Traditional Theology Questions and Answers Thread

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi everyone, this is a brand new forum with a brand new approach. Feel free to ask whatever questions you like and we will try and answer them for you.

Blessings and peace!

Mark
Advisers Assistant.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hello Mark!

Very exciting!

 

[GoingByzantine]

I dig this.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hello Mark!

Very exciting!

I dig this.

I'm soooo excited!

 

[GoingByzantine]

Smile overload!!!

 

[Michie]

Nice! Finally here!

 

[PaladinValer]

Most excellent!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ok, it's a race; who is going to be the first to start a discussion thread?

 

[GoingByzantine]

Ok, it's a race; who is going to be the first to start a discussion thread?

Michie won!

 

[Michie]

Ok, it's a race; who is going to be the first to start a discussion thread?

Who do you think?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Michie won!

Who do you think?

Sweet!

 

[Michie]

Sweet!

I thought it was an appropriate topic for discussion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I thought it was an appropriate topic for discussion.

It is (see my post in your thread)!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm going to stick this thread for about a month so it will remain visible for all members.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hi everyone, this is a brand new forum with a brand new approach. Feel free to ask whatever questions you like and we will try and answer them for you.

Blessings and peace!

Mark
Advisers Assistant.

Hi Mark,


Staff questions about this forum....


1. I see there is again a distinction here (and it seems in other places at CF) between "discussion" and "debate." Seems to be given some emphasis. Does CF Staff have an official definition of the two? Exactly what is the difference? Sorry to be lazy, but if such exists, could you supply the link to the official definitions CF has adopted for these two things?

Many years ago, Staff use to say that the forums in Theology were "debate" but the forums in Congregations were "for discussion and fellowship, debate not permitted" (some forums got an exemption for INTERNAL debate but non-members of that community could only discuss, not debate). The problem was, CF never defined either of those things. Senior staff was asked to - repeatedly - but never did (to my knowledge). When I was a Supervisor in Congregations, I trained the mods to largely ignore this rule until senior staff could - clearly - define exactly what the difference is. That never happened, but eventually the distinction fell out of the rules and arbitration and thus become pretty irrelevant. I see it's back. Does it mean we may not disagree? Does it mean we may not indicate we think some position expressed in a post is incorrect? Or is it purely subjective, the FEELING staff "gets" that feels polemic to them?


2. Who/what is "Traditional?" Are Lutherans? Catholics? Eastern Orthodox? What about Coptic Orthodox? Methodist? Anglicans? How is "tradition" defined differently than the Nicene Creed definition required of all who post in Theology? What specifically is added to the Creed? If one speaks of Sola Scriptura, is that "traditional?" Is Calvin's concept of predestination "Traditional?" Speaking in tongues? Chalcadon? Dispensationalism? Real Presence? Baptism as regenerative? Adult-only believer baptism? Does CF have a list of what is and is not "Traditional?"


3. I read the distinctives - how we are to treat each other and also about when we disagree. It seems to ME these are just an affirmation of the rules already in existence at CF (except for the "education" part); I'm not understanding how this forum is different than any other at CF. How is this forum different? I read the "violation" section, too. Are these various temporary bans from all of CF or just this forum (are fsb's back)?



Just looking for clarification.



Thanks, Mark!


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi Mark,


Staff questions about this forum....


1. I see there is again a distinction here (and it seems in other places at CF) between "discussion" and "debate." Seems to be given some emphasis. Does CF Staff have an official definition of the two? Exactly what is the difference? Sorry to be lazy, but if such exists, could you supply the link to the official definitions CF has adopted for these two things?

Many years ago, Staff use to say that the forums in Theology were "debate" but the forums in Congregations were "for discussion and fellowship, debate not permitted" (some forums got an exemption for INTERNAL debate but non-members of that community could only discuss, not debate). The problem was, CF never defined either of those things. Senior staff was asked to - repeatedly - but never did (to my knowledge). When I was a Supervisor in Congregations, I trained the mods to largely ignore this rule until senior staff could - clearly - define exactly what the difference is. That never happened, but eventually the distinction fell out of the rules and arbitration and thus become pretty irrelevant. I see it's back. Does it mean we may not disagree? Does it mean we may not indicate we think some position expressed in a post is incorrect? Or is it purely subjective, the FEELING staff "gets" that feels polemic to them?


