At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision - Poll Vote only here

[morningstar2651]

This is the real question:

Is there even a problem, or is this an attempt to preempt a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[GreenMunchkin]

[/color]
Good job all Christians are in complete agreement on what that absolute truth is, then.

Strawman.

 

[PaladinValer]

A lot of people are rather inbetween Choices 1 and 2. Even though I voted 2, I really, as my previous post indicates, like many of the reforms.

Here's what I really think:

Good Things

1. Increased access for non-Christians.
   • Especially to congregational forums
   • The ability for them to staff non-theological forums and subforums
2. Congregational forums' ability to establish rules within their individual space.
   • The ability to say who is considered a member, full or partial, and who is considered a guest
   • The ability to vote upon their own rules
   • The ability to vote upon their own moderators
   • The ability to determine the rights and privileges of non-Christians therewithin, including perhaps the right or privilege to moderate there
3. Open reports and applications to staff
4. Term-base appointments/election of staff
5. Allowing people to decide themselves if they are married, etc (with one exception; see below)

What should be Brought Back

1. A strong, universal set of rules that are not up to any debate.
2. The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.
3. A system of warnings and infractions.
4. A "Christian area" but where non-Christians have the privilege to post in instead of being automatically prohibited from posting in.
5. Only allowing Christians to staff theological forums.
6. Appointment and non-election by members of non-congregational staff with a twist: members would still be able to make comments (see above) and be able to appeal an appointment if the vote were either narrow or if there was genuine concern about the ability of the individual to function as staff
7. Appeals (was that actually removed?)

I really think a "1.5" choice is most realistic that keeps most of the major reforms while returning to tried-and-true methods, particularly in moderating but allowing congregational forums to keep their right to "semi-autonomy" in terms of staffing.

 

[Debi1967]

No there is definitely a problem the only people this would not present a problem for is the ones it is benefiting at this time, and that IMHO is not the Christianity of this site and being able to advocate as we were able to do before

 

[MartinM]

Strawman.

Nope.

 

[D'Ann]

How so? How is it "the way of man" to ensure that a Christian ministry actually remains just that...a Christian ministry?

I don't think anyone is saying we need to revert to exactly the way things were before the 7-7-7 reforms. I know I and many others have applauded the underlying principle of encouraging more interaction between Christians and non-believers, and that is something I would like to see going forward. But the fact is that the present means of attempting to accomplish that principle are not justified so long as CF continues to view itself as a ministry.

Christian ministries are run by Christians, guided by Christians and seek to bring the Gospel to those who are NOT Christians. CF in its present state is run by Christians and non-believers, guided by Christians and non-believers, and is telling some non-believers that they are Christians (and by implication don't need the Gospel).

I assure you that is NOT the side you want to be standing on when "the doomsday book is written." Please do not stand there and imply that those of us who want to preserve this as a Christian ministry are concerned with separating ourselves from "those who are found unworthy." The whole point of ministry is taking the Gospel to those who are in need, but compromising that Gospel in order to do so will ultimately end in failure.

I wish to see this continue as a Christian ministry.

I need to rep you for this one, but I have to wait until I can rep again. Well worded post filled with wisdom. Thank you for writing it.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm being perfectly frank with you. I don't see a problem with considering a forum a ministry organization. I think the distinction needs to come from the top, however.

I agree. I think Option #2 is poorly worded in that respect, because I believe we can move forward in the direction of a Christian site and still do more to promote outreach by increasing interaction between believers and non-believers.

I agree.

Could a Christian mod be fair moderating a dispute between two non-Christians? Why not?

The rules?

Yes. Why? Because their heart desire is to help all members and bring help and comfort and peace to all members in a fair and caring and loving way because a good Christian moderator is serving Christ via this ministry and will do their utmost best to reflect Christ and Christianity and reach out to both non-Christians and thus do their best to be fair, honorable and loving with respect knowing how important it is that all members are treated with integrity, and in doing so, we all can walk with our dignity. We need rules to help govern this community.

