Skip to comments.Abuse of Caucus [whiner's caucus]
Posted on 02/22/2011 2:53:04 PM PST by Natural Law
An alarming trend is developing in the Free Republic Religion Forum in which a caucus identifier is being claimed for non-existent or impossibly defined groups. With the caucuses being self defined we see nonsense like the Sola Scriptura Caucus. Of course it doesnt mean all Scripture, only the thread initiators or Forum Moderators definition of Scripture. Jews who believe in the Scripture of the Old Testament are excluded. Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovahs Witnesses are excluded even though they believe in the sufficiency of their own versions of Scripture. The not so transparent purpose of these faux caucuses is clearly to exclude a group of FReepers in a modern day repetition of Whites Only and Irish Need Not Apply prejudice. If this is allowed to stand what will we see next; caucuses so narrowly defined so as to only include ones bridge club or to exclude an individual FReeper? How about a caucus designation for everyone but citizens from New York? How about a mens only caucus? How about a caucus for those of us who drive BMWs? And what is being discussed in these faux caucus threads? Critical doctrinal issues such as ruggedized aircraft, home schooling, and civil unrest in Egypt. Give me a break!
Its a badge that I will wear with honor. I am a Fisheater, an in your face Catholic who is not cowed or intimidated by earthly authority. If Free Republic disappeared tomorrow my life would change very little. Besides, anyone with a knowledge and appreciation for US history knows that anti-Catholicism is deeply institutionalized within our society to the degree that even the worst offenders are rarely aware of it.
But what you've said is exactly the point I was getting at. Thanks for posting it.
Isn’t that the truth.
My former Presbyterian DH was totally unaware of that history.
Actually I think it does.. sometimes fools rush in where angels fear to tread
By “Apostolic Church”in that post I meant the Church between the Ascension and the death of the last of the Apostles.
Some posit this “perfect” Church gathered at the mountain from which our Lord ascended. And pretty much everything is downhill from there.
Or, a modification of that notion is that the Church was really good until sometime after the death of the last apostle and, say, the Edict of Milan.
That is not my view.
Another view is that Acts and the Epistles present a body in conflict, with enemies without and dissension within. So many of Paul’s letters either directly address dissension or speak about how to address it. His most important and beautiful passages are side-by-side with appeals for unity.
Confronting these internal and external challenges, and guided by the Spirit, the Church slowly organizes itself into a structure able to deal with these challenges and to preserve the Gospel and unfold (which is the meaning of “develop”) the meaning of the Gospel in response to questions and challenges.
This view also depends on a reading of Scripture.
So in this view, Paul’s conversion and call, the subsequent conflicts with Peter (including both “the right hand of fellowship” and “I rebuked him to his face,”), AND the resolution of the conflicts by reaching a settlement in a council and sending Paul abroad represent PART of a Spirit-guided trend.
In this connection, I would note that Paul did not question Peter’s TEACHING, but accused him of ACTING like a wussy. This certainly is a part of the “trend”. Centuries later Catherine of Sienna (a lay Dominican) told the then pope to man up and quit acting like a wimp (with language almost that strong)!
I want to stress that this reading of the early Church also thinks it depends on Scripture. So we have conflicting interpretations of the passages from Galatians. If I may put it this way, you seem to say, “Look here. This shows my point is correct.”
And I’m saying, “Hold on a minute. Not so fast. There’s a whole big Bible out there and an official account (Acts) as well as other parts of this and other letters which may shed some light on this.”
I think as a general guideline, one in every ten posts should include a whine.
Or actual tears in one of every 25 will also suffice.
No problem and thank you.
Mad Dawg — lay Dominican
Have mouth. Will travel.
Some have reported seeing birds and other kinds of animals.
LOL . . .
particularly with a toddler aged child?
Hey lets face it we have a better sense of humor and the ability to laugh at ourselves !
Hope all is well MD
I’m not inclined to let them know
that I know that.
How kind of you !!!
And are also FAR more competitive.
And you don't know enough Dominicans. Two weekends ago we had an alleged retreat too much time of which was spent mocking ourselves and each other.
Your post at 429: EXCELLENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and I quote you:
Youre either worshiping the true God or youre worshiping a god of your own making. Thats the message of Scripture.
Those not in Christ are all idolaters, full stop. And even Christians will from time to time be tempted to focus their gaze on something other than God, which is idolatry. See 1 Cor 6:10, Eph 5:5, Col 3:5.
My suggestion is to put aside the philosophical construct that you normally use and try to understand the biblical philosophical construct. You may not agree with it but at least youll understand its position.
### end quote ###
Here’s the point, which is old and pretty much outdated, some people show up as trolls, don’t reply to their comments. I would honestly provide a link to dealing with internet trolls here:
There are trolls everywhere, and honestly, just because some troll wants to post offensivsly, with stupidity, or both, doesn’t mean shutting down some forums. In addition, if someone violates the rules of posting (i.e. no profanity, no personal attacks, no racism or violence in posts, repeatedly, make note of the username and report it) If some post turns out to be a little rediculous and not worth one’s while, ignore it, and don’t respond. I’ve seen plenty of trolls in my day, and just because they can say some rediculous remarks doesn’t mean shutting down the group.
And I do agree with you. There is an 'official account'. It is in Chapter 1:11,12.
"But I CERTIFY you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Acts 15:11 is a fascinating verse, if you are ever bored and wish to see something in a new light, perhaps.
Lucky you Dr....hopefully that list will grow more and more!
What special knowledge does one need in order to have an opinion about whether posters can make any caucus that they want?