| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
Wonderful. May your day be blessed.
However, when the article is itself a vanity the author of the article should expect to be challenged personally. But that is not a carte blanche to pile onto the Freeper-author for just any old reason.
As an example, we have a Freeper (evidently Protestant) who posts his prophecies by speaking for God in the first person. His credibility was vigorously challenged on thread as one might expect.
My ruling was that, unless the article could be legitimately classified as "caucus" or "prayer" or "devotional" - he must suffer those challenges even though they were obviously "making it personal" - because he was the author of the article itself.
Even-handedness demands that I allow similar latitude on this thread which I have done, for instance, by not reigning in the sidebar challenging the author's credibility using her statements concerning Paul's credibility.
That said, I expect all of the posters here to stay on the theological issues and keep any personal challenges narrowly to the author's credibility to advance a theological issue such as would be applicable to a vanity article posted on the Religion Forum.
In other words, do NOT bring up the author's posting history unless it is specifically relevant to a theological issue or the author's credibility to advance the vanity article.
Are you saying that the entire Bible is just a bunch of dictation? If that is the case why has authorship of Books even been an issue.
AGREED.
AGREED.
And, humor is great at piercing prissy-ness.
LUB
Forgot to ping you to 2540.
The term "Papist as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is:
NOUN: Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic"
I am objecting to the continued use and tolerance of this word and other offensive terms for Catholics such as "RC" on these Religion Forum threads particularly with the precedent of similar offensive descriptors of non-Catholics being removed along with the entire post containing them.
Shouldn't all participants have the same protections or the same thick skin?
LOL.
GREAT QUESTION.
In my . . . esteemed expert opinion on finger frothing . . .
were it UNwarranted, it would have probably been a grand example.
However, points have to be taken off because it was soooooo warranted by what it was responding to.
Therefore, without my calculator and micrometer out, I’d have to guess as to whether it would rise to the level of true finger frothing, or not.
I’d guess . . . not . . . by a hair.
Quite so and fortunately a variety of writers provide each provide a part of the whole.
Hmm - looking back at that post I see I left out a couple of words. It should have said “agree or disagree with on doctrinal points.”
I knew a DA named Faulk.....it might have been more fitting.
What about the consistent posting of Mark Bsnr as BSnr?
That’s okay?
No, that is not ok. Point them out to me and I will remove them.
Thank you.
Awwwwwww
Perhaps Prottys could canvas some taxidermists to see if a collection could be taken up for the rabid cliques to gain some thicker skins.
Prottys have collectively and individually been called every foul thing in the book hereon from the beginning by Papists—and often a lot not in the book.
Goes with the territory.
Except for personally personhood harsh assaults, we usually hardly bat an eye or slow down over it.
It’s amazing how many Roman Catholics et al fail to realize that some of us Prottys haul out annoying terms primarily or only when the Papists get particularly obnoxious, prissy and assaultive.
stimulus followed by response
LOL.
Shouldn't all participants have the same protections or the same thick skin?
Free Republic participants are responsible for supplying their own skin. Participants incapable of growing a thick skin should consider ignoring “open” RF threads altogether, and restrict their reading and posting activities to threads labeled “caucus” “ecumenical” “prayer” or “devotional.”
Exactly! The letters of Paul were not written a priori. This is where both Luther and Calvin went wrong. They are meant ONLY to support, clarify, and reinforce the contents of the Synoptic Gospels. That alone was Paul's mission. They are not stand alone additions, revisions, extensions or new revelations and not to be used out of the context of the Synoptic Gospels.
INDEED.
WISELY AND MARVELOUSLY PUT.
THX.
But then, they’d not be able to have fun serving stinky dofu/tofu!
But then, they’d not be able to have fun serving stinky dofu/tofu!
And screaming bloody murder when opposing folks turned up their noses and declined with great fanfare.
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.