Dialogue and Debate

[Tomyris]

**Okay folks, some here seem to need a refresher on dialogue and debate with non-Catholic religions. Since we have more Lutherans in NCR than at any time in the past, those Catholics who are debating Lutherans need to understand the below rules still apply.

Now, to make it clear, discussing whether or not Martin Luther or any other Reformer was mentally ill (I don’t think they’re available to be psychoanalyzed at the moment), falls into that. Discussing any past sins they committed, (he who is without sin?), also falls into that.
If you wish to debate, do so by putting yourself in the shoes of the person you are talking to.
Such remarks when I was still Protestant drove me away and were added to my list of dislikes for Catholics.
These rules are NOT open for debate.

I’ll leave this thread open if you wish to comment.**

Thank you, Eric.

It’s tempting to bash the Luther bashers, but I have said enough.

 

[GKC]

I think that was the letter of More I read. And yeah, it was pretty harsh.

But hey, he ended up a saint, so I figure there’s still hope for me yet.

I’ve read a few sizzling paras from both of the combatants.

Tough talk.

GKC

 

[spina1953]

I’ve read a few sizzling paras from both of the combatants.

Tough talk.

GKC

Hi GKC: What’s great about living in a glass house is that everyone can throw rocks at each other too see who’s house falls first, but then again one can’t everything said about Luther seriously all the time.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Okay folks, some here seem to need a refresher on dialogue and debate with non-Catholic religions. Since we have more Lutherans in NCR than at any time in the past, those Catholics who are debating Lutherans need to understand the below rules still apply.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs

**
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

Now, to make it clear, discussing whether or not Martin Luther or any other Reformer was mentally ill (I don’t think they’re available to be psychoanalyzed at the moment), falls into that. Discussing any past sins they committed, (he who is without sin?), also falls into that.
If you wish to debate, do so by putting yourself in the shoes of the person you are talking to.
Such remarks when I was still Protestant drove me away and were added to my list of dislikes for Catholics.
These rules are NOT open for debate.

I’ll leave this thread open if you wish to comment.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

It’s fun to speculate to have a foul-mouthr Luther amongst our midst - but I agree that he would last a bit longer than one post.

For all his fault’s, the man wasn’t vapid and would have adjusted his tone for the audience - as he did when debating Church powers when summoned.

Very good point.
We generally do not speak the same way in a business conference that we do at the local pub.

 

[Peter_J]

It has been mentioned before that, not many generations ago, Catholics also heaped a great deal of scorn on an Orthodox saint, Patriarch Photios of Constantinople … but I think it’s worth mentioning here too, since it shows that relations can in fact improve.