[open]WWMC posters...Give us some input

[tryingtobeagain]

I would have to say (and this is only for myself) that I accept and love all others under Christ. I came to this board looking for a place that I would be accepted and loved (not judged) as God wants us to do (love thy neighbour). This is what I have found so far, even when I differ in opinion from others. I feel this board comes together as children of God.

 

[David Brider]

I guess for me - and I realise that I'm a fairly new contributor to WWMC, so others may well disagree - I feel that WWMC is for all Christians, wherever they stand on the spectrum from apostate through to heretic through to tubthumping fundamentalist. And more importantly, WWMC is about realising that those categories are a lot closer together than many people might want to think. Not sure if that helps you at all?

And FWIW, I don't really think of WWMC as a place for debate. Friendly discussion, yes, but debate I think should be left for the debate parts of the forum. Most of the time I come here specifically to avoid debate...

Just IMO.

David.

 

[chaoschristian]

when us mods receive reports from people who don't want fundies or conservatives debating with them here, but then again want no definition, it's a double standard.

that's not necessarily an indication of a double standard and the negative connotation that would carries.

it's an indication of ambiguity.

it strikes me that CF's structure tends to try and rule away and define away ambiguity.

why this is so I do not know.

I say, live with the ambiguity.

if that's the case, WWMC should be done away with. obviously that isn't the case, because people here got this created and proved the case. so what's your point?

interesting. why do away with WWMC rather than redefine the rule?

my point is that CF's governing philosophy, as I see it acted out on a daily basis, is to allow division upon division upon division, flying in the face of the mission. WWMC is an opportunity to do something different.

it's not about safety. it's about being fair. there are multitudes of forums to engage in unhealthy, ungodly debate at. this isn't one of them. and there are multitude of forums to engage in healthy, godly debates about certain topics too. this place isn't one to debate between different sides, hence it is in the congregational forums.

What's debate? Something you know when you see it?

Again, I'd rather meet people face to face on the level and have the opportunity to engage

we will always be hopsitable and charitable. we use open tags and we allow about anyone to come in and talk. but the fact is, if the posters want this in the congregational area, it's time to stop being PC about it and actually get something formed up make it a congregational forum instead of some open forum inside the closed forums.

So WWMC is anamolous. So what? Why is there a compelling need to see it defined just like all the other congregational forums? And what, specifically, is PC about wanting to be able to openly welcome all people? I would describe that as Christian, not PC.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I have to say I agree with cc's point about living with ambiguity and that it's not "PC" to want to be able to welcome all people.

Having said that, I think any "definition" -- IF one is even needed (and I want to go on record stating that I'm simply contributing here; I am not one of those "clamoring" for a definition to be added) should stick simply in that realm: this is "Whosoever Will May Come" and therefore the only thing "prohibited" is that which would make any of the "whosoever wills" feel they are not welcome here. By default that includes any of those mentioned before with whom we would want and seek to be inclusive, and by definition that rules out rhetoric that would be exclusionary and make it seem someone may NOT come (to Christ or to this forum).

To put it in simpler terms, WWMC could be "defined" as a place that excludes exclusionism and will not tolerate intolerance. Debate can be defined as bringing the "my way is the only right Christian way to see things" attitude and/or using any form of spiritual, emotional, or social coercion to press one's point of view upon others; dialogue which brings a healthy open, exploratory, "I admit I don't know everything but this is how I see it" attitude can be seen as desirable here by contrast. I'm with David though -- what attracts me about WWMC is the freedom to share what I think without having some idiot try to pin me to the wall over it as if I'm on trial for having a viewpoint of my own. When someone disagrees with my POV on WWMC it doesn't bother me, it's just them sharing their POV. They aren't trying to force theirs on me or make me feel like mine is "wrong" because it isn't theirs. That's what I like about this place and that's what I want to see preserved, with or without definitions.

That's my input anyhoo. However I am a relative newcomer to WWMC and because of that, I don't mind in the least deferring to those who have been posting here a lot longer than me, because it's THEIR welcome I'm enjoying here and they should have their wishes respected first.

