Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: boatbums; strider44
That's a sorry excuse for freeloading!

You're a fabulous supporter of FR, boatbums, but it's not a sorry excuse. It's become an issue and one that is causing a lot of personal grief.

It's truly a shame that FR must bear the financial brunt.

Perhaps the definition of "personal attacks" might be altered to include one's religion, given that followers take it as a personal attack?

I view ALL Christians in the same Heavenly light.

233 posted on 03/08/2015 7:44:32 PM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies ]


To: onyx; boatbums; strider44
Perhaps the definition of "personal attacks" might be altered to include one's religion, given that followers take it as a personal attack?

What a bunch of garbage.

I will post threads from time to time on a topic I think might be interesting. I used to try and review the articles closely to make sure they didn't mention any other denomination so I could post them as caucus threads. Almost every thread was protested by Roman Catholics to the RM. I even had a RC protest that the Apostles Creed was written by the Roman Catholic Church and the thread couldn't be a caucus because of it.

On one occasion I posted a thread as a Caucus thread which mentioned the Reformed. Instead of being contacted by the RM. A Reformed believer mailed me and pointed out what he thought was an error.

It's clear to me that RC's can play the "victim card" with the best of them, but it doesn't mean it's true. My experience has been that RC's start claiming they're being "bashed" when a Christian quotes Scripture.

243 posted on 03/08/2015 8:06:25 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

To: onyx; DJ MacWoW
There is a HUGE double standard going on here and I am, frankly, surprised to be reading it on this thread by some of the people whom I thought were very supportive of Free Republic. If defining "personal attacks" is changed to include a specific religion rather than what we ALL understand it to mean, then it would eliminate ANY disagreements with anyone about anything of a religious nature. You're talking censorship and that's NOT what Free Republic is about.

I think there are already plenty of protections and safeguards built in with the way JR runs things here and for those who simply cannot tolerate reading criticism of their religion, there already IS an escape - DON'T CLICK ON THEM. Nobody has a gun to their heads forcing them to read, is there? There is plenty of warning given for what one can expect from OPEN RF threads, so no one has any excuse for getting their feelings hurt.

Why is it that on this thread the ONLY ones who are screaming for banning dissent are the Catholics? Do non-Caths just have thicker hides because we are used to having our faith attacked? I try not to let anyone get under my skin though I can't say I bat 1000 WRT that. I have had my share of personal spit-wads tossed my way and what they prompt me to do is pray for them. Choosing to participate on threads that may be contentious is something we must decide for ourselves. Unlike some here, I have learned and benefited from much that gets posted - both OPs and comments - and I don't take contention personally. I don't know them and they don't know me. I already KNOW it isn't personal - I don't expect someone showing up at my door with a gun just because I debated them on FR.

Instead of censorship, why don't we try for more sensitivity? I can disagree with someone and not be disagreeable.

278 posted on 03/08/2015 9:30:48 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson