What would option 3 look like

[Inan3]

It would help if you raed who the new covenant is with -Heb 8:8 - then you wouldn't keep repeating what you heard from sinners but what Paul says [also it is in Jer 31:31-34... so read it and understand the truth, not the propaganda of the churches]

stranger it is not wise to assume you know a person after reading only one or two posts by them. I have read Heb 8:8 many times and I understand that in THIS scripture it is referring to the House of Israel.

Let's take this a little further and I will guess that you realize that there are more than just "one" covenant spoken of in scripture.

The new covenant that I am referring to is the one that Jesus is the mediator or...the everlasting covenant which is in His Blood.


Hbr 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Hbr 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Hbr 12:24 And to JESUS THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW COVENANT, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.


1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.


Hbr 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the BLOOD OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT,

 

[Inan3]

For those that think non-Christians have never been where they are I'd like to introduce myself and some of my fellow deconverts. Yes many of us have been where you are. I personally didn't mind the exclusion of the CO forums, but I didn't post there much even as a believer. But I am not the only atheist or even deconvert here, and we are not all the same.

Those of us that like to debate and challenge believers about doctrine and apologetics topics, will and are still mostly hanging out in GA and the other formerly open forums. The only posts I have made since the forums open up to me in the formerly CO forums area were just discussion about this very topic.

I am sorry Lanakila but you have never been where I have been or you would not have left.

 

[Inan3]

Option 2 calls for reducing outreach... that is simply got nothing to do with the name of the site [the other thing in the poll] and is against the the great commiission commanded by Jesus which is the primary command from Jesus , part of love to all men .... the fact thst some people want outreeach stopped because of their xenophobia and insecurity of faith and lack of commitment to the great commission only leaves it suspicious whether reduction of outreach would in fact be complete to zero .... again the poll is flawed because it could mean some or all outreach lost, but most people made it clear in discussio that they want outreach improved, not curtailed or lost, and most people also want the name to stay, no matter that they aren't saints....

How can any outreach be lost in either option? It is not the outreach that is threatened here. Outreach can still continue regardless of what option comes into play.

What about this Erwin has spoken of a third option where there would be two sites....one for Christians and one for Non-christians and then all the Christians could go an "infiltrate" the Non-christian site and have all the outreach we want. I speak facetiously, of course.

The main issue here is that non-christians want to infiltrate the Christian site and tell us all that we are wrong. They in a sense want to "reach out" to us. For what other reason would a non-christian origianally WANT to join a site that was titled CHRISTIAN Forums. I know I have heard it said that they just wanted to unite Christians and Non-chrisitians but while it sounds so politically correct and noble but whether they believe that or not Biblical Christians know that that is not case.

By the way, stranger, didn't anyone ever teach you that it is not necessary to insult and accuse people to get your point across? It really makes what you say more credible and less likely to stir up strife...unless that is your intent.

 

[GenemZ]

God on the other hand, simply says that He has the power to CHANGE BELIEF and thus to change the will of folks.

Really? I'm willing to learn about that. Chapter and verses, please?

, an atheist thus can come to belief by act of God ... where then do those who sought to exclude that person from their midst because he asked questions of their faith which they could not or would not answer?

Funny... I know a lady who grew up in a religious environment. She asked too many questions and was excluded. Know what happened? She's now born again and loves God's Word.

I fail to see the point of your logic. You think God pushes a switch and makes us change our minds?

If that were the case? He failed to create man in his image. What you describe, is God creating a hand puppet. Am I reading you right?

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[Angel4Truth]

All these people screaming outreach ... funny in my 4 years here most of the ones screaming the loudest hasnt set foot in outreach or debate areas. If they did set foot there it wasnt for long because in most of my time here thats where ive been.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

God has a clever way of catching spiders too, in their own web of deceit called 'this world' ... that is why the righteous suffer with the wicked now, it is perfectio of love for the saints, but God's allowing the consequences of evil to be seen for the many sinners of this world ... Solomon's wisdom and prophecy :-

It is not clear to me how anyone could devise such a 'rule of thumb', but God has a use in all men, in the good and the evil... but it is all for good in the end ...

What on earth are you talking about, Stranger?

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Ah, I see.

While it may be acceptable among your peers to use terms like "wolf" or "spider" to describe groups of people, it is not acceptable in mine.

I must admit, however, that I do occassionally get into hot water for using the term "jackass".

In any event, the spiders I was referring to are internet spiders, bots used by most search engines to crawl websites.

 

[NewToLife]

All these people screaming outreach ... funny in my 4 years here most of the ones screaming the loudest hasnt set foot in outreach or debate areas. If they did set foot there it wasnt for long because in most of my time here thats where ive been.

