Discussion of ANNOUNCEMENT: Vision, tagline, SoF, and revised promotion rule [Archive]

Richard

1st May 2008, 06:32 PM

Members and staff,

Lee has set out his vision for CF. The new site motto will be: "Where Two or Three are Gathered." The vision for CF will be heavily focused on inreach, uplifting and encouraging Christians in faith, with slight emphasis on outreach.

Some of the keywords Lee used to describe his vision for CF:

- friendly
- Christian love
- kindness
- peace
- encouragement
- hope
- support
- PRAYER

In addition, the following will replace the Nicene Creed as Christian Forums' Statement of Faith. This was drawn up as a collaborative effort between senior staff, with the intent of having a clear, concise, and easy to understand statement of faith:

CF statement of faith: This is the basis of which our non-promotion rule is based upon, and is the baseline for forum-specific guidelines. An individual forum can use the Nicene Creed without asterisks, a confession of faith, or other statements, provided such is an expansion of the CF statement of faith. However, forum-specific guidelines must not conflict with the CF Statement of Faith.

CF supports the following as a statement of faith

We worship one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Isaiah 44:6-8; Exodus 3:15). God is three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share one essence--the Trinity (John 6:27; John 1:1, 14; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 1:2-3).

Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), was conceived in time by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35) and existed before all time begotten of God the Father (John 1: 2; John 1: 18). He was crucified for our sins, died, was buried, resurrected on the third day (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) and is seated at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16: 19). Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (John 1:49; Matthew 16:16). His coming was foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament (Acts 3:18-23). He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead (Acts 10: 42) and His Kingdom will have no end (2 Peter 1: 11).

With the new statement of faith, the promotion rule will be changed to the following:

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Christianity. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith.

Original Announcement (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7207259)

If you are posting in this Wiki you will adhere to the site rules (http://christianforums.com/rules), like always.

Rep Daddy

1st May 2008, 06:43 PM

This is a wiki?

synger

2nd May 2008, 08:55 AM

Repost of original article, in case we use the wiki to summarize ideas from the discussion:

Quote:
Members and staff,

Lee has set out his vision for CF. The new site motto will be: "Where Two or Three are Gathered." The vision for CF will be heavily focused on inreach, uplifting and encouraging Christians in faith, with slight emphasis on outreach.

Some of the keywords Lee used to describe his vision for CF:

- friendly
- Christian love
- kindness
- peace
- encouragement
- hope
- support
- PRAYER

In addition, the following will replace the Nicene Creed as Christian Forums' Statement of Faith. This was drawn up as a collaborative effort between senior staff, with the intent of having a clear, concise, and easy to understand statement of faith:

CF statement of faith: This is the basis of which our non-promotion rule is based upon, and is the baseline for forum-specific guidelines. An individual forum can use the Nicene Creed without asterisks, a confession of faith, or other statements, provided such is an expansion of the CF statement of faith. However, forum-specific guidelines must not conflict with the CF Statement of Faith.

CF supports the following as a statement of faith

We worship one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Isaiah 44:6-8; Exodus 3:15). God is three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share one essence--the Trinity (John 6:27; John 1:1, 14; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 1:2-3).

Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), was conceived in time by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35) and existed before all time begotten of God the Father (John 1: 2; John 1: 18). He was crucified for our sins, died, was buried, resurrected on the third day (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) and is seated at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16: 19). Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (John 1:49; Matthew 16:16). His coming was foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament (Acts 3:18-23). He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead (Acts 10: 42) and His Kingdom will have no end (2 Peter 1: 11).

With the new statement of faith, the promotion rule will be changed to the following:

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Christianity. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith.

Original Announcement (http://christianforums.com/t7207259)

If you are posting in this Wiki you will adhere to the site rules (http://christianforums.com/rules), like always.

A New Dawn

2nd May 2008, 08:59 AM

Rep Daddy

2nd May 2008, 08:59 AM

Is this up for modification? It seems like an official announcement from the top.

synger

2nd May 2008, 09:00 AM

This is a wiki?

Yes, the discussion threads in DR are in wiki format, as noted in the stickies (http://christianforums.com/t6388279-how-to-use-wiki-for-discuss-rules.html)in this forum.

No, it is not a wiki in the 777 sense. They are set up this way not so that members may come to consensus on policy or protocols, but rather so that as the discussion continues the wiki article can become a summary of the major points of the discussion. This allows TPTB to review what's been brought up without wading through the whole thread.

Some examples of how that has been used:

Open Report Threads (http://christianforums.com/t6371218-wiki-copy-open-report-threads.html)

Discussion of Unorthodox Theology (http://christianforums.com/t7164716-discussion-of-unorthodox-theology-and-its-subforums.html)

synger

2nd May 2008, 09:02 AM

Is this up for modification? It seems like an official announcement from the top.

