Response to Sudsy on Max

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by Bootstrap »

Sudsy wrote:Yes, everyone is free to post within the rules. You can continue asking Max questions, he can continue ignoring those questions. Personally, it seems to me, Max does not want a conversational relationship with you at this point and so asking more questions is what I mean by 'not working'.
I think the OP probably explains why he does not want a "conversational relationship". It would require him to answer questions he does not want to answer. Better to take offense and just keep repeating the same claims. If I am wrong, direct answers would clear that up.
Sudsy wrote:Until you both can get to a point of trusting each other in asking and answering questions, things will carry on as they are. From the sidelines, I'm just sharing what it looks like to me as when people quit answering each other, it often is because they are no longer trusting each other enough to answer.
Simple truth telling goes a long way toward establishing trust.
Sudsy wrote:I know if most things I say are challenged to be proven and/or the exact truth, at some point, I'm going to stop sharing with that person. I doubt few want to be questioned on most every statement they make. I think this is how you approach Max more than any of the rest of us. You don't trust what he says and you have your reasons and he does not trust you for his reasons to reply to your exploring of truth. So, continued questioning seems to be for a different reason than getting a reply as you know you won't get any answers.
I don't think this is about picky little details. This is about the big picture of whether Plain Catholics exist, whether the history Max is sharing is basically made up out of thin air, and whether there is a group of Catholics with Anabaptist theology. Max would be welcome to come and share with us as a Catholic, and would not need to make any of these claims to do so. But these questions are about the big picture, the fundamental way Max presents himself to us.

I think I know the answers. I think that's precisely why he stopped responding to me. If I'm wrong, it would be helpful to explain what I missed. The OP lists the answers I have come to, and the reasons I have come to these conclusions. The same conclusions Wikipedia came to, which prompted them to delete the article on Plain Catholics. Probably the same conclusions that explain why Plain Catholics are no longer discussed on Catholic Forums.

In the meantime, at least people have learned how to look at an Internet image and identify its original source. That's a useful skill.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by GaryK »

It seems quite obvious to me that you do not believe Plain Catholics exist. Numerous people have suggested you let this go. Why is it so important to prove your point?
0 x
KingdomBuilder
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by KingdomBuilder »

Discussion and the hope for any resolution on "plain Catholics" seems vain at this point.
A better use of time just may be debating whether or not unicorns belong to the family equidae...
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by Valerie »

KingdomBuilder wrote:Discussion and the hope for any resolution on "plain Catholics" seems vain at this point.
A better use of time just may be debating whether or not unicorns belong to the family equidae...
I think he is walking circumspectly- following Jesus example in knowing when snares/traps are set
0 x
justme
Posts: 740
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:57 am
Location: central pa
Affiliation: hermit

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by justme »

this is how i see it.
whether max's people are a figment of his imagination or not, is not the point anymore.

the point, as i see it, is that max was caught in what boot feels are falsehoods, and max hasn't acknowledged that. max continues to portray himself as the person with all the answers and boot doesn't want folks on mn to think that max is truthful.

i watched the attempt at reconciliation. it was one-sided. max refused to participate.
so for those of you who feel that max is trying to be nice by not corresponding with boot? i disagree. it's passive aggressive, and it's a power struggle between the two of them. let them fight it out to the bitter end, and hopefully they won't take anyone else down with them when they go out in flames.

my opinion.
0 x
Anything seems possible if you don't know what you are talking about. fb meme
justme
Posts: 740
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:57 am
Location: central pa
Affiliation: hermit

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by justme »

Valerie wrote:I think he is walking circumspectly-
i disagree.
0 x
Anything seems possible if you don't know what you are talking about. fb meme
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by Valerie »

justme wrote:this is how i see it.
whether max's people are a figment of his imagination or not, is not the point anymore.

the point, as i see it, is that max was caught in what boot feels are falsehoods, and max hasn't acknowledged that. max continues to portray himself as the person with all the answers and boot doesn't want folks on mn to think that max is truthful.

