I believe ...
This thread, btw, should be considered "open."
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.
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 ...
= = =
I think that’s an important point.
HOWEVER, GROUP . . .
can’t we treat this as a requested experiment by our Beloved RM????
Can’t we do our more or less earnest best to make it work.
There’s nothing lost . . .
we still have the open threads!
One would think the RM had just asked that we handle snakes online! Sheesh!