Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religion Forum Guidelines – Ecumenism
May 14, 2008 | Religion Moderator

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.

If you are offended that conservatives have serious religious disagreements, do not use the “everything” browse option. If you are new to the Religion Forum, click on my profile page for guidelines.

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.”

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.

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.


TOPICS: Ecumenism
KEYWORDS: faq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,061-1,063 next last
To: OLD REGGIE
I suspect the "Open" thread is the only one which has a chance to be vibrant, challenging, and interesting.

Not when you have "squeaky wheels" pounding the abuse button over every other post, and the threads being locked or pulled.

Some FReepers want to "give" all their dogma, but they don't want to have it challenged.

141 posted on 05/14/2008 11:27:59 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Plea to mormon FReepers, "DONT HOSE ME, BRO!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Even on this administrative thread, claims are made about Catholicism that are demonstrably not true.

Even when it has been demonstrated not to be true, they can't bear to admit it. Just look at the responses.

142 posted on 05/14/2008 11:29:21 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings; Manfred the Wonder Dawg
LOL. Just goes to show how imprecise some words can be.

Let's ask Protestants for a show of the right hand if they are repelled by the statement, "Mary is the co-redeemer," and a show of the left hand if they are NOT repelled by the statement, "Mary is the co-redeemer."

Right hands UP!

143 posted on 05/14/2008 11:29:51 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
The lurkers know the differences run very deep.

OK, I follow you here so far. Many instances key words/ideas / concepts are shared by these vastly different groups with vastly different definitions. The Rabbi says that the promise was through Isaac while the Mullah would say it was through Ishmael - it would appear that they would either have to talk past each other, or eventually define what is meant by these common terms. This process of definition does not happen in a vacuum, but in response to a preceding post. How are you going to handle this process given that the context of the thread will make it very clear that this is in response and counter to another post - which by your definitions would border on an attack?

144 posted on 05/14/2008 11:33:59 AM PDT by Godzilla (I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; 1000 silverlings; Manfred the Wonder Dawg; OLD REGGIE; Uncle Chip; P-Marlowe; ...
Well, you can't talk about it.

I can't talk about how the statement "Mary is the co-redeemer" effects me?

145 posted on 05/14/2008 11:34:19 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
I suspect the "Open" thread is the only one which has a chance to be vibrant, challenging, and interesting.

Just like those churches opened after the Reformation!!!

146 posted on 05/14/2008 11:34:46 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
If you need to define a word to post the belief you are "for" on an ecumenic thread, then do so. An academic definition of a word is not arguing "against" another's beliefs. For instance:

"Redeem" means "to atone" (Merriam Webster)

I believe ...


147 posted on 05/14/2008 11:41:43 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: All
I am taking a break but will check back in as soon as possible. Hopefully by then one of you will have ventured to post the first "ecumenic" thread.

This thread, btw, should be considered "open."

148 posted on 05/14/2008 11:47:20 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
Have a nice cup of tea. I recommend chamomile. :)
149 posted on 05/14/2008 11:53:04 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

“I can’t talk about how the statement “Mary is the co-redeemer” effects me?”

Perhaps you can talk about it AFFECTS you, or has an EFFECT upon you :-)


150 posted on 05/14/2008 11:55:04 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
An academic definition of a word is not arguing "against" another's beliefs. For instance:

Thank you for bearing with me as I work this through in order that I fully understand what is and is not permitted on these kind of threads. While many things are defined in a dictionary, most dictionaries are not considered canon by various groups and these definitions are usually refined further by the different religious group.

Therefore, if I understand your example correctly, on a thread that says Group X believes that (insert word) means A, where A has a different theological definition from my group B, I would be able to post something like:

Historically Group B defines (insert word) to mean Z. I believe...... (as long as there is no reference to group A)

Is this a correct interpretation of the proposed guidance? Thanks again.

151 posted on 05/14/2008 11:56:17 AM PDT by Godzilla (I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: annalex; OLD REGGIE; Rick.Donaldson; Marysecretary; Quix; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; Uncle Chip; ...
Religion Forum on FR has been a tremendous source of Catholic education for me

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. Many many Protestants have learned more than they ever knew existed about what the RCC actually believes and teaches.

152 posted on 05/14/2008 11:56:57 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Many many Protestants have learned more than they ever knew existed about what the RCC actually believes and teaches.

Not like it's done any good ;-)

153 posted on 05/14/2008 11:58:06 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If the angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion." -M. Kolbe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg; P-Marlowe; Frumanchu; BibChr; Corin Stormhands; ...
However, on the ecumenic thread, the poster must not argue against any other beliefs.

This has built in contradictions/near-contradictions, RM, that will cause you headaches.

1. Many doctrines are established by virtue of demonstrating X position as the only viable remaining option. That automatically requires presenting evidence against other beliefs. Immersion Baptism is an example. Any of the millennial doctrines would be the same. Trinitarianism could be included.

2. This precludes discussion of the biography of just about any Christian of any era. Pick any reformation saint who believed the pope to be the anti-christ, and you have a stellar example

3. This violates the requirement many would recognize to combat cultism and occultism whenever it appears.

These concerns are off the top of my head. I'm sure others will appear.

4. It also violates the intent of ecumenism which is an acceptance of differences rather than an effort to force everything into a "bland X" that in its effort to offend no one ends up offending everyone.

154 posted on 05/14/2008 11:59:35 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Not when you have "squeaky wheels" pounding the abuse button over every other post, and the threads being locked or pulled.

And those "squeaky wheels" are well known, very obvious, and very repetetive. They should be given a "time out" like any cranky child.
155 posted on 05/14/2008 12:00:57 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; Dr. Eckleburg

As history has made abundantly clear, in many places, in many ways - learning that the RCC actually believes and teaches cannot do any good for those who believe God at His Word.


156 posted on 05/14/2008 12:01:01 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; Dr. Eckleburg
Many many Protestants have learned more than they ever knew existed about what the RCC actually believes and teaches. Not like it's done any good ;-)

Sure it has. I have not only learned a lot about what the RCC actually believes and teaches, but also a lot about what the RCC doesn't want us to know that it believes and teaches :)

157 posted on 05/14/2008 12:03:48 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Check out Cur Deus Homo Annotated on my profile, there are 19 of them.


158 posted on 05/14/2008 12:04:17 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

>>I can’t talk about how the statement “Mary is the co-redeemer” effects me? <<

Not on a caucus thread. On an open thread you can.


159 posted on 05/14/2008 12:05:04 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ironmom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

To use a term Reagan famously used, “there you go again.” I make a light comment, and you turn it into more bile. Sad...


160 posted on 05/14/2008 12:05:29 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If the angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion." -M. Kolbe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,061-1,063 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson