catholics didn't preach this stuff actually helped me to hear what they were saying, and the example of the MCs in day to day life sort of reinforced it. I just know that I would never have made it to the Church with this kind of thing. But if Voris does have a kinder, gentler side to him, I would be interested in seeing it. Not interested enough to go searching for him online, since he turns me off now, but if someone has a really good video of him that they think could convince me of his 'God is love' philosophy' (which this video doesn't) then I would watch it. 

Endless arguments about how wrong I am ain't gonna do it. I am Thomas - I need to touch and feel and see it.  

[Not The Philosopher]

Here's my two cents:

No one is being forced to watch Michael Voris. If some people find his videos to help them examine their conscience and grow spiritually, then all well and good. If not, then they can watch/read someone else who does the trick. The dude isn't my cuppa tea, so I usually don't watch him.

I like Cardinal Newman's sermons. My godfather doesn't. Oh well.

[PhuturePriest]

​But it's clear that you are offending and possibly hurting someone with your posts, but you seem keen on proving yourself to be "right" before you consider the feelings of others. You're trying to be holy right? But kindness is the hardest part, and you're not being kind and you're not accomplishing anything righteous by being unkind.

​It's not my fault if I'm offending her by disagreeing with her. That's kind of how debates work. I have never called her a name, and I never called her person, holiness, or motives into question. I have only disagreed with her position on this subject and openly engaged that. She replied in kind by claiming I was "attacking" her with "vitriol", and acted as if I were some bully attacking a defenseless woman. If you don't have thick enough skin to debate, then say so. But it is wrong to commit the sin of calumny by claiming someone is attacking your character and calling you names when it is clear I never did either of those things. That is very unkind and offensive, but I see no one calling it out for its unchristian nature.

If we're going to call spades what they are, then we shouldn't be selective about it. You think my behavior was wrong, and I thank you for telling me so. But we should remember I wasn't debating myself, and there was another person involved who made very grand accusations that she couldn't back up with evidence when I called her to.

I replied for the sake of clarifying this situation. I will now resume my vacation from the phorum.

[Ice_nine]

the reason I didn't say anything to anyone else is I didn't think anyone else here could appreciate the whole "admonishing the sinner bit" more than you ;). I know you get tired ragging on you about being the resident fetus but youth does need to be tempered sometimes. I used to run on ad nauseum about all sorts of croutons because I felt that I was RIGHT and, by God, I will make them understand my rightness. Some might still say I'm long-winded, I digress.

Why did I only address you though, in all seriousness? I don't know maybe I'm an ageist jerk. Maybe I sympathized more with the other side of the debate. Who knows, it's the internet.

[AccountDeleted]

My whole  problem with this thread is that it is NOT in the Debate Table - it is in Open Mic, where one would expect that Catholics could disagree with respect for each other, not name calling. In DT one expects the Spanish Inquisition but not in OM.

I know that FP has a sort of hero worship for Voris so perhaps that has inflamed him to defend his hero but I honestly was just stating my own personal opinion after a FIRST viewing of this man. I am not a coward who refuses to defend the faith - in fact I have to defend a lot of what happens in the Church to my family a lot of the time but I don't use the same dogmatic diatribe to try to do it. It works better for me to be more gentle and use compassion and love and reason. Overcoming thinks like pedophile scandals and money issues and even social issues like pro-life, I tread gently and reinforce my beliefs with understanding for their views (not agreement) while using reason to try to explain my own point of view. Honestly, all the people I associate with are very intelligent, and these kinds of chest beating and dogmatic statements will NEVER convert them. As for converting Catholics - he already puts me off, so how many others does he do this too? I am frankly embarrassed to have to explain Catholics like him so I just avoid this type of rhetoric and don't show it to anyone I know.

Credo was perfectly able to state his views without any drama or trauma - in an adult and mature way - and I respect that. I also appreciated his post that Voris is not always the way he appears in the Vortex videos and I acknowledged that perhaps I need to see more of him outside the Vortex (but not that particular video that was recently posted about only Catholics going to heaven - being Vortex again it was in the same vein).

Fanaticism of any kind frightens me because I don't see how it is different than any other radical religious group. Do we really want the Spanish Inquisition back or to force people to convert - for their own good? Not I! Beat people with the 'truth' and the might be 'brainwashed' into following - but they will not experience a true conversion of heart.

