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
Thanks very much for your reply.
The point about Ecumenical threads is most excellent. I’m going to remember it an hope others do as well. It’s worth a try.
thanks.