New Statement of Purpose

[A New Dawn]

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

Everyone is protected from harassment, it is part of the forum rules. But we need to be clear what harassment is. This forum is for discussion of unorthodox theology, so just discussing unorthodox theology is not harassment. If you feel there is a situation going on that is harassing in nature, come to the Member Services Center and we will look into it.

Snide comments are a little harder to moderate, if we start moderating snide comments then we get accused of overmoderating and taking away free speech, and if we undermoderate them we are accused of being biased. We want the forum to be a place for polite discussion, but due to the passion that we hold our faith/religion dear to us, it usually ends up a lot less polite and a lot more aggressive. If someone comes into the thread and does not contribute anything but snide comments, it can be seen as disruptive and will be moderated.

 

[MormonFriend]

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?

AND, thank you for your good efforts!

 

[Hillsage]

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

I can think of a few posters who would probably disagree with you. But thank you for the compliment...and thank you God that you have not called me. And I agree with MormonFriend, thanks to those who have taken on the job in spite of their faults.

 

[Norah63]

I vote for Hillsage as mod also.
. This has been the most informative thread on the forum in weeks!
It needs to be brought into the open how much freedom we really have.

 

[Hillsage]

I vote for Hillsage as mod also.

Again my humble thanks.

This has been the most informative thread on the forum in weeks!

On a lighter note, you simply must have missed all my posts on other threads in the last few weeks.

 

[Tigger45]

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

Actually I and many other (o)rthodox Christians have received warnings from mods concerning snide remarks. And the one time I got a warning the mod was right according to CF's rules that I agreed to when I signed up on this Forum site. I believe the mods will try to protect you from harassments to a good degree but what CF is not offering is a platform to "promote" unorthodox teachings according to the format of the Nicene Creed they have outlined.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

I did understand your point. My point was that there are multiple threads about Freemasonry. If there were no Masons here to defend their Fraternity then these threads would not exist nor would the discussion of the beliefs and practices of Freemasonry be undertaken.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from starting a thread concerning the BSA, but the reason there are no threads is that there are no BSA members here who are willing to defend the beliefs and practices of the BSA nor are there non-BSA folks here who have an interest in them.

As they say, it takes two to tango.

 

[Phantasman]

Everyone is protected from harassment, it is part of the forum rules. But we need to be clear what harassment is. This forum is for discussion of unorthodox theology, so just discussing unorthodox theology is not harassment. If you feel there is a situation going on that is harassing in nature, come to the Member Services Center and we will look into it.

Snide comments are a little harder to moderate, if we start moderating snide comments then we get accused of overmoderating and taking away free speech, and if we undermoderate them we are accused of being biased. We want the forum to be a place for polite discussion, but due to the passion that we hold our faith/religion dear to us, it usually ends up a lot less polite and a lot more aggressive. If someone comes into the thread and does not contribute anything but snide comments, it can be seen as disruptive and will be moderated.

As a former moderator for a political site, I can understand implementations to improve CFs rules of debate. It isn't the disagreements I have issues with, but the way of debate. It looks like CF is trying to define debate with it's users, which is good. While a debate is more of a civil discussion with two opposing sides presenting their evidence of what they believe and why, arguing and snide remarks shows simply "anti" which CF is trying to avoid.

Knowing and understanding the "rules of engagement" in the beginning, and following them, assures less work for moderation and maintaining a civil board. I'm all for it. Unorthodox Theology should be a place of understanding and information. Not a battlefield to reek havoc on those one disagrees with. It takes more patience to ask someone "why" rather to say they are wrong. We don't know the other person at the end of our debate, just their beliefs. And when we come about that we are attacking their personal beliefs, we stand in judgement of attacking them.

If someone doesn't want to "believe" the non Canonical scriptures I quote to back my belief, then I ask they just don't accept it. I don't force them on anyone. But I just want to make sure that my belief, my interpretation and love for God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, is not in violation of CFs SoF.

