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
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:
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.
I look forward to reviewing your posts on the Servetus threads. Ping me after you have compiled them.
Peace be with you my son.
I'm sure I really don't know. Why don't you tell us why you chose the 'four year' period?
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.
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?
Do you think this gap is insignificant?
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.
May I suggest you refrain from cut and paste proof texts in the future.
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. -)
I do read the Bible. Now you be honest. Are you a Libertarian?
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?
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?
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.