Discussion of Announcement: Amendment to Non-nicene Annoucement

[CelticGrace]

NOTE: This thread is for discussing the announcement found here (http://christianforums.com/t6795243-amendment-to-non-nicene-annoucement.html).


1] Non-Nicene Theology is renamed Unorthodox Theology and moved to the Theology forum category;

[2] A fellowship forum is created for unorthodox members as a sub-forum of Unorthodox Theology;

[3] All existing unorthodox theology discussion threads are moved to the Unorthodox Theology forum; all existing threads in the unorthodox Congregations are moved to the fellowship sub-forum.

We go live January 31st.

Over the next month, staff will go in and clean up any promotion type posts or threads. Posts or threads older than 30 days will be left alone to scroll off the page, unless promotion is especially egregious. No violations will be issued for posts made prior to Jan. 31.

Promotion of non-Nicene beliefs will still be covered under the rules, and members will have to be careful to avoid promoting beliefs in the fellowship and theology forums. Posts intended to inform, rather than promote, are still allowed.

[Rochir]

What's going to happen to WWMC?

What should be happening to CC?

[Hentenza]

What should be happening to CC?

CC is orthodox.;)

[Rochir]

CC is orthodox.;)

Hate towards other-thinking peeps also is not!:|

[*Starlight*]

That's a good change, but they should be allowed to promote their views at least in the unorthodox theology forum and the fellowship forum in it.

[Criada]

Thank you for taking this positive step.

Can you give some guidance on the difference between informing and promoting?

I am sure that negative information (up to and including slander, I fear) will be considered informing, and positive information (even when posted to refute slander) will be considered promoting, at least by some moderators. This is how no-promotion rules were always interpreted before at CF.

If this is not to be the case again, what training are the mods receiving to see that they make judgments on the basis of different criteria than the criteria that have been used in the past?

Maybe we could start with a little quiz:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians.
inform [_X] promote [_]

2. Arianism is the belief of Arius (fourth century) that Jesus was created by God, rather than co-eternal with God.
inform [_X] promote [_]

3. Arianism is a heresy.
inform [X_] promote [_]

4. Arianism is supported by the following Bible verses: (list)
inform [_] promote [_]not sure

5. You should listen to a Jehovah's Witness sometime. You will find they actually are rational human beings.
inform [_X] promote [_]

6. Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, thus God created Jesus.
inform [_] promote [_X]

7. Most Baptists are Nestorians.
inform [X_] promote [_]

8. Nestorianism is the belief of Nestorius (fourth-fifth century) that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of God.
inform [X_] promote [_]
10. Nestorianism is supported by the following Bible verses: (list)
inform [_] promote [_]not sure

11. You should listen to a Baptist sometime. You will find they actually are rational human beings.
inform [X_] promote [_]

12. Mary is not the mother of God.
inform [_] promote [_X]


I think that's enough. I would like to see how different staff members would evaluate the statements above. How many will take the quiz?


Put not sure for the Bible verse ones... personally I wold say they are informative, but not sure of the rules on using Bible verses to back up 'unorthodox' positions!

[A New Dawn]

That's a good change, but they should be allowed to promote their views at least in the unorthodox theology forum and the fellowship forum in it.

Why?

[*Starlight*]

Why?
Because it's impossible to have a good theological discussion if one side is allowed to "promote" their views and the other one isn't. And the fellowship forums is a place where they should be able to talk about their beliefs without other people debating them.

[A New Dawn]

Because it's impossible to have a good theological discussion if one side is allowed to "promote" their views and the other one isn't. And the fellowship forums is a place where they should be able to talk about their beliefs without other people debating them.

I disagree. Discussing and promoting are two different things. You can have a good discussion without promoting. When I was unorthodox I had no problem discussing things and never got called down for promoting things.

[Rep Daddy]

Because it's impossible to have a good theological discussion if one side is allowed to "promote" their views and the other one isn't. And the fellowship forums is a place where they should be able to talk about their beliefs without other people debating them.

LeeD has stated he does not want Unorthodox (non-Nicene) views promoted on the site he OWNS.

Your desires and his are at odds. He owns CF, you do not.

Not complicated, really.

[*Starlight*]

I disagree. Discussing and promoting are two different things. You can have a good discussion without promoting. When I was unorthodox I had no problem discussing things and never got called down for promoting things.
But what if the other side in a discussion (the one which is allowed to promote their beliefs) starts promoting their views instead of simply discussing it?

[Rep Daddy]

But what if the other side in a discussion (the one which is allowed to promote their beliefs) starts promoting their views instead of simply discussing it?

LeeD likes Nicenes to promote their beliefs.

[*Starlight*]

LeeD likes Nicenes to promote their beliefs.
But then any discussion stops making sense.

[porterross]

The entire site, by it's very nature promotes the views of the Nicene Creed. That should answer the question.

