This is not a "CAUCUS" thread. Discourse is absolutely allowed.
From the RM homepage:To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
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.
Was there an objection to some point in the article? Does your belief system say something different?
I am, in fact, curious if it was objectionable to you...
, please remove me from your ping list.
Done, sadly.
It would seem that we have ruined some peoples’s fun. ;)
However, for some reason you've changed your mind and have labeled this an Ecumenic thread.
Open threads are productive and challenging and informative.
Ecumenic threads are not a place for challenges. Therefore, I don't care to reread the RCC catechism without being permitted to challenge its manifold errors.
Thanks all the same.