For example, a Freeper might say "Scientologists are nuts" and that is not making it personal. But if he said, "you are nuts" that is making it personal.
The reasoning behind this is that as one religion spawns from another, each condemns the other in the harshest terms it can muster, e.g. anathema, apostate, cult, heretic, Satanic.
And those sentiments and terms often are part of the official documents of the religion. And so it is not unusual for a Freeper to have embraced those sentiments and wish to express and/or discuss them on an "open" RF thread.
So if a Freeper says that "Protestants are heretics" that is not making it personal. But if he says "you are a heretic" that is making it personal.
Thanks.
I’ll likely begin to wean myself off this tweaky thread.
Just seemed like good recreation at the time.
Lots of RELIGIONISTS of all stripes take ourselves and our prissy sensibilities far too seriously . . . particularly for this season.
Sorry for the bother.
But my point is not about someone quoting some church's anathemas (or any other document). My point is about someone making reference to the beliefs of "them" -- specifically describing them in terms of psychological disease -- without specifying who "they" are.
"Protestants are heretics" is a technical statement of a proposition-of-fact. (It's a false proposition-of-fact from the Catholic POV, but that's neither here nor there.)
"They are crazy, and have psychological issues related to their infantile attachment to their mothers."
Whom did I just insult, or attempt to psychoanalyze or "mind-read"? FReepers? Two FReepers? All Presbyterians? All Taoists? FR Moderators?
Something is just as "personal" and just as inappropriate if it's intended to unjustly denounce or denigrate two people instead of one. In fact, it's worse. Mind-reading two FReepers, or three, or ten, but wiggling out of responsibility by refusing to specify their names is not behavior that should be rewarded.
JMHO.
Greta van Susteren is nuts!