What would option 3 look like

[Angel4Truth]

Green, in defense of CaDan (did i just say that) he wasnt calling you anything, he was joking to make an example of what has happened to many people here by having their faith questioned because it doesnt line up exactly with how the reader thinks it should line up under a creed belief.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I think we need the nicene creed like before however i do not agree with forced removal of faith icons. I do agree though that they need to be changed only by request to staff.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Green, in defense of CaDan (did i just say that) he wasnt calling you anything, he was joking to make an example of what has happened to many people here by having their faith questioned because it doesnt line up exactly with how the reader thinks it should line up under a creed belief.

No, I know... but the idea of a gnostic walrus tickles me

However, believing we'll spend eternity in Heaven has very little to do with orthodoxy, imo, and seems to be a foundational aspect of Christianity. Why else did Jesus die for our sins? So our sins could be forgiven, we could be justified and be with God for eternity. It's fundamental, and accepting it is as basic as accepting that our saviour's name is Jesus, surely.

 

[GenemZ]

this is why my Brother answered in this Fashion

But we do not need to impose the Creed itself to prevent "eirenism."

We need all the basic tenets found in the Creed to be presented outside of the Creed itself.

For, when RCC and EO's begin dictating on what terms you must agree with it? It will be based upon Church tradition and dogma which may not always be in agreement with a vast majority of Christians in general.

For example? I believe in the Deity of Christ as all Protestants do.

But, because I see it impossible for God to die? According to church tradition? I was told I really do not believe Jesus is God. Its a Catch 22 teaching they have devised.

We need the precepts found in the Creed to be listed and agreed to. But, not according to the traditions and dogmas of only two denominations out of all.

You believe Jesus is God? So do I. But by what means I come to this belief may not be like yours.

I try to follow what Scripture teaches. Sola Scriptura. You might simply believe because you are told to believe it by your Church. Do both believe Jesus is God? Yes. Do both understand how that can be? No always.

I got into trouble when I wanted to discover and explore the Word of God to see how that is to be. For some? That was demystifying the beliefs of the Church. I even had one moderator tell me as much. As if understanding God's Word is not to take precedence over a mystifying experience without understanding.

What the issue really is - is not about "eirenism." That is how someone perceived it to be without the Creed.

We should have the same fundamental precepts of the Creed be required. Yet, without having to toe the line of any particular denominational litmus test to pass the test, after we say we agree.

John 1:1 (New International Version)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
​

If I believe that is true? And, I do.

And, then I add to my belief the following verse?

John 1:14 (New International Version)
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
​

I therefore, believe Jesus is God.

But, if I can not explain to the satisfaction of some moderator how that can be so?

That still does not mean I do not recognize Jesus as being God!

Yet? Some here (who were usually antagonistic to what I generally believe) demanded I jump through a whole series of hoops designed to catch me on some point that would make me appear (on that one point) to not believe Jesus is God.

In other words? It does not matter that I agree that Jesus is God because I place my faith on God's Word. My belief must stand according to how they want me to believe it. That is unjust. It led to abuses here in the forum by having Christians being denied access to the Christian section.

Erwin said in his letter that it used to pain him to go online to see Christians trying to contact him because the same thing was happening to them.

All those who effectively opposed RCC and EO dogma? Could have been eventually weeded out of the Christian section. It was happening.

Protestants even found it necessary to form their own blog to be able to discuss this matter as to petition Erwin with the abuses we were receiving from Ecumenical moderators. When I was looking for a moderator to appeal to? The vast majority to pick from at that time were Ecumenical. The deck was loaded as far as I was concerned.

I believe Erwin has done what he has with the Forum as to blow up the dam to allow the dead wood to sink, or float away. It had become too corrupted and unfair to reason with. You being of Ecumenical belief would not have been aware of what was taking place.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[CaDan]

Green, in defense of CaDan (did i just say that) he wasnt calling you anything, he was joking to make an example of what has happened to many people here by having their faith questioned because it doesnt line up exactly with how the reader thinks it should line up under a creed belief.

The sky fills with locusts!

 

[Angel4Truth]

The sky fills with locusts!

LOL

 

[Glass*Soul]

2 + 2 = (awaiting close of latest WIKI -- no socks, please!)

Actually, the wiki's are one decision-making process on this board that pretty much can't be corrupted by socks.

They are not needed for solving math problems.

 

[J4Jesus]

Actually, the wiki's are one decision-making process on this board that pretty much can't be corrupted by socks.

So what do you do with two socks that argue with each other but its the same person? To most it would look like two people since they don't know. Of course when they end up agreeing that can make a difference. Especially when they have 5-6- etc etc. of them

 

[Glass*Soul]

So what do you do with two socks that argue with each other but its the same person? To most it would look like two people since they don't know. Of course when they end up agreeing that can make a difference. Especially when they have 5-6- etc etc. of them

I would say that if someone is that invested in the wiki, that they would go to such lengths to be heard, then they should be listened too. Of course it would be easier to listen if the person would just be straightforward...

