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

[KomissarSteve]

The effect is to pull new Christians into deep water. And it's not unique, as you know.

No, I don't know. I know you seem to believe that this happens all the time on CF, but I, personally, don't see much evidence for it.

What? You dislike your view being considered a denial? Such unwarranted sensitivity given that you've said much the same to me. What else would I say it is?

I don't think I've ever said you're deluded...I've said you're wrong, but in my mind, there's a difference.

You know nothing about my views, and yet you proffered another attack on my motives. Great job Steve. Your critique is returned in kind. Back to you. Same issue.

My goodness - now you're ascribing malevolent motives to me? If I misrepresented your opinion, one would at least think that you'd give me the benefit of the doubt in assuming that I did so out of innocence and ignorance - not out of a wish to harm.

You mistake the point. If you can't handle these actions, then you can't control them.

I'm still not seeing how creating a forum for new Christians that's strictly upon to Christians only, and then setting up a rule that mandates that we respect each others' beliefs on other forums, wouldn't take care of this problem.

And yes, shepherding involves more than just chasing down wayward sheep. There's a flock to keep as well as predators to protect against.

You still have yet to make the case that there are any "predators" in our midst. Again, I'm confused as to why you're so ready to ascribe such injurious motives and characteristics to forum members who, from what I've seen, really aren't out to harm anyone or anything...

 

[Trish1947]

Well, hey, keep in mind, the only reason I'm asking him to provide me with evidence of his assertions is because what he's claiming seems...relatively radical, to say the least. I think it's at the very least counterintuitive to claim that the non-Christians here have some sort of agenda of subverting the Christian principles of this site, and if someone is going to claim that another member, much less an entire group of members, is motivated by nefarious aims, I don't think it's all that unfair of me to ask, "Well...how, exactly, do you know?"

I mean, even before I started posting in this thread, people were bringing up the possibility that people might be voting to ostracize the non-Christians on CF out of xenophobia, and a fear of having to defend their beliefs. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I really think that heymikey's claims that the forum non-Christians have some sort of sinister agenda here lends credence to those earlier suspicions of xenophobia.

Well after working for a while as a Moderator in the debate section, I would have to disagree with you. How do I feel this is true? Because I'd say 99% of the athiests ask no questions. They just tell us we are scientifically illiterate, and produce your proof, and until it's backed up by science, instead of your "proofs" of scripture, your full of bologny. Most people that really are inquisitive about God, are very good at asking questions. Mixing science with faith, is going to butt heads every single time, if your religion is science without God being seen in it. I have nothing against science, as long as it isn't spiritually sterile.

 

[J4Jesus]

---------

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

What is our message?

-------

Think about it!

 

[heymikey80]

No, I don't know. I know you seem to believe that this happens all the time on CF, but I, personally, don't see much evidence for it.

Then you haven't been tracking even this thread.

I don't think I've ever said you're deluded...I've said you're wrong, but in my mind, there's a difference.

And come to think of it I never said you're deluded. But then, you've apparently inferred it even though I didn't say it, and by your own assertion you can put words in my mouth even if I deny them, just because you're suspicious they're true.

So I've very little interest in your version of right & wrong, much less veracity and falsehood.

My goodness - now you're ascribing malevolent motives to me? If I misrepresented your opinion, one would at least think that you'd give me the benefit of the doubt in assuming that I did so out of innocence and ignorance - not out of a wish to harm.

You've already stated explicitly that you don't give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who appears in your mind to be subject to nefarious suspicions. You claim it all over the place. It's not exactly a secret. I've no need to ascribe them when you've stated them so well. You made an attacking assertion in the prior post. I don't need to ascribe a falsehood that's explicitly stated. "I shouldn't be surprised that outreach isn't very high on your list of priorities"

I'm still not seeing how creating a forum for new Christians that's strictly upon to Christians only, and then setting up a rule that mandates that we respect each others' beliefs on other forums, wouldn't take care of this problem.

Find that described in option 1.

A claim to difference is just that: a claim. The vote of carnivores to "make slaughterhouses rare" is vacuous. It's insubstantial.

You still have yet to make the case that there are any "predators" in our midst. Again, I'm confused as to why you're so ready to ascribe such injurious motives and characteristics to forum members who, from what I've seen, really aren't out to harm anyone or anything...

Now you're extracting imagery from illustration.

It depends what you mean by harm. If by that you mean impacting someone's faith for the worse, I think you're seriously mistaken, and that's been shown.

And it can indeed be shown further.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Well after working for a while as a Moderator in the debate section, I would have to disagree with you. How do I feel this is true? Because I'd say 99% of the athiests ask no questions.

Really? In my experience in the debate forums, when someone on the debate forums goes on the offensive against another from the get-go, it's because there's a preexisting rivalry/animosity between them.

