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.
I fiercely agree with you.
No surprise there.
However, i HOPE we don’t turn THIS thread into one of THOSE threads! Sheesh.
Then I think you might expect Prottys to post alternate threads to discuss such issues, conversions, topics, threads in an open thread from the PROTTY perspective.
Any guesses as to which thread will die an early few post death and which thread will have a long life?
I think it’s inherently entrenched in the IN-GROUP
dynamics and !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!
of the edifice to be
OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY
in mentality, dynamic, law, attitude, sensibilities . . .
Insist so if you want.
No, the show of hands is for anyone who finds it just fine. At least that’s how I read it. It will never be fine. We have nothing against Mary, we just refuse to equate her with God.
So can we have a “GRPL plus Quix Caucus” designation?
OK.
I intend to keep the conversion threads all open, by the way, just in order not to apear unfair to other confessions, although I, of course, encourage substantive posts and don’t particularly like noisy sarcastic posts. May I still use the expresison “ecumenical brawl” to threads where P-Marlowe and Gamecock make appearance?
But I will try this format with some theological threads, like my old Cur Deus Homo series. The Caucus designation proved suffocating for them.
It does work. A few bumps in the road now and then but it serves a worthwhile purpose.
Why are you so negative?
By the way Quix, the Pope has announced that believing in UFOs is okay.
>>I would like to meet the Protestant who is not repelled by the sentence, “Mary is the co-redeemer.”
Show of hands? <<
Well, you can’t talk about it.
Oops!!!! Like the smart kid in grammar school, I wasn’t paying attention. Now, like Horshack on “Welcome Back Cotter”, I can’t keep from putting my hand up.
You might want to open your papal curtains and look around...
It sure repels me. How can anyone make her a co-redeemer when God didn’t?????
I think, P-Marlowe couild designate a mixed caucus, for example, Calvinist & Methodist caucus if he wants to compare and contrast, but doesn’t want a third perspective.
We had “Cath-Orth” caucus when we wanted to discuss beliefs shared by Catholics and Orthodox but did not want Protestant input.
***May I still use the expresison “ecumenical brawl” to threads where P-Marlowe and Gamecock make appearance?***
I am a Soldier in the US Army. Have been for 21 years. I think I can take it. That may actually explain why some think I’m gruff.
My 16 year old daughter’s new beau asked her if I am scary. She told him most think I am but she will tell me to stop it and then I’m OK to be around.
After reading your first post and the comments up to 70, I think Dr.E has a point. Many discussions surround definitions and that a pro- post often has an anti- counterpart (and vice versa). So in the example given by Dr. E, the anti- component (Mary is a co-redeemer) trumps the pro- component (Mary is not because...). Absent the context in which the (or any) reply is given can almost be considered iconoclastic in nature. Thus if one wants to present a "positive" post, there is by definition another post being countered. Now in Dr E's example, there can probably be a respectful way to make the post that is not la flambé, but with some here I can only see additional abuse buttons being hit and the positive but context free posts hard to identify under your proposed guidance.
I suspect that is impossible.
The specific beliefs of Calvinism are born out of rejection of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Remonstrants. How can you discuss Calvinism without comparing it to other belief systems? You can't.
Inflammatory characterizations directed at other Freepers personally are “making it personal.” However, open threads are contentious by nature and it is tolerable to refer to the opposing belief as a “cult” “heretic” “sect” “apostate” “brawlers” etc.
I doubt it.
The squeekiest wheels always get greased, don't they!!!
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.