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

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[malakhi]

Probably when the fire actually reaches the logs piled around your feet. ;^)

LOL, that sounds about right! ;o)

[malakhi]

I see Jews embracing a certian type of evangelical Christian. I see Jews accepting a form of christianity that furthers their cause. What would it benefit them to antagonize a large financial supporter of theirs?

I don't think the evangelical Christians who support Israel are under any illusion that there is an imminent mass conversion of Jews afoot. They know that our beliefs are different. And they support Israel because of what they believe, not because of what we believe.

From their point of view I can understand why they choose not to participate

I think that most of the time freeper Jews choose not to participate because the threads posted are not of interest to us.

[malakhi]

ll: You know what I see? I see Jews embracing a certian type of evangelical Christian. I see Jews accepting a form of christianity that furthers their cause. What would it benefit them to antagonize a large financial supporter of theirs? From their point of view I can understand why they choose not to participate

II: Unbelievable. Its typical that you would think a Jew participating in a religious forum is merely a financial decision. Yo malakhi? Is this why you participate?

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

I don't see what bearing my religious orthodoxy (or lack thereof) has to do with the point under discussion. Perhaps you can clarify?

[Barnacle]

Before that time, the Popes themselves preached against such arrogance.

Perhaps I will study further on that subject, it's one of about 10,000 subjects that interest me.

In the mean time, I suggest that "arrogance" is no more appropriate of a word to describe the pope, especially JPII, than it is to describe the president of the United States.

[drstevej]

***And third, the on-going Mormon vs. non-Mormon war (and that's what it appears to be) has to stop.***

I assume this does not preclude vigorous debate of Mormon vs. non-Mormon theological and historical issues as long as rules are followed.

I also assume if an issue has been discussed in the past (ex. the LDS view that the keys of the priesthood were granted to Joseph Smith OR that early LDS porphets taught the Adam-God doctrine later rejected by many LDS) that it is still a valid point for discussion in the present and future.

If truce means no further discussion or disagreement, then I see this as contrary to your original statement beginning the thread.


***It must stop. If you can't forgive and forget past transgressions, at least have the maturity to drop it and go on. ***

I am in agreement with this and assume it means to drop past violations of posting rules (whether perceived or actual) and discuss the issues within the limits you have set.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the meaning of "truce" and "armistace."


Thanks for your efforts.

[Sidebar Moderator]

You are correct: cordial discussions are allowed; mud fights are not.

[Quester]

In the mean time, I suggest that "arrogance" is no more appropriate of a word to describe the pope, especially JPII, than it is to describe the president of the United States.

I would venture that the poster was not, necessarily, suggesting that JPII is arrogant, ... he is, most likely, simply following the established precedent of Papal supremacy.

The charge of 'arrogance' is, likely, directed at Pope Leo IX, as the poster states in his post #955 to polemikos.

P.S. Would you hold that the term 'arrogant' was an inappropriate term to describe Clinton at anytime during his 8 years in office ?

[drstevej]

Cool!

Your selection of the term "Cordial Discussion" is interesting. Search older threads in the religion forum / smokey back room for that phrase and you will find the term too has a history.

For example:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/751519/posts

Note the ground rules heading the thread. Interesting bit of our historical past.

[Desdemona]

Thank you for your comments and your dedication.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Hmmm...

Would "Play nice now, children." suit you better? ;^)

[lockeliberty]

Repentance, to many Protestants, seems to be dropping "incorrect" doctrines and adopting "correct" ones. For example, I have often been told here to repent of my "Mormonism".

But repentance is forsaking unChristlike behavior, turning to Christ, and learning Christlike behavior from Him, studying the Scriptures and living accordingly, doing what He says.

I wanted to respond to this before this thread gets locked down. Hopefully, Alex will have a chance to respond before that time. What you have stated in a couple of sentences is the crux of what many feel is the problem. The traditional Reformed emphasis was that Christianity included both belief and duty. So while I would agree with your second emphasis relating to duty it is the first emphasis on belief that we disagree. What you and many other Christians here believe is that ones beliefs may be relative or even contradictory as long as certain other criteria are met. In your case, the emphasis is on engaging in certain actions as proof of a correct relationship with God but beliefs may vary widely and that's OK. The Mormon belief in second chances after this life is the obvious cause of that relavitism. Any orthodox Christian would, of course, reject such a notion and implicitly this reveals why beliefs are so important to an orthodox Christian.

[Revelation 911]

Ive enjoyed your willingness to speak freely with us - sometimes it gets a little frustrating to get a thread zapped or post deleted with all to show for it a stoic silence from the mod

I think this has been much helpful

"Will I dream" when you turn the thread off ? (-hal2000)

[drstevej]

***"Play nice now, children."***

OK mom or dad (whichever it may be).



BTW, I think it's mom.

