A Refreshingly Honest View of Error

[3DOP]

I have been away for a while. I have been learning a few things that I didn't like over at Catholic Answers. I never did start very many threads over here or over there. But I am placing this in both forums. It began with a discussion at MA&DB about deification with a respectful Latter-day Saint called mfbukowski, and for me, the discussion quickly has worked its way round to some ideas that I have been pondering for the last few months. I don't intend to defend it vigorously. It speaks for itself. Those who oppose what I say here are frankly not people with whom I wish to hold an internet conversation anymore. I will of course be eagerly hoping for a few folks who like what I present while knowing many will not. There are a few noble souls everywhere who are already unconscious adherents to the method. I am just planting a seed here and there. Maybe it will take root somewhere. I begin with the discussion of deification.

No, I wasn't picking a fight either! I also am looking for unity, and I think we are in fact very close. But if we ever will be able to bridge the gap we need to know the exact location, dimensions, and "soft spots" in the gap we are attempting to bridge.

So where IS the gap then?

Let me tell you what I think the Catholic position is and perhaps you can correct me as needed.

Frankly to me, it seems that the Catholic view is rather "parochial" (sorry- couldn't resist!) .

By that I mean there is one possible universe with an infinite eternal spirit who created it all, and that's all there is or could be without limiting God.

We look at more possibilities I think. What if there are many domains in which multiple Gods may dwell? Call them universes or whatever. Each is "infinite" in his relative position, for all that any of his children can know. So on this view there could be multiple "infinite and eternal" Gods.

Of course speaking about it gets us all messed up. If you demand God to be "infinite and eternal" and you are LDS, you can answer that he IS infinite and eternal (in every way we can know about) whereas if you are Catholic there is on one hand not a possibility that such a relative "infinite and eternal" God could exist. And of course time is relative within each "domain" or "universe", making each "eternal" in his sphere.

But it seems that Catholics just don't ask the question or it doesn't occur to them that it could be otherwise than their belief.

I have said that LDS answer questions Catholics don't even ask.

So we have the Catholics saying "Yeah, but then God is not infinite", and the LDS say "Oh yes he is" and it goes back and forth "Yes he is," No he's not" like two little kids and this goes on ad infinitum.

So am I wrong?

How do we get out of the loop?

You are not wrong. We are very close. I'll make one suggestion about what would need to happen if Catholics and Mormons would try to discuss the Cosmos in a fruitful and satisfying manner. Then I will proceed to a more general question you asked that I find very important.

For most Catholics, it is oxymoronic to think of a universe that doesn't include everything. I bring no objection to the possibility that there is no single Creator/God of the universe, and that the universe is parceled out into districts for a plurality of rulers and authorities. But if this is the way of things, it isn't accurate to speak of the parceled district as the universe. We need some philosophical precision for a good discusssion.

I understand that there is a sense in which for the inhabitants of any district from which they never leave, it can become their personal universe...all that is material to them exists there. I have relatives in Tennessee who have seen less of the state than I have because they never leave. Their universe is Putnam County. But we can't be referring to this when we are discussing philosophy or theology. If universe is the word that we wish to use, we need to use the same definition, or qualify it by saying we are referring to a "district universe" as Mormons tend to to do, or "the everything that exists universe" as Catholics tend to do. We won't understand each if we are not precise. Terms have to be strictly defined for purpose of the discussion.

To your larger, and to my mind, most important question, "How do we get out of the loop?," I have an answer. Each of us must learn to defend the accused. When a defense attorney is defending a client he doesn't believe to be innocent, he is still obligated to present the facts in such a way as to present his client in the most favorable light possible. Is God pleased if we are always seeking to view those who we hold to be astray from the truth in the worst possible way? I have no reason to believe that. Without lying, without compromising what we truly believe, we can do a better job of helping our co-religionists to see the good and true and beautiful that is present in the faiths that we reject.

