How can I help?

[Jim47]

I wsied I had more time to post here, but I don't, Staff stuff keeps me pretty busy, but I am concerned for the heath of this forum. It seems we go a few days or so with hardly a report and then it all breaks out into an uproar :mad:

What is the cause?

How can I or any staff help?


All this fighting isn't good for anyone. Is it possible that we are so legalistic in our rules that we are making ourselves miserable in trying to protect our turf?

[JimfromOhio]

Is it possible that we are so legalistic in our rules that we are making ourselves miserable in trying to protect our turf?


That is one possibility. We have had several threads on this topic. No one really knows what, specifically, is our main problem.

[PreachersWife2004]

Jim from Ohio, may I just say that I love your signature, and I point to it as something we should remember in this forum.

I'm currently not a member here, having signed out last week, but I had been considering a return back, until all hades broke loose again.

There is such a split here - and everyone thinks they are right. All of use scripture to back our positions, yet none of us agree with the other.

None of us are perfect. Jesus in his infinite wisdom always knew when to rebuke, and always knew when to love. If only we could all strive to follow that.

I look forward to that day in heaven where we will all be truly united. Until then, I suppose we are stuck with our own machinations and our own prejudices towards those with opposing viewpoints. And that's okay, but let's try to profess them with love rather than spite.

[Jim47]

I would like to suggest some discussion on possible rule adjustments.

From my perspective rules haven't done what everyone wants in this forum, instead they have become a source of contention.

I think maybe we should try to be more open and less restrictive.

I am proposing discussion to change the following


General Rules:

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.Definitions:

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

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

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.
.


It is: My question is how are we doing the following when we will not even allow anyone to post an opposing view?

Isn't having a flaming rule enough protection?


Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.


I'm not saying all these listed need to be changed, but maybe discussed and decide what we really want??????

[NewGuy101]

I agree with restricting non-members a little more but not the opposite. They have a been a real source of tension in this forum . That also brings to mind discussing whether or not current mods should lose their position if they resign cc membership.

[Nadiine]

Jim from Ohio, may I just say that I love your signature, and I point to it as something we should remember in this forum.

I'm currently not a member here, having signed out last week, but I had been considering a return back, until all hades broke loose again.

There is such a split here - and everyone thinks they are right. All of use scripture to back our positions, yet none of us agree with the other.

None of us are perfect. Jesus in his infinite wisdom always knew when to rebuke, and always knew when to love. If only we could all strive to follow that.

I look forward to that day in heaven where we will all be truly united. Until then, I suppose we are stuck with our own machinations and our own prejudices towards those with opposing viewpoints. And that's okay, but let's try to profess them with love rather than spite.

The problem with scripture is, it's all to be used, not just pieces of it. I don't use the "peace" verses to trump "rebuke" verses... or where I'm told to witness the gospel, it doesn't trump (overrule) the verse where we're to use discernment in who we stop casting pearls to.
They all work together in tandem - nothing cancels out the other - that's what's happening here. You can quote me all the peace and love verses you want, but you have to also take into account verses of rebuke, discipline, division and stopping witness to certain people & groups.
It isn't one OR the other - They claim love & peace, yet go & rip into another Christian that divides with someone that the bible tells us to beware of. We don't devour one to show "love" to another.

I think common fairness would just be a good start here - just 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' mite help a little bit. ?:confused:

[Nadiine]

I would like to suggest some discussion on possible rule adjustments.

From my perspective rules haven't done what everyone wants in this forum, instead they have become a source of contention.

I think maybe we should try to be more open and less restrictive.

I am proposing discussion to change the following


General Rules:

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.Definitions:

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

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

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.
.


It is: My question is how are we doing the following when we will not even allow anyone to post an opposing view?

Isn't having a flaming rule enough protection?


Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.


I'm not saying all these listed need to be changed, but maybe discussed and decide what we really want??????

Ok,... change them to what tho? Did you have suggestions about what you think should be loosened specifically?

[IamRedeemed]

http://pichostonline.com/u/071024/7f9fde3c38.jpg
I wonder if we can add in the no baiting section, something along the lines of

"Initiating OP's with the intent of causing division and uproar of the entire forum"?

I don't think anything has to be changed as far as non-members are allowed to debate
in the debate area and offer their differing views as much as they want.
If they were able to do that in the general area, what would make this congregation
a conservative congregation and any different that the general area of Foru.ms?
I don't think the rules themselves are the problem.

[Nadiine]

I wsied I had more time to post here, but I don't, Staff stuff keeps me pretty busy, but I am concerned for the heath of this forum. It seems we go a few days or so with hardly a report and then it all breaks out into an uproar :mad:

What is the cause?

How can I or any staff help?


All this fighting isn't good for anyone. Is it possible that we are so legalistic in our rules that we are making ourselves miserable in trying to protect our turf?


I'm not quite sure making it wide open is going to help anything?? From what I see, it's pretty liberal right now w/ who's posting here and what they're saying in posts & threads.
& what's allowed... I'd like to know what specifically is so restrictive that it's legalistic???

[IamRedeemed]

That is a good question. You know, just like there never used to be a term heterosexual, there also was never a need for a term "conservative Christian". These words were created because of groups of people who chose to defer from what is either natural or the standard... Depending on which you are talking about. So, conservative is not the opposite of liberal for instance. Liberal is the deferring from what the Bible has set as a standard, and trading off in pieces the standard to what is relative to what is right to one or another, with no set standard of absolute truth. In other words 2 + 2 is up to you. Conservative is an adhesion to the standard.
If we choose to make this forum a forum of relativism, then is there any need for its existence at all?

I'm not quite sure making it wide open is going to help anything?? From what I see, it's pretty liberal right now w/ who's posting here and what they're saying in posts & threads.
& what's allowed... I'd like to know what specifically is so restrictive that it's legalistic???

[Jim47]

Participation in reports has become an issue in the last few days, well, actually longer then that, so I am posting the site wide rules for this and if you readi it you will see that we are not allowed to prohibit anyone from posting in reports.

Found in the rules link:

Participation in Reports
Staff will not edit any post they make in a report.



Participation in the public Report Forums and respective threads is open to all members of Foru.ms and is governed by the general Foru.ms Rules.
FSRs of respective subforums apply to the evaluation of the reported post only, and do not define participation in, or apply to any subsequent posts made in any Report Forum's report threads. Only Foru.ms Rules and the rules of this wiki apply.
Report threads are for the discussion of the reported post only, and are not for personal discussions unrelated to the reported post and enforcement of applicable rules.
Report threads are not the place to debate what rules a subforum needs to have. It is up to the subforum to decide its rules in keeping with the general rules of Foru.ms.
Naming an anonymous poster who has not openly identified themselves in their post is to be deemed a rules violation.
Member commentary in reports: Members are free to read the public reports threads. They may comment in report threads if they have some clarification to add to the discussion about whether the posted report is a violation or not. However, further attacks, personal discussions, or continuation of the argument from the reported thread are NOT acceptable and are subject to deletion.

