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

[LilLamb219]

The old framework contradicted much of Jesus' social philosophy. The new set up is far more in line with how Jesus appraoched the issue of community and witnessing. It worked for him so why cant it work for us?

Jesus didn't tell anyone to wiki their own set of rules. And Jesus didn't have any non-believers as elders of a church who looked after the sheep.

 

[Brimshack]

There is no moral guidelines of what it is hold to what Christians hold to. So, when people come here, they see an anything goes, I'm OK, You're OK approach from leadership.

That is not Christianity.

That is relativism.

.

Since this claim has been made many times, I thought I would express my disagreement here. The current reform is NOT relativism. It isn't even close. A relativist would not merely refrain from making judgements, or enforcing them as policy; he would maintain that no judgements were valid or meaningful. He would argue that all positions really are equally acceptable. The current policy does not deny the possibility that one form of Christianity may be more sound than another. It does not deny that some forms of Christianity may even be better than others. What it does do is to refrain from putting the weight of the forum behind those judgements. The forum isn't saying everyone is okay; it's declining to say as a matter of policy that they are not. And restraint is not endorsement.

For anyone claiming to possess the truth of any matter, his own words and thoughts ought to be more than enough to advocate that vision.

If there is an argument against the current refroms it has little to do with questions about absolutism.

 

[pmcleanj]

Record my vote also as "withheld, due to presentation of a false dichotomy".

There is no reason why the name "Christan Forums" can't be retained for a site that includes in its vision uniting non-mainstream Christians along with mainstream Christians. Moderators are not ministers: they serve to enforce the rules, not to regulate doctrine or interpret scripture. Why not continue, with the vision of uniting ALL Christians and reaching out to non-Christians. Why not let whomever is talented at moderating and willing and able to offer up the time and dedication to do so, moderate. Why not let the wikis stand as a means of building consensus over time, and give them the time to do so.

Jesus said, whoever sets his hand to the plow and then looks back, is not worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. On July 7, Erwin, you straightened your furrow so that you were once again following a Vision. Do you think God squanders visions on everyone, that you should turn back because not everyone has seen your vision? Jeremiah proclaimed the vision he was given even when well-respected court prophets proclaimed exactly the opposite.

You are the soul and motive force of this website. If it doesn't serve YOUR vision as God has given it to you, you will withdraw from the website and it will die. No matter how many hundreds of people you can find to vote "heck, Erwin, go back to the way things were and forget about this vision of yours", God will find some way to toss you into the belly of a whale, or whatever else God needs to do, to get you to follow God's calling. God is like that.

 

[Gukkor]

The old framework contradicted much of Jesus' social philosophy. The new set up is far more in line with how Jesus appraoched the issue of community and witnessing. It worked for him so why cant it work for us?

Agreed.

 

[E-beth]

Well, I just can't decide which way to vote.

If I choose option one, I am basically voting to kill the CF I have watched since near the beginning, the CF I suggested to pastors, friends, family, and co-workers. Also, by choosing option one I am selling out my friends who like having discussions with other Christians in what they feel is a safe environment. (safe being I think, free from non-believers' influence)

If I choose option two, I am voting, according to Erwin, against outreach. And I am voting against some new moderators and am voting to support a CF where I can be part of the elite but have to eat my buffet while watching starving people watch me through the window.

As Erwin has stated on many occasions, CF is HIS site. I figure, he made this mess...he should be the one to clean it up.

This poll is too little too late, and either option will lead to hurt feelings that I don't want to be responsible for.

 

[chrislife]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe a name change is in order, after all. Instead of "Christian forums" it could be called "endless rules debate forums."

Who needs discussion of Christianity, fellowship, parenting support, and all that, when you can spend hours and days and weeks debating rules?

 

[intricatic]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe a name change is in order, after all. Instead of "Christian forums" it could be called "endless rules debate forums."

Who needs discussion of Christianity, fellowship, parenting support, and all that, when you can spend hours and days and weeks debating rules?

Hey, I like it.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

The forum isn't saying everyone is okay; it's declining to say as a matter of policy that they are not.

Actually, that's precisely what it's doing... Dude, you're sort of playing word games here. The new "vision" basically said in terms of what Christianity actually is, anything goes. That's relativism.

 

[Debi1967]

Since this claim has been made many times, I thought I would express my disagreement here. The current reform is NOT relativism. It isn't even close. A relativist would not merely refrain from making judgements, or enforcing them as policy; he would maintain that no judgements were valid or meaningful. He would argue that all positions really are equally acceptable. The current policy does not deny the possibility that one form of Christianity may be more sound than another. It does not deny that some forms of Christianity may even be better than others. What it does do is to refrain from putting the weight of the forum behind those judgements. The forum isn't saying everyone is okay; it's declining to say as a matter of policy that they are not. And restraint is not endorsement.

For anyone claiming to possess the truth of any matter, his own words and thoughts ought to be more than enough to advocate that vision.

If there is an argument against the current refroms it has little to do with questions about absolutism.

How is this God is not DEMOCRATIC! Does this make more sense now?

 

[Brennin]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe a name change is in order, after all. Instead of "Christian forums" it could be called "endless rules debate forums."