[*Starlight*]

That should answer the question.
It doesn't.

[Rep Daddy]

But then any discussion stops making sense.

Not really. A New Dawn and I discussed often. She became Nicene.

That's why Erwin started UTD and my guess is LeeD has the same thing in mind.

RD

[porterross]

It doesn't.
It does. You may not like the answer, but it's pretty clear.

[*Starlight*]

Not really. A New Dawn and I discussed often. She became Nicene.

That's why Erwin started UTD and my guess is LeeD has the same thing in mind.

RD
Well, maybe you actually discussed things with her... then it was a meaningful discussion. But right now the rules allow Nicenes to preach at non-Nicenes instead of discussing things with them, and that's meaningless.

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

Why?
I know you're not asking me. But, imo, because not every Christian holds to this site's ideas of what that means, for one thing. And supressing other peoples beliefs doesn't lead to conversion, it leads people to hate Christianity.

The Bible says we're to edify, not quench spirits. We're to build up, not tear down.

Frankly I find this sites idealogy of what constitutes a Christian a little strange as anyone in the real world would not presume to put sanctions on what only God can determine.

This struggle for sameness being equated with righteousness, is what causes wars. I wish it would stop already.

Christian means Christ like. And this isn't.

[*Starlight*]

It does. You may not like the answer, but it's pretty clear.
No, my question was how it's possible to have a meaningful discussion if both sides aren't treated equally. Your answer didn't answer that question.

[A New Dawn]

Well, maybe you actually discussed things with her... then it was a meaningful discussion. But right now the rules allow Nicenes to preach at non-Nicenes instead of discussing things with them, and that's meaningless.

The rules are much looser now than they were when I was unorthodox (the one-click rule was in place, I don't know if it has been rescinded or not), but I am not sure what you mean when you say "...the rules allow Nicenes to preach at non-Nicenes instead of discussing things with them". We beg the LDS to discuss things with us and they refuse. They are the ones preaching at us when we try to discuss things.

[A New Dawn]

I know you're not asking me. But, imo, because not every Christian holds to this site's ideas of what that means, for one thing. And supressing other peoples beliefs doesn't lead to conversion, it leads people to hate Christianity.

The Bible says we're to edify, not quench spirits. We're to build up, not tear down.

Frankly I find this sites idealogy of what constitutes a Christian a little strange as anyone in the real world would not presume to put sanctions on what only God can determine.

This struggle for sameness being equated with righteousness, is what causes wars. I wish it would stop already.

Christian means Christ like. And this isn't.

The Bible says a lot of other things that are, frankly, ignored by people who feel that one theology is as good as another, even if it isn't Biblical. God never said "I'm OK, You're OK". He did say "Go thy way and sin no more", though.

[*Starlight*]

The rules are much looser now than they were when I was unorthodox (the one-click rule was in place, I don't know if it has been rescinded or not), but I am not sure what you mean when you say "...the rules allow Nicenes to preach at non-Nicenes instead of discussing things with them". We beg the LDS to discuss things with us and they refuse. They are the ones preaching at us when we try to discuss things.
Well, I don't really know what the discussions there look like... but with the current rules, your side of the discussion has more rights than the other side, and that's unfair...
The Bible says a lot of other things that are, frankly, ignored by people who feel that one theology is as good as another, even if it isn't Biblical. God never said "I'm OK, You're OK". He did say "Go thy way and sin no more", though.
A person's theology is simply a set of beliefs... and beliefs are just opinions, not confirmed facts. That's why I think that no theology is better than the other.... I think that some are more probable than other, but I don't claim to know for sure which theology is right and which isn't. :)

[Rep Daddy]

Well, I don't really know what the discussions there look like... but with the current rules, your side of the discussion has more rights than the other side, and that's unfair...

The goal is not FAIR. When LeeD says he does not want Non-Nicene views promoted he is making it clear that his goal is not fairness, He has a POV that he wants promoted and one he does not. Fairness isn't the yardstick, the Nicene Creed is.

[HisdaughterJen]

Well, if you're stating an unorthodox opinion in the new forum, then it's going to be controversial and there's going to be lively debate about it.

Every single person who calls themselves a Christian should be able to prove what they believe from Scripture.

For example, if someone starts a thread about the unorthodox belief that Jesus is Michael, then there's bound to be Scriptural evidence posted that demonstrates for all to see why it is an unorthodox belief.

I would agree that we should speak the truth in love and allow a section for debate of unorthodox beliefs.

But, anyone who believes in an unorthodox belief better be prepared to back up their beliefs with scriptural evidence. Isn't that why we're all here? To sharpen each other and learn/know the truth? Or do we just want a public forum to shout our beliefs, whatever they might be, unchallenged?

The TRUTH can withstand debate and scrutiny.

