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

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[George W. Bush]

If these rules give you as much heartburn as it appears they do, I suggest you take it up with the Author.

Actually, this was the largest posting I'd made on a religious thread in quite some time. As far as I'm concerned, FR's religous threads were gutted quite a while back. And not merely by management. I mean that it was already getting too watered down and chatty all by itself.

Spirited debate and contention between posters has always been - and still is - welcome, provided all are treated with the respect due another creature made in the image of God.

I suspect the more political correctness is enforced at FR, the more you will have a readership incapable of any major effort at activism.

Polite conversation is fine. But if you want to win, you need tough-minded people who just don't give a fig whether some liberal is offended, people who can take it and dish it out, people who get mad and go for broke, people who can stand up to a large number of liberals who hate ever single word they have to say. And that is who FR was in its greatest moments of activism. That's how FR made its mark during the impeachment/Floriduh incidents.

Maybe with the GOP holding power and the lack of threat to gun rights, we don't expect such a fight in the forseeable future. Maybe activism in either party declines inevitably when their party is in power or holds strong position. Or maybe FR wants to go more mainstream. Whatever. But I think we're leaving the hardcore activism behind. Still, that may not be something FR management can do anything about no matter what.

Some people would say that you should just get rid of the religious forum if you're going to water it down. Force the focus back onto the political side. Unless the religious forum reinforces the political side by helping to attract and retain tough-minded activists, I can't see its purpose. But then, I don't have a donor list so the picture might look different from the standpoint of management.

At any rate, I'm pretty much an ex-poster on the religious threads. So don't worry about what I think. I try to stay on the political threads entirely now, learn something about issues and candidates, read articles to help me remember all the fronts on our battle against the Left in both parties.

If the intent is to get rid of the religious forums by strangling them into inanity, that's probably as good a way to marginalize them as just pulling all religious threads outright.

I'll close by observing that effective fighters must fight. Shooters must practice, soldiers must train, cops must target-shoot and practice, boxers must box. These things must be a mental habit because we forget all too soon. For instance, any soldier who leaves the service suffers a substantial decline in combat readiness in only a year or so. It's not about their physical skills nearly as much as it is the ingrained habit of readiness and taking a confident and aggressive stance. FR used to be filled to the brim with combative conservatives, though they might not have been too dainty in polite company. Maybe our biggest problem was our past successes. As much as anything, FR reminds me of a peacetime military, not the elite fighting force we were. But maybe we'll see a revival if Hillary jumps into the race.

[RnMomof7]

Now what did Peter do that was so horrible?

Well we know that there was no Papal infallibility in the new church right? That was a later "discovery"

[saradippity]

That made me laugh so hard that it changed my whole mood from gray to happy. Thanks.

[RnMomof7]

Did Peter understand that the church was to be built on HIM? Did He ever claim the title? Did he ever exert any authority in the church ..(Remember it was the brother of Jesus James that actually was in charge in the 1st church council.)

It seems to me that the church claims something for Peter that he never claimed for himself

[Invincibly Ignorant]

That made me laugh so hard that it changed my whole mood from gray to happy. Thanks.

You're welcome Sara. :-)

[TradicalRC]

Excellent post GWB. I have never used the abuse button and never will. I am after all an adult. Traditional conservatism isn't for sissies.

[RnMomof7]

People were willing to tell horrible and vicious lies in those days, including many lies of a sexual nature, to stir up hatred and violence.

Could you tell us what lies were told?

[lockeliberty]

Do you expect that to happen?

Through the Grace of God alone!

[P-Marlowe]

This is a problem that we have in discussions. One person asks a simple yes or no question and the other person refers them to some web site rather than giving a direct answer. I think I know what your answer is. I think you would answer "NO, salvation is only through the rituals and sacraments and authority of the Roman Catholic Church."

If that is what you believe, then fine, just tell me. But don't dodge questions because you are ashamed of the response or because you feel it might offend my sensibilites or someone else's sensibilities. Dodging the questions and referring people to outside sources in lieu of answering direct questions wastes both of our times and it wastes bandwidth and wastes the time of the lurkers.

I have asked you politely twice for a direct answer to my question. You have politely refused on two occasions to directly answer the question. I will therefore assume that you have no intention of directly answering the question, so I will not ask again.

Thanks.

