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

Lindon Tinuviel said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lisa0315 said:

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

Click to expand...

Goodchild said:

Hasn't everyone gotten tired of this yet? lol.

Y'know, looking at the poll results so far it doesn't look like there's really anywhere near enough consensus to go either way. And I imagine even after sock accounts from both options are taken out it would still be about the same. If we were looking at a 70-30 or maybe even 65-35 (only if something just had to be done) I could see saying that a close enough consensus might have been reached. But right now it's about 57-43, and that's way too close to go with either option.

It's about time Erwin weighs in on this and say what he plans to do, if anything.

Click to expand...

SallyNow said:

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.

Click to expand...

SunMessenger said:

Sorry I disagree...

The only fellowship the current system encourages is argument. Not good at all. I have suggested the creation of two sites. In time the stronger of the two will survive. I feel the option expressed in number two will win out on its own. What is there to lose ? Let him do it and let it be for a time split in two sites. I know if it is God's will option two will succeed beyond any ones vision. I further know this is only possible if it is done with an independent administrator for structure and enforcement that Erwin would allow to run those matters. I feel very positive about that course as I have been praying very hard about it.

God Bless...

Sun

Click to expand...

RaggedRobin said:

Goodchild he has been posting in the option three thread that is why I am saying maybe we may want to concentrate our efforts into coming up with a plausible option three that is more middle of the road and equitable

http://www.christianforums.com/t5794084-what-would-option-3-look-like.html

Click to expand...

Goodchild said:

Ah, thanks. I'd kind of gotten weary of the whole thing and trying to track down where the conversation is being held at any more lol.

Either way, some sort of option 3 is where it's likely going to have to go. This particular thread/poll is too close for any decision to be made on it.

Click to expand...

SallyNow said:

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.

Click to expand...

Angeldove97 said:

First off: I love my non-Christians friends here. I will never deny them a spot next to me and I welcome the chance to fellowship with them.

I choose option 2 though because this is a Christian site---I want Christian beliefs stated here, like they have been since the day I joined. But I want fellowship with non-believers as well.

Click to expand...

Angel4Truth said:

Option 2 allows for the outreach and agreed it wouldnt be a ministry without outreach , but the name of CF's subtitle defines an emphasis on uniting believers basically stating its first priority is to minister and allow safe places for christians to share with one another - if you notice it says outreach also but secondary to the main goal , the way the site has been for years before this wiki reform.

I voted for option 2.

Click to expand...

NewMan99 said:

I already have a major problem with this (sorry Erwin).

Why are we putting things in an either/or context when there is no reason why CF cannot be BOTH "safe" (however that is defined) and an outreach at the same time? This either/or approach is baffling to me.

Define "safe."

To me, as a Christian, it would mean that we would be protective of tender seedlings new in their faith and protect them from being evangelized away from the gospel. That should be the primary sense of "safety" here. However, in a secondary (and also important) sense, non-Christians and non-orthodox Christians should be made to feel welcome and not treated as second-class citizens and "fair game" by ill-behaving Christians. They, too, should be made to feel "safe" - even if we do not allow for non-Christian proslytizing.

Christians only? Heaven forbid! We have been called to the Great Commission. There is no reason why we cannot welcome non-Christians to fellowship with us and enter into respectful dialog. Where we need to draw the line, though, is in pretending that there is no such thing as Divinely Revealed objective Truth that we are all bound to (at least those of us who are aware of it are bound to it). The idea that a "non-Nicene" Christian is just another flavor of Christianity is poppycock - and we should never pretend otherwise.

So yes - just as we invite ALL people into our respective churches...so too CF should welcome all people into its cyber doors. However, once one enters inside, there should be no doubt as to what the gospel message is...just like in our respective (Christian) churches.

If they are both valid - then WHY should it be an either/or and not a both/and???

We are not confused. CF is confused. CF is confusing outreach with political correctness. This is idealism (a good thing) without realism (realism is also a good thing when it is kept in mind).

Well...I hope this works better than the wiki fiasco. Again CF is being decided based on mob rule instead of the leadership making reasonable, fair, and benevolent decisions.

Click to expand...

A New Dawn said:

Option 2, but I see room for outreach, too. Though I think that if option 2 is what is chosen, it really needs to be Christian and not "almost Christian".

Click to expand...

Angeldove97 said:

I would like to see forums set up like how they use to be Christians with Christian areas and non-Christians with their own areas, with fellowship areas for both.

And wikis are just too much for me... I basically have to bug a staffer every few days to ask about where we are with this rule or that rule because it's too confusing. When members violate a rule and then go change the wiki, I just think that's completely useless.

Click to expand...

D'Ann said:

Erwin,

This poll is flawed. We need an 3rd option or maybe a 4th one too.

I love that the Christian forums are open to non-Christians, but we need safe guards and guidelines.

I'm grateful that we can all read the report threads and the Conference Room threads.. but I also agree with Letalis and NewMan99 (and others)...

I believe that due to some privacy issues, some staff forums most definitely should be private.

I believe that non-Christians should not be on staff. I don't mean any unkindness or disrespect to non-Christians, nor to exclude non-Christains from CF. But, how can they lead a lost soul to Jesus when in essence, their own soul is lost and needs Jesus? How can the blind lead the blind? I'm sure non-Christains can do a great job in moderating with the rules (when there are rules and structure). But CF should be a reaching out ministry (as well as a safe haven for Christians) and how can a non-Christian bring hope to the faithless, when they themselves might be faithless in believing in Christ as their Lord and Savior?

