Posted on 02/22/2011 2:53:04 PM PST by Natural Law
An alarming trend is developing in the Free Republic Religion Forum in which a caucus identifier is being claimed for non-existent or impossibly defined groups. With the caucuses being self defined we see nonsense like the Sola Scriptura Caucus. Of course it doesn’t mean all Scripture, only the thread initiators or Forum Moderators definition of Scripture. Jews who believe in the Scripture of the Old Testament are excluded. Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are excluded even though they believe in the sufficiency of their own versions of Scripture. The not so transparent purpose of these faux caucuses is clearly to exclude a group of FReepers in a modern day repetition of “Whites Only” and “Irish Need Not Apply” prejudice. If this is allowed to stand what will we see next; caucuses so narrowly defined so as to only include one’s bridge club or to exclude an individual FReeper? How about a caucus designation for everyone but citizens from New York? How about a men’s only caucus? How about a caucus for those of us who drive BMWs? And what is being discussed in these faux caucus threads? Critical doctrinal issues such as ruggedized aircraft, home schooling, and civil unrest in Egypt. Give me a break!
I am pleasantly surprised that you referred to Catholics as Roman Catholics.
Here’s the deal: we have peacefully asked to have our own caucus threads. Others on FR have them and we respect them. Roman Catholics, Jewish believers, Mormons, Adventists, Pentecostals. You Roman Catholics will not tolerate it and have been disrupting our threads. The Rm has asked you to stop, and we have asked you to stop. Still you insist on not tolerating our right to Free Speech. You may be happier somewhere else. Perhaps you will, like others before you, depart FR and go somewhere else, where all day long, 24/7, you can have verbal intercourse and comraderie all day and all night long, with like souls.
This really is the problem in a nutshell.
Suppose two people are talking about New York City. One says, "It's a lovely place with museums and theaters and wonderful restaurants,and the people are so nice!"
Another says, "It's dirty and cruel, and the people are dangerous and rude."
Our response would be, at least one of those people is mistaken.
In general, the "Protestant" response is, or seems to be, "There are two New Yorks, the real one and the demonic one, and the second guy believes in the demonic one.
WE would say, the Muslims are sadly and disastrously mistaken about the one God. THEY would say, "They do not worship the one God -- but some other god."
This is a crucial philosophical difference, and it lies near the heart of our differences.
Of course it's exacerbated by what are cultural issues. For the 'gesture language' of Catholics, kissing is merely a sign of respect, like kissing your crazy great aunt who smells bad.
But Protestants with their colder English and Northern European gesture language make more of kissing. And then their cultural chauvinism and provincialism makes it hard for them to accept that the gesture of kissing could have such a range of meanings and affects attached to it.
But the interesting and important part of the disagreement is just as you have expressed it.
We Catholics tend to think there is one God about whom polytheists (who generally have a kind of super-god behind their pantheon), Buddhists, Muslims, Taoists, Jain, and a host of others are wrong in very important ways.
Protestants, in general, whatever they actually think about God, angels, and demons, tend to conclude -- or at least say -- that critical mistakes mean they are worshipping another god, as though there were many or as though what one conceives in one's error has an existence outside oneself.
To me, probably because of some incapacity of mine, that seems simply incoherent. But they seem to understand one another.
Sorry for the length. The simplest things take the most words.
Well, isn’t that interesting. Protestants couldn’t leave people to talk among themselves and you acknowledge that fact.
Thanks for owning up to not being able to leave others alone, that’s the first step in doing better in the future.
Do you honestly think that when people are having a discussion that it is the contrary opinions rather than the huge blocks of graphics and blinking text that are the problem? My experience is quite the contrary, I don’t see anything other than the entire screens full of totally unrelated crap you have to scroll through as a problem.
I think the little games played whenever a Catholic makes a comment are way more than contrary information. If you can point out any discussion where a RC makes a point that isn’t in a Caucus and those graphics and diversion don’t appear I’d like to see it because I’ve sure missed it.
have a nice day
The Muslim argument is absurd - they do not practice anything like sola-scriptura. Their "hadiths" are their traditions, surrounding and updating their koran in exactly the same application as the Roman church uses their own traditions.
I endorsed you having your caucus endorsing the erroenous man-made tradtion of sola scripture. Have at it. Can I be any clearer?
The Rm has asked you to stop
Not me.
You may be happier somewhere else.
If I might be, I'd be there.
Perhaps you will, like others before you, depart FR and go somewhere else, where all day long, 24/7, you can have verbal intercourse and comraderie all day and all night long, with like souls.
Perhaps I might, some day. But in the meantime, have your caucus and eat it, too.
