That is not what I was trying to say, only that posts and counter posts have context in each other. In the example Mary - co-redemptress the counter could be there is no redeemer but Christ (with no reference to Mary). But within the context of the thread either party could view the other as being said against the others beliefs. Which mother would you give the baby to?
OK, then, under this postulation does that mean the word "Protestant" is an automatically banned word from the Ec threads? Do we either have to use the term "Proddies" (like Gamecock used in this thread) or go back to the drawing board to come up with a designation that defines our identity based on what we believe rather than what we're against? :)
(I can imagine an ec thread now: "I'm a Protestant." "Oh, yeah, what are you protesting?" "I can't tell you lest I be booted.")
(I would hope that Free Republic not become blamed for instigating a sudden mass identity crisis! :) )
RM, obviously my "question" above was rhetorical, so let me ask you a more specific question pertaining to what you said earlier on this thread about "loaded questions." I understand that questions can be both "loaded" and "unloaded."
Given that the supposed very object of ecumenical dialogue is to bring "clarity," and that I can't imagine, for example, Dennis Prager dialoguing on talk radio with somebody he disagrees with minus asking of questions designed to yield clarity, I would hope that "unloaded" questions designed to yield clarity would not be deemed "out of bounds" as long as they were stated in the least offensive ways (tone, etc.) possible. Could you elaborate more on "unloaded" questions asked for purposes of clarity?