okay, i had a thought based on my experience with ALOT of protestants who have visited this forum over the years and whom i've had discussion at length with in my personal life.

If a person has misconceptions about the catholic church and say, vents them at this forum repeatedly, then is repeatedly corrected by catholics as to what is correct this would seem to me that they should realize their error.

however, if a person THEN chooses to continue in error and trying to seduce catholics from the church by using what they now KNOW to be a false conception of the church... is this a sin of lying? would it be a sin? if so, is it a sin other than just lying and which could it be considered to be?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 27, 2005

Answers

bump

-- bump (bump@bump.bump), February 27, 2005.

It depends, paul, on what you mean by "misconceptions." Consider these two kinds of cases:

(1). In this first example, a Protestant claims that Mary had relations with St. Joseph and had other children. Catholics repeatedly explain that this is not the case, as we know by Sacred Tradition. Our belief on this can be argued as "reasonable" from scripture, but it cannot be proved incontrovertibly from scripture. We rely on Sacred Tradition, which assures us that Mary is "ever virgin." In this case, if the Protestant, after being told the facts many times, sincerely continues to disbelieve them and continues to post his error, then he is not "lying," but is simply "mistaken" and apparently "invincibly ignorant." I would not consider him to be "sinning" unless the Moderator were to forbid him to continue to post the error (in which case the non-Catholic would be committing a sin of disobedience).

(2). In this second example, a Protestant shows up here and starts claiming that we Catholics worship statues that we or worship Mary as divine. It is easy for us to show this guy that he is wrong by telling him the facts, quoting from the Catechism, etc.. Perhaps a follow-up false claim from the Protestant, because of a misunderstanding, can be tolerated, and we should again be patient in correcting him. But once it has clearly been shown that the Protestant ought to realize that he was wrong about what we believe, the limit has been reached. If the Protestant continues to say what is not true, then one of three things must be true: (a) he is mentally deficient, (b) he is mentally ill, or (c) he is lying.

Regardless of the situation, whether it be case (1) or (2)(a) or (2) (b) or (2)(c), the person should be forbidden from posting messages here any more, because, as you said, the person is "trying to seduce Catholics from the Church". The forum ought not to tolerate the continued presence of such a person, even if his "seduction" is "in good faith," because he is doing what is pleasing to the devil, leading Catholics toward sins of heresy, etc..

Unfortunately, this forum usually DOES tolerate the indefinitely continued presence of such a person, especially one who succeeds in beguiling the moderator with a friendly and polite way of speaking to us. Such a person is NOT harmless. A moderator, for the benefit of Catholics and lurkers, needs to be humble enough to admit that he himself has failed to convert such a non-Catholic, and he needs to show prudence and courage by telling such a person that he is no longer permitted to post messages here. If I were the moderator, I would place a time limit on the non-Catholic's presence, a limit of nine days (a novena, during which we could pray for the person), because that ought to be long enough to establish whether or not the person is invincibly ignorant (or incapable of learning, or mentally sick, or a flat-out liar).

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 28, 2005.

And if you'd like to know the names of those whom I would currently forbid to post here (because of their invincible ignorance, etc.), I'll give them to you. Some may be obvious to you.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 28, 2005.

Hi, i'd just like to point out that people on this forum repeatedly are stating "This is proven by scripture."

Although you may believe in the scripture yourself, you cannot say that whatever has been written in scripture is proof.

As with all religious writings, nothing is "proof" unless it is "proven" and scripture isn't proving anything, it's showing a viewpoint of the writer, realistically.

-- Tom Dootson (tojado@gmail.com), February 28, 2005.

Tom,

The only "proof" we have of any historical event is the historical record. What "proof" do you have that Julius Caesar ever existed? Or Cleopatra? Or Christopher Columbus? When historical events are recorded by reliable sources, that record serves as our "proof" of what has occurred. If you reject historical ducumentation, you have no wany of knowing anything that occurred outside of your own personal experience; and even those events would be proven only to you. You would have no way of proving them to anyone else.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 28, 2005.

KGreene/John G,

Your argument for the second case is missing a significant use case (to put it into technology language that you understand :-). What if the explanation is provided, but the Protestant does not agree that the explanation sufficiently answers his or her original objection or statement? So a 2(d) would be he or she remains "unconvinced".

For instance, a Protestant may come here accusing Catholics of worshipping Mary and the saints, an explanation ensues in which veneration versus worship is laid out, but in the end, while he or she may understand the nuances between them, might not agree that veneration is not in fact a form of worship and still is still wrong - thus "unconvinced" is the best descriptor.

The question I would pose, since I'm sure that I'm one of your targeted exiles-to-be, how is something like that any worse than the non-stop, unproductive bickering brought by unconvinced Catholic trads. Some threads go on for hundreds of posts repeating the same thing ad nauseum. At least someone such as myself doesn't constantly start or invade threads with my disagreements. They may occasionally rise to the surface, often provoked there by someone such as yourself, but most of the time, I avoid posting on controversial threads.

