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.

[A.J.Armitage]

It seems here you've gotten off the topic of whether the Bible plus the Pope and the Magisterium meets the test by which you say the Bible by itself fails, and replaced it with the standard anti-Protestant polemic of insulting Luther.

Let's posit he did misunderstand pretty fundamental things. The Bible plus the Pope and the Magisterium and Tradition didn't prevent it.

[drstevej]

***But the Luther of 1535 says:
"The Word of God does not suffice as a regula fidei (rule of faith)... [an] authority is also needed to decide on questions of doctrine"
- Friedrich Paulsen, esteemed Protestant historian, quoted from his History of German Education, 4:485 ***

Can you provide the citation from Luther's works? I have a doctorate in Reformation and am unfamiliar with this "esteemed Protestant historian."

Dr. Clair Davis, my professor of Reformation History use to tell us, "Men look the quotes up first hand. Don't assume historians either quoted accurately or in context." I have often found this counsel to be validated.

Furthermore the elipsis in the quote indicates editing.

[White Mountain]

Your #939:

Okay then, if it must be reopened, pick whichever version seems better to you, what I said originally or what I proposed in its place, and go from there.

[Revelation 911]

Okay then, if it must be reopened, pick whichever version seems better to you, what I said originally or what I proposed in its place, and go from there.

both allow that I would advocate such an "extermination" / "genocide"

I take offense to that

[A.J.Armitage]

I read your entire post. For the record, though, I'll repost the three paragraphs in question, which make make my case for me.

If you allow this sort of thing with the posters here the way they are -- and there is a great variety of poisonous bait like this at various anti-LDS websites -- it will be posted and reposted every few weeks, ignoring my replies, accompanied by fresh demands that I prove each detail wrong, and that it must be true in every detail if I don't, as though I had the time and resources of a historian dedicated to each of the many subjects brought up.

And of course the endless attempts to pass this persecution off as reasoned discourse, honest examination, and a willingness to examine the warts in the past.

It is precisely because of the very predictable ensuing discussion among the posters we now have and have had, that in allowing such material to be posted, you will see it an instrument of persecution, trying to flood the forum and drown everything positive out, concerning Latter-Day Saints, at the very time you are trying to have a better environment.

[polemikos]

It seems here you've gotten off the topic of whether the Bible plus the Pope and the Magisterium meets the test by which you say the Bible by itself fails, and replaced it with the standard anti-Protestant polemic of insulting Luther.

LOL. Nice try. You raised the tangent, not me. I try to answer your query, and now it's my fault we are on your tangent? Give me a break.

And quoting Luther on a doctrinal issue is "the standard anti-Protestant polemic of insulting Luther"? I had no idea that was verbotten. Is quoting Luther on his doctrinal statements always considered an insult by Lutherans and/or other Protestants? Or just his statements that repudiate Lutheran/Protestant doctrines? What about Luther's statements that contain logical fallacies? Is there some cheatsheet somewhere that lists what I am allowed to quote and what I shouldn't quote? A little help here would be appreciated.

Let's posit he did misunderstand pretty fundamental things.

There's no need to posit. Luther admitted it.

The Bible plus the Pope and the Magisterium and Tradition didn't prevent it.

Didn't prevent Luther from making an error? Never claimed it did. Never claimed it should. Never claimed it would. That nasty ol' free will business is always letting individuals go astray.

[White Mountain]

Your #938: I find your "answer" completely unrelated to the questions I asked.

I was replying to #916 from the perspective of individuals. You perhaps are thinking of your #921 and thinking from a perspective of organized church denominations. People leave those all the time to go to the one they think God calls them to.

Do you think there will be Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, (orthodox) Episcopalians, etc., in the kingdom of heaven? There will just be The Church of Jesus Christ, made up of the faithful saints in Adam's day, the faithful saints of Noah's day, the faithful saints of Isaiah's day, the faithful saints of Peter's day, the faithful saints of these latter days, and all the other faithful saints of all ages of the world who love God with all their might, mind, and strength, their neighbor as themselves, and keep God's commandments. And the apostles and prophets the Lord sent to lead and guide them in mortality will continue in that relationship in the life to come.

It is individuals who are redeemed by the atoning blood of Christ, not denominations.

Now does that seem less like a non-sequitur?

[polemikos]

I have a doctorate in Reformation and am unfamiliar with this "esteemed Protestant historian."

Here's a brief bio on Paulsen. The title of the English translation (I. Lorenz, 1907) is "German Education, Past and Present"

[White Mountain]

Your #944:

I am very glad that you wouldn't, however, you did link to a guy who did, as someone who should have some credibility, and insisted that this was appropriate in a forum where the moderators are trying to improve the culture and reduce the flame wars.

And I claim that this sort of thing, if allowed, will get posted and reposted and reposted, fanning the flames of bitter prejudice. This guy is extreme, and so much of anti-LDS material published back then is this way.

You said near the beginning of this:

Your #853: it is not up to you to assess Maj Carletons sincerity

and I have been trying to say ever since (see my #898) (let's see if this is any better) that I do get to assess that, along with everyone else, that I consider the Major excessively sincere, I think he really meant it, and that whoever may advocate the extermination of an entire Christian denomination, trust me, I'll presume they really mean it, because it is no joking matter.

That leaves "you" (meaning singular, or plural, as in "you guys", or indefinite, as in "one", or whatever) completely out of it. The point is, I'll presume they really mean it.

[A.J.Armitage]

LOL. Nice try. You raised the tangent, not me. I try to answer your query, and now it's my fault we are on your tangent? Give me a break.

I have a difficult time imagining what it is you think you're saying here. Maybe you mean that I, somehow, started diverting discussion from how Scripture plus other stuff stacks up by your own standards by which you criticize Scripture alone. But that would be silly. Or perhaps you mean that anything other than a panygeric to the rightness of all things Catholic is a "tangent".

