Wiki Poll: Opening Statement

[talitha]

What do you want for an opening statement on the Wiki?

1. Original Version by Talitha:
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.

2. Version Two by Simon_Templar:

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.
3. Version two with the following phrase omitted:
and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church
4. A complete rewrite by someone other than Tal or Simon

Please vote and post your comments about the inclusion of a "tradition" clause on the Wiki.

If a majority of people choose Simon's version, I will most likely bow out of the debate and limit my opinion-giving on this forum to things that go along with a traditionalist viewpoint.

blessings
tal

[talitha]

Please note that the reason I'm making this poll is to find out what the majority opinion is; I think it would be wrong of me to just revert the Wiki without knowing.

[catofhope]

I'll ask the question...

What does "the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church" refer too?

Hard to vote unless we are all on the same page as to what it means.

I think I may not what it refers to but do not want to assume.

[Lisa0315]

I don't understand the difference between 1 and 2. Can someone explain?

Lisa

[talitha]

Lisa, for me the main difference is that the version I wrote does not emphasize tradition - partially because we in this forum come from different traditions, so I would rather just center around the Bible and Jesus and His Body. I have thought about adding something about "through personal sanctification" to clarify that I'm not talking about making church traditions better, but rather making God's people more Godly.

blessings
tal

[Lisa0315]

hmm...I am still very undecided. I like Simon's because of the way he talks about Absolute Truth. I like Talitha's because the emphasis is on Jesus and submitting to him.

I think I would like a blend of the two to be honest.

Lisa

[Angel4Truth]

On the record as having voted for statement #2 (since somehow one of my votes on another poll went missing)

[Lisa0315]

On the record as having voted for statement #2 (since somehow one of my votes on another poll went missing)

Yep, saw it with my own eyes. It might be a good idea for everyone to post after they vote. There is definitely a bug. We need to know if it happens again.

Lisa

[talitha]

What do you think of mine with the "unchanging and absolute" part added into it?

As conservative Christians we believe that the Truth - which is by its nature unchanging and absolute - 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.

[Lisa0315]

What do you think of mine with the "unchanging and absolute" part added into it?


As conservative Christians we believe that the Truth - which is by its nature unchanging and absolute - 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.


Add In "In Faith" at the very end and I think it is a winner!

Lisa

[Angel4Truth]

Talitha i think thats an excellent addition and would have voted yes for it if it were there when i voted

[talitha]

bless you, Angel!

I am thinking that the Traditionalists are just ignoring this poll and waiting for us to change the Wiki so that they can revert it. :P

[Lisa0315]

bless you, Angel!

I am thinking that the Traditionalists are just ignoring this poll and waiting for us to change the Wiki so that they can revert it. :P


Now, now. let's not even jest like that. You may want to PM some members from both sides to get this poll going. We are kind of a small group right now, and everyone is coming from other places.

I will see if I can post this poll in places that I am already linked to. I have to be careful because more than 4 times is considered spamming now.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I posted it in three Conservative threads. That should keep me from getting reported as a spammer.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Tal, if you're able to alter your version the way you and Lisa discussed, yours is definitely the one I want.

[GreenMunchkin]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5741487-debate-sub-forum.html

To vote yes or no for a debate sub-forum :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Tal, if you're able to alter your version the way you and Lisa discussed, yours is definitely the one I want.
Me too! :thumbsup:

[Simon_Templar]

The reason I added the phrase regarding the traditional beliefs of the church was specifically to address the interpetation of scripture on controversial topics.

I come from a forum that his split between conservatives and liberals. In that forum it was a matter of routine for liberals to argue that their position was completely in line with scripture.
given the new format of CF, unless you specifically define what it means to adhere to scripture, you might as well not even say it because anyone who claims to do so will be allowed their view, even if it is absolutely opposite of what we believe scripture says.
This was a daily occurance in the forum I was in, it happened in almost every thread.

In otherwords, to say "we believe the bible" means nothing because those who support abortion and homosexuality say exactly the same thing. If you don't define what you believe the scripture says, you might as well not even bother with this forum.
So you either have the option of specifically defining each and every issue which might arise, or you have to go with a more broad statement such as linking our interpetation of scripture to the traditional teachings of the church.

The basic intent of the phrase was that scripture be defined to mean what the Church as a whole has always understood it to mean.

The reason this has become an issue is because of the women's ordination thread.

[GreenMunchkin]

The reason I added the phrase regarding the traditional beliefs of the church was specifically to address the interpetation of scripture on controversial topics....

*snipped*:hug: I really, really hope you're not offended, bro. What you wrote was so wonderful. But certain people felt it gave them free license to attack others, so obviously we have to turn this into a word-perfect nanny state :sigh:

What you wrote was lovely. Just subsequent events show we need it to be less open to being abused in translation.

:hug:

[talitha]

Simon, I feel that this 'conservative' forum needs to be big enough at least for the few of us who are here now. I conceded one point to colabomb already, and made some changes that I didn't necessarily think were best, because I wanted this to be accomodating to the others and not just my own ideas.

Think of it as the conservative side of the WWMC. I'm absolutely positive that the people in that forum do not agree on everything - but they are warm and accepting of people when they come in.

Under the "new CF" rules, we are probably going to be seeing an influx of people into this forum who feel that they can't fellowship in their respective congregational fora, because they are too conservative. That does not make them strict traditionalists in ther various denominations - that just makes them people who stick closer to the Bible than the most vocal people at CF do.

You are right - this became an issue because of the women's ordination thread. I don't know you well enough to know how mischievous you might be, but I know some people who would have started that thread just to see what would happen - to see how quickly people would go to their respective corners.

What I noticed was that we had a very civil conversation going on there until a couple of people showed up who might be from the fundamentalist group, I don't know, I've never been in there. They seemed to want to stir up trouble. I see nothing wrong with debate, and I'm not afraid of people who disagree, but I didn't like the way these people acted, and I am really hoping that in the future that sort of thing will be nipped in the bud - not allowed to go on for twenty pages. I feel certain that if you were modding, you would've put a stop to it, even though they were sort of on your side.

