Hashin it out

[Nadiine]

That report is pretty self explanatory. . .

one would think huh
Alot of things are "telling" to me around here. And I can see why the mass Exodus happened after Erwin's compromises to change what he did.
At least other Christian sites hold to the tenets of salvation & can recognize AND AGREE ON who God is!
(there's a start!).

*sorry folks, I'm just sickened by what I'm reading as this process goes along - I may need to just unsubscribe or use self control becuz this infuriates me to see - the more detail you add to try to define Christianity - 2 opposing sides will not agree. So you either have to WATER IT ALL DOWN, or make it SO vague & wavering, that there's hardly any point in defining it!
This is unreal to me. IT'S SICKENING.
then we're supposed to be the ones who LEAD THE LOST TO TRUTH OF GOD?
which God? which truth? which church (if any at all)? which salvation? which doctrines matter?

 

[Miracle Storm]

one would think huh
Alot of things are "telling" to me around here. And I can see why the mass Exodus happened after Erwin's compromises to change what he did.
At least other Christian sites hold to the tenets of salvation & can recognize AND AGREE ON who God is!
(there's a start!).

*sorry folks, I'm just sickened by what I'm reading as this process goes along - I may need to just unsubscribe or use self control becuz this infuriates me to see - the more detail you add to try to define Christianity - 2 opposing sides will not agree. So you either have to WATER IT ALL DOWN, or make it SO vague & wavering, that there's hardly any point in defining it!
This is unreal to me. IT'S SICKENING.
then we're supposed to be the ones who LEAD THE LOST TO TRUTH OF GOD?
which God? which truth? which church (if any at all)? which salvation? which doctrines matter?

I don't know Nadiine. I understand your frustration sis. I've been there for a long time. It would be nice if we could just let Scripture do the talking, but to some they believe the Scriptures to be fallible. Then to others they see this as something against their particular denomination or a chance to promote their denomination. Goes both ways.

If only those in Christ could just unite as One body. We already are in Him, when are we gonna act like it and start working together?

There are alot of convoluted truths out there and as I read certain people's posts that have a Christian icon I'm very dismayed because I know they are spreading these "truths" which are not truths at all and they are not only risking their own soul to hell, but those to whom they preach....

We just need to keep praying sis.

What matters is Who we serve and that we continue to fight for truth without compromising on anything that could be damning to another's soul..

 

[Nadiine]

I don't know Nadiine. I understand your frustration sis. I've been there for a long time. It would be nice if we could just let Scripture do the talking, but to some they believe the Scriptures to be fallible. Then to others they see this as something against their particular denomination or a chance to promote their denomination. Goes both ways.

If only those in Christ could just unite as One body. We already are in Him, when are we gonna act like it and start working together?

There are alot of convoluted truths out there and as I read certain people's posts that have a Christian icon I'm very dismayed because I know they are spreading these "truths" which are not truths at all and they are not only risking their own soul to hell, but those to whom they preach....

We just need to keep praying sis.

What matters is Who we serve and that we continue to fight for truth without compromising on anything that could be damning to another's soul..

I'll just spell this out so I'm clear - and I say this generally (if it's not allowed, I'll remove it)..

I don't think we're trying to find a definition for all "Christians", I think we're having to define Christianity to fit Christians AND people who claim to be.
That's why this isn't working and I don't know how it can work.
In the end, you have to make the brushstrokes SO broad and wide, that Christianity just becomes whatever everyone thinks it is anyways!
What is the actual outcome going to serve?

I seriously question this. I don't see how one definition suits directly opposing groups like this? Groups that cannot and will not unity of thought or spirit.

I am all for this definition - but not the one I forsee coming. I think this site has to split into complete little groups & separate to keep Christianity "pure" in any way.

 

[Miracle Storm]

I'll just spell this out so I'm clear - and I say this generally (if it's not allowed, I'll remove it)..

I don't think we're trying to find a definition for all "Christians", I think we're having to define Christianity to fit Christians AND people who claim to be.
That's why this isn't working and I don't know how it can work.
In the end, you have to make the brushstrokes SO broad and wide, that Christianity just becomes whatever everyone thinks it is anyways!
What is the actual outcome going to serve?

