Staff/Members discussion [report-free]

[Edial]

That's always been the area of contention and sensitivity and the struggle for us Orthodox - trying to explain a theology or belief system that is false or as some said here, evil, and separating that from the followers of that theology or belief system. It seems a tightrope and many times the people you are engaged in conversation with don't get the distinction. I've had that in the past debating in GT several times. I don't go there anymore because it only caused unsettling and no peace in my soul, and frankly, a waste of my time.

We used to have something called "General Apologetic".
We eventually had to close that forum. Horrible.

2015 should bring a lot of new and exciting changes to CF.

Let's see how this develops.

 

[Kristos]

Another thing is that I think it is totally wrong for Orthodox to appeal to non-Orthodox over what is Orthodox. We don't have 100% agreement on doctrine - though we ought to, and so part of the issue - one that I will only discuss with other Orthodox - is whether particular ideas can be considered compatible with Orthodox teaching. GZT believes in a "broad spectrum" (which I interpret as multiplicity of opinion on what Orthodox teaching is regarding the consensus of what has been established), evidently touching even doctrine. I do not, though I certainly concede that local practices may legitimately vary considerably. But the only aspect of that that concerns non-Orthodox moderation is that it is an internal matter - a person must first have accepted the authority of the Church in its consensus to correct any individual opinion - even my own (as I do accept). Gzt and I can have it out without outside assistance.

In those cases, those convinced that an idea is incompatible with Orthodox theology are going to be logical in not welcoming that idea, again as distinct from the person.

Main reasons for me leaving are: a sustained presence of members identifying as Orthodox teaching in contradiction to Orthodoxy and being tolerated by the Orthodox laity as a whole in doing so, or non-Orthodox censoring expression of Orthodox members in our own sub-forum. The first caused me to drop out last summer, the second is what pushed me away just now.

I'm talking ONLY about what goes on in TAW. Other forums do not interest me.

I think that inclusive statement was meant more of an olive branch than an insinuation that we should accept doctrinal pluralism.

Case in point - I think that YEC is not Orthodox. Should I force the issue? Should I say that YEC is the product of demonic protestant theology that has superimposed an atheistic and materialistic worldview onto scripture thus perverting its meaning. In general I choose not to make such accusations, but according to your ideals I may be accepting pluralism into TAW and even into the faith. In all honesty, I do find it very troubling for many reason, but at the same time I don't really an upside to forcing the issue here.

 

[Edial]

Part of the problem is that being right does not remove the responsibility to be polite. Not that I don't transgress that, as I'm always right but sometimes not polite. But we have to realize that some things, even if we think they're right and true, are not helpful to say on a public forum. I mean, "Protestantism" is still usually prefaced in my mind by "the satanic delusion of...". It is not helpful to say this aloud every time we discuss the satanic delusion of Protestantism.

If you want to discuss "unwelcome" or "unsafe", the question isn't about the people who are still here, but the people who are left. The loud voices who are declaiming loudly about inevitability have largely drowned out the less "traditional" voices by making it very tiresome to be anything other a particular strand of Orthodox and represent that view in the forum. I'm strongly of the opinion that, since this is a public board that has a lot of inquirers, newly-illumined, or just friendly strangers, that we should be quite careful of the type of discourse we have so that we represent the breadth of the experience of Orthodoxy and don't "forbid" views that are Orthodox but not fitting into one small strand of Orthodoxy. This doesn't mean "accepting heresy" or "being politically correct" (1994 called...), but it does mean that lengthy diatribes against views that are common and legitimate within Orthodoxy aren't really appropriate, that politics has to be discussed very carefully, and it's not a good idea to psychologize others' responses by trying to fit them into a grand world narrative: that's rude (cf Peter Suber, "Logical Rudeness").

There are 2 causes to disruptive posting.

1. Troublemakers who enjoy causing pain and harming online individuals. Once we find those we roast them.

2. Regular posters who get frustrated. With these were have mentoring, discuss improving their posting style, how to avoid traps, etc.
These are regular people who got frustrated. It happens.

