Respectfully, this "new thread" classification in effect nullifies the very purpose for the Reformation.
If a Catholic thread is posted saying "Mary is the co-Redeemer" (as there have been many already) how is a Protestant supposed to reply with anything other than by the negative "No, Mary is NOT a 'co-redeemer' because according to the Bible, there is ONE only propitiation for our sins, ONE mediator between God and men, ONE Redeemer, Jesus Christ?"
My belief is against that belief. It cannot be otherwise. And what the Catholic doesn't realize is that saying "Mary is a co-redeemer" is offensive to me because we are both considered Christians and yet as a Christian I do not believe that in any way. In fact, that sentence repels me.
Rules like this simply defy the last 500 years of religious history.
Additionally, this "new kind of thread" appears to reward posters who refused to learn how to post within the FR religion forum guidelines. Whining while "making it personal" apparently can pay off.
It seems that the failed "respectful thread" designation has simply morphed into the "ecumenic thread" designation, only this time the penalty for protesting error will be more severe.
I've been saying the same thing for a long time: the Reformation is intrinsically a negative movement built in opposition to the Catholic Church and incapable of standing on its own.
>>If a Catholic thread is posted saying “Mary is the co-Redeemer” (as there have been many already) how is a Protestant supposed to reply with anything other than by the negative “No, Mary is NOT a ‘co-redeemer’ because according to the Bible, there is ONE only propitiation for our sins, ONE mediator between God and men, ONE Redeemer, Jesus Christ?”
My belief is against that belief. It cannot be otherwise. And what the Catholic doesn’t realize is that saying “Mary is a co-redeemer” is offensive to me because we are both considered Christians and yet as a Christian I do not believe that in any way. In fact, that sentence repels me<<
I guess we all have to be a little less repelled, don’t we?
TRUE ENOUGH, DEAR HEART.
HOWEVER,
we have sufficient opportunity to post our own threads quite open about any topic we wish.
I applaud the beleagured RM for trying to bring some . . . workableness to the intense emotions and contrasting, competing sensibilities and sensitivities hereon.
At some point, the thin-skinned folks will need to realize that their whining is just that and grossly out of place on such a forum.
Any thread designation that helps the RM’s job and helps bring some fairer, more even-handed handling of the situation—especially when our beloved RM is occupied otherwise—is MOST WELCOME, to me.
I’m quite willing to give it more than a college try.
There you go, RM. You have exposed yourself as a Papist-sympathizer. ;-)
Looks like some of our RC friends have cried ‘foul’ enough times to get their way. Hmm. Are some of them afraid to argue that their beliefs are true? I can only hope that God will convict them of the truth, but some hearts won’t allow that, I’m sure. Sad about that.
If we find the "open" thread to be the only vibrant one it will move to the front and have the most participants.
In some ways it is similar to all the "free" offers available with any new computer. I decline them all and go on my way, choosing only what is meaningful to me.
FWIW, it strikes me as appeasement to the "squeaky wheel". I thought conservatives were different than liberals. I thought we could "fight it out" in the world of ideas without worrying about "hurting someones feelings". The caucus threads are a place for conversation with no disagreement, or devotional threads.
Posters always have the option to ignore those posters they don't believe offer anything of importance to the discussion.
“Mary is a co-redeemer” is offensive to me
If you don’t like the new rules, get out of Dodge.
Lurking’