Wiki: Conservative Christians Standard Questions for New Members

[Lisa0315]

This list of questions will be used as part of the process to bring in new members. These standard questions will eliminate candidates from feeling like they are going through an inquisition to get into our forum.

Tell us your position on abortion. Please express your position in detail.
Tell us your position on homosexuality. Please express your position in detail.
Is there anything disagreable to you in the Nicene Creed? If so, please explain.
Apostolic Christians generally hold Tradition equal to Scripture. What is your position on this?
We have been given two new commandments from our Lord in the New Testament. Please tell us how you apply these two commands in your life.Members did not like this idea. Unfortunately, wikis cannot be closed. I have hidden the original questions but they can be unhidden if this ever becomes topical again. You can see the original at the top simply by hiliting the area.

Lisa

[SingingElk]

Looks like I am the first one to post.

There was the question about #5. The two commands that Jesus gave are to love the Lord your God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. The person would have to describe how he would apply this to his own life.

Questions 3-5 are actually pretty scholarly.

The way this questionnaire is worded, it is the high brows that would be able to answer it. We need to ask ourselves, are we gearing this particular forum to the highly intelligent?

Jesus does have a special place in his heart for people that have a childlike faith. All too often it is those that do not have a lot of intellectual firepower that fall into that category. Intelligence isn't very high on Jesus' list of priorities.

[Lisa0315]

Looks like I am the first one to post.

There was the question about #5. The two commands that Jesus gave are to love the Lord your God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. The person would have to describe how he would apply this to his own life.

Questions 3-5 are actually pretty scholarly.

The way this questionnaire is worded, it is the high brows that would be able to answer it. We need to ask ourselves, are we gearing this particular forum to the highly intelligent?

Jesus does have a special place in his heart for people that have a childlike faith. All too often it is those that do not have a lot of intellectual firepower that fall into that category. Intelligence isn't very high on Jesus' list of priorities.


Good point, but all of these things are in our Statement of Beliefs.

Second, the level of intelligence in CF and in forums on the internet are generally very high. It is just the nature of forums to have people who have very high IQ's.

Finally, the list of questions is just one way for us to help identify potential members. They will still have 3-5 nominators, a discussion thread, and the ability to show us posts that best represent themselves. (We are still bouncing around ideas here)

Anway, I do not want to exclude anyone who is not "scholarly" as you put it. I am just not sure that it is going to be as big of a problem as one might think.

We can perhaps add a line that says if you do not understand the question, please ask for clarification.

Lisa

[SingingElk]

That is a good point. Bright people are the ones that tend to use the Internet. I have seen some pretty dull individuals online though!

I do like the set of questions. It filters out the dross.

I heard mention that the Apostolic creed was added-if it was, I think that is a good addition.

[Debi1967]

hon I think along side the Nicene creed we should also ask them about the Apostle's Creed...

[Lisa0315]

hon I think along side the Nicene creed we should also ask them about the Apostle's Creed...

Totally agree, but I am not as familiar with the Apostles Creed. Can you write it in?

BTW, did you see Rochir's question in the poll thread? Don't reply to it. I reported him. You and I love each other and he is trying to instigate a fight among us. We are not going to let that happen are we, dear one? :hug:

Lisa

[Tonks]

What's the beef with Tradition? My understanding that this was for any there were conservative theologically - not just the bible-only folks.

Or am I missing something?

[Lisa0315]

What's the beef with Tradition? My understanding that this was for any there were conservative theologically - not just the bible-only folks.

Or am I missing something?

No beef at all. That is what we want to insure with the questions, or does it read like something else? My intention behind the question is to make sure that they are not going to come in here calling people Mary Worshippers or something. We hold Tradition and Scripture to be truth. I don't remember how the thing reads, but our Apostolic brothers and sisters are welcome here. The question is designed to make sure that no one has a problem with Tradition, either big T or little t.

Lisa

[Tonks]

Ah.

[Lisa0315]

Ah.

Hey, Tonks. Are you a member of CCC? If not, hurry up and go to the Sign In thread before we close the open membership. (Assuming you want to...LOL!)

Lisa

[Debi1967]

Totally agree, but I am not as familiar with the Apostles Creed. Can you write it in?

