Wiki: Conservative Christians Forum

[talitha]

Conservative Christian Statement of Beliefs and Rules 09-26-07


Conservative Christians Forum

Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality. Central to this worldview is the belief that Truth exists objectively and independently of our perception. Truth is unchanging and absolute.

God is Truth. He has revealed His Truth in the person of His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Bible, His written word, and in the Holy Church, which includes all who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, submitting their lives to Him in faith.

"I will bow down toward the temple of thy holiness, and celebrate thy name for thy loving-kindness and for thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." ~Psalm 138:2, Darby

This Forum Affirms:
The Holy Scriptures are inspired, the written Word of God. Scripture is revelation from God given for the instruction of his people in faith, morals, and doctrine. The revelation of scripture is completely reliable and authoritative.

The minimum standard of doctrinal belief in order for a person to be considered a Christian is accurately contained within the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. The doctrines contained within these creeds are the bare essentials upon which Christians must agree. It is understood, however, that even within the creeds there are some differences of interpretation. Specifically, it is allowed in this forum that the term “Catholic Church” can be understood to mean the universal, invisible body of which all Christians are members. The phrase “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” can be understood in a symbolic sense.
Our Christian faith can not be separated from our views on politics and society, or any other area of life. The Conservative Christian worldview holds the following values and views to be necessary expressions of Christian morality based upon Holy Scripture and the established teachings of the Christian Church.

God is triune. God has revealed Himself in three co-equal and co-eternal persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not parts of God, each of them is God.

The sanctity of human life. Human life begins at conception and ends when the body can no longer naturally sustain itself. Human life can not be ended prematurely without just cause and just authority to do so. This includes most cases of abortion and euthanasia.


Sexual morality is a fundamental requirement of Christian moral teaching. The Scriptures repeatedly address the topic of traditional sexual morality as a necessary part of our obedience to God and right living. Sexually moral behavior, in Scripture, and in the established teachings of the Church is held to be limited to sex between a husband and his wife. All other sexual activities fall under the heading of sexual immorality and depart from conservative christian teaching and morality.

Sin separates people from God. Thus it is destructive and harmful. Jesus Christ came not only to grant us a way of forgiveness from sin, but also to free us from bondage to sin. Our Lord Jesus Christ has imparted to us the ministry of reconciliation. It is our duty and privilege to teach people the gospel of forgiveness of sins, freedom from sin, and reconciliation to God. Freedom begins with knowing the truth.

Truth and Love are both God's character. All truth can be expressed in love. When addressing others in the forum we should hold ourselves accountable to the belief that all people are created in God's image, and as such deserve a basic level of respect, regardless of their deeds. This is not meant to muzzle honest discourse or comment, but to remind that all truth, must be expressed in love. Therefore, Conservative Christians may not flame visitors but rather seek to reason with them with an attitude of service and love.

Sola Scriptura – Not all conservatives hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As per the forum rules we all acknowledge the inspiration, complete reliability, and authority of scripture. However, some conservative Christians may hold Holy Tradition and the Church to be authoritative, or necessary to proper interpretation of scripture, in addition to the scriptures. Others do affirm Sola Scriptura, and are also welcomed equally on this forum. Neither position is preferred. No rule will be made concerning the views of Sola Scriptura, or the Traditions of the Church. Which position is correct is to be determined by the individual, not the forum.

Biblical Literalism – Not all conservatives hold an absolute literal interpretation of scripture. This may especially be seen in the areas of eschatology and the Genesis creation account.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." ~Revelation 21:6-8, NASB

The preceding points are held to be true by this forum and its members.Debate which denies or calls into question the aforementioned points will not be tolerated. People who disagree with or question these may visit and ask earnest questions but may not debate these points.

“Conservative Christian”, both on CF and in the real world, represents an umbrella term under which many individuals, denominations, churches and other organizations unify in order to forward a common cause. Because of this, and in order to maintain unity on the Conservative Christian forum, posts regarding specific denominational practices and beliefs (eg. baptismal formulae, whether one can lose their salvation, the specifics of what happens at communion, etc...) should be made in the proper denominational or theological forum or discussed in the debate subforum instead of in the main Conservative Christian forum.

General Rules:

Only confirmed members of the CC forum may apply to be moderators of the forum, and only confirmed members of the CC forum are permitted to vote on the applicants.
Only confirmed members may vote in CC polls.
Confirmed members are listed. Any new member wishing to become a member of the congregation must be added to the confirmed list before being able to vote or debate. We also add an exception to this rule that the staff/members have discretion (on a case-by-case basis) to allow limited debate with non-members when outreach is the goal.
Because of the stark contrast between the Liberal viewpoints vs. Conservative Christian viewpoints, members in this forum can only be a member of one, not both, of these fora.
Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.
Definitions

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is:

Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.


Debating:

All are welcome to come post in CC for friendship, fellowship (as defined above), and conversation, but debate is limited to CC members only.

CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debate is:

An informal or formal discussion of opposing viewpoints.
Presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion.
To discuss a question by considering opposing views.
To discuss a view in order to reach a conclusion or to convince.
"Teaching posts"
CC's Warning and FSB Protocol

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year


This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.
Member Departure Guidelines

We leave the membership list as is until the following takes place:

When someone wishes to withdraw their membership they say so.
Their name will be added to the list of names of those wishing to withdraw.
If after a month the person withdrawing does not post a retraction or communicate that they have changed their mind, their name will be taken off the list.

[talitha]

Thanks for contributing, Sophia! But what did you contribute? I think it would be good if whoever contributes could post what they did, that way we know what to look at, especially when it gets longer.

One thing I DID like about the WWMC Wiki when I looked at it was that they included scripture. Any thoughts on that, peeps?

tal

[Sophia7]

Thanks for contributing, Sophia! But what did you contribute? I think it would be good if whoever contributes could post what they did, that way we know what to look at, especially when it gets longer.

One thing I DID like about the WWMC Wiki when I looked at it was that they included scripture. Any thoughts on that, peeps?

tal

I just made a couple of minor corrections in punctuation and that sort of thing. If you go down to the bottom of the wiki page, there's a "History" link. That will show you a record of everything that has been changed.

[Criada]

aThanks very much for the work you've done on this, Tal.
Is good - but - do we need to single out sexual sin? Cos, whilst I agree totally with what you have written - all sin is equal before God. And we have already stated that the Bible is the authority - which knid of covers that.

Just my opinion.

I'd prefer to try and keep the rules positive, rather than negative.

Have you seen Simon's take on this?

#1 - The bible is the inspired written word of God. As such it is a completely reliable revelation , it is authoritative, and it is unchanging.

#2 - The minimum standard of belief in order to be considered a Christian is accurately contained in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. God's truth is revealed in the Person of his Son Jesus Christ, in the Holy Scriptures and in the Holy Church.

#3 - Truth is defined as adherence to a given standard. In terms of doctrine, faith, theology, and morality the standard of measure is God. Thus as God is eternally unchanging, and absolute, so Truth is also unchanging and absolute.

