In another thread, Seraphim has been making a lot of unsupported assertions. He replies to arguments against his position or requests for documentation of his claims with comments like the following:
"LOL, its in the tradition."
"Obviously, Arianism is something Orthodoxy is well aware of. So how can that be a good argument?"
"The Jews are big into veneration anyway. They kiss everything, their doorposts when they leave the house, their prayer shawls, their scrolls and so forth. There's no doubt in my mind Orthodox inherited veneration from the Jews. The alternative is your mysterious force which changed Jews and Christians alike."
That's his level of argumentation.
At one point, he criticized Protestants for not having held a council within the last ten years in order to settle their disagreements. Supposedly, the failure to hold a council within ten years proves a lack of concern for unity. After I explained that the church fathers didn't hold councils within ten years to settle their disagreements, nor has Eastern Orthodoxy, he replied:
"Let's say 100 years then."
As you can see, Seraphim doesn't give his arguments much thought, and he'll change his standards in the middle of a discussion without even attempting to offer any justification.
He equated historical evidence with Eastern Orthodox Tradition. I cited some examples of portions of the historical record that can't be equated with Eastern Orthodox Tradition, such as archeology. He replied:
"Archeology is the study of history via artifacts as far as I know. Orthodoxy is big on artifacts."
How does the fact that "Orthodoxy is big on artifacts" interact with my point that archeological evidence isn't equivalent to Eastern Orthodox Tradition?
His posts are largely characterized by comments like the ones I've cited above. He makes threads significantly lengthier by posting such comments over and over again. Thus, it's probably less likely that people will read the threads, and the threads are significantly more difficult to read for those who choose to do so. It's my judgment that Seraphim's presence is doing more harm than good. I've deleted his latest post in the thread linked above, and he's now banned from Triablogue.
Gotta love the Orthodox integrity.
ReplyDeleteHmm... His old comments are deleted from that thread, too. Was that intentional?
ReplyDeleteLVKA,
ReplyDeleteYou're banned.
That means "Go away."
As in "Get lost."
As in "You're not welcome here."
I know you're dense enough to have satellites orbiting, but seriously you are absurd.
Frankly, I find it amazing that John Loftus obeys a ban better than you do.
Peter Pike is referring to a few posts by LVKA, which I've deleted. In one of his posts, LVKA referred to John Loftus as a "submissive sucker" for not violating the rules of this forum as LVKA keeps doing. One wonders how LVKA treats his neighbors, co-workers, and other people he lives with, since he doesn't want to be a "submissive sucker".
ReplyDeleteIn his first post in this thread, LVKA commented that he could see why he would be banned, but he didn't understand why Seraphim would be banned. If he thinks it's understandable why he would be banned (as he also acknowledged around the time when we banned him, since he realized that his behavior at the time was unreasonable), then why does he keep posting? If our banning him was reasonable, why does he keep violating the ban, as if we did something wrong? And if he's going to claim that he doesn't understand why Seraphim was banned, he could read the reasons I've outlined above. I gave some examples of Seraphim's unreasonable behavior, and I discussed more examples in the other thread linked above. Why would LVKA act as if he doesn't understand why we banned Seraphim, without making any attempt to interact with the explanation I provided? LVKA keeps vindicating our decision to ban him.
Jugulum asked why Seraphim's other posts were "deleted" also. The posts weren't deleted. They can still be viewed by anybody willing to make the effort to view them. We take different approaches toward different people who are banned. In some cases, we neither delete nor hide any of their posts. In other cases, we hide the posts, and we begin deleting some of them if the person doesn't honor the ban. Etc. We make case-by-case judgments. I only deleted one of Seraphim's posts, and the others are hidden. If Seraphim decides to act as irresponsibly as some other banned individuals have, such as LVKA, then I'll delete more of his posts.
It seems rather... ahem... like admitting defeat. If Serephim had said nothing worth responding to, then why did you respond? If it was worth responding to, then why remove the comments? Rightly or wrongly this gives the impression that he got the better of you. The fact that the old browser "View-> page source" trick works to view the comments is really not an option, even ignoring the fact that they are nearly unreadable done that way, and that most people don't know about it.
ReplyDeleteThe criticisms strike me as rather childish. You might not agree with the eo thinking here, but you're just really showing up your own presuppositions. Serephim was making a point about protestants not making any moves to achieve unity in that they don't hold church councils. The general point seems an interesting one. The early church was always holding councils to come to agreement, but protestants do not do that and are not interested in that. The response to Serephim was not particularly cogent. That the early church may have gone through periods without resolving things with council doesn't really blunt the general point that protestants do not have the same world view as the early church.
The criticism that eo tradition is not the same as historical evidence. Why this is important is not entirely clear and was probably lost on Serephim.