I seriously question this. I don't see how one definition suits directly opposing groups like this? Groups that cannot and will not unity of thought or spirit.

I am all for this definition - but not the one I forsee coming. I think this site has to split into complete little groups & separate to keep Christianity "pure" in any way.

Yes, so it seems.
It seems people think there are different brands and flavors of Christianity and Salvation.


Matthew 7
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Yeah, I'd like to see the list too.

While SA does ask the hard questions, he is Catholic, and as I've said elsewhere, these denom lines are going to show up in doctrinal conversations.

I tend to stay out of these frays because as a somewhat rabid "converted Calvinist now former Calvinist" I am always suspicious of Reformed theology (funny what Catholics & Anabaptist-ish folks have in common ), yet try to keep separated Christians & their doctrines to a minor degree for the sake of fellowship. Yet what one considers as "minor doctrine" another considers major, and when ya start stepping into another's area major trouble starts.

I consider SA to be something of a fundamentalist~Roman Catholic Fundamentalist that is~and since the RCC (Church/Magisterium) takes all doctrine as serious this should be an expected and respected response from one that is a part of the Catholic Church.

If this can't be understood, then maybe some of us "Conservative" Christians should be in the Fundamentalist Christian Forum instead

He is different than having a liberal come in and disrupting, for while I disagree with his take on anabaptist history, I really can't point to anything he's said that isn't conservative (and it's conservative from a conservative Catholic POV), though admittedly I've always looked for that loophole sorry: only 'cause I always want everyone to agree with me ).

So it's incumbent upon the accusers to produce his liberal/nonconservative statements scratch: maybe I missed something)

Jim

This is true Jim...and I agree with you 100%. I think we've forgotten that this forum has a diverse membership. We're not here to represent our "label". We're here to unite as Christians and fellowship with each other.

However, I would point out that SA is much more vocal than most. We have quite a few Catholic members and he's the only one who is debating these issues most of the time. It seems to me that he also needs to be sensitive to the other members of this forum. We should all be trying to work together and understand one anothers points of view are not the same. This is a forum that has been made to unite us, not divide. And if we start arguing our theology it will soon break us all apart.

We ALL need to recognize this and work together. Please.

Having said all that...let's try to keep this thread on topic now k?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm still a fairly newbie person in this particular forum, why are we defining Christianity again, anyway?

I am tempted to agree with whomever posted that we are trying to define Christianity to fit only those that post here, or something along those lines.

I am a Lutheran, yes, but I am a Christian first and foremost. First and foremost, I confess that I am a sinner but that Jesus redeemed me through his suffering and dying on the cross. This confession makes me a Christian. This belief defines my Christianity.

 

[Melethiel]

I'm still a fairly newbie person in this particular forum, why are we defining Christianity again, anyway?

I am tempted to agree with whomever posted that we are trying to define Christianity to fit only those that post here, or something along those lines.

I am a Lutheran, yes, but I am a Christian first and foremost. First and foremost, I confess that I am a sinner but that Jesus redeemed me through his suffering and dying on the cross. This confession makes me a Christian. This belief defines my Christianity.

Amen.

 

[Time2BCounted]

I'm still a fairly newbie person in this particular forum, why are we defining Christianity again, anyway?

I am tempted to agree with whomever posted that we are trying to define Christianity to fit only those that post here, or something along those lines.

I am a Lutheran, yes, but I am a Christian first and foremost. First and foremost, I confess that I am a sinner but that Jesus redeemed me through his suffering and dying on the cross. This confession makes me a Christian. This belief defines my Christianity.

Hi preachers wife,
We are all ready defined, thats the problem, and the way we are defined we can teach that Jesus is satan and still claim to be saved

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

However, I would point out that SA is much more vocal than most. We have quite a few Catholic members and he's the only one who is debating these issues most of the time. It seems to me that he also needs to be sensitive to the other members of this forum. We should all be trying to work together and understand one anothers points of view are not the same. This is a forum that has been made to unite us, not divide. And if we start arguing our theology it will soon break us all apart.