Saleucami was a damned fine moderator. His reputation is well deserved, and for me at least his opinion does carry more weight than usual. I say this, being completely and utterly opposed to his stance on this particular subject. But yes, I do think his views on the forum are entitled to a little more than the average modicum of respect.

I have always cherished Saleucami and I completely agree with you. He is someone that I thoroughly respect and hold dear to my heart. He is honorable, humble and gracious, loving and kind.

I think the wikis were intended to give us time to put in that sort of thought and effort, rather than immediately framing every issue into some sort of either-or, pollable question before other options could be considered.

I agree with you that this poll is bad because it presents a false dichotomy.

The wikis were proposed as a method to allow for time and thought. But they do take time. What I've learned most from them is how many people have little or no tolerance for the temporary ambiguity and conflict that are inherent in any consensus process. They prefer voting. A bad decision is better than a delayed decision.

Sometimes a quick decision is necessary, and sometimes an issue isn't important enough to employ a collaborative or consensus process. I personally still have a lot of hope for the wikis. I see progress being made there. I wish I could persuade some members to participate in the process, rather than complain about it. But in a consensus process there are always many who sit on the sidelines, following to a greater or lesser degree, but not speaking up. Sometimes people don't speak up because other people are articulating their thoughts and feelings. Other times people don't speak up because a particular issue isn't important to them, and they are willing to accept the action of those who have a greater stake in the outcome.

I found your post very interesting in that, while rejecting the wiki process, you are asking to take more time and develop better alternatives than the two presented.

I have tried to participate in the wikis... and all that I noticed is debating and chaos. There is no peace or unity among those forums. Also, I know for a fact that many Christians tried to participate and get things in the rules via these wiki discussions... and then the next day all of their hard work was edited out... ooops... so sorry, can't restore it... These wiki forums are a disaster and they will never work here on CF. There are too many groups of people on all sides of the world that will never be able to agree on any one rule, then let alone a bunch of rules, then let alone protocols for members and staff. It is not practical to expect this new wiki formula to work. Believe me, I have tried to be involved and I know many others who tried to be involved and it was not successful.

I also believe that we need stable rules that are not voted on. Every community in this world has laws that help to sustain them and help them to have peace among each other as much as can be expected. Without laws, there would be chaos and confusion, like there is now on CF.

I like the old rules prior to the last reform before this new reform, but they need to be enhanced with some of the newer ideas that have been derived from this wiki formula.

I have to ask again: what do you think a mod should do, and why do you think a non-Christian could not do it?

You asked whether a non-Christians could be "fair" in his dealing with two Christians. Well, why should he not be? Is fairness dependent on faith, or on a correct usage of the set rules? Do you think that non-Christians would be spiteful and unfair to BOTH sides in an inter-Christian debate? Why should they?

A moderator sometimes will reach out to someone who is struggling in many different areas, and when a moderator reaches out to a person who is struggling, one way to do this is with praying and sharing words of hope and faith and love and thus giving encouragement in representing Jesus and this wonderful gift of Salvation.

A Non-believer/non-Christian is not able to help and encourage a Christian who is struggling in their faith and might accidentally or purposely mislead a struggling Christian away from Christ. Other than this, I think non-Christians/non-believers would do fine with moderating, but we need Christian moderators who view this as a ministry in reaching out to others who are hurting and downtrodden and who need kindness and words of hope, faith and love.

Jesus didn't tell anyone to wiki their own set of rules. And Jesus didn't have any non-believers as elders of a church who looked after the sheep.

Exactly.

I voted no 2 for this reason ..... I think as Christians we need to be in Unity before we can fully outreach to others and we need to focus on that Unity just as much as we need to focus on outreach... However, ever since we started this whole thing we have become farther apart than anything else... That is a problem....

All one needs to do is look at the Faith forums to see that we now have splinters of this and that going up everywhere.... this is a shame! This system is not bringing us as Christians together it is separating us.

Exactly.

Christ, thus Christianity, is absolute Truth. Sitting on the fence is precisely what relativism is.

