WWMC/CC Congregation Conflict

[MrJim]

...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)

Sorry tulc but that analogy doesn't work~we're talk christian worldviews here, not culinary preferences, and liberal/conservative worldviews are opposites.

 

[Debi1967]

...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)

Interesting analogy however it is using apples and oranges.... Being of Liberal Theological viewpoint and a Conservative viepoint are two entirely different things. There is a midline and that is called Moderate Theology where they use some Liberal Theology and Some Conservative Theology and thus this would mean they really do not fall into either section fully and completely.

This has been stated before if they are moderates then they should ask to start their own forum.

 

[HypnoToad]

...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)

You're comparing exclusive terms with an analogy of non-exclusive terms. Apples and oranges.

 

[ReformedChapin]

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.

Your faith icon states other wise. That would mean you have to adhere to the Nicean and Apostolic Creeds in their traditional standing not the liberal standing.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Ming, if you will bear with me, I will go through you response and demonstrate to you why you would not be able to affirm the stickies of this forum, and thus not be eligible for membership in it:

Thereselittleflower: up until a few months ago, I would have affirmed almost every point of the Conservative guidlines sticky.

It is not enough to affirm "almost" every point of our guidelines.

One has to affirm ALL of it, or one is not a conservative AS DEFINED by our guidelines. This includes the traditional moral teaching of christianity and that there is such a thing as absolute truth, that truth is not relative.

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.

What your personal ideas of marriage are is not the issue. The issue is, what are the TRADITIONAL teachings of Chrsitianity on marraige. If you cannot affirm those TRADITIONAL teachings, you are not conservative by the definition given here.

Other than that, I would have fit pretty perfectly into your defintions of conservativism.

No, you would not have. We will see this further below:

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.

Here is where you demonstrate that you do not fit perfectly into our defintion of conservativism, for we affirm that truth is not relative, not personal, but absolute and objective, which means it applies to all.

So, where your truth is a personal issue not to be used to judge others, for us truth is OBJECTIVE and outside ourselves, to be applied to society, and thus to others.

Conservative christians here do not hold relativism, and what you hold to is relatavism. And so you demonstrate that you do NOT begin to fit perfectly into our defintions of conservativism, contrary to what you claim.

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.

On the contrary, liberalism is the leaven which infects the whole lump. It is relativism. Conservatism rests on absolutes. When relativism infects absolutism, it becomes relativism, just as a little salt in a container of water makes the water salt water.

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 liberal forum requires that one accept the relativisitc teachings of the liberals. That they also require these defintions to be affirmed above is neither here nor there. It is how one interprets defnitions that is the issue.

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

No, it is how one intereprets those definitions that is the issue. They do not dovetail together quite nicely. They go in opposite directions. It is liberal releativism that tries to hide this fact.

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.

No, artfully crafted definitions do not hide the fact that these definitions embrace relativism, which is diametrically opposed to the absolutism of conservatives on these issues.

We both affirm that homosexual people have woth to God and the world, when we are talking about their PERSON not their behavior.

However, what this means within the relativism of th liberal forum and the absolutism of the conservative forums are two very different and diametrically opposed issues.

In the liberal forum, the BEHAVIOR of homosexual's is accepted as perfectly fine and normal, and is not allowed to be addressed in any negative manner. So homosexual liberals have a safe haven in which to discuss their relationships.

Where do conservative christians have to discuss their views on homosexual BEHAVIOR without debate from liberals? Where is our safe haven?

The issue is not whether or not we both affirm the intrinsic worth of individuals, regardless of their behavior, the issue is what does such affirmation mean?

For the liberal forum, it means you accept the BEHAVIOR as well.

In the Conservative forum, it means you REJECT behavior that does not conform to TRADITIONAL Christian morals and teaching.

TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED systems of thought.

They do not "dovetail" at all. Artfully crafted definitions cannot hide that fact.

I could have chosen to sign my name under either set of values, and neither would have been a lie.