#4 - Truth and Love are both God's character. All truth can be expressed in love. When addressing others in the forum we should hold ourselves accountable to the belief that all people are created in God's image, and as such deserve a basic level of respect, regardless of their deeds. This is not meant to muzzle honest discourse or comment, but to remind that all truth, must be expressed in love.
I like number 4 especially!

[Colabomb]

I edited the position on homosexuality, to state that there are disagreements on how a homosexual is to be repentant. Some, like myself, believe that homosexuals will not be "cured" persay, and live a normal heterosexual lifestyle, but rather are called to repentance and celibacy.

[talitha]

Is good - but - do we need to single out sexual sin?
sis, I was trying to make it the opposite of the WWMC, and they singled out sexual sin by basically saying it wasn't sin but that anyone who made faith statements against it - well, that wouldn't be tolerated, something along those lines....

Cos, whilst I agree totally with what you have written - all sin is equal before God. And we have already stated that the Bible is the authority - which knid of covers that.
I would think that it would cover that, but people do still try to get around it.

I'd prefer to try and keep the rules positive, rather than negative.
I hear ya. Let me look again.

Have you seen Simon's take on this?

I like number 4 especially!
I have seen his take....
I felt I covered #4 in the intro - I wanted to put that first as I was writing, because I think that devotion to the TRUTH is one thing that pulls conservatives together - oh, I just got a scripture for that - the one that says that the Lord honors His Word above His name..... oh but now that I look at #4 again, there is more to that part that Simon wrote.....

On Simon's #3 - I don't know that I would define Truth as "adherence to a given standard" - that statement kind of brought me up short. But the rest is good. :)

I edited the position on homosexuality, to state that there are disagreements on how a homosexual is to be repentant. Some, like myself, believe that homosexuals will not be "cured" persay, and live a normal heterosexual lifestyle, but rather are called to repentance and celibacy.
I think your position here is flawed, brother; did not Jesus die to cure any and all sin and bring any and all into complete restoration before God, whosoever will? Coming into agreement with the absolute, unchanging Truth that doesn't compromise - isn't that what characterizes us as conservatives?

I will see what I can do to at least make that part read better and possibly to make the statements about sin more inclusive of all sins.

blessings
tal

[Criada]

Why do we need statemnts about sin?
Surely that is implicit in the Biblical authority bit?

I don't know - it just seems a bit negative overall.
Couldn't we just have a few positive statements and add more later if it's necessary? Cos it would be good to focus on what we believe rather than on what others may think.

Bless you, tal! :hug:

[talitha]

Okay, I have done a generous amount of editing with respect to what you guys have said and have added scripture as I believe the Holy Spirit to have led, but I am by no means saying that the changes I've made are final.

You will notice that I have used two versions of the Bible. When I study I generally use more than one version, and I did this time - I used in each case the one that seemed most clear to me. I do not want this forum to be one that is limited in terms of Bible-versions, particularly since the Bible was not originally written in English. :)

The part about this not being a fundamentalist forum needs to be fleshed out - I included it because someone in the forum had said it, and I thought it was important to be clear about it, but I'm not sure how to explain it.

blessings
tal

[Colabomb]

I think your position here is flawed, brother; did not Jesus die to cure any and all sin and bring any and all into complete restoration before God, whosoever will? Coming into agreement with the absolute, unchanging Truth that doesn't compromise - isn't that what characterizes us as conservatives?

I will see what I can do to at least make that part read better and possibly to make the statements about sin more inclusive of all sins.

blessings
tal

This is not the proper thread for this discussion, so i will only post one response.

Sister, I respect your position, I truly do, I simply disagree with it. Yes, we will be perfected, but no one said it will happen in this Life. Remember that Paul, a holy Servant of God, had a thorn in his side that was never taken from him. God Told our Brother Paul that His grace was sufficient for him.

You and I still face temptation, and we will not cease to face temptation until the last day. Homosexuals are no different. They will continue to face temptation. The question is not are they tempted, but do they continue to yield?

[talitha]

Colabomb, I understand your position too, but I didn't think what you wrote on the wiki flowed well language-wise, so I restructured it removing some stuff that I personally thought was important for your sake and the sake of others who believe as you - I also added more to make the "sin" part more inclusive of different sins and not focus so much on homosexuality. Please comment; I do not want to monopolise here...... I'm just trying to keep the ball rolling.....

hoping Simon and Timothy pop in......

blessings
tal

[Colabomb]

Colabomb, I understand your position too, but I didn't think what you wrote on the wiki flowed well language-wise, so I restructured it removing some stuff that I personally thought was important for your sake and the sake of others who believe as you - I also added more to make the "sin" part more inclusive of different sins and not focus so much on homosexuality. Please comment; I do not want to monopolise here...... I'm just trying to keep the ball rolling.....

hoping Simon and Timothy pop in......

blessings
tal

I have no problem with your changes.

I was just better explaining my position on the issue.

[talitha]

thanks, colabomb

so what changes did you make? I am not doing very well with the history function. (technically challenged here)

[Criada]

Can someone who is more technical than me attatch this to the forum, or post a link or something! Cos I don't think most people have found it!

Thanks! :)

[Colabomb]

thanks, colabomb

so what changes did you make? I am not doing very well with the history function. (technically challenged here)

1 change that I decided to reverse, because I initially didn't think it through enough.

And I added a portion of timothy's that I had not realized was already there.

So Two changes that I eventually reverted :P

[talitha]

LOL, thanks! :P

[Sophia7]

Can someone who is more technical than me attatch this to the forum, or post a link or something! Cos I don't think most people have found it!

Thanks! :)

I posted a thread there with a link to this wiki.

[GreenMunchkin]

It's wonderful!

Gonna love sharing a forum with you all :hug:

[Criada]

I posted a thread there with a link to this wiki.
Oops - didn't see that! :D

[Hishandmaiden]

I think you guys are great! :)

[Hishandmaiden]

aThanks very much for the work you've done on this, Tal.
Is good - but - do we need to single out sexual sin? Cos, whilst I agree totally with what you have written - all sin is equal before God. And we have already stated that the Bible is the authority - which knid of covers that.

Just my opinion.

I'd prefer to try and keep the rules positive, rather than negative.

Have you seen Simon's take on this?

I like number 4 especially!
I like it, too. :)

[talitha]

Here is the original opening statement that I prayerfully wrote:
As conservative Christians we believe that the Truth exists completely outside of our understanding of it, and that God, from Whom procedes all Truth, has chosen to reveal Truth to mankind in His Word, aka the Bible, and to embody it first in His only begotten Son, Jesus, and then progressively in the Church, which is comprised of all who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, submitting their lives to Him.

Here is Simon's rewrite:
Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality. Central to this worldview is the belief that Truth exists objectively and independently of our perception. Truth is unchanging and absolute.
God is Truth. He has revealed His Truth in the person of His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Bible, His written word, and in the Holy Church, which includes all who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, submitting their lives to Him in faith.

I was trying to be magnanimous and I failed to catch that. I didn't think it would be a problem, but now I do, in view of recent discussion in CCF. I was hoping to avoid putting things to a vote, but I think it may come to that in this case. I don't want this forum to become not-my-home when I was one of the original people in it, and I wrote the original Wiki.