 

[Im_A]

that's not necessarily an indication of a double standard and the negative connotation that would carries.

it's an indication of ambiguity.

it strikes me that CF's structure tends to try and rule away and define away ambiguity.

why this is so I do not know.

I say, live with the ambiguity.

personally, i would rather do away with it. why? it's not fair to anyone in the forum. and it's more than abiguity.

to give us reports for us mods to deal with, and still stand on some kind of idea that we can't define this forum, is nothing but double standardness in a negative connotation, very negative. it is unfair to those who are getting reported on, because it's an invisible rule that they don't know about and then what's next?

it's beyond ambiguity at this point.

interesting. why do away with WWMC rather than redefine the rule?

my point is that CF's governing philosophy, as I see it acted out on a daily basis, is to allow division upon division upon division, flying in the face of the mission. WWMC is an opportunity to do something different.

i'm not up for redefining the rules why? this forum is privately owned and ran, and i, as well as you, and everyone else agreed to the terms, conditions and rules. thus they need to be in affect and all fairness must be administered in the congregational forums, instead of letting things slip by. we are allowed to post here, have a membership here for FREE, so to demand reformation or whatever is unfair in my opinion.

sure when things are blatantly bad, they need to be fixed. but it isn't bad for this forum to have it setup this way. just because it is privately owned, and we accepted a contract.

i'm not concerned with the whole of CF anyways...just WWMC. and i'd rather see it conform to the system to some degree, so us mods can more fairly, justly do our jobs, and so you guys can have more freedom to express yourself, without people coming in and debating all the time, and saying how wrong we all are. CF is full of that nonsense, and you can see it face to face all you want wherever you want to go, but others do want to see it all the time.

What's debate? Something you know when you see it?

Again, I'd rather meet people face to face on the level and have the opportunity to engage

what does this have to do with anything? you can do that already. we are talking about outlined definitions to secure the forum, just as all the other ones do.

debate is welcome here as long as it is within the congregational forum, and who is allowed to do that? and we know what debate is, i don't see how that is with this topic at all to question what it is.

So WWMC is anamolous. So what? Why is there a compelling need to see it defined just like all the other congregational forums? And what, specifically, is PC about wanting to be able to openly welcome all people? I would describe that as Christian, not PC.

because it is in a section here at CF that has definitions to define itself as a congregation community. it's shows a structure that cannot be stable if there is one little block that is unstable and can't fit in with the rest of the structure.

all the congregational forums welcome all, that will never change, but it seems rather ridiculous that here we are, no definition, nothing setup to make this a concrete congretional area, and we are resorted as mods to moderate on what kind of level? biasedness? invisible acceptance list of who the regulars are, while people blindly come in and not mean to violate the rules and then what do we have to do as mods? one can't honestly enforce the rules that the posters want us to inforce if there is nothing official in this to give warnings on that CF has accepted.

it seems nothing but PC nonsense to me, why we are afraid to make this the same way as every other congregational forum here at CF. too afraid to define our little part here at CF for, who knows what reason. i haven't seen any yet. and yet, still have the audacity to report threads of ousides coming in and debating?

i don't understand this.



i will not be online probably the rest of the day and night. i'm getting ready to go to the gymn and then i need to nap for work. so if you don't get a response till tomorrow, that's why. God Bless you bro.

 

[No Swansong]

I would like to say I appreciate all of the opinions stated here. As I see it there are two directions to go.

Either some definition is agreed upon, (obviously after discussion and compromise) or Conservatives have just as much opportunity to post and debate here as everyone else.

Even though I am as conservative a person as I know (both politically and Theologically) I very much want to see this forum protected for those who find a home here. I have built some bridges and some relationships with some of the semi-regular posters here and I have learned a lot simply by observing and helping out with the modding.
I will also state that with getting to know a couple of the individuals here and listening to them I have become a more knowledgeable and hopefully compassionate Christian. WWMC is a vital part of the Congregational Fora and I would hate to see it lose its efficacy. Is there some middle ground, some compromise?

