Wiki: Non-Denominational Wiki [Archive]

arielette

20th July 2007, 09:31 PM

All Foru.ms General Rules apply to the Non-Denominational Forum.

If you are Non-Denom, Please help edit this Wiki!

I. PREAMBLE
First and foremost all Glory goes to God.

Our goal is to produced an atmosphere where Christians can grow and learn and teach the Word of God, The Good News of Christ the Saviour as He instructed us to do."And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)
II. STATEMENT OF FAITH

We believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's (agape) love, which is greater than differences we possess, and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.
We believe there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, equal in power and glory; that this triune God created all, upholds all, and governs all.
The Non-Denominational forum affirms the doctrines put forth in the Nicene Creed.*
We believe that all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, and that they are the infallible rule of faith and practice.
*Understanding that "catholic" means universal. Posts that go against any portion of the Statement of Faith are subject to being reported/edited/removed.

III. MEMBERSHIPOnly Non-Denominational Christians who affirm our Statement of Faith may become members of the Non-Denominational forum. If a member begins posting against the Statement of Faith, they may be subject to loss of membership.

IV. DEFINITION OF NON-DENOMINATIONALFor the purposes of this forum, Non-Denominational will be defined as a Christian who is not part of a denominational church. A denominational church is a church that submits to a central authority on matters of doctrine, ordination, and/or discipline and/or aligns itself with recognized body of churches under shared doctrine, ordination, and/or discipline. Churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, Assemblies of God, Baptist Conferences, and others who may not use the label of "denomination" yet fit the definition above are considered denominational for the purpose of this forum.A non-denominational church is a church that may submit to an association for purposes such as resource sharing (such as the Willowcreek Association), but that association does not rule the decisions of the individual congregations and spans denominational lines.
V. DENOMINATIONAL PROSELYTIZING/DEBATE

Doctrines typically viewed as denomination-specific may not be promoted in the Non-Denominational forum. Examples are Mary being sinless (Roman Catholic) or Saturday Sabbath (7th Day Adventist).

VI. DEBATE IN THE NON-DENOMINATIONAL FORUMAll Christians are allowed to participate in existing debates so long as they do not provide argument against the Non-Denomination forum's Statement of Faith.Only members of the Non-Denominational forum may start a debate thread. Members also have the option of making a debate (or any other thread) for member-debate only, or for all Christians. All subsequent posters in that thread are to abide by the original poster's guideline.Non-Christians may not participate in debates. Non-Christians are limited to fellowship posts or asking questions that are about Christianity or Non-Denominationalism.Definition of "Fellowship":It is not debate.Only members of the Non-Denominational congregation may 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.Only members of the Non-Denominational congregation may 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 the Non-Denominational congregation can offer an opinion about that. A non-member 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 teachingIf a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of the Non-Denominational congregation may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from non-members, they may not give instruction in the Non-Denominational ForumDefinition of "Debate":

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

VII. VOTINGOnly members of the Non-Denominational congregation are allowed to vote for forum moderator polls as well as forum rule polls. Any votes found to be from non-members will be discounted from the results.
VIII. MODERATORS

Only members of the Non-Denominational forum may become moderators of the forum. Exception can be made only if the current moderators of the Non-Denominational forum first unanimously support the candidate.
Snapshot 20th October 6:02 AM (MT) by FreeinChrist.

See Sticky Rules :
http://foru.ms/t6292906-nondenominational-subforum-rules.html

tapero

21st July 2007, 12:08 AM

HI!!
Thanks for starting this Wiki!

You wrote:

To me non-denominational means, not subscribing to any organized church. Therefore it is hard to make rules for something that has few.

Non denominational churches can be organzied churches.

Example: I used to go to an Evangelical Free Church which is non denominational.

There are many Evangelical Free Churches in the country (USA.)

They have a statement of faith. Christ centered church.

Congregation (or votes) must be member to vote

The pastor and/or elders are not able to say, I insist this be done in this church; as the membership includng pastor/elders all have one vote.

has pastor(s)
has elders
has deaconesses

There is no mother church; they are all sister churches. No one telling church what the church must do, as many denominational (not all tho) do have such.

Wanted to clarify that non denominational forum, from what I've seen in last year is comprised of:

those who do not go to any of the mainline churches (such as baptist, catholic, methodist etc)

those who go to churches as I've described above which are non denominational (even though may have many churches by same name as mine did - sister churches.)

and people that don't know where they fit, so they come to this forum

also those who don't go to church

Myself, since coming to Christ (with no prior church attendance or knowledge about God or religion at all), to a non denominational church, I've no understanding of denominational churches (lutheran, catholic, etc) or should I say little understanding.

Due to such, when I seek a church, I steer away from denominational, not because they are bad, but because I don't know what they believe, or maybe have an idea of one or two, and am not comfortable with such.

So I seek out independent churches, which may or may not call themselves non denominational, and may have more than one of the same type church, which is what I currently attend.

I hope this helped some.

take care,
tapero

FreeinChrist

26th July 2007, 04:01 AM

In regards to this:
"The non-denominational forum should only be moderated by Christians, preferably frequently posting non-denonminational members."

I believe the forum should be moderated by Nondenom. members. in fact, it should be only Nondenom members who have the right to vote for postential moderators

FreeinChrist

26th July 2007, 04:04 AM

Hishandmaiden

30th July 2007, 09:37 AM

Hmm...

FreeinChrist

4th August 2007, 01:19 PM

I copied the wiki as it is and made a sticky in the Nondenom forum - that makes the rules official.

Now the wiki can still be worked on and the rules altered and made official at the next snapshot.

FreeinChrist

4th August 2007, 01:22 PM

I have added:
Only Nondenominational Christians should be able to vote on potential moderators of the Nondenominational forum.

This was based on a poll.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5774731-voting-for-moderators.html

HypnoToad

4th August 2007, 02:10 PM

I haven't seen a definitive answer on this yet -

Are those with the generic Christian and Protestant faith icons allowed under "Non-Denominational" - i.e., can they be voting members in the Non-Denom forum?

There should perhaps be a note specifying that in the Wiki.

FreeinChrist

4th August 2007, 03:44 PM

I would think that unless they are part of a denomination like Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Assembly of God, etc, they should be okay to vote.

Then there are folks like me who see themselves as a certain denom, but attend a nondenom church.

tapero

13th August 2007, 03:01 PM

I added this in, below definition of a Christian; as it's just hanging out there and doesn't seem to apply to anything else written in the wiki, tho may apply to moderators.

As definition written above has nothing to do with anything else written in this wiki; the assumption is being made that this definition applies to those who can moderate it.

If applying to somehting else then needs be clarified.
.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

21st September 2007, 04:19 AM

In regards to this:
Definition of a Christian

A christian, for this forum, is defined as someone who accepts Jesus as the savior.

I would add that a Chistian is one who is Trinitarian - believing in God in three persons, one essence. Otherwise you are open to the possiblity of having a Mormons or JWs promting their doctrine and being mods in the Nondenom forum. :scratch: Although I was brought up in the Baptist church doctrine, and also baptised; I no longer support the trinitarian doctrine after much studying. All of the Christians prior to the third century did not believe in the trinitarian doctrine, because it was introduced by the Catholic Church.:amen:

FreeinChrist

2nd October 2007, 10:54 PM

This needs to be changed:
Who is allowed to debate in the Non-Denominational Forum?

Anyone should be able to debate in the forums, if they respect our Christian world view. If they want to have a non-troll like debate why not?

This forum is experiencing problems in that it is NOT a safe haven for Nondenominationals as quite often, it is denominational members who come in to lecture and debate.

so I beleive this needs to be changed to:

Only Nondenominational members are allowed to debate.

Now we may want to have a Debate a Nondenominational forum in the future when we have more mods.

FreeinChrist

2nd October 2007, 11:09 PM

Another change needs to be made IMHO. This was pointed out to me in regards to Nondenominationals:

While all non-denominational churches will differ to some degree, there are a number of aspects that are common to almost all of them.
Because they do not look to any human organization for doctrine, non-denominational churches generally claim the basic tenet of sola scriptura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura), that the bible alone is the source of doctrinal authority. From this, a number of similar doctrinal points can be found across most non-denominational churches, such as those found in the Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) and the Apostles' Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed). Individual churches differ in terms of how literally they interpret various texts of the bible.
Since most Christian non-denominational churches stemmed from the Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) movement, almost all of them hold to the five solas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas), which are solus Christus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solus_Christus), sola scriptura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura), sola fide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide), sola gratia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia), and Soli deo gloria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soli_deo_gloria) (to God alone be the glory).
Because the five solas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas) are the main tenets of the Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) faith, many non-denominational churches are Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) churches. However, some non-denominational groups reject this term for etymological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology) reasons, stating that they are not protesting anything.
Many non-denominational churches can also be considered evangelical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism), especially when it comes to how one may be saved. Often (though certainly not always), non-denominational churches are loosely Baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist) in doctrine and often borrow from charismatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement), Pentecostal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism), Calvinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) or fundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism) ideas and practices as well.
Outside of doctrinal areas, non-denominational churches are generally more accepting of people from various religious backgrounds and political views. Services are occasionally modeled after those of another denomination, but are also usually tailored to the preferences of the congregation, and can change drastically even from week to week.

