Conservative Poll

[Iosias]

Do you think that the opening statement of the rules should run as follows:

"Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality."

[Debi1967]

Why do we have two polls up on the same issue

And I think personally that our opening statement should have more substance

[Iosias]

Why do we have two polls u0p on the same issue

This is a straight question. Do you agree with the OP?

[GreenMunchkin]

Nope. You're describing Fundamentalism.

This will not be a Fundamentalist forum :)

[MrJim]

Nope. You're describing Fundamentalism.

This will not be a Fundamentalist forum :)

Explain...

[Debi1967]

Explain...
It is not an exclusive forum for Fundamentalists only but for all denoms that are Conservative

[MrJim]

It is not an exclusive forum for Fundamentalists only but for all denoms that are Conservative

The OP isn't stating anything "exclusively fundamentalist" so I was just trying to see what munchkin was seeing.

I've not prob with the OP myself

[desmalia]

The OP isn't stating anything "exclusively fundamentalist" so I was just trying to see what munchkin was seeing.

I've not prob with the OP myselfI think one of the major points of conflict you're going to see in this forum is based on the fact that most of the (current) members are Protestant, but a few are not. The forum itself is not designed to cater to any particular denomination. So the age old Tradition-vs-Scripture authority debate will likely hound this forum just like it does many others.

This is a forum mostly based on similar morals. But that still leaves loads of room for serious conflict.

[CyberPaladin]

I think any statement in rules including the phrase "traditional beliefs" is going to do nothing but this place into sock puppet forum for one of the other congregation.

[KarenJoy]

Yes, I agree with this statement

[Debi1967]

I think any statement in rules including the phrase "traditional beliefs" is going to do nothing but this place into sock puppet forum for one of the other congregation.
I didn't even understand that statement

[Rep Daddy]

"Traditional beliefs" is too vague.

[CyberPaladin]

I didn't even understand that statement

It's a very subjective type of rule which is easy to be abused by people do to personal disagreements. What I'm trying to say is we should avoid this vague rules if there are certain traditional beliefs we can agree we want as a foundation spell them out otherwise this just creates fear of an abusive mods coming after you because they personaly disagree with your beliefs.

Note: To clafiry my big bad mod comment is refernce to many forums rules about how your allowed to discuss rather not debate which tends to make one fearful of posting at all and has nothing to do with anyone in paticuliar. Especialy Sophia who is one of the nicest most understanding mods I have meet on anywhere CF or any other board.

[Debi1967]

It's a very subjective type of rule which is easy to be abused by people do to personal disagreements. What I'm trying to say is we should avoid this vague rules if there are certain traditional beliefs we can agree we want as a foundation spell them out otherwise this just creates fear of an abusive mods coming after you because they personaly disagree with your beliefs.
OK I can to a certain extent agree with that .... Maybe it needs to be clearly stated that All who are conservative whether they be Protestant or Apostolic are allowed here

[Lisa0315]

I vote no solely on the grounds that a poll is already in place for the opening statement, and disagreement on that should not result in a new poll.

Lisa

[talitha]

I voted no, and I would really like you, AV, to respond to the question - why did you create a whole new poll on the same subject as mine?

tal

[Jim47]

I ain't votin. There are only two polls that matter, the north poll and the south poll ;)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I ain't votin. There are only two polls that matter, the north poll and the south poll ;)
^_^

[PaladinGirl]

I agree with the statement.

[talitha]

I ain't votin. There are only two polls that matter, the north poll and the south poll ;)
my telephone pole matters too - I'm in rural Missouri on dial-up.....

[Lisa0315]

Well, I am still curious as to why we need two polls. It is not fair to disregard Talitha's poll just because you did not agree with her statement.

Lisa

[Iosias]

I voted no, and I would really like you, AV, to respond to the question - why did you create a whole new poll on the same subject as mine?

tal

The subject is the same...what should the wording be. The poll is different because I am looking for a minimalistic statment wherein all conservatives can agree.

