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 posters 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 peoples beliefs) Im 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 others 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.
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.
Even when it has been demonstrated not to be true, they can't bear to admit it. Just look at the responses.
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!
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?
I can't talk about how the statement "Mary is the co-redeemer" effects me?
Just like those churches opened after the Reformation!!!
I believe ...
This thread, btw, should be considered "open."
“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 :-)
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.
Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. 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 ;-)
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.
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.
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 :)
Check out Cur Deus Homo Annotated on my profile, there are 19 of them.
>>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.
To use a term Reagan famously used, “there you go again.” I make a light comment, and you turn it into more bile. Sad...
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.