A few thoughts

[synger]

And what recourse do we have to remove trouble makers from membership? Can this be done by poll?

I'm a little concerned with this idea. We have a pretty well-developed Statement of Faith. Those who agree with it can be members of this forum. If we go beyond that to try to define that "trouble makers" cannot be members, I think we'd go too far. Membership here is based on doctrine. I don't want to go beyond that.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I'm a little concerned with this idea. We have a pretty well-developed Statement of Faith. Those who agree with it can be members of this forum. If we go beyond that to try to define that "trouble makers" cannot be members, I think we'd go too far. Membership here is based on doctrine. I don't want to go beyond that.

That was one of the breaking points why I left. Some went BEYOND and causing trouble for us and the moderators. To me, troublemakers were those who were making more trouble than helping.

 

[Time2BCounted]

That was one of the breaking points why I left. Some went BEYOND and causing trouble for us and the moderators. To me, troublemakers were those who were making more trouble than helping.

Jim, with all due respect, if you left why are you back implying we are wrong for wanting out those who joined for other stated reasons, who have helped to generate report after report, and who is apparently above any sort of rules or fear of punishment or guideline? This is a members discussion.

Can a Jehovah's Witness be a member of the baptist sub forum?

 

[JimfromOhio]

Can a Jehovah's Witness be a member of the baptist sub forum?

How can they join with "Statement of Faith" is placed for requirement?

 

[Time2BCounted]

And what if they join only to convert baptists?

 

[JimfromOhio]

And what if they join only to convert baptists?

What you are doing is assuming and being paranoid. "What if".

In this life, I always face "what ifs" and still go on living without being paranoid about "what ifs".

This is sad.

 

[nyj]

We have a pretty well-developed Statement of Faith.

I agree.

Those who agree with it can be members of this forum.

With this I also agree.

But the problem is ... if someone claims they agree 100% with the SoF, and then later demonstrate they do not ... then what? That's ALWAYS been the problem. For most Congregational Fora, it's simple ... your icon changes, you lose certain privileges. It doesn't work that way for the movement fora.

So I would really appreciate if the staff came up with a uniform code on how to deal with such instances. Perhaps a "movement" indicator is called for. It would seem the easiest way to deal with crossing lines, claiming one thing, but posting another.

 

[Time2BCounted]

What you are doing is assuming and being paranoid. "What if".

In this life, I always face "what ifs" and still go on living without being paranoid about "what ifs".

This is sad.

What you are doing is posting against the opinion of members, and i dont nbelieve you have this right under current rules bro... you need to respect our rules and post in fellowship only if you are a nonmember, and if you disagree with preparation and wisdom, you disagree with conservatism in my opinion

 

[synger]

I think that having to agree 100 percent is a great guideline, but I'm not sure how it can be enforced. Most people have at least one doctrine that their denomination or church teaches that they're not 100 percent sure they're in agreement on. Time and time again, we see folks come into the Lutheran forum, even the "conservative" Lutheran forum, and say they're Lutheran, but they have a problem with one or more issues outlined in our confessions and catechisms. Are they still Lutheran? Fortunately, we have some wonderfully knowledgeable pastors and theologians who can help explain the doctrines.

That's what I hope to see here. I would like to see this as a place where those who agree mostly with conservative doctrine are welcome to come and discuss such things... so we can encourage one another and help build one another up. If we start saying, "yes, but you're not conservative enough" (just like sometimes TCL has said, "you're not Lutheran enough") it is more divisive and hurtful than helpful. It is more useful to say "conservatives believe this" than to say "you're not conservative enough".

But then, that's the Theology mod in me coming out. *grins* I'm much more interested in discussions about the doctrine itself than discussions about who fits into which camp.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I think that having to agree 100 percent is a great guideline, but I'm not sure how it can be enforced. Most people have at least one doctrine that their denomination or church teaches that they're not 100 percent sure they're in agreement on. Time and time again, we see folks come into the Lutheran forum, even the "conservative" Lutheran forum, and say they're Lutheran, but they have a problem with one or more issues outlined in our confessions and catechisms. Are they still Lutheran? Fortunately, we have some wonderfully knowledgeable pastors and theologians who can help explain the doctrines.

That's what I hope to see here. I would like to see this as a place where those who agree mostly with conservative doctrine are welcome to come and discuss such things... so we can encourage one another and help build one another up. If we start saying, "yes, but you're not conservative enough" (just like sometimes TCL has said, "you're not Lutheran enough") it is more divisive and hurtful than helpful. It is more useful to say "conservatives believe this" than to say "you're not conservative enough".

But then, that's the Theology mod in me coming out. *grins* I'm much more interested in discussions about the doctrine itself than discussions about who fits into which camp.

You have made great points of what I was trying to do.

 

[nyj]

I would like to see this as a place where those who agree mostly with conservative doctrine are welcome to come and discuss such things... so we can encourage one another and help build one another up.