All members will refrain from making intimidating posts in reports whether they are the mods hearing the report, or the accused, or just interested parties.

Suggested process for handling rule violations in report threads:

Since there is no way currently available for members to report violations of Foru.ms rules by participants in report threads using usual channels, a system for handling such violations would be beneficial to help prevent discussion of the new violation from derailing the original report thread itself.

Violations may be brought to the attention of staff in the report thread itself through the following process.
The member so doing may request, in the thread itself, that a formal report be initiated for them
Staff will then
initiate the formal report
open a new report thread for that report
post, in the originating report thread, a link to the new report thread so generated
at this point, discussion of the new violation will occur in the new report thread only.

[Jim47]

To start with what I would chenge or discuss for change are:


General Rules: The following rule is all too restrictive. I am Lutheran and in the Lutheran forum we encourage visitors and to debate them. All we ask is their debates be derived from scripture. Yes we get trolls and those who seek only to be contensious but we deal with them under other rules. Here is the link to our rules which explains better then I how it works. http://foru.ms/t5674902-master-rule-list-subject-to-change.html

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.Definitions:

Fellowship:

It is not debate. Why are we afraid of debate? Friendly debate is what keeps discussion boards intresting, without it and the opportunity to witness to someone's false beliefs what is our purpose? Aren't we supposed to share the "Good news" with all?
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

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

It is not answering questions. You honestly think the following rule isn't legalistic? Where is the desire for fellowship? I don't see it.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.
.






No baiting: Baiting rule needs to be relaxed, I seldon see grace in a report, instead we use this rule to justify deleting anything we don't like. The danger of this aside from ousting all visitors and prospective members is I see it used against established members as well. Its like "put up your dukes" kind of thing. Christians should have a certain amount of forbearance, at least in my opinion.

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

[PreachersWife2004]

I agree that the rules are almost too restrictive. I realize that conservative Christians want a haven - and that's great. My TCL home is lovely, and I love that I even get a subforum for being WELS. We take great care in keeping it a loving environment. We've had some very good debates with people who did not agree as we did. And trust me, we have our share of people that don't like us, that don't agree us and who would probably LOVE to see our forum go to pieces.

Another thing I might add is that we all need to think twice, even three times, before hitting that 'report' button. First of all, we need to ask ourselves if we have followed the biblical teaching for correction, meaning, have we gone to that person first and talked to them? I try to make sure I PM someone and give them the opportunity to explain themselves or edit themselves before I report them. Truth, it doesn't always work that way, but it's helped clear up some misunderstandings and it's actually fostered friendships where I thought there was hostility. Then we need to ask ourselves if the post is really report-worthy. Sometimes I think we hit that report button in anger, rather than in an honest desire for the poster to be corrected. Thirdly, within the reports, we need to make sure that rules are being followed, and that we're not continuing any debate from the thread. I've seen so many reports lately that have just denigrated to yet another debate between members.

Someone said that they blame the outsiders for the way this forum is going. I disagree. Judging from what I have seen the last two weeks, the members themselves need to take a step back and look. It is has been members' own posts that are being reported, by other members. I've seen members throw accusations around like it's candy at a parade. Yes, I've seen non-members not behaving, as well, but in my opinion it is up to the members of this forum to keep decorum and not stoop the lower levels that they claim to hate so much.

I continue to pray for this forum. But with the rules as they stand now, there will be no witnessing in this forum, because the rules are basically saying "we're the only right ones, everyone else needs to shut up and go home".

[Nadiine]

I agree that the rules are almost too restrictive. I realize that conservative Christians want a haven - and that's great. My TCL home is lovely, and I love that I even get a subforum for being WELS. We take great care in keeping it a loving environment. We've had some very good debates with people who did not agree as we did. And trust me, we have our share of people that don't like us, that don't agree us and who would probably LOVE to see our forum go to pieces.

Another thing I might add is that we all need to think twice, even three times, before hitting that 'report' button. First of all, we need to ask ourselves if we have followed the biblical teaching for correction, meaning, have we gone to that person first and talked to them? I try to make sure I PM someone and give them the opportunity to explain themselves or edit themselves before I report them. Truth, it doesn't always work that way, but it's helped clear up some misunderstandings and it's actually fostered friendships where I thought there was hostility. Then we need to ask ourselves if the post is really report-worthy. Sometimes I think we hit that report button in anger, rather than in an honest desire for the poster to be corrected. Thirdly, within the reports, we need to make sure that rules are being followed, and that we're not continuing any debate from the thread. I've seen so many reports lately that have just denigrated to yet another debate between members.

Someone said that they blame the outsiders for the way this forum is going. I disagree. Judging from what I have seen the last two weeks, the members themselves need to take a step back and look. It is has been members' own posts that are being reported, by other members. I've seen members throw accusations around like it's candy at a parade. Yes, I've seen non-members not behaving, as well, but in my opinion it is up to the members of this forum to keep decorum and not stoop the lower levels that they claim to hate so much.

I continue to pray for this forum. But with the rules as they stand now, there will be no witnessing in this forum, because the rules are basically saying "we're the only right ones, everyone else needs to shut up and go home".
I disagree, EVERYONE IS FREE TO POST HERE NOW - they can fellowship here now.
How do the rules restrict this right now? They don't. How much more can the rules be opened up when all liberals ARE already allowed to post in fellowship here??

This is restriction & legalism??? Color me kooky, but I cant' fathom how anyone can view it as such. :scratch: :confused: :doh:

The issue is an influx of liberals coming over - and or if they aren't liberal, they claim they're conservative but just "hang out" with the liberals in WWMC... of which we have another that just stopped in at the sign in board to come here.

Do I judge him? NO.. but the fact is, he's signed in as a WWMC member and wants to post here (which he could anyways) -- the point being, WHAT IS A CONSERVATIVE? :scratch:
As a conservative, I can't see being a member of WWMC and getting along with people of diametrically opposed views of God without having disagreements theologically or even STANDING for what I know to be true in my bible...
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm making general points that go to the problem that we're seeing here at CC and why some or even many members may be on edge at what we're seeing happen.

I have nothing against anyone personally, and I do not plan on being rude, hostile or mean or judgmental on new people that I don't know who fellowship here - just that the concern of what is starting to happen is what I believe is either the main source or one of the main sources of contension here.
And the 2 sides who either welcome it or dont welcome it are butting heads.

That's what I see. What I don't see is how our current rules are RESTRICTING, hindering or blocking anyone of any denom. or the unsaved from fellowshipping in this forum.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Lastly and most importantly, IF YOU WANT TO OPEN THE FLOODGATES AND REMOVE MOST ALL RESTRICTION THAT DOES EXIST HERE, THEN PLEASE REMOVE THE FORUM NAME OF "CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN", becuz you've just negated it's very meaning or purpose.
You may as well rename it "whosoever will may come"
:| :scratch:

[IamRedeemed]

Hi PW,

Restrictive for what? :scratch: I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from. What is it that you believe people who oppose the Biblical standard for living should be allowed to do here, that they are not already allowed to do, that wouldn't change the entire definition and structure of the forum? I don't understand what it is that you don't feel we are able to extend, that we haven't already without impacting or again changing the definition and core purpose for this forum?