Anyhoo, I see what you are trying to say, but I don't see a resolution yet.....

blessings
tal

[Simon_Templar]

I don't think there is anyway to avoid the fact that some people are abrasive and aggressive. Especially in a "conservative" forum, it is inevitable that you are going to have inflexible people who assume that those who disagree with them on any issue are denying scripture.

Moderation can curb it, but I don't think any rules set is going to stop it from occuring.

[Criada]

I haven't voted, as I can only pick one option.

I would be happy with any except 2.
I can see where Simon is coming from, but there are so many church traditions that would be tacitly supported by this that I would be unable to accept it.

[Hishandmaiden]

I had not voted, yet.
I like your version, Talitha, if you add in what Lisa suggested.
I like Simon's version, too, but church traditions are different from many conservative churches.

[talitha]

I don't think there is anyway to avoid the fact that some people are abrasive and aggressive. Especially in a "conservative" forum, it is inevitable that you are going to have inflexible people who assume that those who disagree with them on any issue are denying scripture.

Moderation can curb it, but I don't think any rules set is going to stop it from occuring.
I agree completely, Simon - I have so successfully separated myself from the "angry" wing of the conservatives that I had almost forgotten they were there. I had to stop listening to Christian Radio in one place where I lived, because it was filled with one angry talk show after another, and it was damaging my spirit. Sad.

Perhaps if we go with my version, we should remind each other in another part of the Wiki that conservatives tend to stick with tradition to some extent, and that we need to respect each other's consciences per Romans 14 by not condemning one another's traditions, something like that.

blessings
tal

[Lisa0315]

I agree completely, Simon - I have so successfully separated myself from the "angry" wing of the conservatives that I had almost forgotten they were there. I had to stop listening to Christian Radio in one place where I lived, because it was filled with one angry talk show after another, and it was damaging my spirit. Sad.

Perhaps if we go with my version, we should remind each other in another part of the Wiki that conservatives tend to stick with tradition to some extent, and that we need to respect each other's consciences per Romans 14 by not condemning one another's traditions, something like that.

blessings
tal

Oh, I like that. Is there really any need for a poll? Why don't you and Simon put your heads together and pull out the most important pieces of each statement, add, edit, delete, and present a blended statement to us?

Lisa

[MrJim]

I voted Simon's, though I've never met the dude.

Conservatism without history is an unstable raft.

[CyberPaladin]

I'm going with Talitha revise version. I firmly believe that including anything about traditional belief is just going to increase problems here both by making discussions more diffcult and creating a huge number of post being reported to the mods where nothing can be done because traditionaly the 2 groups disagree.

[Albion]

I'm going with Talitha revise version. I firmly believe that including anything about traditional belief is just going to increase problems here both by making discussions more diffcult and creating a huge number of post being reported to the mods where nothing can be done because traditionaly the 2 groups disagree.

I'm going along with Simon's version because Talitha's doesn't define conservative in any identifiable way. To conserve the past is conservative and can be demonstrated. It doesn't mean that every idea that ever came among is traditional; it must have a track record and be significant. But if we only say that we stand on absolute truth and not relativism, or words to that effect, what does this mean? Who would not say that their view is that the Truth exists completely outside of our understanding of it. (?)


Almost no one. You might as well make a Wiki that says that only the truth can be presented, not falsehoods. We have to have definitions that actually accomplish something, not just leave it up to the poster to decide for himself.

Not even a Communist is going to say that their POV is not a truth that transcends our understanding of it. They will stipulate that it is, even if it is not. And we've already seen examples of it here, as when a novel interpretation of scripture that no one in history before our times ever believed in was presented. I noted with disappointment that Talitha herself accepted this line of thought as correct in that the Bible was mentioned. Just that. It's true that the Bible is truth not dependent upon our understanding, but every interpretation of it that is a personal opinion IS RELATIVE.

Talitha's version is correct as it stands. The sentiments contained in it are right. That's not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't do one thing for deciding who is eligible to be here and who is not because there is no tangible standard in it, not like the quite customary and normal one included in Simon's.

[Lisa0315]

I'm going along with Simon's version because Talitha's doesn't define conservative in any identifiable way. To conserve the past is conservative and can be demonstrated. It doesn't mean that every idea that ever came among is traditional; it must have a track record and be significant. But if we only say that we stand on absolute truth and not relativism, or words to that effect, what does this mean? Who would not say that their view is that the Truth exists completely outside of our understanding of it. (?)


Almost no one. You might as well make a Wiki that says that only the truth can be presented, not falsehoods. We have to have definitions that actually accomplish something, not just leave it up to the poster to decide for himself.

Not even a Communist is going to say that their POV is not a truth that transcends our understanding of it. They will stipulate that it is, even if it is not. And we've already seen examples of it here, as when a novel interpretation of scripture that no one in history before our times ever believed in was presented. I noted with disappointment that Talitha herself accepted this line of thought as correct in that the Bible was mentioned. Just that. It's true that the Bible is truth not dependent upon our understanding, but every interpretation of it that is a personal opinion IS RELATIVE.

Talitha's version is correct as it stands. The sentiments contained in it are right. That's not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't do one thing for deciding who is eligible to be here and who is not because there is no tangible standard in it, not like the quite customary and normal one included in Simon's.

Well, it is an opening statement. It is not supposed to contain EVERYTHING, only lead up to the rest of it.

Lisa

[Albion]

Well, it is an opening statement. It is not supposed to contain EVERYTHING, only lead up to the rest of it.

Lisa

But we are voting on two specific alternatives. The one proposal is intended to exclude some of the languge in the other. I would be fine with Talitha's so long as we tweak it a little by putting Simon's language into it. ;)

I doubt that the voters would think that was fair to do.

[Lisa0315]

But we are voting on two specific alternatives. The one proposal is intended to exclude some of the languge in the other. I would be fine with Talitha's so long as we tweak it a little by putting Simon's language into it. ;)

I doubt that the voters would think that was fair to do.

