Should Non Denom Christians be allowed to discuss doctrinal issues?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

This is in regards to Jim 47 thread: ND rules discussion. Should Christians here at Non Denominational be allowed to discuss, debate or argue about Christian doctrinal issues.; such as the sabbath, hell and trinitarism, or any other doctrinal issues. The reason this question is being asked is because some believe that these things should not be questioned by Non Denom members.

[bill16652]

Just because you are non-denominational does not mean that you do not hold to some form of doctrine. You have beliefs, I have beliefs, we all do. What is needed right now is to find out what we can all agree on and hammer out some rules and some definitions. We should define what we believe in common, who should be allowed to debate, we need a membership list. This is not to limit or prohibit but simply to bring order and be able to know what the members want.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Just because you are non-denominational does not mean that you do not hold to some form of doctrine. You have beliefs, I have beliefs, we all do. What is needed right now is to find out what we can all agree on and hammer out some rules and some definitions. We should define what we believe in common, who should be allowed to debate, we need a membership list. This is not to limit or prohibit but simply to bring order and be able to know what the members want. We have two sides here with oppossing views. Shouldnt those who dont want to discuss or debate an issue just avoid the subject. But no, they want to prevent those things from being discussed. As for myself, I dont want to talk about the weather or other such things, and warm fuzzies. If they want to talk about warm fuzzies, fine, but I dont want to discuss warm fuzzies.

[bill16652]

We have two sides here with oppossing views. Shouldnt those who dont want to discuss or debate an issue just avoid the subject. But no, they want to prevent those things from being discussed. As for myself, I dont want to talk about the weather or other such things, and warm fuzzies. If they want to talk about warm fuzzies, fine, but I dont want to discuss warm fuzzies.Thats fine but what are the parameters that we work within? I just spent time with an individual that was a seeker and claimed to be Christian yet definition of was very confused and I withdrew from the debate for two reasons, one confusion is not of God, two when it is not clear and concise dealing with one issue at a time rather than ammultitude then it becomes something other than debate. I am just saying that we need to establish guidelines that the membership can agree with and use to define this forum.

[JolieHeart]

What does a denomination, or lack of, have to do with Christian doctrinal issues such as the sabbath, hell and trinitarism, or any other doctrinal issues?

My focus is on Christ, not on a particular club membership. As Christians, those of non-denominational affiliation should have the same rights, courtesies, and respect as those belonging to a denomination.



Okay, who hid the soapbox lol

[JHM]

Bye Now

[bill16652]

What does a denomination, or lack of, have to do with Christian doctrinal issues such as the sabbath, hell and trinitarism, or any other doctrinal issues?

My focus is on Christ, not on a particular club membership. As Christians, those of non-denominational affiliation should have the same rights, courtesies, and respect as those belonging to a denomination.



Okay, who hid the soapbox lolTotally agree, and those are not what I am asking for, I am asking what do we believe in common, what is it that we want? Do you want it as defined right now with no definitions to define your beliefsZ? Should there be some guidelines? These are the questions. Moderation is easy no matter how it goees as rules are rules and can be done either way as it stands you havbe a general workung WIKI, should it be refined with member input? What is acceptable to the members as a whole? I am really looking for input from everyone to hopefully come to some agreements between everyone that would be comnsidered a member here.

[JolieHeart]

*Steps aside for those with more tact, finesse, and gifted verbage to handle those particulars*

[JolieHeart]

*Wonders how one can define the vast range of non-denominationalism, aside from the common Christian definition

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Thats fine but what are the parameters that we work within? I just spent time with an individual that was a seeker and claimed to be Christian yet definition of was very confused and I withdrew from the debate for two reasons, one confusion is not of God, two when it is not clear and concise dealing with one issue at a time rather than ammultitude then it becomes something other than debate. I am just saying that we need to establish guidelines that the membership can agree with and use to define this forum.Personally I cant stand to watch sports, or even listen or talk about sports. So therfore I avoid that. People here do have that option. If you find that someone is talking about something that you have an interest in, well then , join in. If you see a subject that you dont care for, then avoid it.

