Update: I received an "infraction" from a Catholic Answers moderator:
"
After reviewing your post, and your explaination for it, I have reached the conclusion that, although this post does not reach the level of contempt for Catholicism, it does show a general disrespect. Your explaination does not appear to be in accord with what you posted. This is also illustrated in your screen shots of the deleted posts on your blog.
I would highly suggest you change your tone to be in accordance with CAF rules in the future."
*************************
...Well no, I didn't call the Steve Gregg Show,
but a Catholic Answers participant did. Based on the discussion that ensued, I thought this call to Mr. Gregg would be interesting to hear, so I tracked it down, and posted it for the Catholic Answers folks.
Here's the clip. After posting it, I took part in a brief discussion, only to have my posts deleted (along with the link to the mp3 clip). Here's what went down:
Yesterday, 6:31 pm
|
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 710
Religion: Reformed
|
|
 Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamski 
It was a day or 2 before I pistes on catholic answers
|
Ok: Here's an mp3 clip of your call. Click to listen, or right-click to save.
If this was your call, it seemed to me that Gregg was fair with you, despite cutting you off from time to time. In fact, you leave his broadcast on quite cordial terms.
JS
|
Today, 1:27 am
|
|
Junior Member
| |
Join Date: September 10, 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 360
Religion: Catholic (revert)
|
|
Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
Quote:
Originally Posted by TertiumQuid
Ok: Here's an mp3 clip of your call. Click to listen, or right-click to save.
If this was your call, it seemed to me that Gregg was fair with you, despite cutting you off from time to time. In fact, you leave his broadcast on quite cordial terms.
JS |
Yes I think he was fair with me.
I just think its silly to say his version of Christianity is right because he can interpate the bible better. That's rediculous Luther and Calvin both great Protestant scholars claimed they where both right because the could interpate the bible better and they argued who is right. I used to go to bible study fellowship when I was a Protestant and all they did was argue
|
|
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 710
Religion: Reformed
|
|
Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamski
Yes I think he was fair with me.
I just think its silly to say his version of Christianity is right because he can interpate the bible better. That's rediculous Luther and Calvin both great Protestant scholars claimed they where both right because the could interpate the bible better and they argued who is right. I used to go to bible study fellowship when I was a Protestant and all they did was argue
|
I don't recall Calvin and Luther ever arguing about anything with each other.
Keep in mind, during the 16th century, everyone argued with everyone, including those attached to the Roman church. One need only search out the squabbles between the different orders of monks.
Edited to add: Steve Gregg makes some good points to you, while other points were not so good. For instance, the claim that Tim Staples did not "know" his Bible previous to becoming Roman Catholic is simply untrue. As much as I may disagree with Mr. Staples, it certainly is the case he has quite a lot of Scripture memorized, and had this before joining Rome.
JS
|
Today, 10:55 am
|
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 5,906
Religion: Catholic (revert)
|
|
Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
Quote:
Originally Posted by TertiumQuid
I don't recall Calvin and Luther ever arguing about anything with each other.
Keep in mind, during the 16th century, everyone argued with everyone, including those attached to the Roman church. One need only search out the squabbles between the different orders of monks.
Edited to add: Steve Gregg makes some good points to you, while other points were not so good. For instance, the claim that Tim Staples did not "know" his Bible previous to becoming Roman Catholic is simply untrue. As much as I may disagree with Mr. Staples, it certainly is the case he has quite a lot of Scripture memorized, and had this before joining Rome.
JS
|
The terms "Roman church" and "joining Rome" are highly offensive. What Staples joined was the Catholic Church.
|
|
Today, 11:07 am
|
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 710
Religion: Reformed
|
|
Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaServant
The terms "Roman church" and "joining Rome" are highly offensive. What Staples joined was the Catholic Church.
|
"Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...holic-religion
|
Today, 11:11 am
|
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 5,906
Religion: Catholic (revert)
|
|
Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
Quote:
Originally Posted by TertiumQuid
"Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...holic-religion |
Nice dodge. 
You didn't say "Roman Rite". You said "Roman church" and "joining Rome".
You're not talking to a cradle Catholic whose never darkened the door of a Protestant church. I am very much aware of the code words you use and why you use them
|
|
Today, 11:12 am
|
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 710
Religion: Reformed
|
|
 Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
By the way, you're welcome, since no one said thanks to me for taking the time to search for the show, find the section in which the call took place, edit the clip out, post it on my server, and then make a downloadable link for all of you to have.
Then you're welcome for me defending Mr. Staples against Steve Gregg assertion.
But of course, the comment I got was how I made a "highly offensive" comment.