Yep, I voted for Talitha's, but I would prefer a blended statement myself.

Lisa

[Albion]

Yep, I voted for Talitha's, but I would prefer a blended statement myself.

Lisa

I don't think that that will be up for consideration.

People will just say that whatever blending is suggested was, in effect, voted down.

Again, I had to vote against Talitha's although I like her and I can see what she wanted. I had to do this because it is a statement that can be interpreted anyway the poster wants.

By contrast, what the church has always believed can be proven or disproven. The idea of always is off-putting, but we shouldn't forget that since the Reformation, none of the ideas we are likely to debate can claim an "always" by tradition. It would only be the ones on which Christianity has always been united that would fall under the rule, like the oneness of God or the idea of salvation by grace or the observance of the Lord's Supper.

I think now that if the word itself ("traditional") had been reworked and stated a different way, the fear of it would have been lessened and Talitha would have possibly accepted the concept behind it.

But that's probably impossible now that voting has begun. I had no idea we were going to vote other than that, overnight, it was here.

[Iosias]

What do you want for an opening statement on the Wiki?


1. Original Version by Talitha: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.

This is too vague for my liking and to say that God reveals his truth "progressively in the Church" implies that Scripture is not the complete revelation of God to man.

2. Version Two by Simon_Templar:

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.This also has the same implication. I would suggest:

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 Holy Bible alone.

[GreenMunchkin]

This is too vague for my liking and to say that God reveals his truth "progressively in the Church" implies that Scripture is not the complete revelation of God to man.AV, aren't you a member of the Fundamentalist Churches congregation? :scratch:

[Iosias]

AV, aren't you a member of the Fundamentalist Churches congregation? :scratch:

I am a member of a number of congregations: STR, SR, Fundamentalist. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

I am a member of a number of congregations: STR, SR, Fundamentalist. :)Cool :) It's just our Wiki says Fundamentalists aren't permitted to debate here... cos this isn't a Fundamentalist forum. It just causes arguments, ya know? Yesterday was *bad* and it upset a lot of people n stuff :(

[Iosias]

It's just our Wiki says Fundamentalists aren't permitted to debate here

Actually it doesn't and in any event they are only proposed rules. :)

[Lisa0315]

[/color][/font][/size][/font][/indent]

This is too vague for my liking and to say that God reveals his truth "progressively in the Church" implies that Scripture is not the complete revelation of God to man.

[/indent]This also has the same implication. I would suggest:

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 Holy Bible alone.


I think that is too narrow, just in my humble opinion. I understand that there are traditions that may or may not be able to be supported by Scripture, and I would want to exclude that. However, there are traditions that give us rich meaning behind Scripture. For example, to know that the reason that John was on the Isle of Patmos and what happened before that. The Book of Martyrs (spelling???), the reason early Christians used the sign of the cross. There is so much beauty in traditions. I don't think we should exclude them as if they do not exist. Maybe, add a line something like, "recognizing the beauty of traditions but testing all by Scripture".

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Actually it doesn't and in any event they are only proposed rules. :)Are you sure? I know they all got re-written when no-one was looking, but I could have sworn they said that...

Ok, but can you acknowledge that voicing opinions like women should only wear skirts in a non Fundamentalist forum is gonna cause strife? Can you not step back so we can all avoid it? Please?

[Iosias]

I think that is too narrow, just in my humble opinion. I understand that there are traditions that may or may not be able to be supported by Scripture, and I would want to exclude that. However, there are traditions that give us rich meaning behind Scripture. For example, to know that the reason that John was on the Isle of Patmos and what happened before that. The Book of Martyrs (spelling???), the reason early Christians used the sign of the cross. There is so much beauty in traditions. I don't think we should exclude them as if they do not exist. Maybe, add a line something like, "recognizing the beauty of traditions but testing all by Scripture".

Lisa

:confused:

[Debi1967]

What do you think of mine with the "unchanging and absolute" part added into it?

As conservative Christians we believe that the Truth - which is by its nature unchanging and absolute - 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.

Now I like this one much better and it DOES NOT alienate those of us that believe in Both Scripture and Tradition

[Iosias]

Ok, but can you acknowledge that voicing opinions like women should only wear skirts in a non Fundamentalist forum is gonna cause strife? Can you not step back so we can all avoid it? Please?

So are you saying that a conservative evangelical is not allowed to debate in a forum for Conservative Christians?

[Iosias]

Why not just have this?

"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."

[GreenMunchkin]

So are you saying that a conservative evangelical is not allowed to debate in a forum for Conservative Christians?But, bro, your thoughts on music and women... those are absolutely Fundamentalst views. I know for *certain* it's specifically in the Wiki that this is not a Fundamentalist forum.

I guess I don't understand why you'd want to debate here if you know it's gonna cause arguments.

[Debi1967]

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 Holy Bible alone.NO again my same objection this alienates those conservative Christians that believe in both Scriptura and Tradition

[Iosias]

NO again my same objection this alienates those conservative Christians that believe in both Scriptura and Tradition

We need to find out where we agree rather than adding in what we disagree on. so Why not just have this?

"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."

[Iosias]

But, bro, your thoughts on music and women... those are absolutely Fundamentalst views.

According to what definition?


I know for *certain* it's specifically in the Wiki that this is not a Fundamentalist forum.

Who said that this was the Fundamentalist Forum? Not I.

As a conservative Christian I am able to discuss things with you. :)

[Debi1967]

We need to find out where we agree rather than adding in what we disagree on. so Why not just have this?

"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."
That is fine I do not object to that but do not in anyway change opening statement again without us first having a discussion about it, that is what I think.

I want to see the full opening statement though before I say a further yay or nay

[Iosias]

That is fine I do not object to that but do not in anyway change opening statement again without us first having a discussion about it, that is what I think.

I want to see the full opening statement though before I say a further yay or nay

I did not change any opening statement or whatever :)

[Epiphanygirl]

NO again my same objection this alienates those conservative Christians that believe in both Scriptura and TraditionAnd this is the main difference between "Fundamentalist" and "Conservative" from a religious pov, especially all us Apostolic Churches.

