The note about Catholics exacting a high price on defectors brings to mind the fact that this behavior is ALWAYS listed as one of the signs that a religious group is a harmful cult. Other items on the list are required in order to apply the cult label, but it is food for thought. Let us not admire or imitate such behavior.
When I joined the Catholic Church from an evangelical Calvinist tradition in 1986, my mother was concerned that I was on the path to Hell. She never told me and only much later my family informed me that they had to spend a little time with her to convince her otherwise.
I've found that those decamping from Catholic to a Protestant church often do so negatively; they are disgusted or bitter in some way. Those joining the Catholics from evangelical are more positive; they found something that was missing from the Protestant tradition that drew them in.
The issues of Catholics being hard hit home recently. In a “X” forum a friendly Catholic Lady asked for Catholic Testimonies, and then Protestant testimonies.
I do not normally do this, Testify personal history. I’m a Lutheran: Evangelical apologist.
Boy did I get jumped by a a hard nosed young Catholic man. I eventually told him he was expecting a bit much from a 17-19 year old young man (when I made my decisions).
But after having my personal testimony scissored, sliced, and critically examined and deemed a lie. (Even though my inquisitor was not even born then)
I think I’ll no longer give my personal testimony, and speak the Gospel message and apologetics only.
Adding some advice of my own to what the Cravaath lawyer said: if you're struggling to write a clear email, then pick up the phone, call the person you intend to receive it, and talk through what that email should say when you finally hit "send". So much confusion can be avoided by taking 2 minutes to hear someone's voice.
“Lyman stone observed, ‘I guess my take on the Ballerina Farm thing is that conservatives will absolutely never come out looking good when they let hostile reporters wanderer around their house for a few hours and judge their family, because the reporters are liberals who hate them.’” (This seems so obvious, yet I’m surprised by the naïveté of conservatives when it comes to trusting msm. I chalk it up to a tendency for good hearted people to think the best of others. My advice is never, ever give a reporter anything if you can avoid it. And print media are worst—particularly newspapers.)
The decline in the quality of the MSM has been rapid. Too rapid, maybe, for some to notice its extent?
In the 1990s, my late father taught me to see the MSM as a liberal -- and hence unreliable -- but generally well-meaning and largely truth-seeking force. Like the sort of Boomer leftist college professor or teacher who was intellectually curious, open-minded, and not openly hateful towards conservatives. And this was probably a decent characterization of that era.
But the decline continues year after year, which might have been hard for people to notice who refuse to update their views, either because they're too positive, or because they regarded the MSM as infinitely bad even during the Clinton Administration.
The entire Trump era was characterized by a decline in media quality, but I thought the Rittenhouse shootings were the most palpable moment of deterioration in the MSM's reliability. A lot of people, relying solely on the MSM, had an entirely upside-down view of the events, even after listening closely to the MSM for weeks. You could usually identify them by their use of the phrase "crossed state lines". A few of those people even reported being shocked when they learned the true story.
I think the Trump assassination attempt marked another very palpable moment of MSM decline, with headlines like "Trump whisked away by Secret Service after falling down at rally." I know several otherwise intelligent and not conspiracy-prone people who still insist that Trump wasn't hit by a bullet, which I have to think relates to how the MSM handled the issue.
The note about Catholics exacting a high price on defectors brings to mind the fact that this behavior is ALWAYS listed as one of the signs that a religious group is a harmful cult. Other items on the list are required in order to apply the cult label, but it is food for thought. Let us not admire or imitate such behavior.
When I joined the Catholic Church from an evangelical Calvinist tradition in 1986, my mother was concerned that I was on the path to Hell. She never told me and only much later my family informed me that they had to spend a little time with her to convince her otherwise.
I've found that those decamping from Catholic to a Protestant church often do so negatively; they are disgusted or bitter in some way. Those joining the Catholics from evangelical are more positive; they found something that was missing from the Protestant tradition that drew them in.
The issues of Catholics being hard hit home recently. In a “X” forum a friendly Catholic Lady asked for Catholic Testimonies, and then Protestant testimonies.
I do not normally do this, Testify personal history. I’m a Lutheran: Evangelical apologist.
Boy did I get jumped by a a hard nosed young Catholic man. I eventually told him he was expecting a bit much from a 17-19 year old young man (when I made my decisions).
But after having my personal testimony scissored, sliced, and critically examined and deemed a lie. (Even though my inquisitor was not even born then)
I think I’ll no longer give my personal testimony, and speak the Gospel message and apologetics only.
Adding some advice of my own to what the Cravaath lawyer said: if you're struggling to write a clear email, then pick up the phone, call the person you intend to receive it, and talk through what that email should say when you finally hit "send". So much confusion can be avoided by taking 2 minutes to hear someone's voice.
“Lyman stone observed, ‘I guess my take on the Ballerina Farm thing is that conservatives will absolutely never come out looking good when they let hostile reporters wanderer around their house for a few hours and judge their family, because the reporters are liberals who hate them.’” (This seems so obvious, yet I’m surprised by the naïveté of conservatives when it comes to trusting msm. I chalk it up to a tendency for good hearted people to think the best of others. My advice is never, ever give a reporter anything if you can avoid it. And print media are worst—particularly newspapers.)
The decline in the quality of the MSM has been rapid. Too rapid, maybe, for some to notice its extent?
In the 1990s, my late father taught me to see the MSM as a liberal -- and hence unreliable -- but generally well-meaning and largely truth-seeking force. Like the sort of Boomer leftist college professor or teacher who was intellectually curious, open-minded, and not openly hateful towards conservatives. And this was probably a decent characterization of that era.
But the decline continues year after year, which might have been hard for people to notice who refuse to update their views, either because they're too positive, or because they regarded the MSM as infinitely bad even during the Clinton Administration.
The entire Trump era was characterized by a decline in media quality, but I thought the Rittenhouse shootings were the most palpable moment of deterioration in the MSM's reliability. A lot of people, relying solely on the MSM, had an entirely upside-down view of the events, even after listening closely to the MSM for weeks. You could usually identify them by their use of the phrase "crossed state lines". A few of those people even reported being shocked when they learned the true story.
I think the Trump assassination attempt marked another very palpable moment of MSM decline, with headlines like "Trump whisked away by Secret Service after falling down at rally." I know several otherwise intelligent and not conspiracy-prone people who still insist that Trump wasn't hit by a bullet, which I have to think relates to how the MSM handled the issue.