That is from Wikipedia.

Now there are a few issues with that paragraph. Some members may feel that pushing the 5 solas is making out the Nondenom forum as Reformed though there are nonreformed who believe in the 5 solas.
However, the article has something right - that is that they are Sola Scriptura, and usually are "loosely Baptist" but borrow from charismatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement), Pentecostal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism), Calvinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) or fundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism) ideas and practices. Thus Nondenom churches can vary quite a bit from each other.

Something they have in common though is a belief in the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed, which includes:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;by whom all things were made;who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

So I beleive we need to include the following as a definition of a Nondenomnational Christian:
"For the proposes of this subforum, a Nondenominational Christian is one who is not a member of a denomination as defined in our rules, and/or attends a Nondenominational church, and holds to a belief in the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed."

HypnoToad

3rd October 2007, 01:12 AM

This forum is experiencing problems in that it is NOT a safe haven for Nondenominationals as quite often, it is denominational members who come in to lecture and debate.

so I beleive this needs to be changed to:

Only Nondenominational members are allowed to debate.

Now we may want to have a Debate a Nondenominational forum in the future when we have more mods.
This is decent. I would phrase it as, "Only members of the Non-Denominational forum are allowed to debate." Probably not much difference, so, either way.

One thing I just noticed is that the rules never say who is allowed to be a "member" in the Non-Denom forum. I think we need something like: "Only non-denominational Christians (as defined in this wiki) are allowed to be actual 'members' of the forum. Non-members may make fellowship posts, but may not debate, nor are they allowed to proselytize views opposed to the Nicene Creed, nor are they allowed to vote in moderator or forum rule polls."

I also would like to have a "Debate Subforum" (or "Debate a Non-Denom Subforum") where non-members would be allowed to debate. (Debates among members would stay in the main area.) Obviously, we'd re-word the wiki about non-member debate to reflect this if we implement it. I don't know about what limits to impose, perhaps no debating against Nicene doctrines, other than that, I'm not sure.

Now there are a few issues with that paragraph. Some members may feel that pushing the 5 solas is making out the Nondenom forum as Reformed though there are nonreformed who believe in the 5 solas.
However, the article has something right - that is that they are Sola Scriptura, and usually are "loosely Baptist" but borrow from charismatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement), Pentecostal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism), Calvinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) or fundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism) ideas and practices. Thus Nondenom churches can vary quite a bit from each other.

Something they have in common though is a belief in the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed, which includes:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;by whom all things were made;who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

So I beleive we need to include the following as a definition of a Nondenomnational Christian:
"For the proposes of this subforum, a Nondenominational Christian is one who is not a member of a denomination as defined in our rules, and/or attends a Nondenominational church, and holds to a belief in the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed."I agree, we don't need the "5 Solas" in our definition. Your definition is good, I would rephrase it as, "For the proposes of this subforum, a Nondenominational Christian is one who is not a member of a denomination as defined in our rules, and/or attends a Nondenominational church, and affirms the doctrines presented in the Nicene Creed (including the Trinity)."

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 04:47 AM

This is decent. I would phrase it as, "Only members of the Non-Denominational forum are allowed to debate." Probably not much difference, so, either way.

One thing I just noticed is that the rules never say who is allowed to be a "member" in the Non-Denom forum. I think we need something like: "Only non-denominational Christians (as defined in this wiki) are allowed to be actual 'members' of the forum. Non-members may make fellowship posts, but may not debate, nor are they allowed to proselytize views opposed to the Nicene Creed, nor are they allowed to vote in moderator or forum rule polls."

I also would like to have a "Debate Subforum" (or "Debate a Non-Denom Subforum") where non-members would be allowed to debate. (Debates among members would stay in the main area.) Obviously, we'd re-word the wiki about non-member debate to reflect this if we implement it. I don't know about what limits to impose, perhaps no debating against Nicene doctrines, other than that, I'm not sure.

I agree, we don't need the "5 Solas" in our definition. Your definition is good, I would rephrase it as, "For the proposes of this subforum, a Nondenominational Christian is one who is not a member of a denomination as defined in our rules, and/or attends a Nondenominational church, and affirms the doctrines presented in the Nicene Creed (including the Trinity)."

I can agree with XianJedi's post accept for the last part which which defines the Nicene Creed as speaking of a Trinity.

I'm sorry to go against the flow but I do not see a Trinity in the Nicene Creed. I see One God, not made up of three distinct and separate persons. I see the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit who are one God. I fully believe in the Nicene Creed.

It is the Athanasian Creed originating in the RCC which describes the Trinity as three distinct people..

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

To define a christian as one who is a Trinitarian is not the truth. There are many ND's who do not believe in describing God as a Trinity.

I do believe the Nicene Creed should be the foundation of the forum and the only other distinction I believe should be made is if christians believe that the Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, is God, the Great I AM.

I would remind everyone that Jesus said this..

Mar 12:28 And coming up one of the scribes heard them reasoning, knowing that He had answered them well, he asked Him, Which is the first commandment of all?
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;

Note: He did not say three persons.

However, I would suggest that debates about the Trinity be referred to a proper debate sub forum. We still need to maintain freedom of speech. Many people are starting to express that they are concerned there won't be freedom of speech, and I am feeling concern too.

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 07:39 AM

I'm still sleep typing -- but one thing I'd mention in there along with respecting our God is more than just name calling, I take offense to the mocking they do which is just as nasty imho.

For instance if they say stuff like this "well, at least I wouldn't choose a God that's so kill happy to wipe out masses of people becuz I was having a bad day".
etc. etc.
That type of attack infuriates me. If that's already included, then sorry for not catching it; but it only lists name calling such as "pig". I get angry with the mocking and taunting just as much and more.

One other thing, here's the deal about Trinity - the minute Jesus is identified as GOD, you have an automatic Trinity having to occur just by default. It is the ONLY doctrine that fits scripture without any contradiction anywhere.
The Nicene Creed acknowledges Christ as God (to my recollection) - that automatically begs the identity question.
The bible says there is ONE true God, God is One, that there are no other Gods, that you will not have any other gods before God... etc. I don't see any way around a Trinity without making hamburger of the bible elsewhere.
It's polytheism and idolatry any other way.

The point of the nondenom. wiki is to stop the unorthodox & even CULTLIKE teachings going on within it. I think we need to take the visitors & new Christians into our consideration and focus on what they see when they come in...
PURE CONFUSION & INFIGHTING between 2 groups. How is that helpful or edifying? We need to all be on the same page at the very least as to who our God is; IT'S A DEFINING FACTOR OF CHRISTIANITY itself. A Central tenet of salvation.
If we can't even get that far, then we're harming people who come and read these posts.

Those who want to follow the teachings of who God is such as Mormons & JW's or liberals...then let them go to those sections to tear apart a Trinity or Jesus as God.
It shouldn't be in non-denom. where the vast majority of those churches are trinitarian.

So whether or not you 'find' a trinity in the Nicene Creed, I DO find it in the Nicene Creed the minute Jesus is recognized as Deity - and if that were not the case, it STILL needs to be in the non denominational definition to keep from falling into cult-like teachings from people like we've been exposed to.

that's my 3 cents. :wave:

HeyHomie

3rd October 2007, 08:08 AM

I don't like the fact that the definition of ND excludes those of the Restoration Movement.

We are very much ND. Although most RM congregations share very similar doctrines and styles of worship, there is no chatechism, no headquarters, and we (individual congregations) are very much NOT accountable to each other or to any higher councilor authority.

The Disciples of Christ, an offshoot of the RM, IS a denomination, and has a headquarters, so IMHO they would count as a denomination, but other RM believers wouldn't.

HypnoToad

3rd October 2007, 10:44 AM

I see One God, not made up of three distinct and separate persons. I see the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit who are one God.
The Trinity IS "the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit who are one God". You speak as though the Trinity is three Gods - it isn't. Scripture is also clear that they are distinct from one another - the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. If not "persons", what more accurate term would you suggest?

