At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread - Please Vote in Poll Thread

[MartinM]

The problem with Option 1 for "outreach to non Christians" is that: That's Not What Happens - The Non-Christians come in and immediately go on the war path denying God exists, making fun of Christians and Christian beliefs, etc. It would be different if the non-Christians came in with a different attitude - but they dont. Go back to Option 2

This coming from an agnostic.

Because there's nothing quite like stereotyping everyone who disagrees with you to ensure that sensible policies are enacted.

 

[Beastt]

If this was a secular website, I'd agree with you 100%.

Whether it's secular or Christian has nothing to do with it. Either you identify with, and choose to practice, those things claimed as Christian values or you don't. The behavior of Christians here shows that many of them don't.

They subscribe to zero-tolerance, kindness for Christians only, inequality and love as a word, but not a practice.

 

[KerrMetric]

It (CF) never ceased to be Christian. The recent changes did not change whether or not CF was Christian.

(You could perhaps argue it never really was since it used a definition of Christian that had no bearing except in a common colloquial sense.)

 

[Hentenza]

I voted option 2 and as others stated correctly before Christian forum should remain for Christians... there is no middle way it is either Christian or not....

Why we did not have this poll before the changes or the non-christians came in? beats me!


God bless,
Philothei

Yes, an earlier poll before the changes might have made direction clearer.

God Bless

 

[intricatic]

Whether it's secular or Christian has nothing to do with it. Either you identify with, and choose to practice, those things claimed as Christian values or you don't. The behavior of Christians here shows that many of them don't.

They subscribe to zero-tolerance, kindness for Christians only, inequality and love as a word, but not a practice.

Would the same be true for a Church?

Should we have totally democratic Church leadership, allowing both Christians and non-Christians to teach, since that would be extending tolerance of their beliefs?

The point is, ideologically, Christianity is not atheism, and vice versa. If this is a Christian site, it should be run as such. If this is simply a generic message board, you're 100% correct and we shouldn't expect a solid Christian leadership with clear structure and norms expected of a Christian ministry to be present.

What you're describing has no bearing on the discussion, as it can and should be addressed separately.

 

[MartinM]

So...still no examples of our current non-Christian mods performing badly. How odd.

 

[Hentenza]

Whether it's secular or Christian has nothing to do with it. Either you identify with, and choose to practice, those things claimed as Christian values or you don't. The behavior of Christians here shows that many of them don't.

They subscribe to zero-tolerance, kindness for Christians only, inequality and love as a word, but not a practice.

You are welcomed to your opinion.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Whether it's secular or Christian has nothing to do with it. Either you identify with, and choose to practice, those things claimed as Christian values or you don't. The behavior of Christians here shows that many of them don't.

They subscribe to zero-tolerance, kindness for Christians only, inequality and love as a word, but not a practice.

More hypnotic rhetoric. It's actually impressive, but look beyond the pretty hyperbole and you're not actually adding anything to this. You want CF how you want it and anyone who disagrees is zero-tolerance, etc etc.

It's dreadfully manipulative.

 

[Beastt]

Glad to see you got over that Paranoid stage

When people have complete control over you, routinely violate their own mandates, hide behind curtains of secrecy, and can take further action against you simply for pointing out that they're violating their own rules, it's not paranoia. It's justified.

 

[KerrMetric]

More hypnotic rhetoric. It's actually impressive, but look beyond the pretty hyperbole and you're not actually adding anything to this. You want CF how you want it and anyone who disagrees is zero-tolerance, etc etc.

It's dreadfully manipulative.

Except he has facts to back it up that many of us have seen in action over time.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

He tried. What he proposed was the middle road. Did you see anyone suggest that nonChristians should have total control of the site? That would be one extreme. Under the old system Christians (those claiming to be Christian), were in total control. That was the other extreme. Erwin suggested the middle road and people who claim to be Christians had a total hissy-fit!


Perhaps what needs to happen is that we need to redefine Christian values.

