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

[GreenMunchkin]

Which was not happening here by the way.

It was.

 

[MartinM]

But even in reports, there will be a need to reach out to a non-Christian via pms and give them words of hope, faith and love in Christ.

There is a difference between 'outreach' and 'using a position of power to force unwanted proselytization on the heathens.' Reports are not an appropriate place for preaching.

 

[*Rob*]

If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.

I vote Option 1 without the name change.

My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Change is inevitable. Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.

Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.

The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.

Have a blessed day.

1 slight problem.

This isn't a church, and it is nothing like church, this is a place to encourage others, and I am not seeing that since the change.

 

[MN John]

I have always appreciated the mix there has been ever since I have been here.

It hasn't been a general site with a restricted area for Christians. It has been a Christian site with an open are to share with seekers, searchers, debaters, undecideds, etc.

If I go to a place named "Hooters" and am offended by the atmosphere, I can choose not to go there. But if they offer me a section where I can feel safe and welcome and not see anything that offends me, then I may like their food enough to stay. But if I try to get them to change to please me, I am not being reasonable.

If a person comes to a place called "Christianforums" and is not happy being here, they can choose not to return. But if we make them an area where they can be happy, they may choose to stay. If they want the place to change to suit them, they are not being reasonable.

I agree that both options are valid. But there is only one that continues to provide what I have always come here for, Option 2.

CF is oten compared to a church. Do you want a church that is unapologetically Christian and uncompromisingly true to the faith? Or do you want a church that is a safe place with much historical Christian influence. Let's see, I think I know a place like that... It's called the YMCA. The YMCA & YWCA were the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association. Now they are safe environments with a historical strong Christian influence. But if you want a Bible study, you are not very likely to find it at the Y.

Erwin, this might be a task that is bigger than you are willing to take on, but have you thought about running 2 sites? Do both. Make everyone who is a member automatically a member of both sites. Make the rules clear on both sites. Then from that point forward, they are two sites, a person joins and/or uses one or both. Then in a truly democratic way, you will see whether either one dwindles away in disuse.

I do get what you are saying though about being either one or the other. It agrees with what God says here:[bible]Revelation 3:15-16[/bible]

 

[Jerrell]

Yes, don't change the Name, i like a Christian, majority community- if yall change it it will become a online community filled with other believers who have no desire to change their conviction- it will be the same as ours....only for other gods and goddesses...I know of one Woman, who worships a Fertility God, and pledges to be celibate her whole life on another site...so my point is that this will only call for more confusing forums divisions (there are too many already), to provide for the influx of unbeleivers.

 

[MartinM]

Since several people have supported option 1 'without the name change,' it's probably worth noting that, strictly speaking, option 1 only allows for a name change; it doesn't require it.

 

[Rochir]

LOL, the picture of Christianity painted here in this thread alone should make anyone wishing to inquire into this religion take note and step AWAY!

 

[*Starlight*]

Option Two. The site is unique when it offers Christian only sections. It's a good refuge, and it gives this forum something special about it. I sought it out for the one reason that it was Christian.

Hi The problem with the Christian only section was that not all Christians were allowed there, and CF was treating some Christians much worse than other Christians. That goes against "uniting all Christians as one body".

 

[JimfromOhio]

If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.

I vote Option 1 without the name change.

My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Change is inevitable. Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.

Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.

The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.

Have a blessed day.

Yes.. that's my point as well. Thanks.

 

[Lisa0315]

Question for Christians and Non-Christians:

Is it more Christ-like to walk and talk with sinners or to keep ourselves separate? What did our Lord do?

Lisa

 

[Rochir]

Aha! I have the answer! CF should be a liberal Christian only site!

No, this should be a site for all! Alas, conservatives try to outdo one another right now is how to best exclude everyone except themselves!

 

[Crazy Liz]

yeah seriously. Oh and about the homosexuals not being christians do tell does that mean gluttons aren't Christians? ....there both sins. Both by many aren't considered sins. Both are never even attempted to stop.....I just I don't know. The homosexuality thing making you not a christian killed it for me...it really did. The marriage thing I can understand not necessarily agree with but understand... But I don't know maybe it's just something unless you are you wouldn't understand . I think I'm leaving now. This is just too much. I know it's not meant this way but I'm starting to feel attacked. But seriously don't say things about homosexuals when you've never gone through it. You don't know the stuggle. You don't know what it's like so just don't.

Perhaps "don't ask, don't tell" applies to gluttony and every other sin, as well.

The only problem I see with that is that we'd need to change the name of the forum to Whitewashed Tombs.

 

[FriendsFellowship]

I have always appreciated the mix there has been ever since I have been here.

It hasn't been a general site with a restricted area for Christians. It has been a Christian site with an open are to share with seekers, searchers, debaters, undecideds, etc.

If I go to a place named "Hooters" and am offended by the atmosphere, I can choose not to go there. But if they offer me a section where I can feel safe and welcome and not see anything that offends me, then I may like their food enough to stay. But if I try to get them to change to please me, I am not being reasonable.

If a person comes to a place called "Christianforums" and is not happy being here, they can choose not to return. But if we make them an area where they can be happy, they may choose to stay. If they want the place to change to suit them, they are not being reasonable.

I agree that both options are valid. But there is only one that continues to provide what I have always come here for, Option 2.

CF is oten compared to a church. Do you want a church that is unapologetically Christian and uncompromisingly true to the faith? Or do you want a church that is a safe place with much historical Christian influence. Let's see, I think I know a place like that... It's called the YMCA. The YMCA & YWCA were the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association. Now they are safe environments with a historical strong Christian influence. But if you want a Bible study, you are not very likely to find it at the Y.

