Ship of Fools: Faithfree Guidelines

Thread: Faithfree Guidelines Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028062

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The only expectations of posting are that you accept others lack of faith - we have all made these decisions for good reasons.

Exploring the reasons is valid, but proselytising - trying to draw people back to faith or back to church - is not acceptable.

As with everywhere on the ship, please respect other peoples decisions and where they are. These decisions have been made with much pain. This board is to explore what this means, how people cope and deal with this, not to question the decisions.

Thank you.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

After discussion, this thread is designated as a place to ask anything about hosting decisions or direction. Please raise any issues or questions here.

Note that in some cases we might have to discuss and identify the right way to go, so it may take some time to get a response, however, we will read regularly.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I was uncomfortable with the hosting call re IngoB stating a piece of reasoning was based on false premises (sorry ipad copy/paste not working so linking is compromised).

It feels difficult to post on this board unless you also agree, respectful disagreement is needed or you risk just being an echo chamber. Alot of statements are being made about both "the church" and "Christianity" that i would want to discuss - but if that hosting call is how you are interpreting your guidelines, I don't see how that would be possible.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Here is the post in question:
Straws which broke the camel's back?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

From SC's guidelines above:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Exploring the reasons is valid, [..]

This board is to explore what this means, how people cope and deal with this, not to question the decisions.

There's a certain amount of tension in these statements. For me, "exploring the reasons" for anything inevitably involves questioning, because that's the way I think. I examine a set of logic and premises by trying to disprove them.

It's not very comfortable to be on the receiving end of such an enquiry, and it seems clear that the intent of this board is to provide a comfortable space for faith-free, church-free or similar people to examine the consequences of their choices and beliefs without being asked to defend them.

Which, in turn, means that, as mousethief suggested in the thread in question, pretty much any discussion of reasons for a faith-free stance probably needs to end up in Purgatory.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I personally don't mind critique of my position and opinions - which is what I think Ingo was actually doing with his comment. What I do mind (for this board at least) is when that strays into an attempt to convert which at least explicitly he definitely wasn't doing.

I think more shipmates would feel happier talking here if we could clarify that line so that people can ask questions and probe deeper. It'd further discussion.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

I find I have to remind myself that I am not on a crusade, too. I seem to be going through an angry stage at the moment and that means I feel and say things about the church that some Christians may find offensive. There is no sense in saying anything about GOD because ..... and there lies another danger, for me.
I am grateful for this Board and don't want it to be a place where I only sound-off. However, in addition to feeling angry, I also feel rather delicate. Any suggestion that I am wrong (!) and need to come back to GOD inevitably will hurt and is likely to receive the full force of my anger.
At the moment, I think the Board guidelines are being followed quite well.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Random example, if someone says - i am not a Christian because they teach this literal understanding of the bible and because of their homophobia. I'd wish to be able to challenge that - as in, perhaps that is true for x,y,z denomination but not all churches/denominations believe that. Is there perhaps an additional reason why you went from weekly home group to athiesm without considering other expressions of faith ?

Because it seems that alot of people using this board are still holding elements of spiritual or theist beliefs & at the same time, alot of posters seem to want recapture elements of their experience of church life.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Random example, if someone says - i am not a Christian because they teach this literal understanding of the bible and because of their homophobia. I'd wish to be able to challenge that - as in, perhaps that is true for x,y,z denomination but not all churches/denominations believe that. Is there perhaps an additional reason why you went from weekly home group to athiesm without considering other expressions of faith ?

Because it seems that alot of people using this board are still holding elements of spiritual or theist beliefs & at the same time, alot of posters seem to want recapture elements of their experience of church life.

The trouble is if you take these two together you are going to find it very difficult to stay within the Board guidelines of no converting, or at least not putting pressure on to come back and try it again.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Actually, I was more thinking - if part of the issue is the structures in which your faith community expressed its faith, you may not want to recreate those again for a different set of beliefs.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Were I asked my reasons for breaking with Christianity at a particular point in the past, I am reluctant to talk about them because they involve personal pain that, even 30 years on, I have no wish to revive.

However, the reasons I am not a Christian now are of a different order, and I could see myself comfortably debating those.

But the past and the present, the rational and the personal, are never entirely separable, and it would be each person's call as to what they could deal with.

So I would be in favour of questions being asked, with the proviso that the answer may be 'I don't want to go there'.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The trouble is if you take these two together you are going to find it very difficult to stay within the Board guidelines of no converting, or at least not putting pressure on to come back and try it again.

Not necessarily. I was thinking - had my predominant experience of church been of a contemplative and liturgical order, rather than evangelical/Calvinistic, might I not now be some sort of cultural Anglican, attached to a particular church by sociability and sentiment? Very possibly no more convinced of the truth of religion, but not having suffered the same painful disruption between life and belief?

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I'm not sure whether my question belongs here on in the Styx - perhaps a kind host could move it if the latter is the answer.

Is there space - here or elsewhere - for those who have found themselves in the same dilemma but taken the opposite path to compare their experience? This is very much my experience, but again I'm rather anxious about using this board to explore it because it may sound like proselytising, on the "it doesn't have to kill your faith - look at me and come back into the fold" lines.

