A new CF, an old vision

[Samuel_Rigby]

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Teens use drugs, are homosexual, drink alcohol and have unprotected sex why would you imagine discussing these things in a caring and compassionate way to be bad?

I guess you missed the word "promoting" when I used it. If the Bible is no longer an authority, who is to say anything is wrong?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Does God publish Sinners monthly? OH BTW - God DOES forget our sins.

I John 1:9

 

[Saucy]

the bible is my only authority...not Erwin or any staff.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

It is stuff EXACTLY like this that we will have to deal with..and I for one WILL NOT! A 16 year old agnostic/atheist...gay...telling us that we are childish etc cause we have concerns?? SEE THE PROBLEM HERE??? THIS IS SO WRONG!

Am sorry, sister, but you owe him an apology for that.

 

[MelzluvsJesus]

ONLY BECAUSE YOU WON'T LET IT WORK!

I am done..I rest my case. I may or may not be back at this site...I am glad I never became a site supporter...sorry Erwin..but this is just not right.

 

[FreeinChrist]

That's the idea.

The idea is not to have a blanket rule to discriminate against any CF member from serving as a moderator.

The idea is that s subforum membership will have the maturity enough to vote someone in to look after their subforum that they respect and trust - it is unlikely that for example a conservative congregational forum would vote an atheist in to moderate their forum.

But this might happen in GA, and that is fine, as long as the members of GA did the voting.

The idea is to trust the members to make the right decision for their subforum.

The rule - moderators can only moderate their own forums.

Category moderators can moderate the whole category (but all subforums in that category get to vote for a category moderator).

Supermoderators get to moderate the whole site - therefore the whole site gets to vote on supermoderators.

Based on the above model, it would make sense that only in subforums where there are a lot of non-Christians could a non-Christian be voted in to be a moderator.

Hope that makes sense.

But what about GT, Eschatology, Mariology, Christian Current events?

 

[kiwimac]

Sooo now were throwing out the Nicence Creed and saying your a christian cuz you say your are......... OHhhh I didnt know the bible said that!

The Bible says that Christians will be known by their love for others not their adherence to the Nicene or other creeds.

 

[KorahRose]

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Teens use drugs, are homosexual, drink alcohol and have unprotected sex why would you imagine discussing these things in a caring and compassionate way to be bad?

We are, afterall, supposed to dwell on that which is pure. It'll be hard for young Christians to sign in and see all sorts of threads about issues that are WRONG and SINFUL, and still consider this CF. It should be a safe place for teens to discuss things. Not a place where homosexuality and all sorts of other sin becomes commonplace.

 

[sparklecat]

That's the idea.

The idea is not to have a blanket rule to discriminate against any CF member from serving as a moderator.

The idea is that s subforum membership will have the maturity enough to vote someone in to look after their subforum that they respect and trust - it is unlikely that for example a conservative congregational forum would vote an atheist in to moderate their forum.

But this might happen in GA, and that is fine, as long as the members of GA did the voting.

The idea is to trust the members to make the right decision for their subforum.

The rule - moderators can only moderate their own forums.

Category moderators can moderate the whole category (but all subforums in that category get to vote for a category moderator).

Supermoderators get to moderate the whole site - therefore the whole site gets to vote on supermoderators.

Based on the above model, it would make sense that only in subforums where there are a lot of non-Christians could a non-Christian be voted in to be a moderator.

Hope that makes sense.

It does, and it's very fair.


I'm really quite impressed.

 

[MelzluvsJesus]

Am sorry, sister, but you owe him an apology for that.

no, I don't. And I won't.

 

[Leanna]

http://www.christianforums.com/rules
Look at the Nicene Creed it fully supported by scripture.!!

You're missing the point hon.... I used to be a pastor's wife at a church with 16 fundamental truths, each one backed by at least 3 scriptures. Does that mean that denomination is the only right one?

