| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/13/2011 7:09:16 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Thread war |
Posted on 12/12/2011 5:00:12 PM PST by rzman21
That's strange, because that same church REQUIRES me to say that I worship the Triune God at every Sunday Mass, and ends all her prayers with an invocation of the Trinity. But I'm sure you know better than she does what she believes, right?
"The Church and non-Christians"
Now that you KNOW this, perhaps you can remember to mention that fact when you post misleading excerpts?
Nope.
I am the LORD, and there is no other. -- Isaiah 45:18
I think I'll take God's word on the subject over yours.
CB was corrected in full at least twice on a previous thread.
The prediction then was it would be trotted out again in hopes of the truth taking another break.
It’s an easy prediction. I predict it will happen yet again.
When a poster has to be dishonest, repeatedly, about other’s beliefs it only indicates an insecurity in their own.
What is particularly odd is those claiming the Triune God have no idea of the history of the councils and the development of the creeds of the Most Holy Trinity of the orthodox Christian Faith.
The take Trinitarianism for granted, little as they know about it, and claim it as their own.
It is, to me, as if someone claimed credit for passing a test they never took.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You post brief snippets of early Church writings concerning the development of Christology and the Most Holy Trinity.
And, you’ve posted a huge amount of words on your own take on Church teaching.
How about this:
Post your own beliefs and teaching on who Christ is and the Holy Trinity. Cover all the same bases and questions, be specific, and take as much time and space as you need: for your own doctrine and beliefs on the subject.
All posts containing potty language - or references to potty language - are deleted on the Religion Forum. If you’d care to repost without those words, that’s be fine.
That's why I used that language. I knew it would get pulled. That is why I pinged you. But potty language isn't nearly as offensive as this article.
Maybe, but that’s not saying much. Calvin would lead the charge against anyone but Calvin.
:)
It is fun to watch people who from their own posts obviously hate Calvinist theology side with Calvinists to attack Catholics and even the traditional Lutherans or Baptists who disagree with Calvin. I think most of the usual suspects hate all things Christian and just pretend to be Christian in order to muddy the waters as they play games or take little ego trips in keeping with their worship of themselves.
After all, who but the Alynsky and anti-Christian humanist crowd think the average Christian is stupid and thrive on seeing who will swallow partial quotes from propaganda sites, Scripture clearly taken out of context, redefinition of words on the fly, and all the other frequently used maneuvers? Only the humanist fatalists automatically refer to revisionist historians or well known anti-Catholic and anti-Christian propagandists in preference to honest sources, and only the humanist crowd consistently refuse to acknowledge any authority greater than their own intellect.
I think a lot of the folks who thrive on arguments rather than discussions are not now and never have been Christian. At a minimum, they're agnostics entertaining themselves and at worst humanists getting laughs by pretending to be Christian and spreading division. That's why so many of them are exactly like the caricatures of Christians the humanists always write about since they don't know any real Christians they could imitate.
Whatever the case, disinformation thrives and real information and discussion get buried every time the usual suspects show up and attack anyone honestly defending their point of view or anyone who seems to be trying to have a reasonable discussion. If this same topic had been designated as an Ecumenical post I bet there'd be a lot of reasonable comments from multiple perspectives by now rather than the usual games and predictable attacks.
If people want honest and collegial discussion they should start not bothering to even comment on anything that doesn't have an Ecumenical Caucus tag. For those who do not know or are only vaguely familiar with the various Caucus designations, the following is from the Moderators list of such things and other guidelines:
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
So, if the usual suspects throwing stuff out to see what sort of divisions they can stir up bothers you, there is a way to deal with that already provided for. The same is true if you only want to discuss a given topic with those who agree with you. I'll be the first to say that I think the Caucus tag has been taken off of a thread for what I think are minor reasons, but I'll also be the first to admit that the caucus tags are so seldom used that I don't see how the Moderator can have a good feel for who is deliberately trying to skirt the caucus rules and who may just have phrased something poorly. That being the case, the Moderators have to mechanically apply rules that they're not often called on to employ so they're bound to seem more arbitrary or biased than if the were routinely dealing with the same situations. As they say, practice makes perfect but a lot of those who complain seem to me to get plenty of complaining and mud slinging practice but have often never even tried to find ways to avoid the problems they see. Maybe when enough people have had their personal ox gored often enough some folks will at least try the methods already in place for avoiding little games and mud slinging. Who that doesn't want an argument is going to post something as an open thread when the Ecumenical Caucus tag would work just fine? Why not use it? There may be reasons people shy away from the Ecumenical Caucus designation at this point in time, but I bet the problems would work themselves out over time and with more frequent use.
JMHO
So, there, I should have offended just about everyone at least a little. Good night folks.
Regards
As is so often the case, it's at least an improvement over Luther. Just as Luther was more Calvinist than Calvin by advancing the "absolute necessity" fallacy, Luther called Islam the "Scourge of God" but went on to say he would prefer to be ruled by Turks than by a Catholic King, that he agreed with Islam on divorce and polygamy, and that if a simple statement was sufficient to have the Turks accept you as a Muslim then a simple statement should suffice for Christians to accept someone as having become Christian. So, another instance of when Luther based his doctrines on something other than Scripture while at the same time pretending that it was Scripture alone that dictated his doctrines. One of these days a lot of people are going to find out that the Koran and Virgil aren't in the Bible and they're going to be really upset with Martin about a few things.
Regards
I think that despite all of the fuss and anguish, that is the way Jesus would have wanted it. I have never understood the zaniness that sometime occurs between denominations when the end objective has always been His kingdom and saving as many souls as possible.
That was a little “g” ~ not the big “G”. Else the early Christian missionaries would not have been able to ‘splain things to the Sassanach Barbarians.
That has to do with the politics of the day that saw clearly Catholic princes and kings backing Protestant clerics against the Catholic Church. Those clerics had to check some of their attacks on the RC institution lest they offend their very sponsors about their personal theology.
By the end of the 1600s all that sort of issue had been disposed of (through the vehicle of The Thirty Years War and its settlements we call The Peace of Westphalia). If you'd had Luther still around in the 1700s he'd been singing a different tune on many topics, as do all of us anyway.
>>People need to have their assumptions challenged.<<
No, you want to challenge.
And at Christmastime. How Christian of you.
Your nature be damned.
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.