[bill16652]

I am about as "Non Denominational" as you can get. I do not currently belong to any church, the one with which I was once long ago affiliated has espoused "Same Sex Marriage"; and as far as I am concerned, is well on its way along the road to Hell. I may not be able to quote St Paul; but this I can tell you, I know more about the coming destruction than probably anyone here.

If you want to limit what I can say here, fine. - But if you do, I will yank my posts and go elsewhere; and yoiu can all sit patting yourselves on the back about how you have been saved right up until the moment the destruction happens.Actually not trying to limit debate and you and I may be closer than you think whenit comes to end times. I have been shown certain things and beklieve scripture bears out many things to come in Daniel Ezekiel the rest of the prophets as well as the gospels and Revelation.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

*Steps aside for those with more tact, finesse, and gifted verbage to handle those particulars* That would not be me, Im mr. blunt. But I do have a sence of humor.

[bill16652]

*Wonders how one can define the vast range of non-denominationalism, aside from the common Christian definitionWould you agree that there arew certain beliefs that you hold? Would you also agree that many if not all would hold some of those beliefs to be true> Can we all agree on salvation for instance based upon scripture that says tto confess with your mouth and believe in your heart. Can we agree on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God. The trinity.

[bill16652]

That would not be me, Im mr. blunt. But I do have a sence of humor.I can deal with blunt, I respect the fact that someone believes, faith is all about believing.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Would you agree that there arew certain beliefs that you hold? Would you also agree that many if not all would hold some of those beliefs to be true> Can we all agree on salvation for instance based upon scripture that says tto confess with your mouth and believe in your heart. Can we agree on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God. The trinity. There are many things held in common by both sides. However, Trinitarism is not one of those things. No where in our bibles is Trinitarism given as part of our salvation.

[bill16652]

There are many things held in common by both sides. However, Trinitarism is not one of those things. No where in our bibles is Trinitarism given as part of our salvation.If it cant be agreed to then It would not be included, asm curious how while the word is not found it does list three sepeerate parts just as man us a triune being with body soul and spirit. We are created in the image of God, Jesus is described as the Word, and in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and is God. Seems to me that there is a strong biblical basis for the trinity. But the goal is to find what we can agree on to be WIKIied. ZI am just looking for common ground knowing that we have many differnet viewpoints represented here.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

If it cant be agreed to then It would not be included, asm curious how while the word is not found it does list three sepeerate parts just as man us a triune being with body soul and spirit. We are created in the image of God, Jesus is described as the Word, and in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and is God. Seems to me that there is a strong biblical basis for the trinity. But the goal is to find what we can agree on to be WIKIied. ZI am just looking for common ground knowing that we have many differnet viewpoints represented here. God made a body for man and breathed into him the spirit of life, and man became a living soul. A soul is both body and spirit. A person without a body is a spirit, and a body without a spirit is dead. Both our body and spirit are mortal, and imortality is an act of God. And if God did not call us back into being, then we would never live again.

[DeanM]

Can we still talk about sunshine and lolipops? As long as we can still talk about those two topics, why would we ever feel the need to discuss anything else?

But seriously, doctrine is a big part of Christianity, whether we like it or not. Perhaps a new forum could be started for anyone who does not ever want to hear these issues discussed. We could call it 'Christianity in tunnel vision', and provide free rose colored glasses to the first 100 members, assuming that they signed an agreement to throw away their right to free speech and free will and free thinking.

But it could work...

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

All Christians agree that Jesus was immortal and a deity or god. All Christians agree that salvation is found through Christ. All Christians agree that correct doctrine is important. And I presume the list is greater then that.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Can we still talk about sunshine and lolipops? As long as we can still talk about those two topics, why would we ever feel the need to discuss anything else?

But seriously, doctrine is a big part of Christianity, whether we like it or not. Perhaps a new forum could be started for anyone who does not ever want to hear these issues discussed. We could call it 'Christianity in tunnel vision', and provide free rose colored glasses to the first 100 members, assuming that they signed an agreement to throw away their right to free speech and free will and free thinking.

