[OPEN] WWMC Posters Imput Needed!

[stumpjumper]

^I see no problem with that... It's obviously not my call but I agree with that at least...

 

[stumpjumper]

Stumpy made a request here: http://www.christianforums.com/t3871238-[open]-threads-as-the-default-for-wwmc-and-a-member-list-for-debating.html#post27737039

Please support, dis-support, or make a voodoo doll out of me

 

[eRev]

The 'problem' is not from the non-nicene or non-Xptn crowd. It is from some who claim to have the corner on truth.


back to the Yankee game .....

 

[Toney]

The 'problem' is not from the non-nicene or non-Xptn crowd. It is from some who claim to have the corner on truth.


back to the Yankee game .....

The Yankee game is much more important, I agree. Especially with our having (realistically) to win tonight in Detroit.

Stump,

thanks for your work on this!

 

[scraparcs]

Are we any nearer to conclusions yet, by the way?

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

Guys, I'm still not posting, but as it was issues like this that made me leave CF and temporarily lose my Christian faith (I've since regained it), I thought you should have my input. I'm not really offering answers though.

I am a firm believer in free speech - all forms of free speech, even speech I hate, like fascist speech and porn. Limiting speech is almost never a good idea, and so I am leery of seeing CF do so.

At the same time, CF has never really been a free speech zone to begin with. Denominational forums certainly do not admit diverse points of view, nor is that really CF's intention. For that matter, even among our non-religous, atheist, Buddhist, and liberal members, there is not really a lot of diversity of viewpoints. Whether we leave CF open to 'diverse viewpoints' or close it down to such viewpoints is almost immaterial, in the sense that we really are not too diverse a group to start with. For instance, there are millions of threads like the following "Why are fundies so intolerant", which basically repeat the same thing over and over and over, in fifty five diverse voices that all sound the same (my own has occasionally been included among them). Any attempt to actually understand groups not like us (say fundies) is excluded. Instead we preen around about how we are superior because we have two LGBT friends and drive environmentally efficent European cars. The idea that fundies and evangelicals might hate us, because, oh, our ancestors have been sterotyping them for the last two hundred years, never has entered anyone's minds (even though it is historically true).

I'm not saying this to criticize anyone here, but just to point out that diversity was never the goal of WWMC. its never the goal of any organization. Individual members, like tatted, seebs, and crazyliz, do support diversity, but our congregational forum has never believed in diversity and never will. So why pretend that we do?

From a pragmatic standpoint, it would just make a lot more sense to close down debate on certain issues. We can talk about free speech rights as much as we want, but LGBT christians have lost faith and gone into serious depression from visiting this forum. There is absolutely no reason why we should be debating homosexuality here. That is what Lib Theo is for. Indeed, according to the speech code of CF, we aren't supposed to be debating such issues. I don't like that the site has a speech code, but I'm also not too sure I like the idea of making WWMC the shooting gallery for gay and lesbian Christians.

Then there is the fact that we can't really discuss universalism, despite the fact that most of us support that doctrine, and many of us see it as the defining position of our theology - or even our lives. Perhaps CF has changed this since we left, but lets face it, the site rules really are not in favor of discussion of universalism or any other liberal doctrines. Even if Erwin (God bless him) had been more theologically liberal, it is difficult to see how he could have allowed us to have the right to have non-Nicean Christians, but not extend that right to other groups on CF. CF, to be inclusive, had to lean towards conservatism. So I guess, in the end, I am ambivalent here.

I think the issue of abortion is a bit of a red herring. I am pro-life and I've never been harassed on this forum for my beliefs. Nor does abortion come up too much on WWMC. Only the homoerotic seems a topic of fervent debate.

Seebs said something about having a rule where if you wish to debate here, you must affirm that you consider yourself a liberal Christian. I think this is the only sane policy possible at this point. The definition of liberal Christian should be inclusive enough to include emergents, post moderns, and liberal evangelicals. It should also probably include those who are liberal politcally, but not religously, though I know that def would get us into a lot of trouble. Just have no illussions. This is a speech code. We are deciding that some things are acceptable and some things aren't. And speech codes are by definition inherently dangerous. But we need to stop kidding ourselves that we ever really believed in diversity in the first place.

Just my two cents. I'll go back into exile now

 

[eRev]

I am a dreamer and yet, at times a realist. One thing formal education taught me, institutions in crisis are most acceptable to change. I think I have already sold out. Time to excuse myself.

Excuse me.

 

[D'Ann]

The general tone among all of this is that no one wants to exclude posters from posting here. I agree that it is one of the best parts of WWMC.

I am personally in favor of having a little more boundaries drawn around WWMC, because it is a rarely seen safe place for liberal ideas and discussion. Most Christian websites don't have a WWMC. I've been on websites where I have been subject to major flaming and judgment because of my views. While it made me stronger in the end, it is perhaps why I value having a safe harbor of ideas.

There are plenty of other places on CF where all outlooks can get together and discuss or debate- GT, CM&E, etc. If that's what I wanted when I came to CF, I would stay there and enjoy it. But I enjoy talking to others who see things similarly to myself, and who I can ask honest questions of to help deepen my faith, which is more liberal (although I am really more of an emergent mvmt kind of girl).

Nobody, in any of the discussions, is in favor of excluding people from posting fellowship, honest questions, and discussions. What the intent of this is to decide who can come in a seriously challenge and debate. IMHO, it's creating a false debate in and of itself by suggesting we are limiting who can post here. We're not- we're talking about who can debate here.

