It's not God who is embarrassing Free Republic. It is some of those who come here to discuss God and theology. Nor will God be consigned to the Smoky Back Room, as if we could do that in the first place.
Those who refuse to learn how to discuss God and theology without the use of ad hominums, insults, name-calling and other unpleasant tactics won't be around long.
Actually I did understand the post just fine...One of the attractions of FR is that it has been "free" , now we are concerned with embarrassing the Republicans and conservatives . I wonder if Jesus would get a warning when he rebuked the Pharisees ?
We just need to remember nothing happens outside Gods will..so it this forum grows or is shut down we can praise God either way for being sovereign in all things..
Speaking as someone who mostly lurks rather than posts in the Religion forum, I think I may be missing the point here as well. Respectfully, might I ask a few questions for the purpose of clarification of the new rules?
Those who refuse to learn how to discuss God and theology without the use of ad hominums, insults, name-calling and other unpleasant tactics won't be around long.
Can we assume to limit such only to other members actually posting, or does the restriction apply in general? For example:
The former president of the Southern Baptist Convention called Mohammed a "demon-possessed pedophile" (or some such language; I cannot recall the precise phrase). Would a posting that used that language be forbidden under the new rules, since Muslims would obviously find it offensive? Is historical anecdote (for example, the fact that Mohammed actually did have a 6 year-old wife) defense against such usage, or is such historical context irrelevant?
Similarly, it could be suggested that news article mentioning pedophile priests might be offensive to those who are members of those sects. Does that mean that such articles are now forbidden? If not, what about use of such biblically "extreme" words as "sodomite" relating to the recent Episcopal heresy? For that matter, is "heresy" too strong of a word? You mentioned (in the original post), for example, the attacks against "new-age Catholics" (or words to that effect). Do the new rules preclude those who might have traditional views of Catholic doctrine (i.e., a devout belief in the sanctity of life) from using the word "heretic" against those who tolerate or embrace such things as abortion, yet who still claim to be Catholic? If so, does the limitation only apply against actual members of FR, or does such restrictions against "name-calling" include a general prohibition (so that such language could not be applied to anyone at all, even the subject of some posted article)?
Finally, what about the posting of scripture? There are any number of bible verses which might be considered offensive or insulting (and even categorized as "hate speech" in some places). Can we always assume that posting scripture is acceptable, or should such text be avoided? And does such acceptability apply to non-canon texts or to the scripture of other religions (for example, posting from the Quran for no other purpose than to reveal the nature of the religion through such verses as "kill the infidel wherever you find him", etc.)?
In the effort of clarification I could probably ask quite a few more questions of a similar form, but I think the answers to the above would sufficiently elucidate the intent of what the new rules are intending to accomplish. My initial suspicion was that it was simply an attempt to stop the Arminian-Calvinist clashes and the Catholic bashing, but the response to post 60 (banning a tag line) led me to believe that the intent is to do something of much greater scope. If you can clarify what the actual objective is and what scope it covers, I would be appreciative.