But it could work... Truth is not broad and all incompassing, it is a very narrow road.

[DeanM]

Truth is not broad and all incompassing, it is a very narrow road.
That is a very interesting statement.

Could you imagine what would it would be like if people were able to make statements like this, but nobody was allowed to discuss them because the 'doctrine shield' would come down and hit us on the head?

I do not disagree with your statement, I just thought that it made a good example of why we should not give up our ability to discuss anything that might be construed as doctrine.

For example, if your were asked about your statement, and then you backed it up somehow with scripture, would that be the end of the discussion? What if you found one church that taught your belief, would we not be able to discuss it?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

That is a very interesting statement.

Could you imagine what would it would be like if people were able to make statements like this, but nobody was allowed to discuss them because the 'doctrine shield' would come down and hit us on the head?

I do not disagree with your statement, I just thought that it made a good example of why we should not give up our ability to discuss anything that might be construed as doctrine.

For example, if your were asked about your statement, and then you backed it up somehow with scripture, would that be the end of the discussion? What if you found one church that taught your belief, would we not be able to discuss it? Personally Im in favor of discussing unpopular doctrine issues. And I already know that there will be people who will disagree with me. No problem.

[HypnoToad]

No where in our bibles is Trinitarism given as part of our salvation.
I think you need to look at it differently.

It's not a matter of "does Scripture say you have to be Trinitarian to be saved?", but rather, "is a Triune God upheld by Scripture?"

If it cant be agreed to then It would not be included,
You don't mean "agreed to by everyone", do you? There's going to be very little in the rules at all if we need 100% agreement first. There should be votes on this type of thing, and we should go with the majority.

[marke]

Totally agree, and those are not what I am asking for, I am asking what do we believe in common, what is it that we want? Do you want it as defined right now with no definitions to define your beliefsZ? Should there be some guidelines? These are the questions. Moderation is easy no matter how it goees as rules are rules and can be done either way as it stands you havbe a general workung WIKI, should it be refined with member input? What is acceptable to the members as a whole? I am really looking for input from everyone to hopefully come to some agreements between everyone that would be comnsidered a member here.
Why can't we use the NT as a guideline? Isn't this the inspired word of God? Isn't this the "bottom line"?

I do agree with you. Let's find common ground based on THE WORD, not what we want the word to be. For example, we are told who is acceptable to be a pastor.

Can't we all agree on that scripture? The scripture exists for all to see and yet there are those who want the word to say something else, so they break away and create their own "Christianity" so a female or gay or divorced person can lead them. But that's not what THE WORD says.

THE WORD says "Many will come in my name, but don't be deceived, you will know them by their actions". If their actions don't match THE WORD, then they must be ministers of error creating their own word that leads not to Heaven, but to destruction of the soul as 2 Pet 3:15-17 points out. Shouldn't we point this out to those less versed in the scripture? My bible says it is our duty.

This is just an example of wrong becoming right in the church. There are many more examples, but the point is... let's come together, read THE WORD and then seek to follow THE WORD instead of write our own words.

I could get behind that. Let's stand up for THE WORD and see if we can't restore the "one church of one mind" that was first envisioned before the evil one broke into the church and caused division.

God bless

Marke

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I think you need to look at it differently.

It's not a matter of "does Scripture say you have to be Trinitarian to be saved?", but rather, "is a Triune God upheld by Scripture? I presume you have not make a through study on that subject. And what I mean by that is history, and the use of more than one Exghaustive Concordance, inregard to interpretation vs translation. Since this is such an important issue, why dont you do that and then get back to me. P.S. look at both sides of the coin. I did, because I was brought up in the Trinitarian doctrine.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Why can't we use the NT as a guideline? Isn't this the inspired word of God? Isn't this the "bottom line"?

I do agree with you. Let's find common ground based on THE WORD, not what we want the word to be. For example, we are told who is acceptable to be a pastor.

Can't we all agree on that scripture? The scripture exists for all to see and yet there are those who want the word to say something else, so they break away and create their own "Christianity" so a female or gay or divorced person can lead them. But that's not what THE WORD says.

