A new CF, an old vision (2)

[Guineverelyndy]

I'll grant you that.

I would, however, argue that they are dangerous things because anyone can have them. Sometimes, people lie.

And that might do harm to a new Christian (or even an older Christian who is confused on some point.)

Very true, that does and can happen both on a forum and in real life. And it's not really the icons alone here that is bothering me, it's those coupled with the lack of an actual statement of faith. Because basically now, and Jehovah's Witness could use a Christian black cross icon and based on this, there would be no accountability for it. You can say that it's just a silly little bunch of pixels, but it's kind of being an accessory to a lie. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[wmc1982]

Hmm... I don't know What is it?

It's a ethnic diversity, from Poland.

 

[wmc1982]

There's one Jesus Christ.

I've never seen anyone claim that Jesus was transsexual.... where did you get that?

He couldn't of been meaning any of that.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Karen, check it out. Just because I point out in the inconsistencies in her arguments doesn't mean I believe the exact opposite of her.

And yes, I do think they are. I haven't been nasty, I haven't said anything unkind, have I? I'm not even mad. I have simply pointed out the contradictions and said there has to be a standard otherwise you have no rule from which to define what is and is not truth.

Well, as one Lyndy to another (even though my name's really David,) I think you've been quite cordial and reasonable, throughout.

You're stressed, that much is obvious, but you're coping.

 

[*Starlight*]

Very true, that does and can happen both on a forum and in real life. And it's not really the icons alone here that is bothering me, it's those coupled with the lack of an actual statement of faith. Because basically now, and Jehovah's Witness could use a Christian black cross icon and based on this, there would be no accountability for it. You can say that it's just a silly little bunch of pixels, but it's kind of being an accessory to a lie. Do you see what I'm saying?

Is there something wrong with that?

 

[*Starlight*]

It's a ethnic diversity, from Poland.

Hmm, I haven't heard of it....

 

[Guineverelyndy]

Well, as one Lyndy to another (even though my name's really David,) I think you've been quite cordial and reasonable, throughout.

You're stressed, that much is obvious, but you're coping.

Nah, just passionate. Although it seems that I frequently give people that impression.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Didn't realise there was more than one!

Well...according to the new rules, we can claim there is and that we are still Christian...and nobody can dispute me on it!!

BTW...this is not my view...just making my case for the absurdity of this new ruling.

 

[Tonks]

How many (approx) are we up to?

13 at last count.

 

[Guineverelyndy]

Is there something wrong with that?

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, which is central to the Christian faith. If He wasn't God, your belief in Him is in vain.

Therefore, they are not Christians because they do not actually adhere to the Christian faith. Those tenets were laid down almost two thousand years ago.

 

[wmc1982]

Hmm, I haven't heard of it....

have you heard of black people yet?

 

[*Starlight*]

Well...according to the new rules, we can claim there is and that we are still Christian...and nobody can dispute me on it!!

BTW...this is not my view...just making my case for the absurdity of this new ruling.

No. According the the new rule, a Christian icon is a sign that someone self-identifies as a Christian. Some people here seem to be afraid that everyone, no matter what they believe, will pick Christian icons.... If a non-Christian did it, then they would be lying. But with the previous rule, such a person could just as well lie about agreeing with the Nicene Creed.

 

[kiwimac]

Well...according to the new rules, we can claim there is and that we are still Christian...and nobody can dispute me on it!!

BTW...this is not my view...just making my case for the absurdity of this new ruling.

Nope the rule simply says (quite rightly) that a web-site cannot say you are NOT a Christian. We must take folk on trust.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Very true, that does and can happen both on a forum and in real life. And it's not really the icons alone here that is bothering me, it's those coupled with the lack of an actual statement of faith. Because basically now, and Jehovah's Witness could use a Christian black cross icon and based on this, there would be no accountability for it. You can say that it's just a silly little bunch of pixels, but it's kind of being an accessory to a lie. Do you see what I'm saying?

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But, like you said, it can happen in real life, too.

Where there are no icons over peoples' heads.

People, especially new Christians, need to get used to that. What happens in here isn't going to shape their faith much -- but what happens out there will.

 

[*Starlight*]

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, which is central to the Christian faith. If He wasn't God, your belief in Him is in vain.

Therefore, they are not Christians because they do not actually adhere to the Christian faith. Those tenets were laid down almost two thousand years ago.

If a Jehovah's Witness honestly follows Christ, they can have a Christian icon. It's that simple, and it's nothing wrong with that.

have you heard of black people yet?

Weird question yes, of course...

 

[wmc1982]

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, which is central to the Christian faith. If He wasn't God, your belief in Him is in vain.

Therefore, they are not Christians because they do not actually adhere to the Christian faith. Those tenets were laid down almost two thousand years ago.

of course Jehovah's witnesses aren't Christians. They are the detrimental disease to the microbiological fungus of common sense in Christianity.

 

[Guineverelyndy]

Nope the rule simply says (quite rightly) that a web-site cannot say you are NOT a Christian. We must take folk on trust.

No, I definitely do not have to take folk on trust if they deny the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

 

[Guineverelyndy]

Going to bed now.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

There's one Jesus Christ.

I've never seen anyone claim that Jesus was transsexual.... where did you get that?

You should have seen some posters put up at my college campus about 15 years ago by the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Club...in the San Francisco area.

My point is that according to the new rules, these are now apparently valid expressions of a person's 'individual Christianity'...and to challenge them will apparently now be against the rules.

 

[*Starlight*]

No, I definitely do not have to take folk on trust if they deny the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

Your basic fundamental of Christianity is not someone else's basic fundamental of Christianity.