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

ZACTAK said:

I think the us v. them mentality is coming from both sides, not just ours... I tried to explain that I am not an us v. them type person, but it is still getting construed that way...

Click to expand...

Wellllllll, keep in mind, though - liberal Christians on this forum haven't set up a major poll asking whether or not a significant contingent of conservative posters should be banned.

KomissarSteve said:

Wellllllll, keep in mind, though - liberal Christians on this forum haven't set up a major poll asking whether or not a significant contingent of conservative posters should be banned.

Click to expand...

good point.

Ban them all! Let God sort it out.

CaDan said:

Ban them all! Let God sort it out.

Click to expand...

I'm getting the feeling that that really is the attitude of a lot of people who voted for option 2 - "Cast out all the non-Christians, and if that's not what God wants us to do, He'll stop us!"

Well, folks, I'm sorry to tell you, it doesn't work that way. Sometimes God lets us make our own mistakes, and we have to learn from them.

ZACTAK said:

I think the us v. them mentality is coming from both sides, not just ours... I tried to explain that I am not an us v. them type person, but it is still getting construed that way...

Click to expand...

It is getting construed that way because Option 2 would create that enviroment of us vs them, of who is a "mainstream Christian" and who is not. It would do something very unChristian, that is, discourage outreach and fellowship.

KomissarSteve said:

Wellllllll, keep in mind, though - liberal Christians on this forum haven't set up a major poll asking whether or not a significant contingent of conservative posters should be banned.

Click to expand...

Good point... and what about the moderate Christians who are being put in the middle?

And what about theologically conservative/politically liberal Christians?

And so on and so forth...

SunMessenger said:

A Christian does not just say they are Christian they live it. The behaviors of the individual will speak for themselves. We can not judge a person upon their word but we can draw some conclusions based upon their actions . If proper rules are in place no one would ever need to make that private determination of faith unless it was offered openly by the person themselves . I do not see that as being a problem in anyway for option two...


Sun

Click to expand...

By creating a site that is limited to "mainstream Christians" the site would make a determination of private faith. By its very nature it is making the determination.

I implore people to vote for Option 1 and keep Christian Forums truly Christian in its scope and emphasis on fellowship, outreach, and discussion. Or, come up with some good middle-ground for the Option 3 thread.

KomissarSteve said:

Yet I know a lot of non-Christians who live more Christlike lifestyles than many Christians...

Click to expand...

Neither are living Christlike lives.

I believe you are confusing what is called "human good" for being Christlike.

All people have been called to be moral. Morality is not a monopoly of Christianity.

I would have to guess that you have yet to witness to seeing a true Christlike life because you are able to think an unbeliever can be Christlike at all.

Being a nice person is not what constitutes being Christlike. Neither is being a rude believer. Being nice is a human trait that fallen people who choose so, can possess.

Its when the pressures are great that the Christlike life shines. And, its when life is on an unchanging course that would induce boredom in most people, that being Christlike shines.

In between circumstances? Being nice is simply a commonly accepted human trait for all people - - unbeliever, and believer - - who have been trained to respect good manners.

Unbelievers can not be Christlike. To think so? Is to say Christ was no better than a nice unbeliever.

Artists renditions of a long haired loving Jesus. And, Hollywood movies showing a side that appeals to certain human tastes.... hides from us the meaning of who and what Christ was, and is today.

Being Christlike is sure to rile the unbeliever when the unbeliever is ready to compromise for his convenience.....

***

I do not see how people can call themselves christians if they ignore the commission to go amongst the gentiles and show all men the true gospel of the messiah , the christ...

Thus curling up in a clique simply cuts oneself off from God and Jesus...

This site already set up cliques of divided denominations whilst claiming to be about UNITING christians all over the world, ...!!!

Cliques are about division, not about unism...

We are required by God to give account of our faith and the saints in scripture REQUIRE the reproof of beliefs to the one truth of God in scripture ... that christianity is divided shows that it does not all hold to the one truth of God, and thus REQUIRES reproof by such an avenue as this worldwide forum...