THE WORD says "Many will come in my name, but don't be deceived, you will know them by their actions". If their actions don't match THE WORD, then they must be ministers of error creating their own word that leads not to Heaven, but to destruction of the soul as 2 Pet 3:15-17 points out. Shouldn't we point this out to those less versed in the scripture? My bible says it is our duty.

This is just an example of wrong becoming right in the church. There are many more examples, but the point is... let's come together, read THE WORD and then seek to follow THE WORD instead of write our own words.

I could get behind that. Let's stand up for THE WORD and see if we can't restore the "one church of one mind" that was first envisioned before the evil one broke into the church and caused division.

God bless

Marke Since we have a whole bible, why make use of only part of it?

[HypnoToad]

I presume you have not make a through study on that subject. And what I mean by that is history, and the use of more than one Exghaustive Concordance, inregard to interpretation vs translation. Since this is such an important issue, why dont you do that and then get back to me. P.S. look at both sides of the coin. I did, because I was brought up in the Trinitarian doctrine.

http://starwarsloser.info/smile/rolleye/rolleye0001.gif (http://www.squidoo.com/seonorwich)
You want to tell me something about interpretation and translation? You've already demonstrated in past discussions your lack of knowledge on Greek and Hebrew. Example 1 - trying to tell us that "before Abraham was, I am" should be "I was" - when the Greek is clearly present tense. Example 2 - you were never able to provide a translation of the Hebrew passage "let us make man in our image" that reflects in English the plural tense of the verb as it is in Hebrew. Spare me the "through [sic] study" hypocrisy until you actually accomplish it yourself.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Why can't we use the NT as a guideline? Isn't this the inspired word of God? Isn't this the "bottom line"?

I do agree with you. Let's find common ground based on THE WORD, not what we want the word to be. For example, we are told who is acceptable to be a pastor.

Can't we all agree on that scripture? The scripture exists for all to see and yet there are those who want the word to say something else, so they break away and create their own "Christianity" so a female or gay or divorced person can lead them. But that's not what THE WORD says.

THE WORD says "Many will come in my name, but don't be deceived, you will know them by their actions". If their actions don't match THE WORD, then they must be ministers of error creating their own word that leads not to Heaven, but to destruction of the soul as 2 Pet 3:15-17 points out. Shouldn't we point this out to those less versed in the scripture? My bible says it is our duty.

This is just an example of wrong becoming right in the church. There are many more examples, but the point is... let's come together, read THE WORD and then seek to follow THE WORD instead of write our own words.

I could get behind that. Let's stand up for THE WORD and see if we can't restore the "one church of one mind" that was first envisioned before the evil one broke into the church and caused division.

God bless

Marke Before Constantine the Great there was no real division in the church, although many tried.

[warriorofprayer]

Most of the debates that have been going on are way over my head, but there is the odd time that my brain functions and I can understand.

One thing I do know, is that this is a place where people with different viewpoints and translations can come and write about their opinions. God has given everybody a sense of respect, and as far as I can see, most people have respect on this forum for what is being said. Even if some is "off the wall", there is truth to what is being said. Debating is good. When it comes down to who is right and who is wrong, we have been given discernment by God to determine what we need to take away from the debate.

I don't usually get into debates, but I do read some of them and find them interesting, and I learn a lot of new things.

The government is already removing Christianity from schools, the government, work, and who knows, probably the streets soon. So if people want to start restricting debates online, why don't we just put duct tape over our mouths, silence the message of Christ, and sit in the corner until the end times?

Seriously though, we as Christians, need to have healthy debates (discussions). I for one, do not attend a church, so I let the Holy Spirit lead me to the threads, and websites, and scriptures I need to read or hear for the day so that I can get His Word and some direction.

I say allow the debates, but avoid the flaming.

With that said, I am going back to the Prayer section where I belong :wave:

[Tavita]

Most of the debates that have been going on are way over my head, but there is the odd time that my brain functions and I can understand.

