Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you asked for my advice, I would say that defining yourselves in opposition to something is not a wise way of doing things. But you certainly have the right to do so as long as it does not conflict with the core rules.
Speaking of core rules, guess by the weekend Erwin will have something new for us anyhow...
Speaking from the vantage point of a liberal, and a highly liturgical liberal, at that: why would a liberal want to visit Conservative Christians or Fundamentalist Christians (and vice versa) to debate when your side and our side are highly unlikely to agree on much of anything except perhaps the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ?
It's kind of like hitting one's head with a hammer because it feels so good when one stops hitting one's head with a hammer!
Speaking from the vantage point of a liberal, and a highly liturgical liberal, at that: why would a liberal want to visit Conservative Christians or Fundamentalist Christians (and vice versa) to debate when your side and our side are highly unlikely to agree on much of anything except perhaps the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ?
It's kind of like hitting one's head with a hammer because it feels so good when one stops hitting one's head with a hammer!
I see no reason to allow "membership" in both, as the tenets are typically diametrically opposed to one another. You can't believe in both at the same time. It's like trying to say, "I'm a Christian atheist" - doesn't make sense.
Real easy for me....Hi,
The members of WWMC want for us to reconsider our policy of not allowing members of WWMC to be members of our forum as well.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5929380
Since they're not really allowed to debate here, I thought I'd start the thread myself.
How do you feel about this? Is this a policy you're willing to reconsider?
It is worth noting that, the way "liberal" and "conservative" or defined on this site, or more accurately, left undefined, a person can be conservative and liberal at the same time. Both words have several definitions, and, while I can't speak for this side of the fence, at WWMC, we have no desire to pick apart those definitions and figure out which types of liberals we represent.
Given that, there is no reason why somebody who believes in the innerancy of the Bible must also oppose gun control and abortion and support limitations on the central government. A person who supports gay marriage might also vote Republican for economic reasons and believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (and, for reasons personal to them, see no contradiction between that and the other two views.)
So, yes, a person can be liberal and conservative at the same time.
Which reframes this question a bit. CC was founded specifically because non-fundamentalist and moderate conservatives felt out of place in the Fundamentalist forums. If I recall the conversation, it was pointed out that WWMC welcomes people who are not wholly liberal, but the fundamentalist forum isn't all that accepting of moderates, and so people who were simply "conservative," but not to the degree of fundamentalism, had no place to hang their hat.
What was the point of creating this place if one of the first actions is to close membership to those who might also want to explore their liberal side? In short, to exclude the moderates? The very people CC was created for?
This might be none of my business, as I have no intention of claiming membership here, but it does effect members of WWMC.
And, being a moderate once, I do remember what it was like to never fit in anywhere.
The best thing would be a 3 month complete ban applied to all liberal on this board then after that allow fellowship and questions only. We have enough to deal with on our board with out the conflict and drama the liberals are bringing.
I think the problem is: if you are a voting member over at WWMC that you then can't be a voting member over here. I suspect we have a couple of people who like fellowshipping at both places and they were told they had to choose one or the other. Most of WWMC don't seem to have a problem with duo-membership but there seems to be some problem on this end.
tulc(that's the impression I have anyway)
Actually anyone can fellowship here according to the rules. Membership as I understand it allows a say in how the board is run, including who the moderators are. Why would a Liberal have any interest in wanting to influence our rules unless their purpose was to change them?I think the problem is: if you are a voting member over at WWMC that you then can't be a voting member over here. I suspect we have a couple of people who like fellowshipping at both places and they were told they had to choose one or the other. Most of WWMC don't seem to have a problem with duo-membership but there seems to be some problem on this end.
tulc(that's the impression I have anyway)
This means we have the right now to include or exclude anyone we wish if we deem it is appropriate1. It means that all members will be given the power to self-govern by collaboratively working together with coming up with the rules for this whole community, including voting for their own moderators.
2. It means that members who want their particular forums to have certain restrictions may do as this is part of self-governance. Sub-forums members will be able to develop their own rules and choose their own moderators.
I don't care. Besides, Joykins has already told me that with this rule of ours, we make their lives easier by keeping some of the more vocal conservatives out of WWMC (see my comment below as well).How do you feel about this?
No.Is this a policy you're willing to reconsider?
Why would a Liberal have any interest in wanting to influence our rules unless their purpose was to change them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?