Discussion of Announcement: new site wide rule Nicene Christianity (2)

[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.

[DeanM]

-Post Deleted by DeanM-

Back to your regularly scheduled questions.

[Philothei]

As for the closing of the forums, that's beyond the power of anyone of us peons or even our direct patrons.

As for the discussion topics rule, it will be a matter of whether we can enforce them with mercy and compassion as topical rules of discussion rather than as bludgeons so that those whose egos rely on winning arguments on the internet can claim another "victory."
Have you realized that your 'religion' is man's invention?
No where in the history of Christendom there was a time when its followers did not believe in Tinity only the ones who had heretical views... and you have perpetuated those heretical views... We cannot "change" the truths of Christ to fit your theology... furthermore you cannot call yourselves Christian in the historical sense....

Philothei

[Brennin]

Have you realized that your 'religion' is man's invention?
No where in the history of Christendom there was a time when its followers did not believe in Tinity only the ones who had heretical views...

Nonsense.

...and you have perpetuated those heretical views... We cannot "change" the truths of Christ to fit your theology... furthermore you cannot call yourselves Christian in the historical sense....

Philothei

CaDan is a Roman Catholic. He "wears" the Mormon icon of late to show his solidarity with them. (Although, they are by no means the only ones who are being disenfranchised.)

[Philothei]

Nonsense.



CaDan is a Roman Catholic. He "wears" the Mormon icon of late to show his solidarity with them. (Although, they are by no means the only ones who are being disenfranchised.)
nobody asked you.... and No i did not know that and I think he doe snot need a lawyer either...

[Spiritofprophecy]

Then, thanks Lee for taking this stand.

And it seems all the wrangling discussions are moot.


***** heads off to REP LeeD ******
Greetings in the name of Jesus:

May I ask?

What is a wrangling discussion?


I pray my ignorance and question does not offend. God bless all Christians in forum, and all those who use.

[Deadbolt]

Hahahahaha! We're being suppressed! Well, I suppose it's been fun while it lasted, but I can't help but be reminded of the child who, when he finds he's losing the game, overturns the board and scatters the pieces.

[The Gregorian]

Have you realized that your 'religion' is man's invention?
No where in the history of Christendom there was a time when its followers did not believe in Tinity only the ones who had heretical views... and you have perpetuated those heretical views... We cannot "change" the truths of Christ to fit your theology...

... By your understanding. See... other people understand things differently. That's why people... talk about their differences... and learn things.

This is the point of forums... people of different viewpoints discuss things together on equal grounds. Ideas are exchanged, and people learn where they are mistaken.

Your understanding is no more or less valid than mine... but you take certain verses literally and certain verses figuratively, where as I may take them the opposite ways. That's what discussion is for, and people may disagree. But that's why this change is SO offensive to so many people... that "anything not in agreement with the Nicene Creed will be deleted" means discussion can't really take place.

If everyone thinks the same, no one can learn.

that's a bad thing.

The idea that you can make closed ended comments that "It's ALWAYS been the way I understand it because I understand it this way" yet, no one's allowed to disagree... that just takes the fun out of it, doesn't it?

How would you like joining a forum where you thought you were free to discuss things, so long as it was polite and on topic... then the owner decided that "As a christian site, we will only allow monotheistic interpretations. All polytheist/trinitarian/modalist sub-forums will be closed, and any such threads will be deleted as they are heretical and non-christian."

... that's not rhetorical... You Nicene Christians... how would YOU be reacting if the owner of "Christianforums.com" decided to silence all polytheists/trinitarians?

... of course the obvious answer is "well, that's not the way it is... too bad for you, now shut up and find another forum." because no one really cares and this entire thread is just a formality to make people feel some resemblance of having a chance of being treated equally. Lee has the gold, lee makes the rules. Screw all those in the community who disagree because they're the minority, and minorities don't matter.:sigh:

[*Starlight*]

Even assuming that the Nicene Creed is correct, I don't see a point in not allowing non-NC Christians to have their own congregational forums. Even if they aren't correct about everything they believe, I don't think any of the denominations who have their congregational forums are correct about absolutely everything. So I don't really see the difference...

[CaptainYesterday]

.

[Rep Daddy]

Greetings in the name of Jesus:

May I ask?

What is a wrangling discussion?


I pray my ignorance and question does not offend. God bless all Christians in forum, and all those who use.

Ever watched a cowboy try to pull a calf to the ground to tie his legs?

Calf = Lee's ruling

[JonF]

Not very Christian, is it?
Yup, because it’s not like Christ didn’t hold people to standards of beliefs and talk about wolves amongst the sheep…

[Philothei]

The Gregorian vbmenu_register("postmenu_43047124", true);
Veteran
You Nicene Christians... how would YOU be reacting if the owner of "Christianforums.com" decided to silence all polytheists/trinitarians?

... of course the obvious answer is "well, that's not the way it is... too bad for you, now shut up and find another forum." because no one really cares and this entire thread is just a formality to make people feel some resemblance of having a chance of being treated equally. Lee has the gold, lee makes the rules. Screw all those in the community who disagree because they're the minority, and minorities don't matter.:sigh:


I am sorry you feel this way. If there was a site, and I am sure there is, with all or majority of members were polytheists..... I would not join IF i would not "stomach" it... I would understand that this forum needs some "RESPECT" and I would leave either or if I stayed I would feel that I was a "GUEST" to that forum since they were of another opinion/faith. No one, as far as I am concerned said that you "should shut up and find another forum" ...... Minorities matter but cannot impose their rules and opinions to the majority... The majority does rule in democratic society and that is in hand with Lee. I personally want to thank Lee for taking that stance... in love always. Setting up rules about what the majority needs and wants is not "unloving" or "bad" it is rather honest and straightforward. Other non-nicene creed and other religions have no place in this forum that carries a name as Christians Forums. Not in the sense that they are not to be here and debate with Nicene Creed Christians... rather not in the sense of "spreading" their faith. Promotions of the faith should not be reflected in this forum as that is not the owner's and/or the majority of the members in this forum.

Personally I was appauled to see other religion members to preach to us and many times intimidate us .... with their postss... When you are invited to someone's home you have to show respect for the home owner... If you cannot do that then well I think it is time to realize you have gone over the bountaries....IMO that is what has happened here.....
There are still also forum such as the Apologetics that could those non-nicene creed and other religions go and debate...
I do not feel that we have been "unloving' for doing this rather honest with each other as we are different... and although you feel it is a matter of perspective in my book dogma has to do with how one views salvation... and bottom line it is very important.


God bless,
Philothei

[Rep Daddy]

Trinitarians are not polytheists... null set.
Insert another quarter, try again.

[uberd00b]

Well I'm glad to see you're getting around to deciding who is and is not a real TrueChristian™.

Some of us were thinking you were going to leave it up to God!

(I guess we should have known better. More divisiveness please.)

[Rep Daddy]

Well I'm glad to see you're getting around to deciding who is and is not a real TrueChristian™.

Some of us were thinking you were going to leave it up to God!

(I guess we should have known better. More divisiveness please.)

The Emperor has no clothes.
But I bet uberd00b has socks!

[uberd00b]

The Emperor has no clothes.
But I bet uberd00b has socks!Actually never have had, on any forum (though I got lots for Christmas!).

I'm too honest for sock accounts.

Not sure why someone would need sock accounts, it strikes me as unChristian. Perhaps "no socks" could be added to the TrueChristian™ definition?

[mystang]

I am GREATFULL for a change. This is a Christian site and is meant to be a Christian place! I don't understand why atheists, Muslims, Non-Nicene, cults etc.. would even Join this site Except to cause trouble.

And as Far as the Christians on the site it is about times Christians take a stand for their Christianity! And don't back down to other beliefs as they shouldn't be tolerated as they are false! As Jesus walked the earth in love and kindness but he also rebuked the evil!

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (New International Version)

13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Ephesians 5:6-7 (New International Version)

6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.

[Rep Daddy]

Here is LeeD's post (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=39734022&postcount=645) October 13th...

Quote:
Originally Posted by little_tigress http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=39733799#post39733799)
this is rather confusing, How do you propose that everyone will have a place to discuss their beliefs and faiths yet not have their own forums or an equal voice?Well, there can are plenty of other forums to post in around here, no doubt. I am sure many of the non-nicean group posted before those forums were opened up, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apex http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=39733912#post39733912)
If the non-Nicene forums go, that will be the last straw. We have fought for too many years to get to this point to see it disappear over night.Nothing will happen overnight....this is something that may happen though soon. Again, please be patient with me as I work through all of this.


