Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
I have copied your post to my hard drive. I will continue to observe the rules.
Specifically:
It is never within the bounds on the Religion Forum for a Freeper to express his hatred of people who hold a particular belief when any Freeper is part of the belief group.
It is ok to express hatred towards CatholicISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Catholics because some Freepers are Catholic.
It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.
Two comments on these rules:
1. Many insulting comments are posted about Catholics as people, but no action is taken.
2. There is no hatred of Protestants in general on the part of Catholics. I do not know, but some Catholic posters may have come to hate specific Protestant posters because of the things they have said, but this hatred, if it exists, is grounded in the conduct of specific people and not in a generalized hatred of Protestantism.
Be that as it may, Catholics are held to a stricter standard, just as the lamestream media hold conservatives to a stricter standard. The expression of this hard, cold fact is easily denied and easily mocked; it is, nevertheless, a fact.
>>Until all are treated equally
“And where does calling non-Catholics “lackwits” fit in with treating people reasonably?”
Problems with that sentence:
1. Didn’t say “treated reasonably;” said “treated equally.” This, obviously, does not refer to any poster’s comments.
2. Didn’t call “non-Catholics” lackwits; called some specific Protestants of my acquaintance lackwits. The comment, quite obviously, refers to them alone.
“Or what about your cohorts who refer to non-Catholics as “mouth breathers”?
We’re only human. After years and years of insult, untruths, and replies that betray a total lack of comprehension, tempers fray. I’m sorry. We should all be saints, but many of us fall far short.
It is a fundamental principle of Western Civilization that the guy who punches somebody in the nose is guilty in a way than the punched guy who punches back is not. A little recognition of that principle would be welcome.
“Fine. Play Don Quixote with the RM all you want if you’re so inclined.”
I have always been inclined to argue for a principle.
“I suspect it will well”
I suspect you left out the words “not end.”
“but I also suspect there may be others on different forums encouraging you.”
Your suspicions are unfounded. FR is the only forum I post to or read.
“If so, it won’t be the first instance of refusing to grasp forum rules in order to engender controversy.”
Mind-reading, and a groundless, bootless insult. Not that you need worry about anyone slapping your hand.
If you were actually reading my posts, it would be apparent that I fully understand the rules, and am pointing out problems therewith.
We once had an ardent Roman Catholic participant on this forum, who insisted that “RC” was hateful and bigoted because it was pronounced “arsey.”
That same FReeper also thought the Hokie Pokie was bigoted.
We’ve had Roman Catholic FReepers calling Protestants “Paulistinians” and we’ve had several state outright that the Apostle Paul was a nut.
So, there’s been more than enough questionable behavior to go around. Roman Catholics are not uniquely put upon here.
However, using the words “hate” and “bigot” in this context in order to control debate is not a conservative tactic. Those are leftist code words used by government-protected minorities to squelch dissent.
Defend your beliefs, point out where you believe those of others to be in error. I’d expect nothing less, as I do the same for my beliefs.
As I mentioned, it’s really not that hard to stay within the established rules of engagement and debate, here.
That statement does not constitute mind-reading, simply on the basis of the word “if.”
As in, “If one wants to take insult badly enough, insult will be taken whether it actually exists or not.”
That's not true:
(KJV)Leviticus 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him : the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
So in context it has to do with withholding wages, not nighttime labor.
As to the larger issue, the goodness of the law in its principles has not ceased. But we are in a new relationship with the law. It no longer has power to condemn us, and is fulfilled by Christ. But that does not mean the goodness and holiness of God reflected in those laws has gone away, or in any way diminished by age. Therefore they are perfectly valid in considering areas of moral or theological inquiry where the NT doesn't address the specific question.
For example, the NT mentions sexual sin generally, but never, to my knowledge, addresses beastiality. One would hope there would not be excuses made for such sin, simply because its not mentioned in the NT. But then you must acknowledge that some NT principles of Christian conduct may be derived from moral prohibitions stated generally in the NT but spelled out in some detail in the OT.
