What would option 3 look like

[GenemZ]

There have been some solid suggestions. As I've been getting back into modding I have the biggest need there is! Solid rules! No more Wiki's! PLEASE!

I have been looking over Wiki. They can be quite good. But? Controversial issues concerning doctrine they can not cover with enough accuracy unless they tap into a server containing theological reference material from several differing seminaries. Wiki can also tend to expound on commonly accepted church traditions while ignoring the Word of God.

Not to debate here.. but here is one example.

When looking up baptism? It only covered the ritual teachings on it.

If someone came here saying that the baptism for the Church age is to be the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Wiki would only add to the confusion in trying to settle the issue. Especially, when the Creed states we need water baptism for the remission of sins.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[Glass*Soul]

Your words reveal a great deal as to why Atheists should never moderate Christian forums.

You can not be unbiased here.

For you just said that you see Christianity as being blind to the light of reason.

He spoke using your own phrasing so that you could see and feel how what you said sounded to him. Effectively.

All believers!

I am afraid this forum will implode and cease existing as a force for Christianity if it stays on this present path. Its been limping for some time now. Now, we are going to cut off its legs?

After that happens, then those who are now acting like they are innocent and sincere will be able to laugh at the stupidity of Christians. No wonder Atheists think Christians are stupid. Look at what we are allowing them to do?

As one atheist, I ask please don't put insults against Christians in my mouth.

It is very easy to accuse someone of being insincere.

It is much more difficult for someone to demonstrate their sincerity by their behavior over time. All I can do is invite you to ask those who have argued apologetics against me for two years as to whether I have been laughing at Christians or not.

Can we agree, you and I, not to mock one another?

 

[Lisa0315]

He spoke using your own phrasing so that you could see and feel how what you said sounded to him. Effectively.




As one atheist, I ask please don't put insults against Christians in my mouth.

It is very easy to accuse someone of being insincere.

It is much more difficult for someone to demonstrate their sincerity by their behavior over time. All I can do is invite you to ask those who have argued apologetics against me for two years as to whether I have been laughing at Christians or not.

Can we agree, you and I, not to mock one another?

Glass*Soul,
I will vouch for you. You do not mock our beliefs ever. Never, ever, ever.

Lisa

 

[meh]

You know, I've been basically in bed for several days with nothing to do but think and pray. I really, really wish if things are going to change again we could come up with a workable 3rd option and get it going. I'm tired of taking sides. I'm tired of feeling like I have to take sides. I'm tired of hurting friends by taking sides. Let's work something out and get this done. And frankly the more I get active in the new CF the less I dislike it. But I still think some things could be done to bridge the gap and make certain factions feel more comfortable again.

 

[GenemZ]

He spoke using your own phrasing so that you could see and feel how what you said sounded to him. Effectively.

I did not use that phrasing. And, I have heard in other venues Atheist express the same sentiment.

As one atheist, I ask please don't put insults against Christians in my mouth.

OK . I'll make sure not to mention you. And, so far I have not. This is the first time meeting you.

It is very easy to accuse someone of being insincere.

Maybe for you , it is. I do not feel that way. And, I do not look for sincerity. Sincerity is no better than the integrity of the one acting sincere. I study for other aspects of a person to get to know who they are...

It is much more difficult for someone to demonstrate their sincerity by their behavior over time.

Sincerity is not a virtue to me. Many people can be sincerely wrong. Being sincere is not a standard I measure person by.

All I can do is invite you to ask those who have argued apologetics against me for two years as to whether I have been laughing at Christians or not.

You have missed my point. Its not about laughing at Christians. Yet, I have witnessed to seeing laughing of unbelievers at Christians. But? Why should that matter? That was just them.

Can we agree, you and I, not to mock one another?

I do not mock Atheists. You sadden me too much for me to mock.

What I will mock at times is what you claim to be wisdom for yourselves. What scares me is the inability to grasp that all we see around us just could not have happened by chance. Its absurd to think it could.

