[Natural Law]

ping

[ArrogantBustard]

Let the heretics rant among themselves.

So long as folks caucusing among themselves do not attack others ... let them.

[pgyanke]

You drive a BMW? You’re hereby excluded from the “Government Motors Caucus.”

[mnehring]

There are two amazing, cutting edge features you should try out. One is the IGn 0 RE function. With IGn 0 RE, you can block out threads you don’t like by implementing the CHOOSE button in your mind. Simply CHOOSE to use IGn 0 RE and you won’t have to worry again about those threads.

The other amazing, super-duper, cutting edge feature you should try is the POST feature. With this feature, you are free to POST a thread of the topic you want to discuss, in a way you want to discuss it.

I know, both of those features may be new to you, but I suggest trying the IGn 0 RE feature first.

[Persevero]

I think the phrase “sola scriptura” does have an historical meaning, though.

If you are going to let people define themselves, they aren’t always going to please everybody with their definitions.

For instance, on the Roman Catholic side, someone might call themselves “the only true church” caucus. Actually for all I know, someone does. I wouldn’t like it, but that is how they view themselves.

[Natural Law]

Was the addition of [whiners caucus] a deliberate act of antagonism or simply an act of passive aggression by a moderator?

Either way, let it ride. Posting a legitimate observation does not reflect badly on me in any way. It merely shows the depths to which the Forum and its administration has sunken.

[Rashputin]

Well, when some people can't stand the heat they build their own kitchen. I think it's a grand idea. It shows that the way some folks interpret Scripture depends on incestuous reinforcement and things like the Caucus system to protect that interpretation from the slings and arrows of Scripture based questions.

Arrogant Bustard hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. If there is any reason to have legitimate debate on some topic do it in a way that doesn't permit screens full of blinking crap and individuals regularly posting photos of their forebears. Otherwise let them simmer in their own stew. They'll be having their own knock down, drag out, battles soon enough and fragment even further. That's the history and lineage they are from and the Holy Spirit can show their perpetual fragmentation here as He has throughout history. What better testament to the one true Church is there?

Regards

[lastchance]

I don’t have a problem with most of those. Though I agree it is hard to pin down just what makes a thread a caucus.

[WPaCon]

I agree with ArrogantBustard and Rashputin, but I’m just a newbie.

[Rashputin]

Someone needs to start a Catholic Caucus thread on Sola Scriptura so more people will be equipped to recognize the false arguments and frequent out of context points such folks make.

Regards

[Pan_Yan]

[HarleyD]

It would seem to me a "Sola Scriptura Caucus" is not without merit. It would pertain to a good many Protestants (not all) that believes we go by scripture only. Hence, if the scriptures state something, it would be against caucus rules to say Pastor XXX "thinks..." or Father So-n-So "believes..." One may introduce a commentary view of the passage in question but only if it help further the interpretation. There are a good many passages of scriptures worth exploring without interjecting individual view points.

And one might ask what is wrong with a "White" caucus when we have a "Black" caucus. Of course, that is the conservative coming out in me.

Now all that being said, I guess I'm violating this caucus as I'm not whining. Or perhaps I just did. ;O)

[Mad Dawg]

What, if any, exactly is the deal on the “Catholic/Orthodox” designation, please? It seemed some were saying it was overruled or something.

This place is run like the Vatican — which is fine, as long as somebody comes along and makes order and sense of the ‘motu proprio”s and ‘sua sponte’s and indults and rescripts and so forth.

[xzins]

I don’t see any problem at all with doctrinally-defined caucuses. It enables groups with similar doctrines to discuss in peace. “Sola Scriptura” is clearly identified with a reformed tradition, and has been one of their calls to action for centuries. I don’t think it is hard to understand.

Similarly, the Orthodox-friendly could have an “Icon Caucus” or the Catholic-friendly could have an “Assumption of Mary Caucus”. The Mormonish folk could have a “Nephi” caucus; the 7th Day Adventistish could have a “Soul Sleep Caucus”

As long as that caucus isn’t attacking other groups (manipulating the boundaries of a caucus for nefarious purposes), then they aren’t hurting anyone at all.

This is a non-issue. People need to get a grip.

[ThomasThomas]

I say we need to add a caucus on caucuses.

[OwenKellogg]

Is this where I come to find out how to be saved?

[airborne]

So this is where the whiners can go to caucus?

Good idea!

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Jews who believe in the Scripture of the Old Testament are excluded.” <<

.
This is a grievous falsehood!

All who accept the scriptures as inerrant are included.
The masoretic text is the most perfectly preserved scripture in existance.

[1000 silverlings]

Jewish believers have caucus threads. Even tho I am a firm believer in and love the OT, I dont have a problem respecting their thread.

[greyfoxx39]

Popcorn ping