Staff and Member discussion thread.

[Tishri1]

If everyone agreed with a post there would be no discussion except, perhaps, finding as many synonyms as possible that signify agreement. What's the point - long threads with lots of all over the place? In any case it is Biblical to disagree (read 1 Corinthians 11:19)

This area isn't a debate area though, we have GT for that

 

[anisavta]

I think that's doable

Thoughts everyone?

Isn't discussion along the lines of - choose subject -
The moon is blue.
Really? Where I live it's orange.
Huh. I've never seen an orange moon. Is it always orange?
Yes. But what does a blue moon look like?

Whereas debate would be:
The moon is blue.
I disagree. The moon is orange.
Prove to me the moon is orange.
Prove to me the moon is blue.

 

[Tishri1]

Many folks are being accused of being two house or one law or many other labels by others who have no right to place such labels on them, many are saying THIS forum is two house or one law or Rabbinc, and this group or this
Place does not have to defend against such attacks on its character so sorry but no name calling or labling allowed

I like your debate rules, but for labels....

Gentile means not Jewish or non-Jew. From experience on other forums, it becomes necessary to define Gentile. Or Goy or goyim. There tends to be confusion in these areas.

Two House (aka Ephraimite) is a theology which Messianic Judaism strongly opposes. It is also a topic discussed within Messianic Judaism. Two House proponents call themselves Two House, Ephraimites, Restoration of Israel. When referencing the beliefs of Two House theology, what are we to call it, if mentioning Two House is considered of labels of name calling?

The same issue with One Law theology. One Law theology is a theology opposed by Messianic Judaism.

The issue here is these are theologies which do not mix with Messianic Judaism. Messianic Judaism has taken strong stands against these two theologies. So, to mix theologies opposed by Messianic Judaism, within Messianic Judaism, would cause issues. It would be something like not allowing Baptists to oppose paedo-baptism (infant baptism) or call the doctrine paedo-baptism or infant baptism labeling or name calling.

 

[Tishri1]

RELATED QUESTIONS:

Hello, I have heard Goy and Goyim used as a put downs. I have also heard it used nicely as meaning non-Jewish. How can we insure that they are only used properly and not as put-downs? Would using "non-Jewish" be best to use instead?

Shalom

Sacerdote

Send me the post David I will let you know if it was used as a flame

 

[Tishri1]

I think this is a bit too restrictive.

Non Jew - nothing wrong with this - textural context would make or break it in a post
Two house - One law - both are heresy according to MJism - as such being able to identify them is crucial in "preserving the faith" - However, using them as epithets is not

Kosher diet - Observance of Torah - both of these are integral to the practice of MJism for most, but not all, Messianics. To remove them would be akin to telling one of the other faith fora they could not discuss Baptism or Communion.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

Do you want folks coming in here telling you because you are gentile you are two house or one law?, or do you want your threads on kosher diet debated?

 

[Tishri1]

That's where non Jew comes in, many of our members have been labled non Jews simply because they are believers now

I'll have to disagree. The main Messianic Judaism organizations have written position papers against these theologies. To ignore the position of Messianic Judaism is to try to alter what Messianic Judaism stands for, but the position of Messianic Judaism stands.

In religions, theologies have names as abbreviations and in the religious world, using the theological terminology is acceptable. The work done in this area by knowledgable studied theologians is for the benefit of all. To study, learn the theological system and the name of the theology is not negatively 'labeling', it is education in the religious sciences.

Messianic Judaism also opposes Replacement theology, and Dual Covenant theology. If a person proposes Replacement theology, and tries to claim it as a belief of Messianic Judaism, they would be wrong as that is a theology consistantly renounced in Messianic Judaism.

Another belief Messianic Judaism consistently teaches against is the belief that a Jewish person ceases to be Jewish when they accept Yeshua.

If we all agreed that a Jewish person ceases to be Jewish when they accept Yeshua, and say that is Messianic Judaism, we would be wrong, as Messianic Judaism organizations would renounce that belief. Just because we would agree, does not make it a doctrine of Messianic Judaism. (And I do agree with Messianic Judaism that a Jewish person who believes on Jesus, is Jewish).

 

[Henaynei]

Do you want folks coming in here telling you because you are gentile you are two house or one law?, or do you want your threads on kosher diet debated?

Maaan, that depends on "debate." Discussion with strongly held opinions can dialogue back and forth without bloodletting.

The way I read it MarkR's post it looked like those things would not be allowed to be discussed

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

 

[Tishri1]

Well not up for debate. Mjs are for the most part kosher, or at
Least the majority is, should that be debatable if its a common practise

 

[Avodat]

This area isn't a debate area though, we have GT for that

I understand that under your regime there is now to be a law against debate on any MJ fora. However, as you are making it illegal, we need 'debate' defined, as opposed to discussion, or it will be impossible to avoid the word police.

