Who is allowed to post on this Religion Forum

[Terry1]

Ron Paul's message was always consistent without fail and it was always about freedom and liberty to live and let live respecting others beliefs and still be examples of the witness of Christ. There is no political message closer to the Gospel of Christ than that of Ron Paul's. The religion forum should stand as it's part of the core belief and philosophy of Ron Paul the same.

Those who come here unassociated without respect for the philosophies of those we stand for politically and degrade the good members of this site should not be free to continue doing so. I believe in welcoming all who come here with a sincere desire to understand the teachings and philosophy of Dr. Paul and who respectfully engage in civil discussion, but there should be no tolerance for those who don't share or believe in the same political concepts and philosophies who only come here to cause division and strife amongst the brethren of Liberty, some who subscribe to religion and some who do not--we are political brethren in the same beliefs we share with regard to who should govern and rule this nation.

This is all begs the question--is forgiveness synonymous with tolerance? What do we do with corrupt leaders or those who seek to destroy and annihilate our civil rights? We vote them out of office--get rid of them. We can forgive them for their treachery against the people, but do we keep them where they can do the most harm to the people of this nation?

[Deborah K]

I believe God's Truth is absolute. I do not believe sinful men have the liberty to just believe anything they want, but those who call themselves Christian, must be in accord with the revelation of God (the Holy Scriptures).

Liberty is a wonderful thing, but spiritual anarchy is not.

Please read Matthew 7:21-27

I am not "proselytizing" for only God can save through the power of His gospel message, and I honestly have no agenda, but I discovered immediately, that I would be required to defend my faith on this site. My Reformed beliefs were and continue to be terribly misrepresented, demeaned, and perverted . . so before the face of God, I must defend the basis for my faith . . the Holy Scriptures.

I can do no other . . .

Those of you who believe in total liberty to believe any way you choose, must also extend this liberty to me; else this forum is a farce and makes a mockery of Christianity.

Again, I ask of you, please do so without self-righteous condemnation and judgmental abuse.

[Nang]

Please listen to what Ender posted and really meditate on it. You are not being rejected but your behavior here is being criticized by people who want you to see there is a duty to love even your enemies and leave the rest (all the wrath) to the Creator. Without love all you are doing is making noise like a clanging cymbal and the love has to be love for even your enemies, those who disagree with your beliefs, just as He sacrificed Himself before we first loved Him. This is how you evidence the Spirit within you. We are to love others as He first loved us, as they are now, and the one who knows what is in the hearts and minds will be the judge.

Back at you . . .

[Nang]

Again, I ask of you, please do so without self-righteous condemnation and judgmental abuse.

Back at you, too . . .

I think we all need to drop the condemnation and judgmental abuse. Do you really think I am the only guilty party?

[fisharmor]

All opinions are welcome!

It is my opinion, without having read this thread or really having interacted with you at all so far, that you ought to have had something better to do on Easter Sunday.

[moostraks]

Those of you who believe in total liberty to believe any way you choose, must also extend this liberty to me; else this forum is a farce and makes a mockery of Christianity.

Liberty for your beliefs has been extended to you but not your behavior towards other members in regards to actions such as trying to shut down threads that offend you (as opposed to not entering them) or your constant insults towards others calling them names and ridiculing them as it is destructive and contrary to the mission of the board. This religion section is not just a Christian subforum and is created for the purpose of exchange of ideas not attacking and silencing those with whom you disagree.

[Dr.3D]

It is my opinion, without having read this thread or really having interacted with you at all so far, that you ought to have had something better to do on Easter Sunday.[/COLOR]

Like eating a big slice of ham and an Easter egg hunt.

[helmuth_hubener]

I have recently been told to "go away" because I do "not belong here" on this forum, so I just want to pin down what credentials and motives one must have to post on this RPF Religion Forum:...

All opinions are welcome!

Sigh. . That is my opinion. I could be wrong.

[Terry1]

Quote Originally Posted by Nang View Post

Those of you who believe in total liberty to believe any way you choose, must also extend this liberty to me; else this forum is a farce and makes a mockery of Christianity.

Again, I ask of you, please do so without self-righteous condemnation and judgmental abuse.

Nang is using a very common tactic here. She is attempting to hold us hostage to our own core values that she believes then gives her the freedom to continue running roughshod through the threads abusing the members here.