Uniting polemicists in one body!

 

[MartinM]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe a name change is in order, after all. Instead of "Christian forums" it could be called "endless rules debate forums."

Indeed. It seems to me that the biggest problem with the recent changes was, in fact, people complaining about the recent changes. Beyond that, everything seemed to be going rather well. Perhaps if people stopped complaining about everything they don't like and started...well, contributing, we might actually get somewhere.

 

[Angeldove97]

Well, I just can't decide which way to vote.

If I choose option one, I am basically voting to kill the CF I have watched since near the beginning, the CF I suggested to pastors, friends, family, and co-workers. Also, by choosing option one I am selling out my friends who like having discussions with other Christians in what they feel is a safe environment. (safe being I think, free from non-believers' influence)

If I choose option two, I am voting, according to Erwin, against outreach. And I am voting against some new moderators and am voting to support a CF where I can be part of the elite but have to eat my buffet while watching starving people watch me through the window.

As Erwin has stated on many occasions, CF is HIS site. I figure, he made this mess...he should be the one to clean it up.

This poll is too little too late, and either option will lead to hurt feelings that I don't want to be responsible for.

 

[Brimshack]

In the old CF we had more deconversions in the Debate area than ever. We also had non-Christians outnumber Christians 2-1 in GA.

In the new CF we had (at least what I know of) 2 conversions to Christianity and more and more Christians are joining the debates in GA.

Imo, the new CF (option 1) is better.

G-d bless,
sc

I noticed this too. The new CF shook things up quite a bit. In at least that area, the site appeared to be closer to accomplishing some of its goals.

Apologetics had long since become a bunch of standard posters reading a standard list of talking oints at each other. The new CF blurred the boundaries and got people talking who had yet to encounter people in this place. It also exposed people to subjects they hadn't discussed before.

There were a great deal more possibilities in the New CF than the old, not the least of them being the prospect of reaching people you would never have connected with in the old paradigm.

 

[Gukkor]

How is this God is not DEMOCRATIC! Does this make more sense now?

Yes, and if Erwin is called by God to guide the site in a certain direction, that leaves those who disagree with him in the uncomfortable position of opposing God, no?

 

[MartinM]

The new "vision" basically said in terms of what Christianity actually is, anything goes.

No, it didn't. It merely declined to take sides. There's an enormous difference between endorsing a position and simply not rejecting it.

 

[sparklecat]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe a name change is in order, after all. Instead of "Christian forums" it could be called "endless rules debate forums."

Who needs discussion of Christianity, fellowship, parenting support, and all that, when you can spend hours and days and weeks debating rules?

IMO, some sort of representative system here might be useful; even if done unofficially, it would be good if everyone felt like there was someone representing their interests who did have the stamina for rules debates, while still allowing the individuals who wanted to represent their own interests to do so.

 

[Robinsegg]

Has anyone considered God's stance on this? How did God set up a new country from a group of slaves? What were His mandates/philosophies?

As I read them, He set up certain standards:
1. Leaders (in this case judges and later kings) were to be Jews, born and observant religiously.
I read this as our leaders should be Christians, and have certain expectations on their definition of Christianity.

2. There were certain laws that had to be obeyed.
These were religiously set up, as it was a theocracy. However, the rules still applied, and were governed by the God-appointed leaders (see above).

3. There were punishments for lawbreakers. Sometimes it was an honor-price, and sometimes it was quite severe, up to and including execution.
I'm not saying we should kill anyone. But God set up a punitive system for a reason. Do we have to have punishments? Yes. Even if it's only keeping a record until the person needs to be banned and then banning them.

Now, I know that "love keeps no record of wrongs" and "judge not lest you be judged". However, I also know "Judge others according to their fruits" and "Judge within your own company, as we will be judging angels" (no those are not direct quotes, but I'm sick and on medication right now. The principles are in Scripture).

Should we be loving, merciful, etc? Absolutely! Should we be "gentle as doves"? Definitely! Should we also be "wise as serpents"? Just as definitely!

I really think there should be a compromise between complete democracy and complete dictatorship here. Even Scripture says that the law has a sword for a reason, and evildoers should tremble. It also says to do everything decently and in order.

Can we have rules set up by the leaders, discussed by the members, revised by the leadership, adopted by the members and leave it at that?

Respectfully,
Rachel

 

[MartinM]

How is this God is not DEMOCRATIC! Does this make more sense now?

Perhaps you could invite Him to weigh in on this thread, then.

 

[intricatic]

Yes, and if Erwin is called by God to guide the site in a certain direction, that leaves those who disagree with him in the uncomfortable position of opposing God, no?

Interesting quandry. However, I don't remember Erwin stating that the recent reforms were in some way a calling by God. Maybe I missed that announcement.

 

[Debi1967]

I voted no 2 for this reason ..... I think as Christians we need to be in Unity before we can fully outreach to others and we need to focus on that Unity just as much as we need to focus on outreach... However, ever since we started this whole thing we have become farther apart than anything else... That is a problem....

All one needs to do is look at the Faith forums to see that we now have splinters of this and that going up everywhere.... this is a shame! This system is not bringing us as Christians together it is separating us.