What would option 3 look like

[openup4christ]

Wikis can work great... The Wiki made for CTF works great and although it is not perfect but it works and i went from having like 10 reports a day to like 2 over night, once the wiki was published.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Wikis can be good tools.

They're better for some jobs than polls, because people usually vote first, then discuss later.

They're better for other jobs than discussion threads, because you have a master document handy, where you can see at a moment's notice every point that's been seriously raised and every change that's been made.


I just don't think that they're right for this job.

 

[GenemZ]

Which goes back to my standing complaint that people are confusing heresy (in the technical sense) with apostasy (also in the technical sense).

Luther was considered a heretic by the church who gave us the Creed. So was Jon Huss. Both men fought heresy, and were labeled heretics for it.

The problem is not with the Creed itself - as it is worded, that is.

The problem is? You can agree with the Creed.

But if you do not agree with the same interpretation that was used to implement it? As those lording over you, do? Then they can tell you, that even though you say you agree? You are not in agreement with Creed.

They, in effect, want you to sign a paper saying you will never beat your wife again, as proof you never beat your wife.

I can cite many verses to show that Jesus is God. I can even give insight as to why that is so. Yet? If it does not agree with the traditions and church dogma of those involved evaluating you? It does not matter. You must line up with their way of concluding. Not just the conclusion.

One flaw I faced? If you do not say God died on the Cross? Some moderators of ecumenical bent will say you really do not believe Jesus is God.

That if you do not believe Mary is the Mother of God? Then you are really saying Jesus is not God.

The real problem is. They do not properly understand the details of the hypostatic union. If you try to show how the Word of God reveals inconsistency with their traditions of belief? A lot of good that will do you.

What we need to do is to hold up the Creed as the Standard for Christianity. Yet, not include with it all the old church traditions (which the Creed does not mention) as the litmus test to see if you really agree with what the Creed proclaims.

It does not matter how many verses you can show to reveal Jesus is God. If you did not believe God died on the Cross? Or, that Mary is not the Mother of God? Then some will tell you, that you may say you believe Jesus is God. But? You really do not.

Another frustration I faced...

When I asked those accusing me how God can die? How God can be born? The judging moderators were not required to supply an answer. They were not open to be flexible to find out that they might be inconsistent with what the Word says. Yet? Remained insistent.

In other words? They would thread you... and keep turning clockwise till it won't turn no more.

Do you believe God is capable of death? God can die? Of being born? The creator of birth?

If you see those as being impossible for God? Under the right circumstances? You could have been set up to have your privilege to post in the Christian section challenged. Even though you believe in the Deity of Christ!

The problem was not with the Creed itself. Not with the way its written, The problem was with how some abused it to railroad you out if they did not care for your way of thinking.

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds."

How was he begotten? What does that mean? That does not speak of the hypostatic union of the incarnation.

How many people in the Forum can give an accurate exegesis on that? Can you?

You know something? Very few can.

Yet, that is what was used as the last point to keep me out after I had clarified all the other roadblocks they placed in my way. Is that being fair?

The Creed can be used to stone wall anyone they deemed to be a pain to their religious sense of security.

If everyone in the forum were required to answer that question? How many could post in the Christian only section?

The Word states the Lord was begotten before the worlds. But? The Word does not tell us how. So? It was a loaded question. Unjust.

As you can see, I am taking this time of reprieve to make it known to those who want the Creed reinstated, that before it is,,,,,, regulations on its use, and misuse by moderators must be established as to be sane and fair.

Praying for fair and sane Forum return.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[J4Jesus]

Erwin

These are some important things on my heart about this matter:

A Christian site should have Christian staff and mods only. Even in a section where it is non Christian. The only place that may be an exception may be where they only carry out orders, not any decision making. For instance, how can a non Christian advise a person on God's principles which they don't believe? Even things like decisions on approving or being mods for avatars ,sigs, armour , which takes a judgement call . I have seen some very ungodly things, some evil looking or sounding that do not line up with God's standards and are not pleasing to Him. This does not honor Him and we are not to compromise His principles in any way or how can it ever succeed? We must be free to share what God says is sin or how can we reach them for Christ if everything is "ok" and we are not free to mention several verses like Romans 1 and others about taking the lives of babies? The word sin is not a bad word and helps them see their need for Him, which is essential for salvation. This is to be done with a right, good attitude of course., with the love and compassion of Christ.

Section B: An open section (the largest part of CF) where believers and non-believers can post, discuss and debate. This section should also include a heavy emphasis on witnessing, and compassion. Non-believers pay attention to compassion and the golden rule. Once people accept Christ, they can go on to learn more about living righteously from the Christian Only section. For this section I would suggest the rules remain wiki'd as the posters seem to like this.