Any thoughts as to a resolution?

blessings all around, I mean it! ;)
tal

[Criada]

I would very much like to see the 'traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian church' removed from the statement.
Cos - which ones?
Different denominations have different traditions. And often contradictary ones!
We cannot make tradition equal to scripture.

I for one would be unable to participate in discussion if this phraes remains, as I cannot in good concience agree to it.

Thanks, tal :hug:
God bless you.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I would very much like to see the 'traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian church' removed from the statement.
Cos - which ones?
Different denominations have different traditions. And often contradictary ones!
We cannot make tradition equal to scripture.

I for one would be unable to participate in discussion if this phraes remains, as I cannot in good concience agree to it.

Thanks, tal :hug:
God bless you.
I say the same.

Honestly, even if you change it at this point I'm probably not going to come around here much anyway. Not anything that's your fault at all...:hug:

[Debi1967]

Who rewrote the Wiki ????? By doing so you have essentially done what was done before in the other Conservative forum and alienated Traditional Conservatives

We believe in the Bible and Tradition and making such a strong statement as that means that we are not welcomed. It makes us outsiders

I want this reinstated because then it includes us

As conservative Christians we believe that the Truth exists completely outside of our understanding of it, and that God, from Whom procedes all Truth, has chosen to reveal Truth to mankind in His Word, aka the Bible, and to embody it first in His only begotten Son, Jesus, and then progressively in the Church, which is comprised of all who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, submitting their lives to Him.

[GreenMunchkin]

This is just a ridiculous exercise in mob rule and futility.

[Iosias]

A small problem:

This Forum Affirms that…1) The Holy Scriptures are the inspired, written Word of God. Scripture is the revelation of God given for the instruction of his people in faith, morals, and doctrine. The revelation of scripture is completely reliable and authoritative.

All well and good and you go on to say that

The preceding points are held to be true by this forum and its members.

Again this is fine. But then you say that



Sola Scriptura – Not all conservatives hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As per the forum rules we all acknowledge the inspiration, complete reliability, and authority of scripture. However, some conservative Christians may hold Holy Tradition and the Church to be authoritative, or necessary to proper interpretation of scripture, in addition to the scriptures.

So the forum accepts sola scriptura and all conservative Christians must accept it yet the forum recognizes that not all conservative Christians accept sola scriptura!

Some common points of difference includes…Biblical Literalism – Not all conservatives hold an absolute literal interpretation of scripture. This may especially be seen in the areas of eschatology and the Genesis creation account.

So some conservatives do hold to a literal interpretation of scripture and you have not actually defined what literal interpretation of scripture is.

[Colabomb]

The first two points do not call for sola Scriptura. All they do is recognize that Scripture is Holy, Inspired, and True. Not that they are the ONLY source of Doctrine.

While many here may believe that, in fact, most might, it is not universal. You can believe that Scripture is Perfect, and still deny that it is the ONLY Revelation to man.

[Iosias]

The first two points do not call for sola Scriptura. All they do is recognize that Scripture is Holy, Inspired, and True. Not that they are the ONLY source of Doctrine.

"Scripture is the revelation of God given for the instruction of his people in faith, morals, and doctrine." certainly implies sola scriptura.

FWIW: Is the definition of what a conservative Christian is meant to exclude those who adhere to Sola Scriptura?

[Debi1967]

Look everyone I do not want anyone that is a Conservative Christian to be excluded from this forum. We need to have an opening statement that reflects our ability to embrace all here that are Christians accept the Apostles and Nicene creeds as indicated, and make them feel all equal to have a say here.

[Colabomb]

"Scripture is the revelation of God given for the instruction of his people in faith, morals, and doctrine." certainly implies sola scriptura.

FWIW: Is the definition of what a conservative Christian is meant to exclude those who adhere to Sola Scriptura?

Perhaps we should find better wording

And to answer your second question, the idea is to allow for both viewpoints. Both are to be equally respected on this board. What we are saying is that you can be a sola Scripturist, but you don't need to be, to be part of this forum.

[Colabomb]

Edited the text to be neutral on the topic of SS.

SS is allowed, and rejection of SS is allowed.

I hope my edits reflect this.

[CyberPaladin]

I think we need to remove the section on traditional teachings of the church since afterall this a multidenomenational church.

[Debi1967]

I think we need to remove the section on traditional teachings of the church since afterall this a multidenomenational church.
Yes but that multidenominational Church includes churches that believe in both SS and Tradition

No to removing again because of the previous objection I made then those that are Apostolic and have Apostolic beliefs will think they are outsiders and that is solely meant for Protestant Conservatives

[Colabomb]

I edited.

Sola Scriptura – Not all conservatives hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As per the forum rules we all acknowledge the inspiration, complete reliability, and authority of scripture. However, some conservative Christians may hold Holy Tradition and the Church to be authoritative, or necessary to proper interpretation of scripture, in addition to the scriptures. Others do affirm Sola Scriptura, and are also welcomed equally on this forum.

Neither Position is Preferred. No rule will be made concerning the views of Sola Scriptura, or the Traditions of the Church. Which position is correct is to be determined by the individual, not the forum.

[Debi1967]

I edited.


Thank you

[zoziw]

I added the below:

"Conservative Christian" both on CF and in the real world represents an umbrella term under which many individuals, denominations, churches and other organizations unify in order to forward a common cause. Because of this, and in order to maintain unity on the Conservative Christian forum, posts regarding specific denominational practices and beliefs (eg. baptismal formulae, whether one can lose their salvation, the specifics of what happens at communion, etc...) should be made in the proper denominational or theological forum instead of in the Conservative Christian forum.

I posted this after seeing an OSAS thread on the forum and realizing that a lot of posts like this could cause the forum to fragment pretty quickly.

There are a lot of things that conservative Christians have in common, especially in the world today, however, if we allow a lot of denominationally specific beliefs to be posted on and debated here, I don't think we are going to find the unity we are hoping for.

I think that as a forum we should be able to make posts on the broadest possible spectrum of topics, however, if we start focusing on denominational beliefs that we already know will divide us, I think we are headed for trouble.

Maybe, we need to use an "in-house discussion" tag system or subforum so that people belonging to a denomination that is drifting towards liberalism can discuss cherised conservative/traditional beliefs here without having to defend themselves from liberals or from other denominations.

Thoughts??

[talitha]

I like what you added, zoziw, because I'm really hoping for a forum here where we would discuss "hows" rather than "whats" - in other words - let's get beyond "i agree" and "i disagree" - let's get like-minded people together to talk about how we can better impact the world.

This part of your post I'm having a little more trouble understanding.....

Maybe, we need to use an "in-house discussion" tag system or subforum so that people belonging to a denomination that is drifting towards liberalism can discuss cherised conservative/traditional beliefs here without having to defend themselves from liberals or from other denominations.