Go figure.
JS
Edited to add:
"Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite."
|
Today, 11:15 am
|
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 5,906
Religion: Catholic (revert)
|
|
Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
Quote:
Originally Posted by TertiumQuid 
By the way, you're welcome, since no one said thanks to me for taking the time to search for the show, find the section in which the call took place, edit the clip out, post it on my server, and then make a downloadable link for all of you to have.
Then you're welcome for me defending Mr. Staples against Steve Gregg assertion.
But of course, the comment I got was how I made a "highly offensive" comment.
Go figure.
JS
|
The matryr routine doesn't go very far with me dude. 
Maybe that's the result of having eastern European relatives.
All one has to do is read your blog to see your true feelings and motivations for coming here.
You're not fooling anyone
|
Today, 11:17 am
|
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 710
Religion: Reformed
|
|
Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaServant
The matryr routine doesn't go very far with me dude.
Maybe that's the result of having eastern European relatives.
All one has to do is read your blog to see your true feelings and motivations for coming here.
You're not fooling anyone. |
You are now ignore. So post whatever you want "dude", I'm going to ignore you.
|
Posts
32 comments:
The use of "Roman" did not seem to bother Pope Leo Xlll.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
"Similarly the Fourth Council of Lateran declares: "The Roman Church, as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, by the will of Christ obtains primacy of jurisdiction over all other Churches." These declarations were preceded by the consent of antiquity which ever acknowledged, without the slightest doubt or hesitation, the Bishops of Rome, and revered them, as the legitimate successors of St. Peter."
Thanks Algo.
You had asked me if Catholic Answers had deleted my posts since January 2013. It appears they have deleted a lot of my posts. This morning, I had 710 posts, after I was "infracted," I had 696. I'm not sure why the moderator, Eric Hilbert did this.
Here's what I sent to him in response to the infraction he gave me:
___________________
I try to abide by the CA rules as much as possible, and did not realize what I had posted while I was defending Mr. Staples had violated the rules.
In the future, can I use the phrase, "Roman rite" or "Roman church" as described by this CA link:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...holic-religion
If so, had I revised my sentence in the following way, would it still show "general disrespect" and if so, Why? I'm simply going by the explanation in a CA link:
"For instance, the claim that Tim Staples did not 'know" his Bible previous to joining the Roman rite is simply untrue. As much as I may disagree with Mr. Staples, it certainly is the case he has quite a lot of Scripture memorized, and had this before joining the Roman church."
Note, the CA link in question uses both terms, and does not capitalize the word, "church." If I'm missing something, please let me know. Keep in mind, the link in question, written by someone on staff for Catholic Answers uses the term, "Roman Catholics"-
Quote:
"There are many Catholics in the East who are not Roman Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics. These are all in communion with the pope, but they are not members of the Roman rite, so they are not Roman Catholics."
_____________________________
I haven't heard back yet from Mr. Hilbert, there's a good chance I won't hear back from him.
Now you've gone and done it, James.
http://www.hark.com/clips/hhghwhvwkf-your-attitude-has-been-noted
Is it me, or do RCs tend to be more zealous and emotional when defending their faith than Evangelicals are?
Well, I'm not sure what you read, but I've found that the Protestant posters on the CARM boards are zealous to the point of insulting anyone who gets in their way, very similar to many of the Catholic Answers folks.
"...I've found that the Protestant posters on the CARM boards are zealous to the point of insulting anyone who gets in their way..."
This is true, however I can't think of Protestant forum "moderation" that approaches the zeal of CAF. Maybe that's because I don't get around that much or maybe it's because the truth claims of Catholicism require extra protection...
I don't recall Calvin and Luther ever arguing about anything with each other.
Sarcasm?
Or were you being serious?
I think that the RCs bash opposition apologists more severely than Evangelicals do.
Hi James Swan. I have a user account there too. I have at least 5 infraction violations. You wont get a fair shake from them in any manner. The infractions that I have received would make you see the bias that they have over there and the favortism that is practiced by the moderators. They will literally look for anything and any thing to claim an infraction on. This is standard practice that they do to Protestants by and large. I had shown the infractions to several Roman Catholic friends of mine and they could not believe it at all. I hardly post any comments there since each time I have done so I have received an infraction even though I cant see any real reason as to why. They also allowed people to insult me and say anything towards me and I am the one who gets an infraction. I warn my Roman Catholic family and friends not to go there at all. I see them as the Roman Catholic version of Jack Chick.
I dont visit CAF much, but it seems that they have banned discussions on Atheism/Evolution for a very long time.
I guess that if New Atheists / Village Atheists post there, they would stir up more trouble than we do.
