HERE IS A SAMPLE OF YOUR DOUBLE STANDARD, FAITH.

*****

rod--you had to know that posting this on a forum that is not Catholic would only serve to flame those who find the apparitions biblically offensive.

No surprises here.

No--I rarely check in at the Catholic site..

But posting links with no personal message or commentary is, I believe, not condusive to discussion.

What did you expect?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CPYq

*****

Here is an example of you being offended by my post. There is obviously a double standard by you. I am not allowed to be offended by your presented information that is meant to defile the Catholic Church. But, I cannot post issues that pertain to Catholicism in a category meant for Catholic Issues because it offends you. My motives were not to offend anyone, but to enlighten others in this particular matter. Basically, you can offend whom you please, but we must not dare offend you, even if by accident.

If you wish an apology from me, you need to remove that log from your eye and make an apology for the sample thread I've provided for your double-standard, Faith.

I will not respond to you any further because I do not want to continue this battle with you. If need be, I will leave the forum for a few days in order to keep the peace. I feel that I must provide you with this post for a reality check.

I hope that you truly consider what I've posted.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004

Answers

I will ask for further measures if we cannot come to a mutual apology, Faith.

(Last post to you, Faith)

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

Zarove--

When I post something--I include a commentary and/or opinion to go along--to encourage discussion--because my purpose is not to flame or aggravate--but to lead people out of a religion that I believe is false.

There is a difference between what I do--and what rod did in this example you provide--where the intention of the poster is clear.

He was not interested in dialogue or discussion. He gave no opinion or commentary to encourage discussion--he was only interested in flaming.

On other discussion boards that I go to--it is against the rules to post without commentary or opening up a dialogue.

So you are left here without a point--and you have still not provided any proof that I am guilty of the things you accused me of. The point you bring up here, has nothing to do with anything. It does prove one thing., and that is that you can't find even one post of mine to prove your allegations that I am rude and that I fight or attack others personally.

The truth is that it is the content of my posts that is the problem-- and not how I deliver them. Simply re-reading all those threads reveals it.

Nice try though.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

Dear Moderators,

I call for the banning of Faith for the reason of continuing to misinterpret and proclaim to be able to read other poster's minds and motives. She has continually disrupted this forum even after those involved had ceased to engage with her agendas. She has not ceased to continue her battle and is , therefore, causing discord in this forum. There have been several times that I have been threatened being ban for the same tactics Faith is using. The main problem is that Faith is now accusing me of breaking rules, which do not exist in this forum. So, she is now fabricating evidence against me. Obviously, she is instigating another condition of discord and discomfort for myself and the audience of this forum. She must stop now or be banned. This has left the realm of cordial discussions and entered into a hostile environment for all. If I need to be banned for the better of this forum, I will accept it until everything cools down.

I don't know where Elpidio is right now, but I sense that he will do the right thing for this forum and its members.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

I think both of you should love each other and find a reason for peace if possible.

Which one of you will courageously extend a hand of friendship first, forgiving the other if they've offended you, whether they intended or not?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

Max, I am willing to turn the other cheek, but as I have said , I have reach a point of no return with behaviours and tactics. My cheeks are sore. Should I allow myself to rest under Faiths heels? For how long? Until my voice is as void as the abyss?

I would rather leave and keep my sanity and faith intact. I am not fearful of losing; I may actually gain by leaving.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

rod?

Another emotional moment for you? Do you see just who is actually the one trying to cause a problem here? It is you.

So you were almost banned for this very same thing once already? That speaks volumes rod....

Notice that it was not I who raised this old thread from the dead.

Do you seriously believe this?:

The main problem is that Faith is now accusing me of breaking rules, which do not exist in this forum. So, she is now fabricating evidence against me. Obviously, she is instigating another condition of discord and discomfort for myself and the audience of this forum.

Did I really just now accuse you breaking the forum rules here?

Please prove that allegation. It can't be too hard to find such an accusation since this thread is short.

Remember that this is not broadway rod. There is no audience. I am sorry if that disappoints you in any way : (

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

"He was not interested in dialogue or discussion. He gave no opinion or commentary to encourage discussion--he was only interested in flaming. "

Then, Zarove is guilty of posting his poems without including a "question".

If you think that I intended no dialogue, your very actions of posting proved my point very conveniently. Posting an empty message would have achieved the same action--a reply. There is no way that you could have read my mind.

:On other discussion boards that I go to--it is against the rules to post without commentary or opening up a dialogue. "

This forum is different. Also the nature of my post was unbiased for a reason. The thread is self-explanatory. Your confusion became the issue and the focus in that thread. It eventually got back on track. You responded with emotionalism.

"So you are left here without a point--and you have still not provided any proof that I am guilty of the things you accused me of. The point you bring up here, has nothing to do with anything. It does prove one thing., and that is that you can't find even one post of mine to prove your allegations that I am rude and that I fight or attack others personally. "

You have failed to acknowledge my point in this thread. You are continuing with discord. And, I want you banned. I reason my way out of banning with David. David did not ban me because he saw my points quite well. May you have the power to talk yourself out of banning. So far, you may very well be tiring the moderators' patients. You have tired me.

"The truth is that it is the content of my posts that is the problem-- and not how I deliver them. Simply re-reading all those threads reveals it. "

I have read many of your posts. I have read the educated answers in defense of your accusatins against the Church. Your information has not changed and your understandings have not changed, in my estimation. But, it isn't your beliefs that brings discord to this forum. It is your tone and your double standard I have exemplied in the thread provided.