One thing I do know, is that this is a place where people with different viewpoints and translations can come and write about their opinions. God has given everybody a sense of respect, and as far as I can see, most people have respect on this forum for what is being said. Even if some is "off the wall", there is truth to what is being said. Debating is good. When it comes down to who is right and who is wrong, we have been given discernment by God to determine what we need to take away from the debate.

I don't usually get into debates, but I do read some of them and find them interesting, and I learn a lot of new things.

The government is already removing Christianity from schools, the government, work, and who knows, probably the streets soon. So if people want to start restricting debates online, why don't we just put duct tape over our mouths, silence the message of Christ, and sit in the corner until the end times?

Seriously though, we as Christians, need to have healthy debates (discussions). I for one, do not attend a church, so I let the Holy Spirit lead me to the threads, and websites, and scriptures I need to read or hear for the day so that I can get His Word and some direction.

I say allow the debates, but avoid the flaming.

With that said, I am going back to the Prayer section where I belong :wave:

bolding mine..

This is one of the best posts I've seen in here for a long time... :thumbsup:

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

http://starwarsloser.info/smile/rolleye/rolleye0001.gif (http://www.squidoo.com/seonorwich)
You want to tell me something about interpretation and translation? You've already demonstrated in past discussions your lack of knowledge on Greek and Hebrew. Example 1 - trying to tell us that "before Abraham was, I am" should be "I was" - when the Greek is clearly present tense. Example 2 - you were never able to provide a translation of the Hebrew passage "let us make man in our image" that reflects in English the plural tense of the verb as it is in Hebrew. Spare me the "through [sic] study" hypocrisy until you actually accomplish it yourself.WRONG. Matthew 26:64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." I showed you were he answered "yes" in Mathew and "I,am" in John 8:58, which is a contradiction to each other. And that is only the tip of the iceburg.

[HypnoToad]

WRONG. Matthew 26:64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." I showed you were he answered "yes" in Mathew and "I,am" in John 8:58, which is a contradiction to each other. And that is only the tip of the iceburg.
What contradiction??

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

What contradiction?? You keep wanting to talk to me about it without studying it. I spent years of my life searching. You can go and look at both sides on the internet. Not just one side. And after you have, then come and talk to me.

[JHM]

Bye Now

[bill16652]

I think you need to look at it differently.

It's not a matter of "does Scripture say you have to be Trinitarian to be saved?", but rather, "is a Triune God upheld by Scripture?"


You don't mean "agreed to by everyone", do you? There's going to be very little in the rules at all if we need 100% agreement first. There should be votes on this type of thing, and we should go with the majority.For the WIKI I believe consensus is needed which is defined as 70 per cent. I agree that not everything will be agreed to. Also the idea is not to limit debate but rather to state what we do believe and then allow debate and questrions frompeople who might be interested in our beliefs.

[Nadiine]

If you want to support Christ being "CREATED" and not being Deity and No trinity, feel free to head to the Mormon and JW sections; they'll welcome you with open arms!

[Nadiine]

http://starwarsloser.info/smile/rolleye/rolleye0001.gif (http://www.squidoo.com/seonorwich)
You want to tell me something about interpretation and translation? You've already demonstrated in past discussions your lack of knowledge on Greek and Hebrew. Example 1 - trying to tell us that "before Abraham was, I am" should be "I was" - when the Greek is clearly present tense. Example 2 - you were never able to provide a translation of the Hebrew passage "let us make man in our image" that reflects in English the plural tense of the verb as it is in Hebrew. Spare me the "through [sic] study" hypocrisy until you actually accomplish it yourself.
:thumbsup: Absolutely - I have info on the Greek for that verse and it most certainly cannot be "I was", (I'll also note here that this IS the JW teaching on that verse too. He's using all the JW arguments against Jesus' Deity)

That tells me all I need to know.

[HypnoToad]

For the WIKI I believe consensus is needed which is defined as 70 per cent. I agree that not everything will be agreed to. Also the idea is not to limit debate but rather to state what we do believe and then allow debate and questrions frompeople who might be interested in our beliefs.
No, you don't "need" 70% for a wiki. It's whatever the congregation decides. We can use just a simple majority if we want.