However, I would suggest that debates about the Trinity be referred to a proper debate sub forum. We still need to maintain freedom of speech. Many people are starting to express that they are concerned there won't be freedom of speech, and I am feeling concern too.
No, we don't need to maintain freedom of speech. This is a privately-owned website with no such rule. As a matter of fact, the rules expressly state that a congregation CAN limit the content of posts by both members and non-members. Much of the Christian membership was very happy when there was an actual Christian section where the Nicene Creed was non-debatable.

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 11:08 AM

The Trinity IS "the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit who are one God". You speak as though the Trinity is three Gods - it isn't. Scripture is also clear that they are distinct from one another - the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. If not "persons", what more accurate term would you suggest?

That is your belief of what the Trinity means. I'm trying to point out that many ND's don't believe that. And I expressly said in no uncertain terms that I believe God is ONE. In my opinion believing in three persons who are God speaks more of three Gods than anything I have stated.

I suggest calling God, One God, as Jesus did. Scripture also says that Jesus is the WORD of God and that Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT of God... One God. The Nicene Creed doesn't address the Trinity belief. It only speaks of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. It doesn't describe how they are related, the Athanasian Creed does that.

No, we don't need to maintain freedom of speech. This is a privately-owned website with no such rule. As a matter of fact, the rules expressly state that a congregation CAN limit the content of posts by both members and non-members. Much of the Christian membership was very happy when there was an actual Christian section where the Nicene Creed was non-debatable.

Oh I see. No freedom of speech. So, you can't even think to try for it.

I still stand by my original post.

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 11:23 AM

That is your belief of what the Trinity means. I'm trying to point out that many ND's don't believe that. And I expressly said in no uncertain terms that I believe God is ONE. In my opinion believing in three persons who are God speaks more of three Gods than anything I have stated.
No it is NOT - unless a FAMILY (the Smith's) are essentially 3 separate Smith families - because one family consists of 2 parents and their 1 child. :scratch: :doh:
If a family is ONE family, then God can be ONE GOD consisting of the 3.

I suggest calling God, One God, as Jesus did. Scripture also says that Jesus is the WORD of God and that Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT of God... One God
It also CALLS THEM GOD DIRECTLY in other passages and gives them attributes that ONLY God has, seen as eternal - working together as God at the beginning and doing only the things GOD can do.
How are they not all 3 "GOD"?
Again, the Trinity is the ONLY doctrine that fits all of scripture; I cannot help if you can't comprehend how God is one yet 3 - BUT THE BIBLE CLAIMS IT AS SUCH.
I believe that and I will promote that.

I don't have to fully grasp something for it to be true - it is if GOD says it is. I won't start altering & manipulating scriptures to suit my lack of understanding; essentially dumbing down the authority of God's word to MY level of understanding.

The Nicene Creed doesn't address the Trinity belief. It only speaks of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. It doesn't describe how they are related, the Athanasian Creed does that.
IT DOES if it calls Jesus Deity. again, it automatically begs the question, how can we have 2 true Gods/gods to be worshipped?
There you go. the Trinity is the only doctrine that keeps all scriptures in compliance with one another without contradiction.

I still stand by my original post.
You're free to do so, I still stand by mine too. :)

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 11:35 AM

You're free to do so, I still stand by mine too. :)

That said, I didn't come in here to debate about the Trinity.

All I ask for are these..

1. The Nicene Creed be kept.
2. That to post in ND you must believe Jesus is God come in the flesh.
3. That discussions or debates about the Trinity be assigned to a sub forum. I know it's a big ask because most people see the Nicene Creed as a description of the Trinity.
4. That there be appropriate sub forums.
5. That only ND's can debate in ND.

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 12:02 PM

That said, I didn't come in here to debate about the Trinity.

All I ask for are these..

1. The Nicene Creed be kept.
2. That to post in ND you must believe Jesus is God come in the flesh.
3. That discussions or debates about the Trinity be assigned to a sub forum. I know it's a big ask because most people see the Nicene Creed as a description of the Trinity.
4. That there be appropriate sub forums.
5. That only ND's can debate in ND.
Well if people will go as far as accepting that Jesus is God, hopefully they will be welcoming of God being a Trinity.
If the Trinity isn't passed, then at least they have to accept Jesus is God - eventually they'de have to carry that to its ultimate fruition & that's where they'de end up.
I guess I just don't see why a Trinity is so fought or dissaproved of. :confused: Understanding isn't the issue as it is proclaiming what the bible is ascribing of God's being.

ps. I'm glad we aren't going into a debate about the trinity - I hope you don't think I was trying to get one going. I'm about pooped out with that subject to be honest with you. :swoon: :yawn: :sigh:

I think your requests sound fair - except I'd love to have a discussion on the pros and cons of just having ND's debating in the ND forum... I asked this on another thread pertaining to the proposed changes.
I'm totally undecided on your #5 and would love to explore those 2 options either way & hear other people's opinions on it.
:wave:

HypnoToad

3rd October 2007, 12:16 PM

And I expressly said in no uncertain terms that I believe God is ONE.
Which the Trinity affirms.

I suggest calling God, One God, as Jesus did. Scripture also says that Jesus is the WORD of God and that Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT of God... One God.Which the Trinity affirms.

The Nicene Creed doesn't address the Trinity belief. It only speaks of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. It doesn't describe how they are relatedIt states all three are God, which the Trinity affirms.

Oh I see. No freedom of speech. So, you can't even think to try for it.

I still stand by my original post.
So, it's your view people should be able to post things like, "you're a moron", if they wanted to?

HypnoToad

3rd October 2007, 12:20 PM

except I'd love to have a discussion on the pros and cons of just having ND's debating in the ND forum... I asked this on another thread pertaining to the proposed changes.
I'm totally undecided on your #5 and would love to explore those 2 options either way & hear other people's opinions on it.
:wave:
I've said before - what I think would be best is the main area allows debate among members only, and have a subforum where non-members can debate (within limits).

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 12:24 PM

Well if people will go as far as accepting that Jesus is God, hopefully they will be welcoming of God being a Trinity.
If the Trinity isn't passed, then at least they have to accept Jesus is God - eventually they'de have to carry that to its ultimate fruition & that's where they'de end up.
I guess I just don't see why a Trinity is so fought or dissaproved of. :confused: Understanding isn't the issue as it is proclaiming what the bible is ascribing of God's being.

ps. I'm glad we aren't going into a debate about the trinity - I hope you don't think I was trying to get one going. I'm about pooped out with that subject to be honest with you. :swoon: :yawn: :sigh:

I think your requests sound fair - except I'd love to have a discussion on the pros and cons of just having ND's debating in the ND forum... I asked this on another thread pertaining to the proposed changes.
I'm totally undecided on your #5 and would love to explore those 2 options either way & hear other people's opinions on it.
:wave:

Yeah, I agree, I'm very tired of debating anything at the moment.. :yawn:

I just wanted to present my views.

As for discussing only ND's debating, we may as well get to the bottom of that too.

So, I'll go first.. I'd like to see ND a safe haven from other denoms telling us what we have to believe. I think we should have the same privileges as other denoms do, they only debate amongst themselves. And really, we do have a very broad base of beliefs in ND, which would make it interesting enough.

Doesn't sound like much but that's all I can bring to the table at this time. I would like to hear yours and other's thoughts too...

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 12:24 PM

Which the Trinity affirms.

Which the Trinity affirms.

It states all three are God, which the Trinity affirms.

exactly -- the Trinity is the ONLY doctrine that fits all of scripture and keeps it in FULL unity without contradiction to any other details concerning the 3 of them.

That's why it needs to be agreed to for this area. Go ahead and set up a Trinity subforum -- people can use that to elaborate on how they are 3 as ONE.

I'd go as far to say this, IT WOULDN'T HARM OR HURT the ND section to have to affirm it if they would already affirm that Jesus is God who became flesh.

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 12:25 PM

So, it's your view people should be able to post things like, "you're a moron", if they wanted to?

Oh come on... no, that's not my view... don't twist it around.

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 12:26 PM

exactly -- the Trinity is the ONLY doctrine that fits all of scripture and keeps it in FULL unity without contradiction to any other details concerning the 3 of them.

That's why it needs to be agreed to for this area. Go ahead and set up a Trinity subforum -- people can use that to elaborate on how they are 3 as ONE.

I'd go as far to say this, IT WOULDN'T HARM OR HURT the ND section to have to affirm it if they would already affirm that Jesus is God who became flesh.

I thought we weren't debating that in here anymore?

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 12:30 PM

Yeah, I agree, I'm very tired of debating anything at the moment.. :yawn:

I just wanted to present my views.

As for discussing only ND's debating, we may as well get to the bottom of that too.

So, I'll go first.. I'd like to see ND a safe haven from other denoms telling us what we have to believe. I think we should have the same privileges as other denoms do, they only debate amongst themselves. And really, we do have a very broad base of beliefs in ND, which would make it interesting enough.