"When I post something--I include a commentary and/or opinion to go along--to encourage discussion--because my purpose is not to flame or aggravate--but to lead people out of a religion that I believe is false. "

A picture is worth a thousand words. When I post something, I take it for granted that people are intelligent enough to perceive things based on their understandings and beliefs. Logic tells me that people are free to ask what they wish. A picture hung on this forum will bring people to their perceptions, and if desired, that will enduce a comment. The other posters took their cues, but you were the only one (Kevin, too) who reacted as you did. It would seem fair to say that you didn't like the image of the Virgin posted and decided to make a case against my actions. Again, I now have made a case based on your double standard. I hope that we will find a remedy. I hope that it is one that we can all live with. BTW, your comment about a "braodway queen" is another example of what we experience from you. You could take it back, but I sense that would be asking too much from you.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

Another emotional moment for you? Do you see just who is actually the one trying to cause a problem here? It is you.

I am trying to get rid of the problem. You are not helping.

So you were almost banned for this very same thing once already? That speaks volumes rod....

It speaks libraries that I was not banned, Faith. My track record speaks for itself.

Notice that it was not I who raised this old thread from the dead.

It was I who raised the old thread because you wanted textual proof. Had you not asked, this thread would not have appeared. Had you not inflicted your double standard, this thread would not have appeared.

Do you seriously believe this?:

The main problem is that Faith is now accusing me of breaking rules, which do not exist in this forum. So, she is now fabricating evidence against me. Obviously, she is instigating another condition of discord and discomfort for myself and the audience of this forum.

I would not have posted that had I not had textual proof. If my post in question had not generated a reply, it would have been discarded, ignored, or even deleted. It was not. It generated an interest, so my nice try worked as I thought it would. It started out unbiased and became opinionated by its posters.

Did I really just now accuse you breaking the forum rules here?

Yes.

Please prove that allegation. It can't be too hard to find such an accusation since this thread is short.

I have already provided my argument. I also want you banned for causing discord in this forum.

Remember that this is not broadway rod. There is no audience. I am sorry if that disappoints you in any way : (

The world is a stage, even in cyber-space. Life is a stage. The audience reads the threads that are posted here. There is an audience. What disappoints me is the discord we are experiencing now. You will not bend an inch. I tend to believe that things will generally get worse, not better. This is why you need the solution I present. Stop and start new with everyone here. Put all in the past. If it isn't in you to apologize, then simply start a new approach and take advice from others. If you won't do that, I call for your banning.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2004.

rod--

You are out of control...once again.

I am done with this. You have not provided any posts that prove the allegations Zarove has made.

I made one mistake in this thread. I thought Zarove posted the initial thread to me. It is Zarove who I have been pleading with to please errect some proof. So I apologize for not knowing that this was your post.

However--little else changes in light of knowing it is your post and not Zarove's.

The example you provide here--has nothing to do with anything. And I would add that anyone who opens that post up and reads the thread will not be able to find one post of mine where I was rude or attacked you personally. Quite the opposite--actually. It was you who was looking for a fight. But I stayed on topic and challenged you with dialogue. You of course--performed as you always do.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Moderators--

It is now in your hands. I have provided what Faith asked for. Double standards are principles of chaos and discord. It puts people in conditions of inequality. It provides an environment of tension and resentment with those who have the priviledge and advantage of inflicting a corrupt standard. If a person cannot understand the error of double standards, it would be wise to educate that person of the misdeeds done to those the double standards are inflicted on. This has been a recurring theme/issue in this forum for quite some time. It is now a new shift with new moderators. Before David returns, corrections must be made (I've had this battle with David before he left. Things improved for awhile). We had the same situation with the second language issues.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2004.

I have saved all of these nonsense threads--in my folder.

Don't worry--David will see the truth : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Ypou know,,, initially all i said was you and Ian shoudl stop arguing at a level that was destructive to the baords... you, Faith, didnt have to carry this on...

As for rod, you are now fuelling the fire. Please stop. As soon as the password works, im lockign this thread. No more is to be uttered of this for now. I wanted the arguing stopped, and it grew worse. Yes, Faith is beign [ain in insisting proof of beign rude even though the tiem I called her sich was to make a poitn to Ian, and yes, She is carrying the fact that I called her rude too faR, AND yes you can find old threads, btu so what?

Rod, you have violated board rules here in makign a personal attack. Faith, you ar ein violation of board rules by counterign a moderators decision and not just bakcign off.

All arguing on this mater ends or else more seriosu action will be taken.

The discussion is closed.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

offbold.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2004.

Zarove--please understand..,

I am not guilty as charged. I asked you to show me where I have argued and fought or attacked anyone on a personal level. We can see that Ian and rod do this--and now you have done it against me.., but where have I ever participated?

I am asking again that you prove your claims or stop accusing me. It is you who not only needs to back off--but you need to apologize. Even now--as I ask for proof about your allegations and those of rod's--I am not going against any rules.

