One of the RM seems to perfers leaving the door open enough to continue to stir the pot in his version of Ecumenical there is no place for the Holy Ghost on FR where good people can strive for greater mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions.
Sorry to point this out resty - in the case of when you posted this topic, there was no 'co-operation' or toleration for an opposing view - only a controlled dialogue to only present one side - mormonism. Crying about the mod is weak resty and poor form.
Not interested only because the course of the discussion cannot be 'controlled' eh?
Thus, ecumenism is the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct religious groups or denominations of Christianity.
That definition in application to mormonism is intellictually dishonest. Mormonism has enshrined within its very doctrine exactly the opposite - it views all non-mormon churches as being of the devil and mormonism the only true church. That is your doctrine. Smooth talk of 'ecumenism' and 'unity' is the talk used by satan in the garden.
Ecumenism is distinguished from and should not be misused to mean interfaith pluralism.
mormonism rejects the fundamentals that join the various denomination of Christianity together - it has nothing in common with Christianity except for the hijacked name in large print on its meeting halls.
Actually, the ecumenical concept seemed a reasonable way to discuss the issue without falling into the baser attacks on mormon theology.
I’ve always wished we could bridge the gap between caucus, where only one religion’s point of view is allowed, and open, where people feel free to attack each other personally and harshly on any number of issues.
Maybe “ecumenical” in the end wasn’t the appropriate method, although the definition as given by the RM seemed to cover it well.
And the Ecumenical heading certainly would have allowed toleration for, and a healthy presentation, of opposing views, presented as a positive affirmation of one’s beliefs as opposed to an attack on the other beliefs. One can defend their beliefs by explaining them, and by doing so well can reveal a gross error in the alternate presentation, without having to say the words “gross error”.
But the way people responded in that other thread certainly revealed why we have so many caucus threads, beause it does seem like for a good number of freepers, it is impossible to discuss their religion as a positive affirmation rather than as an attack on what other poeple believe.
This may be beause our general political form of argument also seems geared toward tearing down what others say and believe rather than explaining what we think is the correct beliefs and positions. So maybe the laziness of argument is a general flaw, and not specific to religion threads.
It’s not like this thread has given me any better understanding of the conflict than the previous thread — on the contrary, the other thread was much better, although obviously I’m seeing it “post-restoration” so it is possible that the “good posts” are those that were restored.
The funny thing is when you remark about crying about the mods, it makes me wonder, because in the other thread some posts suggested that the moderator was making bad judgments, and at least one cried for the real religion moderator to come and fix things.