Wiki Poll: Opening Statement

[Simon_Templar]

I don't think there is anyway to avoid the fact that some people are abrasive and aggressive. Especially in a "conservative" forum, it is inevitable that you are going to have inflexible people who assume that those who disagree with them on any issue are denying scripture.

Moderation can curb it, but I don't think any rules set is going to stop it from occuring.

 

[Criada]

I haven't voted, as I can only pick one option.

I would be happy with any except 2.
I can see where Simon is coming from, but there are so many church traditions that would be tacitly supported by this that I would be unable to accept it.

 

[Hishandmaiden]

I had not voted, yet.
I like your version, Talitha, if you add in what Lisa suggested.
I like Simon's version, too, but church traditions are different from many conservative churches.

 

[talitha]

I don't think there is anyway to avoid the fact that some people are abrasive and aggressive. Especially in a "conservative" forum, it is inevitable that you are going to have inflexible people who assume that those who disagree with them on any issue are denying scripture.

Moderation can curb it, but I don't think any rules set is going to stop it from occuring.

I agree completely, Simon - I have so successfully separated myself from the "angry" wing of the conservatives that I had almost forgotten they were there. I had to stop listening to Christian Radio in one place where I lived, because it was filled with one angry talk show after another, and it was damaging my spirit. Sad.

Perhaps if we go with my version, we should remind each other in another part of the Wiki that conservatives tend to stick with tradition to some extent, and that we need to respect each other's consciences per Romans 14 by not condemning one another's traditions, something like that.

blessings
tal

 

[Lisa0315]

I agree completely, Simon - I have so successfully separated myself from the "angry" wing of the conservatives that I had almost forgotten they were there. I had to stop listening to Christian Radio in one place where I lived, because it was filled with one angry talk show after another, and it was damaging my spirit. Sad.

Perhaps if we go with my version, we should remind each other in another part of the Wiki that conservatives tend to stick with tradition to some extent, and that we need to respect each other's consciences per Romans 14 by not condemning one another's traditions, something like that.

blessings
tal

Oh, I like that. Is there really any need for a poll? Why don't you and Simon put your heads together and pull out the most important pieces of each statement, add, edit, delete, and present a blended statement to us?

Lisa

 

[MrJim]

I voted Simon's, though I've never met the dude.

Conservatism without history is an unstable raft.

 

[CyberPaladin]

I'm going with Talitha revise version. I firmly believe that including anything about traditional belief is just going to increase problems here both by making discussions more diffcult and creating a huge number of post being reported to the mods where nothing can be done because traditionaly the 2 groups disagree.

 

[Albion]

I'm going with Talitha revise version. I firmly believe that including anything about traditional belief is just going to increase problems here both by making discussions more diffcult and creating a huge number of post being reported to the mods where nothing can be done because traditionaly the 2 groups disagree.

I'm going along with Simon's version because Talitha's doesn't define conservative in any identifiable way. To conserve the past is conservative and can be demonstrated. It doesn't mean that every idea that ever came among is traditional; it must have a track record and be significant. But if we only say that we stand on absolute truth and not relativism, or words to that effect, what does this mean? Who would not say that their view is that the Truth exists completely outside of our understanding of it. (?)


Almost no one. You might as well make a Wiki that says that only the truth can be presented, not falsehoods. We have to have definitions that actually accomplish something, not just leave it up to the poster to decide for himself.

Not even a Communist is going to say that their POV is not a truth that transcends our understanding of it. They will stipulate that it is, even if it is not. And we've already seen examples of it here, as when a novel interpretation of scripture that no one in history before our times ever believed in was presented. I noted with disappointment that Talitha herself accepted this line of thought as correct in that the Bible was mentioned. Just that. It's true that the Bible is truth not dependent upon our understanding, but every interpretation of it that is a personal opinion IS RELATIVE.

Talitha's version is correct as it stands. The sentiments contained in it are right. That's not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't do one thing for deciding who is eligible to be here and who is not because there is no tangible standard in it, not like the quite customary and normal one included in Simon's.

 

[Lisa0315]

I'm going along with Simon's version because Talitha's doesn't define conservative in any identifiable way. To conserve the past is conservative and can be demonstrated. It doesn't mean that every idea that ever came among is traditional; it must have a track record and be significant. But if we only say that we stand on absolute truth and not relativism, or words to that effect, what does this mean? Who would not say that their view is that the Truth exists completely outside of our understanding of it. (?)


Almost no one. You might as well make a Wiki that says that only the truth can be presented, not falsehoods. We have to have definitions that actually accomplish something, not just leave it up to the poster to decide for himself.

Not even a Communist is going to say that their POV is not a truth that transcends our understanding of it. They will stipulate that it is, even if it is not. And we've already seen examples of it here, as when a novel interpretation of scripture that no one in history before our times ever believed in was presented. I noted with disappointment that Talitha herself accepted this line of thought as correct in that the Bible was mentioned. Just that. It's true that the Bible is truth not dependent upon our understanding, but every interpretation of it that is a personal opinion IS RELATIVE.

Talitha's version is correct as it stands. The sentiments contained in it are right. That's not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't do one thing for deciding who is eligible to be here and who is not because there is no tangible standard in it, not like the quite customary and normal one included in Simon's.

Well, it is an opening statement. It is not supposed to contain EVERYTHING, only lead up to the rest of it.