Once you say that God reveals things outside of Scripture the conservative evangelicals run a mile and once you say Scripture alone the RCCs run a mile. Hence the need for a simple statment agreeable to both sides.

Your poll is between your statement and simons...mine is based upon simons but minimalistc.

[Jim47]

my telephone pole matters too - I'm in rural Missouri on dial-up.....



Yes, we need the old telley Heh? :)

[Iosias]

It is not fair to disregard Talitha's poll just because you did not agree with her statement.

I am not disregarding her poll. I am just making another one proposing a minimalist statement.

You yourself said that you think a blend of Talitha's statement and Simons would be best and yet you voted for Talitha's. I accidently voted for Simon's but would prefer a Complete Rewrite.

Hence the results are meaningless. Not only that we still do not have a definition as to who is Conservative and who can vote. :)

[talitha]

Looking at the results this morning, AV, I actually agree. On my poll, Simon's version is winning, but on your poll, yours is losing, because people don't like the traditionalist leanings. I understand what you were saying with the explanation of what "traditional teachings" means, and I would settle for having that in there with an explanation like yours. :)

[Hishandmaiden]

I vote no solely on the grounds that a poll is already in place for the opening statement, and disagreement on that should not result in a new poll.

Lisa
I agree with Lisa. There is already a poll on this subject. There is no need for a new one. And I think different denom have different ideas on what is the right traditional beliefs.

[Albion]

I agree with Lisa. There is already a poll on this subject.

But it doesn't sample this particular wording, does it?

And I think different denom have different ideas on what is the right traditional beliefs.

And there is the biggest fallacy of all, the one that is keeping us all from reaching consensus.

It doesn't matter what different denominations say!

It only matters if the traditional faith is upheld...and THAT (the question of whether it has been demonstrated to be so or not) is tangible, open to evidence, quantifiable, verifiable, and provable.

To leave us with a statement that any possible POV which is said to be based on the Bible is conservative means we have no standard in practice, although it looks good in principle. There is virtually no idea from Naziism to treehugging Leftwing Extremism that has not been "proven" in argument at least, with a Bible reference. If we are not willing to discriminate between the ridiculous reinterpretations of the scriptures and the standard ones, we will have nothing to stand on (except in the case of the rare anti-Christian who will say that the Bible is a myth).

AND if we do not somehow, in some wording, say that the Christian NORM is what we are about, we are not making this a conservative forum. It's just that simple.

We can talk about what "traditional" means. We could come up with a new wording. We could consider different slants on the subject, but unless we say somehow that we stand on immutable truths as reflected in the STANDARD Christian POV, there is no reason to have this forum since it will not be for "Conservative Christians."

[Iosias]

Looking at the results this morning, AV, I actually agree. On my poll, Simon's version is winning, but on your poll, yours is losing, because people don't like the traditionalist leanings. I understand what you were saying with the explanation of what "traditional teachings" means, and I would settle for having that in there with an explanation like yours. :)

The solution, as I see it, is we either go for a minimalist statement agreable to all sides or we have a number of very specific definitions of a conservative Anglican, Catholic and Baptist &c. and members must agree with one of those.

I have set a poll to see which people will prefer. It can be found here (http://www.christianforums.com/t5748779-what-type-of-opening-statement-should-cc-have.html). :hug:

I have been involved in drawing up the rules for SR (http://www.christianforums.com/t5677834-wiki-semper-reformanda.html) :thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

Well, the best you can hope for at this point is a tie. There are only about 20 Congregational Members as of right now and the majority has voted no at this point. I think it is critical that we go back to the original, and if nothing else, offer this as option 4. Option 4 is a complete rewrite by someone else, so again, I do not see the need for this second poll. The first poll made it as fair as possible.

Lisa

[SirTimothy]

AND if we do not somehow, in some wording, say that the Christian NORM is what we are about, we are not making this a conservative forum. It's just that simple.