CAF seems like a formidable forum with so many people coming at you like piranhas. Too bad I wont get my questions relating to atheism answered there!
Rhology said...
Sarcasm?
Or were you being serious?
As far as I know, there wasn't any interactions between Luther and Calvin of note. If I recall correctly, Calvin wrote Luther 1 or 2 letters, but Melanchthon appears to have intercepted them.
The claim from the CA person though appeared to be that Luther and Calvin fought with each other. Perhaps he meant Zwingli.
Chafer DTS:
Very recently the CAF moderators have been picking on me a bit more, particularly Mr. Hilbert. I suspect it may have something to do with my blog and my affiliation with the aomin blog. In other words, in their eyes I can't be trusted, so it looks as though any chance they get, I'm going to get infractions. Even in this recent episode, I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that the poster "Just a Servant" or someone else sent in an alert on me, simply because of my blog. Had it been some other person using the word "Roman" it probably wouldn't have meant anything. I hope this is the case, because if they're just haphazardly giving out infractions, that actually looks worse for their fairness and moderating skill.
One thing is clear about Catholic Answers: they are scared of any views that oppose their own, even if the person holding them tries to follow their rules. The reason? It probably has something to do with their hopes of bringing as many people as possible into the Roman church. Just like one of those futuristic sci-fi movies, any dissenting voices need to be eliminated to keep the process going.
This reminds me of the time I was banned from the Coming Home forums even before I made one post. If I recall, I logged on to provide a person with some information about a Roman Catholic scholar (whose name I forget at the moment), nothing even remotely controversial, and I was banned immediately, simply because of who I was.
Rooney said...
I dont visit CAF much, but it seems that they have banned discussions on Atheism/Evolution for a very long time.
There are a number of topics that CAF is afraid of. Perhaps they don't have "answers" for such topics.
Is it me, or do RCs tend to be more zealous and emotional when defending their faith than Evangelicals are?
. They will literally look for anything and any thing to claim an infraction on. This is standard practice that they do to Protestants by and large. I had shown the infractions to several Roman Catholic friends of mine and they could not believe it at all. I hardly post any comments there since each time I have done so I have received an infraction even though I cant see any real reason as to why. They also allowed people to insult me and say anything towards me and I am the one who gets an infraction.
Maybe not as touchy as the "dear leader" of N. Korea, but many are quite reactionary against most anything that even seems to impugn Rome.
I believe some of the boys at CA long for the days of the Inquisition, and are not happy at Rome losing its unholy sword, and look for opportunities to shoe some muscle with what they have.
I believe some of the boys at CA long for the days of the Inquisition, and are not happy at Rome losing its unholy sword, and look for opportunities to shoe some muscle with what they have.
There appear to be many different types of Romanists: some lean severely ecumenical, some appear to long for the old days, and then well, there's a bunch of folks in between.
On the Amazon.com front, it really seems the RCs are winning the polemical war.
The reasons why are complex, but a major factor is that a large number of people who are "evangelical" are far more ecumenical towards Rome these days. A lot of Protestants don't think there are enough important differences to put up a fuss. So, they don't have the passion to post Amazon reviews, etc.
For a good read on this, see Iain Murry's Evangelicalism Divided. He has a very good chapter on ecumenical relations with Rome and what has happened.
. So many apologetic books on our side are given so many negative ratings while on their side, books by even less well know apologists
I have seen books which work against the claims of Rome get high ratings, but it is not hard for devotees to network in boosting ratings. Last time i looked at Roy Masters (who is further out than you think), all his books had 4-5 stars.
And the Mormons have been rather successful in keeping the negative aspects of Mormonism from being made plain on Wikipedia.
What we are dealing with is a cultic mindset in which the church or leader is such a sacrosanct object of devotion and security - thinking of men "above that is written" - that any objective critique or evidence against it (or the image they have of it) cannot be tolerated, nor those who provide such testimony, at least by the most devoted (and such RCs in some ways are often more Catholic than their church).
Rather than objectively examining the evidence to determine the validity of claims and go wherever the truth leads - which we ourselves must be willing to do - the faithful Catholic or typical cultist is forbidden from doing that as they are bound to defend their object of inordinate devotion and source of security no matter what cost.
RCs may invoke Scripture and history as they seek to defend Rome, but such is not the real basis for their faith, as such can only authoritatively mean what Rome says they mean. (Even if what Rome says is often open to some interpretation.)
This does not mean they cannot argue to support Rome by such, but their inability to even allow as a possibility a contrary interpretation, not matter how warranted and reasonable, often results in RC apologetics become an argument against Rome to objective seekers and defenders of truth.