Could you elaborate?

blessings
tal

[talitha]

I would really be loathe to say that I or my subset is "drifting toward liberalism" because for instance I believe that there are modern-day apostles..... (please, let's not argue about that here - it's just an example)

[Debi1967]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5756679-wiki-wiki-rules-and-guidelines.html#post36979832

I have added a wiki for rules and guidelines for Wiki behaviour

[Debi1967]

I don't necessarily think that makes you a liberal Tal

[CyberPaladin]

Zoziw I think that a subforum for debate would adequately contain the conflict for the most part and allow for civil conversations we need in the general forum. I think that in-house discussion tag system is bad idea all it's going to do is encourage division among members. If we are going to have any sort of real discussion among CC members then we have to allow them to talk not divide them up. Unity by redtape isn't really sort of unity at all.

[Colabomb]

I like what you added, zoziw, because I'm really hoping for a forum here where we would discuss "hows" rather than "whats" - in other words - let's get beyond "i agree" and "i disagree" - let's get like-minded people together to talk about how we can better impact the world.

This part of your post I'm having a little more trouble understanding.....



Could you elaborate?

blessings
tal

I disagree. Things like OSAS and Women's ordination etc. are indeed cross denominational debates.

[Debi1967]

I am still thinking about it in reality I see both sides of the equation.... As an apologist give me a good debate ;) as someone that would like to find what we have in common so that we can stand together then I say it can disrupt the harmony of the forum.

[zoziw]

I like what you added, zoziw, because I'm really hoping for a forum here where we would discuss "hows" rather than "whats" - in other words - let's get beyond "i agree" and "i disagree" - let's get like-minded people together to talk about how we can better impact the world.

This part of your post I'm having a little more trouble understanding.....



Could you elaborate?

blessings
tal

My goal with the post I made earlier today was to limit denominationally specific topics that could create problems and disrupt unity on this particular forum.

We all know that there are some big differences in how people feel about the proper way to baptize, the meaning of communion and whether a person can fall away from the faith once they are saved. If this is going to be a fellowship forum then I think it might be a good idea to have those kinds of discussions in other forums on CF. There are lots of common issues that we Conservative Christians can fellowship and discuss in the spirit of unity.

However, I don't want to limit the ability of people who belong to denominations where a considerable liberal presence makes discussing denominationally specific traditional beliefs difficult on that denominations specific CF forum.

For example, if conservative Anglicans are having difficulty discussing a traditional belief in the Anglican forum because of a large liberal presence, then they should be able to have that discussion here, without a lot of interference from some other group that doesn't hold to what the Anglican Church teaches.

What I am proposing is some exemption to the rule I posted above for those situations. A tag or subforum that would mean that a particular thread was an "in-house discussion" for that particular denomination due to problems having that conversation elsewhere.

I would expect that these threads would be uncommon, but I think it would be fair.

[zoziw]

Zoziw I think that a subforum for debate would adequately contain the conflict for the most part and allow for civil conversations we need in the general forum. I think that in-house discussion tag system is bad idea all it's going to do is encourage division among members. If we are going to have any sort of real discussion among CC members then we have to allow them to talk not divide them up. Unity by redtape isn't really sort of unity at all.

I wasn't proposing a subforum for debate, more like a subforum where a group of conservative Anglicans or Lutherans would be able to start threads to discuss denominational beliefs where they won't have to fend off the liberals on their own forums or other groups with different ideas on this forum.

If this were pursued I would suggest that only one subforum be created for this purpose, not a specific subforum for every denomination.

My recommendation of limiting threads on denominationally divisive views in the Conservative Christians forum is about maintaining general unity, not about cutting off discussions amongst people who share denominational beliefs yet find them difficult to discuss in their specific denominational forum.

It is an attempt to build some kind of exemption into the general rule for these kinds of situations.

[talitha]

I see what you are saying - I grew up in a conservative family but part of the United Methodist Church, and at least at that time it was becoming overrun with liberals, particularly at the state and national levels of leadership (honestly have not been around the Methodist church much as an adult, partly for that reason). I think if I were a conservative Anglican and had something like that, I might start a thread here called "conservative Anglicans only please" or something like that. Wouldn't that work? And if there were enough topics like that, there could be a sticky called "Conservative Anglican Issues" - wouldn't that work?

[zoziw]

I see what you are saying - I grew up in a conservative family but part of the United Methodist Church, and at least at that time it was becoming overrun with liberals, particularly at the state and national levels of leadership (honestly have not been around the Methodist church much as an adult, partly for that reason). I think if I were a conservative Anglican and had something like that, I might start a thread here called "conservative Anglicans only please" or something like that. Wouldn't that work? And if there were enough topics like that, there could be a sticky called "Conservative Anglican Issues" - wouldn't that work?

Sounds good to me.

[Colabomb]

I don't want to start dividing.

I think We should be able to have such discussions as adults.

Communion, the ordination of women, and OSAS are larger than my denomination, and I'd love to discuss them with conservatives of other denominations.

If I wanted to discuss something only with my Anglican Brothers, I'd post it over on STR.

[CyberPaladin]

I wasn't proposing a subforum for debate, more like a subforum where a group of conservative Anglicans or Lutherans would be able to start threads to discuss denominational beliefs where they won't have to fend off the liberals on their own forums or other groups with different ideas on this forum.

If this were pursued I would suggest that only one subforum be created for this purpose, not a specific subforum for every denomination.

My recommendation of limiting threads on denominationally divisive views in the Conservative Christians forum is about maintaining general unity, not about cutting off discussions amongst people who share denominational beliefs yet find them difficult to discuss in their specific denominational forum.

It is an attempt to build some kind of exemption into the general rule for these kinds of situations.

Zoziw I think your idea would pretty will kill the forum it would it turn into either a fluff only board which alot of us have no desire to practipate in such a place or sock puppet for one or acouple of other forum. It will work wondefully for those of you coming from the large congeragtion boards since you will have plenty people to have discussions with but those us aren't will effectively prohibited from having a conversation of any sort of real substance.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

So are you guys saying we should have a subforum or not? Because I think we should. It would just make navigation alot easier IMO.

[CyberPaladin]

So are you guys saying we should have a subforum or not? Because I think we should. It would just make navigation alot easier IMO.
I'm definetly for having a debate subforum.

[zoziw]

Zoziw I think your idea would pretty will kill the forum it would it turn into either a fluff only board which alot of us have no desire to practipate in such a place or sock puppet for one or acouple of other forum. It will work wondefully for those of you coming from the large congeragtion boards since you will have plenty people to have discussions with but those us aren't will effectively prohibited from having a conversation of any sort of real substance.

I definitely do not want to kill the forum, but how many threads on issues we know we disagree on can take place before people decide they aren't welcome here and leave.

The woman's ordination thread has already caused that to happen.

That will kill the forum as well.

The reality is that this forum is going to be made up of diverse denominations and individuals who all feel very strongly about their traditional beliefs.

I guess the question that needs to be answered is "Is this a fellowship forum where we discuss areas of mutual concern and interest or is this going to be a debating forum where Calvinists and Methodists argue over whether a person can lose their salvation?"