i watched the attempt at reconciliation. it was one-sided. max refused to participate.
so for those of you who feel that max is trying to be nice by not corresponding with boot? i disagree. it's passive aggressive, and it's a power struggle between the two of them. let them fight it out to the bitter end, and hopefully they won't take anyone else down with them when they go out in flames.

my opinion.
To me, Max knows better- no offense to Boot, but I have seen him go round and round on things to prove people wrong about many things, like marriage and divorce for example- and I have never really seen anyone convince Boot of anything- he always keeps his original opinions-but Boot has pretty much made it clear he thinks Max is a liar. I think Max probably recognized that, and face it, being a Catholic on an Anabaptist website has been quite enlightening to see how a Catholic might be treated- I think Max has shown his love for Anabaptists and I feel like the Anabaptists have reminded him often of their loathing for Catholics.
0 x
GaryK
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by GaryK »

justme wrote:this is how i see it.
whether max's people are a figment of his imagination or not, is not the point anymore.

the point, as i see it, is that max was caught in what boot feels are falsehoods, and max hasn't acknowledged that. max continues to portray himself as the person with all the answers and boot doesn't want folks on mn to think that max is truthful.

i watched the attempt at reconciliation. it was one-sided. max refused to participate.
so for those of you who feel that max is trying to be nice by not corresponding with boot? i disagree. it's passive aggressive, and it's a power struggle between the two of them. let them fight it out to the bitter end, and hopefully they won't take anyone else down with them when they go out in flames.

my opinion.
Fighting it out to the bitter end doesn't seem very Christlike to me. And this is in no way an endorsement of one party over the other. Jesus had some pretty straight forward things to say about power struggles.
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Valerie wrote: ...being a Catholic on an Anabaptist website has been quite enlightening to see how a Catholic might be treated- I think Max has shown his love for Anabaptists and I feel like the Anabaptists have reminded him often of their loathing for Catholics.
He issue is not that Max is Catholic, the issue is that the movement that Max claims to be a part of is, by all appearances, a total fabrication. So when Max offers input in a discussion from a "Plain Catholic" perspective it is purely fictitious - but it becomes part of the discussion nevertheless.

I agree with Boot. If Max was on this discussion board as an honest Roman Catholic who has an interest in Anabaptism, even in Plain church lifestyle practices, nobody would take offense - though he might get some push back if he pushed Roman Catholic doctrine the way you push Eastern Orthodox doctrine. But creating a false persona and a false religious movement and using that as the basis of one's discussion is trolling at best, it poisons honest and sincere dialogue on this group.

I did not start my other thread on Plain Catholics and Anabaptists as a snare. Max made some statements about Schleitheim and Dortrecht, I wanted to know how he understood those confessions of faith. And if there really are Plain Catholics I would welcome them to a discussion on why they are plain and how they relate to Anabaptism.

Max (or whoever posts under that name) should consider seriously the need to repent and to be honest before God and men. There is no such thing as "Plain Catholics" of the sort this person has represented.
0 x
Neto
Posts: 4574
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Response to Sudsy on Max

Post by Neto »

In this general context of dealing with opinions you do not wish to have the appearance of being normal anabaptist thought, back in the MD days I got ensnared in a discussion with someone who was questioning the deity of the Christ of God. I thought that it was important that this false doctrine not go unchallenged, so I jumped in. There were a couple of other participants, but most dropped out after awhile, and I was a bit put out that everyone else had abandoned the 'discussion'. But then I did some searching on the MD database, and found that this issue had been 'discussed' with this same individual a couple of times before, and that all of the Scriptures I was quoting had been referenced already in these previous discussions. So, now I tend to just hope that a new-comer will search enough to find the former threads. But maybe that doesn't happen, so maybe it would be best to simply reference the former thread in any new ones that come up, but not go to all the work of muddling through it all over again each time.
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Post Reply