Hi to all my Forum Friends,
In a discussion regarding Biblical issues, if a person disagrees with you, what is the intelligent manner of handling that disagreement? This being the Religion Forum, should you offer Scriptural references to support your contention?
Or is the proper rebuttal form found in resorting to name calling, denigration, offensive language, personal attacks against a person and/or his/her family, or possibly accusing that person of hatred? Isn't the latter much like accusing anyone who disagrees with Obama of being racist?
Obviously any person who truly believes in his/her understanding of the Bible and what God is teaching us there -- will offer proof found in God's Word. So, why is it necessary for me to even initiate a discussion on this particular subject?
I am posting this because I have a number of Friends and family who are Roman Catholic and with whom I can have an intelligent discussions, even, at times, to the point of disagreement -- without either of us resorting to anger and name calling. It is my feeling that the person, Roman Catholic or Protestant, who resorts to this "third grade school yard" approach to rebuttal -- is doing a great disservice to his/her own church and to the people in his/her church by casting a tainted cloud of anger over all who follow those same beliefs.
In a recent Religion Forum discussion titled "St. John of the Cross II" -- I raised the question, "Who is 'John of the Cross'? In the Bible I find John the Baptist and the apostle John -- but, no John of the Cross. Where do I find him in the Bible?"
And the Roman Catholic Friend who began the discussion tells me, "I never said this came from the Bible, nor did I ever imply it was biblical. It's the thoughts of a Saint. The same as if President Obama, Mother Teresa, or Sam the Ragman commented on matters of religion. Your hatred of the Catholic Church seems to be frustrating you."
Another more militant Roman Catholic Forum Friend posted, "Let the dumb ass keep looking in his Martin Luther book. He can't read it anyway. . . Challenge is one thing and lying is another. YOU LIE. There's a difference."
An agnostic lady jumps in to support her Roman Catholic buddies, "Old Billy Bob is a lover of Satan for sure. Have you ever seen him dispute it? And you won't either, because every word/thought he has is a lie. If he admitted it, that would ruin the job Satan gave him to do."
Then, a Christian Friend offers:
There are saints in heaven and there are saints on earth and all of them are saints because they were saved by the blood of Christ. And none of them are special-order 'Saints' by virtue of any declaration by any Pope, council, or other self-assertive, unscriptural source of doctrinal fiction.
Not stated in the tone I may have chosen, but, at least offering some form of logical, informed rebuttal.
And, our militant Roman Catholic Friend replies so eloquently, "Well, you're as stupid as your running pal, Billie."
Thinking about this situation, I have to wonder why we cannot have civil, at least semi-intelligent, dialogues on issues which so greatly concern the eternal life of so many folks. In a civil dialogue, each side presents its Scripture-based position on issues affecting our salvation -- and we leave it to our reading audience to determine, as we are taught in Acts 17:11, which is correct when
tested against Scripture.
That would be the most productive way of having discussions, regardless of whether we agree or disagree. But, let us not allow our dialogues to become divisive in the family of God -- for that may cause some to fall short in attaining the salvation which Christ has purchased with His precious blood.
In writing this, I am reminded of the 1964 musical "My Fair Lady" when Professor Higgins, in his frustration, declares:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?
Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.
Replace the "woman" in these lyrics with "militant Roman Catholic Forum Friends" -- and "man" with all who attempt to dialogue with them. And we have a pretty good fit.
Now, please keep in mind that I am not saying that all Roman Catholics are like these few on the Religion Forum; for I know that is not true. God instructed the Israelites to eat only unleavened bread every year during Passover, removing all yeast (which represents sin) -- knowing that just a touch of yeast in the dough will affect all the dough.
In the same manner, these few militant, name calling Roman Catholics on the Religion Forum casts shadows over all who sincerely wear the mantle of Roman Catholicism and who will, in a civil manner, carry all discussions to their eventual Biblical conclusion, "yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15 nasb) or with gentleness and respect (niv, esv).
My Friends, of all flavors, it is my prayer that we might conduct ourselves in our Religion Forum dialogues, in dialogues on all venues, and in all forms of contact -- with civility, "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) in gentleness, reverence, and respect -- for our God and for one another.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
