Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
People need to grow up . This is an open thread if you are not mature enough to handle open discussion I would suggest you not read open threads .
Be civil , after all most of you profess to be Christians. If you can not be civil with one another the rest of the world will see you as a hypocrite.
When some one does not agree with you it does not mean that they hate you personally. If you are so insecure with your own faith or your own person that you can not take any sort of criticism you probably should not be participating in these type of discussions.
If you feel the need to constantly call the moderator it’s my humble opinion that maybe you are not mature enough participate in these discussions .
INDEED. WELL PUT.
THX.
You folks are playin' RUFF over here!
I, as a Mason, resent that! We're already in charge.
As much as I loathe returning to this thread I don’t think there’s an issue with any particular person not agreeing with the beliefs of another.
Suppose you are all rastafarians and while addressing you I write “rastafarians are idiots”. That’s not a disagreement, that’s an attack and it’s an attack on the people I’m addressing... and every other rastafarian.
Suppose I wrote “people with “i” in their screen names are goobers”. How is that not “making it personal” to sitetest, Quix and the Religion Moderator?
The problem here is that most of the issues that divide us are seen as doctrines of satan by people on the other side and it’s not much of a stretch to go from “what you believe is diabolical” to “how’s that whole minion of satan thing working out for you?”
I believe the present “making it personal” rule serves to enhance the “more heat than light” tactic because it shelters, under a legal fiction, posts that are intended to inflame by design.
Yeah, some of us do have a great sense of responsibility to stand up firmly, vigorously, emphatically, vividly, memorably in behalf of TRUTH . . . though we TRY to do so in Love . . . though we don’t construe LOVE to be only warm and fuzzy.
I'm thinking there has to be a form of rebuttal...All to often some of us are accused of saying things in posts that were never said...
Outside of FR, I may say, with love, mind you, 'you are a lowdown snake in the grass, stinkin' skunk of a liar'...But I realize on FR we have to tone it down...
I'm not big on the 'bearing false witness' phrase because it could make the person saying it sound as tho he/she was holier than thou...
I'm hoping we can still defend ourselves with: that's not accurate; you're making this up; that's a false statement, etc...
Thanks a bunch for trying to be as fair as possible...
“INTENDED TO INFLAME BY DESIGN”
????
[pondering]
I’m not consciously aware within me of any “intention to inflame by design.”
I do DELIBERATELY seek to post AT LEAST AS EMPHATICALLY, VIVIDLY, MEMORABLY, CLEARLY as those who post on the other side put their assertions . . . what I believe to be MORE BIBLICAL TRUTHS AND OBJECTIVE, ACCURATE TRUTH.
I believe it is an error to give the world or even other believers the impression that the Proddy etc. perspective is wimpy, weak, muted, clumsy, ineffectual, watered down, inconsequential etc.
When folks on the other side are reasonable, civil, congruent, respectful etc, they get plenty of the same, from me. Actually, they get a lot of that from me almost regardless.
It is actually a small percentage of the stimuli they send out that I respond to with fierceness, vividness etc.
Yet they wail as though I’d stepped on their plastic Mary’s with every word I type.
Sheesh.
Just please keep in mind that after Armageddon, your gig is up.
Well put.
Post 2342
In fact Christ Himself was, per the bible, not much to look at
Your response...
Where does it say that?
If you knew the scripture you wouldn't have said that, would you...So someone's a troll for pointing out the obvious???
Running on Empty correctly called you out on reading my mind in post #2401.
That's another ridiculous accusation...
All I've been doing since then is been responding to your jihad against anyone who would dare stand up to you and/or dare dispute your wacked-out rants, as you sound amply demonstrated when you lashed out against D-fendr in #2617.
You sure get testy when you get caught not knowing scripture...And yours is another false accusation...
And when I post a graphic calling you out for your troll-like tactics, the "thin-skinned" accusations against me still continue!? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound!?
Would seem to me that the trolls are the ones making the FALSE accusations...Do you realize how ridiculous YOU sound???
--
the current rules, while not good enough to prevent this sort of thing, are just as good as the new proposed rules.
The first quote makes it personal. The second expression is appropriate, even if its truth value might not be expressed.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
There doesn't seem to have been any issue about images from the earliest days of Christianity -- archeologists keep finding earlier ones, and I don't know of any discussion of the point. The opposition to arose only after the rise of -- and apparently through the influence of -- Islam. Islamic decorative art restricts itself to patterns (some very intricate) and rather stylized flowers, even images of animals, of course, being also prohibited.
Some Christian groups picked up the opposition to images from Islam; this became known as the Iconoclastic Heresy (the first such controversy on the subject AFAIK) and was condemned by the Church at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 "For it [representational art] confirms that the Incarnation of the Word of God was real and not imaginary, and to our benefit as well, for realities that illustrate each other undoubtedly reflect each other's meaning."
There are, of course, Christian groups who do take the OT prohibition of images seriously. If you recall that terrible shooting of the Amish schoolchildren in 2006, you may remember that no pictures of the victims were broadcast -- there were none, since the Amish understand "no images" to mean "no images."
Yeah, like calling people demon possessed.
I don’t have a problem at all with someone of a different religion thinking that I’m not saved. I expect that. It doesn’t bother me.
However, expressing doctrinal differences does not equate to demonic possession. That ought to be reserved for clear cut cases, like the WBC Phelps clan and flying planes into buildings and hacking off people’s heads or dragging their charred corpses through the streets and celebrating it.
Preach it....
I could go along with that perspective! LOL.
You put it better than I did.
That’s why I’d be in favor of disallowing the *All ______ are haters...* kind of comments. That is a common problem on Mormon threads as well. The *anti’s* then become labeled *haters* and so it goes....
Accusing someone of hating is no better than accusing someone of lying and saying *All ______ are haters* is no different than saying *All _____ are liars*.
And it is a stealth way of making it personal all the while staying within the RF guidelines, because the person addressed or being talked about is included.
I think that the proposed modifications are a bad idea.
I would write a long post explaining why, but my sense is that it would be a waste of time. I have no sense that you're really paying attention.
I don't know why you resist reason, but those are your actions.
Your new rules will make the posting climate here worse. They exacerbate the anti-Catholic bias in the rules.
They shelter even more bad behavior by reducing further the "cost" for such behavior.
But the rules are already pretty bad, and this doesn't make them all that much worse.
sitetest
You have something to back that up? You know for sure that the source of their opposition was as a result of muslim influence?
The Second Commandment deals with graven images and certainly predates islam. Any Christian group who opposes images doesn't need to go to islam to do so. All they have to do is look at Exodus 20.
Exodus 20
The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
At that point, you might as well say that islam got the idea from the Jews and the OT.
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.