[Sidebar Moderator]

"BTW, I think it's mom."

You didn't read my last post to George W. Bush up-thread, did you? :)

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything about my sex (gender is a term of grammar; hate when it's misapplied) in this post-modern world either, does it?

Keep 'em guessing, that's my motto (on personal information only, that is).

[sweetliberty]

I, for one, do appreciate your efforts to bring about more of a tone of civility on the religion forum. I don't post here much, because, quite frankly, the hostility seems to run deep and the spirit of religiosity seems to cloud both the judgement and good will of many posters on this topic. What I would hope to find here is a building up of the community of saints to the edification of all, not a "my church is better than yours" mentality that was pervasive in elementary school.

That is not to say that there havent't been some good discussions and some which have been very helpful and informative and I will continue to post from time to time on threads I perceive as such. There are some points at which I personally have to draw the line though, as a matter of conscience. I cannot give respect to doctrines of demons that are held to be of equal value as the scriptures. My background in comparative religion is extensive and I have prayerfully reached solid conclusions many years ago about what truth is and isn't, and while I might occasionally expound upon that, mostly I am at peace and have no desire to be drawn into the noisy contentions of others. The scriptures instruct us to speak the truth in love and that the wrath of man accomplishes not the righteiousness of God. It doesn't take too long to see whether the message of a thread is a testimony to the wrath of man or to the love of God. It's a good gauge in deciding whether or not to take part in the discussion.

Anyway, thanks for your effort. I hope it accomplishes what you've set out to do. It won't be overnight, but perhaps over time and with prayer, we can come to look more upon one another as fellow travelers and when we see a brother or sister in error or who is stumbling, we will seek to encourage and correct in a spirit of love and compassion instead of beating them up with our own understanding of truth.

"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel." (Prov. 12:15)

"A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind." (Prov. 18:2)

"Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man, But any fool will quarrel." (Prav. 20:3)

"Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words."(Prov. 23:9)

"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is {considered} prudent." (Prov. 17:28)

[Sidebar Moderator]

Thank you for the citations from Proverbs. I'm just now finishing up my umpteenth re-reading of the book, and had thought about including some of those verses earlier. Decided it was a bit too much, all things considered.

[lockeliberty]

I think that most of the time freeper Jews choose not to participate because the threads posted are not of interest to us.

I can understand that. Additionally, I can think of several other factors that may be the cause for Jewish freepers to avoid religous polemics. Traditionally (and contemporarly?), Judiaism was not a prostelyzing religon. The reluctiance based upon historical persecution. A strong sense of keeping certain things within the community. These all seem like plausible explanations. It also seems that Judiaism has become strictly an ethical religon and to most Jews the metaphysicl aspects are no longer relevant. Is that generally true?

I don't think the evangelical Christians who support Israel are under any illusion that there is an imminent mass conversion of Jews afoot.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. If you read some of the material from certain evangelical groups you see that is certainly the main premise behind their support of Israel.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

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,

I'm not Catholic but I find this interesting. In the Psuedo's Clement knew who the head of the church was which is why he corresponded with James in Jerusalem. I'd be interested to know how the basis of Papal Claims were gleaned from the Pseudo's? If that is so I missed the entired point of the writings.

[polemikos]

I have a difficult time imagining what it is you think you're saying here.

Allow me to connect the dots for you:
A - in 923, you raise a question of Luther misunderstanding something unspecified.
B - in 930, I answer. Since my subject was sS, I give a specific on Luther's misunderstanding same.
C - in 935, you switch from sS to Luther's views on papal authority.
D - in 937, I refer you back to my answer in 930, indicating I had answered your original query of 923
E - in 941 you accuse of (1) being off topic and (2) "insulting Luther" and engaging in "anti-Protestant polemics"
F - in 946 I answer that (923-941) is your tangent (as A-E above clearly show).
G - In 950 you apparently feign ignorance of the sequence and accuse me of being silly.

Really now. Who is creating tangents and being silly here? Not me Boss.

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.

An argument? Where? All I have had from you so far is silly attempts to bait me with straw men.

Now, where did I say you couldn't attack historical Protestant figures?

Here is a perfect example of your tactics. I never said anything remotely like your statement. You offer up this straw man denial while ignoring my specific questions to you regarding your specific charge.

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

Now there's chutzpah. You repeat your false accusation of 941 in a more generic form.

On the off chance you didn't read my response to your original false accusation, allow me to repeat myself:

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.

Try answering the questions. We'll get farther if you do that then with your silly attempts to try and avoid them.

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!

Straw Man Alert! I didn't say that, now did I?

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you said it or not;

What? A tacit admission that you've been trying to put words in my mouth? Who'da thunk it.

you need it to be true for your argument to hold up.

Again, not true.

This is quite tiresome. Please don't waste my time any more.