Seems LeeD is being consistent with this prior statement.

RD

[Chajara]

I am GREATFULL for a change. This is a Christian site and is meant to be a Christian place! I don't understand why atheists, Muslims, Non-Nicene, cults etc.. would even Join this site Except to cause trouble.

And as Far as the Christians on the site it is about times Christians take a stand for their Christianity! And don't back down to other beliefs as they shouldn't be tolerated as they are false! As Jesus walked the earth in love and kindness but he also rebuked the evil!

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (New International Version)

13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Ephesians 5:6-7 (New International Version)

6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.
Seems to me you are projecting. You can't fathom wanting to actually learn about someone else's beliefs, so you can't imagine anyone else doing so either. So naturally, they /must/ be here to attack Christians.

Every time a thread asking why atheists and non-Christians are here, the answer is usually overwhelmingly that they enjoy the conversations and the opportunity to learn. And I'll be the first to admit that the sheer amount I've learned here and the propensity for continued learning makes this place positively addicting, and is one of the reasons I really don't want to leave.

[mystang]

Seems to me you are projecting. You can't fathom wanting to actually learn about someone else's beliefs, so you can't imagine anyone else doing so either. So naturally, they /must/ be here to attack Christians.

Every time a thread asking why atheists and non-Christians are here, the answer is usually overwhelmingly that they enjoy the conversations and the opportunity to learn. And I'll be the first to admit that the sheer amount I've learned here and the propensity for continued learning makes this place positively addicting, and is one of the reasons I really don't want to leave.

I agree... I don't want to learn from athesists or nonchristians of what they believe. Why should i learn...
As i don't want there to be a hint of doubt, while i can have discussion conversation etc.. with non believers I will not reach a point where they influence me more than i influence them... Just Because i am a Christian doesn't mean I accept what everyone thinks or believe, Why should i Christ didn't. :amen:

[The Gregorian]

Even assuming that the Nicene Creed is correct, I don't see a point in not allowing non-NC Christians to have their own congregational forums. Even if they aren't correct about everything they believe, I don't think any of the denominations who have their congregational forums are correct about absolutely everything. So I don't really see the difference...

I wouldn't mind not having "My own forum" ... unification is a good thing... the part of the rule I'm still waiting to here justification for other than "Lee said so" is the "Site wide, no post shall contain non-Nicene viewpoints." If I go to the general apologetics section and mention the idea that "Gehenna" could mean a physical place outside of Jerusalem and not a metaphysical hell of eternal torment... not only does the site officially say I'm wrong... but I don't even get to be wrong because I'll be instantly reported/deleted just like what happened in the non-denominational sub-forum a while back.

moderators willing to enforce it well beyond the spirit of the rule. It won't even be just about "winning arguments", it'll be about getting rid of those that the orthodox just don't like.

and that's a real danger of destroying the community of this site.

There are still also forum such as the Apologetics that could those non-nicene creed and other religions go and debate...
I do not feel that we have been "unloving' for doing this rather honest with each other as we are different... and although you feel it is a matter of perspective in my book dogma has to do with how one views salvation... and bottom line it is very important.

Aye, but the ban is site-wide, this includes apologetics. How will debate work when all viewpoints not completely in line with Lee's will be deleted?

And yes... "Christian" forums should be primarily Christians... but can Christians not have their faiths strengthened by a discussion with someone who understands things differently? I, personally, have learned a LOT from the jewish community. We disagree about who Jesus was, but they bring VERY valuable insight to the hebrew language. I've had discussions with mormons on person and on these forums that have also been enlightening... I disagree with their REASONING, but their points can still be valid. End end result may be the same, even if their methods are wrong. And I still have no idea why people are so obsessed with the idea the Jehovah's Witnesses are a "non-Christian Cult" ... has anyone making that claim stopped to actually TALK to us and see what we believe before judging us on the rumors you've heard based on bias interpretations of quotes taken out of context? No, I don't understand the trinity, and NO ONE does... Even trinitarians know "It's a divine mystery mortals cannot comprehend" ... difference is you don't understand it, but believe it. I don't understand it, and believe something easily understandable, that -I- believe the bible supports. That the Father is the Son's father... If I have reason to believe something simple, and implication to believe something I can't understand, it doesn't give you the right to call my religion a CULT because we go with an interpretation mortals can understand.

And have you ever stopped to think the damage you're doing by perpetuating such rumors? What HONEST JWs go through in life having to put up with people calling them cult-members left and right and not being given a chance to at least talk to people and correct some of the rumors?

[Chajara]

I agree... I don't want to learn from athesists or nonchristians of what they believe. Why should i learn...
As i don't want there to be a hint of doubt, while i can have discussion conversation etc.. with non believers I will not reach a point where they influence me more than i influence them... Just Because i am a Christian doesn't mean I accept what everyone thinks or believe, Why should i Christ didn't. :amen:
Don't get too cocky, now. Pride isn't exactly becoming of a Christian.

If you present this attitude to anyone I guarantee that you won't be influencing them to do anything but avoid you. And if you're afraid of looking into the belief systems of others for fear that your faith will crumble... dude, that's bad. If anything, doing such will make your faith stronger, even if you tweak your positions on certain things.

You don't find yourself with a sudden infusion of wisdom just because you've become a Christian. I used to think so, too, until I had some rather... humbling experiences. Wisdom comes with experience. You can't get that by holing up within your own belief system and never ever coming out.

[blueanjel]

so will all off topic posts be moved to the discussion thread where most people are reading now? :)

[ravenscape]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Discussion of Announcement: new site wide rule Nicene Christianity" (http://www.christianforums.com/t6777343)

[Crazy Liz]

This wiki has no article.

[Tenebrae]

Yea can a mod look at this because the only way I can read the thread is to hit reply from my user CP

[Richard]

so will all off topic posts be moved to the discussion thread where most people are reading now? :)

Those that are deemed off-topic, Yes. Unless the post holds no merit in the current conversation. AKA, we aren't going to move posts a week old. We have already done a few thread splits.

[Celticflower]

**subscribing**

[A New Dawn]

**subscribing**

ditto

[Crazy Liz]

I wonder if a mod could move the thread to a non-wiki forum & then move it back. That might turn the first post into an article & make the thread list work right.

[porterross]

Originally Posted by A New Dawn
Which you did nothing to help clarify after several people mentioned it.



Of course I did, once I had the opportunity, but if harping on it makes you happy, enjoy. :)

[desmalia]

Lee has owned the site only 3 mos. He said right in the beginning that the changes wouldn't happen all at once. He even stated in the very first thread introducing him that he thought Mormons were a cult. It was obvious from the start that LeeD had different ideas than the 7/7/7 changes promoted
He also started a little ruckus a while back to see how people felt about starting LDS/Universalist/JW congregational forums under the Christian Congregations section. When there was protest, the response was something along the lines of "I guess we're not ready for that yet". So I still have no idea what Lee's plans for the site really are.

[A New Dawn]

Of course I did, once I had the opportunity, but if harping on it makes you happy, enjoy. :)

I offered to let the misunderstanding go quite a few posts back. I only responded to your post again.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

He also started a little ruckus a while back to see how people felt about starting LDS/Universalist/JW congregational forums under the Christian Congregations section. When there was protest, the response was something along the lines of "I guess we're not ready for that yet". So I still have no idea what Lee's plans for the site really are.
are you SURE it was LeeD who did that..i thought i had read ALL his posts and never seen anything like that stated by him.

[Joykins]

*checking in*

[kiwimac]

This is interesting. When I first signed in there was nothing. Now it looks like a wiki article. I wonder if something is up with the database?

[Tonks]

It has to do with the thread split when the last thread hit 1000 posts.

[rainygirl]

I see a lot of staff saying negative comments about this site and it's owner..I even see staff changing their faith icons in " solidarity"...I'm curious how strong their convictions are...Why not just leave the site for a site that is more in line with their views??
It seems a bit hypocritical to act like they are protecting members when in truth it is likely that they are just curious and like being on staff for their own personal gains. If it's true solidarity, then stand up for your convictions and no longer prosper the site with your membership. Otherwise all this bickering and complaining is just for show.