[HisdaughterJen]

Personally, I see that as just stating a somewhat unorthodox belief and open to scriptural evidence otherwise and debate.

The truth found in the Bible is our authority, after all.

[Casstranquility]

But, anyone who believes in an unorthodox belief better be prepared to back up their beliefs with scriptural evidence.

Who's interpretation of scripture will be acceptable??

[HisdaughterJen]

Who's interpretation of scripture will be acceptable??
Well, God usually speaks in more than one place on subjects which should make things clear. IF not...if it comes down to, "I choose to believe my religion's interpretation", then we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

We're not here to force people to believe God's Word. We assist in reminding people of what God says, and they make the decision themselves.

Salvation is between each individual and God. We can't save anybody. We just keep His Word as our authority and move forward.

We are seed planters. God makes it grow.

[Crazy Liz]

I disagree. Discussing and promoting are two different things. You can have a good discussion without promoting. When I was unorthodox I had no problem discussing things and never got called down for promoting things.
That was a long time ago.

I think there's been some drift in the working definition of "promoting."

[Crazy Liz]

LeeD has stated he does not want Unorthodox (non-Nicene) views promoted on the site he OWNS.

Your desires and his are at odds. He owns CF, you do not.

Not complicated, really.
Yup.

The old tension between whether CF was a ministry, a community or a proprietorship has finally been settled. It is a proprietorship and no longer claims to be anything more. Gone is the motto, "Uniting all Christians as one body."

It is much simpler now.

Glad it makes you happy.

[Crazy Liz]

Not really. A New Dawn and I discussed often. She became Nicene.

That's why Erwin started UTD and my guess is LeeD has the same thing in mind.

RD
Do you think in february 2008 she would be allowed to say what she was allowed to say back in the day when you had those discussions?

Perhaps if we could see some of those threads, it would put our minds at ease.

[A New Dawn]

That was a long time ago.

I think there's been some drift in the working definition of "promoting."

You're right, there has been some drift, but it was towards making things fairer. When I was unorthodox, we couldn't link to anything to support our side of an argument, and at the same time we got called for not referencing our sources. When I went on staff, this is one of the things I argued. If UTD was supposed to be a debate forum, they had to relax the rules to allow for debate. If they wanted it to be outreach, then they should move it out of the debate section and put it in outreach and forbid debate. They decided to allow referencing of arguments as long as you could not get to a promotional site in one click from the page cited. We called it the one-click rule. (Promotional meaning a site that actively promoted the LDS religion (or any other non-Nicene religion), such as the official LDS website (or the official RLDS website.))

There were foreward-moving actions taken. How they will stand up under the new ruling, I don't know.

[Latreia]

How does the site wide Nicene Creed rule of non-promotion of unorthodox views cover the title of the thread above?

Because if this new rule will not prevent such threads, it is worthless.

[A New Dawn]

How does the site wide Nicene Creed rule of non-promotion of unorthodox views cover the title of the thread above?

Because if this new rule will not prevent such threads, it is worthless.

Well, I'd consider that promotion!

[Latreia]

Well, I'd consider that promotion!

20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.

Promotion of what, exactly? An mere attempt to communicate, to discuss, to exchange views in a respectful manner?

Any other answers to this?

[CaDan]

How does the site wide Nicene Creed rule of non-promotion of unorthodox views cover the title of the thread above?

Because if this new rule will not prevent such threads, it is worthless.

Don't know. I'd have to look at the context--including the specific forum, the content of the OP, the way folks reacted, etc.

[Latreia]

Don't know. I'd have to look at the context--including the specific forum, the content of the OP, the way folks reacted, etc.


20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.


This is reason number one written by an author named :
Chaz Bufe

As for now I'm only going to present his first reason in his own words.

1. Christianity is based on fear.




The book plainly referenced is here.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/demo/?review=1#url=http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/20_Reasons_to_abandon_Christianity

Like a look at the other 19 reasons?

2 2. Christianity preys on the innocent.
3 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty.
4 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric.
5 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality.
6 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism.
7 7. Christianity is cruel.
8 8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific.
9 9. Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex.
10 10. Christianity produces sexual misery.
11 11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality.
12 12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils.
13 13. Christianity depreciates the natural world.
14 14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization.
15 15. Christianity sanctions slavery.
16 16. Christianity is misogynistic.
17 17. Christianity is homophobic.
18 18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.
19 19. The Bible, Christianity’s basic text, is riddled with contradictions.
20 20. Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions.


So, you tell me, CaDan, is this type of garbage going to flourish despite the new announcements?

The thread is in General Apologetics.

But if the title is not enough to get it a violation and thread deletion, right now, what difference is the Nicene Creed supposed to make?

[Rep Daddy]

PREDICTION:

Mods who do not like Lee's directive will take the battle to the report threads rather than resign.