[Debi1967]

I did not change any opening statement or whatever :)
That wasn't directed at you specifically sorry if it came across that way I forget to use smileys a lot :)

[Debi1967]

And this is the main difference between "Fundamentalist" and "Conservative" from a religious pov, especially all us Apostolic Churches.
Well I am not here to say that fundamentalists can't be also called Conservative Christians I just think that the terminology Conservative Christians doesn't belong to one Faith per se and that you will find Conservative believing Christians in almost any Faith and they should all feel welcome here not just Fundamentalists otherwise then we should just rename this the Fundamentalist forum ...

[TomUK]

I like Simon's version.

[GreenMunchkin]

The whole point is this *isn't* a Fundamentalist forum. There's already one of those.

[Lisa0315]

My main thought on what differentiates a Conservative from a Fundementalist is the tone that is used. I have often pointed out that Catholics and Baptists preach the same message on social issues, but Catholics are not seen as unloving in their message. That says to me that there is a problem in the delivery. It is why I am a Conservative, rather than a Fundementalist.

I think our Love Rule should be key to determining who is a Conservative vs who is a Liberal or a Fundementalist.

Please, please do not take my words as offensive. I realize this is a touchy subject and I am not looking to exclude anyone. I am just trying to point out what I see as the difference here.

I love all of my brothers and sisters. Some are just a little easier...:D

Lisa

[Iosias]

The whole point is this *isn't* a Fundamentalist forum. There's already one of those.

Who is disputing that? :confused:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

My main thought on what differentiates a Conservative from a Fundementalist is the tone that is used. I have often pointed out that Catholics and Baptists preach the same message on social issues, but Catholics are not seen as unloving in their message. That says to me that there is a problem in the delivery. It is why I am a Conservative, rather than a Fundementalist.

I think our Love Rule should be key to determining who is a Conservative vs who is a Liberal or a Fundementalist.

Please, please do not take my words as offensive. I realize this is a touchy subject and I am not looking to exclude anyone. I am just trying to point out what I see as the difference here.

I love all of my brothers and sisters. Some are just a little easier...:D

Lisa
:thumbsup:

[GreenMunchkin]

.

[Iosias]

My main thought on what differentiates a Conservative from a Fundementalist is the tone that is used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Who is disputing that? :confused:
The point is that in the wiki opening statement for the "conservative christians" forum, we do not want it to read as close to the fundamentalist viewpoints as you are suggesting.

[Lisa0315]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity :)

Wiki-pedia is the antichrist! :swoon: :D

[Debi1967]

Wiki-pedia is the antichrist! :swoon: :D
:D :D :D

[Debi1967]

This is the problem with wiki-ness.

A Fundamentalist has come in and created another poll on the exact same issue as this one.

Makes no sense. Something has to be done to prevent stuff like this.
I know I voted no and I stated in that thread why was there a need for two polls on the same issue

BTW this is pollitis lately .... can we maybe just post one poll at a time and stick with that issue until it is resolved.:)

[Albion]

I think that is too narrow, just in my humble opinion. I understand that there are traditions that may or may not be able to be supported by Scripture, and I would want to exclude that. However, there are traditions that give us rich meaning behind Scripture. For example, to know that the reason that John was on the Isle of Patmos and what happened before that. The Book of Martyrs (spelling???), the reason early Christians used the sign of the cross. There is so much beauty in traditions.

I feel that this is a misunderstanding of what he wrote (which seemed pretty good to me, BYW).

He carefully and clearly included on issues of theology and morality, so that's what I was also trying to say when I explained that the meaning has to do with significant issues (I think was the way I put it). No one's going to go to the mat over historical facts or background material to items such as the sign of the cross, etc.

Quite possibly this problem arises from some of us having dealt with the matter of Tradition, one way or the other, in the churches of our experience whereas the word is not part of the vocabulary of other churches, or, worse Christians of those churches know it only as the creation of doctrine out of human speculation--something we also oppose.

It really was a sound proposal for a compromise wording that we all could live with, I think, if we understand what is meant by the word traditional.

[Albion]

But, bro, your thoughts on music and women..

If you read again those points that identify a fundamentalist, those which define what a fundamentalist is, you will not find music on the list or women per se.

Virgin Birth, Vicarious atonement, Deity of Christ, reliability of scripture, etc. yes, but nothing like what you are talking about.

[Debi1967]

[/COLOR]

If you read again those points that identify a fundamentalist, those which define what a fundamentalist is, you will not find music on the list or women per se.

Virgin Birth, Vicarious atonement, Deity of Christ, reliability of scripture, etc. yes, but nothing like what you are talking about.

Now I definitely think we need to define Tradition

[Iosias]

Now I definitely think we need to define Tradition

What is needed is a minimal statement of what it means to be a conservative Christian. If you (RCC) and I (evangelical) are both conservatives then neither sola scriptura nor Tradition define what it is to be a conservative Christian.

I would ask you to agree with me that a conservative Christian affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:

The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;Now shock horror these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith i.e. without these Christianity is not Christianity.

[Albion]

Now I definitely think we need to define Tradition

I think that first we need to define fundamentalist since someone has tried to exclude them from this forum. That is based, obviously, upon not knowing what a fundamentalist is, but also, there is no reason a fundamentalist cannot be a conservative Christian any more than a Catholic or Baptist couldn't.

To say that "this isn't a fundamentalist forum" is not the same as saying that "fundamentalists don't belong here since there is a fundamentalist forum already." It is not an exclusively fundamentalist forum is what the first of those two statement say--and that's the only one that is correct.

Well, there is also an Anglican forum and a Catholic forum and and a Lutheran forum in which both conservatives and liberals post. Are only non-denominational Christians supposed to be posting here? It's ridiculous.

That said, I am in symathy with the idea of wanting to explore the meaning of "traditional." What out of that which I wrote earlier is unclear?

[Debi1967]

What is needed is a minimal statement of what it means to be a conservative Christian. If you (RCC) and I (evangelical) are both conservatives then neither sola scriptura nor Tradition define what it is to be a conservative Christian.

