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

[intricatic]

Will someone define Christian?

(And the Nicene creed does NOT define Christian by the way)

Sez who?

 

[HadessahRose]

Soooo if you go some place and hang out for a while and then find out you are good enough to be there to get preached at but are to evil to be anything more then a second class citizen there, would you go "wow, that makes me want to become one of them!"?
tulc(sort of doubts it)

WHAT? What is wrong with treating PEOPLE like....say...um PEOPLE! And stop 'labeling' them good enough or not. What the heck? I didn't say anything about that. But freedom to move around the forums is what is wanted on both sides..so that is cool. BUT why can't there be ONE little bitty part for Christians who want to fellowship there...I don't see the difficutly. It is a ton of people coming on yapping about seperation and 'class' of people. Sorry, but I don't see it that way. I see people as they are...people. HOW hard is this? It isn't rocket science.

 

[KerrMetric]

This is NOT a Ministry - it is a Forum.

There can be a Ministry side to that - on certain boards for instance - but it is not a Ministry per se.

 

[intricatic]

This is NOT a Ministry - it is a Forum.

There can be a Ministry side to that - on certain boards for instance - but it is not a Ministry per se.

Well, if it's just a forum, then why not change the name to something more appropriate, like "Secular forums" or "Religion Forums"?

 

[HadessahRose]

AMEN! I don't see what the problem is to be honest.

 

[A New Dawn]

Will someone tell me why this doesn't seem a blatant attempt by the old well known Mod cliques to enforce their version of Christianity down everyones throats?

They want a return to the "old ways" not for some ministering message but for the almost police state level of powers complete with baiting sockpuppets and Warning/Banning power.

I see how we already have the no Mormons as Mods comment a couple of times.

I don't see anyone suggesting that at all. Just about every person who voted for #2 has added a caveat of some sort, mostly that the forums remain open to all, and some that suggested going with open staffing. What are you reading that most of us are not?

 

[KerrMetric]

Sez who?

Says the world. To use a faith statement as a definition is stupidity.

For instance - I don't think you really have to be a Trinitarian to be a Christian. I am - but I don't consider that a litmus test.

 

[gratefulgrace]

The name should stay. But I voted option 1. I don't like your options at all.

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....everywhere else is basically the same ol same ol. It may be hurting people's pride or stepping on a few toes to have a reorganization like this but most members don't seem concerned. Most don't write Wiki's or even vote in polls like this because it hasn't effected them or why they come here.


Bottom line is, if option two means this site will be run exactly how it was 2 months ago, complete with overly restrictive rules and mods who warn, issue infractions, cannabalize threads or delete them altogether, and ban anyone for acting in a way they decide is "unchristain"...well you can have it.

Amen to this last section but if you don't like the options I am hard pressed to figure out why you put your support behind option 1. I too agree that a Christian site this large should have room for concepts to exist side by side. I have been under the impression since joinging a year ago that this was the case anyway here. Why all the pressure now to bail out of the Christian forum idea and into a the nebulous idea of a "safe site" on the net. If we are not speaking the truth in love to one another and to the unbelieving it will never be a safe site for anyone no matter how friendlyand inclusive it is. I would have voted for option 2 but believe it has been painted in such a restrictive and negative light as an option that it is really not my visiion for CF either. I am definitely opposed to option 1.
I say lighten up the mods and the legalism and carry on as we have been going.
Gratefulgrace

 

[intricatic]

TBH I actually like the open forums. Not so much the open staff, though. I think there can be easily found a way to balance the two things without closing off the forums entirely.

 

[Mayflower1]

There are some newbies who have voted and all. Do you have to be here at least 6 months and have more then 100 posts to vote? I think that would reduce sock puppets. I see them on BOTH sides of the poll.

 

[sparklecat]

I've skipped about 20 pages and probably won't have time to catch up today. Can anyone tell me if Erwin has clarified what "Christians only" means?