It seems to me the latter should be discussed, and is already being discussed in multiple threads, on the Nicene Theology forum under Soteriology.

It isn't like we aren't going to have debates over other things...we already are and my point is not to limit those debates. I just question why we would create divisive debates over issues we already know, from centuries of disagreement, are going to break our unity.

[CyberPaladin]

I definitely do not want to kill the forum, but how many threads on issues we know we disagree on can take place before people decide they aren't welcome here and leave.

The woman's ordination thread has already caused that to happen.

That will kill the forum as well.

The reality is that this forum is going to be made up of diverse denominations and individuals who all feel very strongly about their traditional beliefs.

I guess the question that needs to be answered is "Is this a fellowship forum where we discuss areas of mutual concern and interest or is this going to be a debating forum where Calvinists and Methodists argue over whether a person can lose their salvation?"

It seems to me the latter should be discussed, and is already being discussed in multiple threads, on the Nicene Theology forum under Soteriology.

It isn't like we aren't going to have debates over other things...we already are and my point is not to limit those debates. I just question why we would create divisive debates over issues we already know, from centuries of disagreement, are going to break our unity.

I agree with your concerns and I feel the same way on the issue that we need to change the way things are being handled. I just believe that make a seperate subforum for debates and spelling out some very specific rules about what we epxect as far as debating etique is the way to go.
My main concern is that when we start placing limits that remove debates altoghter lets face it realisticly we aren't going to be able to establish a list of topics that we can and can't debate. This barring of debates will invariably severly chills discussions of any serious nature because the fact is we are group from varying denominational backgrounds and we are going to have heated discussions which is just another phrasing for debates if we are going to talk about anything important.

[Debi1967]

maybe it is time to start establishing limits on how debate should occur instead of arguing on whether it can or cannot occur and then we might come to a comprimise here??????

[CyberPaladin]

I think first off we need include a warning of some sort telling people while debate section is for only Conservative Christians due the wide variety of different denamations and various beliefs there will be heated conversations and if you don't want particapate or are bothered by those kinds of discussions please stay in the main section.

Also I think we need to put certain limits on things you can question for instance while your free to question a persons interpatation of scripiture but not to insult the Bible or question it's divinty. Limited debating on the Trinity or whether the reseruction phsyicaly occured, no debates on what is sexual morality, and I'm sure come with some more stuff but I think that's a start.

[Debi1967]

I think we need to start plainly n who can debate in our forum and do it quickly we have a lot of non-Conservatives in here right now debating us

[GreenMunchkin]

I've added a clause about mods solely being from our forum, and only members of the forum being able to vote.

[CyberPaladin]

I've added a clause about mods solely being from our forum, and only members of the forum being able to vote.
That's a great thing to have in there.

[GreenMunchkin]

Can you imagine what could've happened otherwise?

:eek: + :cry:

[CyberPaladin]

Can you imagine what could've happened otherwise?

:eek: + :cry:

This would problaly be more accurate for me. :eek:+ :help: +:mad:

[CyberPaladin]

Do you guys think saying nonconservatives chirstian may not debate is necassary it's already implied in the rules but isn't really stated.

[JimfromOhio]

My definition of "conservative" means different than others. I am unsure how this forum will be successful. To some, I am not considered "conservative", to others, I am "very conservative".

[GreenMunchkin]

Do you guys think saying nonconservatives chirstian may not debate is necassary it's already implied in the rules but isn't really stated.It depends on whether we get our debate sub-forum, bro. In th main forum, there's been a heap of it which is unacceptable, but in a debate sub-forum... I don't know.

[CyberPaladin]

It depends on whether we get our debate sub-forum, bro. In th main forum, there's been a heap of it which is unacceptable, but in a debate sub-forum... I don't know.

I know it's diffcult on the one hand some very knowledgable about thelogy but on the other hand there is some issues that there is disagreement among Christian Conservatives on and it would be to discuss and debate this without 3rd parties chiming in.

[GreenMunchkin]

I know it's diffcult on the one hand some very knowledgable about thelogy but on the other hand there is some issues that there is disagreement among Christian Conservatives on and it would be to discuss and debate this without 3rd parties chiming in.Exactly. But we're essentially a non-denominational forum, and the WWMC and Non-Denominational forums seem to work, so we'll find our way :hug:

I added the point about debate to the wiki, and added that we have a confirmed list of members, and that people wanting to join need to be added to the list and supported by 3 current members. It's what was decided on very early on... It's the process OBOB used in order to prevent it from spiralling out of control. It's in there, but I'm not sure how much I like it. It could make us seem like we think we're an exclusive club, and that's not the impression we want to give. But it's working for OBOB, and we've had so many issues already :sigh:

What do you think?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Exactly. But we're essentially a non-denominational forum, and the WWMC and Non-Denominational forums seem to work, so we'll find our way :hug:

I added the point about debate to the wiki, and added that we have a confirmed list of members, and that people wanting to join need to be added to the list and supported by 3 current members. It's what was decided on very early on... It's the process OBOB used in order to prevent it from spiralling out of control. It's in there, but I'm not sure how much I like it. It could make us seem like we think we're an exclusive club, and that's not the impression we want to give. But it's working for OBOB, and we've had so many issues already :sigh:

What do you think?
You know...I just had a thought GM. How about if we go by the persons fruit? For example: Johnny is on the list and has said he counts himself as a conservative christian. But then in his posts he's not acting especially conservativey...and doesn't seem to line up with what our forum has in the wiki. We could establish a format that says if Johnny continues in this fashion we can "kick" him out of the forum as a member. Maybe that sounds too much like an exclusive club too...but at least we gave him a chance.

[GreenMunchkin]

The only thing with that, mama, is it'd be more hurtful to be kicked out than to have to have 3 people support your joining...

Can you imagine how dreadful it'd feel to be kicked out? I don't know if any of us could do that to someone.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

The only thing with that, mama, is it'd be more hurtful to be kicked out than to have to have 3 people support your joining...

Can you imagine how dreadful it'd feel to be kicked out? I don't know if any of us could do that to someone.
I guess so...but then again, if you've been properly warned you pretty much do it to yourself. :sorry:

To get 3 people to support your joining seems extreme too. I'm trying to imagine myself in that position. I probably wouldn't bother. *shrug*

[GreenMunchkin]

Am sort of losing the will to live. People who have never before even entered the forum are now suddenly voting on mod applications. I doubt it's a coincidence.

I hate CF :(

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

How can you tell who's voted?

[GreenMunchkin]

Click on the number of votes and it'll show you exactly who's voted.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Click on the number of votes and it'll show you exactly who's voted.
Ah...cool. :)

[CyberPaladin]

I have rule suggestion I wanted to run by guys what do you think of requiring people to have 50-100 posts before they can start a thread.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I have rule suggestion I wanted to run by guys what do you think of requiring people to have 50-100 posts before they can start a thread.
That would make sense CP...:thumbsup: Good idea!