Now Voris might have great success among Catholics with his methods - just as Corapi did - but I fear this kind of success - and don't believe it reflects the true nature of the Catholic Church. I love the church, but she is a mother, not a bogeyman. 

And I AM entitled to my opinion.  

[Guest]

My whole  problem with this thread is that it is NOT in the Debate Table - it is in Open Mic, where one would expect that Catholics could disagree with respect for each other, not name calling. In DT one expects the Spanish Inquisition but not in OM.

I know that FP has a sort of hero worship for Voris so perhaps that has inflamed him to defend his hero but I honestly was just stating my own personal opinion after a FIRST viewing of this man. I am not a coward who refuses to defend the faith - in fact I have to defend a lot of what happens in the Church to my family a lot of the time but I don't use the same dogmatic diatribe to try to do it. It works better for me to be more gentle and use compassion and love and reason. Overcoming thinks like pedophile scandals and money issues and even social issues like pro-life, I tread gently and reinforce my beliefs with understanding for their views (not agreement) while using reason to try to explain my own point of view. Honestly, all the people I associate with are very intelligent, and these kinds of chest beating and dogmatic statements will NEVER convert them. As for converting Catholics - he already puts me off, so how many others does he do this too? I am frankly embarrassed to have to explain Catholics like him so I just avoid this type of rhetoric and don't show it to anyone I know.

Credo was perfectly able to state his views without any drama or trauma - in an adult and mature way - and I respect that. I also appreciated his post that Voris is not always the way he appears in the Vortex videos and I acknowledged that perhaps I need to see more of him outside the Vortex (but not that particular video that was recently posted about only Catholics going to heaven - being Vortex again it was in the same vein).

Fanaticism of any kind frightens me because I don't see how it is different than any other radical religious group. Do we really want the Spanish Inquisition back or to force people to convert - for their own good? Not I! Beat people with the 'truth' and the might be 'brainwashed' into following - but they will not experience a true conversion of heart.

Now Voris might have great success among Catholics with his methods - just as Corapi did - but I fear this kind of success - and don't believe it reflects the true nature of the Catholic Church. I love the church, but she is a mother, not a bogeyman. 

And I AM entitled to my opinion.  

Good stuff.

[Ash Wednesday]

My whole  problem with this thread is that it is NOT in the Debate Table - it is in Open Mic, where one would expect that Catholics could disagree with respect for each other, not name calling. In DT one expects the Spanish Inquisition but not in OM.

​Please report it to us next time you feel something is turning into a debate, chances are we aren't always available when a thread blows up or happen to miss it. That's what happens when you work two jobs, have families and try to have some semblance of a life outside of the internet.

In all honesty, as a Mediator of Meh, seeing Vortex videos posted en masse on Open Mic make me want to dole out atomic wedgies.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Ash Wednesday

[AccountDeleted]

​Please report it to us next time you feel something is turning into a debate, chances are we aren't always available when a thread blows up or happen to miss it. That's what happens when you work two jobs, have families and try to have some semblance of a life outside of the internet.

In all honesty, as a Mediator of Meh, seeing Vortex videos posted en masse on Open Mic make me want to dole out atomic wedgies.

​Thanks AW.  I know that not all the Mediators of Meh are on all the time - that oyu have real lives!

I guess since Credo was part of the discussion though and is a Mediator of Meh himself that if he thought it should be moved, he would do it. I'm not always sure if anyone else feels the same way I do about this but I am glad that it's not in OM anymore. DT definitely seems like the right place for it.

Thanks again. Maybe all the Vortex videos could live in either DT or Lame Board?

[Ash Wednesday]

Ideally, if Voris could be discussed with civility (whether people agree with him or not) that wouldn't be necessary. But unfortunately people don't seem to be capable of doing that.

[AccountDeleted]

Ideally, if Voris could be discussed with civility (whether people agree with him or not) that wouldn't be necessary. But unfortunately people don't seem to be capable of doing that.

​Well, some topics are just bound to end up causing controversy and those naturally belong more in the DT. Vortex causes extreme feelings on both sides it seems, so maybe those videos should just be like other controversial topics and put here first. That way, everyone knows what to expect in terms of debate.

But whatever, the OP is the one to make that choice I guess.

[CrossCuT]

Numerous times when someone posts a particular topic that ends up with severe reaction from people, the typical reaction is "If you cant handle what people think about the issue then dont post about it."