I truly do not believe that any major religion teaches anything that is worthy of ridicule. But over the years, on the internet, I have been regularly accosted by LDS zealots who arrogantly propose that the Trinity is ridiculous, that priestly celibacy is indefensible, or that the various Inquisitions and Crusades can only be understood as non-Catholics have presented and interpreted them, and who seem wonderstruck at how Catholics can be so stupid as to accept such doctrine or history. As a result of this experience, I took it upon myself to go see how things were over at a major Catholic internet site called Catholic Answers. To my dismay, it is as pathetic against the LDS and Protestants as what I perceive to be the case here at MA&DB toward Protestants and Catholics.

I believe we need to learn that no one is stupid for following the teaching of a major religion. If you think that, you just don't appreciate how a slight turn at the beginning of a spiritual and theological voyage can land you in completely different ports. I am told that miscalculations at the beginning of a trip across the Atlantic can mean the difference between landing at Oslo or Johannesburg. It doesn't mean that the mariners are inept boobies about everything because of a mistake at the beginning. The same thing happens in theology and philosophy. I am not smarter than those with whom I differ. It is arrogance that would make anyone say that Mohammed, Luther, Calvin, or Joseph Smith were bumbling theologians, or that Kant, Spinoza, and Descartes were illogical philosophers. I have the greatest respect, and humanly speaking, I have awe, for the intellects of these men who labored to thoughtfully work out theologies and philosophies with which I disagree.

I have proposed and will continue to propose that people of good will of every faith should adopt the method of him Catholics call, the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa Theologica he follows a precise formula. Before every question to which he gives the Catholic answer, he gives the answer of some leading gnostic, heretic, or relevant freethinker of his day citing authoritative source best suited to be persuasive. He is dutifully acting as a defense attorney who thinks his client is after all, still in the wrong. He gives it without prejudice and ridicule and for the uninformed like me, he can explain the error so well as to make one unfamiliar with his method believe that the error is true. That is what happened to me before I understood his way. He tries to defend error to the best of his ability before he announces what he believes. This is what I ask for. This approach to understanding and appreciating error, in my opinion, will be the most singularly dignified manner by which we may learn the best of what others believe, become predisposed to love those whom we oppose intellectually, and to gain for ourselves a reputation for justice and honesty that will help those who adopt the method to "get out of the loop" one by one.

I pledge myself that whether on the internet or at home or at church...or anywhere in the Universe (heh), if possible, I will not be silent in the face of unjustified ridicule of someone else's beliefs. I will not deny the Catholic faith anymore than St. Thomas did. But judging the circumstances, it is my ardent desire to share my vision of truth which does not believe in the stupidity of Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists, or Mormons. I am particularly sensitive and aware of Baptist and Mormon misrepresentations having been a Baptist and having spent so much time with Mormons on the internet. I can defend these two points of view, not so as to try to persuade anyone that they are true, but so that Catholics may understand and appreciate that sensible people of good will can without being evil or stupid, arrive at different conclusions than we have.

[Calm]

This approach to understanding and appreciating error, in my opinion, will be the most singularly dignified manner by which we may learn the best of what others believe, become predisposed to love those whom we oppose intellectually, and to gain for ourselves a reputation for justice and honesty that will help those who adopt the method to "get out of the loop" one by one.

It is not only a wonderfully dignified and useful way to present an argument, it's a great way to doublecheck one's own understanding.

And if one makes a habit of trying to present the best argument for the 'opposite side', I think one is more likely to accept that one has it wrong if a believer offers correction, rather than insisting that the believer doesn't know his own faith's doctrine or practice or what it "really means".

[mfbukowski]

Real quickly- Saturday night and Sunday are the busiest days in my week, and I just found this thread at 8 pm my time, on Sat.

I am excited that we can get a dialogue going. I used to post over at CAF probably a year ago, but I found that I got too much unreasonable flack and I got too angry, so I will stay here.

Thanks for your post, and I will respond perhaps Sunday night.

Edit: I skimmed your post, and I agree with the methodology. I thought you were looking for a response to the previous post, but I guess that is really not the objective.

I think you are proposing an excellent idea, but I must confess I tend to respond in uncharitable ways still to critics. IMO that is where the real test lies. When everyone is respectful it is easy to be respectful also, but when the sarcasm and innuendo starts, it is difficult not to respond.

