Please Review: New Statement of Purpose

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another issue is the new forum home page. The links to featured threads don't show which forum the threads are posted in, nor does it give people easy access to the SoP.

An example: there was an influx of way out there, very heterodox, posts in a recent thread on TT. I looked at the front page, and sure enough that thread was one of the featured threads on the homepage.

I really think it contributes to this problem. It does give more visibility to posts, and may increase activity. However, it also lessens the visibility of forum specific restrictions. People see a topic title they are interested and post. It's confusing, especially for new members. If I ever use that new homepage feature, I have to make a point to step back, look at the top of the screen and determine the thread's location.

I know it is possible to have some indication of the subforum location, as LDS threads have a little badge on them. I'm not sure why they don't do that for all threads.

Thanks for raising this; we have raised this before, but I agree, it is so in our face right now. I will be raising this concern with our other admins and advisers.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

OKay, I read this `A forum dedicated to the respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History, etc.` and take issue with it on a person level. If this is a Christian forum shouldn`t Jesus` teachings be the bases for our beliefs and shouldn`t re refer back to his teachings to create SoP's and SoF`s?

I don't mean to be argumentative but the church may be wrong on issues but if we don't differ the issues back to Christ and his words then we have exalted the church above Christ.

This is not a "Sola Scriptura" forum. Members who have a compelling need or desire to correct those whom they see in error, based on their interpretation of Scripture, may do so in the other appropriate Theology and General Theology forums; not here. If those who hold a strict, reformed view of Sola Scriptura wish to learn the "who, what, when where and why" of traditional and historic teachings and practice, they are welcome to come here and explore along with the rest of us.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I find both the terms 'mainline' problematic in regard to denominations, and 'traditional' problematic in regard to theology - when talking about tradition are we not talking mostly about forms of worship - hymns, psalms, use of musical instruments, incense, icons etc?

Therefore i find the term puzzling in regard to describing theology and wonder what the forum is really there to discuss?

I find the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' when applied to religion to be things that are designed to pidgeon-hole and they do not always shed light on anything. It's all so neat and tidy, but I'm not that neat and tidy, Don't call me liberal but calling me conservative does not define me. I suspect the word 'traditional', I know the word 'traditional' suffers from the same problem. Am I a Catholic traditionalist? No, even though I do like the Latin Mass. By some Catholic traditionalists that makes me anti-traditional. Am I pre-Vatican II or post-Vatican II? Neither. I don't accept that the Catholic Church got reinvented at Vatican II and I don't pick one side or the other in what I consider to be a fake choice between the pre- and post- Vatican II religions. So depending on how you look at it I'm either traditional or not traditional.

Having fairly well defined how the word is intended in this context, it will always be a bit of an uphill battle with people, often wonderful people, who think of themselves as traditional when they mean something entirely different by the term. I'm just saying a neat and tidy definition in a SOP somewhere will still mean that there will be some confusion. Part of the territory?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I find the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' when applied to religion to be things that are designed to pidgeon-hole and they do not always shed light on anything. It's all so neat and tidy, but I'm not that neat and tidy, Don't call me liberal but calling me conservative does not define me. I suspect the word 'traditional', I know the word 'traditional' suffers from the same problem. Am I a Catholic traditionalist? No, even though I do like the Latin Mass. By some Catholic traditionalists that makes me anti-traditional. Am I pre-Vatican II or post-Vatican II? Neither. I don't accept that the Catholic Church got reinvented at Vatican II and I don't pick one side or the other in what I consider to be a fake choice between the pre- and post- Vatican II religions. So depending on how you look at it I'm either traditional or not traditional.

Having fairly well defined how the word is intended in this context, it will always be a bit of an uphill battle with people, often wonderful people, who think of themselves as traditional when they mean something entirely different by the term. I'm just saying a neat and tidy definition in a SOP somewhere will still mean that there will be some confusion. Part of the territory?

So very true.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It sounds like we need a definition of the word "Tradition" as that seems to be causing a great deal of misunderstanding.

 

[All4Christ]

Thanks for raising this; we have raised this before, but I agree, it is so in our face right now. I will be raising this concern with our other admins and advisers.

Thanks! I actually posted this particular issue in the MSC tech support area under a thread about the new homepage, but hadn't heard a response. Thanks for raising up the concern!

 

[All4Christ]

It sounds like we need a definition of the word "Tradition" as that seems to be causing a great deal of misunderstanding.

Agreed 100%.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for raising this; we have raised this before, but I agree, it is so in our face right now. I will be raising this concern with our other admins and advisers.

Another point, Mark, I think it's still doing this. I have found interesting thread titles there and gone in to read MANY posts, only to find when all is said and done that the thread is already locked. Yes, of course there is a symbol that told me that and it's my own fault for not being observant. But what is even the point of drawing people's attention to locked threads? If the idea is to involve people in discussion, that's prime real estate wasted on a dead horse.

Just my 2 cents. Sorry for the essentially OT post.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another point, Mark, I think it's still doing this. I have found interesting thread titles there and gone in to read MANY posts, only to find when all is said and done that the thread is already locked. Yes, of course there is a symbol that told me that and it's my own fault for not being observant. But what is even the point of drawing people's attention to locked threads? If the idea is to involve people in discussion, that's prime real estate wasted on a dead horse.

Just my 2 cents. Sorry for the essentially OT post.

Thanks! I have passed this along to. I have called in the Tech Admin as well, and we have people in the thread now.

Thanks! I actually posted this particular issue in the MSC tech support area under a thread about the new homepage, but hadn't heard a response. Thanks for raising up the concern!

Could you send me a link to that post in a PM, I'll make sure it is linked to our staff discussion thread as well.