Exactly. To try and please everyone and be politically correct and thus not take a stand for anything, takes all meaning away from what objective truth is in our Christian faith.

 

[MartinM]

No there is definitely a problem the only people this would not present a problem for is the ones it is benefiting at this time, and that IMHO is not the Christianity of this site and being able to advocate as we were able to do before

Who is preventing you from advocating Christianity?

 

[sparklecat]

Strawman.

I don't think it is; the main point of the reforms was to unite all Christians; the site cannot even hope to do so if it's starting off by telling one group of Christians that their views on a matter are wrong and should not be expressed. The only thing the site can do is not take a position on issues that are controversial between Christians, and simply make sure they debate them courteously.

 

[Lisa0315]

A lot of people are rather inbetween Choices 1 and 2. Even though I voted 2, I really, as my previous post indicates, like many of the reforms.

Here's what I really think:

Good Things

1. Increased access for non-Christians.
   • Especially to congregational forums
   • The ability for them to staff non-theological forums and subforums
2. Congregational forums' ability to establish rules within their individual space.
   • The ability to say who is considered a member, full or partial, and who is considered a guest
   • The ability to vote upon their own rules
   • The ability to vote upon their own moderators
   • The ability to determine the rights and privileges of non-Christians therewithin, including perhaps the right or privilege to moderate there
3. Open reports and applications to staff
4. Term-base appointments/election of staff
5. Allowing people to decide themselves if they are married, etc (with one exception; see below)

What should be Brought Back

1. A strong, universal set of rules that are not up to any debate.
2. The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.
3. A system of warnings and infractions.
4. A "Christian area" but where non-Christians have the privilege to post in instead of being automatically prohibited from posting in.
5. Only allowing Christians to staff theological forums.
6. Appointment and non-election by members of non-congregational staff with a twist: members would still be able to make comments (see above) and be able to appeal an appointment if the vote were either narrow or if there was genuine concern about the ability of the individual to function as staff
7. Appeals (was that actually removed?)

I really think a "1.5" choice is most realistic that keeps most of the major reforms while returning to tried-and-true methods, particularly in moderating but allowing congregational forums to keep their right to "semi-autonomy" in terms of staffing.

I would vote for Choice 1.5!

Lisa

 

[Crazy Liz]

Ok. But does this mean if CF were change its recent stances and policies that you would leave Christ? Do you see what this kind of thing brings up? If we go to Christ for Christ and because we know in our heart that is right and we need Him then do we stop needing Him because of other people or their policies? He doesnt change because people do.

I wonder how much it helps a new convert to tell them their faith should be so strong they are not affected by people's meanness.

That may be a good goal, but Jesus told us to make disciples and to love one another. IOW, Jesus intended that we would influence people around us.

When I am weak and someone tells me I should be stronger, I usually just feel put-down and rejected.

I just joined a gym and signed up to work with a personal trainer. I need some help and support right now. If my trainer tries to make me permanently dependent on him, that would be irresponsible. But it would also be irresponsible for him to tell me I shouldn't need him right now.

 

[tulc]

I don't think it is; the main point of the reforms was to unite all Christians; the site cannot even hope to do so if it's starting off by telling one group of Christians that their views on a matter are wrong and should not be expressed. The only thing the site can do is not take a position on issues that are controversial between Christians, and simply make sure they debate them courteousl

tulc(and another for good measure!)

 

[MartinM]

I would vote for Choice 1.5!

Perhaps we need a poll on whether this poll is acceptable.

Seriously.

 

[Brimshack]

How is this God is not DEMOCRATIC! Does this make more sense now?

Actually no, as an answer to my post it makes no sense at all. What your response shows is little other than that you completely ignored my comments. Fair enough, but then why pretend to answer them?

I don't expect He is. But then again He isn't running the site. And no matter what system you set in place, it will never carry his authority directly. You can wonder if the people are doing His will, or you can wonder if the person or even the committee is doing His will. It's the same question either way. To pretend that democracy is more problematic than a structured hierarchy is quite disingenuous.

