KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
No it is not. It is your absolute standard perhaps BUT not some universal standard.
Upvote
0
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.
The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.
No, I can speak for myself, and a good majority of the staff members who left with me, who I know fairly well. But they can also speak for themselves; I'm sure it'll sound a lot like what I'm saying, with obvious differences in the specifics.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 actively in positions of power in their particular denomination, or working towards that goal.
Actually, I think that is a rather good idea. Of course non-Christian mods aren't going to lead people to Christ, etc. But they can moderate a forum, particularly the open debate forums (which were chronically understaffed as I understand it). Perhaps the question is less whether or not non-Christians can do the job than whether or not there are two different jobs to be done.I have an idea.
Two teams, a ministry team and a moderation team.
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.
And look at WHO has erected these new barriers? Non-Christians? Unorthodox Christians?
YES!
The liberal Christian forum is about the ONLY one which is trying to keep its doors open!
So who exactly is dividing CF?
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.
I am hoping a middle ground can be found. I don't think it would be very nice to kick our atheist/agnostic/seeking members out
JM
If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.
I vote Option 1 without the name change.
My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.
Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.
The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.
Have a blessed day.
There can be enough rules in place to keep Christians "safe" and enough wiggle room to allow for discussion of other beliefs as well. People come here primarily to discuss Christan themes, debate things, and talk to people who share their beliefs. Expanding the site to allow for things like non-Christian mods and more open communication does nothing to change that. Really, the only difference I see here, in the "new cf" are all the threads [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing about change
If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.
I vote Option 1 without the name change.
My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.
Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.
The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.
Have a blessed day.
well what a bunch of crap.........Yes, basically:
Option one: New CF with (possible...I think) name/mission change
Option two: Old CF.with no name/mission change
G-d bless,
sc
The unsaved coming to your church will not make any of the congregations bylaws, nor try to edit out any of God's commandments. They probably won't be able to become any type of head of the church either...or at least, they shouldn't.
If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.
If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.
I vote Option 1 without the name change.
My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.
Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.
The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.
Have a blessed day.
If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.
I vote Option 1 without the name change.
My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.
Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.
The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.
Have a blessed day.
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?