Thats about accurate, there are a few who socialise with peopole attacking the Church of course but I'm not clear this is actually outreach. Patting atheists on the back for deconverting people doesnt make you a good Christian, it just illustrates a lack of awareness for what actually matters.

 

[NewToLife]

there is no option3.

the poll is very clear, why not follow it?

most christians left cf already. u have the poll. n now why option 3? the spirit of G-d can see u thru.

070707 is 911 of cf.

Having attempted to poison the water against option 2 by using negative language to phrase it ( in order to try and garner support that isnt there for option 1 no doubt ) and losing the vote anyway its not surprising that libs are now keen on another option instead.

 

[stranger]

stranger it is not wise to assume you know a person after reading only one or two posts by them. I have read Heb 8:8 many times and I understand that in THIS scripture it is referring to the House of Israel.

Then go a little further and read Rev 7:3-8 where the firstfruits sealed first as God's priests in the kingdom come are indeed all of tribal Israel... thus the covenants are one and the same new covenant with both Houses of ancient Israel

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Let's take this a little further and I will guess that you realize that there are more than just "one" covenant spoken of in scripture.

There are many covenants mentioned in scripture, in OT and NT ...

The new covenant that I am referring to is the one that Jesus is the mediator or...the everlasting covenant which is in His Blood.

Jesus is indeed 'the Deliverer' form out of Zion of Israel mentioned by Paul [above quote] and the covenant is ratified only because Jesus perfected his love to the [unjust] death he need not have suffered for himself .... if you look at the original then you will see that the covenant is age-lasting rather than 'everlasting' , but that is a small point excepot that after the age there is no actual use for it because it is fu7lfilled whe Israel are all saved [first , to be able to act as a holy nation of priests at the second resurrecton for the kingdom come ...

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Hbr 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Hbr 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Read Rev 7:3-8 ... the firstborn church are indeed the remnant saints of Israel, all belonging to one tribe or another ...all descendants of the sons of Jacob through whom came the promises by descent ...

Hbr 12:24 And to JESUS THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW COVENANT, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

'THE' new covenant ... implying there is but one rather clearly ?

1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Again ,the scripture details that Jesus went to Jerusalem to eat the Passover as his last meal with the disciples before his death as the sacrificial Passover Lamb of God ... Jesus then fulfilled the memorial Passover , made holy by decree of God, and so set it as a memorial to his death which brought in the new covenant with Israel... the point being that by fulfilling the old covenant and perfecting his love by dying unjustly for sake of all men, Jesus became the messiah of Israel [annointed king, 'christos' in Greek NT ... annointed by Mary before his daeth - Mark 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.]

The role of the messiah, the christ, is given in scripture as the re-uniting of the two yet-divided Houses of the nation of Israel under one king :-

Ezekiel 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

--this being the necessary first step in making Israel a holy nation of priests and kings who reign on the earth , but Jesus does not rule in THIS earth :-

Revelation 5:10 ...And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: ...

It is clear then that the kingdom is in the new earth , and the preists and kings of the whole nation of Israel saved first are redeemed solely to minister to the sinners of THIS earth resurrected at the second resurrection...

--thus the many are saved after the few [Rev 7:9-10] , in fact more than a thousand years afterward , perfecting their love in righteous life in the new earth, thus following Jesus in sinless loving living as saints in the kingdom of God... this then the broad way of the MANY to God through Jesus , that is differenet than the strait narrow way of saints by grace of the new covenant in this world :-

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Religion of men thus has the scriptures totally wrong, most men are saved after death by the ministry of Israel under jesus as their king , in the new earth ... after the second resurrection then, God baptises all flesh according to his promise to do so [Joel 2:28] and all men come to know all truth [John 16:13] ... [but we know most men diesd sinners and NOT believing in Jesus already, without knowing all truth... so we know God cannot hev baptised all emn now as the churches of men claim ... John 16:13 proves that because most men die ignorant of all truth of God!]

Thus there are no other new covenants, none are required... grace is required by Israel only , all other men are purged of sin by death :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Hbr 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the BLOOD OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT,

Again, the 'sheep' are mentioned repeatedly in the OT , it is again an allegory for Israel used consistently in all scripture ,e.g. :-

1 Kings 22:17 And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.

 

[stranger]

The 'magic' ingredient so often lacking on this site is LIFE itself , LOVE...

That is the RULE that Jesus gave us for LIFE ... how can there be a christian site that does not RUN on LOVE alone then ...

It could not work without love , and so it DOES not work without love...