These discussions are of some interest to me because we can see the different starting points and world views each brings to the table. But the arrogant way they are dealt with here, makes this not a good forum for investigating these things. It's really just become a place where people can preach to the choir.
Rudolf wrote:
ReplyDelete"If it was worth responding to, then why remove the comments?"
Because there are other factors involved, like the ones I discussed in the last paragraph of my first post above. It's not just a matter of whether his posts were "worth responding to". What I wanted to respond to is still quoted in my posts, followed by my responses. His posts are partly reasonable and partly unreasonable. He continued his unreasonable behavior after being asked repeatedly to change it. If there are negative consequences to misbehavior, such as having posting privileges removed, then misbehavior is discouraged. And, as I explained above, removing posts that are partly or entirely unreasonable can make a thread more likely to be read and easier to read. That's why we often remove advertisements, posts with vulgar content, duplicate posts, etc. There's more involved than whether some of a poster's comments are "worth responding to".
You write:
"Rightly or wrongly this gives the impression that he got the better of you."
If you ignore other possible reasons for removing a person's post. But if somebody is going to ignore other possible reasons, then he's at fault for not taking those other possibilities into account.
You write:
"The fact that the old browser 'View-> page source' trick works to view the comments is really not an option, even ignoring the fact that they are nearly unreadable done that way, and that most people don't know about it."
You don't tell us why it's "really not an option", why the posts are "nearly unreadable", or why I should be concerned with whether "most people know about" how to access the posts. I don't have control over the options available with Blogger. I'm not aware of a way to delete all of a person's posts at one time. But we can hide all of a person's posts at once. And, as far as I know, we can't control how they're hidden, such as how readable the posts are.
You write:
"The criticisms strike me as rather childish. You might not agree with the eo thinking here, but you're just really showing up your own presuppositions."
I didn't just assert some presuppositions. I argued for my position. Why is that "childish"?
Judging from some of the comments you go on to make, it seems that you either didn't read some parts of the discussion or are misrepresenting what you did read. For example, you go on to say:
"The criticism that eo tradition is not the same as historical evidence. Why this is important is not entirely clear and was probably lost on Serephim."
Seraphim made comments such as "history is part of the Tradition" and "The writings of the fathers and the history of the church is part of the tradition." I was responding to such claims. I was citing examples of patristic writings and other elements of the historical record that aren't part of Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Did you read those parts of the discussion before posting your comments above? If so, why would you act as if you don't know what I was responding to? If you didn't read the relevant parts of the discussion, then why not just refrain from commenting on the subject instead of referring to how my comments are "childish", "were probably lost on Seraphim", etc.?
You write:
"Serephim was making a point about protestants not making any moves to achieve unity in that they don't hold church councils. The general point seems an interesting one. The early church was always holding councils to come to agreement, but protestants do not do that and are not interested in that."
That's not all that he said. He said that councils should have been held within the last ten years. He also said that a lack of such a council proves that Protestants have no interest in unity. You're ignoring those qualifiers, and you're changing the subject to the "general point" that "The early church was always holding councils to come to agreement, but protestants do not do that and are not interested in that".
Not only is that not what Seraphim said, but you've also given us no reason to agree with your assessment. The early Christians disagreed on many issues. The fact that some regional councils were held regarding the celebration of Easter in the late second century, for example, doesn't prove that those Christians considered councils necessary to achieve unity on every other point of dispute or even on that one point. You can hold a council without considering it necessary to do so. Something can be useful in some circumstances without being necessary in all circumstances or even in any. We have no record of any councils being held to settle the large majority of disagreements among the earliest Christians. The first patristic ecumenical council wasn't held until the fourth century, and, as I documented in the thread linked above, much of the Christian world didn't attend that council, and the council was widely disputed and accepted to different degrees by different sources. Much of the cooperation and agreement that was eventually reached in relation to the ecumenical councils was achieved by means of government involvement. We're no longer living under a Roman emperor. We don't have an emperor calling bishops together or a state enforcing decisions that are made. Our circumstances are different. The apostolic Christians operated differently than the ante-Nicene Christians, the ante-Nicene Christians operated differently than the Nicene and post-Nicene Christians, and modern Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox operate differently than their predecessors. There are some similarities, but also some differences. Why do you think the prominence of councils is something we should expect to be similar?
If "The early church was always holding councils to come to agreement", then should we expect to see Eastern Orthodox doing the same? When was the last council held by Eastern Orthodox? Did they hold a council to settle their disagreements over the canon of scripture? Or their disagreements about creation and evolution? Or their disagreements about Biblical inerrancy? Or their disagreements about other issues? Are they "always" holding councils, and does the lack of councils prove that they have no concern for unity on the issues they continue to disagree about? Do Eastern Orthodox "always" hold councils with Roman Catholics, Copts, and other groups in order to settle their disagreements?
