Posted on 10/13/2015 8:08:21 AM PDT by Salvation
It probably could've been created as an "ecumenical" thread:
Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
The original article doesn't seem (to me) to contain antagonism at the level of what I expect of an "anti-" or "ex-" article.
(Especially as someone who doesn't now neatly fit into any of the most common Caucus labels, I also appreciate that such threads are open to posters who don't fit within a particular label.)
There is nothing in either m Popes notes nor in b sheens which disputes that
Brother Sheen's comments are rather more optimistic about mohammedanism than I am ... my comment had more to do with "caucus" labeling, though. The only "religion" I saw mentioned was Roman Catholic. I'm glad it wasn't "caucused" ... that left me free to comment.
Is this before or after certain members of your caucus run to the mod crying??
Oh. I am just commenting for the record.
got questions.org
Much ado about nothing. This is an historical event that does not need to be qualified as a caucus. It is what it is .. factual, including the miracle of the sun.
If you show a clear verse that supports what the appiration claims let's see it or you've got nothing.
But what the appiration said it is not supported anywhere in the Word.
The Word tells us the false prophets will come from within. Fatima is one of those false prophets.
True dat.
But it is also called Islam and a Muslim religion.
And in that form, the Pope said that Catholics worship the same god that Islam (Muslims, Mohannedanism) worships.
Attribution available but most people are aware of this pronouncement.
The mohammedans description of that one singular God is so drastically wrong as to be completely unrecognizable ... and it was inspired by demons.
Incidentally, Jews also worship the one, singular God creator of all that is incorrectly. They deny that God has a Son; they deny that Jesus was and is God. Yet few Christians would argue that Jews do not worship the same God as Christians.
Attribution available
No need. I know exactly where that claim comes from; I also read it in context. Most people have not done that.
I reiterate: Mohammedanism isn’t a religion. It’s a violent, murderous, totalitarian political ideology of satanic origin. It masquerades as a religion; some people even fall for that pretense.
if you will post a clear verse showing to use only the bible only, lets see your clear verse that supports the bible alone, or youve got nothing.
(interesting, since there was no ‘bible’ till the catholic church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, put the OT and NT together,at the council of nicea....
and please, dont play that game with me....the pic is perfectly legit, since all those denominations, claim as you do, that they use just the word of God....i.e. bible alone.....
It’s not worth arguing over because the truth is they don’t really care what the Word says. If they did they would see the cross as sufficient and they wouldn’t be papists in the first place. They don’t judge their traditions by the Word, they judge the Word by their traditions. They don’t look to the Word for understanding events such as Fatima, they look to “church teaching.”
This is an historical event that does not need to be qualified as a caucus. It is what it is .. factual, including the miracle of the sun.Serious question: Did any of the local newspapers ever report on it? Did it ever get picked up by UPI or AP?
Good to see you in the forum! My current (soon to be former) pastor, is a strong advocate of social media. Hope and pray you are doing well!
yes, nothing like a link to uninformed former catholics.....like asking hitler for his view on jewish contributions to the world.....
if this is all you got....we catholics aint got nothing to worry about.
If I understand you correctly, you are calling the mother of God a false prophet? You believe that the woman who bore Jesus Christ is a deceiver? Luke 1:48
I am doing quite well, thanks. Please know that you are in my daily prayers.
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.