 

[Anhelyna]

I've been reading this thread with great interest. I'm probably the longest serving member of TAW who is not Orthodox - I was brought here originally by an Orthodox poster.

I was surprised how friendly posters were to me - I made it very very plain that I was Catholic and I knew and understood what the boundaries for me were. I've received nothing but friendship and support here .

Now for the BUT

Increasingly over the last few years , we have had people coming in here and telling us what they believe we think / believe . Not all were honest about their affiliation , whether it was Catholic [ of all varieties ] Protestant or even Orthodox. Because of this I think a lot of folk started to get a tad shirty in responses - till then TAW had largely moderated itself - we all knew who/what/we were .

This has all led to TAW getting less comfortable - yes we can , and do, still give help to those who ask questions in good faith - but when we spot those who are, so-to-speak , leading us on , then we can sometimes get very very direct and can be pretty blunt at times. It's hard to ignore these challenges , and at times in the Liturgical Year we can get a trifle testy because of our own , umm trying to explain things here is not easy , fasting and preparation .

A huge amount of teaching can , and has been done here , but the way that PC is creeping in everywhere [ even in the UK ] is making things difficult and we seem to be looking over our shoulders far more than we should be doing.

I take Ed's point about posting responses to the post not the poster - but that's not always easy , or indeed possible. There are too many people pushing the boundaries.

We've lost some really good folk here in the past - the button has been hit on some folk once too often and I suspect sometimes it has been deliberately done to try and get someone off - I can't quote examples - it's just a feeling I have. I really don't understand , at times, why we don't ignore folk [ not necessarily actually putting them on 'ignore' ] instead of taking the bait [ which is probably just what they wanted us to do ]. And yes - I'm guilty of this too .

Now moving on to boards outside TAW - if we go elsewhere , to try and counter false impressions about us we have a hard job - there can be a lot of name calling and this can really hurt - we become at times aggressively defensive of our positions on Doctrine and praxis etc. I only ever post in two areas - I've looked at others and run away in horror . I've equally looked at some and wondered why is there no obvious moderation being done when language used is sometimes so crude my hair stands on end - and believe me I'm no prude .

I don't know the answer to the problems - but there surely must be some answers - we can't afford to let TAW disintegrate and vanish

 

[Edial]

I've been reading this thread with great interest. I'm probably the longest serving member of TAW who is not Orthodox - I was brought here originally by an Orthodox poster.

I was surprised how friendly posters were to me - I made it very very plain that I was Catholic and I knew and understood what the boundaries for me were. I've received nothing but friendship and support here .

Now for the BUT

Increasingly over the last few years , we have had people coming in here and telling us what they believe we think / believe . Not all were honest about their affiliation , whether it was Catholic [ of all varieties ] Protestant or even Orthodox. Because of this I think a lot of folk started to get a tad shirty in responses - till then TAW had largely moderated itself - we all knew who/what/we were .

This has all led to TAW getting less comfortable - yes we can , and do, still give help to those who ask questions in good faith - but when we spot those who are, so-to-speak , leading us on , then we can sometimes get very very direct and can be pretty blunt at times. It's hard to ignore these challenges , and at times in the Liturgical Year we can get a trifle testy because of our own , umm trying to explain things here is not easy , fasting and preparation .

A huge amount of teaching can , and has been done here , but the way that PC is creeping in everywhere [ even in the UK ] is making things difficult and we seem to be looking over our shoulders far more than we should be doing.

I take Ed's point about posting responses to the post not the poster - but that's not always easy , or indeed possible. There are too many people pushing the boundaries.

We've lost some really good folk here in the past - the button has been hit on some folk once too often and I suspect sometimes it has been deliberately done to try and get someone off - I can't quote examples - it's just a feeling I have. I really don't understand , at times, why we don't ignore folk [ not necessarily actually putting them on 'ignore' ] instead of taking the bait [ which is probably just what they wanted us to do ]. And yes - I'm guilty of this too .

