Skip to comments.Greetings from your Religion Moderator
Posted on 04/23/2006 8:01:06 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
click here to read article
Thanks for stating your position Moderator. I understand this is a secular message board - not on the sense of secularism, but rather it means FR is without any specific religion backgrounds unlike, say, evangelical Christianity of Rapture Ready Message Board. I will keep this in mind that "the game is different on different boards".
Different boards serve different purposes. FR has plenty of intellectual-oriented politically conservative Christians or other Christendom members or non-believers. RR has evangelical Christians that are politically conservative, centrist, and even leftist-pacifist when it comes with secular politics.
Marxism is antithetical to Free Republic. It would be as welcome here as Wahabist devotionals.
Platonism and Realism are narrow philosophical concepts that dont begin to approach the integrated ideological system of Objectivism. (FWIW, Objectivism is neither .) Comparing either to Objectivism is like comparing the concept of animism to Catholicism. Animism is a feature of primitive religions, not a viable religion or comprehensive ideology.
Objectivism on the other hand is arguably as comprehensive, integrated and dogmatic an ideology as is LDS (and at least as conservative). The only significant difference (other than success) is that its atheistic, and as far as youve re-explained, thats the only factor in your decision to deny equal protection for Objectivist devotionals.
Im not really concerned with that. As Bush said yesterday, youre the decider in making the call, but please dont misrepresent Objectivism with those unreasonable analogies in order to justify excluding Objectivism.
....There is no other book in all this world that tells us as clearly about the mission of Jesus Christ as does the Book of Mormon.
Do you believe someone removed something fromt the New Testament? And....
Well I had ponder many of these things in the Bible as a child that had puzzled me until I found was introduced to the Book of Mormon at the age of 38 and the rest fell into place!
If so, who (or what group) removed the "plain and precious" truths.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
2 Cor. 4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
I notice even if I choose a particular "denominational" topic, I would still come across something that I don't expect to see. For instance, when I view threads under the topic "evangelical" I see "Catholic caucus" devotional threads there every day. I don't believe the poster should put any of these under the topic of evangelical churches because most of Catholic devotional threads would obviously not be welcome among evangelical Christians and they are not even allowed to be posted on boards of (evangelical) Christian nature except in Apologetics sub-forums (See Rapture Ready BB rule for ref: http://rr-bb.com/faq.php?faq=rr_rules_clarification#faq_rr_rules1_ ). Is there a way to remove them from topics like this?
And to the moderators, also I feel Messianic Judaism should be re-classified under evangelical Christianity rather than "other Christians". Most evangelicals would feel far closer to Messianic Jews than even mainline Protestants like Lutherans or Episcopalisns for instance. Messianic Jewish teachers like Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Zola Levitt, or Jacob Prasch can equally be called evangelical Christian Bible teachers as well. Would it be feasible to reshuffle topics like this?
Per our previous discussion.....Ping.
"Greetings, sire..." (Mumbles prayer)
So are you saying that the "opposition," darkness, or Satan had a hand in the compiling of the Bible?
Do you see where many of us Bible believing Christians might take offense at that suggestion?
What some Mormons may fail to appreciate is the deep offensiveness of their implication that Christians have something less than the full gospel of God. But mainstream Christians react, not by getting offended, but by demonstrating what they believe from the Bible, which inevitably involves showing the Mormons the differences between Biblical doctrine and Mormon doctrine. This seems to be the point at which we hear the Mormons complain that they are being slandered, that we evangelicals, Catholics, or other Christians are preaching "negativism" and marshalling a "negative onslaught" against them.
**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.**
Thank you from all of us!
**Always argue the issues theology, philosophy, history, etc. and never make it personal.**
Again, thank you.
You could always send me a question on a devotional thread in a Freepmail.
So the question becomes, how do we mark a thread to be a Catholic Discussion thread? In other words, how do we have the ability to discuss current events in our religion without having to defend our dogma?
