Posted on 05/14/2008 9:06:42 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
In late April, markomalley and gamecock made a trial run at a “respectful dialog” category for threads on the Religion Forum. The trial failed due to the inability of the posters to agree on what is or is not “respectful.” Then in early May, several other posters appealed for the elimination of posts which seek to tear down other poster’s beliefs (iconoclasm.)
Meanwhile, the situation on the Religion Forum has been exacerbated by posters on the News/Activism forum inadvertently being exposed to religious debate as a result of choosing the “everything” option on browse instead of the “News/Activism” option.
In response to the pleas for a “respectful dialog” and/or the elimination of “iconoclasm” (attacks on other people’s beliefs) – I’m opening the floor for trial postings of a new type of semi-open thread which we shall call “ecumenic.”
Unlike the caucus threads, any poster could reply to an ecumenic thread. And the article on which an ecumenic thread is based could include contrasts and challenges of other beliefs. However, on the ecumenic thread, the poster must not argue against any other beliefs. He can only argue for what he believes – or ask questions.
While we test this new type of thread, be sure to tag every article so that posters will know when to avoid a thread. The tags during this trial run are “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” “ecumenic” or “open.”
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.
Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
When you see a post which is inappropriate for an ecumenic thread, ping me. Do not bother the Admin Moderators with an abuse report unless the situation requires immediate attention.
Right you are.
This is one of the most helpful things I've read here.
Please be patient with me, I don't know how to say this:
I don't think gastric reflux is reliably indicative of anything much, except, in some cases, that the sufferer is having a strong emotional reaction (or too many jalapeno poppers.)
Specifically the strength of a reaction may be proportionate to the thing being reacted to, or it may not. On one Bob Newhart show the "wife" character freaks out at dust bunnies. SHE's going, "EEEW! EEEK! Dust Bunnies!", but everybody else is looking at HER, because the strength of her reaction seems to them to be way out of line with the admitted nastiness of dust-bunnies.
Further, we react with strong negatives to things that are good. The Rabies shot series, anyone? No, they're not fun. Yes, they are good. Try holding down your 23 month old while docs start an IV. I have a STRONG negative feeling about that. I did it anyway. It was the right thing to do.
From this I learn that my reactions alone are not to be trusted or acted on.
For fun let's take a positive affirming reaction. The boss-lady made homemade macaroons, and now I know what they eat in heaven. But if I did as my inclinations guide me I would have regretted it.
And this is important because sometimes the "direction" (or vector?) so to speak of the reaction is "correct" but the magnitude is way off. I am right to like macaroons. But my desire to eat all of 'em at once is disproportionate.
So whether or not one is right to reject Marian devotion or Eucharistic piety and Theology, it is worth noting that there is a difference, maybe an important one, between saying, "Whoa, I think I'm gonna puke here," and "Tsk, tsk: There go those Catholics with their polytheistic, pagan, cookie-worshipping ways; I wonder if there's anything I can do to help them."
One reason I'm sort of internally blocking on this post is that I learned this (or thought I did) from Calvin. The last group on earth I would have thought would give credence and then expression to their feelings would be good hard-core Calvinists! If there is any truth to "Total Depravity" (*And I think there is a great deal of truth to it) I would think it would have to be that a strong reaction to a concept or to someone who differs from us is SIMPLY NOT TO BE TRUSTED! It MAY be quite right, or it may be entirely wrong. It may be right in "direction" but wrong in "magnitude". And, (and this may be Catholic of me) if it is so strong that it hampers our ability to think and converse freely and reasonably, then MY money is on EITHER "I need to get stronger" or "That feeling is way too strong to be good for me."
Yes, I get the zeal of our Lord in the Temple or of Mattathias and the running dog of the Seleucids.
In this connection, sort of, I was talking with a friend, brought up in the Catholic Church, and trying to explain to him that along with the theological objections to what Protestants think Catholics teach about Mary, there is this persistent feeling of what I called "ickiness". It just seems, well, revolting to a lot of Protestants.
I have had to do a lot of revolting things in my time, as have many of us. YOU try sticking your hand up the back end of a ewe to free up the first of triplets who has gotten himself back first into the birth canal and has stopped it up like a cork. But then when three wet sticky lambs are staggering around on their feet, bleating, and searching for the teat while their dam gurgles lovingly to them, revolting isn't so bad. Sometimes allowing the experience of revulsion while not allowing it to control one leads to life and happiness and lambs jumping on grass.
But here it seems that a feeling, a passion, is advanced as justification for a kind of, well, conversational style which doesn't seem to accomplish much more than conveying the feeling.
I will pray about my tag line. Kolbe is one of the noblest martyrs of the last century, and he was a big fan of the "miraculous medal" ( a piece of Catholic bling which used to revolt me) and I am a big fan of the miraculous medal and my tag is on the obverse of each such medal. But maybe I can find another tag.
How's the old reflux?