 

[Abiel]

Dunno. For me it is about appreciating I might be wrong. It's about the uncertainties, the hard to grasps. It's not deabte that gets reported- it's rudeness in debate.

It's absolutely tragic we are going own this path. But if we need to thrash out a defintion that doesn't exclude people, we need a starting point. Any suggestions?

 

[Abiel]

See I can only think in negatives.

If you think the Bible is to be taken literally AND don't allow that others are Christians if they don't- then you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think that gay people can't be christians- you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think you belong to the 'true' denomination- you probably shouldn't debate here.

If you think Bishop Spong et al are minions of Satan- you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think the only real Bible is a KJV, you probably shouldn't debate here.

But I only say probably, because some liberals may hold one or other of these views.

 

[JulySheMustFly]

I would have to say (and this is only for myself) that I accept and love all others under Christ. I came to this board looking for a place that I would be accepted and loved (not judged) as God wants us to do (love thy neighbour). This is what I have found so far, even when I differ in opinion from others. I feel this board comes together as children of God.

This is what I was thinking too.

WWMC seems to be the place that expresses the most love and grace but how to word that into a definition is tricky since almost every other christian will claim they love as commanded.

I do think a definition is needed. Mostly because I do get nervous when I see posts from openly conservative members of CF. Why? Because in other forums around CF they've come down seriously harsh on me for things that are not essentials to following Christ. I enter hesitantly into discussion here with those who have been so aggressive elsewhere.

This is my safe place. I don't want to defend myself here.


Here is my attempt - I think being concise is important. Possible a link to Wiki defenition for each more liberal theologial positions within Christianity as well.

A multi-denominations home for the theologically liberal, post-modern, emergent, progressive members of Christ's body which find no other comfortable denominational home within CF.

WWMC welcomes all who knowingly and respectfully enter into conversation with those who have different views on living out the essentials of Christianity.

 

[Joykins]

We've been here before.

At the time, the following idea was popular and if a concrete solution is sought, I favor it:

Folks could sign up to a "membership list" of either being liberal/progressive/postmodern/emergent or agreeing to treat abovementioned groups with respect. Those folks would be allowed to debate in WWMC as long as those who disagreed kept their promise to be respectful.

I would add to it that LGBT members should not be harrassed here, as WWMC serves as a safe haven for these Christians.

 

[chaoschristian]

I think Abiel is on the right track here, if we have to go down this path, and I'm not willing to concede that yet as it's not something that's needs to be conceded at all.

But rather defining opinions that won't be tolerated, let's restrict ourselves to defining behaviour that won't be tolerated:

1. Don't be an ass. If you have to ask, then you've probably crossed the line.

2. Don't be proud. Despite the courage of your convictions, you really just might be completely and utterly wrong. Walk humbly before the Lord.

3. Don't expect to be understood if you're not willing to first understand. This forum is about connection; koinonia through Christ is prime. Either accept those who post here as brothers and sisters in Christ, or simply don't post about topics that evoke a strong response.

See I can only think in negatives.

If you think the Bible is to be taken literally AND don't allow that others are Christians if they don't- then you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think that gay people can't be christians- you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think you belong to the 'true' denomination- you probably shouldn't debate here.

If you think Bishop Spong et al are minions of Satan- you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think the only real Bible is a KJV, you probably shouldn't debate here.

But I only say probably, because some liberals may hold one or other of these views.

Of course, Abiel's list lends itself to a Jeff Foxworthy style reading . . .

 

[chaoschristian]

Tattedsaint and all the WWMC mods:

Why must we be like all the other Congregational forums?

If reporting is an issue, then I propose that WWMC members report posts only for tone rather than content.

 

[No Swansong]

Some of your brothers and sisters in Christ have an issue with debate from conservatives, (rightfully so in my opinion) regardless of the tone. Since I have been helping out here there have been a fair number of 1.4 (non-member) debate reports.

If it helps I do understand the reluctance to define membership.

 

[Abiel]

(side note: is being compared to Jeff Foxworthy a good thing? I know not of this fellow...ok I googled it- I feel a thread coming on...