It sits probably on the borders of Purg and All Saints, if not in here. At a wild guess, it's the fact that it sits on so many borders that makes me unable to decide where it belongs....now there's a startling revelation.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm not sure whether my question belongs here on in the Styx - perhaps a kind host could move it if the latter is the answer.

Is there space - here or elsewhere - for those who have found themselves in the same dilemma but taken the opposite path to compare their experience? This is very much my experience, but again I'm rather anxious about using this board to explore it because it may sound like proselytising, on the "it doesn't have to kill your faith - look at me and come back into the fold" lines.

It sits probably on the borders of Purg and All Saints, if not in here. At a wild guess, it's the fact that it sits on so many borders that makes me unable to decide where it belongs....now there's a startling revelation.

A thread that is exploring your story - "I went through a whole lot of questions and rejections, but I came back to church" is acceptable. We are happy to celebrate with you. Please, however, avoid any sense of "so you too can come back to church".

Thank you.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

"any sense of" ?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Telling stories is fine, and exploring those stories.

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

It feels difficult to post on this board unless you also agree, respectful disagreement is needed or you risk just being an echo chamber.

I think I agree with you Doublethink. The trouble is finding a way of maintaining it as respectful disagreement and keeping the discussion to a tone which those with doubts find comfortable and helpful. I'd actually like to talk through some of my doubts in that context and would accept some respectful challenges, but I have no idea how we create that atmosphere, and I neither have the time nor the inclination to go all out on these things in purg. (And to be honest, I don't want to be swamped under IngoB's unique posting style here or there... I lurk a lot more than I post these days, and I know whereof I speak!)

Best wishes,

Rachel.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
(And to be honest, I don't want to be swamped under IngoB's unique posting style here or there... I lurk a lot more than I post these days, and I know whereof I speak!)

Ho hum.

Anyhow, my actual post was intentionally aimed at a specific factual claim and addressed that from a specific point of view. I avoided drawing any further conclusions from that, in particular not any conclusions concerning required spiritual action ("therefore you should return to church", or whatever...). As it happens, I largely agree with Pre-cambrian's conclusion, though obviously not with his/her evaluation thereof. But my post itself was open-ended in this regard.

I count six responses that happily affirm Pre-Cambrian's point of view after my post. Some of them, including that of "the famous rachel", written in a rather stark tone. None of these received any hostly attention.

It seems pretty clear then that the main purpose of this board is the mutual affirmation of each other's peculiar lack of faith. Anything posted along those lines is perfectly fine, anything else, not so much. Discussion is limited to support. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But I'm not particularly interested in participating. So, enjoy yourself.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

IngoB, what would you be interested in participating in? What did you expect this board would be?

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Telling stories is fine, and exploring those stories.

Being a non-theist, I find, can be quite lonely at times. (Not as lonely, I'm sure, as being a faith-free person in the church.) Hearing the stories of others and telling my own is helpful to me. It can be both affirming and challenging.

Story-telling I like.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I was uncomfortable with the hosting call re IngoB stating a piece of reasoning was based on false premises (sorry ipad copy/paste not working so linking is compromised).

It feels difficult to post on this board unless you also agree, respectful disagreement is needed or you risk just being an echo chamber. Alot of statements are being made about both "the church" and "Christianity" that i would want to discuss - but if that hosting call is how you are interpreting your guidelines, I don't see how that would be possible.

My posting to IngoB was simply a warning that the line was being approached, not that it had been crossed. It was merely alerting those posting to be aware of their style. Within that discussion, nobody actually broke the guidelines.

Faithfree is for exploring the consequences of leaving the faith you once had. For some people, this is their own exploration and they may have questions, wish to share stories, ask about others' experiences, etc. For other people, this may not be your own exploration but you are wondering about how it works for other people. Or you may be in a borderland and trying to explore all sides. Or heading back to your original faith. Questions are welcomed. Exploring the differences between people's experience is OK. Telling people that they are wrong about their own experience is not OK, and we may request that if a discussion turns in that direction that you either change the approach or move the discussion to Purgatory.

So for those who have said you have questions, try them out and let's see how it works.

Schroedingers Cat
Faithfree Host

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

So I would be in favour of questions being asked, with the proviso that the answer may be 'I don't want to go there'.

Me too.

I've been pondering this this morning, and my thoughts are these: This board, in terms of environment, seems to be a combination of Purgatory and All Saints (with a dash of Hell in terms of anger, not personal attack). So there are intellectual aspects of discussion, but some people have also experienced hurt & betrayal. So we'll have to pick our way through each discussion and each point in terms of the best response.

(I hope that isn't junior hosting, I promise it isn't intended as such, I was just reflecting - in church [Biased]

- this morning, on the sorts of discussions I want to have here. In addition, I'll add that I'm very grateful indeed for the addition of this board and the discussions I've read here so far, and I'm grateful to SC & AR for their work.)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, what would you be interested in participating in? What did you expect this board would be?

