At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision - Poll Vote only here

[Tonks]

Ya I'm not thrilled with forced icon changes either. I think that members should talk to a Pastor on staff first before having it changed---that way we can prevent members from hoping from faith icon to faith icon (maybe that doesn't matter that it happens anymore idk).

I came here when faith icons were left up to members to decide and I liked being able to change it from Protestant to Catholic when I converted. It's actually something that really meant something big for me. If members feel that way about it, thats fine with me.

I think that forced icon changes are somewhat outside the scope of this dicussion...that's a bit in the weeds I think.

If someone wants to change their icon...more power to them. However, if someone wants to promote that that Christ became God at the Resurrection...well that is a different story.

Like everything in life there is a happy middle ground, I think.

 

[Brimshack]

You know I think what bugs me the most about this is that it sells Christianity short. The reforms were brave precisely because they suggested you could advocate Christianity effectively without labelling people and using those labels as prescriptions for how to treat them. The reforms were interesting because you seemed to be saying that one could advocate and even live a Christian life without shoring it up with institutional mechanisms and coercive authority.

It was the first tim since coming to CF many years ago that it looked like we were going to see what Chrirstianity could mean here without the stats politics that have passed for that message in all that time. It was interesting to say the least, brave as well, and deserving of respect precisely because it did not amount to a concession to those of us who disbelieve.

I am still amazed at the number of people who appeared to need the games, the authority, and the social stratification. I was amazed that so many Christians were completely and utterly faithless as to think simply opening the possibilities up would mean surrendering to those of us who do not believe. I didn't see that at all. What I saw in the reforms was Christianity without its customary crutch. And that was a vision worthy of respect.

It honestly looked like we could see the best of your faith from this forum; like we could see what it could be like when it hasn't been coopted by the status politics of people looking for another way to put themselves above their neighbor. That was an exciting prospect, even for a cranky old heathen; like seeing a slightly sleazey neighbor - someone who'se disappointed you for years - suddenly develop a moral backbone, stand tall and show his real worth.

Now you seem to be saying the crutch is necessary after all. If Christianity isn't enshrined with protetions and re-enforcement against the marginal types, then it's not a Christian forum after all. ...that this isn't a Christian forum unless you can tell who is what and where they can post, all dictated from the top down. ...that the forum isn't Christian if it doesn't have that crutch.

It's a shame; even I thought Christianity was worth more than that.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I'd still rather have option 2 than option 1

But option 2 is blackmail

It made a different group feel excluded than do now; and we could be punished for discussing our being punished unfairly, along with a thousand other rules, and staff had free reign to bahave badly and yet were exempt from those rules... it was bad before for different reasons. We so need some middle, higher, ground.

 

[Matrona]

Bad poll. Neither option is good, IMHO.

But I voted #1 because I'm against #2. I don't support #1, but I like it better than #2.

 

[CaDan]

I think that forced icon changes are somewhat outside the scope of this dicussion...that's a bit in the weeds I think.

If someone wants to change their icon...more power to them. However, if someone wants to promote that that Christ became God as the Resurrection...well that is a different story.

Like everything in life there is a happy middle ground, I think.

Is Mary the Mother of God?

More seriously, CF started down a path of enforcing a sort of orthodoxy several years ago with the best of intentions and ended up in the tangled mess it was for the first half of this year with each step looking like a good idea.

 

[Stormy]

Null vote.

Abstain.

Not gonna play along anymore.

So you took the leap.

*I'm talking about your new icon*

 

[FriendsFellowship]

But option 2 is blackmail

It made a different group feel excluded than do now; and we could be punished for discussing our being punished unfairly, along with a thousand other rules, and staff had free reign to bahave badly and yet were exempt from those rules... it was bad before for different reasons. We so need some middle, higher, ground.

I don't believe it was the rules that caused the majority of the problems before. I think a lot of the problem was the heavy handedness in dealing with issues. That problem can be handled much differently than changing every single thing on the forum.

 

[Tonks]

Is Mary the Mother of God?

More seriously, CF started down a path of enforcing a sort of orthodoxy several years ago with the best of intentions and ended up in the tangled mess it was for the first half of this year with each step looking like a good idea.

Without getting into the Nestorian debate...I do think that there are certain boundaries. Likewise, I do believe that the former powers that be really did have the best interest of the site in mind...even if I didn't always agree with the execution.

I've never made a secret that I believe that there are certain minority beliefs which can lead to damnation and, as such, I don't think that they should be allowed open promotion.

Likewise, I don't think that the current proliferation of "liberal" (whatever that means) forums are a bad thing as, at the end of the day, I disagree with the theology but it is still argued within somewhat narrow lanes.

I'm not afraid of the Catholic that has issues with the Pope / Church. I am afraid of the person that thinks that Christ was just some "cool dude" that had revolutionary ideas.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I don't believe it was the rules that caused the majority of the problems before. I think a lot of the problem was the heavy handedness in dealing with issues. That problem can be handled much differently than changing every single thing on the forum.

Well the wiki car-crash has showed us some rules are absolutely necessary, for sure. But some of them also completely alleviated the need for accountability, which led to some abuse.

Non-Christians felt unwelcome before; conservative Christians feel unwelcome now. Both are as bad as the other.

There are benefits to both systems, and if we could have the best of both and leave behind the worst of both, CF could be wonderful. Neither of the options given allow room for that, though. It's not good enough to have to choose the lesser evil when a little thought and effort could make it better.

