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

[Goodchild]

..

 

[intricatic]

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.

I seriously disagree, still, with this statement. I've heard it before and I still don't understand why people would say something like this. The only Christians who disagree with the Nicene Creed are Baptists (and a few others who share the same problem), and that rests on the idea of creeds alone. That doesn't mean they disagree with the content of the creed.

 

[MartinM]

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.

For what it's worth, excluding people with less than 100 posts doesn't seem to alter the results significantly. I wrote a little script to check for such things.

 

[intricatic]

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

How so?

 

[Grizzly]

I think you are a nice guy and have something to add to CF, but I also think CF should only be staffed by Christians (excluding Mormons).

Thanks brennin. Personally, I think that Christians should make the rules and establish the vision at a Christian board. But when it comes to day-to-day operations of enforcing rules and such, I believe that anyone who is patient and reasonable can do the job well.

 

[KerrMetric]

Don't be obtuse.

 

[JimfromOhio]

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

That's a start... anyone want to add or change ?

 

[Mayflower1]

Haha, I just discovered while in the process of scrambling the password on this account that my stupid browser saved the (I had thought) scrambled password on my old account! So now I have two useable accounts again cause my stupid browser remembers the passwords for me.

So of course I voted with both

...

One for Option 2 and one for Option 1. So my vote amounts to a net nothing. I don't think anyone can complain much about that

I have no idea what that means but at least you are honest to tell your mistake.

 

[MartinM]

Can anyone actually point to a problem with the way the current non-Christian mods are doing their jobs? Or is this just good old-fashioned bigotry at work?

 

[intricatic]

Thanks brennin. Personally, I think that Christians should make the rules and establish the vision at a Christian board. But when it comes to day-to-day operations of enforcing rules and such, I believe that anyone who is patient and reasonable can do the job well.

Very true, but it still rests on one side of the dichotomy of Message bard | Ministry. If we can't define what CF is supposed to be - I'd prefer it if Erwin made this clear - then we can't answer how moderators are supposed to act, and the job they're intended to do.

 

[Goodchild]

..

 

[Mayflower1]

For what it's worth, excluding people with less than 100 posts doesn't seem to alter the results significantly. I wrote a little script to check for such things.

It might not, but they still should be removed because it isn't fair for a person to be able to vote more then once.

 

[frumanchu]

I cannot support this poll, it is fatally flawed. I know from my church planning experience that you can't ever offer people a choice between real change and familiar static - they will almost always choose the familiar comfort of what was - even if it leads to death. This poll's option #2 is not the way of Christ - it is the way of man.

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

I can't work at a CF just like the old one but with less opportunity to spread the Gospel. I had to find time last night to compose some PMs between IMing a suicidal teen - CF should be static enough that I can focus on that - but everyone wants to know what I think about X political thing - and if we can't fix our eyes on Jesus and move forward, we will never ever get to the challenge of 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.

So, when #2 is chosen as the new CF, and the domesday book is written...I will ensure my name is recorded on the side of those who are found unworthy...because that is where the ministry is.

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.

 

[intricatic]

Don't be obtuse.

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.

 

[MartinM]

It might not, but they still should be removed because it isn't fair for a person to be able to vote more then once.

Well, sure. But not everyone with less than 100 posts is a sock puppet

 

[frumanchu]

It's possible to be a Christian Forum and have outreach. In fact, if there isn't outreach, it's not Christian. Your premise implies it has to be one or the other. That's incorrect.

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.

 

[Orontes]

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?

Good questions.

 

[Grizzly]

One last bit of advice. Whatever you guys decide, please don't restart the Nicene Witch Hunts. If someone says they affirm the Nicene Creed, please simply assume that they do, unless it become obvious they don't. I don't think you guys understand the damage you cause when you actively search to strip people of their Christian Icons.

 

[CaDan]

WHAT the heck is so hard to figure out?? LEAVE the forums open then...if that is what people want...make a 'safe' place for Christian fellowship...and TAKE ALL unbelievers off staff...This IS a Christian site and should be run by them. HOW difficult does this have to be?? Sheesh..

It's really difficult when you present no reasoning for your position.

 

[intricatic]

One last bit of advice. Whatever you guys decide, please don't restart the Nicene Witch Hunts. If someone says they affirm the Nicene Creed, please simply assume that they do, unless it become obvious they don't. I don't think you guys understand the damage you cause when you actively search to strip people of their Christian Icons.

When I was on staff, the only times I ever saw this type of thing happen was when someone obviously didn't affirm the Nicene Creed.