[Crazy Liz]

I see a lot of staff saying negative comments about this site and it's owner..I even see staff changing their faith icons in " solidarity"...I'm curious how strong their convictions are...Why not just leave the site for a site that is more in line with their views??
It seems a bit hypocritical to act like they are protecting members when in truth it is likely that they are just curious and like being on staff for their own personal gains. If it's true solidarity, then stand up for your convictions and no longer prosper the site with your membership. Otherwise all this bickering and complaining is just for show.
You may be right. Some of us have habits of calling on CF to practice certain values. We felt we had the right because they were the values the owner of the site claimed.

Now that the site no longer claims the motto, "Uniting all Christians as one body," telling Christians to leave is no longer going against the site's stated goal.

[kiwimac]

I see a lot of staff saying negative comments about this site and it's owner..I even see staff changing their faith icons in " solidarity"...I'm curious how strong their convictions are...Why not just leave the site for a site that is more in line with their views??
It seems a bit hypocritical to act like they are protecting members when in truth it is likely that they are just curious and like being on staff for their own personal gains. If it's true solidarity, then stand up for your convictions and no longer prosper the site with your membership. Otherwise all this bickering and complaining is just for show.

And if such staff left would that not place the site firmly in the hands of the folk pushing this particular agenda? Christ calls us to stand with the oppressed and despised not just move on when things don't meet our expectations.

[A New Dawn]

And if such staff left would that not place the site firmly in the hands of the folk pushing this particular agenda? Christ calls us to stand with the oppressed and despised not just move on when things don't meet our expectations.

Can you give a reference for that? I don't recall Christ saying that at all.

[Rep Daddy]

Render unto Lee the things that are Lee's (and CF is Lee's).

[higgs2]

.

[DaRev]

A safe haven for those who need teaching and uplifting in their spirituality is one thing, a place to bash others is something different. The way the rules foster bashing in congregationals is horrid right now and it should not be allowed. Flaming is flaming, no matter where it is, and shouldn't be allowed just because it is done in someone's "safe haven".


There is a big difference bewteen "bashing or flaming" and discussing another denominations false teachings in one's own denominational subfora. If outsiders are prevented from entering a closed area, how would they be offended? We in the Church are always discussing the heterodoxy of other church teachings. It's one of the ways we learn about our own doctrines.
Unfortunately, the Christian Church is not united, and it will never be this side of the return of Christ.

[A New Dawn]

There is a big difference bewteen "bashing or flaming" and discussing another denominations false teachings in one's own denominational subfora. If outsiders are prevented from entering a closed area, how would they be offended? We in the Church are always discussing the heterodoxy of other church teachings.

As I believe I said, it is one thing to ask questions and be taught in your own safe haven, it is another thing to flame and bash other members. Yes there is a difference between discussing how beliefs of other churches differ from your own, and bashing and flaming others members, and it is the latter I was discussing.

[rainygirl]

And if such staff left would that not place the site firmly in the hands of the folk pushing this particular agenda? Christ calls us to stand with the oppressed and despised not just move on when things don't meet our expectations.
The folks pushing this agenda? It's the owner of the site who made this decision..It's HIS agenda and his perogative..You support his agenda by serving on his staff..

[Lel]

Hang on. Going to try copying and see if it works.

[higgs2]

There is a big difference bewteen "bashing or flaming" and discussing another denominations false teachings in one's own denominational subfora. If outsiders are prevented from entering a closed area, how would they be offended? We in the Church are always discussing the heterodoxy of other church teachings. It's one of the ways we learn about our own doctrines.
Unfortunately, the Christian Church is not united, and it will never be this side of the return of Christ.

LOL! I guess I haven't really seen this as much of an issue either way because the Anglicans are so busy "bashing" each other we don't have time to "bash" other groups. :P

[ravenscape]

I believe I've fixed the problem with the wiki not having an article and not showing up in the index listing.

Bumping to check.

[ravenscape]

Seems to be ok now.

[Tonks]

Now that the site no longer claims the motto, "Uniting all Christians as one body," telling Christians to leave is no longer going against the site's stated goal.

The Creedal standard existed under the "Uniting all Christians as one body." The definition of Christian didn't expand until that aim was removed. So...you may need to rework the above.

[Lel]

10-4.

[Latreia]

And if such staff left would that not place the site firmly in the hands of the folk pushing this particular agenda? Christ calls us to stand with the oppressed and despised not just move on when things don't meet our expectations.

You mean the the "folk pushing this particular agenda" that favors Christians who pledge themselves to honor the Trinity as the basis for their faith?

Sorry if you just insist on remaining so blind to the vile abuses that such Christians have been so "oppressed and despised" by non-Christians, liberal opinioinated members, atheists, etc. etc.

If there had been any kind of respect, compassion, or even the least courtesy shown by those, even on staff, who are still denouncing Christians, LeeD would not have seen any need to make these changes.

Maybe the former site owner turned a blind eye and cold shoulders to members begging for rules to prevent attacks on their faith, but LeeD seems to have other ideas about what he has seen going on on CF.

Don't bullies always start whining and crying when they are prevented from being cruel to those who cannot defend themselves?

"It is a long road that has no turning."

The Christians who have really been suffering the most by CF attitudes towards them needed love, too.

That is why I have always stood up for them. Love.


:amen:

[desmalia]

are you SURE it was LeeD who did that..i thought i had read ALL his posts and never seen anything like that stated by him.
Yep. Hard to forget because it actually caught me off guard.

[Latreia]

LOL! I guess I haven't really seen this as much of an issue either way because the Anglicans are so busy "bashing" each other we don't have time to "bash" other groups. :P

This just isn't funny. Perhaps Anglicans bashing each other in real life is also funny. Only it isn't. To see such in my own church, a Methodist congregation, would wound me to the heart.

The worst part of CF or any online discussion board is that there is just NO WAY of knowing who is what they say they are.

This liberal insistance that everyone should just be accepted, while disregarding anything else they show of their choices in appearance (in posts, homepages, etc.), is worse than accusing Christians of blindly following their faith in God.

Anonymity can be an enemy of honesty and sincerity. Truth is locked out and lies easily dominate.

[Philothei]

The folks pushing this agenda? It's the owner of the site who made this decision..It's HIS agenda and his perogative..You support his agenda by serving on his staff..
it makes you wonder.....

[higgs2]

This just isn't funny. Perhaps Anglicans bashing each other in real life is also funny. Only it isn't. To see such in my own church, a Methodist congregation, would wound me to the heart.

The worst part of CF or any online discussion board is that there is just NO WAY of knowing who is what they say they are.

This liberal insistance that everyone should just be accepted, while disregarding anything else they show of their choices in appearance (in posts, homepages, etc.), is worse than accusing Christians of blindly following their faith in God.

Anonymity can be an enemy of honesty and sincerity. Truth is locked out and lies easily dominate.

We "bash" each other lovingly and sincerely. :)

[Philothei]

And if such staff left would that not place the site firmly in the hands of the folk pushing this particular agenda? Christ calls us to stand with the oppressed and despised not just move on when things don't meet our expectations.


How does this relate to saying that an orange is an orange and not an apple? You are either a Nicene creed Christian or not... you cannot be both....

[meh]

Raven, it's an awfully slippery slope. In another 6 months, will anyone remember the pledge not to start messing with icons?

I will, for one.

[Latreia]

Originally Posted by BelindaP
Raven, it's an awfully slippery slope. In another 6 months, will anyone remember the pledge not to start messing with icons?

I will, for one.

Yes, Meh.

Will members also stop messing with icons and crosses, too?

Is it too much to expect that faith icons really mean anything at all?

Is it too much to see the beloved Holy Cross of our faith be given some regard for all that is symbolized in it?

In 6 months, will CF finally be a safe haven for Christians?

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon2.gif

[Crazy Liz]

There is a big difference bewteen "bashing or flaming" and discussing another denominations false teachings in one's own denominational subfora. If outsiders are prevented from entering a closed area, how would they be offended? We in the Church are always discussing the heterodoxy of other church teachings. It's one of the ways we learn about our own doctrines.
Unfortunately, the Christian Church is not united, and it will never be this side of the return of Christ.
When you discuss another denomination's "false teachings" in an atmosphere isolated from that denomination, you may inadvertently propagate inaccuracies or misconceptions.

