At member request, let's open up a polite, coherent, research-based discussion on historic religion in the context of the mid-19th century. If you have questions about how a particular sect might have handled something, or how a person of religious persuasion might be regarded in society, or fit into the larger social context, this would be a good place to ask.
Religion *can* be a touchy subject, but it doesn't need to be. Let's keep to these discussion ground rules, which are consistent with the AC Forum rules:
1: Keep it Historic. Religious dogma, tenets, and culture do change over time, and we're not interested in anything past 1866.
2: Keep it Neutral. We're discussing the past. Nothing that anyone did or didn't do in the mid-19th century has any bearing on your own personal faith today. It is entirely possible to have calm discussion of controversial historic religious aspects.
3: No Witnessing. This is not the thread for urging people toward your particular faith, or sharing faith/conversion stories. That would be "MODERN" religion... see Rule 1.
4: No Bashing. Yes, we may touch on unsavory aspects of mid-19th century religious observance (or lack thereof.) But since we're discussing history, not personal faith, this won't be a problem, right?
So, folks, keep it clean and civil and back up your thoughts with historic documentation. "I think they would have" won't work. :) If your comments cross the line from the rules, they will be edited or removed, to keep the focus of the discussion intact.
What shall we discuss first?
Religion *can* be a touchy subject, but it doesn't need to be. Let's keep to these discussion ground rules, which are consistent with the AC Forum rules:
1: Keep it Historic. Religious dogma, tenets, and culture do change over time, and we're not interested in anything past 1866.
2: Keep it Neutral. We're discussing the past. Nothing that anyone did or didn't do in the mid-19th century has any bearing on your own personal faith today. It is entirely possible to have calm discussion of controversial historic religious aspects.
3: No Witnessing. This is not the thread for urging people toward your particular faith, or sharing faith/conversion stories. That would be "MODERN" religion... see Rule 1.
4: No Bashing. Yes, we may touch on unsavory aspects of mid-19th century religious observance (or lack thereof.) But since we're discussing history, not personal faith, this won't be a problem, right?
So, folks, keep it clean and civil and back up your thoughts with historic documentation. "I think they would have" won't work. :) If your comments cross the line from the rules, they will be edited or removed, to keep the focus of the discussion intact.
What shall we discuss first?
Comment