A new CF, an old vision (4)

[sparklecat]

thanks for the heads up , I just found the site and read ;

"The site's vision is rather Arminian" seebs

I'm fairly certain it's meant more as an analogy than as 'we crucify Calvinists here.'

 

[Erwin]

Just to clarify, subforums can still limit posts and debates using definitions agreed upon by their members which may include Creeds. The whole site itself will have less restrictions but freedom is given to subforums to moderate themselves with their own moderators and rules, subject to overall Core Forum Rules.

Refer to this post the staff are discussing:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5669830-the-creation-of-subforum-rules.html

Initial guideline for the creation of subforum rules:
1. A subforum rule cannot deny entry
2. A subforum rule can limit subforum debate
3. A subforum rule can exclude specific topics from being posted

For example, one could limit thread and post contents within a subforum with statements of faith, such as the Nicene Creed, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Westminster Confession. Or one could limit debates to only those who hold to a specific belief, while allowing topics to be discussed, or one could be pretty open. It is for the members to decide.

It's obviously up for discussion, and will be wikified soon.

 

[Garnet2727]

Just to clarify, subforums can still limit posts and debates using definitions agreed upon by their members which may include Creeds. The whole site itself will have less restrictions but freedom is given to subforums to moderate themselves with their own moderators and rules, subject to overall Core Forum Rules.

Refer to this post the staff are discussing:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5669830-the-creation-of-subforum-rules.html

It's obviously up for discussion, and will be wikified soon.

*puts her hands on her hips*

Erwin! GO TO BED!!!!!

*looks all stern and stuff*

 

[tulc]

Hey Doc! Thanks for all your work for/and kindness to all of us!!!
tulc(it must feel like you're herding cats here, huh?)

 

[tulc]

...and Doc? I agree, go get some sleep!
tulc(grabs a cup of coffee and settles in to watch discussions!)

 

[sparklecat]

Just to clarify, subforums can still limit posts and debates using definitions agreed upon by their members which may include Creeds. The whole site itself will have less restrictions but freedom is given to subforums to moderate themselves with their own moderators and rules, subject to overall Core Forum Rules.

Refer to this post the staff are discussing:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5669830-the-creation-of-subforum-rules.html

It's obviously up for discussion, and will be wikified soon.

So, for example, if all the formerly CO areas decided they didn't want non-Christians posting in them, that overrules what you did to open them up?

 

[Sojourner1]

So, for example, if all the formerly CO areas decided they didn't want non-Christians posting in them, that overrules what you did to open them up?

Not according to the link Erwin gave.

 

[Apex]

So, for example, if all the formerly CO areas decided they didn't want non-Christians posting in them, that overrules what you did to open them up?

I thought that was weird too. I could see a sub forum rule for not allowing debates but not allowing those who do not believe in a specific belief? Doesn't that negate this whole reform?

 

[Apex]

Ok I think I understand it now. The wording was a little confusing at first.

 

[sparklecat]

Not according to the link Erwin gave.

What's confusing me is this:

"For example, one could limit thread and post contents within a subforum with statements of faith, such as the Nicene Creed, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Westminster Confession."

 

[Sojourner1]

It appears that #1 is in conflict with this statement: "Or one could limit debates to only those who hold to a specific belief". If you limit a forum to specific beliefs then you are denying entry to other members.

 

[sparklecat]

Not necessarily. Limiting debates doesn't limit non-confrontational discussions or questions.

 

[Leanna]

I support Erwin, and I feel confident that the confusion and disharmony will be temporary.

 

[Leanna]

It appears that #1 is in conflict with this statement: "Or one could limit debates to only those who hold to a specific belief". If you limit a forum to specific beliefs then you are denying entry to other members.

In Women's discussion is always been "no debating" and its gone fine

 

[Erwin]

Sleep? What is sleep? It's almost 6 am and I'm leaving for work in 1 hour...

 

[Erwin]

Not necessarily. Limiting debates doesn't limit non-confrontational discussions or questions.

Correct.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Everything will be fine as soon as the site drops the pretense of being a "ChristianForum". Seriously. This site's purpose is no longer to bring Christians together, it's to bring non-Christians in. Which is wonderful. But if its paradigm and priority has so fundamentally shifted, its name needs to reflect its new missions so as to not falsely mislead people who will sign up thinking they are coming to a "safe place".

 

[Erwin]

I see what you mean but I disagree slightly - the site is still fundamentally Christian, the difference is it's Christian in name AND in action - Christianity is not just fellowship for the redeemed, it's also a mission to the lost - the church isn't for those who are well, but for those who are sick.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Erwin. Let's be real. There was a world of middle ground. You've opened up areas where *vulnerable* and *baby* Christians will be at the mercy of people who think Christianity is ridiculous.

A portion of a site's members being Christian doesn't make it a Christian site, or IIDB would be one.

A site's owner being a Christian doesn't make it a Christian site. It just means it has a Christian owner.

You're right. It had developed into a site that was a trillion miles from Christian. But now, instead of being a safe place for Christians as well as an outreach, it's *solely* an outreach/debate forum. Its name needs to reflect that.

 

[Lisa0315]

I see what you mean but I disagree slightly - the site is still fundamentally Christian, the difference is it's Christian in name AND in action - Christianity is not just fellowship for the redeemed, it's also a mission to the lost - the church isn't for those who are well, but for those who are sick.

Amen. Let it be so.

We are to go into the hedges and the byways and bring the lost souls to Christ. How do we do that if we stay comfortably in our little hidey-holes?

When I was a little girl, I wanted to be a missionary. A few months ago, I led a man to Christ via PM. I am in the USA. He was in Great Britain. I was able to do that because of the Holy Spirit working through this site. I was so excited. I remembered that desire from when I was a child and thought that God had fulfilled in me that dream of being a missionary. The Holy Spirit via CF made that possible!

Lisa