I am tryign to do better at this!

[mfbukowski]

In the meantime, you may find this interesting. It is kind of where I was coming from, at least as a scientific possibility

[mfbukowski]

It is good that we are not that far apart; I certainly have always thought that.

And I also pledge to do better in being charitable.

Did anyone look at the universe article? Do you feel it is relevant to the issues?

I wasn't able to find the thread over at CAF, and I don't think there would be a problem posting a link

[3DOP]

It is good that we are not that far apart; I certainly have always thought that.

And I also pledge to do better in being charitable.

Did anyone look at the universe article? Do you feel it is relevant to the issues?

I wasn't able to find the thread over at CAF, and I don't think there would be a problem posting a link

It is good that we are not that far apart; I certainly have always thought that.

And I also pledge to do better in being charitable.

Did anyone look at the universe article? Do you feel it is relevant to the issues?

I wasn't able to find the thread over at CAF, and I don't think there would be a problem posting a link

Hey mfbukowski. Thanks for the exchange. The thread was even less interesting to my fellow Catholics than it was to you guys. Maybe I shouldn't have toned it down. I didn't use the word "pathetic" there to describe the ubiquitous behaviors of internet users that I accuse of guaranteeing exaggeration. I did get to respond to one fellow who hasn't offered an opinion back on how I said Aquinas would "find truth" in what he identified as the LDS teaching that Christ was conceived by a carnal union between the Father and Mary. Without any difficulty, I find myself as indignant to see "error" misrepresented as when truth is misrepresented. We have to present error accurately and this is what St. Thomas sought to do by familiarizing himself with the best ways to present the beliefs of non-Catholic philosophies and theologies.

Do we think that God is going to exaggerate the extent of our sins and unbeliefs at the day of judgment? If not, how do we justify the habit of always looking for the worst way of presenting to ourselves and others the actions and beliefs of those with whom we disagree? Maybe what I need to emphasize is not that we must follow the method of St. Thomas for the sake of others. We must follow the method of St. Thomas for the sake of ourselves! What good does it do this guy over at Catholic Answers to insist that all Mormons believe that the Father had carnal relations with Mary and to understand it apart from LDS tradition? None.

Sigh...The single worst habit that almost everyone on the internet seems to me to need to break is that of looking at error within the structure of perceived truth. By that, I mean that if we would examine the Book of Mormon, it will not give us any light to assume that the teachings derived from it must correspond to certain uncompromisable Catholic teachings. But this happens all the time. We who do not believe in it must examine the Book of Mormon, if we would, based on LDS principles which first of all re-examine everything that came from an apostate Christianity. Everything must be compromisable. When we gain the Thomistic habit, whatever our beliefs might be, I suggest that we will much more easily be able to understand and appreciate how and why the Evangelical is once saved and always saved, leading Catholics are unmarried, and Mormons baptize dead popes.

None of our doctrines and practices will appear in their integrity if they are underlaid with principles that were not intended to support them. Yes. I am saying that if WE will avoid being self-deceived, WE must adopt this method. We need not change our habits for the sake of charity only, but for self-interest as well! I have faith. I have confidence that after such an exercise I will be as firmly convinced as before of the truth. My faith does not depend on the idea that error is easily identified because it is so obvious. In my opinion, it is truth that stands the most to gain by proceeding to understand error in its best light. Those who willingly accept without critical examination the worst way of seeing what they perceive as error have already fallen prey to the twisting and exaggeration of error. When this habit becomes acceptable in regard to error we are hard-pressed when tempted to twist and exaggerate truth itself. We must know that no exaggeration, even if we are accusing Satan himself, can ever be done in behalf of truth. Exaggeration of error is an insult to all truth.

Thanks again mfbukowski for your consideration...

3DOP

PS: Here is the Catholic Answers thread...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=397336

[notHagoth7]

Did anyone look at the universe article?

Yes.

Do you feel it is relevant to the issues?

Yes.

