[OPEN] WWMC Posters Imput Needed!

[seebs]

Another thing, you really should close this to all who do not support the gay agenda. Because that seems to be your favorite topic but to disagree with you is called judgemental, flaming and, at the very least, debating.

I am sorry if this has happened. I do not believe for a moment that the phrase "the gay agenda" refers to any real thing in all of creation; I think it's an imaginary bogeyman.

But I do not think that anyone should be picked on for having different opinions on any issue. That's harmful.

Lastly, I do find this forum offencive because I have been told there are certain standards of belief that must be held to post in the Christian only section, yet you folks want the privilage of making your own rules inside the Christians only box. Belief in the divine birth and the resurection seemed to me to be pretty basic to Christianity, but you want the right to not believe.

Well, I'm pretty fond of those beliefs myself, but I want the right to associate with people who are not yet persuaded.

You have voiced a concern about others infiltrating your coxy climate to flame you when many of you are here under an assumed belief.

I don't think that's true; so far as I can tell, once you get into the CO forums, we have only Christians who assent to most of the Creed. (CF allows a few exceptions; ironically, the most active use of those exceptions comes from a couple of the most firmly conservative groups!)

If you think I've been rude, you should hear all the ways I've been called stupid for believing in biblical creation, but I don't report them, I just go to my bible and speak truth.

Then, I must say that I am sorry you have been attacked and insulted, because I believe that is sinful no matter who's doing it. And I personally think that, if you would rather speak the truth than invoke powers against those who attack you, that you certainly ought to be welcome to speak your mind freely in this forum.

 

[timlamb]

I am sorry if this has happened. I do not believe for a moment that the phrase "the gay agenda" refers to any real thing in all of creation; I think it's an imaginary bogeyman.

But I do not think that anyone should be picked on for having different opinions on any issue. That's harmful.



Well, I'm pretty fond of those beliefs myself, but I want the right to associate with people who are not yet persuaded.



I don't think that's true; so far as I can tell, once you get into the CO forums, we have only Christians who assent to most of the Creed. (CF allows a few exceptions; ironically, the most active use of those exceptions comes from a couple of the most firmly conservative groups!)

Then, I must say that I am sorry you have been attacked and insulted, because I believe that is sinful no matter who's doing it. And I personally think that, if you would rather speak the truth than invoke powers against those who attack you, that you certainly ought to be welcome to speak your mind freely in this forum

.

Thank you seebs; what I said was true but what it implyed and your responce has convicted me. I haven't always held my temper or my mouth in check, but I am learning. I like talking to those who believe differently than me, but only if it can be done in the context of scripture. To many in the debate forums make truth subjective to emotion and desire. I have hoped by staying in the Christian forums I would get biblical discussions, it isn't working very well. The powers seem to be more interested in feelings and freedoms than truth. Oh well, thanks.
Tim

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Hey Lamby, I've always tried to answer you scripturally where appropriate. Sorry if you've not felt listened to.

 

[timlamb]

Hey Lamby, I've always tried to answer you scripturally where appropriate. Sorry if you've not felt listened to.

thank you Flandidly

 

[I <3 Abraham]

As most of you already know the staff has been discussing setting some boundaries to better define our congregation for the purpose of our liberty and safety.

Please read the following carefully and give thoughtful consideration to your reply.

This is a proposed definition:

Liberal Christianity, within a modern Christian context, is a movement within Christianity that is sometimes known as progressive or modernist, and is often characterized by the following features:

• internal diversity of opinion that may or may not include those of Conservative Christianity.
• an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible with a corresponding willingness to question supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)
• the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible
• broader views on salvation than those held by conservative Christians
• an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community, often applied in recent years to racial minorities, the disabled, women, and LGBT people.
• a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)
• a willingness to re-evaluate and modify orthodox theology in the light of modern scientific theories

A more clearly defined WWMC will help us in our efforts to keep this forum safe. It is my desire that WWMC continue to evolve into an environment where Christians can express their views without fear or intimidation.

