At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread (2) - Please Vote in Poll Thread

Mrs.Sidhe · Jul 29, 2007

A V O said:
Love doesn't mean capitulation or compromise. Sometimes it means saying what needs to be said regardless of how harsh it may sound, as long as it is done with the right intention.

I'm sorry but it seems to me that FreeinChrist and yourself missed the part of Jesus' message which was not only love but compassion.

This is love (accourding to 1 Corinthians 13:4-8)

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

Also what the two of you need to realize there are other Christians (not just Non-Christians) who would disagree with you as to what the message of Christ is. (and some probably what Christ means and who he is) That's not mumbojumbo. Its not your job to browbeat others into making them belive what you believe. Neither is it the job of this site. Again, this is a website. Not a church--not a church function---not seminary--a forum.

And FreeInChrist: As far as love being not accepting your neighbors sin? Take the plank out of your own eye before you judge another and try to take the splinter out of your eye.

Lisa0315 · Jul 29, 2007

Fear said:
Does anyone know what option 2 means yet?

I have a very good idea of the meaning behind the meaning if you get my meaning...

Lisa

ScottBot · Jul 29, 2007

Fear said:
Does anyone know what option 2 means yet?

Not really sure, but I keep hearing the words "fascist" "persecution" and "Inquisition" kicked around alot regarding option 2.

Mrs.Sidhe · Jul 29, 2007

Davidnic said:
I disagree with your view of P_G. I disagree greatly. But that is not the point of this thread. So we will have to simply disagree.

As far as the new way. The site lacks stability. Many support the new way because it is to their liking. Rather, their perception of the new way is to thier liking.

But the basic fact is that the site is not stable in terms of vision. The fact that we are voting on this and that the rules change so often shows that to be true.

The argument can be made that the exec set up was not given a chance to fully work. How long should an idea be given? How long is fair? What were the benchmarks set up to measure if it was working. There were none.

But what is giving the new way a chance? The wiki's are chaos. And debating over conflicting opinions like this...is part of the new vision. In the new way the members make the rules to a great extent.

But the process does not represent what people want. Only what the most vocal want. Or those who can spend the most time online.

There is not really much to give a chance to except a concept that what is right is what the majority decides is right. That is not a Christian concept. So the debate about should the site be Christian Forums.

To get back on topic now and off from theological discussions

All I ask you is what are we to do? Go back to the old way? Put back in place restrictions on Non-Christans since the goal (at least what I can gather from your posts you would like it to be) is for outreach to Non-Christians with the Gospel? I'm sorry but I realize that the comfort of Christians on here is very important but there are other members here to consider.

Just my .02....

justanobserver · Jul 29, 2007

Davidnic said:
I don't think that non-Christians should not post here. But I think that outreach to non-Christians should be at the heart of things and not be put behind creating an online community.

I can not agree that:

a secondary vision being to allow Christians to outreach to non-Christians

Because to make it secondary open the door to many things I can not support. It puts us and our comfort above that goal.

I don't like the wording of option #2.

There are more than two ways of doing this. But I hope this poll is to get a pulse and not to make lasting policy decisions. But for the site owner to see what people want. I don't agree policy should be made on the strength of polls alone.

I had to read this several times to get what you were saying. At first, I thought you was saying your comfort is above outreach. then I re-read it.....am glad I did!

good post. reps to you.

Shubunkin · Jul 29, 2007

I voted for #2 simply because there are some Christians that just are not into debating, which the current systems forces everyone into. Some are good at debating, and others are not. There are some differences in Christians who are at different levels in their faith. It is a walk in Christianity, and we don't just "suddenly arrive" at being able to debate with just anyone.

ScottBot · Jul 29, 2007

Mrs.Sidhe said:
To get back on topic now and off from theological discussions

All I ask you is what are we to do? Go back to the old way? Put back in place restrictions on Non-Christans since the goal (at least what I can gather from your posts you would like it to be) is for outreach to Non-Christians with the Gospel? I'm sorry but I realize that the comfort of Christians on here is very important but there are other members here to consider.

Just my .02....

My $.02, Christian outreach would require Christians to go OUT and REACH to others, not wait for them to come to us. This site, based on its name and motto, is for Christian fellowship.

ZooMom · Jul 29, 2007

Mrs.Sidhe said:
To get back on topic now and off from theological discussions

All I ask you is what are we to do? Go back to the old way? Put back in place restrictions on Non-Christans since the goal (at least what I can gather from your posts you would like it to be) is for outreach to Non-Christians with the Gospel? I'm sorry but I realize that the comfort of Christians on here is very important but there are other members here to consider.

Just my .02....

Why can this not be an unapologetically Christian site where non-Christians are welcome and out-reach is a mandate? Why should it have to be one or the other? Why can it not be both? Both of the poll options as written are so slanted it's a wonder they don't slide right off the page.

You are right that this is not a church...but it was founded as a Christian site...IOW, a place where the Christian faith is promoted and shared, where our diversity was allowed free expression and yet remaining a community.

If it is no longer going to be a Christian site...what's the point? I already have a membership at IIDB.

Peace be with you.

Sandy

Lisa0315 · Jul 29, 2007

A V O said:
My $.02, Christian outreach would require Christians to go OUT and REACH to others, not wait for them to come to us. This site, based on its name and motto, is for Christian fellowship.

I disagree. Perhaps, Outreach is a misnomer. Mission is better. Missions are planted and the people go in and out of them.

