Posted on 04/23/2006 8:01:06 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
So the question becomes, how do we mark a thread to be a Catholic Discussion thread? In other words, how do we have the ability to discuss current events in our religion without having to defend our dogma?
Point in fact, someone posted an article on clear walls in confessionals. By the third post, someone came in to slam confession. The article wasn't about confession but rather the openess of the confessional to the rest of the church. Is there any time that we can discuss amongst ourselves without having to defend what we believe? I haven't found a way to do this up until now.
** For example, a Catholic should be able to discuss aspects of veneration of a particular saint without having to field basic questions about veneration of saints in general, that are certain to come form the Protestants. Likewise, a Protestant should be able to post something about a Protestant thinker, or Protestant eschatology without others piling on Protestantism in general. What would be your recommendation? I see three possibilities about such "threads of limited debate"? **
Excellent question. It seems to me that Catholics take more bashings on threads than Protestants do. Is my observation mistaken?
And then I must ask myself -- What difference does it make in the end? Will I hurt or hinder the other poster, or help or have mercy on them and cease posting?
I agree. I think it is the responsibility of the poster to seek out your feedback. The Religion Moderator has enough to do.
I just saw it and will ping my list after I read the entire thread. Thanks for the ping!
**or help or have mercy on them and cease posting?**
Rephrase and clarify -----
Or will I help or have mercy on another poster and cease posting to that thread.
FYI Ping
If so, who (or what group) removed the "plain and precious" truths. ~ colorcountry
So are you saying that the "opposition," darkness, or Satan had a hand in the compiling of the Bible? ~ colorcountry
No! I did NOT say that colorcountry those are your words!
colorcountry You asked "removed from" NOT compiling!
I would call what you are doing is putting words in my mouth!
There is no need to continue our coversation!
maybe we only need this rule:
post light
in love
Nice set of guidelines.
Any changes involving the menu for topics would require a software change.
By compile, I meant to add or remove something. Since you said the opposition had removed "plain and precious truths," I assumed that is what you meant. I'm sorry if that isn't the case. Can you clairify your position?
Your example - "clear walls in confessionals?" - is like a business topic for a church meeting. Therefore you could have used the phrase "Catholic caucus" or "Catholic business" to identify the thread as a closed-door "church-like" thread and I would have made sure the assembly was not disturbed.
But any confession or belief system is subject to "bashing" on open threads. That is why we should all be prepared to "give reason for the hope that is within us" when we venture into the open threads.
Posters, however, are never to be personally bashed.
Jumping in, if what you post sounds like Epicetus or even Lucretius, it should not offend anyone. In all these matters, tone is what counts, right?
P.S. pardon the misspellings.
What I find amazing is that everyday all around us in every area it seems people are rearranging or revising truth!
And you come along thinking that no such thing took place in Ancient of Days!
We have the first 5 books of Moses which is a Digest of all the events that took place up to the time of Moses!
We have a gap between Malachi and Matthew of the written word!
The LDS has a record going back 600 BC which fill in much of the gaps!
The LDS is also promised that another 2/3rds of the Book of Mormon records will also come forth in the Lord time!
In the Jewish religion they have a promise that their concept of the Messiah will come and they do not believe the NT is valid which should offend them and I am sure the mainstream believe they don't have all the word!
Try being consistant in your thinking!
Good. A point of inquiry - does that mean no personal attacks on the author of the article rather than a discussion of the contents?
You can attack the author (as long as it is not a Freeper) - and the content of the article, ideology, philosophy, history, doctrine etc. But personal attacks of other Freepers are not tolerable.
To me a personal attack is when you call the person an unkind name, but asking one to be fair, or try to be consistant in ones reasoning or the scheme of things is not an attack!
But than I never did have a secure handle on my use of the language!
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.