However, I have read through sections of it, and can only conclude that
WE'RE DOOMED
I say fire this moderator dude and hire Father Neuhaus. Gratuitous graphic
| 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
I believe this thread has about reached the end of its usefulness. Like many Free Republic threads that run out of steam there are now several discussions on-going which have nothing to do with the original topic; the proper decanters for wine, and the true position of Peter in the church, to name just two.
You've all had time to "feel me out", as it were, and I believe most of you are now more familiar - if not more comfortable - with the way I intend to moderate the Religion Forum. At the same time I've been learning more about all of you, and it's been an interesting two days, for sure. I'd like to close out our discussion (not immediately) with a re-cap of events and observations up to now, and since we began with a "good news - bad news" scenario, I'll continue in that vein, but in reverse order.
One of you, perhaps two, has decided not to hang around here any longer, as the "new rules" are offensive to him. That's fine; his decision. Just note he wasn't run off; he left of his own accord. Two one-day suspensions were handed out (one to the aforementioned departed), and two warnings were issued, one of which was rescinded after the poster offered some clarification. By and large, there was very little blood-letting, not nearly as much as I suspected might be the case.
There are still some troublesome areas that need attention. First, I have come to believe that a few of you simply don't know when you're saying something offensive. More importantly, it's clear that we have a major problem with forgiveness, i.e., many of you don't want to forgive past transgressions, real or imagined, that others have committed against you. That is apparent from several of the posts on this very thread. I must say, that surprised me - that people would tear the scabs off old wounds on a thread dedicated to ending such practices! I guess we are all human after all.
If you will re-read the original announcement you will be reminded that I(we) forgave all of your past transgressions, and we all started fresh with this thread. I have reason to believe that some of you have even forgiven past moderator transgressions/errors/misunderstandings. But if you all can't forgive each other, it's going to be difficult to continue this "grand experiment".
I am not a church historian, but I have read a great deal concerning church history, from Irenaeus forward. I have yet to study a faith tradition with which I could agree on every single point of dogma, doctrine or polity. I have yet to read of a faith tradition which does not have a few dark days in its past, something to be ashamed of today. I don't even agree totally with everything my own faith tradition espouses, and our past sins are at least as bad as the sins of any other tradition. I have to ask, why would anyone expect otherwise? We're talking about institutions made up of human beings - sinful, corrupt human beings - "none is without sin, no, not one" - and human institutions, even and most certainly, the earthly church are inherently sinful. None of us can stand proudly on feet of bronze pointing at others for their sin. Even more importantly, most of the heinous sins I've seen brought up in the Religion Forum are matters of history - no one alive today is responsible.
Apologies for the short homily, but we're never going to be able to handle the future until we drop the past. Learn from the past, to be sure, but let's forget the folly that we can somehow change it or justify it or rectify it. It happened. It was. It's over. Remember this: we don't forgive others for their sake; we forgive others for our sake. How else could it be? Whether you forgive my sin against you, or if you refuse to forgive it, has absolutely nothing to do with my relationship with God. It will, however, have a great deal to do with your relationship with God, according to either the Catholic or Protestant versions of the Lord's Prayer. No one can embrace the future without letting go of the past. There is more to forgiveness than that, of course, but that seems to me to be its greatest benefit.
That ends the "bad news" section. If we Christians can't forgive each other, the least of our problems is that there will always be a "bad news" section. My hope is that (heaven forbid!) I ever make another post like this one it will be sans bad news.
From my point of view the good news is truly good. From a personal standpoint I've already learned a lot about any number of things, not the least of which is a bushel of knowledge about screw-top wine bottles. But there's more.
I've received quite a bit of FReepmail during this exercise. All of it has been informative, most of it has been edifying, and some of it has been, dare I say it, uplifting. Several of you have forgiven each other; I don't want to leave the impression that none of you are able to forgive. At least two of you have declared a truce, and promised not to fight in future. Several good suggestions were forwarded concerning how we might make this work, and more of you than I expected wrote applauding this effort. Thank you.
Abuse reports from the Religion Forum have dropped off significantly in the past two days; admittedly a short period of time on which to make judgments, but we'll take what we get and move forward. By the way, a word about some of the comments on this thread - most of you are completely wrong about who sends abuse reports and for what reason. Take my word for it - speculation in that arena is pointless. I can't even guess right more than 20% of the time, and I've been a moderator since the program was started. I'm only new to this forum, not to moderating.
Now, you might think that because the "good news" section is shorter than the "bad news" section that there is less of it, or that it's less meaningful. Not so. First of all, there's no need for a homily in the good news section, but more importantly the number of individuals responsible for the bad news are far fewer in number than those responsible for the good news. It must be the old "80-20" rule as a negative rather than a positive.
I believe this can work, that the Religion Forum can be a place where faithful people come to examine each other's faith, exchange ideas, work through differences, find unexpected agreements, and generally present themselves to the world as people who not only proclaim their faith, but people who live out their faith every day, whatever each person's particular faith might be.
I intend to leave this as an open thread at least through tomorrow evening, at which time most everyone who wishes to make a last comment or two will have done so, and then lock it. It won't disappear, it just won't be open to additional comments. And by the way, in the spirit of forgiveness, anyone may submit an abuse report to have any comment they've already made deleted, if they so choose. Just sign your abuse report, please; no requesting that other's remarks be pulled. No signature (screen name); no pull.
In closing, a word from one Oswald Chambers on 2 Peter 1:5,7...
