Skip to comments.Greetings from your Religion Moderator
Posted on 04/23/2006 8:01:06 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
Hello everyone. Pleased to meet you. I am your Religion Moderator.
I have been asked by several posters to let you know any special guidelines which apply to posting in the Religion Forum on Free Republic. Here goes
First, you should know that all moderators have authority on the Religion Forum and we are individuals and therefore what is tolerable to one may not be tolerable to another. However, I have general responsibility for this particular forum and spend most of my time reading your posts and moderating the conversations. And I do hold Religion Forum posts to a higher standard.
The previous Religion Moderator is still with us and other moderators who have served as Religion Moderator may also appear on thread with this handle. In other words, you cannot be sure that I am the person who posted with the handle. However, most of the time, it will be me simply because Im reading all of your posts.
A few guidelines:
Threads which are devotional or church-like in nature (such as daily mass readings) will be protected from challenges to doctrine, etc. Reported challenges will be pulled. The titles of the threads should be clearly designated so other posters and the moderators will know.
Threads which are not clearly designated are open to challenges, like a public square.
Posters should remember they are not preaching to the choir on open threads and take care to be respectful, clear and concise in their arguments. Passers-by will value your demeanor as much or more than the actual substance of your post.
This is very important: meet the offensive challenge to your doctrine on the open thread, do not mash the abuse button. I will not remove a challenge simply because it is offensive to your beliefs. If you cannot defend your own confession, then you are better off avoiding the open threads and leaving the reply to someone else of your confession.
Always argue the issues theology, philosophy, history, etc. and never make it personal.
If I see the conversation turn personal, I will intervene by pulling posts and/or posting a warning. If the misbehavior continues, posters may find themselves having to log back in or they may be given a time-out to cool down.
In the extreme, the threads may be banished to the smoky backroom, locked or pulled. And a hot-headed or defiant poster may be banned.
Banned posters who try to sneak back onto the forum using a different handle are nuked. Trolls are nuked.
I have no tolerance for potty language simply because it inflames other posters and results in unnecessary abuse reports that moderators then have to process. It is a waste of everyones time and doesnt help the posters image either.
Whenever I see a profanity or a reference or acronym for a profanity I will remove the post. If your post was pulled and you remember using such a word, just rephrase and repost and everything will be fine.
As with all threads on the forum hatred and any suggestion of racism or violence will be pulled. Posts which are just plain tacky may also be pulled.
Calling an author a liar is permitted calling another poster a liar is not.
Attributing motive to an author is permitted reading the mind of another poster is not.
Poking fun at a confession is permitted, but be careful when poking fun at another poster. If he doesnt think it is funny, I wont either.
Dont worry, youll get the hang of it. It all boils down to being respectful phrase your challenges as if you were the recipient, i.e. think Golden Rule.
The reason: it could be argued that if atheism is a religion then a-theistic scenarios such as abiogenesis could not be "established" by publicly funded education. IOW, the atheistic solution would have to be presented along with the theistic one(s).
Unintended consequences perhaps, but food for thought...
None of what you've posted by including Mormon writings regarding salvation is biblically correct. There is NO other Scripture than the Bible, any later day writings do not meet the test of Godly inspiration.
Christ will judge the Christians, God will judge the rest. Those whose names are not found in the Lamb's book of life WILL be cast into the Lake of Fire. Period.
143 posts and you still haven't told us which is the correct religion.
are you allowed to tell us?
Surely the answer is obvious! You're posting to Free Republic. The correct religion here would be Republicanism. Pig-Latin Rite/Idaho Synod.
Thank you for your personal opinion..
But my belief is that God did have more to say and no man can because he say it is not so...makes his opinion so!
but you are welcome to merrily go about your reverie...
Religions are also philosophical systems, but with divine inspiration. That's the only significant difference in this context between Objectivism and Religions. As I understand it, its the ideological doctrine thats being reinforced within devotionals through reflection free from challenge, not just the divine inspiration.
Id be happy to ping you on the next significant Objectivist thread I notice.
I might be interested in compiling some Objectivist reflections appropriate to the churchlike devotionals here, but it would take hours that I dont have to bat back nonsense drive-bys like #93 above and more thoughtful challenges begun over here in #74 and here in #81 without the privilege of devotional assembly protection that theistic based ideologies enjoy here.
I don't ping for atheist threads either.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion said that atheism is a religion.
I remember that. I think it was for purposes of protecting that viewpoint, and not because of any theological thinking.
The reason: it could be argued that if atheism is a religion then a-theistic scenarios such as abiogenesis could not be "established" by publicly funded education.
Yeah. Similarly, plagues, droughts, lighting storms, earthquakes, ice ages, the whole catalogue of natural phenomena are likewise atheistic.
IOW, the atheistic solution would have to be presented along with the theistic one(s). Unintended consequences perhaps, but food for thought...
Some folks will argue that, of course, but it's a slim reed to rely on.
I know. Therein lies the problem. One simply cannot discuss the differences between LDS and Christian dogma without rebuttal. But each time something is refuted in Mormon doctrine, we get challenged as being abusive.
The following link is where I got the information. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/
Other than that, I believe that finding the legal "bright line" between establishing atheism and being silent is an issue the courts will not address for the very reasons you name: "plagues, droughts, lighting storms, earthquakes, ice ages, the whole catalogue of natural phenomena".
Im not aware of any evo or atheist wanting anything atheistic to be recognized as a religion here, but the claim is a frequent accusation by a few Christians evangelizing beyond fact or reason.
Au contraire - what you mean is Old Testament, Alamo-Girl...real wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
Same to you.
It strikes as particularly clear ... that many who say that the Bible is not enough ... really don't know all that the Bible contains.
You only have a portion of that talk Quester
I merely responded to what you posted.
I remember a discussion in a class many years ago when I was a teenager, when one of the students asked the teacher--this was not here at BYU--what would have become of our spirits if there had been no redemption by Jesus.
He said, "Well, I do not know what would have happened to our spirits, but I give it as my guess that, if there were no atonement by Jesus, we would still go on to whatever degree of glory we had merited, but we would have to go there as spirits without bodies because Jesus brought to pass the resurrection, and if there were no resurrection we would have no bodies."
None of us in the class knew enough about the gospel to know whether that was the right answer or not.
That's because none of you had dome sufficient study of your Bibles.
The answer is in the Bible ... without Jesus ... is ony death.Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.My main point is this ... until you have read the whole of the Bible ... from cover to cover, ...
... I would be very hesitant about declaring ... 'what the Bible doesn't say'
Holding an "optimistic view" of the afterlife, Latter-day Saints believe that-through the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ-eventually every person regardless of whether or not they accept Chirst as their Savior, will be saved in a kingdom of heaven (or a degree of glory) except those who have committed the unpardonable sin. Bennion said: "All men will receive a degree of salvation commensurate with their desires, their faith, and their good works. This is the divine will and plan.
Well then ... Mormon belief is clearly unbiblical ...John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Thanks for the link ... cc
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.