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

[DeaconDean]

Why are people saying some of us do not have love and compassion when we are not saying we hate non-Christians or anything like that? Most of us are simply stating we want an area where we can be among other Christians. Most people who are going to join a CHRISTIAN forum would probably assume they would have an area where they could worship God and have fellowship with fellow Christians... if they do not have this, then this site is misleading.

Exactly, and wonderfully put.

Blessings and reps to you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ZACTAK]

That's pretty much the simplest way of saying it. It's exactly how I feel and it's exactly why I joined the site. Nicely put.

Cheers,
Digit

Amen for such strong, truthful words!!

Exactly, and wonderfully put.

Blessings and reps to you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Thank you all very much! I am just trying to get people to understand our side of it

 

[Brimshack]

Why are people saying some of us do not have love and compassion when we are not saying we hate non-Christians or anything like that? Most of us are simply stating we want an area where we can be among other Christians. Most people who are going to join a CHRISTIAN forum would probably assume they would have an area where they could worship God and have fellowship with fellow Christians... if they do not have this, then this site is misleading.

Perhaps you have not been reading the posts. We have been compared to wolves, pedaphiles, and a host of other such comments. In this very page we are told we dehumanize ourselves by not believing. So, not only does that author treat us as less than human, he blames us for his outlook on the subject.

If you don't think hatred has been communicated here, then you have not been reading the threads.

 

[ZACTAK]

Perhaps you have not been reading the posts. We have been compared to wolves, pedaphiles, and a host of other such comments. In this very page we are told we dehumanize ourselves by not believing. So, not only does that author treat us as less than human, he blames us for his outlook on the subject.

If you don't think hatred has been communicated here, then you have not been reading the threads.

I am by no means defending those that have said hurtful words. I simply stated that some people on the other side of the coin are treating some of us as though we are not acting with love and compassion when that is not the case for some of us. I personally have been called a bigot, been compared to the black/white segregation and even the Holocaust. I am defending those of us that are trying to nicely get our points across only to be shot down by people on your side.

An important fact WE ALL need to realize is that we all have different visions of what CF should be. But this flaming back and forth is not going to solve anything. Sitting down and rationally talking out our issues will solve this issue a heck of a lot quicker than automatically putting up our defense shields.

I want people that are calling us names and such to understand where we are coming from, and understand how important it is to us to be able to have an area where only Christians can go... I want the name calling and all that to stop on both sides, as it doesn't look good on the part of anyone.

 

[GenemZ]

I think the soldier with the missing ear might tell you differently.

I fail to see your point. The soldier was sent with others to arrest Jesus. It was his job. Sent by those who were hostile to Jesus. It does not mean the soldier himself was hostile. He was just being a good soldier following orders.

Ok. That was mentioned in the Bible how many times? Now compare that to how many times He's mentioned showing love, charity, and mercy.

Of course!

But you are missing the point that it was not to be only one way for all situations.

I think a certain prostitute facing stoning might tell you differently.

There is a difference between being a sinner, and immutably ungodly. Such ungodly ones don't see themselves as being sinners. Their evil way of thinking, sees it as to be approved of.

Romans 1:32 (New International Version)
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
​

That's being immutably ungodly.

Prostitutes may be sinners. But, not all are immutably ungodly. Many repent and are saved. Why? They do not try to say they are not sinners.

The prostitute protected by Jesus was told to "go and sin no more." Right?

Jesus was not about to tolerate her returning back to a life of sinning. He was not going to be tolerant forever.

Think you missed a little White Out in your own Bible there, Genez.

Stop..... resenting the truth. I did not condemn compassion and love. There needs to be a balance and a knowing when its not applicable. That's all.

Jude 1:18 (New International Version)
"They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires. These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. "
​

Some men are designed by their unrepentant nature to divide believers. I can see how some here, who are wanting compassion and loving for all -- and, at all times; is one way they have succeeded in dividing us.

Just look at you an me as an example.

And...

Revelation 2:20 (New American Standard Bible)
"But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols."
​

The Lord rebuked them for their tolerance.