We look forward to your imput.

My only suggestions are these, slight, revisions.

• an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible with a corresponding willingness to question the historical basis of supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)
• the rejection of universally applied biblical literalism and the utter inerrancy of the Bible

 

[Teshi]

I don't think it should be the only topic, but if people want to come here and challenge our beliefs, I say let's do it up!

Or, if I may borrow my namesake's words for a moment:

The First Epistle General of Peter, Chapter 3, Verses 15-16
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.​

Kicking people out of the forum doesn't sound meek to me.

Asking that people who don't consider themselves liberal, and/or who are unwilling to treat liberals and their ideas with gentleness and respect, don't aggressively debate in a place designated a safe haven, is not the same as kicking people out. Nor is it refusing to dialogue with them, as there are a number of non-Congregational fora specifically for the purpose of discussing these issues. Please don't turn my point of view into a strawman so you can easily burn it.

To be blunt - and I hope this is not insulting to anyone, because I don't intend it to be derogatory - if I wanted to be constantly defending the validity of a more liberal/progressive/post-modern point of view, I'd have stayed in my former congregational forum. I'd hoped this forum would be a place to discuss and elaborate upon issues, ideas and people's experiences, but it's turned into just a place where we have to constantly defend the very validity of even discussing those issues, ideas and experiences.

Frankly, I don't enjoy combat, seebs, and it'd be nice to get away from it every once in a while. If I'm the only one that feels that way, cool, please disregard. But I hope I'm not. And I really don't find the idea of retiring for respites with similar worldview'd folks to be an unbiblical idea. Even Jesus took breaks from preaching to spend time in quiet discussion and prayer with the disciples.

 

[Multi-Elis]

What about this:

3.5 Controversial Topics to Be Discussed Only in Certain Forums

A. You will not post content regarding the following subjects anywhere on CF except in Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology, Christian Philosophy, or any subforums in the Congregation or Recovery* categories:

drug use
gambling
polygamy
extramarital or premarital sexual activity
homosexuality
transsexuality
abortion

*You will not make posts promoting or endorsing any of these subjects in Recovery forums.

B. Controversial doctrines listed below must be discussed in the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines or Liberal Theology forums only:

Full Preterism
Open Theism
Universalism or Universal Salvation
Annihilationism
Freemasonry

 

[Freedom&Light]