You could have ended this a long time ago by apologizing in the first place for defaming my character without proof.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Is calling someone a liar a personal attack?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

AgIN fAITH, IN THE INSTANCE WE ARE TALKIGN ABITY WEHRER i ACUCSED YOU, i WAS CARRYIGN OVER iANS ACUCSATION ADN ACCEPTING IT ON FACE VALUE, FOR THE PURTPOSE OF MAKIGN A POINBT...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

Zarove--

Like I said in another thread--I guess this is about as close as I am going to come to an apology from you--for the fact that you joined in with Ian and rod and their attempt to make me look bad--without checking out the situation first.

You *assumed* wrongly about me--and at least you are admitting that the proof does not exist. I was never any of those things that have been said about me. Their frustration just overwhelms them and they lose it., attacking me rather than the contents of my post. It's very typical....

As a moderator--you should be well versed in the contents of the posts before you publicly admonish someone for something they aren't doing.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Faith says:

"I asked you to show me where I have argued and fought or attacked anyone on a personal level. "

OK, Faith, how about these quotes:

"And you Gail--are a vendictive, hostile, liar..."

"...and you are the liar."

"You are a liar Gail..."

Faith also said:

"I have always been respectful"

doesn't sound too respectful now does it?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

James--try posting the entire post, so we can see it for context. Gail had probably said that to me first...or worse.

By-the-way--calling someone a liar--especially if they have lied--is not rude or against the rules. If someone is being vendictive or hostile--and it can be proved, then it is not wrong to say it.

Post the entire post so we can see who was accusing who of what and why....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Gail says:

"Faith, you can flatter yourself if you want to, but you are not what would be called a "brilliant Protestant apologist," by any stretch of the imagination.

You were banned for being rude, sarcastic and beligerant. That is all. No one gets banned for having differing opinions on the Catholic forum, nor the Trads, but it is when one person gloats and emotes, patronizes and belittles others, that gets one banned."

Faith responds:

"You are a liar Gail...

I am not guilty of any of the things you accuse me of. I have always been respectful and I always followed the rules. "

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

Yes--Gail was lying--as I was banned because Ed and I had a personal disagreement and he simply decided that I couldn't post there.

Later he claimed that I had posted anti-Catholic stuff.., but in fact, what I had done was I found an astonishing post on jake's Traditional site that I wondered about. So I re-posted it on the Greenspun Catholic site--inquirering about it--and it made Ed mad. I don't know if he thought it was my post or if he thought I agreed with it...but I was just asking if it was true.

Ed became unreasonable and just banned for it. We went back and forth about it for a while because he was now making claims much like rod does.

But it never had anything to do with what Gail was suddenly claiming.

Yes--she lied. And I also asked her to prove her claims and she didn't.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

The dictionary definition of a lie is:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Therefore, my question to you Faith is what is your evidence that Gail deliberately made a false statement about why you were banned. There are three possibilities:

1. Gail is right 2. Gail is wrong, but doesn't know she is wrong. 3. Gail is wrong, she knew it and she deliberately presented another story as to why you were banned.

You claim number 3 is right, since neither 1 or 2 would constitute Gail being a liar. What is your evidence for this? If it is either 1 or 2 then it would be wrong and rude for you to call her a liar.

Personally, I don't know why you were banned, but you must have done something.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

I think one thing we have to keep in mind is that the word "liar" among many others, is a very negatively potent description. Even in situations where it might be technically accurate, its never going to lead to any meeting of the minds or advance discussion. It almost wipes out someones whole character. "Thems fight'n words"

Got to find ways around certain provocative words that simply lead us into endless personal fights that seem to go nowhere and produce repercussions that, as this thread shows ---lasts for ages.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 24, 2004.

Just read the stuff Faith posts here - and then imagine how the exact same inane anti-Catholic hostility would be received on a Catholic forum. It was actually a disservice to the other contributors on the Catholic forum that Faith wasn't banned sooner - something the moderators received considerable criticism over. But in the end, she left the moderator no choice.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 24, 2004.

Paul--

The stuff I post here is stuff I find to be true about Catholicism-- and it is not anti-Catholic or bigoted--it is simply *stuff* that I believe to be true and can support biblically. I always welcome anyone who wants to refute me in the same way--with the Bible.

But I rarely get that.

You are fairly good at it though--and I don't think that you really minded engaging me. It was Ed--because he wasn't good at it. Andy is also very good at delivering support for his faith and he never attacks me personally. Instead--he really does reason from the Scriptures.

I actually like it when you can show me that some of the things believed in Catholicism might actually have some biblical support-- even if I disagree. At least it shows me that not everything is based on men and their traditions.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Jim..,

I don't like lies--so I call people on them. Gail was quite offensive towards me first. It seems as though everyone thinks I should just be like a shrinking violet or something. If people want to dish it out-- they ought to be able to eat it when it's served back.

I never start any of this outside of the contents of my posts. In other-words., I don't attack people's character when they post something theological that I can't debate. I always engage in debate. It is when someone begins with their emotional reactions and personal attacks of me--that I respond back--and even then--I don't attack them falsely. I call them to plate to prove their lies.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Faith, the reason your not gettign an apologt form me is because, as expalined, in this instance I was beign rhetorical, and not Literal...

Initially I was gettign after Ian, you just happened to not like the rhetorical, misundertsood it as n attack agaisnt you, and now insist on repeatign it, and digging yurself in deeper.

You are causign occassion for further "Faith Bashing"...

If you had ceased this Nonsence when you learend that i was onto Ian and the statement about you beign rude was not even the poin beign made, then you wodlnt have to deal with current critisism.

