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.
But where there is a dispute, I will decide.
I don’t really want to get off on this topic on this thread.
However, the doc at the start of that thread is really a very watered down version of a lot more that has been known about the Vatican awareness and cooperativeness regarding the topic. One has to search well and wisely to ferret out the references, however.
Calvinists like a good debate, so I don't see a problem there. Besides, it might create another opportunity for a split amongst them and lead to the formation of a new denomination. ;-)
Seriously, I'm not sure this new designation is going to accomplish anything. I also wonder if this new designation is because Mormons are having a very difficult time refuting or defending some of the more absurd doctrines of their church.
>>How can it still be ecumenic if the “anti still want to be rabit anti” instead of having a civil conversation?<<
I’m not really sure how it will be on your threads. With the Catholics there are instant buzz words that we know will bring in the Antis. (Yours may be just the title, I don’t know much more than that one “Beat on the Mormons” thread I was on)
So if we put up a thread that is a Pope thread and mark it “ecumenical”, a non-Catholic can ask where the Pope is in the Bible but not say that the Pope IS not in the Bible.
The Catholics can quote scripture but no name calling or sarcasm will be allowed.
“Anti” posts will not be allowed on “ecumenic” threads. They will be allowed on “open” threads. Everyone has a voice.
They certainly do get upset when we tell them what the Vatican documents assert that RC’s believe and otherwise . . .
ALL THE WHILE freely pontificating about what they are so certain that we believe . . .
Which would be more than tolerable
EXCEPT FOR THE UTTER MIND-BOGGLING DENIAL OF THEIR DOUBLE-STANDARD.
LOL.
Actually, i haven’t been able to track the source down again.
However, once upon a time, I read a convincing doc that
RC’S
AND
JEWS
were SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER REPRESENTED . . . AS IN RARELY ABDUCTED
in the abduction victim population.
Seems to me there has been a more authoritative statement on the topic. I forget by whom.
How do you explain the vast resources of the Vatican devoted to astronomy, BTW?
“Enter ye in at the strait gate . . because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way. . .” Matthew 7:13-14
If we are going to live as disciples of Jesus, we have to remember that all noble things are difficult. The Christian life is gloriously difficult, but the difficulty of it does not make us faint and cave in, it rouses us up to overcome. Do we so appreciate the marvellous salvation of Jesus Christ that we are our utmost for His highest?
God saves men by His sovereign grace through the Atonement of Jesus; He works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure; but we have to work out that salvation in practical living. If once we start on the basis of His Redemption to do what He commands, we find that we can do it. If we fail, it is because we have not practised. The crisis will reveal whether we have been practising or not. If we obey the Spirit of God and practise in our physical life what God has put in us by His Spirit, then when the crisis comes, we shall find that our own nature as well as the grace of God will stand by us.
Thank God He does give us difficult things to do! His salvation is a glad thing, but it is also a heroic, holy thing. It tests us for all we are worth. Jesus is bringing many “sons” unto glory, and God will not shield us from the requirements of a son. God's grace turns out men and women with a strong family likeness to Jesus Christ, not milk sops. It takes a tremendous amount of discipline to live the noble life of a disciple of Jesus in actual things. It is always necessary to make an effort to be noble.
There you go again trying to be logical about things that have been
DESIGNED to be the opposite! LOL.
>>Seriously, I’m not sure this new designation is going to accomplish anything. I also wonder if this new designation is because Mormons are having a very difficult time refuting or defending some of the more absurd doctrines of their church. <<
Maybe it’s because some of us would like to go onto a Catholic or Mormon thread, ask questions of each other and not get demands to explain the answers.
I had that happen on a Mormon thread and got belittled by a non-Mormon.
So as I understand it, if I post a Catholic thread and a non-Catholic FReeper comes on to ask questions, if they are genuine, they are free to stay. If anyone starts to demand, namecall or get smarmy, then toss.
I think Town Square is vital for those folks who need to vent.
I also think the Ecumenic is a place for those who desire to have a opportunity to work togather.
It is a place for those who have the spirit of peace to build civil bridges.
I don’t think that the talking past one another is a remotely adequate explanation for the different understandings and perspectives.
WORDS either mean something comprhenensible
or they do NOT.
If you wish to post an “open” Religion Forum thread, put the phrase “[Open]” in the title.
Which is why I will have to stay off them, as I don’t have enough awareness and intelligence. Just today, I seemed to think that the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, was speaking for the Vatican, and therefore must have had the Pope’s approval. Now judging from the reaction here, that is “anti”.
That is still not the Pope asserting. I don't know if the Pope believes in UFOs or not. I'm just addressing the false claim in the original post on this topic in this thread that the Pope made an announcement regarding UFOs. He did not.
Any assertion otherwise is totally out of touch with reality, the research, the evidence, the facts.
Can you understand that I've not made an assertion on this thread one way or the other? All I've asserted is that in the article on Drudge, the Pope did not make an announcement regarding UFOs.
I think you’re right.
EMOTIONALLY INTENSE DIALOGUE
is the only . . .
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
EMOTIONALLY INTENSE DIALOGUE! DOH!
The rest are milque toast by comparison.
And, interestingly, even the
DOUBLE STANDARD PRONE fiesty sub-group of RC’s seem to spend MOST of their time whining, wailing and pontificating on the EMOTIONALLY INTENSE DIALOGUE OPEN threads [when they aren’t parked on the abuse button] instead of just walking away to go venerate or adore Mary’s caricature some more.
Only in venue; not necessarily in result. The latter is using the "BatPhone" to call "Wayne Manor"; the former can be a more informal, less immediate attempt to wield persuasion over which type of "archFreeperfiend" the BatModerator should monitor on his BatCaveScreen.
okay Quix, you can believe in aliens but you can’t believe they can fly.
= = =
sounds like smoking but not inhaling, to me!
LOL.
>>[when they aren’t parked on the abuse button]<<
Who? Name names, don’t generalize us. Who is parked on the abuse button?
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.