 

[Alice the Sister]

Well Erwin did say that some people might not like it.

You gotta realize that he has good intentions. Trying to include people instead of excluding people.

 

[Philothei]

Is it worth it call it Christian if in reality it is "Christian" but with no standards at all? If the Nicene Creed is gone what is left? If there are no standards then call it "religious forum" not Christian... why bother? IMO.

 

[herev]

Only God knows peoples hearts. Only God knows if someone is Christian or not. That being so, how can we possibly say to someone that they are or not. They know their relationship with Jesus Christ not us. So yes, I would take their word for that.

that's a couple pastors who agree (and not even the same denomination)

 

[Letalis]

Is it worth it call it Christian if in reality it is "Christian" but with no standards at all? If the Nicene Creed is gone what is left? If there are no standards then call it "religious forum" not Christian... why bother? IMO.

Because the goals of the site haven't changed. The methods, however, have.

 

[wmc1982]

Only God knows peoples hearts. Only God knows if someone is Christian or not. That being so, how can we possibly say to someone that they are or not. They know their relationship with Jesus Christ not us. So yes, I would take their word for that.

God does give us a way of knowing within reason by their fruits.

Matthew 7:15-20

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

 

[RedTulipMom]

The idea would be that individual forums have membership that can form their own rules through a wiki/collaborative process. If the current congregational forum wants to ban debate, and if the members of that congregational forum vote to agree, then it is so. Why should a person from another section care? They can request and form their own forums for their own group. Moderation will be decentralised according to each forum/category - members that the forum members respect get voted to be their mods. Mods usually only have power to moderate their own forums. Reports go into forums that are subforums of these forums/categories. It's a massive restructure that I need to embark on.

The aim is to make this a true community where people have the power to ultimately moderate themselves.

thanks for explaining..this makes sense...i like it!

 

[JCrawf]

Actually true democracy by definition is majority rule.

Misunderstood as such yes. In most simplistic terms, it is 'power to the people.' Demo being 'people', and -cracy having at its root 'power' or 'ability.' Both coming from Greek, which the NT, for the most part agreed anyways, was written in.

Majority or 'mob' rule is the antithesis of a true and full democracy, being that it plays into the power of a certain form of tyranny. A full democracy is against tyranny of both the few and the many because it takes power away from people. Therefore, majority/mob rule is no more a democracy than minority/elitist rule is because both take away from the core power of the people to be able to have the power/ability to do anything.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[Saucy]

no...this isn't right...I believe Erwin owes the people, the hard working staff that gave their blood, sweat and tears to running this site. I'm speechless. He just tossed us out to the wolves and isn't looking back. Now anyone with a grudge can vote you off staff, even those who have give 5 or more years!! Now non-Christians can come on here and be staff and effect the way this site is run...it's going to go down the tubes.

 

[chaoschristian]

Except that members aren't and to a greater degree under these reforms will not be restricted to particular forums/sub-forums, correct?

So that members could form blocs that then rove the site voting rules and moderators to their influence regardless of whether or not they are actually regulars to that particular forum.

What am I misunderstanding here Erwin that I see this not quite working the way you intend it to?

That's the idea.

The idea is not to have a blanket rule to discriminate against any CF member from serving as a moderator.

The idea is that s subforum membership will have the maturity enough to vote someone in to look after their subforum that they respect and trust - it is unlikely that for example a conservative congregational forum would vote an atheist in to moderate their forum.

But this might happen in GA, and that is fine, as long as the members of GA did the voting.

The idea is to trust the members to make the right decision for their subforum.

The rule - moderators can only moderate their own forums.

Category moderators can moderate the whole category (but all subforums in that category get to vote for a category moderator).

Supermoderators get to moderate the whole site - therefore the whole site gets to vote on supermoderators.

Based on the above model, it would make sense that only in subforums where there are a lot of non-Christians could a non-Christian be voted in to be a moderator.

Hope that makes sense.