Point in fact, someone posted an article on clear walls in confessionals. By the third post, someone came in to slam confession. The article wasn't about confession but rather the openess of the confessional to the rest of the church. Is there any time that we can discuss amongst ourselves without having to defend what we believe? I haven't found a way to do this up until now.
** For example, a Catholic should be able to discuss aspects of veneration of a particular saint without having to field basic questions about veneration of saints in general, that are certain to come form the Protestants. Likewise, a Protestant should be able to post something about a Protestant thinker, or Protestant eschatology without others piling on Protestantism in general. What would be your recommendation? I see three possibilities about such "threads of limited debate"? **
Excellent question. It seems to me that Catholics take more bashings on threads than Protestants do. Is my observation mistaken?
And then I must ask myself -- What difference does it make in the end? Will I hurt or hinder the other poster, or help or have mercy on them and cease posting?
I agree. I think it is the responsibility of the poster to seek out your feedback. The Religion Moderator has enough to do.
I just saw it and will ping my list after I read the entire thread. Thanks for the ping!
**or help or have mercy on them and cease posting?**
Rephrase and clarify -----
Or will I help or have mercy on another poster and cease posting to that thread.
If so, who (or what group) removed the "plain and precious" truths. ~ colorcountry
So are you saying that the "opposition," darkness, or Satan had a hand in the compiling of the Bible? ~ colorcountry
No! I did NOT say that colorcountry those are your words!
colorcountry You asked "removed from" NOT compiling!
I would call what you are doing is putting words in my mouth!
There is no need to continue our coversation!
maybe we only need this rule:
Nice set of guidelines.
Any changes involving the menu for topics would require a software change.
By compile, I meant to add or remove something. Since you said the opposition had removed "plain and precious truths," I assumed that is what you meant. I'm sorry if that isn't the case. Can you clairify your position?
Your example - "clear walls in confessionals?" - is like a business topic for a church meeting. Therefore you could have used the phrase "Catholic caucus" or "Catholic business" to identify the thread as a closed-door "church-like" thread and I would have made sure the assembly was not disturbed.
But any confession or belief system is subject to "bashing" on open threads. That is why we should all be prepared to "give reason for the hope that is within us" when we venture into the open threads.
Posters, however, are never to be personally bashed.
Jumping in, if what you post sounds like Epicetus or even Lucretius, it should not offend anyone. In all these matters, tone is what counts, right?
P.S. pardon the misspellings.
What I find amazing is that everyday all around us in every area it seems people are rearranging or revising truth!
And you come along thinking that no such thing took place in Ancient of Days!
We have the first 5 books of Moses which is a Digest of all the events that took place up to the time of Moses!
We have a gap between Malachi and Matthew of the written word!
The LDS has a record going back 600 BC which fill in much of the gaps!
The LDS is also promised that another 2/3rds of the Book of Mormon records will also come forth in the Lord time!
In the Jewish religion they have a promise that their concept of the Messiah will come and they do not believe the NT is valid which should offend them and I am sure the mainstream believe they don't have all the word!
Try being consistant in your thinking!
Good. A point of inquiry - does that mean no personal attacks on the author of the article rather than a discussion of the contents?
You can attack the author (as long as it is not a Freeper) - and the content of the article, ideology, philosophy, history, doctrine etc. But personal attacks of other Freepers are not tolerable.
To me a personal attack is when you call the person an unkind name, but asking one to be fair, or try to be consistant in ones reasoning or the scheme of things is not an attack!
But than I never did have a secure handle on my use of the language!
I think this says it well:
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Thank you for that comment, Religion Moderator! I have been wondering about discussing certain "In-house" topics, and hadn't figured out how to do it. After some early attemps of mine turned out not good (from my POV) I had decided to stop doing that. Thank you again.
Unfortunately, sometimes tone is hard to make clear in an-off-the-cuff posting, and we sound more strident than we want or mean to. It can be difficult.
