To unify or to further seperate?

[SumTinWong]

There is a suggestion in the the suggestions portion of the forum for there to be yet another seperate forum for certain groups to go and hang out without any hinderances from others. Basically there would be a Anglican, EO, Roman Catholic section and the rest of the denominations would have their own.

Better way of putting it.
Anglican/EOC/Roman Catholic Forum
Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical Forum

This is supposed to bring unity to us all, by yet again giving people more names to hide behind. What a joke. What this will do is draw perhaps those seperate groups together, and make the divide between the rest further apart. I think it is a rotten idea, and I am against it. What say you?

 

[ZiSunka]

Oh dear God! Has it really come to this?

 

[Gold Dragon]

There is a suggestion in the the suggestions portion of the forum for there to be yet another seperate forum for certain groups to go and hang out without any hinderances from others. Basically there would be a Anglican, EO, Roman Catholic section and the rest of the denominations would have their own.

Better way of putting it.
Anglican/EOC/Roman Catholic Forum
Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical Forum

This is supposed to bring unity to us all, by yet again giving people more names to hide behind. What a joke. What this will do is draw perhaps those seperate groups together, and make the divide between the rest further apart. I think it is a rotten idea, and I am against it. What say you?

This might be a good idea to replace the denominational forums but I don't see that happening. Another possibility would be to make the denominational forums as subforums of two larger forums.

I think there are way too many forums as it is already. Many forums don't get any action for weeks.

 

[ZiSunka]

Maybe it would be good if we had those two forums and got rid of all the little denominational forums! Everyone would have to find their place in two forums instead of the 13 forums we have now. There would have to be respectful dialogue and whoever couldn't do that would have to be disciplined more effectively. I've long thought that the lack of effective discipline is more the problem around here than anything else.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I've long thought that the lack of effective discipline is more the problem around here than anything else.

Sounds like a prelude to a spanking/no-spanking debate.

 

[SumTinWong]

Maybe it would be good if we had those two forums and got rid of all the little denominational forums!

The problem with that is that there would be many people clamoring, that the Baptists don't respect my beliefs, or the blankity blanks don't respect ours... I think that is why this whole denomination thing came up.

 

[ZiSunka]

When I first came to CF in 2002, there were NO denominational divisions at all. Everyone just practiced self-control and respect for one another. Everyone could post in every area. There was more fellowship and more learning and understanding, and less emphasis on differences and exclusion. It was fun and educational. Then the Catholics came along from the old King's Tavern catholic forum and said from the very first day they were being persecuted (within days of arriving, they had their own forum). Then the pagans had their own space, then the forums were divided up between protestants and catholics and there was fighting because every discussion had to end up with both sides yelling that the other one was persecuting them just because they didn't agree on everything.

Disagreements are NOT persecution. This is persecution: www.persecution.com.

I would LOVE to go back to the old way and just tell everyone to get along, to accept others who are different, to make room for other's beliefs on non-essential things and if you can't do that, leave until you grow up enough to do it!

Off my soap box now, thanks for listening.

 

[SumTinWong]

Hey I applaud that post, that was awesome!

 

[Crazy Liz]

When I came, there was P/R/E and IDD. Then all these denominational ghettoes were created. We can't talk to each other.

LL, I'm guessing that when you came there were far fewer members. I'm wondering if CF simply has too many members for meaningful discussion. As soon as a disagreement between one denomination and another comes up, other people join in, not to express their own thoughts and add questions to increase understanding, but just to make the same old, tired arguments without really listening to anybody else. Sometimes a note is posted in a denominational forum about a discussion in theology, in order to rally the troops.

I've belonged to forums and internet discussion groups before where people really wanted to understand each other's views, and it was very productive. I've tried to steer discussions in that direction before, but the overwhelming number of posts that simply throw in repetitive arguments without any attempt to listen has gotten me discouraged. In trying to think of what the difference might have been, all I can think of is size.

Well (thinking as I type) maybe there was one other difference. Instead of just having ghettoes for separate groups, forums were specifically started for specific kinds of interdenominational discussion. For example, my favorite was one for Orthodox and Evangelical discussion. There was another one for Catholic and Protestant discussion, etc. These discussions were extremely productive. In fact, when trolls came in and posted, the people of the troll's own persuasion told them to listen or get out. It was very effective.