Are those voting for option #2 voting for the explusion of non-Christians (and does that include non-Nicene affirming followers of Christ)? Are they voting for things to go back to exactly what they were before the reforms? Are they voting for allowing whatever the board defines as non-Christians to stay but in an even more restrictive environment than what we had before the reforms?

Or does it matter?

Unknown at present. It is my personal belief that Erwin's intention would be for option 2 to return the site as it was before, with Christians-Only areas and the rest of the site open to all, but it is possible that option 2 means simply what it says.

 

[MartinM]

I've skipped about 20 pages and probably won't have time to catch up today. Can anyone tell me if Erwin has clarified what "Christians only" means?

No.

Are those voting for option #2 voting for the explusion of non-Christians (and does that include non-Nicene affirming followers of Christ)? Are they voting for things to go back to exactly what they were before the reforms? Are they voting for allowing whatever the board defines as non-Christians to stay but in an even more restrictive environment than what we had before the reforms?

I'm not entirely sure they know themselves.

 

[intricatic]

Says the world. To use a faith statement as a definition is stupidity.

For instance - I don't think you really have to be a Trinitarian to be a Christian. I am - but I don't consider that a litmus test.

Says the world?

A faith statement is essentially what Christianity is, and has always been about. Faith can always be communicated clearly, because it implies trust in something external to yourself.

 

[KerrMetric]

Well, if it's just a forum, then why not change the name to something more appropriate, like "Secular forums" or "Religion Forums"?

Well it's not Christian Ministry is it??????????????

Did you bother to read what I said? I mentioned that you could have a Ministering boards(s) but CF was called Forums for a reason.

 

[intricatic]

Well it's not Christian Ministry is it??????????????

Did you bother to read what I said? I mentioned that you could have a Ministering boards(s) but CF was called Forums for a reason.

A forum doesn't exclude the title of ministry.

 

[KerrMetric]

Says the world?

A faith statement is essentially what Christianity is, and has always been about. Faith can always be communicated clearly, because it implies trust in something external to yourself.

But not the Nicene Creed.

Even forgetting it's 4th century origins - a large fraction of early Christianity would NOT have been Christians according to CF policy of using the creed.

 

[MartinM]

What are you reading that most of us are not?

The poll options?

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes I do. That's my point. Biblically, I see CF as an opportunity of the Great Commission.

I want to see people biblically to CF keep out the Great Commission.

Yes.. I need biblical support for EACH.

1. Recognize all Christians are already one , attempting to unite Christians is like entering a married couples home and telling them they need new rules to be married! (Eph 4:4-6)

2. Recognize all Christians are at different levels of growth , most arguments stem from degrees of immaturity not from a lack of unity. (1 Cor 3)

3. Recognize all Christians have a common enemy , which will include attacks on the young in faith not merely young in the flesh. (1 Peter 5:8-9).

4. Recognize that all Christians are a witness for Christ , you , me , us , are either a good witness or a bad witness , but a witness none the less. (Acts 1:8 & Luke 21:13-15)

5. as for mods and rules etc etc , I think they should be to some extent dumbed down , and a basic creed such as the Nicene creed should be in place. (2 Timothy 1:13-14)

6. No mixing unbelievers with believers EXCEPT for the sole purpose of spreading the Gospel , ie, no unbelievers as mods on a CHRISTIAN forum. (‘He who is not with me is against me…' Luke 11:23 & 2 Corinthians 6:14)


Jesus met with sinners , so did Paul , but with one goal in mind , to win some.

James 4:4 &


1 Cor 9

19 7 Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became like one outside the law--though I am not outside God's law but within the law of Christ--to win over those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.


greetings
Cyg

 

[KerrMetric]

A forum doesn't exclude the title of ministry.

Jeez - yes it does. A Ministry is a different beast than a Forum.

 

[Mayflower1]

Yes, many newbies and members under 10 posts. Why would so many vote for something like this?