I would ask you to agree with me that a conservative Christian affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:

The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;Now shock horror these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith i.e. without these Christianity is not Christianity.
Actually I can agree to those principles being set forth .....

[Debi1967]

I think that first we need to define fundamentalist since someone has tried to exclude them from this forum. That is based, obviously, upon not knowing what a fundamentalist is, but also, there is no reason a fundamentalist cannot be a conservative Christian any more than a Catholic or Baptist couldn't.

To say that "this isn't a fundamentalist forum" is not the same as saying that "fundamentalists don't belong here since there is a fundamentalist forum already." It is not an exclusively fundamentalist forum is what the first of those two statement say--and that's the only one that is correct.

Well, there is also an Anglican forum and a Catholic forum and and a Lutheran forum in which both conservatives and liberals post. Are only non-denominational Christians supposed to be posting here? It's ridiculous.

That said, I am in symathy with the idea of wanting to explore the meaning of "traditional." What out of that which I wrote earlier is unclear?
fundys should be allowed to post her I believe that has been also said what we were trying to express in not that fundys should not be allowed but merely that this not ONLY a fundy forum

[Albion]

Actually I can agree to those principles being set forth .....

Sure. Me too. That's why all the furor over the definition should not be happening, or the nonsense about fundamentalists not supposed to be here.

Anyone who believes in the Bible-based faith that we cherish and continue to hold to against the innovations of liberal society should be here!

[Albion]

fundys should be allowed to post her I believe that has been also said what we were trying to express in not that fundys should not be allowed but merely that this not ONLY a fundy forum

I believe that most of us would agree with that. I do.

BUT there is one who has said that a conservative who has posted in the fundamentalist forum ought to go. He was said to be a fundamentalist on the basis of music preference, of all nutty things. It was all of that which I was referring to and, frankly, was horrified to read.

Fortunately, the one being told to leave isn't being bullied, and you are probably right that others here see things properly. Thank you for your comments which make me feel that this won't be a problem. It was, after all, just one person's personal crusade and nothing official.

[Debi1967]

I believe that most of us would agree with that. I do.

BUT there is one who has said that a conservative who has posted in the fundamentalist forum ought to go. He was said to be a fundamentalist on the basis of music preference, of all nutty things. It was all of that which I was referring to and, frankly, was horrified to read.

Fortunately, the one being told to leave isn't being bullied, and you are probably right that others here see things properly. Thank you for your comments which make me feel that this won't be a problem. It was, after all, just one person's personal crusade and nothing official.
Unfortunately you are going to get that in any of the forums. It shouldn't happen but it does we can't control what other people think and do and say can we. All we can do is try to rectify or make some rules that will disallow for the problem to be so rampant in the future...

Like I did propose that we make a rule in here stating that if you assert x and y that it be backed up with either church documents or Scripture in order to get to z when engaged in argumentation

[Albion]

Unfortunately you are going to get that in any of the forums. It shouldn't happen but it does we can't control what other people think and do and say can we. All we can do is try to rectify or make some rules that will disallow for the problem to be so rampant in the future...

You are right. This was one voice only, and your comments have made me feel better about it all.

Like I did propose that we make a rule in here stating that if you assert x and y that it be backed up with either church documents or Scripture in order to get to z when engaged in argumentation

which seems almost obvious, but again you are correct. Many posts just go on "I'm telling you. So listen up." ;)

[TomUK]

What is needed is a minimal statement of what it means to be a conservative Christian. If you (RCC) and I (evangelical) are both conservatives then neither sola scriptura nor Tradition define what it is to be a conservative Christian.

I would ask you to agree with me that a conservative Christian affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:

The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;Now shock horror these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith i.e. without these Christianity is not Christianity.

I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.

[Lisa0315]

I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.

Why? :eek:

Lisa

[Albion]

I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.

If that is the only one, I'd say we are drawing closer together and finding that we have more in common than it looked yesterday.

We can resolve this, friends, I am sure of that if we talk to each other.

[TomUK]

Why? :eek:

Lisa

I personally haven't come to a conclusion yet but there have been been a huge variety of atonement theories proposed throughout history. Substitutionary atonement is just one.

[Debi1967]

I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.
Sub`sti`tu´tion`a`ry
a.1.Of or pertaining to substitution; substitutional.
Didn't Jesus essentially die for us and therefore substitute himself for us

[Albion]

I personally haven't come to a conclusion yet but there have been been a huge variety of atonement theories proposed throughout history. Substitutionary atonement is just one.

I'm not going to fight anyone over this, Tom, but maybe Ragged Robin is right about this. The term doesn't mean, does it, that Jesus paid something to the devil or any other of the unusual theories that sometimes come up, just that his death justified men who could not be saved by the Law. That's a substitution.

[TomUK]

I'm not going to fight anyone over this, Tom, but maybe Ragged Robin is right about this. The term doesn't mean, does it, that Jesus paid something to the devil or any other of the unusual theories that sometimes come up, just that his death justified men who could not be saved by the Law. That's a substitution.

It's not the hugest issue in the world and by no means do i want to derail this thread to atonement theories. I see where you are coming from Albion and RaggedRobin and in a technical sense you might be right (though i do say many brothers and sisters far more intelligent than i could argue against that point), but in any books you read which may refer to atonement the phrase 'substitutionary atonement' near exclusively refers to one specific theory of atonement which is mainly is mainly found in Protestant theology.

If you are trying to find some common theological ground then i fear that making such limitations to a belief in some sort of substitutionary atonement will limit the number of members allowed to post here who have a perfectly valid claim to be a conservative Christian.

[Debi1967]

It's not the hugest issue in the world and by no means do i want to derail this thread to atonement theories. I see where you are coming from Albion and RaggedRobin and in a technical sense you might be right (though i do say many brothers and sisters far more intelligent than i could argue against that point), but in any books you read which may refer to atonement the phrase 'substitutionary atonement' near exclusively refers to one specific theory of atonement which is mainly is mainly found in Protestant theology.

