Discussion of Announcement: new site wide rule Nicene Christianity

[ravenscape]

From this announcement thread: http://christianforums.com/t6777178 (http://christianforums.com/t6777178-new-site-wide-rule-nicene-christianity.html)

Members and staff,

The following is being added to the site-wide rules:


You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity. Promotion of Satanism is strictly prohibited. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.
Nicene-Constantinopolitan CreedWe believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)


ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)


Father (Matthew 6: 9)

Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)

Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)

and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)


And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)

Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)

Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)

Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)

True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)

Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)

of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)

through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)

Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)

came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)

and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)

and became man. (John 1: 14)

And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)

under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)

suffered, (Mark 8: 31)

and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)

And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)

and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)

and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)

and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)

to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)

Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)


And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)

Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)

Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)

Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]*; (John 15: 26)

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)

Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)


In one, (Matthew 16: 18)

holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)

catholic**, (Mark 16: 15)

and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)


I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins***. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)

I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)

and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)


AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)



*The phrase in square brackets [and the Son] (known as the filioque clause) is not compulsory and does not need to be affirmed by members.


**The word "catholic" (literally, "universal") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination or institution.


***This can be interpreted to mean that baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or a regenerating ordinance.





Posts that promote non-Christian or non-Nicene beliefs will be removed by staff. Posts that merely provide information about a non-Christian or non-Nicene belief are allowed for informational purposes.

Staff may expand on this (via forum-specific guidelines) based on the specific needs of those forums.

Restrictions as to where non-Christian and non-Nicene members will not be imposed, nor will there be a return to forced icon changes. The intent is to moderate based on post content.


The following forums will be closed:

The Non-Nicene Congregation section
The Trinitarian forum
The Jehovah's Witness theology forum
The Latter Day Saints theology forum
The Unitarian/Non-Trinitarian theology forum


Non-Christian and Non-Nicene mods may not moderate the following forum categories on CF. Exceptions may be made by admins in conjunction with Lee and/or his advisors.

Congregation
Theology
Ministry
Edification
OutreachPrior admin approval is required for non-Christian and Non-Nicene mods to moderate the following forum categories:

Life Stages
RecoveryNon-Christian and non-Nicene staff that currently moderate any of the above forums may transfer to another team.

[ravenscape]

This thread is for discussing the 1/25/2008 Announcement located here (http://christianforums.com/t6777178):

[Rep Daddy]

Thank you, Lee!

[snoochface]

Not to be a negative nancy or anything, but is there really any reason to discuss it? If people don't like it, it's not like our itinerant CEO is going to give a flying hoot or change anything, right?

Personally, I dislike it, I think it's exclusionary, and I don't see what the harm was in having a Non-Nicene section of the forums. But so what? Lee doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks does he? His forum, his rules.

[ravenscape]

There have been some changes as a result of member input since LeeD officially took the reins. The semi-open reports, for instance.

That said, I'm not hopeful that this new rule will be changed based on member input. The members are very much divided on this issue, IMO.

[Ginny]

Bottom line, snoochface is right...this is not our website. I am not sure as to the reason behind it...but if I were part of the non-nicene crowd, I truly believe that I would not have anything against it and I would deal with it accordingly. This is a Christian website. It can be argued that non-nicene religious organizations are not Christian (another thread). Whether this is the reason or not, I do not know.

[*Starlight*]

This rule simply sucks, and it one of the worst decisions I've ever seen, about anything. On a site that's supposed to unite all Christians, the new rule pushes it as far away from that goal as it's possible. It doesn't help members with anything, it doesn't make CF a better place for members, and it doesn't promote Christian unity... instead, it goes completely against all these things. Christian Forums is becoming "We are better Christians than you!" forums again. And this was supposed to be a past... :doh:

[Ginny]

Starlight, in all seriousness :) ...many people believe that non-nicene religions are not considered Christian b/c they do not hold to the basic concepts of Nicene Christianity..... If this is what one believes, then perhaps that is why this decision was made. I have no idea. If we are not to be angry but "tolerant" of others beliefs, then we certainly cannot hold this against the rule maker/owner for his own (IF this is the case). :)

That is a hugely debated argument.

[CaDan]

Solidarity.

[snoochface]

Solidarity.
I would understand your posts so much better if you put some context around them.

[Sylvanspirits]

Yet another reason why I hardly ever visit this site anymore. What gives the Nicene Creed's definition of a Christian more authority then Christ's?

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. - John 3:15-17

Jesus said believe in Christ and you are saved - by definition, a Christian. Jesus did not say "Only those who believe the following list are "true Christians."

While I myself agree with the Nicene Creed, I find it completly absurd that anyone who doesn't follow it is apparently some sort of sub-standard Christian and will not be granted the same status as Christians who believe in the Nicene Creed.

IMO, a completely awful decision.

[MrJim]

I would understand your posts so much better if you put some context around them.

I'm sure it's his new mormon icon^_^

[ravenscape]

I would understand your posts so much better if you put some context around them.
He's changed his faith icon (and a couple other things)

[snoochface]

TOTALLY missed the mormon icon. Sorry 'bout that.

[MrJim]

Guess CaDan just solidaritied himself out of a Mod job...

[jeffC]

This decision saddens me. I've felt very welcome here at CF since the changes were made. But it doesn't seem right to extend a hand of friendship to others only to slam the door in their face a short time later. Expulsion isn't a charitable way to treat groups of people.

It's too bad, but little seems to have changed in 200 years. Thank goodness we live in more civilized times, but the truth is that the same hostility that led to very un-Christianlike behavior in the past survives today. It's the same hostility that expelled Mormon women and children to leave their homes in the dead of winter walking for hundreds of miles alone - twice. Then as now it's unfortunate that the fierce hostility of a relative few influences decisions such as this. It is perhaps more sad that those who would object to such treatment didn't let their voiced be heard for fear of the most vocal and fierce critics.

My thanks to all those who are speaking out.

What religion has been persecuted most in the U.S.? (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080116155008AA7bnN4&show=7)

[CaDan]

I would understand your posts so much better if you put some context around them.

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Mormon.gif

Apparently, the story of King Christian X of Denmark and his subjects donning the Jewish star is not true. But it should be true.

[CaDan]

Guess CaDan just solidaritied himself out of a Mod job...

If that is the case, then it is the case.

[higgs2]

Pathetic.

[Adammi]

Who decided on this?

[~Karin~]

disgusting....

[MrJim]

We have been without any drama around here lately~this'll be an interesting weekend to watch
http://bestsmileys.com/peeping/1.gif

[Adammi]

I just don't understand the reason behind this. To me, it makes just as much sense as making a person spin around five times and jumping up and down three before they can start an account. That's just the feeble minded me though. What's the point? And again, who makes the decisions?

[Richard]

I just don't understand the reason behind this. To me, it makes just as much sense as making a person spin around five times and jumping up and down three before they can start an account. That's just the feeble minded me though. What's the point? And again, who makes the decisions?

LeeD makes the decisions. As to the point, I assume since this is a Chrisitian site, he didn't want other religions promoted here. It's a site that focuses on Christian growth and fellowship

[ravenscape]

Adammi, I'll try to get someone in here to answer your questions. This thread is more for discussion. Questions and clarifications are probably better asked in the announcement (http://christianforums.com/t6777178) thread.

[Adammi]

.

[Der Alter]

This thread is for discussing the 1/25/2008 Announcement located here (http://christianforums.com/t6777178):

What took so long?

[praying]

Not to be a negative nancy or anything, but is there really any reason to discuss it?

That was my first thought, when I saw this link. Sadly it ain't gonna change . :sigh:

If people don't like it, it's not like our itinerant CEO is going to give a flying hoot or change anything, right?

I believe that to be correct. Actually I don't even believe he will read this.

[Joykins]

Good theology doesn't need jackboots to enforce it.

This will make the site more boring, as all the interesting theological debates will end up in the Complaints bucket.

[Joykins]

Everytime a child says 'I don't believe in fairies,' there's a a little fairy somewhere that falls down dead.”

[CaDan]

Know your rights
All three of them

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a crime!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights

And number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Dont mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation
Know your rights
These are your rights

Know these rights

Number 3
You have the right to free speech
As long as you're not dumb enough
to actually try it.

Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em

[Idea]

Good theology doesn't need jackboots to enforce it.

This will make the site more boring, as all the interesting theological debates will end up in the Complaints bucket.

I guess it is not "good" theology.

So the "Church of Jesus Christ" is being removed from Christian forums, as are those who "witness of Jesus"...

Can anyone say "Dark Ages?":ebil:

[Joykins]

I guess it is not "good" theology.

