New Statement of Purpose

[A New Dawn]

May we please have the explanation for including Freemasonry among the unorthodox theologies when it alone among the movements, etc. listed is not a religion, or one of the varieties of any world religion, and asserts no beliefs that are in opposition to any of the articles of the Nicene Creed?

Freemasonry requires belief in a supreme being that is not (necessarily) the God of Christianity. And Masonry is steeped with oaths, contrary to what Jesus taught.

 

[A New Dawn]

Tishra1 posted on May 17, 2010:

The UT sub-forums were inaccurately being seen as both safe havens for specific groups (which was never the intent when creating them), and as a place to focus on said groups and address them at point blank range (also not something we envision here for CF.) This in turn made the areas more like turfs to be protected at all costs, which is also not a fair burden to put upon any group in here. By unifying the area we hope to remove these unfortunate outcomes and not put any one unorthodox group under the microscope of debate alone, but allow discussion and debate to exist in a more general way from now on.

​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7467647/

Is it still true that that the Unorthodox Forum is not envisoned to be a place to focus on said groups and address them at point blank range, or has the vision or purpose of the forum changed with this new statement of purpose?

Is the purpose of this forum still for discussion and debate?

The new SoP took the old stickies and worked them into it so it was a more comprehensive statement. Here is the part "On Calling People Not Christian".

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.

As you can see, the same sentiment was included to make sure that all members have the same protection, personally.

It is for discussion and debate, it is not for promotion.

 

[A New Dawn]

So promotion of Catholicism is not allowed also? Otherwise it is unequal. Serious question. Every word that I write can be interpretted as promotion of my faith. How exactly does this work?

The only place Catholicism can be promoted is in One Bread-One Body (OBOB), the Catholic congregational.

 

[A New Dawn]

● Universalism
● Open Theism - unorthodox religious interpretation
● Full Preterism - unorthodox religious interpretation
● Trinitarianism- unorthodox religious interpretation
● Annihilationism- unorthodox religious interpretation
● Masonry - fraternal society. Which promotes zero theology, style of worship, or any other religious teaches orthodox or unorthodox.
● discussions related to unorthodox Christian religions - unorthodox religious interpretation

I suggest if Masonry is left in this section (which I hope it is not) that a explination saying that it does not claim to nor present itself as a religion and that furthermore no Grand Lodge in the world represents it as anything other than a fraternity. Additionally its members (to include a few on this site) are steadfast that is it not a religion nor presents itself as such.

I would like to suggest that the discussion of Masonry be moved to the society area under philosophy as that seems to be the best place for it on the site.

I will make your suggestion to the other administrators.

Freemasonry was confined here a few years back because people were debating it in the General Theology forum. Since it is not a General Theology topic, it was confined here. I do not see a problem moving it to the Philosophy forum.

 

[A New Dawn]

the bible 'defines' a 'Christian' differently than CF, so how can CF get away with denying the bible and yet claim to be Christian Forums ? :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

all who follow Jesus then repent and stop sinning as Jesus commands Love, no more sin against God, themselves , fellow man... Jesus followers are saints, not sinners any more ... Jesus did not sin and requires all who follow him to stop sinning and Love instead... this is the division he spoke of of 'sheep' from 'goats'. saints from sinners, as judgement is made on whether one still sins or follows Jesus way of Love...

so how is all this scripture just set asoide by the many who simply call themselves 'Christian' without doing the Love that Jesus commands and requires of all saints who follow him? ... few find the way [Matt 7:14], the many are destroyed in this earth -Matt 7:13

matters not as countless many are saved by the kingdom come in the new earth set up by Jesus with the few saints of this earth as its priests and rulers... all detailed by Jesus in scripture, but ignored by most who say they are 'Christians'... but how can they be if they neither follow Jesus nor listen to what he says will be ... is it enough to simply say one is 'Christian' and continue as a sinner? ... clearly Jesus says all will accept him one day, but not in THIS life, not in THIS earth... and it is a religion labelled Christianity which crucified saints and fed them to lions in Rome, which later inaugurated killing saints in the Inquisition.... so why not use the bible definition of a 'Christian' and forget about what men say which is partly lies and self deceit, noting that religion is DIVIDED and God is not... surely God will be seen to be correct and men mistaken about who follows Jesus, so why not listen to His words now ???

