New Statement of Purpose

[A New Dawn]

A new statement of purpose for Unorthodox Theology has been posted and stuck to the top of the forum. Here is the text of the statement.

UTD Statement of Purpose

Welcome to Unorthodox Theology. UT is a forum for all discussion of unorthodox theology and fellowship. This is a Christian only area, however both orthodox and unorthodox Christians are welcome to post here. This is a statement that identifies the purpose of this forum and delineates how the rules will be applied here.

UT area is not intended to be a "safe haven" for members who hold unorthodox beliefs. Unorthodox beliefs are those that are contrary to the Nicene Creed, which CF has adopted as the Statement of Faith for the forum. Since these beliefs are outside of the SoF they are not protected in the same way that orthodox beliefs are.

Threads started in fora outside of UT that discuss Unorthdox doctrines or groups (as CF defines Unorthodox) will be relocated here. This way UT members will have an opportunity to address topics that are related to their set of beliefs.



On Calling People Not Christian In This Section

We know we have differences of belief in this area. This is not an area for promotion of Unorthodox Beliefs. But it is also not a place to take shots at those who hold them. It is a place for outreach and discussion on points of Unorthodox and Speculative theology.

Those holding Unorthodox beliefs can not tell Nicene Christians they are not Christians. Nicene Christians can say Unorthodox beliefs are not normal Christian beliefs if they do so in a post that shows why Unorthodox beliefs are at odds with normative Christian Theology.

Nicene Christians can not just run into a thread say you are not Christian and expect the protection of the area. This is a place to illustrate why we hold the theology in error and Unorthodox. It is to be done in love and charity and yes ... sometimes directly and forcefully. But not as free shots at our fellow CF members.

Some of those who hold Unorthodox beliefs may consider this a double standard. Yes, it is. Christian Forums holds your beliefs to be Unorthodox and in error. You have the protection of civility and charity and fair moderation of complaints. You do not have the expectation that we hold your beliefs to be true.

If a Nicene Christian flames you we will action it and fairly moderate it. But telling you you are wrong and explaining why in the context of an explanatory post in a civil, even if forthright way, is not a flame.


What we look for in discussion or debate

The debate in these forums are expected to conform to site rules whether the poster holds unorthodox views or not.

When you Disagree:

• Members who participate here are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY when you disagree with each other.
• When you disagree, address the context of the post and not the poster.
• When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.
• When you disagree and you find yourself becoming frustrated and angry, step away from the computer and give yourself time to cool down.
• Always proofread your post before hitting the "Reply" button to make sure you have responded with courtesy and respect.

The term "anti-____" as used in this forum has come to have the connotation of one who is against or hates a particular faith group as people, CF staff have decided that it is not an appropriate term for use in this forum. Therefore, if any member refers to another member as "anti-_____", "an anti", "hater", "_____ hater", or any related terms with the same meaning, such comments will be regarded as flaming and will be dealt with as such.
​

If you have any questions, you may ask them here.

 

[Phantasman]

Am I to assume the SoF is based on the 381 version of the Nicene Creed stating "we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church"?

And how are "scriptures" in the Creed identified by CF, since it doesn't say Bible?

 

[Tigger45]

Here are the scriptural references (bible) for the Nicene Creed used as CF's SoF.
CF supports the following as a statement of faith:


The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)v
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

**May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.


Discussions about Nicene and Trinitarian beliefs may take place in the Christian-Only forums, all discussions regarding non-Nicene and non-Trinitarian topics will take place in Unorthodox Theology. Those topics include (but are not limited to)
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Trinitarianism
● Annihilationism
● Masonry
● discussions related to unorthodox Christian religions

 

[A New Dawn]

Here is the Statement of Faith for CF with the version of the creed that we use. http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_sof_creed

The version of the creed we use has been adapted for use on CF. We use it to base the decision of what can be discussed where. It isn't to be used to accuse people of not being a Christian.

 

[Soulgazer]

Here is the Statement of Faith for CF with the version of the creed that we use. http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_sof_creed

The version of the creed we use has been adapted for use on CF. We use it to base the decision of what can be discussed where. It isn't to be used to accuse people of not being a Christian.

So it's not the REAL Nicene creed?

 

[A New Dawn]

It is the real creed that has been adapted for CF's purposes.

 

[Soulgazer]

It is the real creed that has been adapted for CF's purposes.

Adapted means "changed". Are you sure that's the word you want to use?

 

[A New Dawn]

No, it is the same creed. It has been interpreted for use on a discussion board.