Like I said, we arent threatenign to ban you, but f this keeps up, then whent he passwords are reset, I will be forced to deelte all the posts relatign to this topic.

Now , if you please, kidnly accept the stuaiton as a misundertsanding on your part. You miszunderstood ther nature of my accusaiton agaisnt you. I was accusign you to show Ian that your behaviour doesnt give him licence. eden if you had not been rude ever a single time on these boads, I still wol ahve said it. The point was tha Ian cannot say " Well faith is bad so I cna be too". The fact that I had NOT gotten after you is EVIDENCE that I wasn't realy sayign you where rude, I onl get onto you now because you wont shut up till your Honour is avenged form a peceived, rather than real, slight.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

Faith says:

"I don't like lies--so I call people on them."

Once again Faith, I repeat my previous question to you:

Therefore, my question to you Faith is what is your evidence that Gail deliberately made a false statement about why you were banned.

You believe, Gail in that case lied, according to the dictionary definition. What is your evidence?

You also say:

"If people want to dish it out-- they ought to be able to eat it when it's served back."

Is that the standard that Jesus gave us, we are to pay back to others what they do to us? Is this one of the fruits that we are to know the true christians?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

Faith

I understand can respect that you do not pull any punches.

My point is only that there may be less provocative ways to get the point across without all the repercussions which are not necessarily productive in changing hearts and minds. (If indeed, that is an aim)

Your knowlege of scripture far excedes mine. Your arguments are well thought out and clear. But---there is something about the tone of some of your posts--- I can't put my finger exactly on it, but the best parts of your argument sometimes get lost because of a lack of tact maybe. People get all angry and the central point is lost.

Please believe me when I say that I mean no disrespect to you about this. I enjoy the discussions and learn from them, whether I agree or not is not material. Just some observations.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 24, 2004.

True Christians would not deliberately try to defame someone's character with lies.

This whole thing was never about Gail and what she did or didn't know about the reason I was banned. She was not involved in that time with me. It was between Ed and myself. She is assuming she knows what must have happened--and so she declared it. I know she's lying because I know what really happened. She does not. I don't have to prove she is a liar. She needed to prove her allegations., but she could not.

Why rehash this old stuff james?

If you are going to try and help rod or Zarove prove what they are saying--then you need to use the right threads and posts which we are discussing.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

I didnt make an accusatioin Faith... I was beign rhetorical......

Aain, your defendign yourself now only causes your opponants oporunity to critisise you and generates further histility, and its all based on you misunderstanding my initial intent, which was to call ian on his break of board tules.

Later, ou breached board rules by challenign me and cuasing all this mess we are in now.

Donyt you understand, the Post which you got mad at was whre I corrcted ian, the only thign I wanted you to do was not feed Ian;s comments.

Hence you where both rude and iunsufferable as you wherent willign to drp the argument upon moderators requeast.

But initialy it was just ian I got onto.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

I think it annoys people because my firm conviction and assuredness co0mes of maybe pompous or conceded? I could see how that may bug people. But that is not my intention. This is a discussion board and words are hard to read sometimes. But to accuse me of all thi9s deliberate rude and tactless stuff is really just a way of avoiding the issues I try to raise and discuss...it seems totally emotional and irrational to me, to behave like that in a forum where we are simply words in cyberspace.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Zarove--

I am done with this. I think I drove home my point and I feel that it is clear that I was wronged.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Faith says:

" I don't have to prove she is a liar."

You are the one who called her a liar, don't you think the burden of proof is on you to proove that acusation?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

The reason I bring this up is because you said in this thread:

"It does prove one thing., and that is that you can't find even one post of mine to prove your allegations that I am rude and that I fight or attack others personally."

Now, I consider calling someone a liar, when you have no proof that they lied, and are unwilling to provide any proof, then I consider that rude at best and a personal attack at worst.

Second, you never responded to my second question, so I will repeat it:

Faith said:

"If people want to dish it out-- they ought to be able to eat it when it's served back."

Is that the standard that Jesus gave us, we are to pay back to others what they do to us? Is this one of the fruits that we are to know the true christians?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

Faith, you wherent wronged, you took soemthign as a wrong that relaly ast even abou you...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

I did answer you james--I said that a true Christian would never falsely attack the character of someone with lies.

You can obviously see that Gail was the attacker. And I disagree with your opinion that calling someone a liar is rude., especially if it is true.

Someone who is rude is someone who lies--especially if they are rough, violent in approach or forceful with their words...judging rudeness on a forum like this is particulary hard to do. We can't really always assess someone's motives just be reading words.

Gail's going to come on board be be thinking what the heck? Why are they talking about me? So I think we should stop.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Faith says:

"And I disagree with your opinion that calling someone a liar is rude., especially if it is true."

How I am to believe you that it is true when you cannot produce even one shred of evidence that Gail was lying?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

It's not my job to prove myself innocent of her accusations. It is was her job to prove her claim. But this is old james I I am not going to continue with it--okay. You are causing more problems with this. It doesn't work as the proof that Zarove would need.

I am done with Zarove also.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Faith, I dont need evidence. what I needed was for you to say " Im done" abotu 3 days ago...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

If you would have apologized when you should have--then I could have said it three days ago.

But in light of the fact that you couldn't bring yourself to say you were sorry--and then asked me in email to come on here in public and say that I was mistaken--has just gone too far.