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now reproof is uncomfortable for those who only want to curl up in a clique, but it is still the only way to unite christians [apart from the uniting behind the antichrist prophesied by Jesus -Rev 13:3-7 ,which is against the saints of God]

Paul's veryt mission was to teach the gentiles the truth of scripture, one cannot do that by closing doors against those who do not yet believe that Jesus is the messiah, the christ !!!


I would also point out that a democratic vote is not the way Jesus would decide this issue, Jesus rule is by rod of iron in a 'theocracy' , not a democracy ... the answer to this debate should thus come from God in scripture, not from a majority in the masses of sinners ....

ZACTAK said:

I think the us v. them mentality is coming from both sides, not just ours... I tried to explain that I am not an us v. them type person, but it is still getting construed that way...

Click to expand...

Might you have any suggestions how someone might observe the processes at work here where one group is saying they're worthy of positions of control over the other group and at the same time, telling the other group that they're not worthy of the same kinds of positions and not see it as us-verses-them?

stranger said:

I do not see how people can call themselves christians if they ignore the commission to go amongst the gentiles and show all men the true gospel of the messiah , the christ...

Thus curling up in a clique simply cuts oneself off from God and Jesus...

This site already set up cliques of divided denominations whilst claiming to be about UNITING christians all over the world, ...!!!

Cliques are about division, not about unism...

We are required by God to give account of our faith and the saints in scripture REQUIRE the reproof of beliefs to the one truth of God in scripture ... that christianity is divided shows that it does not all hold to the one truth of God, and thus REQUIRES reproof by such an avenue as this worldwide forum...

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now reproof is uncomfortable for those who only want to curl up in a clique, but it is still the only way to unite christians [apart from the uniting behind the antichrist prophesied by Jesus -Rev 13:3-7 ,which is against the saints of God]

Paul's veryt mission was to teach the gentiles the truth of scripture, one cannot do that by closing doors against those who do not yet believe that Jesus is the messiah, the christ !!!

Click to expand...

I agree with the above, noting the obvious limitations to such agreement from a position of atheism.

stranger said:

I would also point out that a democratic vote is not the way Jesus would decide this issue, Jesus rule is by rod of iron in a 'theocracy' , not a democracy ... the answer to this debate should thus come from God in scripture, not from a majority in the masses of sinners ....

Click to expand...

This, however, seems completely misplaced, in my opinion. The "rod of iron" wielded here in the past would likely be claimed, by those who used it, to have come from God in scripture. There just isn't any way to credibly assert that any system for running the forum has come from God when no one can even demonstrate that God exists. If you can't do the latter, any assertion for the former lies meaningless and empty.

As for your objections to democracy, you might have a look at the church itself. The Nicene Creed was adopted by popular vote of the council as was the divinity of Jesus. Even the idea that women have souls and animals do not was ultimately, the decision of a vote.

HadessahRose said:

WELL, to determine a Christian..easy..if they confess that Christ came in the flesh, lived a holy pure life, died and rose again! Do they preach Christ crucified? IF not..nope. Scripture is CLEAR on what a Christian is...tht is what Erwin should go by..SCRIPTURE.NOT a creed, thoughts/ feelings or anything else. LOOK it up in the Word of God, set the standard and go with it.

Click to expand...

Then if the forum is to be run by those we know to be Christian, doesn't that require that everyone wanting a position of control first die, and then demonstrate that they have risen after death?

The suggestion seems somehow... impractical.

KomissarSteve said:

No, but what I'm saying is, making CF exclusive to only self-proclaimed Christians isn't necessarily going to give you a forum filled with people who live Christ-like lives.

Click to expand...

You are making little sense. That is the part Erwin isn't to judge, weather they are living the professed life. That is between the person and God. BUT you CAN tell who is/isn't of the Lord...look...I think people are being obtuse on purpose. What does WORKS have to do with the profession of salvation? Nothing. So where are you going with this?

