Saturday, July 01, 2006

The Bubble Known As "OBOB"

There are probably more than a few places in cyber-space that have environments prone to creating non-discussions. One such place is a Roman Catholic forum known as “One Bread, One Body” (OBOB). I rarely visit this forum because of this rule:

Those with disagreements or issues about Catholic faith and doctrine are asked to post respectfully and politely; you may "agree to disagree", but you may not disparage, denigrate, or libel Catholicism, nor may you post anything anti-Catholic, links to anti-Catholic websites, pictures, etc. This is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. Feel free to ask questions; but do not slam Catholicism, or the Catholic Church or you will be asked to leave.”

What this rule translates to is this: no one is allowed to counter respond to anything posted on OBOB. I know this first hand. A few years back on this forum, I was invited to take a look at a Luther-bashing thread on OBOB. Of course, I joined in the discussion and responded in my usual demeanor to a few of the posts, correcting blatant error and historical misrepresentation. My posts were quickly deleted, and I was warned by the moderators to “cease and desist”. Ok, fine. I guess everyone needs an environment to just be themselves without being challenged as to what is, or is not, truth. I wasn’t attacking anybody, I was just presenting some facts and counter-responses. After that experience, I now direct Roman Catholics to go and join the OBOB forum when they complain against my responses. If one doesn’t like to hear my responses, go onto OBOB and dialog in a place where one will not be challenged.

Recently I came across an OBOB thread here:

Almost have Protestant friend converting - Need Quick Help

Now, I didn’t expect to find any reason to join in this thread. I had no idea that one of my writings on Luther was being discussed. Well, I disregarged my own past experience with OBOB and posted this in the thread:

I found this discussion interesting. Unfortunately, in the past, the once or twice I tried to respond here on OBOB I was given multiple warnings, and my posts were deleted. So, based on past experience, I suspect that even if I attempt to interact with the comments directed toward my writing, I’m expecting the same will happen again. My posts will be deleted, and I will be given warnings. So really, there is no point. There is also a strong possibility this very post will probably be deleted, and I’ll again be warned.

Well, call me Miss Cleo, I was right. My post was deleted. The OBOB moderator explained:

James,Your post…was in violation of rule 3.8, which states; "You will not discuss Staff actions in the open forums". Since you have no previous staff action on your account, we decided to be lenient with you and just send this friendly pm reminder of the rules. Please adhere to the rules from this point forward. You may post fellowship posts in OBOB, and sometimes we will even allow some level of debte[sic], so long as it is done respectfully. But publically[sic] questioning moderator actions are strictly prohibited. Thank you.

My response: Can you please explain why you're allowing me to be publicly slandered on OBOB? Why is my name "James Swan" being slandered by Newman in the thread my post was deleted from? In other words, why can I not defend myself? Why don't you delete the posts slandering me? I am offended. You folks owe me either a good explanation or an apology. I expect neither, as Roman Catholics usually don't care enough to treat me with even an ounce of respect (Patrick Madrid excluded). Explain.

OBOB Response:
James,Perhaps if you could point out the post and comments in question, where you believe NewMan slandered you. I reviewed the thread, but did not see any instance of this. What I saw was a simple rebuttal of some of your claims, but I did not see any personal attacks. Please remember, OBOB is not a place for non-Catholics to debate. I hope you can appreciate and respect these rules, especially when someone posts a rebuttal of your work. If you would like to address it, I'm sure you will do so on your site and/or on other forums that allow for debate. Also, I'm sorry to see that you believe Catholics have treated you badly. If this is the case, then I apologize for them. And I would ask you to try not to project your discontent towards other Catholics, who have made no such offense to you.

My Response: Try this:
"Here is something that Fitzmyer wrote (page 361) but Swan did NOT copy (for obvious reasons) on his website:"

"So, far from a smoking gun, the context of Fitzmyer's book actually paints a very different picture than that which Swan tries to convey."

"Fitzmyer explains this in his book (funny that Swan didn't copy that part of Fitzmyer's book)."

"I own a copy of Fitzmyer's book and I suspect strongly that Mr. Swan is taking his comments somewhat out of context."