[mrmendoza]

Personally I think that Mudcat, is the best EV around here that follows pretty much the plan that you've outlined, although I haven't particularly noticed him defending our position, he's always seemed very respectful, and asks questions in such a way as if he really is trying to understand. The problem that I have (And I'd like to think that I'm not the only LDS who thinks this way!) is I'm just pig-headed enough to think that once somebody truly understands what we really believe, and what we really teach, they'll want to join us! Then when I've given it what I believe is my best shot, and they still don't accept it, then I get frustrated and have to keep going on and on hopeing that eventually (If by nothing but osmosis I guess!) they'll understand and by understanding, will feel compelled to join us! How arrogant is that? I guess that I'm using Montgomry Prices formula that everybody who doesn't believe as we do is either ignorant, (So I try to educate them.) confused,(Which means I'm doing a crummy job educating them!) and/or decieved. ( Which means that I have to show them the error of their ways!) Now that I think of it, it seems that the majority of the EVs on this board follow that same formula with regards to us! That's the loop that you've already mentioned, isn't it?

A few years ago I looked at a book about the major religions of the world, and I found much to be both admired, and desired in all of them. I won't say that I studied the book enough to be conversent about any of them in any real way but I do believe it would be a really great thing if we all would just step back, and try to look at what everybody else really believes, rather then trying to tell them what they believe!

Of course if we all did that, these boards wouldn't be as much fun, would they?

Mike

[mfbukowski]

I agree with you.

I think the method is a good one.

We are both members of the "one true church" in our own opinions, and to an extent that will lead to some friction

But I think we need to acknowledge the possibility that God allows different paths to "salvation" whatever that means in our particular religious structures.

Frankly, I think that is an area in which we could both agree, that is Catholics and Mormons, since the doctrines of "invincible ignorance", as I understand it, coupled with your "baptism by desire" pretty much create the same practical effect for Catholics as the Mormon view of work for the dead.

In other words, we both believe that it is possible for all who earnestly sought God in this life to the best of their ability to achieve "salvation" in the afterlife.

But I am not sure that Evangelicals would agree with that.

I know this is a thread on methodology, but I think we have perhaps the seeds here of something more important.

I have invited Mudcat, whom you probably know, to join us. He is developing a christian unity blog, here.

I think it might be useful to have at least one (and hopefully many others) representative of Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals, all agreeing on methodology posting about similarities and differences in our respective faiths, with the objective really of exploring things upon which we can agree.

What do you think?

[BCSpace]

Those who oppose what I say here are frankly not people with whom I wish to hold an internet conversation anymore.

I have no problem with the actual methodology, but it seems quite limiting to expose oneself to only that style of argumentation and only to those people who are of the same mind. Rather monkish and cloistered if you ask me. I don't think you'll reach the pinnacle of enlightenment you so desire that way.

I believe we need to learn that no one is stupid for following the teaching of a major religion. If you think that, you just don't appreciate how a slight turn at the beginning of a spiritual and theological voyage can land you in completely different ports. I am told that miscalculations at the beginning of a trip across the Atlantic can mean the difference between landing at Oslo or Johannesburg. It doesn't mean that the mariners are inept boobies about everything because of a mistake at the beginning. The same thing happens in theology and philosophy. I am not smarter than those with whom I differ. It is arrogance that would make anyone say that Mohammed, Luther, Calvin, or Joseph Smith were bumbling theologians, or that Kant, Spinoza, and Descartes were illogical philosophers. I have the greatest respect, and humanly speaking, I have awe, for the intellects of these men who labored to thoughtfully work out theologies and philosophies with which I disagree.

Moral relativism. You ARE smarter than some of those hopefully. Not every opinion or philosophy is equally valid in any paradigm.

[mfbukowski]

Yes.

Yes.

Because it sets up the possibility that there are multiple universes perhaps, multiple eternities, multiple Gods?

[mfbukowski]

I guess that I'm using Montgomry Prices formula that everybody who doesn't believe as we do is either ignorant, (So I try to educate them.) confused,(Which means I'm doing a crummy job educating them!) and/or decieved. ( Which means that I have to show them the error of their ways!) Now that I think of it, it seems that the majority of the EVs on this board follow that same formula with regards to us! That's the loop that you've already mentioned, isn't it?

