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

[The Julikenz]

Please go back to running your autocratic site and leave the rest of us to hammer this out with out starchamber.

You were never a leader - none of you on alpha led. You dictated from way up on high in an ivory tower. Leaders have to come down in amongst the people and admit when they are wrong. Erwin is being much more of a leader than you ever were or are giving him credit for.

Thanks.

In full agreement with this.

Though I would also like to point out that Alpha's structure didn't allow for leadership either. I would have grace for this mistake if those behind it were not so adamant in keeping it that way for so long, and still now denying it.

Thanky ou Erwin, for walking among us.

 

[JacobsDream]

I'm very confused here.

Why should we change the name just to be able to allow Christians to outreach to on-Christians? That doesn't make much sense to me.
We can remain CF and still have the goal of outreaching. Why only 2 very restrictive vote options?
Just bothers me.

 

[A New Dawn]

And yet you should feel just the opposite. Take a moment and look at these two lists of values;

LIST ONE

• Selfishness
• Prejudice
• Bias
• Stinginess
• Elitism
• Inequality
• Injustice

LIST TWO

• Equal Sharing
• Caring
• Generosity
• Selflessness
• Friendship
• Equality
• Love
• Justice

It all comes down to which list you think is the best reflection of Christian values. If you think the first list properly reflects your values as a Christian, then the name should remain "Christian Forums" and the unequal, unfair treatment shown to nonChristians should continue.

If you think the second list more properly reflects Christian values, then there is no way to justify continuing to treat nonChristians as they've been treated and still retain a name for the site which suggests anyone will find Christian values actually practiced here. I've been here for a little over 3-years and during that time I've continually heard Christians preaching the second list of values. But everytime they're actually called to demonstrate their values, I see conclusive demonstrations of the first list instead.

This really comes as no great surprise to me because it's always been obvious that to the majority, "Christian values" are just a lot of talk. Ask most to show you their Christian values and you get the first list, not the second.

And yet I'm told these are the very people within whom God dwells. Just like all the rest, it's just a lot of talk. It means nothing even to many of those who talk about it constantly.

Atheist "Why do you think you're better or more worthy of your God's generosity than I?"

Christian "Because I believe in God's salvation and I'm learning the values the Holy Spirit is helping me to hold as my personal values. I accept the loving gift Jesus gave me on the cross and I seek to be more like him."

Atheist :What are the values the Holy Spirit is teaching you that would make you more like Jesus?"

Christian "God teaches us about pure love, that we need to always love our fellow man as ourselves and to be ready and willing to give of ourselves to help others and demonstrate to them that God's love is the way of truth."

Atheist "Then would you be willing to share your website with others as equals?"

Christian "Are you out of your ever-lovin' mind!?!? This is a CHRISTIAN site! I'm not sharing anything with you!! Go away if you don't like it. You'll take what little I offer you, be it cruelty and inequality or a token spot in the corner and like it! Crazy non-Christian!!! Who do you think you are asking a Christian to treat you as an equal?!?"

(chorus) Amen, brother
​

Appealing to one of God's many aspects (loving) and rejecting his other aspects (just, sovereign, holy, immutable, etc.) requires that I ignore all the teachings He has given to focus only on one. There was more to Christ than just love. (Or just love as has been portrayed by universalists.)

 

[dignitized]

Christ IS love. And LOVE is Just, holy, immutable . . . . . etc.

 

[Victory of the Cross]

Possible Solution
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5811137

 

[A New Dawn]

Christ IS love. And LOVE is Just, holy, immutable . . . . . etc.

But love is not necessarily the warm fuzzy feeling one gets when they are euphoric. It is often the hard love that needs to discipline a child or the tough love that needs to let someone else take responsibility for their decisions or the just (righteous) love that warns persons of the need for Christ in their lives so that consequences can be avoided. Christ wasn't all things to all people. He was chastening, wrathful, stern, and yes, gentle, and all out of love.

 

[MeekOne]

But love is not necessarily the warm fuzzy feeling one gets when they are euphoric. It is often the hard love that needs to discipline a child or the tough love that needs to let someone else take responsibility for their decisions or the just (righteous) love that warns persons of the need for Christ in their lives so that consequences can be avoided. Christ wasn't all things to all people. He was chastening, wrathful, stern, and yes, gentle, and all out of love.

This is true.

 

[Majher777]

eh, i voted for option 1 by accident, even though this doesent mean much, my vote lies with optian 2.

 

[dignitized]

I think the poll has clearly indicated that this issue is not as cut and dry as some would like to believe. AT THE VERY LEAST - we need to give these reforms time to see if they can and will work. And baring those people who have made a concerted effort to make sure that they do not work - I believe that they can and will.

 

[dignitized]

But love is not necessarily the warm fuzzy feeling one gets when they are euphoric. It is often the hard love that needs to discipline a child or the tough love that needs to let someone else take responsibility for their decisions or the just (righteous) love that warns persons of the need for Christ in their lives so that consequences can be avoided. Christ wasn't all things to all people. He was chastening, wrathful, stern, and yes, gentle, and all out of love.