These comments imply deception on my part- as if I simply took what I wanted for propaganda sake- utter nonsense and slander. Even worse, you guys allow it and wont give me a chance to defend my writing. I thus include you folks as part of the problem, not part of any type of fair solution. I don't usually get this heated up, but the alleged "moderation" is just a sham so no one will pop the big OBOB "bubble."

OBOB Response:
James, As I said, we are generally lenient with those who post respectively (we even allow for some level of debte[sic]), but not those who come into OBOB and publically[sic] denigrate the OBOB moderators. If you have a problem with something that NewMan said, then I would advise that you follow protocol and contact him privately about it. From my standpoint, nothing he said was a clear flame. We don't take action on posts unless they are blatant violations. If we took action on every post that someone got offended by, then most of CF would be in the trash bin. If you want to debate Newman, then I'm sure that he would be more than happy to arrange something, in another forum that allows for debate. I would also remind you that the same rules that apply to the public fora, also apply to pm's as well. So please be careful about calling our moderation a "sham". I have been lenient with you thus far, and hope that you can extend the same respect to me that you expect from others.

My Response: From your response, it seems quite clear that you are going to allow Newman to insinuate I did poor research and mis-cited Fitzmyer. Hence, you are allowing Newman to publicly denigrate my work. Heaven forbid I'm allowed to respond to his charges- why it might cause....a disagreement! This angers me greatly. If I posted something on a well-read Protestant board that implied your research was poor, and then told you that you can't defend yourself on that forum, and that the comments denigrating your work would remain, how would you feel? How would you feel about the intent and care of the "moderation"?I don't expect the OBOB moderators to see my side on this. But then again, I’m used to Roman Catholic apologetic polemics, so it doesn't surprise me. This will be my last attempt at rational dialog with you. No need to respond, I will not bother you about this anymore, nor will I go into your OBOB forum. Ban me, warn me, It really makes no difference. I have to speak openly and honestly with you. If doing this provokes you to action, then do what you must. These are just discussion forums, they are not life and death.

OBOB Response:
Newman is doing what any apologist does; responding to the work of another apologist. You are upset because you can't respond directly in the forum, which is against the rules. There is nothing I can do about this. I don't make the rules. I enforce them. If I were to go into the Lutheran sub-forum and try to defend an article I wrote, my post would be deleted as well. These are the rules here, so please respect them.

I'm sorry you feel unjustly persecuted. You clearly do not know what it is like to be Catholic. Try going to other christian forums (like christianity.com, for example), tell them you're Catholic and see how long it takes for you to get banned. We're the whore of babylon remember?

James,No one is going to ban you. You don't even have any staff record on your account (and I hope it continues this way).

Also, FYI; http://www.christianforums.com/showp...3&postcount=29


The link above states the following:

"I would like to state for the record that my earlier critical observations of James Swan's blog in no way meant to impugn his character as a Christian or an apologist. I did not mean to imply that Mr. Swan was trying to mislead any of his readers or intentionally (key word) misrepresent the works of Fitzmyer.

That being said, I will reiterate that I disagree with Mr. Swan's conclusions on the subject matter. Once one analyzes the totality of Fitzmyer's work (and not just the brief excerpt in Mr. Swan's blog), it becomes apparent the Fitzmyer falls far short of saying that Luther's use of the phrase "faith alone" was in lock-step with the more ancient patristic use of it.

If Mr. Swan's point was to illustrate (via Fitzmyer's book) that Luther was not the first to use the phrase "faith alone" - then I agree. If, however, the point was to imply that the patristic use of it was the same as Luther's use of it - then I disagree...and so does Fitzmyer. Whether Mr. Swan intended for his readers to "connect the dots" or not is something only his readers can speculate for themselves about. I merely wanted to illustrate for those in this thread that Fitzmyer never intended to convey that the patristic use of the phrase and Luther's use of it were the same.

But I am perfectly content to say for the record that Mr. Swan and I merely disagree as to the conclusions we draw on the topic at hand. I do not doubt his integrity nor did I intend to convey any disrespect for him personally. I apologize to him if my words seemed too critical of him or his work."

21 comments:

Churchmouse said...

