WWMC/CC Congregation Conflict

[MrJim]

If you asked for my advice, I would say that defining yourselves in opposition to something is not a wise way of doing things. But you certainly have the right to do so as long as it does not conflict with the core rules.

Speaking of core rules, guess by the weekend Erwin will have something new for us anyhow...

 

[UberLutheran]

Speaking from the vantage point of a liberal, and a highly liturgical liberal, at that: why would a liberal want to visit Conservative Christians or Fundamentalist Christians (and vice versa) to debate when your side and our side are highly unlikely to agree on much of anything except perhaps the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ?

It's kind of like hitting one's head with a hammer because it feels so good when one stops hitting one's head with a hammer!

 

[CaDan]

Speaking of core rules, guess by the weekend Erwin will have something new for us anyhow...

If anything, it should be interesting.

 

[Lisa0315]

No, I don't mind fellowshiping with anyone. I don't mind Q&A from anyone, but we have areas to debate theology. This is supposed to be our safe area to relax and discuss things with each other.

To allow Liberals as members would mean more work for mods than anyone would have the right to expect. It just is not a good idea.

My question is why would Liberals want voting power in Conservative Christians? Second, how could they be members if they are unable to accept our Statement of Belief?

I have many Liberal friends, the one that comes to mind that I like a lot is UberLutheran, but sorry, my answer is No.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

Speaking from the vantage point of a liberal, and a highly liturgical liberal, at that: why would a liberal want to visit Conservative Christians or Fundamentalist Christians (and vice versa) to debate when your side and our side are highly unlikely to agree on much of anything except perhaps the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ?

It's kind of like hitting one's head with a hammer because it feels so good when one stops hitting one's head with a hammer!

Speak of the debil!

Hey, Ub! How ya' doing?

Lisa

 

[MrJim]

Speaking from the vantage point of a liberal, and a highly liturgical liberal, at that: why would a liberal want to visit Conservative Christians or Fundamentalist Christians (and vice versa) to debate when your side and our side are highly unlikely to agree on much of anything except perhaps the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ?

It's kind of like hitting one's head with a hammer because it feels so good when one stops hitting one's head with a hammer!

My favorite gun totin' liberal-you oughta open a fellowship thread here and we can chat about more interesting things like concealed leather and 9mm vs ..45

 

[Mling]

I see no reason to allow "membership" in both, as the tenets are typically diametrically opposed to one another. You can't believe in both at the same time. It's like trying to say, "I'm a Christian atheist" - doesn't make sense.

It is worth noting that, the way "liberal" and "conservative" or defined on this site, or more accurately, left undefined, a person can be conservative and liberal at the same time. Both words have several definitions, and, while I can't speak for this side of the fence, at WWMC, we have no desire to pick apart those definitions and figure out which types of liberals we represent.

Given that, there is no reason why somebody who believes in the innerancy of the Bible must also oppose gun control and abortion and support limitations on the central government. A person who supports gay marriage might also vote Republican for economic reasons and believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (and, for reasons personal to them, see no contradiction between that and the other two views.)

So, yes, a person can be liberal and conservative at the same time. Which reframes this question a bit. CC was founded specifically because non-fundamentalist and moderate conservatives felt out of place in the Fundamentalist forums. If I recall the conversation, it was pointed out that WWMC welcomes people who are not wholly liberal, but the fundamentalist forum isn't all that accepting of moderates, and so people who were simply "conservative," but not to the degree of fundamentalism, had no place to hang their hat.

What was the point of creating this place if one of the first actions is to close membership to those who might also want to discuss their liberal side? In short, to exclude the moderates? The very people CC was created for?

This might be none of my business, as I have no intention of claiming membership here, but it does effect members of WWMC.

And, being a moderate once, I do remember what it was like to never fit in anywhere.

 

[Tangeloper]

Hi,

The members of WWMC want for us to reconsider our policy of not allowing members of WWMC to be members of our forum as well.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5929380

Since they're not really allowed to debate here, I thought I'd start the thread myself.

How do you feel about this? Is this a policy you're willing to reconsider?

Real easy for me....

Ummm... NOOOO!!!! Especially now seeing as how this whole site will be much more accomodating to liberal Christians... They've got a bevy of other places to debate their views. This place is for US!

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is worth noting that, the way "liberal" and "conservative" or defined on this site, or more accurately, left undefined, a person can be conservative and liberal at the same time. Both words have several definitions, and, while I can't speak for this side of the fence, at WWMC, we have no desire to pick apart those definitions and figure out which types of liberals we represent.