I mean, come, now, be fair - 99% of atheists on CF? Ninety-nine out of a hundred immediately go on the offensive, without asking questions? I'm not saying that that's never been the case at CF, but my experience hasn't been that ninety-nine percent have been like that...:o

 

[KomissarSteve]

Then you haven't been tracking even this thread.

No, I have been, actually - and yet I still don't see much of a reason to believe that this "pulling new Christians into deep water" trend has reached pandemic proportions.

And come to think of it I never said you're deluded. But then, you've apparently inferred it even though I didn't say it, and by your interpretation you can put words in my mouth even if I deny them.

Pardon, I should have said "in denial," instead of "deluded." Same substance, different term.

You've already stated that you don't give the benefit of the doubt to anyone.

Have I, now? News to me...

I HAVE stated that I don't believe completely ludicrous conspiracy theories about non-Christians forging an alliance to bring down ChristianForums.com, without being presented with strong evidence, but I don't think I've ever once said that I don't give people's intentions the benefit of the doubt.

Whoever appears in your mind to be subject to nefarious suspicions, you claim it all over the place.

Who said those suspicions were nefarious? Certainly not me; again, I think you're wrong, but I don't think you hold your position out of malice.

Find that described in option 1.

Why should I? I'm not here to support option 1; I'm here to critique the collective attitude of CF.

Now you're extracting imagery from illustration.

Telling imagery, at that. Predators hunt prey. Predators kill and eat prey. Predators have no regard for the well-being of their prey. No matter what way you slice it, a predator is going to be a pejorative term, in this context.

It depends what you mean by harm. If by that you mean impacting someone's faith for the worse, I think you're seriously mistaken, and that's been shown.

And once again, I dispute your claim that it's been shown, and I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong.

 

[Trish1947]

Really? In my experience in the debate forums, when someone on the debate forums goes on the offensive against another from the get-go, it's because there's a preexisting rivalry/animosity between them.

I mean, come, now, be fair - 99% of atheists on CF? Ninety-nine out of a hundred immediately go on the offensive, without asking questions? I'm not saying that that's never been the case at CF, but my experience hasn't been that ninety-nine percent have been like that...:o

I am being fair. What does the athiest want of the Christian community? Just to present their reasons why not to believe? That would be playing a hard crowd. Is it that you feel that we don't understand your position? We understand it perfectly. You don't believe in God..what's not to understand about the confessed athiest? Are we interested in the athiest as a person. Of coarse we are. There is a difference in wanting to be accepted as a person, and wanting acceptance of athiest views as if there was something we could find in common in that area. We could discuss the weather, the game scores, hobbies, children, and just about everything in life, and get along swimmingly. But when it comes to faith or lack of it, there is nothing in common, except Jesus died for both of us. One believes it, another doesn't.

 

[heymikey80]

No, I have been, actually - and yet I still don't see much of a reason to believe that this "pulling new Christians into deep water" trend has reached pandemic proportions.

Extension after extension. "Oh, it's not that bad, just 1 or 2 times."

I guess the 1/99 doesn't mean anything any more anyway. "Not a longstanding argument for #1, y'see." Now that it points up the need to have a flock to return the sheep to ... it kinda doesn't help with #1 nearly so much.

Pardon, I should have said "in denial," instead of "deluded." Same substance, different term.

Didn't say that, either. It just goes on & on ...

Have I, now? News to me...

I HAVE stated that I don't believe completely ludicrous conspiracy theories about non-Christians forging an alliance to bring down ChristianForums.com, without being presented with strong evidence, but I don't think I've ever once said that I don't give people's intentions the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37326671#post37326671
"Gospel lost", "xenophobic", "quixotic", "pejorative".

Telling imagery, at that. Predators hunt prey. Predators kill and eat prey. Predators have no regard for the well-being of their prey. No matter what way you slice it, a predator is going to be a pejorative term, in this context.

And so you think Christians should not consider people who pull them away from the spiritual life to be the predators in Paul's illustration? Y'don't like the way Paul puts that? Oh well.

And once again, I dispute your claim that it's been shown, and I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5754754
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37318193#post37318193

 

[stranger]

If by that you mean impacting someone's faith for the worse

Faith derived from believining sinners in mainline religion simply must fail in the end , so the sooner the better really ... true faith is given by God and changes the will of men from desire to sin to desire to love all ... thus men will not have true faith until God gives it to all men..

Ephesians 2:8 ...faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

but once given faith one is led into all truth of God [Johhn 16:13] thus one KNOWS when one has true faith... thus scripture can reveal that most men do not have true faith at this time, and indeed we ca PROVE that ... most men have died without knowing all truth of God, the proof is as easy as that from John 16:13 ...