I agree that the rules are almost too restrictive. I realize that conservative Christians want a haven - and that's great. My TCL home is lovely, and I love that I even get a subforum for being WELS. We take great care in keeping it a loving environment. We've had some very good debates with people who did not agree as we did. And trust me, we have our share of people that don't like us, that don't agree us and who would probably LOVE to see our forum go to pieces.

Another thing I might add is that we all need to think twice, even three times, before hitting that 'report' button. First of all, we need to ask ourselves if we have followed the biblical teaching for correction, meaning, have we gone to that person first and talked to them? I try to make sure I PM someone and give them the opportunity to explain themselves or edit themselves before I report them. Truth, it doesn't always work that way, but it's helped clear up some misunderstandings and it's actually fostered friendships where I thought there was hostility. Then we need to ask ourselves if the post is really report-worthy. Sometimes I think we hit that report button in anger, rather than in an honest desire for the poster to be corrected. Thirdly, within the reports, we need to make sure that rules are being followed, and that we're not continuing any debate from the thread. I've seen so many reports lately that have just denigrated to yet another debate between members.

Someone said that they blame the outsiders for the way this forum is going. I disagree. Judging from what I have seen the last two weeks, the members themselves need to take a step back and look. It is has been members' own posts that are being reported, by other members. I've seen members throw accusations around like it's candy at a parade. Yes, I've seen non-members not behaving, as well, but in my opinion it is up to the members of this forum to keep decorum and not stoop the lower levels that they claim to hate so much.

I continue to pray for this forum. But with the rules as they stand now, there will be no witnessing in this forum, because the rules are basically saying "we're the only right ones, everyone else needs to shut up and go home".

[PreachersWife2004]

Nadiine, what I've seen here isn't an influx of liberals, it's an influx of people who have differing opinions on things and are being attacked for it.

You personally accused two people of being liberal, when one had been a member here longer than you and the other was conservative. You only called them liberal because they disagreed with you.

There is so much hatred for the liberal side of things here...it's palpable. THAT is why I rescinded my membership. The hate needs to go, NOW. Your post alone makes several negative references to WWMC - why the need for that? I understand that everyone must agree with the stickies to be a member, but not everyone must agree with stickies to post.

As Jim pointed out, the way the rules are now, no non-member is allowed to post a dissenting opinion in the threads. As he also pointed out, in our forum, people are allowed to do this respectfully - we've allowed good spirited debate and let me tell you, our forum certainly isn't imploding the way this one is.

I guess the truth of the matter is that if there is a group of conservatives here who ONLY wish to converse with other conservatives and not allow anyone else to join, then perhaps they need to start their own website and restrict their membership and not even allow non-conservatives to join.

Not all bad things in this world come from liberalism. And liberals aren't to blame for this forum's implosion.

[PreachersWife2004]

AH, I see...it's just going to be the same-old same-old. I am correct - the attitude of this forum is "we are right, everyone else is wrong, screw them". You guys get all bent out of shape over people that have ties to WWMC and you get all bent out of shape thinking that the liberals are here to take over. (Trust me guys, the liberals don't want this forum)

I refuse to be a part of that. As I stated not too long ago, I'm sure that many of my liberal Christian friends will be standing with me at the pearly gates. I can't possess the hate for them that you guys seem to.

Unsubscribing now. This forum doesn't want help.

[IamRedeemed]

But that isn't the point Jim. The purpose for this forum's creation was a place where conservatives could go and discuss things without the constant apologia. Isn't that right? Isn't that why all of the different congregation forums were formed? So that those with like minds could have a place on this site to go to, where they weren't having to constantly debate on every thread?

That's all I believe anyone here is trying to avoid this turning into. We already have CE, GA, CA, GT etc etc etc for those purposes. If people want confusion they can go to those forums, but if they want to hear what conservatives believe, they should be able to come here to find that, or shouldn't they? :scratch:


Edit to add: We have provided a debate area for those who would like to oppose what we
believe. Isn't that enough?


[quote=Jim47;40059590]Participation in reports has become an issue in the last few days, well, actually longer then that, so I am posting the site wide rules for this and if you readi it you will see that we are not allowed to prohibit anyone from posting in reports.

[IamRedeemed]

Aren't we right? Is God a God of relativism? :scratch:

Yes, we want to help, we just don't want our sheep devoured with relativism in our midst.
The rest of the site can offer them that. We want people to be able to find the truth
and not a counterfeit truth when they come here. As ambassadors of Christ, is that a crime?

We do not hate them and I really do not like your unrighteous charge of such.

We hate what they are teaching and promoting which is relativism.

Relativism in itself ousts God's authority in a Christian's life.




AH, I see...it's just going to be the same-old same-old. I am correct - the attitude of this forum is "we are right, everyone else is wrong, screw them". You guys get all bent out of shape over people that have ties to WWMC and you get all bent out of shape thinking that the liberals are here to take over. (Trust me guys, the liberals don't want this forum)

I refuse to be a part of that. As I stated not too long ago, I'm sure that many of my liberal Christian friends will be standing with me at the pearly gates. I can't possess the hate for them that you guys seem to.

Unsubscribing now. This forum doesn't want help.

[Rep Daddy]

kumbayah

[Rochir]

Rochir, what is your interest in this thread? Fellowship?

drstevej (http://foru.ms/u7722), Cheri67 (http://foru.ms/u195400), Father Rick http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/sup.jpg (http://foru.ms/u75278), IamRedeemed (http://foru.ms/u189149), Jim47 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/sup.jpg (http://foru.ms/u92881), Rochir http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/mod.jpg (http://foru.ms/u85905)

I'm watching to determine the best way to bend your forum totally out of shape and make it a liberal cesspool!:doh:

[~free~]

AH, I see...it's just going to be the same-old same-old. I am correct - the attitude of this forum is "we are right, everyone else is wrong, screw them". You guys get all bent out of shape over people that have ties to WWMC and you get all bent out of shape thinking that the liberals are here to take over. (Trust me guys, the liberals don't want this forum)

I refuse to be a part of that. As I stated not too long ago, I'm sure that many of my liberal Christian friends will be standing with me at the pearly gates. I can't possess the hate for them that you guys seem to.

Unsubscribing now. This forum doesn't want help.
That hurts, PW. :( And I don't agree. I don't believe everyone in this forum does believe "we're right, everyone else is wrong" and certainly not "screw them". I can speak for myself as a conservative Christian that I have NO hate for anyone, most especially, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter their "type" of Christianity.

[IamRedeemed]

That is a false charge, but you are entitled to your opinion. And "disagreed" with us is quite
an understatement. I would say militantly opposed and for the wrong reasons.
Both of those individuals appear to believe that we can be equally yoked
with those who oppose God's standard for Christian living.
That just is not possible.