I like it very much! Honestly - a touch of sarcasm that doesn’t attack anyone. I have an “Internet Bumper Sticker” on my web site (down at the moment, in limbo between hosts) that says much the same thing.
I think I can keep lunch down now :-)
Here’s a legitimate question I posted a day or two ago to different folk that you may care to answer. I am not trying to provoke an angry response, simply a thoughtful and honest one. I think it’s a veery serious question, not only for RCs.
WHY do people RCC or anyone else - expend SO MUCH effort on extra-Biblical doctrines? Why create so many “talking points” and defend such extra-Biblical stuff so stridently?
The ONLY conclusion I can come to is that of being unsatisfied with Christ. If Christ is enough, no need for all this distracting, argumentative, religion - be it Marianism or PurposeDrivenism.
If you think Mary, your rites, or baptism will save you, I pity you all the more.
If you think Mary, your rites, or baptism will save you, I pity you all the more.
Those are the errors your post brought into clear focus. I didn’t say any of those things.
I must admit, though: your pity amuses me.
Oh, am I glad SOMETHING DOES. LOL.
Thank you for this great post. It called to mind one of my favorites Psalms—Psalm 84: “when they go through the Bitter Valley they make it a place of springs”.
I am hoping that you don’t change your tag-line. If someone doesn’t like it, he can skip over it. I find that I have to do that myself, when I see certain posters on the forum.
We have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to loving His Mother.
A lifetime has taught me this.
Pax
ROE
I have been very busy and posted little on FR recently.
This sounds to me like an attempt to end debate on the Religious forum.
I can not see why the new ecumenical designation is needed at all, because there is still an open designation. It only makes sense if the long term plan is to stop a historic tradition of the church ( debate).
It seems to me as long as the discussion centers on theology and not individuals it should be an open forum. Silencing debate is a liberal democrat tactic..not a libertarian/conservative one.
I understand the limit on prayer or meditation threads, but scripture tells us to have an answer for every man and this is a religious forum .
You might want to remind the RM
that you were one of the founders
of the Religion Forum.
Debate is not “silenced” - the “open” threads remain and they remain the most popular.
I'm certain that the Religion Forum has been around far longer than two years, XeniaSt:
I'm certain that the Religion Forum has been around far longer than two years, XeniaSt:
ears_to_hear
Since Feb 18, 2006
e_t_h contacted me for my input on the formation of the RF e_t_h had a different handle during the NeverEnding days
before the formation of the RF.
As to being unsatisfied, I take as my text that ancient traditional saying, "There's always room for Jello."
I am no more unsatisfied than the person who asks for the prayers of a friend is unsatisfied. And I love Jesus no less than the person who praises another's piety does. (At least in theory. Me myself personally, not so much. Yo! Sinner here!)
But I guess the heart of your comment depends on what we mean by "debate". IMHO there are far too many unproductive and inconclusive posts which amount to, "You guys are wrong and we aren't." And the atmosphere is so poisoned that when I once tried to summarize what looked like an agreement I was accused of claiming victory!
I think that even,"My church teaches that yours is comprised of dupes and emissaries from hell," would be an improvement over "You all, taken as a whole, are dupes and emissaries from hell" possibly enough of an improvement to lead us toward something worthwhile.
Currently we have the logical abomination of being forbidden to say, "You are an emissary from hell," but allowed to say,"All y'all are emissaries from hell." Not surprisingly, this doesn't seem to lower the heat to light ratio markedly. The single member of the set "all y'all" still feels (and IS) attacked personally.
So I think this may be an improvement.
Dawg,
I don’t think your previous tag line was an attack; I think it is repugnant to what the Bible teaches about Jesus (being the only human who was without sin - qualifying Him as the Lamb of God Who was worthy of taking on the sins of man) and about humans (ALL have sinned). The conclusion I draw from the statement in your previous tag line is the Mary is being touted as sinless, making her equal in purity to the Lord Jesus.
The Bible does not support this and I wonder why anyone would care to proclaim such a thing as your previous tag line. It elevates a human relative to Christ, which brings Him down to a human level. This strikes me as heresy.
Yes, we each are sinful people in dire need of Christ - He alone saves people from their sins.
Utter freedom from sin and a royal crown are promised to all the blessed. I am happy to concede that the Scriptural support for what we teach is anything but dispositive, but we see "already" accomplished in Mary what will one day be true for all the blessed. So this is one aspect of her being a "great sign" (as fuses blow in the minds of our worthy colleagues on the other side of the question who don't think that "great sign" stuff has to do with Mary.)
And, full disclosure, when I say "we teach," I should point out that when I submitted a blurb to that effect to some of my life-long Cat'lick bro's and sis's in the Lay Dominicans, they said, "I never thought of it like that, but that rings true."
As I said somewhere, "Second Fruits", or as somebody else said, "First Fruit of the Second Fruits" which I like better.
Readers from San Francisco should note that "first fruits" is a perfectly respectable Biblical usage and doesn't mean what they might think it means. Thank you for your attention.
See what happens when they change their name? :)
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.