Debate Procedure

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hilbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eric,

As a non-Catholic, I wanted to thank you (and the other mods too) for working so hard to make this place a relatively balanced place for people to engage in civilized debates about religious viewpoints. At first, I thought this site would be heavily slanted in moderator actions, but I was very happy to see I was wrong. Thank you for your hard work, dedication, and balanced perspective.

God Bless.
 
Eric,
Click to expand...
As a non-Catholic, I wanted to thank you (and the other mods too) for working so hard to make this place a relatively balanced place for people to engage in civilized debates about religious viewpoints. At first, I thought this site would be heavily slanted in moderator actions, but I was very happy to see I was wrong. Thank you for your hard work, dedication, and balanced perspective.
Click to expand...
God Bless.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. Well said!

Thank you Eric, for supporting civilized and respectful dialogue between people of differing faiths and beliefs on this forum. A very important service indeed.
 
GuyNextDoor said:
**

No problem.** The only reason as to why I took the picture down is because I do not wish to brand the man as a common criminal based on your explanation since the picture was done while he was imprisoned**, despite my disbelief of him to be a prophet of any sort.

If the reason however as some Baha’i explained to me was due to him being a holy man and we should not display his image, then it will be another story altogether which I am not bound to.

Thank you for your explanation which seems much more reasonable.
Click to expand...
There are two known pictures of Baha’u’llah that can be both found here:
fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Baha%27u%27llah%27s%20Passport%20Photo.htm

There is nothing in the photos that would imply he was considered a common criminal. In fact his posture shows the contrary. Furthermore, these photographs are displayed to Baha’i pilgrims when they visit Haifa. If they get to see those photos of him when they go on pilgrimage, they I don’t see why we shouldn’t:

“In one of His epistles, Abdu’l-Bahá, the son of Bahá’u’lláh, wrote that two photographs of Bahá’u’lláh were taken, both in Adrianople, Turkey, each in a different pose. There are copies of both pictures at the Bahá’í World Centre and one of these is displayed in the International Archives where it is viewed by Bahá’í pilgrims. The image reproduced on the Web site in question seems to be a poor reproduction of one of these photographs.” bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_website_photo_bahaullah

Respecting the beliefs of others and not insulting them is one thing but going around on internet forums telling non-Baha’is to pull down images of Baha’u’llah because they are only allowed to view it when they go to pilgrimage is another. Furthermore, there is nothing in Baha’u’llah’s writings that indicates his photo should not be publicly displayed.
 
Randy_Carson said:
The Eastern Orthodox have expressed unhappiness when the names of their Patriarchs and Metropolitans have been expressed as “Timothy Ware” (or even just Ware as in “Ware went on to say…”) rather than with a + in front of their names or without full titles. Catholics are more accustomed to referring to “The Weekly Francis” by Jimmy Akin or “The Ratzinger Report”. What is required here?
Click to expand...
I don’t think full titles are necessary. Just a degree of respect for their status within their own churches.

E.g. calling him Timothy Ware in an apologetic context makes it sound like you’re denying his monastic profession as Kallistos.

Just as a reference to Mr. Welby, rather than Archbishop Justin/Welby in some contexts, would be taken as a cheap shot at Anglican orders.

Obviously fine if that’s what’s being civilly discussed, but in passing we should err on the side of politeness.
 
Gorgias said:
Matthew,

I’m unaware of the original thread in which this controversy surfaced. What is it about the linking of a photo that is ‘casual use’? What is it about ‘casual use’ that is ‘inappropriate’? What, in the context of the photo, is objectionable?

Thanks!

G.
Click to expand...
Actually the picture had nothing to do with this thread, in fact I don’t ever remember seeing a complaint about it.
 
Novocastrian said:
I don’t think full titles are necessary. Just a degree of respect for their status within their own churches.

E.g. calling him Timothy Ware in an apologetic context makes it sound like you’re denying his monastic profession as Kallistos.

Just as a reference to Mr. Welby, rather than Archbishop Justin/Welby in some contexts, would be taken as a cheap shot at Anglican orders.