So the "Church of Jesus Christ" is being removed from Christian forums, as are those who "witness of Jesus"...

Can anyone say "Dark Ages?":ebil:

I believe in free speech, something this site is more or less against.

I think good theology and good ideas SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, there is no need to punish people for saying what they believe.

[Bombila]

Appalling, in my estimation.

My sympathies are extended to the people who will be hurt by this unfortunate and blinkered decision.

[Vote_For_Pedro]

Wiki on, GARTH :bow::bow::bow:

[Stormy]

Does apologetics stay as it has always been?

[MrJim]

I knew this would be fun to watchhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

Joykins, wattamean this place will be boring~it has been since Erwin left, so dull there isn't even much to talk about elsewhere ;)

Ah but the martyrs are busy now, the exodus has begun anew, wonder if those Conservative Christian Forum folks will return for a while...:D

[Rep Daddy]

Please stop this guy from using my old screen name like this. It is harassment.

[MrJim]

Mods! Thanks for taking out the garbage :hug:

[Richard]

Everyone please stay on Topic so we don't have to split threads :)

[DougLDS]

LeeD makes the decisions.

and IMHO his decision sucks



As to the point, I assume since this is a Chrisitian site, he didn't want other religions promoted here. It's a site that focuses on Christian growth and fellowship

uhhh sir, we are christians.....nevermind....:help:

[Voegelin]

This rule simply sucks, and it one of the worst decisions I've ever seen, about anything. On a site that's supposed to unite all Christians, the new rule pushes it as far away from that goal as it's possible . . .

Try to attempt to discuss Christian ethics and morality in Ethics and Morality. You will be called names and shouted down. How many Christians surf into this site thinking they are going to find like-minded individuals, see what goes on in that forum (to name just one) and surf right out? I bet many do. Everyone I've known who has attempted to have a reasonable dialogue about Christian morality in that forum has left in disgust.

Why should those who want to discuss their Christian faith be shouted down by humanists, atheists and other materialists?

You didn't mention it but some have suggested not wanting to be around this stuff reflects a weakness of faith, a feeling the faith cannot be defended. Nothing could be further from the truth. Popular culture sprews that stuff out 24/7. Many want a break from it. There is no reason this or any other Christian forum on the net must submit to the onslaught (and every Christian forum I've seen is flooded with those who object to the faith. For some people their entire lives seems to revolve around telling Christians how wrong they are....about everything and, as an added bonus, attempting to become moderators at Christian sites).

The internet is a big place. Anyone who wishes to promote atheism or satanism or any non-Nicene belief probably already knows where to go. Personally I'm sick of those who have it in for the Christian faith using Christian forums (this one and others) as playgrounds.

[ladyt28]

Please stop this guy from using my old screen name like this. It is harassment.
I sure wish I knew which screen name you're talking about.

[Rep Daddy]

I sure wish I knew which screen name you're talking about.

Click my blog icon.

I think the issue has been dealt with.

[CaDan]

In more ways than one. ;)

[Chajara]

Subscribing to this thread since the other was closed.

However, it's really late and I'm going to bed. If I have the heart for it I guess I'll pick up the debate tomorrow morning. Night guys.

[Nooj]

Try to attempt to discuss Christian ethics and morality in Ethics and Morality. You will be called names and shouted down. How many Christians surf into this site thinking they are going to find like-minded individuals, see what goes on in that forum (to name just one) and surf right out? I bet many do. Everyone I've known who has attempted to have a reasonable dialogue about Christian morality in that forum has left in disgust.

Why should those who want to discuss their Christian faith be shouted down by humanists, atheists and other materialists?

You didn't mention it but some have suggested not wanting to be around this stuff reflects a weakness of faith, a feeling the faith cannot be defended. Nothing could be further from the truth. Popular culture sprews that stuff out 24/7. Many want a break from it. There is no reason this or any other Christian forum on the net must submit to the onslaught (and every Christian forum I've seen is flooded with those who object to the faith. For some people their entire lives seems to revolve around telling Christians how wrong they are....about everything and, as an added bonus, attempting to become moderators at Christian sites).

The internet is a big place. Anyone who wishes to promote atheism or satanism or any non-Nicene belief probably already knows where to go. Personally I'm sick of those who have it in for the Christian faith using Christian forums (this one and others) as playgrounds.This rule does not seem to be aimed at atheists or secularists. It is aimed at the promotion of other religions, not the debate of religion. I'm sure you're well aware that although atheists may be insulting and rude, they are not promoting their religion, merely debating yours.

This rule seems to be aimed at LDS and non-trinitarian Christians, not atheists and secularists.

My question is, what counts as promotion? Can we link to other religious website?

[snoochface]

Is it within the rules now to accuse someone of not being Christian? Will it be okay for people to tell Mormons and JWs that they are not Christians even if those individuals profess that they are?

Anyone?

[Protinus]

"Give sorrow words. The grief that does not speak Whispers the o'erfraught heart, and bids it break."

[CaDan]

Out, out, brief candle.

[MachZer0]

How is this going to affect non-Christian members who criticize the Christian faith such as denying the deity of Christ, calling the Scriptures myth, etc?

[DougLDS]

How is this going to affect non-Christian members who criticize the Christian faith such as denying the deity of Christ, calling the Scriptures myth, etc?

Got a match?

[MachZer0]

Got a match?Not since Superman died

[Protinus]

I enjoy talking to the LDS missionaries outside of my hospital in the summer...no one can take that away.

[CaDan]

How is this going to affect non-Christian members who criticize the Christian faith such as denying the deity of Christ, calling the Scriptures myth, etc?

Not much. This is an in-family fight.

[MachZer0]

Not much. This is an in-family fight.Christians and non-Christinas are not members of the same family.

[Tonks]

Guess CaDan just solidaritied himself out of a Mod job...

I seriously doubt it...unless he "resigns on principles" or some other such route he'll be around as long as he desires.

He's probably the strongest / loudest advocate for membership on staff. Anyone can be trained to use the mod tools and work reports...but someone that will stand up for members (even to the point of unreasonable obstinacy) is good to have on staff.

I don't always agree with him...but he knows that he's not going anywhere unless by choice. Which, frankly, isn't a bad thing.

[CaDan]

Christians and non-Christinas are not members of the same family.

We are young,
Heartache to heartache we stand
No promises, no demands
Love is a battlefield :hug:

We are strong,
No one can tell us we’re wrong
Searchin’ our hearts for so long,
Both of us knowing
Love is a battlefield :hug:

[MachZer0]

We are young,
Heartache to heartache we stand
No promises, no demands
Love is a battlefield :hug:

We are strong,
No one can tell us we’re wrong
Searchin’ our hearts for so long,
Both of us knowing
Love is a battlefield :hug:I asked a simple, honest question. If you want to play games, please do it with someone who wants to play. I prefer to try to get an answer to my question

[CaDan]

I asked a simple, honest question. If you want to play games, please do it with someone who wants to play. I prefer to try to get an answer to my question

I gave you a simple answer, too. When you wanted additional commentary, well, then things got a little more interesting. :hug:

[Der Alter]

I seriously doubt it...unless he "resigns on principles" or some other such route he'll be around as long as he desires.

He's probably the strongest / loudest advocate for membership on staff. Anyone can be trained to use the mod tools and work reports...but someone that will stand up for members (even to the point of unreasonable obstinacy) is good to have on staff.

I don't always agree with him...but he knows that he's not going anywhere unless by choice. Which, frankly, isn't a bad thing.

Must be good to have friends in high places that will cover your 6, no matter what. While others can be persecuted without reason, and told they would receive things that never came through.

To get back on topic. I see nothing wrong with a Christian, assuming it is, site, having rules/guidelines which limits participation or discussion. A church welcomes all genuine seekers but visitors, outsiders, and nonmembers do not participate in e.g. the election of deacons and elders, business and budget meetings, etc. I cannot think of any situation where a non NC would be permitted to promote their religion in any scheduled service or function in a NC church. So what is the big argument here?

[MachZer0]

I gave you a simple answer, too. When you wanted additional commentary, well, then things got a little more interesting. :hug:Your answer was inadequate as it contained a falsehood, which I pointed out.

[CaDan]

CF is not a church, maybe?

[CaDan]

Your answer was inadequate as it contained a falsehood, which I pointed out.

Category error of equating heresy with apostasy. It's a pretty common error. :hug:

[MachZer0]

CF is not a church, maybe?That has noting to do with my question. Not holding to the Nicene Creed yourself, do you consider yourself capable of adequately modding reports that allege violations of this new rule? I would doubt it since you can't even seriously address my question.

