New Statement of Faith at Christian Forums

[Nadiine]

Somehow, I don't think that will change at all. It might be muted or forced off-site, but folks are still going to whine and complain any time a change is made.

true... part of it is that they've seen so MANY changes..........
it's been a constant rollercoaster in the time I've been here -
can anyone say "wiki"?

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, the Nicene Creed does not delineate our Christian values or morals. It is a statement the embodies the beliefs about God that a Christian should have. Like it or not, different denominations aren't going to agree on a lot of issues. That's part of being in a family. We need to learn to get along in spite of those differences.

The most important thing is that we agree on God and His nature.

My point continues to be that it's all too simple to CLAIM to accept them when at the same time they promote very serious moral depravities and
attack [ie reject] the Bible as faulty, unreliable and much of it useless where they see fit to dismantle it (for whatever agenda they carry).

That's just the problem, anyone can grab a Christian icon who is NOT
of "my family" at all - and the fruit is clearly ignored in thread after
thread and we're forced to unite with what's false.

All they have to do is just not POST the certain limited things that go
against the SOF to be considered a Christian in full compliance here.
(worse, I've seen someone w/ a Christian icon who attacked God
by calling Him a name, and they didn't lose their Christian icon -
the post was edited and we all go on our merry way as one
big happy family)

My bible gives another litmus test of the spirits and I'm sorry,
but it's not posting a CF icon. Jamming people together by
force doesn't make us one family in the same spirit.
And if that causes some here to think I'm not of their family -
that's good with me.

 

[Nadiine]

Well, ....
I'm done with the same tired request year after year here.

So, again, I'll say that I AM very happy this change was
made. It's a positive step in the right direction.

 

[BelindaP]

My point continues to be that it's all too simple to CLAIM to accept them when at the same time they promote very serious moral depravities and
attack [ie reject] the Bible as faulty, unreliable and much of it useless where they see fit to dismantle it (for whatever agenda they carry).

This seems to be the part you don't understand. Historically (going back to the early days of the Church), one was a Christian who affirmed these beliefs about God. One might be a Christian in error if one had other doctrines wrong, but one was still a Christian. Traditionally, the litmus test for Christianity was what one believed about God--nothing else.

This is completely biblical. Paul wrote in his epistles about how to deal with Christians who were living in sin. He never said that people who were living in sin weren't Christians--even the fellow who was openly living with his stepmother.

Our role in dealing with Christians in error is to try to lead them back onto the correct path. Our role is not to decide whether they are or are not Christians. We accept their statement of faith and leave it there.

 

[Nadiine]

I don't really think that ecumenism has "failed," per se, rather that what it meant was rather ill-defined. Like everything it is a "work in progress" (this is CF...lol). Things will take time and the intent isn't to say "now that this policy is in effect everyone must do 'X'" but, rather, gently push the site in a given direction over time. If anything failed I think it was the old process of making a change and then grumping about it three weeks later because everything wasn't exactly like you thought it would be in your mind's eye...

if you want to see if ecumenism works here - REAL ecumenism,
you should remove all the Congregation Safe havens & FORCE us
all into one big happy family to unite without any barriers to hide
in.

Safe havens keep us separated & divided into our little cubby holes.
And I notice that's where a large majority stay - most don't venture
out into the open areas for Christian discussion/debate.

If they do, they come running back to the safe havens for some
R & R - or the game areas - or anyone where serious Christian
discussion doesn't take place.

 

[serena]

Well, ....
I'm done with the same tired request year after year here.

So, again, I'll say that I AM very happy this change was
made. It's a positive step in the right direction.

Good Form Nadiine.

No one person of faith or denomination will always agree and it will remain for eons to come.
your truth and how you see it, will not always be another's and that is how it is.
Let us see how things progress.

 

[serena]

This seems to be the part you don't understand. Historically (going back to the early days of the Church), one was a Christian who affirmed these beliefs about God. One might be a Christian in error if one had other doctrines wrong, but one was still a Christian. Traditionally, the litmus test for Christianity was what one believed about God--nothing else.

This is completely biblical. Paul wrote in his epistles about how to deal with Christians who were living in sin. He never said that people who were living in sin weren't Christians--even the fellow who was openly living with his stepmother.