Who is saying otherwise?

 

[MeekOne]

Doesn't the fact that many many people have quit their positions on staff and there are many others unhappy about the change give the notion that it is not a good thing? Doesn't the fact that Erwin has put it back on the table for a vote say that a mistake has been made.

 

[MeekOne]

eh, i voted for option 1 by accident, even though this doesent mean much, my vote lies with optian 2.

Ive seen several people accidently do this, makes you wonder how accurate the vote will be when all is said and done.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

And yet you should feel just the opposite. Take a moment and look at these two lists of values;


LIST ONE

• Selfishness
• Prejudice
• Bias
• Stinginess
• Elitism
• Inequality
• Injustice

LIST TWO

• Equal Sharing
• Caring
• Generosity
• Selflessness
• Friendship
• Equality
• Love
• Justice

It all comes down to which list you think is the best reflection of Christian values. If you think the first list properly reflects your values as a Christian, then the name should remain "Christian Forums" and the unequal, unfair treatment shown to nonChristians should continue.

If you think the second list more properly reflects Christian values, then there is no way to justify continuing to treat nonChristians as they've been treated and still retain a name for the site which suggests anyone will find Christian values actually practiced here. I've been here for a little over 3-years and during that time I've continually heard Christians preaching the second list of values. But everytime they're actually called to demonstrate their values, I see conclusive demonstrations of the first list instead.

This really comes as no great surprise to me because it's always been obvious that to the majority, "Christian values" are just a lot of talk. Ask most to show you their Christian values and you get the first list, not the second.

And yet I'm told these are the very people within whom God dwells. Just like all the rest, it's just a lot of talk. It means nothing even to many of those who talk about it constantly.

Atheist "Why do you think you're better or more worthy of your God's generosity than I?"​

Christian "Because I believe in God's salvation and I'm learning the values the Holy Spirit is helping me to hold as my personal values. I accept the loving gift Jesus gave me on the cross and I seek to be more like him."​

Atheist :What are the values the Holy Spirit is teaching you that would make you more like Jesus?"​

Christian "God teaches us about pure love, that we need to always love our fellow man as ourselves and to be ready and willing to give of ourselves to help others and demonstrate to them that God's love is the way of truth." ​

Atheist "Then would you be willing to share your website with others as equals?"​

Christian "Are you out of your ever-lovin' mind!?!? This is a CHRISTIAN site! I'm not sharing anything with you!! Go away if you don't like it. You'll take what little I offer you, be it cruelty and inequality or a token spot in the corner and like it! Crazy non-Christian!!! Who do you think you are asking a Christian to treat you as an equal?!?" ​

(chorus) Amen, brother​

Thank you for such a detailed post.

Being familiar with a little bit of your posting along with the regular members who are non-Christian and frequent General Apologetics, I welcome the above as a demonstration of the spirit one can expect from a member who doesn't have faith aligned with Christianity or belief in the source of the same. It certainly speaks more on what is done within the post than I could premptively outline.

 

[sparklecat]

Ive seen several people accidently do this, makes you wonder how accurate the vote will be when all is said and done.

I figure it'll even itself out well enough, since people voting for the other option have been doing the same.

 

[K9Guardian]

I won't vote.

The whole fiasco disgusts me.

 

[ScottBot]

But love is not necessarily the warm fuzzy feeling one gets when they are euphoric. It is often the hard love that needs to discipline a child or the tough love that needs to let someone else take responsibility for their decisions or the just (righteous) love that warns persons of the need for Christ in their lives so that consequences can be avoided. Christ wasn't all things to all people. He was chastening, wrathful, stern, and yes, gentle, and all out of love.

True, The Sanhedron wanted Him killed because of what He taught, and they got their wish (lucky for us).

 

[MeekOne]

I figure it'll even itself out well enough, since people voting for the other option have been doing the same.

Right...that'll make it accurate now.

 

[dignitized]

Doesn't the fact that Erwin has put it back on the table for a vote say that a mistake has been made.

No. It means that those opposing have raised their voices and he is willing to let them be heard. They do not have the clear majority they want to claim - so . . . .

 

[MeekOne]

No. It means that those opposing have raised their voices and he is willing to let them be heard. They do not have the clear majority they want to claim - so . . . .

That is mainly because of the wording of the poll questions, and most here have expressed that from the beginning. Funny how there only needed to be a few to raise their voices to facilitate the rapid and vast changes that have already occurred, dragging many along through it who were enjoying CF the way it used to be.

Many had no idea there was such a horrible problem happening that even needed to be remedied.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Doesn't the fact that many many people have quit their positions on staff and there are many others unhappy about the change give the notion that it is not a good thing?

That would depend on the Staffer in question, now wouldn't it.