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.

[lockeliberty]

I believe it has been quite a while since I posted on a Servetus thread. I can review the substance of my posts there, the points I make, and importantly the points I do not make, some other time.

I look forward to reviewing your posts on the Servetus threads. Ping me after you have compiled them.

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, is it truly your contention that if any time elapses between the death of one Pope and the election of another, the line is "broken?"

If this is the case, allow me to save you the trouble since I doubt Pope Linus assumed the role immediately and exactly coinciding with the death of Peter. Heck, the line was broken again just twenty five years ago since -as I recall- several days (weeks) passed between the death of John Paul the I and John Paul II.

4 years? Four years is considerably different than "any time". Why do you suppose I chose the 4 year period rather than the many 2 year "no Pope" periods? The question deserves an explanation. Unless, that is, you refuse to answer "on the grounds that it might incriminate you".

[Barnacle]

OLD REGGIE, Perhaps you can learn something here. Then again, maybe not.

[OLD REGGIE]

I guess that's what you have to do when you have no facts to work with.

Peace be with you my son.

[AlguyA]

"Why do you suppose I chose the 4 year period rather than the many 2 year "no Pope" periods? The question deserves an explanation. Unless, that is, you refuse to answer "on the grounds that it might incriminate you"."

I'm sure I really don't know. Why don't you tell us why you chose the 'four year' period?

[polemikos]

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."

Really, this is quite amusing. You asked a yes/no question, but as I tried (and apparently failed) to indicate, it is not a yes/no answer. I pointed you to another document because it gives a fuller answer for those interested in the truth.

Let me try a different tack.
Would you knowingly and deliberately reject divinely-revealed doctrine? If so, then the answer is probably "No", you cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church (or even inside for that matter).

What if you unknowingly or accidentally reject divinely-revealed doctrine? If so, then the answer is probably "Yes", you can be saved outside the Catholic Church.

If you seek the Truth, and do not turn away from it, then all will be well.

[George W. Bush]

...you cut and pasted the comment to which you were replying, and you stated your objection to the facts as represented. Presumably the next thing to happen would be for each of you to present documentation or citation to prove one case or the other.

Have you ever been on the religious threads before?

Good thing you have a wry sense of humor. You'll need it.  ; )

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Why do I stay here? To discuss the Scriptures for the lurkers' sake, and to bear witness of the great things the Lord has done in these latter days.

While you have the right to do so, those of us who disagree with your interpretation have the right to do so, for the sake of lurkers.

[OLD REGGIE]

James very emphasis on the personal "I" indicates that he was only expressing his own opinion. This is underscored by Acts 15:22, which indicates that the apostles and elders agreed with James practical suggestion. James spoke and the Council was not silenced. Rather their agreement had to be noted. If James spoke with singular authority, there would be no need to note such "agreement" with James suggestion.

Nothing in this entire passage runs counter to Peter's primacy.

James Peters very emphasis on the personal "I" indicates that he was only expressing his own opinion. This is underscored by Acts 15:22, which indicates that the apostles and elders agreed with JamesPeters practical suggestion. JamesPeter spoke and the Council was not silenced. Rather their agreement had to be noted. If JamesPeter spoke with singular authority, there would be no need to note such "agreement" with JamesPeters suggestion.

And to top it off James called him "Simon". The nerve of him!

[Barnacle]

I guess that's what you have to do when you have no facts to work with.

Again, I'm a regular guy, not a biblical historian. I know I don't have all the answers. Though I could research them as I often do, there are times I ask myself, "To what end?"

This is often the case when arguing Conservative points with Libertarians. Regardless of what I come up with, a quibbler will respond, "Well then, what about the Blah blah blah...", ad nauseam.

I wasn't born yesterday, and I think I've come to recognize when someone is merely trying to lead me into a quagmire of words. Though, I was a little slow to pick up on it in this case.

You wouldn't happen to be a Libertarian would you?

[OLD REGGIE]

I'm sure I really don't know. Why don't you tell us why you chose the 'four year' period?

Because there was no Pope during that period. This seems to me to be more significant than the period when there were three Popes. At least you could claim one of them was the real Pope.

Do you think this gap is insignificant?

[polemikos]

Oops. Forgot to reply to the 2nd part of your post.

So you believe the selling of indulgents for the dead ..and In advance to your own sin so you could buy your own way into heaven was not an error??...

Is the doctrine of indulgences biblically sound? Yes.
Did some within the church abuse this doctrine? Yes.
Is that sufficient cause to reject the Catholic Church?