 

[Drudgeon]

I did understand your point. My point was that there are multiple threads about Freemasonry. If there were no Masons here to defend their Fraternity then these threads would not exist nor would the discussion of the beliefs and practices of Freemasonry be undertaken.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from starting a thread concerning the BSA, but the reason there are no threads is that there are no BSA members here who are willing to defend the beliefs and practices of the BSA nor are there non-BSA folks here who have an interest in them.

As they say, it takes two to tango.

So if Freemasonry is placed into the Unorthodox category because people either honestly or maliciously incorrectly believe it to be against the teachings of Christianity, why isn't every mainstream denomination also placed in here? One man's truth is another man's heresy, especially here.

 

[Albion]

So if Freemasonry is placed into the Unorthodox category because people either honestly or maliciously incorrectly believe it to be against the teachings of Christianity, why isn't every mainstream denomination also placed in here? One man's truth is another man's heresy, especially here.

I have to agree. Freemasonry is not a religion, doesn't claim to be a religion, doesn't engage in any worship, and includes members of many different Christian denominations. Several branches do require their members to be Christians, however.

Yet, in this Unorthodox Theology forum, we have listed a bunch of religious Isms...and then Masonry (for no apparent reason).

 

[Lovely Jar]

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

Freemasonry is not a religion. It's a fraternal organization.

 

[Lovely Jar]

I can understand the clarification about the purpose of UT forum.
What has always amazed me is the notion Christians must subscribe to a creed of faith that was manufactured by the same secular authority in Rome who in a different era when Christ was alive on the earth agreed to execute him at behest of the Sanhedrin.

It's kind of odd that.

 

[Rescued One]

I can understand the clarification about the purpose of UT forum.
What has always amazed me is the notion Christians must subscribe to a creed of faith that was manufactured by the same secular authority in Rome who in a different era when Christ was alive on the earth agreed to execute him at behest of the Sanhedrin.

It's kind of odd that.

I imagine Pontius Pilate was deceased, when the Trinity needed to be affirmed.

 

[A New Dawn]

I can understand the clarification about the purpose of UT forum.
What has always amazed me is the notion Christians must subscribe to a creed of faith that was manufactured by the same secular authority in Rome who in a different era when Christ was alive on the earth agreed to execute him at behest of the Sanhedrin.

It's kind of odd that.

The Nicene Creed wasn't manufactured by some secular authority, it is a statement of faith that was adopted by an ecumenical counsel (those are church authorities). It is a statement of faith that is fully supported by the Bible, and used or agreed on, by most of mainstream Christianity today.

 

[Lovely Jar]

The Nicene Creed wasn't manufactured by some secular authority, it is a statement of faith that was adopted by an ecumenical counsel (those are church authorities). It is a statement of faith that is fully supported by the Bible, and used or agreed on, by most of mainstream Christianity today.

That's the usual affirmation. However, the first ecumenical council (there were a total of 7) was convened by Constantine in 325 A.D. in Nicea. And as we know Constantine was the sole ruler of the Roman empire at the time. He presided over the process after calling Bishops to Nicea so that the differences in the creeds as to what comprised Christianity could be settled and ultimately the baptismal creeds of Palestine and Syria were blended to become the first Nicene creed.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down and became incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose on the third day, And ascended into heaven, And is coming with glory to judge living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit.
But those who say, There was when the Son of God was not, and before he was begotten he was not, and that he came into being from things that are not, or that he is of a different hypostastis or substance, or that he is mutable or alterable--the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Following this was the 2nd council convened and to be known as the council of Constantinople (381)​

 

[A New Dawn]

That's the usual affirmation. However, the first ecumenical council (there were a total of 7) was convened by Constantine in 325 A.D. in Nicea. And as we know Constantine was the sole ruler of the Roman empire at the time. He presided over the process after calling Bishops to Nicea so that the differences in the creeds as to what comprised Christianity could be settled and ultimately the baptismal creeds of Palestine and Syria were blended to become the first Nicene creed.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down and became incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose on the third day, And ascended into heaven, And is coming with glory to judge living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit.
But those who say, There was when the Son of God was not, and before he was begotten he was not, and that he came into being from things that are not, or that he is of a different hypostastis or substance, or that he is mutable or alterable--the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Following this was the 2nd council convened and to be known as the council of Constantinople (381)​

Just because the council was convened by Constantine doesn't mean that a secular authority created it. That just isn't even logical.

