Posted on 12/25/2012 9:50:07 AM PST by narses
Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may 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 information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical 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 “ecumenical” 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 “ecumenical” tag.
Lord, in this holy season of prayer and song and laughter, we praise you for the great wonders you have sent us: for shining star and angel’s song, for infant’s cry in lowly manger. We praise you for the Word made flesh in a little Child. We behold his glory, and are bathed in its radiance.
Be with us as we sing the ironies of Christmas, the incomprehensible comprehended, the poetry made hard fact, the helpless Babe who cracks the world asunder. We kneel before you shepherds, innkeepers, wisemen. Help us to rise bigger than we are. Amen.
Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may 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 information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical 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 “ecumenical” 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 “ecumenical” tag.
Lord, in this holy season of prayer and song and laughter, we praise you for the great wonders you have sent us: for shining star and angel’s song, for infant’s cry in lowly manger. We praise you for the Word made flesh in a little Child. We behold his glory, and are bathed in its radiance.
Be with us as we sing the ironies of Christmas, the incomprehensible comprehended, the poetry made hard fact, the helpless Babe who cracks the world asunder. We kneel before you shepherds, innkeepers, wisemen. Help us to rise bigger than we are. Amen.
Ask King James, or King Henry VIII. Power makes for strange ideas.
Post #2 breaks this rule but let’s see if anything is done about it.
Also post #5.
The DSS show us that there is more information to be had than what “modern” man has allowed to be passed down. I think we will find over time there are many more documents to be had. In both the name of science and faith we need to continue to seek them out and study their authors and content. From a faith viewpoint, I don’t think God handed us in modern times all the of his words as easily as it seems but demands we seek them out.
here is another interesting approach...a link to an anti catholic page, that uses protestant ‘scholarship’ as some sort of proof.
and yet, AGAIN, the historicity of the early church clearly shows the usage of the catholic version of the bible.
when push comes to shove, i will take those who literally walked and talked with apostles, and other church fathers, and their take on scripture, under the auspices of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, during the birth of the church, as opposed to protestant ‘scholarship’ that DISAGREES WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO BEGIN WITH, and builds its case from there.
but with that thinking, that allows for anyone to say anything to bolster their version of scripture and christianity...and who is to determine what is to be ‘sought out’ and considered right, if you have no divinely appointed authority, as the catholic church has?
has the thousands of splintering churches from the reformation not taught us the dangers of assuming god will be with us when seeking the truth in the word alone?
Also post #10 when he puts the word scholarship in scare quotes.
The Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian bibles all differ, with four of those being in the original Catholic (not Roman Catholic) church.
Not sure what the point is here.
I don't like the idea of just one person deciding what should be included and what should not be.You have company. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
The issue, from where I sit, is did Our Lord appoint Apostles to run His Church after He Ascended into Heaven? And if He did, did He give the Apostles the authority to answer questions like these? That has a great deal to do with why I am Catholic.
“Not sure what the point is here.”
Edification. My Christmas gift to the Religion Forum.
Thanks for that link.
This is one item that confused the heck out of me:
“Judas Maccabees prayed for the dead and made atonement FOR THEM by sending money to the temple as a sin offering...”
So Jesus’ death and resurrection was not enough? There needs to be additional money payments made?
I don’t think I have enough money to atone for MY sins (for they are many).
From the Roman Catholic perspective, which is also not supported by the other catholic churches in addition to the Protestants, which you neglected to mention.
From the Roman Catholic perspective,...Yes. Exactly right. Glad you understood that.
...which is also not supported by the other catholic churches in addition to the Protestants, which you neglected to mention.Sorry you missed the very clear mention of the Protestant view here. Merry Christmas and May Our Lord Bless you and yours on this, His Nativity.
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.