It is not "up for modification" per se, but if there are major issues that need to be clarified, this is the place to bring them up. We can summarize those issues, and ask TPTB to review the problems. They can use the input from this discussion to clarify protocol and policy, once we identify the issues that need clarification or further explanation.

Rep Daddy

2nd May 2008, 09:04 AM

gotcha

synger

2nd May 2008, 09:06 AM

Personally, as a staff member, I want clarification whether we should still use the "Nicene Creed and Promotion (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6856148)" guidelines, only applying it to the new Statement of Faith instead of the Nicene Creed. Those guidelines outlined some fairly clear expectations of what "promotion" was and was not. Doesn't seem to make sense to throw it completely out.

It says:

Nicene Creed and Promotion

New Rule:

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity. Promotion of Satanism or occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

Clarifying Interpretation of the Creed

[1] Promotion of non-apostolic beliefs will not be censored.

[2] Eschatological beliefs will not be censored. Christian Universalism will not be censored.

[3] Blatant and explicit promotion of Nestorianism will be censored. Denial of Mary as the mother of God, in and of itself, will not be considered a contradiction of the Creed.

[4] Affirmation of the Nicene Creed is explicitly not required. As concerns promotion, posts and threads are not expected to be in agreement with the use of the Nicene Creed itself, only the beliefs contained therein. Members may promote a "No Creed but Christ" position.

[5] Religious icons will not be touched, nor verified. Members may choose the icons they want, even if it is not representative of their beliefs.

Promotion of non-Nicene/non-Christian Beliefs

What promotion is:

Promotion is statements made to convert or encourage conversion to non-Nicene/non-Christian beliefs or religions. Proselytizing must always be from a Nicene Christian point of view.

What promotion isn't:

[1] Debating Nicene beliefs is not to be understood as promotion.

[2] Clarifying a misconception or falsehood, concerning non-Nicene beliefs, is not to be understood as promotion.

[3] Posts or threads intended to inform about non-Nicene beliefs is not to be understood as promotion.

[4] Offering a non-Nicene belief as a statement of fact is not to be understood as promotion. *

[5] Making positive statements about one's faith or beliefs is not to be understood as promotion. *

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion may be understood as any portrayal of Satanism or occultism as an acceptable belief system.

Context is Important

Determining promotion, is in large part dependent on the context of the thread, and the forum. Forums where debate of non-Nicene/non-Christian beliefs is common, will take a much more relaxed interpretation of promotion, than will forums such as Teens, or some Congregation forums.

* Speaking positively or making statements of fact about one's beliefs is fine, and is generally not considered promotion. However, based on the context of the thread and forum, ie. in a thread about a seeking member, or a struggling Christian, such could be removed as promotion.
If we changed "Nicene" to "Christian" in this, it would be a good start.

A New Dawn

2nd May 2008, 11:35 AM

synger

2nd May 2008, 01:33 PM

If we continue to use the guidelines from before, eschatological issues are not considered promotion. That includes the whole pre-, post-, or a- millennial thing.

Richard

2nd May 2008, 03:59 PM

Oh wow, I created this ;) CF went poof, didn't know I did. :)

A New Dawn

2nd May 2008, 04:15 PM

If we continue to use the guidelines from before, eschatological issues are not considered promotion. That includes the whole pre-, post-, or a- millennial thing.

I was speaking to the fact that some believe that those who believe in the millennium don't believe that Christ's kingdom will have no end. Is that the purpose of that statement, to keep those who are chiliasts out of being defined as real Christians?

Ramona

2nd May 2008, 05:24 PM

subscribin'

Tonks

2nd May 2008, 06:08 PM

Does the line "He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead (Acts 10: 42) and His Kingdom will have no end (2 Peter 1: 11)." mean that those who believe in the millennium will not be considered real Christians?

Thanks.

IIRC I believe that we intentionally crafted it to be silent as to the specifics of things eschatological other than to recognize that affirming the coming judgment is proper within a Christian context.

I'd also note that this wiki isn't for a complete rewrite of the SoF. I don't even know if minor tweaks will be changed as that is up to Lee et al. I think, personally, that some minor mods can be discussed (external preexistence vice exist) but we're not going back to a "community consensus developmental model" for the SoF. All suggestions need to fall within the framework presented.

Glass*Soul

2nd May 2008, 06:34 PM

I know of several websites where Christians discuss their issues exclusively amongst themselves, but now that CF is emphasizing inreach with a minimum of outreach, where on the web can we find a large number of Christians willing, ready and able to reach out to non-Christians and interact freely with them? Is there anyplace like that?