BTW, did you see Rochir's question in the poll thread? Don't reply to it. I reported him. You and I love each other and he is trying to instigate a fight among us. We are not going to let that happen are we, dear one? :hug:

Lisa
of course not .... love you more everyday my friend and sis

[Tonks]

Does membership in OBOB preclude membership here?

[Debi1967]

Does membership in OBOB preclude membership here?
you can be a member of both as long as you hold to Conservative views

[Lisa0315]

Does membership in OBOB preclude membership here?

Not at all. I would say that half our membership is OBOB. This is about Christians who hold traditional values especially on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality. We belong together for these traditional values more than because of doctrinal agreement.

Also, one of the truly important points for me as a member here is that we embrace telling the truth in a loving manner rather than being "militant orthodoxy".

Lisa

[desmalia]

I think perhaps #4 needs to be reworded a bit. Whether a person holds to Tradition, or Sola Scriptura, or some variation does not define whether they are conservative. Perhaps a question defining how they plan to handle a difference of opinion with other Conservatives in the group would be more effective?

I'm also wondering if it should be more like a list of yes or no questions, just to keep it simple. Not totally sure, just something I'm thinking. Like, for example: "Do you believe that abortion is a sin?", etc. etc.

[Lisa0315]

I think perhaps #4 needs to be reworded a bit. Whether a person holds to Tradition, or Sola Scriptura, or some variation does not define whether they are conservative. Perhaps a question defining how they plan to handle a difference of opinion with other Conservatives in the group would be more effective?

I'm also wondering if it should be more like a list of yes or no questions, just to keep it simple. Not totally sure, just something I'm thinking. Like, for example: "Do you believe that abortion is a sin?", etc. etc.

Well, you are the second person to vote for simpler. I suppose, I am looking to glean if a person is simply posing as a Conservative or not. Regardless, we can simplify it if everyone thinks that is what is needed.

I like your suggestion for #4.

How about?

"Whether a person holds to Tradition, or Sola Scriptura, or some variation does not define whether one is a Conservative. How do you plan on handling differences in opinion on this subject?"

Is that better? I took your words...:)

Lisa

[Tonks]

I added my name to the list before the close as I don't feel like answering questions. :P

[NewGuy101]

We need to get rid of question 5, there is some individuals out there who are conservatives but not intellectuals. I also don't get the fact that the immediate members get voted right in while those who come later have to kiss someones behind to get in. BTW WHY AND WHO CHANGED THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS TO 5?

[GreenMunchkin]

The questions are gone, and they are not to come back.

The hubris of it is just... UGH.

[Lisa0315]

The questions are gone, and they are not to come back.

The hubris of it is just... UGH.


GreenMunchkin,
You are only one person. There was a 77% consensus that closed membership was desired. If we are going to close membership, then, we need to have some way of discerning new members. I was chided for asking questions and it was suggested that standard questions would eliminate making someone feeling interrogated.

I am sorry that I had to do this, but I did report you for this. You really shouldn't have deleted the work here. I am asking the mods to roll it back.

Lisa

[Lel]

You can roll it back yourself. Go into the history and it's like revert or rollback or something.

Would suggest not wheel warring tho.

[MrJim]

I didn't get to see the questions :(

[GreenMunchkin]

You report me as much as you need to, Lisa. You had no right to create such a disgusting thread.

You didn't poll people having to jump through hoops to join; you polled whether membership should end now or later.

This questions idea, and the idea of making people make all posts findable is all yours, and it isn't what our forum is for.

I can't believe you would arbitrarily create something so unwelcoming and arrogant. You didn't even ask people if we supported this. Have a look in the forum. We don't.

[MrJim]

I see the vultures are circling :D

[MrJim]

You didn't even ask people if we supported this. Have a look in the forum. We don't.

I didn't get to see the questions, maybe they were ok? Be careful of putting "me" in your "we".

Nothin' wrong with standards if done well...

[desmalia]

I had the questions in my history still. Here they are:


This list of questions will be used as part of the process to bring in new members. These standard questions will eliminate candidates from feeling like they are going through an inquisition to get into our forum.