[IamRedeemed]

Excellent, Thank you. :thumbsup:

[Richard]

Anyone?
[/size][/color][/font]

I answered your question here. (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42975132&postcount=55)

Is it within the rules now to accuse someone of not being Christian? Will it be okay for people to tell Mormons and JWs that they are not Christians even if those individuals profess that they are?

No and no because they might really have asked for Jesus in there heart who are we to judge jury and condem to hell?

[CaDan]

That has noting to do with my question. Not holding to the Nicene Creed yourself, do you consider yourself capable of adequately modding reports that allege violations of this new rule? I would doubt it since you can't even seriously address my question.

Not addressed to you, but rather to Der Alter. I should have quoted his post.

Oh, and in the real world, I'm Roman Catholic. Y'know, the folks who believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins" and "one holy catholic and apostolic church." :D At CF, I now stand in solidarity with those being cast out.

[kiwimac]

I cannot agree with this. I also stand in solidarity with those excluded from this place. CF is NOT a church, it is not the job of a BB to decide theology for its members.

[Der Alter]

CF is not a church, maybe?

So because it may not be a "church" per se "Where two or three gathered together in my name, etc.," notwithstanding, does not any Christian organization have the right to make rules/guidelines for their own operation?

[Criada]

How is an apostolic church defined?

Dunno whether I'm Nicene or not:D

[Melancholy]

This is sad.
I can't agree with this either and will be supporting those that have been affected by this decision.


SOLIDARITY!!!!

[lincolngreen50]

Thanks LeeD:thumbsup:

[invisible trousers]

Nice to know this rule would prevent the twelve apostles from promoting christianity.

[Voegelin]

This rule does not seem to be aimed at atheists or secularists. It is aimed at the promotion of other religions, not the debate of religion. I'm sure you're well aware that although atheists may be insulting and rude, they are not promoting their religion, merely debating yours.

This rule seems to be aimed at LDS and non-trinitarian Christians, not atheists and secularists.

I dunno.

Rules says "You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity"

Seems clear to me that includes the belief God is dead or God does not exist.

I'll refer back to Ethics and Morality. What is promoted in there is that Christian morality is evil. Christian morality hurts people. It is bigoted. It is hateful. It is discriminatory. Nietzsche wrote Christianity could not be destroyed by attacking revealed truth; Christian could only be destroyed by convincing people Christian morality is immoral. That is exactly what is attempted in Ethics and Morality every hour of every day.

I'm sure the legalistic will take the position you propose. Not that they believe it but because it is a useful position to take. Tearing down Christianity isn't promoting anything! We're just asking questions! We just want to debate! We're "reaching out" and trying to understand. We want everyone to git along ya know. Unite everyone ya know. Not push anyone out ya know. We're such good people (and, by the way, Christian morality hurts people...pass it on).

If the new rule doesn't include the constant attempt to gut the Christian faith of content, it if doesn't include the constant attempt depict Christian teachings as evil, it should.

[*Starlight*]

Here's a simple question... I wonder if someone will honestly answer it:

If you support the new rule, would you still support it just as much as you do now if it also included removing YOUR congregational forum, and not allowing YOU to freely share your faith with others?





Starlight, in all seriousness :) ...many people believe that non-nicene religions are not considered Christian b/c they do not hold to the basic concepts of Nicene Christianity.....
Hi Ginny :) That argument isn't really correct... if they don't hold to the basic concepts of Nicene Christianity, then they aren't Nicene Christians... but it doesn't mean that they are not Christians. Since their faith is centered on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, then they are Christian.

Here's an analogy... let's say that Christians are fruits and Nicene Christians are apples. Saying that non-Nicene Christians aren't Christians because they don't hold to the basic concepts of Nicene Christianity is like saying that bananas aren't fruits because they aren't apples... :)

Just like bananas are fruits even if they aren't apples, non-NC Christians are still Christians even if they don't accept the NC. :)

[SallyNow]

:cry: Finally a half-decent balance between so-called "traditiona" Christians and so-called "non-traditional' Christians had been sort of reached here.

Disgusting. This is not helping the fellowship of Christianity on this site, but instead more barriers and more bad feelings between all Christians.

[Redeemed_Warrior]

We are young,
Heartache to heartache we stand
No promises, no demands
Love is a battlefield :hug:

We are strong,
No one can tell us we’re wrong
Searchin’ our hearts for so long,
Both of us knowing
Love is a battlefield :hug:
Off Topic Alert

Ok i love that song :P

[BelindaP]

There ARE other Christian forums out there who don't define Christianity by the Nicene Creed. And when the owners affirm the Nicene Creed, they don't need a bunch of stoopid asterisks to do so. Anyone who is curious can PM me.

[tattedschmoe]

wow. how pathetic.

by what definition of "acceptance" is this new rule going with here?

all the time i hear Christians say the pathetic line of "accept the sinner but hate the sin" so now the line is drawn for non-nicene Christians to not have their own forum for discussion?

[MrJim]

wow. how pathetic.

by what definition of "acceptance" is this new rule going with here?

all the time i hear Christians say the pathetic line of "accept the sinner but hate the sin" so now the line is drawn for non-nicene Christians to not have their own forum for discussion?

I barely knew they were around myself, pretty quiet bunch~might bump into one here and there on non-congregational forums...give it a while, Lee could change again. Meanwhile if the "nonnicenes" are out of the way (so to speak) the nicenes then can better focus upon feeding upon each other. Do y'all really thing the "nicene christians" are one big happy family^_^

[MachZer0]

I dunno.

Rules says "You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity"

Seems clear to me that includes the belief God is dead or God does not exist.

I'll refer back to Ethics and Morality. What is promoted in there is that Christian morality is evil. Christian morality hurts people. It is bigoted. It is hateful. It is discriminatory. Nietzsche wrote Christianity could not be destroyed by attacking revealed truth; Christian could only be destroyed by convincing people Christian morality is immoral. That is exactly what is attempted in Ethics and Morality every hour of every day.

I'm sure the legalistic will take the position you propose. Not that they believe it but because it is a useful position to take. Tearing down Christianity isn't promoting anything! We're just asking questions! We just want to debate! We're "reaching out" and trying to understand. We want everyone to git along ya know. Unite everyone ya know. Not push anyone out ya know. We're such good people (and, by the way, Christian morality hurts people...pass it on).

If the new rule doesn't include the constant attempt to gut the Christian faith of content, it if doesn't include the constant attempt depict Christian teachings as evil, it should.

This is a good point. Pushing atheism is promoting a belief and would then fall under the rule

[sacerdote]

This is not our forum. It's not your forum. ChristianForums is owned by Lee. He pays the bills and sees to it that everything runs properly. We are here by his grace and are guests. None of us have some inherent right to have what we want here or see that things are run the way we would like. We are guests. The owner sets the rules with input from his staff. Frankly, I believe that we are blessed to have a forum like this. Do a search on "Christian Forums" and you'll see we are a one-of-a-kind forum. the best one on the web. This place, our staff and our members are truly amazing.

Why not stick around and see how the new rule, which actually used to be the old rule, pans out. I think it will result in a lot less bickering and arguments. Bottom line, this is nobody's forum to run, manage, or dictate to except Lee's. Also Lee's bound to tweak things for the better in line with his vision for the forum.

If you don't like the new rules, don't want to give them a chance, don't want to give Lee the benefit of the doubt, or don't want to be in this forum, then you can always go start your own forum where you can make the rules and have things exactly as you want.

But I say, let's follow the owner's direction. And don't forget God is in this as well as He is in every situation.

I leave you by quoting some good scripture that I think applies here.

"Trust in God and lean not in your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight."

[3girls2dogs]

I cannot agree with this. I also stand in solidarity with those excluded from this place. CF is NOT a church, it is not the job of a BB to decide theology for its members.
I suppose it isn't, but it is the job of a privately owned BB to decide who it wishes to cater to. I certainly wouldn't go to a bulletin board called LDS Forums and expect them to cater to my Roman Catholic beliefs.

Free peech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It assures you can say what you want without Governmental punishment. But there are two things about free speech that everyone here shouting it seems to forget. First, no one would be arrested, no matter what they said here about Christianity. And second, just because you have a legal right to say what you want doesn't mean people have to listen or like what you say.

[MachZer0]

I suppose it isn't, but it is the job of a privately owned BB to decide who it wishes to cater to. I certainly wouldn't go to a bulletin board called LDS Forums and expect them to cater to my Roman Catholic beliefs.

