Tactics on Internet revisited

 

Anonymous asked this question on 8/25/2000:

This is more of a statement to all experts out there and addressing your so called right to have a locked up forum on this Catholicism page. This is addressed specifically to the Roman Catholics out there that continue to batter down the informative answers given by other experts that might not be a Roman Catholic.

It is my understanding that the word Catholic means universal and not a specific denomination such as Roman Catholic. You might want to assume that your denomination has exclusive rights to answers on this page, but that is just not the case. This forum was set up so all people could ask questions of the universal church "experts". I know when I ask a question, I want to know what the original church views were that were setup by Christ and get references from the Holy Scriptures to back up a position. I will take all responses that I receive and do what God said to do and that is to test it against His Word.

This next part has to do directly with what I have been reading from other so called experts about this man Logmeon. Of all the responses to the questions that Logmeon has answered I see him give Scriptural references for everything. Then most of the time he will give follow up references to either books that were written or to papers that he has written on the subject. Has anyone here, who is making these mean and slanderous comments, ever taken the time to objectively review his Scriptural references and the papers that he has written to find out if there is any substance to it? All I see him doing is just what Jesus told him to do and that is to preach the Word and rebuke everything else. What I have not seen from MOST, not all, of the "experts" to his responses, is taking what he has to say and trying to defeat it on the Scriptural references. You revert to name calling and slanderous accusations. Did Jesus or any of the Apostles revert to this? I do not think so. As best I can remember: Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; you teach the traditions of men and not the commandments of God; you are mistaken not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God; may the LORD rebuke you.

These are the things that I remember off the top of my head on how Jesus and the original church handled things. I think that is the way we should handle all responses that we do not agree with. Give Scripture to back up your position and let each person search for the truth through the Holy Spirit.

I have one more comment or suggestion for the Roman Catholics out there. If you want your own page to speak to each other and ask questions on them, form your own page called the "Roman Catholic Denomination Page". I am sure that all experts that are not of the Roman Catholic denomination will stay out of there for you. But, to think that this page is just for the Roman Catholics is just being narrow minded in my opinion. What do you want to do with the Roman Catholics that call themselves "Old Catholics" that do not agree with or recognize anything past about 1870 including the Vatican Council and infallibility of the pope? Have you decided that they can not disagree with you either on this forum? Are they not really Catholic?

My questions and comments today were meant in good spirit...in the Spirit of God. I did not post this to receive many responses to this, but to let us all think about how we are handling ourselves and see if it is holding up to the standards of what God expects and of the example Jesus has set for us. But, if anyone does have a constructive comment or question I will welcome it.

Lastly I would like to say that I was born a Roman Catholic, went to Catholic schools, was an alter boy, and went through all the steps of the faith. I am not speaking here from an uneducated point of view. I hope everyone takes the time to think about this and pray.

God Bless

 

 

 

mscperu gave this response on 8/25/2000:

Greetings

I’m a Roman Catholic so I feel challenged by your post. And I must confess that I’m happy about the entire fracas because a good debate clears up the atmosphere. You have a better view of the panorama.

First I would like to establish that our preoccupation is first and foremost the uneducated that can be misled by similar brands. They discover that they thought they were talking to a Roman Catholic and were duped. Their assumption is fair because generally when you talk about Catholics 99.99999% think about Roman Catholics. I invite you to make a survey in your office or workplace: Describe a Catholic.

So it’s not about semantics but about expectations. Suppose you search for, want, expect and consult about health food. Somebody offers healthy food. Well, wonderful! You found it! You open the package and you get junk food! Both are food! Worse if the junk food carries the label health food. The label should be more specific don’t you think so? You can state: this is food and it does no damage! I say that the innocent has been duped (conned, tricked, swindled, cheated, hoodwinked, and taken in). He got the wrong package. He has lost time and money (I’m a dun myself) and has to renew his quest, an effort avoided if the label was correct? So let’s not talk about denominations. Let’s talk about general acceptance of a word, shouldn’t we?

The argument you give that Scripture takes it all does not justify an expert. You should read the post "Tradition and Scripture". Catholicism (together with Old Catholics, and Orthodox and so on) has two legs to walk on. Evangelism has to use a stick to jump from Reformation to the First Church and stands on one very respectable leg. Protestantism has made from this precarious stance a veritable art. The Catholics have learned many things from them how to stand on one leg but will have to go on using two legs! Are you implying that the Catholic experts have to limit themselves only to arguments taken from Scripture? I hope not. That would be narrow. It would make this board a protestant board, wouldn’t it?