Tell us your position on abortion. Please express your position in detail.
Tell us your position on homosexuality. Please express your position in detail.
Is there anything disagreable to you in the Nicene Creed? If so, please explain.
Apostolic Christians generally hold Tradition equal to Scripture. What is your position on this?
We have been given two new commandments from our Lord in the New Testament. Please tell us how you apply these two commands in your life.

[Lisa0315]

You report me as much as you need to, Lisa. You had no right to create such a disgusting thread.

You didn't poll people having to jump through hoops to join; you polled whether membership should end now or later.

This questions idea, and the idea of making people make all posts findable is all yours, and it isn't what our forum is for.

I can't believe you would arbitrarily create something so unwelcoming and arrogant. You didn't even ask people if we supported this. Have a look in the forum. We don't.

It is okay if we do not agree on this GreenMunchkin. I am not going to fight with you about it. If the consensus is not to have standard questions, I do not have a problem with that. If I had known how to roll back the thing myself, I wouldn't have reported you. I would have simply tried to reason with you instead.

I have only one goal here. That is to keep CCC as peaceful as possible. The standard questions was not my idea, but was a response to me asking new members questions.

If we do not have some way of discerning new members once membership is closed, then, what is going to happen is that you are going to have alot of arguing, I am afraid. This is only intended to be a preventative.

I still love you, sister. I realize that you do not care for me so much, but that is okay. At the end of the day, all that matters to me is the forum and the members. I don't care if we have open or closed membership, but people do need to be aware of what the consequences of open membership may mean.

Lisa

[desmalia]

Well, you are the second person to vote for simpler. I suppose, I am looking to glean if a person is simply posing as a Conservative or not. Regardless, we can simplify it if everyone thinks that is what is needed.

I like your suggestion for #4.

How about?

"Whether a person holds to Tradition, or Sola Scriptura, or some variation does not define whether one is a Conservative. How do you plan on handling differences in opinion on this subject?"

Is that better? I took your words...:)

LisaWorks for me, but would like to hear from others too so we have a consensus. I wonder if it would be an idea to open a thread in the Conservative area to broaden the input before the questions are solidified.
</IMG>

[Lisa0315]

Works for me, but would like to hear from others too so we have a consensus. I wonder if it would be an idea to open a thread in the Conservative area to broaden the input before the questions are solidified.
</IMG>

This is wiki. The questions are completely liquid. They do not become solid until a screenshot is taken. These are just some of my ideas. I expect them to be edited, added to, deleted, etc. No one is going to hurt my feelings if the whole idea goes away, but I just want to make sure that is what everyone wants to do.

Lisa

[MrJim]

I had the questions in my history still. Here they are:


This list of questions will be used as part of the process to bring in new members. These standard questions will eliminate candidates from feeling like they are going through an inquisition to get into our forum.

Tell us your position on abortion. Please express your position in detail.
Tell us your position on homosexuality. Please express your position in detail.
Is there anything disagreable to you in the Nicene Creed? If so, please explain.
Apostolic Christians generally hold Tradition equal to Scripture. What is your position on this?
We have been given two new commandments from our Lord in the New Testament. Please tell us how you apply these two commands in your life.

:thumbsup: Aren't you a dear!

These questions look fine to me. They are not "Yes or No" type questions, but simply what is your understanding or opinion on issues. Hardly a "straightjacket" type of test.

I'm cool with them; the Tradition/Scripture question~I don't believe Tradition holds the same weight as Scripture but allow that I could be wrong and have great respect for the Apostolic traditions. So does that throw me out? I don't think so...but if I believed that those holding Tradition as equal to Scripture were Illuminati~Skull&Bone disciples of the Beast, then yeah, they probably wouldn't fit in here very well.

[Joykins]

I see the vultures are circling :D

:wave:

*stuffs fist in mouth and falls over*

[GreenMunchkin]

It is okay if we do not agree on this GreenMunchkin. I am not going to fight with you about it. If the consensus is not to have standard questions, I do not have a problem with that. If I had known how to roll back the thing myself, I wouldn't have reported you. I would have simply tried to reason with you instead.

I have only one goal here. That is to keep CCC as peaceful as possible. The standard questions was not my idea, but was a response to me asking new members questions.