Obviously fine if that’s what’s being civilly discussed, but in passing we should err on the side of politeness.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
If an evangelical Protestant doesn’t wish to call a priest ‘Father’, he can replace it with ‘Reverend’ or ‘Pastor’. It’s simple respect.
 
Respecting the beliefs of others and not insulting them is one thing but going around on internet forums telling non-Baha’is to pull down images of Baha’u’llah because they are only allowed to view it when they go to pilgrimage is another.
Click to expand...
Where has anyone done this?
 
Novocastrian said:
I don’t think full titles are necessary. Just a degree of respect for their status within their own churches.

E.g. calling him Timothy Ware in an apologetic context makes it sound like you’re denying his monastic profession as Kallistos.

Just as a reference to Mr. Welby, rather than Archbishop Justin/Welby in some contexts, would be taken as a cheap shot at Anglican orders.

Obviously fine if that’s what’s being civilly discussed, but in passing we should err on the side of politeness.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that its a matter of disrespect which one posts a abbreviated name or title. Some of this Im certain is unawareness. Same with all other faiths. Some of this occurs in passing conversations in which case while its certainly respectful of the individuals title to be mentioned, I don’t think everyone is required to know all these titles in various religions. Perhaps its wise to google. I think for example Bishop Timothy Ware is fine. Don’t you?
 
GaryTaylor said:
I don’t know that its a matter of disrespect which one posts a abbreviated name or title. Some of this Im certain is unawareness. Same with all other faiths. Some of this occurs in passing conversations in which case while its certainly respectful of the individuals title to be mentioned, I don’t think everyone is required to know all these titles in various religions. Perhaps its wise to google. I think for example Bishop Timothy Ware is fine. Don’t you?
Click to expand...
Well, with regard to the “Timothy” part, he has taken a new name, Kallistos, just as our Pope took the name “Francis”.

I can agree with using that new name properly. 👍
 
Thanks for the reminders. It’s easy to let emotion carry one away when debating.
Ask me how I know! 😉
 
Randy_Carson said:
Well, with regard to the “Timothy” part, he has taken a new name, Kallistos, just as our Pope took the name “Francis”.

I can agree with using that new name properly. 👍
Click to expand...
See, I wasn’t aware of this. For me what usually happens is I will read an article and often quote similar to the article. In which case I have seen the specific address of an individual vary. Course for me I know he is a Bishop so had an article used just Timothy Ware, then in respect I have added Bishop. So to some degree people I have to believe are quoting from an article and apply the same respect by the author of the article.

Needless to say I have no problem respecting these people.
 
Eric_Hilbert said:
There has been some discussion lately among the mods in regard to certain debate issues.
I want to make this debate-friendly forum, so I allow a lot of rope in regard to people’s style.
But for clarification, here are the rules (not written by me) for inter-religious dialogue:
Guidelines

The bolded above is where a certain amount of judgement must be exercised. Referring to a historical religious figure as a “liar”, when that figure is held in esteem by adherents of that religion, shows contempt for that religion. “Every religion has its dignity,” Pope Francis says, and that is what we will follow.
You actually CAN debate with respect and charity.
We want NCRs to be debate friendly, and I know we can achieve this.

I’ll leave this thread open.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Eric, for the clarification. We non-Catholic regulars do appreciate the “guest house” you provide for us. The general level of respect is not always found on other Internet boards.
 
robwar said:
I am surprised that I’ve seen threads that ask if the reformation was inspired by the devil or calling all Protestants “heretics”. What concerns me has been the tone and attitude and that these sorts of threads do more to drive people away than draw them in.
Click to expand...
Yes tone and attitude can drive people away. And I’m sure from the tone and example expressed by Pope Francis that driving people away is not the message he is sending the Catholic faithful to do.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Yes tone and attitude can drive people away. And I’m sure from the tone and example expressed by Pope Francis that driving people away is not the message he is sending the Catholic faithful to do.
Click to expand...
No, but we will not comprise our values just to get more members.

It isn’t a popularity contest.
 
**Thanks for bumping this.
Keep in mind, we are not ‘debating’ the debate procedures. Being adult and respectful of what others hold dear is not compromising, it is imitating what Jesus did. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top