[OPEN]Thread for Fish

[No Swansong]

Liberals and moderates do not need this subforum, we have STR

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Liberals and moderates do not need this subforum, we have STR

I respect that you feel that way personally, but I think there are people who could post here under the rules but are not comfortable doing so. Look at all the liberal Anglicans running around CF everywhere but here, for example, or the fact that liberals are so small a minority here even while being a majority of Episcopalians and so forth. There are people who could be here but aren't because of the atmosphere on this board. We had a liberal priest from the dicocese of New Westminster who last approximately days because he felt uncomfortable and out of place here.

I do sympathize with your desire to participate, john, but the non-nicene thing is just not allowed on congregational forums. Even on wwcm or whatever the liberal forum is called, I don't believe they allow non-nicenes to debate. There would have to be a fundamental shift in the way CF does things to change that.

I could be wrong, but everything I have seen up to now tells me that the nicene creed is the standard for posting in the Christians Only section of CF.

Change is always possible, and often a good thing. Just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The idea of liberal forums and sub-forums with conservative litmus tests is basically saying the "liberal" forums and sub-forums are only for liberals who are conservative enough to meet certain criteria. Besides, the idea of a litmus test is fundamentally anti-liberal.

 

[Iosias]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ha ha ha...I was tempted

 

[higgs2]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

You know what I meant, jtb.

 

[No Swansong]

You know what I meant, jtb.

Actually I offer my apologies for making a post that is off topic. Please accept my apologies all.

 

[scraparcs]

Change is always possible, and often a good thing. Just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The idea of liberal forums and sub-forums with conservative litmus tests is basically saying the "liberal" forums and sub-forums are only for liberals who are conservative enough to meet certain criteria. Besides, the idea of a litmus test is fundamentally anti-liberal.

Some changes will not happen on CF; this is one of them. Maybe you can try to inspire people to make more open threads in STR though.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Some changes will not happen on CF; this is one of them.

I am hopeful that the unique nature of Anglicanism at this time and progressive Anglican values will cause an exception to be considered for a single sub-forum.

Maybe you can try to inspire people to make more open threads in STR though.

Open threads are nice, but are not really full participation. Being able to start new threads is important.

 

[gtsecc]

This is like going to the Atheistforums.com and asking if they would have a sub forums for Christians.

 

[Fish and Bread]

This is like going to the Atheistforums.com and asking if they would have a sub forums for Christians.

It's not the same thing and you know it. Plenty of liberals, even of the non-Nicene variety, go to church every week, pray, and consider themselves Christians. There are a large number of Anglicans and even bishops who are liberal. Arguably, the Episcopal Church (US) and Anglican Church of Canada are majority liberal. A sub-form would would provide a home for us where we wouldn't be called atheists and be always on the defensive. I don't see why it bothers you. No one would be forcing you to post there.

 

[Timothy]

This is like going to the Atheistforums.com and asking if they would have a sub forums for Christians.

*cough ~e~ cough*

Timothy (Those who know will understand, those who don't, it doesn't matter )

 

[scraparcs]

I am hopeful that the unique nature of Anglicanism at this time and progressive Anglican values will cause an exception to be considered for a single sub-forum.



Open threads are nice, but are not really full participation. Being able to start new threads is important.

I doubt there is reason for being hopeful of this situation on CF. Maybe you can convince liberal Anglicans to hang out also in Liberal Theology? Don't know what else to tell you.

 

[scraparcs]

However, I do support your ability to recruit for fantasy football among Anglicans.

 

[gtsecc]

It's not the same thing and you know it. Plenty of liberals, even of the non-Nicene variety, go to church every week, pray, and consider themselves Christians. There are a large number of Anglicans and even bishops who are liberal. Arguably, the Episcopal Church (US) and Anglican Church of Canada are majority liberal. A sub-form would would provide a home for us where we wouldn't be called atheists and be always on the defensive. I don't see why it bothers you. No one would be forcing you to post there.

That is what creeds mean.
If you don't believe the creed, you are not Christian, by definition.
That has nothing to do with being liberal, nice, or intellectually dishonest.

Christianity is not a right, it is partially a set of beliefs, and you don't have a right to believe something different, and call yourself Christian.

 

[Iosias]

*cough ~e~ cough*

Timothy (Those who know will understand, those who don't, it doesn't matter )

Tell me you did...

 

[Fish and Bread]

That is what creeds mean.
If you don't believe the creed, you are not Christian, by definition.
That has nothing to do with being liberal, nice, or intellectually dishonest.