And, yes, the idea (or one of them) is in fact to limit debate to non-denom Christian members only. It's also being considered to have a subforum that would be the only place where a non-member would be allowed to debate, and there might still be limits there on what would be debatable.

You keep wanting to talk to me about it without studying it. I spent years of my life searching. You can go and look at both sides on the internet. Not just one side. And after you have, then come and talk to me.
I have studied it. I reject your notion there's a contradiction, and I'm asking you to point out where this supposed one is.

[bill16652]

No, you don't "need" 70% for a wiki. It's whatever the congregation decides. We can use just a simple majority if we want.

And, yes, the idea (or one of them) is in fact to limit debate to non-denom Christian members only. It's also being considered to have a subforum that would be the only place where a non-member would be allowed to debate, and there might still be limits there on what would be debatable.


I have studied it. I reject your notion there's a contradiction, and I'm asking you to point out where this supposed one is.It will be what the members decide, simple as that. That is why I asked for input so while it is being shaped we can reach agreement on things. There are board rules and then there can be rules that each forum subscribe to as well. The choice is yours if your voice is heard by participating.

[Nadiine]

It will be what the members decide, simple as that. That is why I asked for input so while it is being shaped we can reach agreement on things. There are board rules and then there can be rules that each forum subscribe to as well. The choice is yours if your voice is heard by participating.
I'm undecided on this one -- I think there are some pros and cons to it either way.

:scratch: :confused:

[Nadiine]

can we possibly explore the pros and cons together? I'd like to hear what people think either way. =)

[HypnoToad]

I'm undecided on this one -- I think there are some pros and cons to it either way.

...

can we possibly explore the pros and cons together? I'd like to hear what people think either way. =)

I read his post (the one you refer to) several times - and I can't figure it out - you want to discuss the pros and cons of what, exactly?

[Nadiine]

I read his post (the one you refer to) several times - and I can't figure it out - you want to discuss the pros and cons of what, exactly?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Only allowing nondenominationalists (those w/ ND symbols) to be able to debate in the ND section.

No one with other symbols can join in debates w/ us.

[Tavita]

Oh, I'm sorry.
Only allowing nondenominationalists (those w/ ND symbols) to be able to debate in the ND section.

No one with other symbols can join in debates w/ us.

What do you think about those with the 'christian' symbol?

[HypnoToad]

Oh, I'm sorry.
Only allowing nondenominationalists (those w/ ND symbols) to be able to debate in the ND section.

No one with other symbols can join in debates w/ us.
Ok.

My view - main area can have debates by members only. Then have a subforum where non-members could start limited debates.

[Tavita]

Ok.

My view - main area can have debates by members only. Then have a subforum where non-members could start limited debates.

I can agree to this.

[HypnoToad]

Oh, I'm sorry.
Only allowing nondenominationalists (those w/ ND symbols) to be able to debate in the ND section.

No one with other symbols can join in debates w/ us.
Ok.

My view - main area can have debates by members only. Then have a subforum where non-members could start limited debates. I think the subforum works because it keeps it more isolated and controlled, and anyone who doesn't want to see non-member debates doesn't see it, while still allowing members who want to debate non-members to do so.

*not sure how this ended up as 2 posts*

[Nadiine]

Ok.

My view - main area can have debates by members only. Then have a subforum where non-members could start limited debates. I think the subforum works because it keeps it more isolated and controlled, and anyone who doesn't want to see non-member debates doesn't see it, while still allowing members who want to debate non-members to do so.

*not sure how this ended up as 2 posts*
ok, that makes sense. I think I like that too. :thumbsup:

[bill16652]

I also think this is a very good idea

[HypnoToad]

What do you think about those with the 'christian' symbol?
This came up before, and it was generally accepted that the "Christian" and "Protestant" icons are acceptable to be considered as non-denominational.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

If you want to support Christ being "CREATED" and not being Deity and No trinity, feel free to head to the Mormon and JW sections; they'll welcome you with open arms! As far as I know, all Christians agree that Jesus was a god or deity, even the non Trinitarian. In regards to a sub forum for non members, that is fine with me.

