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.
OK, then, under this postulation does that mean the word "Protestant" is an automatically banned word from the Ec threads? Do we either have to use the term "Proddies" (like Gamecock used in this thread) or go back to the drawing board to come up with a designation that defines our identity based on what we believe rather than what we're against? :)
(I can imagine an ec thread now: "I'm a Protestant." "Oh, yeah, what are you protesting?" "I can't tell you lest I be booted.")
(I would hope that Free Republic not become blamed for instigating a sudden mass identity crisis! :) )
RM, obviously my "question" above was rhetorical, so let me ask you a more specific question pertaining to what you said earlier on this thread about "loaded questions." I understand that questions can be both "loaded" and "unloaded."
Given that the supposed very object of ecumenical dialogue is to bring "clarity," and that I can't imagine, for example, Dennis Prager dialoguing on talk radio with somebody he disagrees with minus asking of questions designed to yield clarity, I would hope that "unloaded" questions designed to yield clarity would not be deemed "out of bounds" as long as they were stated in the least offensive ways (tone, etc.) possible. Could you elaborate more on "unloaded" questions asked for purposes of clarity?
I'm a member...or at least was.
: )
That will effectively render several posters mute.
>>LOL. Yes, we care about our Lord for sure, but I am concerned that some of the differences can be fatal to those who trust in other entities or rites for their salvation. Love, M<<
Well you know, I’m lovin’ all that Love Our Lord
(even if they don’t like me very much)
hugs!
No "co-redeemers" anywhere in sight.
Well there's a little caderie, maybe cattery, of disruptors that cause the problems. If you start to be aware, you will notice they bring nothing to a discussion, just a tendency to be offended.
But my definition of what I believe you believe trumps your definition of what I believe you believe.
And your’s of what you believe I believe you believe I believe.
:>)
>>And I’ve learned a lot about slash-and-burn evangelism. Hoo boy.<<
HA!!!!
Can I borrow that?
LOL!!
If I partake with thanksgiving, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
I don't think I need to remind this audience that Eucharist means "thanksgiving."
>>I think clarifying the differences between Rome and the reformers is of great benefit to everyone involved, and most especially of benefit to the preaching of the Gospel by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.<<
Well, that’s just fine. And good on ya! Now here on FR you are more than welcome to start up your own threads to do that.
Just not hop on ours!
And it’s a beautiful thing.
No, not by your definition.
Your definition of what I believe, insofar as it differs with what I actually believe, is irrelevant.
>> and a wearying job for the RM. <<
Not if everyone follows the rules. The RM made them, we just need to follow them.
LOL. If you only knew. ;-)
The fact is I rarely use the abuse button.
FWIW, it strikes me as appeasement to the "squeaky wheel". I thought conservatives were different than liberals. I thought we could "fight it out" in the world of ideas without worrying about "hurting someones feelings". The caucus threads are a place for conversation with no disagreement, or devotional threads.
Posters always have the option to ignore those posters they don't believe offer anything of importance to the discussion.
Aye, there’s the rub!
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.