I will not be posting here anymore--so you all win.

If David manages to repair the damage here by finding a moderator who won't let the power go to his head--a common problem associated with that moderator button--maybe I would return. But for now--I can't feel good here anymore.

I wish you all the best.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Well there you have it. Another good person bites the dust, hey maybe now you wont need to go private afterall. Keep this crap up and you can act like those ad the True Christian Unite board and just run em all off who dont agree.

Lastly, please give consideration to renaming this place catholic 2, it is clear you dont like christians posting here.

-- (won't@give.up), October 24, 2004.

Faith says:

"It's not my job to prove myself innocent of her accusations."

I am not talking about proving yourself innocent. The facts are:

1. You called Gail a liar. 2. You stand by that statement. 3. If you call someone a liar, then you need to have proof that they lied, that is that they deliberately distorted the truth. 4. You refuse to provide evidence.

My guess is because the evidence does not exist. My question has nothing to do with Gail, it is all about your behavior. It is unchristian to call someone a liar when you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that they lied.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 24, 2004.

Faith,

As I said before, I came here to learn more about other's faith as well as share my own. This board and the Catholic board have two different objectives. Some of your posts about Catholicism have raised my hackles, but I always learned a lot researching replies and dialoguing. Hope you reconsider leaving.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 24, 2004.

No prob, "to@all..."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 24, 2004.

Faith

I hope you're just having a bad day. Quitting the forum isn't the answer. You have too much to offer.

Take a few days off, others have done it. You can take some time and cool down, --- but you don't have to go away. Sometimes these threads just take on a life of their own and the results don't always lead us in the right direction. Any of us!

Sincerely hope to see you soon.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 25, 2004.

Remember you said you were not a quitter, faith.

You and I went through so much for a long time.

You should reconsider your decision.

The doors are still open to come back.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

Actually, Faith, since I have been brought into this, I feel I owe it to myself to reiterate my belief -- and Emily's for that matter -- that one of the reasons you were banned from the other forum was for plagiarism; i.e., namely posting the work of another with your name on it, which is something you have done repeatedly on this forum as well. That really got the dander up over there! Just like it did here (for that matter.)

That made you really really mad and so you started name-calling, calling me a liar -- which I am NOT -- and whatever other adjectives you used to describe me.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 25, 2004.

Zarove

you have carried over your libel to this thread.

here's what Faith said and what you clearly must have missed:

"Ian.., Shame on you...

Jesus does the carrying in all cases.

See what happens when you worship Mary? "

do you wonder why i gave an equally "honest" retort?

i had posted a piece of prose in good faith -- and it expressed my take of things and, yes, the Catholic take of things. i posted further evidence that demonstrated this. everything from Early Christian writings to present.

i did no wrong.

but Faith considered my post "shameful". yiu didn't say a word about that, did you?

subsequently, i responded to further nonsensical (you show me the sense if you believe there was any) anti-Catholic bigotry when Faith who claimed that there was only ONE good thing in Mel Gibson's movie. tell me Zarove - exactly what does that statement mean? its just down-right anti-Catholic bigotry. it betrays, at best, an immmaturity - at worst, a something else.

you have got a strange sense of justice sir. you have libelled me hither and thither and i just hope that you stop soon.

i decided deliberately not to defend my self on the other thread as i had hoped you and Faith would stop your silly argument. as Faith has now thrown in the towel, maybe you can re-visit that thread.

maybe you can begin to see that the thing is not as black and white as you think.

as for Faith, well i think we ought to be allowed to be frank and open about her opinions: that's no crime.

however, some of her opinions as we all must know by now, are just so completely outrageous - and fashioned by underlying anti-Catholic sentiment.

you yourself even referred her to "standard/ conventional" protestant apologetics. i think perhaps you may well have recognised Stalin's idea of the "useful idiot" as you did this!?!?

i don't want to waste alot of time on this, but you might just wish to re-consider some of the opinions you have posted above. i think you are mistaken.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 26, 2004.

Hi Ian,

Yes, those kinds of statements, like the one you quoted earlier from Faith, are quite provocative, are they not? It is really hard to take that kind of thing over and over and over again! It is impossible to have a decent conversation with someone who calls your church "the whore of Babylon!" calls you a "Mary worshipper," and just plain uses constant insults as part of her "debating skills."

Zarove, I have been on the receiving end of countless insults, like the one mentioned above, by Faith, and I really encourage you to please monitor these kinds of things earnestly. They tip the scale immediately, throwing a good conversation into the land of hate- mongering!

Thanks!!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 26, 2004.

I'm not sure anymore if I can be accused of "attacking" when I am defending myself and my faith (no pun intended).

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2004.

Gail, Ian got blasted for attakcign Faith personally and for attackgn protestantiusm in general. Not for the poem. Faith got blasted for atackign me in defence of herself causign furtherincitement.

The poem had nohtign whatsoever to do iwth it, nor did Faiths initial comment.

Ian only got in trouble when he mocked protestantism in general and Faith spacificlaly. Faith got into trouble for beign too reactionary and unreasomable.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 26, 2004.

Okay, Zarove, maybe you can clarify once for all, so we all kind of know where we stand, is it alright to call someone's church the "Whore of Babylon?" Is it alright to call someone a "liar." Is it alright to call someone a "Mary worshipper?"