Jim,

The forum is a joke and the moderators are as well. It's bias and exclusivity are so painfully obvious that it borders on silliness. And the way the moderators don't allow for any correction makes it all the more obvious that they would prefer to allow slander as long as it isn't towards Catholics.

I am sure that NewMan has dropped by on this forum, so I address this to him. Considering that pains are taken on that forum to allow Catholics to post whatever, regardless of whether it is wrong or right, can you do the right thing and post here. Interact with Jim on this matter and allow for correction if this is the case. The forum is biased and isn't going to allow Jim to dialogue. So, can you do the right thing?

Peace,
Ray

James Swan said...

Ray,

I did contact "Newman" privately. After the OBOB mod informed me I should do so, I told him I already did and recieved no response. A few hours later, I got a response. BTW, Newman is in charge of the Moderators, or something like that- perhaps he was prompted by the mod to respond to me, or maybe he was taking his time in responding- either way is fine.

Newman wrote me via the PM system on the OBOB site. He happens to be Bob Klaus, staff apologist (and editor) with the Catholic Legate (www.catholic-legate.com).

He wrote me a very long response, which will require time on my part. He asked that I not respond until he returns from his vacation.

You know, I was hoping to switch gears and move on. I really do have other interests other than Luther. But, it's amazing at how much passion the topic generates.

JS

Churchmouse said...

I read his bio on the Catholic Legate site. It is good that he has accepted your invitation to dialogue with him here, but I do believe that he should take down any remarks that casts a shadow on you, especially since it wasn't done fairly. Considering that he has charge of the moderators then he should practice some integrity and post a link to the discussion. If he feels there is nothing to hide then it should be out in the open where folks on the forum can read.

Just my two cents ;-)

Peace,
Ray

Bob Klaus said...

Dear Ray,

Since you are of the opinion that OBOB is being unduly biased and unfair against our non-Catholic guests, please allow me to explain how the forum actually works.

OBOB is just one of seventeen individual “Congregational Forums” in ChristianForums.com (which has a total of about 250 forums within it) that is set aside for non-debate purposes. Not only is there a Catholic Congregational Forum (OBOB), but there is also one for the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Methodists, Calvinists, etc… The non-debate rule which OBOB has is exactly the same rule that all seventeen forums have. Again, none of the Congregational Forums allows for debate. Therefore, all members of ChristianForums.com fall under a no-debate rule whenever they choose to enter into any one of the several Congregational Forums.

There are also SEVERAL other forums within ChristianForums.com that WILL allow for debate. In fact, there is one called “Denominational Formal Debates” where specific topics – such as the matter that Mr. Swan is referring to here in his blog – CAN BE debated.

The reason for the non-debate rule within the Congregational Forums is to provide a “safe harbor” of sorts for people of any given congregational affiliation to fellowship and discuss matters pertaining to their own faith. Thus, Lutherans, for example, can gather in their own forum without fear of being evangelized or challenged to debate by people of other faiths. Not everybody who participates at a Christian website is interested in debating theological issues. Not everybody is an apologist. Some people merely want to fellowship or to ask other members questions pertaining to their own faith.

However, as I said above, for those who wish to engage in debate there are plenty of places within ChristianForums.com put aside precisely for that purpose.

So if OBOB is going to be criticized for not allowing debate, the same policy applies across the board in all Congregational Forums. I can see why you think that OBOB has “bias and exclusivity” but this is a policy that is no different than in any other Congregational Forum. If we are biased and exclusive, then so are the Lutherans in their forum, and the Baptists in theirs, and so on.

Mr. Swan was advised by me via PM that he has every opportunity to respond to my charge that Fitzmyer’s writing was taken out of context (whether or not it was intentional is another matter). He was not precluded in any way from making a response, and I even invited him to start his own debate thread in the Formal Debates Forum for that very purpose. I also invited him to post a link in OBOB so that way people who have been following the original thread would know that Mr. Swan has a rebuttal.