If you are trying to find some common theological ground then i fear that making such limitations to a belief in some sort of substitutionary atonement will limit the number of members allowed to post here who have a perfectly valid claim to be a conservative Christian.
Well I didn't know that I was just going by the definition and I figured that it meant that or at least that is how I see it i don't mean ot say anything negative though and hope I am not out of line with the Church when I do but then again I am not flawless either

[Lisa0315]

I personally haven't come to a conclusion yet but there have been been a huge variety of atonement theories proposed throughout history. Substitutionary atonement is just one.

Well, I have heard a few but could you give me some examples. I am not sure we are on the same page. To me, the Substitution Atonement is so clear from Genesis to Revelations that it is difficult for me to see anything else. I will have to say that line is so important to me that I would likely withdraw from the Congregation if it is removed and replaced with something else. I will give you a chance to convince me of other possible meanings, however.

Lisa

[TomUK]

There's quite a few here are the core ones.

Ransom theory says that Adams sin placed the world in the hands of the devil. God agreed to 'buy back' the world from the devil by agreeing to let his son die. The devil agreed thinking that for all eternity he would control Jesus, but after three days through the power of God Jesus rose from the dead.

Moral theory says that Jesus death was largely an example by God to all creation, where we could see how Christ lived and died and become inspired to work our way out of sin and develop a deep relationship with God.

Acceptance theory says that Jesus death was a sort of token gesture to God. As Jesus was a finite being his death couldn't cover all human sin, but God chose to accept his death Jesus sacrifice as all of our punishment.

Satisfaction theory is the belief the death of Jesus satisfies Gods wrath in the same style of the animal sacrifices in the old testament. Similar to ransom theory but here the price is paid to God rather than the devil. Substitution theory was adapted from this.

There's a few others as well.

[TomUK]

The point i'm making Lisa is not to deny substituionary atonement as in my mind the whole issue is a mystery. CS Lewis puts it best.

"We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself."

That is what needs to be the hallmark here.

[Lisa0315]

The point i'm making Lisa is not to deny substituionary atonement as in my mind the whole issue is a mystery. CS Lewis puts it best.

"We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself."

That is what needs to be the hallmark here.

Okay, thanks for that. I was aware of the "Jesus as an example" one and the "ransom" one. While I could live with Ransom and Satisfaction, I could not live with Example and Acceptance. Those are just not Bibical.

Another one that is out there is the Universalist position in which ALL men were saved at the moment of Jesus' death. Another one that I cannot agree with.

Could we say that we are Redeemed by the Blood of Christ?
Lisa

[TomUK]

Could we say that we are Redeemed by the Blood of Christ?
Lisa

Perfect!

[Debi1967]

Could we say that we are Redeemed by the Blood of Christ?
LisaHa I like that one ! Go Lisa !:)

[Lisa0315]

I'm not wiki-ing it. One of y'all go wiki it. I am SCARED of wiki!:help:

Lisa

[TomUK]

As an alternative you could say something along the lines of 'through his death and resurrection he has redeemed us to himself"

[Debi1967]

I'm not wiki-ing it. One of y'all go wiki it. I am SCARED of wiki!:help:

Lisa
Ok but it has to wait until tomorrow I am going offline for tonight

Love and Blessings to you all
Debi

[Lisa0315]

Ok but it has to wait until tomorrow I am going offline for tonight

Love and Blessings to you all
Debi


No probs! G'night!

Lisa

[talitha]

I'm going with Talitha revise version. I firmly believe that including anything about traditional belief is just going to increase problems here both by making discussions more diffcult and creating a huge number of post being reported to the mods where nothing can be done because traditionaly the 2 groups disagree.
Thanks for this CP! And thanks for voting with the girls! LOL~! I think I'll go and find colabomb and see if he'll vote now, lol!

Albion, thanks for saying you like me, that makes me feel as good as Sally Fields!


but this......Who would not say that their view is that the Truth exists completely outside of our understanding of it. (?)


Almost no one.
Have you watched TV lately, or spoken with any children - this is what's blasted over the media and taught in the schools: truth is relative, what's true for me may not be true for you, blah, blah.....
ewwww :doh:

I noted with disappointment that Talitha herself accepted this line of thought as correct in that the Bible was mentioned. Just that. It's true that the Bible is truth not dependent upon our understanding, but every interpretation of it that is a personal opinion IS RELATIVE.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here, Albion.


Yep, I voted for Talitha's, but I would prefer a blended statement myself.


I don't think that that will be up for consideration.
Who says? :scratch:

By contrast, what the church has always believed can be proven or disproven.
But Albion, you don't want to permit this kind of examination, right?

The idea of always is off-putting, but we shouldn't forget that since the Reformation, none of the ideas we are likely to debate can claim an "always" by tradition. It would only be the ones on which Christianity has always been united that would fall under the rule, like the oneness of God or the idea of salvation by grace or the observance of the Lord's Supper.
AMEN!


[/color][/font][/size][/font][/indent]...to say that God reveals his truth "progressively in the Church" implies that Scripture is not the complete revelation of God to man.

Consider (posting in KJV out of respect for you):
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

[/indent]This also has the same implication. I would suggest:

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 Holy Bible alone.[/quote]
The "traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church" are going to differ according to whether each person is Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, or whatever.

Cool It's just our Wiki says Fundamentalists aren't permitted to debate here... cos this isn't a Fundamentalist forum. It just causes arguments, ya know? Yesterday was *bad* and it upset a lot of people n stuff
((((((GreenMunchkin)))))) it was *bad*, you are right...... but Fundamentalists really do belong here - they are part of the 'conservative' description. It's WWMC for the Other Side.......

Maybe, add a line something like, "recognizing the beauty of traditions but testing all by Scripture"
Lisa
:clap:

What is needed is a minimal statement of what it means to be a conservative Christian. If you (RCC) and I (evangelical) are both conservatives then neither sola scriptura nor Tradition define what it is to be a conservative Christian.
That was my point in bringing up this whole issue! Thanks, AV!