Thus the faith God gives cannot be damaged, it is simply the realisation that love is the only way to eternal life, one must perfect love during life [clearly the dead cannot love anyone] ... one cannot even begin until God baptises one to know all truth... thus scripture shows that most christians have not true faith ... they just don't know all truth before they die ..

No problem, since God promises all truth to all men eventually [Joel 2:28] , except that sinners teach men to believe that they must be 'saved' in this life... but scripture shows clearly not so, since God will baptise people tolive as saints after the second resurrection [since they died sinners]

The scripture then reveals the extent of false faith in the world, spread by sinners, not from God ... faith in the mealy words of soothsayers who themselves do not know the truth to be able to give it, but like to drag others down in the hole they are in... for xenophobic company ....

 

[KomissarSteve]

I am being fair. What does the athiest want of the Christian community? Just to present their reasons why not to believe?

Sure, why not? So many Christians are so ready to vilify them as absolute hedonists with no regard for morals or ethics whatsoever, and that's simply not true. A lot of them just want a chance to demonstrate to conservative Christians that they don't have an agenda of forcing every pregnant woman to have an abortion or banning the Bible, or anything ridiculously extreme like that.

That would be playing a hard crowd. Is it that you feel that we don't understand your position?

Their position, not mine. I'm a lifelong Christian.

We understand it perfectly. You don't believe in God..what's not to understand about the confessed athiest.

Well, plenty, it seems! A pretty visible example that I can see in this thread is the notion that all or most atheists are somehow out to win converts, in roughly the same vein as Christians spreading the Gospel. But it's actually pretty rare that you find what is sometimes referred to colloquially as an "Evangelical atheist." I don't think there are very many, if any, of those here at CF. (thankfully; that type really knows how to incite my ire sometimes)

We could discuss the weather, the game scores, hobbies, children, and just about everything in life, and get along swimmingly.

Don't forget politics, morals and ethics, and non-theological/metaphysical philosophy - which, it seems to me, really encapsulates the majority of the type of discussion that goes on here at CF, and has since before the change of rules, too.

 

[stranger]

Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom 10:9)

If one believed in Jesus as Lord, then one would obey him and love all men... then one would have ceased to sin, for sin is simply breaking that Law commanded by Jesus, to love all men and love God...

Thus sinners simply cannot obey Jesus else they would cease to sin... Jesus is then NOT the lord of sinners at all , and indeed promises to leave all sinners behind at his return for their iniquity [sin, ulovingness] :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.



​

 

[KomissarSteve]

Extension after extension. "Oh, it's not that bad, just 1 or 2 times."

I never said one or two times isn't bad; don't strawman, please. I'm simply pointing out that, when this sort of thing occurs so infrequently, it's easy for the mods to make rules against it and subsequently enforce them.

I guess the 1/99 doesn't mean anything any more anyway. "Not a longstanding argument for #1, y'see." Now that it points up the need to have a flock to return the sheep to ... it kinda doesn't help with #1 nearly so much.

...what are you even talking about? This doesn't really make much sense...

Didn't say that, either. It just goes on & on ...

Oh? Well, evidently it must be my mistake, then; it's just that, when you say something like "it's interesting to see your denial," it's rather hard to believe that you're referring to my specific denial of your assertion, and not actually ascribing to me a "state of denial."

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37326671#post37326671
"Gospel lost", "xenophobic", "quixotic", "pejorative".

None of those are sinister motivations. I think that they're emblematic of incorrect thinking, but I don't think they necessarily have anything to do with malicious intent.

And so you think Christians should not consider people who pull them away from the spiritual life to be the predators in Paul's illustration?

I do; I just don't see the entire non-Christian community on CF as fitting either of those two descriptions. I know you consider them a threat, but I don't see any reason to believe either A, that very many non-Christians on CF are a threat to new Christians, and B, that those that are pose any more of a threat than those who claim to be Christians and yet exhibit hateful, extremely un-Christian attitudes. I don't see any reason to believe that we encounter atheists intent on subverting the faith of new Christians any more than we encounter followers of extremists like Fred Phelps.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5754754
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37318193#post37318193

You're going to have to explain how either of these posts negatively impacted anyone's faith, because I'm not seeing it.

 

[stranger]

Since Jesus rejects everyonne who is a sinner ['works iniquity'] at his return :-
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

and almost all who call themselves christians admit that they are still sinners, then they have no basis at all for rejecting other sinners from seeking to discuss God and christianity here ... we are all in the same boat...

 

[tamlis]

Is it to late to vote in the poll?

 

[stranger]

Is it to late to vote in the poll?

The poll closed officially on 3 Aug [ we were not told what time of day and on whose clock] ... fortunately very few even knew about it, cos' it was a disaster , a sham, a waste of everyone's time, flawed in every way ... unregulated, poorly designed, incomplete options, people cheating, people closing off discussion of the agendas, people not voting because it was flawed, people not knowing it was even there despite it potentially could have affected the whole site...