There is a good reason to hate relativism.
It undermines the authority of the Lord in a Christian's life.

It doesn't mean we hate anyone.
Is it not possible to hate what they teach and not hate them?

Apparently we do not believe as you do, that they can't be separated.




Nadiine, what I've seen here isn't an influx of liberals, it's an influx of people who have differing opinions on things and are being attacked for it.

You personally accused two people of being liberal, when one had been a member here longer than you and the other was conservative. You only called them liberal because they disagreed with you.

There is so much hatred for the liberal side of things here...it's palpable. THAT is why I rescinded my membership. The hate needs to go, NOW. Your post alone makes several negative references to WWMC - why the need for that? I understand that everyone must agree with the stickies to be a member, but not everyone must agree with stickies to post.

As Jim pointed out, the way the rules are now, no non-member is allowed to post a dissenting opinion in the threads. As he also pointed out, in our forum, people are allowed to do this respectfully - we've allowed good spirited debate and let me tell you, our forum certainly isn't imploding the way this one is.

I guess the truth of the matter is that if there is a group of conservatives here who ONLY wish to converse with other conservatives and not allow anyone else to join, then perhaps they need to start their own website and restrict their membership and not even allow non-conservatives to join.

Not all bad things in this world come from liberalism. And liberals aren't to blame for this forum's implosion.

[Rep Daddy]

I wsied I had more time to post here, but I don't, Staff stuff keeps me pretty busy, but I am concerned for the heath of this forum. It seems we go a few days or so with hardly a report and then it all breaks out into an uproar :mad:

What is the cause?

How can I or any staff help?


All this fighting isn't good for anyone. Is it possible that we are so legalistic in our rules that we are making ourselves miserable in trying to protect our turf?



Is CC an outreach forum or a fellowship forum? Why do you call members of this forum legalists and defend those who reject our views?



note your response to me: (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40061857&postcount=21)

I think you will find that I posted in the origional report so I am quite aware of it. I think your other comments are quite rude and show real prejudice.

Unlike many I am not afraid to have discussions with and Christians whether they be liberal or conservative and I am really tired of all the legalism, in threads and in reports.

Christ set us free from the law, and when did He ever shy away from talking to sinners? He even sought out the Pharisees to correct them, but they rejected Him thru legalism of their own.

I use 4U as a means to reach out to everyone, not just a selected few. We are all sinners in need of God's grace, and if we use this forum correctly we can reach out to those who error.

Does that answer your question? :)

In short, I love everyone and want to share Christ's love with them.

[Father Rick]

The Liberals are coming! The Liberals are coming!... (or was that the Redcoats?!?!?)

Personally, I find all the fuss about "the liberals" amusing.

First, terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" are highly subjective. Quite frankly, the Eastern Orthodox would consider almost every poster here "liberal". Many Catholics would consider almost every poster here "liberal". Personally, the RC's would consider me "very liberal" because of 3 things-- 1) OC sacraments (such as communion) are open to all baptized Christians, 2) we recognize the ordination of women, and 3) we consider birth control a matter of conscience. Now... none of those 3 things are even mentioned in the wiki for CCC... but for the majority of the Christians believing ANY of those 3 makes one "liberal". (as I said, that would make almost every poster here 'liberal').

Now, I understand how the term "Conservative" is being used by CCC... since it is defined in the wiki. And, the way in which the term is defined definitely applies to me...

But I also know that nowhere does scripture say anything even close to "by this all men will know you're my disciples, by the fact that you're conservative".

Nor does it say "by this all men will know that you're my disciples, by your correct theology".

Rather, it does say "by this all men will know that you're my disciples, by the love you have one for another."


When I see people making statements to the gist of "well, we can't get along with you because you're liberal and we're conservative"... well, that greatly concerns me. Those who are "liberal" (by whoever's definition you choose to use at the moment) who have accepted Christ are still our brothers and sisters in Christ-- even if we sharply disagree with their theology.

And if we can't love them, in spite of our differences, then I would daresay we are NOT "conservative" at all-- since Christ said that our love for them would be the demonstration that we are disciples... in fact, I would say an inability to show love for them is a demonstration of a serious deficit in our own Christian walk.

I'm sure some would say, "Well... we love them by 'setting them straight'. It's tough love". I do agree that we should present correct doctrine, and seek to show brothers and sisters in Christ areas where we may feel they are in doctrinal error. But in the process of doing so, we also must be humble enough to realize that we're not perfect either-- nor is our theology perfect-- so they may actually have some things "right" that we can learn from. And if we are doing so in love, then what is seen will fit the scriptural pattern of what love looks like:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

In fact, the scripture here is so blunt as to say that if we're not acting like this, that we are nothing more than a bunch of loud annoying noise (a resounding gong or clanging cymbal).

So... when our actions/attitudes towards those who disagree with us are rude or easily angered... then those are not from Christ. When our attitude is one of suspicion, rather than trust... that is not from Christ. When our attitude is one that "keeps record of wrongs" (in other words... "I know what you're really like")... then that is not from Christ.

We all make mistakes. None of us are perfect in our walk with Christ (liberal, conservative, or any other label you want to stick on someone). We are all part of ONE Body... and scripture is quite clear that "the hand cannot say to the eye, I have no need for you". Believe it or not, as much as we may disagree with some of the theology of those we label as "liberal"-- we actually NEED them, according to scripture (and they NEED us).

[Rep Daddy]

Sigh, we lose another great mod here (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40061996&postcount=201).

[IamRedeemed]

:sigh:

Posts like this aren't helpful. Can you try to answer our posts and the things we actually
said instead of answering your own presuppositions of where we are coming from?

And this is not a "denominational" issue, so it really doesn't matter what other
sects withing your own denomination think regarding religious practices and
traditions. That is irrelevant to what is being discussed here.

This forum is not segregated by denominational beliefs and traditions.
This forum is a unification of those who have conservative views on morals and values.

Those conservative views of morals and values have been determined by
God and not man therefore are not relative but absolute.



The Liberals are coming! The Liberals are coming!... (or was that the Redcoats?!?!?)

Personally, I find all the fuss about "the liberals" amusing.

First, terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" are highly subjective. Quite frankly, the Eastern Orthodox would consider almost every poster here "liberal". Many Catholics would consider almost every poster here "liberal". Personally, the RC's would consider me "very liberal" because of 3 things-- 1) OC sacraments (such as communion) are open to all baptized Christians, 2) we recognize the ordination of women, and 3) we consider birth control a matter of conscience. Now... none of those 3 things are even mentioned in the wiki for CCC... but for the majority of the Christians believing ANY of those 3 makes one "liberal". (as I said, that would make almost every poster here 'liberal').

Now, I understand how the term "Conservative" is being used by CCC... since it is defined in the wiki. And, the way in which the term is defined definitely applies to me...

But I also know that nowhere does scripture say anything even close to "by this all men will know you're my disciples, by the fact that you're conservative".

Nor does it say "by this all men will know that you're my disciples, by your correct theology".

Rather, it does say "by this all men will know that you're my disciples, by the love you have one for another."


