Coffee, Donuts, & Spite?

[mikemac]

What TheReturnofLive was doing in that thread that got locked was comparing his "fun little read" about the Age of Kali to Catholicism in a religious relativism kind of way.  And then trying to say that is what Thomas Aquinas did.  Sheesh.

That's not at all what I did and it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as such.

I have 0 interest in Hinduism as a religious possibility for myself or others (how can a sect which philosophically permits the Cult of Kali's terror (The goddess, not the demon) ever be considered worth following); Indeed, Catholicism's own internal logic would not stoop to that level. If I had to choose a religion that originated in India and is still practiced there (so Buddhism doesn't count), it would be Sikhism, not Jainism (where people worship naked people) nor Hinduism (see above)


I came across it and thought it was a really insightful piece of their scriptures, because it reflects humanity (especially today) all too well, and was relevant for social / political reasons. I think much of it is true (Not all of it), hence why I shared it.

My quoting of Thomas Aquinas was to show how ridiculous your standards of censorship are, because implicitly, you are claiming to be above Thomas Aquinas (who, in fact, read pagan, Islamic, and Jewish theology), and to demonstrate how the Emperor has no clothes - in this case, the Inquisition.

You fairly quickly segued into Pon de Relay's 'project' then you posted this.  "Specifically, she identified the domination of Judeo-Christian values with the "Age of Kali".  That is religious relativism.

[TheReturnofLive]

What TheReturnofLive was doing in that thread that got locked was comparing his "fun little read" about the Age of Kali to Catholicism in a religious relativism kind of way.  And then trying to say that is what Thomas Aquinas did.  Sheesh.

That's not at all what I did and it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as such.

I have 0 interest in Hinduism as a religious possibility for myself or others (how can a sect which philosophically permits the Cult of Kali's terror (The goddess, not the demon) ever be considered worth following); Indeed, Catholicism's own internal logic would not stoop to that level. If I had to choose a religion that originated in India and is still practiced there (so Buddhism doesn't count), it would be Sikhism, not Jainism (where people worship naked people) nor Hinduism (see above)


I came across it and thought it was a really insightful piece of their scriptures, because it reflects humanity (especially today) all too well, and was relevant for social / political reasons. I think much of it is true (Not all of it), hence why I shared it.

My quoting of Thomas Aquinas was to show how ridiculous your standards of censorship are, because implicitly, you are claiming to be above Thomas Aquinas (who, in fact, read pagan, Islamic, and Jewish theology), and to demonstrate how the Emperor has no clothes - in this case, the Inquisition.

You fairly quickly segued into Pon de Relay's 'project' then you posted this.  "Specifically, she identified the domination of Judeo-Christian values with the "Age of Kali".  That is religious relativism.

Yes.

Pon de Replay is writing a play on the topic of Savitri Devi and Nazi Occultism, so he's very interested in the topic.

And Savitri Devi did believe in that stuff; she was a French-born Greek Hindu Nazi whacko who genuinely thought (and wrote so in her books) that Hitler was God incarnate. She's absolutely insane (or insanely evil).

Read her Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi

I merely pointed out that literal Nazis / Far-Right followers tend to be interested in Hinduism because of Savitri Devi.

[Insanis]

TheReturnOfLive: you and the others have a history here. You cannot ignore that or play innocent. Just look around this subforum.

You were provocative and you knew it.

[TheReturnofLive]

TheReturnOfLive: you and the others have a history here. You cannot ignore that or play innocent. Just look around this subforum.

You were provocative and you knew it.

No I wasn't.

The only times  I have become hostile is against you, Ex Cathedra, Jayne, and mikemac, particularly because you guys constantly make it clear how much you hate me by how much times you backseat moderate and passive-aggressively call for my censorship, or intentionally derail my own threads; not based on any logic or reason, but your own whims (which my hostility is meant to prove; my contributing to the derailing of the Kali thread was to logically demonstrate how nonsensical your arguments are, so any third party can see how crazy your arguments are). That's my history.