Tonks

2nd May 2008, 06:42 PM

That's somewhat beyond my ken...and I'm generally not in the habit of suggesting folks go elsewhere. Honestly, I dunno how this is all going to shake out...CF is going to look and feel entirely different in a few days so getting through that thrash is priority one, at least for me.

Crazy Liz

2nd May 2008, 07:24 PM

Who made up this word inreach? And what does it mean, really?

Rep Daddy

2nd May 2008, 07:26 PM

It means fellowship and discipleship.

Glass*Soul

2nd May 2008, 07:40 PM

It means fellowship and discipleship.

Discipleship?

Rep Daddy

2nd May 2008, 07:42 PM

Discipleship?

sure
Jesus is for it

Glass*Soul

2nd May 2008, 07:45 PM

sure
Jesus is for it

How so?

Rep Daddy

2nd May 2008, 07:48 PM

Mt. 28:18-20

Crazy Liz

2nd May 2008, 07:50 PM

Mt. 28:18-20
matthew 28:18-20
I gathered from the announcement that inreach was the opposite of outreach. :confused:

Rep Daddy

2nd May 2008, 07:52 PM

NASV
Mat 28:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=28&translation=nas&x=8&y=9#) And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Mat 28:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=28&translation=nas&x=8&y=9#) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

A New Dawn

2nd May 2008, 08:00 PM

IIRC I believe that we intentionally crafted it to be silent as to the specifics of things eschatological other than to recognize that affirming the coming judgment is proper within a Christian context.

Thanks. :wave:

I'd also note that this wiki isn't for a complete rewrite of the SoF. I don't even know if minor tweaks will be changed as that is up to Lee et al. I think, personally, that some minor mods can be discussed (external preexistence vice exist) but we're not going back to a "community consensus developmental model" for the SoF. All suggestions need to fall within the framework presented.

I understand that, but I just wanted to make sure that this aspect was considered since it seemed to be an issue to quite a few when I was on staff before. I just wanted to make sure that Lee was aware of the controversy.

CaDan

2nd May 2008, 08:29 PM

Rep Daddy

2nd May 2008, 08:35 PM

Sorry as non staff I can not post off topic.;)

Glass*Soul

2nd May 2008, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by CaDan http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=46683093#post46683093)
How do you run a "Christian" message board while avoiding two extremes:

1. The horrifying back-slapping self-righteousness of some places which shall not be named; and

2. Losing the "Christian" character altogether.

We are trying to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis, but the waters are a bit rough. Right now, the feeling is we are wandering a bit too close to #2, so we are veering a bit more toward #1. At some point we will have to tack back toward the center again as we sail this ship along.

There may be no center ground...

"The closed society is that whose members hold together, caring nothing for the rest of humanity, on the alert for attack or defence, bound, in fact, to a perpetual readiness for battle. Such is human society fresh from the hands of nature. Man was made for this society, as the ant was made for the ant heap...Never shall we pass from the closed society to the open society, from the city to humanity, by any mere broadening out. The two things are not of the same essence. The open society is the society which is deemed in principle to embrace all humanity. A dream dreamt, now and again, by chosen souls, it embodies on every occasion something of itself in creations, each of which, through a more or less far-reaching transformation of man, conquers difficulties hitherto unconquerable. But after each occasion the circle that has momentarily opened closes again." ~ Henri Bergson from The Two sources of Morality and Religion

CaDan

3rd May 2008, 12:10 AM

There may be no center ground...

"The closed society is that whose members hold together, caring nothing for the rest of humanity, on the alert for attack or defence, bound, in fact, to a perpetual readiness for battle. Such is human society fresh from the hands of nature. Man was made for this society, as the ant was made for the ant heap...Never shall we pass from the closed society to the open society, from the city to humanity, by any mere broadening out. The two things are not of the same essence. The open society is the society which is deemed in principle to embrace all humanity. A dream dreamt, now and again, by chosen souls, it embodies on every occasion something of itself in creations, each of which, through a more or less far-reaching transformation of man, conquers difficulties hitherto unconquerable. But after each occasion the circle that has momentarily opened closes again." ~ Henri Bergson from The Two sources of Morality and Religion

But we have no other alternative but to try

"All that matters at this crucial moment is that the massing together of individualities should not take the form of a functional and enforced mechanisation of human energies (the totalitarian principle), but of a 'conspiration' informed with love. Love has always been carefully eliminated from realist and positivist concepts of the world; but sooner or later we shall have to ackowledge that it is the fundamental impulse of love, or, if you prefer, the one natural medium in which the rising course of evolution can proceed. With love omitted there is truly nothing ahead of us except the forbidding prospect of standardisation and enslavement--the doom of ants and termites. It is through love and within love that we must look for the deepening of our deepest self, in the life-giving coming together of humankind."