Now let’s say that someone brings up historical arguments. He is arguing from Tradition? I can find you the doctrine of a historical group from the first centuries that celebrated in the nude. Tradition shows that THE Catholic Church has been unified in its teaching. Now if you say that the accumulation of many historical facts makes you a Catholic is debatable. I say it’s the interpretation of these facts. Food in not equal food. The processing changes it!

Your impression is that the RC experts "batter down" (assault, beat, hit, thrash, pummel, pound, hammer) informative answers given by not RC. There are amongst us vehement experts and theirs is like the ire of God in the OT. It’s love under the disguise of ardent zeal. When somebody slights your mother would you argue without feelings?

The reason behind the "battering down" might be certain vehemence or outright hate. But what about self-defense or better what about the defense of the weak and the innocent? Let me explain.

Since I climbed the ladder to first place in ranking I get a regular number of ROMAN CATHOLIC private questions of very delicate nature that I generally treat in the confessionary where the faithful have the protection of the sigillum. I have noticed many times that they read my biography only later on during the ensuing interchange. What is worrying me is that I did not get these questions before being in the first place of ranking.

I will offer you a piquant comparison. It could be about me. Let us imagine someone has a delicate sexual problem to discuss (I got fake ones too). This someone goes the corresponding category, the Sexual Health Category. People are not very dedicated in making efforts. And they want the best. So they go to the ranking. They don’t read that it reflects activity. They think it’s quality (Rank, first place, many credits!). And suppose that the ranking’s first place of the Sexual Health Category is occupied be a travesty. Is he an expert? Oh yes, he is! But not in what one should generally expect! Need I elaborate further?

The metaphor shows that it’s not only about information. It’s about living, values and morale.

Would I suggest that this expert be removed from the Sexual Health Category? No (I hope my fellow Catholics of the board forgive me having a different opinion). This person has made his choice and open dialogue will help us both to define more our mutual stance. There is one condition. He has his idea about Sexual Health, but the ordinary questioner is entitled to know that it’s a travesty he is talking to don’t you think so? It’s about expectations.

I suggested very early since my first steps in AskMe.com that in these interchanges the non-Catholics and ex-Catholics state so in their answer. But to no avail. So if the travesty proclaims that he is defending the original and true sexuality then the other experts have to enter into the fray in order to safeguard the innocent! Don’t they? More so if one assumes the disguise of a monogamous, chaste heterosexual!

If I am preoccupied about persons that have delicate problems I would feel compelled to monitor the responses of this person. I would provide those who have asked a question with a different alternative. Is that harassing? I don’t think so. It’s offering the option that wasn’t there before. I provide freedom of choice. That’s what dialogue is for.

 

 

mscperu gave this follow-up answer on 8/25/2000:

What can I do in case that the question is anonymous? Nothing really! I could make something with the rating, giving the famous one star. But that would not help the person that has been ill advised! I think that is AskMe’s problem of conscience. At the same time the supervisor should be attentive to experts that are bruited about and getting almost permanently some not very positive criterion and whose answers are under fire again and again. Conclusion: All is not well in Denmark.

Once again. I would not separate these experts. I would make them show color. What could be done? Wouldn’t it be a help if the experts between themselves recommend each other? So you had a list of experts recommended by the experts that are active. All this wouldn’t be necessary if everybody would tell who he is in his answer itself. The rank at this moment is for those who produce not for those qualified! You see it’s really about me. The real expert is the qualified one.

A protective possibility could be a cautioning notice: not all experts on this board are heterosexual. "Please read their biography". And I think it would be a good idea to identify those who give ratings to the rated one so that the rated person could take up a private dialogue with that person if you want. More traffic for AskMe.com

I think that the Catholicism page is not only for only Roman Catholics. We have some distinguished Southern Baptist amongst us. They help to liven up the board together with others, God bless them all! But telling them: "You don’t answer my arguments so let’s drop it here!" is no battering. Or am I wrong in this?

Let the debate continue! But without subterfuges or "ambushes".

Vale

mscperu

 

 

Anonymous asked this follow-up question on 8/25/2000:

mscperu, I have to say that you have completely lost me in where you were going. I do not know if you have read what has been posted in the previous questions and statements or not. What I can say is that NONE of you have addressed the questions that I have put forth. If I have missed your point please let me know. There are several questions out there that I believe need to be addressed. As I have stated before, I am open to all your views, BUT I need the questions answered that I have presented. That is the cold hard facts if you want me to understand where you are coming from! God bless.