Yes, it would have been. For you cannot affirm the TRADITIONAL Christian morals and teaching, which includes ALL of it, not just what you pick and choose.

I made my choice, but others may choose differently. It is not fence-sitting to refuse to be boxed in by artificial labels.

There is nothing artificial about it. You choose relativism.

Relativism is NOT part of Traditional Christian morals and teaching.

Conservatives choose absolutism.

Absolutims IS part of Traditional Christian morals and teaching.

It is very, very simple and straightforward.

In fact, I would say that it is impossible to be a reasonable, fully-functioning human and not defy some labels at some point.

True, but that does not logically transfer to all labels. It depends on who is doing the labeling and whether or not you believe truth is relative or absolute.

If you believe truth is relative, then you are not conservative even if you, in your own relative world, choose to hold to some conservative values.

Choosing to hold to some conservative values does not make one a conservative.

Holding to the essence that truth is absolute and objective and applies equally to all does.

You do not fit that absolute paradigm. Your paradigm is based on relativism.

And so you exclude yourself by defintion from the Conservative forum.

If you are a conservative member, it is under false pretenses, for you deny the absolute, objective nature of truth required to be affirmed by the rules of this forum, by your words above.

Here is what you are required to affirm:

Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality. Central to this worldview is the belief that Truth exists objectively and independently of our perception. Truth is unchanging and absolute.


Our Christian faith can not be separated from our views on politics and society, or any other area of life.
​

In other words, truth is not perosnal and it must be used to judge the behavior of others, otherwise, one could not push for laws in society to penalize certain behavior or approve other behavior.

According to your words above, truth is something personal and cannot be used to judge the behavior of others, ie relative.

.

 

[tulc]

Sorry tulc but that analogy doesn't work~we're talk christian worldviews here, not culinary preferences, and liberal/conservative worldviews are opposites.

uhmmm I see. So even though their view of Christianity is conservative they can't be a member here because they are also a member over in WWMC?
tulc(still plugging away here)

 

[Debi1967]

uhmmm I see. So even though their view of Christianity is conservative they can't be a member here because they are also a member over in WWMC?
tulc(still plugging away here)

If they are a conservative then why are they a member of the WWMC forum they ar not allowed to debate there even as a member..... They are only allowed to fellowship post so in essence us asking them to reliquish their fellowship posting right is what .... nothing really ...

Also I ask the question in return why do you even have to be a Member there to post a fellowship post?

 

[UberLutheran]

Speak of the debil!

Hey, Ub! How ya' doing?

Lisa

Aside from the fact that I have major surgery scheduled this Thursday, which is when Hurricane Dean is scheduled to make landfall here in Texas — fine, I guess!

(Nobody will ever be able to say that my life isn't one big drama! )

 

[Lisa0315]

Aside from the fact that I have major surgery scheduled this Thursday, which is when Hurricane Dean is scheduled to make landfall here in Texas — fine, I guess!

(Nobody will ever be able to say that my life isn't one big drama! )

Sorry to hear that. I will be praying for you.

Lisa

 

[tulc]

If they are a conservative then why are they a member of the WWMC forum they ar not allowed to debate there even as a member.....

...who said that?

They are only allowed to fellowship post so in essence us asking them to reliquish their fellowship posting right is what .... nothing really ...

I'm confused, are you saying that they can't even hang out there or they wont be able to hang out here?
tulc(suspects he's misunderstanding what you're saying and would like to understand better)

 

[No Swansong]

Aside from the fact that I have major surgery scheduled this Thursday, which is when Hurricane Dean is scheduled to make landfall here in Texas — fine, I guess!

(Nobody will ever be able to say that my life isn't one big drama! )

I'll be praying my friend. Keep us updated.

John

 

[No Swansong]

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]...who said that?


I'm confused, are you saying that they can't even hang out there or they wont be able to hang out here?
tulc(suspects he's misunderstanding what you're saying and would like to understand better)

I haven't been back to WWMC since 777 but previously as a mod conservatives (mostly Fundamentalists) were reported all the time for debating even though there technically was no definition of who could be a member and thus debate. It use to be a joke between some of the mods that WWMC really meant Whosoever Will (who doesn't believe differently than we do) May Come.