I actually think talking about the heterodoxy of others is likely to do more harm than good. That is why what goes on in one forum's discussion of a denomination has come to be regarded as "bashing." It often misrepresents the other denomination, either subtly or grossly.

[Apex]

.

[Rep Daddy]

Seems to be fewer staff posting here since Lee was online today.
Just and observation.

[DaRev]

LOL! I guess I haven't really seen this as much of an issue either way because the Anglicans are so busy "bashing" each other we don't have time to "bash" other groups. :P

LOL! It's an issue with Lutherans, too, which is why we created our subfora, in order to discuss things amongst ourselves without having to deal with flames and such.

[Crazy Liz]

I believe I've fixed the problem with the wiki not having an article and not showing up in the index listing.

Bumping to check.
Thanks, Raven!

[DaRev]

When you discuss another denomination's "false teachings" in an atmosphere isolated from that denomination, you may inadvertently propagate inaccuracies or misconceptions.

I actually think talking about the heterodoxy of others is likely to do more harm than good. That is why what goes on in one forum's discussion of a denomination has come to be regarded as "bashing." It often misrepresents the other denomination, either subtly or grossly.

This is true, which is why I suggested open fora where such things can be questioned, debated, and clarified.

[Crazy Liz]

The Creedal standard existed under the "Uniting all Christians as one body." The definition of Christian didn't expand until that aim was removed. So...you may need to rework the above.
Not at all. I think I pretty consistently argued on this basis against restrictions that appeared to defeat Erwin's ecumenical mission.

[higgs2]

LOL! It's an issue with Lutherans, too, which is why we created our subfora, in order to discuss things amongst ourselves without having to deal with flames and such.

We try to keep it civil and focus what we agree on. But seriously, it does seem to keep us too busy to focus on other denominations all that much :)

[Rep Daddy]

Not at all. I think I pretty consistently argued on this basis against restrictions that appeared to defeat Erwin's ecumenical mission.

Erwin was YESTERDAY

LeeD is TODAY

------------ Tribute to Erwin, in the Key of ~E~ ---------

Yesterday,
All 4U troubles seemed so far away,
Now it looks as though Lee's here to stay,
Oh, I believe in yesterday.

Suddenly,
We got half the clout that used to be,
There's the Nicene Creed hanging over me,
Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

Why WI-KI
Had to go I don't know, Lee wouldn't say.
I've got,
them UC iconic blues, now I long for yesterday.


- RD

[Apex]

I would like to know how many people think Lee did this because he thinks it is the best decision "theologically" to implement?

[Rep Daddy]

I would like to know how many people think Lee did this because he thinks it is the best decision "theologically" to implement?

:thumbsup: RepDaddy does....

LeeD October 13th (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=39733518&postcount=636)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Starlight* http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=39732981#post39732981)
Do you think you could, despite your personal religious beliefs, make this site treat all honest Christ-following religious groups equally, no matter if they disagree with your theological views or not? :)

For the most part, sure! I will have some lines that I will draw based upon my convictions however. I can't not do what I feel is best for this site.

[snoochface]

I would like to know how many people think Lee did this because he thinks it is the best decision "theologically" to implement?
I don't. I don't know enough about Lee's theology to say if it has bearing on this decision - I might if he bothered to show up and SPEAK once in a while, but clearly he's decided not to do that.

But from the decisions he has made so far, it seems clear to me that his primary motivation for these kinds of decisions is money. Ad revenue. Hit counts, pageviews, traffic. If it were not financially profitable for him to make this decision, he wouldn't have made it. He paid a lot of money for this site.

[Latreia]

Me and RD do.

Since "Yesterday"

[Latreia]

I don't. I don't know enough about Lee's theology to say if it has bearing on this decision - I might if he bothered to show up and SPEAK once in a while, but clearly he's decided not to do that.

But from the decisions he has made so far, it seems clear to me that his primary motivation for these kinds of decisions is money. Ad revenue. Hit counts, pageviews, traffic. If it were not financially profitable for him to make this decision, he wouldn't have made it. He paid a lot of money for this site.

Golly it is just awesome how you know so much.:doh:

Awed.

:swoon:

[snoochface]

Golly it is just awesome how you know so much.

Awed.
Are you referring to me?

[higgs2]

I would like to know how many people think Lee did this because he thinks it is the best decision "theologically" to implement?

I haven't read anything to suggest that theology is involved or considered in any of the recent decisions.

[porterross]

:thumbsup: RepDaddy does

Me and RD do.

Since "Yesterday"


Add my name to that list as well. :wave:

[Tonks]

I will, for one.

I will too. I have no desire to go back to that nonsense.

As for Lee being online...I had no idea. He has made no posts in the Admin forum or in the CR that I have seen.

[Latreia]

Are you referring to me?

Just the Quick Quote button didn't work.

:sorry:

Tonks, even a site owner could lurk on his own site, yes?

[praying]

Seems to be fewer staff posting here since Lee was online today.
Just and observation.

Probably because the thread was hidden for a while.

[snoochface]

Just the Quick Quote button didn't work.

:sorry:

Tonks, even a site owner could lurk on his own site, yes?
I think I pretty clearly stated that I did not know enough about his theology to know if it contributed to his decision, and that I wish he would speak up a bit more so we might have a way to know. And, that on appearances, it seemed like his decisions were financially motivated. I don't think you have any reason to be awed by my knowledge, even sarcastically and condescendingly.

As for how much he paid for this site, that's a matter of public record. You can "know" it too if you look around.

[Joykins]

Render unto Lee the things that are Lee's (and CF is Lee's).

Are you sure that is a analogy you want to make?

[Rep Daddy]

Are you sure that is a analogy you want to make?


Sure.

[Richard]

Seems to be fewer staff posting here since Lee was online today.
Just and observation.

heh, I'd rather stay out of the fighting. When something productive comes up and is said in a positive tone, I might reply ;)

LeeD works on this like an 8-5 job I believe. So you will seem him on during the weekdays, but not the weekends...against I THINK.. not 100% factual :)

[praying]

I would like to know how many people think Lee did this because he thinks it is the best decision "theologically" to implement?

My feeling is it is financially motivated.

[A New Dawn]

I can't get to page 7. Is there a problem with the thread? (I'm hoping posting gets me there.)

[Latreia]

I think I pretty clearly stated that I did not know enough about his theology to know if it contributed to his decision, and that I wish he would speak up a bit more so we might have a way to know. And, that on appearances, it seemed like his decisions were financially motivated. I don't think you have any reason to be awed by my knowledge, even sarcastically and condescendingly.

As for how much he paid for this site, that's a matter of public record. You can "know" it too if you look around.


I don't. I don't know enough about Lee's theology to say if it has bearing on this decision - I might if he bothered to show up and SPEAK once in a while, but clearly he's decided not to do that.

But from the decisions he has made so far, it seems clear to me that his primary motivation for these kinds of decisions is money. Ad revenue. Hit counts, pageviews, traffic. If it were not financially profitable for him to make this decision, he wouldn't have made it. He paid a lot of money for this site.

Sorry that I didn't realize that something that is clear to one can also be only seeming.


:confused:

[praying]

I haven't read anything to suggest that theology is involved or considered in any of the recent decisions.


Well the fact is we haven't read anythng because for whatever reason the CEO doesn't mix it up much (at all) with us.

[porterross]

I can't get to page 7. Is there a problem with the thread? (I'm hoping posting gets me there.)
The thread has been having issues since it rolled over.

[snoochface]

Sorry that I didn't realize that something that is clear to one can also be only seeming.


:confused:
I'm sorry, I thought the question was, "How many of you think this decision was theologically based?" I answered how "I think" the decision was based.

As I've stated a number of times now, we would have more factual knowledge of how the decision came to be if Lee would come here and speak to us once in a while. As it stands, I can only respond to the question which asked my opinion by stating my opinion and how I came to having it.

What is your problem, anyway? Did I pick a fight with you while I was sleeping or something? I have no interest in debating my personal opinion, given in response to a question asking for personal opinions.

[Richard]

My feeling is it is financially motivated.

Uh, How can you think that? It's ludicrious. If LeeD is going to make all Non-Nicene Creed Christians unhappy, that isn't good from a financial standpoint.

[praying]

The thread has been having issues since it rolled over.