Doesn't sound like much but that's all I can bring to the table at this time. I would like to hear yours and other's thoughts too...
Ok, that's interesting. No, it doesn't have to be lengthy or "profound" reasons why you want #5 ND's can only debate.
I'm blank on BOTH sides, lol. So I need to hear anybody's input either way. I appreciate you offering yours and it makes sense to me.

I know the Conservative Christian Section has debate only within CC members - and separate debate subforums.
The only drawback as I see it being done in that section is that it doesn't look like it gets alot of people from other areas debating anything.
It might be possible that it could curb open discussion?

I don't know. but that would be the only drawback I can come up with to keep it open to anybody.
And yes it would curb other people coming in trying to push beliefs of their denominations on us --
one I got sick of was the speaking in tongues stuff.
:swoon:

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 12:33 PM

I thought we weren't debating that in here anymore?
well I wasn't debating it lol, I was agreeing w/ his post of what you believe - he was just 'capping it' with what trinity means.
:wave:
anyhoo, back to #5. :holy: :angel:

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 12:34 PM

Oh come on... no, that's not my view... don't twist it around.
I'm ok if people call me a moron....... only if I can call them an idiot in return.
;) :P :cool: lol

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 12:36 PM

I'm ok if people call me a moron....... only if I can call them an idiot in return.
;) :P :cool: lol

Yeah, :) .. call me anything you want but don't call me late for dinner..

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 12:41 PM

Yeah, :) .. call me anything you want but don't call me late for dinner..
late for dinner... NEVAH! lol *oink* LOL,

well hey, if they can punch me, I want the ability to put them under. hahhaha :P :P :cool:

HypnoToad

3rd October 2007, 12:57 PM

Oh come on... no, that's not my view... don't twist it around.
What? I'm not "twisting" anything. You harp on "freedom of speech", but now you claim there are things people can't say.

You don't want censorship, except when you find it offensive, then it's ok to rescind the freedom?

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 12:57 PM

late for dinner... NEVAH! lol *oink* LOL,

well hey, if they can punch me, I want the ability to put them under. hahhaha :P :P :cool:

http://www.setbb.com/ultimategrace/images/smiles/lol_xtreme.gif

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 02:15 PM

ouch!

Cris413

3rd October 2007, 04:55 PM

I think any poster that doesn't accept the Nicene Creed should be directed to the Non-Nicene forums...no matter what their faith icon

Please excuse my ignorance...but I really don't see how a faith icon or lack there of can fully express the doctrines followed by that individual...

Most of those posting against the Trinity, denying immaculate conception, (which is not just a Catholic phrase) denying Jesus in the flesh and many of the other dangerous doctrines currently floating about...ARE or claim to be ND...

I personally do not have any problem debating denominational issues...as long as there are some Christian fundamental understandings...

I also feel that there are those of denominational backgrounds that have firm fundamental Christian core beliefs...based on the Nicene Creed...and have been blessings to the forum

The problems I see are not whether someone is ND or denom...it's lack of adherance to the Nicene Creed...or a fundamental CHRISTIAN belief system

I think there needs to be some latitude given and some consideration as to what is simply a doctrinal difference that still has foundations in the Nicene Creed...and those doctrinal differences that are blatantly hereitical and blasphemous..

Well...these are my thoughts...and maybe it's me that needs to be directed to the proper forum...As someone else mentioned...perhaps the Conservative Christian forum would be a better place for me to participate...

I don't want to suggest rule changes simply to suit me and my understanding...maybe I'm just simply in the wrong place.

FreeinChrist

3rd October 2007, 06:45 PM

FreeinChrist

3rd October 2007, 06:50 PM

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 06:54 PM

You are in the right place.

Part of the problem of allowing denominataionals to debate in the forum is that one can come in and start a series of 'teaching posts' and flood the forum - which has happened in other forums. We start seeing alot of proselytyzing to their denom.

So I think we need to keep it simple with no debate by nondenom's and have a subforum within Nondnom that allows debate. And then include what I wrote as part of the definition.

I don't think we need to adopt the whole creed - just that there is a Triune God.
That's basically where it it counts - who God is/identity.
That is the dividing factor in why one group gets along and not the other; there's no unity or agreement btwn the 2 and this is the problem.
It's at the foundation.

I agree, I'm SO not into the 'sermonetts' people keep posting. oy vey. I already go to church regularly, thanks anyways. :yawn: :sorry:
:angel:

Cris413

3rd October 2007, 07:08 PM

You are in the right place.

Part of the problem of allowing denominataionals to debate in the forum is that one can come in and start a series of 'teaching posts' and flood the forum - which has happened in other forums. We start seeing alot of proselytyzing to their denom.

So I think we need to keep it simple with no debate by nondenom's and have a subforum within Nondnom that allows debate. And then include what I wrote as part of the definition.

I don't think we need to adopt the whole creed - just that there is a Triune God.

I understand the concerns...and they are quite valid regarding teaching posts and such..

I think the sub-forum idea is terrific!

Personally...I agree with most of the creed...the Triunity of God...absolutely should be the minimum foundation of agreement to participate...

HeyHomie

3rd October 2007, 07:32 PM

How does it exclude RM? I would think that accepting the Trinity as defined in the Nicene creed is not the same as accepting the whole creed.

No, I'm not talking about the Trinity or the Nicene Creed.

I'm talking about the sentence in the first few paragraphs of the wiki that says something like "For purposes of this forum... Restoration Movement... is not considered Non-denominational."

I contend that the RM is non-denominational. That was my contention.

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 08:40 PM

What? I'm not "twisting" anything. You harp on "freedom of speech", but now you claim there are things people can't say.

You don't want censorship, except when you find it offensive, then it's ok to rescind the freedom?

What do you want to fight with me for? Because I disagreed with you?

You're American aren't you? Doesn't freedom of speech mean an individual can speak up and give their opinion about things that concern them with freedom? That's what I thought the USA stood for.

Or does that make you a bunch of people who run around calling names and being nasty to people simply because you're allowed to?

I heard your opinion - I have has much right as you do to give an opinion in this place. If you don't like my opinion then just ignore me.

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 08:52 PM

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 09:08 PM

For the peace of the forum, I've decided to change my mind in my vote concerning keeping the Trinity concept in ND. If standing by the Trinity which you all think is in the Nicene Creed keeps some of these people out who deny Christ came in the flesh, was not born of a virgin, and say He 'was' a God, and bring in all the other crazy stuff I see happening, then I'm all for it.
Yep, that would stop all that. :thumbsup: People don't have to fully understand it, just that we don't want the attacks against it and Jesus' Deity that would come with...
that's how I view that whole thing.

I meant to ask you this - I noticed your flag there says S. Wales? (I'd love to visit Australia too - that looks like one awesome place...)
I had heard on a movie (the movie was set in the era of the late 1950's), but this couple had to move to North Wales & he was upset about going there becuz they were English and that N Wales had a general hatred of the English there.
Was that really true? Or is it true today? I know it's off topic, but I'm so curious that I just have to ask somebody who might know for real.
-sorry :blush:

Tavita

3rd October 2007, 09:21 PM

Yep, that would stop all that. :thumbsup: People don't have to fully understand it, just that we don't want the attacks against it and Jesus' Deity that would come with...
that's how I view that whole thing.

I meant to ask you this - I noticed your flag there says S. Wales? (I'd love to visit Australia too - that looks like one awesome place...)
I had heard on a movie (the movie was set in the era of the late 1950's), but this couple had to move to North Wales & he was upset about going there becuz they were English and that N Wales had a general hatred of the English there.
Was that really true? Or is it true today? I know it's off topic, but I'm so curious that I just have to ask somebody who might know for real.
-sorry :blush:

Hey, yeah, Australia is a great place to live, and visit... I'm living in Illinois USA at the moment.. until next March... long story.

I think you may have New South Wales, a state in Australia, mixed up with Wales which is next to England. Some of my ancestors come from Wales, UK. :)

From what I know, Wales, Scotland and Ireland have had great hatred towards England in the past.

The purply blue (not the blue) area on the right is the state of New South Wales...

Nadiine

3rd October 2007, 09:32 PM

Hey, yeah, Australia is a great place to live, and visit... I'm living in Illinois USA at the moment.. until next March... long story.

I think you may have New South Wales, a state in Australia, mixed up with Wales which is next to England. Some of my ancestors come from Wales, UK.

From what I know, Wales, Scotland and Ireland have had great hatred towards England in the past.

The purply blue (not the blue) area on the right is the state of New South Wales...

