Guidelines on Hatred and the Religion Forum

Religion Moderator | June 22, 2012 | Religion Moderator

[Religion Moderator]

It is within the bounds of “open” Religion Forum town square style debate for a Freeper to express his hatred of a belief. But such posts are never allowed on RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”

It is never within the bounds on the Religion Forum for a Freeper to express his hatred of people who hold a particular belief when any Freeper is part of the belief group.

For example:

It is ok to express hatred towards MormonISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Mormons because some Freepers are Mormon.

It is ok to express hatred towards CatholicISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Catholics because some Freepers are Catholic.

It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.

It is ok to express hatred towards SatanISM and Satanists both because no Freeper is Satanist.

Some political posters are now venturing onto the Religion Forum probably because Romney’s beliefs are at issue in this election.

If you don’t know whether you are on the Religion Forum, look at the top of your internet browser window. If the current address (URL) begins with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/ then you are on the Religion Forum.

If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the Free Republic browse option list. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."

Finally, whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.

For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.

"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.

However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.

Statements formed as questions are rarely "making it personal."

"Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.

Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.

When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Despite all these efforts to eliminate ad hominems, there is nothing I can do to keep you from "taking it personally."

If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”

[BipolarBob]

This is getting stranger and stranger...

Check into the differences similarities between pagan Rome and papal Rome.

[Notwithstanding]

You read the Bible in the same way Elaina Kagan reads the constitution.

[Syncro]

ad hominem and a poor one at that.

Jesus is the Rock that His Church is built upon.

The Biblical perspective has been presented on this thread, it can either be believed or Rome and it’s
“popes’” (not in the Bible) teachings can be believed.

I understand the pressure you must be under.

Love, Elaina

[Notwithstanding]

Well, most protestant biblical scholars disagree with you - even if they don't adopt the Catholic view that prevailed for 1500 years. ================================== http://vws.biblecommenter.com/matthew/16.htm Vincent's Word Studies Thou art Peter (οὺ εἶ Πέτρος) Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, "Thou art the Christ." Christ replies, "Thou art Peter." Πέτρος (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector ("Iliad," vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone ("Iliad," xvi., 784). On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέρᾳ) The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer ("Odyssey," ix., 243), the rock (πέτρην) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land ("Odyssey," ix., 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the "Father in Heaven." The reference of πέτρα to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the "chief corner-stone," but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1 Peter 2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Revelation 21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Ephesians 2:20, it is said, "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." Equally untenable is the explanation which refers πέτρα to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men. "The word πέτρα," says Edersheim, "was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said' 'Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said' 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss" ("Life and Times of Jesus"). The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29; Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40; Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26; Galatians 1:15.

[Notwithstanding]

Well, most protestant biblical scholars disagree with you - even if they don’t adopt the Catholic view that prevailed for 1500 years.

---

http://vws.biblecommenter.com/matthew/16.htm

Vincent’s Word Studies

Thou art Peter

Christ responds to Peter’s emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, “Thou art the Christ.” Christ replies, “Thou art Peter.” Peter is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (”Iliad,” vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (”Iliad,” xvi., 784).

On this rock

The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock. Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer (”Odyssey,” ix., 243), the rock which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land (”Odyssey,” ix., 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the “Father in Heaven.”

The reference of this rock to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the “chief corner-stone,” but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1 Peter 2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Revelation 21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Ephesians 2:20, it is said, “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.”

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men.

“The word rock” says Edersheim, “was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said’ ‘Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,’ whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said’ ‘Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.’ The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord’s promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss” (”Life and Times of Jesus”).

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29; Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40; Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26; Galatians 1:15.

[Syncro]

Sorry all I could read was "most protestant biblical scholars disagree with you"

I cannot read giant blocks of texts with out spaces, etc.

Nor do I relate to pope/Catholic or "protestant" viewpoints much as relating to a proper Holy Spirit translation of Biblical Scriptures.

It the Christian viewpoint inspired by the aforementioned Holy Spirit that floats my boat.

One of the most fulfilling Biblical readings to take part in are those guided by the Holy Spirit.

Not a man or an institution.

I don't care who agrees with me.

I just like agreeing with God and His Word.

Your mileage may vary.

[Notwithstanding]

Well, most protestant biblical scholars disagree with you - even if they don't adopt the Catholic view that prevailed for 1500 years.

==================================

http://vws.biblecommenter.com/matthew/16.htm

Vincent's Word Studies

Thou art Peter (οὺ εἶ Πέτρος)

Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, "Thou art the Christ." Christ replies, "Thou art Peter." Πέτρος (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector ("Iliad," vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone ("Iliad," xvi., 784).

On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέρᾳ)

The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer ("Odyssey," ix., 243), the rock (πέτρην) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land ("Odyssey," ix., 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the "Father in Heaven."

The reference of πέτρα to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the "chief corner-stone," but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1 Peter 2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Revelation 21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Ephesians 2:20, it is said, "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone."

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers πέτρα to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men.

"The word πέτρα," says Edersheim, "was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said' 'Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said' 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss" ("Life and Times of Jesus").