That may be good.

For this section I would suggest the rules remain wiki'd as the posters seem to like this. An area for the people, created by the people, run by the people.

That is not working too well since anyone can change it on a whim. Each a person doesn't want to follow a rule they change it.
But those forums that would still like to make their own rules could keep what they have done so far and have it locked. Then only a mod could insert it when they are completed and keep it locked.

This is what drives my thoughts:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Jesus in Mark 16:15-16

Great verse! And because of this verse I disagree with the point 'if you say you are a Christian you are.' That is contrary to God's Word. There is much more to it than just saying you are. Jesus took the religious Pharisees to task over that.That may ruffle some feathers, but better that and know the truth to be able to do something about it, than to not be allowed to speak out and they will be lost forever. Which is truly God's love? I would not want my worst enemy to be lost! That is more important than what they would think of me.

Our forum could be renamed if staff insist. I like Christian Forums, but I suppose we could rename it Christian Witness... or something else that you'd like. I don't know. I feel shy about suggesting these options. I hope you don't think I'm too foward in doing so. I just felt like the idea was given to me.

It could still have this name if using godly principles and runs by Christians. That doesn't mean it could not also have a place for unbelievers. If they want to come here fine, but its logical to expect it to be Christian in nature. Why come if they dont want to hear about it or be around us ? I'm sure they know of 100's of sites that are not Christian.

Exactly. We had a new Christian in the Outreach area just a month ago that was reported for "holding a Christian icon and not being Christian". Why? Because he stated in a post that the Trinity was confusing to him. (fyi-he did NOT get his 'icon' yanked but i was able to pm him and answer some questions for him).

are we gonna tell people they are not Christian unless they immediately understand all of the creed?

It was my understanding we cannot say that and why I stated what I did above.
Whether they would agree to the creed or scriptures, they should not be able to argue against it. There are things about God we cannot understand , but we choose to believe it since He said it.

Maybe I have said too much and in hot water now but since so many others were giving their opinions, I am taking the chance of giving mine because its been one sided too much. I apologize if I hurt anyone's feeling because that is certainly not my intent. But I have said what I believe the Lord would have me say.

Okay, one day, when I'm not at work, and I have free time, I will read all the posts in these threads, but in the meantime, I'm at work, so my time on CF is limited, but I want to say that all this discussion is healthy, it is good and it is a sign of a vibrant community who loves this site, its members and the vision, and no matter whether you support the vision or the new framework, the fact that you post in here and are discussing the issue means that you are supporting me as a person, so for that I thank you all.

I WILL read the posts in the threads, just not today. It's a day of meetings today here at work.

Well of course we care about you Erwin, it's not just the site. I thought all this may discourage you but it looks as if it may have encouraged and given you hope; I can imagine what you are going through. Probably 100 times what we feel, and our heads are spinning. Real Christians care about others you know .

God bless

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Luther was considered a heretic by the church who gave us the Creed. So was Jon Huss. Both men fought heresy, and were labeled heretics for it.

The problem is not with the Creed itself - as it is worded, that is.

The problem is? You can agree with the Creed.

But if you do not agree with the same interpretation that was used to implement it? As those lording over you, do? Then they can tell you, that even though you say you agree? You are not in agreement with Creed.

They, in effect, want you to sign a paper saying you will never beat your wife again, as proof you never beat your wife.

I can cite many verses to show that Jesus is God. I can even give insight as to why that is so. Yet? If it does not agree with the traditions and church dogma of those involved evaluating you? It does not matter. You must line up with their way of concluding. Not just the conclusion.

One flaw I faced? If you do not say God died on the Cross? Some moderators of ecumenical bent will say you really do not believe Jesus is God.

That if you do not believe Mary is the Mother of God? Then you are really saying Jesus is not God.

The real problem is. They do not properly understand the details of the hypostatic union. If you try to show how the Word of God reveals inconsistency with their traditions of belief? A lot of good that will do you.

What we need to do is to hold up the Creed as the Standard for Christianity. Yet, not include with it all the old church traditions (which the Creed does not mention) as the litmus test to see if you really agree with what the Creed proclaims.

It does not matter how many verses you can show to reveal Jesus is God. If you did not believe God died on the Cross? Or, that Mary is not the Mother of God? Then some will tell you, that you may say you believe Jesus is God. But? You really do not.

Another frustration I faced...

When I asked those accusing me how God can die? How God can be born? The judging moderators were not required to supply an answer. They were not open to be flexible to find out that they might be inconsistent with what the Word says. Yet? Remained insistent.

In other words? They would thread you... and keep turning clockwise till it won't turn no more.

Do you believe God is capable of death? God can die? Of being born? The creator of birth?