LOL :D :D I think this thread had issues before it rolled over, just different types of issues.

[praying]

Uh, How can you think that? It's ludicrious. If LeeD is going to make all Non-Nicene Creed Christians unhappy, that isn't good from a financial standpoint.


It is if it brings in more mainline Christians and let’s face facts, mainline Christians out number Non-Nicene Creed Christians by bunches and bunches. :)

[higgs2]

It is if it brings in more mainline Christians and let’s face facts, mainline Christians out number Non-Nicene Creed Christians by bunches and bunches. :)

I think it will bring in more Evangelical Christians, but not necessarily more Mainline Protestants.

[Latreia]

Golly it is just awesome how you know so much.:doh:

Awed.

:swoon:

Are you referring to me?

Just the Quick Quote button didn't work.

:sorry:

Tonks, even a site owner could lurk on his own site, yes?

Sorry that I didn't realize that something that is clear to one can also be only seeming.


:confused:

I'm sorry, I thought the question was, "How many of you think this decision was theologically based?" I answered how "I think" the decision was based.

As I've stated a number of times now, we would have more factual knowledge of how the decision came to be if Lee would come here and speak to us once in a while. As it stands, I can only respond to the question which asked my opinion by stating my opinion and how I came to having it.

What is your problem, anyway? Did I pick a fight with you while I was sleeping or something? I have no interest in debating my personal opinion, given in response to a question asking for personal opinions.

Because of one teasing comment, suddenly there's a big deal going on?

Excuse me for living. Here, I believe this chip dropped off your shoulder, it isn't mine.

Sorry, I've learned my lesson now. I know my place again.

Sheesh.

[Crazy Liz]

Erwin was YESTERDAY

LeeD is[B] TODAY
Yup.

And that's why things have changed.

I have no idea what LeeD's mission is. Circumstantial evidence tends to indicate it is to make money, but circumstantial evidence may sometimes mislead.

[desmalia]

My feeling is it is financially motivated.
I agree. But whatever. He can do what he wants, I mean it's his site, after all. I'm just going to enjoy the extra little bit of freedom that Christians have been given for now. We have no control over anything that happens here. You either find a way to roll with the punches, or you leave. It's just a forum.

[Latreia]

It is if it brings in more mainline Christians and let’s face facts, mainline Christians out number Non-Nicene Creed Christians by bunches and bunches. :)

I think it will bring in more Evangelical Christians, but not necessarily more Mainline Protestants.

Sounds OK to me, I will be among friends either way.

:amen:

[snoochface]

Because of one teasing comment, suddenly there's a big deal going on?

Excuse me for living. Here, I believe this chip dropped off your shoulder, it isn't mine.

Sorry, I've learned my lesson now. I know my place again.

Sheesh.
I apologize if I took your comment the wrong way, which clearly I did. I meant no offense.

[Latreia]

I agree. But whatever. He can do what he wants, I mean it's his site, after all. I'm just going to enjoy the extra little bit of freedom that Christians have been given for now. We have no control over anything that happens here. You either find a way to roll with the puches, or you leave. It's just a forum.

Wow! So true. Matter of fact, I've had to roll with all the punches since I joined CF. I am getting tired and older faster.

Let some younger folks roll with the punches for a change.

:holy:


^_^

[Latreia]

I apologize if I took your comment the wrong way, which clearly I did. I meant no offense.

:blush:

:hug: :hug: :hug:

[higgs2]

Because of one teasing comment, suddenly there's a big deal going on?

Excuse me for living. Here, I believe this chip dropped off your shoulder, it isn't mine.

Sorry, I've learned my lesson now. I know my place again.

Sheesh.

Such a nice apology. Good for you. :thumbsup:

[Crazy Liz]

Uh, How can you think that? It's ludicrious. If LeeD is going to make all Non-Nicene Creed Christians unhappy, that isn't good from a financial standpoint.
What makes you so sure of that?

Sure, he might lose a few posters, but what if he gains favor with a lot ore?

[Rep Daddy]

Whether it is theologically based or Financially based or just for grins...

It doesn't matter.

He owns the site and makes the decisions.

Not rocket science.

[Richard]

I think it will bring in more Evangelical Christians, but not necessarily more Mainline Protestants.

True


What makes people think these evangelical or mainline Christians will support the site more?! I need evidence before I can believe that LeeD is making all these changes for profit, from what I've seen I see the opposite.

[higgs2]

I apologize if I took your comment the wrong way, which clearly I did. I meant no offense.

I think she meant it exactly the way you thought, but good for you for having the grace to apologize. :thumbsup:

[Richard]

What makes you so sure of that?

Sure, he might lose a few posters, but what if he gains favor with a lot ore?

What facts do you have the he will[gain posters, which doesn't mean he will gain more site supporters]? Are there any? Unless you can dig up some information on the issue :more Christians will go to a site where Non-Nicene Creed Christains don't have a place to congregate, then you have not base for your speculations.

[higgs2]

What facts do you have the he will[gain posters, which doesn't mean he will gain more site supporters]? Are there any? Unless you can dig up some information on the issue :more Christians will go to a site where Non-Nicene Creed Christains don't have a place to congregate, then you have not base for your speculations.

it's an opinion, why the hostility? And more traffic means more hits on google ads, which is much more valuable than site supporter status. You did know that,right?

[higgs2]

True


What makes people think these evangelical or mainline Christians will support the site more?! I need evidence before I can believe that LeeD is making all these changes for profit, from what I've seen I see the opposite.

It's not signing up to be a site supporter that matters as much as traffic for google.

[porterross]

LOL :D :D I think this thread had issues before it rolled over, just different types of issues.


That's no joke. Some don't like the announcement and others don't like that they are expressing their displeasure. It seems a vicious cycle that could be infinite and I apologize for getting caught up in it. :sigh:

[Latreia]

I still think the only difference between the Nicene Creed and the Apostle Creed is the first just has more words in it.

Big deal.

[Latreia]

That's no joke. Some don't like the announcement and others don't like that they are expressing their displeasure. It seems a vicious cycle that could be infinite and I apologize for getting caught up in it. :sigh:


To whom are you apologizing? For doing what? Where did you suddenly get the idea that you were wrong?

:sigh:

[higgs2]

I still think the only difference between the Nicene Creed and the Apostle Creed is the first just has more words in it.

Big deal.

Really? The Apostle's creed does not explain the concept of the Trinity. That is a pretty big difference.

[Rep Daddy]

That's no joke. Some don't like the announcement and others don't like that they are expressing their displeasure. It seems a vicious cycle that could be infinite and I apologize for getting caught up in it. :sigh:

I hear you. Let's go rep some folks. I'm getting kinda shaky, myself.

Star 15 .... here I come.
RD

[higgs2]

That's no joke. Some don't like the announcement and others don't like that they are expressing their displeasure. It seems a vicious cycle that could be infinite and I apologize for getting caught up in it. :sigh:

You're right about the vicious cycle. I'm sorry too. I'll try to dial it down a bit.

[Latreia]

I think she meant it exactly the way you thought, but good for you for having the grace to apologize. :thumbsup:

Ahhh, that's the good old spirit of sincere reconciliation.

Thanks so much. Great backhand.

[The Gregorian]

::subscribe::

[higgs2]

Ahhh, that's the good old spirit of sincere reconciliation.

Thanks so much. Great backhand.

:holy:

[Latreia]

Really? The Apostle's creed does not explain the concept of the Trinity. That is a pretty big difference.

Methodists believe in the Trinity. Yes?

[DaRev]

Really? The Apostle's creed does not explain the concept of the Trinity. That is a pretty big difference.

Sure it does.

Let me throw another cat into the dog show...

I think the site ought to be based on the Athanasian Creed (https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3357).

^_^ ^_^ ^_^

[higgs2]

Methodists believe in the Trinity. Yes?

Absolutely.

We're not talking about what Methodists believe.

We are talking about the difference between the Nicene and Apostle's creeds.

You said the only difference between them is the number of words.

I am telling you that there is a major difference.

A non trinitarian could affirm the Apostle's Creed with no problem.

This is because it does not explicitly state the concept of the Holy Trinity.

That is why this site uses the Nicene Creed -- to keep the mormons and the unitarians out. The Apostle's Creed would not do that.

See?

[Richard]

it's an opinion, why the hostility? And more traffic means more hits on google ads, which is much more valuable than site supporter status. You did know that,right?