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ ~ The Future of Man

Ringo84

3rd May 2008, 12:15 AM

CaDan rightly states that there will probably never be a perfect situation in balancing the "Christian" aspects of this forum while allowing freedom to non-Christian members. Nevertheless, we should try.

It isn't fair to to make this forum an exclusive club where only Christians are allowed in certain parts of the forum. The entire point of this forum is to debate and discuss issues, and we can't do that when an entire population of people with different ideas are kept separate from the rest of us.

Moreover, it's not very Christian to act that way towards others. Jesus associated himself with Pharisees, prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, and holy people alike. He never made distinctions, and we shouldn't either.

I know I'm reiterating what I already said in the previous thread, but I wanted to put it here so that it can be discussed and dissected.
Ringo

Moriah_Conquering_Wind

3rd May 2008, 12:30 AM

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion may be understood as any portrayal of Satanism or occultism as an acceptable belief system.The only problem with this being that in the past, those who prefer to spread idiotic urban legends and sensationalist claptrap and palm it off as "what the occult bes about" or "what Satanism bes about" would cry foul and "promotion" on anyone simply seeking to set the record straight with factual, accurate, verifiable information on those subjects.

There should be room, where appropriate, for setting forth factual information and dispelling myths, hysteria, sensationalist crap, and urban legends on these subjects without having to worry one's post will be deemed "promotional" merely because it bes FACTUAL.

Moriah realises this bes somewhat off topic and tangential, but you did bring up the original "promotion" language so it thought it would make a statement here. And perhaps ask the question whether the singling out of Satanism and occultism -- generally considered synonymous (false - that bes an error) and generally considered oppositional or inimical to Christianity (in error in proportion to how much running tandem to the first error) -- means these topics alone will not be accorded the "rights" accorded other non-Nicene (or now, non-Christian) views/beliefs in the following statements clarifying "promotion"???
What promotion isn't:

[1] Debating Nicene beliefs is not to be understood as promotion.

[2] Clarifying a misconception or falsehood, concerning non-Nicene beliefs, is not to be understood as promotion.

[3] Posts or threads intended to inform about non-Nicene beliefs is not to be understood as promotion.

[4] Offering a non-Nicene belief as a statement of fact is not to be understood as promotion. *

[5] Making positive statements about one's faith or beliefs is not to be understood as promotion. *

Ringo84

3rd May 2008, 12:36 AM

The only problem with this being that in the past, those who prefer to spread idiotic urban legends and sensationalist claptrap and palm it off as "what the occult bes about" or "what Satanism bes about" would cry foul and "promotion" on anyone simply seeking to set the record straight with factual, accurate, verifiable information on those subjects.

There should be room, where appropriate, for setting forth factual information and dispelling myths, hysteria, sensationalist crap, and urban legends on these subjects without having to worry one's post will be deemed "promotional" merely because it bes FACTUAL.

Moriah realises this bes somewhat off topic and tangential, but you did bring up the original "promotion" language so it thought it would make a statement here.
Agreed. There should be latitude there.
Ringo

Tonks

3rd May 2008, 12:50 AM

Who made up this word inreach?

Lee.

Bombila

3rd May 2008, 01:24 AM

Freshly minted, without even a place in the dictionary, to date. Why, it can mean whatever you want it to mean!

CaDan

3rd May 2008, 01:40 AM

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

`Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, `for to get their wages, you know.'

~Through the Looking Glass

TomUK

3rd May 2008, 07:37 AM

Vene

3rd May 2008, 02:09 PM

Freshly minted, without even a place in the dictionary, to date. Why, it can mean whatever you want it to mean!
It sounds sexual to me. Get those crazy 'inreaching' Christians away from me!

CaDan

3rd May 2008, 02:13 PM

Moriah_Conquering_Wind

3rd May 2008, 02:29 PM

Freshly minted, without even a place in the dictionary, to date. Why, it can mean whatever you want it to mean!

:D :D :D

Bombila

3rd May 2008, 03:06 PM

karen freeinchristman

3rd May 2008, 03:38 PM

Ringo84

3rd May 2008, 03:41 PM

I never thought of 'inreach' as referring to 'discipleship'. And no one has officially said it does.

I think it refers more to Christians sharing their diverse views with each other, and their knowledge (in other words, there is also a teaching element to 'inreach').

This is related to discipleship in a way, in terms of Christians being moved towards deeper discipleship, rather than the verse quoted 'go and make disciples', which is not what this forum is really about.

IMO.
I agree.

