Denomination Dissatisfaction

[rusmeister]

[Ben2747]

[rusmeister]

[Ben2747]

[rusmeister]

[Ben2747]

[rusmeister]

[Ben2747]

[JRosemary]

[Kolbitar]

To mitchellmckain:


::No it does not. The only other direction is indifference towards others and that inevitably leads back to intolerance.

…which leads to indifference, which leads to intolerance – it’s a vicious circle. Or more like a scale of extremes governed by the laws of over-reaction and over-simplification.

::You probably want [to] equate tolerance with indifference, but this is only because you are submitting people to a tyrrany of ideology… But if it is people that come first then tolerance is the opposite of indifference. The only way to fight intolerance is to learn to love each other in spite of our difference. This commitment is the only necessary commonality because any movement away from this is a movement towards the ugliness and scariness of intolerance.

Your use of the phrase “tyranny of ideology” is an example, to my mind, of the type of over-simplified generalization I’m having trouble with; it seems it’s the very type which dawns the mask of, and demands, “tolerance”: I find a contradiction in it.

You write, “The only way to fight intolerance is to learn to love each other in spite of our difference. This commitment is the only necessary commonality because any movement away from this is a movement towards the ugliness and scariness of intolerance.”

My reply is that any commitment to fight anything is an intolerant way of thinking leading to an intolerant act. Thus intolerance cannot always be inappropriate; nor need every submission (commitment) to a doctrine (ideology) -- for instance, one that sees all men created equal -- be one to tyranny. Like I said, the real question concerns the alignment of where, precisely, everyone should think and do together, and where they are free to be diverse.

When you say “But if it is people that come first then tolerance is the opposite of indifference” you have in mind the way we act towards people, not what we think about their beliefs and actions. So you would say that we should love others even without accepting their particular philosophies, ideologies, and ways of life, etc. In other words we should be tolerant in so far as we continue to love them (in how we act towards them). However, sometimes we can still be intolerant (not accepting) of their thoughts and even their actions.

So the next question I find myself asking is, in what ways are you being tolerant and intolerant, and are they consistent with your general criticism? It is here I find a contradiction. For you’re either constructing a phantom foe – represented, in part, by Catholicism – that not only appropriately refuses to tolerate wrong thoughts and actions but inappropriately goes too far by committing tyrannical actions in order to snuff them out; or, in actuality, YOU want everyone to think like you on this matter. Why do I say that? Well, if it’s already the case that everyone acts like you on this matter (and no sane, average, Catholic individual would disagree with you and say we shouldn’t “be tolerant and continue to love others” – nor does Catholic dogma and doctrine teach otherwise) then the only thing left concerns the way you want everyone to *think* on this matter – and this, according to your own profession, is “ugly and scary”!

Sincerely,

Jesse

[mitchellmckain]

[Kolbitar]

mitchellmckain, let's start with some basics. Here's what I'm working with.

I wrote:

"Doesn't the real question concern the alignment of where, precisely, everyone should think and do together, and where they are free to be diverse? For taken in itself the generalization that "the attitude that 'everyone should think and do like me' ... [is] ugly and scary" leads to an extreme that is just as ugly and scary as you deem its rival to be;"

You responded:

"No it does not. The only other direction is indifference towards others and that inevitably leads back to intolerance. You probably want equate tolerance with indifference, but this is only because you are submitting people to a tyrrany of ideology. But if it is people that come first then tolerance is the opposite of indifference. The only way to fight intolerance is to learn to love each other in spite of our difference. This commitment is the only necessary commonality because any movement away from this is a movement towards the ugliness and scariness of intolerance."

You've equated "intolerance" with "the attitude that 'everyone should think and do like me' ". You've also associated that "attitude" with Catholicism: "Well I don't see how you can hide from the reality of the diversity of Christianity, *even though the Catholics do try.* Personally I find this diversity like the diversity of humanity as a whole, to be a beautiful creation of God like the diversity of the natural world. It is the attitude that "everyone should think and do like me" that I find ugly and scary."

If there was any doubt about this association, you go on to later state, "Likewise, I judge the Catholic church... to be intolerant compared to other Christian denominations."

So far, then, two things are clear to me.

1. You've equated "intolerance" with "the attitude that 'everyone should think and do like me' ".

2. You find the Catholic Church to be inappropriately intolerant in certain ways.

Now, you may think that "inappropriately intolerant" is a redundant phrase; that intolerance entails being inappropriate. But how is that the case given the fact that you've equated "intolerance" with "the attitude that 'everyone should think and do like me'", and underlying your disapproval of intolerance is "the attitude that 'everyone should think and do like [you]'". Otherwise, why would you disapprove of it? Why do you want the Catholic Church to think and do like you on this matter?

In order to correct this contradiction, therefore, I asked you to consider a revision. I asked, "Doesn't the real question concern the alignment of where, precisely, everyone should think and do together, and where they are free to be diverse?" The answer is fairly obvious, and you implicitly affirm it -- like I said above. Once we establish that such a common alignment exists in principle, then we can begin to examine the various issues beneath the scrutiny of truth and falsehood, and according to whether or not they fit our accepted alignment; this is really the only way to avoid being (inappropriately) intolerant -- this is the only way to avoid attributing foul motives where the other party is sincerely hoping only that others share in the something beautiful they, themselves, have found to be TRUE.

Besides the ambiguity, to my mind, in the way you've applied the label "intolerant", I also find your use of the idea "tolerant" to be relatively meaningless and conveniently sentimental.

