the state of the debate board

[Apotheoun]

Certainly different categories of icons could be used, but the number of possible icons boggles the mind. I think the forum owner would have a heavy burden trying to give everyone the type of group icon that they want.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jun 15 2005, 12:54 AM']Very true, and I agree with your reasoning again.

Where we differ is in the choice of "I DO NOT REPRESENT THE CHURCH" as opposed to "non-Catholic" "evangelical" "protestant" or "Non-Catholic Church".
[right][snapback]612118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
How ironic it would be if a "Non-Catholic Church" category were devised, because both you and I would be in that group.



I think that category would be the most confusing group ever created for the forum.

[Circle_Master]

But then on the other hand, it may be the most useful icon ever made since from everyone I have grown up with understands Catholic Church as synonymous with what you refer to as the Catholic Church. Interfaith Dialogue! Communication is important.

I do wonder though, do you enjoy Brevard Childs writings? Have you read much of his stuff?

Edited June 15, 2005 by Circle_Master

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jun 15 2005, 01:07 AM']But then on the other hand, it may be the most useful icon ever made since from everyone I have spoken with Catholic Church is synonymous with what you refer to as the Catholic Church.  Interfaith Dialogue!  Communication is important. 

I do wonder though, do you enjoy Brevard Childs writings?  Have you read much of his stuff?
[right][snapback]612121[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm sure that a member of the Latin Rite doesn't mind being called Roman Catholic, but I do, because it is inaccurate.

I've read a couple of B. S. Childs books, and enjoyed them.

[jasJis]

And we thought Les was hard to discuss with.

Circle, you are only complaining about semantics and perceptions. This board is run by humans, and choices are made based on the best human judgement of the WebMaster, whether you like it, don't like it, agree, or disagree.

And I am very sure IronMonk never insulted you, but I remember you took offense at the things he said. Iron doesn't intentionally insult, he just isn't inordinately careful about not offending.

On the other hand, I'm not as self disciplined.

Edited June 15, 2005 by jasJis

[Jaime]

[quote]And we thought Les was hard to discuss with[/quote]

He is

[Noel's angel]

Why do you still post if you disagree with the icon and dUSts decision to use it?

[Nicole8223]

This seems silly to me. If you don't want to be labeled with "Catholic terminology" then why would you come to a site like this? You WILL be labeled with Catholic terminology as this is a Catholic site, and we are not trying to hide that. It is very clear that this site represents the Catholic theology, and I don't think it should change because non-Catholics or NON-whateveryouthinkitshouldsay think Catholics are wrong.

That would defeat the purpose of the site.

At any rate, the site is not about the label next to your name, but about the discussion that occurs...so let's just move on already.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I have a few suggestions for the Debate Table. This is a loooong post.

First: debate moderators. I don't want to poopoo the wonderful job the board mods do here, but debate threads often need moderators in the sense of what a moderator does in a traditional debate. The debate moderators don't even need any kind of special board privileges such as the ability to delete or modify posts, and can be appointed at the start of a thread. The debate moderator will point out to posters when the thread has gone off topic or when an argument contains a personal attack, etc. Also debate ettiquite should be enforced here and people should take more time to construct truly logical arguments that avoid going off-topic.

My second suggestion is to put information seeking posts in the Apologetics page and not the debate thread. So many nasty debates, or rather slugfests, have started because someone posted in the debate thread wondering how to defend a position on abortion or why the Church thinks women's ordination is wrong. This is really more of an apologetics topic. Some would argue that showing only the church side of the issue is wrong and closed minded, but I feel that when someone (the thread starter) asks a question or makes a request, the thread should be about answering that question or request. So I recommend to posters here that if they want to know a church position, that they post it in a more appropriate board. Board mods should also try to move non-debate threads to the apologetics board. I'll post below some examples of what a non-debate-starting and debate-starting thread look like (The examples are not meant to look scholarly or reflect my opinions in any way).

Non-debate-starter:
I'm wondering why the Church teaches abortion is wrong. Any help?

Debate-Starter:
I don't accept the church's teaching on abortion. I believe that a fetus is part of a woman's body until the child is born and the woman can do anything with her body that she wants.