Yay. Let's kick the Calvinists out then. They can't be Conservative since TULIP is outside of the historic Christian Norm. Oh, and lets kick the Baptists and Anabaptists out too, since believer's only baptism is outside the historic Christian Norm. And lets kick everyone who allows a minister outside of Apostolic Succession and in a church without the historic episcopate out too, because they're not part of the historic christian norm....

Do you get my point yet, or does my sarcasm need to be even more heavy-handed?

Tim

[Albion]

Well, the best you can hope for at this point is a tie. There are only about 20 Congregational Members as of right now and the majority has voted no at this point. I think it is critical that we go back to the original, and if nothing else, offer this as option 4. Option 4 is a complete rewrite by someone else, so again, I do not see the need for this second poll. The first poll made it as fair as possible.

Lisa

Whew. I'm having a hard time following some of that math, but this one is a reasonable compromise that the original didn't offer. So, that's good, not bad, isn't it?

[Albion]

Yay. Let's kick the Calvinists out then. They can't be Conservative since TULIP is outside of the historic Christian Norm. Oh, and lets kick the Baptists and Anabaptists out too, since believer's only baptism is outside the historic Christian Norm. And lets kick everyone who allows a minister outside of Apostolic Succession and in a church without the historic episcopate out too, because they're not part of the historic christian norm....

Do you get my point yet, or does my sarcasm need to be even more heavy-handed?

Tim

No, it didn't serve you well the first time around. But that aside, just answer me this--

How can you have a conservative forum that doesn't even espouse conservatism as its raison d'etre? I'll let you suggest wording that would do the job.

[SirTimothy]

How can you have a conservative forum that doesn't even espouse conservatism as its raison d'etre? I'll let you suggest wording that would do the job.

I'm not quite sure how you can have a conservative forum at all, to be honest, when I've never met two self-professed 'conservatives' from different denominations who agreed on anything more than what they agree with with self-professed 'liberals'.

[Lisa0315]

Whew. I'm having a hard time following some of that math, but this one is a reasonable compromise that the original didn't offer. So, that's good, not bad, isn't it?

No, the original offered an option of a complete re-write by another member. That is where your suggestion you have been placed.

The Math is this: There are currently about 20 members. You have 16 votes. Regardless of how the remaining votes are divied, you do not have a clear majority. You leave at least half the membership unhappy. That is not a consensus. That is why this all needs to be done in one place.

It is also my understanding that NO poll is binding but is only used to find out more clearly what people want.

Lisa

[Albion]

I'm not quite sure how you can have a conservative forum at all, to be honest, when I've never met two self-professed 'conservatives' from different denominations who agreed on anything more than what they agree with with self-professed 'liberals'.

Then we have identified your problem.

It is that you don't have any definition for conservatism and/or don't understand what conservatism is. You merely are being driven by what people who call themselves conservative say about their own beliefs. You know, hardly anyone calls himself a liberal these days, not even liberals. So we are left either to let almost every person on CF be an honorary conservative for this forum's sake, or we use the word as it defines itself and as it has been understood by those who know about conservatism.

[Hishandmaiden]

But it doesn't sample this particular wording, does it?



And there is the biggest fallacy of all, the one that is keeping us all from reaching consensus.

It doesn't matter what different denominations say!

It only matters if the traditional faith is upheld...and THAT (the question of whether it has been demonstrated to be so or not) is tangible, open to evidence, quantifiable, verifiable, and provable.

To leave us with a statement that any possible POV which is said to be based on the Bible is conservative means we have no standard in practice, although it looks good in principle. There is virtually no idea from Naziism to treehugging Leftwing Extremism that has not been "proven" in argument at least, with a Bible reference. If we are not willing to discriminate between the ridiculous reinterpretations of the scriptures and the standard ones, we will have nothing to stand on (except in the case of the rare anti-Christian who will say that the Bible is a myth).

AND if we do not somehow, in some wording, say that the Christian NORM is what we are about, we are not making this a conservative forum. It's just that simple.

