What would option 3 look like

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Not to mention the Trinity.

If you have nothing constructive (even if its against the current policies) to say how about you just be quiet!! Stop with the smarky little comments.

 

[Timothy]

If you have nothing constructive (even if its against the current policies) to say how about you just be quiet!! Stop with the smarky little comments.

Snarky perhaps. True, definitely.

 

[PoliticalGuru]

If you have nothing constructive (even if its against the current policies) to say how about you just be quiet!! Stop with the smarky little comments.

I wouldn't call it a snarky comment. You can't expect the overwhelming majority of Christians to be happy when you take the first ever calaboration of Christian doctrine and belief by the Church, which the overwhelming majority of Christian Churches adhere to, and throw it out the window. Doing so rips away part of the identity of Christianity. The Nicene Creed needs to stay.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

My point however was that drsteveJ doesn't seem to even have any construtive criticism. Just snarky comments. If he can't lose the attitude long enough to try to be construcive instead of a pain in the neck than perhaps he should just step back and just not say anything. At least untill he can ditch the attitude.

 

[PoliticalGuru]

My point however was that drsteveJ doesn't seem to even have any construtive criticism. Just snarky comments. If he can't lose the attitude long enough to try to be construcive instead of a pain in the neck than perhaps he should just step back and just not say anything. At least untill he can ditch the attitude.

It seems to me though he was kind of using the comment to express the idea that by taking away the Nicene Creed, you take away part of the foundation of Christianity's doctrinal belief about the trinity. That if we take away that, why not just take away everything else that has been a part of the Church for nearly 2,000 years.

 

[No Swansong]

option 3.... what the site should be like when it is shortly changed... since the two option vote was a fiasco...

My vote is for Jesus to rule here by his law of love , with scripture as the written 'law' of love for the site...

then we have a standard truth for all discussions, a way of saying who believes and who does not which excludes no christians [as the previous method did]

we have a set of rules everyone knows who is a christian, and we need no mods because everyone who is a christian is loving [or else they admit they are not a christian] and all non-christians here by invitation can be forgiven [if they repent any unlovingness here]...

we thus get a loving open site in which outreach can continue, all are welcome to trial the faith of christians in perfection of our love following Jesus... and christians can begin the work of reproving all ddenominations, sects, and private interpretations to the scripture whilst practising being saints in the image of Jesus to become worthy of him by being as perfect in love as him :-

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

We shall then see who are chrstians by their fruits , as scripture exhorts us to do... those who are not loving are disobeying Jesus and he is thuis noit their lord... the scriptural test is better than asking people , it is a test by seeing how loving people relly are, whetehr they obey Jesus' command to love by doing it or not...

The scripure then is better than any creed devised by sinners, far better cos' God inspired it... one can have faith in love to run this site beacsue Jesus said it isthe ONLY way of life... if you ahve faith in Jesus then do what he said...it is obviosu then how a christian sute should be run, it is just a matter of doing it, proving that love works where all other ways have failed...

Been tried. Failed miserably. 4 maybe 5 years ago.

 

[No Swansong]

I think he was really concerned about all this and how the site was doing. Its a major thing for this many people. I wouldn't want that responsiblity but God gave it to him. If he said he will read them then he will, and consider these opinions and make his decision what to do. It will be soon

Of course this was about a week after he said that he would defer to the will of the board. But he evidently didn't predict what would be the will of the board even with the very slanted and poorly written poll. Who knows what's next? Flip a coin? Cast Lots? Divination?

 

[drstevej]

My point however was that drsteveJ doesn't seem to even have any construtive criticism. Just snarky comments. If he can't lose the attitude long enough to try to be construcive instead of a pain in the neck than perhaps he should just step back and just not say anything. At least untill he can ditch the attitude.

That was constructive criticism, you just missed it. As to snarky and an attitude, reread your comments to me, please.

Constructive is relative to one's viewpoint and goals. I think a Nicene Creed and Trinitarian litmus test is a good thing and therefore losing it is not constructive.

 

[drstevej]

It seems to me though he was kind of using the comment to express the idea that by taking away the Nicene Creed, you take away part of the foundation of Christianity's doctrinal belief about the trinity. That if we take away that, why not just take away everything else that has been a part of the Church for nearly 2,000 years.

See, you got it!

 

[*Starlight*]

I wouldn't call it a snarky comment. You can't expect the overwhelming majority of Christians to be happy when you take the first ever calaboration of Christian doctrine and belief by the Church, which the overwhelming majority of Christian Churches adhere to, and throw it out the window. Doing so rips away part of the identity of Christianity. The Nicene Creed needs to stay.

Here's a simple, one-question quiz for you.

--> CF is trying to unite:
A) All Christians as one body
B) The majority of Christians as one body

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

That was constructive criticism, you just missed it. As to snarky and an attitude, reread your comments to me, please.

Constructive is relative to one's viewpoint and goals. I think a Nicene Creed and Trinitarian litmus test is a good thing and therefore losing it is not constructive.