Christianity is not a right, it is partially a set of beliefs, and you don't have a right to believe something different, and call yourself Christian.

There have been Christians who differed from the Nicene Creed for as long as we have recorded Christian history. What was believed in the earliest times is arguable, but we know that within a century or two, there were disagreements over what would later be codified into a creed. Were there not many Gnostic and Gnostic gospels, before they were stamped out? Did not Arians at one point comprise 80% of the world's bishops? The creed came after these developments.

You don't get to define Christianity any more than the 80% of the world's Arian bishops got to define it way back when, or post-Reformation Roman Catholic councils (Attended by the majority of the world's bishops) get to define it today. And that's a good thing for many people on the board, because we all know that you don't think most Protestants are Christians either.

All disagreement can't be silenced by "Gtsecc has spoken, let all others be silent".

 

[Iosias]

There have been Christians who differed from the Nicene Creed for as long as we have recorded Christian history.

Such as?

 

[gtsecc]

There have been Christians who differed from the Nicene Creed for as long as we have recorded Christian history. What was believed in the earliest times is arguable, but we know that within a century or two, there were disagreements over what would later be codified into a creed. Were there not many Gnostic and Gnostic gospels, before they were stamped out? Did not Arians at one point comprise 80% of the world's bishops? The creed came after these developments.

You don't get to define Christianity any more than the 80% of the world's Arian bishops got to define it way back when, or post-Reformation Roman Catholic councils (Attended by the majority of the world's bishops) get to define it today. And that's a good thing for many people on the board, because we all know that you don't think most Protestants are Christians either.

All disagreement can't be silenced by "Gtsecc has spoken, let all others be silent".

It isn't me - it is the Church with one voice.
When the church speaks with one voice - it is God.
You can be intellectualyl dishonest if you want, but it is silly.
Look, I can't prove Christianity is the true faith.
No one can.
But, what we can prove is that out side the creed, you are outside of the faith.
That is true be definition.
Take any religion with a creed - out side of it, you are outside of that religion.
So, you might be right, but you are not Christian - that is what Creeds do - show the limits of the faith.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Such as?

Gnostics, Arians, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, some Baptists, some United Church of Christ members, some Anglicans. There are probably several other examples, those are just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head. The Arians were at one point even the clear majority viewpoint in the church as a whole. I'm not asking anyone to say "They're correct." when it comes to people who don't affirm the Nicene Creed, just that they're Christians, or at least acknowledge that they call themselves Christians and exist in the Episcopal Church as a largesque segment and thus should be allowed access to a progressive sub-forum. After all, there are bishops who don't affirm the Nicene Creed in our church today, even, not just on trinitarian grounds, but on other grounds as well and instead.

 

[Fish and Bread]

It isn't me - it is the Church with one voice.

The church is not speaking with one voice on the subject today, my friend. You know that as well as I. Historically, there was conformity for a while, beginning centuries after the time of Christ, but it was imposed conformity. Those who opposed the creed were eventually converted, excommunicated, or killed. The world's bishops had been 80% a century before Nicea. Not saying that makes the Arians right, just saying it is not factually accurate to say the whole church has always agreed on this. There was widespread disagreement in the early church, with what would become creedalists being the minority viewpoint, even at one point, and there is some level of disagreement now as well. I won't even get into the Gnostics and the way they were persecuted for their faith. None of this is said to criticize, just to say that there's more than one perspective on these issues.

When the church speaks with one voice - it is God.
You can be intellectualyl dishonest if you want, but it is silly.
Look, I can't prove Christianity is the true faith.
No one can.
But, what we can prove is that out side the creed, you are outside of the faith.
That is true be definition.
Take any religion with a creed - out side of it, you are outside of that religion.
So, you might be right, but you are not Christian - that is what Creeds do - show the limits of the faith.

This wasn't a creed written by Jesus, it's a creed drafted over the course of two councils 300s years later which was at one time widely disagreed with. One can't ex-post-facto say "We've always been at war with Eurasia" (novel reference) and that Christianity is impossible, by definition, outside of creedal beliefs that 80% of the world's bishops at one time disagreed with. It is impossible by your definition, but that's a subjective definition driven by your beliefs, not an objective definition which can be proven.

 

[No Swansong]

As hesitant as I am to do so I must point out to our visitors that an [OPEN] thread only allows for those who do not hold a Christian Icon to fellowship and ask questions, it does not allow debate. Let's please make this a discussion that everyone can participate in.