That's actually not true. To be a member of the liberal forum, you have to affirm what is taught in that forum. Conservatives cannot do so. Liberals cannot affirm all that needs to be affirmed to posti n the conservative forum.

To be a member means you have the ability to vote and change the rules of that fourm.

This is why liberals want to be members of this forum, to effect change, make it more like what they want. You don't see conservatives trying to change the liberal forum.

The fact of the matter is, there are liberals who don't want this forum to exist as something that stands apart from their own beliefs and ideologies. The conservative forum is the last and only moral stronghold at CF. IMHO, this is a serious issue.

Given that, there is no reason why somebody who believes in the innerancy of the Bible must also oppose gun control and abortion and support limitations on the central government. A person who supports gay marriage might also vote Republican for economic reasons and believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (and, for reasons personal to them, see no contradiction between that and the other two views.)

But such a person would not be able to affirm the conservative statements required for membership here, based on their support for gay marriage.

So, yes, a person can be liberal and conservative at the same time.

That someone sits on the fence and goes off in different directions depending on the subject is a meaningless argument given what is necessary for a member to affirm to be able to be a member of this forum. To be a member of this forum, one must affirm all that this forum holds to. Such a person who sits on the fence can't.

Fence sitters can affirm the liberal forum's statements. But not ours.

Which reframes this question a bit. CC was founded specifically because non-fundamentalist and moderate conservatives felt out of place in the Fundamentalist forums. If I recall the conversation, it was pointed out that WWMC welcomes people who are not wholly liberal, but the fundamentalist forum isn't all that accepting of moderates, and so people who were simply "conservative," but not to the degree of fundamentalism, had no place to hang their hat.

What was the point of creating this place if one of the first actions is to close membership to those who might also want to explore their liberal side? In short, to exclude the moderates? The very people CC was created for?

Because the fundamentalist forum excludes all conservatives who do not take their extreme views of the bible, of sola scriptura, and so there was nowhere for conservatives from all christian groups to come together WITHOUT be beleagered by liberal ideas and values,.

This was not created for fence sitters.

This was created for all conservatives, even those the fundamentalists exclude from thier own forum.

Fundamentalists are only a subset of conservatives here.

But if one is a mixture of conservative and liberal ideas, then they are not conservative by defnition, but liberal, for, as the bible says, a little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump.

One has to affirm all that the conservative forum stands for, especially morally, and that includes being against abortion, pro-life, taking stands against gay relationships, sex outside of marriage, etc.

No fence sitter can affirm al these things. Someone who cannot affirm all these things has no business being a member which gives them power and the right to vote and change the rules of this forum.


This is NOT a "Moderates" forum.

If "Moderates" want a place to post, then they need to petition Erwin for their own forum. Not try to make the Conservative forum a Moderate one.

This might be none of my business, as I have no intention of claiming membership here, but it does effect members of WWMC.

No it doesn't. They are members of WWMC. Nothing here affects their membership there, and if they are conservatives, then they have no business being members of WWMC as the to philosophies and ideologies are polar opposiites.

And, being a moderate once, I do remember what it was like to never fit in anywhere.

Then moderates needs to petition Erwin for a forum of their own.

.

 

[tulc]

I think the problem is: if you are a voting member over at WWMC that you then can't be a voting member over here. I suspect we have a couple of people who like fellowshipping at both places and they were told they had to choose one or the other. Most of WWMC don't seem to have a problem with duo-membership but there seems to be some problem on this end.
tulc(that's the impression I have anyway)

 

[CyberPaladin]

The best thing would be a 3 month complete ban applied to all liberal on this board then after that allow fellowship and questions only. We have enough to deal with on our board with out the conflict and drama the liberals are bringing.

 

[CaDan]

The best thing would be a 3 month complete ban applied to all liberal on this board then after that allow fellowship and questions only. We have enough to deal with on our board with out the conflict and drama the liberals are bringing.

"The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

 

[Mling]

Thereselittleflower: up until a few months ago, I would have affirmed almost every point of the Conservative guidlines sticky. I would have agreed that sex should remain within marriage, but, based on extensive Biblical research, would have some differences of opinion on the definition of marriage.
Other than that, I would have fit pretty perfectly into your defintions of conservativism.

