Posted on 12/07/2010 4:43:37 PM PST by narses
Act with charity, empathy, PRUDENCE, compassion, patience, and without a Manichaean view of the world that puts people in "The Good Camp" or "The Evil Camp." Respect their natural virtues. Respect them and respect what may be true in their religions (which can also, of course, be found in the Holy Faith) -- without respecting "their religions," per se. As to people who want to argue and such, there's this from St. Ambrose: To avoid dissensions we should be ever on our guard, more especially with those who drive us to argue with them, with those who vex and irritate us, and who say things likely to excite us to anger. When we find ourselves in company with quarrelsome, eccentric individuals, people who openly and unblushingly say the most shocking things, difficult to put up with, we should take refuge in silence, and the wisest plan is not to reply to people whose behavior is so preposterous. --Link
Although not an optimal solution, if you have a correspondent FReepmail you with a question, you could post it as a "caucus" and then invite the non-caucus member to participate in it. If you invite somebody, they won't get bumped off the thread, even if it is a caucus.
The other way to do it is to post a doctrinal point, label it "caucus" and then in your comment, invite any non-caucus members to FReepmail you if they would like to join the thread. And then give them an "invite" based upon that FReepmail.
(RM, if I stated policy incorrectly, please correct me)
I just consider it a shame that all of these hoops exist primarily because of arguments between groups who call themselves "Christian." But such arguments have existed for at least 1700 years. Even Saints find themselves in these types of arguments. Consider the First Ecumenical Council:
Merciful, wise and fearless, Nicholas was a true shepherd to his flock. He was cast into prison during the persecutions of Diocletian and Maximian, but even there continued to instruct the people in the Law of God. He was present at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325, and, in his zeal, struck Arius with his hand. For this act, he was removed from the Council and from his episcopal duties, until some of the chief hierarchs had a vision of our Lord Christ and His most holy Mother showing their sympathy with Nicholas.From St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, on the Coptic Orthodox Church Network site
Your last post is ok but very close to crossing that line.
Concerning an "informational" thread tag on the Religion Forum, if the idea gains steam here then please post an ecumenical thread so non-members can also discuss it.
Concerning an "informational" thread tag on the Religion Forum, if the idea gains steam here then please post an ecumenical thread so non-members can also discuss it.Okay, that's a very good idea. I understand.
The caucus format is not ideal for pursuing questions by non-members because if the non-member beliefs appear on the table then the caucus tag will be challenged by those not invited. Both the one asking and the one answering must be careful not to speak of the non-member beliefs.
I’m not sure how we could do this because the thread that was my occasion of sin is still going strong.
My understanding is:
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism
Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
I think some posters especially on the open threads are “going around the law”. They make it personal by posting pics and therefore don’t actually say what they want but are hoping that the pics speak for them.
For your consideration ping ... my apologies if you’ve already been contacted ...
Excellent response! I’ll remember that.
Count me amongst the cooperators.
I’m interested. One of the problems with the usual suspects showing up is not only does the tone become uncharitable, but the thread of the discussion is lost, as rather than pursuing the issue at hand in depth, several stock issues such as works and sexual abuse are heaved into the conversation.
Apologetics, by its nature, discusses why some people have problems with certain beliefs. I think one might be able to do this by mentioning the problems without mentioning the groups that have the problems, but this requires discipline.
Ensuring that no one breaks caucus would require that everyone have a solid grasp of caucus rules. NYer’s thread on relics yesterday http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2638228/posts was informative on the way that caucus works, but was also interesting to watch in terms of the amount of restraint necessary to keep from breaking caucus before the non-Catholic’s posts were pulled. I thought that the religion moderator did a good job, but things might have easily spun out of control. Would it be possible for a caucus to have some one overseeing the thread and get a rapid response from the religion moderator when some one does something that might potentially break caucus?
Agreed. But we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole here. It's a shame that it is necessary one way or the other.
I agree! Prayer and example are the most powerful tools we have. Apologists can only be effective when they have undertaken their task with GREAT wisdom and under the leading/guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is particularly true in the Internet situation....which can often result in useless and/or even sinful arguing.
“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”
...St. Francis of Assisi
The anti-Catholics will continue to post their rants and they need to be challenged. I will join the ping list, though I'm not sure how that works- can anyone on the list ping the list? If so then when one runs across an anti-Catholic post, regardless of whether he/she has the time to reply, they can at least ping the list, and hopefully someone can refute the post.
I rarely respond to anti-Catholic posts due to my time constraints, occasionally one will prompt me to respond. When I do I find it challenges me to learn more about the Catholic position and it enlightens me as to what some non-Catholics think, which is also interesting.
As for resources, the internet is full of them- I believe the best bet is to google whatever it is that is being challenged, or search on Catholic.com. One can amass a library of resources, but unless you can search it quickly, it's not very helpful.
What we have to say might not change anyone's mind, at least immediately, but you will certainly be planting some seeds of doubt.
When you are up and running, put me on the ping list.
I don’t have a great deal to offer but I have a gread deal that I need to learn.
Ditto.
As I scroll through threads and see one that I know is inflamatory, I offer a prayer and keep right on scrolling.
What I would like is a civilized discussion about Medjugorje.
Lots of controversy about this currently unapproved apparition and a place to go which can handle it in a calm way would be wonderful.
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.