But? If you faced that, head on? You would have to begin searching for God. The fact that you know God can not exist, and to see the creation existing as it does? With phenomenal complexity and absolute precision of function? To be dull to that? Astounds me. But? That's just me.

Nice to have met you.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

We Christians are at an advantage over you. For we know what its like to be blind to what its like to be born again. For we were all at one time doubters of the existence of God. That is why we might be able to moderate an Atheist forum. If we have a good memory of our past, that is.

Oh, please. I could just as easily say "We Atheists are at an advantage over you. For we know what it's like to be blind to the light of reason. For we were all at one time believers in the existence of God. That is why we might be able to moderate a Christian forum. If we have a good memory of our past, that is." I wouldn't, though, because I don't want to appear condescending.

If it makes me appear condescending it is not going to stop me from speaking the truth. For it is fact. All Christians were unbelievers at some point. Unless they got saved at a very young age and walked into the Kingdom while still in childhood glory? Most of us knew the emptiness that came from denying our need for God.

So, it was not condescending. It was stating the truth. I KNOW what its like to doubt the existence of God. So, I can easily identify with where Atheists are. Matter of fact, I could have been a pretty good apologist for the Atheist cause if I had been pushed into it, but never was.

But to say you once knew God? But now you do not? That to me, is oxymoronic logic.

If you knew God was real? That means he is real. Now? He threw a button and stopped being real? That would be the only way you could have known God is real, but no longer do.

You are not qualified to evaluate posts by Christians when it comes to theological issues. But? If you are here to simply monitor flames? That does not require any special aptitude. My concern is that Atheists will not be able to distinguish between what is zeal, and what is a flame. For there will be times you will think a believer is flaming, and most Christians would be shouting, "Amen!"

On a short term basis I am sure Atheists could monitor well. For I believe they realize they need to prove themselves acceptable, and are aware that they are being watched closely.

Its after they fit in and become established. After they are accepted. That concerns me.

I have debated Atheists for years. Going back to 92, in Compuserve. I have seen a side that I just would not trust being moderated by, by someone who is established here and knows the ropes.

To me it makes no sense. You do not believe in God. You believe we suffer from delusion. Yet? You want to be an objective moderator for us? I do not trust it. I get this gut feeling that there is something coming down the road if Atheists and pagans get entrenched here. Its like gay activists wanting to be objective moderators in a forum that promotes heterosexuality. The fact that they act reasonable and objective tells me there is a high level of motivation to get in for some reason.

But, we'll see. If God wants this forum removed? Then the pagan and atheists allowed to moderate are a Trojan horse we allowed in.

If God wants it to stand? We'll see. For you can not do anything God will not allow. If you are being deceitful and acting reasonable and fair minded for now? Who is to stop God's will if its to be?

Yet, the Bible warns against such pairings. So? We will get what we deserve for rejecting God's Word if that is the case. And? If it is? This forum is not worthy of lasting because the Word of God was not our standard.

2 Corinthians 6:14 (New International Version)
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"
​

Do you think that was written because believers and unbelievers could not get along?

If they could not get along?

It would not have been commanded.

We can get along very well on a certain level.

I believe it will effect the spirit of the forum over time. The bleeding hearts will get their way for now. And, see later on why love is not to be placed before Truth. Maybe, God wants them to learn a lesson about not letting ones feelings over rule God's Word. Who knows.

But, like I said... we'll see. Just maybe, its because God knows the Rapture is just about to happen anyway. So? Who will you moderate for after that happens?

That was a joke@!

If this forum goes under? Many will have learned a big lesson about not going by feelings and to stick by what God's Word says.

1 Corinthians 6:1-5 (New International Version)
"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?"
​

​

Ungodly, does not mean atheists are all evil ax murderers. The ungodly can be quite moral if so inclined.


Un-heated = without heat.

Un- godly. = without God.

Ok... so, let's see how its going to be!