Erwin, this might be a task that is bigger than you are willing to take on, but have you thought about running 2 sites? Do both. Make everyone who is a member automatically a member of both sites. Make the rules clear on both sites. Then from that point forward, they are two sites, a person joins and/or uses one or both. Then in a truly democratic way, you will see whether either one dwindles away in disuse.

I do get what you are saying though about being either one or the other. It agrees with what God says here:[bible]Revelation 3:15-17[/bible]

Wow! Well said John!

 

[thereselittleflower]

I think the vision of CF needs to change, or be stated differently.

The vision has been something that is, in all honestly, impossible to acheive and attain, by this or any other website.

The vision of THIS web site uniting all Chirsitans as one is really only a pipe dream, and a refusal to define what is Christianity throws a huge wrench into the system.

In order to unite, one has to know what one is attempting to unite with. A definitionliess "christianity" is impossible to unite to or to in any way help bring unity.

But even if we have a definition of Christianity, the goal, the vision of this site is impossible to attain.

That is not being negative, it is being realistic and pragmatic.

I think we are putting the cart in front of the horse.


We first need a workable, doable vision . . not something lofty, noble, but impossible to attain.

This site can never unite all christians. . . . That probably should have never been the vision of this site to begin with as unatainable visions are of little real value . . . they set us up for failure.

What this site needs first is an attainable vision, so it doesn't set itself up for failure.


So, I would advocate going further to the root issue . . . a need to determine a REALISTIC vision, one that is attainable . . .

The first question we should be engaged over is:

What should the vision of CF be?

.

 

[Rochir]

What did our Lord do?

Lisa

He for sure wouldn't even bother to post on such a mesed-up site (or any site claiming to know what HE wants) and instead love his fellow human beings, thus being an example to all!

 

[sparklecat]

Sparklecat, I truly believe that you and Ravenscape(sp?) are excellent moderators from what I have read.

But even in reports, there will be a need to reach out to a non-Christian via pms and give them words of hope, faith and love in Christ.

I do believe though that there should be a type of ministry that should include non-Christians because we all want to give back to our communities here. I don't want to exclude anyone.

Thank you


However, there are also going to be non-Christians who are automatically defensive at staff contact from a Christian, and who will be more likely to assume that Christians-only moderation is simply trying to silence their views. In fact, it isn't always simply an assumption; this has happened in past years in the Debate forums. Being contacted by a non-Christian or seeing that a non-Christian agrees that their post is in violation of the rules might make them more likely to consider that this might actually be the case, and prevent some conflict there, you know?

 

[intricatic]

LOL, the picture of Christianity painted here in this thread alone should make anyone wishing to inquire into this religion take note and step AWAY!

Tell me about it. All the relativism would even make me second-guess my own convictions. I'm glad God is bigger than people.

 

[Debi1967]

Which was not happening here by the way.

The changes have already taken place
Rule 1. Respect one another's beliefs about God.

In order to achieve unity as Christians it is very important that we respect one another's beliefs about God. To be effective witnesses to the Gospel, we should respect others' beliefs (on non-beliefs) about theirs.


Rule 1

* The names and titles of God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit (in any language) should not be used as expletives or interjections.
* Criticism of God should be allowed as part of a discussion or a debate outside the congregational fora.
* Simple denial of the existence of God, the divinity of Christ or the existence of the Trinity or its members is not considered to be disrespect.
* Outside of the congregational fora, members should not actively try to convert other members to their belief system. Sharing of information about one's beliefs is OK.
* In Debate areas, members may debate the rightness or wrongness of specific viewpoints, including those of other religions. Prevailing in such a debate is not to be considered to be trying to convert others. (This also means now Non Christian religions )

 

[Angeldove97]

I have always appreciated the mix there has been ever since I have been here.

It hasn't been a general site with a restricted area for Christians. It has been a Christian site with an open are to share with seekers, searchers, debaters, undecideds, etc.

If I go to a place named "Hooters" and am offended by the atmosphere, I can choose not to go there. But if they offer me a section where I can feel safe and welcome and not see anything that offends me, then I may like their food enough to stay. But if I try to get them to change to please me, I am not being reasonable.

If a person comes to a place called "Christianforums" and is not happy being here, they can choose not to return. But if we make them an area where they can be happy, they may choose to stay. If they want the place to change to suit them, they are not being reasonable.

I agree that both options are valid. But there is only one that continues to provide what I have always come here for, Option 2.

CF is oten compared to a church. Do you want a church that is unapologetically Christian and uncompromisingly true to the faith? Or do you want a church that is a safe place with much historical Christian influence. Let's see, I think I know a place like that... It's called the YMCA. The YMCA & YWCA were the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association. Now they are safe environments with a historical strong Christian influence. But if you want a Bible study, you are not very likely to find it at the Y.

Erwin, this might be a task that is bigger than you are willing to take on, but have you thought about running 2 sites? Do both. Make everyone who is a member automatically a member of both sites. Make the rules clear on both sites. Then from that point forward, they are two sites, a person joins and/or uses one or both. Then in a truly democratic way, you will see whether either one dwindles away in disuse.

I do get what you are saying though about being either one or the other. It agrees with what God says here:[bible]Revelation 3:15-16[/bible]

Great post!

 

[Debi1967]

1 slight problem.

This isn't a church, and it is nothing like church, this is a place to encourage others, and I am not seeing that since the change.

Any place that you have a body of believers gathering to talk with one another and to learn about God with one another is technically and Biblically a Church