I'm not sure how this is related to the Statement of Purpose. Can you tell me how it is linked?

 

[A New Dawn]

Look I am a big boy and I wear big boy pants. You say that the rules are equal for everyone one. I say bologna. Time and time again there are posters here who elitist. So smug and arrogant that they say mean and hurtful things about the things I hold sacred. It makes no difference whether or not the questions they ask are meant to be answered, all they want to do is flame and promote hate. And now these changes just put the nail in the coffin and limit those of us who are unorthodox with less. It is like you don't want us here at all. So these rules only apply to those who believe in the Nicene Creeds. I just don't know if I want to be a part of this forum any more. There are some here I really care about but I don't know.

fatboys, this should lead to an improvement in the way discussions are held. What part of it makes you feel that it is just another nail in the coffin?

 

[Raimi Stranger]

I'm not sure how this is related to the Statement of Purpose. Can you tell me how it is linked?

the [unusual] definition CF used of 'unorthodox' necessitates the division of saints of Christ as unorthodox Christians , thus the bible definition would be more just by far ... the whole basis of the statement of purpose rests on this non-acceptance of God's definition of who is of Christ, who is not :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

you cannot make the saints, the only Christians, into 'unorthodox Christians' just by saying so ... God knows who sins, who does not sin any more in obedience to Christ as Lord [thus his command to Love , not obeyed by sinners, means he is not the Lord of sinners, but Satan is ...

the issue affects the whole site and should be debated to clear up the division of religion, Jesus promised all truth to all who follow him by means of God Himself teaching folks who repent, stop sinning, become saints... that is the very FIRST step, the foundation of following Jesus Christ... one cannot be a Christian without repenting and so giving up sins for good, turning to obey Jesus and love instead... but anyonme who sins after spirit baptism cannot be forgiven because they deny God's Truth from God, so only death remains to remove their sin and they will die still sinners like almost all men - Matt 7:13-14 ...

surely you see this is MAJOR fundamental Truth of God, the very foundation of God's salvation, and is not reflected in the site structure , but worst of all the actual saints following Christ are regarded as 'unorthodox' when they are the only few who now do follow Jesus in Love as he commands ...

the site then requires complete overhaul to not sidetrack the saints of God into a tiny corner with sects of sinners and the effect on UT is massive, I can hardly see what your problem is in seeing that...

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

the bible states that the many will be destroyed [Matt 7:13] because the whole world chooses Satan as their god [Rev 13:3-4 ] so that is teh afte of what the site calls 'orthodox' 'Chritsians' though to God they are just sinners refusing to obey Jesus and love with excuses offered for money by various sinner priesthoods of man-made religion created for the evil power of the few over the many.... which leads to destruction of this earth and the many with it , for sin in religion of men and by the government of men by Satan -Rev 13:3-4

 

[A New Dawn]

the [unusual] definition CF used of 'unorthodox' necessitates the division of saints of Christ as unorthodox Christians , thus the bible definition would be more just by far ... the whole basis of the statement of purpose rests on this non-acceptance of God's definition of who is of Christ, who is not :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

you cannot make the saints, the only Christians, into 'unorthodox Christians' just by saying so ... God knows who sins, who does not sin any more in obedience to Christ as Lord [thus his command to Love , not obeyed by sinners, means he is not the Lord of sinners, but Satan is ...

the issue affects the whole site and should be debated to clear up the division of religion, Jesus promised all truth to all who follow him by means of God Himself teaching folks who repent, stop sinning, become saints... that is the very FIRST step, the foundation of following Jesus Christ... one cannot be a Christian without repenting and so giving up sins for good, turning to obey Jesus and love instead... but anyonme who sins after spirit baptism cannot be forgiven because they deny God's Truth from God, so only death remains to remove their sin and they will die still sinners like almost all men - Matt 7:13-14 ...