[snoochface]

The book plainly referenced is here.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/demo/?review=1#url=http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/20_Reasons_to_abandon_Christianity

Like a look at the other 19 reasons?

2 2. Christianity preys on the innocent.
3 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty.
4 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric.
5 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality.
6 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism.
7 7. Christianity is cruel.
8 8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific.
9 9. Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex.
10 10. Christianity produces sexual misery.
11 11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality.
12 12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils.
13 13. Christianity depreciates the natural world.
14 14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization.
15 15. Christianity sanctions slavery.
16 16. Christianity is misogynistic.
17 17. Christianity is homophobic.
18 18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.
19 19. The Bible, Christianity’s basic text, is riddled with contradictions.
20 20. Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions.


So, you tell me, CaDan, is this type of garbage going to flourish despite the new announcements?

The thread is in General Apologetics.

But if the title is not enough to get it a violation and thread deletion, right now, what difference is the Nicene Creed supposed to make?



The rule isn't in effect yet, the forums are not set up yet, so I don't think it would warrant a deletion/violation right now. And once everything is in effect, I would think it would be grandfathered in, at least as far as violations go.

[CaDan]

The book plainly referenced is here.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/demo/?review=1#url=http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/20_Reasons_to_abandon_Christianity

Like a look at the other 19 reasons?

2 2. Christianity preys on the innocent.
3 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty.
4 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric.
5 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality.
6 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism.
7 7. Christianity is cruel.
8 8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific.
9 9. Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex.
10 10. Christianity produces sexual misery.
11 11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality.
12 12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils.
13 13. Christianity depreciates the natural world.
14 14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization.
15 15. Christianity sanctions slavery.
16 16. Christianity is misogynistic.
17 17. Christianity is homophobic.
18 18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.
19 19. The Bible, Christianity’s basic text, is riddled with contradictions.
20 20. Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions.


So, you tell me, CaDan, is this type of garbage going to flourish despite the new announcements?

The thread is in General Apologetics.

But if the title is not enough to get it a violation and thread deletion, right now, what difference is the Nicene Creed supposed to make?




Looks like an invitation to do apologetics in General Apologetics. I don't see a problem.

If it upsets you so much, might I suggest you not hang around General Apologetics? It's kind of a rough neighborhood.

[Rep Daddy]

Looks like an invitation to do apologetics in General Apologetics. I don't see a problem.

If it upsets you so much, might I suggest you not hang around General Apologetics? It's kind of a rough neighborhood.

Maybe that is what concerns Lee. Ya think?

[CaDan]

Maybe that is what concerns Lee. Ya think?

No.

[blueanjel]

The book plainly referenced is here.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/demo/?review=1#url=http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/20_Reasons_to_abandon_Christianity

Like a look at the other 19 reasons?

2 2. Christianity preys on the innocent.
3 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty.
4 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric.
5 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality.
6 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism.
7 7. Christianity is cruel.
8 8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific.
9 9. Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex.
10 10. Christianity produces sexual misery.
11 11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality.
12 12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils.
13 13. Christianity depreciates the natural world.
14 14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization.
15 15. Christianity sanctions slavery.
16 16. Christianity is misogynistic.
17 17. Christianity is homophobic.
18 18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.
19 19. The Bible, Christianity’s basic text, is riddled with contradictions.
20 20. Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions.


So, you tell me, CaDan, is this type of garbage going to flourish despite the new announcements?

The thread is in General Apologetics.

But if the title is not enough to get it a violation and thread deletion, right now, what difference is the Nicene Creed supposed to make?




unbelievable really :sick:

[Latreia]

The rule isn't in effect yet, the forums are not set up yet, so I don't think it would warrant a deletion/violation right now. And once everything is in effect, I would think it would be grandfathered in, at least as far as violations go.

Looks like an invitation to do apologetics in General Apologetics. I don't see a problem.

If it upsets you so much, might I suggest you not hang around General Apologetics? It's kind of a rough neighborhood.


Until attitudes that accommodate these kinds of flagrant attacks to destroy Christians and their faith are called to face up to hateful realities, something called "Christian Forums" will always remain some kind of idiotic joke.

CF is a farce if it is merely a stepchild offshoot of the Secular Web.

[blueanjel]

Looks like an invitation to do apologetics in General Apologetics. I don't see a problem.

If it upsets you so much, might I suggest you not hang around General Apologetics? It's kind of a rough neighborhood.

hope it is the next to go too, imo it is disgusting that it has ever been allowed to flourish here in the first place... it is no wonder that there is so much strife here instead of joy

the fact that you see no problem with it is even more disturbing since you are a moderator here

[blueanjel]

PREDICTION:

Mods who do not like Lee's directive will take the battle to the report threads rather than resign.

ya think? :idea:

[Rep Daddy]

ya think? :idea:

There are some that hate the thought of using the Nicene Creed. They lobbied Erwin for YEARS. Now that LeeD is returning it I think the struggle will continue and with those on staff who loathe it using passive aggressive means of protest.