When I see people making statements to the gist of "well, we can't get along with you because you're liberal and we're conservative"... well, that greatly concerns me. Those who are "liberal" (by whoever's definition you choose to use at the moment) who have accepted Christ are still our brothers and sisters in Christ-- even if we sharply disagree with their theology.

And if we can't love them, in spite of our differences, then I would daresay we are NOT "conservative" at all-- since Christ said that our love for them would be the demonstration that we are disciples... in fact, I would say an inability to show love for them is a demonstration of a serious deficit in our own Christian walk.

I'm sure some would say, "Well... we love them by 'setting them straight'. It's tough love". I do agree that we should present correct doctrine, and seek to show brothers and sisters in Christ areas where we may feel they are in doctrinal error. But in the process of doing so, we also must be humble enough to realize that we're not perfect either-- nor is our theology perfect-- so they may actually have some things "right" that we can learn from. And if we are doing so in love, then what is seen will fit the scriptural pattern of what love looks like:

In fact, the scripture here is so blunt as to say that if we're not acting like this, that we are nothing more than a bunch of loud annoying noise (a resounding gong or clanging cymbal).

So... when our actions/attitudes towards those who disagree with us are rude or easily angered... then those are not from Christ. When our attitude is one of suspicion, rather than trust... that is not from Christ. When our attitude is one that "keeps record of wrongs" (in other words... "I know what you're really like")... then that is not from Christ.

We all make mistakes. None of us are perfect in our walk with Christ (liberal, conservative, or any other label you want to stick on someone). We are all part of ONE Body... and scripture is quite clear that "the hand cannot say to the eye, I have no need for you". Believe it or not, as much as we may disagree with some of the theology of those we label as "liberal"-- we actually NEED them, according to scripture (and they NEED us).

[Rep Daddy]

adios. (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40062220&postcount=203)

[Nicki4Christ]

adios. (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40062220&postcount=203)

:cry: :(

We need you here...please reconsider

[Rep Daddy]

No., not with how this is being run. I am not welcome.

[PastorDiane]

This Is What I Will Inform All Of You That Keep Up This Division And Fighting.....there Is No Love Or Correction And You Are Willfull In All Of Your Ways......

I Have Many Perishoners That Are On This Sight And As Head Of My Ministry Your Bickering Is Falling Over Into The Church, There Fore From The Pulpit I Have Declared This Site Off Limits To All That I Shepard

[IamRedeemed]

It appears you are doing for your sheep exactly what we are trying to
do for ours. Protect them.

Why is this okay for you to separate or set boundaries for your sheep
for their protection, but not okay for us to do for ours?:scratch:
With all due respect, this appears to be a double standard to me.


This Is What I Will Inform All Of You That Keep Up This Division And Fighting.....there Is No Love Or Correction And You Are Willfull In All Of Your Ways......

I Have Many Perishoners That Are On This Sight And As Head Of My Ministry Your Bickering Is Falling Over Into The Church, There Fore From The Pulpit I Have Declared This Site Off Limits To All That I Shepard

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, what I've seen here isn't an influx of liberals, it's an influx of people who have differing opinions on things and are being attacked for it.

You personally accused two people of being liberal, when one had been a member here longer than you and the other was conservative. You only called them liberal because they disagreed with you.

There is so much hatred for the liberal side of things here...it's palpable. THAT is why I rescinded my membership. The hate needs to go, NOW. Your post alone makes several negative references to WWMC - why the need for that? I understand that everyone must agree with the stickies to be a member, but not everyone must agree with stickies to post.

As Jim pointed out, the way the rules are now, no non-member is allowed to post a dissenting opinion in the threads. As he also pointed out, in our forum, people are allowed to do this respectfully - we've allowed good spirited debate and let me tell you, our forum certainly isn't imploding the way this one is.

I guess the truth of the matter is that if there is a group of conservatives here who ONLY wish to converse with other conservatives and not allow anyone else to join, then perhaps they need to start their own website and restrict their membership and not even allow non-conservatives to join.

Not all bad things in this world come from liberalism. And liberals aren't to blame for this forum's implosion.
Do me a favor PW, SHOW ME EXACTLY WHAT I'VE SAID IN ATTACK OF THEM DIRECTLY in my posts in general fellowship OR debate.

Define "attack" and attack of "what"?? Is it the liberal we attack? OR WHAT THEY PREACH?
It's what is preached that goes contrary to scripture.

I have attacked NO ONE for "being a liberal" here and told them they aren't welcome. I DO find alarm for the influx of the activity here from them however - and I'm not the only one here.

If we're going to open up the already liberal rules, then why call this place conservative when it fills up with everybody who believes everything?
It's basically open turf - non denominational - not conservative.

Isn't it misleading to a visitor or new member who strolls in when they're conservative, only to find that everybody's here preaching their own version of Christianity? Liberal? non nicene? whatever else?

This is my point. & Who said it's the RULES that are the definite source to fix anyways? That was an assumption by Jim - it's not that it IS the problem or even needs adjusting.....

[Father Rick]

:sigh:

Posts like this aren't helpful. Can you try to answer our posts and the things we actually
said instead of answering your own presuppositions of where we are coming from?
A plea to try to set aside our differences and walk according to the scriptural definition of love isn't helpful?


And this is not a "denominational" issue, so it really doesn't matter what other
sects withing your own denomination think regarding religious practices and
traditions. That is irrelevant to what is being discussed here.
Those things were used as illustrations... that the principle behind the issues is seen across the board, not just here. The same principles apply in a local church, within a denomination, and on a forum.


This forum is not segregated by denominational beliefs and traditions.
This forum is a unification of those who have conservative views on morals and values.

Those conservative views of morals and values have been determined by
God and not man therefore are not relative but absolute.

If what you are saying here were true...

then why is it that half the forum is calling the other half (who hold to the same moral standards) "liberal"?

Or saying that they "can't get along" with those who are liberal?

Part of those "morals and values" taught in scripture is how we treat our brother. In fact, that is half of scripture. Jesus said the two greatest commandents were "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". I agree that being obedient in areas of morals/values are a big part of the way we show that we "love the Lord"... but what about the second half? It doesn't say "love your conservative neighbor as yourself", just "love your neighbor"... which would include those in the neighboring (albeit liberal) forum.

[PastorDiane]

I Am Redeemed, You Do Not Read And Think Before You Jump In And Answer, I Have Never Said That You Can Not Have Boundries, I Said That You All Fight And Bicker And You Work Everything Through Division And You Are NOT Correctable, And Just For Your Information, You Do Not Have Sheep You Are Not A Church You Are Nothing But A Share Site, Where You Should Be Discussiong The Word And Hope And Love!!!!!

[Nadiine]

It appears you are doing for your sheep exactly what we are trying to
do for ours. Protect them.