surely you see this is MAJOR fundamental Truth of God, the very foundation of God's salvation, and is not reflected in the site structure , but worst of all the actual saints following Christ are regarded as 'unorthodox' when they are the only few who now do follow Jesus in Love as he commands ...

the site then requires complete overhaul to not sidetrack the saints of God into a tiny corner with sects of sinners and the effect on UT is massive, I can hardly see what your problem is in seeing that...

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

the bible states that the many will be destroyed [Matt 7:13] because the whole world chooses Satan as their god [Rev 13:3-4 ] so that is teh afte of what the site calls 'orthodox' 'Chritsians' though to God they are just sinners refusing to obey Jesus and love with excuses offered for money by various sinner priesthoods of man-made religion created for the evil power of the few over the many.... which leads to destruction of this earth and the many with it , for sin in religion of men and by the government of men by Satan -Rev 13:3-4

We are not defining who is a Christian and who isn't. That is a matter of the heart, between each individual and God. What we have made a decision on is where things will be discussed. This site is geared towards mainstream Christianity as defined by the Statement of Faith for the site. All are welcome, but discussion of those things which contradict the statement of faith must be discussed here.

 

[Norah63]

Do we need another thread to define the difference between promotion and discussion? Having seen that posted twice. Many threads that were not favorable for LDS, caused me to read much material from that perspective. Couldn't that be promotion? This is a sticky wicket in so many ways when unorthodox is looked upon as wrong instead of different.
I once told a person from England that they drove on the 'wrong' side of the road. He corrected me and said , no we drive on the 'other side' of the road.

 

[Lovely Jar]

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

The council of Nicea was presided over by Constantine. The Bishops convened under his invitation and authority. The Nicean council ultimately were responsible for what became the Bible and the church as we know it.

It was convened to find a common thread amid all the different belief systems that were extant at the time regarding the teachings of Christ. It may not be logical but that's how Constantine wanted it done.

Do you not know the Council history?

The Seven Ecumenical Councils

​

A Church Council is an official ad hoc gathering of representatives to settle Church business. Such Councils are called rarely and are not the same as the regular gatherings of church leaders (synods, etc). An ecumenical council is one at which the whole Church is represented. The three major branches of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) recognize seven ecumenical councils: Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), Nicea II (787). Further ecumenical councils were rendered impossible by the widening split between Eastern (Orthodox, Greek-speaking) and Western (Catholic, Latin-speaking) Churches, a split that was rendered official in 1054 and has not yet been healed.


In addition to these universally-acknowledged councils, the Catholic Church recognizes a further fourteen ecumenical councils: Constantinople IV (869-70), Lateran I (1123), Lateran II (1139), Lateran III (1179), Lateran IV (1215), Lyons I (1245), Lyons II (1274), Vienne (1311-12), Constance (1414-18), Florence (1438-45), Lateran V (1512-17), Trent (1545-63), Vatican I (1869-70), Vatican II (1965). But these were councils of only the Catholic Church, and are not recognized by the Orthodox or Protestant Churches.



The Council of Nicea, 325

In 324 Constantine became sole ruler of the Roman Empire, reuniting an empire that had been split among rival rulers since the retirement of Domitian in 305. Constantine, the first Christian emperor, reunified the empire but found the Church bitterly divided over the nature of Jesus Christ. He wanted to reunify the Church as he had reunified the Empire. The major dispute was over the teaching of Arius, but there were other doctrinal issues also.

• Arianism: teaching of Arius of Alexandria (d. 335), who believed that Jesus Christ was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by the Father to be the means of creation and redemption. Jesus was fully human, but not fully divine. He was elevated as a reward for his successful accomplishment of his mission. The Arian rallying cry was “There was a time when the Son was not.”
• Monarchianism: defended the unity (mono arche, “one source”)of God by denying that the Son and the Spirit were separate persons.
• Sabellianism: a form of monarchianism taught by Sabellias, that God revealed himself in three successive modes, as Father (creator), as Son (redeemer), as Spirit (sustainer). Hence there is only one person in the Godhead.

