None of the posters have the power to kill the Religious Forum just as none of us have the power to set the rules, decide who gets banned, who gets deleted, what threads stay, what comments go. The owner and moderators have that power so I don't understand the justification of shifting the blame to us.
If those who have truly have the power and authority to "kill the religious forum" do not want to own up to their responsibility, then simply admit that the new policy of Hyper-Ecumenicalism is what will kill the religous forum. If those with serious religious convictions get tired of the compulsory superficial PoMo "love" for false teachers, heretics, blasphemers and cultists, then they can just slowly turn away and allow the forum to reflect the personality and the religious sentiments of the moderators.
In an interesting article Jeff Jacoby asks the Democratic Candidates "4. Is there any serious problem in American society that you do *not* believe calls for some kind of government response?"
The answers were quite revealing, not only about the candidates, but with the attitude of The They in regards to the New Tone in The Religious Forum. Lieberman came up with a specific answer "Incivility"While public officials can lead by example, he said, "government cannot apply laws or adopt programs to force Americans to be kind and decent to one another.... Sharpton said "government cannot and should not legislate people's values or regulate the same."
I find it interesting that Democrats who believe that every aspect of life should be improved by government intervention find that there is no way to make people "civil towards one another". The They, here in the Free Republic clearly disagree, and feel that through programs and threats they can force people to change their values and force people to be civil.
God knew that cultures, language and religion were things that divide up people, such at the Tower of Babel, He simply changed their language, and the world dispersed. If merely changing the language made it impossible for the people to live with each other, causing them to disperse to the opposite side of the globe, then what can we expect to see in regards to forced acceptance of alternate religion?History is scarred with the tenor of religious animosity, a Howard Dean forced smile will not do anyone any good.
The three topics that we were all told to avoid in polite company was Sex, Religion and Politics. Free Republic has been one of the best forums for discussion on the latter two. Now we are told to do what generations of people have not been able to do and that is to discuss highly emotional and inflammatory subjects as Prozac laden frontal-lobotomized disinterested strangers. The idea is that no one here cares enough about their convictions to actually stand firm. Wouldn't it be nice and swell if this same philosophy could be incorporated into solving the Middle East imbroglio? Just issue a decree that everyone will smile and be nice and the Orange & Green battles would cease. Joseph Smith and his crew would not have been forced to flee to the barren wasteland of Utah to escape persecution. The Puritans would never have felt it necessary to risk life and limb to escape the hand of the Anglican Church. Thomas de Torquemada would have led a 12-step program rather than torture chambers. The Crusades never would have happened if only we were as enlightened then as we are now.
I was "banned" for a day because I didn't know that the phrase "private interpretation of Scripture" was hate-speech or violated the "profanity, racism and promotion of violence" rules. When the phrase "The Swarm" needs to be defended because the Presumption of Guilt automatically assumes that "The Swarm" is pejorative hate speech, then there is indeed a chill wind blowing.
So in contrast to the statement made by The They, The Religious Forum is indeed dead, for it has adopted the personality of those who regulate it. Is this a bad thing? Not for those who agree, and there are many (Matthew 7:14-15,21-23). But a religious forum that once was a raucus voluntary place to fight without swords and boiling oil, it is now a bathhouse that gives aid and shelter to those who are enemies to the gospel.
Due to perceived capriciousness (is this a flame because I actually express an opinion?) of those who have their hands on the trigger, it is no longer safe to post anything of content or value in this forum and still enjoy the fruits of the political side of this otherwise excellent service provided by JR. For indeed this was the stated purpose - to drive off folks like me. Rome's methods of excommunication have been revived in the ironic cause for "diversity". Dogmatics be gone!
Assuming that this is will be automatically deemed Strike Two because it is an honest and frank observation, and to the delight of the Hyper Ecumenicalists, and members of the Embrace a Scoffer cabal, I will bless the rest by going on a indefinite voluntary sabbatical from the Religion forum. There is no fruit in communing in a virtual group hug with scoffers, heretics, blasphemers and the general population of the American Religion.
2 Corinthians 6:14-17
Get off your high-horse.
No one is advocating "superficial love for false teachers."
24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,That's all the mods are asking. If you can't abide with that, well too bad, so sad you're mad.
25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, -- 2Tim 2:24-25 [NASB]
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
If you should change your attitude sometime in the future, you will be welcomed back with open arms.
May God bless you on your sojourn.