An invitation to johnhp (not a callout)

[Boffo]

• Tweet

to discuss and reveal our religious beliefs in an open, orderly manner.
As a highly educated theologian, you should have the "edge" so I will allow you to choose the rotation, ask first, answer first.

Suggested rules, subject to input and negotiation

1. No insults ( a Newrake first)

2. One specific direct question at a time, one answer, at a time. You ask, I answer, then it's my turn to ask a question, you answer. Discussion and elaboration is fine, but let's keep on topic

Examples of direct and specific questions:
1. Do you believe in God?
2. Do you believe in Heaven?
3. Do you believe in hell?
4. Do you believe in purgatory?
4. Do you beleive that satan exists?
5. Do you pray?
6. Do you believe in saints?
7. Do you belong to a specific church.
etc

[Case_Closed]

So, did you hear about the blonde who started going to church because she heard there was a guy down there who was "hung like this?"  *extends arms outward*

[DougRich]

Why aren't you doing this by PM?

[johnhp]

to discuss and reveal our religious beliefs in an open, orderly manner.
As a highly educated theologian, you should have the "edge" so I will allow you to choose the rotation, ask first, answer first.

Suggested rules, subject to input and negotiation

1. No insults ( a Newrake first)

2. One specific direct question at a time, one answer, at a time. You ask, I answer, then it's my turn to ask a question, you answer. Discussion and elaboration is fine, but let's keep on topic

Examples of direct and specific questions:
1. Do you believe in God?
2. Do you believe in Heaven?
3. Do you believe in hell?
4. Do you believe in purgatory?
4. Do you beleive that satan exists?
5. Do you pray?
6. Do you believe in saints?
7. Do you belong to a specific church.
etc

First, why would i have the edge as a theologian?  You would be answering questions about your personal beliefs.  That is hardly the subject of theology as an academic exercise (the same with my personal beliefs, they are not the subject of theology).


Second, this does not interest me in the least.  And i mean that sincerely.  Nothing could be more boring to me, and this is not an insult and not meant as an insult, than to discuss someone's personal beliefs (my own included).


Third, the questions you have provided as examples really do not do justice to the content of a faithful life.  i do not mean that as an insult, either.  For instance, let me just look at the first question:

"Do you believe in God?"  This is an extremely generic question.  Muslims believe in God, Christians believe in God, Jews believe in God, etc.  A yes to this really tells someone nothing.  Even if a person says they believe in the Christian God, this is not really better.  Which flavor of Christianity?  Or if someone said they had a biblical understanding of God we would have to clarify which translation of the Bible, which specific aspect of the Bible, etc.  


No offense, but that is just tedious and boring to me.  Quite frankly, you already know, in a general sense, my answers to the questions you have asked as examples, given my Catholicism.  All of that said, i have no problem with a genuine discussion on this issue.  i have an additional issue with regard to your history as a poster.  i, quite frankly, do not believe that you will not engage in poor behavior with regard to the content of this thread.  Not just on this thread but on the board and elsewhere.  What are you willing to do to assure me that you will not use the content of our discussions for more of your poor behavior?

[johnhp]

Why aren't you doing this by PM?

Because he is avoiding the issue he raised on another thread.  He does this kind of stunt quite frequently.

[johnhp]

Boffo

Alternately you can explain why, if you think it is proper just to ask people these questions and expect an answer, you will not answer the questions without me agreeing to answer them as well.

[Mornac]

Here is what Catholics publicly profess to believe each Sunday at Mass. Anyone Catholic who recites this Creed without believing it cannot claim to be a faithful member of the Church:

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary: AND WAS MADE MAN. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[johnhp]

Here is what Catholics publicly profess to believe each Sunday at Mass. Anyone Catholic who recites this Creed without believing it cannot claim to be a faithful member of the Church:

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary: AND WAS MADE MAN. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

English?  Revisionist.

[Boffo]

"Why aren't you doing this by PM?" -Doug

because it's a FORUM !  it's what people do in forums.

if I wanted to do it privately, I would e-mail john at work.

"First, why would i have the edge as a theologian?  You would be answering questions about your personal beliefs.  That is hardly the subject of theology as an academic exercise (the same with my personal beliefs, they are not the subject of theology)."

point taken, but I was viewing it from the context of your lifelong devotion and studies giving you an "edge" of knowledge on the subject

"Second, this does not interest me in the least"

Are you saying that you choose to hog your knowledge or that you have no interest in things spiritual>

 And i mean that sincerely.  Nothing could be more boring to me, and this is not an insult and not meant as an insult, than to discuss someone's personal beliefs (my own included)."

Then why are you always attacking Mornacs?

This seems to contradict your question to me earlier today asking about my religious beliefs.... you just confirmed the inquiry.


"Alternately you can explain why, if you think it is proper just to ask people these questions and expect an answer, you will not answer the questions without me agreeing to answer them as well."

Alternately, why would you have a problem discussing this on an level field?

This thread only exists because YOU asked ME about my religious beliefs. Remember?
I replied that I believe in God and asked you if you do as well.  I answered, you didn't.
If you really want an answer to your original question, why in the world should you not be required to reply in kind.  this is a discussion forum, not a one sided inquisition.

What I can't figure out is how you can claim to be a Catholic and not be able to type the words "I believe in God"
I'm not accusing here, but your friend Vel claims to be a Jew and has recently referred to God as a "metaphor" and a "concept", and wonder if your vision is the same.

but ok, discussing anyone's religious beliefs "bores" you, so I'll leave it at that and expect you to not bore yourself criticizing the beliefs of others in the future.