Love is an indefinite thing to most of us; we don't know what we mean when we talk about love. Love is the loftiest preference of one person for another, and spiritually Jesus demands that this sovereign preference be for Himself (see Luke 14:26). Initially, when "the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Romans 5:5), it is easy to put Jesus first. But then we must practice the things mentioned in 2 Peter 1 to see them worked out in our lives.
The first thing God does is forcibly remove any insincerity, pride, and vanity from my life. And the Holy Spirit reveals to me that God loved me not because I was lovable, but because it was His nature to do so. Now He commands me to show the same love to others by saying, "...love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12). He is saying, "I will bring a number of people around you whom you cannot respect, but you must exhibit My love to them, just as I have exhibited it to you." This kind of love is not patronizing love for the unlovable - it is His love, and it will not be evidenced in us overnight. Some of us may have tried to force it, but we were soon tired and frustrated.
"The Lord ... is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish ... " (2 Peter 3:9). I should look within and remember how wonderfully He has dealt with me. The knowledge that God has loved me beyond all limits will compel me to go into the world to love others in the same way. I may get irritated because I have to live with an unusually difficult person. But just think how disagreeable I have been with God! Am I prepared to be identified so closely with the Lord Jesus that His life and His sweetness will be continually poured out through Me? Neither natural love nor God's divine love will remain and grow in me unless it is nurtured. Love is spontaneous, but it has to be maintained through discipline.
I'll be around, Brothers and Sisters. Like Chicken Man, "I'm everywhere, I'm everywhere!"
P.S. I posted this to the listed addressees so that they might 'ping' their lists; if I left anyone out I apologize. Please see that anyone omitted is notified.
Contrary to what someone of your persuasion might believe; though there may have been a four-year period of time that there was not a pope, the Church continued. It had merely been driven underground by the Diocletian persecution, which was the most terrible of the ten persecutions the early Church endured.
You can read about it from the links found on this page.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09640b.htm
So, it was under extenuating circumstances that the hiatus resulted. I imagine the election of the next pope can seem like a lower priority matter when tomorrow you can be thrown to hungry lion to the delight of a decadent crowd, or hung on a cross and set on fire along with a hundred of your fellow believers to provide a dazzling night-time spectacle.
Thanks for asking me about this. Though I know it will only draw another, “Well, what about the blah, blah, blah?”, response from you, I learned some new things, and was reminded of the sacrifices the early Christians endured to ensure the survival of the faith that we are blessed with 1,700 years later. Suddenly, I see that enduring your antics is a small price to pay.
Notice that "those who post this way" are not included in the "moderator" or the "all of us" groups. Furthermore, the following accusations are then made against this third group...
...Otherwise the same things flow from the same heart and the New Testament rules (the article[Sidebar Mod's new rules - AM] and post #778) are not followed.
White - let me get this straight...
You speak as if you have authority to represent both the Free Republic staff and all of the posting members. You claim this group needs to see a change on the part of an unidentified third group who don't belong to the former two. May we assume this third group is made up of those to whom you refuse to post/respond to? And may we read that last sentence to mean you are accusing said group of being incapable of following the Sidebar Moderator's rules without becoming Mormons?
If I'm reading this wrong, please feel free to correct me. Otherwise, please feel free to explain this slander to the moderator.
The first is about "love". As I said in the announcement, I don't mean today's idea of something that's always warm and fuzzy. I mean Biblical love, God's love. There is a popular quasi-religious phrase I'm sure you're familiar with, that being "God is love". Even if it were true that one could describe God in one phrase, the phrase "God is love", based on the authority of Scripture could only be half of the phrase. It should be "God is love; God is justice". Or it might better be said that God's love is tempered by justice, while God's justice is constrained by love. I don't think that anyone can review all of God's acts in the Bible and come away with the idea that expressing love is somehow a weakness.
The second of my disagreements has to do with fighting for right, and who can best do that. You don't know anything about me, so you'll just have to accept my word when I tell you that I've known a lot of fighting men. Lived, played and fought with a whole passel of true fighting men. And I have to tell you, GWB, the very best of these fighting men were the most polite and courteous men you could ever meet ... right up to the moment it was time to fight. Based on personal experience, I simply don't agree that one has to be constantly confrontational to be an effective fighter.
I've read some of your comments on the main forum, and I'm sort of hoping you stick around over here - as long as you're not constantly smiting hip and thigh... :)
Continuing Catholic Discussion Ping!
Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Continuing Catholic Discussion Ping list.
So far as I know there have been no abuse reports regarding you from anyone.
It was working pretty well before, with the apparently really nasty comments removed by moderator. I always wished I knew what those comments were :-).
Could you put me in touch with the poster of the Rapture Ping list? I don't want to miss it . . .
LOL! You don't need to know the poster - you only need to know if you're on the list.
However, I have read through sections of it, and can only conclude that
Gratuitous graphic
Look carefully. This is not congressional testimony. It was not under oath. This is an 1859 military report that was published as a House of Representatives document in 1902.
>> That aside - it is not up to you to assess Maj Carletons sincerity
So you and others get to assess that, but I do not?
I think Major Carleton was quite excessively sincere. He would have been happy to see another extermination order. He called for one.
When you make a post advocating the extermination of an entire Christian denomination, trust me, I'll presume you really mean it.
Says who? I am inclusive. All of us means all of us. "Those who post this way" need to see that change of heart on this forum also. They may not think so, but they do.
>> You speak as if you have authority to represent both the Free Republic staff and all of the posting members.
Nonsense. I can quote the moderators like anyone else. My exhortations to repentance long predate this thread.
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.