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29; Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40; Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26; Galatians 1:15.

[Notwithstanding]

Thank you, Ms. Kagan.

[Syncro]

I imagine you are blind, as you find it interesting that others read with their eyes.

Run your fingers over this:

⠠⠏⠑⠞⠑⠗⠀⠊⠎⠀⠠⠛⠕⠙

You debate like Alan Colmes

[Elsie]

Thanks for all of that from the Bible Mr. Elsie...

...or is it MRS???

[Elsie]

You read the Bible in the same way Elaina Kagan reads the constitution.

You have my permission to post the way YOU read it on FR.

Do you choose to do so?

If the RCC position is SO clear; then we Protestants won't have anything to PROTEST about; will we.

[Elsie]

NIV Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

 

The reference of this rock to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. Says the church of ROME.

 

You READERs out there: how do YOU call it?

 

 

NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

[BipolarBob]

You READERs out there: how do YOU call it?

The gates of Hades overcame Peter when he denied his Lord three times. The cornerstone is Jesus. The Rock of Ages is Jesus. The Living Stone is Jesus.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The gates of Hades overcame Peter

The referent of that last "it" is the church, not the rock.

[Natural Law]

"The word that is translated *church* in Scripture is *ekklésia* meaning *assembly*."

Ekklesia does not mean assembly, it more closely means convocation; a gathering of people called together for a specific mission or purpose.

The word choice of Ekklesia in New Testament Scripture mirrors that of the Septuagint that also translated Qahal as Ekklesia. This choice superimposes the tradition of the Hebrew Qahal with the traditional governing body of the Greek city states.

It is interesting to note that like the Church, both the Qahal and the Ekklesia were structured, hierarchical governing bodies. However, were the meaning what you assert, the Hebrew word would have been Edah, not Qahal and the Greek word would have been "kuriakos".

Peace be with you

[Notwithstanding]

Elsie,

The source is a protestant scripture scholar from 100 years ago.

The prevailing interpretation of this “upon this rock” passage is that it is clearly a reference to Peter - even among those who don’t accept that this supports the doctrine of Peter’s continued office.

[BipolarBob]

even among those who don’t accept that this supports the doctrine of Peter’s continued office.

If you're keeping count (or just making stuff up as you go along because it coincides with your thinking), you can count me as one who does NOT believe it is referring to Peter.

[BipolarBob]

Also keep in mind that 1 + God is always a majority. It doesn’t matter what the prevailing opinion or majority of scholars thinks, God is the final arbiter of what is or is not TRUTH.

[Natural Law]

"You READERs out there: how do YOU call it?"

Each word of scripture is as sacred as every crumb of the Eucharist. Let’s first consider the words used to set the scene for the dialog in Matthew 16. Following the feeding of the 5,000 near Capernaum and the dialog in the Synagogue in which Jesus declared His body the Eucharist and real food Jesus took Peter and along with the other Apostles and Disciples up to Caesarea Philippi to reveal his papacy to him. The selection of the location is far from a coincidence. Caesarea Philippi is a 25 mile, two day hike from Capernaum through some pretty rough country.

Caesarea Philippi is located near the Golan Heights. The city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall that was known in ancient times as the “Rock of the Gods”. It was a very important location militarily, and had been a place of temples and worship dating back thousands of years before the first century.

Physically, that rock stood between a city of temples and the gates of hell. At the base of the cliff is a massive grotto or flooded cave that at the time was a natural cistern that the Greeks and their predecessors believed was a gate to the underworld. although now collapsed by seismic activity and dry the Romans tried to measure the depth of the cistern and gave up when they passed 800 feet without finding the bottom. It is interesting to note that the ancients used to perform sacrifices in this cave and would see the emergence of blood from the sacrifices in the local springs that form the headwaters of the Jordan River as a sign.

It was before this wall, topped by the temple to Pan, the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. In the presence of the massive rock that was a foundation to a holy city Jesus told Peter that he was a smaller rock, and that upon it, like the larger rock upon which was built the city before them, He would build His Church and that it would stand forever against the gates of hell. A side note is that all of this arguing about the relevance of Petros versus Petra is foolish in the context of that location. Jesus often used wordplay and humor to convey His message.

Jesus began the dialog by asking His Apostles and Disciples who the people said He was. He was demonstrating His rejection of a democratic, self-interpreting Church. The response to the question was varied. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, some said one of the prophets. All were wrong.

Jesus then asked the Apostles collectively who they thought He was and there was silence and He then rejected an oligarchical or elite governance. Then, without consulting the other Apostles, Peter stepped forward and declared that Jesus was indeed the Son of the Living God, which was the correct answer. Jesus acknowledged this and declared that Peter could only have learned this from God, designating that like the He had throughout the history of His people God had chosen one person to be the spiritual leader to carry on after Jesus. And there, before the rock that stood between the ancient temple city of Caesarea Philippi and the cave grotto that was known to the people on the region as the gates or jaws of hell declared, it was upon Peter that he would found his Church, His Ekklesia, His Qahal.

Peace be with you.

[Notwithstanding]

Like.