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

[chaoschristian]

I think we fit into the congragational Forums because we are a congragation. We're just a congragaton of outside-the-box thinkers.

And how do we know if we are members of this board or not... that's a good point. I just started posting here after Flan shared a thread with me... now this is the first board I check daily... am I a member, or is there some kind of oath or application process I missed?

*gives tryingtobeagin the secret handshake*

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I think this is a good place to start. Though Being Woolley Minded I would use the phrase 'may include' and 'probably' even more frequently

I'd also like to work at wording those kinds of things (similar to what I did to Biblical "inerrancy") to reflect a positive, proactive approach to faith rather than a rejecting or abreactionary approach to others' mistakes.

Things like "biblical inerrancy" (which are flawed from premise through to conclusion, IMO) were formulated as ways of setting apart those who formulated them as being "more Christian than thou" in contrast to others. I'd like to effectively DITCH the attitude while sweepingly and proactively RECLAIMING the designation -- "more Christian" (so to speak) -- in a "show, don't tell" fashion such as I sought to illustrate by my tweakings on the "rejection of 'biblical inerrancy'" clause a few posts back. I want to beat them at their own game WITHOUT PLAYING, in other words. Rather than trying to "out-Christian" them with exponentially expanding extremes, I want the truths we hold to be self-evident in Christ to shine forth in all their self-evidentiary glory.
(This is what I strive to do in my own vocational work and writing anyhoo ...)

Words getting in the way here -- am I making sense?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

How about instead of "a rejection of" you use something like "just as accepted"

From what I have read most of you don't really want to keep those who believe these things (inerrancy etc.) out you just want other options as equally accepted.

Or have I read the incorrectly?

Speaking for myself as an individual, I reject the errors of verbatim/verbal inspiration and linguistic "inerrancy" because they are flawed from premise through to conclusion, being based on axioms that simply don't exist in the real world. The notion of "perfection" in language itself, for example, or the implication of using a human vessel while entirely bypassing the limitations of said vessel. It's just not the way inspiration works, IMO/IME.

As a definition for WWMC though, I'm fine with amending such things to read inclusively rather than exclusively -- saying something like "reject X as being the only valid way to approach scripture and include Y as a valid method for ascertaining the truth God has revealed in His word" or somesuch. Again the intent here is not so much to exclude a particular point of view as it is to circumvent a particular attitude about one's point of view.

 

[Abiel]

That's A Lot Of Big Words!

 

[Im_A]

Now that just plain sucks. The idea that staff would have to more strictly judge a reported post than one that was not reported that they just happened to read doesn't seem right to me. I don't recall the staff teams I was on operating in that way.

what standard then do you propose, if there is nothing to use to take care of the problems, but the problems still exist? how do you propose to deal with threads that are in the middle road, but are causing problems here at WWMC when there is no way of dealing with it to be fair to the people that are being reported about?

we aren't talking about flaming and other stuff that are obvious and have a black and white formal ruling with the rules here at CF. but we have had quite a few people wanting 1.4 inforced. and i will not inforce it because it is unfair to the people being reported on when there is nothing set with this membership in a congregational forum here at CF.

Can't we find a way to talk together about reporting posts and our attitudes toward it? I think what is clear is that there is a group of very diverse people here who want to be a Congregation. We have chosen to form a community here. Many, perhaps most, perhaps all of us understand community as something that is formed by its members, whether we are familiar with formal social contract theory, or whether we just realize it intuitively.

As a community, we have been asked to help you, the staff, solve a problem. Your problem is wanting to do your job diligently as staff members, according to a set of standards. You have come to us asking for our help. We are willing to help you. We have pointed out that the solution you are asking us to create causes us some new kinds of problems, so we have asked you to tell us exactly what the problem is you want our help solving.

working in a team, we discuss every report between us all till we have a common ground. this is why it takes so long sometimes to take care of a thread. i work 3rds, and i need sleep. our supervisor works right with us.

so we have 3-4 people to reach a common ground on. we have yet ran into an issue that we need other help from conciliators. even when we had difference of how we would handle it.

trust me, we will when that happens, why? becaue we are a team and we know you uys are part of our team to help us out.

and guess what, you are helping us now.

You have told us the problem. We have said we'd like to help you with that problem. We'd like to explore among our community ways we could help you solve your problem without creating additional unwanted problems for ourselves.


But we have reached an impasse because you can't let us explore other options.

well as of right now, it should be blatantly clear that we are exploring other options. because no definition is set up, and we want other's opinons on this. nothing is set. nothing is even in motion with this. the mod team here at WWMC and our supervisor has made our case to higher staff. we wanted their opinons. and now we are going to the posters which include, conciliators and i can gurantee you, the higher staff won't make a move on this until there is an agreement that can be seen with the regular posters.

the way i see it, we are going through a chain of command. it'd be pointless for me or any other mod to ask first the regular posters, or even conciliators because if higher staff doesn't agree with our side, what good would it to do to consort the posters and conciliators first?

why do you think i started this thread? as a warning to everyone? NO. we are team, community INCLUDING the posters who are not conciliators.

Can't you help us find a way to talk as a community and a Congregation about this?

i already have. i started this thread and linked it to the thread in our staff headquarters that staff look at it and can keep up with it. there's nothing more i can personally do.

Not exactly.

A contract sets up in advance the expectations of both sides. It can't be changed without MUTUAL agreement.

I'm not talking right now about what the remedies are for breach (breaking) of the contract. That is another subject. I am just saying that once a contract is formed, changing it takes the agreement of both sides.

If what we have at CF is an agreement that can be changed at will by one party without even consulting the other party, then what we have is not a contract, but some other kind of arrangement or relationship.

so have the rules been changed that you know of? i'm not asking examples here, just asking a yes or no question. and isn't it plausible to see it worth changing things as the need arises?