I had no particular expectations. I read through all the threads ("slow news day" on SoF...), and commented on something that I considered factually inaccurate. It's the sort of thing I enjoy doing.

Frankly, I see little room for engagement here for me otherwise.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I hope that isn't junior hosting, I promise it isn't intended as such, I was just reflecting - in church - this morning, on the sorts of discussions I want to have here.

One purpose of this thread is to work out what the scope and remit of this board should be, so your input is helpful and useful, thank you. That applies to others posting here - this is a new board, and we need to find the right positioning and tone.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

posted by Doublethink

It feels difficult to post on this board unless you also agree, respectful disagreement is needed or you risk just being an echo chamber.

It seems to me that it's partly because of an ambiguity which has been there since the board was first proposed as to whether it is about some thing or for some people.

I felt then that a public board should be about something and for anyone who was interested in that thing. But I didn't say anything as noone else did. However it does seem to me that such a remit allows for setting specific rules about tone and style without leaving some people wondering whether they should be posting at all.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

moonlitdoor, can you say more? Are there some types of discussions that you think would seem to allowed on a board that is about the topic of being Faithfree, but not on a board that is for people who are Faithfree?

To avoid having people wondering if they should be posting at all, what guidelines would help that? Are there things in our current guidelines that are working against people feeling as if they should be posting?

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
(And to be honest, I don't want to be swamped under IngoB's unique posting style here or there... I lurk a lot more than I post these days, and I know whereof I speak!)
Ho hum.

....

It seems pretty clear then that the main purpose of this board is the mutual affirmation of each other's peculiar lack of faith. Anything posted along those lines is perfectly fine, anything else, not so much. Discussion is limited to support. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But I'm not particularly interested in participating. So, enjoy yourself.

Sorry IngoB - I was unkind.

I was actually more thinking of your posting style in Purg than of your specific post(s) here. I (and maybe others here) are feeling perhaps a little fragile for purg style debate as a whole, and you are perhaps a key tone-setter in purg these days.

If you look at my post, you'll find that I also said:

quote:
The trouble is finding a way of maintaining it as respectful disagreement and keeping the discussion to a tone which those with doubts find comfortable and helpful. I'd actually like to talk through some of my doubts in that context and would accept some respectful challenges...

.

The bit in italics could be read as an invitation to engage, if you want to. The rest is a suggestiong that everyone might need to think about how they engage.

Best wishes,

Rachel.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
I was actually more thinking of your posting style in Purg than of your specific post(s) here. I (and maybe others here) are feeling perhaps a little fragile for purg style debate as a whole, and you are perhaps a key tone-setter in purg these days.

Possibly, if only by sheer volume of output...

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
The bit in italics could be read as an invitation to engage, if you want to. The rest is a suggestiong that everyone might need to think about how they engage.

I still don't know how to "respectfully challenge" without being suspect of "critiquing". I can obviously tone down the heat, though in my experience there's a lot of mote-and-planking going on with that. For example, you rather freely and dismissively caricatured the beliefs of rather a lot of Christians in your reply. But you apparently thought that this is fair enough, or more likely, you didn't particularly worry what those who hold those beliefs would feel. That's totally fine with me. But my point is that in order to really minimise the impact of me expressing my opinion, I have to consciously filter any hint of such superficial and negative engagement with the opinions of other out of my writings. And that actually is a lot of work, since the default mode of my - and I would argue everybody's - writing is actually the sort of thing we see in your post.

But even if I did go through all that effort, it remains the case that "respect" is not an objective quantity. It is a shifting and negotiated standard of behaviour that depends on the people involved. I may be able to correctly guess what "the famous rachel"would consider a respectful challenge. But that does not mean that the next Shipmate over agrees, and they also read that post. For the most part, on SoF, people will let you get away with a crap ton of bullshit if you only 1. spike your opinions with lots of "seems", "appears", "maybe", "possibly", "in my opinion" etc., no matter how strongly you hold them and indeed how forcefully you put them otherwise; and 2. if you re-phrase your strongest assertions as pseudo-questions. So I probably could sneak-ciritique here if I only followed that model. But I think this typical SoF "agreeable discourse" is 1. tedious to read, and 2. fundamentally, either a lie or a delusion of "openness" and "niceness".

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

[Overused]

(There are fleeting moments when I love the idea of you I get from SoF.)

[ 21. December 2014, 23:00: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I seem to remember a bunch of Orthodoxen and Catholics who got tired of having their beliefs concerning saints questioned every time they wanted to talk about them. Somebody would start a thread about, say, 6th century Marian adoration, and a phalanx of Protestants would challenge them on the perpetual virginity, or the cult of saints in general, etc., and they could never get the original question discussed. Finally they decided to start a new board, which if I'm not mistaken was called Stella Maris, and hosted by IngoB.

It seems to me if people wanted to discuss the logic of disbelief, that can easily be done in Purgatory. But if faithfree people wanted to discuss their experiences of faithfreeness, they might want to do so without being challenged by a bunch of godbotherers at every step. Maybe they should do something like the saintbotherers did and create their own board. HEY PRESTO! They did! Here it is! The current edition of Eighth Day, "Faithfree."