Unbelievers do the very same thing to Christians by attempting to hold them hostage to secular standards and values. Secular's can't understand Christian standards because they aren't spiritually led, so they fallaciously believe that we should accept their behavior as Godly and normal. So no matter how loving, peaceful and kind the message of Gods truth is--seculars will regard this as a "hate crime" against their person. In such a case--we are called to shake off the dust and leave them to God.

In this forum, we can shake the dust off, but allowing them to continue berating the brethren here is not "leaving them behind" as we should. They should simply lose the privilege of being able to commit their abuse against the brethren by eliminating them since they share none of the core values here and persist in being the trouble maker seeking ways to continue in their chaos and mayhem--IMO.

[Deborah K]

Liberty for your beliefs has been extended to you but not your behavior towards other members in regards to actions such as trying to shut down threads that offend you (as opposed to not entering them) or your constant insults towards others calling them names and ridiculing them as it is destructive and contrary to the mission of the board. This religion section is not just a Christian subforum and is created for the purpose of exchange of ideas not attacking and silencing those with whom you disagree.

This is the crux of the entire matter.

[Beorn]

What type of hippie free for all is this?

[Natural Citizen]

This is the crux of the entire matter.

There really is never any exchanging of ideas though in terms of political action in the religion forum. In fact, the only exchanging of ideas that I have ever read were premised upon differences in interpretation of scripture. Which is essentially all that Nang is doing. It's no different than anyone else. It does seem like everyone is ganging up on Nang though.

[Deborah K]

There really is never any exchanging of ideas though in terms of political action in the religion forum. In fact, the only exchanging of ideas that I have ever read were premised upon differences in interpretation of scripture. Which is essentially all that Nang is doing. It's no different than anyone else. It does seem like everyone is ganging up on Nang though.

Here's my take on it:

Has anyone noticed . . .

Most on RPF tell me, I should be nice and loving to those who who deny the sound teachings of God's Sovereignty and particular Grace, but those very same I should be nicer to, are those who deny God's Sovereignty and particular Grace, and are the very ones who are not rebuked for their hatred and rejection of me, for believing in God's Sovereignty and particular Grace!

Nang, try to look at it this way: Say you were part of a community, for a couple of years. A community of political peers where there is lively debate about all things political, but there is also a small portion of that community who enjoys debating about religion/theology and such. You decide to invite someone not part of this community of political thinkers into the small religious portion, and your reasoning for inviting this person over is because you want back-up for your religious beliefs, and you know your friend views things the same way. So your friend decides to come on over to this community which, again, is founded mainly on a political philosophy. The people in this community are as diverse as they come, and it is amazing that such a diverse group can even get along at all, but the reason they do (albeit not without occasional struggle)is because they all share the same philosophy regarding individual, or personal freedom. That is basically: believe what you want, think what you want, feel what you want, do what you want, and what you own is yours, as long it doesn't cause damage to others.

So your friend, without giving consideration to any of the members of this community, or what they are about, comes in and declares openly, and with impunity that many of the members are not fit to enter heaven, mainly because they do not believe the way you and your friend do.

This attitude and behavior is anathema to the core beliefs of the members of this forum, which is why even non-faithful are getting involved - because many of the members (in their diversity) have grown to like and even love each other, and reject your intolerance, because in our view, intolerance causes damage. This community is tight because we are political activists. And while we are spread all across America and are even in other countries, many of us have met each other many times, and have even had each other over to our houses. This is NOT your typical online community.

Now, you will say, we are intolerant of you and your views, but as it has been stated time and again - anyone who is able to present their argument without ad hominem attacks is always welcomed - THAT is what this community is about!!! FREEDOM TO THINK, FEEL, BELIEVE, AND DO WHAT YOU WANT. But that does not give you the right to attack other people or their faith. It goes against our philosophy, and it goes against Christ's teachings.

Nang, you and a few of the other Calvinists have gone about your proselytizing all wrong, and it has resulted in causing damage to a sub-forum that I have a personal interest in keeping alive, since I argued for the creation of it many years ago. People are calling for its end. I want to believe that those of us who are brothers and sisters in Christ have the capacity to iron this out. We've had our problems in the past on this forum, but never to this extent, and I think it really just boils down to your and the other Calvinists' capacity to stick to your theology and avoid attacking established members of this forum. You must decide for yourself whether or not your intolerance of us is worth your effort. And we must decide the same of you.

