Announcement: CO Forums

[DeanM]

Well, see this is where the Apostles and the Scriptures clash with other ideologies because just as a chocolate chip cookie recipe may vary in that some might have nuts in them, they don't cease to produce chocolate chip cookies. Then there are other recipes that might add other base ingredients that completely change the chocolate chip cookie and it is no longer a chocolate chip cookie but maybe a peanut butter cookie that might include chocolate chips. So, it can no longer be called a chocolate chip cookie. There are unchanging foundations of the faith of Christianity. People may have variations in the non-essentials, and that is fine, but once the foundation begins to be chipped away and the foundation begins to really have little or no resemblence to the faith once delivered unto the saints, it ceases to have the right to be called "Christian beliefs" just as the foundation of the chocolate chip cookie changed to the foundation for a peanut butter cookie and just because there are still included some chocolate chips doesn't mean it is still a chocolate chip cookie. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense.

Who should get to decide when a Christian is no longer a Christian?

 

[BlackJack77]

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.

Incidently, I read this in the original post written by the staff member, and in it I do not see what it is you and some others are railing against. It says that those who post in that area who don't have Christian icons, will have their posts removed and that those who do have a Christian icon but make posts contrary to Christian beliefs will have their posts, (the ones that espouse rhetoric that opposes Christian beliefs) not their icons removed: "Only members who have selected a Christian icon will be able to post in these forums. Any post by members with a non-Christian icon will be removed by staff. If a member selects a Christian icon, but is not Christian, we will not be removing their icon (i.e. no forcible icon changes). However, any post that is contrary to Christian Forums' Statement of Faith will be removed."

 

[CaDan]

Well, see this is where the Apostles and the Scriptures clash with other ideologies because just as a chocolate chip cookie recipe may vary in that some might have nuts in them, they don't cease to produce chocolate chip cookies. Then there are other recipes that might add other base ingredients that completely change the chocolate chip cookie and it is no longer a chocolate chip cookie but maybe a peanut butter cookie that might include chocolate chips. So, it can no longer be called a chocolate chip cookie. There are unchanging foundations of the faith of Christianity. People may have variations in the non-essentials, and that is fine, but once the foundation begins to be chipped away and the foundation begins to really have little or no resemblence to the faith once delivered unto the saints, it ceases to have the right to be called "Christian beliefs" just as the foundation of the chocolate chip cookie changed to the foundation for a peanut butter cookie and just because there are still included some chocolate chips doesn't mean it is still a chocolate chip cookie. Does that make sense?

At some point heresy drifts into apostasy. But neither you nor I nor any member of CF Staff nor any human creature has the power, knowledge, or discernment to determine precisely where that occurs.

 

[BlackJack77]

Who should decide when a Christian is no longer a Christian? Do you mean when does a Christian become an apostate? And how would we know?
added: I should add to this post as to not take this topic into another direction by saying that the staff is not going to determine WHO is a Christian from what I understand. It is WHAT, in other words, the content. For instance, if someone posts that it is not necessary to believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible to be saved, that would be in opposition to Christian beliefs and that content would be removed as I understand it.

It makes perfect sense.

Who should get to decide when a Christian is no longer a Christian?

 

[BlackJack77]

The Scriptures disagree with that opinion, actually. Now what I would agree with is that none of us would know if someone had reached the point of apostasy where there is no return. That I could agree with. Besides that please see my post above to Dean. The staff is not saying they will be taking away icons. I think you started something in here, possibly inadvertently, that was based on a misunderstanding.

At some point heresy drifts into apostasy. But neither you nor I nor any member of CF Staff nor any human creature has the power, knowledge, or discernment to determine precisely where that occurs.

 

[DeanM]

At some point heresy drifts into apostasy. But neither you nor I nor any member of CF Staff nor any human creature has the power, knowledge, or discernment to determine precisely where that occurs.

The truth at last.

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm also basing my stance on the track record of previous CF actions.

Previous actions that were supported by previous rules. The rules at the present time are different and do not support yanking icons. You are creating an issue where there is none to be had.

CF has no current plans to force icon changes. The fact that this issue has even come up for discussion bids my responses.

Actually, it doesn't. There are no plans to force icon changes, nor are there rules to support forced icon changes, therefore, there is no discussion that needs a response aside from you creating one.

If CF were to enact a protocol allowing staffers to alter member's icons, it would not be the first time that they said they wouldn't do something, but went ahead and did it anyway.

No, I don't believe that they never stated that they wouldn't force icon changes in the past. They have been doing it since before I came almost 4.5 years ago.

My goal is to be but a peep in the forest to let them know that such a decision would not be as "Christian" as they may hope.

It seems like your goal is to create drama where there isn't any brewing. I could be wrong, but from your heated responses, it sure seems that way.