Whether this succeeds (ie the return to the Creed) will depend on how this is handled at a staff level.

It can be done, but it will be a struggle behind the scenes.

Or so I predict.

RD

[sacerdote]

Until attitudes that accommodate these kinds of flagrant attacks to destroy Christians and their faith are called to face up to hateful realities, something called "Christian Forums" will always remain some kind of idiotic joke.

CF is a farce if it is merely a stepchild offshoot of the Secular Web.

Cadan, you once rebuked me, harshly and publically. Thank you, for everything you forced me to endure for your amusement.

It has made me stronger than I could ever have been.

You have taught me everything I know about contempt.
Obviously I think the 20 Reasons to Leave Christianity thread is obnoxious and without merit. The guy who OP'd it is an atheist who apparently likes denigrating Christianity.

The thing is, Christians go in there and start arguing, defending and generally making a Christian case and then some more atheists come in and it turns into a free for all.

If we ignored these OP's (Christian members not the mods), recognizing them for what they are, they would fade away. Guarantee it.

[blueanjel]

Obviously I think the 20 Reasons to Leave Christianity thread is obnoxious and without merit. The guy who OP'd it is an atheist who apparently likes denigrating Christianity.

The thing is, Christians go in there and start arguing, defending and generally making a Christian case and then some more atheists come in and it turns into a free for all.

If we ignored these OP's (Christian members not the mods), recognizing them for what they are, they would fade away. Guarantee it.

but the reality is this, how do you know that the ones that go in there to argue with the atheists are christians anyway? not saying they are not, do not get me wrong there...what i am saying is this, say someone that wanted to have a little fun bashing christains has 2 or more accounts here, one says they are an atheist and the others say they are of different beliefs, what is to stop them from posting to themselves just to keep it going? or to buddy up with other atheists to do the same thing?

the whole section is really IMO a poison to this forum

if there are sincere persons that want to learn more about Christ there are numerous other ways to do that here, all forums are open for reading and most for anyone to post in

the debates that go on there are doing nothing but causing strife, something that christians really do not need when at a christian message board

[CaDan]

hope it is the next to go too, imo it is disgusting that it has ever been allowed to flourish here in the first place... it is no wonder that there is so much strife here instead of joy

Warrant? Maybe? That is, what is the reason your first sentence fragment supports your second sentence fragment as an argument?

the fact that you see no problem with it is even more disturbing since you are a moderator here

It is on-topic for an apologetics forum. Apologetics can be a rough business--have a look at the Dialog with Trypho. It is not everyone's cup of tea.

But then, neither is systematic theology, Pentecostalism, or hockey. If you're not interested, don't go to those forums or read the posts there.

[CaDan]

but the reality is this, how do you know that the ones that go in there to argue with the atheists are christians anyway? not saying they are not, do not get me wrong there...what i am saying is this, say someone that wanted to have a little fun bashing christains has 2 or more accounts here, one says they are an atheist and the others say they are of different beliefs, what is to stop them from posting to themselves just to keep it going? or to buddy up with other atheists to do the same thing?


You give the EAC a bit too much credit, I think.

[Bombila]

She does indeed.

Blueanjel, most of us are not here to 'bash' Christians. There are a few young things who do a bit of that, but most of us do not use 'socks' and have a very different agenda from the one you seem to ascribe to us.

Regarding the amendment:

It's a nice bit of sugarcoating of a bitter pill, but at least it's sweet.

You would think the PTB could have thought this plan through thoroughly enough to have included this in the original announcement, so the sugar pill could have been a preventative placebo, instead of just brutally rejecting various people's sincere beliefs that they are Christians.

"Here's yer lollipop!"

[Indrid Cold]

Par for the course, unfortunately.

[Crazy Liz]

Don't know. I'd have to look at the context--including the specific forum, the content of the OP, the way folks reacted, etc.
Wanna take my quiz?

[Crazy Liz]

Guess all the discussion is continuing in the old thread (http://christianforums.com/t6790422-discussion-of-announcement-new-site-wide-rule-nicene-christianity-2.html&page=9).

[Crazy Liz]

Maybe that is what concerns Lee. Ya think?
You wanna talk about what's easy or what's true?

[Crazy Liz]

Until attitudes that accommodate these kinds of flagrant attacks to destroy Christians and their faith are called to face up to hateful realities, something called "Christian Forums" will always remain some kind of idiotic joke.

CF is a farce if it is merely a stepchild offshoot of the Secular Web.

Cadan, you once rebuked me, harshly and publically. Thank you, for everything you forced me to endure for your amusement.

It has made me stronger than I could ever have been.