I guess you'd have to look through her posts to really get a good idea of how this evolved into the mess it is now.

[moostraks]

There really is never any exchanging of ideas though in terms of political action in the religion forum. In fact, the only exchanging of ideas that I have ever read were premised upon differences in interpretation of scripture. Which is essentially all that Nang is doing. It's no different than anyone else. It does seem like everyone is ganging up on Nang though.

I am not ganging up on her, just posting my personal response for what I find offensive and why I have even bothered being involved with her. I have no problems with other faith systems but I disagree with nang's methods. We both use the same Book but are coming away with different belief structures. Her post history will tell you all you need to know if you dig enough to see the mod edits repeatedly. She likes to be inflammatory and then act victimized and then once having baited the hook she acts inflammatory again when people try to explain why they have a problem with her. There seems to be no peaceful middle ground where one can disagree with her methods without being blamed for victimizing her as denying her right to be abusive seems to be somehow tied to her religion and the free expression thereof.

[Natural Citizen]

I am not ganging up on her, just posting my personal response for what I find offensive and why I have even bothered being involved with her. I have no problems with other faith systems but I disagree with nang's methods. We both use the same Book but are coming away with different belief structures.

I suppose that we just have to ask ourselves what it is that we can do better. The thing about Biblicism is that the only mechanism that exists for any theoretical error correction in such a diverse community is that of the human ego. Ones perception of a given translation. And by default, they must clash. There's no way to ever overcome this. It must be accepted that it will exist.

[acptulsa]

Well, you know, a friend of hers invited her, and we have no idea if he told her he was inviting her to a war he had already started and escalated or not. Her biggest sin has been standing by him, I guess--even after he retreated by asking to be banned. And while she has done more waging war than making us feel God's love, all I know for sure is it takes two Pharisees (or more) to do that tango.

All of it pales in comparison to this:

The day last year when it hit me I was at work outside in the smoking section having a smoke. I've been on a search for spiritual truth since about the age of 16. I was pondering over some thoughts about some things I had read about being "envious of Christ on the cross" and how that played into me wanting to be a leader, and in relation to a monetary project I've been working on for years. That we want to be the savior on "behalf" of Christ instead of following him as a savior.

So, Jesus died on the cross so David could learn to put his painful past behind him and love us as Jesus intended--love us enough to bare his soul and tell us painful things about himself and his life so we can benefit? That's why Jesus died? Or Jesus died so a hundred generations of Pharisees could argue over whether David did this good deed because he has faith or whether he has faith because he did this good deed for us, or some fool thing like that?

[Natural Citizen]

Well, you know, a friend of hers invited her, and we have no idea if he told her he was inviting her to a war he had already started and escalated or not. Her biggest sin has been standing by him, I guess--even after he retreated by asking to be banned. And while she has done more waging war than making us feel God's love, all I know for sure is it takes two Pharisees (or more) to do that tango.

All of it pales in comparison to this:



So, Jesus died on the cross so David could learn to put his painful past behind him and love us as Jesus intended--love us enough to bare his soul and tell us painful things about himself and his life so we can benefit? That's why Jesus died? Or Jesus died so a hundred generations of Pharisees could argue over whether David did this good deed because he has faith or whether he has faith because he did this good deed for us, or some fool thing like that?

I still say that David needs to find that girl and say he's sorry. Can't be all about David.

[acptulsa]

I still say that David needs to find that girl and say he's sorry. Can't be all about David.

You might be right. Then again, maybe she forgot all about it and it's best left forgotten. And maybe it is about David--maybe that apology would make him feel better but she'd just laugh and say, 'has that been bothering you all these years? I had forgotten all about it. People did much worse to me than you ever did.'

But that's a conversation for the other thread. A thread which has more of Jesus' love and more real meaning in one paragraph of the OP than there is in all five pages of this Pharisee pettiness.

[TER]

I suppose that we just have to ask ourselves what it is that we can do better. The thing about Biblicism is that the only mechanism that exists for any theoretical error correction in such a diverse community is that of the human ego. Ones perception of a given translation. And by default, they must clash. There's no way to ever overcome this. It must be accepted that it will exist.