This whole thread is getting assinine. IS anyone reading what is actually written? NO. NO one has said throw anyone out or anything else remotely close. That is WAY assinine. NO one said NOT to reach out to the unsaved. WHY don't people start reading what is written instead of ASSUMING what is being said. MIGHT get a bit further ahead,

I am most concerned that the vote so far is only a poll of 769 people , most people clearly don't realise that the site is under threat by a minority vote to close it to those outside their clique ... its worse than the undemocratic US presidential elections done in name ony of democracy

This site software has the ability toi at least ask everyone who logs in if they at least want to vote on this major issue, but is content to leave it in the background and get a result biased in favour of those who got contacted by someone who already noticed it ... surely everyone should at least get the knowledge that the vote is in progress , many just don't know... and the resulting difference will surely be statistically insignificant unless some action is taken to tell people . all the people who use this site and so have an interest in this decision

It is bad enough that this site pandesr to the us/them fraternity without giving them the power to indulge their paranoia by closing off the site on a minority vote ... this is bureaucracy gone haywire handing power over others to vested interests ... and most bizarrely ignoring the scripture which gives an answer from God [surely far more an authority on this matter than a tiny minority of site users]

This is serious censorship dressed up as democracy , because most do not even know about this poll ... so anyone with vested interest can get his buddies to sway the result ... it has no chnace at all at present of being representative of the masses who use this site ... many of them do not post, perhaps the majority, but they might like to at least vote on this crucial issue if only they were informed about it....

SallyNow said:

By creating a site that is limited to "mainstream Christians" the site would make a determination of private faith. By its very nature it is making the determination.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Two sites under option three is the best option. Two open to all. I would spend my time in Option two site as that is what I would feel comfortable with. It is a matter of choice and not restriction...


Sun

Beastt said:

This, however, seems completely misplaced, in my opinion. The "rod of iron" wielded here in the past would likely be claimed, by those who used it, to have come from God in scripture. There just isn't any way to credibly assert that any system for running the forum has come from God when no one can even demonstrate that God exists. If you can't do the latter, any assertion for the former lies meaningless and empty.

Click to expand...

Your 'god' is simply that which one respects most , relies upon as the truth for life ... thus for many people money is their god really , for some science/logic is a god , some even traet scripture as if it were a god.... for me love is my go, and that happens to correspong with the God of scripture [but not with the actual god of most religion, or specifically modern divided christianity]

Thus even atheists have a god of some kind , they just baulk at using the word in the way it is defined.

Of course , some also see their god as the creator , which belief has some arguments in favour of it, but that is not part of the most egneral meaning of the word 'god'...

ths atheism is an oxymoron , and what most atheists disagree with is the god of religion [who is indeed not a worthu god, being inconsistenmt and unloving, tyrannical and unjust , although religionists do not find any problem in denial of these facts and calling their god exactly the opposite of these things , consistency is not their god at all , but rather one might say 'denial' ... but then denial would be the greatest god of all men if it could be acknowledged[ but that is not its nature LOL?]

So I have proved the existence of god by its definition ... a good place to start in discussing god, I think....

As for your objections to democracy, you might have a look at the church itself. The Nicene Creed was adopted by popular vote of the council as was the divinity of Jesus. Even the idea that women have souls and animals do not was ultimately, the decision of a vote.

Click to expand...

I am no fan of the apostate divided churches that grew out of the Nicene creed , nor do I see that creedal religion could even possibly be true [nor is any major creed I know of consistent with scripture !!]

