Board re-structuring

[iBrian]

I'm currently in the process of restructuring the forums, not least because changes have been needed for some time, both at the request of members, and also to fit within a logical taxonomic framework.

Changes include:

- "Monotheism" currently renamed "People of the Book" - I simply couldn't think of an all-eoncompassing title for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, while also excluding Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, etc. I'm happy to receive feedback and criticisms of this.

- On that account, the "Sikhism" board has now moved -now in the Eastern Thought section, as it seems more connected to there.

- New category, "Modern Religions" - seemed we needed a specific section to cover religions only founded within the past couple of centuries, so we now have boards for Baha'i, Hare Krishnas, and Rastafarianism in there. More to follow.

- "Alternative" category is now "Paganism" - namely, because most threads were focussed on major areas of modern paganism, though there were a few other bits from modern religions thrown in, simply because there was nowhere else appropriate.

- Pseudonymous's writing section has been sadly removed - not deleted - simply removed from public view, because there has been no presence from him for a year and I've not been able to get a response from him.

- Interfaith Parsha Project - dauer's idea for engaging on a specific interfaith course is a great idea but threatens to unbalance any single board it may be hosted on - therefore it has a section as a sub-board of the "Comparative Studies" board - which means that while criticisms are more welcome, the Code of conduct still applies. Also, dauer has joined the CR staff so that he can moderate what is in effect his brainchild.


As for more - I know there was a suggestion of a one on one debate section, though I'm not yet sure how to place this.

I think it's also past time to create an area for creative writing for peotry and experimental prose - not keen on creating an empty board, so if anyone wishes to start one or two threads I can move into it...

 

[arthra]

Well Brian... as the Administrator of the Forum here I guess it's your prerogative to set the Board up any way you wish!

I'm unsure how others feel about it.

Awhile ago, it seems that you were interested in setting a descriptive section on the "Baha'i Faith" under "world religions". How's that going?

- Art

 

[smkolins]

A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

I notice the new structure to the website. Not sure it'll make everyone comfortable - on the one hand "People of the Book" is a Moslem terminology whcih I'm not sure others would accept. And it's current widely accepted pov puts the Baha'i Faith out of relationship to what it clearly does have a relationship with (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, not to mention Zoroastrianism, also officially a "People of the Book" I think.)

Nor does the category "modern religion" feel comfortable to me. Most of what I think of as modern religions are to me man-made structures rather than something called into existnce by an Act of God. But I'm not God and can't really say one way or the other - but that doesn't mean I don't have a point of view. Nor am I entirely comfortable with the other parts of this section - either fictional religions or aspects of religion (Matrixism, Orange Catholocism, the daVinci code) or rather obscure religions (Rastafarianism, Hare Krishna) despite being a very active discussion area.

The odd thing is, when I first joined this place, I was curious there was more apparent significance given to Zoroastrianism, an almost dead religion (just speaking of worldly presence, not of truth) than there was to the Baha'i Faith which could have more members than Judaism today.

 

[InLove]

Hi Brian--Peace to All Here--

Wow. I can't really speak about Sikhism, because I do not understand what it is.

You asked for feedback on this idea? I guess I will have to say that the term "People of the Book" has always been a Muslim term for Jews and Christians. I may be wrong, but the Q'uran is where I read it first. It must be that the Hebrews/Jews called themselves this? I don't know.

And I suppose I am wondering where the Bahai faith fits in here?

Hmmm...

I really think that "Monotheism" is a better description of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (as well as Bahai). I think if you try to unite these under the term "People of the Book", it will cause more problems than solutions.

There are many reasons why.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[InLove]

Hi, again, Brian--

I really feel very strongly about what I have already posted regarding changing "Monotheism" to "People of the Book". I hope that you recieve other responses concerning this.