Well that paradigm imo is pure ego. I mean I guess it's fun, but ultimately futile. I have been known to do my best to rip guys like Montgomery, unfortunately, just to attempt to "teach them a lesson".

But it is not fruitful. It takes more creativity to see the real similarities and differences than to just go off being a smart a... aleck.

But the reason we all think the other guy is deluded is because (most of the time) we really don't fully understand his position. I really think that. I think we are all after the same sorts of things as humans: a sense of meaning in our lives, the creation of a logical "system" of belief that ultimately gives us a view of our place in our universe that lets us sleep calmly at night.

It seems that some of us receive what we call "revelations" while others have no clue what we are talking about. I think that those who DO understand what LDS call "revelation" which includes most Catholics, LDS and EV's, have a lot in common if they realize it fully or not.

It is so easy to let semantics get in the way!

[Mudcat]

Personally I think that Mudcat, is the best EV around here that follows pretty much the plan that you've outlined, although I haven't particularly noticed him defending our position, he's always seemed very respectful, and asks questions in such a way as if he really is trying to understand.

Hey Mike,

Thanks for the nice words. As far as defending LDS on MADB itself. Well no I don't really do much of that. IIRC, I may have made attempts at correcting exaggerations or mischaracterizations of LDS on the forum a time to or two. As a whole, since the board is frequented by LDS apologists, I think there is ample representation that such should be fairly unwarranted.

I have on several occasions corrected some of my fellow EVs in a real life setting, on skewed understandings of LDS.

The problem that I have (And I'd like to think that I'm not the only LDS who thinks this way!) is I'm just pig-headed enough to think that once somebody truly understands what we really believe, and what we really teach, they'll want to join us! Then when I've given it what I believe is my best shot, and they still don't accept it, then I get frustrated and have to keep going on and on hopeing that eventually (If by nothing but osmosis I guess!) they'll understand and by understanding, will feel compelled to join us! How arrogant is that?

I don't think it is arrogant at all. I figured after my 4,000 or so posts on the forum all you Mormons should all have already converted to Evangelicalism by now.

So I share similar frustrations from time to time.

Seriously, I think what you have noted is key to the issue. We all seem to operate from the position of "most correct theology" and all others operate from "less correct theology" in our own opinions.

I guess that I'm using Montgomry Prices formula that everybody who doesn't believe as we do is either ignorant, (So I try to educate them.) confused,(Which means I'm doing a crummy job educating them!) and/or decieved. ( Which means that I have to show them the error of their ways!) Now that I think of it, it seems that the majority of the EVs on this board follow that same formula with regards to us! That's the loop that you've already mentioned, isn't it?

Well, I haven't read any of Price's threads but I get what you are saying here. I agree, I think this "loop" certainly isn't synonymous to Evangelicals. Rather, it seems to be the same fare the often gets doled by anyone who believes they know better than anyone who has an opposing view. However, this is where the circularity begins, but in order for such argumentation to make it full circle, it usually requires that someone else with an opposing view thinks they know better, than the first person.

At the end of the day, it is an argument about which party knows better and since neither party accepts that the other party has any point but an erroneous one... it continues forward.

A few years ago I looked at a book about the major religions of the world, and I found much to be both admired, and desired in all of them. I won't say that I studied the book enough to be conversent about any of them in any real way but I do believe it would be a really great thing if we all would just step back, and try to look at what everybody else really believes, rather then trying to tell them what they believe!

Of course if we all did that, these boards wouldn't be as much fun, would they?

I agree with you here, though I think I am just echoing the sentiments of others. And I also agree that there isn't anything wrong with a healthy debate of discussion. However, nonproductive conversations are more often the case.

With religious conversation it is tricky. We all come to the table with our presuppositions of truth, with hopes of converting others to what we believe to be correct.

This may sound a bit semantic, but I think their is a great error often made when we simply submit to others "what" we believe in regards to our faith. Rather I think we are better served to focus on "why" we find these things persuasive.

I think, as Rory has noted, because someones believes differently than we do, by no means impugns their rationality. People believe what they believe because they feel they have good reasons to do so. Simply because we find our own beliefs more persuasive, implies that there are not persuasive reasons for another persons faith.