I hope I'm not mistaking the issue, but I think non-Christians on this site should be welcomed not because of discipleship and evangelizing opportunities, but because their viewpoints should be as welcome as Christians'.
Ringo

sacerdote

3rd May 2008, 06:15 PM

Well i said it in the a couple of times in the announcement thread but i believe that this statement has faith has got to be more trinitarian. I'm not really too fussed about what language is used but i really don't understand how anybody can come up with a statement of faith without a single comment on the work of the Father and Holy Spirit.

I think it does, perhaps there could be more elaboration but the HT is in the statement of faith several times. Here's how it starts out:

We worship one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Isaiah 44:6-8; Exodus 3:15). God is three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share one essence--the Trinity (John 6:27; John 1:1, 14; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 1:2-3).

Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), was conceived in time by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35) and existed before all time begotten of God the Father

TomUK

3rd May 2008, 06:23 PM

I think it does, perhaps there could be more elaboration but the HT is in the statement of faith several times. Here's how it starts out:

We worship one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Isaiah 44:6-8; Exodus 3:15). God is three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share one essence--the Trinity (John 6:27; John 1:1, 14; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 1:2-3).

Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), was conceived in time by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35) and existed before all time begotten of God the Father

There is a mild trinitarian element to it but it seems to me to be wildly off balanced, hence my reference in the other thread to some form of inverted arianism. At the moment we have a basic trinitarian definition and then a relatively in depth explanation of the role Christ. I fully accept that even the Nicene Creed is unbalanced in regards to the ammount of time it deals with each person in the Trinity, but it at least does cover each.

Tonks

3rd May 2008, 06:53 PM

It was a slog to get it this far.

A New Dawn

3rd May 2008, 07:00 PM

I never thought of 'inreach' as referring to 'discipleship'. And no one has officially said it does.

I think it refers more to Christians sharing their diverse views with each other, and their knowledge (in other words, there is also a teaching element to 'inreach').

This is related to discipleship in a way, in terms of Christians being moved towards deeper discipleship, rather than the verse quoted 'go and make disciples', which is not what this forum is really about.

IMO.

In my experience with the word 'discipling', it means teaching someone how to be a Christian.

IMO, making disciples and discipling have a slightly different shift in focus from each other. Making disciples is outreach, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded is inreach/discipling.

TomUK

3rd May 2008, 07:11 PM

It was a slog to get it this far.

Lol, i can imagine. It is a great peace of work and manages to be so sensitive to various denominational needs. Those involved should be congratulated. I just hope it's a not a finished piece.

PassthePeace1

16th May 2008, 12:47 AM

Original Announcement (http://christianforums.com/t7207259)

If you are posting in this Wiki you will adhere to the site rules (http://christianforums.com/rules), like always.

I don't know how to change the wiki, but I want to draw attention to something that really needs to be changed in the SOF. The line that describes the Incarnation is worded awkardly, and should be reworded....or better yet, worded like the orginal wording in the Creed.

The way that the Council Fathers worded the statement of the Incarnation, it was clear that the Holy Spirit was the supernatural cause of the Incarnation. However, the way it is worded here.....it appears that the Incarnation happend by both the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. :)

So it should read...."conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary".....this places Mary in her proper place in the Incarnation. As opposed to the way it is worded now....."was conceived in time by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary" ........which suggest the Incarnation took place by both the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.

Peace be with you...Pam:priest:

Philothei

16th May 2008, 02:33 PM

bump

EmperorConstantine

16th May 2008, 08:08 PM

KatAutumn

18th May 2008, 07:31 PM

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion may be understood as any portrayal of Satanism or occultism as an acceptable belief system.

Why does Occultism not fall under the same rules as stated above about what will and will not be considered promotion? This rule has always been far too vague and has never been adequately clarified as long as I've been a member here. I'm a Wiccan, so technically, I am a member of an Occult sect. Does this mean if someone directly attacked my beliefs I could be banned for saying, "Wicca is acceptable for me and brings me peace and comfort"?

Crazy Liz

18th May 2008, 11:25 PM

KatAutumn

18th May 2008, 11:36 PM

That's the way I read the rule, Kat.

I hate it.

I'm sorry we can't get to know you and engage with you in religious discussions because you are not allowed to state your point of view.

It is a shame.

That is all.

So that would probably explain why there are many threads in NCR pertaining to Buddhism, Islam and non-Nicene Christianity but I can't find hardly anything pertaining to Paganism. People shouldn't fear the Occult. We are not dangerous, deranged people. Unfortunately, Hollywood has portrayed practitioners of the Craft to be a bunch of baby sacrificing, orgy loving, "let's draw an inverted pentagram on the floor in animal blood and dance around it naked" freaks.

I am a very normal individual and it bothers me that I'm not allowed to even discuss my basic beliefs or refute libelous claims against my religion because of an incredibly vague rule that is implemented because of fear and superstition. :sigh:

Philothei

19th May 2008, 12:02 AM

The Holy Spirit needs to be mentioned. He is one of the Trinity and to ignore Him means to completely redefine what is and is not God to the point of heresy.