This is not an open forum- it is, for better or worse, a congregational forum. The congregational forums were created as safe places for like-minded people to discuss and fellowship.

Thanks for your input everyone. It's something that we really are trying to be fair about. It is a hard forum to moderate. We want this to be a welcoming place for everyone, but we also want it to be a home base for those who are more liberally minded.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[D'Ann]

Asking that people who don't consider themselves liberal, and/or who are unwilling to treat liberals and their ideas with gentleness and respect, don't aggressively debate in a place designated a safe haven, is not the same as kicking people out. Nor is it refusing to dialogue with them, as there are a number of non-Congregational fora specifically for the purpose of discussing these issues. Please don't turn my point of view into a strawman so you can easily burn it.

To be blunt - and I hope this is not insulting to anyone, because I don't intend it to be derogatory - if I wanted to be constantly defending the validity of a more liberal/progressive/post-modern point of view, I'd have stayed in my former congregational forum. I'd hoped this forum would be a place to discuss and elaborate upon issues, ideas and people's experiences, but it's turned into just a place where we have to constantly defend the very validity of even discussing those issues, ideas and experiences.

Frankly, I don't enjoy combat, seebs, and it'd be nice to get away from it every once in a while. If I'm the only one that feels that way, cool, please disregard. But I hope I'm not. And I really don't find the idea of retiring for respites with similar worldview'd folks to be an unbiblical idea. Even Jesus took breaks from preaching to spend time in quiet discussion and prayer with the disciples.

Thank you Teshi. I could not of explained it any better.

 

[Toney]

I am a dreamer and yet, at times a realist. One thing formal education taught me, institutions in crisis are most acceptable to change. I think I have already sold out. Time to excuse myself.

Excuse me.

Rev,

Sorry, I am slow on the uptake at times. What does this post mean, please?

 

[eRev]

IMO CF is an institution in crisis - poised for change. I thought I might make an impact from within (the dreamer) however, as I see more and more I don't think it will happen (the realist). I have been staunch in my stand for inclusivity, yet my position has modified (sell out) in an attempt to pacify others who would see even more rigidity in definition. I am not attempting to justify my selling out, just offering an explanation.

 

[praying]

I like it! The only one I would reword is this:



I'd say something more like, "A willingness to reject or re-interpret Biblical literalism...yadda yadda". I wouldn't say that the rejection itself is necessarily a defining feature, so much as the mindset that would allow someone to question it. Or that would be good-- "a willingness to question yadda yadda"

I agree, I don't like the word rejection. I just don't find it necessary for my faith to hinge on Biblical literalism or inerrancy. I actually find those doctrines a deterrent to my faith. I think:

"A willingness to be open to alternate Biblical interpetations without the need for inerrancy and/or literalism as a cornerstone in one's beliefs'."

 

[Im_A]

I agree, I don't like the word rejection. I just don't find it necessary for my faith to hinge on Biblical literalism or inerrancy. I actually find those doctrines a deterrent to my faith. I think:

"A willingness to be open to alternate Biblical interpetations without the need for inerrancy and/or literalism as a cornerstone in one's beliefs'."

but don't you wonder if, one is open to alternate different interpretational methods they reject literalism?

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

I agree, I don't like the word rejection. I just don't find it necessary for my faith to hinge on Biblical literalism or inerrancy. I actually find those doctrines a deterrent to my faith. I think:

"A willingness to be open to alternate Biblical interpetations without the need for inerrancy and/or literalism as a cornerstone in one's beliefs'."

I have to disagree with you here mhatten (probably the first time I've ever done so!). I think there are some literalists even who would feel more at home in WWMC than in another forum. My definition would be closer to "A willingness to converse respectfully with those who do not see literalism and inerrancy as cornerstones of their faith." The respectfully, though, would be a tricky part. I still think Seebs plan of a simple liberal affirmation is less likely to get us in to trouble.

God bless guys.

 

[praying]

I have to disagree with you here mhatten (probably the first time I've ever done so!). I think there are some literalists even who would feel more at home in WWMC than in another forum. My definition would be closer to "A willingness to converse respectfully with those who do not see literalism and inerrancy as cornerstones of their faith." The respectfully, though, would be a tricky part. I still think Seebs plan of a simple liberal affirmation is less likely to get us in to trouble.

God bless guys.

I think you misunderstood my intention. It was not prevent those who follow the doctrines of literalism and inerrancy from partaking in discussions, I just felt that was a better way of stating that we do not have to be tied to those doctrines and include those who do not outright reject them either.

 

[Mling]

I like the rewording because, believing something because it was beaten into you as a child, and believing something because you took the time to question it, examine it and decide for yourself if it holds water, are two different things. I think what matters more, for the purpose of this conversation, is that the person was willing to question the idea, not the conclusion they eventually came to.

 

[praying]

but don't you wonder if, one is open to alternate different interpretational methods they reject literalism?

Being open to other views in no way means you accept them.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

I like the rewording because, believing something because it was beaten into you as a child, and believing something because you took the time to question it, examine it and decide for yourself if it holds water, are two different things. I think what matters more, for the purpose of this conversation, is that the person was willing to question the idea, not the conclusion they eventually came to.

Right on. I've been questioning things since I was in 2nd Grade Sunday School! lol

 

[Joykins]

bump