But clearly, regardless of what you were trying to say, you were substituting a diversion (not merely a tangent) for an answer to my argument.

And quoting Luther on a doctrinal issue is "the standard anti-Protestant polemic of insulting Luther"? I had no idea that was verbotten.

Now, where did I say you couldn't attack historical Protestant figures? I'm not a Mormon, you know.

All I did was point out you reverted to one of the standard polemics instead of answering my argument.

There's no need to posit. Luther admitted it.

Drstevej has questioned this. We all await documentation.

Didn't prevent Luther from making an error? Never claimed it did. Never claimed it should. Never claimed it would. That nasty ol' free will business is always letting individuals go astray.

You don't think the leadership of the Catholic Church should prevent its priests and theology professors (and Luther was both) from falling into error? Yow!

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you said it or not; you need it to be true for your argument to hold up. It's not, so your argument doesn't. Remember, again, if the Bible plus other stuff can't keep people from falling into error and/or leaving, then you can't criticize the Bible by itself for failing to prevent people from falling into error and/or leaving. Well, you can, it just wouldn't do Catholicism any favors.

[drstevej]

Thanks for the bio...

Can you provide the citation from Luther's works? Dr. Clair Davis, my professor of Reformation History use to tell us, "Men look the quotes up first hand. Don't assume historians either quoted accurately or in context." I have often found this counsel to be validated.

[dansangel]

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

Again, thank you for this. I may even start posting to the religion forums once again. I have abstained for a long time because of the hateful attitudes that I encountered in the past.

God Bless you and God Bless Free Republic.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Welcome home! And I don't mean to the Religion Forum.

[TexConfederate1861]

Sir:

The Church you refer to is my Church, the Orthodox Church.
We WERE one until 1054 A.D. And the precise reason for that split, is because the Roman Pontiff of the time insisted on arrogance and political power, rather than following the teachings of the Holy fathers, the traditions of the Church, and the directives of the Holy Ecumenical Councils.

Now, I could quote reams of information and even quotes from Pope Gregory the Great, and the early church fathers to back up my position, but the bottom line is really this.

Pope Leo IX was one of the most corrupt, evil men that ever lived, and he was interested in gaining the support of Charlamagne and the Frankish Empire, rather than trying to keep the Holy Church intact. His arrogance led to the downfall of a united church. The Pope had always had the title of "first among equals" and that he could have again, if he wished, but too much water, and gaining of power has passed "under the bridge" to make that feasible. But I tell you, that is the KEY to reunion. I am very much aware of the scripture, but I challenge YOU to examine the basis of Papal Claims to supremacy. You will find that they weren't made until the 800's and were based on the Psuedo-Clementine writings, which have been rejected by Catholic scholars as false! I believe if you do this, it will be YOU that gets a "bolt from the blue" not I :)

[TexConfederate1861]

I challenge you to do as I suggested to polikemos, and study a little deeper on the subject. Read the writings of Pope Gregory the Great, study the history of the Church, and try to do it from neutral sources. You will find that Papal Supremecy became an issue after 800 A.D. Before that time, the Popes themselves preached against such arrogance.

[Salvation]

I thought everyone might gain some wisdom from today's Thought of the Day from the Daily Mass Readings thread:

Faith seeks understanding.

 -- St. Anselm, Proslogion proemium

[Sidebar Moderator]

I am posting this comment to everyone who has posted to this thread to inform you all that the thread will be locked about 12:30 EST, roughly three hours from now. The thread will not be taken down, but after it's locked no more posts will be possible.

Again, I invite anyone who would like to have any of their posts to this thread deleted, simply send a "signed" abuse report to that effect. Abuse reports which are "unsigned" will not be removed.

A couple of added comments, if you will, one a reiteration, and the other a disappointment.

First, I still do not detect a sweeping spirit of forgiveness flowing through the Religion Forum, and I have to wonder what the future will hold without that happening. I won't repeat any of my words here, but any of you who have not read Post #881 should avail yourselves of the opportunity to do so.

Obviously for some of you, subtle suggestions from me have no effect. So - I will drop the subtlety.

In my future efforts at moderation when I find off-topic posts to any thread they will be removed. I haven't counted but my best guess is that roughly 200 posts could be removed from this thread as having nothing to do with the rules of the forum. Second subtle suggestion that didn't work: arguments - debates - differences - fights dragged from one thread to another will be deleted as found. And third, the on-going Mormon vs. non-Mormon war (and that's what it appears to be) has to stop. There is no way I can go back to the beginning and determine "who started it", even though I've received FReepmails from posters on both sides pointing fingers the other way. Not that "who started it" makes any difference, since the antagonists just keep it going. From my perspective the guilt is equally shared, and it's time to agree to a truce or accept an imposed armistice. This war is childish, folks, and it's a blight on the Religion Forum. It must stop. If you can't forgive and forget past transgressions, at least have the maturity to drop it and go on. In future, when I see hostilities breaking out anew I will ask once for it to stop. If it doesn't, then I'll have to stop it.

I'll "see" you all around the forum.

P.S. For whatever reason the 'ping' system did not pick up the following posters: 'cprfld'; 'eastrider'; 'Jmouse'; 'MarMena'; 'Unam Sanctum'.

[secret garden]

Thank you for taking so much time to address people's concerns. That was very thoughtful of you. :-)

[malakhi]

Right now, I do not see any significant presence of conservative Jews or several other religious persuasions posting in the religion forum.

Howdy, LM! I guess I'm the "token" Jew on the religion forum, as I participate here regularly. There are a number of others who join in occasionally, when a particular thread is of interest to them.