The major difference being that Stella Maris was by-invitation-only, and 8th Day being open to all. But the desire to be able to talk about something without answering pestering questions from "outsiders" seems to me to be exactly the same.

Having been one of the Orthodoxen annoyed by the original problem and one of the charter members of Stella Maris, I want to speak out on behalf of faithfree people to have a "safe place" to discuss things without being challenged by godbotherers. I know how they feel. I want them to have the same thing I wished for all those years ago.

Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on :

MT: [Overused]

and thank you.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I would guess that Stella Maris still involved discussion and debate.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would guess that Stella Maris still involved discussion and debate.

So? If that's what the people for whom the board was created wanted, then that's what they can have. If they didn't want that and just wanted to discuss problems with one another, such as Waving Not Drowning, they could do that. Depends on what the "founders" (so to speak) want the board to be.

I'm not at all sure why that's problematic. Or why it's okay to say, "I want to come to YOUR playground, which YOU created in for YOUR own purposes, and do what *I* want to do, and you need to put up with it." What's that shit?

[ 22. December 2014, 00:00: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Well, firstly, it is a public not private board, secondly it appears that - whilst most people posting have major changes in their beliefs and practices - most users are not faith free, thirdly, and most relevantly to my original host call query, hosting seems to moved a little beyond the original brief in the OP.

This makes it difficult to judge what is and is not acceptable. That and my original understanding of the 8D project was that the boards would be purg rules + modifications specific to the project. Though I could be wrong about that understanding.

So my understanding of the faithfree board had been, focus on the journeys of those who had left their previous faith, no prosyletising, purglike engagement.

That is different from, accept without criticism anything posted on the board.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That is different from, accept without criticism anything posted on the board.

One doesn't have to accept anything. One could not read it. One could read it and roll one's eyes. One could read it and get so angry one goes home and kicks one's dog. But a no-criticism rule doesn't in the least imply one has to "accept" anything.

If one can't see something one disagrees with without being compelled in some kind of OCD-like manner to respond, one has other problems.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Indeed. But, this is a test board, and therefore how it runs is up for debate. The original brief did not appear to be no criticism, twas no prosyletising.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(Admin hat off)

Part of the idea of the "test", though, is that they will be evaluating how the guidelines and policies work in practice. Which means they might need to rephrase or adjust things, according to the specific purpose they want the board to serve.

I'm sure they would appreciate a dram of patience as they do that.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Firstly, "accept without criticism" means accept that this is part of their story, and it may not fit with yours. It is about accepting where people are at. It is about not saying "that is not Christian" if they consider that it is.

Secondly, if someone invited critique of their position explicitly, than it is fine to respond to that. It is that the default position is that people are working out where they sit, and in many cases have already had all sorts of people tell than that they are failures, un-Christian, hell-bound or whatever. We on this board don't need to continue that - it is a place for listening and engaging rather. I think we are all aware that some people think we are lost souls.

Thirdly - actually, I did think The Famous Rachaels response was rather strong, but we were, at that point, discussing what to do, and all I could have done was re-iterate what I had said, I left it. She has apologised.

Posting as a shipmate, trying to work out how to make this happen.

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
I was actually more thinking of your posting style in Purg than of your specific post(s) here. I (and maybe others here) are feeling perhaps a little fragile for purg style debate as a whole, and you are perhaps a key tone-setter in purg these days.
Possibly, if only by sheer volume of output...

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
The bit in italics could be read as an invitation to engage, if you want to. The rest is a suggestiong that everyone might need to think about how they engage.
I still don't know how to "respectfully challenge" without being suspect of "critiquing". I can obviously tone down the heat, though in my experience there's a lot of mote-and-planking going on with that. For example, you rather freely and dismissively caricatured the beliefs of rather a lot of Christians in your reply. But you apparently thought that this is fair enough, or more likely, you didn't particularly worry what those who hold those beliefs would feel. That's totally fine with me. But my point is that in order to really minimise the impact of me expressing my opinion, I have to consciously filter any hint of such superficial and negative engagement with the opinions of other out of my writings. And that actually is a lot of work, since the default mode of my - and I would argue everybody's - writing is actually the sort of thing we see in your post.

But even if I did go through all that effort, it remains the case that "respect" is not an objective quantity. It is a shifting and negotiated standard of behaviour that depends on the people involved. I may be able to correctly guess what "the famous rachel"would consider a respectful challenge. But that does not mean that the next Shipmate over agrees, and they also read that post. For the most part, on SoF, people will let you get away with a crap ton of bullshit if you only 1. spike your opinions with lots of "seems", "appears", "maybe", "possibly", "in my opinion" etc., no matter how strongly you hold them and indeed how forcefully you put them otherwise; and 2. if you re-phrase your strongest assertions as pseudo-questions. So I probably could sneak-ciritique here if I only followed that model. But I think this typical SoF "agreeable discourse" is 1. tedious to read, and 2. fundamentally, either a lie or a delusion of "openness" and "niceness".