2. Who/what is "Traditional?" Are Lutherans? Catholics? Eastern Orthodox? What about Coptic Orthodox? Methodist? Anglicans? How is "tradition" defined differently than the Nicene Creed definition required of all who post in Theology? What specifically is added to the Creed? If one speaks of Sola Scriptura, is that "traditional?" Is Calvin's concept of predestination "Traditional?" Speaking in tongues? Chalcadon? Dispensationalism? Real Presence? Baptism as regenerative? Adult-only believer baptism? Does CF have a list of what is and is not "Traditional?"


3. I read the distinctives - how we are to treat each other and also about when we disagree. It seems to ME these are just an affirmation of the rules already in existence at CF (except for the "education" part); I'm not understanding how this forum is different than any other at CF. How is this forum different? I read the "violation" section, too. Are these various temporary bans from all of CF or just this forum (are fsb's back)?



Just looking for clarification.



Thanks, Mark!


Pax


- Josiah






.

Yes, it is subjective. Moderation is different here. We have ambassadors who are vigilant and keep an eye on things, assisting moderators to keep things on an even keel.

We decided not to define tradition as we do not wish to exclude anyone. All of the Churches you mention and all of the practices you mention can be discussed in the light of various traditions.

The moderation protocol is a modified version of the Emergency Protocol that is used to fix problem forums; myself, in discussion with the advisers decided to implement this for two reasons. Unilateral action is quicker, and appeals also happen quickly, and are a great opportunity for mentoring.

You ask about Forum Specific Bans; are you interested in one?

Seriously, yes, but very uncommon.

For interest sake, there has only been about 3 reports from this forum since we opened it; minor things that were dealt with either in thread or by PM; no bans, no FSBs. It's been quite nice.

Threads like a certain couple of Lent/Easter threads underway in GT right now would not be allowed here.

No arguing. Let's say one of our Catholic members posts a thread about the Immaculate Conception of Mary and explains why they, their Church teaches and believes such and states why they think everyone should hold such. I would not be free to start an argument with that member, but I would be able to disagree and explain why I could not possibly ever agree or believe in such a teaching. If we both want to go at it hammer and tongs, we can start a debate in formal debate.

The best way to describe the way we want this forum to run is you are free to disagree but not to condemn. Yes, that is the sum of all the rules of CF, but this is a much tighter ship.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, it is subjective. Moderation is different here. We have ambassadors who are vigilant and keep an eye on things, assisting moderators to keep things on an even keel.

We decided not to define tradition as we do not wish to exclude anyone. All of the Churches you mention and all of the practices you mention can be discussed in the light of various traditions.

The moderation protocol is a modified version of the Emergency Protocol that is used to fix problem forums; myself, in discussion with the advisers decided to implement this for two reasons. Unilateral action is quicker, and appeals also happen quickly, and are a great opportunity for mentoring.

You ask about Forum Specific Bans; are you interested in one?

Seriously, yes, but very uncommon.

For interest sake, there has only been about 3 reports from this forum since we opened it; minor things that were dealt with either in thread or by PM; no bans, no FSBs. It's been quite nice.

Threads like a certain couple of Lent/Easter threads underway in GT right now would not be allowed here.

No arguing. Let's say one of our Catholic members posts a thread about the Immaculate Conception of Mary and explains why they, their Church teaches and believes such and states why they think everyone should hold such. I would not be free to start an argument with that member, but I would be able to disagree and explain why I could not possibly ever agree or believe in such a teaching. If we both want to go at it hammer and tongs, we can start a debate in formal debate.

The best way to describe the way we want this forum to run is you are free to disagree but not to condemn. Yes, that is the sum of all the rules of CF, but this is a much tighter ship.

Thanks, Mark.