THUS run the site by LOVE , not by arbitrary unloving [even Draconian and sometimes unjust] punishments , but by LOVE for ALL

That is not just my notion, it is Jesus' COMMANDMENT .... so that is why the site does not work, those in charge are not listening to Jesus' instruction

Now God gave us a lot of help here ,cos' He knows how unloving people can get, so he wrote down about love in scripture... so scripture is a pretty good set of guidelines about love for those who cannot see their own hearts of love...

So how does anyone try to run a christian site any other way ????

1 Corinthians 13 ... one can learn a lot from scripture about how to run a site ....!

 

[LilLamb219]

All these people screaming outreach ... funny in my 4 years here most of the ones screaming the loudest hasnt set foot in outreach or debate areas. If they did set foot there it wasnt for long because in most of my time here thats where ive been.

You don't have to set foot in those areas to actually reach out, you know. Spreading the truth shouldn't be a part time thing.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Good question.

One possible solution that has been proposed already is to run 2 sites, one that is open, another that is Christians-only, based on the same membership data.

It's entirely possible. The previous version of CF is very similar, with 2 sections, one open and one close. The aim of the new system was to establish something like that but with members agreeing to do it themselves, but it hasn't worked out over the past month.

The ultimate aim would be to keep the good things of the recent changes such as moderator transparency, and see if we can formalise the wiki usage a bit more in a way that is acceptable (the wiki collaborative process is still the best process to get consensus for rules and guidelines).

There is no question that CF has 2 large groups of membership together, and to be honest, that is fantastic, because not many sites on the Internet are able to bring these 2 groups of people together into a place for discussion.

It is possible that Option 1 and Option 2 can be combined together into a middle ground of Option 3 since this is what the poll is really showing us (and I had hoped that the current CF setup would have been the Option 3, since it has elements of both, but apparently not). So the question is, if that's the answer (and I'm not saying it is at this stage), what would Option 3 look like?

It's a question that's does not have an easy answer.

OK, here's the deal.
I say we combine the best of option #1 with the best of option #2.
get rid of the heavy handed heresy hunter regime. people are Christian if they believe Christ is God incarnate, Lord & Saviour, who gave His life for their sins. Period. anything more than that should be a matter available for debate or simply open conversation among those who will to discuss it. So no restrictions against theologies or notions deemed "heterodox". We must have faith in Truth to will out.

I like the new report system. I like being able to have easy info if I'm in trouble & don't agree w/ it. i like the chance to explain myself and to share backstory or history that might be pertinent to the mods making a decision on something. Keep going with that.

But I do think Christians need SOME of the joint to themselves, aight? Diffuses the tension of feeling like one has to be "on holiness stage"24/7 and ensures certain topics can be discussed without the additional nuisance of hecklers. And while there are plenty of decent non-Christians on here, there is also that occasional angry atheist or abreactionist whose task is simply to try to poke holes into everything and draw all attention onto themselves. Heck I've even seen quite a few Christians like that! But anyway. Yes, I vote keeping some sections Christian only and having others be open to all members, just as it has been.

And NO MORE FREAKING SECRECY. Good GRIEF. If someone is that unhappy with what you've written that they feel a need to REPORT rather than IGNORE, one should have the RIGHT to FACE ONE'S ACCUSERS and KNOW who did that, and confront them directly. And if moderators have the guts to make their decisions they should STICK BY THEM and be accountable TO others FOR them -- enough of this childish moratorium against discussing actions they have taken -- it's like keeping secrets in a dysfunctional family when you've been abused at that point. Either make "authority" transparent, subject to criticism, and accountable for its actions/decisions, or do away with it altogether. Period.

So in short and in sum -- scrap all the heavy handed shepherding stuff. Maintain some Xtian-only safe zones. Let individuals decide how to define themselves and their faith (or lack of it). And if you're worried about the name no longer reflecting the game, I suggest Christians And Friends Forums (dot. com)

peace out

 

[Debi1967]

The 'magic' ingredient so often lacking on this site is LIFE itself , LOVE...

That is the RULE that Jesus gave us for LIFE ... how can there be a christian site that does not RUN on LOVE alone then ...

It could not work without love , and so it DOES not work without love...

THUS run the site by LOVE , not by arbitrary unloving [even Draconian and sometimes unjust] punishments , but by LOVE for ALL

That is not just my notion, it is Jesus' COMMANDMENT .... so that is why the site does not work, those in charge are not listening to Jesus' instruction

Now God gave us a lot of help here ,cos' He knows how unloving people can get, so he wrote down about love in scripture... so scripture is a pretty good set of guidelines about love for those who cannot see their own hearts of love...

So how does anyone try to run a christian site any other way ????

