Thanks for the memories, but it's time for Christians to unite not fight

self | 3/2/2015 | two134711

[two134711]

Thank you Free Republic for allowing me to post and vent on this site for over ten years. I am a young, married conservative woman who is trying to raise her daughter to be a fine, upstanding lady, an educated woman and a worthy wife to a decent man. Despite the stupidity of my generation (I am on the cusp of GenX and GenY) there is hope. Many young people are more prolife than ever. And at last, many others are beginning to open their eyes to the lies of socialism.

However recent events on this site like witnessing the discord between fellow believers of Christ and how the Religious moderators have given carte blanche to those who wish to spread hate is not something I want to be part of.

I received this message from the Religion Moderator regarding Key words received 03/02/2015 8:45:19 PM PST

“DO NOT use keywords to snipe at other posters or beliefs. RM”

I certainly did not post key words that sniped at anyone; they were terms such as "enough already,” “Christianity,” “unity” and "peace." Now, yes, the comments I made were invectives thrown at posters. I don't deny that; but they deserved every word directed at them and more. Outside of Caucus threads the religious forum is based on sniping at posters and insulting other's beliefs. Mostly it’s a few alleged “Evangelicals” damning those Papists, pedophiles, pagans, cracker-eaters, cannibals and Mary-worshipping heretics to Hell if they don't convert to the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism or the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879. Then a very small contingent of Catholics tries to fight back.

These are the kind of comments are allowed on the religious forums without any moderation.

"I believe that Catholicism has caused more people to go to hell then [sic] Islam."
84 posted on 2/23/2015, 2:36:42 PM by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)

AND

**Have you accepted the Catholic Church** "I have accepted Jesus. Not some abomination created by man."
98 posted on 2/23/2015, 2:46:17 PM by Gamecock (Joel Osteen is a minister of the Gospel like Captain Crunch is a Naval line officer.)

I have no skin in this game other than to realize that Christians (and Jews) are not each other’s enemies. There is a much more diabolical force in this world that should be fought. Anti-theists, Islamists, secular amoralists, etc., they're nothing. But, hey, keep going after Catholics and Mormons because they're the ones ruining the world today!

I said those words because it was the truth, (a truth that many others see but do not mention; they merely avoid the conflicts). If the anti-Catholic delusional bigots have a problem with the truth, then a pox on their houses.

I have posted on and off this site for over ten years. Every time I come back here I think to myself, “Wow, FR is one of the only sites telling it like it is when it comes to politics!” But then the OCD religious posters take control over and over again. It’s not just the religious forums, but they’re the worst. In the past the moderation was far more even-handed. Now it’s out of control. Please use more judiciousness in moderating them in the future.

You are losing members left and right and your fundraisers take months to complete. I am aware that the owner of this site, Mr. Robinson, is a Catholic, and I’m sure it breaks his heart to see such infighting amongst fellow Christians. I hope his health betters and that he can continue to fight the goof fight.

Nevertheless, FR's days as a premium conservative site are over. There a quite a few decent folks around here like Mrs. Don-0, xzins, Morgana, miss marmelstein, wardaddy, that fellow named something like yefrugeturbrumuy, and lots of others. There are many good folks with diverse opinions and no malice in their hearts.

But some others seem possessed by other-world forces. Mostly they're old people scared of death, wanting to make sure they get in with God before the end, desperate to hold on to every penny they've ever come across, willing to kvetch about the future and frequently mentioning how glad they'll be when they're dead and won't have to deal with this world, while their children and grandchildren will. Or worse, they actively wish for the world to end today or soon. Sorry, I'm young enough to have a smidgen of hope despite the moral disaster this world is in.

The Apple squabbles, the griping about TV and art, heck even the "my candidate is better than your candidate" bloodletting is nothing compared to the nutters that run rampant on the religion forum.

So Religious moderator, if you thought my key words were examples of “sniping,” then I suppose this post was outright bashing. Every time I come to this site I get angry. Anger opens up the heart to dark forces; it’s best not to be part of that.

Got to go. May peace come to this once wonderful site and make it a place of harmony for future posters.