IMO, if we really want to engage a person about faith related matters. We have to come to the table cognizant of the possibility, that even though we believe ourselves to be correct, we might be wrong. We can't be open to the truth, if we operate under the assumption that we already have it all and that is all there is.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

I pledge myself that whether on the internet or at home or at church...or anywhere in the Universe (heh), if possible, I will not be silent in the face of unjustified ridicule of someone else's beliefs. I will not deny the Catholic faith anymore than St. Thomas did. But judging the circumstances, it is my ardent desire to share my vision of truth which does not believe in the stupidity of Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists, or Mormons. I am particularly sensitive and aware of Baptist and Mormon misrepresentations having been a Baptist and having spent so much time with Mormons on the internet. I can defend these two points of view, not so as to try to persuade anyone that they are true, but so that Catholics may understand and appreciate that sensible people of good will can without being evil or stupid, arrive at different conclusions than we have.

I wish you luck with your pledge, my brother.

I think the tricky part is distinguishing between ignorance and stupidity. The former seems to be more apt to correction, the latter seems more apt to just causing sheer frustration (I'm not just speaking from experience in dealing with both, but personally being plagued by both also).

Lately I

[TOmNossor]

3DOP,

Great thread.

I have really enjoyed reading what you wrote and a number of the responses. I assume you are familiar with Bishop Stindel

[3DOP]

I wish you luck with your pledge, my brother.

I think the tricky part is distinguishing between ignorance and stupidity. The former seems to be more apt to correction, the latter seems more apt to just causing sheer frustration (I'm not just speaking from experience in dealing with both, but personally being plagued by both also).

Lately I

[mfbukowski]

I think I would like to stake out a middle position in some respects from these two (not to suggest that either of these two is an accurate representation of someone

[3DOP]

I have no problem with the actual methodology, but it seems quite limiting to expose oneself to only that style of argumentation and only to those people who are of the same mind. Rather monkish and cloistered if you ask me. I don't think you'll reach the pinnacle of enlightenment you so desire that way.

Moral relativism. You ARE smarter than some of those hopefully. Not every opinion or philosophy is equally valid in any paradigm.

Hi BC Space.

I am not offering some kind of novelty to a world that has never heard of the idea that there are two sides to every story. This is common sense justice. It is so common sense that virtually the entire civilized world understands that the best way to find what is true when there is a disputation, is to listen carefully to both sides by representatives of both sides. Please understand. I am not asking every Mormon to study Catholicism. I am not asking every Catholic to study Mormonism. I am only suggesting that everyone who would offer a public opinion about someone else's faith must be knowledgable of that faith in the way Tom describes above. Please note that this does not at all disqualify anyone from defending their own beliefs. But one would be disqualified from criticising what they have never even objectively studied.

Whatever in the world "monkish" or "cloistered" means to, you are free to expand upon how mfbukowski, TomNossor, Dr. Steuss, and 3DOP seem to be on the verge plunging headlong...presumably downward...into them.

As for the charge of moral relativism, I have offered several analogies that illustrate how in very important ways, we acknowledge the necessity of having opinions that are balanced by listening to both sides of a dispute. We are not suggesting that both sides are true. That is why I have continuously used the word error, both in the thread title and throughout my posts. It implies and indeed demands that there is right and wrong. Every one of my illustrations include a party that has erred. Your charge of moral relativism is manifestly invalid.

I stand by what I said before. An unwillingness to accurately report error, whether it be felonies and misdemeanors or sins and heresies, is an insult to the truth. The truth stands tall and firm as a rock without any need of commentators who think they are helping truth out by making someone's errors to appear as bad as they possibly can.

You misunderstand what the method guarantees. This isn't an end. It is a beginning. There is no promise for a "pinnacle of enlightenment". It is a first baby step to wisdom. Those who will insist that there is no need to accurately understand error, who rely only on negative one-sided reports of what other faiths believe are incapable of carrying on a conversation that compares beliefs. This method isn't about a mountain climb to the heights of understanding. This method is merely about crawling out of a deep hole of ignorance!