Gail

P.S. It's your job to judge what is "below the belt" Zarove, and it's ALSO your job to determine who was the provoker in the FIRST INSTANCE! You can't allow folks like Faith to just come off the wall with grotesgue rhetoric, and then ban the one responding to the provocation . . . not, at least, if you want to remain FAIR and unbiased!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 26, 2004.

Gail makes a good point. No doubt, arguments can get heated at times, but there are times when there has seemed to have been a double standard on this board. It seems to me, that Faith has done a fair amount of insulting, without even an admonishment from the moderator. I will give you credit for that Zarove, you at least tried to admonish her. The Catholics on this board seem to have to walk on eggshells lest their posts be deleted or they get banned if they offend someone. This is not a complaint against Zarove, but a general comment based on my historical experience here. If we want a board that's going to be successful, we need to discourage bad behavior from everyone, regardless of whether they are protestant, catholic or whatever.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 26, 2004.

Maybe the rules should be clearer. I'm not sure.

Faith has left the board and is not here to defend herself. So any further discussion is academic.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 26, 2004.

My hope is that its just a breather for Faith.

The threads get out of control and anger and hurt feelings are the result. Its hard to effecively communicate without facial expressions and hand gestures.

Mine are quite effective if only they could be combined with my writing,--- though it wouldn't necessarily be pretty to look at.

You're all spared. We're stuck with this format.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 26, 2004.

1: Faith called gail a liar, ect... before I was a Moderator. My decisions cannot be made retrograde. i coidl only call her on issues that where relevant and at hand int he conemporary, and not her past behaviour.

2: Yes, it is OK to call the Cahtolic Church the whore of babylon on htis board. I may not lie it, btu this sint my board, itds Davids. However, this sitn a doubel standards as Cahtolcis can also badmouth protestantism as a theory and movement. They just cant defame them by sayigng all Protestnats are immoral and justify it by faith alne, like Ian decided to do. Likewise, a protestnat cant make general disparagences agasn the Cahtolic People.

Thus, a protestant can call Cahtolics Mary wrtshippers because this is the general percetion, but cannot say all Cahtlics do driugs, drink, smoke, and lie, and cheat.

Ill try to post a clear lst of riles monday next, giving me time to diliberate, but in genral free speech extends to free expresiso of ideas, not personal attacks or geenra attack agaisnt the populace.

Just remember thohgh I didnt write the laws here, I just enforce them. thi sint my board...

I try to paly the rules David gave us.

ZAROVE

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 26, 2004.

Oh Zarove, I was just going to let this pass, but ALAS, I find I cannot.

You said "Likewise, a protestnat cant make general disparagences agasn the Cahtolic People. Thus, a protestant can call Cahtolics Mary wrtshippers because this is the general percetion, but cannot say all Cahtlics do driugs, drink, smoke, and lie, and cheat."

So a Protestant cannot call us druggies, smokers, liers or cheaters," but can call us "Mary worshipers" or "idolators" LOL!!!

If you are going to use David's jaded ruler to measure fairness on this board, then it is a sorry shame you have LOWERED YOURSELF to that level, my friend. I really expected more of you . . . for some reason I can't remember off hand.

So I can make ANY ALLEGATION against ANY CHURCH without any repercussions on this board! Say WHAT! Is that the Christ-like thing to do. You know what, I won't, even though I could because I think it makes Jesus CRY!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 26, 2004.

Actually, some Catholic do take drugs, drink to excess, smoke, lie, and cheat. But no Catholics worship Mary. So the former types of accusations would be closer to the truth than the latter. When people hold "a general perception" through sheer ignorance of the truth, and make no effort to know the truth, that is called bigotry, and it is never defensible.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 26, 2004.

There is good that can come out of all the rhetoric against the Catholic Church. At this forum the accusations can be aired out and debated. It's a painful process, but a worthwile one. These things are out there no matter how much we wish they weren't. These ideas sell millions of books around the world.

Might as well reply to them here. In that way, both sides can each present their case and the truth can shine forth. Even if the debaters will never agree, maybe some lurkers out there will be open to the truth.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 26, 2004.

Paul says:

"When people hold "a general perception" through sheer ignorance of the truth, and make no effort to know the truth, that is called bigotry, and it is never defensible."

Well said, Paul. Ignorance, by itself is not wrong, there are a lot of things I don't know. My problem however, is when someone makes an allegation, and expresses no interest in what the actual truth is. Faith, certainly is not the only person in the world with this problem. If you are going to criticize Catholic doctrine, then you must first have an understanding of Catholic doctrine.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 27, 2004.

This forum was once a one-sided perception of a forum. Kevin, and all, that is the reason why I felt more people had to join in to allow the other side of the coin to be seen. I'll always be criticized for calling in the Calvary, but it had to be done if this place was to become a fair playing field for knowledge and truth. As to the assertion that this place will be taken over by Catholics? I sense that the Catholics here know about keeping this place open to discussions and debates. This ain't the Catholic Forum, but it is a forum for the discussions of various beliefs. Yes, every person may defend their beliefs without the fear of being deleted. Nobody is against that.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

GAIL, rather or not you expected more form me is not the issue. You have to unerstand my posiiton here. Im a Moderator, not an administrator, and relaly shoudlnt dictate rules, all I can do is enforce and iterpret rules.