Oh please--why don't you reread most of your comments since 7/7/7 happened.

Express your opinion----try to voice what you would like for your goals--but the way you do it is very snarky.

Have a nice day.

 

[GenemZ]

If you have nothing constructive (even if its against the current policies) to say how about you just be quiet!! Stop with the smarky little comments.

He had a valid point. We do need a way to acknowledge the Trinity, if we are Christians. But? It does not have to be done with the Creed which contains a background which has been prone for abuse. We need a non-denominational Statement of Faith to cover only the fundamental basic *conclusions* used by all mainstream churches today.

Trinity.

Deity of Christ.

Virgin birth.

Salvation by faith in Christ's atoning work. Etc.

The Creed was prone to greed. Greed to control those who did not line up with the denominational bias of the church who claims copyrite to its interpretation.

We need to avoid creating a haven for control freaks. That is how it appeared to me in the past. Yet, we do need some guidelines for protocol as to who posts where.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

Here's a simple, one-question quiz for you.

--> CF is trying to unite:
A) All Christians as one body
B) The majority of Christians as one body

C. Gathering the body of diverse Christians together into one forum.

Unity will never happen in this day. Its against the Word of God to think its to be done.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 (New International Version)
"In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval."
​

​

If unity could be obtained? It would require a corporate pre-frontal lobotomy of the entire body of Christ! Then we would all be one in what we think. In doing so, we would have no more free will to decide with.

And, all would receive full rewards in Heaven. Which the Bible says will not be the case.

God wants us free to accept - or, reject - the Truth.

For, now is the time God tests our hearts to see how much of Christ we can be entrusted with in our resurrection rewards. Sadly, not all will reign with him as a result. For not all can be trusted with such power and authority. Which is being revealed here and now by certain ones abusing the power and authority they have been entrusted with.

And, with the others? In how they abuse the power and authority of God's Word in how they accept it, or distort it to reject it.

Grace and truth, GeneZ
​

 

[PoliticalGuru]

Here's a simple, one-question quiz for you.

--> CF is trying to unite:
A) All Christians as one body
B) The majority of Christians as one body

The Nicene Creed is a fundemental part of Christianity. To rip it out is to rip out what Christianity identity is, plain and simple. Everyone can call themselves Christian, including myself, but that does not make me Christian. Some doctrines are central to the faith, and the ones expressed in the Nicene Creed are as such.

 

[*Starlight*]

The Nicene Creed is a fundemental part of Christianity. To rip it out is to rip out what Christianity identity is, plain and simple. Everyone can call themselves Christian, including myself, but that does not make me Christian. Some doctrines are central to the faith, and the ones expressed in the Nicene Creed are as such.

But there are people who follow Christ's teachings and disagree with something in the Creed... that proves that to follow Christ's teachings a person doesn't need to believe many of the theological stuff.

 

[PoliticalGuru]

But there are people who follow Christ's teachings and disagree with something in the Creed... that proves that to follow Christ's teachings a person doesn't need to believe many of the theological stuff.

The Nicene Creed is the foundation of it. To deny the Nicene Creed is to visibly dissent from the body, from the first ever written document of the tenants of Christianity, affirmed by virtually all of the Bishops at that time and without fail reaffirmed by virtually all Christian Churches to the present. There can be a Non-Nicene Theology section, but the Nicene Creed needs to come back.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Well no , not all churches affirm it , that is why there was a disclaimer on 2 of the statements in it , catholic being universal and baptism not nessesary for salvation.

 

[PoliticalGuru]

Well no , not all churches affirm it , that is why there was a disclaimer on 2 of the statements in it , catholic being universal and baptism not nessesary for salvation.

You can nitpick at it, but the fact is that it has been the longest lasting collaboration of the general tenants of Christianity, where virtually all Churches affirm the first seven ecumencial Church councils. To get rid of the Nicene Creed is to dissent from the fundementals of Christianity.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Sorry , my christianity is based on the saving grace of Jesus. Not a church, or a creed or a council.

 

[GenemZ]

You can nitpick at it, but the fact is that it has been the longest lasting collaboration of the general tenants of Christianity, where virtually all Churches affirm the first seven ecumencial Church councils. To get rid of the Nicene Creed is to dissent from the fundementals of Christianity.

We do not want to get rid of the Creed itself. Just take the same requirements and place them in a required statement of faith with no denominational claim to know how its to be determined. If you can show how Jesus is God with Scripture? That should be sufficient.

We need to get rid of the thinking of those who abused the Creed. Abused it by claiming a copyrite in how the conclusions the Creed states are to be determined.

I know. I was one of them who faced this abuse.

I can understand the Deity of Christ on what many would consider a seminary level in Protestant churches. Yet? What I said did not agree with the Creed as the RC and EO churches demand its to be understood.

I was banned from having my Christian Cross.

If you like? I can tell you how it went.

In Christ, GeneZ
​