We can talk about what "traditional" means. We could come up with a new wording. We could consider different slants on the subject, but unless we say somehow that we stand on immutable truths as reflected in the STANDARD Christian POV, there is no reason to have this forum since it will not be for "Conservative Christians."
Not all denominations upheld tradition. Fundenmentalist may not upheld traditions. Those christians from house churches with conservative viewpoints may not have traditons as well.

In Singapore, there are many independent churches, that are known as independent churches. They have no denominational ties, but they hold conservative christian viewpoints in life. That is, anti-abortion, pro-life, submission to authority, etc.

In China, there are two group of christians. The three self church christian that submits to a church structure and gets controlled by the governmen.
The house churches, that are non-liberal in their worldview, that are often Christ-centred, and conservative in outlook and that holds to the Bible as the source of unchanging authority.

But they also do not have any traditions they can hold onto.

[Albion]

No, the original offered an option of a complete re-write by another member. That is where your suggestion you have been placed.

Uh...it was AV1611's suggestion. And although the option for a rewrite is part of the original, hardly anyone's going to vote for that when no one has any specific rewrite to consider. You might as well have left that option off altogether.

The Math is this: There are currently about 20 members. You have 16 votes. Regardless of how the remaining votes are divied, you do not have a clear majority. You leave at least half the membership unhappy. That is not a consensus. That is why this all needs to be done in one place.

Ah, consensus. OK, I can agree with that. It appears that the voters are divided almost 50-50 on this. Yes, I agree with you to that extent. But the same has to apply to the original poll, too. Unless one of the choices tromps the other, no consensus and we're back to looking for something new which is what AV's suggestion was all about.

also my understanding that NO poll is binding but is only used to find out more clearly what people want.

Lisa

All the more reason not to say that merely offering one to see what people think is unfair or useless, eh?
;)

[SirTimothy]

It is that you don't have any definition for conservatism and/or don't understand what conservatism is. You merely are being driven by what people who call themselves conservative say about their own beliefs. You know, hardly anyone calls himself a liberal these days, not even liberals. So we are left either to let almost every person on CF be an honorary conservative for this forum's sake, or we use the word as it defines itself and as it has been understood by those who know about conservatism.

I clearly understand what Conservatism is. I'm just convinced that the only true conservatives are the Greek Orthodox believers in Cyprus who haven't even changed the wording of their liturgy for about 1600 years. They have a clearly defined historic Christian Norm.

Some may say Conservatism is as holding to the Scriptures as the Word of God... except the concept of Sola Scripture is a reformation principle. It's not a historic Christian norm.

Can you explain, in simple, easy to understand, unambiguous language, what a conservative is, WITHOUT managing to kick out at least half of the CF members who would identify as conservative from a moral/ethics perspective. That's the only clear area where conservatism can be defined, because to the Catholics, conservative would exclude all Protestants, to the Orthodox, conservative excludes all Protestants AND all the Catholics.

Tim

[Albion]

Not all denominations upheld tradition.

Then those are not tradition-upholding denominations and could be classified as liberal, if still wonderful in their own way.

Those christians from house churches with conservative viewpoints may not have traditons as well.

In Singapore, there are many independent churches, that are known as independent churches. They have no denominational ties, but they hold conservative christian viewpoints in life. That is, anti-abortion, pro-life, submission to authority, etc.

In China, there are two group of christians. The three self church christian that submits to a church structure and gets controlled by the governmen.
The house churches, that are non-liberal in their worldview, that are often Christ-centred, and conservative in outlook and that holds to the Bible as the source of unchanging authority.

But they also do not have any traditions they can hold onto.

Of course they do. You just named a bunch and properly put them into the conservative category!

When we say 'uphold traditions,' we don't mean uphold the customs of their own particular house church developments. We mean the traditional views of historic Christianity!