You have taught me everything I know about contempt.
Sorry,but suppression of opposing views is not what apologetics is about.

Apologetics is about answering opposing views.

[Crazy Liz]

Obviously I think the 20 Reasons to Leave Christianity thread is obnoxious and without merit. The guy who OP'd it is an atheist who apparently likes denigrating Christianity.

The thing is, Christians go in there and start arguing, defending and generally making a Christian case and then some more atheists come in and it turns into a free for all.

If we ignored these OP's (Christian members not the mods), recognizing them for what they are, they would fade away. Guarantee it.
Posts like that might fade away, but would the Kingdom of God be advanced among such opponents if they were ignored, rather than addressed?

[Crazy Liz]

Put not sure for the Bible verse ones... personally I wold say they are informative, but not sure of the rules on using Bible verses to back up 'unorthodox' positions!
The quiz is still in the main thread, but a response to it is a derail? :confused:

[Crazy Liz]

Not really. A New Dawn and I discussed often. She became Nicene.

That's why Erwin started UTD and my guess is LeeD has the same thing in mind.

RD
If she had been as restricted then as she would now be under the current rules, do you think it's possible the results might have been different?

[Crazy Liz]

Well, maybe you actually discussed things with her... then it was a meaningful discussion. But right now the rules allow Nicenes to preach at non-Nicenes instead of discussing things with them, and that's meaningless.
That's what I meant.

[Crazy Liz]

The rules are much looser now than they were when I was unorthodox (the one-click rule was in place, I don't know if it has been rescinded or not), but I am not sure what you mean when you say "...the rules allow Nicenes to preach at non-Nicenes instead of discussing things with them". We beg the LDS to discuss things with us and they refuse. They are the ones preaching at us when we try to discuss things.
The one-click rule and the no-promotion rule operate in different domains. I can't see how it's legitimate to state under the one-click rule discussion was more limited than under the no-promotion rule. They are apples and oranges.

[Crazy Liz]

You're right, there has been some drift, but it was towards making things fairer. When I was unorthodox, we couldn't link to anything to support our side of an argument, and at the same time we got called for not referencing our sources. When I went on staff, this is one of the things I argued. If UTD was supposed to be a debate forum, they had to relax the rules to allow for debate. If they wanted it to be outreach, then they should move it out of the debate section and put it in outreach and forbid debate. They decided to allow referencing of arguments as long as you could not get to a promotional site in one click from the page cited. We called it the one-click rule. (Promotional meaning a site that actively promoted the LDS religion (or any other non-Nicene religion), such as the official LDS website (or the official RLDS website.))

There were foreward-moving actions taken. How they will stand up under the new ruling, I don't know.
The rules about links and the rules about stating your own views are apples and oranges.

I don't agree with the one-click rule, but that doesn't mean I think the no-promotion rule is better.

[ravenscape]

The quiz is still in the main thread, but a response to it is a derail? :confused:
That was a hard call. We felt you'd addressed the quiz questions to LeeD and staff at large, but if dozens of people wind up taking the quiz, it would make the Q&A aspect of the announcement thread hard to follow.

I can put a copy of your quiz post in this thread, too. Would that help?

[jeffC]

.

[sacerdote]

That was a hard call. We felt you'd addressed the quiz questions to LeeD and staff at large, but if dozens of people wind up taking the quiz, it would make the Q&A aspect of the announcement thread hard to follow.

I can put a copy of your quiz post in this thread, too. Would that help?

Hi, what about taking the quiz post and making it a separate thread?

[Crazy Liz]

I'd like to see more staff members take the quiz. I think it will help show whether the new rule is workable or not.

[ravenscape]

Liz, would you like to start a separate thread in W/RD then (or have Support split it from the announcement)? I can't promise staff will flock to take it, but a separate thread would at least make it easier to find.

[Crazy Liz]

Ok.

[ravenscape]

Does that mean...you'll do it or do you want Support to do it?

[Crazy Liz]

Does that mean...you'll do it or do you want Support to do it?
Oops! :o

[LovebirdsFlying]

Gee, with the thread splits I'm not sure where to put this, but here's how I see it:

Information: "This is what I believe and practice, and here's why."

Promotion: "This is what YOU should believe and practice."

It can be a very subtle line sometimes.

[SallyNow]

Well, it's good to see some sort of compromise.

I there is a clear line between discussion and promotion.

Discussion: "What do think about this and that..."

promotion "this and that is what you should think!"

Here's the valid question (sorry if it has been asked already):

In any fellowship forum, a person of Unorthodox Faith X may have a question about, say, finding a kids club, such as Girl Scouts or Leaders in Training, perhaps even one that is run by an unorthodox church. Would it be okay for another person from Unorthodox Faith X to post a link to a girl scouts program run at an unorthodox church? Or would it have to be secular?

