Good thing New Years' football games this year are on a Saturday!

- - -

Now, wopik, this should be a relief to you as you celebrate the Sabbath on a Saturday, don't you?

http://geocities.com/trinitypublishing2004/

Sometimes I'll see one of those Darwin fish on the back of someone's car with legs sprouting out and the word "evolve" inside the fish. Not to over -identify with the secularists, but it's good to keep in mind that 40% of Americans believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

darwin.com

Hello everyone,

I'm new here but would like to jump right in if that's ok?

I was wondering if I should post my position on something here that some may not agree with theologically, will I immediately be accused of trying to evangelise?

Or will you wait until you feel a bit more comfortable talking with me before making accusations?

I ask because I noticed a few unkind words posted earlier to someone and thought it was unfair to make an accusation just for asking a few questions.

Learning and teaching are both important in my opinion and I only want to engage with others If I am welcome here.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with this post.

John17-3

John 17-3:

If you're referring to wopik, yes, when folks post just to be provocative, and aren't willing in turn to engage in open dialogue, but persist with ad hominem, then they are likely to get confronted with it. All I can promise at that point is to try and remain as content-oriented to the post itself as possible, and refrain from slighting the poster. But as wopik persisted to attack Catholicism without answering to other poster's replies, the harsher rejoinder was necessary, IMO. In wopik's case, he tends to hide behind his own presuppositions, and is intent on evangelizing us poor Catholics, rather than having a mutual exchange. But if he were to in fact drop the proselytizing and simply dialogue, disagreements of any variety and intensity would be welcome.

With that in mind, jump right in!

Echoing w.c.'s remarks . . . Nevertheless, we DO love master Wopik.

Welcome John 17-3.

quote:

Now, wopik, this should be a relief to you as you celebrate the Sabbath on a Saturday, don't you?

I try my best, but fail most every week. I have to work into very early hours of saturday morning.

On the issue of not dialoging much, I think I do quite well, after posting something provocative. I have gone rounds and rounds on the topics that interest me. Check out my posts.

Happy New Years everyone.

You do go round and round, wopik. Your head must be spinning by now. But you do not yet show a real openness to dialogue, as evidenced simply by your posts on various threads. Maybe Phil has noticed some improvement, but my sense is that you're not here to learn, but to evangelize, or at least use other's responses to protect your own views. I'd be glad to be wrong in saying so.

One can walk with the traffic light and get run over anyway. In that case of being "dead right," what is gained? I'm not sure if the monks of the Holy Mountain are right or wrong, but their attitude speaks volumes on taking strong positions.

http://www.beliefnet.com/board...&discussionID=230063

Petty rivalries have been the bane of unity in Christian history. The Body of Christ is One.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

MM:

If these are your comments about my concerns with wopik's ad hominem tendencies, then issuing banal metaphors about charity and holiness simply misses the point. None of us here are under-aged, and none are "dead right" about anything; but we're all responsible for the dialogue we create when we respond to each other. As I've said elsewhere, you tend to pop in on some threads, leave your markings, and then disappear, except for occasional remarks like the one above.

As for the body of Christ being one, you might look over the threads wopik has started, and see the exchanges he's had with Phil. Many, if not most, of those have shown wopik to be less interested in dialogue and more inclined to reciting his own point-of-view over and over again. This has frustrated Phil almost as much as myself. As for petty rivalries, there is always room for dissent, and then responses to dissent, and you are confusing the latter for some form of insensitivity, which may have more to do with your lack of involvement than lack of charity on my part.

Your metaphor of Mount Athos is a bit peculiar, since Greek Orthodoxy won't even acknowledge the Roman Church as equally legitimate. The orthodox are free to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Mass, but that consideration isn't mutual, which speaks volumns about orthodoxy's self-perpetuating rift, beyond mere political gestures made occasionally at the Vatican and via Papal visits. Denying Catholics one of the sacraments is a serious form of dissent, one that the orthodox sustain on their own.

An anecdote to consider:

I once called a local Orthodox church, said I had attended some local orthodox bible studies, was Episcopalian, and wanted some educational material on the Jesus Prayer, wondering if such classes were available, as are classes on Lectio Divina and Centering Prayer in Catholic parishes. I was told by the young orthodox priest that those teachings couldn't be made available to the non-orthodox. I questioned him about this, and he seemed a bit embarrassed to turn me down, but clearly the orthodox rift wasn't to be questioned, and any notion of local ecumenism dismissed.

http://www.catholicleader.com....riendly.php?num=2110


Churches clash over holy sites

JERUSALEM (CNS): An ecumenical row over holy sites has spilled over into violence involving monks and other religious officials, according to the Franciscan priest in charge of monitoring an agreement among Jerusalem's Christian communities.