Our role in dealing with Christians in error is to try to lead them back onto the correct path. Our role is not to decide whether they are or are not Christians. We accept their statement of faith and leave it there.

 

[CaDan]

if you want to see if ecumenism works here - REAL ecumenism,
you should remove all the Congregation Safe havens & FORCE us
all into one big happy family to unite without any barriers to hide
in.

Safe havens keep us separated & divided into our little cubby holes.
And I notice that's where a large majority stay - most don't venture
out into the open areas for Christian discussion/debate.

If they do, they come running back to the safe havens for some
R & R - or the game areas - or anyone where serious Christian
discussion doesn't take place.

I can't tell if this is actual advocacy or a reductio ad absurdum argument. Could you clarify, please?

 

[Nadiine]

This seems to be the part you don't understand. Historically (going back to the early days of the Church), one was a Christian who affirmed these beliefs about God. One might be a Christian in error if one had other doctrines wrong, but one was still a Christian. Traditionally, the litmus test for Christianity was what one believed about God--nothing else.

This is just not true -

Pharisees of all people held the highest standard of holiness AND
accepting and claiming the very beliefs from the Law and the Prophets.
What was Jesus' response to them?

Their claims were there, but their hearts were somewhere else &
their spirit was false.
And the main test was the fruit they produced which was contrary
to God.
The same is true today. A church can only make some standard
statements to accept - it by no means suggests that everyone
who claims to accept them is born again.

Jesus came to relay that fruit needs to be inspected so that we
don't get decieved by the false. He didn't say "if they claim to
believe this, that & the other, they ARE of Me".
"why do you say Lord, Lord, and not DO what I say?" said Jesus.

Mat. 7:21-23 "MANY will say Lord, Lord....... and I will tell them
..... I never knew you".
I can quote lists of what we're to watch for - and how many who
claim things aren't really believers.
This is why Paul taught church discipline - when congregants were
openly sinning and living in rebellion or spreading heresy, they were put out until they repented.

Now CF is not a church - but the principle is that we have sin
openly flaunted and promoted as righteous (I"m including all forms
of abortion) and it's embraced & protected here.
THen I'm told to smile and unite with that as my family.
Sorry, it's not going to happen. I won't even bother to go into
how the Bible is annihilated here.

The churches may have held creeds - and expected beliefs, but
they ALSO carried out church discipline and people were dealt
with when sin and heresy crept in. (which is rarely dealt with
today in the church).

So it remains that these sins and rejection of the scriptures
are part of the foundation that CF wants to call Christian and
therefore, RIGHT to believe it and promote it as Christian.
(My bible says something else about that).
As a Christian, I don't have to accept those things and in fact,
I'm called to refute them.

Lastly, I think we should remember that even the demons
believe and shudder.

 

[CaDan]

"God has taught me to call no man unclean or common."

 

[BelindaP]

Even though Jesus had very harsh words for the Pharisees, he never said they weren't Jews. In the same way, we can't go around saying that somebody who assents to the NC isn't Christian.

True, churches have carried out discipline. My church still does that--on fellow Christians. Even when somebody is put out of the Church, they are not considered to be non-Christians. Rather, they are lapsed Christians. The discipline is done to bring them back in line with the doctrines about which they are in error. At no point do they cease to be Christian unless they reject God and walk away.

Aye. The demons do believe--with fear and shaking. That is because they have seen God. They know Him and fear Him. They don't need a creed. But, you will never find a demon who puts its faith in Jesus.

 

[Nadiine]

Even though Jesus had very harsh words for the Pharisees, he never said they weren't Jews. In the same way, we can't go around saying that somebody who assents to the NC isn't Christian.

What's happening here Belinda, is that people are saying
IT IS CHRISTIANITY.

Just as bold a statement as one saying it is not.
BOTH are judgments are they not? How does one KNOW someone
IS a Christian? You really don't , do you?

The issue here is what CF is allowing AS Christian - they have full
control over that and can change it anytime, but won't.

They protect it and promote rejection of the Bible and moral sins
as Christian. They're clearly stating what Christianity is and refusing
to limit it where it would make most of the difference.

