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

[SunMessenger]

It is hypocritical for us to call it a Christian website then not allow others to participate. We should be open to all.

Open ... Yes. Under the control of ... No. Two separate issues gone over countless times. How many more times must we rehash the same topics over and over ?

 

[MeekOne]

Open ... Yes. Under the control of ... No. Two separate issues gone over countless times. How many more times must we rehash the same topics over and over ?

Here....here!

 

[eldermike]

It is hypocritical for us to call it a Christian website then not allow others to participate. We should be open to all.

Open to all, but not in leadership.

I had a thought, not related to your post but the thought came to reading your post.

If you can't define Christian, how can you tell others what it is?

What is our message?

Has this already failed, Has God taken away the lampstand of CF?

 

[heymikey80]

Again, I sincerely doubt you will get any points of unity without non-Christians around that you wouldn't get WITH them around.

I guess you missed the part about Erwin banning two members. Points of unity are clearly affected by this direction.

There are quite a number of people who answered that action with the threat to leave.

The Gospel is already lost to these forums if so many members care so much more about CF being ideologically pure than they do about fulfilling the Great Commission and leading by example.

When you keep on assuming you know the motivation of people who are making the moves, then you're showing how little you've investigated their actual motivations.

I think that the goal of unifying Christians was a quixotic one to begin with. Again, I can assure you, there will be no more unity without non-Christians than there will be with them. Strong political and theological differences will still divide the community.

Then one wonders why you're here, not why I'm here.

Why I'm here is expressed at the top of every page.

And if you allow xenophobia to be the policy of CF, then you're likely to drive many non-Christians further away from Christ than they already are. You'll also drive away many liberals/progressives.

More attribution of motives.

Love that.

Tell ya what. Keep this up and I'll start attributing motives to you. Would you like that? Wanna start a flame war?

Would someone who supports option number 2 please tell me how the presence of non-Christians prevents Christians from identifying and enjoying fellowship with other Christians here? Because as far as I can see, that's going on right now across the forums, completely unimpeded by the presence of non-Christians.

It's not unimpeded, and in fact it's cause for serious concern.

This notion that non-Christians are going to keep the overwhelmingly Christian majority of members here from functioning like a Christian community is a blatant canard. The only driving force behind this movement of collective thought is the fear of being challenged to stand up for your beliefs - and to me, that reeks of a cowardice upon which Jesus would never smile.

(Suddenly we're a Christian community now. How is that not a church? I think it's a tag team of bait & switching! It's a church when they want it to be so; it's not a church when we want it to be so!)

I'm intrigued, you like calling new Christians cowards? You want them to hide out not knowing who to talk to about their doubts 'til they know how to answer them? It's a Catch-22. You either ask and get blasted, or you don't ask and don't learn.

There's already been one canard precisely designed to draw new Christians into debates: someone rather familiar posted to one, and his thread was shifted to a debate forum -- a pretty cool way to get new Christians entangled in more argumentation than they know what to do with.

And it's amazing to me that you don't believe people need to learn about their faith before they defend it. We may be sending sheep among wolves. I didn't realize we were sending them without instructions.

It's just very interesting to me. I see option #1 coming home as, "Won't the shepherd leave 99 other sheep alone and exposed to the pack of wolves to find the one sheep who's lost?" They're not in the safety of a flock.

And I could tolerate such a forum, I've been in this stuff for decades. But it's flatly the same as the rest of the world belief forums out there. I wouldn't call it a Christian community. And I wouldn't suggest other Christians find out about other Christian communities at such a place.

So if CF doesn't want to make itself different from the pack -- here's a great way for it to dissolve into the background.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

If all the athiests dropped dead right now, tomorrow we would all still be fighting.

Athiests are not the threat here. Our own inability to communicate is.

I am normally not in the habit of praying for such things (in regards to a message board that is), but I have prayed this week that we can find a way to work together on this in a spirit befitting our Lord.

I was inspired by Saucy to pray a bit more and complain a bit less.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Open ... Yes. Under the control of ... No. Two separate issues gone over countless times. How many more times must we rehash the same topics over and over ?

However long it takes you to explain how we're under the control of non-Christians right now, or how we even would be if we had a couple non-Christian mods.

 

[Followers4christ]

Option (1) Will make CF a social community not a Christian one.Christian Fourms will have the word "Christian" removed from CF.The community will have a strong Christian influence, but will no longer be ran by just Christians.Christian Forum without Christian leadership is not a Christian site.If we let them lead a christian site will they hold on to our beliefs or their own agenda?