[CyberPaladin]

I have question what would you guys think requiring certian number of post before someone can apply for membership. My concern is alot of the people who are members here are really nice so nice they might vote for someone who has 5 or 10 posts on the board just because they don't want them to feel unwelcome and that very quickly defeat the whole of point having membership for forum.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I have question what would you guys think requiring certian number of post before someone can apply for membership. My concern is alot of the people who are members here are really nice so nice they might vote for someone who has 5 or 10 posts on the board just because they don't want them to feel unwelcome and that very quickly defeat the whole of point having membership for forum.
I think that's another brilliant idea CP...:) :hug: Would 50 be enough?

[CyberPaladin]

I think that's another brilliant idea CP...:) :hug: Would 50 be enough?

I think that would do the trick.

[CyberPaladin]

I have another suggestion if in thread to get your membership you start suggesting we are acting unloving or unchristian because your not getting votes your application is immedately denied and your barred for life from reapplying.

[nyj]

Unfortunately, in terms of specific forum posting requirements, that's going to be hard to enforce and check because it's not (and Erwin said it won't) be coded into the system.

OBOB has a "vouch system" whereby new additions to the Roll Call have to be supported by a set number of the regular members who are already on the rolls.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Not sure if I agree with this...I thought we were going with 3 current members. :scratch: I think 5 would be a bit excessive.


In order to become a member, your membership must be supported by 5 current members.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Ok...I took out the part about only members being able to debate because we should be able to witness and answer questions that non believers come in here asking. It could end up biting us in the behind big time though so let's be watchful over the next few days. If we need to we can change it back if it gets ugly later.

[Letalis]

Ok...I took out the part about only members being able to debate because we should be able to witness and answer questions that non believers come in here asking. It could end up biting us in the behind big time though so let's be watchful over the next few days. If we need to we can change it back if it gets ugly later.
I think that should be put back in.

A specific exception clause should be written in the rules giving staff/members discretion (on a case-by-case basis) to allow limited debate when outreach is the goal.

[GreenMunchkin]

I think that should be put back in.

A specific exception clause should be written in the rules giving staff/members discretion (on a case-by-case basis) to allow limited debate when outreach is the goal.Completely agree 100% with all of that.

[Angeldove97]

The wiki looks really good---I'm gonna go sign up to nominate people :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I added the following as per the subject matter of this thread (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37394683#post37394683).


Because of the stark contrast between the Liberal viewpoints vs. Conservative Christian viewpoints, members in this forum can only be a member of one, not both, of these fora.

[Letalis]

These look good. :)

Do you think we're ready to sticky them in the forum?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

These look good. :)

Do you think we're ready to sticky them in the forum?
You can do that? :eek:

Yes please! :D

[CyberPaladin]

If it's not to late I have one more suggestion a 2 day waiting period minium after someone applies for membership before anyone can vote to allow a chance for people to both voice concerns and discuss them and ask the applicant questions.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Conservative Christians Forum

Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality. Central to this worldview is the belief that Truth exists objectively and independently of our perception. Truth is unchanging and absolute.

God is Truth. He has revealed His Truth in the person of His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Bible, His written word, and in the Holy Church, which includes all who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, submitting their lives to Him in faith.


"I will bow down toward the temple of thy holiness, and celebrate thy name for thy loving-kindness and for thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." ~Psalm 138:2, Darby


This Forum Affirms:

The Holy Scriptures are inspired, the written Word of God. Scripture is revelation from God given for the instruction of his people in faith, morals, and doctrine. The revelation of scripture is completely reliable and authoritative.
The minimum standard of doctrinal belief in order for a person to be considered a Christian is accurately contained within the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. The doctrines contained within these creeds are the bare essentials upon which Christians must agree. It is understood, however, that even within the creeds there are some differences of interpretation. Specifically, it is allowed in this forum that the term “Catholic Church” can be understood to mean the universal, invisible body of which all Christians are members. The phrase “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” can be understood in a symbolic sense.
Our Christian faith can not be separated from our views on politics and society, or any other area of life. The Conservative Christian worldview holds the following values and views to be necessary expressions of Christian morality based upon Holy Scripture and the established teachings of the Christian Church.
The sanctity of human life. Physical life begins at conception and ends when the body can no longer naturally sustain itself. Human life can not be ended prematurely without just cause and just authority to do so. This includes most cases of abortion and euthanasia.
Sexual morality is a fundamental requirement of Christian moral teaching. The Scriptures repeatedly address the topic of sexual morality as a necessary part of our obedience to God and right living. Sexually moral behavior, in Scripture, and in the established teachings of the Church is held to be limited to sex between a husband and his wife. All other sexual activities fall under the heading of sexual immorality.
Sin separates people from God. Thus it is destructive and harmful. Jesus Christ came not only to grant us a way of forgiveness from sin, but also to free us from bondage to sin. Our Lord Jesus Christ has imparted to us the ministry of reconciliation. It is our duty and privilege to teach people the gospel of forgiveness of sins, freedom from sin, and reconciliation to God. Freedom begins with knowing the truth.
Truth and Love are both God's character. All truth can be expressed in love. When addressing others in the forum we should hold ourselves accountable to the belief that all people are created in God's image, and as such deserve a basic level of respect, regardless of their deeds. This is not meant to muzzle honest discourse or comment, but to remind that all truth, must be expressed in love. Therefore, Conservative Christians may not flame visitors but rather seek to reason with them with an attitude of service and love.
Sola Scriptura – Not all conservatives hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As per the forum rules we all acknowledge the inspiration, complete reliability, and authority of scripture. However, some conservative Christians may hold Holy Tradition and the Church to be authoritative, or necessary to proper interpretation of scripture, in addition to the scriptures. Others do affirm Sola Scriptura, and are also welcomed equally on this forum.

Neither position is preferred. No rule will be made concerning the views of Sola Scriptura, or the Traditions of the Church. Which position is correct is to be determined by the individual, not the forum.
Biblical Literalism – Not all conservatives hold an absolute literal interpretation of scripture. This may especially be seen in the areas of eschatology and the Genesis creation account."I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." ~Revelation 21:6-8, NASB

The preceding points are held to be true by this forum and its members. Debate which denies or calls into question the aforementioned points will not be tolerated. People who disagree with or question these may visit and ask earnest questions but may not debate these points.


This is not the "Fundamentalist" forum. Fundamentalists are generally conservative, but not all conservatives are fundamentalists. Though most fundamentalists are very welcome here, we would like to stress that there is a difference between “fanatical” fundamentalists and those who define themselves as just “plain old Fundamentalists”. Our purpose in this forum is not to divide, but unite. As a result, those who find themselves on the more extreme end of this definition will need to restrain themselves when commenting here.

"Conservative Christian", both on CF and in the real world, represents an umbrella term under which many individuals, denominations, churches and other organizations unify in order to forward a common cause. Because of this, and in order to maintain unity on the Conservative Christian forum, posts regarding specific denominational practices and beliefs (eg. baptismal formulae, whether one can lose their salvation, the specifics of what happens at communion, etc...) should be made in the proper denominational or theological forum instead of in the Conservative Christian forum.