[Tavita]

This came up before, and it was generally accepted that the "Christian" and "Protestant" icons are acceptable to be considered as non-denominational.

Okay, thanks :)

[warriorofprayer]

Anyone can change their denomination symbol. So, how would you be able to "control" who can come into that forum?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Anyone can change their denomination symbol. So, how would you be able to "control" who can come into that forum? I suspect that that is already the case. Because Non Denom is a mixed group, we only need to keep either side from bullying the other with doctrine. Mainly the doctrinal issue of a Trinity. It is held by some that Non Trinitarians are not Christians, and should not be here or allowed to Discuss or debate the issue here at Non Denom.

[Nadiine]

I suspect that that is already the case. Because Non Denom is a mixed group, we only need to keep either side from bullying the other with doctrine. Mainly the doctrinal issue of a Trinity. It is held by some that Non Trinitarians are not Christians, and should not be here or allowed to Discuss or debate the issue here at Non Denom.
Bullying...
It's more like a dividing line of knowing who the God that you serve IS.
If I say God is a tree or the sun, then I guess I have the right to push my unorthodox view on everybody here becuz I'm nondenominational? Where does this end?
And if you do believe Jesus is created, then why not head to the JW section to share your agreement in his identity rather than fight in this one?

And DO WE worship the same God that I view as a tree or a bush or a created human or if God is a 'force' or 'idea'? If we aren't even on the same page as to who our God is which we claim to know, love & serve, I have to question that.

[Nadiine]

Anyone can change their denomination symbol. So, how would you be able to "control" who can come into that forum?
I think to have it changed, it has to be done thru staff? & you have to give a reason for the change?

Also, even if you do change it, you still have to adhere to those beliefs you agree to. You can't just change your icon then go in & start attacking the accepted doctrine of that section.

Honestly, it's not a failproof site or system - they can only do the best they can. If people want to be manipulative & work against Christianity, then they'll find ways to do it; eventually it will be noticed I'm sure.
:wave:

[FreeinChrist]

Anyone can change their denomination symbol. So, how would you be able to "control" who can come into that forum?
It would be a matter of what they taught.

[FreeinChrist]

We seems to have a cuple threads discussing the same thing...it would be helpful if folks participated in this thread:
http://foru.ms/t6201489-nd-rules-discussion.html

[FreeinChrist]

All Christians agree that Jesus was immortal and a deity or god.

No thatis not the case. Most Christians beleive Jesus IS God, a part of the Triune God, NOT "a god" or "a deity".

[Nadiine]

No thatis not the case. Most Christians beleive Jesus IS God, a part of the Triune God, NOT "a god" or "a deity".
yes :thumbsup: A world of difference in God and "a" god.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

No thatis not the case. Most Christians beleive Jesus IS God, a part of the Triune God, NOT "a god" or "a deity".??? A word study is needed here.

[Spiritofprophecy]

I am about as "Non Denominational" as you can get. I do not currently belong to any church, the one with which I was once long ago affiliated has espoused "Same Sex Marriage"; and as far as I am concerned, is well on its way along the road to Hell. I may not be able to quote St Paul; but this I can tell you, I know more about the coming destruction than probably anyone here.

If you want to limit what I can say here, fine. - But if you do, I will yank my posts and go elsewhere; and yoiu can all sit patting yourselves on the back about how you have been saved right up until the moment the destruction happens.
Greetings in the name of Jesus:

I quoted this post, because I thought it deserved repeating about what is really important to remember.

I would like to commend Most all posters, for their patience and repose in honorable discourse, as to opinions not personally held by all.

And Ask Gods Love be with all those whom Love Gods words, that they may not offend, but share Gods spiritual truths one unto another.

I have heard and read many posts, and many thread topics discussed, in this one thread; but that is normal in Non denominational.

As to rules: I Like rules about behavior and respect for others: but I do not like rules for faith and belief. As if we men can dictate, in perfection, what Gods spirit should do. Sounds like a form of " Catholicism Light". One of those less filling commercials. Rules are for behavior, not faith and belief, even Paul and peter had some different perspectives, both founded in scriptural truth.

