Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I'll take that over your Victorian charity complex any day.
Whatever, LH. My record for personal charity is none of anyone's business but God's and my
tax accountant's. That having been said, there are many Christians here who think that Jesus
was more interested in conversion than charity, and that' ...[text shortened]... ceased doing God's work at the same time.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by Nemesio
Whatever, LH. My record for personal charity is none of anyone's business but God's and my tax accountant's...
I wasn't talking about your personal record for charity, Nemesio. I don't know enough about what you do outside these forums to talk about that; and frankly I don't care much either. What I was talking about was your behaviour here.
Sure, eight-year olds who are raised in an environment where they are flooded with nothing but RC doctrine, of course they will know it...
Yes. And correcting a misconception that a child could correct competently does not bring you much credit. It does not entitle you to meaningfully claim to have "defended" the Church. That's what I mean by "Victorian charity complex". In truth, even the most anti-Church atheist (provided he is not equally ignorant) would be embarrassed to have people who entertained such notions in his camp.
Hold on a second. Have I ever argued with you about Pius XII? No. I disagree with you that he was purely devoted to the Allied cause; his record at the beginning of the war is far more tentative (not that I blame him...the Vatican might have been a pile of rubble before the Allies got in). And I have never argued with you claiming that 'millions' of people died in the Inquisition.
Have you ever argued with those who claim those things? Shown them where they're wrong? QED
You suggest that the Inquisition was 'not really a bad thing' or 'was better than many alternatives exercised by other institutions' or 'had merits that people fail to observe.' That's rewriting, LH...
I have never claimed that the Inquisition was 'not really a bad thing'. The other two points aren't "rewriting" -- they're historical facts. I've always cited the latest historical research (and, in many cases, even historians in their own words) while making those points. I have never failed to condemn the Inquisition's methods and processes overall. Yes, I refuse to over-simplify things in a black-and-white manner as you seem to want. I make no apologies for that.
This is the problem. You spend time defending the indefensible. You give your vocal and personal support for the Church equally when it is wrong as when is right.
I don't spend time defending the indefensible. I spend time defending
what popular myth says is indefensible. I don't deny facts; but I criticise those who disregard or can't even be bothered to look up the facts.
You missed the point with both...
No, you missed my point with those examples. You spent a lot of time pointing out where they got things wrong; you have yet to say anything about how they're trying to put things right. If I had to guess, I'd say you've never even tried to find out.
And it is because you repeatedly miss or ignore this point that I continue to rail against the over-politicization of the Church and observe whenever it is guilty of such action.
In an earlier post, I asked you to answer
concretely what it is you expect lay Catholics to do. You ignored that question. I would now like you to provide an answer that
isn't a political response.
I'm personally glad Jesus didn't have your mindset ...
I may not know as much NT Greek as you do; but at least I base my ideas of what Jesus's "mindset" was on what he actually said and did in the Gospels. Do you remember Jesus saying this:
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Mt 18:15-17)?
You keep talking about Jesus and the Pharisees. How many times did Jesus run to the Romans to complain about the behaviour of the Pharisees? How many times did Jesus rebuke his Apostles in front of the masses?
He would be even more disgusted if He knew that those people went unrebuked by the people above them and unchastised by the people below them.
Who says they are going unchastised by the people below them? How many conversations between priest and laity have you been privy to on the matter? How many Catholic papers and media organisations have you referred to?
Just because it isn't on the front pages of the
New York Times or the "Letters to the Editor" page doesn't mean it's not happening.
That you won't publicly speak out against the Church when it is wrong simply because you are worried about giving the WolfPack ammunition merely demonstrates that you are cut from the same cloth as Bishop Wielgus ...
No, it simply shows that I'm not cut from the same cloth as the WolfPack. It shows I don't care particularly whether they (and you) approve or disapprove of my actions (or perceived lack thereof).
If you want Catholics to show you what they truly feel and do, you have to first show that you are worthy of that trust; that you are not merely using their emotions as a means to a private agenda. Nowhere does Christ say that Christians have to go looking for people to slap them.