Especially when we consider the fact that He played a huge role on Pentecost (Acts).

The "God of Abraham" notion I do not like. It opens up this site to be a place for not only Christians, but also Jews, Muslims, Druze and Bahai folk. Granted, I have nothing against Jews, Muslims, Druze or Bahai folk, but if this site goes with the "God of Abraham" line, than it is no longer "Christian Forums" but becomes "Abrahamic Forums".

The Nicene Creed is absolutely necessary because it defines what theology is and is not Christian.

And yes, there will probably need to be those asteriks indicating that the Catholic usage in the Creed does not mean, specifically, the Roman Catholic Church and the Filioque issue needs to be addressed.

Call it a nuisance if you will, but that needs to happen in order for this place to remain Christian Forums.

hey yo Admin... and etc. any word on the nicene Creed and especially the omission of the HS ? what is up here??? Any word of that discussion taking place any time soon? We need to know. Your participation in the forum has droped ... lately of what we see. Do you wish to drop more? ARe we to believe we care more about non-Trinitarians than Trinitarian Christians here? Is that a logical presuposition to make?? Let us know what direction this is going... And BTW we are not a "denomination" but a Church... where do we voice that??

I know you must be up to here with technical stuff we can wait but some time frame as to where and when to discuss matters such as these would be good....

Philothei:wave:

CaDan

19th May 2008, 12:11 AM

So that would probably explain why there are many threads in NCR pertaining to Buddhism, Islam and non-Nicene Christianity but I can't find hardly anything pertaining to Paganism. People shouldn't fear the Occult. We are not dangerous, deranged people. Unfortunately, Hollywood has portrayed practitioners of the Craft to be a bunch of baby sacrificing, orgy loving, "let's draw an inverted pentagram on the floor in animal blood and dance around it naked" freaks.

I am a very normal individual and it bothers me that I'm not allowed to even discuss my basic beliefs or refute libelous claims against my religion because of an incredibly vague rule that is implemented because of fear and superstition. :sigh:

I agree that a lot of it is driven by a fear of the stereotype. To my mind, most of wicca/paganism is orthogonal to christianity, not antithetical to it. It is only in cheesy Hammer horror flicks and the fevered imaginations of teenagers and Jack Chick that we see these played out.

That being said, there are a decent number of people who equate wicca/paganism with that sort of baloney. They react in immediate fear that they are encountering the Enemy in a way they do not react when they encounter a member of a different religion orthogonal to christianity such as Hinduism or Buddhism.

CaDan

19th May 2008, 12:15 AM

hey yo Admin... and etc. any word on the nicene Creed and especially the omission of the HS ? what is up here??? Any word of that discussion taking place any time soon? We need to know. Your participation in the forum has droped ... lately of what we see. Do you wish to drop more? ARe we to believe we care more about non-Trinitarians than Trinitarian Christians here? Is that a logical presuposition to make?? Let us know what direction this is going... And BTW we are not a "denomination" but a Church... where do we voice that??

I know you must be up to here with technical stuff we can wait but some time frame as to where and when to discuss matters such as these would be good....

Philothei:wave:

1. Things like the statement of faith are above my pay grade.

2. The site has to cater to a dominant majority of American Evangelicals who have a weak understanding of Trinitarian doctrine (43% Nestorian according to my survey ;)).

3. I know the issue of terminology--"denominations"--is being worked on.

KatAutumn

19th May 2008, 12:19 AM

I agree that a lot of it is driven by a fear of the stereotype. To my mind, most of wicca/paganism is orthogonal to christianity, not antithetical to it. It is only in cheesy Hammer horror flicks and the fevered imaginations of teenagers and Jack Chick that we see these played out.

That being said, there are a decent number of people who equate wicca/paganism with that sort of baloney. They react in immediate fear that they are encountering the Enemy in a way they do not react when they encounter a member of a different religion orthogonal to christianity such as Hinduism or Buddhism.

Agreed. As I said, I have no problem with a rule stating non-christians can't post messages to the tune of, "hey, I follow such-and-such religion and you should too! Here, check out this link and convert!" I'm just wondering why Occultism has been singled out and had special, more restrictive rules applied to it.

I understand (as we've all been adamantly told in the past) that this is "Christian"forums and "we" (meaning the nonnies) don't have to post here. While that is true, I think those making the rules should take a few things into consideration:

1. The site claims to be open to people from all walks of life.
2. The site claims to have specific forums where people outside of the Christian faith can discuss their views with others.
3. This site is one of the most active message forums on the internet.
4. Yes, there are Atheist/Agnostic, Pagan, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. message forums online; however, they tend to not get as much traffic as CF. There really are not many sites that have an active community where people can exchange ideas and beliefs.