[RnMomof7]

LOL

[mlizzy]

Two or three (or more if you think there are more) lukewarm Catholics can ruin it for everyone. That’s why shared moderation with a TRUE Roman Catholic [you’ve got daily-Mass-variety RCs on this site who are of a high intellect] would be a possible answer as to lessening the shenanigans on the open forum threads, bringing forth some lively honest debate.

[Resettozero]

That’s why shared moderation with a TRUE Roman Catholic [you’ve got daily-Mass-variety RCs on this site who are of a high intellect] would be a possible answer as to lessening the shenanigans on the open forum threads, bringing forth some lively honest debate.

Yes, you've made this point many times on this thread, all the while desisting from any "lively honest debate" yourself, instead (for example) preferring to show a pic of one of your religious icons in the snow.

[mlizzy]

If you want lively debate, ping someone you like debating with. Easy-peasy, no? I don’t debate with insulting peeps. Plus my dear husband told me long ago, “don’t bother with the repetitive NCCs; they’re not interested in learning anything about the faith anyway.”

[Elsie]

Well; I am gonna QUIT donatin' 'til those OTHER people are forced to quit postin' on FR.

It's a damned SHAME!

Shut UP!

[Elsie]

 

 

[Elsie]

Our Lady might even smile at that one Elsie.

I would hope so!

Any thing that would lighten her image a bit.

I don't ever think I've seen a picture or sculpture of her SMILING...

[Resettozero]

I don’t debate with insulting peeps. Plus my dear husband told me long ago, “don’t bother with the repetitive NCCs; they’re not interested in learning anything about the faith anyway.”

Your husband was correct. Should have taken heed of him.

[Elsie]

So, many Protestants have stopped helping fund FR in addition to RCs and atheists.

Is it a cyclical kinda thing?

More in Presidential years and less in others?

[Elsie]

Awesome pix!

[Alex Murphy]

Two or three (or more if you think there are more) lukewarm Catholics can ruin it for everyone.

Interesting assumption, that it's this small cadre of "lukewarm" Catholics who are acting as troublemakers. None of the TRUE Catholics are troublemakers, certainly one of the daily-mass-attending variety. And the way you propose dealing with them? I believe that starts here:

That’s why shared moderation with a TRUE Roman Catholic [you’ve got daily-Mass-variety RCs on this site who are of a high intellect] would be a possible answer as to lessening the shenanigans on the open forum threads, bringing forth some lively honest debate.

So this proposal that I'm reading starts with opening a Free Republic branch of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where the CDF-approved Moderator(s) will

• Root out the lukewarm Catholics in hiding, and eliminate their posting privileges
• Shutting down the Religion Forum
• Establish multiple "Religion Judengasses" (hereafter "RJs") within the Smoky Back Room.
• Establish a set of sumptuary posting rules, requiring all RJ posters to self-identify their church affiliation in their posting signature.
• Use their posting signatures to group posts and posters into appropriate RJ subforums.
• Moderators will insure that all "lively" debate only occurs between preapproved, "non-trouble making" posters.

Am I getting the details of the full proposal correct, so far?

[Resettozero]

Thank you for increasing my word power.

Now...to listen to Elvis sing “In the Judengasse”.

[Gamecock]

**That’s why shared moderation with a TRUE Roman Catholic [you’ve got daily-Mass-variety RCs on this site who are of a high intellect]**

I seem to remember an Evangelical who posted around these parts many years ago. He was very quick to tell you that his IQ was superior to the garden variety poster.

[Grateful2God]

**Unfortunately, the Mormons are here on their bicycles, **

Those people believe just as strongly in what they practice as you believe in your Bible verses. They aren't terrorists. If you think they're wrong, or are imposing their faith on others, what makes you different, trying to impose your beliefs, with intent stated, on us Catholics? I may not agree with what they believe, but it takes a lot of courage of conviction to go house-to house that way.

When Jesus was born, and His star was in the sky, angels appeared to the Jewish shepherds from Bethlehem. They believe in the God of Abraham.

13 - And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying:
14 - Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

Three men from the East, who sought their deity in the stars, had enough conviction in their faith to pack up and follow that star. Men who could afford, not only the trip, but gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, bowed to a little Baby whose family could afford little more than the swaddling bands He had been wrapped in.