Look through all my posts here; the latest thing that can be construed as remotely Anti-Catholic (based on Ex Cathedra posting it) was posted 3 years ago, and it was me explaining the logic of why the Eastern Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception as a dogma.

Ala Occam's Razor, any reasonable person can look at that thread and see who was malicious. There's no "conspiracy" to antagonize Insanis's pure Catholicism by posting a random tidbit from a religion I have 0 interest in. 

Let me ask you something: if I intended to provoke, why would I post it in the section near the bottom of the page described as "Anything else goes here", instead of posting it in "General Catholic Discussion" or "Ask a Traditionalist", which are the most active parts of this website?

[Lydia Purpuraria]

Maybe, but I'm not going to assume that he purposely framed it that way just to provoke particular reactions.

That thread was locked and you can see my first post on it was not harsh. It was just stating a simple thing about it.

What came after were responses to provocation.

He posted something I thought was not fitting, but it was his defense of it that was provoking.

Yeah, I didn't think your first post was harsh. I think maybe you're both feeling a bit provoked by each other though (sometimes with good reason and sometimes not so much, in my opinion), and carrying over a build-up of hostilities from thread-to-thread is probably just adding to perceptions of intentional provocation or error from either 'side' when there may not actually be any, you know? 

And just look at this person's posts in this very subforum to see what he is like. He calls to ban me, says he won't respond to me, says he won't be posting if I am am, etc.

Do you think it is wrong to think that these recent posts have any pattern to them?

I don't agree with all of his posts/actions; but I think some of them probably have something to do with what I mentioned above.  (And I'm not trying to place blame on anyone for what's been going on, to be clear, just pointing out some of my observations.  I actually think that if you all could try and bury the hatchet, you might even have some pretty decent conversations with one another ... or not [edit].)

[Lydia Purpuraria]

I asked the following in an earlier post, and wanted to ask again for clarification:

Most of the non-Catholics (and some Catholics) were expressing interest in the secular-political sense of it though, were they not?  Is that type of discussion not allowed or inappropriate on here?

[edit to note: "expressing interest" as in discussing it, not endorsing it...]

[Insanis]

Most of the non-Catholics (and some Catholics) were expressing interest in the secular-political sense of it though, were they not?  Is that type of discussion not allowed or inappropriate on here?

I'm not the one to answer for this for forum policy, but from a Catholic forum perspective, the direct link to such a thing in that subforum with no good reason was inappropriate.

The Coffee Pot's description of:

Discuss anything not included elsewhere right here!

Is not to mean anything at all, but rather, anything within the context of this forum that doesn't have a specific subforum.

It is called the "Parish Hall".

The context of this forum is such that such writings are not to be posted without a very good reason and in a subforum for Catholics to discuss it.

If you look at the participants, in order of appearance, bolded means Catholic and against the thread, maroon means non-Catholic.

TheReturnOfLive (Doubter, OP)
clau clau (unsure of religion, but made joke of the years involved)
Insanis (Catholic, expressed concern about such a thing being posted)
Jayne (Catholic, agreed with me)
mikemac (Catholic, agreed with me)
Lydia Purpuraria (You)
Optatus (Catholic, Discussed Hinduism a bit)
TheSaintsAreComing (Atheist)
Pon de Replay (Non-Catholic troll)
diaduit (Catholic, agreed with me)

That is significant. While Optatus discussed the topic a bit, and clau clau made a joke, all the other Catholics were against it being posted, including one I personally irritate with my posting. If diaduit and I agree on something, there is probably something to it.

And the admin locked the thread.

So you can see that if the majority of Catholics who responded were against it, and the other Catholic(s) were making very small commentary and not otherwise engaging too much, the discussion was driven by the maroons (not all equally).

Also, the OP has a fascination with this topic.

I would say as a Catholic forum and a forum, that such topics should be heavily moderated and only done for a good reason.

As forum policy, it didn't belong in the Coffee Pot to be sure, and it wasn't a topic that should have been dominated by non-Catholics.

[Insanis]

[edit to note: "expressing interest" as in discussing it, not endorsing it...]

