| 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
None of the posters have the power to kill the Religious Forum just as none of us have the power to set the rules, decide who gets banned, who gets deleted, what threads stay, what comments go. The owner and moderators have that power so I don't understand the justification of shifting the blame to us.
If those who have truly have the power and authority to "kill the religious forum" do not want to own up to their responsibility, then simply admit that the new policy of Hyper-Ecumenicalism is what will kill the religous forum. If those with serious religious convictions get tired of the compulsory superficial PoMo "love" for false teachers, heretics, blasphemers and cultists, then they can just slowly turn away and allow the forum to reflect the personality and the religious sentiments of the moderators.
In an interesting article Jeff Jacoby asks the Democratic Candidates "4. Is there any serious problem in American society that you do *not* believe calls for some kind of government response?"
The answers were quite revealing, not only about the candidates, but with the attitude of The They in regards to the New Tone in The Religious Forum. Lieberman came up with a specific answer "Incivility"While public officials can lead by example, he said, "government cannot apply laws or adopt programs to force Americans to be kind and decent to one another.... Sharpton said "government cannot and should not legislate people's values or regulate the same."
I find it interesting that Democrats who believe that every aspect of life should be improved by government intervention find that there is no way to make people "civil towards one another". The They, here in the Free Republic clearly disagree, and feel that through programs and threats they can force people to change their values and force people to be civil.
God knew that cultures, language and religion were things that divide up people, such at the Tower of Babel, He simply changed their language, and the world dispersed. If merely changing the language made it impossible for the people to live with each other, causing them to disperse to the opposite side of the globe, then what can we expect to see in regards to forced acceptance of alternate religion?History is scarred with the tenor of religious animosity, a Howard Dean forced smile will not do anyone any good.
The three topics that we were all told to avoid in polite company was Sex, Religion and Politics. Free Republic has been one of the best forums for discussion on the latter two. Now we are told to do what generations of people have not been able to do and that is to discuss highly emotional and inflammatory subjects as Prozac laden frontal-lobotomized disinterested strangers. The idea is that no one here cares enough about their convictions to actually stand firm. Wouldn't it be nice and swell if this same philosophy could be incorporated into solving the Middle East imbroglio? Just issue a decree that everyone will smile and be nice and the Orange & Green battles would cease. Joseph Smith and his crew would not have been forced to flee to the barren wasteland of Utah to escape persecution. The Puritans would never have felt it necessary to risk life and limb to escape the hand of the Anglican Church. Thomas de Torquemada would have led a 12-step program rather than torture chambers. The Crusades never would have happened if only we were as enlightened then as we are now.
I was "banned" for a day because I didn't know that the phrase "private interpretation of Scripture" was hate-speech or violated the "profanity, racism and promotion of violence" rules. When the phrase "The Swarm" needs to be defended because the Presumption of Guilt automatically assumes that "The Swarm" is pejorative hate speech, then there is indeed a chill wind blowing.
So in contrast to the statement made by The They, The Religious Forum is indeed dead, for it has adopted the personality of those who regulate it. Is this a bad thing? Not for those who agree, and there are many (Matthew 7:14-15,21-23). But a religious forum that once was a raucus voluntary place to fight without swords and boiling oil, it is now a bathhouse that gives aid and shelter to those who are enemies to the gospel.
Due to perceived capriciousness (is this a flame because I actually express an opinion?) of those who have their hands on the trigger, it is no longer safe to post anything of content or value in this forum and still enjoy the fruits of the political side of this otherwise excellent service provided by JR. For indeed this was the stated purpose - to drive off folks like me. Rome's methods of excommunication have been revived in the ironic cause for "diversity". Dogmatics be gone!
Assuming that this is will be automatically deemed Strike Two because it is an honest and frank observation, and to the delight of the Hyper Ecumenicalists, and members of the Embrace a Scoffer cabal, I will bless the rest by going on a indefinite voluntary sabbatical from the Religion forum. There is no fruit in communing in a virtual group hug with scoffers, heretics, blasphemers and the general population of the American Religion.
2 Corinthians 6:14-17
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Get off your high-horse.
No one is advocating "superficial love for false teachers."
24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,That's all the mods are asking. If you can't abide with that, well too bad, so sad you're mad.
25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, -- 2Tim 2:24-25 [NASB]
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
But if we do go that route, we're going to have to have a lot of discussions on how y'all are going to self police it so that the staff here doesn't get overwhelmed with it.
I forward the questions to the respective denominational groups that I know of and ask them:
Do you think we can police ourselves in this regard - again by caveats in the thread header identifying this as a XXXXXX thread, whos intent it is to present doctrine etc
Perhaps as a parent thread
Subsequent threads could be used to discuss doctrine, questions, contradictions etc?
What think ye guys ?
I am willing to abide by such a system myself.
So I put forward:
1.) Parent thread (Identified as a parent thread) for the initial purpose of publicly presenting your own doctrine. Comment by non adherents to that doctrine is prohibited
2.) Daughter threads for open discussion - referring back to the parent thread
If you like it fine - if not fine - Im just tryin to come to an understanding while the mods are talkative and amiable ;)
had lurked for a couple years - just couldnt stand it anymore LOL
I strongly agree with your view that an edit tool would be helpful. And I strongly agree with Sidebar Moderator that it is sad that too many do not reconsider their phrasing before mashing "post".
IMHO, too many posters lose sight of the fact that there is a real human being - a brother or sister in many common causes - on the other end of the Freeper handle, a person who may be deeply hurt by careless words which would never have been spoken face-to-face.
As an example, I recall an incident long ago when a bright but very young conservative college student just barely 20 was trying to engage a hardened old-timer on a subject of little consequence (and long since forgotten). The old-timer kept reacting aggressively to the youngster as if he were speaking with someone just like himself. When the age of his opponent was revealed, the conversation changed entirely and the old-timer became patient and careful with his words.
Matthew 16:
23: But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."
John 19
[27] Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
Could be ..but it does not matter ..the religion forum is not a place where truth come in second to getting along.Posts such as these will always be taken as attacks against the moderator. Consider this a warning.
Is it true?? --> truth come(s) in second to getting along
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.