All right, here we go. Thanks, at least, for responding.
It appears very strongly to me that you actually put words into people’s mouths which they have not stated and if anything libel them.
I don’t think it’s particularly libellous to point out that it is “outrageous” for you to call someone a “so called Catholic” when you mis-represent what they say yourself frequently.
Okay. Sheila denies the reality of Hell and supports the legality of abortion. She has admitted to believing heresies in another post on this blog. She has shown no desire to try and mold her views to fit the Church. I think “so-called Catholic” is quite appropriate.
But at any rate, please – tell me when I mis-represented her. If you just state it with no proof, that’s libel.
Your particular argument usually follows the form of “so and so says A, therefore they must also mean B (even if they have not said B or recognise B to be a necessary conclusion) which must therefore also mean C etc. and therefore cannot logically be right/Catholic/Christian/Whatever.
1) What I believe is that if a person believes certain things, other things should logically follow. In cases where people don’t reach the conclusion that follows naturally from their premises, I think they’re being inconsistent.
And yes, I think that people do this. We all do.
And anyway, that was never my point with Sheila. It’s that you are not allowed to hold certain beliefs within the Catholic Church without being considered a heretic. Sheila holds heretical beliefs, so she is a heretic. “So-called Catholic” is an apt description for somebody who calls themselves Catholic but doesn’t believe the things the Church requires.
If you were to maybe spend a little more time listening to what people are saying, mulling it over and maybe trying to see things from their point of view, not rushing off to make pre-determined conclusions and maybe made less hurtful personal statements, then maybe I would not call your comments outrageous. Maybe I’d be less infuriated by much of what you say and pay more attention to the good things you do say.
I would love to see you find the “pre-determined conclusions” I draw. I invite you to look, and respond on my own blog. But as it is, you haven’t pointed any out. You’ve just asserted that I make them. That is libelous.
As I mentioned in my post above, or at least was in my mind, I am fed up with pointless point-scoring, endless critical argumenting and narrow sectarianism.
I am interested in right and wrong, and figuring out what is and isn’t. Advocating the legality of killing the unborn is way, way more important than “pointless point-scoring”. It is literally a matter of life and death.
I am much more interested in discussing the reality of following Jesus, worshipping God and living a life according to his will. I don’t think endless criticisms of other Christians without relief does this for me.
I criticize what I perceive to be intellectual dishonesty and views that I consider evil. I don’t much care if a person calls themselves Christian but supports keeping abortion legal. It’s still evil.
I invite you to respond to me on my blog, with actual examples of me doing the things I’m claiming. You will note that for each blog post I write about Sheila and Marc I either quote their posts and comments, link to their posts and comments, or both. If I am misrepresenting them you’ll have to show where I’ve responded to a claim they either didn’t make or that did not logically follow from their premises.
I will finally also note that all of my blog posts show up on Marc’s blog as links. I hide nothing and invite rebuttals.
By the way, for those who might be inclined to criticize me for this, here is the post where Sheila admits she is a heretic.
I invite Ross over to respond with examples of the libel I have committed.