Marlowe

[White Mountain]

Your #768: Basically, to evangelize for Mormonism, right?

That is the oft-repeated charge, as though it is okay for everyone else but not for me. How many times have I seen a post that claimed what I posted was soul-destroying, that I was going to hell and taking many others with me, not because of any behavior on my part, but simply because they disagreed with my faith and had drawn a circle attempting to exclude it from Christianity.

I used the word "witness". Is it bad if I witness, but okay if others witness?

>> As stated your goal is not discussion with those who post, but to influence those who lurk.

My point was that even though it appears that my posts fall on deaf ears and are therefore useless and futile, there are many, many lurkers.

[lockeliberty]

My intention was not merely to have the letter posted as a thread but rather could some of the ideas that Newton suggests be incorporated into your decision making. If so, how would that work?

[George W. Bush]

Excellent post GWB. I have never used the abuse button and never will.

I have. To get a thread of my own removed once (private FReepmail was being posted willy-nilly) and a few other times on really vicious attacks by mad-dog posters who had no doctrinal assertions of any merit or coherence.

The Abuse button does have its place. But not as a way to win the argument by silencing the opposition or removing the evidence that they lost the argument.

[lockeliberty]

Curious. I didn't think malakhi was an "Orthodox" Jew. Perhaps I was wrong?

[OLD REGGIE]

It is only logical that Jesus reminded them to be of servants to each other as found in Luke, before making the following announcement as found in Matthew:

Except that you have your chronology backwards.

(Reg) And what did Jesus say?

This question was in response to your claim "Peter was older and already burdened with being head of the Apostles."

Well after this time the Apostles argued amongst themselves as to who was the greatest. Obviously they didn't accept Peter as the "head of the Apostles".

After this "who is the greatest" argument Jesus said:

Luke 22:
24: A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
25: And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
26: But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.

Not only did the Apostles argue amongst themselves as to which was the greatest, Jesus made it clear that no one of them was.

(Reg) Yet subordinate to James?

What’s your point here?

Acts 15:
19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Peter was an invited guest at this council presided over by James. James made the judgment. If Peter was "appointed head of the Apostles" by Jesus he certainly would have convened and presided over this council. In fact, he attended and had authority equal to his fellows.

The point is Peter was subordinate to James in this instance.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Curious. I didn't think malakhi was an "Orthodox" Jew. Perhaps I was wrong?

You were discussing "conservative" Jews. I consider Malakhi a "conservative" Jew. Be that as it may it doesn't change the meaning of your statement.

[Elsie]

Spirited debate and contention between posters has always been - and still is - welcome, provided all are treated with the respect due another creature made in the image of God.

 

Ok, I will hold this thought. 

 

---

 

People, no matter how idiotic, get a free ride.  Ideas and concepts that they believe in are fair game.

 

Does the ABOVE sum up the rules?

 

[OLD REGGIE]

Then how does one account for all the Protestant "church-shopping" that occurs?

I dunno, maybe the same thing that accounts for Catholic "Parish Shopping".

Just for the fun of it why don't you post a working definition of Sola Scriptura.

I suspect you have a far different understanding than Augustine for example.

[White Mountain]

Your #771: I've seen you gleefully post when an anti-calvinist thread is posted. Do Calvinists go on some long diatribe about how the thread should be pulled because it is "poisoned bait"? Your hypocrisy is evident. Grow up and be a man.

"Gleefully" is your incorrect characterization. "Hyprocrisy" is your false charge. Your use of my phrase "poisoned bait" implies that when I post on a thread (especially if it is deemed to be "gleefully"), that should be considered the poison. "Grow up" is intended as an insult, but remember what Jesus said about little children and the Kingdom of Heaven.

So many things in such a short post.

This post is not one where the abuse button should be pushed. It does not "rise to that level", but it is inappropriate. Multiply this post by the hundreds and thousands, and you have the situation the moderators are trying to correct, but they just aren't going to pull this kind of post -- am I correct? -- even though it violates the new guidelines. It gets in under the radar. Skillfully done.

[Elsie]

No "strike two", no warning, no suspension.

ANOTHER rule change????

Aaaaay Moose!

I guess you weren't REALLY free to say that!

[Elsie]

 

It's good to be the king!

---

No "strike two", no warning, no suspension.

Sorry, Moose -- but since you posted THAT way, the rule just changed again........