I'm more vocal because I'm the one objecting to theological statements that are in opposition to the Catholic Church- and I'm jumped all over for it.

What the forum members want is for me to not say anything about it. So many of the actions here have been divisive- from divisive theological statements to attacks on members that call for neutral language.

 

[CaDan]

I'm not looking to debate this issue, but only to be helpful.

Is the omission of the word "one" in the commentary on the clause concerning the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed intentional or just an oversight?

 

[Time2BCounted]

I'm more vocal because I'm the one objecting to theological statements that are in opposition to the Catholic Church- and I'm jumped all over for it.

What the forum members want is for me to not say anything about it. So many of the actions here have been divisive- from divisive theological statements to attacks on members that call for neutral language.

We have had people working together with us SA, that disagree. We however have been working to streamline it and working with those who disagree.

You arent working WITH us

this is a nondebate section, respect that

 

[Time2BCounted]

I'm not looking to debate this issue, but only to be helpful.

Is the omission of the word "one" in the commentary on the clause concerning the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed intentional or just an oversight?

specificly where CaDan?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

What part of that definition goes against Catholic doctrine, if I may ask?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

We have had people working together with us SA, that disagree. We however have been working to streamline it and working with those who disagree.

You arent working WITH us

this is a nondebate section, respect that

No, I'm disagreeing with you and giving darn good reasons for them. Rather than trying to come to a dialog about our disagreements you basically:
- attack me
- threaten me
- tell people to ignore me
- accuse me of not being conservative

This gets in the way of your plans, so of course I'm not working "with" you.


What bothers me is the narrow-mindedness of certain people here who seem to have no idea what they are doing. That it is not right to demand people either agree or leave. The members here have put in their two cents of doctrinal commentary and like a gang of politicians, will be so happy as long as their piece gets passed through.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

What part of that definition goes against Catholic doctrine, if I may ask?

A lot of it. The worst is denying the baptism has a role in the salvation process.

 

[CaDan]

specificly where CaDan?

Oops, I dropped a word. I apologize--darn dependent clauses!

It is in the discussion of baptism; specifically "one baptism for the remission of sins."

 

[Nadiine]

No, I'm disagreeing with you and giving darn good reasons for them. Rather than trying to come to a dialog about our disagreements you basically:
- attack me
- threaten me
- tell people to ignore me
- accuse me of not being conservative

This gets in the way of your plans, so of course I'm not working "with" you.


What bothers me is the narrow-mindedness of certain people here who seem to have no idea what they are doing. That it is not right to demand people either agree or leave. The members here have put in their two cents of doctrinal commentary and like a gang of politicians, will be so happy as long as their piece gets passed through.

Ever stop to think YOU are the narrow? (most who use that attack rarely apply it to THEIR viewpoints).

Is there a dictionary term on "non debate"? perhaps that might help you.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Ever stop to think YOU are the narrow? (most who use that attack rarely apply it to THEIR viewpoints).

Is there a dictionary term on "non debate"? perhaps that might help you.

You all constantly pour out your opinions and doctrine and then throw a hissy-fit when someone disagrees.

The bad thing is, you all don't realize what you are doing. What you are calling for is the moral majority to be expressed and any views contradictory to it will be labeled 'debate'.

If, for example, I started a topic with a particular doctrinal premise- it would be argued and then I'd be accused of subversion in the community by starting debate.

 

[Nadiine]

You all constantly pour out your opinions and doctrine and then throw a hissy-fit when someone disagrees.

The bad thing is, you all don't realize what you are doing. What you are calling for is the moral majority to be expressed and any views contradictory to it will be labeled 'debate'.

If, for example, I started a topic with a particular doctrinal premise- it would be argued and then I'd be accused of subversion in the community by starting debate.

wrong again, but then.... i'm used to that now.
IT ISN'T A DEBATE AREA. they keep telling you that & you keep treating it as such.
Get a clue ok? And if YOU were starting something, YOU would be writing it your way.... that's how it works.
They are in a process - lighten up.
I guess if you don't get every change you want, they're NARROW & whatever else you'de tack on...

This is absolutely alarming what I'm seeing here and the obsessiveness of it all.

 

[MrJim]