It's a shame, becuz I think I was sick on the day my teacher brought out the world maps. LOLO :sorry:

But that must be true then about the disdain carried for the English at least back then; I thought all of England & UK was "english" & everybody was fine with everyone becuz everybody's the same. (I'm ignorant in all that stuff - & geography).
But boy, one day I have just GOT to get out to Australia for a little trip.
It looks so beautiful & the people seem so nice. (I hope they don't hate Americans! LOL) :swoon: :(
I wonder if I could bring a kangaroo back home with me? :idea: ^_^
K, sorry wiki thread, I'm done on my topic my bad.
please proceed.

FreeinChrist

3rd October 2007, 11:56 PM

No, I'm not talking about the Trinity or the Nicene Creed.

I'm talking about the sentence in the first few paragraphs of the wiki that says something like "For purposes of this forum... Restoration Movement... is not considered Non-denominational."

I contend that the RM is non-denominational. That was my contention.
Ahh...good point. In some cases though, an RM member may be denominational. or maybe i don't understand it enough.

HypnoToad

4th October 2007, 12:58 AM

What do you want to fight with me for? Because I disagreed with you?
I thought we were "discussing", I didn't know it had become a "fight".

If someone is going to disagree and say I'm wrong, the least I expect is for their position to not contradict itself. You claim I want to stifle free speech, but then you say people calling you a "moron" shouldn't be allowed. You can't accuse others of "censorship" when you support censorship yourself. Or, is it your view that only what you want to be censored is ok to be censored? There already is censorship here, so if the congregation wants to disallow debate against the Trinity, they are well within their rights to do so.

You're American aren't you? Doesn't freedom of speech mean an individual can speak up and give their opinion about things that concern them with freedom? That's what I thought the USA stood for.As far as public situations go, yes "free speech" is typically the norm. BUT private organizations can impose rules to the contrary. Out on the street, I can say, "I hate black people," and there's not much legal action people can do about it. If I'm at work and say the same thing, I could be fired for it.

But even with "free speech" being in the Constitution, it is certainly not without limits even in public situations. If I yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none, and people panic and trample each other to get out, I can indeed be charged with a crime. If I threaten the life of the President, I can be charged with a crime. If I lie in court, I can be charged with a crime. "Free speech" in the Constitution will not protect me in any of those cases.

I heard your opinion - I have has much right as you do to give an opinion in this place. If you don't like my opinion then just ignore me.So, you don't want me to post that I disagree with you, and you don't want me to post why and give reasonable discussion? Interesting statement from the free-speech advocate.

Tavita

4th October 2007, 01:58 AM

I thought we were "discussing", I didn't know it had become a "fight".

If someone is going to disagree and say I'm wrong, the least I expect is for their position to not contradict itself. You claim I want to stifle free speech, but then you say people calling you a "moron" shouldn't be allowed. You can't accuse others of "censorship" when you support censorship yourself. Or, is it your view that only what you want to be censored is ok to be censored? There already is censorship here, so if the congregation wants to disallow debate against the Trinity, they are well within their rights to do so.

As far as public situations go, yes "free speech" is typically the norm. BUT private organizations can impose rules to the contrary. Out on the street, I can say, "I hate black people," and there's not much legal action people can do about it. If I'm at work and say the same thing, I could be fired for it.

But even with "free speech" being in the Constitution, it is certainly not without limits even in public situations. If I yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none, and people panic and trample each other to get out, I can indeed be charged with a crime. If I threaten the life of the President, I can be charged with a crime. If I lie in court, I can be charged with a crime. "Free speech" in the Constitution will not protect me in any of those cases.

So, you don't want me to post that I disagree with you, and you don't want me to post why and give reasonable discussion? Interesting statement from the free-speech advocate.

I'm sorry if I have been a hypocrite. I just want the well being of the forum too.

Can I also say that you come across in a very aggressive manner, and I have reacted to it... I'm not saying that's right.

Sometimes people make the mistake of saying things they shouldn't, and more than in all the three years previous to July I've noticed that since July people are very quick to jump on things said and want to 'discuss' it down to the finest detail. Sometimes, just letting things go brings a bit more peace.

Nadiine

4th October 2007, 07:52 AM

I'm sorry if I have been a hypocrite. I just want the well being of the forum too.

Can I also say that you come across in a very aggressive manner, and I have reacted to it... I'm not saying that's right.

Sometimes people make the mistake of saying things they shouldn't, and more than in all the three years previous to July I've noticed that since July people are very quick to jump on things said and want to 'discuss' it down to the finest detail. Sometimes, just letting things go brings a bit more peace.
Hey, what gives Tavita? I came to find your post to rep you in thanks for giving me a little geography lesson and info.
I hope you're ok? :angel:

HeyHomie

4th October 2007, 09:10 AM

Ahh...good point. In some cases though, an RM member may be denominational. or maybe i don't understand it enough.

I don't think you quite understand.

An RM congregation is one laid out according to the principles set forth by our founders, Stone & Campbell. I won't get into specifics, but we're Nicene, Trinitarian, etc. We're also all about Sola Scriptura, no "headquarters," etc.

The lack of a headquarters is, IMHO, what makes us truly ND. We don't have our doctrine handed to us by a committee, and our congregations are all autonomous.

The best comparison I could make is to the Calvary Chapel. Which is to say, all our congregations share similar beliefs, practices, and naming conventions, but there is no governance ourside of local congregations.

For this reason, I consider RM believers (such as myself) non-denominational, and which is why I disagree with the sentence in the Wiki that implies that we are not.

FreeinChrist

4th October 2007, 09:19 AM

Well, it would be easy to delete the words "Restoration Movement" from the wiki as they are not needed at all. If it isn't done by tonight, I will do it.

gotta go to work...

bill16652

4th October 2007, 09:50 AM

Lets nail down membership and then make a master list of members to see who can vote. Also need to nail downm definition of non-denominational. Need poll for if the trinity will be included in definition. Also poll to see if two debate areas will be acceptable which I think it is from discussions in the forum. One for the members that hold orthodox views and a sub forum for non members and non orthodox POV debates. Can these be done as a start?

Tavita

4th October 2007, 12:11 PM

Thanks for the concern, Nadiine. :)

To everyone..

Please don't wait around for my vote in the Wiki or any other polls to do with ND, as I'm leaving 4U.

My time here has been wonderful and I've learned a great deal, but I feel it time to move on and do those things the Lord has called me to at this time of my life.

I hope you're all able to bring stability to ND, and take it forward to something better..

Adios, guys... :wave:

Tavita

4th October 2007, 12:15 PM

To XianJedi,

I'm pleased to see that there will be 'freedom of speech' in the ND forum by bringing in a sub forum for Unorthodox discussions. That was my only concern, and that's what I meant by 'freedom of speech'...

sorry I wasn't able to communicate that so well... :wave:

HypnoToad

4th October 2007, 12:46 PM

Also poll to see if two debate areas will be acceptable which I think it is from discussions in the forum. One for the members that hold orthodox views and a sub forum for non members and non orthodox POV debates. Can these be done as a start?
I don't think TWO debate areas are needed. One for non-members is plenty. Having another for members (instead of just leaving them in the main area) is usually just confusing. Nearly every discussion will have some element of debate in it. Having another area for member debates means constantly asking, "did this become a debate, does it need to be moved?", and you'll end up with some threads being moved and others not, based on someone's very subjective view of the defining point between discussion and debate. You'll have people who want a thread moved that won't be moved, or people who want their thread where it is but have it moved against their wishes.

Having just one for non-members makes it totally objective and easy to govern - is it a non-member debate? - an easy "yes/no" question, easy to determine where it belongs.

HypnoToad

4th October 2007, 12:46 PM

bill16652

4th October 2007, 12:58 PM

I don't think TWO debate areas are needed. One for non-members is plenty. Having another for members (instead of just leaving them in the main area) is usually just confusing. Nearly every discussion will have some element of debate in it. Having another area for member debates means constantly asking, "did this become a debate, does it need to be moved?", and you'll end up with some threads being moved and others not, based on someone's very subjective view of the defining point between discussion and debate. You'll have people who want a thread moved that won't be moved, or people who want their thread where it is but have it moved against their wishes.

Having just one for non-members makes it totally objective and easy to govern - is it a non-member debate? - an easy "yes/no" question, easy to determine where it belongs.Problem with that is that a lot of the upheaval in this area is connected to that very point. That is why two debate areas. Some want to debate orthodox beliefs alone while others want to introduce non-orthodox beliefs into it and some dont want that. That is why I proposed this and why it is needed. Same with membrship, that can be open to all but again need to seperate out unorthodox beliefs from othodox or we have really changed nothing here. The idea is to create a place where people feel comfortable coming and can be at peace if so desired. The easy way to cross it is the master membership list and to set in place the difference between orthodox and unorthodox for debate purposes.