 

[CaDan]

I think vbulletin has the ability to create offices other than moderators and administrators. We may want to look at that.

 

[Loki]

I think vbulletin has the ability to create offices other than moderators and administrators. We may want to look at that.

Mods and supermods and admins and superadmins?

 

[J4Jesus]

I would say that if someone is that invested in the wiki, that they would go to such lengths to be heard, then they should be listened too. Of course it would be easier to listen if the person would just be straightforward...

I'm not saying that ever happened on a wiki but it could since it does on posts and polls. Don't think it doesn't

 

[MarcusHill]

You do not know me very well. To be "respected" requires I agree in a manner that you approve of.

Respect doesn't require agreement. I'd rather have someone who disagrees with me on the topics of a board but is seen to be calm, polite and fair as a moderator than someone who agrees with me but goes around flaming my opponents.

We Christians are at an advantage over you. For we know what its like to be blind to what its like to be born again. For we were all at one time doubters of the existence of God. That is why we might be able to moderate an Atheist forum. If we have a good memory of our past, that is.

Oh, please. I could just as easily say "We Atheists are at an advantage over you. For we know what it's like to be blind to the light of reason. For we were all at one time believers in the existence of God. That is why we might be able to moderate a Christian forum. If we have a good memory of our past, that is." I wouldn't, though, because I don't want to appear condescending.

 

[SunMessenger]

This is still going on ?

This needs to be decided soon. Otherwise people will begin to go off topic and fight as I have viewed in the other thread. I think its time to get going on this. This just exemplifies my reasoning for a fair,strong and anonymous administrator with time to take charge of these matters so they get resolved quickly and efficiently.

God Bless...
Sun

 

[MarcusHill]

This needs to be decided soon. Otherwise people will begin to go off topic and fight as I have viewed in the other thread. I think its time to get going on this. This just exemplifies my reasoning for a fair,strong and anonymous administrator with time to take charge of these matters so they get resolved quickly and efficiently.

I would tend to concur. I think any swift resolution is better than watching people fall out over what the resolution should be.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Do you know what's cool, though? For the most part, this thread has been really civil, and productive, and buildy, as opposed to fighty. Tis goodly

 

[SunMessenger]

Erwin, why are you trying to be all things to all people? It's your site - run it how you want to. You do this stuff on your own time - you're not obligated to keep everyone happy. Set the standards and keep them. If people leave, so be it.

"I don't know what the key to success is, but I know for sure the key to failure is trying to please everybody."
- Mark Twain

Success in the business sense is not the issue . Christianity is the issue . He is doing the Christian thing by attempting to create a system acceptable to the majority. I think Mark Twain was speaking more about the human side of life not the spiritual side . The Spirit thrives and in so doing exudes compassion. Be Well Always...

Sun

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Erwin, I love this site. I have put a lot into it over the last four years. It's been a blessing to me.

Some of the changes that have happened are good, but some need to go. Here's what I think needs to be done:

-Make the rules concrete. No more Wiki.

I agree.

And the rules need to be a lot less and a lot simplier.

Bring back the Nicene Creed.

Yes. But don't allow any one group to insist on its own interpretation of it.



I would add:

1. Return to the original mission/purpose/goal of this site and ministry: to bring people together in hopes of advancing unity.

That got lost in an obsession with political correctness, preventing honest and open exchanges, dividing and pigeon holing everyone, rule - rules and more rules, a secrecy to make the CIA seem open, and an incredable obsession with itself - to the point that it just bogged down in its own weight.

2. Make all that staff accountable - even (shock!!) the ones at the top. No more EC circumventing its own rules.

What I like about the new site:

-The transparency (although I wouldn't mind a private forum for staff, it's not neccasary. PM's work. This way all members can see what happens in the super sekrit staff forum).

Amen!





That's just my $0.01



- Josiah



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I agree in the two sections idea - one for Christians, one open.

 

[GenemZ]

Oh, please. I could just as easily say "We Atheists are at an advantage over you. For we know what it's like to be blind to the light of reason. For we were all at one time believers in the existence of God. That is why we might be able to moderate a Christian forum.

Your words reveal a great deal as to why Atheists should never moderate Christian forums.

You can not be unbiased here.

For you just said that you see Christianity as being blind to the light of reason.


All believers!

I am afraid this forum will implode and cease existing as a force for Christianity if it stays on this present path. Its been limping for some time now. Now, we are going to cut off its legs?

After that happens, then those who are now acting like they are innocent and sincere will be able to laugh at the stupidity of Christians. No wonder Atheists think Christians are stupid. Look at what we are allowing them to do?

In Christ, GeneZ
​