No hostility. Sorry if it came off that way :)

Yeah I understand the difference being a web developer myself, however, I don't see that there will be a big enough influx, or decrease to really make a shift in his profits.

[higgs2]

Sure it does.

Let me throw another cat into the dog show...

I think the site ought to be based on the Athanasian Creed.

^_^ ^_^ ^_^

LOL! There is nothing new under the sun...

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42997019&postcount=173

[higgs2]

No hostility. Sorry if it came off that way :)

Yeah I understand the difference being a web developer myself, however, I don't see that there will be a big enough influx, or decrease to really make a shift in his profits.

Sorry if I sounded snippy.

You could be right, it might not make a difference. Who knows?

Actually, we will probably never know one way or another, it's all speculation.

[porterross]

To whom are you apologizing? For doing what? Where did you suddenly get the idea that you were wrong?

:sigh:


It's not about being right or wrong. I am certain of standing on solid ground with you, but some here only want to argue for the sake of arguing with those who don't share their belief on this matter just to be vocal and I don't understand how that's helping anyone.

Lee is going to put this rule in place no matter how bloody anyone gets here and I don't like the idea of us forming unfavorable opinions of one another over something that's out of our control. That in itself is more than a little illogical, but I'm sure the devil is enjoying it.

I am apologizing to those whom I might have offended and have forgiven those who have lashed out, whether they intended to or not, and I hate to think any of us would do so intentionally.

There is obviously a great deal of passion about this, but I think we can all do without the drama. Am I wrong to think they can exist independently of one another?


I hear you. Let's go rep some folks. I'm getting kinda shaky, myself.

Star 15 .... here I come.
RD


I think I may have lost the will to rep today, Rep Daddy. :( :help:

[DaRev]

LOL! There is nothing new under the sun...

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42997019&postcount=173

^_^ ^_^ ^_^

[Latreia]

Absolutely.

We're not talking about what Methodists believe.

We are talking about the difference between the Nicene and Apostle's creeds.

You said the only difference between them is the number of words.

I am telling you that there is a major difference.

A non trinitarian could affirm the Apostle's Creed with no problem.

This is because it does not explicitly state the concept of the Holy Trinity.

That is why this site uses the Nicene Creed -- to keep the mormons and the unitarians out. The Apostle's Creed would not do that.

See?

Oh, dear. Sorry you missed it when I said my United Methodist congregation recites the Apostle's Creed in the services.

When I read the Nicene Creed, it was just longer and prettier to me.

So my comment about Methodist Trinity belief was in reference to an earlier post of mine.

Here it is, and my pastor teaches the Trinity, too:'

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Looks like Trinity to me.

:amen:

[higgs2]

Oh, dear. Sorry you missed it when I said my United Methodist congregation recites the Apostle's Creed in the services.

When I read the Nicene Creed, it was just longer and prettier to me.

So my comment about Methodist Trinity belief was in reference to an earlier post of mine.

Here it is, and my pastor teaches the Trinity, too:'

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Looks like Trinity to me.

:amen:

Yes, I am quite familiar with the Apostle's Creed. It talks about each person of the Trinity, but does not make explicit the relationship between them. A non trinitarian could affirm the creed. Can you see this? Your pastor can explain it to you.

[Richard]

Sorry if I sounded snippy.

You could be right, it might not make a difference. Who knows?

Actually, we will probably never know one way or another, it's all speculation.

I think most of what everyone discusses here is speculation and without proof of one or the other is any of this worth talking about?

[Rep Daddy]

I think I may have lost the will to rep today, Rep Daddy. :( :help:

Will maybe, but not the ability.

Click the hand

[porterross]

You're right about the vicious cycle. I'm sorry too. I'll try to dial it down a bit.


:hug:



















:scratch: ......try? :eek:















^_^ I love it!

[Latreia]

Sure it does.

Let me throw another cat into the dog show...

I think the site ought to be based on the Athanasian Creed (https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3357).

^_^ ^_^ ^_^

LOL! There is nothing new under the sun...

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42997019&postcount=173

Oooh. Not for me. Gimme Nicene.

[LibertyChic]

Subscribing

[DaRev]

Yes, I am quite familiar with the Apostle's Creed. It talks about each person of the Trinity, but does not make explicit the relationship between them. A non trinitarian could affirm the creed. Can you see this? Your pastor can explain it to you.

When one professes the Apostle's Creed, they are in fact stating they believe in the Trinity. If it's not the Trinity they are confessing then they are polythiests saying they believe in three gods. It most certainly affirms the Trinity.

[Latreia]

Yes, I am quite familiar with the Apostle's Creed. It talks about each person of the Trinity, but does not make explicit the relationship between them. A non trinitarian could affirm the creed. Can you see this? Your pastor can explain it to you.

As a matter of fact, my pastor told us no such thing. You will understand if I prefer his counsel on the Methodist faith?

Thanks.

:wave:

[Crazy Liz]

What facts do you have the he will[gain posters, which doesn't mean he will gain more site supporters]? Are there any? Unless you can dig up some information on the issue :more Christians will go to a site where Non-Nicene Creed Christains don't have a place to congregate, then you have not base for your speculations.
None.

I don't know how to make websites profitable.

I think, though, that the one better able to make an educated guess at what will increase a website's earnings is the guy who makes millions off of websites and out of giving seminars & advice to other people about how to monetize websites.

[higgs2]

:hug:



















:scratch: ......try? :eek:















^_^ I love it!

I don't get it.

[higgs2]

As a matter of fact, my pastor told us no such thing. You will understand if I prefer his counsel on the Methodist faith?

Thanks.

:wave:

Ask him/her.

[higgs2]

When one professes the Apostle's Creed, they are in fact stating they believe in the Trinity. If it's not the Trinity they are confessing then they are polythiests saying they believe in three gods. It most certainly affirms the Trinity.

Oh come on, DaRev! You know the history! Come on, don't do this.

There is a reason this site doesn't simply use the Apostle's Creed.

[Latreia]

When one professes the Apostle's Creed, they are in fact stating they believe in the Trinity. If it's not the Trinity they are confessing then they are polythiests saying they believe in three gods. It most certainly affirms the Trinity.

Thank you, thank you. Never heard of three gods in any Christian church!!!!

:swoon:

[Annabel Lee]

(Subscribing)

Interesting thread.

[higgs2]

Why was the Apostle's Creed not adequate to combat the Arian Heresy? Answer me that.

[Crazy Liz]

I think most of what everyone discusses here is speculation and without proof of one or the other is any of this worth talking about?
You're right. From an economic standpoint, it doesn't make a bit of difference what we talk about, as long as we talk. ;)

[Rep Daddy]

(Subscribing)

Interesting thread.

Dang, I can't REP ya Grannybel!
Aaarrrrrgh

RepDaddy/dretevej

[Latreia]

Ask him/her.

You know, this is wrong of you to keep on. Just trying to plant doubts in other readers' minds, because you do know that my husband and I have already been raised, indoctrinated, and baptised into the Methodist Church.

No Methodist pastor is going to tell his congregation any such nonsense about the Apostle's Creed.

But this is the perfect example of why LeeD has established the Nicene Creed, in case some try to deny the Trinity in the Apostle's Creed.

Thanks for a lesson in that.

[Annabel Lee]

Dang, I can't REP ya Grannybel!
Aaarrrrrgh

RepDaddy/dretevej

It's the thought that counts.

Thank you!

[Rep Daddy]

Mental Reps


oooooh, like it
Happy 99th

[Latreia]

Why was the Apostle's Creed not adequate to combat the Arian Heresy? Answer me that.

So suddenly, it isn't about my church or my pastor, it is only about history.'

Slick move. Don't depend too much on the credulity of others, that dog don't hunt.

[porterross]

Sure it does.

Let me throw another cat into the dog show...

I think the site ought to be based on the Athanasian Creed (https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3357).

^_^ ^_^ ^_^
I knew you were going to do that.

[higgs2]

You know, this is wrong of you to keep on. Just trying to plant doubts in other readers' minds, because you do know that my husband and I have already been raised, indoctrinated, and baptised into the Methodist Church.

No Methodist pastor is going to tell his congregation any such nonsense about the Apostle's Creed.

But this is the perfect example of why LeeD has established the Nicene Creed, in case some try to deny the Trinity in the Apostle's Creed.