General Rules:

Only confirmed members of the CC forum may apply to be moderators of the forum, and only confirmed members of the CC forum are permitted to vote on the applicants.
Confirmed members are listed. Any new member wishing to become a member of the congregation must be added to the confirmed list before being able to vote or debate. We also add an exception to this rule that the staff/members have discretion (on a case-by-case basis) to allow limited debate with non-members when outreach is the goal.
Because of the stark contrast between the Liberal viewpoints vs. Conservative Christian viewpoints, members in this forum can only be a member of one, not both, of these fora.
In order to become a member, you must have a minimum of 50 posts and your membership must be supported by 5 current members.
Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions but not give answers regarding conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

[talitha]

good job, Lady Trekki! ;)

I am a mod on another website, and my time has been taken up a lot there, so I have not been able to spend much time here - but you guys are doing wonderfully!

blessings
tal

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

good job, Lady Trekki! ;)

I am a mod on another website, and my time has been taken up a lot there, so I have not been able to spend much time here - but you guys are doing wonderfully!

blessings
tal
Thanks Talitha. :)

I was wondering where you went off to...:)

[nyj]

We're going to have a hard time enforcing the "minimum of 50 posts to start a thread" rule.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

We're going to have a hard time enforcing the "minimum of 50 posts to start a thread" rule.
Probably...I've seen it happen already here. I see the reason why we should have it though...stops the trolls. Or at least slows them down. :P Perhaps we should add "must be a member".

[nyj]

If it's trolling, shouldn't the regular rules be enforced (i.e., it should be covered, no)?

If we limit it to members or 50+ posts, we'll lose the ability to have visitors ask honest questions, and receive honest answers.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

If it's trolling, shouldn't the regular rules be enforced (i.e., it should be covered, no)?

If we limit it to members or 50+ posts, we'll lose the ability to have visitors ask honest questions, and receive honest answers.
I just realized #5 was redundant. :doh: It's also stated in #4.

Ummm...nyj, do we want visitors to come in and ask questions? I'm just saying that we can't have it both ways. How many times have you seen someone come in with an question who wasn't trying to bait people to debate them?

It doesn't really matter one way or another to me...I just thought it made sense when it was suggested by CP.

[nyj]

.

Ummm...nyj, do we want visitors to come in and ask questions?

We lose a valuable education and evangelization tool if we don't allow it.

How many times have you seen someone come in with an question who wasn't trying to bait people to debate them?Often. However, that doesn't negate the opportunity we have to answer questions. If they turn out to be baiting ... their rule-violating posts can be removed, allowing the question to remain, visible for people seeking answers.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

We lose a valuable education and evangelization tool if we don't allow it.

Often. However, that doesn't negate the opportunity we have to answer questions. If they turn out to be baiting ... their rule-violating posts can be removed, allowing the question to remain, visible for people seeking answers.
Ok. Guess I'm more of a "nip it in the bud BEFORE it happens" kinda gal. But I can see your reasoning. :)

[nyj]

Ok. Guess I'm more of a "nip it in the bud BEFORE it happens" kinda gal. But I can see your reasoning. :)Sometimes that looks like a "shoot first, ask questions later" sort of policy. I'd like to avoid that reputation as much as possible.

I'm one opinion amongst a forum of many. We should see what the populace thinks about it.

[Criada]

Um - been away a long time, so I've kind of lost track here.
Before I went, we had got rid of the "traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian church" but it sems that they are back....
Without potentially rehashing stufff you have already discussed, can someone tell me why? And which church?!!

[desmalia]

I think the wiki is really coming along nicely. I do think the whole reference to Fundamentalists can be removed though. The Sola Scriptura vs. Tradition issue is addressed earlier in the statement and that covers it, IMHO.

Leaving the statement about Fundamentalists as it is still singles us out and creates the feel of "you can play here as long as you play nice", which is basically true for all members, not just Fundies.

If there needs to be reference to specific groups, perhaps it could be mentioned that, while Fundamentalists, Catholics, EO, and other groups hold to specific doctrines, the term Conservative is not as specific in nature. But I think all groups will need to be addressed, or none at all. Otherwise some will inevitably feel left out if they're not mentioned.

[Debi1967]

Um - been away a long time, so I've kind of lost track here.
Before I went, we had got rid of the "traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian church" but it sems that they are back....
Without potentially rehashing stufff you have already discussed, can someone tell me why? And which church?!!
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36903061&postcount=20

Criada the discussion started here and then we had a poll to see which statement would be used and Simon's won so we instituted it by forum consensus

[Colabomb]

I find the membership issue a little restrictive. I have a problem with a popular opinion system, where people are essentially voted in.

How about instead we write a little, minimalist statement of conservative faith, that people are expected to conform to?

Voting people in makes me uncomfortable, even if it is a small number like five.

[Colabomb]

This is not the "Fundamentalist" forum. Fundamentalists are generally conservative, but not all conservatives are fundamentalists. Though most fundamentalists are very welcome here, we would like to stress that there is a difference between “fanatical” fundamentalists and those who define themselves as just “plain old Fundamentalists”. Our purpose in this forum is not to divide, but unite. As a result, those who find themselves on the more extreme end of this definition will need to restrain themselves when commenting here.

I feel this should be cleaned up. Even though the writer was careful to remain docile, I can see many people reading this in a harsh and judgemental light.

I think it can be cut down to

This is not the fundementalist forum. While the majority of fundementalists are conservative, not all conservatives are fundementalist.

It gives the knowledgable the basic information they need, and those who don't understand the difference can post friendly questions.

[desmalia]

This is not the "Fundamentalist" forum. Fundamentalists are generally conservative, but not all conservatives are fundamentalists. Though most fundamentalists are very welcome here, we would like to stress that there is a difference between “fanatical” fundamentalists and those who define themselves as just “plain old Fundamentalists”. Our purpose in this forum is not to divide, but unite. As a result, those who find themselves on the more extreme end of this definition will need to restrain themselves when commenting here. I feel this should be cleaned up. Even though the writer was careful to remain docile, I can see many people reading this in a harsh and judgemental light. Exactly. Part of that statement actually came from one of my posts. But without the context of the post (which does not belong in the wiki, of course), the statement does come off as harsh and judgmental here. Unless every group that falls under the Conservative umbrella is going to be directed as to what they can and cannot post in the forum, I think it should just be removed altogether.

[Debi1967]

I personally think that the whole fundamentalist thing should be rmoved too.... It does single out one group as though they would be more trouble than any other group.

Besides I think the Sola Scriptura thing or Sole Fide does include them as well. but that is just my opinion.

[NewGuy101]

I'm going to make a poll to see how many members must approve a new invidual who wants to be a part of the forum. In the mean time I deleted the member confirmation number until the Poll determines the masses opinion.

[NewGuy101]

"Conservative Christian", both on CF and in the real world, represents an umbrella term under which many individuals, denominations, churches and other organizations unify in order to forward a common cause. Because of this, and in order to maintain unity on the Conservative Christian forum, posts regarding specific denominational practices and beliefs (eg. baptismal formulae, whether one can lose their salvation, the specifics of what happens at communion, etc...) should be made in the proper denominational or theological forum instead of in the Conservative Christian forum.


