Difference between revisions of "Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?"
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is: | Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is: | ||
*''ye are not under law, but under grace'' | *''ye are not under law, but under grace'' | ||
| − | A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or | + | A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT) |
==Template design== | ==Template design== | ||
Revision as of 13:29, August 24, 2020
Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.
Format
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.
The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)
The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". RobSTrump 2Q2Q 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's Summary in that section.
In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion outside the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.
Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
Proposed rules in future debates
- Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.
- Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.
- No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.
Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
Proposal for another Debate
RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
Phony scholarship and phony authority
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head round. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.
Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
- ye are not under law, but under grace
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
Template design
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)