Grace and truth, GeneZ

 

[openup4christ]

OK lets stop talking about it and lets do it!! What are things each side can compromise to we can all be happy on middle ground.

 

[MarcusHill]

I KNOW what its like to doubt the existence of God. So, I can easily identify with where Atheists are. Matter of fact, I could have been a pretty good apologist for the Atheist cause if I had been pushed into it, but never was.

But to say you once knew God? But now you do not? That to me, is oxymoronic logic.

If you knew God was real? That means he is real. Now? He threw a button and stopped being real? That would be the only way you could have known God is real, but no longer do.

I KNOW what it's like to believe with all my heart in the existence of God. So, I can easily identify with where Christians are. Matter of fact, I could have been a pretty good apologist for the Christian cause if I had been pushed into it, but never was.

But to say you once knew there is no God? But now you do not? That to me, is oxymoronic logic.

If you knew God was not real? That means he is not real. Now? He sprang into existence and started being real? That would be the only way you could have known God is not real, but no longer do.

This game is rapidly decreasing in its entertainment value, but I'm just trying to demonstrate a point about how you come across.

You are not qualified to evaluate posts by Christians when it comes to theological issues. But? If you are here to simply monitor flames? That does not require any special aptitude. My concern is that Atheists will not be able to distinguish between what is zeal, and what is a flame. For there will be times you will think a believer is flaming, and most Christians would be shouting, "Amen!"

A flame is a flame, whether the motivation is plain anger or "righteous zeal". I suspect most atheists can tell the difference between "that opinion is wrong and here's the scripture to prove it" and "you're an evil baby-eating liberal and you're going straight to hell".

On a short term basis I am sure Atheists could monitor well. For I believe they realize they need to prove themselves acceptable, and are aware that they are being watched closely.

Its after they fit in and become established. After they are accepted. That concerns me.

Oh, we're making slippery slope argumnets now. I'll call the secret Atheist Cabal and have them unplug your computer, we can't have you revealing our plans.

 

[stranger]

The existing poll is deeply flawed for both tecnical and political reasons :-

-1.- the number who have voted is insignificant in relation to the number who will actually be devastated if option 2 is adopted [whereas option 1 is very much like the site we have and the issue of the name can be voted on separately, although clearly very few people want the name changed , why make people vote for closing down outreach when all the wanted was the name left alone? ... that is nonsensical , just because a few hundred among ten thousands do not like the name because sinner ain't saints ...]

-2.- the whole site has not even been made aware of the swinge of changes that would be brought in under optoion 2, many people do not even know about the poll that could change their site , nor have had the implications explained to them ... voting is thus largely in blindness to the consequences and not enough votes have been cast for any fair 'quorum' on such a massive change ... thus peole should vote temporarily for option 1 to prevent this undemocratic unscriptural change to the site ... unscriptural because outreach is INTEGRAL to christianity in the scripture, the Great Commission is about outreach, it is bizarre that conservative christians want to close it down and live in a closed enclave of their beliefs as sinners [they not saints, do not know alltruth, so may be forgiven their error, but have no right to foist it on anyone else at all, let alone almost half the site]

-3.- the poll started in the conservative enclave, thus conservatives knew about it en masse before mostly anyone else ... this has a major effect on the vote which negates any fair result ensuing from this poll

-4.- the discussion of the poll was spuriously shut down for a day only two days before the closure on 3Rd of August, yet those who vote for option 2 were allowed to have their posts admitted to the thread afte it was closed to others.... this is blatant electioneering of the most corrupt kind and invalidates the poll completely

-5.- there are at lest TWO seoparate isues in the poll and so there must eb at least FOUR options , not just the two given

Many people are thus torn, as can be seen from their discussions... many think that the vote is about whether to keep the name 'christian' or not , some realise it is about closin down outreach ...

