Replies

Calvinist, Reformed, GRPL, etc. are all free to caucus. Remember the Caucus Threads must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of others’ beliefs.

That seems to defeat the whole idea of a caucus. A caucus is where one is free to speak about any subject relevant to the belief that is being discussed, and if that means comparing Calvinism to Pelagianism or Arminianism or Catholicism or Methodism, then that should not automatically open the thread to outside contention. The problem we have here on the Religion Forum is that when you have some kind of caucus, invariably some other faith is brought into the discussion for purposes of comparison or to "caucus" about the various answers to specific claims and when you mix it up like that, you end up with endless contentious threads and eventually the thread gets pulled and people get suspended.

If I am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is most likely because I have rejected some other doctrine from some other church and to preclude closed discussions of why one became a Spaghetti Monster believer or to compare Spaghetti Worship with Sacred Cow worship is to simply destroy the whole idea of a caucus.

Not to rain on your parade, but I think the idea of a caucus among members of a particular sect or faith where you can't differentiate between the caucus members and the non-caucus members is silly.

We are members of particular sects and we hold to specific beliefs at least in part, if not in whole, because we have rejected the beliefs of those who are not a part of our sect or faith.

FWIW, I think the Mormons ought to have their own caucus threads where they can go and not be disturbed by anyone who is not a Mormon and where they can discuss whatever they want to believe as long as they don't make personal attacks against specific freepers in the process. This should apply to Catholics, Protestants, Spaghetti Monster believers, Hare Krishnas, whatever. After all a caucus is supposed to be a caucus.

Also this would free you up from having referee whether or not the Caucus designation should be removed. That must take up a lot of your time.

Not to rain on your parade, but I think the idea of a caucus among members of a particular sect or faith where you can't differentiate between the caucus members and the non-caucus members is silly.

I'm not sure if "silly" is the appropriate term but I agree with your statement. Not to discuss these fundamental issues of faith seems to go against one of the fundamental commands of Christianity-that we grow in our faith until we achieve the "unity" of faith.

Eph 4:11 And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Eph 4:13 And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
Eph 4:14 so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.

The discussions and arguments you see here are not unhealthy. Rather they help us to confirm or question our very principles, helping us to grow in our understanding of doctrine. This is how God intended, iron sharping iron. It is John Bunyan's view in Pilgrim's Progress, as we climb higher and higher up that mountain, climbing to that one true understanding of God. Ecumenicalism is simply accepting everyone's view and never moving forward; never moving up the mountain to a correct understanding.

I have learned a great deal about everyone's faith not from the quiet threads where we all agree, but from the threads where we do get rowdy. What we all could grow in is a bit more love in how we express things (myself included). But even this is something that we can only learn by being challenged in our walk.