How can a non-Christian pray to Jesus for the members who are hurting and downtrodden, when they themselves do not personally believe in Jesus as being the only beloved (begotten) Son of God?

CF has a great opportunity to truly reach out to those who are seeking, to those who are lost. Why? Because all of us at one time were lost and seeking and many of us came to CF and we learned about Jesus and our faith and we hopefully by God's grace and love were able to help others as well.

I know there are great non-Christians who have great loving hearts and who are gentle and kind and probably more Christlike than some Christains in how they treat others, but they lack Christ and they cannot minister to a lost or seeking soul due to their own lack of Christianity based on the Nicene Creed.

Also... this wiki thingie... Sorry, but wiki is a nightmare. I just don't have time for it. And for me to participate in this thread and lately (last 2 weeks) for me to being actively aggressive somewhat is totally against my nature. I don't have time for debates, I don't have time for fighting and arguing over rules that can change on a daily basis.

Anyway, unless there are some other options, which, there should be... I voted for 2. But in all honesty, Erwin... I agree with GreenMunchkin.

God's Peace,

Debbie

Click to expand...

FriendsFellowship said:

Here's part the quote from Erwin:

Erwin has invited comment, I think he will read the thread.

Click to expand...

FriendsFellowship said:

Maybe Erwin just needs to declare a "do over".

Click to expand...

SunMessenger said:

The only fellowship the current system encourages is argument. Not good at all. I have suggested the creation of two sites. In time the stronger of the two will survive. I feel the option expressed in number two will win out on its own. What is there to lose ? Let him do it and let it be for a time split in two sites. I know if it is God's will option two will succeed beyond any ones vision. I further know this is only possible if it is done with an independent administrator for structure and enforcement that Erwin would allow to run those matters. I feel very positive about that course as I have been praying very hard about it.

God Bless...

Sun

Click to expand...

MeekOne said:

Well said, and I completely agree here.

Absolutely!

The political correctness is the problem here...was Jesus always politically correct? No. He took a stand, that's what CF was based upon when I first signed up...we took a stand in the Nicene Creed, and we need to remember that and go back to it. The other issues can be worked out. I just don't think that Erwin has the time for it now. I don't believe that his heart has changed towards this forum, much less for the Lord, but if the problems with the lost are going to be worked out, it is going to take someone who has the time to do that, and I don't believe he has that right now, thus the either or ideas of late. Opening the church up to the lost is what we are commissioned to do, however, throwing it to the wolves is another thing altogether. I firmly believe that staff should be Christians.

Absolutely agree here.

I agree. Wiki is ridiculously tedious, we need to do away with it. Before Wiki came along we were doing fine, we need to go back to a simpler way of doing things.

Debbie, you said it all here.

I pray that Erwin reads every line of it.

Yes, definitely a "do over."

This may be an option, but I have no idea if we can really reach the lost if we are separated that clearly...someday the lost and the saved will be separated, but only in the day of Christ.

All of these needed to be said again...I vote #2, and believe that Erwin will go back to the way that it was, at least I'm hoping he does. We had a place where the lost could go to find the real words of Christ, it just needed to be handled a little differently. There is no reason at all why we cannot reach out for the lost and still keep this place a sacred place considered the church of Christ...that is the body of Christ as it was intended...not a free for all. Erwin, thanks for leaving it up to the members to vote and tell you how we feel. We know you've worked really hard on this site, and don't believe you are just going to throw your hands up now.

Click to expand...

KomissarSteve said:

Closing doors to anyone, no matter who, is incredibly un-Christian. I vote for option 1.

And no, mods, I will not edit this post, no matter how directly it challenges your conservative ideals.

Click to expand...

glamourdollxoxo said:

Exactly this isn't about political correctness

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by SunMessenger

The only fellowship the current system encourages is argument. Not good at all. I have suggested the creation of two sites. In time the stronger of the two will survive. I feel the option expressed in number two will win out on its own. What is there to lose ? Let him do it and let it be for a time split in two sites. I know if it is God's will option two will succeed beyond any ones vision. I further know this is only possible if it is done with an independent administrator for structure and enforcement that Erwin would allow to run those matters. I feel very positive about that course as I have been praying very hard about it.

God Bless...

Sun

Click to expand...

MeekOne said:

This may be an option, but I have no idea if we can really reach the lost if we are separated that clearly...someday the lost and the saved will be separated, but only in the day of Christ.

All of these needed to be said again...I vote #2, and believe that Erwin will go back to the way that it was, at least I'm hoping he does. We had a place where the lost could go to find the real words of Christ, it just needed to be handled a little differently. There is no reason at all why we cannot reach out for the lost and still keep this place a sacred place considered the church of Christ...that is the body of Christ as it was intended...not a free for all. Erwin, thanks for leaving it up to the members to vote and tell you how we feel. We know you've worked really hard on this site, and don't believe you are just going to throw your hands up now.

Click to expand...

cygne said:

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.

Click to expand...

SunMessenger said:

The separation of two sites would be for the purpose of allowing safe havens for both option one and option two. It would in no way restrict the fellowship of either .

Click to expand...