If we do not have some way of discerning new members once membership is closed, then, what is going to happen is that you are going to have alot of arguing, I am afraid. This is only intended to be a preventative.

I still love you, sister. I realize that you do not care for me so much, but that is okay. At the end of the day, all that matters to me is the forum and the members. I don't care if we have open or closed membership, but people do need to be aware of what the consequences of open membership may mean.

LisaLisa. I'm not going to play these games.

We have no right to quiz people, and check up on people, just so they can have the luxury of joining a forum we all joined without a hitch simply because we got there sooner.

You had no right to create this wiki. Don't talk to me about consensus. You started a wiki arbitrarily. Consenus would be starting yet another poll. Had none of us called you on it, you would have carried on with this unbeknownst to most of the forum.

We have no right to test people, or find all their posts, because we are no better than anyone else.

[ContentInHim]

I don't understand the reasoning for #4 as both positions are OK, unless it's to weed out troublemakers.

Also, some of us might view the commandments referred to in #5 as not new. After all, the first of the two from Jesus is the first one from God. (just quibbling about the verbage, not the question really). ;)

[Lisa0315]

Lisa. I'm not going to play these games.

We have no right to quiz people, and check up on people, just so they can have the luxury of joining a forum we all joined without a hitch simply because we got there sooner.

You had no right to create this wiki. Don't talk to me about consensus. You started a wiki arbitrarily. Consenus would be starting yet another poll. Had none of us called you on it, you would have carried on with this unbeknownst to most of the forum.

We have no right to test people, or find all their posts because we are no better than anyone else.

I am pretty sure that anyone can start a wiki. No one needs a consensus to start a wiki. If people do not like the wiki, then, all they have to say is "Don't do it!". You are one voice so far who disagrees with the whole idea. If you like, start a poll to insure that new members will not be asked questions. That is fine with me. I don't know why you feel that you have no other recourse or that what I do is law here. It is not. I am just one member with one idea taking action on that idea. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other except that this continues to be a peaceful place.

Lisa

[Melethiel]

#5 is completely wrong. Our Lord did not give us "two new commandments" - the greatest commandments are both found in the Law.

Not to mention, it's overly intellectual.


I also disagree with the whole premise of interrogation for membership.

[Lisa0315]

I don't understand the reasoning for #4 as both positions are OK, unless it's to weed out troublemakers.

Also, some of us might view the commandments referred to in #5 as not new. After all, the first of the two from Jesus is the first one from God. (just quibbling about the verbage, not the question really). ;)

That is exactly the purpose of #4. It is to make sure that the person is not going to come in and bash Tradition-based Conservatives.

True, they are not new. That was a poor choice of wording. I don't know how to word it better. (Where is Aria when I need her?:) ) I just didn't want to straight out ask how to deliver truth with love...ooh, wait, maybe that is how it should be asked.

What about #5 becoming? "How do you deliver truth with love? What does that mean to you?"

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Good grief. Coming up with an idea like that and then claiming you want peace is just astonishing.

I'm ashamed to be attached to a forum that would be so arrogant and draconian, and I honestly pray people have more self-respect than to jump through the hoops.

[Lisa0315]

Good grief. Coming up with an idea like that and then claiming you want peace is just astonishing.

I'm ashamed to be attached to a forum that would be so arrogant and draconian, and I honestly pray people have more self-respect than to jump through the hoops.

If we have continued open membership, then, we would not be able to stop this: This is a liberal Christian participating in our poll discussion. Is this what you want to welcome in with no discussion whatsoever? He did want to be a member here you know. Technically, right now, we have no way to keep him off our membership list.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37555827&postcount=51

[Lisa0315]

Okay, that is two members who are against the whole idea.

GreenMunchkin suggested a poll be done on this first. Maybe, we should come back to this after we run another poll.

Can I get some ayes and nayes on this? I am not running the show here, you know...

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

I am not running the show here, you know...

LisaHuh. So you are aware of that.

We have a wiki and a debate sub-forum. That's all we need. We have no right to ask these questions and go hunting for all their posts. Especially given we all joined as easily as breathing.

Scrap this whole idea. If people want members voted in, that's one thing; making people bow and dance for our entertainment is unacceptable and is just the worst witnessing imaginable. We aren't an elite little group of vunder-beings. We're as flawed as everyone who's being made to kowtow.

[Rochir]

For the record:

The version of 10 August 2007 10p GMT has been safed!:wave: No use deleting anything!:)

[Lisa0315]

Huh. So you are aware of that.

We have a wiki and a debate sub-forum. That's all we need. We have no right to ask these questions and go hunting for all their posts. Especially given we all joined as easily as breathing.

Scrap this whole idea. If people want members voted in, that's one thing; making people bow and dance for our entertainment is unacceptable and is just the worst witnessing imaginable. We aren't an elite little group of vunder-beings. We're as flawed as everyone who's being made to kowtow.

You know, Green Munchkin, that first line was really not necessary.

Everyone should know by now that wikis and polls are the tools we have to work with. None of us got a manual on how to do any of this stuff. We are all just winging it. There is simply no need for such hostile disagreement.

One question: If the majority wants to question new members, how are you going to react to that? Are you going to protest every application in this way, or are you going to abide by what the consensus decides on this?

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

You know, Green Munchkin, that first line was really not necessary.

Everyone should know by now that wikis and polls are the tools we have to work with. None of us got a manual on how to do any of this stuff. We are all just winging it. There is simply no need for such hostile disagreement.

One question: If the majority wants to question new members, how are you going to react to that? Are you going to protest every application in this way, or are you going to abide by what the consensus decides on this?

LisaOh the first line was very much necessary. It's been necessary for weeks.

I've left the forum, so it now has nothing to do with me. But I know that many of the people in CC truly love Jesus and understand humility and won't want people to have to go through all of this just so they can be a part of a forum that is meant to be sharing the Truth in love.

I also pray that prospective members understand they're better than having to pass the test of people who are no better than them, and that they run a mile.

As to my method of "protest"... yes, I imagine my speaking up must be a real pain for you. But I wasn't the one reporting people unnecessarily, so I don't think it's my conduct that needs looking at.

[desmalia]

I see the questions, and the wiki statement as being representative of the forum as a whole. If any members (new or current) show in their posts that they disagree with what they say (once that is established of course), they may need to leave the membership. I agree this can't get militant. But at the same time, when you stand for something and desire to have fellowship with like-minded people, there has to be some structure.

This is the new CF, where trolls abound and anything pretty much goes. If congregational forums don't establish their own rules now, frankly, they will never resemble anything close to what they were intended for.

For the Fundie forum we just have our statement, and new members must agree to it before they are added to the membership. If at some later point they show that they were dishonest in this, they will be removed from the membership. Pretty cut and dry. But then we have a much smaller group, and we have gotten to know each other pretty well. Things are much more volatile in the Conservative forum (call it growing pains perhaps?).

[invisible trousers]

I see the vultures are circling :D

In our defense, this thread is pretty entertaining :)

[No Swansong]

Desmalia has hit it on the head. Why not just post our definition of who qualifies and take the individuals word for it unless and until they indicate that they falsely affirmed the statement?

It would be just as easy to be dishonest to the questions as it would to give a false affirmation and then it is not us deciding who is "qualified".

I have a great deal of experience modding on the Fundamentalist Churches board and it worked quite well.

[desmalia]

That is exactly the purpose of #4. It is to make sure that the person is not going to come in and bash Tradition-based Conservatives.
My apologies for my bluntness, but I feel this question needs to be asked. Is one of your goals for this forum to try and create unity between the Apostolic and the non-Apostolic?

The reason I ask is that your comment again lends itself to a very strong disagreement with Sola Scriptura and perhaps even a desire to do away with its representation in the forum completely. I truly am just looking for your honest feelings on this, and have no plans of debating with you. I won't scream or cry or report or anything else. If that is your goal, and that of the majority of members in the forum, I will leave, and I am sure the rest of the Fundies will as well. But from your comment it's clear that our earlier discussion is not as resolved as I had hoped.