Continues

 

[A New Dawn]

Do we need another thread to define the difference between promotion and discussion? Having seen that posted twice. Many threads that were not favorable for LDS, caused me to read much material from that perspective. Couldn't that be promotion? This is a sticky wicket in so many ways when unorthodox is looked upon as wrong instead of different.

This forum is to discuss, and counter, unorthodox beliefs. We were clear in the Statement of Purpose that there is, indeed, a double standard in this regard. We welcome unorthodox believers (as well as non-Christians, atheists, etc.) but with the understanding that we believe their beliefs to be in error. There really is not a change in that matter. We have only defined what has been left unsaid, so as to be upfront about it. There has never been allowed promotion of unorthodox beliefs in this forum, but it was starting to appear that people thought that was what this forum was for. It is not. It is for discussion of unorthodox beliefs without promotion.

 

[A New Dawn]

Admin Hat

We are not here to discuss the origin of the Nicean Creed. If you have an issue with the Nicean Creed, you are free to go to the Member Services Center and discuss it with the Advisors and Administrators there. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Statement of Purpose for this forum.

 

[A New Dawn]

I will be off-line till this evening. You can continue to ask questions, I will get to them this evening when I return.

 

[Albion]

Freemasonry requires belief in a supreme being that is not (necessarily) the God of Christianity.

Thank you, A New Dawn.

So, it is a fraternity that includes members of different religions but is not a religion itself. We all belong to clubs or social organizations that fit that definition, none of which are defined as Unorthodox Theology if they come up in discussion here.

And Masonry is steeped with oaths, contrary to what Jesus taught.

Masonry is NOT "steeped with oaths," and I would challenge the idea that Jesus taught against oaths of this sort. In any case, I now have to ask please for an answer to this question:

Where in THE NICENE CREED (which elsewhere on this thread you have said is the standard by which these classifications have been made) are oaths--such as we take in court or when becoming a naturalized citizen or upon joining the Army--forbidden (or even mentioned)?"


Edit: I just saw the following comment from another post and FWIW it seems to me like a reasonable (and fair) solution.

I do not see a problem moving it to the Philosophy forum.

 

[Phantasman]

There is a thread active now that asks "Should non Trinitarians be considered as Christians". If someone merely posts "NO", isn't that the same thing as saying "Non Trinitarians are not Christains" in a post? This thread could have Mormon, JW or Gnostic, etc. instead of Trinitarians.

Is that against the SoF?

Has CF ever considered baby forums under UT that has the majority UT beliefs categorized for easier posting abilities for all involved? Right now it's just a hamburger forum. If someone asks "I want to learn about LDS or JW", it is filled with Orthodox headhunters combing anything non Orthodox to attempt to change their minds. This must look bad to the one who posts the question.

The first word in CF is Christian. I appreciate their openness to extend that definition to what is in the heart, not just the mind. The Nicene Creed is not used to define a Christian but a Christian belief. Most UTs are just a different Christian belief, so CF is holding true to it's name.

I don't subscribe to one Christian telling another Christian that they are in "error". I maintain that I just don't understand or see things the same way. I pray, and I seriously pray, that every time I enter this forum, that I will find the benefits of truth from God and if I post, I am posting something that promotes his truth.

 

[Raimi Stranger]

the emperor has no clothes...

Thank you, A New Dawn.

So, it is a fraternity that includes members of different religions but is not a religion itself. We all belong to clubs or social organizations that fit that definition, none of which are defined as Unorthodox Theology if they come up in discussion here.

You are mistaken my friend... and should be completely wary of telling folks what others do or believe...