 

[sparklecat]

A Non-believer/non-Christian is not able to help and encourage a Christian who is struggling in their faith and might accidentally or purposely mislead a struggling Christian away from Christ. Other than this, I think non-Christians/non-believers would do fine with moderating, but we need Christian moderators who view this as a ministry in reaching out to others who are hurting and downtrodden and who need kindness and words of hope, faith and love.

I agree. There always need to be Christian moderators available to help the members here who want to talk about faith-related issues. But someone still needs to address the reports while they're doing that! In a way, non-Christian moderators can facilitate the ministry of CF by freeing up the Christian moderators to spend time talking to those who are struggling with their faith.

 

[morningstar2651]

A lot of people are rather inbetween Choices 1 and 2. Even though I voted 2, I really, as my previous post indicates, like many of the reforms.

Here's what I really think:

Good Things

1. Increased access for non-Christians.
   • Especially to congregational forums
   • The ability for them to staff non-theological forums and subforums
2. Congregational forums' ability to establish rules within their individual space.
   • The ability to say who is considered a member, full or partial, and who is considered a guest
   • The ability to vote upon their own rules
   • The ability to vote upon their own moderators
   • The ability to determine the rights and privileges of non-Christians therewithin, including perhaps the right or privilege to moderate there
3. Open reports and applications to staff
4. Term-base appointments/election of staff
5. Allowing people to decide themselves if they are married, etc (with one exception; see below)

What should be Brought Back

1. A strong, universal set of rules that are not up to any debate.
2. The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.
3. A system of warnings and infractions.
4. A "Christian area" but where non-Christians have the privilege to post in instead of being automatically prohibited from posting in.
5. Only allowing Christians to staff theological forums.
6. Appointment and non-election by members of non-congregational staff with a twist: members would still be able to make comments (see above) and be able to appeal an appointment if the vote were either narrow or if there was genuine concern about the ability of the individual to function as staff
7. Appeals (was that actually removed?)

I really think a "1.5" choice is most realistic that keeps most of the major reforms while returning to tried-and-true methods, particularly in moderating but allowing congregational forums to keep their right to "semi-autonomy" in terms of staffing.

I agree. Rather than push the decision to one or the other, we should work to find a compromise that we can all be happy with. I like that the rules are voted on by the membership, and that moderators are voted on by their peers and don't have to subscribe to specific religious beliefs. The job of a moderator is to moderate discussions.

Christians are free to minister to us non-Christians, and it will probably never be against the rules.

Honestly, I see no problem with the way things are now, and no need to change the name of the forum. I like how things are.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I don't think it is; the main point of the reforms was to unite all Christians; the site cannot even hope to do so if it's starting off by telling one group of Christians that their views on a matter are wrong and should not be expressed. The only thing the site can do is not take a position on issues that are controversial between Christians, and simply make sure they debate them courteously.

If people feel the Nicene Creed is too restrictive, we could apply the Apostles' Creed. It's looser, but still includes fundamental factors that indicate who is, and isn't, a Christian.

The fact is, CF is more divided, Christian-wise, than ever before. Aside from the fact the congregational fora are split further, rules have gone up that virtually preclude inter-denominational fellowship. So if that's what we're going on, this new CF has failed spectacularly.

As mean as it sounds, just saying you're a Christian doesn't make you one, and CF stating that in its mission statement doesn't make it non-Christian unfriendly, it just acknowledges that certain things *are* Christian, and certain things aren't. It's not exclusive, it's just the way it is. No-one is stopping people from becoming Christians. *That* would be restrictive.

 

[Brimshack]

I've seen people stripped of their icons for things that they have posted in their blogs or at other discussion boards. I have seen people stripped of their icons for things they posted years ago. That's actively searching.

The place I post most frequently (IIDB) has more than a couple members who have had their icons removed. Remember, everytime you strip someone of their identity, you push them farther away.