Before I answer that, let me ask you: Are the actions of Judas sufficient reason to reject the teachings of Jesus?

If not, then I think it is obvious that the sins of clerics is not a sufficient reason to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You need to look at the cafeteria Catholics ..each believing what they choose..People in glass houses should not caste stone

Are inadequately catechised Catholics a scandal? Absolutely.
Does that in any way refute the doctrines of the Catholic Church? Absolutely not.

[saradippity]

It seems clear to me that this situation with James could be resolved in your mind if you would think about an entity,government or church,having a policy meeting at their highest local level.

The highest authority routinely utilizes the services of the same secretary,transcriptionist or scribe to record the minutes of the meeting.

To settle a very important matter,the President or Premier or Pope,who is not a resident of that particular city,state,diocese, is called upon to participate,since it is necessary to choose the path to be taken by the local entity and will affect all the other states or counties or churches so they must act with one accord.

The questions are laid out and discussed,the President,Premier or Pope listens,considers everything and speaks for the greater body. The Governor,Commissar or Bishop of the local entity sees the light and concludes discussion with "this entity will now consider it policy to ----------whatever"?The minutes of that meeting showing the actual leader of the local entity would have his or her name affixed to the minutes.It would not be practical to have the "ruler" take over the session of the local entity. This would in no way diminish the authority and authenticity of the actual ruler.

I realize that you may not agree but certainly you can see why the James argument so often offered to prove Peter was not the first Pope holds no water with those of us who see it from this perspective.

I think if yu read a good textbook on the theories of organizations you would have more of an understanding of how they function,naturally and supernaturally.

[OLD REGGIE]

Be honest. Why don't you admit you don't read the Bible. Further, that it isn't all that important to you.

May I suggest you refrain from cut and paste proof texts in the future.

[AlguyA]

"Do you think this gap is insignificant?"

I don't know. I thought you had a specific reason for picking it. Judging from the time frame, i.e. early 4th century, I would suspect a persecution might have something to do with it. Unless I miss my guess, the Diocletian persecution is roughly in that time frame. Hard to meet to elect a pope when your trying to avoid being fed to the lions. -)

[Barnacle]

Be honest. Why don't you admit you don't read the Bible. Further, that it isn't all that important to you.

I do read the Bible. Now you be honest. Are you a Libertarian?

[polemikos]

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

This is a fallacious counter because it is off point. Catholics that go to different parishes are not establishing new theologies or denominations.

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

It is a foundational Protestant regula fidei. I would think that it is more appropriate for you to show me how it is defined and why it is right. And yes, I know that there are varieties of sola Scriptura.

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

You do seem more comfortable characterising my unspoken thoughts and motivations rather than my written words. Why is that?

[P-Marlowe]

If you seek the Truth, and do not turn away from it, then all will be well.

Does that go for Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims? I would say that they all honestly seek the truth. They believe Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam to be the truth. The generally don't turn away from their religions to become Roman Catholics, but it would objectively appear that many of them, indeed maybe most of them, are seeking what they believe to be the truth.

Will all be well for them?

[polemikos]

It is revealing how willing you are to ignore Scripture and base your facts on the Catechism.

Reg, Reg, Reg,
You crack me up. LOL. You are the one who initially and selectively quoted from the CCC trying to disprove my argument. I point that out and give a broader quote from the CCC, and then you attack me for ignoring Scripture even though (A) the CCC references I gave contained direct citations to sacred Scripture and (B) my prior posts on this topic are based on sacred Scripture. And now you want to go back and argue from the CCC again. This is like playing that old arcade game, "Whack the Weasel" (or was it "Gong the Gopher"? ... um, nevermind.).

Please note especially the careful wording of #552. A cursory reading might lead you to believe the Church was built on Peter. Such is not the case.

From CCC 552: "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."

What is "not the case"?

Reg, ol' boy, you can't disprove the Petrine nature of the papacy using the CCC. And if you can't disprove it from sacred Scripture, then I must ask, when will you accept this divinely-revealed truth?

[AlguyA]

"Does that go for Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims? I would say that they all honestly seek the truth."

Really? You can say this? You can say they are all honestly seeking the Truth?

Would it be your contention, then, that God is withholding the Truth from them? That, essentially, the Calvinists are right. That there are only those whom God predestined to know the Truth and that all others, even if they are seeking the Truth, are doomed to Hell?