As I explained in the previous thread, there are possible reasons for the absence of councils other than a lack of concern for unity. If one group doesn't pursue a council because it has no interest in unity, whereas another group doesn't pursue a council because it knows that the first group wouldn't participate, it doesn't therefore follow that the second group has no desire for a council. Or if two groups think that a council would be appropriate when an agreement is near, but there is no agreement on the horizon, then the current absence of a council doesn't prove that there's no desire for one in the future. Etc.
And councils aren't the only means of seeking unity. Some Protestants have held councils in the past, but agreements have been reached among some Protestants by other means. You may not call them councils, but meetings have been held on Biblical inerrancy, justification, and other issues, often resulting in the drafting of documents expressing doctrinal agreement. The New Testament has much to say about unity, and we're never told that councils are the only or even the primary means of attaining it.
You write:
"But the arrogant way they are dealt with here, makes this not a good forum for investigating these things."
You give us no reason to agree with your assessment. What "arrogance" are you objecting to, and how much of our material on the relevant issues have you read?
You write:
"It's really just become a place where people can preach to the choir."
Then why are you posting here?
There's a reason why people like LVKA and Seraphim have been banned, whereas other Eastern Orthodox haven't been. It has nothing to do with a desire to "preach to the choir". It has to do with comments like "LOL, its in the tradition" or LVKA's claim that I'm "demonic", "schizophrenic", and a "liar", for example. I would say that Seraphim's refusal to document his assertions or LVKA's assessment of my spiritual status is more "arrogant" than anything you've complained about on my end.
Maybe the reason why we've said that we're banning such people for their unreasonableness is because they have been unreasonable and that is the reason why we've banned them. Why should people believe your unproven speculations about our motives rather than believing the documented reasons we've given for banning these people? The vast majority of posters at Triablogue have never been banned and have never even needed a warning about banning. The many unbanned atheists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc. who have posted here aren't part of my "choir". There are hundreds of pages of debate in the archives of this blog, including in recent threads, and those debates weren't produced by "preaching to the choir".
These topics difficult for a new believer like me to understand. Milk before the meat, and all that. I hope one day to understand better what all the hubbub is about.
ReplyDeleteGreat site!
Just to add to a bit from what Jason has already said regarding bans:
ReplyDelete1) Our "harsh" banning activities are, um, well, not that harsh. For the most part, we let infidels, atheists, anti-Christian slanderers, racists, mysigonists, anti-Calvinists (note: Jason is not even a Calvinist himself, which is lost on most T-blog haters), adulterers, liars, and irrational people post freely. There are only a few loose rules, such as no profanity, pornography, spam, etc. that are enforced strictly. Other than that, if you want to be a fool, T-bloggers will get out of your way and let you be one.
2) But this is only because we want to. You do not have the right to post here. Everyone posts at our discretion. In fact, certain posts do not even have comments enabled. This is our right as actual contributors to the blog. Each of us (whoever writes the post) gets to decide if we want to allow comments or not. And each of us gets to decide which comments on our posts ought to be deleted.
3) Given the inane comments most T-blog haters can muster, it's astonishing that so few comments are moderated in the first place.
4) Occasionally, there are egregious offenders who get bumped up to the next level. We ban them by stating that they are not allowed to post here. If needed, we also enable a script which hides their posts (but doesn't delete them).
5) This ban is not a permanent ban unless the offender makes it a permanent ban. This is a temporary ban, which means if someone respects the ban and learns to engage in reasonable behavior, we can always remove the script that hides their posts and welcome them back to comment again.
6) On the other hand, if they are unrepentant (and it should be pointed out that generally those who get banned are ALREADY the ones who are hardened enough that they will remain unrepentant, as most who have any ability to be reformed shy away from crossing that line) then we begin to delete posts.
In LVKA's case, he got a warning. He was told that continual violations of the ban would result in the actual deletion of his posts, and he continued to violate the ban. Therefore, he demonstrated that he himself did not consider his comments worth keeping and we obliged him.
The actual deletion of the comments, of course, is something that cannot be undone. But this is something that only very rarely occurs (other than weeding out spam and such).
7) Finally, it should be noted that there has never been anyone banned here who did not have a history of several months of bad behavior in the comments section.
So to sum it up.
A) This is our blog, not yours.
B) We make the rules, not you.
C) We enforce the rules, not you.
D) If you don't like it, make your own blog. Feel free to ban us if you want (we already have our blog).
