Announcement: CO Forums

[Texas Lynn]

CF is a private business and not a church and it is establishing its own business practices and they can enforce their rulez as they see fit.

As we're always reminded there are a hundred other sites out there if CF/s rulez are unacceptable.

It's a business..it's a business..it's a business..to think it's anything more than that is fantasy..

Businesses are subject to the marketplace and regulation.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

CF is a private business and not a church and it is establishing its own business practices and they can enforce their rulez as they see fit.

As we're always reminded there are a hundred other sites out there if CF/s rulez are unacceptable.

It's a business..it's a business..it's a business..to think it's anything more than that is fantasy..

It used to be thought of as a ministry and quite possibly a potentially trailblazing manifestation of diversity within the Body of Christ having actual potential for dialogue and understanding one another.... oh well, when you grow up, your heart dies.

 

[MrJim]

Businesses are subject to the marketplace and regulation.

Who is the Secretary of Internet Forum and Discussion?

Subject to marketplace is simply economics~people quit coming and advertisers go elsewhere...my last personal census here (since the stats aren't posted) had 127members/480guests at approximately 11:45 am yesterday~not exact but within reason...as far as regulation, well until we get that government intervention the business will operate within established legal rules.

 

[MrJim]

It used to be thought of as a ministry and quite possibly a potentially trailblazing manifestation of diversity within the Body of Christ having actual potential for dialogue and understanding one another.... oh well, when you grow up, your heart dies.

yeah I remember when I found out about Santa Claus...

 

[BlackJack77]

I found this thread through the "Whomsoever Will" forum. I disagree and don't think it will alienate pure hearted seekers. They haven't lost a place to seek, they only lost a place to hear falsehoods from people who claim to be Christians and atheists and the like who support them and therefore merely a place of mass confusion. I've lurked in these forums for a long time before becoming a member and I have seen that area deteriorate in an indescribable way. I think this decision is way overdue and I applaud the staff for having the boldness of Christ to make it despite whatever rammifications. Because when we stand on God's side, we are on the prevailing side. Any members that would leave because of the righteous stand for Christ, are the perfect members TO leave in this instance, if anyone does. People who constantly rail against the truth of the Scripture should not wear a badge that identifies them as followers of Christ, because simply put, if you don't agree with Scripture, then it is impossible to follow Christ period. All are invited to come to Christ, but they are not invited to come on their own terms or remain gods unto themselves and instead attempt to change the foundations of Scripture to suit themselves. That is not evidence of a conversion, that is a spirit of anti-Christ in operation. I am sure the staff will not go about that in a haphazard way. We are not Christians just because we say so. The fruit we bear, will bear witness and testimony to whom we belong. Sincerely in Christ, Jack.

Whose decision was this anyway? Making the theology forums Christian only is the epitome of stupidity. Way to alienate seekers. I thought the goal was to spread the message of Jesus - not form some elitist cult.

 

[BlackJack77]

I'm sorry friend. I am not sure where you came to your understanding but "Unitarian" beliefs do not align with the foundation of Christian beliefs, so the one set of beliefs is in objection to the other. So therefore term "Unitarian Christian" itself is an oxymoron. The two sets of beliefs cannot walk together because they are not in agreement. Sincerely, Jack

You are right, I do not use the Unitarian icon because it does not correctly represent my believes!

wave: I do not really recall you from older times)

I am a Unitarian CHRISTIAN. Hence my Christian icon. Got a problem with that?

 

[BlackJack77]

CaDan and those who accept his pledge have my 100% support.

Those that didn't have mine. Sincerely, Jack

 

[DeanM]

CF is a private business and not a church and it is establishing its own business practices and they can enforce their rulez as they see fit.

As we're always reminded there are a hundred other sites out there if CF/s rulez are unacceptable.

It's a business..it's a business..it's a business..to think it's anything more than that is fantasy..

Yup. You're correct.

But this site also makes use of the word "Christian" in its name.

And just like a "Christian Bomb-Making Store," I would take isue with any business that uses the name of our Lord to pander anything other than a Christian mindset. And the Christian mindset does not pander to cookie cutter Christians. It is an ideal of outreach, love, and mercy in Christ's name.

When CF changes its name, I'll stop expecting it to live up the idea that love and mercy to all who would listen should be extended here.

Until then, I'm frankly sickened by the idea that this site would pretend to know who is Christian enough to be allowed to speak.

 

[DeanM]

I'm sorry friend. I am not sure where you came to your understanding but "Unitarian" beliefs do not align with the foundation of Christian beliefs, so the one set of beliefs is in objection to the other. So therefore term "Unitarian Christian" itself is an oxymoron. The two sets of beliefs cannot walk together because they are not in agreement. Sincerely, Jack

You should run for president of CF. You'd fit right in.

You already meet the criteria:

1) Only your judgement matters.
2) You know better than God does.
3) "Whomsoever believes" carries an invisible clause that says "exactly like I do."
4) The idea of outreach looks good on paper, but not in practice.