Seems to ME that if it's all very subjective (SOME would call that "sloppy" lol), then there needs to be a lot of grace in the moderation. I've always been in favor of that anyway, seeing moderation as more mentoring than policing, helping rather than punishing. MY reaction, Mark, is simply this: Since I don't (and can't) know where the "fences" are, I'd like some friendly, unofficial, notice that I've passed it - and that I have a clear sense of why I did. And that there is consistency about this (no double standards). Make sense? And at every site I've ever been involved at, continuing to disagree usually IS defined as "arguing." That's typically the definition of 'argue' that staff uses. It's not, IMO.


"Free to disagree but not condemn." Interesting rule..... Of course, what tends to happen (we both know) is that since we're often discussing highly passionate, treasured, intimate issues - people choose to INTERPRET disagreement as condemnation (even "hate"); people tend to choose to react to disagreement with hurt, offense.... which can lead to anger.... which..... well.... you know. IMO, it's good to evaluate the original post as to whether the words clearly are CONDEMNING (beware of reactions to phantom, invisible words clouded in "but that's what was IMPLIED!" No one can be responsible for someone's eisegesis, lol). Make sense? But I could not agree more: It is my strong opinion that we are all fully, equally CHRISTIANS here, people for whom Christ died, people with whom will be spending eternity in heaven..... Not all Christians agree with me on that but that doesn't change my passionate view there. YES we disagree (sometimes quite fundamentally, quite passionately) but there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. It is rejecting Christ that damns, not being wrong about some doctrine (Gospel I hang onto with all my strength, lol).

Are we on the same page?



May all the blessings of Lent be yours....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Anhelyna]

CJ - I think I'll come in here.

Those of us here, who backed Mark at the start of the discussions about setting up Traditional Theology, actually wanted the minimum of moderation.

We have one real rule and this one is paramount

A forum dedicated to the respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology, liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics, etc.

Note the use of respectful discussion we are tired of things being posted in some areas which are deliberately phrased to invite conflict among members with strongly held views. We want to be able to talk quietly, thoughtfully about things , share information , help people to understand why our Churches do this or that.

We are not going to bash someone round the head with a 4x4 and say "WE ARE RIGHT , YOU ARE WRONG". We are going to say " This is what we believe - how is it different from your belief ? " Then we will listen to them. We might pick up on something that needs a little more elucidation - and we'll ask politely for it.

We are gentle , thoughtful caring people who do not wish to cause conflict and hurt.

Honey attracts


So far , and long may it continue , it's working

 

[GoingByzantine]

From the outside looking in, I could see how this would appear to be some kind of social club for Catholic/Orthodox posters and Confessional Protestants....but it really isn't.

What makes this section so great is that everyone is welcome to share their traditions, and have a dialogue about them. If a non-denominational Christian wants to share something their church does then they are super welcome, if a Methodist wants to share a piece of their liturgy then the doors are open. This is a place where traditions, scripture, and historical christianity meet in a friendly and open environment.

If I tried to make a thread about the theology behind Byzantine Catholic Liturgical practices in GT, I would probably get chewed alive. Here I feel safe to post such a topic, because I know I will not be judged. If I want to talk about how scripture was put together, or the significance of the early church fathers, or even about the scriptural and historical basis of Christian holidays I know that this will be safe for that as well. I have created and participated in topics like these in GT before and they end badly, because the conversation usually ends up focusing around conspiracy theories and the evils of Catholicism...even when the topic is not about the Catholic Church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think too having a fairly high number of ambassadors here, and we all have essentially the same goal of respectful discussion, it is easier for us to gently remind people when the direction in which they are going might not be suitable for this forum.

And let's face it - quite often you really CAN read the subtext comments are offered in. I feel badly because I don't want to be judging people, and there are some that are really good at hiding it. But most of the time you can tell if folks really just want to bash or pick a fight. And since we have rules in place against that, I am hopeful that we keep a peaceful, respectful, charitable attitude in here.

It has gone surprisingly well so far.

I'm sure that sooner or later we will have occasion to test the application of some of the rules. But in the meantime it is very gratifying to see that we can have good dialogue with members from a variety of backgrounds/traditions, even when we disagree on various doctrines.