"CREEDS must disagree: it is the whole fun of the thing. If I think the universe is triangular, and you think it is square, there cannot be room for two universes. We may argue politely, we may argue humanely, we may argue with great mutual benefit; but, obviously, we must argue. Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to say I must not discuss it . . . It is absurd to have a discussion on Comparative Religions if you don't compare them."
personally, from what I have seen, there as been an improvement to TAW since I have been here. folks from what I have seen have become more friendly and welcoming to seekers and inquirers. as gurney points out, yeah we argue about stuff. I remember back in the day there were folks who used the Church to springboard their political views in every post they could.
in this last firestorm, yes, gzt and myself were on opposite sides of the evolution issue, but unless I am mistaken, we both hold the Church as the authority of the faith. the disagreement is where evolution fits in. the point of this thread was not something like evolution, the toll houses, Fr Seraphim Rose vs Fr Alexander Schmemann, St Tikhon's vs St Vlad's vs Holy Cross, etc, but rather are we really Orthodox if we feel that we do not need to listen to the authority of the Church. for the most part since I have joined TAW many a year ago, even when disagree, we still look to the Church as our reference point.
Since I've come to Orthodoxy, I've changed my mind on things. I was determined to let the Church change ME, not let my intellect or private opinions try to change the Church. I'm not looking for a place to leave my mark or make a statement or find agreement. I'm trying to let the Church change and mold ME. If we don't submit to authority or at bare minimum consider our hierarchs' opinions heavily, then why be Orthodox? We really cease to be Orthodox, and enter into Protestant territory.
With the evolution argument, I came into Orthodoxy with a heavy bias and was VERY pro-evolution. While I have a small area in my feeble noodle that says it's 'possible,' I have looked at the Church. And the greatest minds of Orthodoxy before and after Darwin have rejected evolution completely. We've seen no compelling reason from our hierarchs to accept evolution. As a result, I go with the faith. I also look at the issue in a theological frame work. It makes no sense. So, I am at peace with this.
But ignoring and shrugging off authority makes no sense to me...
Good heavens the passive aggressive insults in this thread alone are enough to belie any claim Rus has to being something other than a bully.
Seriously, Rus - could you be any poorer at veiling your condescension?
Let's just get this straight, since my book recommendation post seems to have spawned all this:
1) I had promised those recommendations before I left. I was fulfilling that. I've compiled a bibliography of over 200 entries on the subject matter, and selected FIVE (five!) texts to recommend that, quite carefully, presented multiple sides of the issue and were dominated by Orthodox voices - several of which I disagree with but respect or find important for the conversation.
2) You decided, largely without prompting, to insult the very concept of academics even trying to address this question, and, therefore, decided to derail my thread and flame me repeatedly - which you self-righteously [again!] defend in this very thread here as somehow consonant with the old crusading spirit of TAW.
This was despite the fact that several of the recommended books were from non-academics, and most were from Orthodox sources (including one Orthodox academic, and two other educated Orthodox non-scholars).
3) You decided, based on my interest in this topic and whatever else you please, that I was somehow undermining the very authority of the church because, when I read the Tradition, I don't come to the same conclusions regarding it that you do.
Rather than dialogue with me about that - that is, rather than read the Tradition together (which actually WOULD be in the Spirit of this board) - you preferred to shout anathema at me and state, repeatedly, that you'd never discuss this with me but would instead "kick it to the curb."
That thread, shockingly!, got locked for flaming. You then made another thread where you, quite repeatedly, took to stating very similar sorts of attacks as the locked thread - in essence, you were justifying the very behavior you demonstrated in the first locked thread.
Shockingly, that one also got locked. Surprise!
And then, lo and behold, you make another thread dealing with the same thing from yet another angle, and again make repeated thinly-veiled references to our prior conversation in the most passive aggressive tones.
How THIS thread hasn't been locked for flaming is beyond me.
TAW isn't your personal safe-haven. It is a safe-haven for Orthodox Christians. I am an Orthodox Christian. There are a lot of Orthodox Christians who are quite like me, and who see Orthodoxy the way I see it.
Orthodoxy is not synonymous with your brand of Chestertonian-conservativism or fundamentalism. It just isn't. That's certainly ONE brand of Orthodoxy. You'll notice I've not considered YOUR presence here as a "threat" to the Spirit of TAW; nor have I shouted Anathema at YOU or made thread after thread questioning your Orthodoxy or your presence here.
But again, here are the facts:
1) We both read the Tradition.
[I would hazard a guess that I actually read more of it than you, just by virtue of time and resources, but I don't think that gives me a leg-up on you (or anyone) in understanding it. I refuse, however, to accept a "Chesterton Only" lens for reading the Tradition, just as I refuse a "Neo-Patristic Only" lens for reading it.]
2) We are both, so far as I know, in communion in good standing with an Orthodox Bishop.
3) We are here to discuss Orthodoxy, both with one another and with inquirers.
If you can't agree to 1, 2, or 3 then yeah - you have a problem with pride since there's no way for you to (fairly) judge any of those three.
If you think that 1, 2, or 3 don't belong on TAW then, yeah, you have a problem with the ACTUAL purpose of this board.
If you think that 1, 2, or 3 leave room for you to bully people and shout them "to the curb" when you dislike them or what they have to say, then, yeah, you have a problem.
But the problem isn't with TAW.
So whither TAW? Whence TAW? It's an internet message board, Rus. At its best it is a place to fellowship and welcome inquirers, to discuss difficult issues with others who take those issues seriously and are committed to Orthodox Christianity. And also a place to be challenged by those who don't see things the way that we do, but who none-the-less partake of the same Chalice and the same Grace.
That's the board I've always remembered, and the reason I stuck around. If you don't want that, then I don't know what to say.
But I won't go away. I won't let you bully me. And you were rightfully accused of hubris.
I welcome a discussion. I welcome partaking of the same Chalice as you. I recognize that, despite our disagreements, we both seek after Christ and are both Orthodox Christians. Therefore, we both belong on TAW.
Can you say the same?
In Christ,
Macarius
Out it comes.
LOL! Dare I ask which side of this discussion is the base and which the acid?Out it comes.
OEDFigurative use of litmus test is first attested 1957
Really.
Mac, I'll come back to what I see to be the central problem in what you've brought up that triggered my response. That sort of thing takes more energy and time on my part; usually it's harder for me to put the time required into those kinds of responses.
My best friend is also awaiting a response from me on a discussion on truth.
Too many terms being thrown down without definition - and if we don't have common definitions we'll still talk past each other.
GL - are you saying there is NO definition to Orthodoxy? That it can be anything and everything? Because that's what the "litmus test" allusion implies; that a thing ought not to be defined, because it draws boundaries. It is a term popularized by the champions of what is popularly called secular pluralism. It didn't exist even sixty years ago, and not one Church father ever spoke that way.
OED
Not one reference here to GK Che... ooops!
(I think I should put that as a signature to every such post. And there are more of them than local hyperbole holds.)