I'd vote for you, but, oh yeah.

This is a business, and not a democracy.

Christianity is a choice made by an individual. They accept Christ or they don't.

Their affiliations don't even figure into the equation.

Do you think God thinks "Well, you believed in My Son, but you went to a Unitarian church, so you must have believed the wrong way?"

Okay, let's assume that you will not go so far as to judge condemnation onto all unitarians by pretending to know what God thinks.

Why would you defend a "Christian" site that does exactly that?

Cuz it's a business?

C'mon!

They use the word Christian in their title. Doesn't that elicit the hope of a member that the site attempts to keep with Christ's message?

 

[MrJim]

Until then, I'm frankly sickened by the idea that this site would pretend to know who is Christian enough to be allowed to speak.

Kiddin' right?

Are you suggesting that every Church and business in the world that uses the name "Christian" be examined that it is indeed upholding to some level of orthodoxy?

One's definition of Christianity is certainly seems to be up to the individual in great respects~it's a Reformational tradition you know~unless we go to those ancient Churches like the Orthodox or Catholic and see what they have to say about it since they've been at it longer.

So it really gets down to individual understanding of the texts and then trying to get others to accept what WE want it to be...but then that's what you are accusing the CF business of doing, isn't it? Tangled webs and all that....

 

[snoochface]

Kudos to the (few) staff who have agreed with CaDan's challenge. It's telling there aren't more.

This is the epitome of inreach, I suppose. With all our cute little Christian heads stuck there, we won't be able to do much more than reach in.

 

[A New Dawn]

I am making a public challenge.

Every Staffer--from the lowest trainee Moderator to the most senior Advisor--who posts that there will be no forced icon changes is challenged to immediately resign from any position with Christian Forums if even one forced icon change is done.

Are you willing to do this? Are you willing to put your position of power on the line?

Are you suggesting that if one knows that they are not a Christian, and voluntarily violates the rules, that staff should just turn their heads?

What about not forcefully changing their icons are you not understanding, or do you also now object to removal of posts if non-Christian stuff is posted by someone using a Christian icon?

 

[A New Dawn]

Whose decision was this anyway? Making the theology forums Christian only is the epitome of stupidity. Way to alienate seekers. I thought the goal was to spread the message of Jesus - not form some elitist cult.

Real seekers don't go into the theology forums and argue with Christians. Real seekers actually seek. That means asking questions to learn the answers of the people they are asking.

 

[DeanM]

Kiddin' right?

Not remotely.

Are you suggesting that every Church and business in the world that uses the name "Christian" be examined that it is indeed upholding to some level of orthodoxy?

I'm suggesting that any business that refers to itself as Christian should be in keeping with Christian ideals. Thus my example of the Christian Bomb-making store.

One's definition of Christianity is (SIC) certainly seems to be up to the individual in great respects~it's a Reformational tradition you know~unless we go to those ancient Churches like the Orthodox or Catholic and see what they have to say about it since they've been at it longer.

Yup. Up to the individual.
Who is CF to make that decision, or you or anybody else?
CF is now treading the path of possibly altering its member's icons. They are determinig who is and who isn't a Christian.

When that happens, the decision is no longer up to the individual, but a business.

That's a problem, and worthy of standing against.

So it really gets down to individual understanding of the texts and then trying to get others to accept what WE want it to be...but then that's what you are accusing the CF business of doing, isn't it? Tangled webs and all that....

There's no tangle in the web as I see it.

You have said yourself that individuals should make this decision, and I agree.

I do not think that a business should be doing it.

No tangles.

It's cut and dried.

 

[A New Dawn]

Businesses are subject to the marketplace and regulation.

And most of the marketplace got up and left and took it's money with them when the site changed the rules last year. I'm guessing that that has finally made an impression.

 

[MrJim]

It's cut and dried.

It's their understanding of Christianity~not yours nor mine.

Ultimately this business is owned by an individual~his decision..no corporate boards or councils~dude plopped down the cash and bought a business.

It's his business~cut and dried

 

[DeanM]

Are you suggesting that if one knows that they are not a Christian, and voluntarily violates the rules, that staff should just turn their heads?

In the rare instance of this happening, the staff is more than empowered to act on violations, delete posts, edit posts, and ban members who violate the rules. They can do this without screwing around with icons.

What about not forcefully changing their icons are you not understanding, or do you also now object to removal of posts if non-Christian stuff is posted by someone using a Christian icon?

Forced changes of icons serves no purpose.

Posts that violate CF's rules can be dealt with without icon changes.

Altering an icon is tantamount to telling someone they're not a Christian. Last I checked, that's God's call.

I do respect your views that icon changes may offer a new and more efficient way to police the CO areas. I just feel that there's a line that should not be crossed for the sake of efficiency.

One doesn't have to look too far ahead to see that a rule like that may be used to paint a member as a nonchristian for just about any reason at all.