But one can be a christian AND care about outreach, Jesus even commanded it in the great Commission... thus there MUST be an option for BOTH these issues, but there is not such an option in the poll

The poll then is flawed most seriously , the options are conflated down to two when there should be at least four ... one must vote then for option 1 because it does least damage to the site compared with optio 2, else control passes to the extreme conservatives who invented this political manouevre exactly to gain power over the expression of belief of the many... then we can have a true poll on the SEPARATE issues in which all people are involved in the vote and no-one's discussion shut out by vested interests...

-6.- It is a shambles that this attempt at democracy on the site has been plagued by poorest design of this poll and political shenanigins comparable to corrupt politics of sinners... It is to GREATEAST SHAME that men calling themselves christian get involved in such deceit of men and lust for power over expression ofwhat others believe... worst of all is this desire against Jesus' great commision, to shut down outreach on the site ...

The site should not be a political arena of sinners seeking power to tell others what to believe, rather sinners should have humility i realising that they do not yet know it all [else they would give up being sinners and become saints]

-7.- Thus I suggest that there are four options needed in this poll not two, and it is thus invalid, void , and certainly cannot sensibly determine the future of the site as Erwin has said it will

-8.- The true christian way is THEOCRACY, being led by the spirit in accordance with the scriptures, NOT a democracy of votes by sinners and certainly not deciding by corrupted flawed polls such as this one...

God will establish His kingdom from the hearts of saints to eventually all men knowin His truth in life [Joel 2:28, John 16:13] ... then men will not be ruled by democracy, by by the 'rod of iron' of Jesus applying the Law of LOve he commanded...

This poll seems to have nothing to do with theocracy of God's kingdom, or love, it is corrupt politics of sinners and deeply flawed in every way possible.

-9.- The site then , to be christian, should be ruled the way Jesus showed, by love ,and respect for everyone [including the God of love] , so that men are NOT pre-judged on their beliefs today, because men's bel;iefs can be changed by God's holy spirit revealing all truth to men [John 16:13] ... this then is the way of the saints that Jesus showed them to follow him... it is a long way from what is going on here today ... does anyone care about that, the scriptural answer ofered by God ?

 

[sparklecat]

Stranger, let me just note that some discussion making it into the thread after it was shut down was my fault; I should have temporarily deleted the posts that I moved over there immediately, but I was confused about how we were handling matters and ended up leaving them for a time.


No electioneering intended.

 

[*Starlight*]

I have been looking over Wiki. They can be quite good. But? Controversial issues concerning doctrine they can not cover with enough accuracy unless they tap into a server containing theological reference material from several differing seminaries. Wiki can also tend to expound on commonly accepted church traditions while ignoring the Word of God.

I think that there should be no theology in the wiki and site rules at all. I just don't see any reasons for that... theology is an individual matter of every Christian, and it should stay that way. Forum rules should focus on how can people act towards each other on CF, and there's no theology in that.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

The existing poll is deeply flawed for both tecnical and political reasons :-

-1.- the number who have voted is insignificant in relation to the number who will actually be devastated if option 2 is adopted [whereas option 1 is very much like the site we have and the issue of the name can be voted on separately, although clearly very few people want the name changed , why make people vote for closing down outreach when all the wanted was the name left alone? ... that is nonsensical , just because a few hundred among ten thousands do not like the name because sinner ain't saints ...]

-2.- the whole site has not even been made aware of the swinge of changes that would be brought in under optoion 2, many people do not even know about the poll that could change their site , nor have had the implications explained to them ... voting is thus largely in blindness to the consequences and not enough votes have been cast for any fair 'quorum' on such a massive change ... thus peole should vote temporarily for option 1 to prevent this undemocratic unscriptural change to the site ... unscriptural because outreach is INTEGRAL to christianity in the scripture, the Great Commission is about outreach, it is bizarre that conservative christians want to close it down and live in a closed enclave of their beliefs as sinners [they not saints, do not know alltruth, so may be forgiven their error, but have no right to foist it on anyone else at all, let alone almost half the site]

