Posted on 02/10/2008 11:25:15 AM PST by Reaganesque
Maybe you should try lifting those people up, instead of putting them down.
“Market forces” will prevail — for openers...
That didn't stop you from removing the caucus designation from my thread from 10/26/2007. The only reference that I used was..."I have heard some argue...". If the LDS distinction is OK, then why wasn't mine? I think consistency should be in order here. Just remove ALL protections from ALL threads and let the discussions begin.
In Christ...Alone!
Sunday School Bible Study – “Centered on Christ” Matthew 16:13-28
> FreeRepublic is looked upon as a site where hate is spewed and nobody pays any attention. Sad but true.
I completely agree. The worst of the right seems to have claimed an audience here.
Mr. Moderator. First, I asked what the purpose of this thread was, and have yet to receive a response. What WAS responded to is when I:
* applauded the words of Catholics who joined “with Latter-day Saints to celebrate the gospel message” and I
* contrasted that to “the bickering and attacks from the bigots of the ‘religious right.’”
To that comment, Gamecock angrily lashed out, redefining what I meant and copied Dr. Eckleburg and Alex Murphy to further contribute. P-Marlowe jumped in with a bigoted statement about LDS definitions, which was responded to by sandude claiming that there is not special LDS definition of the word (contrary to Gamecock’s bigoted statement).
And then you throw in:
>All non-LDS posters should either leave the thread at once or behave as if they were attending an LDS service behind closed doors.
What is with that? Didn’t you read the comments by those of other faiths who contributed wonderfully to the thread’s subject?
But now, YOU, Mr. Moderator, made it worse. Why?
* applauded the words of Catholics who joined “with Latter-day Saints to celebrate the gospel message” and I
* contrasted that to “the bickering and attacks from the bigots of the ‘religious right.’”
To that comment, Gamecock angrily lashed out, redefining what I meant and copied Dr. Eckleburg and Alex Murphy to further contribute. P-Marlowe jumped in with a bigoted statement about LDS definitions, which was responded to by sandude claiming that there is not special LDS definition of the word (contrary to Gamecock’s bigoted statement).
And then you throw in:
>All non-LDS posters should either leave the thread at once or behave as if they were attending an LDS service behind closed doors.
What is with that? Didn’t you read the comments by those of other faiths who contributed wonderfully to the thread’s subject?
But no, YOU, Mr. Moderator, made it worse. Why?
No, it's not.
Since this is a devotional thread, please: do not pile on all of your perceived enemies and do a little dance.
Hold this thought.
Goodbye. You LDS ORganization® members can continue to talk about me behind my back. I can do nothing about it.
Toodle ooooh!
Gamecock's post #15:
"Isn't the precedent that making a distinction with other groups invalidate any protected status?
Excuse me? That's "angrily lashing out"?
...and copied Dr. Eckleburg and Alex Murphy to further contribute.
Ping Dr E and I when you talk about us next time.
So the thread turned from one of a legitimate LDS devotional to a religious right and Free Republic bashing session at your prompting.
P-Marlowe jumped in with a bigoted statement about LDS definitions...
Your statement proves my point.
I saw this thread, and wondered why it was allowed to remain a “devotional.” In post #33, there are veiled ‘threats’ regarding me specifically, and so I should be able to respond. I thought the moderator summed it up nicely by saying basically, “this is a public forum, others are watching, if this is the way Mormons want to show devotion, their modus operandi is on open display.
Isn’t it amazing that it is I, the non believing-mormon who is now born-again in Christ, that seems to be the target of their rants. I symbolize all that is evil to them, because I have the knowledge, the experience, and the strength to speak out.
tracer may have the pull and the influence to get me silenced on FR. Who knows, perhaps this is more of a physical threat, I do not know. But I am not afraid. If Christ is for me, who can be against me.
I will continue to pray for my LDS friends, neighbors, family and FRiends. May you find freedom and salvation through Jesus Christ, an the humility to understand your fallen nature and your inability to “earn” His love.
I don’t think it’s the content of the original article posted that calls into question the devotional status of this thread, but rather this, posted by tortdog in #17:
“Nice to see the Catholics joining with Latter-day Saints to celebrate the gospel message, as opposed to some of the bickering and attacks from the bigots of the ‘religious right.’”
There are a lot of folks, especially here on Free Republic, who count themselves members of the Religious Right. And many of these folks are more than willing to enter into disputes with LDS over a variety of topics, including, as an example, whether Mr. Romney's membership in the LDS is disqualifying for the presidency.
Tortdog, who is a member of the LDS, I believe, has labeled these folks bigots. It would be unjust then to demand that those who have been called bigots be prevented from responding on this thread because it's "devotional." Following tortdog's post, the thread is no longer devotional.
And sadly, the conversation degenerated after that post. It’s tough to see how this thread could be called any longer a devotional, and it’s tough to blame the non-LDS folks here for that development.
Perhaps the original poster of this thread, Reaganesque, could re-post the thread as a devotional, and folks, LDS and non-LDS, could then refrain from calling each other names?
Just my two cents.
sitetest
The devotional label has been removed and the thread is now open for rebuttal.
Thank you mod.
The replies to this thread speak for themselves.
It is nice indeed.
...as opposed to some of the bickering and attacks from the bigots of the “religious right.”
But taking the torch to the caucus status of this thread is, uh, counterproductive.
Look, I understand the frustration when someone of another faith gets in your face and tells you (a) what you believe, and (b) how evil they know it is.
But sinking to their level is EXACTLY what they want.
Better to suffer the slings and arrows with wit and good will and keep your focus on Matthew 7:6.
Perhaps the difference, in part at least, is this: In this thread, the “others” denoted are vague and nebulous. In your thread, the “some” of “some argue” must specifically be Catholics, in that the correct interpretation of Jesus’ words are a distinctive teaching of the Catholic Church.
After all, I don’t see anyone else arguing that Jesus’ words, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,...” mean that Jesus built the Church on Peter.
Thus, what was said in your thread attacked a particular doctrine specifically of the Catholic Church.
Although, in my own view, the comments in the article associated with “This belief distinguishes Latter-day Saints from many other Christian denominations that teach that salvation is given to all who simply believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ” represent a close call.
sitetest
>There are a lot of folks, especially here on Free Republic, who count themselves members of the Religious Right. And many of these folks are more than willing to enter into disputes with LDS over a variety of topics, including, as an example, whether Mr. Romney’s membership in the LDS is disqualifying for the presidency.
People who argue that a person’s religion disqualifies him from running for the presidency is a religious bigot.
It’s not my definition. It’s the dictionary’s.
It is another thing to debate the merits of one’s faith. I have no problem with that, and that is not bigotry.
>Better to suffer the slings and arrows with wit and good will and keep your focus on Matthew 7:6.
I agree. But I fail to see the harm in recognizing religious bigotry at its finest.
I have zero issue with religious discussion and debate. But religious bigotry thrown at any person’s faith, to me, is repulsive.
And I had thought that it was prohibited here on this forum.
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.