Religion Forum Guidelines – Ecumenism

May 14, 2008 | Religion Moderator

[greyfoxx39]

I suspect the "Open" thread is the only one which has a chance to be vibrant, challenging, and interesting.

Not when you have "squeaky wheels" pounding the abuse button over every other post, and the threads being locked or pulled.

Some FReepers want to "give" all their dogma, but they don't want to have it challenged.

[Titanites]

Even on this administrative thread, claims are made about Catholicism that are demonstrably not true.

Even when it has been demonstrated not to be true, they can't bear to admit it. Just look at the responses.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOL. Just goes to show how imprecise some words can be.

Let's ask Protestants for a show of the right hand if they are repelled by the statement, "Mary is the co-redeemer," and a show of the left hand if they are NOT repelled by the statement, "Mary is the co-redeemer."

Right hands UP!

[Godzilla]

The lurkers know the differences run very deep.

OK, I follow you here so far. Many instances key words/ideas / concepts are shared by these vastly different groups with vastly different definitions. The Rabbi says that the promise was through Isaac while the Mullah would say it was through Ishmael - it would appear that they would either have to talk past each other, or eventually define what is meant by these common terms. This process of definition does not happen in a vacuum, but in response to a preceding post. How are you going to handle this process given that the context of the thread will make it very clear that this is in response and counter to another post - which by your definitions would border on an attack?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Well, you can't talk about it.

I can't talk about how the statement "Mary is the co-redeemer" effects me?

[Uncle Chip]

I suspect the "Open" thread is the only one which has a chance to be vibrant, challenging, and interesting.

Just like those churches opened after the Reformation!!!

[Religion Moderator]

If you need to define a word to post the belief you are "for" on an ecumenic thread, then do so. An academic definition of a word is not arguing "against" another's beliefs. For instance:

"Redeem" means "to atone" (Merriam Webster)

I believe ...

[Religion Moderator]

I am taking a break but will check back in as soon as possible. Hopefully by then one of you will have ventured to post the first "ecumenic" thread.

This thread, btw, should be considered "open."

[trisham]

Have a nice cup of tea. I recommend chamomile. :)

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

“I can’t talk about how the statement “Mary is the co-redeemer” effects me?”

Perhaps you can talk about it AFFECTS you, or has an EFFECT upon you :-)

[Godzilla]

An academic definition of a word is not arguing "against" another's beliefs. For instance:

Thank you for bearing with me as I work this through in order that I fully understand what is and is not permitted on these kind of threads. While many things are defined in a dictionary, most dictionaries are not considered canon by various groups and these definitions are usually refined further by the different religious group.

Therefore, if I understand your example correctly, on a thread that says Group X believes that (insert word) means A, where A has a different theological definition from my group B, I would be able to post something like:

Historically Group B defines (insert word) to mean Z. I believe...... (as long as there is no reference to group A)

Is this a correct interpretation of the proposed guidance? Thanks again.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Religion Forum on FR has been a tremendous source of Catholic education for me

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. Many many Protestants have learned more than they ever knew existed about what the RCC actually believes and teaches.

[Pyro7480]

Many many Protestants have learned more than they ever knew existed about what the RCC actually believes and teaches.

Not like it's done any good ;-)

[xzins]

However, on the ecumenic thread, the poster must not argue against any other beliefs.

This has built in contradictions/near-contradictions, RM, that will cause you headaches.

1. Many doctrines are established by virtue of demonstrating X position as the only viable remaining option. That automatically requires presenting evidence against other beliefs. Immersion Baptism is an example. Any of the millennial doctrines would be the same. Trinitarianism could be included.

2. This precludes discussion of the biography of just about any Christian of any era. Pick any reformation saint who believed the pope to be the anti-christ, and you have a stellar example

3. This violates the requirement many would recognize to combat cultism and occultism whenever it appears.

These concerns are off the top of my head. I'm sure others will appear.

4. It also violates the intent of ecumenism which is an acceptance of differences rather than an effort to force everything into a "bland X" that in its effort to offend no one ends up offending everyone.

[OLD REGGIE]

Not when you have "squeaky wheels" pounding the abuse button over every other post, and the threads being locked or pulled.

And those "squeaky wheels" are well known, very obvious, and very repetetive. They should be given a "time out" like any cranky child.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

As history has made abundantly clear, in many places, in many ways - learning that the RCC actually believes and teaches cannot do any good for those who believe God at His Word.

[Uncle Chip]

Many many Protestants have learned more than they ever knew existed about what the RCC actually believes and teaches. Not like it's done any good ;-)

Sure it has. I have not only learned a lot about what the RCC actually believes and teaches, but also a lot about what the RCC doesn't want us to know that it believes and teaches :)

[annalex]

Check out Cur Deus Homo Annotated on my profile, there are 19 of them.

[netmilsmom]

>>I can’t talk about how the statement “Mary is the co-redeemer” effects me? <<

Not on a caucus thread. On an open thread you can.

[Pyro7480]

To use a term Reagan famously used, “there you go again.” I make a light comment, and you turn it into more bile. Sad...