Or what if person of unorthodox Faith X is new to the province/state, and asks about churches, or clubs, etc. Would it be a violation to say, "well, there a UFX church here, and they a great knitting club, I've heard..."?

[synger]

Much of the confusion and concern that I've read seems to center around how staff will define "promotion".

I've taken some of the ideas presented here, and added them to the thread where we can try to clarify what we think that means (http://christianforums.com/t6785584&nw_show=comments), and I invite you to participate in the discussion. Perhaps our discussion will be useful to TPTB as they prepare to give guidance to the staff on this matter.

[Amoranemix]

I first responded to two posts from christianforums.com/t6795243-amendment-to-non-nicene-annoucement.html.

It is my opinion that if the question is allowed then the answer should be allowed. If the answer would garner a warning then the question shouldn't be allowed.I agree.

Glad to see the positive feedback for a decision we felt was needed to offer a real balance here. Once the big announcement was made, we were swamped with PMs offering advice / feedback. We (myself, Constance, and MNPHysicist) made the call to make this ammendment. This is a good move that we can all feel good about.Contratulations, but I would prefer that you would listen to posters, rather than Pmers. Message boards should serve the posters, not the Pmers.

How does the site wide Nicene Creed rule of non-promotion of unorthodox views cover the title of the thread above?
Because if this new rule will not prevent such threads, it is worthless
Allowing for debate is a two edged sword. It has the benefit of attracting other-believers that could be converted and it avoids the accusation that Christians refuse to defend their beliefs in proper debates. The downside is of course that it allows the other-believers to present their case as well.
In my experience, the censorship of skeptics has been mild, but noticable and not more severe than that of Christians in Christian areas. (Of course, in the Christian areas the skeptics would be censored more.)

So, you tell me, CaDan, is this type of garbage going to flourish despite the new announcements?If it is garbage, why don't you expose it as such ? Skeptics are usually willing to change their beliefs in the face of evidence and reason.
The thread is in General Apologetics.
But if the title is not enough to get it a violation and thread deletion, right now, what difference is the Nicene Creed supposed to make?I think the CF creed is meant mainly to prevent promotion in the non-debating areas.

Mods who do not like Lee's directive will take the battle to the report threads rather than resign.I'll make a prediction of my own. Moderators who like LeeD's directives will rather censor people than resign.

Until attitudes that accommodate these kinds of flagrant attacks to destroy Christians and their faith are called to face up to hateful realities, something called "Christian Forums" will always remain some kind of idiotic joke.
CF is a farce if it is merely a stepchild offshoot of the Secular Web.The attitude people take toward you depend on how you behave. Your promotion of hate is duely noted. A greater fraction of the skeptics than of the Niceans has been defending the non-Niceans against the change that afflicts the latter.

hope it is the next to go too, imo it is disgusting that it has ever been allowed to flourish here in the first place... it is no wonder that there is so much strife here instead of joyHow would the Discussion & Debate section increase the strife elsewhere. My observation is that Christians are competent enough to fight among themselves without anyone's help.

There are some that hate the thought of using the Nicene Creed. They lobbied Erwin for YEARS. Now that LeeD is returning it I think the struggle will continue and with those on staff who loathe it using passive aggressive means of protest.I suspect that the behaviour of those who love the Nicene Creed hasn't been more commendable.

Obviously I think the 20 Reasons to Leave Christianity thread is obnoxious and without merit. The guy who OP'd it is an atheist who apparently likes denigrating Christianity.He claims to be an ex-Christian. Something seems to have stuck.

You would think the PTB could have thought this plan throughthoroughly enough to have included this in the original announcement, so the sugar pill could have been a preventative placebo, instead of just brutally rejecting various people's sincere beliefs that they are Christians.It is generally more desirable from a crowd control POV to take away too much and give the extra back again.

1) If you take away 3 from people, then they are angry.

2) If you take away 5 from people then they are angry. If you give back 2 to them, then they appreciate the gesture and they and are only a bit angry anymore.

The second scenario is to be preferred by the Powers That Be because they would then have shown the plebs that they care about their desires. For the plebs though their is no difference. They lost 3 in both cases.

Of course it can also work against the PTB and it has. If they give something and then take it away again, then the populace is angry. If you give people the taste of freedom, they want to keep it.

I'd like to see more staff members take the quiz. I think it will help show whether the new rule is workable or not.Take into account that the perception of the concept promotion will change over time. Next week the same person may respond differently to the quiz. I can't find the quiz yet.

The link to the reports category seems to have vanished today.

[Tonks]

Wanna take my quiz?

Where is it?

