Posted on 03/03/2015 12:32:27 PM PST by two134711
Good post!
Comparing a pro-abortion slogan to the RM's warning that OPEN RF threads can be confrontational is not only silly it's offensive to ALL Pro-Lifers and is definitely NOT the same thing. How curious that you would think they are.
Presuming that former Catholics post their objections to the doctrines of Catholicism out of ugly bitterness, hatred in our hearts or because we have a chip on our shoulder only shows the narrow mindedness of many Catholics unable to accept that GENUINE Christians exist outside of the Rome version of it. Gratefully, there are numerous RCs on FR who recognize our shared faith and who do not enter into discussions preloaded with vile and insulting vitriol. I thank God for them and continue to pray for the others.
“mocking others who are not Catholic and condemning us all to eternal hell for not converting to Roman Catholicism on OPEN RF threads.”
____________-
I find this very hard to believe. This is not Catholic doctrine, I’ve never heard a Catholic ever suggest anything like this on FR, or in person. I’d be interested to see you link to such a statement on FR, or anywhere else, because if there is such a statement, that poster is incorrect.
....It seems, in general on this site, it would help if the religion moderator responded more like a knight....I was always under the impression that chivalry and conservatism went hand-in-hand. For a man to respect a woman completely, he must first love Our Lady, Christ's Mother. And that is why I believe the main religion moderator on this site is not a Roman Catholic, or at least not a happy devout one, which of course could lead to bias in his decisions....
Congratulations - you've discovered that I'm not a spineless pajama-boy feminist. Does that make me biased? Is that why there's mustard on my corned-beef-on-rye sandwich?
It's been my experience over the last fourteen years on FR that most FReepers take no notice of the Religion Forum unless they see A) their beliefs mentioned in the thread title, B) a FReeper handle they recognize among the pings, and especially C) if the recognized name in (b) does not belong to the belief system in (a). Bad perceptive abilities do not make for valid accusations of bias. For example, about seven years ago there was a huge flap in the Religion Forum over an excess of posts on the subject of sexual abuse in churches. One FReeper posted 50+ threads on the subject over three weeks, while another FReeper posted 8 threads on the same subject over the same period. All of the threads were factual. Many were about current events i.e. news stories within the previous month. Few, if any, discussed doctrinal differences. It was the smaller set of threads that got the most flak. Should the larger set have been viewed as being more offensive?
In a society that values freedom of speech and expression, there will be complaints about anti-Catholic slanders (so say the Catholics), just as there will be claims of anti-Protestant slanders (so say the Protestants), as there will be complaints about anti-Mormon slanders (so say the Mormons), etc etc etc. Less acknowledged will be pro-Catholic accolades, just as with pro-Protestant accolades, just as with pro-Mormon accolades, etc etc etc. All of them will happen, but the "pro" ones rarely get noticed.
In microcosm, someone's sacred cow gets gored every single day in the Religion Forum on Free Republic, and in my experience it's the cattle barons who whine the loudest about the mess and the veterinary bills. What shall we do? The Bible tells us that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin". I propose that FReepers adopt that verse as a mnemonic tool, to remind them that whenever they see the floors slick with the blood of a sacred cow, they should invoke Christ's shed blood and forgive the offender. If nothing else, by forgiving one another you have placed hot coals atop the sinner's head (Romans 12:20, cf Proverbs 25:22), making them visibly uncomfortable and therefore providing hours of amusement for the rest of us FReepers who were never offended in the first place.
Second, it's my personal belief that we Christians are called to turn the other cheek (Lamentations 3:30, cf Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) because we're lousy judges of what's really an attack, what's an accidental blow, and what's a well-deserved admonition from a friend. By turning the other cheek, in effect we give the "attacker" the benefit of the doubt, rather than respond to an accidental slap with an intentional slug in the mouth, provoking a fight that wasn't there in the first place.
As FReepers, by reducing the number of cheek-slapping abuse reports that we plague the moderators with, IMO we make them happier moderators with clearer thinking, which can only lead to higher quality, more-deserved ZOTs, and who doesn't enjoy watching a well-deserved ZOT?