You see I do not understand what is going on here, but maybe I've not been here long enough to understand such going's on. But I thought that MJism has it's own fora, being classed as Unorthodox Theology to give it its own safe area (think I saw that somewhere in the SoP) because, presumably, to bring it under GT was to hang MJ's out to dry. Now that is being reversed and you want MJ's who wish to debate their own particular beliefs to go air them on GT and be slaughtered (according to what some say on here).

So is MJism no longer to be classed as Unorthodox Theology (whatever that might mean - but that would need to be debated, which we cannot do!)?

 

[Avodat]

Who is the mystery poster on threads 952 and 953?

 

[anisavta]

I understand that under your regime there is now to be a law against debate on any MJ fora. However, as you are making it illegal, we need 'debate' defined, as opposed to discussion, or it will be impossible to avoid the word police.

You see I do not understand what is going on here, but maybe I've not been here long enough to understand such going's on. But I thought that MJism has it's own fora, being classed as Unorthodox Theology to give it its own safe area (think I saw that somewhere in the SoP) because, presumably, to bring it under GT was to hang MJ's out to dry. Now that is being reversed and you want MJ's who wish to debate their own particular beliefs to go air them on GT and be slaughtered (according to what some say on here).

So is MJism no longer to be classed as Unorthodox Theology (whatever that might mean - but that would need to be debated, which we cannot do!).

Regime?
Law against debate?
Isn't that a little dramatic?
Are you not tracking with the posts?

 

[aniello]

Who is the mystery poster on threads 952 and 953?

Perhaps Lulav?

Loved your word "regime" in your previous post. I was thinking of cartel/cabal, just a passing whimsy of course.

Not many of us blood Jews left. Reminds me of Ignatius of Antioch on to Chrysostum and beyond. This is becoming very Xtian, it seems.

Power issues? Position in peril? Quisas, quisas, quisas.

 

[Avodat]

Perhaps Lulav?

Loved your word "regime" in your previous post. I was thinking of cartel/cabal, just a passing whimsy of course.

Not many of us blood Jews left. Reminds me of Ignatius of Antioch on to Chrysostum and beyond. This is becoming very Xtian, it seems.

Power issues? Position in peril? Quisas, quisas, quisas.

I cannot understand why Tishri is asking for ideas about tags for Debate or Discussion, and the need to mark threads accordingly, when she states quite emphatically (and has on more than one occasion) that debate is to be made illegal! The whole world has gone mad it seems to me.

 

[GuardianShua]

I cannot understand why Tishri is asking for ideas about tags for Debate or Discussion, and the need to mark threads accordingly, when she states quite emphatically (and has on more than one occasion) that debate is to be made illegal! The whole world has gone mad it seems to me.

Some people here, like myself, are willing to allow discussion or debate on their threads. Providing the persons will stay on topic. I am also willing to talk to members of all the different congregations here at CF. Providing the persons will stay on topic. Other members are annoyed by Christians posting in their threads. Because I'm the odd ball here, that sometimes includes me.

 

[Chaplain David]

Send me the post David I will let you know if it was used as a flame

These I remember from the past and there are no current ones I am aware of but they stick in my mind and I've never liked being called that so, I brought it up. But if one comes up in the near future I will show you.
Shalom.

 

[Chaplain David]

I cannot understand why Tishri is asking for ideas about tags for Debate or Discussion, and the need to mark threads accordingly, when she states quite emphatically (and has on more than one occasion) that debate is to be made illegal! The whole world has gone mad it seems to me.

We are working out the fine points and it has not been decided. She is expressing her wishes and also trying to accomodate yours (global). Give her some slack Brother Avodat, she's not some kid off the street but a forum Advisor. This is a work in progress. Thank you.

Shalom

 

[ContraMundum]

Maybe I did can you repost?

Golly....I think this thread is a bit too gargantuan for me to go back and figure it all out again and repost. All I know is that I said that what I posted was just personal experience, I didn't really understand why you thought it applied to people here, as it kind of didn't.

 

[Chaplain David]

Golly....I think this thread is a bit too gargantuan for me to go back and figure it all out again and repost. All I know is that I said that what I posted was just personal experience, I didn't really understand why you thought it applied to people here, as it kind of didn't.

I really liked it but I don't know where it is either. Now you know how staff feels when we have to do a thread cleanup on a 500 post thread lol. Shalom.

 

[ContraMundum]

I really liked it but I don't know where it is either. Now you know how staff feels when we have to do a thread cleanup on a 500 post thread lol. Shalom.

Once upon a time I was staff too, so I do understand.

After sifting through this thread just now...I really think we might be close to over-cooking the egg here. Still, kudos to you folks for making progress!

 

[Chaplain David]

Once upon a time I was staff too, so I do understand.

After sifting through this thread just now...I really think we might be close to over-cooking the egg here. Still, kudos to you folks for making progress!

On staff, no kidding. Were we on together before?

The process is long but it gets refined. Yeah, it's tedious but besides our ideas we try to get as much input as possible. Members ideas are important and it takes a while to get them out and start forumulating, refining, and completing. The end product will be good. Shalom.