Thanks for a lesson in that.




What are you talking about?

Please read my posts.

Ask your pastor about the history of the Nicene Creed.

It's not bad, it won't plant doubts in your mind. It's a perfectly fine creed. That's not what I'm saying.

Knowledge is not a bad thing. It will be okay,

And why do you think I know the faith history of you and your husband? :confused:

[higgs2]

So suddenly, it isn't about my church or my pastor, it is only about history.'

Slick move. Don't depend too much on the credulity of others, that dog don't hunt.

You are the one who brought up your church and your pastor. It was never about that for me.

????

Are you okay?

[Latreia]

Too many members of CF consider Christianity to just be one big, amusing game to play for entertainment.

They don't often bother to hide their cynicism much any more. That's good.

[DaRev]

Oh come on, DaRev! You know the history! Come on, don't do this.

There is a reason this site doesn't simply use the Apostle's Creed.

Why was the Apostle's Creed not adequate to combat the Arian Heresy? Answer me that.

It is true that the Nicene Creed more clearly states the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, but to say that the Apostle's Creed does not affirm the Trinity is simply untrue.

[DaRev]

I knew you were going to do that.

;) :thumbsup:

[higgs2]

It is true that the Nicene Creed more clearly states the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, but to say that the Apostle's Creed does not affirm the Trinity is simply untrue.

I didn't say that. I said it does not explain the Trinity. Then in order to clarify I said that it does not make explicit the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. That is why the Nicene Creed was developed.

But I never meant to imply that it denies the Trinity.

Do you see what I am trying to say?

[DaRev]

I didn't say that. I said it does not explain the Trinity. Then in order to clarify I said that it does not make explicit the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. That is why the Nicene Creed was developed.

But I never meant to imply that it denies the Trinity.

Do you see what I am trying to say?

I do now.

[higgs2]

I do now.

Well, I'm sorry it took me so long to make my point clear. Thank you for hanging in there.

[Latreia]

I still think the only difference between the Nicene Creed and the Apostle Creed is the first just has more words in it.

Big deal.

Really? The Apostle's creed does not explain the concept of the Trinity. That is a pretty big difference.

Methodists believe in the Trinity. Yes?

Absolutely.

We're not talking about what Methodists believe.

We are talking about the difference between the Nicene and Apostle's creeds.

You said the only difference between them is the number of words.

I am telling you that there is a major difference.

A non trinitarian could affirm the Apostle's Creed with no problem.

This is because it does not explicitly state the concept of the Holy Trinity.

That is why this site uses the Nicene Creed -- to keep the mormons and the unitarians out. The Apostle's Creed would not do that.

See?

Oh, dear. Sorry you missed it when I said my United Methodist congregation recites the Apostle's Creed in the services.

When I read the Nicene Creed, it was just longer and prettier to me.

So my comment about Methodist Trinity belief was in reference to an earlier post of mine.

Here it is, and my pastor teaches the Trinity, too:'

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Looks like Trinity to me.

:amen:

Yes, I am quite familiar with the Apostle's Creed. It talks about each person of the Trinity, but does not make explicit the relationship between them. A non trinitarian could affirm the creed. Can you see this? Your pastor can explain it to you.

When one professes the Apostle's Creed, they are in fact stating they believe in the Trinity. If it's not the Trinity they are confessing then they are polythiests saying they believe in three gods. It most certainly affirms the Trinity.

As a matter of fact, my pastor told us no such thing. You will understand if I prefer his counsel on the Methodist faith?

Thanks.

:wave:

Ask him/her.

Oh come on, DaRev! You know the history! Come on, don't do this.

There is a reason this site doesn't simply use the Apostle's Creed.

Thank you, thank you. Never heard of three gods in any Christian church!!!!

:swoon:

Why was the Apostle's Creed not adequate to combat the Arian Heresy? Answer me that.

It is true that the Nicene Creed more clearly states the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, but to say that the Apostle's Creed does not affirm the Trinity is simply untrue.

I didn't say that. I said it does not explain the Trinity. Then in order to clarify I said that it does not make explicit the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. That is why the Nicene Creed was developed.

But I never meant to imply that it denies the Trinity.

Do you see what I am trying to say?

I do now.

Well, I'm sorry it took me so long to make my point clear. Thank you for hanging in there.

You were making a very clear point to me, each and every time you denied the Trinity in the Apostle's Creed. And you would never have made any kind of concession if another had not kept calling you down about it.

You meant it just the way you posted it.

I don't appreciate being played like that about my faith. I will remember this.

[tattedschmoe]

i want to know one thing from Lee. not from upper staff, not from anyone who supports Lee, not from anybody else but Lee, so everyone else do not respond to this response of mine and carry on.

Lee, what right do you have to use the creed as authoritative as this? your protestant correct, number one. that creed wasn't created by your church, it is not for your church. it was the Catholic Church that has the power they established, the only power to do so with the creed. historically it makes sense. if this was a Catholic site, what could really be said?

secondly, why should the creed be authoriative as this? most Protestants only believe the bible to be authoritative...sola scripture. the creed isn't the scripture. it is a man made doctrine formed by parts of the scripture here and there. there are other creeds, as i'm sure you know. why are they not authoritative? and what right do you have to actually use this? your part of the church that rebelled from a part of the original church. if the only right you have to use this is that your the owner, you hypocrite then.

its one thing to say that is a standard definition of a Christian, meaning the creed. i may not fully agree with that statement but i can understand why one would choose to see that. and i wouldn't be getting worked up over this over something small. your using an ancient creed that has survived for centuries as something holy and using it, when your a protestant, to give some kind of ecumenical order here at CF? it is absolutely crazy. the creed is not something to mess around with like this.

i hope you reply back and talk to us one on one about this, instead of just stating that something is happening, and then what...silence? if you have the time to think and pray about ways to "make cf more godly" than you have the time to come and address us one on one, in a public thread. and if you have already responded, i'm sorry for complaing about your involvement of discussing with us and i apologize to you again, if i have missed your involvement in this thread about this action. i work 3rds. i'm tired a lot, and i worked 3 days straight of 12 hours, so i may have missed it. if i haven't, then i hope you have balls of a man of God to come and talk to us. this is a huge ordeal that your doing here.

take care Lee!

[Latreia]

What a crock.

Huge ordeal.

Speak for yourself only. No "us"

[TheDag]

Only just stu,bled across this but this is a very interesting rule. I wonder if all the non-nicene congregations in the congregational area will be closed down as well. Or are we really just shutting down groups that some see as a cult? I know there will be people who will get upset at this statement but there have been non-nicene christians in the congregation area since I joined CF on the 9th jan 2005. Those groups were allowed there despite the rules at the time saying you had to follow the nicene creed to post in the christians only section. Ever since they have been allowed to post in there and have their own congregational forum. I believe the position of this site will remain hypocritical as I would be willing to bet their congregational sub-forum will not be closed down.

Just to note I do not wish their sub-forum to be closed but if the rules say non-nicene christians then we should follow the rule and kick them out or the rule should not be allowed to stand. Simple as that. We only need to read Jesus words to relaise what he thought of hypocrites.

[higgs2]

You were making a very clear point to me, each and every time you denied the Trinity in the Apostle's Creed. And you would never have made any kind of concession if another had not kept calling you down about it.

You meant it just the way you posted it.

I don't appreciate being played like that about my faith. I will remember this.



I never did this. And yes, I did mean it the way I posted. I did not mean it the way you seem to have understood it. Thank you for recapping all of the posts, though. I believe they support my point.

[Brennin]

When Erwin changed things the other camp accused him of being motivated by money, so I do not think those of us who disagree with Lee's decision should be so quick to impute avarice to him.

Really, the "promotion" rule is the only thing that sticks in my craw, since it is so open to abuse. I don't really care if we non-Nicene Christians have separate fora, since this place ain't a church for me.

[Brennin]

You were making a very clear point to me, each and every time you denied the Trinity in the Apostle's Creed. And you would never have made any kind of concession if another had not kept calling you down about it.

You meant it just the way you posted it.

I don't appreciate being played like that about my faith. I will remember this.


What are you talking about? Higgs2 was correct; the Apostles' Creed can be affirmed by both Nicene and non-Nicene Christians alike. That's the point.

[higgs2]

When Erwin changed things the other camp accused him of being motivated by money, so I do not think those of us who disagree with Lee's decision should be so quick to impute avarice to him.