Masonry is NOT "steeped with oaths," and I would challenge the idea that Jesus taught against oaths of this sort.

masonry requires a blood oath of loyalty to sinners, one cannot get much more against God than that

Matthew 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

In any case, I now have to ask please for an answer to this question:

Where in THE NICENE CREED (which elsewhere on this thread you have said is the standard by which these classifications have been made) are oaths--such as we take in court or when becoming a naturalized citizen or upon joining the Army--forbidden (or even mentioned)?"

Edit: I just saw the following comment from another post and FWIW it seems to me like a reasonable (and fair) solution.

swearing on the bible is forbidden in the bible... that is how little sense the courts of men are...

swearing your life to a sinner is even more insane than swearing it to Satan by commitment to sin when God commands Love... just brings one conflicyt within with one's own spirit of Love God is persistently persuading one to listen to... the way of living death known by all sinners, servants to Satan, which all saints reject in favour of Jesus' command to Love...

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

PS the Nicene creed ,nor any creed since the old covenant, is not of God , but Satan set up, as historically proven now, by a bunch of some of the worst rogues in history under the pagan Ronman emperor who destroyed the saints of God ... God simply requires Love, no more sin, and these powermonger sinners had no intention of Love for anyone...but did have a use for unified religion of sinners in their plans to rule mankind for their own coffers...

God defines a 'Christian' as a saint , no longer a sinner... no creed is reqired because God teaches all who are His few saints in spirit baptism, as promised by Jesus to all who obey him and Love as he commands, no more sin... the very first step, water baptism, dying to the old ways of sin...

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

 

[Raimi Stranger]

Admin Hat

We are not here to discuss the origin of the Nicean Creed. If you have an issue with the Nicean Creed, you are free to go to the Member Services Center and discuss it with the Advisors and Administrators there. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Statement of Purpose for this forum.

there is no open discussion forum for such issues in member services either...

 

[Albion]

masonry requires a blood oath of loyalty to sinners, one cannot get much more against God than that

There is no such oath in Masonry.

swearing on the bible is forbidden in the bible... that is how little sense the courts of men are...

But no church that allows oaths in court--which is almost all of them--is classified here on CF as Unorthodox because of it.

PS the Nicene creed ,nor any creed since the old covenant, is not of God , but Satan set up, as historically proven now, by a bunch of some of the worst rogues in history under the pagan Ronman emperor who destroyed the saints of God

Thank you for your concern, but here we're just interested in the correct application of the Mods' classification system.

 

[skylark1]

The new SoP took the old stickies and worked them into it so it was a more comprehensive statement. Here is the part "On Calling People Not Christian".


As you can see, the same sentiment was included to make sure that all members have the same protection, personally.

Thanks for the response, but my question was not about labeling others as non-Christians.

I will attempt to explain. Tishra1 wrote:

The UT sub-forums were inaccurately being seen as... a place to focus on said groups and address them at point blank range (also not something we envision here for CF.)​

Is focusing on and addressing these groups at point blank range still something that is not envisioned at CF?

The term point-blank range is of French origin. The center of a target was once a small white spot and the French for white is blanc. The term therefore means "aim at the white point in the center of the target". Point-blank range is the distance a marksman can reasonably expect to fire a specific weapon hitting a specific target without further adjustment of the fixed sights. A marksman should be able to hit the target every time at point-blank range, providing there are no deficiencies in the weapon, ammunition or marksman.

Point-blank range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

It is for discussion and debate, it is not for promotion.

Thank you. It was not clear to me by the new statement if the forums was for both discussion and debate, or only for debate.

 

[skylark1]

Promoting is seen, basically, as something someone requires for salvation. You cannot say your beliefs are necessary for salvation. You may believe it, you may try to show why you believe it, but you cannot say it. Nor can you use it to say someone who self-identifies as a Christian, isn't.

In the past, promotion was at CF defined as this:

Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.​

Has the definition now changed from that to saying that something is necessary for salvation?

If so, how can a theology be discussed in which a major part of their belief is that something specific is required for salvation?