And yet those who know me here know me as a bleeding-heart liberal. Why? Because a person who holds himself to a particular standard, but considers it to be personal and does not judge others according to that same standard may be considered either Conservative or Liberal. And either the Conservatism or the Liberalism may be considered the leaven which affects the entire loaf.
Neither can be assumed to "infect" the other by default.

The Conservative forum requires people to affirm a particular set a beliefs. The Liberal forum requires people to accept the differences in others, agree that the "neighbor" is the one who serves, and treat each other with respect.

The two are far from mutually exclusive. In fact, they dovetail together quite nicely.

The only point which is raised on both lists is homosexuality (not mentioned by name on the CC list, but alluded to). CC defines marriage as husband and wife, and affirms the belief that sexual activity should remain confined to this union. WWMC affirms that homosexual people have worth to God and to the world, and forbids the debate on the moral issue, in order to prevent attacks (which can sometimes be a problem).

Again, this is far from a contradiction.

I could have chosen to sign my name under either set of values, and neither would have been a lie. I made my choice, but others may choose differently. It is not fence-sitting to refuse to be boxed in by artificial labels. In fact, I would say that it is impossible to be a reasonable, fully-functioning human and not defy some labels at some point.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I think the problem is: if you are a voting member over at WWMC that you then can't be a voting member over here. I suspect we have a couple of people who like fellowshipping at both places and they were told they had to choose one or the other. Most of WWMC don't seem to have a problem with duo-membership but there seems to be some problem on this end.
tulc(that's the impression I have anyway)

But see, with liberals, it is basically an anything goes mentality, and so it makes perfect sense for their forum to allow all to post.

Conservatives take a diametrically opposed stance to such an ideology, and so cannot incorporate it into this forum without betrayin the essence of our beliefs.

This is not an anything goes forum.

To be members here, members have to hold to TRADITONAL Christian moral values and beliefs, which reject much of what is allowed in the liberal forum.

Conservative Christianity is NOT inclusive.


.
.

 

[No Swansong]

I think the problem is: if you are a voting member over at WWMC that you then can't be a voting member over here. I suspect we have a couple of people who like fellowshipping at both places and they were told they had to choose one or the other. Most of WWMC don't seem to have a problem with duo-membership but there seems to be some problem on this end.
tulc(that's the impression I have anyway)

Actually anyone can fellowship here according to the rules. Membership as I understand it allows a say in how the board is run, including who the moderators are. Why would a Liberal have any interest in wanting to influence our rules unless their purpose was to change them?

 

[Debi1967]

1. It means that all members will be given the power to self-govern by collaboratively working together with coming up with the rules for this whole community, including voting for their own moderators.

2. It means that members who want their particular forums to have certain restrictions may do as this is part of self-governance. Sub-forums members will be able to develop their own rules and choose their own moderators.

This means we have the right now to include or exclude anyone we wish if we deem it is appropriate

 

[No Swansong]

And by the way it bears repeating. Fundamentalist Churches from its inception was intended for Sola Scriptura Fundamentalists. It was not intended for all conservatives. Please stop furthering the falsehood that we kicked out Fundamentalists because they weren't "extreme" enough. The definition there has been pretty clear since its inception.

 

[Debi1967]

I agree to fellowship posting and inquirers ... I do not agree to them being on our Roll Call list

 

[nyj]

How do you feel about this?

I don't care. Besides, Joykins has already told me that with this rule of ours, we make their lives easier by keeping some of the more vocal conservatives out of WWMC (see my comment below as well).

Is this a policy you're willing to reconsider?

No.

This could be solved by the Liberal Forum simply removing their "roll call" and allowing "open voting". But they won't do that, because they want to have a say in which conservatives they'll allow to vote in their elections. They already give their moderators power to remove people from their roll call, which is much more than we currently allow.

 

[tulc]

Why would a Liberal have any interest in wanting to influence our rules unless their purpose was to change them?

...because they aren't liberal, they're conservative? Think of it like this: you're a person who likes both coffee and tea, and you're on a website that has two forums one for coffee, one for tea. Now the coffee drinkers say "You can be either a coffee drinker or a tea drinker, but no both!" the tea drinkers on the other hand say: "we don't care if you like either coffee or tea, come on in!" the problem isn't that the tea drinkers want to take over the coffee forum they just like having both sides as members. See what I'm saying?
tulc(not a tea drinker but doesn't actually have a problem with them)