Posted on 04/20/2006 11:16:00 AM PDT by Gamecock
Did the old one quit or was he fired?
Is there only 1 religion mod at a time?
Hey people, check this site out. A Calvinist site that has an A.W. Tozer article, and it's not criticizing him. I think our prayers for light for them are bearing fruit. Don't be discouraged in well doing. Keep praying and they might start reading Andrew Murray. Thanks AG.
http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/
This is a little like asking "Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Spurgeon is a heretic.
By your definition (you are Catholic, as far as I can tell from your posting history), virtually every one of us who have posted on this thread are heretics, too.
Seems to me you're lobbing ad homs to start a flamewar, rather than demonstrate an ability to discuss the topic on it's merits.
Nope. Both Calvin and Wahhab declared war on those who opposed them, destroyed tombs of their respective saints, suppressed secular music, murdered their opponents and imposed a puritannical ethic.
One only needs to see what the Wahhibis have done to the beautiful Ottoman mosques in the Balkans to see a correlation with the Calvinist whitewashing of formerly Catholic Churches in England and the Netherlands during the 17th century.
Both take dour views of the world.
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/6157.html
... Today, it is common to hear Westerners, who have read a few polemical articles and imagine themselves great experts on Islam, calling for "an Islamic Reformation," and an "Islamic Luther." Other such are horrified to hear the argument, which is quite widespread among informed non-Muslim scholars as well as Muslims, that Islam already has a movement comparable to the Reformation, and had its Luther, or better, its John Calvin, in the form of Wahhabism and its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. That is, the Islamic Reformation exists in the ultraextremist cult that is the state sect in Saudi Arabia and the inspirer of al-Qaida. Wahhabis themselves are quite pleased by the comparison. Is this really so difficult to understand?
Calvin believed that a community of the elect had been chosen by God and made up the Calvinist congregation. Before the arrival of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the Hanafi-Sunni Muslims of the Ottoman empire believed (as Hanafi-Sunnis still believe) that Allah would judge individuals on their faith, and that salvation could not be claimed in this life. Is Calvinism, with its insistence on its adherents' election, so easily distinguished from Wahhabism, with exactly the same fanatical belief in its acolytes' own goodness? Both produced iconoclasm and theocracy. Is it not fascinating that the followers of Calvin and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab both fostered the rejection of pleasure, song and dance, decoration of sacred buildings, and spiritual culture beyond simple prayer?
We are told incessantly that without "our Protestant heritage" Americans would not be free. Have Americans really become so thoroughly indoctrinated in this simplistic and bigoted a view of our history, according to which every liberty is due to the influence of "Anglo-Saxonism" and "the Protestant ethic," as to have forgotten that decades before Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was slaying Sufis in Arabia, Puritan Massachusetts hanged a Catholic woman as a witch? (Look up the case of Ann "Goody" Glover on google, if you don't believe me.)
Or that Roger Williams had to flee Puritan Massachusetts to shelter among the Narragansett Indians, on his way to found an oasis of religious liberty in Rhode Island? Or that Catholics were deprived of rights in nearly all the early Anglo-American colonies, except for Maryland? Can we today imagine Boston without a Catholic archdiocese? Yet there was no Catholic bishop in Boston until 1808. Early America happened to be a place where adherents of the Roman Catholic church, libeled for generations as subservient to the Pope -- a slander whose echo we hear subtly repeated today, in discussions about the suitability of Catholic political candidates -- were in truth courageous heroes of religious liberty.
In New England, with the exception of Rhode Island, the Congregational Churches long enjoyed an absolute monopoly on faith, and in most of the southern colonies, the Church of England had the same status. New Hampshire permitted nobody but Protestants to hold office or teach school until 1877, 14 years after the Emancipation Proclamation ended the slavery of Blacks! The Carolinas, by contrast, have the honor of proclaiming freedom of religion to "Jews, heathen, and dissenters," beginning in 1669, under the original colonial charter written by John Locke, although it was not ratified. England itself, worshipped as the mother of our liberties, denied full rights to Catholics until 1829!
Americans have lately been perturbed by the arguments of Samuel Huntington, according to whom, "There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society," a dream that can be shared only by those who "dream in English." No place in this scheme for the Catholics of Maryland, to begin with. But how does this impend on the question of the future of Islam?
Great news! Thanks for the ping!
Go back to your rants about Roger Mahoney. Shoo! Go on...
Please rephrase without the reference to a disallowed word.
Wow I did not know Crap would be a forbidden word on FR.
Craps are dice as in crap shoots
A few rules-of-thumb to keep in mind: (a) the demeanor of the poster counts as much or more than the substance of the post to most passers-by, (b) we cannot read the mind of another poster and thus should never attribute motive to him/her, (c) contentious personal remarks may be treated the same as a direct personal attack at the discretion of the moderator.
One wonders why those Calvinists that penned the constitution bothered to include religious freedom as a corner stone.
Is there a clear list of rules for posting on the religion forum now ? How does one know the rules that will be enforced if they are hidden or if they are solely subject to the subjective reading of the mods on one particular post? How will we know if they are being fairly enforced and not with a bias against a certain religious doctrine?
I am being very strict - but for a reason, which is to avoid flame wars in the Religion Forum.
I do not mind a site having posting guidelines, but how does function in an environment when the rules are fluid and subject to the whim or inclination or friendships of the mod?
A list of posting rules would be helpful and also help keep the staff honest :)
I agree, and in fact I've asked for that very thing several times over the past couple years and have yet to see one.
wha? we can't say "crap" on FR? you've got to be kidding me!
I do however have general responsibility and authority for the Religion Forum and yes, I hold the posters here to a higher standard. And yes, within a few days I will draft an article to explain all of this, the standard and the reason for it.
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.