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]
“They may be interested in discussing it,...”
They may be more than interested in discussing it. In this case, were the LDS folks to strongly disparage the doctrine of the Trinity, and we Catholics gave an inadequate defense thereof, it seems unfair to me that other Trinitarians would be forbidden from entering the “caucus” thread.
But I see why you want to provide that option.
It is difficult for theological arguments to deepen when they are subject to the inanities of haters.
The parallel thread concept reduces a little the inherent injustice of the arrangement that you've created, while preserving the good that it does do.
Thanks for the clarifications.
sitetest
It's a good topic, but not enough people or the will to support the caucus.
Anyway, the Cyril Lukas abomination was removed in due time. It will never return.
I have seen this assertion on the board and by PM. I was in self imposed exile when whatever happened. Pity.
I say we take up a collection from both sides and buy ourselves a caucus!
It appears that the Catholic caucus in the FR Religion Forum simply could not resist injecting themselves into any discussion where Protestants might have an ecumenical discussion that the caucus could not spray their graffiti all over, and so they trudged out the usual "THEY'RE BASHING OUR FAITH!!!" charge just because the historical document cited happened to contain "thinly veiled" attacks on the Roman Catholic Church...even though that miniscule bit of content amidst the whole was never highlighted, referenced or presented as the topic of discussion.
Is this the point we're at? On a site that promotes itself as being thoroughly conservative, is FR now so obsessed with political correctness and catering to the whining victimhood of those wanting to shove their opinions into every single discussion that a thread like this that could have simply allowed "friendly dialogue" between these two groups must instead be treated this way?
I think you may have made that assumption because I am in agreement with the Reformed on so much.
Fru is back with his incredible ability to dissect a situation in a clear and concise masterpiece!
I believe this deserves a ping list!
Where you been, man! :)
I'm sorry to see that, some of the best discussions I've had on the RF have been arguing with EO. You guys seem to be made of tougher stuff.
Is this a caucus thread or not?
Is it even possible to have a Protestant caucus thread when RCs feel obligated to jump in everywhere and fan flames?
Or Spain, Italy and France?
The problem in the West is more than the fact the Reformation happened.
Part of me wishes it was that easy.
Doomed from the get go because of the ridiculous nature of the original article.
The caucus label has been removed. It is now an “open” thread. Please refer to my posts on the thread for more detail.
LOL!
I hate the sight of (my) blood.
AND from the first post aimed at Catholics.
AND deservedly doomed IMHO because it was made not as a real thread but as a (bogus) test designed more to provoke posts like Frumanchus than to have a real conversation.
This was a trap. The real benefit was for those who broke the rules to consider themselves to have an excuse to bash Catholics
It may not have led to much in the way of productive conversation because of the controversy surrounding the document in question...but that's not the point. The point is threads like this NEVER will so long as a particular group can cry victim and strong arm their way into the discussion to disrupt it.
I've had some particularly interesting and productive discussions with some Orthodox folks in the past, but without fail those discussions get derailed and fall apart as soon as Roman Catholics push their way in and go on the offensive.
It seems as though productive ecumenical discussion is only allowed if they are the initiators and they get to steer the discussion.
It was also doomed because there was not a single Orthodox FReeper willing to go along with it. A “Group A & Group B Caucus” CANNOT EXIST if no members of Group B ever join (and attempting to misconstrue what Group B believes from the outset through omission of critical facts doesn’t help).
I hear you. I’m kind of a sissy myself. :) MA law requires a blood test prior to marriage, and I almost got up and left when the nurse came toward me with a needle. My husband had to step in. I remember feeling faint.
That’s my story and I guess I’ll have to stick with it. Ahhhhh. “Stick”. Bad choice of words.
But the more legal side of the question is the intent of the thread starter. We've got something like "mens rea" here. It appears there was never an intention to abide by the rules but rather an intention to exploit the rules to make a point. I think this has been explicitly acknowledged.
Is this the point we're at? On a site that promotes itself as being thoroughly conservative, is FR now so obsessed with political correctness and catering to the whining victimhood of those wanting to shove their opinions into every single discussion that a thread like this that could have simply allowed "friendly dialogue" between these two groups must instead be treated this way?
That sounds rather like the same whining to which you're objecting. The only whining I see is coming from your side along the lines of "Protestants can never have a caucus coz the Romanists keep butting in!" Imagine that! Catholics actually wanting to present the truth. What an inconvenient pain! You'd think they'd just let people post their nonsense uncontested, wouldn't you?
Speaking of truth:
1) There never was nor is any Orthodox/Protestant caucus on this thread nor at any other time.
2) The original article was selectively cut and pasted by the poster to exclude a critical passage which made it clear that the Orthodox had already condemned this piece as a fraud and heresy. This is the real issue on this thread and it has unfortunately been lost due to all the bickering about what constitutes a "caucus".
The poster himself has yet to explain why he did so. It's not as if the piece which was omitted was at the end of the article and so could perhaps have been missed. It's right at the very beginning and was obviously edited. Is this the basis for a serious discussion? The gentleman who posted this article on the sourced website thought it important to point out to his readers that this is a very controversial document whose authenticity is contested. And rightly so. That's something of which a reader should be aware.
The poster of this thread, on the other had, decided to edit out that information. That's understandable. I mean how is one to get a "caucus" thread up and running when you tell your prospective "caucus" partners up front that their Church has already ruled that said document is heretical and fraudulent?
Uh........best leave that bit out.
This thread was a total scam from the get go and the poster was called on it.
Well, who's crying victim now?
A case was made, and evidently considered legitimate, that chapter 10 contained a violation of the rules pertaining to Caucus threads. Moderatori locutus, causa finita.
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.