1 Corinthians 13 ... one can learn a lot from scripture about how to run a site ....!

This needs to be taken into context along with this

2Co 6:14 Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: I will dwell in them and walk among them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore: Go out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:
2Co 6:18 And I will receive you. And will be a Father to you: and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

We are directly told that we are not equally yoked with the unbeliever, and that because of that we are to stay separate from them in many ways.

What is being asked of us here is to be equally yoked with the unbeliever. Not just to out reach to them.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I don't wish to provoke conflict, but I honestly don't believe that's what Stranger meant, Robin. I believe he was contrasting two different types of spirit (and informing philosophy behind them) concerning how issues are handled here in general. Of course he can answer for his own meaning better than I can as I'm not inside his head. But throwing up that whole "unequally yoked" thing in response to his post is, IMO, nothing but a red herring deflecting from the very real lack of love that had ruled this site for so long under the "draconian" regime previously. I know since my own return here to CF -- I could have been ostracized for a heretic or worse, being daimonizomai -- instead those who once "punished" me for every little slip or indiscretion have shown me such mercy, welcome, care and compassion that I am compelled to confess if what they display to me is indeed Christianity then it is superior BECAUSE of its Love. For a Christianity without Love is worse than the walking damned and undead and all the pestilence and toxin in the earth.

And trust me, even "Legion" can tell the difference. So can all the atheists, unbelievers, and occultists out there.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

This needs to be taken into context along with this

2Co 6:14 Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: I will dwell in them and walk among them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore: Go out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:
2Co 6:18 And I will receive you. And will be a Father to you: and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

We are directly told that we are not equally yoked with the unbeliever, and that because of that we are to stay separate from them in many ways.

What is being asked of us here is to be equally yoked with the unbeliever. Not just to out reach to them.

If you feel you are being asked to be "equally yoked" and you don't like it instead of crying about it leave. This is a open site (for now anyway) we have just as much right to be here as you. I'm sorry you do not feel the same.

 

[GenemZ]

OK, here's the deal.
I say we combine the best of option #1 with the best of option #2.
get rid of the heavy handed heresy hunter regime. people are Christian if they believe Christ is God incarnate, Lord & Saviour, who gave His life for their sins. Period. anything more than that should be a matter available for debate or simply open conversation among those who will to discuss it. So no restrictions against theologies or notions deemed "heterodox". We must have faith in Truth to will out.

I like the new report system. I like being able to have easy info if I'm in trouble & don't agree w/ it. i like the chance to explain myself and to share backstory or history that might be pertinent to the mods making a decision on something. Keep going with that.

But I do think Christians need SOME of the joint to themselves, aight? Diffuses the tension of feeling like one has to be "on holiness stage"24/7 and ensures certain topics can be discussed without the additional nuisance of hecklers. And while there are plenty of decent non-Christians on here, there is also that occasional angry atheist or abreactionist whose task is simply to try to poke holes into everything and draw all attention onto themselves. Heck I've even seen quite a few Christians like that! But anyway. Yes, I vote keeping some sections Christian only and having others be open to all members, just as it has been.

And NO MORE FREAKING SECRECY. Good GRIEF. If someone is that unhappy with what you've written that they feel a need to REPORT rather than IGNORE, one should have the RIGHT to FACE ONE'S ACCUSERS and KNOW who did that, and confront them directly. And if moderators have the guts to make their decisions they should STICK BY THEM and be accountable TO others FOR them -- enough of this childish moratorium against discussing actions they have taken -- it's like keeping secrets in a dysfunctional family when you've been abused at that point. Either make "authority" transparent, subject to criticism, and accountable for its actions/decisions, or do away with it altogether. Period.

So in short and in sum -- scrap all the heavy handed shepherding stuff. Maintain some Xtian-only safe zones. Let individuals decide how to define themselves and their faith (or lack of it). And if you're worried about the name no longer reflecting the game, I suggest Christians And Friends Forums (dot. com)

peace out

Very good! I know the 'loophole sniffers' will try to find inconsistencies with what you said. But, the end result as you presented it, is a very balanced goal. Bravo!

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[Debi1967]

I don't wish to provoke conflict, but I honestly don't believe that's what Stranger meant, Robin. I believe he was contrasting two different types of spirit (and informing philosophy behind them) concerning how issues are handled here in general. Of course he can answer for his own meaning better than I can as I'm not inside his head. But throwing up that whole "unequally yoked" thing in response to his post is, IMO, nothing but a red herring deflecting from the very real lack of love that had ruled this site for so long under the "draconian" regime previously. I know since my own return here to CF -- I could have been ostracized for a heretic or worse, being daimonizomai -- instead those who once "punished" me for every little slip or indiscretion have shown me such mercy, welcome, care and compassion that I am compelled to confess if what they display to me is indeed Christianity then it is superior BECAUSE of its Love. For a Christianity without Love is worse than the walking damned and undead and all the pestilence and toxin in the earth.