Free peech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It assures you can say what you want without Governmental punishment. But there are two things about free speech that everyone here shouting it seems to forget. First, no one would be arrested, no matter what they said here about Christianity. And second, just because you have a legal right to say what you want doesn't mean people have to listen or like what you say.That's true and to add to that, it also doesn't mean that anyone, such as CF, is required to provide a soapbox to people who have conflicting beliefs

[dragoniatiegre]

This is very sad to see. Instead of accepting people of different status, the site is now rejecting them? This is just shameful; these people preach love and respect, but when it comes to actions, they just kick out anyone who goes against their own beliefs.

Basically, it boils down to kicking out anyone who disagrees with the site-owners opinion of what constitues Christianity.

Frankly, I am disgusted. Lee should be ashamed of himself. This is an entirely non-Christian attitude.

[Heart of Darkness]

This is very sad to see. Instead of accepting people of different status, the site is now rejecting them? This is just shameful; these people preach love and respect, but when it comes to actions, they just kick out anyone who goes against their own beliefs.

Basically, it boils down to kicking out anyone who disagrees with the site-owners opinion of what constitues Christianity.

Frankly, I am disgusted. Lee should be ashamed of himself. This is an entirely non-Christian attitude.

Amen.

[Rep Daddy]

This is very sad to see. Instead of accepting people of different status, the site is now rejecting them? This is just shameful; these people preach love and respect, but when it comes to actions, they just kick out anyone who goes against their own beliefs.

Basically, it boils down to kicking out anyone who disagrees with the site-owners opinion of what constitues Christianity.

Frankly, I am disgusted. Lee should be ashamed of himself. This is an entirely non-Christian attitude.


Think I would be admitted to a LDS temple? Should the LDS be ashamed of itself for not allowing non temple worthy folks from participating?

[praying]

This is not our forum. It's not your forum. ChristianForums is owned by Lee. He pays the bills

Yes he pays the bills, but what allows him to pays the bills, we the members. All the people (I not being one of them) who click on those stupid ads that are posted all over the forums. So let's not make it sound like it is philanthropy on his part because it isn't. The mods volunteer and he makes the money from the membership.


and sees to it that everything runs properly.

Hmmm well there are several things that don't run properly.


The owner sets the rules with input from his staff.

No he doesn't he sets the rules with the input from a very limited number of staff. The owner barely post here. Quite frankly I think he could pop in once in a while and say hi staff thanks for all the work you do to help me make money.



Frankly, I believe that we are blessed to have a forum like this. Do a search on "Christian Forums" and you'll see we are a one-of-a-kind forum. the best one on the web. This place, our staff and our members are truly amazing.


Why not stick around and see how the new rule, which actually used to be the old rule, pans out.



I enjoy CF and have no intention of leaving but that doesn't mean that we should just sit back and not speak up when changes are made that are this controversial.

[*Starlight*]

I suppose it isn't, but it is the job of a privately owned BB to decide who it wishes to cater to. I certainly wouldn't go to a bulletin board called LDS Forums and expect them to cater to my Roman Catholic beliefs.
But CF is a site which claims to be for Christians in general, not just for some particular subset of Christianity. Unfortunately, the new rules make CF a place for only a subset of Christianity, not all Christians.

[Ginny]

Is it within the rules now to accuse someone of not being Christian?

It's always up for discussion if others' doctrine is not parallel with simple Christian beliefs....


Will it be okay for people to tell Mormons and JWs that they are not Christians even if those individuals profess that they are?

This is in no way derogatory towards these two faiths, but by the standards in your comment anyone can say that they are a Christian and be one, correct?...regardless of belief/doctrine? That is the entire point that I made earlier. It is highly debated amongst protestant/catholic individuals that these two faiths are not of Christ based on their doctrine not parallel to the Word of God. Again, whether this is why this decision has been made we do not know at this point. Perhaps this helps until then...(??)

[*Starlight*]

Think I would be admitted to a LDS temple? Should the LDS be ashamed of itself for not allowing non temple worthy folks from participating?
A LDS temple is for LDS Christians. This site claims to be for all Christians.

[dragoniatiegre]

Think I would be admitted to a LDS temple? Should the LDS be ashamed of itself for not allowing non temple worthy folks from participating?
There is a difference; Temples are for performing sacred ordininces. This site is meant to fellowship and discuss our beliefs.

LDS do not shut people out. As in the ancient Temples, only those who were worthy could enter. Currently, I cannot enter the Temple. But, we invite all people to join us; we don't throw them out just because they believe differently than us.

[Heart of Darkness]

Yes, you're right... but it's possible to be a follower of Jesus Christ and not be a Trinitarian, which means that believing the the idea of Trinity isn't necessary for a person to be a Christian. :) In the same way, it's possible to disagree with something in the Nicene Creed and still follow Christ's teachings.

F'real. Many of the most Christ-like members I've encountered on this site have been non-Christians.

Hey Starlight, remember when you and I got our icons yanked last year? Wasn't that fun? :sigh:

[Nooj]

I dunno.

Rules says "You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity"

Seems clear to me that includes the belief God is dead or God does not exist. And yet atheists (by and large) do not promote atheism, if you spend some time in GA you'll see that most of us attack Christianity.

The ambiguity surrounding the exact definition of 'promotion' means that debate could be severely stifled. Imagine this. A Christian poster creates a thread asking why atheists have chosen their beliefs. Atheist posters talk about their life histories, the reasons why they don't believe, the arguments for their side. Is that not promotion of atheism? If not, then what is?

I'll refer back to Ethics and Morality. What is promoted in there is that Christian morality is evil. Christian morality hurts people. It is bigoted. It is hateful. It is discriminatory.That is not promotion of another belief, it is the attacking of another belief.

Nietzsche wrote Christianity could not be destroyed by attacking revealed truth; Christian could only be destroyed by convincing people Christian morality is immoral. That is exactly what is attempted in Ethics and Morality every hour of every day. That is not promotion of another belief, it is the attacking of another belief.

I'm sure the legalistic will take the position you propose. Not that they believe it but because it is a useful position to take. Tearing down Christianity isn't promoting anything! We're just asking questions! We just want to debate! We're "reaching out" and trying to understand. We want everyone to git along ya know. Unite everyone ya know. Not push anyone out ya know. We're such good people (and, by the way, Christian morality hurts people...pass it on).
If you insist on making broad stereotypes of people, sure. Whatever you say.

If the new rule doesn't include the constant attempt to gut the Christian faith of content, it if doesn't include the constant attempt depict Christian teachings as evil, it should.And thereby squelching any debate/discussion. If what you suggest is applied, this forum's purpose as a Christian outreach will be destroyed. Hundreds of non-believers will flee because you're cracking down on their very right to question YOUR beliefs.

[Ginny]

does not any Christian organization have the right to make rules/guidelines for their own operation?

You are totally correct, and this is where this decision may come into play. As stated before but in another way, a Mormon (only for example) is not going to be allowed to walk into a protestant/catholic church and start teaching you can be baptized for a dead person's salvation or promote that God had physical sex with Mary.

Perhaps this is the idea behind this new rule. If the website owner is burdened/convicted by the difference in doctrines of faith, is it or is it not his right to censor where he feels necessary?

I dunno.

[Ginny]

Hundreds of non-believers will flee because you're cracking down on their very right to question YOUR beliefs.

And yet atheists .... if you spend some time in GA you'll see that most of us attack Christianity.

Then there is no need to worry about the atheists leaving, no?

[Ginny]

This is not our forum. It's not your forum. ChristianForums is owned by Lee.

most excellent.

[MrJim]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype] And yet atheists (by and large) do not promote atheism, if you spend some time in GA you'll see that most of us attack Christianity.



attacking beliefs is a form of self promotion~by saying "you're wrong" implies that "I'm right".

[lincolngreen50]

Praise be to God for seperating the Wheat from thistles and thorns.We will come rejoicing bringing in the sheeves come harvest.

[Nooj]

attacking beliefs is a form of self promotion~by saying "you're wrong" implies that "I'm right".I think chocolate ice cream is the most popular flavour. You advocate vanilla ice cream as the most popular flavour. I attack your belief that vanilla ice cream is the most popular flavour. I bring statistics showing that banana ice cream is the most popular flavour, contradicting yours (and mine as well). Am I still right because you're wrong? Is chocolate ice cream the most popular flavour?

[Ginny]

In this case, the owner of the ice cream prefers Nicene flavor. :)

We, as members, get to decide whether we want to bring our spoons or not.

[*Starlight*]

In this case, the owner of the ice cream prefers Nicene flavor. :)

We, as members, get to decide whether we want to bring our spoons or not.
In this case, the owner shouldn't advertise this site as a place for all flavors of Christianity.

