GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS (Don't Say You Weren't Warned)

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[Sidebar Moderator]

GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS
(Don't Say You Weren't Warned)

The bad news is that I am the newly designated moderator of Free Republic's Religion Forum. The good news is that I am the newly designated moderator of Free Republic's Religion Forum.

First, let's discuss why this is bad news.

I have no doubt that everyone who participates in this forum is aware of the general posting guidelines of Free Republic; they've been in effect as long as Free Republic has been in existence. Just for clarity, here they are again: "NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."

Having spent the better part of a week reading as much as I was able to get to on the Religion Forum, which includes virtually every currently posted thread, I can say that I've seen no profanity (should be a given on a forum devoted to religion), and only one or two posts which could be construed to contain violence. On that score I commend you all.

Unfortunately, however, personal attacks are rampant. Protestants attack Catholics, and vice versa. Within these two major Christian families, Calvinists attack Arminians, and tit-for-tat. Traditional Catholics attack New Age Catholics, and back it comes. Self-professed Christians of all flavors post gratuitous insults and jibes directed toward Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses frequently. Threads are posted for the obvious and sole purpose of flaming "the opposition", whoever that might be in any particular instance. I could go on and on with further examples, but from many of your posted comments it is clear that all of you are aware of these facts, and seemingly, accept them as the order of things.

It is not the order of things, and it will no longer be tolerated.

Sadly, a forum devoted to perhaps the highest endeavor of the human mind and soul, that of the religious expression of faith, has become an embarrassment to Free Republic. All too often the discourse appearing in the Religion Forum resembles that found in those threads devoted to the War on Drugs, less the profanity, of course. Consequently, the question whether the Religion Forum will remain much longer as a feature of Free Republic, at least in its present format, is very much up in the air. How that question is answered depends entirely on the response each and every one of you make to this announcement in the next few weeks.

Therefore, from this time forward, the Free Republic rule of " NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.", will be more strictly enforced. Furthermore, you are all reminded that this is a religion forum; that is, all practitioners of any recognized religion, provided they also follow the rules, are welcome. However, since a large majority of posters to this forum are self-professing Christians, of one flavor or another, some additional rules will be imposed. You should all be quite familiar with them, even though some of you seem to pay them no heed at present.

These rules are:

"The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'." [Mark 12:31 (RSV)]

"But I say to you that hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you." [Luke 6:27 (RSV)]

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." [John 13:34 (RSV)]

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." [John 14:15 (RSV)]

Or, if the commandments of our Lord Jesus are insufficient (paraphrasing Paul) speak the truth in love.

For now, enough of the harsh words. There really is good news.

First and foremost, all that has passed prior to today is forgiven. However, my forgiveness, unlike that of God, is continuing but not unlimited. After all, I'm a sinner, too. Transgressions of the rules will be met with three warnings, followed by three progressively lengthy suspensions, after which unrepentant posters will be, shall we say, cast into the outer darkness. Totally outrageous violations, of course, remain subject to the ultimate penalty immediately, as always.

However, I am also aware that love, in the Biblical sense, is not the Hollywood kind of love we hear about all around us these days. Spirited debate is a hallmark of Free Republic, and is welcome. Sometimes the truth (at least as we understand it, through a glass darkly) sounds rather harsh, but even harsh truth can be couched in terms that allow the Christian love of the speaker to come through.

Further, no matter how you read the tenor of this announcement, I am not a martinet. I can be persuaded to change my mind by reasoned discourse. On the other hand, sinful nature that I have, I do not suffer fools gladly. Directing complaints to me over some action I have taken is fine; doing so with insulting language will not achieve the results you desire, and in fact, will probably result in something far worse. And, as always, I am not the ultimate authority regarding any decision I make; anything I do can be appealed to one higher court - Jim Robinson, by whose direction I am here as moderator.

There are some things I will not do. I will not arbitrate theological disputes. I will not resolve questions of church polity. Nor will I render judgment on interpretations of Scripture. Those are all issues for legitimate debate, and I do not propose to take part as just another poster on this forum. Naturally, I have my own opinions on all these issues, but my opinions are my own and I will keep them to myself.

You should also know, I suppose, that I was selected as the moderator of the Religion Forum because no one else wanted to wade into the mess that this forum has become. All too often when abuse reports come into the moderators from the Religion Forum it is discovered that there are no clean hands in the dispute under complaint. More often than not removing the post complained about generates another abuse report asking "why was I punished when he said thus-and-so first". In many cases, removing all of the offending posts makes the thread unreadable. So, whatever you think of me now, or come to think of me in the next few weeks, I'm your last chance. After me comes the abyss.

And do yourself a favor; before you respond to this announcement remember the immortal advice of Jim Croce:

'You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim'

I'm not Jim, but I've got his ear.

One final word. I am not here 24/7. I actually have a life away from Free Republic; consequently your questions/complaints/comments may not be answered immediately. Be patient, they will be answered eventually. In the end, my goal is (our goal should be) that there will come the day when my presence here is unnoticed. That should be attainable if we all act like the Christian brothers and sisters we claim to be.