So I wonder whether, now that CF has gotten so large, it might be reorganized so that there would be some "cross-stitching" forums created specifically for dialogue between various groups.

I don't know the answer. I just see that the way the forums are organized now often does not lead to productive discussion. There is too much pontificating and too little listening.

 

[SumTinWong]

Part of the problem is a dialog one. When we say church we mean Universal church. Where some mean the church they are attending or that they feel a certain apostle started, ro was given the keys to or whatever. Then there is the statement that we should be seeking to leading everyone to the Truth. Well what truth? The truth your church says is true or my church? Do we base the churches authority on longevity or on the foundation that it is indeed true?

I am tired of the nonsense arguments that just because a disciple of a disciple of a disciple of an apostle thought a certain way, that has to be the way it really was/is. We have documented proof in the Bible that from day one people were screwing up. What we dont have is proof that the factions that are claiming to be the "church" today resemble the churches we see in Acts. Can you imagine Peter, the fisher of men, wearing ten thousand dollar robes and drinking out of gold cups while people in the street in front of him were starving to death? Me neither.

If it was the truth then, it should be the truth now.

 

[Gold Dragon]

For example, my favorite was one for Orthodox and Evangelical discussion. There was another one for Catholic and Protestant discussion, etc. These discussions were extremely productive. In fact, when trolls came in and posted, the people of the troll's own persuasion told them to listen or get out. It was very effective.

That sounds like a good idea.

I agree that most people aren't really interested in listening to different opinions but simply spouting off the same old tired arguments.

 

[Dr. E W Bullinger]

Maybe it would be good if we had those two forums and got rid of all the little denominational forums! Everyone would have to find their place in two forums instead of the 13 forums we have now. There would have to be respectful dialogue and whoever couldn't do that would have to be disciplined more effectively. I've long thought that the lack of effective discipline is more the problem around here than anything else.

I disagree...can you really expect good discussions between Pentecostalists/Charismatics and cessationists? No...separate is best I think

 

[Crazy Liz]

I disagree...can you really expect good discussions between Pentecostalists/Charismatics and cessationists?

Sure I can, if each really wanted to understand the other's POV.

We all have a lot of assumptions based on what we were taught and have always heard from people who either didn't understand the other side or were unwilling to give them a fair hearing. It could do a lot of good for cessationists and pentecostals to talk to each other, just to try to understand how they reached such opposite conclusions.

 

[Dr. E W Bullinger]

Sure...if each really wanted to understand the other's POV.

Which is my point...IF...but a cessationist will know the charismatic case and vice versa...not much common ground there. I am not against it in principle but cannot see it working in practice

 

[ZiSunka]

I disagree...can you really expect good discussions between Pentecostalists/Charismatics and cessationists? No...separate is best I think

I think the labels and the dogged adherence to labels is one of the biggest parts of the problem. Be people first, Christians second and labels last of all and everyone would do much better around here.

 

[ZiSunka]

Which is my point...IF...but a cessationist will know the charismatic case and vice versa...not much common ground there. I am not against it in principle but cannot see it working in practice

How about this for common ground:
Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. Ephesians 4:32

 

[Dr. E W Bullinger]

I think the labels and the dogged adherence to labels is one of the biggest parts of the problem. Be people first, Christians second and labels last of all and everyone would do much better around here.

You may very well be correct...but can you actually see people doing that? I cannot and so see the idea...although good in principle...ending in disaster in practice.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You may very well be correct...but can you actually see people doing that? I cannot and so see the idea...although good in principle...ending in disaster in practice.

We really should scrap all attempts at world peace too.

The secular world seems to have a much better grasp of what is required for reconciliation than the followers of the Prince of Peace. Isn't that sad?

 

[ZiSunka]

You may very well be correct...but can you actually see people doing that? I cannot and so see the idea...although good in principle...ending in disaster in practice.

(LL shakes Dr. B gently to dislodge what he's gripping so tightly in his hands) "Let go of those labels Dr B! Come on, you'll feel a lot better after you put down those heavy weights. How do you even carry that stuff around all day? It must make you very tired and sore."

 

[Glorianna]

I came across that thread. This is a much harder issue than you would think, that's for sure!