One last go

The "broken record" comment did not pertain to Thomas' assertions about religion; The comment pertained to Thomas' attempt to deride and trivialize attempts to explore the highly questionable nature of the Catholic mass,

The only attacks in evidence were the attacks Thomas made in the hope of fending off and suppressing dialogue. On that basis, I would conclude that the comments that appear in this thread are disconnected from the original context. They are also misguided in the sense that they seem intended to protect Thomas right to talk about his religion even as he was being haughty and intractable in trying to squelch someone else for doing the same. Thomas OP for this thread in effect is seeking your support in his doubling the standard. And you may have given it to him without checking the facts in the matter.

The premise of the OP is, of course completely false, as become apparent from a quick look at the original context. You will see that Wil's 'broken record' comment had to do with attitude, not religion.
Originally Posted by Thomas
(T)the real issue is:when are you going to give up trying to outwit the Church?

It's a fruitless endeavour, it really is, I dare say better minds than yours have tried and failed, and even if I fail in my attempts to defend Her, the fault is mine, not Hers; your victory is over me, not the Church.

Thomas
​
Wil responded shortly thereafter:
wil said:
Namaste Thomas,

I wonder why it is called a broken record when it keeps playing over and over and over....we really wish it was broken.

Thomas, I love your discussion and your thoughts, but when you get sanctimonious it is just sickening.
Click to expand...

Wil reiterated the issue in his Post #77 when he talks about Thomas dsmissive approach to "shutting someone down with the we-are-right, smarter-folks-than-you" attitude.

In the OP, Thomas states that he is "always responding from the basis of my faith." One interesting implication is that his faith informs a haughty and intractable attitude. Duly noted.
 
Let's avoid personal attacks, thanks - it is not what the forums are for. Last two posts removed.
 
Hi Earl —
earl said:
... my only reading of or about Eriugena was in a book I have by Christopher Bamford: "The Voice of the Eagle: The Heart of Celtic Christianity," his essays about JS Eriugena's homily on the prologue to the gospel of St. John. Think you'd probably enjoy it.:) earl
Click to expand...
Got it. :)

There's precious little of his in print ... I'm trying to track down an English translation of his magum opus: Periphyseon (The Division of Nature). I've got "On Predestination" due any day now ... but whatever happens, if I'm going to pull off the coup I'd like, then I'm gonna have to learn Latin!

Thomas
 
I said:
Let's avoid personal attacks, thanks - it is not what the forums are for. Last two posts removed.
Click to expand...

My post was no personal attack, it was a refusal to join the bandwagon of massaging an ego that frankly does not need it. Since there is nothing that embraces and embodies hypocrisy like the CC it is fitting that Thomas is aloud to say what the hell he wants.
 
Thomas, if I have done anything to offend you personally, I apologize. But I don't feel I have in any way, at least not that I can recall. I try not to bring personal offense, but rather debate the issues at hand.

I take the example of the Bereans in Acts 17, where after Paul preached in in the synagogue, they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was so.

The conflicts between Scripture vs Tradition is really what set off the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the printing press, Scriptures were maintained primarily by the clergy, who then preached the Word to the people. That didn't necessaily mean that the preaching was wrong, but it made it very hard to check what was preached. Once the printing press made the bible widely available to the laity, well, that's when people perceived stark differences between what the Church was teaching and what Scripture was telling them.

Now is it entirely possible that the Reformers merely misinterpreted Scripture? That the Church's traditional teachings really do line up with the Word, and they just weren't seeing it? Perhaps. But unfortunately, the Church did not make a concerted effort to explain it, rather It labeled those who opposed Her as heretics, sometimes with dire consequences.

I'm not trying to open old wounds here. Lines are pretty much drawn in Christian circles, in both Protestant and Catholic sects. Nowadays in forums like this, we can discuss the issues and differences in a somewhat civilized manner. And we should respect those differences, while recognizing that it's entirely possible that we may be wrong ourselves.

Thomas, if you are convinced of your convictions, stick with them. I have actually enjoyed learning of the Catholic perspective. Much of what I read from you has dispelled many of the preconceived ideas I've had about the Catholic Church. But by the same token, much has also confirmed some of my preconceived ideas.

It's hard to be unbiased when one has invested so much of one's life in a particular belief system. We all have our own opinion. But at the end of they day, if we are completely honest to ourselves, we really just don't know. Oh, we might be fairly convinced of what we believe, and that's alright. But we really don't know what lies beyond, or who God really is, revelation or not. If we see in a glass darkly, it is because the light is refracted, distorted, and opaque. How do we really know if the Church is true? How do we really know that the Bible is true? We can only place our faith in one or the other or both (provided they do not conflict), but it is still faith. We weren't there when the Church was formed and we weren't there when the Bible was written. So we place our hope that what we read or what we learn will bear out. Oh, we can seek and worship God and experience some mystical communion with others gathered in His Name, but mystical experiences can be found in just about every religion, so even that 'proof' is suspect.

Thomas, if you wish to remain silent about your faith, that's fine. A warrior needs a break sometimes. But if you do so, make sure it is on your own terms and not on the opinions of others. Your input, even if not agreed upon, is valued here.

Until we know,

Dondi
 
Thanks Avi, I've enjoyed your posts too, always very well thought out and informative. *thumbs up*

Lol, Tao, 17, you guys are hylarious... Made me check back to my first post to make sure I hadn't stroked anyone's ego unintentionally, lol.

And if I ever become a broken record, feel free to use me as a frisbee... preferably a frisbee missile thrown to attack an invading zombie. That's my dream, lol, sigh...

A girl has to dream...
 
Seems like I missed the action. Discussion seems to be so easy and yet so difficult.
 
Oh darn. I have surely missed the drama that has unfolded with Thomas. I seem to be getting engaged in these dramas often too late.

For the record Thomas, without you I wouldn't have a straw man to attack! A game without an enemy or opponent is a boring game indeed.

We have had our debates about the evils of orthodoxy and how it maintains a monopoly where only the established ideas are defended, promoted and everything else suffers from persecution and suppression. It is where history or ideological correctness is written from the point of view of the victor. The so-called "true religion" is defined by those who maintain ideological hegemony.

The trouble is, I never got to say all I wanted to say on the issue . . . so I am not done with you yet! I stopped debating that stuff temporarily because for a while I was too busy to argue. I had too many other things to do and only had time for jokes and short-term rants.

You are a "necessary evil.";):rolleyes::D:eek: (and likewise for myself)

I don't think even those smilies can express all the things you mean to these forums.

But that isn't to say that you're just a bit of game to be hunted down and shot . . . :eek: . . . No, not that kind of game. More of a chess game.

We're still playing the Middle Game.

Rook to e1. Bishop to b3. Pawn takes e4!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top