Why is this okay for you to separate or set boundaries for your sheep
for their protection, but not okay for us to do for ours?:scratch:
With all due respect, this appears to be a double standard to me.
Nice point. The difference is, PDiane (+ any staff most likely) decides the rule & direction over her church and sets that for them/over them.
THAT IS WHY THEY CONTINUE THERE. WE ARE SELF GOVERNED AS A LARGE GROUP with differing beliefs within the group and with some who are happy to fellowship and unite with liberalism.

That's the difference here - and that's why this stuff doesn't predominantly happen within churches very often - until it's allowed to have crept in unnoticed to do it's work until it finally manifests.

[Lisa0315]

Yep, all sunshine and roses now that I am gone...:thumbsup:

Lisa

[IamRedeemed]

I read your post at least three times before I posted Diane. I did not "jump in" to answer.
My question is reasonable. And our motives are pure. Posts like yours only add to the
divisive arguments. Storming in here with a "holier than thou" attitude and then proceed
to do, what we are trying to do. I did not attack or presuppose your motives, why do you
attack and presuppose mine? We may not be a church, but I assure you, you are not the only
minister of God here.


I Am Redeemed, You Do Not Read And Think Before You Jump In And Answer, I Have Never Said That You Can Not Have Boundries, I Said That You All Fight And Bicker And You Work Everything Through Division And You Are Correctable, And Just For Your Information, You Do Not Have Sheep You Are Not A Church You Are Nothing But A Share Site, Where You Should Be Discussiong The Word And Hope And Love!!!!!

[Nadiine]

I Am Redeemed, You Do Not Read And Think Before You Jump In And Answer, I Have Never Said That You Can Not Have Boundries, I Said That You All Fight And Bicker And You Work Everything Through Division And You Are NOT Correctable, And Just For Your Information, You Do Not Have Sheep You Are Not A Church You Are Nothing But A Share Site, Where You Should Be Discussiong The Word And Hope And Love!!!!!
Again, this is Erwin's idea for SELF governing of large groups of people -
not a church where one person sets a rule that is properly structured. That is why this is happening.

The bickering is mainly becuz 2 sides are ok and not ok with opposing things.
When I sign on and find a new thread made by a new member that's hashing private issues to the world... am I NOT to oppose it openly?
Or do we all sit in silence for fear of "bickering"? What do you do?

[PastorDiane]

As I said, large or small group, the body of christ liberal or conservative is commanded to walk in love, we are to be known by love, this is nothing more than a group of people who do not even submit to their own rules? So what, are you GOATS? This is not a healthy site and you call yourselves conservative? None the less this is my last post, and you all need to spend more time in prayer and in the word than playing dress up while you sharpen your tongues for gossip!!!!

[~free~]

This has been our focus for weeks now. It takes over all other topics in the forum. Some have been trying to keep peaceful, welcoming threads on top, without success. These types of threads are always what's on the top...that's what people see when they visit this forum. It's ridiculous.

[Nadiine]

Yep, all sunshine and roses now that I am gone...:thumbsup:

Lisa
Lisa, you're friends are still here aren't they? Jim wants to know if the rules need changing, THUS THE SAME ISSUE rages on. Who here has said, "when Lisa leaves this will ALL stop & the forum will be happy again?" :scratch: :scratch: :scratch:

You are only ONE of the several that are here that see this the same way, why would you even think it HINGES on your membership? :confused:
And what's the motive behind your post? I'd ask you seek the Lord about that.
Digs?? what?

[IamRedeemed]

Right. The Word says that two cannot walk together unless they be agreed. So if one side holds fast to the moral standards God has set forth and another side opposes it, there will be division. If part of one side, takes issue with the other because they opposed the side that opposes God, then there is going to be division. It is not avoidable under those circumstances. So, the question is, who should back down? Surely not the side who is siding with God.

We should never back down and remain silent. That is how this world came to be in the moral decay it is currently in.

That is the reason why the ACLU for instance has been able to make all of the advanced
attacks against the core beliefs of this country and the moral standard for all people.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, you're friends are still here aren't they? Jim wants to know if the rules need changing, THUS THE SAME ISSUE rages on. Who here has said, "when Lisa leaves this will ALL stop & the forum will be happy again?" :scratch: :scratch: :scratch:

You are only ONE of the several that are here that see this the same way, why would you even think it HINGES on your membership? :confused:
And what's the motive behind your post? I'd ask you seek the Lord about that.
Digs?? what?

It was said that I was the cause of all the conflict here. It would be reasonable then that if I left, things would be serene if that accusation is true.

Blessed Be

Lisa

[Nadiine]

This has been our focus for weeks now. It takes over all other topics in the forum. Some have been trying to keep peaceful, welcoming threads on top, without success. These types of threads are always what's on the top...that's what people see when they visit this forum. It's ridiculous.
Free, I WANNA KNOW WHY PEOPLE KEEP MAKING THREADS TO "FIX" THIS right now.... it's clear that it isn't solving anything - yet they keep popping up like a raging wildfire!:swoon: :swoon:

If something doesn't work, continuing in it isn't going to yield a productive outcome. (at least for awhile).

Nobody's had time to mend or heal, and POOF a new one pops up...

[Nadiine]

It was said that I was the cause of all the conflict here. It would be reasonable then that if I left, things would be serene if that accusation is true.

Blessed Be

Lisa
blessed be?? :scratch:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_be#searchInput)
Blessed Be may refer to

A greeting, farewell, and blessing in Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca)/Neopagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopagan) tradition (see also Fivefold kiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fivefold_kiss))I still ask you to search the MOTIVE for posting what you did... love? or spite/dig??

(& I know, you don't mean blessed be the way everyone knows it's used for) ;)

[IamRedeemed]

We do not have to love what they preach. And that is what we are standing opposed to and that alone. Your accusations "playing dress up while you sharpen your tongues for gossip" are not only unloving and therefore hypocritical, but they are untrue and unable to be substantiated, and therefore not a good witness either. Not to mention against SWR.

Now can we stop attacking people here and stick with the actual issues? If you will go back a few pages I believe I clearly expressed what the true issues are, and not one person has actually addressed what I have said, but continue to attack based on their own presuppositions of mine and other's motives.



As I said, large or small group, the body of christ liberal or conservative is commanded to walk in love, we are to be known by love, this is nothing more than a group of people who do not even submit to their own rules? So what, are you GOATS? This is not a healthy site and you call yourselves conservative? None the less this is my last post, and you all need to spend more time in prayer and in the word than playing dress up while you sharpen your tongues for gossip!!!!

[Letalis]

It was said that I was the cause of all the conflict here. It would be reasonable then that if I left, things would be serene if that accusation is true.

Blessed Be

Lisa
I never thought you were the cause of conflict. I think you're trying to cause conflict now, though.

Didn't you sign out? Yet here you are trying to sow discord. Have some dignity, please.

[Nadiine]

I never thought you were the cause of conflict. I think you're trying to cause conflict now, though.

Didn't you sign out? Yet here you are trying to sow discord. Have some dignity, please.
it would seem???

[Hentenza]

Everyone, please please please, stop accusing each other. Please start addressing the issues and NOT the poster. This thread is generating reports. If this continues I will close this thread for a cool off time. Please love one another as Jesus commanded us.

