Posted on 05/14/2008 9:06:42 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
In late April, markomalley and gamecock made a trial run at a “respectful dialog” category for threads on the Religion Forum. The trial failed due to the inability of the posters to agree on what is or is not “respectful.” Then in early May, several other posters appealed for the elimination of posts which seek to tear down other poster’s beliefs (iconoclasm.)
Meanwhile, the situation on the Religion Forum has been exacerbated by posters on the News/Activism forum inadvertently being exposed to religious debate as a result of choosing the “everything” option on browse instead of the “News/Activism” option.
In response to the pleas for a “respectful dialog” and/or the elimination of “iconoclasm” (attacks on other people’s beliefs) – I’m opening the floor for trial postings of a new type of semi-open thread which we shall call “ecumenic.”
Unlike the caucus threads, any poster could reply to an ecumenic thread. And the article on which an ecumenic thread is based could include contrasts and challenges of other beliefs. However, on the ecumenic thread, the poster must not argue against any other beliefs. He can only argue for what he believes – or ask questions.
While we test this new type of thread, be sure to tag every article so that posters will know when to avoid a thread. The tags during this trial run are “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” “ecumenic” or “open.”
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.
Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
When you see a post which is inappropriate for an ecumenic thread, ping me. Do not bother the Admin Moderators with an abuse report unless the situation requires immediate attention.
And they get so upset when we have to tell them what the Vatican believes.
But that's only because most of the Aliens landing in the States are of the Catholic persuasion.
We’ll keep you accountable when you mischaracterize (as the media has in this instance). One astronomer who works for the Vatican speaking out doesn’t equal a doctrinal statement.
lol, priceless
No, its not. See my previous post. The Chief Astronomer said it, not the Pope. It discussed alien life forms, not UFOs.
First: you need a hat.
okie dokie, the Vatican believes it but the Pope doesn’t. Kind of like that word “co-redeemer, co-redemptrix, not the same things at all.
The whole co-redemptress/coredemptrix thing is just a prime example of two sides talking past each other, using the same term but having completely different ideas in mind.
I assume it would be inadmissible to advocate the worship of Huitzilopochtli (Aztec war god), who required human sacrifice.
Likewise, I imagine Allah (Islam's god) is out, who required the murder or subjugation of all other people.
Shall we then consider any certain religion off-limits if its doctrine espouses or requires illegal activity, as the two above examples do?
Nobody is upset. You mischaracterized what was said, and I just pointed that out. Has that upset you?
okay Quix, you can believe in aliens but you can’t believe they can fly.
***Meanwhile, the situation on the Religion Forum has been exacerbated by posters on the News/Activism forum inadvertently being exposed to religious debate as a result of choosing the “everything” option on browse instead of the “News/Activism” option.***
As one who spends the vast majority of my time in the News forum, I find this funny. The pot people, especially since that forum is a magnitude of order more contentious, shouldn’t be calling this forum black.
BTW, consider....
I am an Augustianian & Covenant Theology full blown Calvinist and I am certain that our theology alone represents the true gospel of the Lord. I am certain that this faith alone will be held in Paradise.
Of course, the Catholic counter argument:
Christ gave us the Church. We alone are the Church of Christ.
And,....
we are simply reduced to bullet point presentations with respective fan clubs cheering on our sides.
Even on this administrative thread, claims are made about Catholicism that are demonstrably not true.
By their fruits.
I completely agree, only I would add (no suprise here) that in rejecting Rome, Calvinism seeks to return to the faith of the early church, the faith of the apostles, the faith revealed in Scripture by the Holy Spirit.
If Rome had not erred from 400 A.D. onward, there would be no Calvinism, no Protestantism. There would be only Christianity.
But that isn't the way of the world.
I refer all to Topcat's quotation from Rev. Greg Bahnsen...
"Rome has not essentially changed. Rome declared that what it said at the time of the Reformation was infallible and could not change. Declared it to be irreformible truth. Rome has not changed and precious truths of God's word are still worth upholding even at the cost of unity even at the cost of being considered "troublemakers" in the religious world. We need to guard the antithesis against the destructive error of Rome." -- Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, THE REFORMATION, October 28, 1990. "The Reformation is dying daily in our day when the Ecumenical Movement, and other forces like unto it, wish to soften the antithesis with Rome, today. I want to assure you that it's not my pugnacious debating nature that makes me say we must exalt that antithesis and guard it. It's my love for the Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of His word.
On the ecumenic threads here, the Catholics and the non-Catholics will both say what they believe and neither will attack the other's beliefs. The lurkers know the differences run very deep.
That is why here I said that definitions are key to discussions and cannot be made in a vacuum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2015843/posts?page=96#96
Otherwise you can have volumes of right handed typing. And how do you respond to the initial post that you do not agree with? You post something "positive" to support your view (being careful not to reference the counter belief), you are still open to be called iconoclastic.
You really should have read the article. It doesn't say the whole of the Vatican believes it, just one astronomer. The Pope may believe it, but the article doesn't say.
We do have some Muslim Freepers and they are welcome to post, but we would obviously reject any Islamic hate-mongering source websites, e.g. al Queda.
He can believe whatever he wants. That has nothing to do with the article you mischaracterized.
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.