I would add that you don't have to strip someone of their identity. Poking around, making inquiries, asking people questions. When it's under threat of consequences, that is usually enough. It isn't just the Christian icons, but the sectarian squabbles over who is and who is not of this congregation, and who is or who is not really married. When you set yourself up as the judge of something that personal and that important to people, the odds that you will ever again be able to relate to them as a friend fall rather drastically.

 

[Lisa0315]

Perhaps we need a poll on whether this poll is acceptable.

Seriously.

Don't look at me! I don't do polls anymore!

Lisa

 

[GenemZ]

You realise that most of those you're directing this at intentionally and wilfully stepped down, on my part, because power has no appeal - democratic elections aren't something I have any interest in.

You really can only speak for yourself. Denominational thinking works as a whole when voting. Its desiring power for one's denominational bias. It was more than apparent to many Protestants who needed to form a separate blog to discuss the abuses that came their way from Ecumenical thinking. You appear by what is shown in your profile to be quite young in the Lord. Some here we were finding abusive, where also actively in positions of power in their particular denomination, or working towards that goal.

I'd imagine many others had very good reason for leaving, as well. I looked at my time here as a ministerial service, not as some exertion of power

Again, speak for yourself. Some denominations are based upon claiming supreme power over all the heretics that have wandered from their central control.

, and when confronted with the changes, I had to ask myself whether I wanted to engage in politicking, or whether I would be better off just stepping down from staff. I stepped down from staff, along with many others. I have no interest in politics. I don't even vote in national elections.

Fine. Speak for yourself.

You do not know how others think who take voting in national elections with a keen interest and passion. Likewise, some sit over others as well in the sphere of Christianity with the same desire to make everyone conform to their belief system. They will never say it overtly, for all were apparently made to vote as a group here.

Besides, many who are Protestant did see the abuse come their way. We needed to form a private blog to try and solve this problem. I did not organize the blog. I was invited. I soon found out how I was not alone in what I saw being done here. It was not good enough to say Jesus was the Son of God. You had to see it as they saw it, and - - in some cases - - with the same distortions they held on the subject.

In one case, I was rammed because I refused to see Mary as being the Mother of God. Even though I explained how God can not be born because he has been always existing. Nor, can God die. That was twisted by some to say I denied Jesus was God. Yet, Jesus was both humanity and Deity in Union. I was witch hunted and presented one angle after another in trying to get me with something that would stick. Yet, all the while, I had my Christian icon denied me.

I lost my icon over that. Even though I said Jesus Christ is God. They just did not want to hear that he is also man in function if he wanted to be.

So, speak for yourself. Anyone who desires anything beyond a superficial understanding of God's Word when it comes to understanding how the Trinity is manifested, was in threat of having his Christian icon removed. Not for denying Jesus is God. But, for not seeing him as being God according to their church tradition's limited scope in knowledge. I know.

I was making my appeal at the time the rules just changed. Now, maybe some of us here can be free to discover why Jesus is God in greater detail than some simple rule dictates. By not simply being told to confess Jesus is God, by rote. Cookie cutter thinking does not produce unity in the body of Christ.

Understanding and grasping of truth, does cause unity. Some here thought we needed all to confess the same thing to be unified. Only understanding causes unity. I sought understanding, and had my icon removed as a result. Those who knew me could not understand how anyone could think I could deny the Deity of Christ. There you have it. Now, speak for yourself, only.

You do not know how the other administrators think. I was exposed to it directly. And, with some, I found them sorely lacking in having any depth of personal understanding. But, they were great at quoting others. And, used that to rule over others.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[flicka]

Everyone is trying to create their own private areas where only those who believe "xxxxxx" are allowed. XXXXX does not = christianity. It doesn't even always = a specific denom or creed or conservative/liberal bias. It's entirely at the whim of the members who want it. It's also impossible to accomodate that sort of thing without ending up with what we had before. As long as people try to give everyone exactly what they want this place will be splintered all over the place. It was before and people are trying to make it so now.

Endless polls and votes won't cut it because the wording of the choices (like the 2 horrible ones in theis poll) actually leave people with NO choice.