And trust me, even "Legion" can tell the difference. So can all the atheists, unbelievers, and occultists out there.

I do believe in using Love and Charity above anything else. However, I have not been on the receiving end of that Love and Charity since the change. In fact quite the opposite has happened to me, and it seems that things have become more Draconian than they were before.

Now because we do not have an active warning system in place, the first resort some of the mods and admins are going to is banning. That is to say instead of working with a problem individual they are just trying to get rid of them.

That to me is harsh in the extreme.

I have also been on the receiving end of being judged by staff not exactly by the rules but by their religious convictions instead and because they differ from mine then I am th one that is automatically wrong, I think that is Draconian.

Where is any of this showing the love that we are supposed to be even showing to one another?

I was simply trying to show the difference to the other poster that all things must be kept in context. Especially when in 1 and 2 Corinthians the apostle is talking to an existent congregation that have already accepted Christ as their Saviour. He is not talking to the unbeliever.

The mere fact that he had to counsel the congregation on being unequally yoked with unbelievers is something that we have to take into serious consideration. It has to be put into perspective with how we approach the unbeliever with Charity.

As it stands now this site is asking us to become equally yoked in many ways with the unbeliever and the question in reality is should we endorse that mentality when it is not Biblical?

 

[Debi1967]

If you feel you are being asked to be "equally yoked" and you don't like it instead of crying about it leave. This is a open site (for now anyway) we have just as much right to be here as you. I'm sorry you do not feel the same.

I wish then you would give me my right to also voice my concerns if this is an open site.... because then I am allowed my own opinion.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I do believe in using Love and Charity above anything else. However, I have not been on the receiving end of that Love and Charity since the change. In fact quite the opposite has happened to me, and it seems that things have become more Draconian than they were before.

Now because we do not have an active warning system in place, the first resort some of the mods and admins are going to is banning. That is to say instead of working with a problem individual they are just trying to get rid of them.

I can understand how that would be a concern. I worried about that myself. However my experience has been the opposite -- that they work hard with the individual not to give them the boot. I might hang out in different sections of the board from you, hence the different perspective, cuz a different group of mods? Anyway I am really sorry that you have not been on the receiving end of love and charity since the changes. I don't know your history or what prompts this remark, so I am aware you could be genuinely honestly suffering -- in which case you have my absolute empathy -- or you could be a provoker and instigator who isn't getting her way anymore -- in which case you do not. NOT saying that's what you are, just saying I DON'T KNOW so I would not know how to formulate the best response to your unique situation.
I can give you a hug though. Everyone needs those.

I have also been on the receiving end of being judged by staff not exactly by the rules but by their religious convictions instead and because they differ from mine then I am th one that is automatically wrong, I think that is Draconian.

Are you absolutely sure this is what is happening? Because if your religious convictions cause you to behave in a harsh, flaming or abrasive manner toward someone else, you WILL be cited for flaming, etc. (and so would *I* or anyone else on here). Again, without knowing the specifics of your experience it is hard to respond aright here. What have you done to approach the staff and discuss this situation objectively and rationally? That would be my first line of defense if I felt wrongly discriminated against -- that and finding a senior staff who "gets" me to back me up.

I was simply trying to show the difference to the other poster that all things must be kept in context. Especially when in 1 and 2 Corinthians the apostle is talking to an existent congregation that have already accepted Christ as their Saviour. He is not talking to the unbeliever.

But you must be realistic enough to comprehend this is merely how you read these scriptures. It is not what they actually say (others may read differently -- remember Jesus' question? "what sayeth the scriptures? how readest THOU?") but what they are saying to YOU. Others may see them in a different light. Anyway if you read my post you will see I am an advocate of having some Christian-only safe zones here for Christians, and I think that's basically what you're concerned about here too, right?

As it stands now this site is asking us to become equally yoked in many ways with the unbeliever and the question in reality is should we endorse that mentality when it is not Biblical?

I don't think it is asking that, I really don't. But I would be the first to say again that yes, I believe some areas should be Christian only and I believe the Christian only areas are appropriate for selection of Christian only mod staff. But having a non-believer act as an arbiter in open areas is no different than what we encounter in the secular world today. There are good leaders and bad ones, and the presence or absence of a profession of Christianity doesn't seem to make much difference whether they are good or bad. Matter of fact, most of those openly credited as Christian tend to be the worst. I'm glad it's not like that here.