In fact, here is a portion of the “very long PM” that I sent to Mr. Swan:

"Had you merely posted something in defense of your position (in a non-confrontational and non-debate sort of way) instead of focusing on the moderators, your post would probably have remained without any action. But I understand that you want to defend your position and it may be difficult to do so in a forum where debate is not allowed. In such a case you could have started a thread in the Formal Debate forum and then posted something in the OBOB thread to the effect of, "I would like to respond to NewMan's assertions about my blog, but since this is a non-debate forum here is a link (insert link here) to my response in the Formal Debate forum." Had you done this we would have allowed it without a problem. Then those Catholics in OBOB who don't want to read debates can ignore the link, whereas others who might want to follow the "debate" or see your response (I am not saying one way or the other if I would have responded to you in the Debate Forum) they can do so. Thus, OBOB would remain as a "safe harbor" and you would have been able to defend your position if that is what you wanted to do."

I have publicly apologized to Mr. Swan (which he was gracious enough to post above) and I have also invited him to post a rebuttal in ChristianForums.com in a forum that allows for debate. I don’t know what else he wants from me or from OBOB. The impression he is giving here is that he is not being allowed to defend himself, and that is simply not the case. He CAN defend himself and nobody is stopping him. He just cannot debate in OBOB (just as I cannot debate in the Lutheran Forum); although a link to his rebuttal thread in the Formal Debate Forum would be allowed in OBOB for those interested in following the exchange.

I hope that clarifies the issue for you and the other readers in this blog.

God’s Peace,

Bob Klaus a.k.a. NewMan

Bob Klaus said...

Dear Ray,

Just so you know, I have modified my earlier comments that Mr. Swan found so offensive. Hopefully my own integrity will stop being questioned in this matter. It is still my contention that the conclusions Mr. Swan derived from Fitzmyer's book is not merited based on the totality of what Fitzmyer wrote on the topic, however, perhaps Mr. Swan can present a compelling argument otherwise.

As Mr. Swan says, these are just discussion boards and not life or death issues. If he wants to "switch gears" and move on to more important things, that is fine by me (I have plenty of other things to keep me busy). If he wants to pursue this further he has been given every opportunity to do so, not only here in his own blog, but also at ChristianForums.com if he should so desire.

God's Peace,

Bob Klaus

James Swan said...

Hi Bob,

Thank you for stopping by and clarifying your position. also thank you for modifying your remarks (though I haven't gone to search them out yet). also thank you for your public apology.

As I mentioned, I was burned by the OBOB forum a few years back. What really got me though, was that previous experience and knowing that defending myself now on OBOB would be met with the same burning. Had a moderator modified my 1 post and asked me to clarify my position, none of this would have happened. Rather, OBOB preferred silence from me, rather than clarification.

I will look closely at your comments- bottom line though is I didn't mis-cite the text in question. I was simply pointing out that Luther's translation of Romans 3:28 was not a novum, and he explained as much. Of course, there are many issues related to this to discuss- which I will probably flesh out during the week and post when you get back from your vacation

Regards,
James

James Swan said...

Also, I will be modifying my blog entry in which I cite Fitzmyer to reflect the broader context suggested by Bob.

Churchmouse said...

Hi Bob,

Thanks for clarifying your positiona and the purpose of the Catholic forum at OBOB. Furthermore, thank you for modifying the relevant statements regarding Jim. I have known him for quite a few years now and I wasn't pleased with the way these statements portrayed him, albeit I understand it wasn't intentional. Jim has always practiced fairness and integrity in all his work. So, you must understand his frustration and mine in seeing his work critiqued, yet his not being allowed to clarify or correct his position. I know now that CF, which I'm not familiar with, has debate forums independent of the congregational ones. Again, thanks for the clarification and I look forward to reading the dialogue between you and Jim.

On another note, although these issues are not "life or death" in the grand scheme of earthly cares, please consider my Evangelical background, I do not view it this way. These discussions can be the difference between how one views the intent of a Reformer. Is Luther one who freely inflicted "alone", followed the lead of others through history, or came to realize this is what Scripture truly teaches. Therefore, the implications are spiritual and could well be a matter of spiritual life or death.

Peace,
Ray

James Swan said...

Lol, I found my official warning from OBOB from January 2005- read my warning and post and see how silly these folks are:

Official warning issued

Dear Tertiumquid,

You have been warned for one of your posts, which violated the following rule:

Rule No. 7 - Miscellaneous

for this post you made:

Click here.