HypnoToad

4th October 2007, 01:25 PM

Problem with that is that a lot of the upheaval in this area is connected to that very point. That is why two debate areas. Some want to debate orthodox beliefs alone while others want to introduce non-orthodox beliefs into it and some dont want that.
But the biggest one right now is already being dealt with by incorporating the Trinity into the Wiki. And the same can be done with other doctrinal issues. Just because we are non-denominational does not mean we can't have a statement of faith. Non-denominational churches all have their own statement of faith, and we can have ours as well. We just need to discuss and vote on what we want - just like any other non-denominational church. For organizational and governing purposes, it's really best to keep subforums to a minimum, and it's best to keep the rules of what goes where simple and clear, instead of having to make a subjective guess after every new post.

Same with membrship, that can be open to all but again need to seperate out unorthodox beliefs from othodox or we have really changed nothing here. The idea is to create a place where people feel comfortable coming and can be at peace if so desired. The easy way to cross it is the master membership list and to set in place the difference between orthodox and unorthodox for debate purposes.
This part I don't understand - are you saying you want membership open to all or not??

bill16652

4th October 2007, 01:34 PM

But the biggest one right now is already being dealt with by incorporating the Trinity into the Wiki. And the same can be done with other doctrinal issues. Just because we are non-denominational does not mean we can't have a statement of faith. Non-denominational churches all have their own statement of faith, and we can have ours as well. We just need to discuss and vote on what we want - just like any other non-denominational church. For organizational and governing purposes, it's really best to keep subforums to a minimum, and it's best to keep the rules of what goes where simple and clear, instead of having to make a subjective guess after every new post.

This part I don't understand - are you saying you want membership open to all or not??Do I? Yes but it isnt about what I want any more than what you want, it is as a whole. I would like to see membership open to all but as we go along we can define members and seperate out non members but if it is open to all orthodox and unorthodox then the debate needs seperated. I see no way around this without being exclusionary or creating the same thing we have. From the posts I think that most want this which is why I am proposing it. More input is always welcome from others so that we can shape this and not waste a lot of time with things that people here do not want. The trinity does seem to be one thing a lot want in the definition and I agree that if this is done it will solve a lot but it will also limit membership to those that hold a belief in the trinity. That being said we then need to have an open area for debate either for non members or for unorthodox belief depending on how the board wants to do this but either way I see no way around a sub forum and they can actually work rather well as evidenced over in CC.

Nadiine

4th October 2007, 02:13 PM

Do I? Yes but it isnt about what I want any more than what you want, it is as a whole. I would like to see membership open to all but as we go along we can define members and seperate out non members but if it is open to all orthodox and unorthodox then the debate needs seperated. I see no way around this without being exclusionary or creating the same thing we have. From the posts I think that most want this which is why I am proposing it. More input is always welcome from others so that we can shape this and not waste a lot of time with things that people here do not want. The trinity does seem to be one thing a lot want in the definition and I agree that if this is done it will solve a lot but it will also limit membership to those that hold a belief in the trinity. That being said we then need to have an open area for debate either for non members or for unorthodox belief depending on how the board wants to do this but either way I see no way around a sub forum and they can actually work rather well as evidenced over in CC.
Here's another thought regarding the Trinity - maybe for the sake of the believers who don't fully understand the Trinity in its fullness, maybe we can make the wording include something like:
Not being OPPOSED to the Trinity.? Like they either accept the trinity or if they don't fully understand it, they are not in any opposition of it?
I personally prefer just having belief in it & making it simple and black & white -- but I do know there are some people who don't understand it yet who might be intimidated by a yes/no on it without full understanding.

To this day many people who attack Trinitarians don't even know what Trinity means.

Just a thought, thinking out loud & it may be more hasstle than anything.

bill16652

4th October 2007, 02:17 PM

Here's another thought regarding the Trinity - maybe for the sake of the believers who don't fully understand the Trinity in its fullness, maybe we can make the wording include something like:
Not being OPPOSED to the Trinity.? Like they either accept the trinity or if they don't fully understand it, they are not in any opposition of it?
I personally prefer just having belief in it & making it simple and black & white -- but I do know there are some people who don't understand it yet who might be intimidated by a yes/no on it without full understanding.

To this day many people who attack Trinitarians don't even know what Trinity means.

Just a thought, thinking out loud & it may be more hasstle than anything.I do not object to this and it might be more inclusionary

HypnoToad

4th October 2007, 02:18 PM

That being said we then need to have an open area for debate either for non members or for unorthodox belief depending on how the board wants to do this but either way I see no way around a sub forum and they can actually work rather well as evidenced over in CC.
Ok, I'm not sure what your point is anymore, because the "open area for debate either for non members or for unorthodox belief" is exactly what I'm proposing.

HypnoToad

4th October 2007, 02:21 PM

Here's another thought regarding the Trinity - maybe for the sake of the believers who don't fully understand the Trinity in its fullness, maybe we can make the wording include something like:
Not being OPPOSED to the Trinity.? Like they either accept the trinity or if they don't fully understand it, they are not in any opposition of it?
I personally prefer just having belief in it & making it simple and black & white -- but I do know there are some people who don't understand it yet who might be intimidated by a yes/no on it without full understanding.

To this day many people who attack Trinitarians don't even know what Trinity means.

Just a thought, thinking out loud & it may be more hasstle than anything.
This is fine, I suppose. We probably just need a statement that "The Trinity is accepted by this congregation as the most Scripturally-accurate description of God's nature, and while members don't need to expressly support that belief, they may not argue against it." - or something along those lines.

bill16652

4th October 2007, 03:10 PM

Ok, I'm not sure what your point is anymore, because the "open area for debate either for non members or for unorthodox belief" is exactly what I'm proposing.Sorry I am not clear. 1. If trinity accepted would take care of unorthodox beliefs and area sub forum for non members 2. If trinity vote fails then sub forum for non members and unorthodox debate. It varies depending on how the vote would go but as I said either way there needs to be a seperation.

HypnoToad

4th October 2007, 03:19 PM

Sorry I am not clear. 1. If trinity accepted would take care of unorthodox beliefs and area sub forum for non members
No, it would only take care of the Trinity issue. There are still loads of unorthodox views that could still be thrown around, so I believe a debate subforum for non-members would still be needed regardless of incorporating the Trinity into the rules.

bill16652

4th October 2007, 03:22 PM

No, it would only take care of the Trinity issue. There are still loads of unorthodox views that could still be thrown around, so I believe a debate subforum for non-members would still be needed regardless of incorporating the Trinity into the rules.Yes, I agree lol. We are on the same page just I am having trouble communicating it properly. We could title it non-members and unorthodox debate or something with the same effect.

HypnoToad

4th October 2007, 03:31 PM

Yes, I agree lol. We are on the same page just I am having trouble communicating it properly. We could title it non-members and unorthodox debate or something with the same effect.
Ok, I think I see what you're saying. You want non-member debate AND any debates (even if they're member-only) that have unorthodox views put into the subfourm - yes?

Would you want debates that are member-only and are not about any unorthodox view to remain in the main area?

bill16652

4th October 2007, 03:41 PM

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. You want non-member debate AND any debates (even if they're member-only) that have unorthodox views put into the subfourm - yes?

Would you want debates that are member-only and are not about any unorthodox view to remain in the main area?Yes and yes. I think that there is agreement on the sub forum part at least. If I am wrong please tell me so. If not then I would ask someone in authority to write this sub forum into the WIKI and create it. Thank you

Nadiine

4th October 2007, 05:52 PM

wow, after reading this past few posts, now it's confusing me lol.

HypnoToad

5th October 2007, 12:21 AM

Yes and yes. I think that there is agreement on the sub forum part at least. If I am wrong please tell me so. If not then I would ask someone in authority to write this sub forum into the WIKI and create it. Thank you
Ok, now one more thing to settle yet - if a debate is started in the main area, will the rule be that no non-members or unorthodox views can be presented there? Or are we going to just move a debate into the subforum if that happens? Personally, I would prefer the first way, because a member should be allowed to keep a debate member-only if they wish. If a member wants to start a debate for anyone to participate, non-member and unorthodox, then they should start it in the subforum, not the main area.

bill16652

5th October 2007, 09:54 AM

Ok, now one more thing to settle yet - if a debate is started in the main area, will the rule be that no non-members or unorthodox views can be presented there? Or are we going to just move a debate into the subforum if that happens? Personally, I would prefer the first way, because a member should be allowed to keep a debate member-only if they wish. If a member wants to start a debate for anyone to participate, non-member and unorthodox, then they should start it in the subforum, not the main area.I would like more input on that as I can see that both ways. Ideally all ebates in the main would conform to no unorthodox beliefs in my mind and the other would be reserved for the unothrodox section. But that is just me. It is possible to just move the thread if this happens. I would also hope that those who are memebrs would respect whatever parameters are p[ut in place.

bill16652

5th October 2007, 10:32 AM

Nadiine

5th October 2007, 10:41 AM

Since the membership poll seems to be going with option two I think we should work on getting a definition of member. Also with this need a poll if we should include belief in trinity in this definition. Thoughts and ideas?
Since God's identity is central to the Christian faith, I think it's mandatory to be included as a definition; otherwise, I may as well go to the JW & Mormon sections & set up camp with them as if we're all one big happy family - becuz without that differential, there's no difference in essential doctrines

It then only boils down to other doctrines we can differ on - they believe Jesus came & died & they believe other basics... what then sets them apart from Christians? Nothing really.
I find it mandatory to define a Christian by accepting that Christ is Deity and a Trinity in essense.