Franciscan Father Athanasius Macora, who monitors Jerusalem's Status Quo agreement, said he was very concerned by increased violence involving the Greek Orthodox patriarch.

"It has become a very difficult situation," he said. "I really think someone, sooner or later, will be killed."

The violence, Fr Macora said, can be linked directly to the arrival of Greek Orthodox Patriarch Irineos two years ago.

Observers from other Churches say the patriarch's attitude seems to be one of ownership of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, with the other denominations being "uninvited guests".

Catholic News Service was unsuccessful in repeated attempts to reach the Greek Orthodox patriarch for comment.

The Status Quo is a 19th century agreement that regulates jurisdiction of and access to key Christian sites in Jerusalem for Catholic, Orthodox and other Christian communities. Among those sites is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the site where tradition holds Jesus was buried.

However, the decree does not properly define the rights of each community, said Fr Macora, and this is the cause of friction at times.

The Greek Orthodox patriarch has had similar confrontations with the Coptic and Syrian Orthodox Churches.


( Copyright -- Catholic Leader, Brisbane )

Lemons make for fine lemonade.

Paul's epistle to the Romans, the 14th chapter, KJV

Him that is weak in the faith, recieve ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Let not him that eatheth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath recieved him.

Who art thou that judgest a man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. v1-9

Sometimes its just easier to quote scripture and hide behind its implications than enter the discussion. One man's lemons are another man's sour grapes, but sour just the same. In that regard, I'm beginning to see a resemblance between yours and wopik's posts.

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Smart guy, that Paul.

Sometimes its just easier to quote scripture and hide behind its implications than enter the discussion.

Or to quote Will, Limbaugh, Coulter or Madison. . Mea culpa. I can't divine anyone's motives, WC, (well, I can but I won't because it's impolite), but it's possible that people are trying to tell us their thoughts by quoting the more eloquent thoughts (we think) of others. Frankly, I think the sincere, no matter how crude or unpolished, thoughts of another are superb. I'm a great believe in Art Linkletter. Some of the thoughts, wisdom and eloquence that comes out of the mouths of children is just amazing. As adults we need only shoot for the eloquence of a 10-year-old. Anything more is a bonus.

I'm watching the Rams vs. the Jets on Sunday so I think you know where I stand. Give to God what is God's. Give to Tagliabue what is Tabliabue's.

Quoting Scripture and the thoughts of others is fine, but by itself doesn't amount to dialogue. Wopik has been peppering Shalom with ad hominem posts, and his willingness to have open exchange has been questioned by Phil as well. As for his exact motive, only wopik knows. But the behavior is clear enough, leading to impressions and responses that probably aren't surprising to wopik himself. Just look back on the varoius threads I'm referring to and you'll see this is a trend. I'd bet he's encountered it elsewhere. And this kind of ongoing monologue, with narrowed, almost cheap shots taken at Catholicism, is a form of impoliteness itself, IMO, as in taking some pleasure in getting reactions, and then disappearing, then returning with more commercial-like messages for the rejoinder. Those of you who haven't been involved in these threads directly aren't familiar with what I'm talking about, at least in this particular context.

Quoting Scripture and the thoughts of others is fine, but by itself doesn't amount to dialogue.

You're right about that, WC. Perhaps it's just my own prejudices and proclivities, but I like nothing better than a good soliloquy, a good soapbox speech. I might not agree with what the speaker says but when it's said with passion and conviction it can often be compelling.

And let's face it. A lot of people don't like open conflict, even on the relatively anonymous internet. And some people just think it impolite and unkind to cut across another's bow so they give more glancing blows, so to speak. And I must admit that I am often more interested in demagogueing than dialoguing. I like to have may say, and once I've said my piece, that's often enough for me. Sometimes I will delve further. Sometimes I won't and this usually has little to do with arrogance or dismissing another as unworthy of dialoguing with. It's almost always a matter of the subject matter and how richly I perceive getting into the minutia to be.

Wopik has been peppering Shalom with ad hominem posts, and his willingness to have open exchange has been questioned by Phil as well.

And I am often a jerk and a blow-hard. I fully respect the right of the moderators and administrators to uphold the standards they wish to set for this forum. I'll have my say about things that we may disagree about in this regard, and that will be that. If I can't live with the rules then I will move on to other pastures, but so far no rule at Shalom Place even slightly chafes so as to cause me to even consider such a thing.