[Nooj]

In the spirit of peace and ecumenical equality, I propose we just buy a big tub of rainbow-swirly ice-cream that has all flavours. :)

[MachZer0]

I think chocolate ice cream is the most popular flavour. You advocate vanilla ice cream as the most popular flavour. I attack your belief that vanilla ice cream is the most popular flavour. I bring statistics showing that banana ice cream is the most popular flavour, contradicting yours (and mine as well). Am I still right because you're wrong? Is chocolate ice cream the most popular flavour?
What you did is promote a belief other than that of vanilla ice cream being the most popular

[higgs2]

Praise be to God for seperating the Wheat from thistles and thorns.We will come rejoicing bringing in the sheeves come harvest.

Don't count on it. I don't think kicking a bunch of people off a message board was exactly what writer of that passage had in mind. Triumphalism is so unbecoming.

[Ginny]

In this case, the owner shouldn't advertise this site as a place for all flavors of Christianity.

Ice cream isn't really ice cream if you don't have the main ingredients.

We're comparing ice cream to let's say...yogurt. It's a replica...but just not really the same now, is it?

It all comes down to doctrine and it seems as though people may not know the basic fundamental differences between them.

That is the difference between nicene and non-nicence.

[higgs2]

But CF is a site which claims to be for Christians in general, not just for some particular subset of Christianity. Unfortunately, the new rules make CF a place for only a subset of Christianity, not all Christians.

bingo.

[Nooj]

Emphasis added:

What you did is promote a belief other than that of vanilla ice cream being the most popularBut I did not promote my belief that chocolate is the most popular flavour, contradicting a previous post: attacking beliefs is a form of self promotion~by saying "you're wrong" implies that "I'm right". Emphasis added.

It is possible for both of our sides to be wrong, because there are a hundred other religions out there. I am not affirming my religion by attacking yours.

Now you may take the road of saying "Well, you and I may both be wrong, but you're still promoting the other hundreds of beliefs out there."

That's completely wrong. The only way I can promote other religions (as defined in the new rules) is by mentioning their growth, their acceptance, their progress. Unless you want to redefine the new rules to include ALL attacks on your faith as some perverse support for all other faiths?

[Ginny]

Rainbow swirl (a flavor for everyone)would be nice but even God says...

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." ( John 14:6-7)

All the parts of this "rainbow" flavor can't seem to agree on that.

[MachZer0]

But I did not promote my belief that chocolate is the most popular flavour, contradicting a previous post: Emphasis added.No, but you promoted a belief other than that vanilla is the most popular. If the forum in which you did that had a rule against promoting beliefs other than that vanilla is the most popular, you violated the rule

[higgs2]

Careful. Banning rainbow swirl icecream will be next, according to my calculations.

[Rep Daddy]

I like Reppy Road, tasty!

[Ginny]

*Starlight*[/B]]Unfortunately, the new rules make CF a place for only a subset of Christianity, not all Christians.

I promise you, I promise you :) I am not being rude...but this is the situation...there are millions of people that do not agree that people of the non-Nicene faiths are "Christian" becausemany of their beliefs are not supported whatsover Biblically. I will not speak for the owner, but IF and IF this is how he feels...being the owner of this site it makes sense that he is making this rule.

We can not at ALL knock people for their faith, can we? If we can atleast agree on that, and just say that Lee feels that way...then it would only make absolute sense that he comes to this decision.

[LibertyChic]

Ice cream isn't really ice cream if you don't have the main ingredients.

We're comparing ice cream to let's say...yogurt. It's a replica...but just not really the same now, is it?

It all comes down to doctrine and it seems as though people may not know the basic fundamental differences between them.

That is the difference between nicene and non-nicence.
Frozen yogurt is way better than ice cream any day. But that is just my opinion.

What is fact is that both ice cream and yogurt have the same, crucial ingrediant: milk.

[MrJim]

I think chocolate ice cream is the most popular flavour. You advocate vanilla ice cream as the most popular flavour. I attack your belief that vanilla ice cream is the most popular flavour. I bring statistics showing that banana ice cream is the most popular flavour, contradicting yours (and mine as well). Am I still right because you're wrong? Is chocolate ice cream the most popular flavour?

Convictions
Opinions
Prejudice
Taste

Arguments can be broken down into these categories~big difference IMO in determining religious convictions than opinions. As an atheist I would not expect you to understand a religious conviction since faith is not a science...

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen

Dictionary:
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

For those atheists "attacking Christianity" it's just a source of sport. For atheists "engaging conversation" with Christians it's a path toward what they believe to be education. Whether one is Nicene or Non-Nicene we're both all religious dupes anyhow, right ;)

I have few convictions but lots of opinions (I believe in transubstantiation), prejudices (Steelers are the best football team ever no matter what evidence is shown), and tastes (yeah, chocolate rulz and RedWing boots are the best)~I'll not much argue convictions~would you argue with someone the existence of the sun? Arguing opinions is fun (I go to a baptist church but hold to a lot of Catholic opinions about things at this point). Prejudices and tastes are ridiculous to argue since they are simply personal preferences.

The attacking around here (which certainly isn't limited to atheists vs. Christians; everyone seems to attack everyone else over something:doh: ) does tend to spring from an attitude of "You're wrong 'cause I'm right"...in many ways it can be an arrogant manner of operating~guilty of it myself on many occasions. Yet within the Christian faith there is truth, and for some the ancient church has defined it through its creeds. Many of these creeds came about because of attacks on Christianity~the Christians felt it necessary to define some things and lay out parameters to help the brothers and sisters understand better how to defend against the false teachers. I tend to agree with these earlier Christians, they are wiser than I'll ever be...and if they've defined Christianity that has put the JWs, Mormons, or any other element that doesn't meet with the ancient teachings then I'm inclined to believe them instead of the latest "enlightened" teaching of some new sect.

Has there been abuses? I come from something of an anabaptist background~those early anabaptists were put to the torturers because of "heresy" and it was most certainly an abuse and violation...and those anabaptists weren't the only people to be persecuted using "doctrines" as measuring sticks for Christian conformity. BUT the problem wasn't with the ancient creeds it was with the people's understanding and application of the teachings.

(btw I was an agnostic~atheist when I was in my teens much to my mother's heartbreak. Had something of a "religious" experience when I was in the Marine Corps but returned to my agnostic~atheist ways until God met and changed me many years later..my prayers are with ya Nooj:) )

[Nooj]

No, but you promoted a belief other than that vanilla is the most popular. If the forum in which you did that had a rule against promoting beliefs other than that vanilla is the most popular, you violated the ruleI've gone back and I see what you mean. Here is the relevant rule again:

Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.So indeed you are correct. If I link to a statistic, or a website of another flavour, I am encouraging publicity. I cannot link to another website saying something contrary. And the word 'acceptance' means that I cannot try to convince you either to accept any of my arguments. Ever. Because that counts as 'encouragement of the acceptance of something [else other than Nicene Christianity, I presume]'. In other words, promotion.

That's totalitarian. If they try to enforce it, entire forums will collapse.

[christianmomof3]

Wow. :( That is kind of sad. One of the reasons that I like this forum is the diversity that is found here and the opportunity to learn about a variety of different beliefs.
I do think that many memebers with non-nicene beliefs will leave the forum.

I don't know if anyone with non-nicene beliefs ever changes their mind and starts being nicene or however one would say that due to reading things on this forum, but you never know.

There are other Christian boards that are more restricted in the beliefs that they allow to be posted on them and I find them kind of boring.

The rich diversity found here is one of the reasons that it is interesting to me.

I will miss that aspect of this board when it is removed.

[Rep Daddy]

I don't know if anyone with non-nicene beliefs ever changes their mind and starts being nicene or however one would say that due to reading things on this forum, but you never know.



A New Dawn did.

[higgs2]

I promise you, I promise you :) I am not being rude...but this is the situation...there are millions of people that do not agree that people of the non-Nicene faiths are "Christian" becausemany of their beliefs are not supported whatsover Biblically. I will not speak for the owner, but IF and IF this is how he feels...being the owner of this site it makes sense that he is making this rule.

We can not at ALL knock people for their faith, can we? If we can atleast agree on that, and just say that Lee feels that way...then it would only make absolute sense that he comes to this decision.

This would presume that he has an opinion, or in fact has thought about the topic in any way whatsoever.

I would expect someone who had strong feelings about this topic to state them up front and make the changes immediately. Unless they were doing a focus group or marketing study or something like that to guide their opinions and actions.

[GraceInHim]

Ice cream isn't really ice cream if you don't have the main ingredients.

We're comparing ice cream to let's say...yogurt. It's a replica...but just not really the same now, is it?