-3.- the poll started in the conservative enclave, thus conservatives knew about it en masse before mostly anyone else ... this has a major effect on the vote which negates any fair result ensuing from this poll

-4.- the discussion of the poll was spuriously shut down for a day only two days before the closure on 3Rd of August, yet those who vote for option 2 were allowed to have their posts admitted to the thread afte it was closed to others.... this is blatant electioneering of the most corrupt kind and invalidates the poll completely

-5.- there are at lest TWO seoparate isues in the poll and so there must eb at least FOUR options , not just the two given

Many people are thus torn, as can be seen from their discussions... many think that the vote is about whether to keep the name 'christian' or not , some realise it is about closin down outreach ...

But one can be a christian AND care about outreach, Jesus even commanded it in the great Commission... thus there MUST be an option for BOTH these issues, but there is not such an option in the poll

The poll then is flawed most seriously , the options are conflated down to two when there should be at least four ... one must vote then for option 1 because it does least damage to the site compared with optio 2, else control passes to the extreme conservatives who invented this political manouevre exactly to gain power over the expression of belief of the many... then we can have a true poll on the SEPARATE issues in which all people are involved in the vote and no-one's discussion shut out by vested interests...

-6.- It is a shambles that this attempt at democracy on the site has been plagued by poorest design of this poll and political shenanigins comparable to corrupt politics of sinners... It is to GREATEAST SHAME that men calling themselves christian get involved in such deceit of men and lust for power over expression ofwhat others believe... worst of all is this desire against Jesus' great commision, to shut down outreach on the site ...

The site should not be a political arena of sinners seeking power to tell others what to believe, rather sinners should have humility i realising that they do not yet know it all [else they would give up being sinners and become saints]

-7.- Thus I suggest that there are four options needed in this poll not two, and it is thus invalid, void , and certainly cannot sensibly determine the future of the site as Erwin has said it will

-8.- The true christian way is THEOCRACY, being led by the spirit in accordance with the scriptures, NOT a democracy of votes by sinners and certainly not deciding by corrupted flawed polls such as this one...

God will establish His kingdom from the hearts of saints to eventually all men knowin His truth in life [Joel 2:28, John 16:13] ... then men will not be ruled by democracy, by by the 'rod of iron' of Jesus applying the Law of LOve he commanded...

This poll seems to have nothing to do with theocracy of God's kingdom, or love, it is corrupt politics of sinners and deeply flawed in every way possible.

-9.- The site then , to be christian, should be ruled the way Jesus showed, by love ,and respect for everyone [including the God of love] , so that men are NOT pre-judged on their beliefs today, because men's bel;iefs can be changed by God's holy spirit revealing all truth to men [John 16:13] ... this then is the way of the saints that Jesus showed them to follow him... it is a long way from what is going on here today ... does anyone care about that, the scriptural answer ofered by God ?

 

[SunMessenger]

Because a third option was entered into the mix the vote must be taken again with the third option added to the ballot in a more detailed form . This addition of option three after a question with only two options was already up for vote lacks quite a bit in the way of reflecting the true feelings here. Plus what about the ones who have left. I found this pole by accident and how do we know the vote is even fair and that sock accounts are not voting multiple times? This pole needs some work but is a good start. More is needed. A new one is needed with all the options included before any final determination can be made...

Sun

 

[stranger]

Because a third option was entered into the mix the vote must be taken again with the third option added to the ballot in a more detailed form . This addition of option three after a question with only two options was already up for vote lacks quite a bit in the way of reflecting the true feelings here. Plus what about the ones who have left. I found this pole by accident and how do we know the vote is even fair and that sock accounts are not voting multiple times? This pole needs some work but is a good start. More is needed. A new one is needed with all the options included before any final determination can be made...

Sun

If you read people's discussion , you will find people voting for option 2 simply because they do not want the site name changed

You will also find people voting for option1 because they do not want outreach halted ...