Here's an example of what I mean. You write:

"I still praised the Catholic church as wonderful in its opportunities and full-heartedly endorsed the Catholic church as the place to go if that is where one feels that God is leading one (which is something I doubt many Catholics would say about non Catholic churches, and that is precisely the kind of intolerance that I talking about)."

Now, I come from an Evangelical background -- I journeyed, from there, on to Quakerism, then to Episcopalianism, before becoming a Catholic. I believe the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church. I believe I was led there for many reasons, one of which involves the Sacraments. Sacramental churches understand one of the main functions of the church to be one of properly dispensing the Sacraments (which are means of grace). Therefore, the understanding of a sacramental church is profoundly different from a non-sacramental church. This understanding is the basis for the Vatican comments; yet you say you full-heartedly endorse the Catholic Church as the place to go if that is where one feels that God is leading one. But, again, one of the reasons I feel I was led -- by God -- to the Catholic Church (a leading you say you endorse) involves the very reason you consider Catholicism intolerant. Therefore, I (admittedly fallible and sometimes confused) fail to see how your position of tolerance is anything more than a sentimental facade, which sounds good but is packed with little substance.

Jesse

[mitchellmckain]

[Kolbitar]

::Since you say that this is what you mean I will ignore the first part of your post that sounds like complete nonsense to me, and focus on this, in hopes that this will be more fruitful. This latter explanation is indeed helpful and I think the conclusion is precisely what I suggested at the end of my last post which is that the tolerance that I see in the Protestant consensus about the essentials of Chrstianity is not a tolerance that you believe in. You believe that the distinctive aspects of what you call the Catholic church (whatever that may be), namely what you call "properly dispensing the sacraments" is what is essential and this is why you do not feel that you can recognize those churches which do not adhere to these things you consider essential to be valid or acceptable. I understand this, but I DO believe in this tolerance which you do not and therefore I call the Catholic church intolerant accordingly.

Mitchell, you call the Catholic Church intolerant because you are intolerant -- by your own definition. You have equated “intolerance” with “the attitude that everyone should believe the same.” I have no idea what “intolerance” means to people; it’s become an emotionally loaded buzzword used to divert the conversation from the issue of truth. I take issue only with the hypocrisy with which you fling the word at Catholics.


::Your claim that this "intolerance" is equated with "the attitude that everyone should believe the same" is absurd

Please go back, you are the one equating them. In my last response, check out the section that begins I wrote. In the section following, which begins You wrote (your response to I wrote), you simply rephrased “the attitude that ‘everyone should think and do like me’ that I find ugly and scary” as “the ugliness and scariness of intolerance.”

But let’s get back to my first point which has to do with the first paragraph in your initial post. I’ll quote it:

“I don't see how you can hide from the reality of the diversity of Christianity, even though the Catholics do try. Personally I find this diversity like the diversity of humanity as a whole, to be a beautiful creation of God like the diversity of the natural world. It is the attitude that "everyone should think and do like me" that I find ugly and scary.”

My point is that you want everyone to think and do like you, yet you don’t find that ugly and scary. Therefore, I suggested that, as it stands, the meaning of your phrase – the one I just quoted -- is too general. It’s as simple as that.

::because it is implicit and unavoidable that any concept of "intolerance" must include a belief in tolerance. Is it not perfectly obvious that the anti-Semite does not believe in the kind of tolerance that opposes anti-Semitism, so would it not be just as absurd for the anti-Semite to complain that we are equating "intolerance" with "the attitude that everyone should believe the same". Yes it is true that when we call the anti-Semite intolerant we are indeed saying that they should believe that anti-Semitism is wrong. But there is no inconsistency here at all.

Fine, then you agree with me that “the real question concern[s] the alignment of where, precisely, everyone should think and do together, and where they are free to be diverse.”

Again, you write, “Yes it is true that when we call the anti-Semite intolerant we are indeed saying that they should believe that anti-Semitism is wrong.” Yet this is an “attitude that ‘everyone should think and do like me’ [which you] find ugly and scary”.

However you choose to slice it so that you escape from your self-incriminating generalization -- thus the charge of hypocrisy I’ve leveled -- you must do so while at the same time showing why Catholic teaching doesn’t likewise escape it.

::Now you do not say whether you are EO or RC and that raises a parallel issue of tolerance between the EO and the RC, for it is becoming a quite apparent to me that the EO believe in a tolerance, which like that of the Protestant's, includes an acceptance of the RC, but in the EO case that tolerance does not extend to the Protestants. What is unfortunate is that the Roman Catholic church apparently does not believe in the EO idea of tolerance any more than it believes in the Protestant idea of tolerance.

I’m Catholic -- I stated that in my last post. Roman Catholics believe Jesus Christ established one Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church embodies the fullness of this truth. When I was confirmed as a Catholic, I did not have to be baptized; they recognized my baptism in an Evangelical church (fifteen years prior) as valid. That doesn’t seem intolerant to me (whatever you might mean by that word); nor does the fact that Catholics admit the possibility (and have the hope) that indeed not only are Protestants, the Orthodox, and even the Christian cults (JW, LDS, etc.) more or less united to the one true church at the very least by a Baptism of Desire – but sincere Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are as well. Many, if not most, conservative Protestant denominations do not believe in this BoD. Therefore, by your own rules, most orthodox Protestant denominations are not as “tolerant” as the Catholic Church is -- you’re not even right about that.

Good day,

Jesse

[Adam]