![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Biblical Hermeneutics site: mostly harmful
The Stack Exchange network has many great Q&A sites, several of which I'm pretty heavily involved with. (I just passed 100k reputation network-wide.) My first and favorite site is Mi Yodeya, the site for Jewish questions and answers. The quality level is very high; I've learned a lot.
SE started with Stack Overflow, for expert programmers, and then added sites for other technical subjects -- programming, system administration, database administration, and the like. Over the years the scope has broadened to include all sorts of topics -- religions, languages, math, cooking, writing, and many more (over 130 of them at the moment). One of these sites is Biblical Hermeneutics (BH).
When BH first showed up I asked why this topic wasn't already covered by the site for Christianity, and I was assured that, in contrast to the religion sites (Mi Yodeya and Christianity, at the time), BH didn't have a doctrinal basis -- the goal was something more akin to the religious-studies department at a secular university. In other words, this was a site for bible geeks, not zealots. I'm a bible (well, torah) geek, so I jumped in.
It didn't work, despite the best efforts of some excellent users -- shining examples of how people should behave there, some of whom I count as friends. Over the three and a half years that it has existed BH has moved from respectful discourse to quite a bit of Christian evangelism and presumption. When nearly every question about the Hebrew bible is answered with the claim that it's talking about Jesus, no matter how inappropriate, it can get pretty frustrating.
BH is a Christian site. Its users refuse to bracket their bias, to write descriptively rather than prescriptively, and to rein in the preaching and truth claims. Opinions masquerade as answers, supported by those who share the opinions and don't stop to ask if an answer actually supported its claims. When that happens you don't have an academic site; you have a church bible-study group. Most people there seem to be fine with that; it's not likely to change.
The site actively recruited Jews. Originally they welcomed us, but the evangelists and those who support them have driven nearly all of us out now by creating a hostile environment. (Last I checked, there was one known Jew there.) It kind of feels like we've been invited to a medieval disputation, except that we, unlike our ancestors, can actually opt out.
In explaining why I no longer felt comfortable there, I wrote:
That was in 2013. Not only did those words fall on deaf ears, but things got worse. I (belatedly) sought rabbinic advice, and it became clear that BH.SE is no place for Jews. I left the site, made (and later updated) this post on Mi Yodeya's discussion (meta) site, and ultimately deleted an account with over 10k reputation.
Other Jews from Mi Yodeya were smart enough to not get very involved there in the first place. But for the sake of other Jews who might come across that site (and this post) I leave this warning: participating there comes with hazards. Please consult your rabbi first.
I'll stay in touch with friends from there in other ways. I wish them the best of luck in trying to bring the site back on track, Herculean task though that may be. I hope it doesn't hurt them. But I'm done.
(I was not planning to make a public post in this journal about this, but some discussions with other SE folks after the deletion of my account persuaded me that I should make one post here.)
SE started with Stack Overflow, for expert programmers, and then added sites for other technical subjects -- programming, system administration, database administration, and the like. Over the years the scope has broadened to include all sorts of topics -- religions, languages, math, cooking, writing, and many more (over 130 of them at the moment). One of these sites is Biblical Hermeneutics (BH).
When BH first showed up I asked why this topic wasn't already covered by the site for Christianity, and I was assured that, in contrast to the religion sites (Mi Yodeya and Christianity, at the time), BH didn't have a doctrinal basis -- the goal was something more akin to the religious-studies department at a secular university. In other words, this was a site for bible geeks, not zealots. I'm a bible (well, torah) geek, so I jumped in.
It didn't work, despite the best efforts of some excellent users -- shining examples of how people should behave there, some of whom I count as friends. Over the three and a half years that it has existed BH has moved from respectful discourse to quite a bit of Christian evangelism and presumption. When nearly every question about the Hebrew bible is answered with the claim that it's talking about Jesus, no matter how inappropriate, it can get pretty frustrating.
BH is a Christian site. Its users refuse to bracket their bias, to write descriptively rather than prescriptively, and to rein in the preaching and truth claims. Opinions masquerade as answers, supported by those who share the opinions and don't stop to ask if an answer actually supported its claims. When that happens you don't have an academic site; you have a church bible-study group. Most people there seem to be fine with that; it's not likely to change.
The site actively recruited Jews. Originally they welcomed us, but the evangelists and those who support them have driven nearly all of us out now by creating a hostile environment. (Last I checked, there was one known Jew there.) It kind of feels like we've been invited to a medieval disputation, except that we, unlike our ancestors, can actually opt out.
In explaining why I no longer felt comfortable there, I wrote:
I don't have a problem with Christians. I have a problem with Christian axioms -- or any other religion's axioms -- being treated as givens on a site that claims to welcome all. I thought we could keep that in check, but now I wonder. [...]