In an intellectual and spiritual sense, that is very much looking at obscene imagery for the sake of "appreciating beauty".

It is dangerous and largely an excuse.

[Insanis]

No I wasn't.

The only times  I have become hostile is against you, Ex Cathedra, Jayne, and mikemac, particularly because you guys constantly make it clear how much you hate me by how much times you backseat moderate and passive-aggressively call for my censorship, or intentionally derail my own threads; not based on any logic or reason, but your own whims (which my hostility is meant to prove; my contributing to the derailing of the Kali thread was to logically demonstrate how nonsensical your arguments are, so any third party can see how crazy your arguments are). That's my history.

Look at the facts. Look at this.

I, Jayne, and mikemac are a minority. Jayne is the top poster, and mikemac has the most time online.

I'm new, but I probably have the most posts at least at certain times for the short period of time where I have been active here.

If we were average posters, we would be completely drowned out by your non-Catholic friends.

It is difficult enough to keep up on any given thread, where I am outnumbered, and the people with more time here probably don't have the will to post at such a high volume as I do, given how long they've been doing it.

For a Catholic forum, for any thread to be overwhelmed by non-Catholics, and your accusations and other accusations leveled at us, it is very hostile to us.

Do you think I post here the way I do because I get something out of it or that I like it? No. If I am on this forum, certain things take precedence such defending the faith is next to avoiding sin in myself.

As for hate, I don't hate people. I see the danger people are in and how they can endanger others.

You have an abundance of threads calling me by name and making false accusations, and you accuse me of "hate".

[Insanis]

The attempts of you and your kind to find some sort of grave error or hypocrisy is pitiful.

[Jayne]

The only times  I have become hostile is against you, Ex Cathedra, Jayne, and mikemac, particularly because you guys constantly make it clear how much you hate me by how much times you backseat moderate and passive-aggressively call for my censorship, or intentionally derail my own threads...

I do not hate you.  I do not even find you irritating enough to put in my ignore file.  I have never called for you to be banned. I have mentioned that I would like a return of the forum policy that does not allow subject lines that call out other posters by name.  Since you are someone who does this, I suppose you might see that as calling for your censorship, but it certainly is not directed at you personally.  I have disapproved of the way you express your hostility, using name-calling and false accusations, but again, that is not personal.  I react the same way no matter who does it.

My reaction to you personally is dominated by my awareness that you describe yourself as a "doubting Roman Catholic". Faith is not a static quantity.  We are either growing in faith or decreasing.  When a person who doubts seeks out other Catholics, he is either looking for help in resolving those doubts or trying to spread those doubts to others.  So I look for a pattern in your posts to determine which you are doing. 

I also occasionally give you advice on the assumption that you are here for help.  A person who is dealing with doubts should not be investigating other religions (no matter what St. Thomas Aquinas did) or pursuing idle curiosity.  If Optatus finds it interesting to discuss believers in the age of Kali, I see no reason to be concerned.  It is otherwise for you.  Your posts should be directed toward changing your status to "Roman Catholic" with no mention of doubting.

So I do think there should be limits on what you post about, although I want to see you imposing them on yourself, (possibly with the assistance of a spiritual director, but it is definitely not KK's job).  When I mention such limits, you might perceive it as an attempt to censor you, but it is advice.  It is not motivated by hate but by my wish for your spiritual good.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

[edit to note: "expressing interest" as in discussing it, not endorsing it...]

In an intellectual and spiritual sense, that is very much looking at obscene imagery for the sake of "appreciating beauty".

It is dangerous and largely an excuse.

If the conversation in that thread had been along the lines of, "let's look at some of those associated with the alt-right/far-right and their views on Kali Yuga/esoteric Nazism (etc.) so that we can appreciate the beauty of their political motivations," (basically, 'endorsing' them), then I think what you said here would be a valid point taken; conversation like that would obviously be inappropriate and unacceptable on a Catholic forum. But that's not what I was asking about (neither was it what anyone was doing in that thread). 