It all comes down to doctrine and it seems as though people may not know the basic fundamental differences between them.

That is the difference between nicene and non-nicence.

indeed,
example: Christians on CF asking if other Christians are even considered Christians Do Calvinists consider Catholicism Christian? (http://christianforums.com/t6705121-do-calvinists-consider-catholicism-christian.html) seems some fundamental differences between the two.
wonder who is yogurt and who is real ice cream :scratch: (joking)

seems like we all have different main ingredients in all faiths, religions, denominations.. we all think different, no one is exactly alike. each individual is unique and that is what makes us all special.

Can understand someone promoting satanism not being allowed... but to place this burden on a few at CF, who believe they are Christian; is very judgemental because indeed CF is now saying they are not Christians.

The owner making this new rule seems to be very pompous in deciding who is or who is not a Christian.
IMHO

This is sad :(

[higgs2]

The use of asterisks in the creed make this even more absurd.

[LibertyChic]

The use of asterisks in the creed make this even more absurd.
The asterisks, IIRC, were originally Erwin's. This is a revival of an old rule.

[christianmomof3]

Well, I think that part of the problem is that people on both sides of the nicene creed think they are right and the others are wrong, which is ok, but they argue about it and are usually not very kind or nice in their arguements.
I am sure there are many other things that are argued about here as well and that is sad.
This is a Christian message board and the Christians here should be expressing Christ and sadly that is not happening in most of the argumentative posts.
I guess removing the ability to promote non-nicene beliefs will get rid of some of the argumentative posts, but there will be many others.

[higgs2]

The asterisks, IIRC, were originally Erwin's. This is a revival of an old rule.

You're correct. I thought it was absurd then, too.

[Heart of Darkness]

If we can "delete" other opinions then we can pretend they don't exist.

Pretty much. :mad:

[dragoniatiegre]

My sincerest congratulations to Lee, for alienating many devout Christians.

You know, I'm chalking this up to a learning experience. I never knew what it was like to be kicked out of an area because of what I believed. While I will never experience the fullness of what others have gone through, I now have a taste.

[LibertyChic]

You're correct. I thought it was absurd then, too.
I couldn't agree more. Besides, I was always partial to the Apostle's Creed (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm):

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died, and buried;
He descended into hell;
On the third day he rose again;
He ascended into heaven, and is seated on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and of life everlasting. AMEN.

[LibertyChic]

If we can "delete" other opinions then we can pretend they don't exist.
Is that how it works? :scratch:

I wonder if I can delete my ex from my life in the same way. ;)

[Latreia]

I believe in free speech, something this site is more or less against.

I think good theology and good ideas SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, there is no need to punish people for saying what they believe.

Note: some who loudly protest in favor of "free speech" seem to prefer that Christians of traditional or orthodox faith not be included in the right.

Try to attempt to discuss Christian ethics and morality in Ethics and Morality. You will be called names and shouted down.

How many Christians surf into this site thinking they are going to find like-minded individuals, see what goes on in that forum (to name just one) and surf right out? I bet many do.

Everyone I've known who has attempted to have a reasonable dialogue about Christian morality in that forum has left in disgust.

Why should those who want to discuss their Christian faith be shouted down by humanists, atheists and other materialists?

You didn't mention it but some have suggested not wanting to be around this stuff reflects a weakness of faith, a feeling the faith cannot be defended. Nothing could be further from the truth. Popular culture sprews that stuff out 24/7.

Many want a break from it. There is no reason this or any other Christian forum on the net must submit to the onslaught (and every Christian forum I've seen is flooded with those who object to the faith.

For some people their entire lives seems to revolve around telling Christians how wrong they are....about everything and, as an added bonus, attempting to become moderators at Christian sites).

The internet is a big place. Anyone who wishes to promote atheism or satanism or any non-Nicene belief probably already knows where to go. Personally I'm sick of those who have it in for the Christian faith using Christian forums (this one and others) as playgrounds.

There simply is no other explanation for those who always complain and criticize Christianity to come into such a site.
The sole purpose is obviously to invalidate the Christian faith, some for their amusement and some for their hatred of sacred and divine precepts.

Their mockery and arrogance have no limits. Confrontational and in-your-face hostility was unknown at all to me until I came to CF.

How is this going to affect non-Christian members who criticize the Christian faith such as denying the deity of Christ, calling the Scriptures myth, etc?

If there are no radical changes in the General Apologetics debates rules that put some teeth into eliminating ruthless insults and endless attacks on faith, then the poison will continue the damage to devout Christians.

Erwin was blind and deaf to the abuses and horrors in GA. Pray the LeeD will not be so.


Not addressed to you, but rather to Der Alter. I should have quoted his post.

Oh, and in the real world, I'm Roman Catholic. Y'know, the folks who believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins" and "one holy catholic and apostolic church." :D At CF, I now stand in solidarity with those being cast out.

Keep on with the negative politics, more and more Christians are beginning to get tired of the sardonic quips and mockery that are your only forte.

I dunno.

Rules says "You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity"

Seems clear to me that includes the belief God is dead or God does not exist.

I'll refer back to Ethics and Morality. What is promoted in there is that Christian morality is evil. Christian morality hurts people.

It is bigoted. It is hateful. It is discriminatory. Nietzsche wrote Christianity could not be destroyed by attacking revealed truth; Christian could only be destroyed by convincing people Christian morality is immoral. That is exactly what is attempted in Ethics and Morality every hour of every day.

I'm sure the legalistic will take the position you propose. Not that they believe it but because it is a useful position to take. Tearing down Christianity isn't promoting anything! We're just asking questions! We just want to debate! We're "reaching out" and trying to understand. We want everyone to git along ya know. Unite everyone ya know. Not push anyone out ya know. We're such good people (and, by the way, Christian morality hurts people...pass it on).

If the new rule doesn't include the constant attempt to gut the Christian faith of content, it if doesn't include the constant attempt depict Christian teachings as evil, it should.



Well put, and thoroughly accurate.

There ARE other Christian forums out there who don't define Christianity by the Nicene Creed. And when the owners affirm the Nicene Creed, they don't need a bunch of stoopid asterisks to do so. Anyone who is curious can PM me.

Why, yes indeed, and the atheist Secular Web has a very popular forum that Erwin once tried to deny had anything to do with CF. Incredible.

Frozen yogurt is way better than ice cream any day. But that is just my opinion.

What is fact is that both ice cream and yogurt have the same, crucial ingrediant: milk.

This use of "ice cream" to deflect serious issues into the realm of "hey, all this really doesn't matter, folks, relax..."
really should be firmly in the same category with Godwin's Law, as the use of both can be for the same purpose.

CaDan knows that.

[Bombila]

The Apostle's Creed is the one I grew up reciting every Sunday, as well. Guess no one from The United Church of Canada (originally Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists) need attempt to 'promote their religion' on this board, not being considered Nice-ene enough.

[Rep Daddy]

;) it will be interesting to see what becomes of the posting access in the denominational forums currently available to some folk .... hmmmm

in contrast - I *totally* expected this announcement - my only surprise is that it took so long coming

Henny, RepDaddy welcomes you to the Repaholics SubForum. As for CF policy I still make my domain available to Lee if he wants it: www.fingerinthewind.com (http://www.fingerinthewind.com) :thumbsup:

[Latreia]

But I just can't help being amused at half or more of CF Staff that are, as they have always been, against any rules that may help or protect Christians who are devout in their faith, especially those who have been Christians attending churches regularly all their lives.

These Christians are living their faith, not wasting their time, love, and lives in endless argument with those who only wish to deprive them of the joy and comfort their love of God and Jesus Christ blesses them with every single day.

Those Christians care very much about how their children grow up to become compassionate and intelligent citizens.

Yes. And decent persons who value respect and courtesy.

[Molal]

May I ask how this effects our atheist friends in debate and discussion? Will they be allowed to debate those christians that believe in a literal genesis? Will they be allowed to discuss scientific evidence that refutes their belief?

[Celestina321]

Well, I don't know how appreciative folks will be of this, but for this particular newbie ... I agree with new rule, and of course that is because I agree with the Nicene creed as it is explained there.

Even though I am fully aware that the history of this site is that it had places for people of other persuasions/beliefs I think the underlying goal was to encourage people to rethink those beliefs perhaps consider Biblical Christianity. Why anyone would come to a Christian web site expecting it's relationship to the non-believer to be anything other than evangelizing in nature I don't know. While debate may be part of the evangelical process for some people, I never had the impression that debate is the sole purpose of this site.

