New Site Wide Rule Nicene Christianity

[CaDan]

As for the closing of the forums, that's beyond the power of anyone of us peons or even our direct patrons.

As for the discussion topics rule, it will be a matter of whether we can enforce them with mercy and compassion as topical rules of discussion rather than as bludgeons so that those whose egos rely on winning arguments on the internet can claim another "victory."

 

[The Gregorian]

As for the closing of the forums, that's beyond the power of anyone of us peons or even our direct patrons.

As for the discussion topics rule, it will be a matter of whether we can enforce them with mercy and compassion as topical rules of discussion rather than as bludgeons so that those whose egos rely on winning arguments on the internet can claim another "victory."

EXTREMELY well put

 

[Philothei]

It all depends on the amount interpretation of the working admins. Again, I'll cite my experience in the non-denominational forums. I had an entire thread deleted because it said "What do YOU think of 1 Corinthians 8:6... how do you interpret it?" And I spent a paragraph saying that I would NOT give my opinion in any way or disagree with anyone's opinion... I just wanted to know how trinitarians viewed that scripture.

Is it "anti-Nicene cult propaganda" to ask what someone thinks about a given scripture without giving ANY dissenting opinion... just because it's a verse frequently given by us monotheists?

At the time, they simply told me to go back to the non-Nicene section... if there is no such section, it's up to the individual admins to decide "Is this acceptable, given the options?"

Now... if I go in there and start shouting... "The trinity is a deliberate mistranslation to incorporate obviously pegan doctrines into christianity for the financial benefit of the church, likely with Satanic involvement in that it thrusts Jesus into the position that Satan himself took, resulting in his expulsion from heaven, by claiming to be equal to God, when God said he would have NO Equal." (Of course, this is just an example, I'm not really presenting this point here, now is not the time, and I do not want to pursue this discussion... only giving an example of what someone disruptive could say)... then yes... that's obviously something that the new rules would prohibit... and there will purposefully be no place for people with such opinions to congregate, and that's to be expected.

However... considering the idea that there will soon be no alternative places... will it be so strictly enforced when people simply say "I don't understand how trinitarians interpret the following scripture..." because now, there will be no "While that's an honest question, it's disruptive here, go to your own sub-forum."

can you do that debate at the apologetics? like before?
what is the difference?

 

[Templedweller]

Thankful for the stand being taken to be a Christian Site which stands for the Truth

 

[Rochir]

As for the closing of the forums, that's beyond the power of anyone of us peons or even our direct patrons.

As for the discussion topics rule, it will be a matter of whether we can enforce them with mercy and compassion as topical rules of discussion rather than as bludgeons so that those whose egos rely on winning arguments on the internet can claim another "victory."

 

[jive4005]

I'm supposing that all this change is intended to honor God and also to make this site less of a jumble and a bit more organized. IF this streamlines some of the areas I say good. I think there is already enough division and fragmenting in the church that we need not add to it. Christians should learn that our similarities outweigh or differences. Elbowing us closer together... a Jesus stew!

I hope the changes accomplish their intended good purposes.

rev

 

[skylark1]

PLEASE, CAN THE NNT FORUMS JUST BE CLOSED INSTEAD OF ARCHIVED?

There are really a lot of good discussions in those forums. I, personally, being converted on CF in UTD, am very upset about the thought of losing those discussions.

PLEASE CAN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?

I don't want this quesion to be missed.

 

[Polycarp1]

Of course, consistency would suggest that a person claiming to be a clergyman who is so hot for the Nicene Creed he starts badgering another clergyman (who belongs to a denomination explicitly affirming it) about whether or not the latter believes in it, well, if that selfsame first clergyman is pastoring a church which does not belong to a denomination affirming the Nicene Creed, one would expect him to recuse himself from all staff participation and from all discussion of the Creed. Wouldn't one?

 

[The Gregorian]

Here's the point I'd really like Lee to see, and think about:

Did Christ come here and associate ONLY with those who believed as he did? Or did he come here and speak to tax collectors and harlots?

To say "people who don't have a perfect understanding are to be silenced" is to be opposite of Jesus. He actively sought them out to teach them. And yes, he ALSO sought out people who had learned from him to fellowship with them... but the purpose was not to preach to the holy.

Is this site a legitimate Christian tool, where people's FAITH can be strengthened through learning more about what the bible teaches? Or is this just a fellowship forum for Lee's personal denomination?

Again, I suggest, if this is a forum for Lee's denomination, it should be listed as such, and not given the pretense of "Christian unity."

 

[ravenscape]

PLEASE NOTE: There is a Wiki/Rules Discussion Thread set up for discussing concerns about this announcement: http://christianforums.com/t6777343

This thread is primarily for asking questions and clarifying.

Thanks

Raven
Support Team

REMINDER: This thread is for Q&A about the announced new rule.

DICSUSSION of the pros and cons belongs in the thread linked above.


Thanks,

Raven
Support Team

 

[DaRev]

The thread linked above is closed. So I guess further discussion is not allowed?

 

[Tonks]

The discussion has moved on as the thread split (it had hit 1000 posts). Lemme go dig up the link.

 

[Philothei]

good... Question: would the rules and guidelines now change completely or it would be up to the forum manager to do so?

 

[praying]

The lin kdoesn't work that Chrisbot put in. Well the lin kworks but thre is no link to a discussion once you get there.

 

[Tonks]

Link to continued discussion after automatic thread split

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43068387

 

[higgs2]

I have a question.

When we say the Nicene Creed every week in church, we say (about Jesus Christ) "... he suffered death, and was buried..."

In the creed in this announcement, the word "death" is missing. Is this a typo?

 

[amadeus2]

Read the first post of the thread and to answer your question, No, just because you are Non-Nicene doesn't mean you are being removed.

No, just being censored

 

[amadeus2]

I know perfectly well what people here view as 'promotion'. It will effectively drive anyone who is the least bit different away. A fine witness for the Lord.

Amen!

 

[amadeus2]

That's a wrong answer, non-Nicene Christians are still Christians, and their safe-haven congregational forums are going to be removed, unfortunately... so the change is pushing the site away from the goal of being a safe-haven for Christians. Right now it's moving towards promoting a certain subset of Christianity.

And how is this showing anyone by example what Jesus is?

 

[mnphysicist]

I have a question.

When we say the Nicene Creed every week in church, we say (about Jesus Christ) "... he suffered death, and was buried..."

In the creed in this announcement, the word "death" is missing. Is this a typo?

Nope, its an intentional choice. There are a number of versions, and there were pretty heated discussions over which one to use back when this one was chosen pre 777. There were also some translation copyright issues if I remember correctly. I don't remember the details off hand, but could probably research it a bit.