I agree, as have all the other Fundies in the forum, that the forum must be open to basically all denominations, whether it be Catholic, EO, Protestant, or whatever (non-liberal, of course). And that we should avoid debate about the kinds of issues that plague the CA and GT forums. However, what I want to know is if this forum is intended to be primarily for those who subscribe to both Tradition and Scripture equally. Your posts continue to suggest that Sola Scriptura is a problem for you and that you are constantly on the defense against it.

[nyj]

I wonder who linked to this WIKI, and from where ... there are quite a few people who don't mosey around here, in here.

[nyj]

This questions idea, and the idea of making people make all posts findable is all yours, and it isn't what our forum is for.

I can't believe you would arbitrarily create something so unwelcoming and arrogant. You didn't even ask people if we supported this. Have a look in the forum. We don't.I concur.

The 5 vouchers is enough. If 5 people can vouch that this person won't be a total pest, that should be enough. No need to make people run a gauntlet.

[Angel4Truth]

The question #4 about someones position on tradition is irrelevant - the statement of the forum already reads both and says no rule will be made concerning either and nor should someone be interogated about it - 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.

[Angel4Truth]

Also ading i will not make all posts findable no matter who asks me to for any forum and if that means i am not welcome so be it just let me know.

[Angel4Truth]

I'm ashamed to be attached to a forum that would be so arrogant and draconian, and I honestly pray people have more self-respect than to jump through the hoops.Amen There should be no inquisition and thats what those questions are.

These questions are worse than it was when staff would remove some members faith icons. If someone joins then makes it clear they do not agree with the statement of the forum then something can be said or done but to attempt to prejudge others is wrong on many levels.

[desmalia]

OK, I initially made the suggestion for standard questions because the Fundamentalists were being singled out and inquisitioned in the "sign in" thread. So I thought that if questions need to be asked, they should be the same questions, asked of everyone. I just don't appreciate Fundies being singled out as "bad guys", which has happened a lot in this forum already. So Lisa took that idea and ran with it, which I'm sure was meant with the best of intentions. If the majority doesn't want these questions for new members, then let's scrap them and focus on the Conservative wiki statement. No big deal, right?

Having said that, there does need to be a set standard for members. This is not WWMC.

[MrJim]

In our defense, this thread is pretty entertaining :)

:D It does have its moments;)

[MrJim]

[/COLOR]Amen There should be no inquisition and thats what those questions are.


Now doggone it does that mean the rack has to go back into the basement? I hauled that old thing all the way up here 'cause someone said we'd need it later:doh:

...and I got splinters too:(

[desmalia]

Now doggone it does that mean the rack has to go back into the basement? I hauled that old thing all the way up here 'cause someone said we'd need it later:doh:

...and I got splinters too:(
Down boy! Go lick your wounds!
^_^

[Debi1967]

OK, I initially made the suggestion for standard questions because the Fundamentalists were being singled out and inquisitioned in the "sign in" thread. So I thought that if questions need to be asked, they should be the same questions, asked of everyone. I just don't appreciate Fundies being singled out as "bad guys", which has happened a lot in this forum already. So Lisa took that idea and ran with it, which I'm sure was meant with the best of intentions. If the majority doesn't want these questions for new members, then let's scrap them and focus on the Conservative wiki statement. No big deal, right?

Having said that, there does need to be a set standard for members. This is not WWMC.
I made yet another poll thread to get the consensus of the congreation on using questions

http://www.christianforums.com/t5882565-ok-folks-should-we-use-questions-or-not.html

[Lel]

I'm curious, what are the acceptable answers?

[nyj]

I'm curious, what are the acceptable answers?The answer to this question should be: There is so much room for allowance that the point of asking these questions is almost pointless.

[Miss Shelby]

I have only skimmed this, but I am in general agreement with GreenMunchkin. This is overcomplicating thing unnecessarily,.

[Hishandmaiden]

I think the questions are nice.
Short and sweet.

[Lisa0315]

My computer has been down since Friday. So, can someone give me the cliff notes on the discussion that has been going on?

Lisa

[Debi1967]

My computer has been down since Friday. So, can someone give me the cliff notes on the discussion that has been going on?

Lisa
A lot of opposition to the idea

http://www.christianforums.com/t5882565-ok-folks-should-we-use-questions-or-not.html

[Jim47]

Closed at request of OP