- Nov 16, 2016
- 5,931
- 4,650
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Drop the part about logos, I think.Are you OK with waving red flags in front of bulls?
What exactly would it take for you to agree that it can't be countenanced?
Young mother, 24, is 'shot dead in front of her fiancé after saying "all lives matter"' | Daily Mail Online
I think there can be some discussion of what avatars are allowed - a Satanist avatar would probably not be a good fit - but an avatar that is a statement which is wholly Orthodox shouldn't be under the ban.I'm in agreement that the organization itself is not to be trusted, but I don't think we should police logos (avatars) on TAW.
I feel the same way about MAGA.Like it or not, the statement is polarizing. Christians.. should not countenance deliberate polarization or identifying with a slogan so heavily identified with evil action and intention. Choose another slogan and keep fighting injustice, if you think you really can. If one holds on to the slogan for dear life in spite of its divisive and destructive effects, then methinks they care less about racial injustice and more about their own identification (assuming they're NOT actually supporting the evil organization itself).
Whether or not, ask the people who it has already crushed and killed. Ask Jessica Doty Whitaker's family whether it matters if it is monlithic or not. Like it or not, the statement is polarizing. Christians SHOULD care about racial injustice, though there is so little we can actually do about it. But they should not countenance deliberate polarization or identifying with a slogan so heavily identified with evil action and intention. Choose another slogan and keep fighting injustice, if you think you really can. If one holds on to the slogan for dear life in spite of its divisive and destructive effects, then methinks they care less about racial injustice and more about their own identification (assuming they're NOT actually supporting the evil organization itself).
Aren't those already forbidden on CF? I guess I meant we shouldn't police MORE than CF does, assuming that CF does.I think there can be some discussion of what avatars are allowed - a Satanist avatar would probably not be a good fit - but an avatar that is a statement which is wholly Orthodox shouldn't be under the ban.
Swastikas also had meaning far less sinister before the Nazis began to use the symbol, but the symbol became forever associated with the Nazi evil, making its earlier, more innocent associations irrelevant. We have always said it is not about the words as such as a proposition, but it is equally true to say that red lives matter, yellow lives matter, and so on, because our Liturgy affirms that ALL lives matter, what that young lady was shot for saying. The statement is not wholly Orthodox in intent, for if it were, people would be content to accept the statement "all lives matter". That they are not content indicates political motive, which moves it outside the realm of Orthodox thought.I think there can be some discussion of what avatars are allowed - a Satanist avatar would probably not be a good fit - but an avatar that is a statement which is wholly Orthodox shouldn't be under the ban.
If CF begins supporting things that we cannot accept, then we would HAVE to police more, or leave altogether. It makes no sense to assume that non-Orthodox Christians will hold all Orthodox lines. They don't accept our Tradition, understanding of Church history, and so on, except by chance and inconsistent sympathy (if it were fully consistent, they would become Orthodox). We must strive to discern.Aren't those already forbidden on CF? I guess I meant we shouldn't police MORE than CF does, assuming that CF does.
Agree. That might be a more important rule, if we could formulate it. MAGA on its face isn't exactly anti-Christian, but it is even more poisoned by its use.truncated by me
I feel the same way about MAGA.
I find that to be equally, if not even more, polarizing and just as anti-Christian.
If we're going to start banning social/political slogans and imagery, perhaps all of them should be done away with.
The young woman was not shot for merely saying All Lives Matter. She engaged confrontationally with the group and her comments escalated into racial slur, the "N" word. That does not justify what happened, but your comment is not based on truth.Swastikas also had meaning far less sinister before the Nazis began to use the symbol, but the symbol became forever associated with the Nazi evil, making its earlier, more innocent associations irrelevant. We have always said it is not about the words as such as a proposition, but it is equally true to say that red lives matter, yellow lives matter, and so on, because our Liturgy affirms that ALL lives matter, what that young lady was shot for saying. The statement is not wholly Orthodox in intent, for if it were, people would be content to accept the statement "all lives matter". That they are not content indicates political motive, which moves it outside the realm of Orthodox thought.
Then we should have our own site. But "we" don't. Why we're having this discussion on this non-Orthodox board is beyond me. I guess it's because the volunteer mods keep this place livable...even though they're not Orthodox.If CF begins supporting things that we cannot accept, then we would HAVE to police more, or leave altogether. It makes no sense to assume that non-Orthodox Christians will hold all Orthodox lines. They don't accept our Tradition, understanding of Church history, and so on, except by chance and inconsistent sympathy (if it were fully consistent, they would become Orthodox). We must strive to discern.
Well, yes, and in this context, it's Orthodox enough for the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America to assert. You can certainly disagree with him, that's your right, but I think it would be hard to argue that if he were on this forum he should be banned from saying it.planned parenthood is a statement that (on its own) is wholly Orthodox.
pro-choice (if the choices are raise the baby, adoption, or foster care) is wholly Orthodox.
Opus Dei (Work of God) is a statement that is wholly Orthodox.
Illuminati is a noun that is wholly Orthodox.
etc.
there are a lot of statements that, on their own and aside from the context we all know them to be in, are totally Orthodox.
I would also note it's easy to stir division like this. You see something you don't like from person A, you start complaining about it, now person A's thing is divisive. Let the reader understand.Who proposed the rule and what is its purpose other than to stir further division?
Well, yes, and in this context, it's Orthodox enough for the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America to assert. You can certainly disagree with him, that's your right, but I think it would be hard to argue that if he were on this forum he should be banned from saying it.
Let me know when a bishop does that. More to the point, let me know when a bishop marches with a sign saying "Planned Parenthood" in support of the broad goal of planned parenhood.not a good argument. that'd be like saying that Planned Parenthood logo shouldn't be banned as an avatar on here, because a bishop blessed a Planned Parenthood building because it provides for women's health.
Let me know when a bishop does that. More to the point, let me know when a bishop marches with a sign saying "Planned Parenthood" in support of the broad goal of planned parenhood.
Well, but here's the thing: somebody with a BLM logo is arguably following the lead of the head of the largest jurisdiction of Orthodox Christians in America, which arguably encompasses the majority or Orthodox Christians in America. He is also the head of the Assembly of Bishops, which is kind of like the conference of all Orthodox bishops in America, to give context for the moderator who posted this thread initially. This is something that has happened and quite recently at that. You say this is a bad justification for allowing it because you can come up with a hypothetical that is arguably structurally dissimilar involving Planned Parenthood. I think this is laughably sloppy even if the analogy were better. Fair, Archishop Elpidophoros will likely never be on this forum. But we are dealing with something that has actually happened here! I really don't think we want to get into a position of trying to force people to be more Orthodox than the heads of major jurisdictions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?