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...
Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise?
( (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Cp. XXIII," the consistent believer," (1904) Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
I have seen books which work against the claims of Rome get high ratings, but it is not hard for devotees to network in boosting ratings. Last time i looked at Roy Masters (who is further out than you think), all his books had 4-5 stars. And the Mormons have been rather successful in keeping the negative aspects of Mormonism from being made plain on Wikipedia.
I didn't realize Mr. Masters was still around.
In regard to online book reviews, as with any review, one needs to be cautious. In front of me at the moment is an extremely useful and helpful book on Reformation research that at the time when I bought it had a bunch of negative reviews. I rarely if ever read Amazon book reviews. On the other hand, I will read reviews from journals.
Careful there Tertiumquid, I think you're setting up to get banned from CAF.
Algo and I (posting as Miguel Sastre) were banned within weeks of each other, and I don't think either of us saw it coming.
The unwritten rules seem to be as follows: 1) The more reasonable you are, the more unreasonable they become. 2) The more you expect to be treated with respect, the more likely it is you'll be the one blamed for "contempt for Catholicism."
One sure fire way you can know you're heading toward the ban is when the CAF crowd starts getting sensitive about the use of the word "Roman" as an addendum to the word "Catholic."
Despite the pedigree of the term "Roman" (even used by popes, as Algo pointed out), it doesn't jive with the new marketing campaign for "The Catholic Church, Inc. ® ", (you know, the church that Jesus founded). Instead you'll be told "Roman" is only acceptable when you're speaking of the "Roman rite," and this one issue will take the limelight.
If you say, for example, "I think the Roman Catholic claim to infallibility on the basis of Matthew 16:18-19 is bogus" you will have at least as many responders taking issue with your use of "Roman" as you will have those actually willing to dispute the substance of your claim.
I'm not a betting guy, but I'd love to know the over and under on your longevity at CAF.
Cheers,
Mike Taylor
You know what, there is actually a large number of RCs on CAF that gives their religion as "Roman Catholic" rather than "Catholic" or "Christian".
It appears to me that they finally placed a target on me, and are looking to shoot.
Ah well. No big deal, it was bound to happen.
Just a thought for after you get banned...
Someone good at graphic design ought to come up with an "I got banned at CAF" logo that bloggers can add to their blog pages.
Not only would this show that we aren't entirely down on "merit," but it would also show our solidarity--that we're all in this together. (Just so long as its not based on the purple heart schema, which should never be made light of.)
Maybe it could be modeled after the sanbenito garments worn by impenitents during the Inquisition. (Just a thought)
Someone good at graphic design ought to come up with an "I got banned at CAF" logo that bloggers can add to their blog pages.
I would tweak it to state, "I'm Reformed, and I got banned at CAF."
My co-blogger Carrie (whom I hope is well!) used to help me out with graphics. I know a few other folks who could do it as well.
Perhaps the "Reformed Memes" FB guy could do it.
Great idea.
I've heard of this "Carrie" person.
I figured the black helicopters took her long ago.
"I've heard of this "Carrie" person.
I figured the black helicopters took her long ago"
Yeah, kinda like Gene Bridges and the other 50 people that were co-bloggers on Triablogue.
Many are called, but few are bloggers. You know, they probably weren't bloggers to begin with, or they would've persevered. :)
the other 50 people that were co-bloggers on Triablogue.
It's kind of pathetic how they'll let just anyone contribute over there.
It's kind of pathetic how they'll let just anyone contribute over there.
lol.
So you are officially banned? What "naughty" stuff did you post?
I was banned once at CAF after asking some atheism-related questions.
After getting banned, I just created another CAF account.
No, I am not officially banned. I've actually been too busy to post anything on CAF.
I relate my own CAF "swan song" in a blog article about my experience. Two years later, I'm still pretty amazed at some of the spleen that was vented in my direction.
I was even accused of planning to come back incognito with another IEP address. I'm wondering how you managed to re-join under another account name. Are you now using a different computer?
(N.B. I'm not asking because I want back in. Once-banned, always banned [Hebrews 6:4].)
Since we're on the subject of debate forums is there a good one out there? (I agree with JS that CARM can be quite similar to CAF.)
Anyone interested in my CAF war story can go here:
http://fallibility.blogspot.com/2011/05/every-careless-word-part-1_14.html
"I was even accused of planning to come back incognito with another IEP address. I'm wondering how you managed to re-join under another account name. Are you now using a different computer?"
Well I never registered under my real name anyway. I just a different random username and they never caught me.
Post a Comment