 

[All4Christ]

Could you send me a link to that post in a PM, I'll make sure it is linked to our staff discussion thread as well.

Sent!

 

[All4Christ]

<Staff Edit>
Certainly Christ is first and foremost for all of us. None of us that I know put the Church above Christ. Christ is the head of the Church. He did provide assistance for us and did not leave us on our own. Through the Holy Spirit's guidance, the Church can assist in leading us towards Christ.

In my Tradition, for example, we believe that the Bible is the supreme expression of God's revelation to the human race. In fact, the Bible is the primary record in the theological tradition and worship of the Church. The main source of patristic theology is the Holy Scripture part of Holy Tradition.

The Church and Holy Tradition (which includes Scripture) guides us in understanding Scripture and the deposit of faith passed down throughout the centuries, and in living out our lives for God. That said, nothing can or does contradict Scripture.

I once believed as you do, so I understand where you are coming from. That said, at that time I was not fully understanding the perspective of those who use Tradition in their understanding of the Word of God and in their lives. Perhaps if you stick around, you will start to see that we do put Christ first, and that utilizing the tools provided to us by Holy Tradition doesn't detract from our faith in God, but rather enhances it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

<Staff Edit>

I will second what All4Christ said, and even more ... While it was the theology that initially drew my attention to the Orthodox Church, it is the PRACTICE which forms His life in us. I couldn't agree with you more.

Perhaps you misunderstand what we mean by "Church" and "Tradition". I know that I did at one time.

 

[keltoi]

I'm sorry I also have concerns about this. What tradition are we talking about? Biblical traditions or Greaco-Roman traditions that have become the mainstay of some? To me theology should be Bible based not tradition based.

 

[~Anastasia~]

As I said .... I believe we need a definition of what Tradition actually is.

 

[~Anastasia~]

<Staff Edit>
It's past 3am here and I cannot continue to keep an eye and respond, so I am temporarily locking this thread. I fear you are on dangerous ground since you have already been warned, so for your own sake and for the sake of peace in the forum, this can be sorted out when someone is available.

If nothing else, posts that argue against Tradition are off-topic to this forum. As I have said, there is clearly a misunderstanding of what we mean when we say "Tradition".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

This thread has undergone a cleanup. This thread is so we may ask questions and discuss the Statement of Purpose, not argue against it.

Further disruption of this thread will result in staff actions which may include warnings and even removal of access to Christian Forums.

Please stay on topic.

Reopening thread now.

Mark
CF Admin

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

As I said .... I believe we need a definition of what Tradition actually is.

I'm sorry I also have concerns about this. What tradition are we talking about? Biblical traditions or Greaco-Roman traditions that have become the mainstay of some? To me theology should be Bible based not tradition based.

We have maintained a rather "open" definition of what tradition is. We have done so, because we have looked at many ways of tightening up that definition, and found that when we tried, we ended up excluding some groups of members that should be included.

As it stands, this is as tight as it's going to be presently. If we can add clarifications such as the one I just did provided by hederick, that is great; but we will not add clarifications that exclude access any further than what is contained here:

Traditional Theology Forum Statement of Purpose

A forum dedicated to the respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History, etc. If you are not a traditional Christian according to the following definition, you may not debate issues or teach against traditional Christian theology. Active promotion of views contrary to traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History, etc. will be considered off topic. Non-traditional Christians are welcome to post in fellowship or ask questions about traditional Christianity (no debate).
​

If one is at odds with (and some who posted here are) some, or all of the above, it's a fair assumption that the are not Traditional as defined for the sake of this forum. That does not mean that they can not post here, it means that they can not tell those who hold these traditions are that they are wrong. CF has other forums for that; but this is not one of them.

I hope this helps.

Mark

 

[All4Christ]

We have maintained a rather "open" definition of what tradition is. We have done so, because we have looked at many ways of tightening up that definition, and found that when we tried, we ended up excluding some groups of members that should be included.

As it stands, this is as tight as it's going to be presently. If we can add clarifications such as the one I just did provided by hederick, that is great; but we will not add clarifications that exclude access any further than what is contained here:

Traditional Theology Forum Statement of Purpose

A forum dedicated to the respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History, etc. If you are not a traditional Christian according to the following definition, you may not debate issues or teach against traditional Christian theology. Active promotion of views contrary to traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History, etc. will be considered off topic. Non-traditional Christians are welcome to post in fellowship or ask questions about traditional Christianity (no debate).
​

If one is at odds with (and some who posted here are) some, or all of the above, it's a fair assumption that the are not Traditional as defined for the sake of this forum. That does not mean that they can not post here, it means that they can not tell those who hold these traditions are that they are wrong. CF has other forums for that; but this is not one of them.

I hope this helps.

Mark

And to clarify - CF has other forums for people to say that these traditions are wrong, but no where on CF are they permitted to say that people from these groups are not Christian. [emoji846]

 

[All4Christ]

...

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you, Mark. I'm not looking to exclude people either, but to stay within topic.

But to be honest, I'm not sure some people are able to read what you posted above and understand what we mean at all. There is a segment who will see such things as

"Traditions of men" vs. "what Jesus taught"

or

"Tradition" vs "the Bible".


If that's how they understand it, then I understand their need to argue against it.

I think the part where you discussed things that Tradition tends to encompass, without being completely rigid, is very helpful. And indeed, maybe explaining what constitutes Tradition or where it comes from could begin to get into lines that would divide where we don't wish to. (I'm not entirely sure, because I'm not sure of that answer for some of our members - it was not a question I asked until my focus had already turned to the Orthodox Church.)

I'm just thinking back to certain posts that I wasn't sure how to respond to, and where/how do we uphold the purpose without having a clear definition (as well as sympathizing with those who have a knee-jerk reaction because of misunderstanding).