Lisa

 

[Albion]

Well, it is an opening statement. It is not supposed to contain EVERYTHING, only lead up to the rest of it.

Lisa

But we are voting on two specific alternatives. The one proposal is intended to exclude some of the languge in the other. I would be fine with Talitha's so long as we tweak it a little by putting Simon's language into it.

I doubt that the voters would think that was fair to do.

 

[Lisa0315]

But we are voting on two specific alternatives. The one proposal is intended to exclude some of the languge in the other. I would be fine with Talitha's so long as we tweak it a little by putting Simon's language into it.

I doubt that the voters would think that was fair to do.

Yep, I voted for Talitha's, but I would prefer a blended statement myself.

Lisa

 

[Albion]

Yep, I voted for Talitha's, but I would prefer a blended statement myself.

Lisa

I don't think that that will be up for consideration.

People will just say that whatever blending is suggested was, in effect, voted down.

Again, I had to vote against Talitha's although I like her and I can see what she wanted. I had to do this because it is a statement that can be interpreted anyway the poster wants.

By contrast, what the church has always believed can be proven or disproven. The idea of always is off-putting, but we shouldn't forget that since the Reformation, none of the ideas we are likely to debate can claim an "always" by tradition. It would only be the ones on which Christianity has always been united that would fall under the rule, like the oneness of God or the idea of salvation by grace or the observance of the Lord's Supper.

I think now that if the word itself ("traditional") had been reworked and stated a different way, the fear of it would have been lessened and Talitha would have possibly accepted the concept behind it.

But that's probably impossible now that voting has begun. I had no idea we were going to vote other than that, overnight, it was here.

 

[Iosias]

What do you want for an opening statement on the Wiki?


1. Original Version by Talitha:

As conservative Christians we believe that the Truth exists completely outside of our understanding of it, and that God, from Whom procedes all Truth, has chosen to reveal Truth to mankind in His Word, aka the Bible, and to embody it first in His only begotten Son, Jesus, and then progressively in the Church, which is comprised of all who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, submitting their lives to Him.​

​

This is too vague for my liking and to say that God reveals his truth "progressively in the Church" implies that Scripture is not the complete revelation of God to man.

2. Version Two by Simon_Templar:

Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality. Central to this worldview is the belief that Truth exists objectively and independently of our perception. Truth is unchanging and absolute. ​

God is Truth. He has revealed His Truth in the person of His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Bible, His written word, and in the Holy Church, which includes all who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, submitting their lives to Him in faith.​

​

This also has the same implication. I would suggest:

Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality. Central to this worldview is the belief that Truth exists objectively and independently of our perception. Truth is unchanging and absolute. God is Truth. He has revealed His Truth in the Holy Bible alone.
​

 

[GreenMunchkin]

This is too vague for my liking and to say that God reveals his truth "progressively in the Church" implies that Scripture is not the complete revelation of God to man.

AV, aren't you a member of the Fundamentalist Churches congregation?

 

[Iosias]

AV, aren't you a member of the Fundamentalist Churches congregation?

I am a member of a number of congregations: STR, SR, Fundamentalist.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I am a member of a number of congregations: STR, SR, Fundamentalist.

Cool It's just our Wiki says Fundamentalists aren't permitted to debate here... cos this isn't a Fundamentalist forum. It just causes arguments, ya know? Yesterday was *bad* and it upset a lot of people n stuff

 

[Iosias]

It's just our Wiki says Fundamentalists aren't permitted to debate here

Actually it doesn't and in any event they are only proposed rules.

 

[Lisa0315]

[/color][/font][/size][/font][/indent]

This is too vague for my liking and to say that God reveals his truth "progressively in the Church" implies that Scripture is not the complete revelation of God to man.

[/indent]This also has the same implication. I would suggest:

Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality. Central to this worldview is the belief that Truth exists objectively and independently of our perception. Truth is unchanging and absolute. God is Truth. He has revealed His Truth in the Holy Bible alone.​

I think that is too narrow, just in my humble opinion. I understand that there are traditions that may or may not be able to be supported by Scripture, and I would want to exclude that. However, there are traditions that give us rich meaning behind Scripture. For example, to know that the reason that John was on the Isle of Patmos and what happened before that. The Book of Martyrs (spelling???), the reason early Christians used the sign of the cross. There is so much beauty in traditions. I don't think we should exclude them as if they do not exist. Maybe, add a line something like, "recognizing the beauty of traditions but testing all by Scripture".

Lisa

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Actually it doesn't and in any event they are only proposed rules.

Are you sure? I know they all got re-written when no-one was looking, but I could have sworn they said that...

Ok, but can you acknowledge that voicing opinions like women should only wear skirts in a non Fundamentalist forum is gonna cause strife? Can you not step back so we can all avoid it? Please?

 

[Iosias]

I think that is too narrow, just in my humble opinion. I understand that there are traditions that may or may not be able to be supported by Scripture, and I would want to exclude that. However, there are traditions that give us rich meaning behind Scripture. For example, to know that the reason that John was on the Isle of Patmos and what happened before that. The Book of Martyrs (spelling???), the reason early Christians used the sign of the cross. There is so much beauty in traditions. I don't think we should exclude them as if they do not exist. Maybe, add a line something like, "recognizing the beauty of traditions but testing all by Scripture".

Lisa