Creation of Additional Major Categories

I think that if the site's policy is that "You are christian if you say you are" then it should extend to denominational type groups also (Jehovahs Witness, LDS, Servents of Yawheh, Branch Davidians whoever) and as such if they have enough people on board then they should have their own congregational safe area in the congregational area.

If however you are going to use a yardstick to decide who is and is not Christian then by all means separate those groups out and honestly say we don't think you are Christian.

The reality is you can't have it both ways and no matter what you do you are going to infuriate some one. And they will leave.

OK thats my one post for the week!

Crazy Liz said:

Really?

I'm trying to understand what happened. If you understand, please explain. And please also post links to the wikis I missed.

Click to expand...

I read the thread (this one). Maybe you should do the same.

Maybe you can point out to me where it was stated that staff made the decision.

Thank you CF for taking a stand for biblical christianity and not allowing unorthodoxy to be comfortable in error. I applaud this decision.

ANYHOW - the reorganization wiki plods on.

Erwin said:

Agreed, so we might as well not have the subforums then. I was hoping that the proposed solution would have been better than nothing, but maybe nothing is better.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would soothe temperments if a congregational forum for the unorthodox memebrs was set inside the debate forum?

JeffreyLloyd said:

If this is going to be true, the LDS deserve to have their very own congregational home as their safe haven.

What do we gage "orthodoxy" with since we lost the Nicene Creed? What keeps the Mormons on the outside? Not believing they are really Christaisn is not good enough and is a direct contradiction of the 777 reforms.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Personally, I have no objection to being known as unortodox. I acknowledge that my beliefs set me outside of the mainstream. I also wouldn't have a problem with the Niccean Creed being used to define orthodox vs unorthodox Christians. I just don't agree with it defining who is and who isn't a Christian.

Under what possible definition of the word could any of this be considered a "stand?"

This is chaotic.

I have a possible solution to this mess. Come to the new forum and wiki with me.

ETA: Where the heck are the new forums at?

JeffreyLloyd said:

If this is going to be true, the LDS deserve to have their very own congregational home as their safe haven.

What do we gage "orthodoxy" with since we lost the Nicene Creed? What keeps the Mormons on the outside? Not believing they are really Christaisn is not good enough and is a direct contradiction of the 777 reforms.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Regardless of the intent, it looks like the 'unorthodox' are being stabbed in the back with this. Have the debate sections, sure. But let them have congregational safehavens as well.

BelindaP said:

I have a possible solution to this mess. Come to the new forum and wiki with me.

ETA: Where the heck are the new forums at?

Click to expand...

Oh dear.

Me said:

This is from Erwin's announcement on the new CF:

From part 1 sub-points f and g:

" f) No more restriction of faith icons - who are we to tell you who you are or what you believe in? In fact, no other restrictions - if you want to call yourself married, go ahead. It is between you and God, not you and CF.

g) If you believe you are a Christian, you are. No more reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian. In the end, who are we to judge."


​

There is nothing noting qualified Christian status i.e. orthodox or no. In fact, it states out right: no reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian. The refusal to grant LDS there own congregation is an affront to the spirit of the announcement. This site does not suggest it only wants to unite one sect or one line of thinking. Rather, it is ecumenical. If one is allowed to self identify as Christian and there are groups who hold similar doctrinal views such that they are distinct then such should have their own congregation forum. Lip service to Christian self identification while placing some groups i.e. LDS in only debate forums speaks to the apartheid of the old CF.
​

Click to expand...

Erwin said:

The idea was to come up with a solution that would be acceptable to both the conservative Christians and members of these non-mainstream churches. It does not look like this is going to be possible.

I'm happy to hear any alternative suggestions or arrangements. If none can be achieved, then we will just not have these subforums.

Click to expand...

Erwin said:

This is why Letalis posted this FIRST before implementing it - to gauge the response. Since the response has been uniformly negative, it's not going to go ahead (at least not the JW/LDS part) until we can get a resolution about it.

