Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[the_conscience]

I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?

[wagglebee]

Here’s the streetwalker post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2421970/posts?page=5515#5515

I assume the comic book post was pulled along with responses.

[ArrogantBustard]

The "gaggle of streetwalkers" comment was posted to this very thread, post number 5515 from "the-conscience" (now deleted).

Post number 5516 and post number5521 (at least) survive as references to it.

Mr. Moderator, this incident is the very reason that I have long opposed the simple "zotting" of offensive comments. The comments were made; that is an historical fact. People read them; that is also an historical fact. Trying to deny their existence, or wiping them out is Orwellian ... dropping them down the "memory hole".

The comments MUST remain in some form, as testimony against those who made them.

[Religion Moderator]

When a post is removed, do NOT serve it back up again. That is trouble-making, more specifically, picking at a scab.

[Quix]

Ahhhh . . .

sooooo . . . the corrected version is that you are NOT claiming that every quote there was hateful?

[Quix]

Or

are you merely saying that not 100% of EVERYONE

would agree that EVERY quote was hateful?

[wagglebee]

Look at my original statement, I said a COLLECTION of comments.

[Petronski]

It had not been removed when I added it to my homepage.

Now you’re going through and deleting every mention of that hateful post, effectively inoculating the bigot from the infamy of his hatred.

That’s just swell.

[Religion Moderator]

The offending post and both references to it are now removed. And the original poster has long since been instructed to leave this thread.

The comments MUST remain in some form, as testimony against those who made them.

If you wish to accumulate a treasury of personal offenses, then do it on your own computer. When we remove a post, we do NOT want to see it again.

[Petronski]

Are you ordering me to remove the two quotes from my homepage?

[Quix]

FWIW,

While I normally have a strong bias toward . . . full disclosure . . . and the search light of exposure . . .

I think, from what I observe,

your job on this forum is quite impossible enough trying to herd all these cats . . .

some clearly with DIS-TEMPER [pun mercilessly intended] and possibly some with rabies [merely a finger-frothingly accurate observation—LOL].

It seems like you are your usual anointed and wise child of God self called to this impossible task

to remove such prickly, spikey, overwhelmingly, unnecessarily OUTRAGEOUSLY fierce—if not mean-spirited things.

It’s hard enough to maintain even a semblence of brotherly affections hereon without such. Can’t make it easier to leave such around.

Then there’s the business of newcomers not having a clue about our long, tediously built culture and customs hereon . . . therefore lacking a proper context to put such things in.

In sum—CHEERS TO THE MAX. Your Holy Spirit born wisdom wins again . . . at least with me.

[wagglebee]

I can see if someone slips up and utters a profanity and that is removed; however, certain utterances go to the very core of a person's character and to remove these posts but allow the poster to remain is really just covering up for the poster.

And the responses to that post (containing the quote) were not removed until a few minutes ago.

[Quix]

. . . which CAN BE construed in ambiguous ways . . .

[Religion Moderator]

Yes.

[wagglebee]

If you wish to accumulate a treasury of personal offenses, then do it on your own computer. When we remove a post, we do NOT want to see it again.

However, just last week you posted this. The portion that I have highlighted in red made me assume that the responses to the original post were intentionally left standing by you:

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:16:47 AM · 4,794 of 6,473
Religion Moderator to wagglebee; RnMomof7; Judith Anne

 

When a newbie posts a strong preterist position (that Christians replaced the Jews in God's promises) or that Europeans are the lost tribes of Israel or that "Adam" means white - all of which are beliefs claimed by various white supremacist theologies - I require him to state his beliefs concerning Israel and other races.

If he refuses - as we had a group of about a half dozen do - I ban him. If his reply is weak, I flag his account.

There was no such reason for me to think the poster harbored a racist view. But by responding to the question concerning that particular phrase, the poster acquitted herself very well indeed. Otherwise I would have pulled the entire exchange.

Sometimes it is better to leave the exchange "on the record."

[Religion Moderator]

There are many well established posters who, for whatever reason, go off-the-rails and say something completely out-of-character and/or not allowed on this forum.

The moderators remove those posts and a record is kept. When the poster has established a pattern of unacceptable posts, then we suspend and demand he change his behavior. If he does not comply, or if it is futile, we ban him.

The subject of religion is particularly sensitive and I choose to moderate with a soft hand because most any true believer is apt to have a bad day now-and-again.

[wagglebee]

I simply assumed that the responses were left to “keep in on the record” as you had suggested last week.

[Religion Moderator]

It is my choice to leave certain exchanges "on the record." The example was a poster with red flagged beliefs testifying at my request that he is not Christian Identity, racist, etc.

Again, if a moderator removes a post, do not serve it back up.

[Forest Keeper]

John Calvin: [as quoted by Mr. R.] “29. The work of God is this. They had spoken of works Christ reminds them of one work, that is, faith; by which he means that all that men undertake without faith is vain and useless, but that faith alone is sufficient, because this alone does God require from us, that we believe For there is here an implied contrast between faith and the works and efforts of men; as if he had said, Men toil to no purpose, when they endeavor to please God without faith, because, by running, as it were, out of the course, they do not advance towards the goal. This is a remarkable passage, showing that, though men torment themselves wretchedly throughout their whole life, still they lose their pains, if they have not faith in Christ as the rule of their life. Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God are mistaken; for Christ does not now show what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us. (emphasis by FK)

Just to be clear, this passage in no way says that Calvin thought that we contribute to our own faith, or that faith is not a gift. To the contrary, he merely says that the subject Bible passage he is discussing here does not address where faith comes from. Elsewhere Calvin gives us his definition of faith:

[Inst. 3.2.7] ............ We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.

Faith itself is knowledge revealed to us and sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. No where (that I can find) does Calvin say that faith has anything to do with our own cooperative efforts (free will).

[stfassisi]

Whether a beloved spouse, child, self, things or whatever - for however long something is as important to us as God (or more so) - we are idolators.

And the thing which has robbed God of our undivided love can even be unpleasant, e.g. a stubbed toe, anger, self-pity.

Good post,dear sister.

What GK Chesterton says about this makes very good sense as well...

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice."-G.K. Chesterton

[Quix]

Thanks.

Somehow I’ve missed that Chesterton quote.