May God bless you all.

[George W. Bush]

S.M.: It is not the order of things, and it will no longer be tolerated.

Although I no longer post to or read many religious threads, I think this policy won't last out the year.

Personally, I'm more than a little amused that the religious forums now have a designated Commissar of Ecumenical Fraternity or whatever your official job title is called. These kinds of appointments as arbiters of religious speech have a very dour and ironic history in the real world. I can't expect much else here.

[polemikos]

This list, essentially compiled by one man, doesn't cut the mustard.

Well, no, that's not accurate. They maintain a full-time staff. It is the result of decades of effort. They claim that over 400 specialists, such as J. Gordon Melton of the Encyclopedia of American Religions, supplied the project with data. The book is published by a very reputable publisher. "One man" does not compile and create a multi-volume work of hand-gathered stats regarding a worldwide activity. Dismissing its relevance will require more than an offhanded comment.

I will agree there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of "Independent" Protestant Churches in the United States alone.

Darn. After you requested that I "merely list" 500 Protestant denominations, I pulled together a list of 600 such denominations in the U.S. alone (which does not even include all of the independent "non-denom" denominations). I suppose now that I have the list, you'll no longer be "satisfied"? Is this some clever way to concede my point, but deny its relevance? Darn again! ;-)

The fundamental theology of nearly all these "Churches" is similar enough that Pastors can come and go without missing a beat.

Then how does one account for all the Protestant "church-shopping" that occurs? How do you account for all the new unaffiliated shopping-mall churches that pop-up? How do you account for the fact that the number of Protestant denominations is growing, not shrinking? How do you account for Christ the King, Graceland Independent Anglican Church of Canada with its faux-Elvis as a pastor? (You don't have to answer that last one. I just find it amusing to reference it.)

The basic theology is so much at issue that the SoF's for some of these denoms have devolved into "mere Christianity". In fact, their SoF's will often specifically require their members NOT to go into controversial areas of theology. Since controversy surrounds such "main things" as salvation, faith, worship, grace, sin, prayer, church, etc., not much is left to be a "plain thing". You end up with not much more than "Jesus is God" and "the Bible Alone (sola Scriptura) is our rule of faith".

As a matter of fact Protestant Ministers of the major Protestant Denominations will exchange pulpits and Churches with no problem. Once again, where is the theological difference?

Within a denomination - none whatsoever.
Starting a new church - all the difference in the world.

It is a pretty safe bet that when one such as you pulls out the 30,000 number the intent is not to have a reasonable discussion. In fact it could be called "Protestant Bashing". Bash away if it makes you feel better.

So, I quote a serious Christian reference book and therefore I engage in "Protestant bashing"? Hardly.

No, it is not my purpose to engage in "Protestant bashing". I am, however, making a reductio ad absurdum argument regarding a foundational aspect of Protestantism. To wit: sola Scriptura results in multiple theological systems because it relies on private judgment. And of the resulting "N" Protestant theological systems, at least "N-1" are wrong.

For such an argument to work, the absolute number of theological systems ("N") is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. 30,000 or 3,000 or even 300 - it doesn't matter - as long as their respective theologies are different. It would appear that you've conceded that point because it appears (a) you've conceded the issue of numbers and (b) your final (main?) argument now relies on attacking my motives.

Virtually all of the serious denominations use their private interpretation of Scripture as their raison d'etre. (No, I don't think the Graceland church is serious or that the pastor found Elvis in the Bible. ;-)

The reality of Denominationalism disproves sola Scriptura and it's necessary corollaries of perspicuity (clarity) and private judgment. All the major heresies relied on the principle of sola Scriptura. So a mere appeal to the Bible is not sufficient to determine orthodoxy. Even Satan used Sacred Scripture to tempt the Lord Himself.

Sola Scriptura leads, not to "one flock" but to a multiplicity of flocks. Not to "one truth" but to contradictory "truths". Not to perspicuity but to confusion. Not to one faith, but to heresy.

[George W. Bush]

rwfromkansas: ooh.....drstevej, you got post 666. :)

Enough to warm any Protestant heart when a Pope (our own Pope Peil) gets a 666 for all to see. And our RC friends can be just as happy that an anti-Pope (Peil I) got that 666.

For that matter, even non-Christian X-tians can get in on this action.

Oh, I feel so good now. It's more exciting than a new book in the Left Behind series... Let's all have a Group Hug of Ecumenical Unity!

[drstevej]

***It's more exciting than a new book in the Left Behind series... ***

You are anticipating LaHaye's Right Behind?

And it is Piel (the popessa gets testy when she sees it spelled wrong).

[A.J.Armitage]

The reality of Denominationalism disproves sola Scriptura and it's necessary corollaries of perspicuity (clarity) and private judgment.

You just cut off the limb you're sitting on. If sola Scriptura must be rejected for failing to keep unity, so must the Papacy and the Magisterium. If your authority can't keep "a bunch of them from up and leaving" (or something like that), as another Catholic poster described the reformation (I don't remember the screen name and haven't got enough time to look, but feel free to ping her yourself), what room do you have to criticize my authority (which is the Bible) because it can't keep people from up and leaving? None, that's how much.