This is inaccurate. It is not the human ego which exists for error correction in 'Biblicism', but rather the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the Church which is the pillar and foundation for the truth, always has been, always will be. This is the correct mechanism to overcome errors, and precisely NOT the human ego. Indeed, it is the complete opposite of ego which is needed, which is humility to submit to the mind and wisdom of the Church and the illuminated Saints within it. It is human ego in fact which is the cause for the errors and divisions.

[Natural Citizen]

This is inaccurate. It is not the human ego which exists for error correction in 'Biblicism', but rather the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the Church which is the pillar and foundation for the truth, always has been, always will be. This is the correct mechanism to overcome errors, and precisely NOT the human ego. Indeed, it is the complete opposite of ego which is needed, which is humility to submit to the mind and wisdom of the Church and the illuminated Saints within it. It is human ego in fact which is the cause for the errors and divisions.

I understand what the desired or "official" mechanism for error correction is. I'm just telling you what the more popular and applicable one is. I'm not saying that the human ego should be the mechanism. Just that, in the real world, it is. And, you're right. It doesn't work.

[TER]

I understand what the desired mechanism for error correction is. I'm just telling you what the more popular one is. I'm not saying that the human ego should be the mechanism. Just that, in the real world, it is. And, you're right. It doesn't work.

I misunderstood. I am sorry for that. I thought you were speaking that the Christian way is through the human ego and I wished to correct that. You are indeed correct that the popular method is through the ego. Again, I am sorry about that.

[moostraks]

I suppose that we just have to ask ourselves what it is that we can do better. The thing about Biblicism is that the only mechanism that exists for any theoretical error correction in such a diverse community is that of the human ego. Ones perception of a given translation. And by default, they must clash. There's no way to ever overcome this. It must be accepted that it will exist.

And yet there are many that can disagree here without resorting to claiming eternal damnation and name calling towards those who hold contrary opinions, imagine that!

[Natural Citizen]

I misunderstood. I am sorry for that. I thought you were speaking that the Christian way is through the human ego and I wished to correct that. You are indeed correct that the popular method is through the ego. Again, I am sorry about that.

No, it's OK. You don't have to apologize. I could have been more precise in what I meant.

[Natural Citizen]

And yet there are many that can disagree here without resorting to claiming eternal damnation and name calling towards those who hold contrary opinions, imagine that!

I don't believe in all of that eternal damnation stuff so it doesn't bother me. Perhaps that's why I view the squabble differently. In fact, it probably is.

[moostraks]

I don't believe in all of that eternal damnation stuff so it doesn't bother me. Perhaps that's why I view the squabble differently. In fact, it probably is.

It is like having a freeper represent your political views. You want to be very clear to articulate how different your beliefs are from those who spew such vitriol and you hope they might be persuaded to be less antagonistic.

[mosquitobite]

It is like having a freeper represent your political views.

LOL! Excellent analogy!

[Deborah K]

I don't believe in all of that eternal damnation stuff so it doesn't bother me. Perhaps that's why I view the squabble differently. In fact, it probably is.

I'm sure it is. For most people of strong faith to be told everything they believe is a lie, and that they aren't true Christians, and will have no salvation - it becomes very personal. It's always and forever better to debate the issue without resorting to personal attack. A lesson for all of us.

It's always been a dream of mine that at some point new people could come on RPFs and read in any given subforum only to discover that the membership is diverse, the debates are intelligent, lively, and interesting- a real learning experience..... And that we are funny and kind and open, and that we represent the kind of community that anyone would want to be a part of - online and in real life. We're human and we have our faults, but we work through them and come out the other side better people.

What??? Too Pollyanaish?

[PursuePeace]

It's always been a dream of mine that at some point new people could come on RPFs and read in any given subforum only to discover that the membership is diverse, the debates are intelligent, lively, and interesting- a real learning experience..... And that we are funny and kind and open, and that we represent the kind of community that anyone would want to be a part of - online and in real life. We're human and we have our faults, but we work through them and come out the other side better people.

What??? Too Pollyanaish?

Not at all. I like it.

[otherone]

It's always and forever better to debate the issue without resorting to personal attack. A lesson for all of us.

It is the nature of the webz, the naked truth of human interaction. People conflate debating ideas with invalidating the debater.

[Deborah K]

It is the nature of the webz, the naked truth of human interaction. People conflate debating ideas with invalidating the debater.

Yeah....I know....but it's an ideal to strive for, id'n it?