Abuse of Caucus [whiner's caucus]

Self | 22 Feb 2011 | Natural Law

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen, caww. Wonderful comment. Amen.

"Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:

But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." -- Philippians 1:15-18

[Quix]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Jim Robinson

I pray Mr. Jim will never close down the open religious thread. Being on that thread has taught me many things about how to deal with people in the outside world..who use tactics and play with your brain....we are all going to need to know how to do this with events worldwide kicking up as they are and will be.

The moderator and the rules have always said the open forum is not for weak-kneed posters...and I was just that in the beginning. I have since learned to stand firm in my faith...which has flowed over into how to deal with Democrats...Communists and those who oppose our American way of life.

What better place for Christians to test their “Armor” then on this particular thread? among other Christians...

What better place to discover where you're weak but among those who will not let you off the hook and play naive and use sweetie type verbiage. Because we had better know how to stand strong and firm with the direction this administration is taking this country....both in our faith..and in our political stance..as well as for our families.

We need a place that tests us... that is moderated and yet allows for passionate ideas, thoughts and lively debate....and yes to learn to let it roll of our shoulders when the climate is hot and heavy.

We all need the chips on our shoulders to be knocked off now and then...it humbles the soul.

308 posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:12:15 PM by caww [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

!HALLELUJAH!
!HALLELUJAH!
!HALLELUJAH!

[Rashputin]

In all seriousness, why did Christ single out Simon and rename him Peter (rock) if there is absolutely no significance to it?

[Quix]

[Belteshazzar]

Interesting, a little over five hours since posting and already well over 300 replies. That’s better than one per minute. Maybe there really was a need for such a thread. My hat is off to the wisdom of the moderators.

[TotusTuus]

Catholic > Roman Catholic > papist

Go figure."

I'm Byzantine Catholic. Where do I, or any other person from one of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, fit into your "daisy chain"?

Just asking.

[WPaCon]

In post 288, I said that the tern Catholic is better than Roman Catholic, which is better than papist.

[rogator]

I thought it was Ensign Pulver.

[Natural Law]

"As a quick antidote to the above link, let me quickly add..."

As difficult as it is for some to pass up an opportunity to shriek "Rome, Rome" or to fabricate an insult of Catholicism this thread really wasn't about the validity or merit of Sola Scriptura. It would, however, be a shock if the usual suspects could demonstrate the concept of contextual communications and not give in to their guttural instincts and programming.

[the_conscience]

But Protestants with their colder English and Northern European gesture language make more of kissing. And then their cultural chauvinism and provincialism makes it hard for them to accept that the gesture of kissing could have such a range of meanings and affects attached to it.

To paraphrase the Dawg: "Stinkin whities! Why can't they be like us lovin latins!?"

Protestants, in general, whatever they actually think about God, angels, and demons, tend to conclude -- or at least say -- that critical mistakes mean they are worshipping another god, as though there were many or as though what one conceives in one's error has an existence outside oneself.

You're right! Protestants see idolatry everywhere. That's what happens when someone reads and understands the Bible. ++Paul++ reiterated in many of his epistles that immorality itself is idolatry. If you get a chance check out the prophets of old. Whoaa-Dawgies, talk about people obsessed with idolatry. Something about law written on stone, I believe. A certain thread runs throughout Scripture that describes antithesis. As the theologian John Frame puts it:

The Bible often divides people into two classes, antithetically related. There are the sons of Cain and of Seth (Gen. 4-6), Israel and the nations (Ex. 19:5-6), the righteous and the wicked (Ps. 1), the wise and the foolish (Prov. 1:7), the saved and the lost (Matt. 18:11), the children of Abraham and those of the devil (John 8:39-44), the elect and the nonelect (Rom. 9), believers and unbelievers (1 Cor. 6:6), practitioners of the wisdom of the world and of the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1-2), those who walk in light and those who walk in darkness (1 John 1:5-10), the church and the world (1 John 2:15-17).

Check out the rest of the article. I hope that leads to a better understanding of whitey.

[Persevero]

“I’m much thankful for the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, if it weren’t for that, I’d be speaking French right now. “

I didn’t bring it up as an up or down proposition; just to point out that such historical phrases as “Edict of Nantes” or “Sola Scriptura” don’t need to be in a real dictionary to be understood and utilized.

[Mad Dawg]

It seems that one person's ‘discussion’ becomes another’s ‘viciousness’ as soon as a post is answered in disagreement.

My experience here is quite different. I have friends here with whom I disagree, though many have quit posting because of the tone of the conversation.

Even though Scripture is provided, the message is lost ...

Well, that sort of exemplifies part of the problem. We, or at least I, am familiar with the Galatians account. Why, when I was not a Catholic I lectured on it at a Catholic College.

But we look at the meaning of it and at the trend, so to speak,of the Apostolic Church in another way.