 

[joyshirley]

My thoughts are that neither option is palatable, although I favour option 1 over option 2 in their present forms. However, I am not voting in this poll.

Erwin wrote this in his opening post:

I'm going to leave this up to the community. I've extended the above poll to 3rd of August.

I will listen to the members here, and will defer to the final decision.

If he will, indeed, leave this up to the community, that leaves the way open for the community to hold fast to their dissatisfaction with the either/or aspect of this poll, as I've read here in many posts, and to insist that no change be made until further options and opportunities for discussion on those have been provided.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I don't believe it was the rules that caused the majority of the problems before. I think a lot of the problem was the heavy handedness in dealing with issues. That problem can be handled much differently than changing every single thing on the forum.

AMEN The real answer to fix things was really very simple

 

[tashiseisei]

What I think of as Christianity, and what I think of as the root of what Jesus taught, I have actually seen on the site more since the 7-7-7 decisions, even with the fighting and people being outraged. I have seen more Christianity.

Christianity does not exist behind lock and key. Christianity is not fear of others.

Christianity is loving your God and your neighbor: your Christian neighbor, your atheist neighbor, your Muslim neighbor, your gay neighbor, your neighbor that you somehow think is more sinful than you are.

When you slam doors, you lose that second commandment.

God gave you the free will to turn away as many neighbors as you like, but it is not what Jesus told you to do.

 

[Crazy Liz]

What does this even mean??

"Return to a more restricted Christians-only site with a heavy emphasis on uniting mainstream Christians only with a less emphasis on outreach, in which case we keep the name."

Does this mean that in a few days, if the poll is decided against our favor, that I and all of the other non-Nicene-affirming members will be kicked out of the site?? On the basis of a poll taken in which we are a small minority and have no protection except to throw ourselves on the mercy of the majority?

I'd really like to know now. I've spent hours working on the rules, up into the night, and rallying support where I thought I could for the new reforms. Which looks right about now to make me a tool and dupe to what has apparently been a whim to be discarded on the results of a single poll.

But I'm just one person.

I think I'll spend whatever is left of my freedom here discussing theology, a pleasure I have put off in favor of helping with the rules.

I think I'll also go ahead and make my faith icon visible. I changed it this morning after much thought. I'm not sure what the repurcusions will be, inwardly or outwardly, but something told me time might be short to go ahead and do what has been on my mind to do for quite some time.

(((((Glass*Soul)))))

 

[Angel4Truth]

Let's talk.

You and I grate on each other horribly for some reason, which in my experience means we are actually pretty close in our positions once we each come out from behind our rhetoric. Funny how that works.

What do you want? What would you like to see?

CaDan I would like to see an area devoted to all members for fellowship and discussion. I also think the prereform wiki congregational areas are needed also and needed to be christian only for the edification of believers and for discussion of issues that affect those congregations.

I think wiki rule needs to end , it isnt working and it isnt designed for rules. I agree the rules prewiki need to be reformed.

I think the rules of the board need to be clear and not overly vague so there is no question of what is and isnt a violation. I do not disagree with staff forums being open however there is also a need for closed staff forums when there is a confidentiality matter and harrassment etc.. is concerned.

I do not agree on voting on mod applications- service on a christian board should not be done by mob rule or popularity contests but by ability to minister and ability to understand and apply the rules fairly. If voting is going to happen though i think limitations need to be made on those voting and it should be limited to members who have invested much time and posts into this site who have exhibited that they follow what happens here. Popularity contests only serve to ensure a friends need will be met and do not ensure a good moderator.

In fact i think a good way to do this would be to eliminate the name of the person being reported - so JUST what has been stated in the post is looked at. I dont know how this could be accomplished though. When i was a mod i moderated posts not people. I see and still see a ton of moderation happening based on who someone is instead of being based on what has been stated and thats so so wrong.

I think under no circumstances should a non believer or one of any religion other than orthodox christianity be a moderator over any area that deals with orthodox christian beliefs or outreach areas and under no circumstances should any religion or lack of be promoted on this board

There should be a place where members who have received staff actions can ask about them to other staff members besides the staff team where the action occured. Privately if it involves confidentiality matters but publically if it doesnt.

Hows that for a start , anything else you can ask me what you would like to know how i think about it as this is all i can think of right now.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I think that if staff were selected because they wanted to serve the members rather than dominate them we would have a far better forum

 

[Tonks]

I think I'll spend whatever is left of my freedom here discussing theology, a pleasure I have put off in favor of helping with the rules.

I hope you spend more time in the theology sections...it has been wonderful having you there.

 

[FriendsFellowship]

Maybe Erwin just needs to declare a "do over".

 

[Glass*Soul]

So you took the leap.

*I'm talking about your new icon*

Yeah. Sort of a leap into the unknown in more than one way.

I had wanted to keep it hidden for now, to avoid controversy and bad feelings, and also to simply see how it felt just to me, in private.

But if the poll settles against the non-Nicene members, then I may have less than a week to wear it. Hidden or not, the staff can see it.

 

[Tonks]

[/size][/font]I agree the rules prewiki need to be reformed.

I nominate CaDan








(i like the current rule wiki)

 

[Crazy Liz]

Wiki is an unmitigated disaster. *Everyone* loses with that one.

Also, reports being open to comments by everyone means half of them turn into anonymous flame wars, so we may have to forfeit that one for the greater good, also.

Seriously, this poll is ridiculous.

Wiki is a process that takes time.

It appears to be a disaster to those who have trouble dealing with temporary uncertainty.