Nadiine

5th October 2007, 10:43 AM

*I would also note that it's those who reject the Deity of Christ & Trinity, that also carry the same patterns of having most other important doctrines wrong.

Where there is that error, the rest of their scripture understanding follows suit where they promote other doctrines that the mainstream Christian divides with.
It doesn't just end with "trinitarianism", many other doctrines and beliefs follow suit in unorthodox beliefs which cause chronic infighting and divisions with the majority.
I keep pointing to the JW's & Mormons -- case in point. They misidentify God, and the rest of the doctrines are problematic to go along with that.

I don't want that to be the status quo in the ND section.

bill16652

5th October 2007, 03:11 PM

bill16652

5th October 2007, 03:28 PM

Added definition of fellowship and debate.

bill16652

5th October 2007, 05:29 PM

Sorry, tried to edit WIKI and lost half of it somehow, waqs trying to add not subtract. How do I get it back?

FreeinChrist

5th October 2007, 11:22 PM

This is the part tht seems to be missing:
Purposed Rules

Two general guidelines will be ideal for all who come here to debate.

1) Respect God

(It is all right to disagree with the view whether God exists or not, but not allowed to give Him all kinds of names. It is not all right to call God a pig, etc.)

The christian God is mad. He delights in killing children! (Unacceptable)
I do not understand why a loving God will allow suffering in this world.(Acceptable)

2) Respect Each Other

(Respect each other's background, regardless of whether the person is a christian, a catholic, or a non-believer. Do not attack a person whose views differ from yours. Use evidences to support your viewpoint.)

You Catholics are devil-worshippers! (Unacceptable)
I disagree with some of the viewpoints of the Catholic church. (Acceptable)

How Should Moderation be Administered?

The non-denominational forum should only be moderated by Christians, preferably frequently posting non-denonminational members.

Only Nondenominational Christians should be able to vote on potential moderators of the Nondenominational forum.

Definition of a Christian

A christian, for this forum, is defined as someone who accepts Jesus as the savior.

He or she is also a Trinitarian - believing in God in three persons, one essence.

As definition written above has nothing to do with anything else written in this wiki; the assumption is being made that this definition applies to those who can moderate it.

FreeinChrist

5th October 2007, 11:33 PM

After reading the comments by Hey Homie and looking over the posts at NCBC again, I think it is safe to remove Restoration Movement from the definition of a denominational. There is no denomination called Restoration Movement - it is a movement.

so I will remove the two words from the definition.

HypnoToad

6th October 2007, 04:35 AM

I edited for some minor grammatical errors and to improve readability in some places. I also added a bit about voting.

Nadiine

6th October 2007, 07:10 AM

Definition of a Christian:
That's an awfully short definition for a Christian - is there something we can have in there about accepting that the Bible is at least the inspired word of God to man?
Or is it too late & this isn't the right wiki to add more details into?

bill16652

6th October 2007, 08:23 AM

Edited the WIKI to reflect members only can debate and that sub forum for non members would be set up. I also see that trinitarian is already included in our definition of Christian at the bottom so not sure why this is an issue? Will pm Jim and ask that a sub-forum be set up for non members. We also need to flesh out what membership will agree to to join. Would like to get this done ASAP so we can establish a membership list.OK after talking to Jim and seeing some of the comments I have rethought the sub forum. Want input as to what everyone thinks. I am removing that portion from the WIKI till we make some decisions. Also once we see about the trinity as requirement for membership then if so desired we can flesh out membership. Should do this fairly quickly so that it is defined and we can establish a membership list and go from there.

HypnoToad

6th October 2007, 12:25 PM

I still would like a non-member/unorthodox subforum. If we are going to let non-members debate, might as well have it open for everyone. We would still be able to regulate how much is debatable there. For example, we could impose the restriction that Jesus being God is not debatable. We can also limit it so that if a non-member starts a debate, they are the only non-member who can post in that thread. We can also set it up that if a member starts a debate there (because they want to get views from everyone), they would be allowed to set up some ground rules as to what they want. We can also have a rule that Scripture is authoritative - so if we provide Scripture as evidence for our view, no one could post "well that's just what some guy wrote, there's no proof it's really from God" or the similar unorthodox responses to Scripture.

Nadiine

6th October 2007, 01:01 PM

I still would like a non-member/unorthodox subforum. If we are going to let non-members debate, might as well have it open for everyone.
We already HAVE that option in a nonND subforum debate area.

Making this specific to Unorthodox only adds unorthodoxy topics into the forum specifically. It's a basic INVITE to them... why do that? :idea:

We would still be able to regulate how much is debatable there. For example, we could impose the restriction that Jesus being God is not debatable
THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING AN UNORTHODOX SUBFORUM WHEN YOU REGULATE & RESTRICT WHAT THEY CAN DISCUSS???
:doh:
. We can also limit it so that if a non-member starts a debate, they are the only non-member who can post in that thread. We can also set it up that if a member starts a debate there (because they want to get views from everyone), they would be allowed to set up some ground rules as to what they want. We can also have a rule that Scripture is authoritative - so if we provide Scripture as evidence for our view, no one could post "well that's just what some guy wrote, there's no proof it's really from God" or the similar unorthodox responses to Scripture
This is just adding more work & more rules & stipulations & guidelines to the ND area that don't need to be there.

Now that the poll is up, and if it goes this way, these issues will have to all be looked into for proper guidelines.
:sigh: :swoon:

Nadiine

6th October 2007, 01:03 PM

I vote that we slow all these polls down and wait for one to close before opening up new ones - this is starting to get confusing with all the swirling issues & details...
Can we slow down a little? Maybe not toss up new issues one right after another??

HypnoToad

6th October 2007, 01:31 PM

We already HAVE that option in a nonND subforum debate area.
I don't know what you mean here - what subforum?

Making this specific to Unorthodox only adds unorthodoxy topics into the forum specifically. It's a basic INVITE to them... why do that? :idea:
Because I don't have a problem discussing those kinds of things.

THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING AN UNORTHODOX SUBFORUM WHEN YOU REGULATE & RESTRICT WHAT THEY CAN DISCUSS???
:doh:
EVERY subforum has regulations and restictions - does that mean all subforums at FU are pointless?

bill16652

6th October 2007, 01:55 PM

Cris413

6th October 2007, 02:04 PM

bill16652

6th October 2007, 02:06 PM

OK I agree, how about we look around a little and see if we can define Christian for the purpose of this forum? Something simple that will define the forum beliefs. I like CC's but it is long and not sure if all would agree but we could either come up with our own or pare that one down. Think about it and maybe we can discuss this and get it through. That way we can establish members.Sorry, meant agree about polls. Once the definition of Christian is established that will take care of what beliefs are members. We will see about the other as to how everyone feels that is a member. My guess is that it will not happen

Cris413

6th October 2007, 02:09 PM

Cris413

6th October 2007, 02:11 PM

Ok, now one more thing to settle yet - if a debate is started in the main area, will the rule be that no non-members or unorthodox views can be presented there? Or are we going to just move a debate into the subforum if that happens? Personally, I would prefer the first way, because a member should be allowed to keep a debate member-only if they wish. If a member wants to start a debate for anyone to participate, non-member and unorthodox, then they should start it in the subforum, not the main area.
Ok...I'm just gonna come right out and say this...

With all due respect Jedi...I consider you are steamrolling your thoughts and wants...

Please slow down and give some things a bit more prayerful consideration and some time for things to gell a bit...

Cris413

6th October 2007, 02:24 PM

Please...I strongly encourage the foundation of an orthodox Christian belief be established first....

Putting all of this God's capable hands according to HIS good will and purpose...

Then proceeding prayerfully along with the flow of the Spirit as necessary...

I firmly believe...a whirlwind of rules and regulations and subforums will open a door that will not be easily shut further down the road...

Please...lets slow down...one thing at a time with much prayer...