Think about it. Just think about it BC Space.

3DOP

[mrmendoza]

I don't know about this thread. It's beginning to make me nervous! What kind of lovefest is this? I thought we're supposed to be on a debate board here! Where are hoops and DlClark to set us all streight? It's getting way too friendly around here! The next thing you know we're all going to be going around saying "I'm okay, you're okay"!

Anyway I think that BlueDreams has a truely awesome saying on his post that pretty much states what we're doing on this board

We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

So much of the time we can't even understand what the other is trying to say because 1) we're to busy trying to decide what we want to say next, and 2)we 're defining everything in our terms without trying to find out what the others definitions are!Of course we get flustered when we do give our definitions over and over again but the respondent either doesn't understand what we're saying, or simply refuses to allow for our definition to have any validity, if it's not the same as theirs!

While I don't give much up when it comes to doctrinal matters, when it comes to speculitive things, I will admit that while I disagree on what someone else might be saying, I might be wrong too! In other words, we might both be wrong! I had to completely change directions on a thread a while back, and when the other poster called me on it I told him that I found out that I was wrong about what I was saying.

One of the things that really bugs me is when I think I understand what the other guy is saying, than I repeat back what I think he's trying to say, then I give what I believe is a good rebuttle, only to have him say that he was not trying to say that at all! I think that happens a lot to a lot of us on these kinds of boards!

Oh well, this is kind of like Snoopys Christmas with the Red Baron. A peaceful interlude to draw back and remember that we are all Gods children. That "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life"! And for those athiest or whatever else you might consider yourselves, He still loves you too!

Mike

[3DOP]

I don't know about this thread. It's beginning to make me nervous! What kind of lovefest is this? I thought we're supposed to be on a debate board here! Where are hoops and DlClark to set us all streight? It's getting way too friendly around here! The next thing you know we're all going to be going around saying "I'm okay, you're okay"!

Hey Mike. Thanks for giving the thread some consideration. I love that its having any effect on anyone! I hope you understand that I am not suggesting that we can shut things down and say we're all alright. Aquinas believed in objective truth. He clearly taught that the Catholic Church was the one and only true Church. I am not advocating that we change our belief about objective truth in religion. I am advocating that if we need it, we change our belief about objective error. If we think successful error can be attributed to the stupidity of the adherents, we are severely deceived. There is only one remedy and those who make thousands of posts a year seem the least likely candidates to do it. Study. Books. Breathing in before breathing out.

mfbukowski asked how to get out of the loop...the loop of endless semantics and misunderstandings. This is the only way to communicate. It doesn't promise that we will forge agreements and find ways to compromise our beliefs so as to accomodate everybody. But it gets us away from those zealots who bring death to communication by heaping insults, deprecating beliefs that they have never tried to appreciate. I want to create an atmosphere where right thinking Mormons and Catholics will call their own on the carpet for offering that religions and philosophies that number millions of adherents are ridiculous.

I have been defending the Catholic Church, the truth as I see it, for ten years on the Internet. I know some of you here from Sept. of 2000 when ZLMB was formed. At this time, I think I can serve that truth by also defending errors from undeserved defamation. Does a shoplifter deserve to be identified for his crime? Of course. But is it a service to society to also charge the shoplifter with kidnapping, just because he was walking in error? Of course not. So why do some of us so carelessly, without offering the slightest mitigating evidence, magnify the historical misdeeds or doctrinal errors of religious communities not our own? Do we not have an equally solemn duty to not overstate the case as we would with the shoplifter? With a little research, we can find a way to be more forgiving of bad actions, and appreciative of alien belief systems. AND THEN WE EXPLAIN WHY WE THINK THEY ARE STILL WRONG.

[3DOP]

tOM nOsSoR, commending the method recommended

what I said is so clearly true only folks who just don

[mfbukowski]

Oh yeah?? Well that is a rotten attitude!

How dare you insult LDS people? What is your problem anyway, buddy?

(Just thought I would liven things up a little)

What can I say? When we agree we agree. (crickets......)

This board is about debating, and when you aren't,....... you aren't!