WWMC/CC Congregation Conflict

[Lisa0315]

That I can do! Oh, this will be fun *inner costumer breaks loose and pirouettes*

That's the spirit!!!



Lisa

 

[MrJim]

That I can do! Oh, this will be fun *inner costumer breaks loose and pirouettes*

girls

 

[Joykins]

Grab him, Lisa...do you think we can stuff him into a kilt before he realizes what happened?

 

[Lisa0315]

girls

You wouldn't want us any other way.

Lisa

 

[MrJim]

I thought we were discussing wwmcccc conflicts...

I do have the legs for a kilt

 

[Lisa0315]

I thought we were discussing wwmcccc conflicts...

I do have the legs for a kilt

Well, truly there is no conflict anymore. We have the rule that states that you cannot be a member here if you are a member there.

I checked both membership lists today and unless people are using sock accounts, there are no dual memberships.

As for the kilt, that would be a great costume to wear. C'mon, it will be fun!

Lisa

 

[Joykins]

Your rules LIMIT me to fluff posts. I HAVE to post in this topic now!

The other option besides kilts for men could be Macaroni-style!

 

[Lisa0315]

Your rules LIMIT me to fluff posts. I HAVE to post in this topic now!

The other option besides kilts for men could be Macaroni-style!

Yes, Joykins that is true. However, we have a whole Theology forum in which to truly debate. If it were up to me, the debate subforum here would be wild and uncensored, but this is what the members want.

You have to understand that not everyone is cut out for debate. Some are very sensitive to it and it makes them very uncomfortable.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

Let's not forget the Beau Brommel style!

 

[Sothron]

Eschewing any rhetoric I do not see why anyone who identifies as a liberal would also want membership in a conservative forum. I say no, you either choose one or the other.

 

[MrJim]

Eschewing any rhetoric I do not see why anyone who identifies as a liberal would also want membership in a conservative forum. I say no, you either choose one or the other.

Hey quit derailing the thread

The ladies are displaying victorian gents in their twinkie suits

 

[Hentenza]

I don't have those kind of legs.

 

[Joykins]

La, sir! Not Victorian. Those are Georgian and Regency dudes.

I just went on a shopping spree in the armory :o

 

[Lisa0315]

La, sir! Not Victorian. Those are Georgian and Regency dudes.

I just went on a shopping spree in the armory :o

Cool! Q tells me there is a lot more to be uploaded and soon!

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

La, sir! Not Victorian. Those are Georgian and Regency dudes.

I just went on a shopping spree in the armory :o

If they would just read those Romance Novels, they would KNOW which is which!

Lisa

 

[Joykins]

If they would just read those Romance Novels, they would KNOW which is which!

Lisa

:o:o:o:o:o

oh...

I just found a Carla Kelly book that I had not yet read, on Friday

And I think this pic sums it up pretty well

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

girls

You love it and you know it!

 

[Simon_Templar]

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 discuss 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.

This is precisely why many of us faught to preserve the language in our wiki rules which defines our position in terms of traditional biblical interpetations.

conservativism, by definition, can't be about inventing new meanings and new understandings of basic scriptural positions etc.

 

[Simon_Templar]

My opinion is that membership is primarily about voting on rules and mods. I don't think that membership should be used to limit people's ability to discuss.

However, the nature of liberalism is pluralistic and inclusive. The nature of conservatism is not pluralistic, and not inclusive.
Welcome to worldview 101

 

[Miss Shelby]

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?

I don't see a reason for me to care one way or the next.