Option (2) will keep CF a Christian site with Christian leadership.CF will keep the name (Christian) Forums and will further unite fellow Christian brothers as one body.It will also be a site where Christians can talk and discuss biblical issues without unbelievers trying to tear down new fellow brothers faith in Jesus Christ.



2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."
"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."

 

[MeekOne]

It's not unimpeded, and in fact it's cause for serious concern.

Absolutely.

 

[MeekOne]

Option (1) Will make CF a social community not a Christian one.Christian Fourms will have the word "Christian" removed from CF.The community will have a strong Christian influence, but will no longer be ran by just Christians.Christian Forum without Christian leadership is not a Christian site.If we let them lead a christian site will they hold on to our beliefs or their own agenda?


Option (2) will keep CF a Christian site with Christian leadership.CF will keep the name (Christian) Forums and will further unite fellow Christian brothers as one body.It will also be a site where Christians can talk and discuss biblical issues without unbelievers trying to tear down new fellow brothers faith in Jesus Christ.



2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."
"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."

Here...here!

 

[KomissarSteve]

I guess you missed the part about Erwin banning two members.

Mmmmm, no, I didn't - but by the way you've generalized your description of the events, it sounds like you may have missed that part and only heard about it second-hand from someone with an agenda. Just my educated guess, of course.

When you keep on assuming you know the motivation of people who are making the moves, then you're showing how little you've investigated their actual motivations.

It's hard for me to investigate their actual motivations when none of them will tell me how non-Christians' presence at CF impedes upon Christian fellowship, counseling, etc.

Then one wonders why you're here, not why I'm here.

I'm here because I like interacting with people on issues dealing with Christianity and Christian ethics. Even if CF was a purely Christian forum, it would be extremely naive of me to believe that there would be more than a superficial layer of unity there.

Tell ya what. Keep this up and I'll start attributing motives to you. Would you like that? Wanna start a flame war?

If it would demonstrate your commitment to Christian unity, then by all means...

It's not unimpeded, and in fact it's cause for serious concern.

You're not telling me how it's being impeded, though. Show me an example.

(Suddenly we're a Christian community now. How is that not a church? I think it's a tag team of bait & switching! It's a church when they want it to be so; it's not a church when we want it to be so!)

Pure semantics; I referred to CF as a Christian community because it is a community that is supposedly predicated upon and guided by Christian principles.

I'm intrigued, you like calling new Christians cowards?

No, I like calling old Christians who have sat complacent in their assumptions about God for far too long, and yet shy away whenever someone questions those assumptions, cowardly in action.

You want them to hide out not knowing who to talk to about their doubts 'til they know how to answer them? It's a Catch-22. You either ask and get blasted, or you don't ask and don't learn.

*shrugs* I'm not opposed to a set of "new Christians" forums for CF that is exclusively for Christians in the slightest, and I don't think anyone here would argue that that's a bad idea. But that's not the whole story of option 2 on the poll, and that's not all that more than half of CF's membership has voted for.

There's already been one canard precisely designed to draw new Christians into debates: someone rather familiar posted to one, and his thread was shifted to a debate forum -- a pretty cool way to get new Christians entangled in more argumentation than they know what to do with.

And it's amazing to me that you don't believe people need to learn about their faith before they defend it. We may be sending sheep among wolves. I didn't realize we were sending them without instructions.

I would not have done that if I was a mod; I think that was definitely a mistake. But that's neither here nor there; none of this - I repeat, none of this - justifies turning CF into an exclusivist community that shuns the Great Commission and tells non-Christians that they are unwanted.

It's just very interesting to me. I see option #1 coming home as, "Won't the shepherd leave 99 other sheep alone and exposed to the pack of wolves to find the one sheep who's lost?" They're not in the safety of a flock.

Ludicrous; Christians make up the vast majority of CF's membership. Non-Christians make up a tiny proportion of that, and those who would actually attack new Christians for their beliefs are a tiny minority within that tiny minority.

 

[heymikey80]

Mmmmm, no, I didn't - but by the way you've generalized your description of the events, it sounds like you may have missed that part and only heard about it second-hand from someone with an agenda. Just my educated guess, of course.

Do both the people banned have an agenda in your view? I'm acquainted with both.

It's hard for me to investigate their actual motivations when none of them will tell me how non-Christians' presence at CF impedes upon Christian fellowship, counseling, etc.

Ah, so you're willing to fill in their motivations with a lie when they won't answer your specific questions. Great strategy. Horrible technique in debate or even the truth.

I'm here because I like interacting with people on issues dealing with Christianity and Christian ethics. Even if CF was a purely Christian forum, it would be extremely naive of me to believe that there would be more than a superficial layer of unity there.

How nice. So you're here to subvert the expressed intent of the forum?