[Albion]

I clearly understand what Conservatism is. I'm just convinced that the only true conservatives are the Greek Orthodox believers in Cyprus who haven't even changed the wording of their liturgy for about 1600 years. They have a clearly defined historic Christian Norm.

Well, you're getting closer.

Of course the forum doesn't anticipate only Greek Orthodoxy being here. But neither does it throw our Calvinists, etc. as you suggested when your sarcasm was running in the opposite direction.

The point to keep in mind here is -- and this has been written at least a dozen times by different people here --that conservative VIEWS are what we will have, not that people who call themselves conservatives are what we are about, leaving us to decide who is a conservative and who is not.

For example, a Greek Orthodox poster calling for abortion on demand probably is a conservative by and large, but that is not a conservative POV. A Calvinist posting that Christ is the incarnate son of God is taking a conservative stand, regardless of what he might believe that is not conservative.

We can only police or expect what is written here to be what accords with the purposes of the forum.

Does that help?

[Michelina]

I can agree to the OP. I vote Yes.

[Sophia7]

Looking at the results this morning, AV, I actually agree. On my poll, Simon's version is winning, but on your poll, yours is losing, because people don't like the traditionalist leanings. I understand what you were saying with the explanation of what "traditional teachings" means, and I would settle for having that in there with an explanation like yours. :)

Maybe we can reach some kind of compromise on the wording.

[Rep Daddy]

I can see how conservative Catholics would approve but as a conservative Protestant I find the wording ambiguous at best.

[Lisa0315]

I can see how conservative Catholics would approve but as a conservative Protestant I find the wording ambiguous at best.

I agree! I have suggested (in the original poll) that we add "recognizing the beauty of tradition, but testing all against Scripture".

Lisa

[Debi1967]

I found the wording too ambiguous as well

[Debi1967]

Also I do not necessarily think that all things should be tested by Scripture alone that is Apostolic reasoning btw.....

I do however and have said this many time snow propose that if you make an argument that the argument be backed up by either Scripture or by Church doctrine or Church writings

so if you have x and y you then come to z and it is not merely supposition on somebody's part

[Albion]

I agree! I have suggested (in the original poll) that we add "recognizing the beauty of tradition, but testing all against Scripture".

Lisa

More and more I'm seeing evidence of a misunderstand about "traditions."

It is not about fixing doctrine, even though Catholics do that through "Holy Tradition"

We're talking "traditional " views and standards. Most of us have them and they transcend denominational lines.

See?


"Tradition" with a capital T vs "traditional."

Don't like the word "traditional?" Fine.

Let's call it something else.

BUT WE STILL HAVE TO INCLUDE SUPPORTING THE NORM, THAT WHICH HAS BEEN THE HISTORIC, CUSTOMARY, ACCEPTED VIEW WITHIN CHRISTIANITY. IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT HOW WE GET DOCTRINE, JUST ABOUT WHAT IT HAS BEEN.

[Hishandmaiden]

Then those are not tradition-upholding denominations and could be classified as liberal, if still wonderful in their own way.



Of course they do. You just named a bunch and properly put them into the conservative category!

When we say 'uphold traditions,' we don't mean uphold the customs of their own particular house church developments. We mean the traditional views of historic Christianity!
Then we need to define what that tradition is.

When I think of the word tradition, I think of things like the catholic church.

I think of baptism. I think that is fine.
Infant baptism. Now I can disagree on that one.
Holy Communion. All right.
Some other rituals. Eg... not all I agree with.

I think of things like that, which a conservative house church christian in China and conservative independent christian church in Singapore may not have.

[Albion]

Then we need to define what that tradition is.
When I think of the word tradition, I think of things like the catholic church.

I know you do. That's why I've been wearing out my welcome trying to get people to understand the real idea here. I've suggested many times an alternate word if this is confusing or uncomfortable. I'd also point out that several of the attempted statements we've been given clearly did not say anything like what you are worried about. Neither of the two men who come to kind for having tried to word it acceptably are themselvces Catholics, either.