Its not to be a life of loving everyone and showing compassion for all. If we live that way? We will be laughed at and taken for suckers by evil men. God warns us not to be tolerant of all. Don't blame God for when you are.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[Brimshack]

I am by no means defending those that have said hurtful words. I simply stated that some people on the other side of the coin are treating some of us as though we are not acting with love and compassion when that is not the case for some of us. I personally have been called a bigot, been compared to the black/white segregation and even the Holocaust. I am defending those of us that are trying to nicely get our points across only to be shot down by people on your side.

An important fact WE ALL need to realize is that we all have different visions of what CF should be. But this flaming back and forth is not going to solve anything. Sitting down and rationally talking out our issues will solve this issue a heck of a lot quicker than automatically putting up our defense shields.

I want people that are calling us names and such to understand where we are coming from, and understand how important it is to us to be able to have an area where only Christians can go... I want the name calling and all that to stop on both sides, as it doesn't look good on the part of anyone.

Actually I did miss the significance of your quantifiers. I do agree that some of the comparisons with Nazis, etc. are unfair.

I apologize for the misreading.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Stop resenting the truth? Did you really just say that to me?

But whatever. Doesn't matter. I don't buy most of your argument. I could get into how everything you mentioned could also apply to many Christians, but I won't. The main point I'm making is simply this:


Jesus didn't die for the godly. He died for the ungodly.

 

[ScottBot]

By taking away their Christian icon they did.

As one who has been involved in several decisions which were involved in changing a person's icon, I can conclusively tell you that A New Dawn is correct and you are wrong, regardless of how much you are convinced you are right.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Just a point of order -- Nobody on CF (nor CF, itself) told anyone that they were not a Christian because their beliefs don't align with the majority. A few were told that they could not claim a standard Christian icon because their beliefs did not match the rules required to carry a standard Christian icon. There were/are Christian icons that those people could use. It was rules that they were not adhering to, not Christianity.

I beg to differ, but I had a Christian icon taken away, and, as Theology staff, even at the Admin level, I was required to be involved in those decisions, and every time I wrote to someone, it was with tears in my eyes, begging them to understand that we, in no way, considered them non-Christian. And we firmly meant it. It is people like you who insist on perpetuating a myth like this that do the injustice.

As one who has been involved in several decisions which were involved in changing a person's icon, I can conclusively tell you that A New Dawn is correct and you are wrong, regardless of how much you are convinced you are right.

Which only leaves the question of why you were enforcing a bad rule that was causing pain to people?

 

[Lisa0315]

I don't believe that I agreed with either, NewDawn. If you think I did, show me where, please.




I think that's actually what I said.


ETA: Ah, I see. You think I'm Lisa. I am not.

Well, actually, I didn't say those things either. What I did say?

I answered a question of why atheists were using the word bigotry. I did compare it to being on the back of the bus among other things. I was answering a question.

Second, I did not coin the phrase Ghetto. That was first used by an administrator on another thread in reference to the Debate Area. It was never called Hitler's Ghetto. Just The Ghetto.

I guess this is like that game in which one kid whispers a phrase to another kid and then that kid passes it on. By the time it gets to the other side of the room, it is something completely different.

My suggestion is that people actually read the posts instead of "passing it on".

Lisa

 

[SallyNow]

"It's so sad to see others voting for viewpoints that differ from my own."

Wrong.

By voting for option 1, everyone is voting for viewpoints to be allowed that are different from their own.

Option 2, on the other hand, is voting against all other viewpoints besides mainstream Christianity. What do we even define "mainstream Christianity" as? Option 2 is vague, intolerant, and excludes different viewpoints. Option 1 welcomes different viewpoints.

Christians need to fellowship and do outreach, to love and discuss, and not exclude. If we exclude we are no different from anyone else.

We are to serve Him, and He did so much for us. Yet it seems we are not willing to open our arms, but want to keep them shut, want to keep others out, want to make Christianity exclusive, instead of making it open to those who have Faith and those seeking it, even if it differs a bit from ours.

 

[Debi1967]

Wrong.

By voting for option 1, everyone is voting for viewpoints to be allowed that are different from their own.

Option 2, on the other hand, is voting against all other viewpoints besides mainstream Christianity. What do we even define "mainstream Christianity" as? Option 2 is vague, intolerant, and excludes different viewpoints. Option 1 welcomes different viewpoints.

Christians need to fellowship and do outreach, to love and discuss, and not exclude. If we exclude we are no different from anyone else.