Now on Trinity and " Triune God"; I believe in "God the Father, God the Son, and Gods Spirit. But a Triune God, I have problems conforming to this non scriptural doctrine, with some sound Doctrine. Such as, All powerful Omnipotent God, and a ten Commandment of " One God". Or Monotheism.

To me if " God is One". and God is All powerful and can do anything. A triune God seems contradictory and impossible. Now Three faces or Three Manifestations, or three hands; Or Three names of God would conform, But three Gods ?.I have a problem getting around the sound doctrine of ONe God omnipotent, unto three triune God concept. This triune concept is Not Jewish or Judaism based. And Jews have a problem with it in established doctrine.

I tried to make this post short, and I failed.

I pray my words do not offend, God bless all Christians in forum, and all those who use it.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

No thatis not the case. Most Christians beleive Jesus IS God, a part of the Triune God, NOT "a god" or "a deity". Not "a god" or "a deity"/// Talk about Hairy tics.

[Nadiine]

I am about as "Non Denominational" as you can get. I do not currently belong to any church, the one with which I was once long ago affiliated has espoused "Same Sex Marriage"; and as far as I am concerned, is well on its way along the road to Hell. I may not be able to quote St Paul; but this I can tell you, I know more about the coming destruction than probably anyone here.

If you want to limit what I can say here, fine. - But if you do, I will yank my posts and go elsewhere; and yoiu can all sit patting yourselves on the back about how you have been saved right up until the moment the destruction happens.
So, what do you want to say so badly? That Jesus isn't God?? That God isn't ONE consisting of the 3?
Well, we've already seen that all over the boards... how many times would you like to say it??
There would already be a SUBFORUM area for anyone wanting to spread that ______.

We're ALL limited here in what we can say - not just you. Welcome to the club. I have to edit some of my posts in things I don't think are violations at all. So be it.
If you want to start ranting against the Trinity or Jesus's Deity, by all means, feel free to go chat with the Unorthodox sections like the Mormons & JW's. They'll welcome your doctrine with open arms. (which should be telling).

[bill16652]

The WIKI is now posted in a sticky and we can discuss rules and make polls when we have enough agreement and then WIKI them. The issue of beliefs has been dealt with providing it is accepted by seperating orthodox and unorthodox debates into two seperate areas. Nothing will be done till we hammer out the WIKI and vote on it, once that is done I am hopeful that a lot of the bickering will end. This forum ios unique in that there are many beliefs here and it would be wrong to restict posting but we can define who is a member and seperate differing beliefs and those that choose to debate can do so and those that do not will still have the forum as a haven.

[Nadiine]

The WIKI is now posted in a sticky and we can discuss rules and make polls when we have enough agreement and then WIKI them. The issue of beliefs has been dealt with providing it is accepted by seperating orthodox and unorthodox debates into two seperate areas. Nothing will be done till we hammer out the WIKI and vote on it, once that is done I am hopeful that a lot of the bickering will end. This forum ios unique in that there are many beliefs here and it would be wrong to restict posting but we can define who is a member and seperate differing beliefs and those that choose to debate can do so and those that do not will still have the forum as a haven.
Sounds good to me :) - I'm not expecting 100% perfection for this ND section - or any other, but I WOULD like a place that is CHRISTIAN that I don't have to sit & battle people in the very foundational tenets that should be a given of the faith.

I'm all for discussion & debates on the non essential doctrines & spiritual issues. :thumbsup:
& there's no reason why anyone who rejects these central doctrines cant' go to a subforum designed for that stuff if it's so important to them to fight it.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I believe that it is agreed that there will be a sub forum here at Non Denom. It can be used for Christians to Discuss, debate or argue unpopular subjects. Which have been very popular, I add. There is no longer any need for this thread, and it can be closed.

[PeacaHeaven]

I would make the comment that being popular doesn't mean that we enjoy having to fight unorthodox doctrines. Christians feel that they need to defend the truth of God on important subjects, especially ones that they think are heretical.
I believe that they would rather not have to get invovled with many of them if they had their choice and that is why they are trying to change the standards here. Popularity isn't always a positive sign.