I agree that the site owner has full authority to do what they want. People can take it or leave it. And certainly they make money from the site; but isn't the assumption that they are paying for the cost of running the site with those funds? A statement from the owner regarding what is done with the profits would be a very good thing. By profits I do mean the money left over after the bills are paid, (which may rightly include his salary if running this site is a full time job.) Since I am new and if there is such a statement about this somewhere on the site, I'd appreciate anyone pointing me to where it is.

Well, there's my two cents.

[simchat_torah]

Screw over the Jews! yay!

[*Starlight*]

Ice cream isn't really ice cream if you don't have the main ingredients.

We're comparing ice cream to let's say...yogurt. It's a replica...but just not really the same now, is it?

It all comes down to doctrine and it seems as though people may not know the basic fundamental differences between them.

That is the difference between nicene and non-nicence.
Of course there are differences, no one is trying to say that NC and non-NC Christians are the same. :) But NC Christians aren't the only Christians... just look at the list of Christian denominations from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

It lists many different churches... many of them accept the NC, but some don't... they are all Christian, though. :)

Here's also the Christian section of Beliefnet, which is one of the largest religious websites on the internet... you can see that it includes NC and non-NC Christians:

http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10002.html

[simchat_torah]

Screw over the Jews! yay!

[Henaynei]

I agree that the site owner has full authority to do what they want. People can take it or leave it. And certainly they make money from the site; but isn't the assumption that they are paying for the cost of running the site with those funds? A statement from the owner regarding what is done with the profits would be a very good thing. By profits I do mean the money left over after the bills are paid, (which may rightly include his salary if running this site is a full time job.) Since I am new and if there is such a statement about this somewhere on the site, I'd appreciate anyone pointing me to where it is. What other entrepreneurial endeavor in the free market society is obligated to make a public statement regaring how their profits are allocated, spent or saved? Why is this different?

[Latreia]

Screw over the Jews! yay!

This comment is way out of line, as well as offensive and insulting, to both Jews and Christians.

But just ignore me, keep on fomenting more division between two great traditional faiths. The obvious is almost impossible to conceal, when it is out in plain view.

;)

[Brennin]

Nice to know this rule would prevent the twelve apostles from promoting christianity.
As well as all of the ante-Nicene theologians.

[CaDan]

What other entrepreneurial endeavor in the free market society is obligated to make a public statement regaring how their profits are allocated, spent or saved? Why is this different?

I think it is different because of the claims of being a ministry or somesuch. That doesn't cary a lot of legal weight, but it may carry some ethical weight.

[CaDan]

Oh won't you help me sing
These songs of freedom
Are all I ever had
Redemption songs.

[Henaynei]

I think it is different because of the claims of being a ministry or somesuch. That doesn't carry a lot of legal weight, but it may carry some ethical weight.and what pastor has to account for how he chooses to spend his salary?? *maybe* to have to account for what percentage goes to the forum and what to "salary" but why should Erwin or LeeD or anyone else who owns and works the maintenance of a forum be expected to do it gratis and/or account for their wages?

by scriptural definition every job a believer has is "ministry" - as we are called to be responsible for ministering to our employer, our fellows and our community in addition to our families in/with our jobs/labor.... no?

[CaDan]

and what pastor has to account for how he chooses to spend his salary?? *maybe* to have to account for what percentage goes to the forum and what to "salary" but why should Erwin or LeeD or anyone else who owns and works the maintenance of a forum be expected to do it gratis and/or account for their wages?

I appreciate the subtle shift, but I've been drafting too many wills and corporate documents over the past month to fall for that one. :D

There is an entity called Christian Forums. There is a person named Lee Dobbs. They are not the same thing.

by scriptural definition every job a believer has is "ministry" - as we are called to be responsible for ministering to our employer, our fellows and our community in addition to our families in/with our jobs/labor.... no?

True enough. But in American Evangelicalism there seems to be something specifically called "a ministry" that is different than just the Christian life. I was addressing the prior meaning.

Me? I am not at this time arguing for any sort of financial disclosures. I am just pointing out poor argumentation.

[simchat_torah]

This comment is way out of line, as well as offensive and insulting, to both Jews and Christians.Is it? Quite hardly, it is a statement of facts concerning this forum. Moreover, it is in no way offensive or insulting to Christians. Get a grip, I never mentioned 'christians'.

But just ignore me, keep on fomenting more division between two great traditional faiths. WAIT A MINUTE!!!! Who is causing this division? The one who is limiting our posting ability? Or the one who complains about it?

lol, c'mon... seriously.

[Celestina321]

I think it is different because of the claims of being a ministry or somesuch. That doesn't cary a lot of legal weight, but it may carry some ethical weight.
Basically, that is what I meant. Of course the owner is in no way obligated to reveal information about the finances of this site. But wouldn't that be a good, refreshing thing for the owner of a Christian site to do?

Hum ... interesting that this is the part of my comments that folks decided to respond to ....

PS ... I didn't mean that the site owner should tell us how he spends his salary, just that I think it is reasonable for him to take a salary from the web site ... that's all.

[simchat_torah]

There is an entity called Christian Forums. There is a person named Lee Dobbs. They are not the same thing.
Wrong in this case. "Christian Forums" is not an autonomous being, nor is it a coporation with a board of chairpersons. No, it is owned by a single individual, and that sole individual carries down his will. Maybe, if we're lucky, he'll listen to the advice others give him, but he has no "board of directors" to report to. He is a single agent acting on his own free will.

Typically, a coporation is a seperate entity, as it has a board of directors and/or stockholders to answer to. However, this "forum" has neither, and is soley owned/ruled by 1 individual.

[simchat_torah]

But just ignore me, keep on fomenting more division between two great traditional faiths. Reminds me of when my uncle couldn't drink out of a water fountain because the sign said "Whites only".

If he complained about it, would you then blame him for causing the divide?

[IamRedeemed]

If this site is going to call itself a "Christian" forum, then of course it makes
sense that the site owner chooses whom the presence of this site will serve and glorify.
If it be Baal, call it Baal's site, if it be Christ, then it makes sense to see to it that the site overall glorifies Christ and not allow it to be a den of confusion and a sewer plant. It doesn't have to claim to be a ministry of any sort in order to have purposeful loyalties and devotion to the name it carries. It has no obligation to represent, defend or endorse any anti-Christ positions whatsoever, legally or ethically.


I think it is different because of the claims of being a ministry or somesuch. That doesn't cary a lot of legal weight, but it may carry some ethical weight.

[CaDan]

Wrong in this case. "Christian Forums" is not an autonomous being, nor is it a coporation with a board of chairpersons. No, it is owned by a single individual, and that sole individual carries down his will. Maybe, if we're lucky, he'll listen to the advice others give him, but he has no "board of directors" to report to. He is a single agent acting on his own free will.

Typically, a coporation is a seperate entity, as it has a board of directors and/or stockholders to answer to. However, this "forum" has neither, and is soley owned/ruled by 1 individual.

I do not know if Lee has set up a separate business entity like Erwin did eventually. He may have bought Erwin's business entity for all I know. I have not bothered to pull the documentation on this like I did for Loh Enterprises once upon a time.

As for your discourse on the law of corporations, may I introduce you to the Limited Liability Company? And even without the formality of incorporation, it is possible for businesses to be separated from individuals. That happens, for example, when one begins a business as a sole proprietorship and then "incorporates" it.

[IamRedeemed]

Since Mormanism teaches and preaches ANOTHER Jesus entirely,
the loss of the forum that represents THAT Jesus, is not the same
as losing witnesses of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the ONLY
Jesus who matters.

I guess it is not "good" theology.

So the "Church of Jesus Christ" is being removed from Christian forums, as are those who "witness of Jesus"...

Can anyone say "Dark Ages?":ebil:

[invisible trousers]

How "christian" is it if rules would prevent the twelve apostles from promoting Jesus?

[simchat_torah]

As for your discourse on the law of corporations, may I introduce you to the Limited Liability Company? Yes, if it is a corporation.
Many small-business owners have lost their homes, cars, etc... when their businesses have fallen down the tubes.

But all of that is completely irrelevant. "Lee", a person, made this decision.

[IamRedeemed]

Hi Der Alter :wave:
Nice to "see" you!

What took so long?

[simchat_torah]

I'm all for an owner making whatever decision he or she wants to make concerning their own private business.

However, because of precedence, this decision leaves a bad taste in my mouth. For the purposes of promoting "unity" it surely divides quite heavily.

[visionary]

What gives the Nicene Creed's definition of a Christian more authority then Christ's?

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. - John 3:15-17

[CaDan]

Yes, if it is a corporation.

An LLC is not a corporation.

But all of that is completely irrelevant. "Lee", a person, made this decision.

Concur.