I'm sure that we all believe our own particular theological bent "takes more bashings" than the other person's - especially since (what a coincidence), we believe our own particular theological bent is right, and the other person's is in need of correction. If Catholics suffer bashing more than others, one explanation might be because most threads are Catholic threads! Until restornu began her LDS devotional threads, I doubt you find a single LDS thread on FR in the last four years that didn't see some form of "Mormon bashing" within the first twenty posts (and I'm not even counting doctrinal challenges). And proportionally, more Calvinists have been banned than members of any other theological group. Everyone claims their own group is being singled out, trust me! Each group has their own cross to bear, justly or unjustly. It's how each of us reacts to the perceived slight that marks our actions as "Christian" or not, IMO, and marks our posts (and our FR posting privileges) for removal when they're not.
Proverbs 25:15 tells us that "By forbearance a ruler may be persuaded, And a soft tongue breaks the bone.". And Proverbs 27:6 says "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy."
IMO "bashing" occurs when we use others (and their beliefs) as target practice for our threads and posts, not really giving a thought personally towards them or their belief systems. We defend our actions by claiming that we're using FR as a mission field, when what we really do is behave like it's our private shooting range. That, IMO, is what "bashing" is. I should know - I've done it myself.
** And proportionally, more Calvinists have been banned than members of any other theological group. **
I don't know about that claim. A lot of SSPXers got banned for eating their own.
Oh come on... arguing about religion is an age old pastime, and here nobody gets killed! I can go along with most of what the RM has issued, but I hope it doesn't turn into a tight, PC, limited discussion where people are afraid to say what they think. I mean, if a muslim came on here I'm going to tell him some things he might find offensive -- in fact given their notoriously thin skins I'm quite sure he would.
OTOH, it would be nice if the Catholic discussion threads weren't constantly attacked and hijacked by so-called protestants that can't stand the idea of the Catholic Church and what we believe.
As far as Mormon threads, or whatever, I just don't frequent them. Really only Catholic and Episcopal threads for me.
Well then I hope you will cut off any attacks on the author such as what was said some years ago, or his political affiliation, or his religion, or whatever else may ignore the subject topic of the post. Continuous shots at the messenger rather than the message do not advance the discussion.
Perhaps we can cut down on the Anti-Catholic trolls if we put "Catholic Business" on the threads that are discussing the Pope, the Rosary, any Saint or Mary!
Ladies, can you ping your lists with this information?
How interesting. I did not realize there was a formal Moderator for religion threads. This all seems sensible to me.
Good luck and God Bless!
Everyone seems to feel that his sector of faith is being attacked the most. I would say from my own perspective, the pre-trib dispensational Bible-believing Christians seem to get the flanks from everyone: Catholics (whether SSPX, Traditionalist, Conservative Catholics, or semi-moderate "Catholics"), Orthodox, doctrinally conservative mainline Protestants including Reformed Calvinists/Presbyterians, conservative Lutherans and Episcopalians, and Wesleyans/Mathodist Arminians, and even many post-trib leaning evangelicals.
Perhaps not more than 3 or 4 of us are active on this sub-forum, and each time we post something attacks start to spring up almost immediately.
Who has removed "plain and precious things" from the Bible? According to 1 Nephi 13:26, the "great and abominable church" did. And, 1 Nephi 13:27 informs us, "all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men." The same chapter calls the state of these individuals an "awful state of blindness (v. 32)," which is to be remedied by other "records" being revealed to men which "shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them" (v. 40).
Resty, I am consistant in my thinking.
Do you have devotionals for Ayn Rand?
LOLOL! I like that and might use it unless you object, of course.
Sounds great to me, dear Religion Moderator, and perfectly reasonable to boot. You have my whole-hearted support.
I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean a personal anedote, like the Confessions of St. Augustine?
Or perhaps a poster finds it humorous that a particular religion does a certain thing a certain way and makes a joke of it ...