 

[Joykins]

Jeff Foxworthy is famous for "if you...

- see all your ex-wives once a year at the family reunion
- can't tell if old yeller is a description of your dog or your remaining tooth
- etc...

"you might be a redneck" jokes

 

[Abiel]

So I see the point. You might be a liberal Christian if...

thing is, people are (here at least) more complicated than the label. Several of us ended up here because there was nowhere else to go

 

[Tenebrae]

There was a thread here a wee while back "how the liberals stole christmas" It was already edited by the time however I am guessing it was pretty vile

If a person wants to come here with the bent of "Liberals are the devil and its my job to bring em back into the fold" type mentality, then IMO they should be shown the door.

However if a fundie can come here with respectful discussion and dialogue with regulae posters then thats ok, people like Jtdad, redneckedanglican are stellar people able to disagree on ideas without it turning into a lets bash the liberal campaign. I also must acknowledge Brent has been able to be here and while I know he ardently disagrees with liberal christianity, he has conducted himself in a manner that is not disrespectful of other posters

Perhaps the definition could be in the intent, eg if people are comming with the former in mind, then dont bother, however if a person can be here without the need to belittle and be disrespectful of other regular posters then hey not a problem

 

[No Swansong]

There was a thread here a wee while back "how the liberals stole christmas" It was already edited by the time however I am guessing it was pretty vile

If a person wants to come here with the bent of "Liberals are the devil and its my job to bring em back into the fold" type mentality, then IMO they should be shown the door.

However if a fundie can come here with respectful discussion and dialogue with regulae posters then thats ok, people like Jtdad, redneckedanglican are stellar people able to disagree on ideas without it turning into a lets bash the liberal campaign. I also must acknowledge Brent has been able to be here and while I know he ardently disagrees with liberal christianity, he has conducted himself in a manner that is not disrespectful of other posters

Perhaps the definition could be in the intent, eg if people are comming with the former in mind, then dont bother, however if a person can be here without the need to belittle and be disrespectful of other regular posters then hey not a problem

I have to admit I do like the idea of basing definitions (if indeed the board goes that way) on behavior and not individuals. The problem then comes up however that intent often needs to be evaluated and while it is sometimes pretty easy to judge intent more often it is very ambiguous.

I really liked Abiel's idea and I appreciate the kind words of Wizeone. I also really enjoyed the concepts introduced by ChaosChristian. I think that no matter what is decided this is a good conversation to have.

 

[chaoschristian]

Some of your brothers and sisters in Christ have an issue with debate from conservatives, (rightfully so in my opinion) regardless of the tone. Since I have been helping out here there have been a fair number of 1.4 (non-member) debate reports.

If it helps I do understand the reluctance to define membership.

Yeah, I've been thinking about this on the ride down to Baltimore and back today.

I'll say that the thinking has put a softer edge on some of my views.

 

[Crazy Liz]

when us mods receive reports from people who don't want fundies or conservatives debating with them here, but then again want no definition, it's a double standard.

I think we all know it when we see it. It's not a double standard, just a standard that is hard to articulate because we are so diverse.

Also, most of us are not liberal on all issues, and we do not want to enforce conformity. There might be one or two members who would be exceptions to this general rule, but by and large, we do not want to enforce conformity.

Most of us think of fundamentalists as enforcing conformity on all issues, and we are opposed to that mindset.

Most of us have seen fundamentalists come in here telling us what we believe or do (the opposite of what they believe or do) just because we call ourselves liberals. We prefer to be ASKED. As soon as you see a strawman, you know you are in a debate. When someone's first post in this forum asks us all to defend our supposed agreement with +Spong on all issues, you know someone is spoiling for a debate.

I guess rather than defining who we are in any exclusive way, I'd like to see some better way to tell what is considered debating. Usually when someone begins to debate in their first few posts here, they are someone who thinks they disagree with dirty liberals on just about everything. Those who expect to agree with most WWMC members on some things but disagree on others should not be excluded.