 

[Soulgazer]

No, it is the same creed. It has been interpreted for use on a discussion board.

Then what part has been "interpretted"? You are making me feel like a dentist.

 

[Hillsage]

Adapted means "changed". Are you sure that's the word you want to use?

If we want to play baseball, and all we brought was a ball/bat/mit, then those who have the ballpark have a bigger say...I say.

Personally, I'm thankful to have what we have here. My last 'forum' experience with "Christians" was very restrictive. And try as I might, to fellowship, my views landed me as an unorthodox heretic, and being kicked out after a few years. I truly don't think it was because of their 'trumped up charge' against me either. I truly believe they didn't think anyone who disagreed with them could possibly defend viewpoints contrary to 'their forums' resident experts. I may be wrong, but that's how it looked to me. If I'm thinking more highly of myself than I ought God forgive...along with all you "Christians" who read this.

I've also gone to 'Universalism' website forums where everyone agrees, but, to me, that's no different than the failure of Christian denominational-ism. Personally, I enjoy the challenge of defending 'the faith' (IMO) with those who disagree. Hey, I MIGHT be wrong though none have proved that, as far as I'm concerned. And in all honesty, those running this website do 'disagree' with many of us. I can only respect the platform they still offer...even if it is according to their 'rules'...because the ballpark is theirs.

My 2 cents.

 

[Soulgazer]

If we want to play baseball, and all we brought was a ball/bat/mit, then those who have the ballpark have a bigger say...I say.

Personally, I'm thankful to have what we have here. My last 'forum' experience with "Christians" was very restrictive. And try as I might, to fellowship, my views landed me as an unorthodox heretic, and being kicked out after a few years. I truly don't think it was because of their 'trumped up charge' against me either. I truly believe they didn't think anyone who disagreed with them could possibly defend viewpoints contrary to 'their forums' resident experts. I may be wrong, but that's how it looked to me. If I'm thinking more highly of myself than I ought God forgive...along with all you "Christians" who read this.

I've also gone to 'Universalism' website forums where everyone agrees, but, to me, that's no different than the failure of Christian denominational-ism. Personally, I enjoy the challenge of defending 'the faith' (IMO) with those who disagree. Hey, I MIGHT be wrong though none have proved that, as far as I'm concerned. And in all honesty, those running this website do 'disagree' with many of us. I can only respect the platform they still offer...even if it is according to their 'rules'...because the ballpark is theirs.

My 2 cents.

Maybe. However, I was under the mistaken impression that it was a "Christian" forum, which to me means "all Christians". Instead, it's a veiled Nicene country club, whose members consider those Christians who are not Nicene groupies to be "in error", which is disengenuous at best and duplicitous at worst.

Look, I would never go on a catholic website and bash catholics. Nor do I bash orthodox on my own "unorthodox Christian" Forum. I welcomed a chance to post on this unorthodox site, because it read like a place for exchange of ideas and meet fellow Christians. You know why they want us here? Not to learn from us. They want us here so they can prove us wrong, puff themselves up and feel all superior. Sweet Jesus----this "lady" has made a career out of morman bashing, and now is chief cook and bottle washer? No thanks.

 

[A New Dawn]

Maybe. However, I was under the mistaken impression that it was a "Christian" forum, which to me means "all Christians". Instead, it's a veiled Nicene country club, whose members consider those Christians who are not Nicene groupies to be "in error", which is disengenuous at best and duplicitous at worst.

Look, I would never go on a catholic website and bash catholics. Nor do I bash orthodox on my own "unorthodox Christian" Forum. I welcomed a chance to post on this unorthodox site, because it read like a place for exchange of ideas and meet fellow Christians. You know why they want us here? Not to learn from us. They want us here so they can prove us wrong, puff themselves up and feel all superior. Sweet Jesus----this "lady" has made a career out of morman bashing, and now is chief cook and bottle washer? No thanks.

Soulgazer, this is the way it has always been. This forum has always (except for a very few months back in 2007) had the Nicene Creed as the Statement of Faith for the site. Unorthodox Theology has always been here for discussion of those things which contradicted the creed. Why are you insisting that this is a change? The Statement of Purpose was placed because there were ongoing problems as to what the purpose of the forum is and the treatment that was being given to some of the unorthodox members. The SoP is supposed to be an equalizing factor. No, unorthodox doctrine is not protected, but yes, unorthodox members are. And furthermore, hit and run types of posts are not allowed. Does that help?