--

It seems we've had debates break out from both of these types of posts yet only the second one is really looking to start a debate.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 13 2005, 06:22 PM']AHHHHH  Heathen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't you know coffee is one of the ways that we know that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
[right][snapback]610727[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I thought that beer (or other alcohol....) was one of the ways we know God loves us?

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 15 2005, 11:45 AM']I have a few suggestions for the Debate Table.  This is a loooong post.

First: debate moderators.  I don't want to poopoo the wonderful job the board mods do here, but debate threads often need moderators in the sense of what a moderator does in a traditional debate.  The debate moderators don't even need any kind of special board privileges such as the ability to delete or modify posts, and can be appointed at the start of a thread.  The debate moderator will point out to posters when the thread has gone off topic or when an argument contains a personal attack, etc.  Also debate ettiquite should be enforced here and people should take more time to construct truly logical arguments that avoid going off-topic.

My second suggestion is to put information seeking posts in the Apologetics page and not the debate thread.  So many nasty debates, or rather slugfests,  have started because someone posted in the debate thread wondering how to defend a position on abortion or why the Church thinks women's ordination is wrong.  This is really more of an apologetics topic.  Some would argue that showing only the church side of the issue is wrong and closed minded, but I feel that when someone (the thread starter) asks a question or makes a request, the thread should be about answering that question or request.  So I recommend to posters here that if they want to know a church position, that they post it in a more appropriate board.  Board mods should also try to move non-debate threads to the apologetics board.  I'll post below some examples of what a non-debate-starting and debate-starting thread look like (The examples are not meant to look scholarly or reflect my opinions in any way).

Non-debate-starter:
I'm wondering why the Church teaches abortion is wrong.  Any help?

Debate-Starter:
I don't accept the church's teaching on abortion.  I believe that a fetus is part of a woman's body until the child is born and the woman can do anything with her body that she wants.

--

It seems we've had debates break out from both of these types of posts yet only the second one is really looking to start a debate.
[right][snapback]612287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well, first of all, the moderators need the ability to edit and/or delete post because many times just telling people to get back on topic gets ignored. Also, there have been spamming incidents that get deleted as soon as a mod sees them, thus sparing the rest of the Phatmass community. If the mods didn't have these abilities, dUSt would not be able to keep up. He wasn't in the past, which is why he created the moderator position.

As for why many things aren't started in the Apologetics phorum, well, many people don't pay attention. But more than that, the Apologetics is for apologetics - not debating and it would just get moved here eventually, because it would eventually turn into a debate.

Trying to turn this board into a formal debate arena hasn't worked in the past and I think it would be do a disservice to people who are looking for answers, and other points of view.

Again, I don't understand what the issue is behind this thread. This is definately the MOST CIVIL this debate board has ever been.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Oh I definitely still think we need the board moderators. I'm just saying that we need debate moderators as well. This may not need to be formalized, and it can even be self governed. But often times if someone says let's stay on topic he's attacked for dismissing someone's points without wanting to argue.

I understand about the whole Apologetics/Debate thing. Sometimes people want to know how to defend a point and someone wants to tell them that they're wrong for wanting to defend that point.

[mulls]

i just think i should post more, then everything would be more balanced and orderly.

[Noel's angel]

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Circle_Master']I've had this discussion here before and will attempt to ignore your "well we are the church so if you don't like it too bad" attitude. Phatmass residents finally agreed that Catholic Church was an accepted term to refer to the entire Roman Catholic Church. If you use "Catholic Church" then that also could include the Episcopal Church or the Church of England or various others. If you just use the "Church" then that could cover an even broader term.[/quote]
As you well know, it would be heresy for us to assent to any of the above. Frankly, I don't see what purpose your complaint has, except to cause trouble. You've demonstrated rather clearly that you know what the webmaster [i]means[/i] by "I do not represent the Church," because you have proposed an alternative to it ("I do not represent the Catholic Church") that is, in actuality, precisely what he means. If you know what it means, and if we know what it means, and if he knows what it means, and if [i]everyone[/i] knows what it means -- then what's the problem?

There is no problem with the icon as such. Your problem is that we will not acknowledge that your faith community or your individual set of beliefs belong fully to the Church of Christ. And your problem is that we believe that you are only imperfectly united to the Church of Christ, whereas the Church of Christ subsists in its fullness within the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Sorry, but to acknowledge what you'd like us to acknowledge is heresy, and heresy is not an authentic point for beginning dialogue.