If you see those as being impossible for God? Under the right circumstances? You could have been set up to have your privilege to post in the Christian section challenged. Even though you believe in the Deity of Christ!

The problem was not with the Creed itself. Not with the way its written, The problem was with how some abused it to railroad you out if they did not care for your way of thinking.

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds."

How was he begotten? What does that mean? That does not speak of the hypostatic union of the incarnation.

How many people in the Forum can give an accurate exegesis on that? Can you?

You know something? Very few can.

Yet, that is what was used as the last point to keep me out after I had clarified all the other roadblocks they placed in my way. Is that being fair?

The Creed can be used to stone wall anyone they deemed to be a pain to their religious sense of security.

If everyone in the forum were required to answer that question? How many could post in the Christian only section?

The Word states the Lord was begotten before the worlds. But? The Word does not tell us how. So? It was a loaded question. Unjust.

As you can see, I am taking this time of reprieve to make it known to those who want the Creed reinstated, that before it is,,,,,, regulations on its use, and misuse by moderators must be established as to be sane and fair.

Praying for fair and sane Forum return.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

Some excellent points, Genez!

 

[SumTinWong]

It comes to this for me:

I am not afraid of talking with or to non-Christians and Christians of every denomination when it comes to my faith or theirs. I have been just as offended here by Christians as I have been by non-believers, and i have learned to just remember that always this is just a forum.

In the real lives we all lead outside of this little box, there are people who we encounter everyday that are just like the people on this board. In my real life I have both kinds of friends, and there are occasions where they both mix. But I also know what it is like to have a place to just be religious for awhile and I think for me, this has been that place.

I go to MajorGeeks or Mac Forums to discuss computers, I go to cooking forums to discuss cooking, and so on. What i do not do is discuss cooking in the computer section or Jesus in the cooking section.

It seems awful weird to me that people who are not Christians are here at a place called Christian Forums, and the subtitle is uniting all Christians. What do they have to add to this cause? Anyway it seems to me that if the Erwin wants to appease both then he should do what he set out to do and either make two forums, one for everyone, and two one for just Christians to unite themselves, or scrap the whole idea and reinvent this site to a new vision.

In which case those who wanted to have a safe haven to squabble (I mean talk) amongst themselves will be forced to make a decision to stay or go. Many I guess have left but i am going to stay and see what happens. If I do not like the changes I will leave, again as I have before, and the forum will move on without me as it did before. It is after all just a forum.

 

[Samuel_Rigby]

I posted this in the teen section and I thought I would post again here just to let others know how I, and apparently others, in the teen section feel.

I have no problem with the new CF. It gives me a chance to witness to non-believers. But we need to bring back some form of punishment for bad behavior. We need clear rules for proper behavior and consequences with teeth for those who choose to break those rules.

I love the open moderator forums. This gives accountability to moderator actions and I think stops a lot of the problems people had in the past with the warnings and infractions. So we can, and should, bring back the warnings and infractions system (or something very similar). They need to all be appealable, however. There needs to be open communication with mods like there is now. That will stop a lot of the bad feelings over warnings and infractions if at least we have a voice in the matter before a decision to warn or infract is made.

Like I said, the new CF offers lots of opportunities. What I hated was how Erwin unilaterally made this decision himself overnight. He has shown himself to be a very poor and indecisive leader in this matter, IMO.

 

[meh]

Okay, one day, when I'm not at work, and I have free time, I will read all the posts in these threads, but in the meantime, I'm at work, so my time on CF is limited, but I want to say that all this discussion is healthy, it is good and it is a sign of a vibrant community who loves this site, its members and the vision, and no matter whether you support the vision or the new framework, the fact that you post in here and are discussing the issue means that you are supporting me as a person, so for that I thank you all.

I WILL read the posts in the threads, just not today. It's a day of meetings today here at work.

You know, if you'd quit that silly job then you could hang out here all day with us. That's my suggestion

 

[GreenMunchkin]

...and no matter whether you support the vision or the new framework, the fact that you post in here and are discussing the issue means that you are supporting me as a person, so for that I thank you all.

This reads like the second vision is still the one you're going with... so does that negate the poll (where the current vision was the less popular option) and this third option discussion? I think many of us felt the latest announcement put CF in a kind of stasis until we'd figured out collectively what happens next, but if we're forging ahead with the current framework regardless, what have we been voting for and discussing?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

It comes to this for me:

I am not afraid of talking with or to non-Christians and Christians of every denomination when it comes to my faith or theirs. I have been just as offended here by Christians as I have been by non-believers, and i have learned to just remember that always this is just a forum.