The person who warned you entered this comment:

specifically, rules 7.5b: This includes certain forum-specific rules (that merely extends the current forum rules) which only applies to certain controversial forums.

the specific rule in the OBOB that you have violated:

3) Non-Catholic members (eg. Protestant members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Catholic doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Catholic. Any debate posts by Non-Catholics will be deleted and may earn the said member a warning. In other words, only Catholic members can debate here.
which is found here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t155768-please-read-before-posting-welcome-to-the-one-bread-one-body-forum.html

this is the content of your post:

Originally Posted by: Tertiumquid :

Hi Karen,

There's plenty of information [on Luther]. I would suggest two good books:

1.Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (A very popular Protestant history of Martin Luther)

2. John Todd, Martin Luther: A Biographical Study (A very popular Roman Catholic history of Martin Luther)

Both are good, fair, balanced books.

I was just dialoging with some folks on the papal corruption during the sixteenth century.Often Roman Catholics have directed me to Father Patrick O’Hare’s book, The Facts About Luther. Now, this is the worst biography available in print about Luther. But, I want you to hear how Father O’Hare attempts to underplay the corruption that the Church experienced at the time of the reformation:

[edited out by OBOB Moderators]

Source: Father Patrick O’Hare, The Facts About Luther (Reprint 1987) Tan Publishers, 60-61

Now, the corruption of the practice of indulgences was far more complicated. The practice over time developed, or should I say, became corrupted. The indulgence developed from the practice of penance. The indulgence originally was a granted permission to relax or commute the penance imposed upon a repentant sinner as an outward sign of sorrow. It was the opportunity to substitute one penalty for another. The original intent was to help the penitent. Serious sins required extreme satisfaction. If the penitent was unable to perform acts of extreme satisfaction due to health reasons or extenuating circumstances, the church in its mercy allowed a substitution: often amounted to a reduction in the satisfaction required, or, as it developed giving money.

Pope Boniface VIII (14th century) made use of the idea of a “general” indulgence. Certain times a year/years (like every 100 years) pilgrims could come to Rome and could receive a general indulgence: the removal of all the penalties for their sins. This general indulgence also required one to engage in the whole scope of penance (contrition and confession) as well the payment of certain amount of money. Through this, the original intent of the personal, internalized sacrament of penance became external and commercialized. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) declared that general indulgences could apply also to the dead. By this he increased money revenue.

Also worth mentioning is the development of a type of indulgence granted to soldiers who fought for the Papacy against Islam. Remember, Mohammed had let his soldiers know that everyone who died fighting for Isalm would be immediately allowed into paradise. What of the Papal army? Pope Leo IV gave assurances to his troops they would likewise receive a heavenly reward. John VIII promised those going on the crusade absolution for their sins. Leo IX used the promise of a remission of penance in his recruiting of troops. Eventually, the forgiveness granted included not only those involved in penance, but purgatory as well.

There was no complete dogma on the indulgence when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory. Hence, Luther was not really a heretic (in official “Thus spoke Rome” terms). The Roman Catholic Church in its political inanity attacked Luther with no good cause. It was they who went "too far", not Luther in not addressing the situation. They went as far as they could to not address the situation. Hey, if my source of income was going to be challenged, I’d fight it too. It's sinful human nature.

Interestingly, the 95 Theses does not deny the validity of the indulgence. Rather, Luther attacked and exposed the abuse of the sale of indulgences. Luther was troubled that those he was ministering to were ignoring the good works he was directing them towards, but rather were purchasing indulgences as a means of satisfaction. They were also being purchased to alleviate suffering of those in Purgatory.

A Roman Catholic recently suggested that “an abuse of a doctrine or practice does not make the entire system null and void nor the principle behind the doctrine untrue.” In other words, indulgences may have been abused, but that doesn’t mean they are un-Christian or heretical. Luther came to realize that the entire system of indulgences was non-biblical, or should I say, non-Christian. For the perfect work of Christ requires no indulgence. Luther said, “The indulgences are not a pious fraud, but an infernal, diabolical, antichristian fraud, larceny, and robbery, whereby the Roman Nimrod and teacher of sin peddles sin and hell to the whole world and sucks and entices away everybody’s money as the price of this unspeakable harm.”

In other words, Christ has paid the penalty for my sin, I do not need an indulgence. My righteousness is the perfect righteousness of Christ, given to me as a gift. My perfect works are Christ’s works, given to me as a gift.

Regards,
James Swan

James Swan said...

OBOB warning continued:

this is but one of the debating posts you have made in this thread. I will delete them all. You are asked to respect the rules of this site and refrain from entering into the OBOB and trying to debate them in their congregational forum.
herev

You have been given 1 warning. You now have a total of 1 warning(s).

If you reach the maximum of 7, you will be banned from the Forums, for 365 days.

Please click here for the warning protocol that staff follow:
Staff Protocol

To see details about all the warnings you have received please click here.

If you wish to appeal this warning, you may do so using our formal Staff Appeal Form by clicking here.

Please reply to this PM if you have any queries.

Thank you for your understanding.

Oddball Pastor said...

I am actually disappointed with NewMan. He has had the Fitzmyer info for at least 2 years, He should know that you were not misquoting.

Bob Klaus said...

Dear Oddball Pastor,

I did not accuse Mr. Swan of misquoting, per se. He quoted accurately. What I accused him of was quoting Fitzmyer without also citing the broader context of Fitzmyer's words. For by reading the small excerpt in Mr. Swan's blog one could easily have the impression that Fitzmyer was impying that the patristic use of "faith alone" in Church writings was the same thing as Luther's use of it in his Bible translation (and doctrine of sola Fide). Yet, if one reads the entire context of Fitzmyer's words, and not the mere snippet that is in Mr. Swan's blog, that was not Fitzmyer's conclusion at all. Rather Fitzmyer fell far short of implying that the patristic use and Luther's use were the same thing.

And, considering that Mr. Swan stated above that he is going to modify his blog entry to reflect the broader context of Fitzmyer's words, my general observation that Mr. Swan's blog implies too much about Fitzmyer's position has merit. If it didn't have merit, Mr. Swan wouldn't modify his blog. Again, I am not saying that Mr. Swan was attempting to deceive his readers. His readers, though, could (unintentionally) leap to a different conclusion about Fitzmyer's work than Fitzmyer actually stated in the broader context.

God's Peace,

NewMan

Bob Klaus said...

Dear Ray,

I agree that these are very important issues that should not be regarded lightly. What I meant, when I echoed Mr. Swan's words about this not being "life or death," is that it is not life or death if it is Mr. Swan and I who discuss it. The issues themselves are important. I am not. That's all I meant.

God's Peace,

Bob

Bob Klaus said...

Dear Mr. Swan,

I leave in a few hours for vacation so I thought I'd pop in to see if there is anything new. Well...there were a few new things. Obviously, I have made my comments accordingly.

Again, I will point out that even in the case of your January 2005 warning, your post was not one of fellowship or inquiry as to the Catholic faith (which is the purpose of OBOB), but rather one of telling Catholics why our doctrine of indulgences is supposedly wrong. Hence it was a post designed to debate us and therefore against the rules that apply to ALL Congregational Forums. Were I to post a similar message in a Lutheran or Baptist Congregational Forum (i.e., being critical of their beliefs) I would have been warned too.

As I have stated many times already (both here and in a private PM to you), there are forums within CF where such a post is very much allowed, but a Congregational Forum in not one of them. Nobody is stopping you from reaching out to Catholics with your theological views.

Your real qualm here is not against the rules of OBOB, but rather it is against the no-debate rules of the Congregational Forums at CF. It is CF (not OBOB) that has made these rules. And it is CF that set aside a certain number of forums for the expressed purpose of fellowship among like-minded people of all congregations since not everyone wishes to engage in debate nor is everyone an apologist.