Lisa

A New Dawn · Jul 29, 2007

Antihero202 said:
Out of curiosity, if it turns out the majority of CF users want option 2 (inclusive with CO sections and a return to NC'ers being restricted to the lesser populated areas), why host a place for NC involvement at all?

I say this with NO SARCASM.

It's a genuine question. I know a lot of people say they wanna come here with like-minded individuals to escape the trials of the world, not emulate them. I guess I can understand that, even as an Agnostic.

Why not just make us pick up our ball and go home? It would be a lot less complicated and a lot less trouble for the majority, I presume. This is, after all, Christianforums.

If that isn't what anyone wants, then I am just curious as to what the goal is behind any of this? Instead of everyone picking apart each other's statements, why not just continue posting a complete list of what you want, like that LEAF person did earlier and others have done since? I know arguing can be good and fun, but the first 15 or so pages disturbed me. I didn't know this was such a big issue.

You haven't read this whole thread(s) have you? I haven't seen anyone suggest what you have said they suggested. Maybe you should read it before jumping to conclusions.

Davidnic · Jul 29, 2007

ZooMom said:
Why can this not be an unapologetically Christian site where non-Christians are welcome and out-reach is a mandate? Why should it have to be one or the other? Why can it not be both? Both of the poll options as written are so slanted it's a wonder they don't slide right off the page.

You are right that this is not a church...but it was founded as a Christian site...IOW, a place where the Christian faith is promoted and shared, where our diversity was allowed free expression and yet remaining a community.

If it is no longer going to be a Christian site...what's the point? I already have a membership at IIDB.

Peace be with you.

Sandy

Great post.

A New Dawn · Jul 29, 2007

Lindon Tinuviel said:
If that's your attitude, your words aren't worth further consideration.

I mean, you're the one who compared the actual torture and execution of Christians to ideas expressed on this messageboard.

But yet you agreed (a couple of threads back) when a non-Christian said they felt shoved to the back of the bus? Wasn't that you? Or the one that compared CF to the ghettos that Hitler initiated?

Anyway, it seems OK for one side to complain of persecution but not the other. I suggest that everyone stop these types of comparisons. It is just an exaggeration, no matter who says it, and isn't productive to the conversation.

Lisa0315 · Jul 29, 2007

A New Dawn said:
But yet you agreed (a couple of threads back) when a non-Christian said they felt shoved to the back of the bus? Wasn't that you? Or the one that compared CF to the ghettos that Hitler initiated?

Anyway, it seems OK for one side to complain of persecution but not the other. I suggest that everyone stop these types of comparisons. It is just an exaggeration, no matter who says it, and isn't productive to the conversation.

I think I am the one who initiated the whole back of the bus comparison trying to explain how atheists feel at times.

Lisa

ScottBot · Jul 29, 2007

A New Dawn said:
But yet you agreed (a couple of threads back) when a non-Christian said they felt shoved to the back of the bus? Wasn't that you? Or the one that compared CF to the ghettos that Hitler initiated?

Anyway, it seems OK for one side to complain of persecution but not the other. I suggest that everyone stop these types of comparisons. It is just an exaggeration, no matter who says it, and isn't productive to the conversation.

Anyone who claims persecution at a voluntary internet site has a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be persecuted.

nadroj1985 · Jul 29, 2007

Option 2 is unChristian. Period. It also has the unfortunate problem of being exclusionary, petty, and ignoble.

Option 1 is not what it should be (i.e. why should upholding it entail a name change?) but it must be voted for in order to oppose option 2.

Lisa0315 · Jul 29, 2007

I have a question: For those who are for option2, how many of you have actually fellowshipped with atheists?

Lisa

ScottBot · Jul 29, 2007

Lisa0315 said:
I have a question: For those who are for option2, how many of you have actually fellowshipped with atheists?

Lisa

I live and work with them every day.

Mrs.Sidhe · Jul 29, 2007

ZooMom said:
Why can this not be an unapologetically Christian site where non-Christians are welcome and out-reach is a mandate? Why should it have to be one or the other? Why can it not be both? Both of the poll options as written are so slanted it's a wonder they don't slide right off the page.

You are right that this is not a church...but it was founded as a Christian site...IOW, a place where the Christian faith is promoted and shared, where our diversity was allowed free expression and yet remaining a community.

If it is no longer going to be a Christian site...what's the point? I already have a membership at IIDB.

Peace be with you.

Sandy

David & Sandy
Please don't take this as an attck...

This can be a Christian Site where the Gospel is shared. I honestly have no problems with that. My problem is with both the poll options. You are quite right about how slanted they are. I'm not saying it has to be one or the other. It can be both. I think its the original author of the poll and other people who think like him who insist that it be one or the other, and I feel (as I've said before) some are not being exactly nice to attack the current mode of the site as it is now because I honestly do not think its been given a chance. I think the 'new CF vision' can give us both a Christian site but one where there is free expression and all members are protected and there is a community. Given the two poll options I honestly do not think this place will be much of a community.

Letalis · Jul 29, 2007

I'm glad there's a pantheist around to tell me what the Christian religion's all about.

O.F.F. · Jul 29, 2007

Sorry this post was a duplicate.

At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread (2) - Please Vote in Poll Thread

Well-Known Member

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Still Wondering...

Antiochian Orthodox Christian

Revolutionary

Thanks for the memories...

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

Revolutionary

A bittersweet truth: sum, ergo cogito

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

An Ex-Mason for Jesus

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency