thanks for your questions.
Thank you very much for your response. It is much appreciated. The reason I asked my questions was because it is always good in debate and discussion to know where the other person is coming from, at least philosophically/idealistically.
I've read hundreds of posts, maybe thousands.
I asked because sometimes we can get ahead of ourselves with representative statements. I am glad to know that this is not the case. Not that it would have made too much of a difference to me. I'm the kind of guy who'll hear you out even if you havn't read a single page. It definitely makes a difference in the conversation though.
diakrisis is judgement/discernemnt, which is sometimes quite right for Orthodox. But condemnation of fellow orthodox and harsh criticism of bishops based on either hearsay or gossip is not Orthodox :-) Which is what i have seen several times. (I'm not saying I ever saw you do this.)
I saw no malice in your statements, but thank you for that last clarification. Condemnation and pointing out faults are separate things in my mind. Now, at the same time, flippant discussion is also not warranted in my mind.
So there really is a quite clear moral responsibility for Orthodox priests and forum moderators to actively censor others when they are rude or aggressive. Some censorship is Orthodox. in fact, the rules here should be just the same as in a local parish. Allowing free-for-all that disturbs people's honest faith is not Orthodox praxis.
That is why I asked you what diakrisis is. They are using their diakrisis as moderators of this forum in the most "pastoral" way they know how. As this is their forum (their church) it is up to their individual "diakrisis" to enforce that which they feel is more right. And even MORE SO, the idea of conciliarity is at its finest here. There is not just one person making the decisions but rather a council of people.
I'm not sure you understood what I wrote from St. Paul to Titus. How is that different to what our Lord said? Read and you will see that sometimes its orthodox to censor false teachers and harsh people. Yes Jesus upset people. But that is different to not stumbling others which our Lord also warned against. make sense??
As far as I can remember from my church history the only people who have been censored were the arch-heretics. So unless we are ready to take up a full tribunal of members on this board, this categorization may be extreme.
Also, I am not sure that I DID understand your quote, because my mind let me immediately to other passages in scripture. Also in the history of the church those who had opposing views were always allowed to voice their opinions, and then the apologetics would begin. No one was silenced for being rude or harsh. If they are a stumbling block then the real apologists need to step it up and show the true faith beyond them. Would you not say that this is more consistent with our church history?
Learning discernment does not require being exposed to rudeness nor unorthodox language and behaviour.
We can really get very nitty gritty here. Rudeness in what sense? Part of the issue is that some people on the site truly make others question their faith, as opposed to being blind and only seeing it their way. They may have used unorthodox language to say that. But so did Athanasius when he used the word hypostasis. Then in 362 he said that it is not about the terms but the thoughts behind the terms. So unorthodox language...I don't buy it.
As for behavior. What is orthodox behavior? What they practice in Alexandria? Constantinople? In your back yard?
As you can see there are a lot of questions here and ideas. I am not trying to pick you apart, only trying to understand what you are saying. There is an obvious gap here b/c we are speaking online.
Please answer at your own discression. No rush. It is holy week after all.