David

P.S. - By the way, John, your new tactic for posting anonymously using more realistic names/addresses makes it less likely to be associated with you - nice touch. But it's hard to disguise your never-ending desire to control/moderate the forum and your passion for casting me out ;-)

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 28, 2005.

how is something like that any worse than the non-stop, unproductive bickering brought by unconvinced Catholic trads

you're right, and thats why, for a long time, the schism of "trad" catholics was a banned topic of discussion and most of the "trads" who were here either got banned or took a hike. since the the rule has gone a little more lax and the so-called trads are back to their old practice of derailing every thread they can in order to drag it back to a discussion of their schism.

-- paull h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.

You are exactly right, paul. Those so-called (but mislabeled) "trads" are among the non-Catholics and ex-Catholics who have lost the right to post here.

If, as you say, some "trads" once lost their right to post here, there is no way in the world that they should ever have been allowed to return. They are almost as much tools of the bad angels as is the confused and guilt-obsessed "Larry Lapsus" who is trying to pester me on this thread. At least they are trying to get people to be Catholic in their misguided way, while those who are even closer pals of Lucifer (like Larry Lapsus) try to get people NOT to be Catholic.

Larry, this is Kenny Greene talking to you. You want to talk to "John," go talk to him, whoever he is, somewhere else, and I won't call you Larry Lapsus.

I don't have the slightest idea what you mean by the words, "a significant use case." Stick to the facts, if you know any, Larry, and stop trying to be cute. I say, "IF you know any" facts, because your attempt to justify non-Catholics' improper behavior by inserting an item "2(d)" into the discussion shows that you have trouble with facts.

Larry, it is hard for me to argue with you, since you have Lucifer feeding you things to write here, and Lucifer is smarter than I am. However, I have a duty to reply, so I will ask the Holy Spirit to be my tag-team member, to overcome you and your ally.

You tried to deceive everyone with these words: What if the explanation is provided, but the Protestant does not agree that the explanation sufficiently answers his or her original objection or statement? So a 2(d) would be he or she remains "unconvinced".

No, sirree, Lar! That situation was covered in my previous post, where I explained that there are only (a), (b), and (c). Up there, I said that there comes a time when "it has clearly been shown that the Protestant ought to realize that he was wrong about what we believe". For him still to claim that he is "unconvinced" (your word), he would have to be 2(a) mentally deficient or 2(b) mentally ill. Ergo, there is no 2(d). Ergo, your tag team has failed to deceive anyone into thinking that such people (including you) should be allowed to post indefinitely.

Now let's apply that to your "for instance." You spoke of a hypothetical Protestant who "may come here accusing Catholics of worshipping Mary and the saints" and who, despite Catholic explanations being given and understood, "might not agree that veneration is not in fact a form of worship and still is wrong."

That person would fall into 2(a), mentally deficient, or 2(b), mentally ill, and would have to be asked to leave. I realize that it sounds tough, but that's the way it has to be. Perhaps you are struggling with the fact that you want to be labeled "2(d) unconvinced," and you cannot deal with the fact that you may be "2(a) mentally deficient". C'est la vie. I suggest that you accept "2(a)" as your excuse, as it may help you avoid hell on judgment day.

You know, Larry, it didn't really make sense for you to argue for a "2 (d) unconvinced" category anyway. You must not have noticed that everyone who falls under (1) or (2) needs to be given the heave-ho from the forum. So even if you could have made a successful case for "2(d)," that person would have to say "Sayonara" anyway.

You could do the world and yourself a big favor by leaving the forum voluntarily, Lar. You hate so many Catholics here so much now that you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you on the nose. If you get out of here and start dealing with some Catholics against whom you are not already prejudiced, you mind get back on the road to salvation.

Kenny

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 28, 2005.

Last sentence shoulda been, "If you get out of here and start dealing with some Catholics (elsewhere) against whom you are not already prejudiced, you might get back on the road to salvation."

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 28, 2005.

Very entertaining, John.

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 28, 2005.

Why are you calling this man JOHN, David? Just wondering; because if you think it's Mr. Gecik you might be wrong. He makes some good points, but I can't fully agree with KGreene's assessment of the situation.

There may be several visitors here with which it's pointless to keep debating. I've sure done MY best; and they haven't gone away or changed their racket. But, unless they're very offensive or blatantly lying all the time, I think (some of them) they serve a purpose, unwittingly. Exposing their weaknesses on forum is instructive perhaps, for others who might have been misled in the past. --About a vast range of important things in the Church, for instance. We must have many lurkers behind the scenes always learning about our faith.

I know it's tiresome duty. But for some soul far away the work might prove a crossroads. For us, a spiritual work of mercy to offer Our Lord. (I myself can't present so many good works when I go to meet Him; so it might help me that way; I hope.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

Yep, I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. His focus and style and ego just screams "John". Can't ya just feel the love?

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 28, 2005.