| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/26/2004 9:33:25 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
This thread is now locked. It has served its purpose. thank you all for your participation and patience. |
Posted on 01/22/2004 6:34:29 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
Actually I did understand the post just fine...One of the attractions of FR is that it has been "free" , now we are concerned with embarrassing the Republicans and conservatives . I wonder if Jesus would get a warning when he rebuked the Pharisees ?
We just need to remember nothing happens outside Gods will..so it this forum grows or is shut down we can praise God either way for being sovereign in all things..
Jesus tells us that there are those that were not given eyes to see...so He is often missed in the midst of what looks like a storm
Is that the same as the smoky back room :>))
Believers, through the Holy Spirit, also have spiritual discernment, which allows them to fulfill the following direct command of scripture:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but TEST THE SPIRITS to see whether they are from God, because many FALSE PROPHETS have gone out into the world.
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." (1John 4:1-3, emphasis mine)
If we did not have the capacity of spiritual discernment, God would never have commanded us to test the spirits (a reference to the spirit within those proclaiming a message, in the context of 1John: False prophets) or to defend the faith.
Speaking as someone who mostly lurks rather than posts in the Religion forum, I think I may be missing the point here as well. Respectfully, might I ask a few questions for the purpose of clarification of the new rules?
Those who refuse to learn how to discuss God and theology without the use of ad hominums, insults, name-calling and other unpleasant tactics won't be around long.
Can we assume to limit such only to other members actually posting, or does the restriction apply in general? For example:
The former president of the Southern Baptist Convention called Mohammed a "demon-possessed pedophile" (or some such language; I cannot recall the precise phrase). Would a posting that used that language be forbidden under the new rules, since Muslims would obviously find it offensive? Is historical anecdote (for example, the fact that Mohammed actually did have a 6 year-old wife) defense against such usage, or is such historical context irrelevant?
Similarly, it could be suggested that news article mentioning pedophile priests might be offensive to those who are members of those sects. Does that mean that such articles are now forbidden? If not, what about use of such biblically "extreme" words as "sodomite" relating to the recent Episcopal heresy? For that matter, is "heresy" too strong of a word? You mentioned (in the original post), for example, the attacks against "new-age Catholics" (or words to that effect). Do the new rules preclude those who might have traditional views of Catholic doctrine (i.e., a devout belief in the sanctity of life) from using the word "heretic" against those who tolerate or embrace such things as abortion, yet who still claim to be Catholic? If so, does the limitation only apply against actual members of FR, or does such restrictions against "name-calling" include a general prohibition (so that such language could not be applied to anyone at all, even the subject of some posted article)?
Finally, what about the posting of scripture? There are any number of bible verses which might be considered offensive or insulting (and even categorized as "hate speech" in some places). Can we always assume that posting scripture is acceptable, or should such text be avoided? And does such acceptability apply to non-canon texts or to the scripture of other religions (for example, posting from the Quran for no other purpose than to reveal the nature of the religion through such verses as "kill the infidel wherever you find him", etc.)?
In the effort of clarification I could probably ask quite a few more questions of a similar form, but I think the answers to the above would sufficiently elucidate the intent of what the new rules are intending to accomplish. My initial suspicion was that it was simply an attempt to stop the Arminian-Calvinist clashes and the Catholic bashing, but the response to post 60 (banning a tag line) led me to believe that the intent is to do something of much greater scope. If you can clarify what the actual objective is and what scope it covers, I would be appreciative.
Here's a hypothetical I think is pertinent.
Some people consider Wiccan to be a religion; even the U.S. Army makes allowance for it. What if a Wiccan fervently insists their religion is Christian?
What is the permissible response on Free Republic from an orthodox Christian, i.e. a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Roman Catholic?
Because it's understandable that most traditional/orthodox Christians would be appalled by that error and naturally want to refute it. I'd expect a Jew to challenge me if I said I was "a Jew who believed in the Trinity and Christ's resurrection."
Most democrats and Republicans do not fear for their mortal soul if ignorant musings are offered about politics in their presence.
But "Defending the Faith" has been a rallying cry to the death for the past 2,000 - 5,000 years. All jokes aside, it's no small matter to people of faith.
So? If a Wiccan says they're a Christian on this public forum, where lurkers and children and shut-ins and DU get all their information, is it okay to rebut that claim?
Partisanship, after all, is not a bad thing. William Wallace never actually yelled "Freedom!" as he lay dying.
He shouted "Scotland!"
I don't think a degree in theology is required for the mod to do his/her job.
All (s)he needs to do this job is the ability to recognize the difference between, "Jesus is the eternal Son" and "Jesus is the Eternal Son....You (Expletive Deleted) Piece of (Expletive Deleted)"
No racist, violent, or abusive posts. I could make a case for those being the same posting guidelines that Jesus would come out with.
Beyond that you hear a lot of opportunity for freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.