What a shambles ... and all that emerged [from discussion, not from the poll!] is that people mostly want the name unchanged and for outreach to go on and be improved, not reduced... and option that Erwin never even thought to allow people to vote for... !

So address a PM to Erwin and tell him what you thik of his arrangement of this poll and what you really want of this site.... cos' he has no idea ...

[my suggestion for christians is to follow the great commission though, not hide in cupboards like xenophobes ... make account of one's faith before men and God , not hide it under a bushel ... trouble is people these days have no faith in their faith (LOL?) , to have it examined by others in the open... ]

 

[heymikey80]

You're going to have to explain how either of these posts negatively impacted anyone's faith, because I'm not seeing it.

I think they're plenty in comparison with the evidence you've brought for this being an outreach.

 

[heymikey80]

Oh? Well, evidently it must be my mistake, then; it's just that, when you say something like "it's interesting to see your denial," it's rather hard to believe that you're referring to my specific denial of your assertion, and not actually ascribing to me a "state of denial."

It's was -- that one atop another. You make an assertion that you don't see anything; then when yes it is provided you just move the bar. Again. And again. And again.

To me that's not a state of denial. But it's very interesting to see where you're heading.

I've rarely run into people who are actually sliding down a slope and denying it, point by point.

None of those are sinister motivations. I think that they're emblematic of incorrect thinking, but I don't think they necessarily have anything to do with malicious intent.

Ah, so. disparaging, derogatory, or belittling isn't sinister to you. That's what this word "pejorative" means that you're writing.

And if the loss of the gospel isn't sinister to you, I wonder what would be.

I do; I just don't see the entire non-Christian community on CF as fitting either of those two descriptions.

Well that's great. But I don't see a vote for option #1 as ever getting us to something in between.

I know you consider them a threat, but I don't see any reason to believe either A, that very many non-Christians on CF are a threat to new Christians, and B, that those that are pose any more of a threat than those who claim to be Christians and yet exhibit hateful, extremely un-Christian attitudes. I don't see any reason to believe that we encounter atheists intent on subverting the faith of new Christians any more than we encounter followers of extremists like Fred Phelps.

I don't think you've really looked into what's going on in terms of cross-proselytizing and inoculation ....

You're going to have to explain how either of these posts negatively impacted anyone's faith, because I'm not seeing it.

Ah. Now you're denying the result instead of the attempt. Exactly what's your criterion? Just so you don't go slipping around mercurically like the past hundred posts. And is that a solid criterion? Do you expect it to change in the next 20 minutes, or 20 hours, or 20 days, or 20 months?

 

[heymikey80]

Is it to late to vote in the poll?

Poll is here. As I don't control when it's shut down I can't really comment on when it'll be too late.

 

[stranger]

I've rarely run into people who are actually sliding down a slope and denying it, point by point.

Hey, we have a whole world full of them ....

The son of man is built on denial of the love in our hearts...

Ecclesiastes 9:12 For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

You may find that saints are given to try only three times to convey the truth to people ... if you read the scripture ... then the solution is left to God because there is no point in men presentig the case so persistently and in contention ... know when you are simply fighting obstinacy and denial in the absence of humility , and cannot get your point over , even if you happened to be right ... One has lost the capacity to learn, let alone learn the truth, as soon as the discussion is not one based on love of fellow man to whom one talks...

That is one BIG problem on this discussion site, and why we need love as the law here, not democracy, not arbitrary sets of rules made up from the world, but Hesus' own Law of Love...

sadly Erwin did not put that option in the poll, and it is the only one that will ever work ... Jesus promised that ...His way of love is the only way of life that works in the end ... so the sooner everyone learns that ....

 

[stranger]

Don't forget politics, morals and ethics, and non-theological/metaphysical philosophy - which, it seems to me, really encapsulates the majority of the type of discussion that goes on here at CF, and has since before the change of rules, too.

I was a 'declared atheist' until I discovered that love itself is a worth 'god', worthy of respect and admiration, and that Jesus showed us perfection of that love and told us that is what we know of God for now...

Thus I think many atheists do not realise that the love the 'god' of love, perhaps better than many who say they are christians but are just as unloving as sinners or even more so !

I thus love talking with atheists about what they actually admire and put trust in [for many do not know that their faith in rationality is not rational, but just that ,an act of faith... and many of them believe deeply in love between men and respect love...

The point is well made here because the problems with this poll and with the site are just exactly this, people not listening and not wanting to listen... it is death for a discussion site and outreach fails both ways without love between those discussing...

It is foolish then to put men in boxes, to use mere words as weapons of division , rather discussiion only succeeds when men are trying to understand what each other are saying, never when it is a war of assertions ... whoever ever gained anything but false ego by not listening and understanding what the other has to say ?