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.
Important points, I thnk.
Thanks.
LOLOLOLOL
My sensibilities are entirely with your perspective.
LOL.
Sigh . . .
There was great caterwauling about the idea of “respectful dialogue” too.
Know them by their fruit.
NET: I guess we all have to be a little less repelled, don't we?
I would like to meet the Protestant who is not repelled by the sentence, "Mary is the co-redeemer."
Show of hands?
A story of conversion at the Lamb of God Shrine (posted by NYer, pinged by me)
Others mention Catholicism as fulness of the Christian faith, but are not critical of other denominations:
Alex Jones: the evangelical who became a Catholic deacon
Lastly, some of my recent threads are simple how-to conversion manuals, yet this one got so contentious that it got locked:
Would the very background of conversion from one confession to another disqualify them, or would those of them that do not specifically critique other denominations be allowed as Ecumenical?
Looks like some of our RC friends have cried ‘foul’ enough times to get their way. Hmm. Are some of them afraid to argue that their beliefs are true? I can only hope that God will convict them of the truth, but some hearts won’t allow that, I’m sure. Sad about that.
Okay. Then I am really, positively repelled by the idea that Mary is considered as the "co-redeemer" among any Christian believer.
lol.
All three of those threads could have been tagged “ecumenic” or “open” depending on the type of discussion you wished to encourage.
That seems to defeat the whole idea of a caucus. A caucus is where one is free to speak about any subject relevant to the belief that is being discussed, and if that means comparing Calvinism to Pelagianism or Arminianism or Catholicism or Methodism, then that should not automatically open the thread to outside contention. The problem we have here on the Religion Forum is that when you have some kind of caucus, invariably some other faith is brought into the discussion for purposes of comparison or to "caucus" about the various answers to specific claims and when you mix it up like that, you end up with endless contentious threads and eventually the thread gets pulled and people get suspended.
If I am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is most likely because I have rejected some other doctrine from some other church and to preclude closed discussions of why one became a Spaghetti Monster believer or to compare Spaghetti Worship with Sacred Cow worship is to simply destroy the whole idea of a caucus.
Not to rain on your parade, but I think the idea of a caucus among members of a particular sect or faith where you can't differentiate between the caucus members and the non-caucus members is silly.
We are members of particular sects and we hold to specific beliefs at least in part, if not in whole, because we have rejected the beliefs of those who are not a part of our sect or faith.
FWIW, I think the Mormons ought to have their own caucus threads where they can go and not be disturbed by anyone who is not a Mormon and where they can discuss whatever they want to believe as long as they don't make personal attacks against specific freepers in the process. This should apply to Catholics, Protestants, Spaghetti Monster believers, Hare Krishnas, whatever. After all a caucus is supposed to be a caucus.
Also this would free you up from having referee whether or not the Caucus designation should be removed. That must take up a lot of your time.
“every individual just post their very own caucus thread and talk to themselves, then you’ll be safe”
Norman Bates calling Dr. Phil!
“So on an ecumenic thread, we could not preface that comment with “No, Mary is not a co-redeemer because...?”
“Because sometimes that phrase is simply used to redefine the discussion when replying to a post from a few days earlier.”
I guess you would be better off to restate the other’s position or quote him:
“You say Mary is the co-redeemer in post #45. I believe ...”
“Why not open up a new forum, “The Tender Feelings Forum” for those who can’t handle opposition to their beliefs?”
ROFLMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol, “How’s that working for you Norman?”
Your argument has merit and I will consider it and get back to you and everyone with a decision. For now, the old caucus rules still apply. So a Calvinist Caucus can speak of Calivinist beliefs but not compare them to other beliefs.
Clicking on News or Religion is what filters the posts.
Or perhaps
THE THIN-SKINNED TAXIDERMY REFURBISHER’S THREAD
LOL.
” I would like to meet the Protestant who is not repelled by the sentence, “Mary is the co-redeemer.”
“Show of hands?”
LOL! As the smart kid in grammar school, who doesn’t want his classmates to hate him, I too, am sitting on my hands. That sentence is repugnant (a word from Pinky and the Brain) to anyone who knows the Gospel.
Is there really an insistence that we go there . . .
on THIS thread???
Sigh.
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.