That is confusion of madness because most people very clearly from replies want BOTH these things but the poll does not allow them to vote for what they want


The poll itself is flawed by bundling two very different questions togther and not allowing a free vote of ALL the possibilities...

It is time to PM Erwin and get him to publicly declare that this poll is VOID because it is so flawed.. and get a public assurance that its biased minority result cannot affect the site as he has somewhat foolishly said it will without seeing what it became, a political weapon for control of others by the minority of conservative sinners ... the few hundred votes could not begin to represent the views of the hundreds of thousands who use this site [many not members] and are sadly skewed by the wording of the poll and the atrocious way it has been conducted with political shenanigins like corrupt polls in the world of politics of sinners outside... just as sick and just as ungodly , so why do we have it here?

Any way write to Erwin by PM and support getting this poll nullified and hope he sees sense before upsetting the majority by ceding power to an extremist minority who engineered this farce [and brow-beat Erwin into accepting this screwball poll]

 

[Angel4Truth]

Option 2 includes outreach i dont know why people think it doesnt

 

[Aquamarine81]

I think option 3 should be something in between 1 and 2. Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but here is my proposal:
Get rid of the wiki. It's too confusing and could change at any time. Let moderators for each individual forum make the rules.
Speaking of moderators, both Christians and non-Christians should be moderators -- however, it should be up to members of each individual forum to decide who becomes a moderator. For example, if the Baptist forum wants to only allow Baptists as moderators, they should do so. In the congregational forums, only members who identify as members of said congregation should vote for moderators.
All forums should be open to all -- except in the congregational forums where members should decide who can post. If the Catholic forum only wants to allow Catholics to post, they should be able to do so. The [open] tag can be used if a member wants to open a thread to anyone.
As for who is a Christian, it should be up to each individual member to decide if they are or not. It's between them and God. Staff should not be forcing anyone to change their icon again -- that would be a huge step backwards.
Anyway, those are just my ideas. Erwin, I know this is a hard decision for you to make, and may God be with you as you make your decision.

 

[stranger]

Option 2 includes outreach i dont know why people think it doesnt

[option] 2. Return to a more restricted Christians-only site with a heavy emphasis on uniting mainstream Christians only with a less emphasis on outreach, in which case we keep the name.

---Outreach was the ONLY instruction given to the apostles in the great comission

---Teaching each other simply doesn't occur between saints, read the new covenant :-

[bible]
Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
[/bible]

Thus reducing outreach is against scripture and promotes only the massive soothsaying between unsanctified sinners on the site [sanctification menaing ceasing to sin, ceasing to be a sinner by means of all truth given by the holy spirit -John 16:13... it is very clear that almost no-one, if not everyone on this site , is not a saints because no-one here knows all truth in life as promised by Jesus to his followers John 16:13

We are in no position then to judge others and exclude them as 'unbelievers' from the site as in Option 2 and in no position to exclude any outreach since we have as much need of it from saints outside as anyone outside needs [but no-one needs outreach by sinners ,to drag others down in the hole one is in by accepting one's beliefs from other sinners (in books, on radio, on TV... on the web... in place of belief based solely on prayer to God and meditation on His scripture of His saints and prophets)]

all are unbeleievers until they believe, who can say who will not be believeing tomaorrow, yet option 2 would exclude them from the site ... it is simply wrong for anyone that is not a saint with all knowledge of God to make that judgment now ...

 

[Angel4Truth]

Um again where is outreach being excluded?

 

[kimber1]

so are we any closer to a solution yet?

 

[Angel4Truth]

You know what - im going to just say it right out - ive been here 4 years - for the first 2 of them i posted almost exclusively in outreach and debate witnessing. Still do although not as much and its only been about the last year and a half that ive ven posted in this area of the board (support) and became involved in support things such as the dolls etc.. and moderation of debate and fellowshipping here.

In all this time ive never seen most of these believers who want total openness even bothering to enter debate areas or step a foot into outreach. If its that important to you that its first- where have you guys all been?