I would ask you to agree with me that a conservative Christian affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:

The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;Now shock horror these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith i.e. without these Christianity is not Christianity.
AGREED - except taht I'm with TomUK on this:
I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.
I think this would exclude Eastern Orthodox, who are, I believe QUITE conservative in general...... maybe more conservative than Roman Catholics and Fundamentalist Baptists.......

Anyone who believes in the Bible-based faith that we cherish and continue to hold to against the innovations of liberal society should be here!
:amen:

GOD BLESS US, EVERY ONE! :swoon: I think I'm caught up now!

[Izdaari]

I would ask you to agree with me that a conservative Christian affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;Now shock horror these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith i.e. without these Christianity is not Christianity.
Well, I consider myself a theological moderate and I agree with these. And I like Talitha's version. But I won't vote in the poll since I can't honestly call myself a conservative... but perhaps I'm enough of one to toss my two cents in here. :wave:

[Iosias]

I personally haven't come to a conclusion yet but there have been been a huge variety of atonement theories proposed throughout history. Substitutionary atonement is just one.

You are correct that there have been a number of theories but only substitutionary atonement does justice to the language of Scripture.

Helps
1. Read Isaiah 53:3-6 "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

2. http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/ which is stocked by Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pierced-Our-Transgressions-Rediscovering-Substitution/dp/1844741788)

3. http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Atonement/Penal-Substitutionary-Atonment/

[talitha]

So, AV, you wouldn't consider our EO brothers and sisters to be conservative??!!

[Hishandmaiden]

I just voted. Talitha, I vote for you. But only if you take in Lisa's suggestion at the beginning and change some of the wording.

[Iosias]

So, AV, you wouldn't consider our EO brothers and sisters to be conservative??!!

I am sure that there are EO who are conservative but what does that refer to? Hence the need either for a minimalistic statement in which all agree or one statment made up of different definitions and which members can sign up to one of them. i.e. "A conservative Christian is someone who believes definition A, definition B or Definition C."

[Albion]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here, Albion.

I've tried to put it properly before, but I do know that this is hard to both explain and--for others--to appreciate. So here goes another attempt.

What is a conservative? By definition, he is one who conserves. He does not reject what has been accepted for ages (and is important enough to consider conserving, e.g. the Constitution or redwoods or old cathedrals and castles, not necessarily paint with lead in it or steel beer cans). If one isn't into preserving something of value, he can't be a conservative, plain and simple.

When it comes to truth, it gets harder to explain to people. To say that you are going to stand by the Bible is fine, that's conservative by nature, BUT if you put a new twist on it, how does that amount to preserving the Bible? Well, it doesn't. We aren't talking about preserving the pages of the Book, you know, it's about perpetuating the beliefs based upon those scriptures.

So, let's take an example. Mr. Smith here who calls himself a conservative because he says he believes in the Bible, argues that it teaches that Jesus was not God incarnate.

IS THAT A CONSERVATIVE ANSWER OR NOT? We don't care if Mr. Smith is a Conservative on every other issue; is this particular POV conservative?

How would one know? Well, we could have a big argument with some people trying to use some verses to prove the deity of Jesus, facing off against Smith's supporters.

But that isn't going to show who is conservative and who is not, or which argument is conservative or which is not. This would only show who is right about the nature of Christ.

The conservative position is clear cut. There is no doubt. There is really no arguing it, although people will.

But you may say (because plenty of other have) that either side taking the conservative view since they say that they are basing what they say on the Bible.

Yes, but what they say about the Bible's meaning makes the difference. The one who sides with what the Christians of almost 2000 years, almost without exception, have said...is the conservative in this debate, like it or not. That side is conserving a position; the other is rejecting it. As concerns "conservative or not," there is no question who is on the conservative side, even if new evidence like the Dead Sea scrolls or whatever may have been found, whatever.

So if there is no some reference in our Wiki to things "traditionally" believed, by whatever words we get at this, there can be no frame of reference for having a forum dedicated to what this one by name says it is dedicated to or all about.

Now, this doesn't mean that every old idea has to be maintained. It doesn't mean that the Catholic idea of a stream of doctrinal consensus equalling the the Bible, called "Holy Tradition," is what we are talking about. But it means that what has been valued and believed about God and his word through history is the conservative side.

Are Mormons conservative?
Are Jehovah's Witnesses conservative?
Are Moonies conservative?

All of them use the Bible....and if I have read once on this forum that this is all that is required to be a conservative (because saying you DON'T believe the Bible is all that these folks want to use as the test), I have read it a dozen times.

Yet obviously, none of them believes the Bible in the way that Christianity almost to a man did before they came among less than 200 years ago.

So you tell me.


But Albion, you don't want to permit this kind of examination, right?

I just wrote that I did. I'm not sure why you are reluctant to believe me.

However, it may relate to thinking that if it is a traditional belief, I have to stand by it in order to be a conservative. Not exactly that. It can't just be CLAIMED as traditional. I was saying that it is often the case that what is said to be traditional is not. In that case, if one could show that it is not a consensus --as goth AV1611's and Simon's wording was getting at--it wouldn't meet the tradition test.

If I say, for example, that believing that the Virgin Mary was born without sin is a traditional belief, ergo the believer says he's conservative here, you could prove the proposition wrong. While that view was the standard for many centuries, it has not been the consensus of Christians since the Reformation, has it? And you could probably also show, with less ease, that it wasn't the faith of the Apostolic Church. So what? Well, that would show that perpetuating the idea is not to defend traditional beliefs at all, only ONE stream of thought. A proponent of the idea that Mary was born with sin just like everyone else is just as conservative. (Of course, both will be pointing to different Bible verses, so we're back to the foolish idea that if the Bible is cited at all, the argument must be conservative).

[Albion]

Thanks for this CP! And thanks for voting with the girls! LOL~! I think I'll go and find colabomb and see if he'll vote now, lol!