So, I was thinking about your idea of getting rid of the term"Alternative". I hope you get other responses to this, as well, but I am thinking that perhaps this is a good idea. For example, if I am Wiccan, to me, my belief is as valid as anyone else's, and so it is no more "alternative" than any other belief. As a matter of fact, Christianity, if you think about it, could be considered "alternative" to Jews. Islam could be considered "alternative" to Christians, and on and on...

When someone speaks to me of "alternative" music, I just know that this means something that most do not consider "traditional", but I often find that it leads back to the roots of some tradition.

I think that if you are looking to effectively restructure, you might consider giving Atheists a board. Really--I am not kidding. Same rules as before--you may visit a board, but respect other's beliefs. (Will I kick myself for this later? I dunno, but it will be between me, myself, and God.)

Then there is the whole Eastern/Western thing. I do not envy you, trying to decipher it all. The world is shrinking, and East and West are actually dialoguing in length now--thanks to websites like this (among other factors). I will always smile when I remember Vajradhara's words about this. Most people with any wisdom at all understand that the world is round...I believe he pointed this out--if one travels far enough one way, one will find the other (I know these are not exactly his words, but I will wager he is not going to sue me over what I have said. )

I guess what I am saying is that this website is really not broken, and I hesitate for you to fix it. But, I must remember that you created it. You can do whatever you like with it.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[iBrian]

Awhile ago, it seems that you were interested in setting a descriptive section on the "Baha'i Faith" under "world religions". How's that going?

Indeed, there are a number of plans I had to put on hold for a variety of reasons, primarily workload, but since then I'm looking at a general restructuring of the site - I like the idea of placing younger faiths together in their own section, and I need to create such a section on the main site. There are a few other plans in the wings, but I'll let everyone know about those once I have something more definite...

I really feel very strongly about what I have already posted regarding changing "Monotheism" to "People of the Book". I hope that you recieve other responses concerning this.

I think you're right - it doesn't make sense to have terminology from one faith blanketing others in the same section. The trouble is, it's hard to find a technically correct term that is exclusively encompassing.

For the time being, I've reverted to Monotheism, and awaiting howls of protest from other monotheistic faiths about being excluded from a category whose intention is primarily set up to address Judeo-Christian-Islamic issues, but remains badly named.

 

[iBrian]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

Sorry smkolins, this was originally posted in the Baha'i board, so I've moved it here where I can address the points raised:

I notice the new structure to the website. Not sure it'll make everyone comfortable

Changes rarely do.

on the one hand "People of the Book" is a Moslem terminology whcih I'm not sure others would accept.

Indeed - changed back to Monotheism, until such time as I can figure a technically correct and properly descriptive category title.

Nor does the category "modern religion" feel comfortable to me. Most of what I think of as modern religions are to me man-made structures rather than something called into existnce by an Act of God.

Ahem - all the religions here need to be placed on a neutral footing. While people of a specific faith may necessarily have an elevated opinion of their own faith, the aim is to try and be objectively fair to all.

Nor am I entirely comfortable with the other parts of this section - either fictional religions or aspects of religion (Matrixism, Orange Catholocism, the daVinci code) or rather obscure religions (Rastafarianism, Hare Krishna) despite being a very active discussion area.

I have to admit, it would be better if some of these subject matters had their own board and separate identity - forums are a very dynamic places that develop and grow and maybe we'll see that later.

or rather obscure religions (Rastafarianism, Hare Krishna) despite being a very active discussion area.

Well, from my own position, these faiths with Baha'i are much closer together in terms of numbers of adherents. Additionally, they are all relatively small and recent. Generally, far more similarities together as a set than with the larger more established religions.

The odd thing is, when I first joined this place, I was curious there was more apparent significance given to Zoroastrianism, an almost dead religion (just speaking of worldly presence, not of truth) than there was to the Baha'i Faith which could have more members than Judaism today.

We've never actually had a Zoroastrian board, and although I've been asked to create one, I'm actually very unsure of where to add one. It doesn't make sense to add it to the current Monotheism section, for as indicated earlier, I'm trying to reserve that to cover Judaism, Christianity, and Islam specifically, not least because there is a lot of connectivity between these three on socio-political as well as theological grounds, and all spanning centuries and millenia.

As for the Baha'i faith having more members than Judaism - no, I don;t see that sustained, but Judaism remains the major platform for the belief systems of around 30%-50% of the world's population, and remains a very influential religion, both socio-politically as well as theologically.

I guess the unsaid point is that some Baha'is may feel that their position on the forums has been somewhat demoted - that isn't my intention at all - Baha'i and Skihism were both moved to the Monotheism section on technical grounds. However, it makes more logical sense - certainly at this current stage - to restructure and make changes, that so far include placing the smaller modern religions together in their own section.

I hope that helps explain things a little better.

 

[thipps]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

I notice the new structure to the website. Not sure it'll make everyone comfortable - on the one hand "People of the Book" is a Moslem terminology whcih I'm not sure others would accept. And it's current widely accepted pov puts the Baha'i Faith out of relationship to what it clearly does have a relationship with (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, not to mention Zoroastrianism, also officially a "People of the Book" I think.)

From a muslim perspective, "People of the Book" applies only to Jews and Christians.
To I, Brian:
"Monotheism" is fine for now. You could try putting in two different montheism boards. One, a general one, entitled "Monotheism" which contains relevant religions other than Judaism, Christianity and Islam and a "Abrahamic Monotheism" baord... just a thought. I know it might make things messy but i also know you would appreciate suggestions, so there it is.
Regarding religions you are having trouble resolving where to put, one thing that could be done is to start a topic in its board and declare a one-week period for input regarding where they themselves would like to have thier board put in. See what you get after one week. If there is a majority that wants it under a certain heading, then your problem is solved. If there is no particular majority, then you can decide the result as you see fit. This will make for less friction in the end as people will atleast feel that they were given a chance to air thier views and that these were considered. Gives the whole process a community feeling.
My 2 cents for now.

 

[bruceg]

I think you're right - it doesn't make sense to have terminology from one faith blanketing others in the same section. The trouble is, it's hard to find a technically correct term that is exclusively encompassing.

For the time being, I've reverted to Monotheism, and awaiting howls of protest from other monotheistic faiths about being excluded from a category whose intention is primarily set up to address Judeo-Christian-Islamic issues, but remains badly named.

How about "We three faiths, non-orient are?"

... Bruce

 

[iBrian]

Thanks for the thoughts, thipps - much appreciated. I was warned that restructuring may be awkward and it is - but certainly I'm all for community input, and it's certainly worth underlining that as CR grows, I see a greater degree of settling with regards to how everything fits in.

 

[arthra]

Thanks for the thoughts, thipps - much appreciated. I was warned that restructuring may be awkward and it is - but certainly I'm all for community input, and it's certainly worth underlining that as CR grows, I see a greater degree of settling with regards to how everything fits in.

Brian:

I do have a recommendation for you regarding the "search the forums" in your search catagories to perhaps make this a little less awkward for you...

You have "modern religions" after "Paganism" which includes categories such as Magick, esoteric, Mysticism...and Paganism is after Monotheism and Eastern thought.

So one has to scroll through Monotheism and Eastern Thought and Paganism to reach New Religions. Since you already have religions as such in Monotheism and Eastern Thought why not add New Religions after these?

Of course Brian this is your Board and you decide but given this restructuring I'm only offering my comment here.

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

just an aside...


i've recently learned that in India, Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma adherents are considered "People of the Book" by some Islamic scholars

metta,

~v

 

[iBrian]

Brian:

I do have a recommendation for you regarding the "search the forums" in your search catagories to perhaps make this a little less awkward for you...

You have "modern religions" after "Paganism" which includes categories such as Magick, esoteric, Mysticism...and Paganism is after Monotheism and Eastern thought.

So one has to scroll through Monotheism and Eastern Thought and Paganism to reach New Religions. Since you already have religions as such in Monotheism and Eastern Thought why not add New Religions after these?