If one studies who attended the so-called 'council of Nicea' and what they said, then one would see that it had nothing to do with scripture on the whole , least of all the OT , and discussed mainly pagan gods and their claimed virtues , the attendees were 'pressed' into attending having refused the first invitation and were a peculiarly ignorant rabble of an assembly bar a couple only ... the result was one of the earliest examples of steam-rollering a 'committeee' [by Constantine, pagan Roman Emperor , whose only aim was to unite the people under His rule by creating a new religion which was an amalgamation of all existing religions in his empire... it is unsurprising that what came out had nothing whaever to do with the Hebrew christianity of Jesus and the saints of Israel , but borrowed many of the names and a few ideas and then killed and scattered the Hebrew saints to drown out the voice of the original [much as seems to be happening on this site]
[see 'The Bible Fraud' -Tony Bushby]
Behind The Bible Fraud -
What Was The Church Trying To Hide? -
Robert Adams in New Dawn Magazine.com
http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/biblefraud/internalgif/jb_article2.htm

Votes are very telling , but the absolute truth of love surely wins in the end... even though few vote for this god at this time except in lip-service only ....

SunMessenger said:

I disagree. Two sites under option three is the best option. Two open to all. I would spend my time in Option two site as that is what I would feel comfortable with. It is a matter of choice and not restriction...
Sun

Click to expand...

Having two sites only divides christians further, against the stated objective of this site ... rather what is required by God [eventually] is for everyone to face their discomfort at having to justify their beliefs from scripture [or the saints] and realise that belief in love is the best way for everyoine, not belief in man-made religion... one cannot obey Jesus and love everyone by enclosing yourself i a shell with only those who happen to have gotten the same false story from the world... we all need to pull together in love eventually not isolate ourselves in the false comfort of endless cliques... God's truth is not divided, christianity is divided... thus christianity is not God's truth... we need then to set things straight, reprove religious groups back to the one uninterpretable scriptural truth ... it is unloving to ignore the rest of the world just because it happens to currently disagree... Jesus commanded love, not unlovingness...

ZACTAK said:

I think the us v. them mentality is coming from both sides, not just ours... I tried to explain that I am not an us v. them type person, but it is still getting construed that way...

Click to expand...

KomissarSteve said:

Wellllllll, keep in mind, though - liberal Christians on this forum haven't set up a major poll asking whether or not a significant contingent of conservative posters should be banned.

Click to expand...

Yes the polls were created, however he is stating that he is not the one to have the "us v. them" mentality.

At least he has the civility to approach this topic in better etiquette.

http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/biblefraud/internalgif/jb_article2.htm

It seems the same spirit of preservation of false propaganda for sake of controlling peoples' minds is alive and well in trying to either divide the site or censor all voices against this early fraud by the 'christian' church of Rome being perpetuated ... the censorship of this censorship and editing of the saints and prophets surely has convinced the majority of modern christians ,who just don't ever find the time to check out such devastating facts about what they have come to believe is authoritative truth...

The vote is sadly small and quite close, absurdly a few votes could change the result, and those hardly representative , so it is a farce to base decisions on so few votes when so many people are involved ... this just simply is not the way God rules things should be... it is worse than much modern politics with its distortions of truth in propaganda and spin.... and open to just as much vote-rigging by vested interests

SallyNow said:

It is getting construed that way because Option 2 would create that enviroment of us vs them, of who is a "mainstream Christian" and who is not. It would do something very unChristian, that is, discourage outreach and fellowship.



Good point... and what about the moderate Christians who are being put in the middle?

And what about theologically conservative/politically liberal Christians?

And so on and so forth...



By creating a site that is limited to "mainstream Christians" the site would make a determination of private faith. By its very nature it is making the determination.

I implore people to vote for Option 1 and keep Christian Forums truly Christian in its scope and emphasis on fellowship, outreach, and discussion. Or, come up with some good middle-ground for the Option 3 thread.

Click to expand...

It has also been pointed out by about 95% of the people voting for #2 that they would prefer a mix of #1 and #2, but that they did not feel that #1 was the answer. That is why Erwin gave the option of a possible #3. To keep implying that all the votes for #2 imply that everyone wants to kick the non-Christians off the board fails to take these things into consideration. It would be nice for people to at least acknowledge that next to nobody really wants #2, only that they found it slightly better than #1.