I can see this as a tool to be used to cast out anyone who does not believe in Christ the same way as the powers that be.

Maybe I don't think homosexuality is a sin. Does that make me a nonchristian? Would my icon get changed?

Let my posts stand on there own merit, and do not typecast me into a new category for the sake of making my words easier to remove.

I'm a Christian.

I do not want to risk the chance of anyone other than God telling me otherwise.

The new rule is unnecessary and unwise.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

You should run for president of CF. You'd fit right in.

You already meet the criteria:

1) Only your judgement matters.
2) You know better than God does.
3) "Whomsoever believes" carries an invisible clause that says "exactly like I do."
4) The idea of outreach looks good on paper, but not in practice.

I'd vote for you, but, oh yeah.

This is a business, and not a democracy.

Christianity is a choice made by an individual. They accept Christ or they don't.

Their affiliations don't even figure into the equation.

Do you think God thinks "Well, you believed in My Son, but you went to a Unitarian church, so you must have believed the wrong way?"

Okay, let's assume that you will not go so far as to judge condemnation onto all unitarians by pretending to know what God thinks.

Why would you defend a "Christian" site that does exactly that?

Cuz it's a business?

C'mon!

They use the word Christian in their title. Doesn't that elicit the hope of a member that the site attempts to keep with Christ's message?

Dean, what are you doing? Please stop now.

There will be NO icon yanking
The Congregational fora are NOT CO
This isn't about you; it isn't about Steve, and it's certainly not a valid excuse to jump on new members.

Please, stop feeding the drama llama. It's getting beyond a joke.

I understand your concerns - however, your concerns have been answered repeatedly by every level of staff. You're spreading panic and fostering needless animosity off the back of a faulty premise which, again, has been repeatedly refuted.

So, with all due respect, my question stands: what are you doing?

 

[MrJim]

In the rare instance of this happening, the staff is more than empowered to act on violations, delete posts, edit posts, and ban members who violate the rules. They can do this without screwing around with icons.



Forced changes of icons serves no purpose.

Posts that violate CF's rules can be dealt with without icon changes.

Altering an icon is tantamount to telling someone they're not a Christian. Last I checked, that's God's call.

I do respect your views that icon changes may offer a new and more efficient way to police the CO areas. I just feel that there's a line that should not be crossed for the sake of efficiency.

One doesn't have to look too far ahead to see that a rule like that may be used to paint a member as a nonchristian for just about any reason at all.

I can see this as a tool to be used to cast out anyone who does not believe in Christ the same way as the powers that be.

Maybe I don't think homosexuality is a sin. Does that make me a nonchristian? Would my icon get changed?

Let my posts stand on there own merit, and do not typecast me into a new category for the sake of making my words easier to remove.

I'm a Christian.

I do not want to risk the chance of anyone other than God telling me otherwise.

The new rule is unnecessary and unwise.

You present a great argument~I don't really disagree with anything you've said-I too would say discipline/ban instead of icon changing.

Still~it's the LeeDer's football to make his rulz~wonder if he'll stop and and chat about it?

 

[A New Dawn]

In the rare instance of this happening, the staff is more than empowered to act on violations, delete posts, edit posts, and ban members who violate the rules. They can do this without screwing around with icons.



Forced changes of icons serves no purpose.

Posts that violate CF's rules can be dealt with without icon changes.

Altering an icon is tantamount to telling someone they're not a Christian. Last I checked, that's God's call.

I do respect your views that icon changes may offer a new and more efficient way to police the CO areas. I just feel that there's a line that should not be crossed for the sake of efficiency.

One doesn't have to look too far ahead to see that a rule like that may be used to paint a member as a nonchristian for just about any reason at all.

I can see this as a tool to be used to cast out anyone who does not believe in Christ the same way as the powers that be.

Maybe I don't think homosexuality is a sin. Does that make me a nonchristian? Would my icon get changed?

Let my posts stand on there own merit, and do not typecast me into a new category for the sake of making my words easier to remove.

I'm a Christian.

I do not want to risk the chance of anyone other than God telling me otherwise.

The new rule is unnecessary and unwise.

Firstly, it isn't a rare occurrence that non-Christians violate the rules and posts in CO sections. It happened frequently before, and I doubt it will be much different now.

Secondly, I didn't state that I agreed that they should be changed. I do however agree that the rules should be enforced, which would be removing posts that do not hold up the SoF the site has adopted.

I was asking CaDan, and can also ask you, what part of Letalis' statement you are having trouble with. When he said that icons won't be yanked, why do you assume that is code for they will be yanked? Under the old set-up, it was the rule that you couldn't carry a Christian icon if you didn't uphold the Nicene Creed. That is no longer a rule, so stating that I believe the rules should be enforced does not equal pulling icons.

If I were you, I'd put more concern about God's approval for your beliefs (or lack of them) than someone else's.