Now moving on to boards outside TAW - if we go elsewhere , to try and counter false impressions about us we have a hard job - there can be a lot of name calling and this can really hurt - we become at times aggressively defensive of our positions on Doctrine and praxis etc. I only ever post in two areas - I've looked at others and run away in horror . I've equally looked at some and wondered why is there no obvious moderation being done when language used is sometimes so crude my hair stands on end - and believe me I'm no prude .

I don't know the answer to the problems - but there surely must be some answers - we can't afford to let TAW disintegrate and vanish

Hi Anhelyna.

I do know what the answer is - on-going communication and working together with CF leadership.

1. We should have regular meetings between Senior Staff including Advisors and members right here in TAW.

2. Whatever complaints, concerns or issues you have, these may be brought up to your Category Supervisors.

3. Issues related to specific individuals - open thread in MSC.

4. If you are dissatisfied with the results - ask for an Advisor and we would look this over.

 

[gzt]

I don't know that we need more Orthodox moderators - there are like 12 people on the forum.

 

[xenia]

So, if you open a thread in American Politics about why Islam is wrong, the topic has nothing to do with American Politics.<<<

As I recall, Seashale's warning did not chastise her for being off topic but for not respecting Islam.

 

[pdudgeon]

n/m

 

[Edial]

So, if you open a thread in American Politics about why Islam is wrong, the topic has nothing to do with American Politics.<<<

As I recall, Seashale's warning did not chastise her for being off topic but for not respecting Islam.

There are two issues here.

One is opening an off-topic thread in an outside forum of the News and Events. This cannot be done.

Tn that particular case, it was just a single post concerning Islam that was a part of a on-topic thread.

She received a warning (that could have been reversed after mentoring) for relating Islam with sex slavery (which indeed is found in Koran).
The mentoring would have explained that not all Muslims believe in sex-slavery despite of it being in Koran. And they are still considered Muslims by other Muslims.

So, if we say that Extremist Islam believes in self-slavery then it would be a true statement.

Political Correctness is one of the things that is very distasteful at least to this Advisor. I am sure the other 3 Advisors agree.
But we should not confuse PC with inaccuracy of statements.

So, if you say that Fundamentalist or Extremist Islam is violent, or destructive to neighboring societies - sure, you have a great point. Go for it.
If you say Islam is that way, it is an incorrect statement because in the West there are "wishy-washy" Muslims (in the Fundamentalists' opinions) who do not believe in violence.
Yet, they are accepted as part of Islam.

Call it Historical Islam, Fundamentalist Islam, Extremist Islam or even Islam of the Koran as violent and destructive.

You are saying the SAME thing and the Muslims who do not believe in blowing up buses would not be flamed.

Once we see that poster who received a warning understands and agrees to follow this, the warning would probably reversed

Does this make sense?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Dorothea]

We used to have something called "General Apologetic".
We eventually had to close that forum. Horrible.

2015 should bring a lot of new and exciting changes to CF.

Let's see how this develops.

That is nice to know, Edial.

 

[NamelessHero]

I think discussion of Islam in a negative way is okay, as long as claims are factual and done in a non insulting way.
Good example: ISIS is a group of Islamic extremists that promote violence.
Bad example: All musims are evil and violent and should be killed!!!!!!!!! EVIL!!!!!
Good example: Some Muslims think violence is the best way, and in my opinion that's not right.
Bad example: I HATE ALL MUSLIMS! I WILL GO ON A RAMPAGE AND KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Now for the more realistic example)
Good example: I think that Islamic groups like ISIS are evil and a threat to peace.
Bad example: All musims are evil and worship demons!

 

[Edial]

I think discussion of Islam in a negative way is okay, as long as claims are factual and done in a non insulting way.
Good example: ISIS is a group of Islamic extremists that promote violence.
Bad example: All musims are evil and violent and should be killed!!!!!!!!! EVIL!!!!!
Good example: Some Muslims think violence is the best way, and in my opinion that's not right.
Bad example: I HATE ALL MUSLIMS! I WILL GO ON A RAMPAGE AND KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Now for the more realistic example)
Good example: I think that Islamic groups like ISIS are evil and a threat to peace.
Bad example: All musims are evil and worship demons!