 

[Phantasman]

One problem is that UT, at this time, is 90% Mormon oriented. And though the Mormon faith challenges todays Orthodox beliefs, they still have a close relationship with Biblical perspective. So we have those who feel that there are fallacies and others who feel the Bible is infallible. To me, it's interesting to see the argument on both sides. To others, it's more like a football game where they choose sides.

I would like UT to have more scriptural body of ones beliefs, rather than the bashing OF the beliefs. But when a belief brings in an outside source of the Bible, it is immediately attacked, many times with uneducated comments.

UT would seem to me to be also for those Christians who are non Canonical. Many problems arise when Orthodox Christians feel that they are the ONLY Christians. We just have different views of how to "live like Christ".

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Actually I and many other (o)rthodox Christians have received warnings from mods concerning snide remarks. And the one time I got a warning the mod was right according to CF's rules that I agreed to when I signed up on this Forum site. I believe the mods will try to protect you from harassments to a good degree but what CF is not offering is a platform to "promote" unorthodox teachings according to the format of the Nicene Creed they have outlined.

Been looking in on the thread and this just stuck out to me. I casually look in from time to time in the UT forum because I learn some things even if I don't post. I had always assumed by the very nature of having an 'UT' forum that "a platform to promote unorthodox teachings according to the format of the Nicene Creed (CF) has outlined" was a given just by wandering in UT in the first place. Not saying that things that are unorthodox to mainstream Christianity should be given carte blanche as acceptable, but I think those that hold these beliefs should be given a place to discuss the without fear of being told they're wrong at every turn.

 

[Der Alte]

That's the usual affirmation. However, the first ecumenical council (there were a total of 7) was convened by Constantine in 325 A.D. in Nicea. And as we know Constantine was the sole ruler of the Roman empire at the time. He presided over the process after calling Bishops to Nicea so that the differences in the creeds as to what comprised Christianity could be settled and ultimately the baptismal creeds of Palestine and Syria were blended to become the first Nicene creed.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down and became incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose on the third day, And ascended into heaven, And is coming with glory to judge living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit.
But those who say, There was when the Son of God was not, and before he was begotten he was not, and that he came into being from things that are not, or that he is of a different hypostastis or substance, or that he is mutable or alterable--the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Following this was the 2nd council convened and to be known as the council of Constantinople (381)​

You might want to check your facts. Constantine did not preside over the Nicaean council. Constantine conducted the opening ceremonies thereafter his bishop spoke for him. Some misguided folks want to accuse Constantine of forcing the Trinity on the church. First Constantine favored the Arians, if anything he would have forced that view on the council. Second, why would 318 bishops, all of whom had survived severe persecution simply for being Christians, why would they allow anyone to force anything on the church they did not think was scriptural? The three bishops who refused to sign the accords were stripped of their positions and exiled.

 

[Soulgazer]

The Nicene Creed wasn't manufactured by some secular authority, it is a statement of faith that was adopted by an ecumenical counsel (those are church authorities). It is a statement of faith that is fully supported by the Bible, and used or agreed on, by most of mainstream Christianity today.

LOL Look, do a little study. The doctrine of the trinity was inserted into the text AFTER it became church dogma.

Just ONE example: and you can look it up yourself in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' 'and teaching', or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the later form being the more frequent".
Since you already stated that you don't care what Unorthodox Christians have to say, if you want to research further, sped your own money.
Oh yeah, you can remove my critical post all you want. You are entitled to your superstition. You just aren't entitled to history. Later, if my post is gone, I will still have told the truth, and you will still have suppressed it.