But it's still a problem. Define "agree mostly"? There has to be some concrete definition, no matter what it might be. The SoF only contains what ... 6 or 7 items? Compared to hundreds, if not thousands of proclamations from the major denominations. Those 6 or 7 statements would be, IMO, the bare essentials. Agree to those, you're a member. IOW, they are the minimum requirements. Everything else is fair game.

 

[Nadiine]

But it's still a problem. Define "agree mostly"? There has to be some concrete definition, no matter what it might be. The SoF only contains what ... 6 or 7 items? Compared to hundreds, if not thousands of proclamations from the major denominations. Those 6 or 7 statements would be, IMO, the bare essentials. Agree to those, you're a member. IOW, they are the minimum requirements. Everything else is fair game.

Very true, and thus the split that came from such 'bare essentials'.
And it will continue happening until its properly & thoroughly defined.

 

[rmw8855]

But it's still a problem. Define "agree mostly"? There has to be some concrete definition, no matter what it might be. The SoF only contains what ... 6 or 7 items? Compared to hundreds, if not thousands of proclamations from the major denominations. Those 6 or 7 statements would be, IMO, the bare essentials. Agree to those, you're a member. IOW, they are the minimum requirements. Everything else is fair game.

As a forum we are allowed to set up guidelines which set standards of what is debateable. Any posts that are not in agreement with those standards could be reported and mods can delete them under the "off-topic" rule.

... but I'll let you know right your membership list will no longer mean anything because of the new rules.

If I understand what Jim47 is saying, membership lists are meaningless under the new rules set up by Lee. Since anything which doesn't agree with our standards are considered "off-topic" then we don't really need it anyway.

 

[SolomonVII]

...we can all learn to discuss things without being offensive and defensive can we not?

People who do not hold to conservative ideas, are going to find some of those ideals offensive regardless of how I say it. If I say I believe homosexuality is an abomination before God ... a homosexual may get offended ... and report it. Will such a comment get deleted/actioned? How else am I supposed to say it? As for the defensiveness, that came after what I would contend was inconsistent moderation.

Should I be offended at this comment? How are you using the word here? Obviously some people felt that they were walking on eggshells here, because talking about their conservative beliefs led to constant scrutiny. No one likes living in a fishbowl. For my part, 99.99% of my time is spent out of fora that I don't adhere to. I rarely, if ever, make posts in those fora and almost never report in them either. One would simply wish that those who do not feel as I do ... would behave in similar fashion. If they did so, I'd bet 99.99% of our problems would cease to exist.

Ahh, so now we are getting to the crux of the matter of what this is all about.


As someone who doesn't spend too much time, I should have known anyways. (Probably I did know).

It all boils down to those of the nouveau liberal mind-set finding such basic Christian conservative language about the sin of homosexuality offensive, and using every political channel at ther disposal to make sure that such things cannot be said anywhere in foru.ms.

There is just not way to pretty up that conservative Christian truth, or make it conform to any politically correct agenda.

People don't want conservatives to think such things, let alone say them, but until their is a drug discovered that can erase the thought, erasing the words is the next best thing, isn't it? such has become the mindset of the new liberalism.

This is really what this is all about isn't it?

Does a forum that believes homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord have a right to exist here at foru.ms or not?

























You can be brought up in front of human rights commissions in Canada for quoting the bible about such things, by the way.

 

[MrJim]

You can be brought up in front of human rights commissions in Canada for quoting the bible about such things, by the way.

ah, those wacky Canucks........

 

[tkoman]

Outstanding!

 

[CaDan]

When the smack begins to flow
Then I really dont care anymore
About all the jim-jims in this town
And everybody putting everybody else down
And all of the politicians makin crazy sounds
All the dead bodies piled up in mounds​

Lou Reed ~ Heroin

 

[nyj]

They tried to make me go to rehab
I said no, no, no.
Yes I been black, but when I come back
You wont know, know, know.

I ain’t got the time
And if my daddy thinks im fine
He’s tried to make me go to rehab
I wont go, go, go.

I’d rather be at home with ray
I ain’t got 70 days
Cos there’s nothing, nothing you can teach me
That I can't learn from Mr. Hathaway

Didn’t get a lot in class
But I know it don’t come in a shot glass.

Amy Winehouse ~ Rehab

 

[CaDan]

They tried to make me go to rehab
I said no, no, no.
Yes I been black, but when I come back
You wont know, know, know.

I ain’t got the time
And if my daddy thinks im fine
He’s tried to make me go to rehab
I wont go, go, go.

I’d rather be at home with ray
I ain’t got 70 days
Cos there’s nothing, nothing you can teach me
That I can't learn from Mr. Hathaway

Didn’t get a lot in class
But I know it don’t come in a shot glass.

Amy Winehouse ~ Rehab

Funny thing is she did end up going to rehab.

 

[nyj]

Funny thing is she did end up going to rehab.

LOL. Only once?