In the real lives we all lead outside of this little box, there are people who we encounter everyday that are just like the people on this board. In my real life I have both kinds of friends, and there are occasions where they both mix. But I also know what it is like to have a place to just be religious for awhile and I think for me, this has been that place.

I go to MajorGeeks or Mac Forums to discuss computers, I go to cooking forums to discuss cooking, and so on. What i do not do is discuss cooking in the computer section or Jesus in the cooking section.

It seems awful weird to me that people who are not Christians are here at a place called Christian Forums, and the subtitle is uniting all Christians. What do they have to add to this cause? Anyway it seems to me that if the Erwin wants to appease both then he should do what he set out to do and either make two forums, one for everyone, and two one for just Christians to unite themselves, or scrap the whole idea and reinvent this site to a new vision.

In which case those who wanted to have a safe haven to squabble (I mean talk) amongst themselves will be forced to make a decision to stay or go. Many I guess have left but i am going to stay and see what happens. If I do not like the changes I will leave, again as I have before, and the forum will move on without me as it did before. It is after all just a forum.

Nice to see you again, Uncle Bud!

 

[Saucy]

wikis will not work here. Letting everyone choose their rules is anarchy. We need a structure to keep CF safe.

 

[Hishandmaiden]

Hi, make staff christians only, but if a non-christian is already on staff, then be fair to him or her and don't vote him or her off.

Just that, beside those non-christians already on staff, no more will be allowed.

 

[Hishandmaiden]

Set rules based on public consensus, but staff, preferable Erwin will make the final rule.

But the final rule will be made by Erwin after receiving feedbacks from people.

 

[Debi1967]

I think it needs to be brought to Erwins attention that at the time I am making this post just in his staff alone and if he had put this up to his staff .... the tally would have been

43 for option 2
11 for option 1


If the majority of your staff is not behind this then there is a big problem ....

 

[MarcusHill]

There's no easy way to determine rules by consensus. Have a discussion forum for them by all means, but in the end Erwin (or a small group whom he trusts/appoints) needs to be the final arbiter of these rules. Staff and mods need to stick to those rules and apply them fairly, whether they agree with them or not - and their religion therefore has less bearing on their suitability as mods than the ability to apply the rules even-handedly. As long as people stick by the rules (i.e. mods enforce them properly), there's no reason to make CF restrictive in terms of the beliefs of people who contribute. F'rinstance, if I go to a board supporting new Christian converts and offer (heartfelt) good wishes for the happiness of a new convert, my lack of faith shouldn't be an issue. If I start giving reasons why I think becoming a Christian is a bad idea, I would be (rightly) reprimanded - not because I'm an atheist, but because I'm saying something inappropriate for the subforum.

In short, set rules that people should follow and which set the tone for the site. Appoint people who can enforce those rules fairly. Judge members by their actions on the site, not by their religious affiliations.

 

[A New Dawn]

I think it needs to be brought to Erwins attention that at the time I am making this post just in his staff alone and if he had put this up to his staff .... the tally would have been

43 for option 2
11 for option 1


If the majority of your staff is not behind this then there is a big problem ....

A lot of staff did sign in on the threads but refused to vote because they didn't like the options. Also, I don't believe that any of the staff liked either option. Almost unanimously they wanted a middle-grounds option.

 

[SunMessenger]

Okay, one day, when I'm not at work, and I have free time, I will read all the posts in these threads, but in the meantime, I'm at work, so my time on CF is limited, but I want to say that all this discussion is healthy, it is good and it is a sign of a vibrant community who loves this site, its members and the vision, and no matter whether you support the vision or the new framework, the fact that you post in here and are discussing the issue means that you are supporting me as a person, so for that I thank you all.

I WILL read the posts in the threads, just not today. It's a day of meetings today here at work.

Good . Wonderful as a matter of fact. Now this is the type of posting we need more of.

Of course we support You and we are here to do that. We are here to help you come to the right decision with the help of God. Keep reading when you can and I feel you will see the light. The Lord will help you...

Sun

 

[Debi1967]

A lot of staff did sign in on the threads but refused to vote because they didn't like the options. Also, I don't believe that any of the staff liked either option. Almost unanimously they wanted a middle-grounds option.

Is it really enough to overtake 43 to 11

Btw just curious

 

[A New Dawn]

Is it really enough to overtake 43 to 11

Btw just curious

If we have to rely on just the votes in the poll, then I don't know. With Erwin adding a third option that might more resemble what most people are suggesting, then I think there should be a new poll. Then I think there might be a majority of staff with it.

 

[Saucy]

I voted, but I am against option one and two. I want option three, a mix of the two options. When i did vote, this thread wasn't here and I just picked what I thought would be the best of the two, but really we need a mix of the two. I would like the site before these reforms, except more open to non-believers and no faith icons. That would be a great CF I think.