seebs, I agree with Teshi that you're making a strawman argument. I'm not saying people can't post here. Anyone can post fellowship and discussion. However, because this is a congregational forum, not everyone can debate here.

~~~~~~~~~

Forget putting labels on people, forget the definition of liberal.

If we are going to allow everyone to debate, how should we moderate this? Some remarks from a "regular" who has a more liberal point of view would be fine, but those same remarks could be seen as flaming or baiting if it is from a conservative member.

In the past 2 days, there have been 7 reported threads. That is a lot for this little forum. Something has to be done. Because there are no boundaries, we mods are almost powerless to act on these reports.

That's why these boundaries need to exist. What we are asking of our friends in our forum is how to best define these boundaries so that we can mod fairly and consistently.

I am so thankful for everyone's time and feedback.

ETA:

What if something like this was the sticky, intro at the top of the forum? Please feel free to add/subtract.

"WWMC was originally created to give liberal Christians a place of fellowship and discussion. Keeping that intent in mind, we invite all, Christians and non-Christians, to share in the fellowship and discussion. We ask that everyone be respectful of the opinions expressed in this forum, because there are so many varying views. Anyone who comes and flames another user in this forum (evidenced by condemning others for their opinions, insinuating that liberal Christians are somehow "lesser" Christians, etc.) will be warned and their comments moderated."

 

[stumpjumper]

As most of you already know the staff has been discussing setting some boundaries to better define our congregation for the purpose of our liberty and safety.

Please read the following carefully and give thoughtful consideration to your reply.

This is a proposed definition:

Liberal Christianity, within a modern Christian context, is a movement within Christianity that is sometimes known as progressive or modernist, and is often characterized by the following features:

• internal diversity of opinion that may or may not include those of Conservative Christianity.
• an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible with a corresponding willingness to question supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)
• the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible
• broader views on salvation than those held by conservative Christians
• an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community, often applied in recent years to racial minorities, the disabled, women, and LGBT people.
• a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)
• a willingness to re-evaluate and modify orthodox theology in the light of modern scientific theories

A more clearly defined WWMC will help us in our efforts to keep this forum safe. It is my desire that WWMC continue to evolve into an environment where Christians can express their views without fear or intimidation.

We look forward to your imput.

As a matter of personal opinion, I believe the above is a pretty good broad definition of Liberal Christianity as it is witnessed in this forum... With a strong emphasis on being open to fellowship with those who hold many of the above beliefs even if one does not themselves accept all of the criteria on that list...

I would hazard a guess that the majority of reported posts in this forum tend to violate this portion more than others:

an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community, often applied in recent years to racial minorities, the disabled, women, and LGBT people.

 

[seebs]

Thank you seebs; what I said was true but what it implyed and your responce has convicted me. I haven't always held my temper or my mouth in check, but I am learning. I like talking to those who believe differently than me, but only if it can be done in the context of scripture. To many in the debate forums make truth subjective to emotion and desire. I have hoped by staying in the Christian forums I would get biblical discussions, it isn't working very well. The powers seem to be more interested in feelings and freedoms than truth. Oh well, thanks.
Tim

Keep in mind that not all Christians see the Bible as the beginning and the end of truth. Some of us see it as a good starting point, but are quite amenable to searching for direct revelation.

There is a single thing which is the beginning and the end of truth, and indeed, the truth itself, but it is not the Bible.

 

[seebs]

The problem, as I see it, is that it's very hard to define any positions that people shouldn't be allowed to debate here. Any position you care to name can be held by someone who is clearly a "liberal Christian" in a meaningful sense.

I understand the desire to have non-debate threads, where there is no expectation that a position will be defended, but... How would we choose which positions those would be?

This leaves us with an essentially insurmountable problem. There's no way to define that list that won't leave people who are "obviously" real live liberal Christians unable to advocate for their positions. If we rule out certain positions, then some of our members cannot talk about some of their beliefs. If we rule out people who hold certain positions, then those same members are no longer allowed to debate anything, even when they're on the "right" side.

So, what to do? I don't know. I think the notion of letting people sign up to be "considered liberal" might be a good compromise. It lets people decide for themselves whether they want to participate in debate, and I don't think we'll get many people whose intentions are genuinely hostile who want to do that.

But I know people who are unquestionably liberal, and whose pro-life positions make the official Catholic position look hopelessly muddled and compromise-ridden on the sanctity of life, and I know people who are unquestionably liberal, and whose beliefs about the interpretation of Genesis make most young-earth Creationists look like postmodern scientists.