I came to teach and learn in a classroom. But people brought in an altar,
crucifix, and communion wafers, and the caretakers gave them directions.
That was in 2013. Not only did those words fall on deaf ears, but things got worse. I (belatedly) sought rabbinic advice, and it became clear that BH.SE is no place for Jews. I left the site, made (and later updated) this post on Mi Yodeya's discussion (meta) site, and ultimately deleted an account with over 10k reputation.
Other Jews from Mi Yodeya were smart enough to not get very involved there in the first place. But for the sake of other Jews who might come across that site (and this post) I leave this warning: participating there comes with hazards. Please consult your rabbi first.
I'll stay in touch with friends from there in other ways. I wish them the best of luck in trying to bring the site back on track, Herculean task though that may be. I hope it doesn't hurt them. But I'm done.
(I was not planning to make a public post in this journal about this, but some discussions with other SE folks after the deletion of my account persuaded me that I should make one post here.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Oh, now I know what icon to use for THIS comment!
* Consistent agnostic: I don't know, and I don't think you do either.
° For those who may not know (not you, Monica!), that's not redundant.
no subject
"Unrecognized good" - there's a tradition/philosophy/something that everything that happens is for a benefit, but we often don't see enough of the picture to know what it is. Sometimes we do though... my best example is the fact that I had a one-day stomach flu a couple of months before before I got married, which I did *not* appreciate at the time. But then when I got sick on my wedding day I recognized it as "nothing serious, will feel better tomorrow, and in the meantime do X, Y, and Z to lessen the symptoms" and then I was so focused on not appearing sick (so I wouldn't get fussed over by everyone) that I didn't have spoons left to care about any small problems that happened at the wedding.
no subject
You would be able to tell if you visited the site now, but it wasn't so obvious in 2011-2012. There's a claim -- no idea if it's true -- that while, if you drop a frog into boiling water it'll jump right out (ouchie), if you instead put it in a pot of cold water and gradually heat it up, the frog won't jump out in time and you get cooked frog. Jews, and for that matter non-evangelical Christians, were the frogs in that site's pot of cold water.
And it's not just the frogs who couldn't tell in time; several of the moderators and senior users can't see it either. Oh well.
no subject
And I figured it couldn't have been that bad/obvious at the beginning or you would have noticed then. I'm just glad you we're able to extricate yourself.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-04-17 01:24 am (UTC)(link)This isn't entirely relevant, but I remember when you still had a profile on BH warning about Christian bias on the site. As someone who's occasionally poked at Christianity.SE just to read questions (and has fallen into a rage because of the amount of irrelevant preachiness that even high rep users can have there), I'd like to thank you for that warning. I never did end up on Hermeneutics, but something tells me I might have had a better time of it (for a vast number of reasons) asking the questions I'd had about the Hebrew Bible on Mi Yodeya instead. Cheers!
no subject
Christianity.SE is very Christian in flavor (no surprise), but I find that easier to take than what's going on at BH. C.SE is up front about it; BH isn't. I don't spend much time on C.SE, it not being a major interest of mine, but I've asked a few questions there and felt like I was treated reasonably.
Please do ask your questions about the Hebrew Bible on Mi Yodeya -- we welcome them. You will, of course, get Jewish answers, just as you'd get Christian answers on C.SE. If you want non-religious answers, I'm afraid you'll have to look outside Stack Exchange. (There are a couple people on BH who bring that perspective, but it'll be mixed in with rather a bit of evangelism.) I hope you'll visit Mi Yodeya next time you have a question, or just to browse. We have lots of biblical questions already, especially torah, tagged by parsha (torah) or book (prophets and writings).
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-04-17 03:31 am (UTC)(link)But anyhome, thanks for the response! I'll probably keep asking the occasional question on Mi Yodeya, particularly since for my purposes, I feel like it's valuable to, at the very least, be aware of religious interpretations.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-08-20 02:48 am (UTC)(link)It took me longer to see it... but it is a (Protestant) Christian site
(Anonymous) 2018-03-30 04:18 pm (UTC)(link)Re: It took me longer to see it... but it is a (Protestant) Christian site
It sounds like we know each other; now I'm really curious who left this anonymous comment. :-) If you're willing to share but just didn't want to do so publicly, I hope you'll drop me a note via email (this user name at pobox.com). Particularly if we parted on not-so-great terms, I'd like the chance to rectify that.
Finally, if you're interested enough in biblical studies to participate there, then chances are you have a holiday coming up either this weekend or next. I hope you have a happy celebration.
Thoughts ...
(Anonymous) 2018-08-13 07:43 pm (UTC)(link)I can't say I know what's happening at BH, today or then, but as a high contributor to both main and meta on Christianity SE, I can say it's a common occurrence that minority opinions almost always feel unfairly treated. Mistreatment does happen, but rarely. They are far more often treated fairly. I attribute this to one simple rule for the site: all answers must fit the frame of the question. Answers that don't fit the question frame are usually downvoted and often deleted (which ironically yields complaints of mistreatment and censure also). A minority opinion does get more scrutiny, but that's not unfair. That's a fact of life. So they must be more clearly and vigorously voiced, which is perhaps a nuisance, but not inherently unfair. I would argue that the extra scrutiny allows you a larger platform to defend the minority opinion, just as disputations are meant to do. A minority opinion gaining audience with a majority opinion is a good thing, whether the purpose is to merely listen or dispute. Just letting everything said stand without scrutiny doesn't really help us learn anything, as I think happens on Workplace.
But you being who you are, your SE experience in consideration, I'll take you at your word regarding your experience at BH, and I'm very sorry to hear it. Did you get SE staff involved? In a comment above you mention your account deletion as if it was necessary because certain users were harassing you.
I must say that my few experiences at BH have been okay, though answers have perhaps shown the problem you mention. My usual question there is very textually critical, seeking for interpolations and things like that. Here's one directly addressing your concerns: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/17165/2055
Anyway, I'm sorry you deleted your account. It makes it hard to view your contributions, and at 10K a significant portion of your thoughts are now marked as anonymous. I know SE claims to try to separate users from contributions, but that's just not possible. Reading multiple posts from the same person can give you a synthesis of their ideas, which sometimes adds up to more than their sum. Will you tell me your user number at least?
Re: Thoughts ...
The Christianity site has scoping rules that help keep the kind of problem I experienced in check. If somebody asks a question about the Lutheran church or the Greek orthodox church or whatever, then answers about Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or Baptists are not answers per site rules and are removed (if they're not edited to fix the problem). As I understand it, the site requires this kind of scoping to keep "doctrine wars" in check.
No such rules existed on BH when I was there. A question asking about the interpretation of some passage in Genesis, for example, even if it asked for text-based analysis, would invariably get "that's about Jesus" and personal opinions (no hermeneutic declared) or odd mystical interpretations having no evident connection to the text. And the community retained those answers, upvoted the evangelical Christian ones, and called this "pluralism" and "diversity".
I don't mind that Jewish (or other minority) perspectives had to compete with legitimate Christian ones; I mind that they were getting drowned out pretty much everywhere by inappropriate evangelical noise. The practices of the users and moderators were inconsistent with the stated goals of being welcoming to all and requiring answers to be relevant (and show their work). By being "welcoming" to evangelists and the fringe, they were by definition unwelcoming to religious minorities and, in particular, one that has been persecuted by Christian evangelists for centuries. Can you see how uncomfortable that would feel?
I was getting harassed by some users (and moderators), but that's not directly why I left. Rather, that led me to re-evaluate what I was doing there, and I realized that what was actually doing was helping to build a quasi-church online, and that's really not ok.
I did get SE employees involved, several times, with very mixed results. My complaints about a problematic moderator went nowhere. Tim Post was super-helpful in various ways I won't get into here. I'll tell you my user number in SE chat, and also why it won't help you as much as you think it will. My best bible-related writing is on Mi Yodeya.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2019-09-07 02:11 pm (UTC)(link)But you seem to be right in your observation that MY is less of a problem here compared to BH. Way less, from what I read there.
To get on one topic: The search for "homosexual" leads to questions and answers that are in my opinion less than ideal on MY, but highly problematic on BH. From complete hateful bigotry in comments to dozens of regular posts that each would deserve dozens of flags for violations. And your 'evangelicals' argument only crowns off the whole affair.
Just one example for a question that starts with: "I see people showing me their resoning that homosexuality deserves condemnation, I know that and fully endorse, […]"
Is it a modern miracle that this site is allowed to exist in this form on the StackExchange network?
no subject
In general I find that discussions on topics that involve a variety of strong opinions work better if the discussion is depersonalized -- neutral, descriptive, even clinical language reduces the strong emotional reactions. This is an area where BH failed during my time there; evangelists hate neutral, descriptive language and are all about stirring up emotional responses, and to make things worse, they seem to think that source citations get in the way. Since they believe they are literally on a mission from God to save souls, I understand why they behave that way -- but it's *really* out of place if the *other* people are there to have a more neutral discussion.
By the way, if you see bigotry or hateful comments on any Stack Exchange site, please flag them! Comments in particular can fly under the radar; moderators don't see most of them. If there's something that needs attention, please point it out.
Is it a modern miracle that this site is allowed to exist in this form on the StackExchange network?
I don't think the Source of miracles is involved in the sites at that level. I think the user communities have to bear the responsibility.