Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Strawman.[/color]
Good job all Christians are in complete agreement on what that absolute truth is, then.
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'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.
Could a Christian mod be fair moderating a dispute between two non-Christians? Why not?
The rules?
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 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 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?
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.
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.
Christ, thus Christianity, is absolute Truth. Sitting on the fence is precisely what relativism is.
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
Strawman.
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
What should be Brought Back
- Increased access for non-Christians.
- Especially to congregational forums
- The ability for them to staff non-theological forums and subforums
- 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
- Open reports and applications to staff
- Term-base appointments/election of staff
- Allowing people to decide themselves if they are married, etc (with one exception; see below)
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.
- A strong, universal set of rules that are not up to any debate.
- The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.
- A system of warnings and infractions.
- A "Christian area" but where non-Christians have the privilege to post in instead of being automatically prohibited from posting in.
- Only allowing Christians to staff theological forums.
- 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
- Appeals (was that actually removed?)
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.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 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
How is this God is not DEMOCRATIC! Does this make more sense now?
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. 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.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 ThingsWhat should be Brought Back
- Increased access for non-Christians.
- Especially to congregational forums
- The ability for them to staff non-theological forums and subforums
- 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
- Open reports and applications to staff
- Term-base appointments/election of staff
- Allowing people to decide themselves if they are married, etc (with one exception; see below)
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.
- A strong, universal set of rules that are not up to any debate.
- The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.
- A system of warnings and infractions.
- A "Christian area" but where non-Christians have the privilege to post in instead of being automatically prohibited from posting in.
- Only allowing Christians to staff theological forums.
- 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
- Appeals (was that actually removed?)
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Again, speak for yourself. Some denominations are based upon claiming supreme power over all the heretics that have wandered from their central control.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
Fine. Speak for yourself., 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?