I don't like this part, I think we should be able to debate issues. I mean as Christians we should be nice to each other but we should be able to discuss issues as well.

[nyj]

I'm going to make a poll to see how many members must approve a new invidual who wants to be a part of the forum.We've already snapshotted 5. How many do you think we really need?

[nyj]

I don't like this part, I think we should be able to debate issues. I mean as Christians we should be nice to each other but we should be able to discuss issues as well.We have the Theology fora for that.

[nyj]

I personally think that the whole fundamentalist thing should be rmoved too...
I removed it for now.

[CyberPaladin]

I don't like this part, I think we should be able to debate issues. I mean as Christians we should be nice to each other but we should be able to discuss issues as well.
We could change so those discussion are allowed but only in the debate subforum.

[CyberPaladin]

While not going to argue that we need leave something directed a fundie neccasrly I think we do need to include some message warning extremist that them trying to push people around this board won't be tolerated.

[NewGuy101]

We have the Theology fora for that.

The theology forum is full of liberals, it isn't sufficient for conservative theological debates. Why is it that so many here are resistant to discuss the issues?

[NewGuy101]

While not going to argue that we need leave something directed a fundie neccasrly I think we do need to include some message warning extremist that them trying to push people around this board won't be tolerated.
How is that necessery if we are such a diverse group who must complement each other in this forum?

[Colabomb]

We have the Theology fora for that.

I disagree. A major reason for this forum is so that we can discuss theological issues coming from a similar place. We can discuss what Scripture says, rather than defending Scripture itself.

[Debi1967]

What was the use of creating out own debate board if we are not going to encourage people to use it?

I think that most debate issues need to be taken there and those light topics that are debatable and deal with the whole forum should stay in the forum itself.

[desmalia]

What was the use of creating out own debate board if we are not going to encourage people to use it?

I think that most debate issues need to be taken there and those light topics that are debatable and deal with the whole forum should stay in the forum itself.
That's a good point. If a debate is moved to the GT or CA forum it will become overrun by non-Christians, liberals and the unorthodox crowd and then loses all meaning and purpose. That's not to suggest there should be no guidelines for debate. It think there will have to be. Otherwise the forum could easily become thread after thread of sola vs. tradition debates, which I'm sure no one wants.

[zoziw]

I disagree. A major reason for this forum is so that we can discuss theological issues coming from a similar place. We can discuss what Scripture says, rather than defending Scripture itself.

I posted the section in question and here was my reasoning:

I posted this after seeing an OSAS thread on the forum and realizing that a lot of posts like this could cause the forum to fragment pretty quickly.

There are a lot of things that conservative Christians have in common, especially in the world today, however, if we allow a lot of denominationally specific beliefs to be posted on and debated here, I don't think we are going to find the unity we are hoping for.

I think that as a forum we should be able to make posts on the broadest possible spectrum of topics, however, if we start focusing on denominational beliefs that we already know will divide us, I think we are headed for trouble.

Maybe, we need to use an "in-house discussion" tag system or subforum so that people belonging to a denomination that is drifting towards liberalism can discuss cherised conservative/traditional beliefs here without having to defend themselves from liberals or from other denominations.

Thoughts??

[Debi1967]

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions but not give answers regarding conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

I think we need to re-examine the highlighted portion of this rule.

I had a former Christian come in who is now atheist, and give me good Christian counsel in one of my threads. He was not trying to do anything but be supportive of me, because he remembered me from when he was Christian. He also has stated that he has thought about returning to Christianity several times but every time that he has, something happens that proves to him that Christianity is not all that it's cracked up to be. Iows, he sees poor Christian behaviour.

I can see the reason for the no debate rule and I agree with the first half of this rule as well. However, I think we are overcomplicating things with the second half and not allowing for the ability to reach out to people with the second half.

It was said in some reports and it is true, if we implement this rule then we are within the legality of the Law but not within the Spirit of the Law.

[CyberPaladin]

Debie I don't see there as being much of an alternative because if we open the forum and allow them to give advice we are very likely to endup with very unchristian like advice. The kind that advocates sin and keep in mind that's what has been going on in the Christian advice section of this forum.

[HypnoToad]

As to a Debate subforum, there's no real need to have one for CC members only. Let those discussions stay in the main area. Nealy all discussions are going to have some aspect of debate in them anyway.

If there's going to be one, it should be where non-CC's can start a debate with CC's about something. I would perhaps limit it so that only the debate starter is the only non-CC who can post in that particular thread.

If you don't want debate from non-CC's at all, then there should at least be an "Ask a Conservative" subforum where non-CC's can ask a question about conservative views, but not debate against them.

Simply linking to the "Questions by Non-Christians" section is not sufficient, as only non-Christians can start threads there, whereas any non-conservative (including Christians) could as one here; and also any Christian (liberal or conservative) can answer questions there, without the asker being able to necessarily distinguish between who is answering their question, whereas having one in the CC area makes that clear.

[nyj]

I was thinking of changing the "General Rules" to the following:

<<Suggested Modifications to the WIKI - nyj>>
Membership

A confirmed member is defined as someone who adheres to the aforementioned affirmations of the Conservative Christian forum and has sought and received approval to become a member of the CC forum. All CC members are listed in a "Roll Call" stickied in the CC forum.

Only confirmed members of the CC forum may apply to be moderators of the forum.
Only confirmed members of the CC forum are allowed to vote on CC moderator applicants, and polls establishing CC forum guidelines and other changes to the WIKI needing CC forum approval.
Only confirmed members of the CC forum are allowed to debate in the CC forum.
Because of the stark contrast between the Liberal viewpoints vs. Conservative Christian viewpoints, members in this forum can only be a member of one, not both, of these fora.
Non-Christians, Non-Conservative Christians and non-confirmed members of the CC forum may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. These individuals also cannot give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice. <<End of Suggested Modifications - nyj>>

[Debi1967]

I was thinking of changing the "General Rules" to the following:

<<Suggested Modifications to the WIKI - nyj>>
Membership

A confirmed member is defined as someone who adheres to the aforementioned affirmations of the Conservative Christian forum and has sought and received approval to become a member of the CC forum. All CC members are listed in a "Roll Call" stickied in the CC forum.

Only confirmed members of the CC forum may apply to be moderators of the forum.
Only confirmed members of the CC forum are allowed to vote on CC moderator applicants, and polls establishing CC forum guidelines and other changes to the WIKI needing CC forum approval.
Only confirmed members of the CC forum are allowed to debate in the CC forum.
Because of the stark contrast between the Liberal viewpoints vs. Conservative Christian viewpoints, members in this forum can only be a member of one, not both, of these fora.
Non-Christians, Non-Conservative Christians and non-confirmed members of the CC forum may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. These individuals also cannot give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.<<End of Suggested Modifications - nyj>>:thumbsup:

[GreenMunchkin]

I altered Rule 4 (see thread about rule changes), but nyj, your ideas are good. They're more concise than what we have now. Do we need to get a consensus in order to change them?