Thank you for very good examples.

 

[topcare]

(Non Christian here)
Well, this is a CHRISTIAN website so it shouldn't be against the rules for a Christian to express their opinion so long as they are not being rude to another person about it.

Seems it is though. I expect as such from the world but not someplace that claims it's a Christian site

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don't know of anyone in any part of CF who says all Muslims are evil? So why give the example? I do know people, myself included, who say Islam is an evil religion 100%, but since its adherents are often good individuals and ignorant of the Truth of the Orthodox faith, they themselves are not some kind of scum....just misguided. Their religion IS evil, however. It is a Christian heresy, so it is evil.

I also don't know any "jihadist" style Christians in CF who advocate killing all Muslims?

Yet there are PPPLLLLEEEEENNNTTY of Muslims in their world who DO say "kill all the Christians!" the ultimate irony.

So, no offense to TopCare, but your examples are non-sequiturs or possibly just irrelevant. I don't know any Orthodox Christians who speak in either of those modes.

 

[NamelessHero]

I don't know of anyone in any part of CF who says all Muslims are evil? So why give the example? I do know people, myself included, who say Islam is an evil religion 100%, but since its adherents are often good individuals and ignorant of the Truth of the Orthodox faith, they themselves are not some kind of scum....just misguided. Their religion IS evil, however. It is a Christian heresy, so it is evil.

I also don't know any "jihadist" style Christians in CF who advocate killing all Muslims?

Yet there are PPPLLLLEEEEENNNTTY of Muslims in their world who DO say "kill all the Christians!" the ultimate irony.

So, no offense to TopCare, but your examples are non-sequiturs or possibly just irrelevant. I don't know any Orthodox Christians who speak in either of those modes.

I was just giving examples of what should/shouldn't be allowed.

 

[topcare]

I don't know of anyone in any part of CF who says all Muslims are evil? So why give the example? I do know people, myself included, who say Islam is an evil religion 100%, but since its adherents are often good individuals and ignorant of the Truth of the Orthodox faith, they themselves are not some kind of scum....just misguided. Their religion IS evil, however. It is a Christian heresy, so it is evil.

I also don't know any "jihadist" style Christians in CF who advocate killing all Muslims?

Yet there are PPPLLLLEEEEENNNTTY of Muslims in their world who DO say "kill all the Christians!" the ultimate irony.

So, no offense to TopCare, but your examples are non-sequiturs or possibly just irrelevant. I don't know any Orthodox Christians who speak in either of those modes.

I didn't give any examples

 

[Edial]

Dear TAW members.
Would you like to have staff/member general discussions in the future concerning topic that interest you?

This particular discussion I should admit came out a bit awkward since there seemed to be some misunderstanding and miscommunication.

Do you have other questions?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Antony in Tx]

Ed,

I think that staff discussions, if only to better acquaint the staff with EO people ad how we think, would be helpful for all. Orthodox Christianity is a really different mindset, and I think that we could learn about from/about each other with continued dialogue.

That said, expecting change from Orthodox Christians is a futile endeavor. The old joke:
Q: How many Orthodox Christians does it take to change a light bulb?

A: What is this "change" thing that you speak of?

If you ponder on this, it will enlighten and amuse!

In Christ,
Antony

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My sincere apologies, top. You are correct indeed. I meant Nameless Hero. Again, I'm quite sorry. I was reading your post and multi-tasking. My mistake.

I didn't give any examples

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ed,

I think that staff discussions, if only to better acquaint the staff with EO people ad how we think, would be helpful for all. Orthodox Christianity is a really different mindset, and I think that we could learn about from/about each other with continued dialogue.

That said, expecting change from Orthodox Christians is a futile endeavor. The old joke:
Q: How many Orthodox Christians does it take to change a light bulb?

A: What is this "change" thing that you speak of?

If you ponder on this, it will enlighten and amuse!

In Christ,
Antony