Then go back to read my reply, that in reality,
i only asked the questions once, while the other posts were in response to "i don't answer to you," to which i explained how a forum works, and "Your purpose is to be decisive by asking questions, purposefully misinterpreting them, and cherry picking quotes (Biblical and otherwise) in an effort to justify your own beliefs" [mind reading, which i did not flag], to which i explained how truth is divisive, and challenged the poster to substantiate her charges, and "You did exactly as I wrote you would." To which last spitball i gave my last rebuke. Then another poster [YOU] chimed in, and one perhaps hit the abuse button.
If was actually the poster who kept it going by her [mind reading and fallacious assertions, then you decided to get involved, and even now cannot let the matter rest but resurrect it days later.
But this is a forum, in which we are to expect truth claims and statements to be challenged.
I realize this is “old news” [and no, I didn’t hit the abuse button; I haven’t done that in probably a year] but didn’t come upon this thread [which is an important one to me, because alas, there are others not fond of how the open threads operate] until later, because it’s in the Smoky Backroom, and I still don’t know how I stumbled upon it. So my apologies on that score. This really has little if anything to do with you. I was making a point, and I had to ping you because rules are rules.
God be with you....
The forum has lost many good regular posters and contributors because of what is permitted in the Religion Forum. I refuse to contribute to FR until the Religion Forum is properly moderated, or preferably, eliminated. Disagree if you like, but that’s simply disagreeing with reality. I was an occasional donor in the past but I will not financially support a group that condones constant vile assault on the Church. Period.
Simple. Moderate the RF properly, or eliminate it. Preferably the latter.
Whose definition of "proper" are we using here? Yours?
Thank you, Salvation! :)
Those who use the moderation tactics to their benefit here generally praise the moderation. Those chronically on the short end of the moderation tactics generally bemoan it. Its no secret.
That doesn't answer the question of what you think "proper" moderation looks like, and who should (and shouldn't) get to be the arbiter of the moderating rules.
I don't recall seeing you on the RF threads before, but let me assure you it IS a pretty regular occurrence. I'll make a note of it to ping you to such postings so you can see for yourself. I also am pinging others so that they might do the same for you. I wholeheartedly agree that any FRoman Catholics who state such things ARE quite incorrect. Glad you agree.
Columnist Ann Barnhardt says it, I’ll never read one of her articles again either.
“There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”
You’re a wise man, Alex Murphy! ;o)
P.S. These "constant vile assaults" on your religion are in your own head.
Much truth in your.post. Wish you weren’t leaving, I’d like to get to know you better. I too have been in and off FR over the past 10 years for much the same reasons.
This was once a bastion of solid conservative thought and debate. When I joined in 1998 I thought I found a home and could freely express myself as I saw others do as well.
I can’t put my finger on the exact date, but somewhere around 2005 that all changed. Small government, fiscal and social Conservatives became more and more marginalized. Big government seemed to be ok as long as Republicans (and not even Conservatives) were running it.
Arguing against then President Bush’s big government programs such as the expansion of Medicare, the biggest expansion of government since LBJ was akin to heresy.
Arguing against human embryonic stem cell research divided and pitted many against each other. As a pro life, anti HESCR writer here on FR I was soundly bashed by the liberal Republicans here on FR. Odd, because those that knew me at the time knew I was arguing against performing the very research that held so much perceived promise to help folks like me with spinal issues.
I don’t know what’s happened here on FR and how it got to this point. I’ve ocasionally been sucked into the muckraking and returned fire, only to see I’d become if even for a short time, that which I didn’t like on here and retreated again to an off FR period to step away from the negativity.
So take some time, gather yourself up and come back when you’re ready. There are still good people here, yes they appear to be fewer and farther between but they’re here still keeping up the good fight.
Avoids picking sides? It is to laugh. Please notice only one side praises the moderation and claims it is unbiased.
When the RF is eliminated or moderated properly, I'll resume contributing. Until then, not a dime, and I recommend ALL the Catholic Caucus do likewise. (The vast majority of the Orthodox Caucus had enough sense to walk away from the RF cesspool long ago.)
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.