I think of baptism. I think that is fine.
Infant baptism. Now I can disagree on that one.
Holy Communion. All right.
Some other rituals. Eg... not all I agree with.

I think of things like that, which a conservative house church christian in China and conservative independent christian church in Singapore may not have.

May not have? You mean that they don't baptise anyone? I don't think this is the case. And no one is saying that little differences over ritual makes them not conservative. Everything you said about these Christians made them sound conservative.

[Michelina]

Catholics distinguish between "traditions" and Sacred Tradition. The latter includes the Written Tradition (Sacred Scripture) and Oral Tradition, which includes doctrine, praxis and liturgy. In reality, what we really want to talk about are moral perspectives and acceptance of the Natural Order (Law) as revealed in the SS. The latter is actually quite discernible in the Old and New Testaments. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and other conservative Christians generally agree on those things.

[Hishandmaiden]

I know you do. That's why I've been wearing out my welcome trying to get people to understand the real idea here. I've suggested many times an alternate word if this is confusing or uncomfortable. I'd also point out that several of the attempted statements we've been given clearly did not say anything like what you are worried about. Neither of the two men who come to kind for having tried to word it acceptably are themselvces Catholics, either.



May not have? You mean that they don't baptise anyone? I don't think this is the case. And no one is saying that little differences over ritual makes them not conservative. Everything you said about these Christians made them sound conservative.
They baptise people just not in a church setting.
What I mean is some of those rituals like infant baptism. They have baptism, but only for converts, and often in a river rather than a church, etc.

I now know, I think, what you mean by tradition.
What other word can we use that is not misleading, for the general statement purpose?

[Lisa0315]

They baptise people just not in a church setting.
What I mean is some of those rituals like infant baptism. They have baptism, but only for converts, and often in a river rather than a church, etc.

I now know, I think, what you mean by tradition.
What other word can we use that is not misleading, for the general statement purpose?

You do know that baptism in a river most often is because the church is so small that they cannot afford a baptismal. :) I was baptised in a lake in April, and it was very, very cold, but I will tell you one thing, I will never forget it, not just because it was cold either.

Lisa

[Debi1967]

I know you do. That's why I've been wearing out my welcome trying to get people to understand the real idea here. I've suggested many times an alternate word if this is confusing or uncomfortable. I'd also point out that several of the attempted statements we've been given clearly did not say anything like what you are worried about. Neither of the two men who come to kind for having tried to word it acceptably are themselves Catholics, either.I will try to come up with something I am working on wikis all over the board....please give me some time I am only opne person trying to make a difference in a million places for Conservative beliefs

[Debi1967]

And why has this suggestion continually gone unrecognized btw


I do however and have said this many times now propose that if you make an argument that the argument be backed up by either Scripture or by Church doctrine or Church writings

so if you have x and y you then come to z and it is not merely supposition on somebody's part

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST IT

[Hishandmaiden]

You do know that baptism in a river most often is because the church is so small that they cannot afford a baptismal. :) I was baptised in a lake in April, and it was very, very cold, but I will tell you one thing, I will never forget it, not just because it was cold either.

Lisa
It must be a COOL experience. :)

[CyberPaladin]

You do know that baptism in a river most often is because the church is so small that they cannot afford a baptismal. :) I was baptised in a lake in April, and it was very, very cold, but I will tell you one thing, I will never forget it, not just because it was cold either.

Lisa

Lisa April isn't all that bad last winter one guy at my Church who recently been save decided he wanted to be baptized he had them do it then he broke a hole open in his pond with a sledge hammer in order to do it.

[Albion]

I will try to come up with something I am working on wikis all over the board....please give me some time I am only opne person trying to make a difference in a million places for Conservative beliefs

I am all for anyone adding to the discussion. It doesn't matter what church they attend. I was only saying that the idea that mentioning tradition must mean Catholicism doesn't add up since the two here who proposed Wiki statements for the forum and used that term were NOT Roman Catholics.