[Crazy Liz]

This is not our forum. It's not your forum. ChristianForums is owned by Lee. He pays the bills and sees to it that everything runs properly. We are here by his grace and are guests. None of us have some inherent right to have what we want here or see that things are run the way we would like. We are guests. The owner sets the rules with input from his staff. Frankly, I believe that we are blessed to have a forum like this. Do a search on "Christian Forums" and you'll see we are a one-of-a-kind forum. the best one on the web. This place, our staff and our members are truly amazing.

Why not stick around and see how the new rule, which actually used to be the old rule, pans out. I think it will result in a lot less bickering and arguments. Bottom line, this is nobody's forum to run, manage, or dictate to except Lee's. Also Lee's bound to tweak things for the better in line with his vision for the forum.

If you don't like the new rules, don't want to give them a chance, don't want to give Lee the benefit of the doubt, or don't want to be in this forum, then you can always go start your own forum where you can make the rules and have things exactly as you want.

But I say, let's follow the owner's direction. And don't forget God is in this as well as He is in every situation.

I leave you by quoting some good scripture that I think applies here.

"Trust in God and lean not in your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight."
You do have a point.

In that vein, some of us would like to engage in a discussion with him of what Christian hospitality looks like. It appears you have his ear. Do you think there is some way we could engage in that sort of discussion?

Perhaps you would participate in a wiki thread on that specific topic?

[Crazy Liz]

Well, I don't know how appreciative folks will be of this, but for this particular newbie ... I agree with new rule, and of course that is because I agree with the Nicene creed as it is explained there.

Even though I am fully aware that the history of this site is that it had places for people of other persuasions/beliefs I think the underlying goal was to encourage people to rethink those beliefs perhaps consider Biblical Christianity. Why anyone would come to a Christian web site expecting it's relationship to the non-believer to be anything other than evangelizing in nature I don't know. While debate may be part of the evangelical process for some people, I never had the impression that debate is the sole purpose of this site.

I agree that the site owner has full authority to do what they want. People can take it or leave it. And certainly they make money from the site; but isn't the assumption that they are paying for the cost of running the site with those funds? A statement from the owner regarding what is done with the profits would be a very good thing. By profits I do mean the money left over after the bills are paid, (which may rightly include his salary if running this site is a full time job.) Since I am new and if there is such a statement about this somewhere on the site, I'd appreciate anyone pointing me to where it is.

Well, there's my two cents.
A good and balanced insight.

The difficulty I have with it is that it is very difficult to have an evangelistic conversation with someone when they are severely restricted in what they can say about their current beliefs.

[Latreia]

How "christian" is it if rules would prevent the twelve apostles from promoting Jesus?

Fallacy comments are past stale.

You do have a point.

In that vein, some of us would like to engage in a discussion with him of what Christian hospitality looks like. It appears you have his ear. Do you think there is some way we could engage in that sort of discussion?

Perhaps you would participate in a wiki thread on that specific topic?


Some of 'youse' have already engaged in too many discussions with the webmaster of CF in the past. The outcome has been a distinct detriment to Christians who do not fit the liberalese concepts.

"Christian hospitality" is only a label for left-radical open house to all who despise church going America.

How about some Atheist Hospitality? Or even Atheist Compassion? Or maybe Atheist Courtesy? How about trying that for a few years?

:scratch:

[Sojourner1]

May I ask how this effects our atheist friends in debate and discussion? Will they be allowed to debate those christians that believe in a literal genesis? Will they be allowed to discuss scientific evidence that refutes their belief?
This shouldn't affect debate in the D&D forums other than making the promotion of another religion (and this would include atheism) against the rules. If someone were to post a link to a site that promoted atheism then it would be removed.

[IamRedeemed]

http://www.freepowerboards.com/sotc/users/6333/smilies/truth.png


I dunno.

Rules says "You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity"

Seems clear to me that includes the belief God is dead or God does not exist.

I'll refer back to Ethics and Morality. What is promoted in there is that Christian morality is evil. Christian morality hurts people. It is bigoted. It is hateful. It is discriminatory. Nietzsche wrote Christianity could not be destroyed by attacking revealed truth; Christian could only be destroyed by convincing people Christian morality is immoral. That is exactly what is attempted in Ethics and Morality every hour of every day.

I'm sure the legalistic will take the position you propose. Not that they believe it but because it is a useful position to take. Tearing down Christianity isn't promoting anything! We're just asking questions! We just want to debate! We're "reaching out" and trying to understand. We want everyone to git along ya know. Unite everyone ya know. Not push anyone out ya know. We're such good people (and, by the way, Christian morality hurts people...pass it on).

If the new rule doesn't include the constant attempt to gut the Christian faith of content, it if doesn't include the constant attempt depict Christian teachings as evil, it should.

[praying]

I couldn't agree more. Besides, I was always partial to the Apostle's Creed (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm):

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died, and buried;
He descended into hell;
On the third day he rose again;
He ascended into heaven, and is seated on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and of life everlasting. AMEN.


This is what my church recites.

[praying]

"Christian hospitality" is only a label for left-radical open house to all who despise church going America.



LOL that's pretty funny.

[IamRedeemed]

He isn't.

Furthermore, not everything that presents itself as "Christian" is.


In this case, the owner shouldn't advertise this site as a place for all flavors of Christianity.

[IamRedeemed]

more like Slingo than Bingo...

bingo.

[LibertyChic]

This is what my church recites.
Shhhh!!! Be careful who you say that in front of. 'Round these here parts, that could mean the stripping of an icon, I hear.

http://www.sudzo.com/forums/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif

[Latreia]

LOL that's pretty funny.

Only if it wasn't demonstrably accurate.

:D

[higgs2]

I'm all for an owner making whatever decision he or she wants to make concerning their own private business.

However, because of precedence, this decision leaves a bad taste in my mouth. For the purposes of promoting "unity" it surely divides quite heavily.

Why would you think that promoting "unity" is an issue? Controversy creates more traffic.

[Latreia]

Shhhh!!! Be careful who you say that in front of. 'Round these here parts, that could mean the stripping of an icon, I hear.

http://www.sudzo.com/forums/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif

Ah, yes, there is a familiar ring to exaggeration, too.

;)

[LibertyChic]

Hello Latreia :wave:

[visionary]

It has been a long hard fight on CF to get a corner for the Non-trin "christians" a place to fellowship and now we are going to treat them like dirt... How can we who proclaim to be christians treat our fellow believers so horribly?

[higgs2]

I vote we use the Athanasian Creed for heresy trials and litmus tests:


Whosoever will be saved,
before all things it is is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity
in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son,
and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate,
and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal,
and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals,
but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,
and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties,
but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods,
but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords,
but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge ever y
Person by Himself to be both God and Lord,
so we are forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, there be three Gods,
or three Lords.
The Father is made of none,
neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone,
not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father [and of the Son],
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or l ess
than another;
but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved
must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation
that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ .
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess,
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
and Man, of the Substance of His Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul in human flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead;
and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood.
Who, although He be God and Man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,
but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance,
but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man,
so God and Man is one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God
Almighty,
from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise with their bodies
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting;
and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully,
he cannot be saved.
Amen.

[praying]

Ah, yes, there is a familiar ring to exaggeration, too.

;)

Yes some practice it very well fomenting the idea that Chirsitans are persecuted here on CF.

[higgs2]

Just think of all the asterisks we could make for that puppy.

[higgs2]

Well, I don't know how appreciative folks will be of this, but for this particular newbie ... I agree with new rule, and of course that is because I agree with the Nicene creed as it is explained there.

Even though I am fully aware that the history of this site is that it had places for people of other persuasions/beliefs I think the underlying goal was to encourage people to rethink those beliefs perhaps consider Biblical Christianity. Why anyone would come to a Christian web site expecting it's relationship to the non-believer to be anything other than evangelizing in nature I don't know. While debate may be part of the evangelical process for some people, I never had the impression that debate is the sole purpose of this site.

I agree that the site owner has full authority to do what they want. People can take it or leave it. And certainly they make money from the site; but isn't the assumption that they are paying for the cost of running the site with those funds? A statement from the owner regarding what is done with the profits would be a very good thing. By profits I do mean the money left over after the bills are paid, (which may rightly include his salary if running this site is a full time job.) Since I am new and if there is such a statement about this somewhere on the site, I'd appreciate anyone pointing me to where it is.

Well, there's my two cents.

What is "Biblical Christianity"?

[visionary]

Why do we have to take a historical persecuting of other christian position with the Nicene creed and resurrect persecuting internet syle again?

[livingword26]

What is "