How many gods do YOU think there are?
That would be abusing the "Caucus" designation. A Caucus is intended to allow likeminded believers to discuss their own beliefs in peace. It's not, however, some magic force field to hide behind, to lob criticisms at another belief. Sola Scriptura is a belief of Protestants.
If you, as a Catholic, wish to criticize it only among Catholics, you'll need to find a different venue to do so. Here, those being criticized are permitted to defend their beliefs.
For instance, there was a thread posted under the "Sola Scriptura Caucus" designation just yesterday, that made mention of Arianism in the posted article itself. Numerous Catholic FReepers bounded hilariously onto the thread immediately to point out that Arianism was a Catholic heresy, and therefore that this was not allowed in a Caucus thread. They were correct.
So, it's not as if there's some widespread problem among Catholics who don't understand how it works. It just appears that protest only arises when the shoe is on the other foot.
Funny, isn't it? It's like the gawky kid that has to be seen AND heard. They don't want to be bothered, but that can't let others NOT be bothered.
Seems...well...odd. In a twisted sort of way.
Hoss
Speaking of absurd.
Who said it was?
What do you belive in?
I believe the Nicene Creed. The Faith of the Apostles and the one holy and catholic apostolic church.
Oh stop! ALL caucus threads are discriminatory. That is their most basic nature. They exclude.
That they can't settle on a single one is a function of having founded at the same time as the printing press, not due to any objection to that approach.
So, you do not believe in the same God as the Jew?
How many gods do YOU think there are?
There is one God.
I don't think you understand the history you are addressing. Up 'til the point when religion forum caucus threads were created, ALL threads on Free Republic were OPEN, to include those in the Religion Forum.
I do not dispute DrEckleburg's memory that Roman Catholics were the first to ask for a place where they could discuss their beliefs in peace. My memory says she's right.
It doesn't really matter, because the RM came up with the open/caucus/devotional concept. My those designations, folks were able to have free-for-all discussions with all warts showing (open); in-group, non-polarized discussions (caucus); and prayer/reflection time with no negativity whatsoever (devotional).
Personally, I think it was a great plan, and I think it has worked very well.
I don't think you understand the history you are addressing. Up 'til the point when religion forum caucus threads were created, ALL threads on Free Republic were OPEN, to include those in the Religion Forum.
I do not dispute DrEckleburg's memory that Roman Catholics were the first to ask for a place where they could discuss their beliefs in peace. My memory says she's right.
It doesn't really matter, because the RM came up with the open/caucus/devotional concept. By those designations, folks were able to have free-for-all discussions with all warts showing (open); in-group, non-polarized discussions (caucus); and prayer/reflection time with no negativity whatsoever (devotional).
Personally, I think it was a great plan, and I think it has worked very well.
“Still you insist on not tolerating our right to Free Speech.”
Melodramatic and Whiner’s Caucus Award Winner.
I see some serious revisionism being written on the chronology of the events that occurred.
Those who write the rules (Protestants) and intervene from high positions write history. I must say that light has certainly been directed...Allen West...sunshine up my butt and all lol.
So you have your history...enjoy.
Back to Lurking at your Reader Rabbit logic and commenting on the real threads on politics.
I have to say, given the history you have presented, which I neither know nor have reason to doubt, that this makes sense to me.
EXCEPT that I am still trying to get the facts on the "Catholic/Orthodox" thing.
IF it is the case that such a caucus designation is forbidden,
AND SINCE there is no due process or right to appeal in the kind of autocracy which FR legitimately is,
THEN I think there will be more "demonstrations."
I don't know if that would be right or wrong, but I think it likely. On the one hand, this is JR's party, and mere manners would suggest that he gets to make the rules and we must follow them.
But on the other hand, we are all invited to contribute to the party. This is kind of what I mean by saying this is like the Vatican. It's one guy's deal, in one sense, but few will sacrifice to support something without feeling some ownership. The Pope knows this, and it accounts, at least partially, for the snail's pace at the Vatican.
But certainly, MY attitude, rightly or wrongly, was one of agit-prop. It was, um, heightened by cries of innocence from some caucus crashers of old.
But I think your account pretty just.
And that the Virgin Mary is the only way to Jesus Christ? That you must confess your sins to an intermediary other than Jesus Christ, even tho Christ tore the veil that stands between God and man?? that the Holy Spirit cannot enlighten you personally in spite what scripture says? you must have a magisterium, priests and a pope? that, in spite of what scripture says, the Pope is God’s stand-in on earth instead of the Holy Spirit? and so on and so forth.
Whatever. Then we need a Justification for Tradition thread that is a caucus thread
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.