The problem of Orthodox zealotry on CF

[dzheremi]

I don't think I agree with that. I mean, I post here sometimes and have yet to be run out on the rails. It can sometimes feel like it's a bit of a lost art, but people can disagree with each other on major things and still not be terrible to one another on a personal level. This forum and precious few other areas of this website are proof of that.

 

[Not David]

I don't think I agree with that. I mean, I post here sometimes and have to be run out on the rails. It can sometimes feel like it's a bit of a lost art, but people can disagree with each other on major things and still not be terrible to one another on a personal level. This forum and precious few other areas of this website are proof of that.

I don't say they can't, maybe it is because I am a Youngster but I used to be part of a college club, I stopped believing in the fundamentals and then all of my "friends" stopped talking to me.

 

[dzheremi]

That's a real bummer. Maybe if they themselves were a little more mature they wouldn't have done that? I don't know. I don't want to malign your (former) friends or anything, but I am thankful that things are not like that here. Sorry that happened to you.

 

[GoingByzantine]

I just wish that the Oriental Orthodox forum on this site had some life to it. Would be nice to have some friendly dialogue with Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians and the like. Though our theology is quite different, I think that the mindsets we share are closely intertwined. @dzheremi is living proof of it.

 

[Not David]

That's a real bummer. Maybe if they themselves were a little more mature they wouldn't have done that? I don't know. I don't want to malign your (former) friends or anything, but I am thankful that things are not like that here. Sorry that happened to you.

I believe it is a mistake that even some members of Christian organizations do, they hang out with others but when those stop being believing the same thing, they stop being friends or they become just acquaintances.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't know Father, sometimes they two cannot be distinguished because nobody wants to admit they believe a heresy.

well, I meant that we might say (as an example) a Mormon is dumb because they believe in Mormonism, when he could be very smart. just because Mormonism doesn't wash with history doesn't mean that it's adherents aren't smart.

but to your point, then we gotta be clear that it's not about them personally, and they are not their ideology.

 

[Not David]

well, I meant that we might say (as an example) a Mormon is dumb because they believe in Mormonism, when he could be very smart. just because Mormonism doesn't wash with history doesn't mean that it's adherents aren't smart.

but to your point, then we gotta be clear that it's not about them personally, and they are not their ideology.

I was thinking mainly about homosexuality and saying "God loves the sinner but hates the sin" won't make gay people feel better since that's part of them.

And talking about the Mormon example, wouldn't saying Mormonism is dumb be the same as "What you believe is dumb, so you are dumb for believing it"?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

@Yeshua HaDerekh I hear what you are saying about "convertitis", but I am not sure I care for that term. I hear it used alot, but it seems to imply that Othodox converts should shut their mouths because they are not cradle born. While I agree that new members to Orthodoxy should be mindful about their words and actions (hence my own three year semi-retirement from this site), it almost seems like unitentional phyletism to suggest that they are akin to a disease. There are plenty of cradle born Orthodox who seem apathetic to their faith or treat it as a secular ethnic/cultural engagement. We do not say that they have "cradleitis". I would hope that we all pray for eachother, and uplift eachother without the use of labels - even if they are used in jest.

The term would apply to any convert to any belief system where they seem to, for some reason, have to prove they are just as "orthodox" as the orthodox or even more so. I agree that there are MANY apathetic Orthodox who really are only ethnically based believers, I have seen it many times myself.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I was thinking mainly about homosexuality and saying "God loves the sinner but hates the sin" won't make gay people feel better since that's part of them.

And talking about the Mormon example, wouldn't saying Mormonism is dumb be the same as "What you believe is dumb, so you are dumb for believing it"?

to your first point, that's why we need to be clear, because no, homosexuality is not a "part" of them. sin has no existence on its own, but is merely a deprivation or distortion.

and to your second point, no. a lot of people believe dumb stuff, even though they are not dumb.

 

[prodromos]

and to your second point, no. a lot of people believe dumb stuff, even though they are not dumb.

I'm constantly amazed at seemingly intelligent people who are flat-earthers

 

[All4Christ]

@Jude1:3Contendforthefaith Please take this as a friendly suggestion from personal experience. I recommend in debates or discussions to always put a thesis (not copy and paste) in the original post, as well as written text explaining why you believe it or what the question is. Posting something controversial - which in all honestly, icons are controversial in that General Theology - without the introductory text or a friendly tone in the OP, makes it looks like you are just challenging everyone and asking for a debate, rather than a discussion.