Fair enough... my earlier post also acknowledged that I have "no idea" how to make this work.

Part of the problem also is that different people will come at this board with different ideas of what it's for. I'm quite willing to discuss where the whole faith thing has fallen down for me, and to be challenged on this, but I'm not willing necessarily to do that in Purg, since I would anticipate either being surrounded on all sides by people telling me how wrong I am or being dismissed and ignored, neither of which strikes me as helpful. I'd actually be reasonably willing to discuss under Purg rules here, if the balance of people hanging out here continued not to be dominated by those who are very sure and comfortable in their beliefs. I'd appreciate a tone which lent towards "I see where you are coming from, but have you considered..." rather than "You are clearly wrong because...". (All that said, I have very little time available to hang out here at all, and will have even less over the coming festive period).

But that's where I'm at. That may not be where anyone else is at, and my impression is that there are a lot of people round here feeling a lot more hurt and angry than me. Hence, what I might be interested in or enjoy is in no way the most important question.

One possibility, I guess, although I suspect it would go against the SoF ethos, would be to allow the original poster of a thread to say: "OK, here is some stuff that I think - and I am willing to be challenged on it. This is thus a thread where challenges and critiques may happen. If you want to critique me, come on in. If you'd rather avoid joining a discussion where criticism is flying, please don't join in this particular discussion."

If this is an allowable thing to do, I could (for example) repost what I said about the "toddler God" on the straws that broke the camel's back thread, and you could have at it. I'm interested, by the way that you think that what I put in that post is "a dismissive caricature". It's actually a very accurate picture of how I see conservative evangelical Christianity, specifically. I didn't tone it down, I admit, but I also didn't ramp it up for effect. In fact, reading it back, I am surprised I described it as "a bit of a parody". The tone is sarcastic, but I am telling the truth as I see it.

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat Thirdly - actually, I did think The Famous Rachaels response was rather strong, but we were, at that point, discussing what to do, and all I could have done was re-iterate what I had said, I left it. She has apologised.

In the interests of accuracy: I have apologised to IngoB for dissing his posting style. That was inappropriate and wrong of me. I have not apologised for the "toddler God" post. If I'm not allowed to speak strongly about my reasons for stepping away from a particular theology here, then I am not sure what this board is for! The one thing I would see myself as needing to apologise for would be continuing that discussion if IngoB's original critique had been ruled out of court, but I don't think that was the case. If I am wrong, please do let me know.

Sorry all - I think I may have a different picture in my head of this board than everyone else. I shall keep playing (as time allows) for now though, until someone tells me to stop!

Best wishes,

Rachel.

PS... fire alarm here - no time to check post - sorry for errors...

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would guess that Stella Maris still involved discussion and debate.

AIUI, it was discussion and debate based on an agreed set of premises, without having to constantly defend those premises against others who did not agree with them, which prevented more interesting discussion from happening.

It may not be as easy to agree a set of Faithfree premises as for saintbotherers (thank you MT), but should not be impossible for people of goodwill.

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:

But that's where I'm at. That may not be where anyone else is at, and my impression is that there are a lot of people round here feeling a lot more hurt and angry than me. Hence, what I might be interested in or enjoy is in no way the most important question.

....

PS... fire alarm here - no time to check post - sorry for errors...

Sorry - lack of time to edit as I raced off for fire alarm means I realsied this bit misses the point:

What I was meaning to say in the paragraph above is that the range of different needs of different posters here, which IngoB's post also acknowledges, may mean that shutting down any "respectful disagreement" is the best option for the majority of the "faithfree". I'd be less inclined to engage myself, but I am in the minority I suspect.

R.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
I'd appreciate a tone which lent towards "I see where you are coming from, but have you considered..." rather than "You are clearly wrong because...".

Given what IngoB said above about many of the words used in SofF, I think his "You are clearly wrong because" is the equivalent to lots of other people's "I see where you are coming from, but have you considered..."

At least, that's how I intend to interpret him from here on.

And yes I'm up for challenges and reasonably strong debate too. I'm off to look up the toddler God bit now.

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Given what IngoB said above about many of the words used in SofF, I think his "You are clearly wrong because" is the equivalent to lots of other people's "I see where you are coming from, but have you considered..."

You may be right. He said that "this typical SoF "agreeable discourse" is 1. tedious to read, and 2. fundamentally, either a lie or a delusion of "openness" and "niceness"", but I am pretty sure it is possible to be courteous and gentle with people who need it, without being a deluded liar!

Rachel.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
And yes I'm up for challenges and reasonably strong debate too. I'm off to look up the toddler God bit now.

The thing is, for some people that is OK, and there is no problem with debate if you specifically ask for it.

The default position though, is more respectful, because some here are sick of other Christians telling them how to do things properly, why they are wrong, what there problems are. This is a place where they can explore those matters without someone saying "Oh, but you are wrong".

In the straws thread, many of the issues are simply one final straw - not enough to be an issue on its own, but along with everything else, the final breaking point. I know that I stayed for a long time, because there was nothing that was so much of an issue that I couldn't ignore it for a while. Until there was. That in itself was minor, but with everything else, for me, was a breaking point.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

Yes I definitely understand that. I should have been clearer - I meant I'm very happy for the robust challenges to be aimed my way specifically. Open season on Jemima! I don't mind.

