Negative Criticism Of Other Religions

[homeschoolmom]

To be honest, it's often a judgement call on the part of the moderators. Each report is taken on a case by case basis and we do the best we can. Some cases are very easy. Others are more nuanced and require much more discussion among the mods. (I would guess that most of you would have no idea how much we discuss some reports.) Personally, I try to think how I would want Catholicism represented on Protestant, atheist, Muslim or other boards and try to moderate likewise.

[Nihil Obstat]

There actually have been Muslims on here at times in the past.  .

That was a very poor experiment. :P The only winning move was not to play.

[Basilisa Marie]

To be honest, it's often a judgement call on the part of the moderators. Each report is taken on a case by case basis and we do the best we can. Some cases are very easy. Others are more nuanced and require much more discussion among the mods. (I would guess that most of you would have no idea how much we discuss some reports.) Personally, I try to think how I would want Catholicism represented on Protestant, atheist, Muslim or other boards and try to moderate likewise.

 

THANK YOU. 

[Winchester]

Yeah, but I don't know if my personal "harmful attacks on other religions" meter is way different than what counts on this site, so I don't want to be "that guy" who is reporting posts unnecessarily.  Which is why I'm posting this thread, because I'm trying to figure out exactly what the mods think counts for Phatmass.  

 

Snitches get stitches.

[Apotheoun]

In the final analysis a man must simply speak the truth and if that gets him in trouble at an internet forum . . . so be it.

 

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.

[Basilisa Marie]

In the final analysis a man must simply speak the truth and if that gets him in trouble at an internet forum . . . so be it.

 

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.

 

Oh come on.  I have said over and over again that my issue isn't about "speaking truth." It's HOW we speak the truth.  

[Apotheoun]

That was a very poor experiment. :P The only winning move was not to play.

There were actually some good threads that came out of that. I like the one where the Islamic doctrine of bi-la kaifa was discussed.

[Apotheoun]

Oh come on.  I have said over and over again that my issue isn't about "speaking truth." It's HOW we speak the truth.  

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.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Maybe the reasons that the majority of debates at Phatmass focus on the inane issue of the "historical Jesus" versus the "fictitious gnostic Jesus" who never really lived on earth is because debate is not encouraged at this forum anymore. Phatmass used to have lots of really great theological debates, but those days ended a long time ago.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Basilisa Marie]

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.

 

It's not politically correct. It's called being respectful.  That's great if you aren't offended by the way someone "presents" truth. But reality  is that lots of people are, especially on an internet forum, and those of us with the ability to work well with words have an obligation to be considerate. 

[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: