Y'all seem like you're chasing your tails. We had the Nicene creed a while back. Then it was changed several times. Now it's back. One has to wonder...
__________________ Sacerdote, Baptist Minister & Chaplain US Army Retired To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I have some questions as to how this will be enforced. Since icon changes aren't going to be pursued (thank heavens), will people be warned/infracted if they post contrary to the Creed in the CO areas?
I think that the initial posture will be to just move the stuff to the Unorthodox areas and / or delete the post in the thread. I really don't want this to turn into a "you've posted against the Creed so you must get a warning immediately!!!" type of thing. I'm looking through the old rule revision log to see if there was appropriate language...if not I'll just gin it up myself. If it becomes a recurring problem by a specific user (after moves and notifications of moves etc) the full use of moderation protocol is authorized. But I'm certainly not going to be out hunting it...and I'd venture to guess that the Adivsors will be reviewing the first few instances of warnings / infractions (if they occur) to ensure that they're lining up with our intent.
Also, will debate on such things as the triune nature of God, etc. be allowed in the CO areas?
Define "debate"? An argument that the Trinity is false theology, does not exist etc will not be permitted...it is supposed to be that way now but we may tighten things up in that regard. The intent is not to be overbearing so the initial approach will be soft. Questions / discussion about the nature of the Trinity are permitted, of course...but rank unorthodox advocacy is not.
Also, who will be making the calls as to whether something is heterodox or not?
I'll take a look at things, the rest of the Advisors, the chaplains will, and there are plenty of smart enough people on staff.
I know that some things are fairly cut and dried, but others are not. For example, will Nestorianism be tolerated? What about semi-pelagianism?
Nestorianism is not permitted - nor was it permitted under the previous SoF. The difference is that we will be enforcing that now. This isn't a debatable point...so thus answers that part of the question.
As for semi-pelagianism...I rarely ever see it around here (not that I've really been looking). That being said...the East has a different concept of the atonement than does the West...indeed we're often accused of being semi-pel. But to answer what you're really getting at: as semi-pel. is often a charge by Calvinists towards Arminians (or other groups of various traditions that do not hold to total depravity) the best thing to do is walk softly. If there are sotierological debates that are really goofed up we'll take a look at it. I know that it was condemned at Orange and what it means with respect to Grace but I don't particularly care for people using sotierology as a cudgel.
If people think that this is a good time to start up the old Catholic/Protestant wars or Reformed / Not Reformed wars because the Creed is back and they want to see how far they can push things...they'll be swiftly shown the door.
I think that the initial posture will be to just move the stuff to the Unorthodox areas and / or delete the post in the thread. I really don't want this to turn into a "you've posted against the Creed so you must get a warning immediately!!!" type of thing. I'm looking through the old rule revision log to see if there was appropriate language...if not I'll just gin it up myself. If it becomes a recurring problem by a specific user (after moves and notifications of moves etc) the full use of moderation protocol is authorized. But I'm certainly not going to be out hunting it...and I'd venture to guess that the Adivsors will be reviewing the first few instances of warnings / infractions (if they occur) to ensure that they're lining up with our intent.
Define "debate"? An argument that the Trinity is false theology, does not exist etc will not be permitted...it is supposed to be that way now but we may tighten things up in that regard. The intent is not to be overbearing so the initial approach will be soft. Questions / discussion about the nature of the Trinity are permitted, of course...but rank unorthodox advocacy is not.
I'll take a look at things, the rest of the Advisors, the chaplains will, and there are plenty of smart enough people on staff.
Nestorianism is not permitted - nor was it permitted under the previous SoF. The difference is that we will be enforcing that now. This isn't a debatable point...so thus answers that part of the question.
As for semi-pelagianism...I rarely ever see it around here (not that I've really been looking). That being said...the East has a different concept of the atonement than does the West...indeed we're often accused of being semi-pel. But to answer what you're really getting at: as semi-pel. is often a charge by Calvinists towards Arminians (or other groups of various traditions that do not hold to total depravity) the best thing to do is walk softly. If there are sotierological debates that are really goofed up we'll take a look at it. I know that it was condemned at Orange and what it means with respect to Grace but I don't particularly care for people using sotierology as a cudgel.
If people think that this is a good time to start up the old Catholic/Protestant wars or Reformed / Not Reformed wars because the Creed is back and they want to see how far they can push things...they'll be swiftly shown the door.
I am heartened by your responses. Consistency in enforcement is something that has historically been lacking on this site. I will pray that you are all successful in implementing this policy, as it seems like it will be a worthwhile change in line with CF's goals and mission. While I regret that ecumenalism failed as a policy, I do hope and pray that CF will continue to minister to the Christian community and that it will regain its ability to be a beacon of Christianity.
Blessings.
__________________ I love Moriah.
May God richly bless all who seek the Lord.
Y'all seem like you're chasing your tails. We had the Nicene creed a while back. Then it was changed several times. Now it's back. One has to wonder...
I see little that has changed btwn having the creed and not -
just a few changes here or there, but the main divisions will
remain with this in tact and that has been many of the concerns
people have raised.
Many have left becuz they're ignored - and so far, they continue
to be today. Who knows how long people will put up with it or just
stay huddled up in their little safe havens so they can find
some agreement w/ a few that are still at CF.
Again, this is a great move towards where it should be, but
what exactly changes is left to be seen. Frankly I'm tired
of what's allowed under a Christian banner here, but
that seems to be the way they want it.
I am heartened by your responses. Consistency in enforcement is something that has historically been lacking on this site. I will pray that you are all successful in implementing this policy, as it seems like it will be a worthwhile change in line with CF's goals and mission. While I regret that ecumenalism failed as a policy, I do hope and pray that CF will continue to minister to the Christian community and that it will regain its ability to be a beacon of Christianity.
Blessings.
I don't regret that ecumenism has failed - biblically it's supposed to
fail when you try to unite what has been pushed here.
But it still continues actually - they just won't unite; so we continue
to live in constant fighting.
Nadiine, the Nicene Creed does not delineate our Christian values or morals. It is a statement the embodies the beliefs about God that a Christian should have. Like it or not, different denominations aren't going to agree on a lot of issues. That's part of being in a family. We need to learn to get along in spite of those differences.
The most important thing is that we agree on God and His nature.
__________________ I love Moriah.
May God richly bless all who seek the Lord.
I am heartened by your responses. Consistency in enforcement is something that has historically been lacking on this site. I will pray that you are all successful in implementing this policy, as it seems like it will be a worthwhile change in line with CF's goals and mission. While I regret that ecumenalism failed as a policy, I do hope and pray that CF will continue to minister to the Christian community and that it will regain its ability to be a beacon of Christianity.
Blessings.
I don't really think that ecumenism has "failed," per se, rather that what it meant was rather ill-defined. Like everything it is a "work in progress" (this is CF...lol). Things will take time and the intent isn't to say "now that this policy is in effect everyone must do 'X'" but, rather, gently push the site in a given direction over time. If anything failed I think it was the old process of making a change and then grumping about it three weeks later because everything wasn't exactly like you thought it would be in your mind's eye...
If anything failed I think it was the old process of making a change and then grumping about it three weeks later because everything wasn't exactly like you thought it would be in your mind's eye...
Somehow, I don't think that will change at all. It might be muted or forced off-site, but folks are still going to whine and complain any time a change is made.
__________________ I love Moriah.
May God richly bless all who seek the Lord.
True. Some will leave, some will stay...many will complain somewhere. CF will move on. I'm not terribly worried about it.
That's what happens to our attitudes over time thru all these wars
and people leaving...
The confusion, fights & spiritual division still continue under the big umbrella they've chosen to keep outside of the safe havens. (which still undergo 'infiltration' here and there).
I feel the same way you do - but I think it's unfortunate that we have
come to feel this way about CF.
One thing I keep in mind is that no matter how the SOF is changed to our
liking, I don't doubt that people would find ways to get around even that & we'd probly still be in the same predicaments.
Linear Mode