RUDOLF SAID:
ReplyDelete“It seems rather... ahem... like admitting defeat. If Serephim had said nothing worth responding to, then why did you respond? If it was worth responding to, then why remove the comments? Rightly or wrongly this gives the impression that he got the better of you… But the arrogant way they are dealt with here, makes this not a good forum for investigating these things. It's really just become a place where people can preach to the choir.”
i) For the record, I’m the only who originally suggested to Jason that he might wish to take action against Seraphim. So if you want to blame someone, blame me.
ii) As I said to Jason, “It's your thread, so you have the right to do with it whatever you like, but if Seraphim is wasting too much of your time, you could always issue a warning and delete further comments from him.
He's a typical high-church opponent: makes no effort to be consistent, makes no effort to shoulder his own burden of proof.
Every time you checkmate him, he changes the rules of the game and demands a rematch.
I wonder if there's something about high churchmanship that selects for such unprincipled disputants. I've seen a pattern” (private email, 9/25).
iii) This issue is quite simple: if a commenter challenges something we say, then it takes time to respond. He doesn’t have the right to co-opt our free time unless he’s going to make responsible use of our free time. We’re not being paid to field an endless stream of carping criticisms. And a carping critic doesn’t have the right to get the last word on someone else’s blog.
iv) If you think he was getting the better of the argument, then you’re blinded by your partisanship.
v) As far as “childishness is concerned,” what you’re doing now is to indulge in a juvenile dare, like teenage boys who play a game of chicken: “I dare you to prove your motives!” “I dare you prove that you’re not a yellow-bellied coward by trying to outrun that train at the RR crossing!”
Actually, it’s a mark of cowardice to give into your emotional extortion. Only emotional weaklings are that worried about their reputation.
Finally, I’ll reproduce some apt observations from another blog:
1. Leaving comments is a privilege, not a right. The site administrator is under no obligation to accept comments at all, let alone from any particular person. And to underscore the obvious: nothing in the nature of a weblog requires that it accept comments from readers.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palins-debate-flow-chart.html#c354331482441420302
I’d add that even when someone’s past comments are deleted, they’ve generally been quoted and incorporated into our response, so the reader can still see the point/counterpoint.
ReplyDeleteSteve that hasn't been my experience.
ReplyDeleteEvan,
ReplyDeleteAfter you admitted you weren't arguing that Moses was based on teh Sargon story, and that you were simply opining that Moses was a myth, the banned ceased to matter. You have made yourself irrelevant. Really, are you upset that your unargued opinions were deleted. In fact, you should be rather happy.
Paul you obviously are out of the loop on what I wrote that was deleted. Nice try though. And as far as I know I've never been "banned". Perhaps you will use this as an occasion to ban me however.
ReplyDeleteBanned, post deleted, irrelevant to my point that you complaints have been redered superfluous since you've admitted that you were never trying to argue, you just wanted to opine to all of us. I mean, I think Evolutionism is a myth. So what? Doesn't get me anywhere without an argument. In fact, since there was no substance does it really matter if the unsubstantive posts were deleted? No, just like it wouldn't matter if someone came here and said they liked the Barney show.
ReplyDeletePeace out
Paul, again, it's really not a good idea to speak about things you don't know about.
ReplyDeleteSuffice it to say that the posts that were deleted from me had absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. The posts that were deleted were substantive criticisms that had nothing to do with atheism or religion or anything like what you are talking about and they were deleted without any notice or any response.
I simply state that to prove that what Steve says typically happens does not take place at all times.
So you don't deny that your Moses/Sargon posts were unsubstantive drivel, the mere opining of a "physician" who should be talking about voodoo chiropracter techniques and tea leaf reading rather than critiquing the OT? Gottcha.
ReplyDeleteEvan, whoever you are, you should just listen to Paul Manata. He's a much more mature believer than you are. Just sit back and learn for a while before writing more.
ReplyDelete"The way of the fool seems right to him, but the wise man listens to advice."
Proverbs
EVAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“Paul, again, it's really not a good idea to speak about things you don't know about.__Suffice it to say that the posts that were deleted from me had absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. The posts that were deleted were substantive criticisms that had nothing to do with atheism or religion or anything like what you are talking about and they were deleted without any notice or any response. __I simply state that to prove that what Steve says typically happens does not take place at all times.”
To the contrary, Evan doesn’t know what he’s talking about, which is pretty pitiful since he’s talking about his own comments.
I deleted two related comments of his. His comments were off-topic. His comments were about some inadvertent misspelling. I deleted the first comment, then he posted another comment on the same trivial, off-topic issue, so I deleted that one as well.
His comments had zero substantive criticisms to offer.
And Evan is in no position to prove anything since his “proof” consists of making unverifiable claims about the content of now-nonexistent comments.
I don’t have to give prior notice, and *I* never said otherwise. I don’t owe Evan an explanation for what I do here, especially when he either acts like a jerk or a weasel.