We are to serve Him, and He did so much for us. Yet it seems we are not willing to open our arms, but want to keep them shut, want to keep others out, want to make Christianity exclusive, instead of making it open to those who have Faith and those seeking it, even if it differs a bit from ours.

Sally he was joking .... he should have put in an emoticon that meant that he was kidding on the square

He was actually making fun of someone else which by rights he shouldn't have been doing and thus making fun at that thus why it is in quotes ""

 

[Hishandmaiden]

I void my vote. Neither option 1 nor 2 are what I had in mind.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I voted option number one.

Sad as it is and from what I've seen over the several years here, I don't have high confidence that many of the basic items needing course correction will be corrected. Doing so would be considered 'too conservative' or some sort of decry opposed to conforming to basically anything solid.

A simple example being that all Christians are united in Christ - not all Christians are united through some website, someone's personal legacy, etc.

Until a grip on many of the basic principles is seen and we have a reflection more of what matches Christian teaching, I think a name change that doesn't take the name of Christ might be best IMHO.

If I began to see some of that "standing firm" in what has been given and knew the foundation is on the rock, then I would vote for option number two. But I don't seem to see much of that and it would be a direction opposed to the current one of "Please like us! Look. we do some of what non-Christians, Liberals, anyone that wants to say X, Y or Z, etc. want..." etc.

 

[SallyNow]

Sally he was joking .... he should have put in an emoticon that meant that he was kidding on the square

He was actually making fun of someone else which by rights he shouldn't have been doing and thus making fun at that thus why it is in quotes ""

Oh.

Er.

Um.

Well, at least it let me get my point across more clearly...

 

[MarcusHill]

I voted Option 1, but I'd rather have something in between. I don't think the site needs a name change, and it should retain its Christian character. On the other hand, I see no reason why non-Christians who can apply the rules in a fair and even-handed manner shouldn't be allowed to moderate in fora where they are known and trusted. Similarly, as long as people stick to the rules - like no debates in a fellowship forum - I see no reason to restrict participation based on belief. The rules themselves should probably be set by Christians - they're what will help the site retain its character.

 

[okieray]

i voted for #2. i rebuke satan and his evil angels in the name ofJesus!

 

[SallyNow]

I voted option number one.

Sad as it is and from what I've seen over the several years here, I don't have high confidence that many of the basic items needing course correction will be corrected. Doing so would be considered 'too conservative' or some sort of decry opposed to conforming to basically anything solid.

A simple example being that all Christians are united in Christ - not all Christians are united through some website, someone's personal legacy, etc.

Until a grip on many of the basic principles is seen and we have a reflection more of what matches Christian teaching, I think a name change that doesn't take the name of Christ might be best IMHO.

If I began to see some of that "standing firm" in what has been given and knew the foundation is on the rock, then I would vote for option number two. But I don't seem to see much of that and it would be a direction opposed to the current one of "Please like us! Look. we do some of what non-Christians, Liberals, anyone that wants to say X, Y or Z, etc. want..." etc.

There are millions of liberal Christians with firm Biblical beliefs.

This site is more Christian than it was before, for now it encourages outreach, fellowship, and discussion between groups and not just within them.

Option 2 encourages exclusivity. Option 1 encourages Christian outreach and fellowship.

 

[A New Dawn]

It wasn't me that wrote those emails. Do not lay responsibility for your actions at my feet.

One has only read those demanding such policies, time and time again because they are deemed necessary to prevent false claims to know that this is exactly what those policies are meant to accomplish. Tears or otherwise, that is exactly the significance of every one of those decisions you made. You made them not me. And the significance does NOT come from my posts alone.

Oh, I see. You are confusing writing the policies/rules with carrying them out. Thanks for the clarification. Everyone who becomes a mod agrees to uphold the rules whether they agree with them or not. Discussions about changing the rules always takes place, but a lot depends on the focus of the site, and until just a couple of weeks ago, the owner of this site had set his focus at using the Nicene Creed as his standard for posting in certain forums.

It always helps to shoot the messenger.

 

[Debi1967]

There are millions of liberal Christians with firm Biblical beliefs.

This site is more Christian than it was before, for now it encourages outreach, fellowship, and discussion between groups and not just within them.

Option 2 encourages exclusivity. Option 1 encourages Christian outreach and fellowship.

both options are flawed that is why Erwin put up a separate thread for a third option that would be more middle of the road