| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/26/2004 9:33:25 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
This thread is now locked. It has served its purpose. thank you all for your participation and patience. |
Posted on 01/22/2004 6:34:29 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
Better get ready. More and more vintners are going to fake corks, and even screw tops.
Cork's too expensive.
On the religon forum we have three main groups. The RC's emphasis human authority. The Arminians emphasis individual piety. The Calvinist emphasis God's soveriegnty. Each of these emphasis will have a direct bearing on ones political understandings. Our theology directs our politics. If our common goal is that our country return to a Christian emphasis in the political realm then it becomes necessary that those of different Christian theological emphasis be allowed to vigorously debate their particular emphasis. By understanding our oppositions viewpoint hopefully we can find some common area of agreement in the political realm. I'd much rather debate someone who has a passion for his/her beliefs than a post-modern pussy.
Perhaps you should consider suspending the thin-skinned abuse button pushers?
I don't see why it would be treated any differently.
The point is that spirited debate that marked the historic church is an embarrassment to the political culture today
As I see it, the point is that "spirited debate" need not entail personal attacks and ungodly behavior.
That fact that, historically, religious debate sometimes involved these things doesn't mean that it was appropriate then or appropriate now.
As long as you say, "in my opinion, X is the absolute truth" I think you're okay. ;o)
Seriously, all religious claims are, when you get down to it, statements of opinion. Any religious proposition begins with an implicit "I believe that..." If they were provable, there would be no need for faith.
What happens, though, is very often we forget that what we believe to be absolute truth are, in fact, statements of belief/faith. And that others, who do not share the same axioms we do, will not reach the same conclusions we do. If we focus solely on the "absolute truth" part, we can become very judgmental and condemnatory. It is in the axioms and conclusions where there is room for respectful dialogue (and respectful disagreement).
If you are talking about threads "For Catholics Only" or "For Protestants Only" or the like, I pull those when I see them. Thanks, LM
You are basically asking us to act like most do at the churches we attend, "hi how are you" "good to see you" "see you again next week" What we have had for the most part here in the religious forum is a breaking down of these walls and can really see, feel and hear what the other person REALLY believes. Its seems to me you are taking out the personal reaction that is so much apart of what we really are and putting in a dry impersonal debate. I don't advocate attacks on others, but a strong attack on a false faith or doctrine is what is called for from the Bible, how do you moderate this?
I used to own a buss with 400 customers that I had to deal with on a month to month basis, it would get to the point that it seemed like all 400 of them were really being pains in the butts, but when I would stop and look thru them, it would only be 5 - 8 of them that were real pains to deal with, and it just seemed like all 400 were bad. I got rid of the few that were causing the problems and the rest now seemed like saints. A very easy solution to a problem that seemed all encompassing.
BigMack
I'm sorry, but the opportunity you speak of has been filled.
Well then, I just hope I'm not the second one to run afoul of it
1- Criticism of the Pope is allowed. When we get into humor, things get grayer. Some would see a piece of satire as offensive, others wouldn't. So there will be some discretion and case-by-case decision making that will occur. If someone is going out of their way to offend, that's crossing the line. That does mean that sometimes we are going to have to guess motives, and that also means sometimes we will guess wrong. But they will be educated guesses, and it is not the worst thing in the world to have an attempt at humor removed.
2- again, we'll have to take things on a case by case basis. I've said the following in other contexts, but really those who are in significant danger of getting into trouble for too often crossing the line are those who like to push the line.
3- Pointing out a fallacy is one of my favorite debate techniques. As for saying that something is an argument from ignorance, again I'll go back to my case-by-case handling stance, although I believe that in almost every case I can imagine where someone could throw out that the other's is an "Argument From Ignorance", it could be easily reworded to simply provide the cure for the ignorance.
4- Your tagline doesn't seem offensive to me, but it is not in English and if someone could convince me that I am missing something in the translation my answer could vary.
5- Sucker punching someone with a smile is still sucker punching someone.
yea they had a fervor for Christ that is not PC today" Just go along to get along"
Is there any point at which this "fervor" becomes something that is contrary to the teachings of Christianity?
How do you suggest deciding which handful to get rid of? Do we dump the heretics (for causing problems by advocating doctrinal heresies), or do we dump the orthodox (for causing problems by being judgemental concerning heresies)?
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.