So we can't rule out beliefs. I'd be fine with saying "if you wish to debate here, you have to affirm that you consider yourself a liberal Christian", because that leaves people the right of self-identification.

 

[stumpjumper]

One thing to keep in mind is that very few of the regular "liberal" members come here to debate. I know I tend to just look at WWMC as fellowship and not really a place for debate...

Nine times out of ten it is those who are looking for debate who are really not liberal in any meaningful sense that end up causing problems so I think there is an issue that needs to be addressed. If they are allowed to debate within then it pretty much makes the whole congregational forum idea superfluous...

 

[timlamb]

Keep in mind that not all Christians see the Bible as the beginning and the end of truth. Some of us see it as a good starting point, but are quite amenable to searching for direct revelation.

There is a single thing which is the beginning and the end of truth, and indeed, the truth itself, but it is not the Bible.

I don't mean to get off topic here, but since you brought it up; I believe there is revolation beyond the knowledge of the bible, but nothing that would change the meaning, only to broaden our understanding. God is the same tomarrow, and so is His word. Now, is this debating or discussing?

 

[timlamb]

Keep in mind that not all Christians see the Bible as the beginning and the end of truth. Some of us see it as a good starting point, but are quite amenable to searching for direct revelation.

There is a single thing which is the beginning and the end of truth, and indeed, the truth itself, but it is not the Bible.

I don't believe the bible is the end of truth, but no new knowledge will stray from it. God is the same tomarrow, His word is also. Is this debating or discussing?

 

[Toney]

A more clearly defined WWMC will help us in our efforts to keep this forum safe. It is my desire that WWMC continue to evolve into an environment where Christians can express their views without fear or intimidation.

Safe?

Apologies in advance eRev, I did not read the entire thread.

Two years ago when we received CF consent for this new board, we were not concerned about safety or fear of intimidation. For two years, there have been virtually no problems at WWMC. If a problem occured, the Mods handled it without resorting to tight definitions; without wedging people into little boxes.

Frankly, I think this entire board should be [open]. People forget to include the [open] tags, don't know about them, or don't understand the full implications of "closing" a thread (by omitting the tags) in at forum that is titled "whosoever will ..."

Perhaps, for safety and/or to reduce the fear of intimidation, a timid OP could just [close] their thread. It'll keep the Jews away.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Safe?

Apologies in advance eRev, I did not read the entire thread.

Two years ago when we received CF consent for this new board, we were not concerned about safety or fear of intimidation. For two years, there have been virtually no problems at WWMC. If a problem occured, the Mods handled it without resorting to tight definitions; without wedging people into little boxes.

Frankly, I think this entire board should be [open]. People forget to include the [open] tags, don't know about them, or don't understand the full implications of "closing" a thread (by omitting the tags) in at forum that is titled "whosoever will ..."

Perhaps, for safety and/or to reduce the fear of intimidation, a timid OP could just [close] their thread. It'll keep the Jews away.

Sounds like a wise post.

 

[Joykins]

Just a little side comment that for those who wish to debate about/against liberal theology--there is a debate forum provided for that purpose. This is a congregational forum. Perhaps we should have a custom to move threads which are debates *about* Liberal theology to the open debate forum?

 

[eRev]

Toney, while I agree with your understanding of whosoever (please read my other posts for context) the desire for safety is not my own rather it stems from the several reports recently received (try saying that five times fast ... reports recently received reports recently received reports recently received reports recently received reports recently received). You say we, including the regular posters of this 'congregation' without complete knowledge of what the other members are saying in their reports. It is due to this that we began discussing ways to better facilitate this forum.

Peace in Xp

 

[Toney]

I understand the motivation for the OP. And without reading your other posts, I am sure they are sufficiently pastoral.

Now, along the lines of better facilitating this forum, and since the thread requests input, there are a couple of quick points, please.

1. An enormous amont of time and energy is spent at CF making the congregational fora more exclusive. Some of it, no doubt, is necessary and well founded. Most isn't IMO.

Christianity ... and yes I am a Christian, and yes I do believe in the Trinity, but since my beliefs do not extend to the narrow CF definitions of either one, I choose to display an icon symbolizing the pre-Nicene beliefs of the early Jerusalem Church of St James and the Apostles ... Christianity is an inclusive religion. In fact, that is the whole point of Christianity, is it not?

Perhaps it therefore would be a good thing and consistent with the purposes of those of us who parented WWMC (I suggested the name, btw), and indeed consistent with the teachings of Jesus, for CF to devote a little more energy on facilitating Christian inclusiveness.

2. As the outcome of recent discussions among the Exec demonstrates, the tenor of CF and I suppose the majority of the membership is decidedly conservative and fundamentalist. Those folks surely need protection. From one another.

The minority, the free-thinkers and liberals of CF, are continually marginalized by rules and definitions that serve to strengthen the conservative majority's stranglehold.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I do not claim to speak for the membership of WWMC. However, I can speak to the founders' intentions, and with some authority.

 

[eRev]

Sadly I agree