So somebody presents a passage as conclusive but the other person, who knows the passage and has thought about it long and hard, does not think it does the work the first person thought it did.

Then you say, "The message is lost," while I think "The case was not made."

But if I say what I think, I am told I am reasoning according to me own understanding while my interlocutor says he is reasoning according to God's understanding.

Yeah, well, I already knew the other guy thought I was wrong. I am just surprised and disappointed when an inconclusive argument is presented as doing the work it does not do and when my trying to point that out leads to rebukes about my spiritual state or whatever.

Scripture is provided

Yes. Exactly. In fact it was provided to a whole lot of Catholics just a few weeks ago. The very passage. And we draw a different conclusion.

On a subjective level, it was prayer, reason, study and experience that led me to become a Catholic. I didn't start out thinking, "Well, the Catholic Church says so so I have to believe." I read, re-read, and read again. I thought, I observed, and I drew a conclusion.

So when the very things I read and prayed over are brought up with the air that I can't possibly have thought and prayed over the before, I get impatient.

[WPaCon]

“I’m Byzantine Catholic. Where do I, or any other person from one of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, fit into your “daisy chain”?

Just asking.”

Sorry you interpreted it that way. I should have made myself more clear. I was ranking the terms that Dr. Eckleburg mentioned in her post. I was saying that using the term “Catholic” is better than “Roman Catholic,” and one reason for that is that “Roman Catholic” doesn’t include Eastern Catholics such as yourself. Just for the record, I agree that every rite in the Catholic Church is equal.

By the way, I recently read that, technically speaking, it is only correct to refer to Catholics in the Diocese of Rome as Roman Catholics. For example, I would actually be a Pittsburgh Catholic, not a Roman Catholic, although I am from the Latin Rite. Do you or Mark know what I am talking about or if I am correct?

[CynicalBear]

>> In all seriousness, why did Christ single out Simon and rename him Peter (rock) if there is absolutely no significance to it?<<

To be right honest with you I have never done a study on that so don’t have and answer to that that I could stand behind. It surely wasn’t to replace God the Father as the Rock upon which the church is built.

Additionally Jesus gave the “keys of heaven” or the ability to bind and loose to ALL of the apostles in Matthew 18 not just to Peter.

[Rashputin]

Thanks,

Regards

[Quix]

HEY, SOME OF US OLD NAVY CODGERS DON’T REMEMBER SUCH DETAILS SO WELL.

BE NICE!

HARUMPH1

[Mad Dawg]

To paraphrase the Dawg: "Stinkin whities! Why can't they be like us lovin latins!?"

Unless that's a joke, it's unfair. As a matter of fact, all this smooching gives me the heebie-jeebies. But there are different styles,and not all kisses mean what onlookers think they do. And the onlooker who assumes they MUST mean what they mean in his hometown is silly.

As to idolatry and all that, one question for me is when does error become idolatry, or is it always idolatry? Were those who were baptized with the Baptism of John and had never even heard that there was a Holy Spirit idolaters?

And the question about the existence of false gods also remains.

"As for the gods of the nations, they are but idols."

To me that suggests that it is nonsensical to say the Muslims worship another god. There simply IS no other God. They either are in error about God or they worship the thing that is not.

I am hereby officially out of gas.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The “whiner’s caucus” suffers from a paradoxical definition. If one whines about the misuse of the caucus, then they belong in the caucus. If one instead is agreeable to the content of the caucus, they clearly do not belong.

[Jim Robinson]

I think you’re right. The palm tree of the scene must’ve thrown me off.

[Religion Moderator]

This thread is very much like one we had a year or so ago when a bunch of Protestants were trying to challenge the "Catholic Caucus" designation on the basis that the word "catholic" means "universal."

The Orthodox also were involved in the dispute and believed they should always be included in Catholic Caucuses. But there was an interest among the Latin Rite Catholics to caucus among themselves.

The issues of "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" was also raised.

And it went round and round.

The previous dispute was ended when I explained that the caucus titles are used for moderating purposes to determine who should not be posting on the thread and from that day forward “Catholic Caucus” would include any Freeper who currently, actively believes in Papal Supremacy. And if the caucus is to include Orthodox, the designation "Catholic/Orthodox Caucus" is to be used.

At post 110 you quote me with emphasis as follows:

Members of the Sola Scriptura Caucus are those who currently believe that Scriptures contain all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Non-members would include those who embrace Sacred Traditions such as Catholics, Jews who embrace the Talmud, Atheists, Agnostics, Mormons who embrace the Book of Mormon, etc.

At least two sects of Judaism - Karaites and Ananites - reject the Talmud and Mishna which are Rabbianic writings roughly equivalent to the Catholic's Sacred Tradition and Catechism. Freepers who are members of those sects would have an interest in a Sola Scriptura Caucus.

If anyone wishes to challenge a caucus label or whether the article is appropriate for a caucus, send me a Freepmail.

Do NOT disturb a caucus by making challenges on thread.