Of course Brian this is your Board and you decide but given this restructuring I'm only offering my comment here.

- Art

At the moment the structure is intended to cover groups roughly according to existing influence - but as before, the Modern Religions section is woefully under-developed, and I am to actively expand that.

I think someone raised a concern about being among less well known groups, but as that section expands, it could well become one of the most diverse and dynamic areas of the site.

 

[Bandit]

How about "We three faiths, non-orient are?"

... Bruce

LOL!
no doubt on that one.

 

[thipps]

just an aside...


i've recently learned that in India, Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma adherents are considered "People of the Book" by some Islamic scholars

metta,

~v

scholars... heh.

 

[smkolins]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

Sorry smkolins, this was originally posted in the Baha'i board, so I've moved it here where I can address the points raised:...

Ahem - all the religions here need to be placed on a neutral footing. While people of a specific faith may necessarily have an elevated opinion of their own faith, the aim is to try and be objectively fair to all. )

Excuse me? Since when should the Baha'i Faith be on an equal footing with Matrixism, Orange Catholocism, the daVinci code. Why are we excluding the Jedi? At least it has an official following.

I stand by my statement. Why is the Baha'i Faith being lumped together with clearly man-made religions?!

 

[smkolins]

The trouble is, it's hard to find a technically correct term that is exclusively encompassing.

For the sake of calling it what it is, why not call it "Judaism, Christianity and Islam" which only gets you in trouble with a static order of names while avoiding other monotheists, and obeying the realm of popularity.

This reminds me of the argument over what is a planet.

 

[smkolins]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

Well, from my own position, these faiths with Baha'i are much closer together in terms of numbers of adherents. Additionally, they are all relatively small and recent. Generally, far more similarities together as a set than with the larger more established religions.

really?! Do tell....

Size..., recent history..., what else?

More established religions - perhaps that's the characteristic you should name? Judaism, Christianity and Islam are established religions. Hmmm - but then there is Buddhism and Hinduism. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "established".

What do you mean by on the one hand wanting a neutral place among religions and segregating the established religions from the rest?

 

[smkolins]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

We've never actually had a Zoroastrian board, and although I've been asked to create one, I'm actually very unsure of where to add one. It doesn't make sense to add it to the current Monotheism section, for as indicated earlier, I'm trying to reserve that to cover Judaism, Christianity, and Islam specifically, not least because there is a lot of connectivity between these three on socio-political as well as theological grounds, and all spanning centuries and millenia.

All three of them have profound, even scriptural sometimes, relationship to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity and Islam. Zoroastrianism also has connectivity with Hinduism. It just doesn't fit into a scheme. It's saving grace with respect to any simple segmenting scheme is that there are almost no Zoroastrians left.

As for the Baha'i faith having more members than Judaism - no, I don;t see that sustained, but Judaism remains the major platform for the belief systems of around 30%-50% of the world's population, and remains a very influential religion, both socio-politically as well as theologically.

You don't see it sustained that there are that many Baha'is (question of evidence and believability) or that Baha'is haven't had that number over a sustained period (it being so young and growing - and we could quickly disappear.)

I guess the unsaid point is that some Baha'is may feel that their position on the forums has been somewhat demoted - that isn't my intention at all

What was your intention? I didn't see this coming and thought the older structure worked reasonably. Were you getting criticisms from others about the placement of Baha'i and other religions in whatever sections? I missed that, except for a thread about "Do we all beleive in the same God(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.)" though even there not so much.

 

[smkolins]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

All three of them have profound, even scriptural sometimes, relationship to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity and Islam. Zoroastrianism also has connectivity with Hinduism. It just doesn't fit into a scheme. It's saving grace with respect to any simple segmenting scheme is that there are almost no Zoroastrians left.

Now here's something - where will Mormons be placed in the new order?

New Religion? Monotheism? Is it small or part of Christianity?