As for his exact motive, only wopik knows. But the behavior is clear enough, leading to impressions and responses that probably aren't surprising to wopik himself. Just look back on the varoius threads I'm referring to and you'll see this is a trend. I'd bet he's encountered it elsewhere. And this kind of ongoing monologue, with narrowed, almost cheap shots taken at Catholicism, is a form of impoliteness itself, IMO, as in taking some pleasure in getting reactions, and then disappearing, then returning with more commercial-like messages for the rejoinder.

I'm not for anyone being openly mean or hurling ad homs and just causing to exist chaos and disharmony as the object of their posts. But I am thankful for those who come at things from a different angle, sometimes a little gratingly, because it what often sparks me to new ideas and new understandings. Frankly, Wopik doesn't bother me in the least. I'm not particularly attached to Christianity or Catholicism so that could be the reason. Let a Wopik come along that takes such shots at Coulter and Limbaugh and I may feel differently. But I doubt that I would. I humbly suggest, WC, that your evaluation of Wopik is colored by the topics being discussed and not necessarily the way they are being discussed. After all, I certainly hit-and-run with my ideas as much if not more than Wopik and I also often refrain from dialogue. I say my piece and move on. If, for example, Phil did not strong conservative proclivities (if he were a flaming lib) then my little rants and things would be seen in the same light.

This is all offered for you consideration. I'm not married to any of it. I'll let the moderators do their jobs as they see fit and I will also challenge Wopik to acknowledge that, rightly or wrongly, his style is being perceived as unnecessarily trollish. That's about all I'll have to say because these metadiscussions will often take on a life of their own until we either forget what we were originally talking about or we actually do get to what we're really talking about but it then becomes damn hard to either see this or admit it.

I fully reserve the right of WC to call things as he sees them and to act accordingly.

The rest of the chapter:

For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be the Lord both of the dead and the living.

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ.

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tounge shall confess to God.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Let us not therefore judge one another anymore: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or occasion to sin in his brother's way.

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean it is unclean.

But if a brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine
, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

I respect all the pov's being expressed here. I've been frustrated with some of the exchanges with wopik, but I also consider them instructive in their own ways. It ought to be clear enough to the reader what's going on and s/he can decide where they think the truth lies.

Re. ad hominems, I would not favor anyone coming on and repeatedly doing so, and have locked out those who seemed to have such an agenda, at times. I don't think that's wopik's intent, however, even though that's how it sometimes comes across. I definitely perceive an intent to evangelize, but I don't find that offensive; the Hawkins fans and various New Agers have come along to do the same. Let the discussions go on, as that's what we're here for. If one's beliefs or dialogue style sabotage the efforts, then I think this reflects back, somewhat, on their "cause." What I've decided to do is to just plain "pass" on continuing with exchanges that I think will probably be pointless. If things just seem to end up "hanging there," that's OK with me, too. Othere can jump in and try to "tidy up" if they wish, and that's fine, too.

Brad:

I'm not invoking a moderator's role here, since that only applies on the Religion and Politics Forum. As for content vs. manner of expression, wopik's content usually doesn't bother me, since I often don't see much substance in it from a theological POV. Your posts, on the other hand, are seldom ad hominem, and I don't mean that as a compliment, but as a contrast to what I take exception to.

If wopik states he believes his religious faith is best served by honoring Jewish feast days, then that's quite fine and honorable, but to juxtapose it with Catholic tradition and attempt to show the latter's deficiencies without engaging in dialogue i.e, willing to question one's own views, is counterproductive on a forum like this, IMO. He isn't, however, simply sharing his faith, but posting to provoke responses, and then not responding when asked to explore the topic openly. If he can show Catholic tradition to be wrong, then that would be impressive, but not really the point, since right and wrong are less important than creative engagement between open minds. And so wopik's topics are kind of neutral in themselves, but presented as ideals often incompatible with Catholic faith tradition. Again, this would only be a difference in preference if it weren't couched in such a non-reasoning fundamentalist tone, which is probably the nerve he hits in me.

I'm not invoking a moderator's role here, since that only applies on the Religion and Politics Forum.

Oh, yeah. You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I must have been thinking that anyone qualified to referee the volatile mix of "Religion and Politics" is more than qualified to hand down judgments in "Morality and Theology".