And if that is the case, then this passage is relevant:
(KJV)Acts 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men : and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
The "curious arts" here are occult practices, and we can see from the passage that one of the effects of the Gospel is the repudiation of all such activities. In the OT the rejection of occult practices included various forms of communication with the dead, necromancy among them. See Deut. 18:10-11. It is thus reasonable to ask whether this prohibition has been lifted for communication with departed believers.
And in the absence of some new permission for this activity (which I do not think you can find), the question becomes why? In general, the occult arts were forbidden for several reasons. For one thing, they facilitate contact with familiar spirits. People grieving over lost loved ones are sorely tempted to reach them however they can. I have seen this first hand. But the will of God cannot be thwarted. They have moved on. We must do the same, and not tempt God, or risk contact with demonic deceivers pretending to be departed spirits.
But there is an even darker motive for such breaches between this world and the other side, the gaining of power over difficult circumstances, inviting the familiar spirit to give us aid for which we do not think we can approach God. In classic occultism this takes the form of spells and other rituals designed to give the participant that coveted sense of control.
And yet God has given His children the Holy Spirit, infinitely more powerful, and more sympathetic to the believer's needs, than any familiar spirit or departed loved one could ever be. What need does this believer have for phantasmal intercessors? None. We pray for each other, and perhaps our family in Heaven is praying for us, but we have all we need to address every need, and have nothing to gain by crossing a line He Himself set up to protect us from the Devil, and from our own tendency as sinners to not look to God directly for our deepest needs.
Remember, the reason Jesus did "work" on the Sabbath was not because God didn't care about the violation of His law, but because the purpose of the law is our benefit, and doing good on the Sabbath was a fulfilment, not a violation, of the heart of the law.
Likewise, we have been told, many times, look not to the departed, faithful or otherwise, for some edge in resolving our problems. Look instead to Jesus, who has authored and will bring our faith to its destination, without failure, not as some distant deistic deity we must approach through intermediary spirits, but as our loving Dad, whom we may approach boldly, directly, at any time, day or night, and he will listen to us with his full and undistracted attention.
Peace,
SR
And to narrow it down even more, this thread is an attack on Christians, and by extension, Christianity and the Bible
.
Of course, since they are not in heaven:
John 3:13
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
.
Moderators know the difference between insult and hatred, but to the thin skinned, the difference may blur depending on whose ox is being gored.
>> “It’s been my experience that all belief systems are put through the gauntlet here on open threads.” <<
.
As they rightly should!
FreeRepublic was not created to be a mindless echo chamber.
.
Jesus spoke with Elijah and Moses at the Transfiguration.
Mark 9:2-13 New International Version (NIV)
>> “Well, Moses did come down” <<
.
Did he?
Not likely, since John 3:13 clearly states that no man has ascended to heaven.
.
The principle on the Religion Forum is that two wrongs do not make a right - the guideline says when one poster in a sidebar is warned, all posters posters in the sidebar should consider themselves warned.
Oh?
In WHAT way?
But he quit leaping after a little bit; but you guys do it CONTINUALLY.
It is looking mighty silly.
>> “I don’t ignore the Old Testament, but as a general rule I think any Christian should start worrying if they are building cornerstones on verses outside of the New Testament.” <<
.
Everything Yeshua presented to us is from the ancient scriptures.
There is nothing given in the NT that is not simply a repeat of the OT.
Paul stated in Hebrews 4 that the gospel that he preached is the gospel that Moses preached.
Is everything that you think to be true of the NT possibly completely false?
Becoming Jewish, and following Torah are two completely different and essentially opposite propositions.
Judaism does not follow Torah in any significant way.
Judaism is Phariseeism , which Yeshua completely denounced in Matthew 15, and 23. It is following the false commandments of men, just like the catholic ‘church.’
Yeshua stated in Matthew 5 that Torah remains his way as long as the Earth and heavens exist.
.
No; it does not. Go back to English 101.
And you thought that answered my question? Seriously? May I remind you that not only was Jesus already in His glorified body (which the apostles were not) but He was also God. Not once in all of scripture is communication with departed souls condoned.
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.