How can any discussion on Communism, or Feminism, or Freemasonry, or "Wokeism", and so on possibly be allowed on a traditional Catholic forum?  It's all dangerous stuff opposed to Catholicism!  (Rhetorical question.)

[edited for posterity's sake  ]

[TheReturnofLive]

[edit to note: "expressing interest" as in discussing it, not endorsing it...]

In an intellectual and spiritual sense, that is very much looking at obscene imagery for the sake of "appreciating beauty".

It is dangerous and largely an excuse.

If the conversation in that thread had been along the lines of, "let's look at some of those associated with the alt-right/far-right and their views on Kali Yuga/esoteric Nazism (etc.) so that we can appreciate the beauty of their political motivations," (basically, 'endorsing' them), then I think what you said here would be a valid point taken; conversation like that would obviously be inappropriate and unacceptable on a Catholic forum. But that's not what I was asking about (neither was it what anyone was doing in that thread). 

How can any discussion on Communism, or Feminism, or Freemasonry, or "Wokeism", and so on possibly be allowed by anyone on a traditional Catholic forum?  It's all dangerous stuff opposed to Catholicism!  (Rhetorical question.)

I would think that these "Prophets from Nebraska", who, guided by the Holy Spirit and free from corruption of heretical content, would at least read the text I post before immediately assuming that I'm spreading pagan doctrines and trying to undermine Catholicism.

Politics tend to be tied to religious doctrine; it's at least why some fundamentalists are so anti-vaccine (fear of the Mark of the Beast) and explains at least one reason why Catholics and Orthodox tend to be Anti-Israel (The Church Fathers continually identify the Antichrist as Jewish, some even saying he will be enthroned in Jerusalem, and that the Anti-Christ will be seen as the Jewish Messiah), and one reason why Evangelical Bible Thumpers tend to be Pro-Israel (they literally think that the modern Israel State is a successor to the Kingdom of the Israelites).

I admit that I should've been more "descriptive" in my title, but I didn't think that these "Holy Prophets" would assume I was trying to encourage pagan worship - for if you actually read the text, no reasonable, sane, or rational person could come to that conclusion. Nor have I even brought up Hinduism on this site, other than bringing up their denial of the First Cause (something all Karmaic / Dharmaic religions deny [including Buddhists and Jainists as well; the only exceptions being Sikhs and maybe Vajrayana Buddhists or other esoteric Mahayana sects]).

Plus, I wanted some discussion on other topics than the same old tiring rants on Pope Francis, the evils of the Novus Ordo, Fatima, How evil the inclusion of the Luminous Mysteries are, whether the Novus Ordo is valid or invalid, or some random infidel converting to Evangelical Christianity because he felt fire in his belly.

The people who find Traditional Catholicism tend to be either intelligent individuals who can see how the ethos and statements of "JPII-we love you" Catholicism are logically contradictory to its entire past spirituality and are able to find the Latin Mass, and share my own moral values / convictions.

Or they tend to be fundamentalist ignoramuses who will claim that reading anything other than private visions, Thomas Aquinas, or the Bible is dangerous to your soul.

Hence why I wanted to talk online with some Catholics, in a forum which is predominately more open to discussion than other places (at least, until a certain "Saint" has graced us with his presence and violently pounds his feet louder than Khrushchev did at the United Nations).

[Insanis]

How can any discussion on Communism, or Feminism, or Freemasonry, or "Wokeism", and so on possibly be allowed by anyone on a traditional Catholic forum?  It's all dangerous stuff opposed to Catholicism!  (Rhetorical question.)

Exactly.

Those kinds of things are not a free for all discussion for everybody.

They must be discussed within the context of the forum.

[Insanis]

Does anyone not see that this is a forum issue?

This thread was about the number and kind of hostile threads in this subforum.

A thread from the same poster who made most of those threads made another thread about Hinduism in the Coffee and Donuts and it was locked, and discussion of that locked thread moved to this one.

When a thread is closed, continuing discussion of it another thread is very weird.

If people want a free form chat, they can use the chat. It is better than using a random thread to continue closed discussions.