I know that one mod. Tattedsaint tried very admirably to come up with some kind of solution to the issue.

But the truth remains many Fundamentalists were given warnings because of debating in WWMC.

 

[Brennin]

"The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

LOL

 

[Lisa0315]

I have a suggestion...I made this in another thread as well.

What do you guys think about adding a rule that requires us to add either "Open" or "CCC Only" to our thread titles. The default if anyone forgets would be CCC Only. This would be easily enforceable and would eliminate alot of the problems, I think.

When the purpose is to fellowship or discuss with non-Conservatives, it will be very clear. When the purpose is to fellowship, discuss, make rules, etc. with only Conservatives, it will be easy for staff to enforce if a non-Conservative barges in.

Lisa

 

[Debi1967]

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]...who said that?


I'm confused, are you saying that they can't even hang out there or they wont be able to hang out here?
tulc(suspects he's misunderstanding what you're saying and would like to understand better)

Whosoever Will, May Come (WWMC) is a welcoming, interdenominational congregation of Liberal, progressive, postmodern, and emergent Christians. WWMC is dedicated to following Jesus's example of radical inclusiveness and hospitality by including "whoseover will " to come join us in friendly and polite fellowship and conversation. All threads remain open to all regardless of icon.

For the purposes of these rules, the term "Liberal" is meant to apply to all Christians who self-identify as Liberal, progressive, postmodern, or emergent.

That is from the rules posted in WWMC

Do you see anywhere in that definition where it sys Conservative......

 

[tulc]

It use to be a joke between some of the mods that WWMC really meant Whosoever Will (who doesn't believe differently than we do) May Come.

Ahhh! I was unaware of how hard we were to get along with.
tulc(have a good day!)

 

[tulc]

Do you see anywhere in that definition where it sys Conservative......

...where does it say conservatives aren't welcome?
tulc(just wondering)

 

[Debi1967]

I have a suggestion...I made this in another thread as well.

What do you guys think about adding a rule that requires us to add either "Open" or "CCC Only" to our thread titles. The default if anyone forgets would be CCC Only. This would be easily enforceable and would eliminate alot of the problems, I think.

When the purpose is to fellowship or discuss with non-Conservatives, it will be very clear. When the purpose is to fellowship, discuss, make rules, etc. with only Conservatives, it will be easy for staff to enforce if a non-Conservative barges in.

Lisa

I still say that it is asking for trouble because as has been seen already in threads just by inquirers and in report posts anything we say can be taken and misconstrued ... We ar leaving ourselves open for a world of harm to come...

We already have a rule about fellowship posting and what that is in this forum that should be sufficient.

 

[HypnoToad]

I have a suggestion...I made this in another thread as well.

What do you guys think about adding a rule that requires us to add either "Open" or "CCC Only" to our thread titles. The default if anyone forgets would be CCC Only. This would be easily enforceable and would eliminate alot of the problems, I think.

When the purpose is to fellowship or discuss with non-Conservatives, it will be very clear. When the purpose is to fellowship, discuss, make rules, etc. with only Conservatives, it will be easy for staff to enforce if a non-Conservative barges in.

It's already easy and clear - no debate from non-CC members, and no non-CC members active in forum management, and they can already freely fellowship.

There's no need for this tag idea.

 

[Lisa0315]

I still say that it is asking for trouble because as has been seen already in threads just by inquirers and in report posts anything we say can be taken and misconstrued ... We ar leaving ourselves open for a world of harm to come...

We already have a rule about fellowship posting and what that is in this forum that should be sufficient.

Well, that is fine, but what we have right now is not enforceable. We have to leave the forum open, but that does not mean we would have to leave each and every thread open.

We could by default make all threads CCC only unless we specify "Open". That is all that I am saying.

Lisa