If we are not welcome here, I wish someone would just be honest for once. If the only reason we are barely tolerated on this site and severely limited in how we are permitted to share our beliefs is because it is assumed we will convert to Christianity, why bother at all? I would hazard a guess that there have been either equal amounts or a greater amount of de-conversions post-joining CF than there are conversions. Just take a poll in General Apologetics.

For years the NCR and Unorthodox boards have served no purpose other than the allow non-christians to make themselves vulnerable as fodder for vitriolic rails against other beliefs systems (which we are not permitted to defend) by supposed Christians. It gets tiresome, especially since no one will step forward and be honest. Either we are welcome here or not. Either we are allowed to defend or explain our beliefs when prompted or not.

A New Dawn

19th May 2008, 12:34 AM

Just take a poll in General Apologetics.

Contrary to popular belief of many people, lots of converts to Christianity don't post in GA. A poll there would give very skewed results.

A New Dawn

19th May 2008, 12:37 AM

2. The site has to cater to a dominant majority of American Evangelicals who have a weak understanding of Trinitarian doctrine (43% Nestorian according to my survey ;)).

67% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :)

CaDan

19th May 2008, 12:48 AM

67% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :)

I took a survey last year. If anything, the results are skewed orthodox.

Is Mary the Mother of God? ;)

KatAutumn

19th May 2008, 12:50 AM

Contrary to popular belief of many people, lots of converts to Christianity don't post in GA. A poll there would give very skewed results.

I imagine most converts don't post in GA. GA isn't for the faint at heart or newbies in Christ. I was speaking more in terms of taking a poll to gauge how many Atheists/Agnostics present now were Christians when they joined. I can understand people who come here as mild skeptics or Christians questioning their faith converting to Christianity; however, I have yet to see a diehard non-christian who has posted here for a long time suddenly become convinced (and convicted) by the arguments presented by Christian members here and then they convert to Christianity.

My question is why the specific fear of the Occult and exchanging dialog about Occult beliefs/practices? There are no threads pertaining to Paganism on the first page of the NCR board. When I perform a search for "Wicca" most threads pertaining to the discussion of Wicca have been permanently locked. I have no idea how many have been canned all together. Meanwhile there are several ongoing discussions about Judaism, Islam, SDA, JW's, etc.

Is Paganism not a particularly popular topic of discussion, or are most all discussions pertaining to Paganism squelched after everyone else has had their go at picking on Pagans trying to respond to questions and accusations as respectfully and carefully as possible so as not to break the "no promotion" rule?

A New Dawn

19th May 2008, 12:57 AM

I imagine most converts don't post in GA. GA isn't for the faint at heart or newbies in Christ. I was speaking more in terms of taking a poll to gauge how many Atheists/Agnostics present now were Christians when they joined. I can understand people who come here as mild skeptics or Christians questioning their faith converting to Christianity; however, I have yet to see a diehard non-christian who has posted here for a long time suddenly become convinced (and convicted) by the arguments presented by Christian members here and then they convert to Christianity.

When I was on staff, there were several staunch atheists who PM'ed me to say that they had converted to Christianity and asked to have their icons changed.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind

19th May 2008, 01:59 AM

Rep Daddy

19th May 2008, 02:15 AM

Agreed. As I said, I have no problem with a rule stating non-christians can't post messages to the tune of, "hey, I follow such-and-such religion and you should too! Here, check out this link and convert!" I'm just wondering why Occultism has been singled out and had special, more restrictive rules applied to it.

I understand (as we've all been adamantly told in the past) that this is "Christian"forums and "we" (meaning the nonnies) don't have to post here. While that is true, I think those making the rules should take a few things into consideration:

1. The site claims to be open to people from all walks of life.
2. The site claims to have specific forums where people outside of the Christian faith can discuss their views with others.
3. This site is one of the most active message forums on the internet.
4. Yes, there are Atheist/Agnostic, Pagan, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. message forums online; however, they tend to not get as much traffic as CF. There really are not many sites that have an active community where people can exchange ideas and beliefs.

If we are not welcome here, I wish someone would just be honest for once. If the only reason we are barely tolerated on this site and severely limited in how we are permitted to share our beliefs is because it is assumed we will convert to Christianity, why bother at all? I would hazard a guess that there have been either equal amounts or a greater amount of de-conversions post-joining CF than there are conversions. Just take a poll in General Apologetics.

For years the NCR and Unorthodox boards have served no purpose other than the allow non-christians to make themselves vulnerable as fodder for vitriolic rails against other beliefs systems (which we are not permitted to defend) by supposed Christians. It gets tiresome, especially since no one will step forward and be honest. Either we are welcome here or not. Either we are allowed to defend or explain our beliefs when prompted or not.