For future discussions like that, starting with other information from the council or surrounding texts, such as the explanations from St John Damascus regarding the reasons iconography is right, may be more effective than quoting the anathemas without the reasons behind them. It probably seemed offensive since it essentially says they are all anathema for their beliefs...which isn’t conducive for discussion. Often people just read the OP before responding, so it is important to put that reason and background in the first post. Just a few paragraphs should take care of that.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Agreed with @All4Christ. When I was new to this site, and probably too young in my faith to talk about it as much as I did, I commonly employed similiar tactics in GT. Hindsight is 20/20.

Orthodox (and other "traditional" Christians) need to be prepared to deeply explain our positions using more than simple quotations. Our theology is backed by councils, patriarchs, prophets, scripture, and history.

By comparison the modern "low-church" approach to theology employed by those on GT is to throw scripture verses onto the page and act as though they speak for themselves, when they don't. Divorced from the Holy Tradition and long standing intepretation of the Church, a quote can literally mean anything. That is why they have 10000 denominations (and I don't say this to be mean, it is simply fact - I also don't say this because I have "covertitis" ). If simply "reading the word", citing "chapter and verse" was an effective method then we would expect there to be unity in the rest of the Christian world that currently does not exist.

So basically, my point is that we need to provide a deep explanation of our faith to non-Orthodox, one that goes beyond "chapter and verse" or in this case the recitation of anathemas.

 

[Willie T]

@Jude1:3Contendforthefaith Please take this as a friendly suggestion from personal experience. I recommend in debates or discussions to always put a thesis (not copy and paste) in the original post, as well as written text explaining why you believe it or what the question is. Posting something controversial - which in all honestly, icons are controversial in that General Theology - without the introductory text or a friendly tone in the OP, makes it looks like you are just challenging everyone and asking for a debate, rather than a discussion.

For future discussions like that, starting with other information from the council or surrounding texts, such as the explanations from St John Damascus regarding the reasons iconography is right, may be more effective than quoting the anathemas without the reasons behind them. It probably seemed offensive since it essentially says they are all anathema for their beliefs...which isn’t conducive for discussion. Often people just read the OP before responding, so it is important to put that reason and background in the first post. Just a few paragraphs should take care of that.

It has been my observation that it is often simply the reader's "perception" that sees a challenge. If someone else reads the same words and sees no challenge, that might be reason for a bit of self examination.

 

[All4Christ]

It has been my observation that it is often simply the reader's "perception" that sees a challenge. If someone else reads the same words and sees no challenge, that might be reason for a bit of self examination.

Certainly that is true in many cases.

From my perspective - I tend to look at things from my experience of talking to others who have differing experiences than my own. It seems to help with friendly conversations when more context is provided.

However, as you said, perception often directs the reaction. It at minimum influences the way we see and understand a post.

In the case of some posts, even when I agree with the primary thesis or goal of the post, it still rubs me the wrong way. In those cases, I’m guessing some others will also take issue with it, especially if they have differing beliefs or opinions.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree that more context can help, but there is also the sad fact that the more you try to ground your position in the appropriate background information, the more people will complain because it makes your post too long. Maybe people aren't happy if they have to look things up (even if you link to where you got the info in your post) instead of just trusting their own intuition, or maybe there are some people who just won't be happy unless they see their already-held opinion coming out of your 'mouth'.

 

[All4Christ]

I agree that more context can help, but there is also the sad fact that the more you try to ground your position in the appropriate background information, the more people will complain because it makes your post too long. Maybe people aren't happy if they have to look things up (even if you link to where you got the info in your post) instead of just trusting their own intuition, or maybe there are some people who just won't be happy unless they see their already-held opinion coming out of your mouth.

True. I’m not suggesting 5 pages of information just a couple paragraphs of context for thesis and reasoning (basic debate or speech context)...but yes, it is a fine line.

Some context, however, is important imho. What is the question or discussion topic (most important piece of information)? What are we trying to convey? What is the goal of the discussion? Why do we believe or not believe in what we are talking about?

 

[Nick1000]

 

[Antoni]

I think this is why St. Paul listed the charismata of the various members of the Body. Some are called to teach, meaning, some probably shouldn’t since they can make a mess of it. LOL

Lord have mercy! I know I am often guilty of putting zealotry over loving patience.