I am not arguing that we can. I am saying you were mistaken when you said the reason we must accept all of CF's rules is that we made a contract. It's not a contract, so your argument from contract principles fails.

what is so hard to accept the rules?

if it was a true propreitorship, why would us mods even care about what you guys think of this topic?

Perhaps it isn't a true proprietorship any more than it is a true contract.

i see it as a contract because we have to abide by them. we all know there are appeals, ways to try to fix bad things happening. i can't explain why the bad things happen here at CF. i'm kind of confused here with this part maybe as your confused why i see it as a contract.

Fine. But some of us do care. Are the rest of us only allowed to do things you care about?



That's not your main goal. Does that mean the rest of us can't even discuss the topic, and can't present you with our ideas?

first off, IF i was trying to say that you can't present me with your ideas, I WOULDN'T HAVE STARTED THIS THREAD

secondly, i never once hinted that people have to care only about what i care about. so what are your reasons for asking those questions?

[quotet]
My main concern is that you are constraining this discussion to only one possible solution, when some of us would like to see if there is a better one. But it appears we are boxed in.

the constraint could be seen only because there are only a handful of people responding. i can't help that, but since we are discussing, i'm going to give my side, just as you are doing

And if there is one thing you have gleaned from this thread, I hope it is that WWMC is largely populated by "outside the box" thinkers. It should not be surprising that a proposal that insists on putting us inside a box has met with some resistance.

I think what is clear is that there is a group of very diverse people here who want to be a Congregation because we've been excluded from other Congregations on CF. We don't all agree 100% with any of the definitions proposed. Baptists can belong to the Baptist forum if they belong to a Baptist church, even though they may question Baptist distinctives like adult baptism by immersion or support for separation of church and state.

outside of the box thinkers are fine. people may see me as one of them too.

but, in an ecumenical forum, i don't see how good it is to not be like other forums with definitions.

we all have our difference in the ecumenical forums, but simple regulations and rules is something that is just a way CF works.

I would like to make one proposal, at least. If WWMC is required to have a definition, it should include, in addition to any description of our characteristics, that anyone who has no other Congregation they fit at CF can belong to WWMC. Some of us belong to denominations that have a Congregation forum, and some of us are non-denominational, but several of us belong to churches that are excluded from all other CF Congregations. We do not want to exclude anybody who would otherwise have no Congregation on CF at all.

well i know i have mentioned before that it has to be broad. it's not a hidden fact that not everyone here is liberal. i have no desire to narrow it down to a specific group, such as liberal or whatever. if you want proof, then you would need to see the discussions and proposals i have made to staff about this to get their opinions. i don't know if you can see that thread or not. if you can, let me know, i'll link you via pm.

it was never my intention to exclude people, like you that has been alienated by your CF home forum. specifically with this case, because i've always assumed you were a regular here, and two, i would never want to do that with anyone period.

we can't narrow a specific definition down. we can't make it solely based on "liberal" becauase that's the not the case here. we can't narrow it down to moderate, because there are a handful of liberals here.

our main goal is not to exclude people from fellowship. i hope more fundies come in, more conservatives come in for fellowship. for debating topics, no. if they are going to come in and debate, that is against the rules of the Congregational Area.

without a definition, fairly and justly, there is no way to slap on warnings to push the fact that we are congregational forum at CF. all we can do is deal with issues that are set in stone with the rules and clearly outlined. we want to get this issue of 1.4 dealt with somehow, and if it doesn't happen, then at least we can finally put this issue aside because it seemed like it got no where before. the definitions talked about were too narrow and piegon holding.

again, if you want to see the link to the thread, just pm me and ask me. it's in the staff forums, and i don't know if concilators have access to that or not. i thought no reason to post it here because the discussion has been if it is good to define CF or not, and has gotten redundant (on my part as well.)

if anyone is willing to look at a fair shot at trying to define our forum with our wide diversity, then i'll copy and paste it here what i created to where the WWMC staff liked and we took it the staff. the topic is dead currently, just like it was before so now i'm taking it to all you guys. until then i won't copy and paste it, because i have to see a willingness to at least hear our side out more.

chaoschristian's response

bro i can't respond to it right now. i have to be at the gymn in 22 min. and this response took me long to reply to because i wanted to be sure to address each section the best i could. i apologize. i will respond either when i get back or later on tonight.

 

[chaoschristian]

bro i can't respond to it right now. i have to be at the gymn in 22 min. and this response took me long to reply to because i wanted to be sure to address each section the best i could. i apologize. i will respond either when i get back or later on tonight.

no need to apologize. you've already demonstrated your intent through your thorough response to CL, and the fact that I see other members of the team participating in this thread is also a reassurance.

 

[chaoschristian]

what is so hard to accept the rules?

This is a very good question, and one that should be examined across CF.

From my perspective, once I entered into the metadiscussion of 'Who is CF? What does it mean to be CF? and How are we CF together?' and simultaneously wrestle not just with the rules but the application of the rules, answering that question became increasingly complex.

I come from a background of adult and organizational learning and my own bias is to take a very high criticism of rules as I feel that rules are secondary to the expression of the (in this case) community that they serve.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

From my perspective, once I entered into the metadiscussion of 'Who is CF? What does it mean to be CF? and How are we CF together?' and simultaneously wrestle not just with the rules but the application of the rules, answering that question became increasingly complex.

I come from a background of adult and organizational learning and my own bias is to take a very high criticism of rules as I feel that rules are secondary to the expression of the (in this case) community that they serve.

I mega-ditto that.
I would also add what is now fast becoming my catch-phrase: that rules best serve the community when they focus on positively guiding HOW people ACT (treat one another) and avoid trying to control WHAT people THINK.