HypnoToad

6th October 2007, 03:13 PM

Ok...I'm just gonna come right out and say this...

With all due respect Jedi...I consider you are steamrolling your thoughts and wants...

Please slow down and give some things a bit more prayerful consideration and some time for things to gell a bit...
What are you talking about?? How am I "steamrolling" anything?? I didn't start any of the polls on voting, that was done by admin. I haven't instituted any new rules, I don't have that authority. All I've done is talk about them.

Cris413

6th October 2007, 03:28 PM

What are you talking about?? How am I "steamrolling" anything?? I didn't start any of the polls on voting, that was done by admin. I haven't instituted any new rules, I don't have that authority. All I've done is talk about them.Much of it in response to your multiple and repeated suggestions...which, I might add, were given with a great sense of urgency...

Which is one of the reasons I stepped out of the discussion to begin with...it all was starting to seem futile...what anyone else may consider...and I certainly did not want to stand in the way...

but after some prayerful thought and some wise counsel...I have been led to consider to continue in these discussions...

I'm simply suggesting we all slow down a bit...

Particularly in suggesting a whirlwind of rules and regs...

One thing at a time brother....one thing at a time with prayerful consideration and careful implementation...

that's all I'm asking

Nadiine

6th October 2007, 03:33 PM

K, Jedi. I don't know who's doing what here. LOL Frankly, this is just starting to confuse me. The Conservative area is going thru some Poll stuff to change some things too so I'm swimming in guidelines & rules right now. :scratch: :confused:

I also thought you were a part of proposing some of the polls or changes Jedi, it just looked that way with your level of participation, so now I know. ;) (and am glad you are involved).

But anyhooo, I think Chris had a good point about prayerful consideration of any proposed changes here.
I think we all want the same things for this section - I just hope they're able to come about.
:holy:

HypnoToad

6th October 2007, 03:43 PM

Cris413

6th October 2007, 04:06 PM

A few days ago, Jim asked what things we needed to vote on. After some discussion, I made a post stating the things that OTHERS as well as me indicated they wanted to vote on. I never said, "hey, let's do them all right now, and all at the same time," - never said it. I suggested the membership poll be done first - THAT'S ALL.

I don't have a problem with doing one at a time. I never suggested anything to the contrary. I had enough of getting vilified by CC, I don't need it here, and not for things I never did.
Please brother...I'm not trying to vilify you.

I became very confused in this and the other discussion thread...particularly when you replied to one of my posts and making the statement that unless I agreed to the "membership" I would no longer be allowed to participate in the main forum to debate or vote...but for fellowship posts only...leading me to consider you had some authority and my days here in ND were limited at best...and I would eventually be relegated to some subforum...

So much to the point that I no longer understood if my votes were acceptable...or appropriate...

So while a high level of participation is valuable...let's not simply reply with a hair trigger responses...it leads to confusion...

Apparently...I'm not the only one caught up in this ball of confusion either...I'm not saying your ball of confusion...rather this entire ball of confusion.

I agree with Nadiine...and I'm glad you're here as well...

My sincere apologies for any unwarranted assumptions regarding the expediting of the changes...

:hug:

Nadiine

6th October 2007, 04:06 PM

A few days ago, Jim asked what things we needed to vote on. After some discussion, I made a post stating the things that OTHERS as well as me indicated they wanted to vote on. I never said, "hey, let's do them all right now, and all at the same time," - never said it. I suggested the membership poll be done first - THAT'S ALL.

I don't have a problem with doing one at a time. I never suggested anything to the contrary. I had enough of getting vilified by CC, I don't need it here, and not for things I never did.
Jedi you aren't being vilified - my post was to this THREAD in general to anyone in charge; whoever it might be. I don't even know who all is in charge of things here.:confused:
I assumed you might have been part of it, but my post was in general.

Please understand that this is alot on everybody right now with the constant friction and irritations going on in the forum sections - alot of changes are going on everywhere and tensions are high for everyone here, me included.

Please can we just try to get on the same page with some grace. Like I said, we all [well most of us] want a good outcome, this process is part of the machine that Erwin forced us all into & this is how it has to get done. Once we get things more solidified and unconfused, things should be easier around here. I hope:prayer:

I'm involved with another section that's going thru changes and it does get overwhelming with back & forth issues of definitions, rules & guidelines.

No one is angry at you or attacking you.

BustedFlat

7th October 2007, 08:46 AM

In the words of Jesus:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

In the words of Paul:
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Tekronics is a good Christian Apologetics site and has some good Trinity articles here (http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html) scroll down to Trinity.

Any one with a ND faith icon (from before 7/7/7 at least) and argue against the trinity and Nicene creed bore false witness of themselves in order to get the icon. I am unsure of the rules that effected this afterwards, but STRONGLY urge us to return to that affirmation of faith as a prerequisite of receiving the NC faith icon.

Until we crack this nut we should not proceed to the structure of debate or any other order of business.

Nadiine

7th October 2007, 11:03 AM

tapero

8th October 2007, 06:27 AM

What fear people have to try to keep out people unlike them.

from what was in wiki, don't think God would drop by no less those who we are to reach such as non cs new cs' seekers.

This place used to reach non c's seekers and newbelievers and no longer does or will if such as much as what was contained in this wiki gets snapshot..

tapero

Nadiine

8th October 2007, 08:16 AM

bill16652

8th October 2007, 09:03 AM

I see WIKI debate and so on was removed. After last few days I will watch and not be involved so much in this. My prayer is that we can proceed past the talking point and sort this out and get the WIKI to a point that it can be snapshotted or else this area will not change and the contention will still exist. Membership is critical and needs nailed down as to what beleifs will be included in this area but the direction you go will be up to you as a group and I am just going to watch at this point.

tapero

8th October 2007, 10:01 AM

I'm sorry Tapero, I don't quite understand the points in those quotes...
I'd say this site now reaches anybody and everybody by what it allows in all the sections; as well as adding Unorthodox areas specifically (ie JW's & Mormons) -
Erwin's basically got everything here as a religious buffet to choose from...

Maybe I don't understand your points?

Non denominational now chases away non c's new c's and c's, with it's legalism and condemnation. And now it's trying to wiki it that way as well.

I'm not talking about other forums, i'm talking about non demon.

This forum always had debate, and many people came and now they don't, and while non c's can't be excluded and such the way the wiki article was is just horrendous.

I don't recall all the points now.

This isn't a church and people are trying to make it a church. We're here to reach people not push them away as the wiki article had in it. That's the ministry Christ gave us. There is no fellowship in legalism and condemnation and jump thru 1000 hoops to be saved or stay saved..

Let the legalists and condemnation preachers go to the forum famous for that. Non demon has been amazing in the past reaching and touching people. No more!

Non denom is not for those who go to a non denom church. Any one can come to this forum and many did so cause they didn't know where they fit, mainly because they are new christians or wre non c's with a c icon, pre 777..

Where are they now? pushed out by people trying to make people in their own image.

Only certain people replying, only certain types of questions..ugh..

what a nightmare!

tapero

8th October 2007, 10:20 AM

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of the Non-Denominational congregation 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 the Non-Denominational congregation 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 the Non-Denominational congregation can offer an opinion about that. A non-member 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 the Non-Denominational congregation may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from non-members, they may not give instruction in the Non-Denominational 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 Non-Denominational 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 Non-Denominational for friendship, fellowship (as defined above), and conversation, but debate is limited to Non-Denominational members only. The Non-member and unorthodox beliefs 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" Here's what was in this article.

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of the Non-Denominational congregation 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.

why can't a member come in here adn discuss reasons for or against a subject? What are people so afraid of?

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

Who determines what non demons believe. I'd like to know the answer to that one. Another joke.

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 the Non-Denominational congregation can offer an opinion about that. A non-member 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.

I sort of get this one, but those who do not hold a non denom icon, when get flipped off by the above,you think theyre gonna pm for an icon to non denom if they had a Christian icon?

As i said, many people 'used to' come to non demon as they didn't know where they fit, and this above rejects them outright..and if someone told me first post i can't respond cause i have a christian icon and not a non denom and i didn't know the rules, you think that person is gonna say, wow, i just feel the love of christ here, and i'm gonna run and get my non denom icon.

So those who don't know what they are, and come here, and answer a question, then told,get lost youcan't answer, wrong icon..you think they are coming back?

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 the Non-Denominational congregation may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from non-members, they may not give instruction in the Non-Denominational Forum

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

instruction? what the heck is that about..just more exclusion..making people in their own image... What the heck is instruction?

what if a person says to the question i think it means x, and since not non denom, they are told get lost, you can't reply, only we have the answers and you can not answer here. what self righteousness.

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.

I'd rather dine with sinne