[Religion Moderator]

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 ...

[Religion Moderator]

I am taking a break but will check back in as soon as possible. Hopefully by then one of you will have ventured to post the first "ecumenic" thread.

This thread, btw, should be considered "open."

[Godzilla]

An academic definition of a word is not arguing "against" another's beliefs. For instance:

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.

[Quix]

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!