Tolerance is out. Zero-tolerance is the true Christian mandate​

Equality is out. Only Christians are allowed to be "equal". NonChristians are to be seen as lesser beings.​

Kindness can have no place in the treatment of the aforementioned "lesser beings". If you're not a Christian, you don't deserve kindness.​

Godliness (as the common presentation that "God is love"), simply isn't allowed. It's the path to weakness and a total loss of the control that Christians should naturally practice over everyone else.​

There are a lot of Christians here who should take pause, reflect upon the values they actually wish to practice, and be ashamed.

Dude, you, an atheist, are gonna try and tell me what it is to be a Christian on a supposdly christian website? Then try to pull the old "shame on us" routine.........nice try....
Yes, Jesus preached and taught love!!!! Yes, he ate with sinners............but he also overturned the money changer stalls and booths too.......

 

[Lisa0315]

I'm afraid its true, Greenie. Sad, but true.

Lisa

 

[ScottBot]

Whether it's secular or Christian has nothing to do with it. Either you identify with, and choose to practice, those things claimed as Christian values or you don't. The behavior of Christians here shows that many of them don't.

They subscribe to zero-tolerance, kindness for Christians only, inequality and love as a word, but not a practice.

We are also called to be apart from the world, and not be equally yoked with non-believers. If this is a CHRISTIAN site, then that should be the case. Otherwise change the entire site name to OpenForums, and I'll gladly give you my moderator status and I will migrate to where I can openly converse with others who believe as I do.

 

[Debi1967]

Whether it's secular or Christian has nothing to do with it. Either you identify with, and choose to practice, those things claimed as Christian values or you don't. The behavior of Christians here shows that many of them don't.

They subscribe to zero-tolerance, kindness for Christians only, inequality and love as a word, but not a practice.

You totally ignored any points that he made... and yes I agree with

Would the same be true for a Church?

Should we have totally democratic Church leadership, allowing both Christians and non-Christians to teach, since that would be extending tolerance of their beliefs?

The point is, ideologically, Christianity is not atheism, and vice versa. If this is a Christian site, it should be run as such.

 

[Beastt]

More hypnotic rhetoric. It's actually impressive, but look beyond the pretty hyperbole and you're not actually adding anything to this. You want CF how you want it and anyone who disagrees is zero-tolerance, etc etc.

It's dreadfully manipulative.

I can present examples to support my claims. You've presented nothing but words like "rhetoric" and "hyperbole", probably because that's the only thing you have going for your assertions.

Are you attempting to claim that you don't want CF the way you want it? Of course we each want it as we want it. The biggest difference is that I want to share under an umbrella of equality and you want complete inequality where you're in control and others are beneath you.

It's called "bigotry" and those who practice it or identify with it are called "bigots". If you identify with it, perhaps it would make a good tag-line. Wear it proudly but don't attempt to call it "Christianity".

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Except he has facts to back it up that many of us have seen in action over time.

You are mistaken.

There was abuse before, yes. The old system wasn't working. However, neither is the new system. But because he prefers it this way, he thinks he's so superior to everyone else he's entitled to say all Christians don't understand Christian values.

That is manipulative rhetoric.

 

[JolieHeart]

As GreenMunchkin mentioned, things are getting rather heated.
Which I suppose is normal considering how passionately people feel about the topic.

but...

The topic is being nitpicked to the point that people are focusing on toothpicks and splinters, and missing the rest of the forest.
thereselittleflower said it well, about focusing on Understanding. If we are more understanding and tolerant of one another, we will make God smile.

 

[MartinM]

But because he prefers it this way, he thinks he's so superior to everyone else he's entitled to say all Christians don't understand Christian values.

That is manipulative rhetoric.

Suggesting he said anything at all about all Christians, when there are plenty of Christians agreeing with him, is itself manipulative rhetoric.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

So if your a Christian, and hold to core values, your a bigot.........hey, I'm a bigot then............

 

[Debi1967]

You are mistaken.

There was abuse before, yes. The old system wasn't working. However, neither is the new system. But because he prefers it this way, he thinks he's so superior to everyone else he's entitled to say all Christians don't understand Christian values.

That is manipulative rhetoric.

Agreed not to mention we are men and women that are not flawless we are all sinners thank you very much and therefore that is going to be reflected even in this new system as much as the old