Since this sint my board, I have an obligation tot he owner of the board to play by his rules. Just like the fact that I am not an American by Birth, btu am an american Citesen. Just because I am British doesnt mean I am under Brituish law, and I still have to live under, and even defend, the constitution, even in the parts I disagree with it, based on it beign the law of the land. If I held public office, I woudl have a duty to defend the Constitution, even the parts I disagree with.

The same principle applies on tis smaller scale.

I have to allow the same fredoms and limits alreayd imposed, without alterign them.

Saying Cahtolics worship Mary may be a misocnception, btu its a theological point, and not a general disparagence agaisnt the Catholic peoples, only agaisnt he Cahtokic Faith.

Besides, as Andy pointed out, by allowing such veiws, oen can hopefully clarify the veiws and clear up the Misocnceptions.

If no one where allowed to voice these concerns, then no answers ot the objectiosn wqoudl be voiced either. If you read the Early Chruch Fathers yo will see that the BULK of thr writing was eithe ron the faiht itsself, or on defence of the faith agaisnt critisism. Therefore, Critisism does serve a role.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 27, 2004.

There was a time when torture and execution also changed theological and doctrinal views. That is an extreme, of course, not restricted to one side of the fence only. So, to what degree are people allowed to inflict their style of persecution on the unpopular or disfavored believers? The reality is that I've been called on "taunting" others. That's a situation of seeing a cup half empty instead of half full. But, it is also a problem of not seeing the forest for the trees by not calling on everyone who actually is "taunting" others. How many times must we tell and prove to one that it isn't "Mary Worship" before it becomes "taunting" by the learner/accuser? We all look like little Smurfs; we've turned blue in the face.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

Criticism isn't the problem, Zarove, but the issue is really about out-an-out anti-Catholic bigotry and HATE MONGERING. This is supposed to be a Christian board!

I'm sorry, but I do not buy your excuse that you have to follow the bad-manners of your predecessor. That's sort of like when my child says to me "But Andy was doing it!" and somehow that's supposed to make it okay that he or she picked up rocks after school and threw them at a school bus passing by. "But Mom it was a CATHOLIC bus!" Oh, okay "that's okay then"! Do you see the illogic of this?

Did David PAY for this board? Why do you say it is his?

gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 27, 2004.

Zarove,

you have double standards here.

here's why you saw fit to criticise me - i posted this after Faith had twice gone "overboard".

i said:

*****[START]

faith

Mel will be just delighted to know that he has your imprimatur! the ultimate seal of approval. THE private interpretation, of all the millions of conflicting private interpretations across the world, that counts.

if only those Church Fathers all those years ago, separated only by few generations from the actual events, had been so enlightened! if only they could see that the power to loose and bind was the power to evangelise! if only they had realised that we were all given keys - well some of us but we struggle to explain who! if only they could have foreseen that the Vatican City, that did not exist at that time, was the Babylon in the Apocalypse! if only they had realised that if you are saved you can hang out in brothels and do anything you want!

how different things might have been!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no monasteries or fasting, just bordellos and bars.

[END]*****

the majority of this was pretty tongue in cheek - read it again and note the use of exclamation marks. it irony - a Brit should understand irony!!

and it was addresses to Faith only (sola Fide!) as in the person Faith. it was never applied to anyone other than faith. look at the way that i describe her opinions - how many other protestants think we all have the keys?!?! or that the power to loose and bind is the power to evangelise or unevangelise?!?!

MOREOVER, even assuming that i had launched a broadside against protestantism generally, you could have taken the view that ".... [YOUR WORDS] its a theological point, and not a general disparagence agaisnt the [protestant] peoples, only agaisnt he [protestant] Faith [s]...."

you took the opposite view even though it was directed SOLELY at Faith. it was made in the context of some of her very outrageous interpretations of Scripture. you - i repeat again - have even referred her to "standard protestant apologetics" [ which woories me because it becomes an "them and us"] - so you clearly believed that her interpretations were way off beam.

what i am getting at Zarove is that you chastised me for something that i did not do (moreover, never intended to do) yet you apply different rules to Faith.

now my REAL point is this: we aren't all mild-mannered folk. some here express their views more robustly than others. for me - and i know we all differ - that's just form. what we need to look at is substance, not form.

Faith has been told 1,000 times that we do not worship the Blessed Virgin. this is clear from the Catechism. she chose to ignore it and to taunt. some people find that taunting offensive.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 27, 2004.

Ian said: how many other protestants think we all have the keys?!?!

You would be surprised...

Ian said: or that the power to loose and bind is the power to evangelise or unevangelise?!?!

FWIW, I know a Protestant who believes that means the power to bind and loose evil spirits, ie. cast them out in the name of Jesus, and that everyone possesses this power.

Ian said: Faith has been told 1,000 times that we do not worship the Blessed Virgin. this is clear from the Catechism. she chose to ignore it and to taunt. some people find that taunting offensive.

I agree. I don't think Faith was entirely at fault all the time, there were others who did inappropriate things too. My main problem with her actions was her continuing to insist that we Catholics worship Mary as if she is a goddess or something, when this is entirely false. We have shown her both from our testimonies here and from our Catechism.

The other thing that she continued to insist despite us continuing to say otherwise was that we believe we are "working our way to heaven" or something along those lines. This is simply against Catholic teaching, which says we are saved by God's grace alone, through faith and works.