 

[A New Dawn]

Admin Hat

This is a report-free thread (since it was started by staff) and we are willing to discuss the purpose of the SoP, the questions it might raise, etc., but we will not allow links to other discussion boards. All CF rules are in place.

 

[Drudgeon]

If Freemasonry is a religion, the Boy Scouts is a religion.

 

[fatboys]

Admin Hat

This is a report-free thread (since it was started by staff, and we are willing to discuss the purpose of the SoP, the questions it might raise, etc., but we will not allow links to other discussion boards. All CF rules are in place.

So what is the purpose for these changes? Is everyone protected from harassment and the snide remarks?

 

[bbbbbbb]

If Freemasonry is a religion, the Boy Scouts is a religion.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see anyone at CF start a thread about the BSA, whereas there have been multitudes of threads concerning Freemasonry.

 

[Hillsage]

Maybe. However, I was under the mistaken impression that it was a "Christian" forum, which to me means "all Christians".

I do understand what you're saying SG, but I don't know if there is a single 'agree upon' definition of 'Christian'...this side of glory IMO. And I suspect many surprises on the other side.

Instead, it's a veiled Nicene country club, whose members consider those Christians who are not Nicene groupies to be "in error", which is disengenuous at best and duplicitous at worst.

I'm not sure if it was as 'veiled' as it was 'just never looked for' in my case. After reading ND's first post I had to go look up the SoF. And after reading it I still am not sure if I've been a 'good boy' or a 'bad boy' according to 'the rules'. So, I'll just keep on until I'm told I guess.

I welcomed a chance to post on this unorthodox site, because it read like a place for exchange of ideas and meet fellow Christians.

And your posts have been a true blessing as far as I'm concerned. But not just because of their intellectual content, but because of your admirable attitude, so many times when you were 'under fire'.

You know why they want us here? Not to learn from us.

I knew that the day I signed up. But I know that it is only our job to get it into someones head, but it is still the Holy Spirit's job to get it into their hearts.

They want us here so they can prove us wrong,

How's that working for you? I'm good.

puff themselves up and feel all superior. Sweet Jesus----this "lady" has made a career out of morman bashing, and now is chief cook and bottle washer? No thanks.

Maybe the emphasis on "anti" in the SoF will be an attempt to clean up the 'attitude' equally as much as the 'letter' of that word anti. That would be 'the Spirit' of things IMO.

I can only say I have truly appreciated your presence and hope this all settles down. An old saying just came to mind; 'You never loose your peace over someone else's sin.' Not sure if it's correct, but good food for thought...I think.

God be with you SG. Gnite.

 

[Soulgazer]

I do understand what you're saying SG, but I don't know if there is a single 'agree upon' definition of 'Christian'...this side of glory IMO. And I suspect many surprises on the other side.

I'm not sure if it was as 'veiled' as it was 'just never looked for' in my case. After reading ND's first post I had to go look up the SoF. And after reading it I still am not sure if I've been a 'good boy' or a 'bad boy' according to 'the rules'. So, I'll just keep on until I'm told I guess.

And your posts have been a true blessing as far as I'm concerned. But not just because of their intellectual content, but because of your admirable attitude, so many times when you were 'under fire'.

I knew that the day I signed up. But I know that it is only our job to get it into someones head, but it is still the Holy Spirit's job to get it into their hearts.

How's that working for you? I'm good.

Maybe the emphasis on "anti" in the SoF will be an attempt to clean up the 'attitude' equally as much as the 'letter' of that word anti. That would be 'the Spirit' of things IMO.

I can only say I have truly appreciated your presence and hope this all settles down. An old saying just came to mind; 'You never loose your peace over someone else's sin.' Not sure if it's correct, but good food for thought...I think.

God be with you SG. Gnite.

Well there it is Hillsage. You should be a moderator, and I've told you so before.

 

[Drudgeon]

Perhaps, but I have yet to see anyone at CF start a thread about the BSA, whereas there have been multitudes of threads concerning Freemasonry.

Not exactly sure if you follow me, but I admit I wasn't clear. Freemasonry has none of the trappings of a religion and states outright that it isn't. To claim that it is a religion is to ignore and marginalize the millions of Christians in America and around the world who are members of the Fraternity, while giving voice to the small but loud fringe of hyper-evangelists. Not that that's not par for the course around here, but it's still incorrect.

 

[A New Dawn]

Admin Hat

I deleted a couple of posts that violated the rules. Let's keep to the topic and keep the flaming down if you wish to keep this thread open for discussion. Thanks.