At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread (2) - Please Vote in Poll Thread

[Davidnic]

I have a question: For those who are for option2, how many of you have actually fellowshipped with atheists?

Lisa

Many. Mostly off site but some onsite. Apologetics is part of every Christian ministry.

 

[Lisa0315]

Many. Mostly off site but some onsite. Apologetics is part of every Christian ministry.

I don't mean apologetics. I mean friendship and fellowshipping with.

Lisa

 

[O.F.F.]

While I voted for the second option, in keeping obedient to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, I'd like to propose a 3rd option:

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

This site has, in many respects, influenced the world. The question is, will our web presence here at CF be 'Polically Correct' or are we going to glorify Jesus Christ by being obedient to the Great Commandment (Mark 12:30-31) and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20)?

As believers our main objective should be to reach the lost for Christ in order to make disciples that love God, and share His love (the gospel) with the world.

 

[Davidnic]

David & Sandy
Please don't take this as an attck...

This can be a Christian Site where the Gospel is shared. I honestly have no problems with that. My problem is with both the poll options. You are quite right about how slanted they are. I'm not saying it has to be one or the other. It can be both. I think its the original author of the poll and other people who think like him who insist that it be one or the other, and I feel (as I've said before) some are not being exactly nice to attack the current mode of the site as it is now because I honestly do not think its been given a chance. I think the 'new CF vision' can give us both a Christian site but one where there is free expression and all members are protected and there is a community. Given the two poll options I honestly do not think this place will be much of a community.

I do not take it as an attack. And though there is much I disagree with you about, we are not totally at odds.

But A point between us is that I honestly think you are taking a very rose colored view of the new way and reading some of your hopes into it. It can equally be said that many are reading their fears into it.

But in the end I think it is too much too fast without a structure to handle it and I disagree with the basic relativistic nature of the changes. And I think they oppose, in many ways, the fundamental nature of a Christian site. I do not doubt the heart of those who support them, but I disagree.

One thing though. We all need to give the mods a well done for dealing with everything in such a difficult and hectic time. This has, I am sure, not been easy. We all owe them thanks. No matter if we agree or disagree with the new way. No matter if we each choose to stay, leave or whatever...they have done an outstanding job with the gift of their time and energy.

 

[Davidnic]

I don't mean apologetics. I mean friendship and fellowshipping with.

Lisa

So do I. Apologetics to me is not just a debate. But extending love and friendship.

But definitions aside. Yes. I have atheist and agnostic friends. As well as friends of non-Christian faiths. I love them dearly and talk often with them on everything from Theology to baseball.

 

[ZooMom]

David & Sandy
Please don't take this as an attck...

This can be a Christian Site where the Gospel is shared. I honestly have no problems with that. My problem is with both the poll options. You are quite right about how slanted they are. I'm not saying it has to be one or the other. It can be both. I think its the original author of the poll and other people who think like him who insist that it be one or the other, and I feel (as I've said before) some are not being exactly nice to attack the current mode of the site as it is now because I honestly do not think its been given a chance. I think the 'new CF vision' can give us both a Christian site but one where there is free expression and all members are protected and there is a community. Given the two poll options I honestly do not think this place will be much of a community.

Not an attack at all. For the most part I agree with you. The only thing is that I don't think the site *can* function as it is now. It is too unstable. The very foundation of the site is currently under poll! It would be nice if Erwin would just make up his mind about that and then maybe the membership COULD proceed from there. It's obvious, though, that about half of the people who voted in this poll either don't want this to be a Christian site, or don't care if it is. And if that's the case, I can post a link right now to IIDB. It's a secular board where any and all topics are permitted, and any and all faiths, lifestyles, etc...are represented. It should be everything they want. And if that isn't what they want...then I am very confused as to why they want to make THIS site the same as IIDB. Don't get me wrong here...I have a membership at IIDB, as I said...I have friends there that I think the world of (most of whom are also members here), and I am not saying that this whole mess has anything to do with them. All I mean is that a board already exists that has the characteristics that alot of people seem to be pushing for. Why the obstinacy to change *this one*?

 

[Loki]

It's obvious, though, that about half of the people who voted in this poll either don't want this to be a Christian site, or don't care if it is.

Strawman. People by and large voted for option one to prevent option two from having an overwhelming consensus, and to protect the non-Christians from being excluded again.

 

[Goodchild]

I'm glad there's a pantheist around to tell me what the Christian religion's all about.

Are you that certain that you know more about christianity than every pantheist there is? I don't think you are or that you really believe such a thing, that would be some pretty extreme hubris ... so why say such a thing when you know it's an invalid argument?

 

[Davidnic]

All I mean is that a board already exists that has the characteristics that alot of people seem to be pushing for. Why the obstinacy to change *this one*?