In other words, CF is fine with promoting a gay church of God. And nobody can declare that is not Christian - that's against CF terms.
CF is making statements of their own by what they allow in the
Christian forum.

& many of those on the liberal side don't believe that fundamentals
& many conservatives are Christians either for that matter, they
consider them legalists or pharisees.

& one last note, Jesus said the Pharisees' father was the devil -
and that when they won a convert over, they made the convert
twice as much a son of hell as they were.
A far cry from just "still being a jew".
Jesus condemned them outright as lost.

 

[BelindaP]

CF isn't promoting anything. There are individual members of CF who do the promoting. Big difference.

 

[Nadiine]

CF isn't promoting anything. There are individual members of CF who do the promoting. Big difference.

Ok Belinda, you just keep believing that.


I'm done with this anyways, it's been pointless and futile for years
here and this is just another big waste of my time now that I know
CF's intentions for the future that are not changing.
No sense beating a dead horse about it.

I'm off to enjoy my day & get some important things done

 

[JimfromOhio]

So far I like it. Of course, this will never be perfect and please everyone around here.

 

[Tonks]

ahem...i don't want to start deleting posts...but i will if i need to. at any rate i'll respond to some of the statements in a bit.

 

[Tonks]

My turn.

The biggest problem I see at CF is btwn. Liberal vs. Conservative theology.
The two do not remotely mix.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with your statement. Indeed, CF had a long history (except for the last year or two) of being very tolerant of both conservative and liberal Christianity. To be honest one's particular theological outlook really doesn't interest me nor does it really interest the rest of the Advisors, I'd guess.

What I DON'T like is that some people (on both sides of the spectrum) think that they've been given license to be completely and unapologetically rude to those that do not share their conservative/liberal theological outlook. That, to me, is not acceptable. One can disagree but still have a civil discussion. I think that for far too long the moderation was somewhat permissive as people retreated to their own areas of the site and were allowed to basically toss bombs at other Christians. That will be changing...hopefully by choice and by example...but by coercion if necessary.

Frankly I'm tired
of what's allowed under a Christian banner here, but
that seems to be the way they want it.

CF isn't a "Fundamentalist" forum anymore than it is an "Orthodox, Catholic, or Reformed etc" forum. If I wanted a place extremely specific to my own beliefs I would go there...which I do. The days of "your Christianity is not good enough and I'm going to say it loudly" will be drawing to a close. We can all find points of agreement within the Creed as a starting point.

so we continue
to live in constant fighting.

If there continues to be "constant fighting" and people will not stop even when asked...they'll be removed. Fighting gives me a headache. It gives most members and staff a headache.

the Nicene Creed does not delineate our Christian values or morals. It is a statement the embodies the beliefs about God that a Christian should have. Like it or not, different denominations aren't going to agree on a lot of issues. That's part of being in a family. We need to learn to get along in spite of those differences.

The most important thing is that we agree on God and His nature.

This is a good starting point I think...and I agree.

That's just the problem, anyone can grab a Christian icon who is NOT
of "my family" at all - and the fruit is clearly ignored in thread after
thread and we're forced to unite with what's false.

As previously mentioned in the OP...the only requirement is self-identification. If witchhunts and interrogations begin / continue I'm going to get a headache.

My bible gives another litmus test of the spirits and I'm sorry,
but it's not posting a CF icon. Jamming people together by
force doesn't make us one family in the same spirit.
And if that causes some here to think I'm not of their family -
that's good with me.

While I certainly respect your individual beliefs (just as I'd hope you respect mine) for the purposes of the site neither of them are normative...we can promote our beliefs and we can do it generally politely. If the only manner in which someone can express their disapproval is by being rude or not acting Christian...I'm going to get a headache.

"God has taught me to call no man unclean or common."

Essentially.

I'll address post #52 in toto later.

 

[BelindaP]

New sitewide rule. Don't give tonks a headache.

 

[desmalia]

The Nicene Creed is back, and it is a good day, and a good start. I'm going to enjoy it.

May the Lord God Jesus Christ be glorified, and may His truth be made known.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Creeds are devices to keep heretics out rather than draw people in. I believe that each of us, as an individual, have a responsibility before God, to determine what is true about God and also what is false.