Really, the "promotion" rule is the only thing that sticks in my craw, since it is so open to abuse. I don't really care if we non-Nicene Christians have separate fora, since this place ain't a church for me.

Good points.

[higgs2]

You were making a very clear point to me, each and every time you denied the Trinity in the Apostle's Creed. And you would never have made any kind of concession if another had not kept calling you down about it.

You meant it just the way you posted it.

I don't appreciate being played like that about my faith. I will remember this.



And, I made no "concessions". Are you so uncomfortable with discussion that you can't understand this?

[Latreia]

When Erwin changed things the other camp accused him of being motivated by money, so I do not think those of us who disagree with Lee's decision should be so quick to impute avarice to him.

Really, the "promotion" rule is the only thing that sticks in my craw, since it is so open to abuse. I don't really care if we non-Nicene Christians have separate fora, since this place ain't a church for me.

Hope there's room for one more thing in your craw...just because CF "ain't no church" for you hardly takes into consideration all the people who can't go to church for some reason or another.

Those folks who live their lives restricted by many troubles and problems and health conditions of different sorts.

You will never begin to imagine what a good Christian site can mean for them. They don't need to create arguments and conflicting issues and agendas to use for sport or showing off their intellects.

They just need someplace their PC's can take them; many are not able to even use wheel chairs or perhaps type on a keyboard without difficulty.

When a safe haven is made for devout Christians, it is then a sanctuary where many came come without being wary of mean or cruel remarks.

Those who say that CF Christians are the mean ones try to extend that to all those of the faith. Enough of that total lie.

Mean people can come to CF and say anything about everything. But there are those who are searching for those who need their prayers and their compassion.

Would you go to an atheist for prayers, for spiritual comforting, for assurance of love, from God, from Christ and from many other Christians?

Christians must carry their faith, even their church within them, as they must carry their cross and follow the Messiah.

That is why they are called faithful.

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[Melancholy]

Hope there's room for one more thing in your craw...just because CF "ain't no church" for you hardly takes into consideration all the people who can't go to church for some reason or another.

Those folks who live their lives restricted by many troubles and problems and health conditions of different sorts.

You will never begin to imagine what a good Christian site can mean for them. They don't need to create arguments and conflicting issues and agendas to use for sport or showing off their intellects.

They just need someplace their PC's can take them; many are not able to even use wheel chairs or perhaps type on a keyboard without difficulty.

When a safe haven is made for devout Christians, it is then a sanctuary where many came come without being wary of mean or cruel remarks.

Those who say that CF Christians are the mean ones try to extend that to all those of the faith. Enough of that total lie.

Mean people can come to CF and say anything about everything. But there are those who are searching for those who need their prayers and their compassion.

Would you go to an atheist for prayers, for spiritual comforting, for assurance of love, from God, from Christ and from many other Christians?

Christians must carry their faith, even their church within them, as they must carry their cross and follow the Messiah.

That is why they are called faithful.

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

Then if they are faithfull, then surely nothing can waiver that faith, not even an atheist etc.

[blueanjel]

this was orginally posted by 'Ohioprof ' on first discussion thread, but wanted to reply and could not quote from there



This may seem strange, but Unitarian Universalism is actually NOT a denomination that advocates "non-Nicene theology." While Unitarianism first emerged with a doctrine of one God, as a challenge to the doctrine of the trinity, and Universalism first emerged with a doctrine of universal salvation, the Unitarian Universalist Association today asserts neither of these positions as doctrine. Indeed, Unitarian Universalism has, over time, become a non-doctrinal faith.

What this means is that, despite its roots in specific unitarian doctrine and universalist doctrine, Unitarian Universalism today can and does include trinitarian Christians and Christians who embrace the Nicene Creed.

Unitarian Universalism is not an explicitly Christian association. It does, however, include and embrace individuals who are Christians.

So to eliminate the Unitarian Universalist threads because UUs supposedly advocate "non-Nicene theology" is to misunderstand the current nature of Unitarian Universalism. Unitarian Universalism is non-doctrinal, as are a number of other faith traditions, such as the Quakers and the Disciples of Christ. Unitarian Universalists neither advocate nor oppose any doctrine that individuals within the faith may embrace.



not sure if you were the one that said you liked reading others views, so i thought this might interest you





Unitarian Universalism - Zondervan Guide to Cults & Religious Movements Series


Product Description

Although the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) is not the largest or best known religious group in America, its belief system pervades our society, especially in politics and on college campuses across the country. Unitarian Universalism is a "politically correct" faith, in which truth is relative; "tolerance" of "alternative lifestyles" and beliefs including homosexuality, radical feminism, and abortion on demand is the highest virtue; reason, conscience, and experience are the guides to truth; and the Bible is a myth and Jesus Christ but one of many inspirational (but fallible) teachers. This guide explores and refutes the beliefs and attitudes of what is the most highly educated of all religious groups in North America (49.5% are college graduates).

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=48891&event=1028RNF

[blueanjel]

Then if they are faithfull, then surely nothing can waiver that faith, not even an atheist etc.
but they can sure give them a bad day and hinder any type of christian teaching and fellowship, that's for sure

[Latreia]

Then if they are faithfull, then surely nothing can waiver that faith, not even an atheist etc.

That is a very, very stale and terribly abused error. A distortion, used by atheists, repeated so many times that it is considered quite effective.

Take care, tho, to whom it is repeated.
Every day, more are seeing it for the ruse that is really is.

[Servant of Jesus]

Some of the speculation about what LeeD is doing with this site is just that- speculation. Other comments are really quite irrelevant- like whether he'll make more money going in this or that direction.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'll stick with the simple explanation:

1. LeeD bought the site because he was led by the Spirit to use it to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.

2. LeeD earnestly prayed about this site before he bought it, and both he and his advisors and friends likely pray every day to ensure that God is involved and provides the overall guidance needed.

3. LeeD has a clear vision of what it means to be a Christian, and is changing this site to better reflect Christian beliefs, and to attract those who are Christians, or are interested in knowing more about the faith.

4. Once the work of changing the site to one that more accurately reflects Christian values, he will work to ensure that the content and comments are in keeping with Christian values of love, charity, and respect for other's viewpoints.

If, as I suspect, God is fully involved in this enterprise with LeeD, then it will succeed- and spectacularly so! Stay tuned and keep the faith!

And since LeeD encourages the inclusion of Bible verses in posts, I'll offer the following:

Romans 8:
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

and

31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

[Latreia]

What are you talking about?

Please read my posts.

Ask your pastor about the history of the Nicene Creed.

It's not bad, it won't plant doubts in your mind. It's a perfectly fine creed. That's not what I'm saying.

Knowledge is not a bad thing. It will be okay,

And why do you think I know the faith history of you and your husband? :confused:

And why on earth not? You expect other people to know things that you don't say.

At least, not until you are called out.

We have nothing more to say to each other.

[blueanjel]

Some of the speculation about what LeeD is doing with this site is just that- speculation. Other comments are really quite irrelevant- like whether he'll make more money going in this or that direction.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'll stick with the simple explanation:

1. LeeD bought the site because he was led by the Spirit to use it to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.

2. LeeD earnestly prayed about this site before he bought it, and both he and his advisors and friends likely pray every day to ensure that God is involved and provides the overall guidance needed.

3. LeeD has a clear vision of what it means to be a Christian, and is changing this site to better reflect Christian beliefs, and to attract those who are Christians, or are interested in knowing more about the faith.

4. Once the work of changing the site to one that more accurately reflects Christian values, he will work to ensure that the content and comments are in keeping with Christian values of love, charity, and respect for other's viewpoints.

If, as I suspect, God is fully involved in this enterprise with LeeD, then it will succeed- and spectacularly so! Stay tuned and keep the faith!

And since LeeD encourages the inclusion of Bible verses in posts, I'll offer the following:

Romans 8:
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

and

31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?


very good post, this is the way i see it too :amen:

[Chajara]

Hope there's room for one more thing in your craw...just because CF "ain't no church" for you hardly takes into consideration all the people who can't go to church for some reason or another.

Those folks who live their lives restricted by many troubles and problems and health conditions of different sorts.

You will never begin to imagine what a good Christian site can mean for them. They don't need to create arguments and conflicting issues and agendas to use for s