Posted on 07/22/2010 11:01:11 AM PDT by the_conscience
Edited on 07/23/2010 8:45:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Really? You think traditional Lutherans and Anglicans are theologically closer to Pentecostal snake handlers than they are to Catholics?
The Confessional Lutherans and Reformed are in basic agreement on soteriological doctrine.
Really? Which Reformed denominations still have the Mass?
Did you ever come up with a list of Orthodox FReepers who wanted to participate in your "caucus"?
I realize there is an affinity between the Orthodox and Romanists
Yes, far more than there is between the Orthodox and the five solas crowd.
it looked awful petulant to try and destroy a caucus before it even began.
Again, what "caucus"? A single person CANNOT, by definition, be a caucus.
Did you see that here? How do you know what they conspired at before they posted?
Okay, let’s make the scourging optional — mandatory for tertiaries.
Historical documents may use terms which would not be used today, e.g. "Christ-killers." And such documents may be discussed on "open" RF threads.
But if a Freeper used that term to disparage another Freeper rather than as a term used in the article being discussed, I would probably pull it as flame bait or egregious "making it personal."
The terms "Romanist" and "Papist" occur in sources offered from both sides of the debate. Likewise for the term "Snake Handlers" etc.
These spitwads are thrown from every direction on "open" town square style threads.
Posters should realize that the other guy doesn't throw spitwads when he has ammunition, count it as a win and walk away. The spitwad thrower would be left alone looking like a child having a temper tantrum, petty and discredited both personally and tarnishing his own side of the debate.
Unfortunately though, some get their feelings hurt and/or lower themselves by throwing spitwads back.
Often people rubber-neck when passing car wrecks and likewise the childish threads rack up a lot of "hits." But the result is the same - the spitwad throwers get a reputation and do themselves and their side no favors. The winners, like the EMTs and LEOs, are the ones who come along and clean up the mess.
Finally, when we ban a term or a source then it has to be banned across the board. For instance, any reference to Jack Chick is not allowed - whether pro or con. It's a "no go." If the term "Romanist" or "Papist" were banned - then no source using that term on either side would be allowed. Both sides would lose a lot of source documents.
Thick skin is required for "open" RF town square type debate.
“incorrect.
For example, there is a basic disjunct between Calvinist and Arminian belief on Total Depravity and Free will”
I don’t have much time left to post so I can only make cursory comments. Lutheran’s are not considered Arminian.
All of the Magisterial Reformers were agreed on Justification by faith and that faith was a gift from God. How they worked out the anthropological issues differed. Even the original Anglicans agreed with this. Since reconciliation with God is considered the most important issue these denominations agreed together on what is considered most important.
However, they are welcome to start a new, similiar "open" thread or to repost the same article at least four hours later as an "open" thread.
LOL
Splitter!
Because they did it openly.
That is what I have been doing but without the scourging.
I am probably the most guilty of using the term "snake handler;" however, I am not aware of a single FReeper who has ever publicly or privately identified themselves as a member of a church where snake handling is practiced.
Am I to assume that terms that people such as Jesse Jackson use to describe Jews COULD NOT be used on here the way that Romanist and Papist is used?
Okay, that’s ringing a bell. I vaguely recall (I’ve been more than usually thick headed for about 3 weeks owing to another Physician prescribed poison) that there was a htought that a solas/orthodox caucus was going to be started.
So there was conversation about the potentially bogus nature of the Caucus and a plan discussed to bring it down?
IF so, it’s a shame that the attempt was muddied up with an OP which made it easy to pull down the Caucus status.
If I wanted to make the experiment, I’d find an Orthodox person to work with and look for something that was more positive in its language. This case is too muddy to establish a new point IMHO.
In the same way your use of the term "snake handler" to disparage a group of believers is acceptable on an "open" RF thread, a generalized or historical pejorative may be acceptable. But if the term is used to smear another Freeper, personally, it will result in a warning or perhaps the remark being pulled.
I’m kind of relieved about the scourging. I guess I think that even if the designation is later removed, badly placed objections should be deleted as well?
However, if I replace the caucus designation with an "ecumenical" tag, then the most antagnostic replies will be removed.
*********************
Sissy.
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.