 

 

 

mscperu gave this response on 8/25/2000:

Greetings

Sorry I didn’t give a response in the same order you proffered your statement. You sure missed the points!

Let me resume in short sentences my arguments, questions y suggestions:

- There is no asking for the "so called" right to have a "locked forum". There is no "battering down" of informative answers of experts that "might" (please write: aren’t) Roman Catholic. Observe that your first phrase sports at least four unproved suppositions.

- The debate is not about the meaning of the word Catholic (universal) but about the expectation of people who ask. Generally the newcomer to this board think they are on a Roman Catholicism board and expect Roman Catholic answers. See the experiences. It’s not about semantics (= the possible significance of a word); it’s about expectation. So the non-Catholic experts should say what they are or aren’t!

- The use of Scripture references to teach Roman Catholics questioners a doctrine that is not RC teaching and at the same time pretending to be a Catholic expert can’t be ever a legitimating authority to dupe innocent people that ask RC questions. Read the last answer to a RC who wanted simply information of the Jubilee that the RC Church is celebrating. He was given a learned exposé of OT Scripture in order to imply that the Catholic Church is substituting God’s will with base human inventions.

- I note that there have been two other posts that ask how in the world you can attack a learned scriptural exposition. How odd!

- Scripture alone has produced the infinity of denominations because there is no Tradition. Doesn’t that hurt? It’s the characteristic of Catholicism that Tradition is an essential part of the outlook. So you have to answer this question: What guarantee has your own testing against His Word that your interpretation is true? If you have no idea what Tradition is you are fighting against windmills.

- How do you describe the following procedure? I pretend to be a real Catholic and teach that the Catholic Church is corrupted. I have been called to attention, I have been asked to show color but I continue with my devious procedure because of religious freedom! What name do you call that? Name calling indeed!

- You call rebuke "slander"; does that make your slander a rebuke? Please produce instances of slander.

- Do you want that on this board only debate using Scripture be admitted? That would be narrow. Old Catholics, Orthodox and High-Church see in the Tradition the guidance of the Spirit. Who else could possibly be called Catholic? All those against are protestant.

- What is your denomination?

- Roman Catholic newcomers tend to ask the top expert of ranking. Imagine a non-Catholic being first place. It’ like a travesty occupying the first place on the Sexual Health board.

- Could it be that there is a real problem when serious people again and again call to attention?

- All experts are welcome. But please tell your questioners that you aren’t Catholic.

Happy now?

For further explanations please consult the detailed exposition you can find above.

Vale

mscperu

PS. I suggest again you read the post: "Tradition and Scripture" so you may know what the Catholic experts are talking about. You can’t resume a basic tenet of faith in telegram sentences.

 

 

Anonymous asked this follow-up question on 8/26/2000:

mscperu, First, I want to state again that this kind of debate is not why I posted my statement. But, since we have progressed far beyond that now, I will gladly continue.

Let me see, there are still ALL my questions out there from before that you have decided not to reply to at all. If you do not answer them I will not respond anymore. This is all a one-sided conversation. Please answer them the best you can if you want to continue.

I will now proceed with your statements/comments.

First, the expectations of people posting questions on this site is the very issue at hand. The majority are posting to find out the truth about their question. There are many that do know Catholic is Universal and does not specifically mean RC. The people that have gotten responses to their questions from non RC experts (Logmeon, etc.) seem to be very happy with what he has to say and how he backs it up from the Word of God. Again this is revealed in the extremely high marks that he has been getting! Do you think that there might just be some jealousy out there?

You are correct that there should be no misunderstanding of who he is and that he is not RC. Just because someone assumes this is a RC site, do not blame Logmeon. We have already gone over you to establish an exclusive RC site...but, this is not it. If Logmeon or anyone else then were to become an expert on the RC site and not disclose that he is not RC...that would be fraudulent and would deem to be necessary of action.

Here is an example of how you could have handled the post that you referenced to. Dear---, In reference to the response you received from Logmeon, he is not a RC expert and does not advise from our doctrine. He has presented you with an accurate view of the Jubilee as presented from the Bible, but as you know we have our own Jubilee system that we celebrate. As for any other questions that you might post be aware that Logmeon is not a RC and take his information accordingly." That simple.