[Rochir]

Blessed Be

Lisa

Poking into a hornets nest here, my dear!:swoon:

[Nadiine]

Welp.... I'm going to get some errands done becuz a fire is near some stores I need to shop at.
Please pray for the fire victims and animals in So. Calif. - and the 1/2 million + evacuee's.

My input is this, the rules here are already 'liberal' in that they allow anyone and everyone to fellowship here already. There's no reason to open it up even more than what we already have -

If you want to open the floodgates of existing restrictions, then you will lose the entire meaning and purpose of a "conservative congretation" which only turns into the melting pot we have outside this forum.

Either keep the identity a majority of CONSERVATIVE, or change the name to "whosoever will has come" when it stops being predominantly conservative by an influx of every teaching & belief everyone will bring in with them.

[Nadiine]

Poking into a hornets nest here, my dear!:swoon:
maybe that was the point

[Father Rick]

Right. The Word says that two cannot walk together unless they be agreed. So if one side holds fast to the moral standards God has set forth and another side opposes it, there will be division. If part of one side, takes issue with the other because they opposed the side that opposes God, then there is going to be division. It is not avoidable under those circumstances. So, the question is, who should back down? Surely not the side who is siding with God.

We should never back down and remain silent. That is how this world came to be in the moral decay it is currently in.

That is the reason why the ACLU for instance has been able to make all of the advanced
attacks against the core beliefs of this country and the moral standard for all people.

The issue is that when there are divisions, they have to be handled the way scripture says they are to be handled.

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.
Pauls writes that there were divisions in the church (which he says was not good), but then he says, (I paraphrase) "well, there have to be differences so that we can see who is approved by God and who is not". He immediately then talks about how the different parts of the church were not showing respect for one another. Who were the ones that were "approved by God"? Those that were behaving themselves correctly, showing respect for their brothers in Christ, in spite of their differences/divisions.

And remember-- chapters and verses were not in the original text, we added them in for ease in finding passages. In Paul's letter, he continues right on after this (it's all one train of thought) and begins talking about differences in spiritual gifts... and about how we are all one body but different parts.



12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
Paul actually says that the weaker parts of the Body are actually "indispensable".

If we consider those who are "liberal" to be weaker in their walk of faith. If we consider them to be "less honorable", in their theology, in their morals, in their values, etc. well, then we are actually told we are to treat them with "special honor" and "special modesty".

If we feel that we are stronger in our walk with Christ, we are actually suppose to be protecting those who are not as strong... not tearing them down, insulting them, or having nothing to do with them. We are to take those that we think are in error, or weaker, or "dishonorable" underwing and protect them until they can grow in their walk with Christ, rather than cutting them off.

That's not just my opinion. That's what scripture says-- and pretty bluntly.

[Latreia]

:clap:

Oh, boy! Some of these thread are going to be a lot shorter after I finish adding to my ~IGNORE LIST~

:wave:

[Nadiine]

The issue is that when there are divisions, they have to be handled the way scripture says they are to be handled.Pauls writes that there were divisions in the church (which he says was not good), but then he says, (I paraphrase) "well, there have to be differences so that we can see who is approved by God and who is not". He immediately then talks about how the different parts of the church were not showing respect for one another. Who were the ones that were "approved by God"? Those that were behaving themselves correctly, showing respect for their brothers in Christ, in spite of their differences/divisions.

And remember-- chapters and verses were not in the original text, we added them in for ease in finding passages. In Paul's letter, he continues right on after this (it's all one train of thought) and begins talking about differences in spiritual gifts... and about how we are all one body but different parts.


Paul actually says that the weaker parts of the Body are actually "indispensable".

If we consider those who are "liberal" to be weaker in their walk of faith. If we consider them to be "less honorable", in their theology, in their morals, in their values, etc. well, then we are actually told we are to treat them with "special honor" and "special modesty".

If we feel that we are stronger in our walk with Christ, we are actually suppose to be protecting those who are not as strong... not tearing them down, insulting them, or having nothing to do with them. We are to take those that we think are in error, or weaker, or "dishonorable" underwing and protect them until they can grow in their walk with Christ, rather than cutting them off.

That's not just my opinion. That's what scripture says-- and pretty bluntly.
1 Cor 12 "weaker" is in reference to the 'lesser gifts'... others being greater, etc.

Did you read Romans 14 who Paul considers the "weaker"? His teaching was about weaker brethren who found it wrong to eat meat sacrificed to animals... the weaker were those who were prone to legalism - and rigid adherance to law...
they didn't embrace the new LIBERTIES in Christ. (being able to get past law to embrace freedom in Christ.
Liberalism is just the exact opposite of who the weaker are. It PROMOTES liberalism - but to the point of condoning sin itself as it's listed in scripture. And even sometimes denying the scriptures as God's inspired, authoratative truth, and many other doctrinal issues of central importance - this isn't about liberties in Christ- it's rejection of central doctrines that make one a Christian by definition.

Imo, much of liberalism itself isn't "weaker" in faith, it's faithLESS due to what the beliefs reject by way of the Bible's most basic teachings - just in moral sin it should be quite obvious. Nevermind the identity of God problem, the refusal of accepting the bible's literality (but is completely esoteric), rejection of the bible's spiritual authority - to relay truth... or that it is even inspired by God, claims that it is full of error & that truth itself is relative/subjective to each person's perception or interpretation...

The worldview itself is the problem and it's why I do not accept it, fight against it and cannot unite with many who embrace it - and that is based on scripture teaching itself which is very clear.

That's the difference in views put forth here. I find that what God warns me about to stay away from with the message that is brought by it. Not to go unite with it in fellowship & unity.

[Jim47]

Is CC an outreach forum or a fellowship forum? Why do you call members of this forum legalists and defend those who reject our views?



note your response to me: (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40061857&postcount=21)


Ok, lets try to have a little understanding. I never called anyone legalistic, I said our rules are legalistic. This is not just my opinion but that of many.

I know I missed someone else that wanted a reply but I can't find her post. I try not to ignore anyone but I can't keep up with all thats happening. So if anyone feels I owe them an answer please PM me your concern or at least a link to the post.

[Tishri1]

if you all have considered this yetIf it is decided that a person is uncooperative and mostly operating with the intention of causing trouble or proselytizing he/she may be banned from the forum. Generally this will occur after several moderator PM's telling that member how he/she is not abiding by forum or subforum rules. People who come to TCL to do nothing more then cause trouble will be treated as trouble makers and will be asked to leave our forum peacfully. We expect visitors to conduct themselves in a manner that would be fitting for them to actually visit one of our churches in person. In addition to and including the warnings a "sticky" thread will be formed with the advisement for all TCL forum and sub forums members to initiated the "IGNORE" option so the "offender" will be "ignored". When the "ignore" option is initiated the offender and initiator can not see, read or PM each other. If used in totem in the forum it will be an effective total banning of that provocateur.