Now perhaps we can give her the benefit of the doubt in that when she was raised Catholic, maybe people taught her these things and she really believe that was the Catholic way. While it is entirely unorthodox and unfaithful to Church teachings, I can see how if someone was falsely taught they might believe this. However, she continued to insist on it despite our showing her otherwise, which I think was most offensive and inappropriate.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

I am unsure of what incident started this, and it doesn't really matter to me. Everyone here has some valid concerns/objections to the way things are done.

Our beliefs are our beliefs. They are fundamental assets, sometimes deeply rooted in our rearing, but certainly treasured. It would be easy to create a rule such as this:

"No offending another individual's belief."

We know this is absurd to try and uphold though. Reality is that anything I type in disfavor to any particular doctrine will come across as condescending in the least. Depending on how tactful I am (or not), there are some of us who will feel deeply offended and attacked. Naturally, if I speak critically about a particular doctrine, I will speak critically about the church(es) that teach it. I'm not alone in this.

People in here do not appreciate being called "Mary Worshippers." This term is derogative. I'm sure others likewise do not enjoy being labeled "Fundies." Simply, this is playground name-calling for "grownups." They are not conducive to any kind of discussion here, or anywhere.

On the other hand, I posted four quotes from the Catholic Catechism, the Regina Coeli, and four more quotes from Pope Paul VI, all of which was ignored (bar Andy for correcting a typo). So, the complaining get's little more than a raised eyebrow from myself.

But...

Ian said we should look more at the content of someone's words, rather than the tone being used. I'll agree. However, most of us have to admit that we can read tone into someone's post, aggression or sarcasm that isn't there. I've used sarcasm, and I try to lay it on real thick as to not leave any doubt. I've enjoyed Faith's contributions here, but like Jim, sometimes I felt a harshness there, an attack. Never did she personally attack me, however, it is my opinion that attacking someone's belief is the same as attacking that person.

What if I said this: "That is a stupid belief."

What if I said this: "You are stupid for believing that."

It does not matter which form I use, because the derogatory word sets the tone. The writer may not mean to be insulting, but he/she is. Perhaps some of us aren't self-aware, and some of us are too unsure, and so everyone lashes out. How fun.

BTW, Faith never called me stupid. I was just making an example.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

Luke, the word "worship" used to mean simply giving someone honor and was used for political figures also. Like in the US we say "Your Honor" to a judge. It is to give them the honor they are due, not worship as in worshipping God.

The word has since evolved to mean referring only to a deity, so Catholics are justified in being offended at claims that we worship others besides God, due to what those claims imply -- namely, idolatry. It is not and never has been Catholic teaching that Mary or anyone else is a god except for the Triune God Himself. This is obviously laid out in the Catechism.

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Idolatry

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47

from the CCC

Go to the library and look up the etymology of the word "worship" in the Oxford English Dictionary. You will see.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

---

-- (closing@tags.com), October 27, 2004.

P.S., Luke, where is the post where you put those 4 quotes? Perhaps you could start a new thread with them?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

Yes Luke, please repost. I'm sorry I never replied to the content.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 27, 2004.

Emily says:

"My main problem with her actions was her continuing to insist that we Catholics worship Mary as if she is a goddess or something, when this is entirely false. We have shown her both from our testimonies here and from our Catechism."

Good point, Emily. I was driving in my car one time and listening to Discover the Word with Haddon Robinson and he was talking about the 8th commandment. He argued that if we are going to criticize what someone else says, we need to first try to understand what they said and the context of what they said. Otherwise, what we say becomes like gossip. i.e. "I know those Catholics believe wrong things, and here you have another example of them worshiping Mary" In other words, when we disagree with someone, we look for evidence to prove ourselves right and we can be kind of sloppy in our critical thinking in those times.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 28, 2004.

1: I am a moderator, not an administrator. I canot set the rules. David did. elpidio can change the rules, but I cannot. I cna only interpret existign rules.

2: Elpidio has failed ot send me my pass so I can moderate effectivley.

3: I do not count Faiths actiosn agint her if they haened before I became Moderator, though I do consider them as incitement in future actions.

4: If I misundwerstood, sorry, but still either way Ian you where wrong. In oen you made general attacks againt All protesntats, and in the other interpretation you made a personal attack agaisnt Faith herself. It warrents a warning if nothgun else.

5: Ther eis a diffeence between Allowign attacks on beleifs and people.

6: Faith was oboxious and I did call he ron it, this is why she was so upset with me.

7: If we can let this matter drop, I have decided ot post soem new proposed rules tha elpidio will have to make into effect.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 28, 2004.

Lets see faith obnoxious Zar intolerable, yep that sounds right.

-- world (not@of.this), October 28, 2004.

Zarove

show me that attacks against ALL protestants.

exact words please.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 29, 2004.

Ian, the post in queatsion you know of. its when I called you on atakcign all protestants. You later said it was aimed spacificlaly at faith.

If so, then its still wrogn since its a personal attack. Indeed its mroe wrong snce it attacks the charecter of a single individual without due cause.

Either way, if a general atack on protestants as a whoile, which I took it for initially, or an attakc on faith spacificlaly which you later said it was, I had no choice but to call you on it. Now as asked numerous tmes, lets let this matter Drop, OK?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 29, 2004.

OOOOOOOOOO ----- KAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!

D'AAAAAAAAAA-COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORD.

NO PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMA!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifo.com), November 01, 2004.