I never pretended to be a practicing RC. I stated my qualifications on my experience as knowing what the faith was all about. The issue was not about being RC, it was about the crap that was being slung on this site. As I have already stated, I did not come to talk about doctrine, it just turned into that. When that became the case I did not hide behind anything! I have stood up and proclaimed the Truth as I see it from the Scriptures and have rebuked everything else.

If you want to talk about hiding behind something, let’s talk. The RC denomination quotes Scripture all the time until it goes against the Man Made traditions that have been established by your leaders. You use Scripture to further your cause as it seems to fit and then abandon it when it does not. If you proclaim Jesus to be your Lord and your example...you do not do a very good job at holding to his traditions that he established for his Father. You and all other RC's might want to review Matthew 15 very carefully. Jesus has spoken very sternly about the traditions of men against the commandments of God. Does any of this make sense to you or are these just words? What do you consider the commandments of God to be, something that can be changed?

Let us take a look at what your "first pope?", has to say about following the commandments of God or men. "But Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: 'We ought to obey God rather than man." Acts 4:28 Is this still a book that you use or only the parts that fit? So now we hear the words of Jesus, and all the Apostles on the subject. You are very correct that I can not understand your logic of Tradition over Scripture. There are areas of Scripture that can be debated and have different opinions on, but, it is few and far between and this topic of Mans Traditions taken over the Commandments of God is not one of them. .

You say that if only Scripture was to be quoted then this site would be narrow? Now I have to say that I have never heard that before. Now I can see why you are misled. If you think the Scriptures are narrow then you obviously do not understand them at all. God spent so much time presenting them through His Angel and His Prophets. He brought His only Son to establish the Law and the Prophets, not to abolish them. There is spiritual meanings on everything that is in the Scriptures and goes way deeper that the surface. I do not understand it all, nor do I profess to. That is why I spend the majority of my time studying and praying in His Word instead of preaching the doctrines (traditions) of men. He says that knowledge will increase until the end and that the wisdom of men will be put to shame.

You ask what denomination I am to find a flaw in a doctrine. You say that I have freedom in religion, BUT, I have none; that is why I could not be a practicing RC anymore. God and Jesus and the Apostles preached and demanded adherence to His Law. If I thought there was any room to disregard His commandments and teachings, then I could be involved in a Denomination. But, every denomination out there has its flaws that do not adhere to THE LAW of God. But, I did not say that there is not a true CHURCH (body of Christ) out here that tries to adhere to it. We are scattered all around the world. You would understand that if you understand the Scriptures. The funny thing about all of this is that the true Church is scattered because of the Mother church referenced as the Whore in Revelation. Go Figure!

One last comment for you. You stated that the Scriptures alone has caused the infinity of denominations out there. You are right and you are wrong. The Scriptures have defined who the True Church is and it is not a denomination. The reason for the splits into all the different ones is that The True Church started to deviate from the Scriptures and caused it to split to try to hold on to the True Faith. There has not been one denomination that has gotten back to the True Faith of Jesus Christ as of yet. But, that is exactly what Christ is going to establish when he returns. You can come out of her now and have repentance, or you can be instructed with the Rod of Iron later. Of course, it is always your choice. It always has and always will be. God gave us that free choice.

Is it time to take the head out of the sand (man's traditions) and see the real beauty of God's Word without being polluted?

God bless! I hope some of this has made you take an objective look at what I have had to say. Every person that has come out of her has had to deal with this at one time or another. The problem is that most have not made it back to the original faith of Jesus Christ. We will all have to at his return.

 

 

mscperu declined to answer on 8/26/2000:

I did!

You didn't!!!!

answer the arguments.

You made a try to move to semantics again. In Peru they say that rehashed food tastes better but not in debate.

And instead of coming to the point you begin to wander about the tortuous paths of evangelistic unsustained affirmations that are dogma. Do you know what is called fundamentalist?

Your interpretation of Scripture is skewed and has no foundation. You are talking about a chimerical Church that is like a chameleon and changes color according to taste and caprice. It's so easy the be member of the spiritual Church. You haven't to obey anybody.

I have known one honorable ex-catholic with whom I have had the honor to correspond. He paid attention to argument.

Don't slander in the name of Scripture this is tempting the Lord! Well, you call it rebuke. Come on!

Enough reasons to stop here! The first would have been enough.

PS. Please your expletives show only bad manners and do not prove anything besides showing off your education or the lack of it.

 

 


Top

 

 Where come these questions from?