Click to expand...

My quote is from post #26. It didn't receive comment. I think the language of Erwin's 777 announcement is unambiguous. Sectarian lines drawn in the sand speak to a mind set other than the announcement: "If you believe you are a Christian, you are" and the verbiage that appears underneath the Christian Forums logo found in the top right of the site: uniting all Christians as one body. The language of the 777 announcement and the intent of the site does not parse according to orthodox and unorthodox. There is no language along the lines: uniting all orthodox Christians as one body. Orthodox and unorthodox, mainstream and non-mainstream are adjectives that only carry meaning insofar as one understands the noun they modify. In this case that is Christian. Given the thrust of the site: this only reinforces the oddity of then trying to marginalize particular Christian groups.

I think one needs to consider fundamental positioning. Is the site meant to be inclusive or divisive? What is the motivation of those who would oppose an LDS Congregation forum? Why should oppositionist groups be given any deference at all? Given congregation forums are non-debate areas, one can only assume the hostility is because Mormons should be considered targets and because it is assumed an LDS Congregation Forum would convey a type of legitimacy to what is supposed to be an illegitimate faith: the undesirables are to remain in the shanty towns assigned so that polite society will not be bothered. Such sentiment is its own refutation.


"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons” - Dostoevsky

That's it. I have reached the state beyond confused.

What exactly is the problem? Erwin clearly stated:

Quote:
g) If you believe you are a Christian, you are. No more reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian. In the end, who are we to judge."


Stick to your guns, people. For this to be implemented then by all means any and all Christian "groups" should have their own congregational forums! As such, they can also have their own Wiki rules to coordinate said forums; meaning they can forbid debates by non-members, etc etc.

I am not going to post this and say I agree with all the changes. However, I have decided to remain on staff and as such, I view Erwin as my boss and will do everything in my power to uphold the rules he has stated for his site. And his rule g is VERY clear:

No more reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian.

Now in my humble servant's mind, I understand this as being contradictory to the orthodox versus unorthodox point of view. Be they orthodox or not, Christians are still Christians,,, if I understand the above statement correctly.

Aaah, it's open season for unorthodox Christians AGAIN!

ERWIN - did YOU approve THIS?????

Quote:
g) If you believe you are a Christian, you are. No more reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian. In the end, who are we to judge."

This was a direct quote from Erwin's Announcement on July 7th 2007.

sparklecat said:

Agreed. Regardless of the intent, it looks like the 'unorthodox' are being stabbed in the back with this. Have the debate sections, sure. But let them have congregational safehavens as well.

Click to expand...

How so, i didnt see in the announcement of this reform that unorthodox believers would be given safehouses. I believe what was stated was also clarified by Erwin that the intent was that no one would be hounded about their christian icon choice or have it removed.

Unorthodox and non believers cannot be witnessed to in "safehouses". It would be creating comfort in error.

Angel4Truth said:

Unorthodox and non believers cannot be witnessed to in "safehouses". It would be creating comfort in error.

Click to expand...

So you call what goes on "witnessing"?

Quote:
g) If you believe you are a Christian, you are. No more reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian. In the end, who are we to judge."

This was a direct quote from Erwin's Announcement on July 7th 2007.

Click to expand...

Here is a newer one made on July 19th :
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36873640&postcount=44

Erwin said:

The statement I made about "Anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian" I admit I phrased wrongly and should have used a better choice of words - just because I say I am a Wookie doesn't make me a Wookie per se - in the end, I was trying to say that staff will no longer try to force an icon change on members, something that puts a lot of stress on both staff and members.

Click to expand...

Thinking of, and promising arent the same things now are they? He also asked what members think about it and most members are objecting to it.

Angel4Truth said:

Thinking of, and promising arent the same things now are they? He also asked what members think about it and most members are objecting to it.

Click to expand...

Most members are not objecting to it. A select few members/staff are screaming about it, there is a difference.