All the major heresies relied on the principle of sola Scriptura.

Montanism. Mormonism. Moonies. JWs.

[polemikos]

CCC 424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

You are selectively quoting (and thereby not proving your point).

CCC 552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; (Cf. Mk 3:16; 9:2; Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5) Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", (1 Pet 2:4) thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it. (Cf. Lk 22:32)

CCC 881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock...

---

There is, simply put, a mountain of logical, linguistic, and scriptural evidence that all point to Peter as the Rock upon which Jesus built his Church. If you'd like to find out more, I'd be happy to lead you through it.

[polemikos]

You just cut off the limb you're sitting on. If sola Scriptura must be rejected for failing to keep unity, so must the Papacy and the Magisterium.

(A) The Papacy and the Magisterium don't rely on sola Scriptura and (B) the Papacy and the Magisterium don't lead to error, so I must confess I don't see your point.

what room do you have to criticize my authority (which is the Bible) because it can't keep people from up and leaving?

You've misunderstood my argument, and for that I apologize. It is not about people leaving, but about people misunderstanding.

[Gamecock]

That old Pope thing keeps getting in the way!

Which one? There are so many on the Internet I can't keep track of them all....

[George W. Bush]

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.

Well, that's one route to take. The overall forum actually suffers as a result. Some of the best writers and thinkers have done the same as you're suggesting. You generally notice they almost disappear from FR after a while, maybe stopping by from time to time. Since we've gone to these restricted speech policies, FR has not waged a single major real-world political battle. Actually, it's hard to think of a minor one. I think the two are connected.

I just don't happen to believe people of moderate opinion in politics or religion ever accomplish much. They certainly didn't found this country, a radical Christian nation of Protestant principle. As we stand now, I don't think FR could make a difference in another Battle for Floriduh or contribute to another Clinton impeachment. Most people just stop by for news or chit-chat. The type of strong personal and moral conviction, a prerequisite to independent and determined action, is apparently, indissoluably linked to strong spiritual beliefs. We shouldn't be surprised at this. The Founders believed the same exact thing and believed it was necessary.

When diversity of opinion approaches zero, any forum of free speech achieves inanity. But the upside is there will be fewer people hitting Abuse since discussion is too milquetoast for anyone to object to.

[George W. Bush]

You are anticipating LaHaye's Right Behind?

Left Behind, Right Behind, Up Behind, Down Behind, Behind Behind, however many books it takes before he finally get to the Second Coming (or Third Coming, etc.).

Actually, you could make book on whether Christ returns in the real world before LaHaye stops sucking money out of evangelical pockets and wraps up his trite apocalyptic soap opera.

[Lexinom]

Somehow TR's "Speak softly but carry a big stick" comes to mind. Some of the gentlest and most soft-spoken people have changed history: Telemachus, Mother Theresa, etc.

tenor != strength_of_convictions

Insulting people and making them feel small does little to influence or change minds.

Here is why, contrary to the opinion of some, Jesus' and Paul's words would be accepted on the forum: While they hold firm and unwavering convictions, they did not insult or belittle their readers. And those who would have pressed the abuse button were the Pharisees, who knew the Lord was right in His judgments.

We are not Jesus. But being "nice" (so often ridiculed in this thread), being gentle, being kind, these traits he embodied and "against such things there is no law" (Gal. 5:23). This is NOT the same as either affirming or embracing the doctrines of heretics. It is loving them and treating them with the respect worthy of one made in God's image.

Truly, I'm embarrassed that self-professed Christian people have to be asked by an earthly authority to do the very things Jesus commanded. There. I'll sit down. I've had my say.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

And those who would have pressed the abuse button were the Pharisees, who knew the Lord was right in His judgments.

Somehow I can't see Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea doing this. We must be careful not to impune all Pharisee as early scribal NT translators did.

[Lead Moderator]

If it is any consolation, that's the first I have heard of that story, and while it doesn't surprise me that Disney did it, it still disgusts me.

How sad what has happened to that company.

[Lead Moderator]

Speak for yourself :p

[Nachum]

Dear New Sidebar Moderator,

Goodluck here.

You're going to need it. :)

[Lead Moderator]

R911 signed up about 55 users or so before you did. Rookie.

[Gamecock]

Here is why, contrary to the opinion of some, Jesus' and Paul's words would be accepted on the forum: While they hold firm and unwavering convictions, they did not insult or belittle their readers.

Hmmm,

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

Matthew 23:13 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! .....

Nothing but love here....

[Lexinom]

Fair enough, point well taken. Caiaphas and that crowd. The point is the "bad Pharisees" were convicted by the Lord's words against them and not by his "making sport" of them. We, of course, have to be careful about the distiction between condemning belief systems and condemning people because we're not the Lord and therefore can't possibly know what's in someone's heart. I suppose even that point can be debated, but that's fine.

[Lexinom]

The Lord knew intimately what was in their hearts. He is God, and free of all sin. Moreover, you'll notice this was not lighthearted jostling or teasing but deadly serious.