However with this topic it seems like "Youre not allowed to express your feelings on the issue because I like Voris and Im a moderator."

Maybe the rule should be no one is allowed to post about Voris if you dont like peoples reactions to him.

[beatitude]

​This is the heart of the matter. So many 'good' Christians think they are in the position to admonish when all they are being is self-righteous. Sometimes it doesn't take firm and confrontational tones, but gentleness that would not break the tender reed.

And yes, I continue to say different strokes because some people want to focus on the bad in another person rather than their own imperfection, no matter how many rules they are keeping. 

​Jesus was perfect and had every right to talk about things He knew - like hellfire. What I object to is self-righteousness that disguises itself as correction. There is a fine line here, and I still stay you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Jesus may have preached about heaven and hell (things he knew about personally, which we as humans don't) but he also told us not to judge each other - only He can do that - He said that we spend more time looking at the twig in our brother's eye than we do at the log in our own.

No one is going to get me to fear Jesus when I love Him so much and trust and depend totally in His mercy. Go at it - but Micheal Voris just puts me off. And I would never in a million years ask anyone I know to watch him - it would only alienate them. And I'm not talking about sinners here, but good people who would just be repulsed by his self-righteous manner.

​I agree. Personally, whenever I've heard people say "It's merciful to admonish sinners", it's always been in a situation when they were giving advice on something they were poorly qualified to talk about. I had a friend with an eating disorder who was told by one person that she should fast to get the better of sexual impurity - by someone who knew she had an eating disorder but was so convinced that he knew everything there was to know about the practise of the Faith that he pig-headedly stood by his 'advice' even when it was obviously harming her. And the list goes on, with the story of Jesus driving the merchants from the Temple being brought up on a regular basis to excuse equally mulish and often outright cruel behaviour. Along with "Love the sinner, hate the sin", that passage gets used to rationalise shortcomings in charity and humility far too often.

[Credo in Deum]

​I agree. Personally, whenever I've heard people say "It's merciful to admonish sinners", it's always been in a situation when they were giving advice on something they were poorly qualified to talk about. I had a friend with an eating disorder who was told by one person that she should fast to get the better of sexual impurity - by someone who knew she had an eating disorder but was so convinced that he knew everything there was to know about the practise of the Faith that he pig-headedly stood by his 'advice' even when it was obviously harming her. And the list goes on, with the story of Jesus driving the merchants from the Temple being brought up on a regular basis to excuse equally mulish and often outright cruel behaviour. Along with "Love the sinner, hate the sin", that passage gets used to rationalise shortcomings in charity and humility far too often.

Sorry to hear about your friend.  I use the example of Jesus turning over the tables and grabbing the whip to illustrate that his actions would be viewed as fanatical by many.  Even the things he said "he who is not with me is agaisnt me" would be viewed by many as fanatical.  

The idea that Jesus is perfect and therefore the only person who can admonish sinners is, IMO, wrong.  Christ gave this authority to his Apostles and their successors, and Christ also gave us the way to correct our brethren when they're in error in Matthew 18:15-17.  I think what most forget though is that our correction should encourage others to go toward the Church for the answer if they do not agree with us when we say what the Church preaches.

IMO, I also think it's dangerous to pick parts of Jesus teaching we like and leave the rest which challenge us.  Christ's mercy is suppose to be conducive toward us having a better and correct outlook regarding His justice.  What I mean by that is if we see God's great mercy then we know and can be sure that hell is a just punishment.  Therefore we should not separate the two as if one Jesus is always nice and another Jesus is harsh.  There is one Jesus and hell is not contrary to his merciful nature.

Lastly I think we need to understand that admonishing the sinner does not mean judging the sinner.  Admonishing a sinner is when we warn others that their actions and beliefs, or lack thereof, is putting their salvation in serious jeopardy. Doing this has always been looked at by that Church as an act of charity because it is.  It is charity to warn others of the dangers they may encounter by proceeding on certain paths.  The problem nowadays is if you do this everyone thinks you're passing judgment and condemning them to hell.  

Edited March 24, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Ice_nine]

you may have meant that credo, but the whole "Jesus drove sinners out of the temple with a whip" argument . . . I can usually see that from a mile away before it's even said. That's how overused it is. And the worst is that people use that as justification of being a jerkwad. Even if that's not what you're using it for, that's how it might be perceived by others.