Sadly, I know exactly what you're getting at in terms of being told exactly where I'm going wrong, and what I therefore need to do, or where I'm not a proper Christian etc.

Rachel - that's a good point. I do aim on the side of gentle, the result of which may be the fluffiest of bunnikins after a turn in the spin drier on occasion. And that probably is tedious to those who wish for a more robust back-and-forth. But yes, courtesy doesn't mean dishonesty.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
And yes I'm up for challenges and reasonably strong debate too. I'm off to look up the toddler God bit now.
The thing is, for some people that is OK, and there is no problem with debate if you specifically ask for it.

The default position though, is more respectful, because some here are sick of other Christians telling them how to do things properly, why they are wrong, what there problems are. This is a place where they can explore those matters without someone saying "Oh, but you are wrong".

In the straws thread, many of the issues are simply one final straw - not enough to be an issue on its own, but along with everything else, the final breaking point. I know that I stayed for a long time, because there was nothing that was so much of an issue that I couldn't ignore it for a while. Until there was. That in itself was minor, but with everything else, for me, was a breaking point.

Could you not cover that with - no prosyletisng and no statements of moral condemnation. (Though I would have thought, you are not a real Christian or you will burn in hell would be covered by commandments 3 & 4 anyway.)

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I don't understand the relevance of the public vs. private board distinction in connection with Eighth Day. Obviously it's a public board, and anyone may post. But not everything is germane or permissible to the ethos of the board. (Granted, we're in the midst of trying to clarify the ethos of the board, and work out if we need some course corrections.) But saying that some things are not for this board is not the same as saying some people may not post here.

Each public board on the Ship has its ethos, and has things that aren't up for discussion there. For example, Heaven is about light-hearted posting, and anyone can post there, but it's not about debating the value or correctness of someone's enjoyment of light-hearted posting. Ecclesiantics is for posting about worship practices, and anyone can post there (even if it's mostly a tat-heavy population), but it's not about debating someone's choice of worship practices in terms of the largescale structure; although it can be about asking questions about why people do things a certain way -- for information, rather than debate, and certainly it's often about clarification on how, within a largescale structure, one might best do something. At least, that's how I experience those two boards, as an example.

I didn't think of Eighth Day boards as necessarily Purg-style debate plus something extra (and what is that extra? simply a limitation of topic?) -- surely if one wants Purg-style debate on poetry, or prayer, or silence, or changing one's original religious affiliation, one can start a thread in Purg. It seems to me that it's partly because Purg-style debate isn't the answer for various topics that they are being proposed as Eighth Day boards.

I don't think I posted on the Poetry Eighth Day board at all, because fascinated as I was by the topic and all the posts, I couldn't muster that kind of creativity. Does that mean the Poetry board was a kind of private board rather than a public board, because it was only accessible to people with a certain kind of creativity? I don't think so.

For Faithfree, it seems to me that there are topics that people have not felt they can raise on either Purgatory and All Saints, and so I think of this board as a little different than both of them in terms of how it operates. Perhaps due to the dynamic that mousethief has talked about in his posts; perhaps for other reasons. Perhaps in the course of this Eighth Day experiment people will come to find ways in which they can raise these topics on the existing boards, after the experiment is over. But I see the experiment as being creating a place for the duration of the run where people find a place to post about these kinds of concerns that they haven't felt fit anywhere else.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The default position though, is more respectful, because some here are sick of other Christians telling them how to do things properly, why they are wrong, what there problems are. This is a place where they can explore those matters without someone saying "Oh, but you are wrong".

Really, Christians bitching that they can't beat up atheists or their arguments is just so much fucking privilege.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Really, I don't think that is what has been happening here.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

In my experience on the Ship, in Purgatory two things drown out a conversation about different ways of believing: the Christians talking about the "proper" way to believe and the militant atheists ridiculing any expression of faith and/or congratulating the poster for being "sensible enough" to stop believing. The only threads that have continued for any length of time with that theme have been in All Saints, where discussion is discouraged, support encouraged.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Curiosity - this board is, in a way, trying to draw the line between these, and give a space for a more nuanced discussion, from those who have found those type of discussions (on the board and IRL) too difficult.

If it helps, I would pay attention to anyone saying "why do you hang on to a ridiculous faith" type of comments just as much. For many people, including myself, our current position is not "logical" or entirely consistent. It is a position of questioning, working out, on a journey without some of the signposts others use.

Being told we are on the wrong route doesn't help, because it is the journey, not the destination, that really matters.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

posted by Autenrieth Road

moonlitdoor, can you say more? Are there some types of discussions that you think would seem to allowed on a board that is about the topic of being Faithfree, but not on a board that is for people who are Faithfree?

I could but I'm not sure whether I should in case people agree with Mousethief's characterisation of 'I want to come to YOUR playground, which YOU created in for YOUR own purposes, and do what *I* want to do, and you need to put up with it.'