If wopik states he believes his religious faith is best served by honoring Jewish feast days, then that's quite fine and honorable, but to juxtapose it with Catholic tradition and attempt to show the latter's deficiencies without engaging in dialogue i.e, willing to question one's own views, is counterproductive on a forum like this, IMO.

Every forum has a general theme or purpose and it will therefore attract dissenting views. This dissent will run the gamut from polite and in-depth discussions to one-shot post-and-run graffiti. If you're saying that wopik has a bit of provocateur in him then I'd say you're right. I'm not saying that wopik is Thomas Paine, but kiss the ground you walk on and thank God that Christianity has become the absolute bedrock, template and example for open and non-violent dissent. Contrast this to modern liberalism and Islam. Christianity's maturation through the centuries and its management of the inevitable clash between faith and science (Europe doesn't know how lucky they are that some other religion or mode of though was in place at the time) helped to both inspire democracy and to provide the framework for it.

That's a lot of crap to throw on this simple discussion, I know. But I can't help it! There's something truly holy, WC, about graciously taking the slings and arrows of other's barbs. And particularly with religion under the microscope of those who would outlaw it if they could, I think it incumbent on all people of Christian faith to set a good example. Again, that's a lot to throw into this discussion and it's surely inflating the present issues more than just a bit, but do recognize, like Phil said, that these discussions, provocations or flames can still be instructive.

He isn't, however, simply sharing his faith, but posting to provoke responses, and then not responding when asked to explore the topic openly.

Wopik is perhaps trying to solidify his faith, which might be sketchy in places, by taking some easy swings at Catholicism. That's rude of me to say, and much to presume, but what the heck.

Yes. That is a constructive way of looking at it. Engaging uncertainty in a dialogue where both sides are mostly willing to question assumptions as they are exposed is one thing I cherish, although it can get raw at times. OTOH, when the other person is posting mainly to exploit the topic in their direction and not showing some pause for their own considerations, then for me theirs is often a passive-aggressive antagonism - not at all unlike leftist Anti-Americanism, where one expects a "liberal" use of reason, only to find emotional posturing in the extreme. And, now that I think about it, wopik's unwillingness to engage open dialogue reminds me of a close friend's wife who has basically fallen off the radar screen of friendship via post election blues. For her there seems to be no separation of friendship from political loyalities, and so I realize my friendship with her was probably mostly vicarious, through her husband. I don't feel it's me she loathes, but I get washed out with all the other protective generalizations that are made. Wopik's cheap shots at Catholicism remind me of her sneering remarks, and a sense of loss that I'm just beginning to accept, since she belongs so deeply in that camp.

Growing pains indeed.

OTOH, when the other person is posting mainly to exploit the topic in their direction and not showing some pause for their own considerations, then for me theirs is often a passive-aggressive antagonism - not at all unlike leftist Anti-Americanism, where one expects a "liberal" use of reason, only to find emotional posturing in the extreme.

Well, WC, that's the real world of ideas. We don't get to debate these issues only in our perfectly organized, manicured, and controlled fishbowls. We have to deal with what comes sometimes. And before you think that sounds too condescending, yes, I know you know that but perhaps we sometimes need to be reminded. The strength will always be in the truth of our ideas, but it seems no idea in this world is so strong and so self-evident that a poor or careless presentation of it will suffice. So it is whether talking about peanuts or the Pope's proclamation about Sundays. When someone takes a cheap shot it is an absolutely raving opportunity to make the case for your side of things. They have weakened themselves by taking the easy road, in this case the "neener neener neener" road (although that's by no means the technical term for it).

I'm sorry you�re feeling a bit angry or whatever, WC. (I thought for sure the "throw 'em in jail" line would break you out of it.) I'm also sorry your friend's wife is being such a pain. Sort of takes the edge off of being single, eh?

"Sort of takes the edge off of being single, eh?'

This is the one case in which I'd say my friend is fortunate for being left of center himself, although his wife almost makes him look Republican by contrast. It takes a huge infection of conspiratorialism to make standard revisionist history look middle-roadish.

This is the one case in which I'd say my friend is fortunate for being left of center himself, although his wife almost makes him look Republican by contrast. It takes a huge infection of conspiratorialism to make standard revisionist history look middle-roadish.

That reminds me of a circus clown or juggler, the type that could keep several bowls spinning at once; one on the head, one on each hand, and one on each foot, each usually at the end of a stick. It can be done but it takes a lot of work keeping it all going. So it is with some beliefs. It would be easier to let the bowls come to rest on a table where they need no assistance in balancing.

We can save ourselves a lot of stress if we know what to set on the table.