 

[DeanM]

It seems like your goal is to create drama where there isn't any brewing. I could be wrong, but from your heated responses, it sure seems that way.

Me? I'm not creating anything. Please read the second post in this thread and see that it was not me who brought this up. I am agreeing with what was said in that post.

Also, my responses are not heated. They are possibly opined with great verve.

Big difference.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Well, see this is where the Apostles and the Scriptures clash with other ideologies because just as a chocolate chip cookie recipe may vary in that some might have nuts in them, they don't cease to produce chocolate chip cookies. Then there are other recipes that might add other base ingredients that completely change the chocolate chip cookie and it is no longer a chocolate chip cookie but maybe a peanut butter cookie that might include chocolate chips. So, it can no longer be called a chocolate chip cookie. There are unchanging foundations of the faith of Christianity. People may have variations in the non-essentials, and that is fine, but once the foundation begins to be chipped away and the foundation begins to really have little or no resemblence to the faith once delivered unto the saints, it ceases to have the right to be called "Christian beliefs" just as the foundation of the chocolate chip cookie changed to the foundation for a peanut butter cookie and just because there are still included some chocolate chips doesn't mean it is still a chocolate chip cookie. Does that make sense?

your analogy bes inaccurate though. it would be more accurate to state it bes a meta-recipe for the production of cookies, period, and the variations on the receipe determine what type of cookie it will be: peanut butter, choc. chip, sugar cookie, molasses, lemon, oatmeal raisin, etc. but they all bes cookies of different shape, size, consistency, texture, hue, flavor, etc.
NOT all choc chip.

 

[CaDan]

The Scriptures disagree with that opinion, actually. Now what I would agree with is that none of us would know if someone had reached the point of apostasy where there is no return. That I could agree with. Besides that please see my post above to Dean. The staff is not saying they will be taking away icons. I think you started something in here, possibly inadvertently, that was based on a misunderstanding.

You must be new here.

No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.
No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.
No dialogue among the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions
--Hans Küng​

 

[A New Dawn]

Me? I'm not creating anything. Please read the second post in this thread and see that it was not me who brought this up. I am agreeing with what was said in that post.

Also, my responses are not heated. They are possibly opined with great verve.

Big difference.

Yes, I saw that CaDan introduced the "challenge" you are championing. However, it is you, not CaDan, who is making the big deal out of it.

 

[CaDan]

Previous actions that were supported by previous rules. The rules at the present time are different and do not support yanking icons. You are creating an issue where there is none to be had.

Rules change.

 

[A New Dawn]

Rules change.

Yes, they do, so why the witch-hunt of your own make?

 

[Debi1967]

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?

I volunteer to do this as a Servant to Christ and to the Members of this board. I do NOT need to answer any challenge from the likes of YOU.

 

[Letalis]

Everyone, there is not going to be icon yanking. Lee does not want us judging the state of anyone's soul; the Advisors don't want us judging the state of anyone's soul; the staff don't want us judging the state of anyone's soul. There will be no icon yanking.

For the record, I'm not participating in CaDan's challenge because I'm not going to become entangled in anymore games.

Thanks.

Regards,
Letalis

 

[Joy]

I volunteer to do this as a Servant to Christ and to the Members of this board. I do NOT need to answer any challenge from the likes of YOU.

Same here

QFT

 

[D'Ann]

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?

Hello CaDan...

I wish that I could say, wow, I'm surprised that you would ask this of your fellow staff friends... but I'm not surprised. Same old, same old stuff...

That being said, none of us on staff wants to get involved in removing anyone's icons. That is not what this is about and you know it.

You also know that it's not about power, it's about serving and being a servant. It's about volunteering to help out a site that we believe in and enjoy posting on. It's a ministry for most of us, your comment is hurtful. I know that you don't mean to be, but it is.


God's peace,

D'Ann

 

[CaDan]

I volunteer to do this as a Servant to Christ and to the Members of this board. I do NOT need to answer any challenge from the likes of YOU.

What is "the likes of [me]"?

You are, of course, free to disregard my challenge. I have no power over you.

 

[CaDan]

Everyone, there is not going to be icon yanking. Lee does not want us judging the state of anyone's soul; the Advisors don't want us judging the state of anyone's soul; the staff don't want us judging the state of anyone's soul. There will be no icon yanking.

For the record, I'm not participating in CaDan's challenge because I'm not going to become entangled in anymore games.

Thanks.

Regards,
Letalis

If that is the case, then it is no burden to pledge to resign rather than pull anyone's faith icon.

You are, of course, free to make your own decision about this. I have no power over you.

 

[CaDan]

Looks like it took about twelve hours for the official response to get put together. Not bad. Not bad at all.