Catechism study

Okay, first off, there was the fact that you doubled the time for the Bible study, without even noticing it.  On a day when, quite frankly, you had absolutely nothing to say about the Bible passage that we were studying. (Even though it's got some major points to make in that chapter.)  So, that's two hours of my life I will never get back again.  And, disappointingly, your group didn't challenge, or even contribute, much to any of the discussion that was going on.  And an interesting discussion that did start, you eventually completely steamrollered, and then went on with your non-content for the study.

But, yes, it was your last major point, that really perturbed me.  Not necessarily that I disagreed with your point, although it's hard to say what your point was, because what you were saying seemed to argue both for, and then against, free will.  Both of your arguments seemed to come from your catechism.  And, as usual, there is to be absolutely no questioning, analysis, discussion, or debate about anything from the catechism.  Unlike passages out of scripture.  So, your catechism is more important than the scripture?

But it was the self-contradiction in your arguments that was the real sticking point.  No, it's not that I disagree with your theology.  No, it's not that I don't understand your theological points.  It's that I don't understand why you can't see that your arguments contradict each other.  So, at one point you seemed to be saying that free will was absolutely necessary.  You seemed to be saying that election, as a doctrine, meant that God was arbitrary and therefore cruel.  But then you turned to another point, and said that we did not choose to have faith in God.  That our faith in God was not our choice, but was imposed on us by God: that we had no choice in that matter.  But then you also said that if we did believe in God, that that was not a matter of our free choice, it was imposed upon us, but that if we did not believe in God, if we did not have faith, then that was our free choice in rejecting God.  So if we decide *for* God, that is because of election; but if we *reject* God, then that is because of our free will.

And you don't see any contradiction in that?

So then I made my joke about, "So what you are saying is that we have to believe in free will: we have no choice."  Not only did you not understand the joke, you didn't even understand that it *was* a joke.  And your one parishioner who did seem to get the joke, quickly stifled himself, possibly under an expectation that agreeing that it was a joke would have violated your catechism?

So this was disappointing in a number of ways.  First of all, it seems that your group isn't too terribly interesting, at least not as interesting as I originally thought.  I did realize that you were hung up on the catechism, but in some previous studies you had shown at least *some* willingness to debate and look at interesting topics.  But this particular study definitely did not show any indications of that, and, not only that, but wasted a great deal more time than usual.  Possibly your time is becoming less valuable, but my calendar is starting to fill up, and I'm disappointed that it seems that I may be kind of trapped, by your offer of books, into continuing to attend what may be a big waste of time.

You asked me to explain what my difficulty was.  Of course, you were on the completely wrong track, since you decided that I didn't understand some theological point, rather than the fact that it was your presentation, and your lack of understanding of the inherent contradiction in your various positions, that was the problem.

But, now that I've had some time to think about it, simply the fact that I have been able to specify, even for myself (even if you never read this), and formulate, relatively accurately, what the problem was, I do feel better.

One of the disappointments is that, having demonstrated a willingness to look at interesting ideas, it's clear that that was only an initial come on, and you're really not prepared to engage in any debate or analysis.  Another reason is that, somehow, you managed to turn the entire group against me, to get them all to attack me, to convince them that I was a heretic in need of instruction.  That was rather disappointing.  Of course, it was my own fault.  I, in the heat of the moment, and under attack, could not fully recollect the specifics of what you had said, and what was so damaged about your arguments.  I should have foreseen this type of strategy, and just kept my mouth shut.