[johnhp]

point taken, but I was viewing it from the context of your lifelong devotion and studies giving you an "edge" of knowledge on the subject

Again, the subject is your personal beliefs.  i hate to tell you this but i have not spent my life studying your personal beliefs.  i know that is going to break your heart but that is a fact.

Are you saying that you choose to hog your knowledge or that you have no interest in things spiritual>

Neither, i am saying that i have no interest in discussing your private beliefs.  The caveat to this is the point i made in the other thread: that when pushed on the issue of a unilateral question of the type Lucy asked, you would not discuss them either.  i was correct about this given your offer of a quid pro quo.  You steadfastly refused to answer the question in any meaningful way without an acceptance on my part to do the same.

And let me clarify what i mean by meaningful and this, i think, illustrates the problem.  i am certain that your statement about believing in God is meaningful to you.  That is to say it has a particular content and you know what it means.  However, statements like that are not self-evident to people who are not you except in a very general sense.

Then why are you always attacking Mornacs?

i am not.  i do on occasion show that he is incorrect when he makes certain claims.  For instance, he discussed with Vel some point about God a while back and the points he was stating had been used against Thomas and declared null by the church more than 5 centuries ago.  Usually that would be nothing, except that Mornac claims to be a traditionalist and argues with some frequency that the rest of the church (the other billion or so of us) are theological illiterates.  What you interpret as an attack is holding him to his own standards.

i do point out to correlation between those in his movement and historical as well as neo-fascism.  However, this is not a matter of private religious belief but public action.  There is a major difference there.  By public action, i mean things like hiding war criminals, assisting war criminals at their defense, making pilgrimages to the grave of people like Petain, etc.  Now, i am not aware that Mornac has done any of that and i have not suggested that he does, but these are the people with whom he publicly allies himself and politically allies himself (through the support for instance of Jean-Marie Le Pen).

This seems to contradict your question to me earlier today asking about my religious beliefs.... you just confirmed the inquiry.

Hardly.  i was, again, abiding by the standard you set by supporting the unilateral inquiry of Lucy.  You thought it was good enough for a fellow poster, so i thought you would not mind being asked.  In fact, you did mind being asked (as witnessed by your creation of this thread).  Just because i am polite enough to ask you questions to which you would have others subject does not mean that i wish to answer those questions.

Alternately, why would you have a problem discussing this on an level field?

This thread only exists because YOU asked ME about my religious beliefs. Remember?
I replied that I believe in God and asked you if you do as well.  I answered, you didn't.
If you really want an answer to your original question, why in the world should you not be required to reply in kind.  this is a discussion forum, not a one sided inquisition.

No.  Let's be clear.  This thread exists because you cannot abide the standard you supported for another poster.  You supported the unilateral questioning of Vel.  By doing that you established that as a standard for you.  My generosity in asking you those things to which you would subject others is just that, an act of generosity.

Why should i not be required to reply in kind?  Because my position, is that the topic is no one's business.  You believe it is a proper avenue of discussion, you supported the unilateral question.  Now, you can either submit yourself to it (which you will not) or not.  It does not matter much to me.  My point is made: you wanted Vel to answer a unilateral line of questioning to which you will not submit yourself without the condition that i answer your questions.

What I can't figure out is how you can claim to be a Catholic and not be able to type the words "I believe in God"
I'm not accusing here, but your friend Vel claims to be a Jew and has recently referred to God as a "metaphor" and a "concept", and wonder if your vision is the same.

i can certainly type that i believe in God, but that is not the issue.  The issue to me is the unilateral line of questioning to which you would submit others and would exempt yourself.

but ok, discussing anyone's religious beliefs "bores" you, so I'll leave it at that and expect you to not bore yourself criticizing the beliefs of others in the future.

You are mistaken when you think i criticize the private beliefs of others.  i have no idea what others believe and could not care less.



So, when are you going to answer the questions?

[Boffo]

LOL! 
a hell of a manifesto from a guy too bored with to discuss the topic, and disinterested in to partipate.

"So, when are you going to answer the questions?"

What questions? 


does this mean that you are accepting the invitation on a quid pro quo basis.........Clarice ?   (not an insult, if you don't get the reference, I won't elaborate)

[Case_Closed]

What questions? 

On that "other thread" started by "some guy" a while back "one time."

Can't find the link, though.   

[Case_Closed]

Also, in before Fava Beans and Chianti...fft, fft, fft.

[DougRich]

"Why aren't you doing this by PM?" -Doug

because it's a FORUM !  it's what people do in forums.

If you're honestly interested in the specifics of johnhp's religious beliefs, and perhaps want to share your own with him, why would you need an audience?  It suggests ulterior motives.

As for your list of questions, most of them, individually, discussed honestly and in depth, could probably generate enough posts to fill up a thread, assuming that there was sufficient interest...and the answers, while perhaps helpful in establishing someone's degree of orthodoxy and compliance with the doctrines of a particular church or sect, are mostly irrelevant to the matter of whether (and how) one experiences a personal relationship with a supernatural Other.  Any God who is not more than the sum of some church's creed or catechism is a poor one.

[johnhp]

LOL! 
a hell of a manifesto from a guy too bored with to discuss the topic, and disinterested in to partipate.

"So, when are you going to answer the questions?"

What questions? 


does this mean that you are accepting the invitation on a quid pro quo basis.........Clarice ?   (not an insult, if you don't get the reference, I won't elaborate)

Look, it-puts-the-lotion-on-its-skin-o, you apparently did not bother reading the post.  You were the one who said that unilateral questioning was a-ok.  Now you want to back off that with this thread.  My point, that you support the unilateral questioning of others but not yourself is made.