The Confession of Cyril Lucaris

The Voice ^ | 1692 | Cyril Lucaris

[Religion Moderator]

The Rapture Caucus is gerrymandered out of many beliefs. There have been LDS/Catholic and Catholic/Orthodox caucuses.

Do you have a particular caucus in mind?

[delacoert]

The Rapture Caucus is gerrymandered ...

There are, of course, several characteristics of a gerrymander. Normally, people of a similar mindset could use that word in conversation and understand each other.

Since designations like [LDS/Catholic Caucus] are okie-dokie in the Religion Forum after being well thought out by the RMs and AMs then... well... <shrug> whatever.

Just out of curiosity, can I post a thread [Not Protestant Caucus]? If not, why not? And how would it be any different than a thread designated [LDS/Catholic Caucus]?

[Cronos]

oh, I’m not talking about the validity of your argument. I fundamentally think you are wrong and non-Trinitarianism is utterly wrong. I just said that you should have a forum of your own to discuss your own internal matters.

[Mad Dawg]

LOL!

You suppose it was a dietician of Worms?

(Back in character:) Oh, my head! Would you all stop breathing so loudly?

[Mad Dawg]

Just out of curiosity, can I post a thread [Not Protestant Caucus]? If not, why not? And how would it be any different than a thread designated [LDS/Catholic Caucus]?

I know you didn't ask me, but I often rush in where lesser fools fear to tread.

I don't see why, in principle, a "Not Protestant" caucus couldn't be declared.

But, WOW it would be exciting to see who thought they had a place in that caucus -- and who agreed or disagreed with them.

As just one for instance, until not too long ago the official name of the Episcopalians was The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and certainly in Fielding's time the C of E considered itself Protestant.

[xzins]

The Protestant Reformation really did involve a very few “denominations.” Those were the reformed and the lutheran and the presbyterians.

The Anglicans sort of got involved, but not for reformationist reasons. They broke away because of kings and personal politics driving kings.

Non-protestant groups today would definitely include: all charismatic and pentecostal groups, Mormons, many baptistic groups, the orthodox of all stripes, all restorationist groups, and the “lets-hang-out-a-shingle” groups with weird names.

I’m not trying to be argumentative. It’s just that the protestant reformation actually meant something about its relationship to breaking away from the Catholic Church.

[Elsie]

I am left wondering, who are you and what did you do with the Religion Moderator's body.

It doesn't appear to be the Q that we all know and love.

THIS one is VERY talkative!

[Elsie]

That reminds me, I have been involved in a thread on goats; the latest is a young lady that believes that goat farming is symbiotic between men and goats.

HMmmm...

My 4 would be interested in reading that...

[trisham]

Grilled asparagus and steak. Yum.

[Mad Dawg]

I’m not trying to be argumentative. It’s just that the protestant reformation actually meant something about its relationship to breaking away from the Catholic Church.

Neither did I take it as argumentative.

That's pretty much my understanding, always provided that the C of E really did go through a strongly Calvinist phase during Edward VI's reign/regency, and has had a strongly Calvinist wing ever since.

But with respect to a Caucus, "Non-Protestant" would be a remarkably diverse group, with Catholic and all charismatic and pentecostal groups, Mormons, many baptistic groups, the orthodox of all stripes, all restorationist groups, and the “lets-hang-out-a-shingle” groups with weird names. !!!

That would be SOME party!

[xzins]

It’s almost easier to spell out who you DON’T want at the party.

Send out “not invited” cards. :>)

Caucus thread: (Wiccans, Rostafarians, Unitarians, and Potheads in general NOT INVITED)

[trisham]

LOL!

[redgolum]

For Lutherans.
1. The Real Presence is part of our theology. In fact, our view on the Real Presence is closer to the Orthodox than it is the Catholics.
2. Theotokos (Mother of God), yes, the Dormition or the like, not since the 1800’s.
3. No, Sola Scriptora is part of the deal.
4. Icons, not the same way as the Orthodox, but then most of the Catholic church doesn't view Icons that way.
5. In Europe, most Lutheran Bibles have those books. Many Orthodox have a different canon than the Western churches.

[Mad Dawg]

With the inevitable limit of the
Anybody but YOU and you know who you are Caucus.

[Religion Moderator]

Just out of curiosity, can I post a thread [Not Protestant Caucus]? If not, why not? And how would it be any different than a thread designated [LDS/Catholic Caucus]?

Yes, you can post a "not-Protestant Caucus" just be careful not to use the caucus as cover to disparage or speak for the non-members, i.e. Protestants.

Catholics, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, LDS, Scientologists, Agnostics/Atheists, Buddists, Diests, New Agers, Non-denominationals, etc. could post in your "not-Protestant Caucus."

Only LDS and Catholics could post in your "LDS/Catholic Caucus."

[delacoert]

Yes, you can post a "not-Protestant Caucus" just be careful not to use the caucus as cover …

I suppose that was the only answer left... the only option left once you've painted yourself into a corner is to define your space as non-Euclidean.

[Mad Dawg]

I don't understand your argument against the Caucus notion as the RM has laid it out. It seems reasonable to me that a group cold self-define and discuss a topic without mentioning or derogating a group not in the self-defined group.

In practice it might be difficult in the case of some groups, but I don't see why the principle is bad or how the RM is painted into a corner.

[delacoert]

Previously, the caucus definition was suggested, nurtured and refined to provide a hospitable zone under the theory that quibbling and contentious voices drown out the discourse of the like-minded.

The newly proposed model of the caucus (i.e., the LDS/Catholic caucus where the trinity is argued from two opposite sides) is the antithesis of a safe-haven. It's a boxing ring.

It's non-Euclidean. The parallel postulate no longer applies.

[Mad Dawg]

Hum. Makes sense.

However a good boxing match would be a relief from the usual bar-fight.

I read Lobachevsky in college.

[streetpreacher]

Why were they banned? Theological reasons?

To: Dr. Eckleburg
You pinged drstevej and OrthodoxPresbyterian, two of my favorite FR Calvinists. Are they still around?

66 posted on 07/23/2010 12:21:14 AM PDT by Dr. Brian Kopp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
No, sadly they were banned. I miss them every day. I learned a great deal from both of them. And others who were banned, too. Wrigley and Jean Chauvin and CCWoody.
Those were great conversations.