There are places for everything including debate. When someone blurs the line, as you did here, then you are forcing debate into a place where people gather who do not want to debate. Consider yourself to be a guest in someone else's home. I might invite a Protestant friend over to dinner so we can fellowship as Christians. I might even allow such a dinner guest to inquire as to our beliefs. But when the guest takes it upon himself to "teach" my family and children why our beliefs are wrong...while in my home as a guest...they will have crossed a line that is inappropriate for that time and place. I may be willing to engage that same person in a vigorous debate somewhere else and at another time, but in my home at dinner time would not be the purpose of the invitation extended to the guest. Also - I might add - it is of questionable merit for that same Protestant dinner guest to head out into the public square to complain to others about the famly that would not allow him to proselytize (or debate) them in their own home during dinner.

In any case, I leave shortly for vacation and will check back when I return. Have a nice week.

God's Peace,

Bob

Oddball Pastor said...

NewMan,

I see you are stillskilled in redorecting to irrelevancies.

If Fitzmyer does not say that the ECFs drew the same conclusion from their use of alone, well that is hardly relevant to the point that his insertion was not an innovation.

Ree said...

Although NewMan is technically correct about the rules at CF, it's pretty much common knowledge among the posters and even CF moderators that the enforcement of the rules is extremely biased in favor of Roman Catholics. That, coupled with the fact that many of the RC posters on CF are among the most thin-skinned people on the planet, it makes for a frustrating environment over there for many.

Ree said...

Although NewMan is technically correct about the rules at CF, it's pretty much common knowledge among the posters and even CF moderators that the enforcement of the rules is extremely biased in favor of Roman Catholics. That, coupled with the fact that many of the RC posters on CF are among the most thin-skinned people on the planet, it makes for a frustrating environment over there for many.

Ree said...

And James, your experience in OBOB is typical. I just looked over my own PMs and found a warning I received for a post I made there. Someone had made a comment about Calvin's view of the Eucharist that was clearly and demonstrably false (they attributed a Zwinglian view to Calvin) and I received the following warning for "trolling" for my comment which is posted in the body of the warning.

"You have been warned for one of your posts, which violated the following rule:

Rule No. 2 - No Trolling

for this post you made:

Click here.

The person who warned you entered this comment:

This warning is issued for debating in the OBOB Forum.

Your Post:

Quote




If you read and studied the relevant portions of the Institutes, you'd recognize the fallacy in your assumptions about what Calvin believed and taught about the Eucharist.





After review of the entire thread and this post in specific by the CPR team it has been judged that it is a debate.

OBOB forum specific rules forbit non Catholics from debating in OBOB. In addition we understand that several OBOB moderators have tried to work with you regarding debating in the forum to no avail. As such no option is left but to issue an official warning.

You are strongly urged to review CF rules and OBOB FAQ before posting again

Shalom

Pastor George


You have been given 1 warning. You now have a total of 1 warning(s).

If you reach the maximum of 7, you will be banned from the Forums, for 365 days.

Please click here for the warning protocol that staff follow:
Staff Protocol

To see details about all the warnings you have received please click here.

If you wish to appeal this warning, you may do so using our formal Staff Appeal Form by clicking here.

Please reply to this PM if you have any queries.

Thank you for your understanding."

The moderating over there really is a joke!

Ree said...

I wonder if NewMan, as a guest in someone's home, would refrain from correcting his host for suggesting that the pope is a Muslim, out of respect for the beliefs of the host and his family.

James Swan said...

Hi Ree-

The only person I blame for getting involved with OBOB is me. I knew better. I already knew that I would never be allowed to post on the OBOB forum.

If the OBOB folks say the world is flat, a non-catholic can't come in with facts to prove otherwise. If there was ever an environment similar to the Catholic world Luther lived in, OBOB is it.

I have very little respect for those who hide in the OBOB bunker. I'm giving Bob Klaus the benefit of the doubt, since he stopped by over here and also augmented his OBOB comments.

The whole cf forum world is a little wacky anyway.

Anonymous said...

Just to let you know, if it matters any. I am very Catholic indeed and I no longer participate on CF at all. It's not just the Protestants who get harassed. I have been harassed by Catholic moderators in and out of OBOB on CF.

The rules there had gotten to the point where they were utterly ridiculous sp I quit. The problem is not the Catholic moderators or the Protestant moderators. It’s both. The whole forum is a politically correct joke.