I don't know whether he intended that to refer to me among others but such an attitude is far from my intention. That is partly why I wanted to clarify whether it is indeed your playground which I am coming to as a visitor, or whether it belongs to all who are interested in the subject. If it is the former, then I would only post on discussions where the opening poster made it clear that they would welcome various views.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I've decided not to post here, as I don't think my comments as a Christian would be welcomed. I would be treading on eggshells, concerned in case someone thought I was not accepting of their atheism, that I was trying to convert them, or that I didn't understand their pov.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

moonlitdoor, I would indeed like to hear your thoughts on this.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

quote:
posted by Autenrieth Road
moonlitdoor, can you say more? <snip>
I could but I'm not sure whether I should in case people agree with Mousethief's characterisation of 'I want to come to YOUR playground, which YOU created in for YOUR own purposes, and do what *I* want to do, and you need to put up with it.'

I don't know whether he intended that to refer to me among others [...]

Not in particular, no.

quote:
[...] but such an attitude is far from my intention. That is partly why I wanted to clarify whether it is indeed your playground which I am coming to as a visitor, or whether it belongs to all who are interested in the subject. If it is the former, then I would only post on discussions where the opening poster made it clear that they would welcome various views.

I agree it would be very helpful to get this clarified. Kelly said (If I read her right) that the H&A are discussing this; hopefully we shall have their answer soon.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I don't fully understand what moonlitdoor is asking for clarification on, which is why I asked moonlitdoor to explain more.

Mousethief, did this not answer your questions:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedindger's Cat:
Faithfree is for exploring the consequences of leaving the faith you once had. For some people, this is their own exploration and they may have questions, wish to share stories, ask about others' experiences, etc. For other people, this may not be your own exploration but you are wondering about how it works for other people. Or you may be in a borderland and trying to explore all sides. Or heading back to your original faith. Questions are welcomed. Exploring the differences between people's experience is OK. Telling people that they are wrong about their own experience is not OK, and we may request that if a discussion turns in that direction that you either change the approach or move the discussion to Purgatory.

So for those who have said you have questions, try them out and let's see how it works.

That was, among other things, trying to say that this is not a board that's only for faithfree people to post on, which I thought was the question some people were asking. What had that left unanswered for you about posting in Faithfree? What are some things you are unsure whether you can post or not?

It was also meant to encourage people to try posting so we could see how things work in practice, and go from there. But so far it seems as if some people are still unsure if they can post, so it doesn't seem to have worked.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

quote:
posted by Autenrieth Road
moonlitdoor, can you say more? <snip>
I could but I'm not sure whether I should in case people agree with Mousethief's characterisation of 'I want to come to YOUR playground, which YOU created in for YOUR own purposes, and do what *I* want to do, and you need to put up with it.'

I don't know whether he intended that to refer to me among others [...]
Not in particular, no.

quote:
[...] but such an attitude is far from my intention. That is partly why I wanted to clarify whether it is indeed your playground which I am coming to as a visitor, or whether it belongs to all who are interested in the subject. If it is the former, then I would only post on discussions where the opening poster made it clear that they would welcome various views.
I agree it would be very helpful to get this clarified. Kelly said (If I read her right) that the H&A are discussing this; hopefully we shall have their answer soon.

No, I gave my opinion with " admin hat off". I said nothing about what the Admins were discussing.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

The Hosts (Schroedinger's Cat and me) are discussing it. This is an ongoing process, because we've tried to clarify matters but clearly, from recent posts, there are still questions. Right now I'm waiting for more clarifications from moonlitdoor and mousethief so I can try to understand their questions or reservations better, and give SC and me a better chance of responding in a useful way.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

moonlitdoor and mousethief - if you would rather communicate with one of us in a PM, please do - it doesn't have to be public. It is just so we can understand better, and progress this.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

If I may ask a more concrete question: my immediate reaction to Potoroo's OP was to want to point out that I see no difficulty in freely supporting gay rights while being Christian. And in fact I disagree almost completely with the image of Christians as given in that post. Would that be regarded as legitimate discussion for this board or proselytising?

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
If I may ask a more concrete question: my immediate reaction to Potoroo's OP was to want to point out that I see no difficulty in freely supporting gay rights while being Christian. And in fact I disagree almost completely with the image of Christians as given in that post. Would that be regarded as legitimate discussion for this board or proselytising?

I supported Potoroo's post. That was our common experience. It never occured to me that Potoroo was identifying that as a Christian identity as such, just that some churches / Christians behave in that way, as we both seem to have found. I know that there are some Christians who believe and behave differently to those we are talking about and I am glad about that.
There is little point in challenging the post. But I agree with you that being gay is 'legitimate' as a Christian / Biblical lifestyle. Your experience of Christians is obviously different to mine - that's fine, I am glad about that.
As to discussion of the topic - I'll leave that to the hosts.

Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on :

Thank you, Mark Wuntoo. [Overused]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

Thank you Mark. I accept that my experience has possibly made me over sensitive to other people telling me what I, as a Christian, believe and that I therefore read more into Potoroo's post than was there. Mea Culpa and apologies to Potoroo.

Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Thank you Mark. I accept that my experience has possibly made me over sensitive to other people telling me what I, as a Christian, believe and that I therefore read more into Potoroo's post than was there. Mea Culpa and apologies to Potoroo.

Thank you, JoannaP. In no way was I telling anyone what to believe! I was just describing my own experience of Christianity.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Just a general reminder that this is a board where some people may want to express feelings that are part of their journey. There is no requirement here to defend how you feel or why you feel something.

At heart, this is because we want to acknowledge that you may not have those answers at this point. This is not to say don't question, more that a response of "yeah - so what?" is perfectly justified - however it is expressed.

Thank you.

Schroedingers Cat
Faithfree host.

Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on :

I will preface this by saying that I am not an intellectual, but operate more on emotions.

I am a bit concerned that some people seem to be questioning our experiences as valid, or offering us unasked advice about being a Christian (according to their various opinions on what a Christian should be).

Of course, our experiences may not be valid to them – but they are valid to us. So much so that we took an important decision to leave.

Being challenged and argued with leaves me feeling a bit battered. I recall MT's post on page one of the “Faithfree Guidelines” thread (sorry, can't do that pinpointing thing) about starting up an Orthodox and Catholic board called Stella Maris, just so they could discuss the issues they wanted to without being challenged all the time.

All I know is that I was a very committed Christian and followed God with all my might, as I knew it.

I am not questioning the experiences and beliefs of Christians. Those experiences and decisions are valid and important to them.

I appreciate the space to talk about faithfree issues. I am not enjoying being challenged, but I recognise that it is a public Ship board and believing Christians who are still attending church want to have their say. It is just that sometimes I feel they are taking over.

On the other hand, arguments are what makes the board interesting for others, I suppose. I am glad I am not the one who has to arbitrate this. However, I did just want to (rather nervously) put in my two cents.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Potoroo:

I appreciate the space to talk about faithfree issues. I am not enjoying being challenged, but I recognise that it is a public Ship board and believing Christians who are still attending church want to have their say. It is just that sometimes I feel they are taking over.

On the other hand, arguments are what makes the board interesting for others, I suppose. I am glad I am not the one who has to arbitrate this. However, I did just want to (rather nervously) put in my two cents.

First off, I think our guest hosts are doing an impressive job of arbitrating this.

Second, to look at the big picture, the 8th Day project really depends on us giving our guest hosts ownership of their board, and that means, allowing them to evolve their own ethos that serves the purpose of their board. We kind of stepped over AR's excellent post a page back, in which she pointed out that a board - specific ethos isn't really a new thing on the Ship. (Keryg, DH, AS...)

The complication of an 8th Day board is that tthat ethos is evolving while discussion is happening, so having a thread like this to discuss what works and what doesn't is crucial. But after that, we have to give them the reins.

Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But after that, we have to give them the reins.

Of course! And I admire them greatly for having to sort all this out - I couldn't do it.

After I posted the above, I asked myself: would I want a quiet board, or a vibrant board with lots of discussion? And the answer was of course, a vibrant board.

That doesn't mean I like being challenged or advised on my past experiences - how I should have done things better at the time. But yes, apart from that, I do value the different points of view here.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Sorry, that wasn't really directed at what you said, it's that what you said provoked my thinking.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Activity on these boards seems to be dying out.

Is anyone measuring how many of the "faithfree" are now bothering to post on these boards compared to professed Christians who seem to be increasingly taking them over to promote their own beliefs?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:

Faithfree is a place to discuss the implications of having lost or rejected your faith, be that in a representation of the divine, or an expression of faith community.

You could do a poll - but you might want to include the people in last clause too.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:

Faithfree is a place to discuss the implications of having lost or rejected your faith, be that in a representation of the divine, or an expression of faith community.
You could do a poll - but you might want to include the people in last clause too.

You mean those who have lost faith in an expression of a faith community? I think you will find that even they are outnumbered by those who are determined to find them a suitable faith community.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Such as ?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Activity on these boards seems to be dying out.

Not massively. OK, it comes and goes, which is natural. We are monitoring the level of activity and type of posting too.

One reason the boards run for three months and not just one is to see whether they do sustain activity over that period, and whether they stay focussed.

Schroedingers Cat
Faithfree Host

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

It seems to me that the story-telling has diminished and the intellectual arguing has increased. Just my observation and it is reflected in my diminishing interest.
I have felt a little pressure to consider returning to the fold - but it could be paranoia.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
It seems to me that the story-telling has diminished and the intellectual arguing has increased. Just my observation and it is reflected in my diminishing interest.
I have felt a little pressure to consider returning to the fold - but it could be paranoia.

The style has changed, and will vary over time, I suppose. More stories are always good. Mark, you may have felt more pressure by the fact that you have engaged more with some of the discussions than others - I think it is more that there has been some "robust" discussions, which is fine, as long as there is nothing untoward in this.

I do think "the board is not as good as it used to be" might be a little premature for a board that is 5 weeks old.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0