If it would demonstrate your commitment to Christian unity, then by all means...

ROFL! Maybe you'll learn something thereby.

You're not telling me how it's being impeded, though. Show me an example.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5754754

Pure semantics; I referred to CF as a Christian community because it is a community that is supposedly predicated upon and guided by Christian principles.

Yeah. The complaint about CF not being a church is also pure semantics.

No, I like calling old Christians who have sat complacent in their assumptions about God for far too long, and yet shy away whenever someone questions those assumptions, cowardly in action.

Sadly that's not all you hurt. And in fact there are precious few people here who are complacent.

*shrugs* I'm not opposed to a set of "new Christians" forums for CF that is exclusively for Christians in the slightest, and I don't think anyone here would argue that that's a bad idea. But that's not the whole story of option 2 on the poll, and that's not all that more than half of CF's membership has voted for.

They were already here, and they were "opened up" like everything else.

You must realize don't you that CF is bigger than the forums you frequent?

I would not have done that if I was a mod; I think that was definitely a mistake. But that's neither here nor there; none of this - I repeat, none of this - justifies turning CF into an exclusivist community that shuns the Great Commission and tells non-Christians that they are unwanted.

Ah. So when you joined this community it was an "exclusivist community that shuns the Great Commission and tells non-Christians that they are unwanted."

Accurate? All Erwin was polling was whether to revert to that model.

Ludicrous; Christians make up the vast majority of CF's membership. Non-Christians make up a tiny proportion of that, and those who would actually attack new Christians for their beliefs are a tiny minority within that tiny minority.

An amazing argument, made all the more amazing by the fact that it has recurred thrice in American Presbyterianism.

The Universalist Movement.
The Social Gospel Movement.
The Reunification Movement.

Am I condemned to repeat Santayana's Maxim on history?

 

[KomissarSteve]

Do both the people banned have an agenda in your view? I'm acquainted with both.

I'm not going to pretend I know; all I know is that they weren't banned for reasons as simple as you imply.

Ah, so you're willing to fill in their motivations with a lie when they won't answer your specific questions.

I don't know that it's untrue, and it's certainly not a lie (I wish you wouldn't make false accusations against me like that, by the way); it's my best guess, given the circumstances, and I'm really left with no alternative, anyway.

How nice. So you're here to subvert the expressed intent of the forum?

No, I think we're here to reconsider whether or not it's a viable goal.

ROFL! Maybe you'll learn something thereby.

So this is how you intend to promote Christian unity?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5754754

That doesn't tell me much. How is an atheist explaining his point of view an impediment to Christian fellowship?

Yeah. The complaint about CF not being a church is also pure semantics.

Well, I didn't make that claim, so you'll have to take that up with whoever made it.

Sadly that's not all you hurt.

Hey, I keep waiting for examples.

They were already here, and they were "opened up" like everything else.

I don't see what that has to do with this argument; I never said that I approved of every single change Erwin made.

Ah. So when you joined this community it was an "exclusivist community that shuns the Great Commission and tells non-Christians that they are unwanted."

I didn't think that at the time, but a lot of forum members have certainly left me with that impression since I registered.

Accurate? All Erwin was polling was whether to revert to that model.

Mmmmm, not really. Option 2 is quite a bit less inviting of a policy towards non-Christians than what we had before "the change."

An amazing argument, made all the more amazing by the fact that it has recurred thrice in American Presbyterianism.

The Universalist Movement.
The Social Gospel Movement.
The Reunification Movement.

Ah yes, and look at Presbyterianism now - shambles! Atheists have clearly taken over that denomination!

Seriously, this idea that being even a little more welcoming to non-Christians and putting a couple in mod positions will lead to the complete and utter downfall of CF as a forum predicated on Christian principles is really ridiculous.

 

[stranger]

Option (1) Will make CF a social community not a Christian one.Christian Fourms will have the word "Christian" removed from CF.The community will have a strong Christian influence, but will no longer be ran by just Christians.Christian Forum without Christian leadership is not a Christian site.If we let them lead a christian site will they hold on to our beliefs or their own agenda?

This is absurd prpaganda, CF has been run this way for years and there is no such leadershiip or aganda... there is however a group of conservatives who would dearly like to tell everyone here what they can believe or get out... a bit like the RC church and many of its spawned offspring churces that never fully reformed to scripture....

It is only option 2 which threatens the leadership with replacement by a right-wing elite ... fascist christianity run not by Jesus but by a gang of sinners whoi think they can be holy ad yet continue to sin and manipulate people's beliefs... such is the church of men and modern religion, a million miles from the love which Jesus taught... but Satan can get his claws into this site too that way, so maybe he will , certainly it will be useful to the antichrist... and we all know from scripture of Jesus' prophecy [Rev 13:3-8] that the world of religion will unite against the saints ...