[Albion]

They baptise people just not in a church setting.

Not a problem, then.

What I mean is some of those rituals like infant baptism. They have baptism, but only for converts, and often in a river rather than a church, etc.

I get your point that there are some differences between churches and we wouldn't want to say some aren't holding to tradition--the usual way--so they aren't conservative. The answer is that the mode of baptism is not essential to the baptism according to the way Christians of most of history have believed about it. However, I am aware that you are suggesting that it would be hard to know what's essential or significant as opposed to what is just an option that doesn't cause any problem.

I now know, I think, what you mean by tradition.
What other word can we use that is not misleading, for the general statement purpose?

I'm pleased that we've come this far. Now for the word...

...customary?

conveniontional?

historic?


Who out there can add to this list?

[Albion]

Catholics distinguish between "traditions" and Sacred Tradition. The latter includes the Written Tradition (Sacred Scripture) and Oral Tradition, which includes doctrine, praxis and liturgy.

Yes. Fixing doctrine is not the only area we are going to talk about, though. We'd also be discussing social issues and religious matters that are not expressely a matter of must-believe doctrine. What's traditional there must also hold.

In reality, what we really want to talk about are moral perspectives and acceptance of the Natural Order (Law) as revealed in the SS. The latter is actually quite discernible in the Old and New Testaments. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and other conservative Christians generally agree on those things.

That's true.

[Debi1967]

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

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

[Albion]

This has been edited in by Colabomb

That seems to be an approximation of what AV1611 put up for us to vote on. I much favor discussion and voting to someone just tampering with the statement. Someone please make sure we have a copy of the Wiki previous to any recent alterations.

[Debi1967]

That seems to be an approximation of what AV1611 put up for us to vote on. I much favor discussion and voting to someone just tampering with the statement. Someone please make sure we have a copy of the Wiki previous to any recent alterations.
Anyone can make changes at anytime to the Wiki and this discussion should be taking place in the wiki itself not in a hundred threads and polls outside of it. Personally I do not see anything wrong with what Colabomb said in his edit unless somehow yoiu wish to alienate part of us and want to opportunity to be able to do so in the future?

[Sophia7]

And why has this suggestion continually gone unrecognized btw


I do however and have said this many times now propose that if you make an argument that the argument be backed up by either Scripture or by Church doctrine or Church writings

so if you have x and y you then come to z and it is not merely supposition on somebody's part

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST IT

I agree with this kind of evidentiary clause. There used to be a similar statement in the main CF flaming rule, a long time ago. In my opinion, giving evidence (from the Bible, Tradition, etc.) for a claim can often make the difference between whether it's considered a flame or not.

[Albion]

Anyone can make changes at anytime to the Wiki and this discussion should be taking place in the wiki itself not in a hundred threads and polls outside of it. Personally I do not see anything wrong with what Colabomb said in his edit unless somehow yoiu wish to alienate part of us and want to opportunity to be able to do so in the future?

Well, you lost me there. I say that it's not helpful to make the changes while we are discussing them and this is somehow translated by you as "wish to alienate part of us."

That is ludicrous.

If you are serious, and think that everyone should go to the Wiki and change and rechange everything there minute by minute, say that and I'm sure the rush will be one. And that will help us unify the forum and reach a common definition....how again?

[Debi1967]

Well, you lost me there. I say that it's not helpful to make the changes while we are discussing them and this is somehow translated by you as "wish to alienate part of us."

That is ludicrous.

If you are serious, and think that everyone should go to the Wiki and change and rechange everything there minute by minute, say that and I'm sure the rush will be one. And that will help us unify the forum and reach a common definition....how again?
Somin Templar was the one that made the original change that I questioned to begiun with without any discussion on it I might add which is why I am now working with staff to create a working wiki for rules and guidelines of how make wikis and use them effectively in the furture that I hope I can be done with in the next day or so ... I believe that will help the situation drastically...