[Crazy Liz]

Where is it?
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43104666&postcount=27

[Tonks]

1. Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians.
inform [x] promote [_]

2. Arianism is the belief of Arius (fourth century) that Jesus was created by God, rather than co-eternal with God.
inform [x] promote [_]

3. Arianism is a heresy.
inform [x] promote [_]

4. Arianism is supported by the following Bible verses: (list)
inform [x] promote [x]
Depends on the context. I have no problem with a discussion of Arianism as heresy from a historical perspective. When it becomes a defense of Arianism as a proper theology then the problems start.

5. You should listen to a Jehovah's Witness sometime. You will find they actually are rational human beings.
inform [x] promote [x]

It becomes promotion when it turns to a discussion of how one should listen to JWs to consider their rationally thought out theology.

6. Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, thus God created Jesus.
inform [_] promote [x]

This is a pure theological discussion. Depending on the context it can be framed as a question which leads to proper answers. If it is framed as an assertion then one has problems. Generally these types of things end up being promotional...not always...but 95% of the time.

7. Most Baptists are Nestorians.
inform [x] promote [_]

However...based on my personal experience both one on one and at Baptist churches I'd say that your statement is incorrect. Further, I find Christological discussions to be deemphasized within a Baptist framework.

8. Nestorianism is the belief of Nestorius (fourth-fifth century) that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of God.
inform [x] promote [_]

9. Nestorianism is a heresy.
inform [x] promote [_]

10. Nestorianism is supported by the following Bible verses: (list)
inform [x] promote [x]

See the similar discussion on Arianism above.

11. You should listen to a Baptist sometime. You will find they actually are rational human beings.
inform [x] promote [_]

Dissimilar to the question above regarding JWs I don't have a problem if Baptists either inform folks or promote their theology. I didn't check "promote" as in the context of this quiz I'm reserving that for unorthodox beliefs.

12. Mary is not the mother of God.
inform [x] promote [x]

Depends on the context. If it is an assertion it is definitely promotion. If it is a question or a discussion point one would have to view the conversation. Pretty much same answer as the one I gave to question 6.

[Tonks]

I guess the demands that staff take the quiz weren't really that important. Either that or my answers didn't fit the pre-conceived notion of what would occur.

[Crazy Liz]

I guess the demands that staff take the quiz weren't really that important. Either that or my answers didn't fit the pre-conceived notion of what would occur.
I didn't see them. Could you please provide a linky?

[Tonks]

Post 77 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43272291&postcount=77) of this thread. Otherwise known as three posts above this one.

[Crazy Liz]

1. Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians.
inform [x] promote [_]

2. Arianism is the belief of Arius (fourth century) that Jesus was created by God, rather than co-eternal with God.
inform [x] promote [_]

3. Arianism is a heresy.
inform [x] promote [_]

4. Arianism is supported by the following Bible verses: (list)
inform [x] promote [x]
Depends on the context. I have no problem with a discussion of Arianism as heresy from a historical perspective. When it becomes a defense of Arianism as a proper theology then the problems start.

5. You should listen to a Jehovah's Witness sometime. You will find they actually are rational human beings.
inform [x] promote [x]

It becomes promotion when it turns to a discussion of how one should listen to JWs to consider their rationally thought out theology.

6. Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, thus God created Jesus.
inform [_] promote [x]

This is a pure theological discussion. Depending on the context it can be framed as a question which leads to proper answers. If it is framed as an assertion then one has problems. Generally these types of things end up being promotional...not always...but 95% of the time.

7. Most Baptists are Nestorians.
inform [x] promote [_]

However...based on my personal experience both one on one and at Baptist churches I'd say that your statement is incorrect. Further, I find Christological discussions to be deemphasized within a Baptist framework.

8. Nestorianism is the belief of Nestorius (fourth-fifth century) that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of God.
inform [x] promote [_]

9. Nestorianism is a heresy.
inform [x] promote [_]

10. Nestorianism is supported by the following Bible verses: (list)
inform [x] promote [x]

See the similar discussion on Arianism above.

11. You should listen to a Baptist sometime. You will find they actually are rational human beings.
inform [x] promote [_]

Dissimilar to the question above regarding JWs I don't have a problem if Baptists either inform folks or promote their theology. I didn't check "promote" as in the context of this quiz I'm reserving that for unorthodox beliefs.

12. Mary is not the mother of God.
inform [x] promote [x]

Depends on the context. If it is an assertion it is definitely promotion. If it is a question or a discussion point one would have to view the conversation. Pretty much same answer as the one I gave to question 6.
Thanks for pointing out this post, Tonks. I don't know why I missed it when I looked for it before.

I hope we'll see more responses. There are several problems I see with the responses I've seen so far, but I'd like to see whether there is a consensus before discussing my observations.

[Crazy Liz]

I guess the demands that staff take the quiz weren't really that important. Either that or my answers didn't fit the pre-conceived notion of what would occur.
Actually, Tonks, I was looking to see whether there was general consensus among the staff about how this rule should be interpreted. Since I only saw two responses, it is impossible to get a feel for consistency or lack thereof.