Offenders are not tolerated for the protection and safety of our forum members.
I like this:thumbsup:

[Rep Daddy]

Ok, lets try to have a little understanding. I never called anyone legalistic, I said our rules are legalistic.

Really? (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40061857&postcount=21)

Originally Posted by Jim47
I think you will find that I posted in the origional report so I am quite aware of it. I think your other comments are quite rude and show real prejudice.

Unlike many I am not afraid to have discussions with and Christians whether they be liberal or conservative and I am really tired of all the legalism, in threads and in reports.

[PreachersWife2004]

Me, too, Tish. It has been VERY effective in TCL.

[Jim47]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim47 http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40072064#post40072064)
Ok, lets try to have a little understanding. I never called anyone legalistic, I said our rules are legalistic.

Really? (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40061857&postcount=21)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim47
I think you will find that I posted in the origional report so I am quite aware of it. I think your other comments are quite rude and show real prejudice.

Unlike many I am not afraid to have discussions with and Christians whether they be liberal or conservative and I am really tired of all the legalism, in threads and in reports.







What is your point Steve? My comments were directed not at people, but problems.

[Nadiine]

Really? (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40061857&postcount=21)

Kinda obvious to me.... and what happens when STAFF is PRO LIBERAL like this and sees us as legalistic?

[Nadiine]

Me, too, Tish. It has been VERY effective in TCL.
Effective if staff has no BIAS sure...
does ours?? I've seen quite a few here who turn a blind eye to some people causing direct trouble & contention...
making excuses in fact. How does a biased staff deal with those they agree with?

[Rep Daddy]

What is your point Steve? My comments were directed not at people, but problems.
whatever, bye.

[Nadiine]

PS - sorry for the ignorance, PW or Tishri, but can you tell me what TCL stands for?
thanks :wave:

[BelindaP]

Theologia Crucis - Lutherans

[Jim47]

Effective if staff has no BIAS sure...
does ours?? I've seen quite a few here who turn a blind eye to some people causing direct trouble & contention...
making excuses in fact. How does a biased staff deal with those they agree with?



Nadine, if you want to debate who is more conservative I am game.. Just start a new thread and send me a link. I know you know scriptre well as I've observed over the last couple years , so this should be fun, but your comment above is really in bad taste and quite untrue. I am a WELS Lutheran and have been for 52 years. We are know as the most conservative of conservatives, ask anyone.

[PreachersWife2004]

Effective if staff has no BIAS sure...
does ours?? I've seen quite a few here who turn a blind eye to some people causing direct trouble & contention...
making excuses in fact. How does a biased staff deal with those they agree with?

YOUR staff has not been bias at all, Nadiine. I suggest you go read ALL the reports, because YOUR staff has been quite diligent in being unbiased.

And to clarify, I'm not your staff. I will not mod this forum whatsoever, especially after seeing all the crap that has been thrown at this forum's mods.

[BelindaP]

I will vouch for that. You really can't get any more conservative than WELS, especially those from the northern part of the midwest.

[PreachersWife2004]

I've been called some pretty nasty names by other Christians because we're so conservative. That's gotta be good for something around here!

[Nadiine]

YOUR staff has not been bias at all, Nadiine. I suggest you go read ALL the reports, because YOUR staff has been quite diligent in being unbiased.

And to clarify, I'm not your staff. I will not mod this forum whatsoever, especially after seeing all the crap that has been thrown at this forum's mods.
I thought I said "IF" it's biased.
I don't personally know --
And... you were part of this "crap" yourself... so I think you should be a little less "finger pointing" in this statement as if you have nothing to do w/ the issues around here.
Jim was the one that used the legalistic term tho...

[PreachersWife2004]

I love how you can read so much into my posts, Nadiine.

I didn't finger point at anyone, sorry if you're feeling convicted for some reason.

I merely pointed out that I wouldn't want to be a mod here after seeing all the crap thrown at the mods. How on earth is this fingerpointing? Who did I call out? Who did I accuse?

THIS is part of the problem - you guys are so quick to jump at things like this and make a mountain out of it.

You said "IF" and I replied that they have been very unbiased. If you doubt that, go read the reports.

STOP taking everything like it is an attack on you.

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh, and I haven't been reported for anything here, so my posts have not added work for mods. In fact, I've refrained from reporting most of the reportable posts because I didn't want to give them extra work on top of what they're already dealing with.

Just for the record and all.

[Nadiine]

Nadine, if you want to debate who is more conservative I am game.. Just start a new thread and send me a link. I know you know scriptre well as I've observed over the last couple years , so this should be fun, but your comment above is really in bad taste and quite untrue. I am a WELS Lutheran and have been for 52 years. We are know as the most conservative of conservatives, ask anyone.
my comment was about a few OTHERS that turned a blind eye to some troublemakers -- not you Jim. They were also not mods here - they were members.
But the members were/are your friends.
When I confronted a rude post by someone, I GOT REPRIMANDED and scolded for not asking him what job he held.
(as if he asked the person he attacked what job he held??)
That is what I'm referring to in my post (which I've said in 1 other post).

And no, this isn't a contest on who's more conservative, nor did I say that -- I've had some pm's of different mods that oversee this forum related w/ IIDB, I have yet to see the evidence, but I've gotten some pm's on issues.
I read your comment on legalistic and it does seem unreasonable.

What I have said weeks ago and say yet again today is this, I am tired of making posts and have people (who have issues w/ me) make rude comments and comments of correction as to how I posted it & what I said.

It became a constant pattern - that's what started alot of what's going on. Intimidation to "act & think like us, or we'll just post "sigh" faces and "sad" faces in protest to your statements or reply.
I don't appreciate it and most others wouldn't either. I dont' go attacking peoples warm fuzzy posts when people are clearly causing trouble - they get rewarded for bad behaviour - BUT I SAY NOTHING to them in a post to mock or show my disgust.

Others have felt this as well; it wasn't just to me.

So that's the background of where I'm coming from on this issue.
And if people are going to publically accuse of staff bias, I'd like the proof pm'd - becuz I don't just blindly accept accusations against people.

[Nadiine]

Oh, and I haven't been reported for anything here, so my posts have not added work for mods. In fact, I've refrained from reporting most of the reportable posts because I didn't want to give them extra work on top of what they're already dealing with.

Just for the record and all.
I haven't reported alot either. On purpose. I only reported what I found was a seriously nasty or abusive post.

I didn't want to tie up our mods either - things I report are things that I feel should not be on any board for people to read - that should be deleted.

[Nadiine]

I love how you can read so much into my posts, Nadiine.

I didn't finger point at anyone, sorry if you're feeling convicted for some reason.


I'm done going back & forth w/ combative posts - have a lovely day PW.

[Jim47]

I think this thread needs a cooling off period,

and for the record I will not take part in any rule changes or help you decide if you want to change them or not.

I came here because this forum gets more reports then any other forum in ET. It has also lost more good folks as members then any other forum. I get these comments from CC folks all the time in PMs. Does that sound like a problem to you or am I all wet? :)

Have a nice night everyone.