12 And having received an answer in sleep that they should not return to Herod, they went back another way into their country.

I don't believe there is some kind of monopoly on Heaven. any more than I would believe that "men of good will" means that there are no women there! Men of good will come in all colors, all nations, all kinds of denominations. Would you have chosen to stand at the door and ban the Magi, because they were of a different belief? The God Who created them wanted them there, and reached out to them through their own belief system, their open hearts, and a wonderful star He placed in the heavens. Who would we be to reject them?

God's House has many mansions! Anyone who would want them segregated, perhaps doesn't belong there in the first place. However we want to look at it, it's God's decision, not theirs, mine - or yours, either.

God bless you, and may He take the disdain shown in your posts, out of your heart.

[mlizzy]

Brian Kopp answered you very well with some commentary previously. So has NYer.

[Gamecock]

So you are good with anti-Trinitarians?

[Grateful2God]

**If one would ask them as a group where their strength comes from, they'd say from He who has His arms wrapped around Mary. And if you asked them if they loved Mary, they would say something like, yes, indeed, we love Mama Mary.** You got it! Amen! 🙌

[Resettozero]

God bless you, and may He take the disdain shown in your posts, out of your heart.

A blessing...and a curse; same sentence.

Perhaps one day, we'll all just get along by becoming RC/Mormans/Muslims in a nice one-world religion...directed by...who do you suggest?

[Grateful2God]

I have never cursed anyone; I pray that God opens your heart to people who don’t share your belief. Your reply shows how you judge others that way.

[Springfield Reformer]

Two quick thought.

1.  I didn't mean "walk away" in a permanent sense.  More in the sense that when you see a thread that is spiraling downward into personal invective and has gotten off the path of discussing ideas, it's time to walk the dog, or mow the lawn, or get something useful done in that other part of life, the part not lived in the cyberverse of FR.  Nevertheless, there are many useful things that happen here, and they make it worthwhile to stay on despite the difficulties. But on a thread-by-thread basis, it's like what Kenny Rogers says, sometimes you hold up, some times you fold up, sometimes you walk away, sometimes you run. But if you're not too emotionally invested in protecting yourself from "sternly worded opposition," it's really not so bad here, and speaking for myself, I find it easy enough to keep coming back in search of the good, despite turning up an occasional nugget of bad.

2.  With respect to Brian Kopp's theory on self-moderation, I'd vote against the Smokey Back Room solution, with total self-moderation.  I see self-moderation as an extra layer we'd add to the existing rules.  The reason is simple.  a) We really need a referee, and b) I think it's OK, and maybe even beneficial, to have these conversations in a more public setting.  I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but I've seen posters here talking like they miss the good old days of the Inquisition. IIRC, when they were called on it, it was minimized as a misunderstanding. But I want to tell you, it's really something else to suddenly realize that people can think that way about you, especially people who profess to be part of the family of Christ. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I did take it personally. I enjoy being alive. I don't want to contemplate that there are people who think it would be better if I weren't, even hypothetically. Except of course Koranic literalists.  It's more or less expected from them.

The point I'm making is, when there are some here with such strong feelings, having a referee with real control and good judgment is a good thing.  The additional layers of self-moderation would go to things less extreme, but critical to civilized discourse.  For example, presently we cannot attribute motives to an individual FReeper, and that's good, because only God knows motives, or degree of sincerity or any of those hidden matters of the heart.  But we should also have a self-limitation that we do not make inflammatory generalizations ("all X are liars," "all Y are perverts", etc.), most of which are OK under the rules, but a) are irrational claims that only inject error into the discussion, and b) utterly fail to respect God's exclusive jurisdiction over the heart.

So I'm proposing both/and. And keep it public.  Think of it as a motivational aid.  If we want to do these conversations, presumably it is to an evangelistic purpose, whether we are the seeker or the propounder of truth.  If so, why would we want to hide our light under the bushel of the Smokey Back Room?  Let it shine, but let it shine well, seasoned with grace and kindness in the spirit of Christian love.  But let it also shine true.  Love hates evil, but rejoices in the truth.  So we speak truth, according to our best lights, but do so in the spirit of godly wisdom, as James puts it:

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
(James 3:17-18)

Peace,

SR