Albion, thanks for saying you like me, that makes me feel as good as Sally Fields!


but this......
Have you watched TV lately, or spoken with any children - this is what's blasted over the media and taught in the schools: truth is relative, what's true for me may not be true for you, blah, blah.....
ewwww :doh:

All right. SOMETIMES liberals are honest enough to come right out and state the philosophy underlying liberalism--relative truth. SOMETIMES they will say that ethics are situational. BUT I am confident that we all know that they frequently do not. And if that is so, you are implicitly saying that any argument which is camoflaged in that way is fine on a conservative forum.

So we need an example, right? Here's one.

Gay activists argue that the Bible has nothing in it anywhere that is critical of homosexual sexual relations. They are not saying that what was wrong in the past is right now since we are so sophisticated in this day and age, or that we should change because new evidence has arisen about what makes one a homosexual.

Now to be accurate, they WILL use those arguments because as battlers for their position they will use any and all arguments that might possibly persuade us. But I hope that you don't deny that a major one is taking the Bible, especially in the company of Christians or on a Christian forum like this one, and showing, for example, that verses which condemn or criticise homosexuality "actually are saying that it is inhospitality, not homosexuality, that those verses were about."

It's to use the source you have said is what makes one a conservative on this forum. But it is to present it in a novel, new, uncustomary, against all Christian history, kind of way.

So, you can decide for me. Since their argument makes reference to the Bible, is same-sex marriage a pro-conservative issue?

According to what your Wiki definition offers us, there isn't anything that would say "no," is there? After all, the gay activist in my example is saying that the Bible is absolute, etc., and that it's the word of God. He just reads it differently than you or I.

[Iosias]

I think this would exclude Eastern Orthodox, who are, I believe QUITE conservative in general...... maybe more conservative than Roman Catholics and Fundamentalist Baptists....

You think.....let's be sure eh? :thumbsup:

[Albion]

So, AV, you wouldn't consider our EO brothers and sisters to be conservative??!!

I personally think that yours is a fair comment you make.

I also think AC1611 handled it all right in his response to you.

BUT it appears to me that his lengthy statement was an explanation and an illustration. We can fiddle with it, possibly reword it, but that's why it is here.

However, AV's proposed Wiki language and the poll that goes with it is, I believe, more what matters. With it, he does not oversimplify or overdefine. It is language that seeks a compromise and keeping alive the bare minimum of a statement that would make this a conservative forum.

Unfortunately, we have these ideas spread all over different threads at the moment, but when we are looking at the "big picture" I think we have to keep these two position statments, or whatever they are, separate.

[Jim47]

What do you want for an opening statement on the Wiki?


1. Original Version by Talitha: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.

2. Version Two by Simon_Templar:

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.

3. Version two with the following phrase omitted:and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church
4. A complete rewrite by someone other than Tal or Simon

Please vote and post your comments about the inclusion of a "tradition" clause on the Wiki.

If a majority of people choose Simon's version, I will most likely bow out of the debate and limit my opinion-giving on this forum to things that go along with a traditionalist viewpoint.

blessings
tal


I hope you folks will forgive me but I have a lot of catching up to do. This forum has grwon by leaps and bounds I can't begin to read everything as I am over seeing 5 forums now besides my real life ;)

May I ask a question or two?

Is this our current wiki

http://www.christianforums.com/t5716860-wiki-conservative-christians-forum.html
and are we still making changes I assume which would be the reason for this pole?

Also, I would like to say that having a big long list of complicated rules will not help in keeping this forum for conservatives. It will only complicate it and make it harder to enforce which I don't think is anyones intention.

A simple rule such as all those participating in this forum must accept the Nicene creed and accept God's word as written with reguards to salvation, morality and what other things are important would be much better.

The fact that the USA has millions of laws on the books and we can't enforce them would be ample proof of my theory :P but I'm an old man and I like things uncomplicated. :eek:

[Albion]

Yes, we're still considering improvements.

IMO, the Nicene Creed alone doesn't come close to defining "Concervative Christianity." Many who attest to the truths about the Trinity, etc. contained within it neverthess support the gay agenda, abortion on demand, confiscatory taxation, socialized medicine, sex education for kindergartners, a world government, and so on. And they have their favorite Bible verses, interpreted to their liking of course, to point to as evidence of their liberal views being what Christians should support.

[Debi1967]

So, you can decide for me. Since their argument makes reference to the Bible, is same-sex marriage a pro-conservative issue?I know we are here to also make this place a safe haven for ourselves but........ aren't we here to also educate those that are in need of good Godly education and yes I can combat homosexuality with scripture .....

[Lisa0315]

I know we are here to also make this place a safe haven for ourselves but........ aren't we here to also educate those that are in need of good Godly education and yes I can combat homosexuality with scripture .....

Of course! However, that doesn't mean that we want to give those we are trying to educate voting power either.

Lisa

[Debi1967]

For the most part the EO are far more conservative than the Catholic on this boards yes but that does not mean that there aren't exceptions.

[Debi1967]

Well no I am not saying that either

[Hishandmaiden]

So, how is the progress for the statement?

[Voegelin]

Yep, saw it with my own eyes. It might be a good idea for everyone to post after they vote. There is definitely a bug. We need to know if it happens again.

Lisa

Voted for #2.

Tradition is important. It provides continuity. It gives the dead a say. A Lutheran can make a point from scripture and reenforce it with the writings of Luther. A Catholic can do the same with St. Augustine. Protestant divines and the Doctors of the Church relied on scripture. Why not rely on them? They've stood the test of time. Using their understandings and teachings of scripture as well as ours does not fragment, it unifies. It is not one individual making a statement based upon scripture, it is a stream of individuals going back to the begining who have said the same or similiar things. When tradition is include,the possibility of new idiosyncratic and divisive interpretations is lessened.

[Sothron]

I sincerely hope people are at least considering the EO membership on this site and specifically on this board.

Can we not agree that the Nicene Creed/Trinitarian View of God is the bare minimum? Could we not just add "and a traditional, conservative view on matters of faith" to that to make it apply to this board?

Frankly I feel a simplistic statement will make it easier to define this board otherwise every single issue we have had come up must be voted and accounted for.