This post is laughable from one who obviously takes the "freedom of FR speech" quite seriously and loves caps.
If you will check posting history, you will find that I regularly support the RM.
Posted on 07/22/2010 11:01:11 AM PDT by the_conscience
Edited on 07/23/2010 8:45:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
AXIOX! AXIOS! AXIOS!
Nah. Papal Pinko is the pet name she lets me use. And, so far, I can run faster and farther that she can sling. So far.
It's also worth noting that the Arminian's "commentary" also included a link to The Confession of Dositheus which was a point-by-point REJECTION of the Lucaris Confession. So, I wonder how much of the Orthodox perspective was really desired.
I'm just an ignorant Papist, what do I know?
You mean like this, from a recent Catholic Caucus thread?
As a side note, approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament. As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing these 7 books.
Objection!
The guidelines set forth on the RM homepage clearly state that The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Because the above article clearly compares beliefs it should not be granted "Caucus" status. At best it should be changed to an Ecumenical thread.
I will now withdraw and await the RM's ruling.
Ok, that is funny!
The LDS do not believe in the Trinity, the Catholics do - but both LDS and Catholic beliefs are subjected to intense challenges and ridicule on "open" town square format RF threads.
The LDS and Catholic posters may have a real interest in debating the doctrine of the Trinity without the interference of the "antis."
It is a valid caucus provided the article and replies do not contrast beliefs with the non-members, e.g. Protestants.
125 posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 7:47:40 AM by Religion Moderator
Trinitarian ping
Gee...that sounds very much like the "anti-Trinitarians" may indulge their disbelief of the Trinity under the caucus label with no allowance made for the "Pro-Trinitarians" to object.
In that case, the "antis" should be able to set up their OWN caucus to debate the "anti-Trinitarian" beliefs, do I have that right?
Actually, WE don't need that little "affirmative action" perk...but it sounds very familiar.
It will be interesting to see how It is a valid caucus provided the article and replies do not contrast beliefs with the non-members, e.g. Protestants. works.
Poke, grin, run.
+{{{{:o)
No, I seriously think that Benny Hinn was dropped here from Outer Space, so the Raelism may believe! We should have a {UFO Pentecostals} caucus to discuss that.
well, it’s tricky, but you can talk about the TRinity without saying “xyz believes in this and are bloody wrong”! but seriously, i think the non-Trinitarians need a place to decide whether they beleive Jesus is God or not, and the nature of the Godhead according to themselves.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
ALL FREEPERS
EN MASSE
SUPPORT THE RM AND THE CAUCUS DESIGNATIONS AS DEFINED AND AS MANAGED.
NO SYSTEM OF MAN WILL EVER BE PERFECT.
This Rel Forum managed under this RM is as close to humanly perfect as I think it’s realistic to expect.
ENOUGH OF THIS CARPING ALREADY YET! SHEESH.
And JimRob, imho, and observations has enormous respect for the RM—OBVIOUSLY CLEAR from his public statements about the RM. HE IS NOT LIKELY AT ALL to trouble the RM and I find pinging Jim on such things to be almost harrassment of an already plenty beleagured Jim as well as insulting to the RM.
Sheesh.
The caucus threads have helped bring a MUCH NEEDED level of sanity to the Rel Forum. We do NOT want to go backwards! Sheesh!
Enough already yet with the carping about the caucus threads and their criteria and management. Grow up. Get a life. Go to Sam’s Club and buy several cases of CLUES or PERSPECTIVE.
Sheesh. GRRRR
Yeah, just discount 52,000 missionaries going out daily to tell Trinitarians that they are all wrong. The Non-Trinitarians who clamor to carry the same name that the Trinitarians do without "professing" as it were, are being given special status here. But that's OK...there IS a higher Judge, you know. ;)
It is all just SO familiar though.
This post is laughable from one who obviously takes the "freedom of FR speech" quite seriously and loves caps.
If you will check posting history, you will find that I regularly support the RM.
Correct. There was a statement very recently regarding this issue. It could not have been more clear.
I KNOW.
I forgot to take you out of the header.
I was spring boarding off your post vs trying to say something forceful to you.
Sorry.
I have to admit I was a little taken aback. Apology accepted, my FRiend.
I should have pulled your name when I was pondering that issue. Instead, I went ahead and wrote my rant and then forgot to go back and pull your name before I hit post.
Thanks for your kind reply.
And your kind reply as well trisham;
Motive goes to "mens rea", to whether the caucus status is being used as a sword or as a shield, and so forth.
Moreover, among gentlemen, to enter into a conversation or a transaction with ulterior motives might be found a but caddish.
Not to be confused with kaddish, which is another thing altogether.
By the way, the judge in this case, that is, the RM, seems to have found that what you think a gnat was a real issue. That should count for something.
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.