I've often wondered that.

 

[joebudda]

Strawman. People by and large voted for option one to prevent option two from having an overwhelming consensus, and to protect the non-Christians from being excluded again.

To me the more important point is the Christians who got their crosses pulled under the "old way" because their Christianity is less popular.

Edit to add.

I understand this is a Christian site and I am grateful I am allowed to post my views here. But a web forum telling a Christian they are not a Christian because their beliefs don't align with the majority is wrong.

 

[ZooMom]

Strawman. People by and large voted for option one to prevent option two from having an overwhelming consensus, and to protect the non-Christians from being excluded again.

Hi, Loki.

It's not a strawman...perhaps the poll itself is the strawman, because regardless of anyone's motivations for choosing Option 1, the poll itself doesn't make allowances. I've already said that I think the poll is seriously flawed and because of that...because my view is not accurately or honestly represented, I abstain from the vote. I believe everyone had that option...and so according to the poll...half the voters do not agree that Christianity should be either the focus or foundation of this site. Really...if you looked at just the poll...without reading all the hundreds of posts that followed it up and matching all the names who voted to their conditional responses...what would you conclude?


Peace be with you!

Sandy

 

[Lisa0315]

Y'all do know that an option 3 is being considered, right?

Lisa

 

[Davidnic]

Y'all do know that an option 3 is being considered, right?

Lisa

By Erwin?

 

[Letalis]

Are you that certain that you know more about christianity than every pantheist there is? I don't think you are or that you really believe such a thing, that would be some pretty extreme hubris ...

"Option 2 is unChristian. Period."

No more than implying one knows Christianity better than those who voted for option 2.

 

[Lisa0315]

By Erwin?

Yes, wanna link?

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5794084-what-would-option-3-look-like.html

 

[ZooMom]

To me the more important point is the Christians who got their crosses pulled under the "old way" because their Christianity is less popular.

Which I have never been comfortable with. I've already made it plain in my own home forum that I am not about to agree to or support any 'legislation' that purports to determine who is Christian and who is not. Catholic or otherwise. I can tell someone exactly what the Church teaches regarding the Sacraments, and the path to holiness, to salvation...but I'm not about to tell someone where their place in line is. Besides, it's ridiculous to think anyone can judge anyone else over a text message. I can say all day that I am a Christian...I can 'Amen!' and 'Preach it, brother!' with the best of them...doesn't mean I've got a free pass through the Pearly Gates.

The best we can ever do here is to have a Christian foundation...with Christian based rules of conduct...where everyone is allowed to participate, inquire, debate, etc...this whole 'icon' thing as more than a simple point of reference is a recipe for disaster...as we are seeing now.


Peace be with you.

Sandy

 

[Loki]

Hi, Loki.

It's not a strawman...perhaps the poll itself is the strawman, because regardless of anyone's motivations for choosing Option 1, the poll itself doesn't make allowances. I've already said that I think the poll is seriously flawed and because of that...because my view is not accurately or honestly represented, I abstain from the vote. I believe everyone had that option...and so according to the poll...half the voters do not agree that Christianity should be either the focus or foundation of this site. Really...if you looked at just the poll...without reading all the hundreds of posts that followed it up and matching all the names who voted to their conditional responses...what would you conclude?


Peace be with you!

Sandy

By that reasoning, half the voters want to exclude all non-Christians from the site.

Almost everyone who voted posted caveats. Putting words into their mouthes and saying that all who voted for one want to deChristianize (I thinkI made up a word there) the site is wrong.

 

[Loki]

To me the more important point is the Christians who got their crosses pulled under the "old way" because their Christianity is less popular.

Also a very important point. It does not behoove us to forget that Nicene Witch Hunts did occur under the old system, and hurt many people.

 

[""]

"Option 2 is unChristian. Period."

No more than implying one knows Christianity better than those who voted for option 2.

I realize you weren't talking to me here, but gosh I sure hope that you didn't see my post as suggesting this. I would never suggest that I understand Christianity better than anybody. My opinion was based on my inability to vote for #2 because of my own personal convictions (which I commented on). We must all follow our own convictions. Personally I didn't feel right voting for either one but having to make a choice, I went with #1 because of my convictions re: witnessing. I am so happy that there is now an option 3 underway.

I do realize that we don't all have the same convictions. Some of us are called for a different purpose. A few years ago, I would have told you that I wasn't called to do anything but live for Christ and take care of my family. Now it's different, as G-d has given me some tasks that I must accomplish, or at least do my best to accomplish with the time I have left here.

Much love to all of my brother's and sisters in Christ and to all those who do not yet know Him, along with prayers that someday you will.