Forunately it seems unlikely now, we must await it at a later date, the poll is split down the middle with no significant discrimiation between the two options and a vast number of people abstaining because the pooll is farcically flawed, not even offering the most popular option [to keep the name and the outreach]

Erwin is simply wrong, christians can outreach and talk to non-christians without any need to change the site name whatsoever ... and he should have allowed this option in the vote... the comments show that it would have come in top... the poll then simply needs scrapping, it is flawed in design, flawed in implementation [many people cheated , voted many times, closed dow discussions they did not want to here, spread false propaganda... it is worse than the corruption in US elections ... sick, very sick, 'christians!]

The majority do not want things changed, so why change it for a vociferous minority of sinners?

 

[KomissarSteve]

This is absurd prpaganda, CF has been run this way for years and there is no such leadershiip or aganda... there is however a group of conservatives who would dearly like to tell everyone here what they can believe or get out... a bit like the RC church and many of its spawned offspring churces that never fully reformed to scripture....

It is only option 2 which threatens the leadership with replacement by a right-wing elite ... fascist christianity run not by Jesus but by a gang of sinners whoi think they can be holy ad yet continue to sin and manipulate people's beliefs... such is the church of men and modern religion, a million miles from the love which Jesus taught... but Satan can get his claws into this site too that way, so maybe he will , certainly it will be useful to the antichrist... and we all know from scripture of Jesus' prophecy [Rev 13:3-8] that the world of religion will unite against the saints ...

Forunately it seems unlikely now, we must await it at a later date, the poll is split down the middle with no significant discrimiation between the two options and a vast number of people abstaining because the pooll is farcically flawed, not even offering the most popular option [to keep the name and the outreach]

Erwin is simply wrong, christians can outreach and talk to non-christians without any need to change the site name whatsoever ... and he should have allowed this option in the vote... the comments show that it would have come in top... the poll then simply needs scrapping, it is flawed in design, flawed in implementation [many people cheated , voted many times, closed dow discussions they did not want to here, spread false propaganda... it is worse than the corruption in US elections ... sick, very sick, 'christians!]

The majority do not want things changed, so why change it for a vociferous minority of sinners?

Well-said. The idea that option 1 is somehow revolutionary is just silly.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't know that it's untrue, and it's certainly not a lie (I wish you wouldn't make false accusations against me like that, by the way); it's my best guess, given the circumstances, and I'm really left with no alternative, anyway.

Mmm. So in your view repeating something that you don't know is true, and that a number of people deny is true, is not the same as telling a lie?

There's an ethics discussion around here somewhere.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Mmm. So in your view repeating something that you don't know is true, and that a number of people deny is true, is not the same as telling a lie?

Right, because evidence and my best reasoning point in that direction. It would be a lie if I knew it was untrue, and yet kept repeating it.

There's an ethics discussion around here somewhere.

There is no debate on the issue; I don't know that it's untrue, and I frankly have no good reason to believe it's untrue other than your word on the matter, so it's not a lie.

 

[heymikey80]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5754754

That doesn't tell me much. How is an atheist explaining his point of view an impediment to Christian fellowship?

Ah. Now that I meet one hoop you want me to jump through another. I'm sure it'll just go on & on this way.

It is not my job to think for you. If you can't get your head around reality, I am only obliged to feel for you.

I have met your criterion. You think about what I handed you and think over what went on with that thread.

And I have others.

Think about reality. It's often a good thing to think about before you take a real action or have a real opinion.

 

[heymikey80]

Right, because evidence and my best reasoning point in that direction. It would be a lie if I knew it was untrue, and yet kept repeating it.

No, it's also a lie when people deny it and you continue to spread it as if it's true -- simply because you refuse to understand the opposing side.

There is no debate on the issue; I don't know that it's untrue, and I frankly have no good reason to believe it's untrue other than your word on the matter, so it's not a lie.

Then you have rejected Jesus' command regarding lying. =Shrug=

 

[ravenscape]

Some of the recent posts in this thread have veered very close to flame territory. Please address the arguments other members make, not attributes of the members, themselves.

Thank you,

Raven
Support Team Moderator

 

[KomissarSteve]

Ah. Now that I meet one hoop you want me to jump through another.

I tend to think that "show me an example" implicitly includes an expectation that you'll explain why example applies.

It is not my job to think for you. If you can't get your head around reality, I am only obliged to feel for you.

And I can't read minds; if you can't find a reasonable answer to my challenge, then I can only assume that you're copping out.