The owner has specifically stated that promotion of non-Nicene faiths is not permitted here.

Lindon Tinuviel

19th May 2008, 03:02 AM

The owner has specifically stated that promotion of non-Nicene faiths is not permitted here.

I don't recall that statement.

This (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46572961&postcount=1) was recently released, though:

Members and staff,

Lee has set out his vision for CF. The new site motto will be: "Where Two or Three are Gathered." The vision for CF will be heavily focused on inreach, uplifting and encouraging Christians in faith, with slight emphasis on outreach.

Some of the keywords Lee used to describe his vision for CF:

- friendly
- Christian love
- kindness
- peace
- encouragement
- hope
- support
- PRAYER

In addition, the following will replace the Nicene Creed as Christian Forums' Statement of Faith. This was drawn up as a collaborative effort between senior staff, with the intent of having a clear, concise, and easy to understand statement of faith:

CF statement of faith: This is the basis of which our non-promotion rule is based upon, and is the baseline for forum-specific guidelines. An individual forum can use the Nicene Creed without asterisks, a confession of faith, or other statements, provided such is an expansion of the CF statement of faith. However, forum-specific guidelines must not conflict with the CF Statement of Faith.

CF supports the following as a statement of faith

We worship one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Isaiah 44:6-8; Exodus 3:15). God is three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share one essence--the Trinity (John 6:27; John 1:1, 14; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 1:2-3).

Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), was conceived in time by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35) and existed before all time begotten of God the Father (John 1: 2; John 1: 18). He was crucified for our sins, died, was buried, resurrected on the third day (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) and is seated at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16: 19). Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (John 1:49; Matthew 16:16). His coming was foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament (Acts 3:18-23). He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead (Acts 10: 42) and His Kingdom will have no end (2 Peter 1: 11).

With the new statement of faith, the promotion rule will be changed to the following:

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Christianity. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith.

which seems to subordinate the Nicene Creed.

EmperorConstantine

19th May 2008, 10:49 PM

Ok, a couple of very important questions here...

1) Faith icons. We need them. Period. It helps distinguish which posters are Christian or not, thus allowing people in discussions to be able to speak a certain language within posts. Trust me, there is much different terminology that is used when speaking with Orthodox vs. speaking with Roman Catholics vs. speaking with Protestants.

In my experience on this site, Orthodox and Roman Catholics are more likely to know what words like "theosis", "ekklesia", "Theotokos", and "Filioque" mean than Protestants. And Protestants are more likely to understand words like "justification" and "sanctification" than Orthodox (because those words don't exist in Ortho-speak ;))

2) Nicene Creed. If we look at our Christian history, we see that the Creed was "drafted", so to say, so as to repudiate Arianism and define what is Christian.

If that is not used as what defines a Christian, than those that know and don't forget their history will leave and many intelligent discussions will cease. The Creed is very important in what defines Christianity.

3) with regards to this line: You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Christianity. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith.
The Nicene Creed is what ultimately defines Christianity in a nutshell. Without it, than Mormons, JWs, Gnostics, Platonists and other heresies can be supported claiming that they fit the homemade statement of faith.

KatAutumn

20th May 2008, 12:33 AM

The owner has specifically stated that promotion of non-Nicene faiths is not permitted here.

That is not the part I have difficulty understanding. The non-promotion rule has been in place since I've been a member here. The problem is that not one time has "promotion" ever been defined in a clear-cut manner, especially in regard to Occult religions.

I would appreciate if an admin could at least stop by this thread and clarify whether or not occultism falls under the same guidelines that were listed in the OP as to what would be considered promotion, as it seems special and more restrictive rules have been placed upon Occultism.

Angel4Truth

20th May 2008, 04:17 AM

That is not the part I have difficulty understanding. The non-promotion rule has been in place since I've been a member here. The problem is that not one time has "promotion" ever been defined in a clear-cut manner, especially in regard to Occult religions.

Maybe you missed this?

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity. Promotion of Satanism and occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

listed here in the rules of the site : http://christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0 and its been a guideline for a while now. Sorry that you missed it.

Crazy Liz

20th May 2008, 11:20 AM

[/B]

Maybe you missed this?

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity. Promotion of Satanism and occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

listed here in the rules of the site : http://christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0 and its been a guideline for a while now. Sorry that you missed it.

The OP of this thread announces that the promotion rule is being changed.

Original Announcement (http://christianforums.com/t7207259)

If you are posting in this Wiki you will adhere to the site rules (http://christianforums.com/rules), like always.

What Kat quoted was the new language.

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion may be understood as any portrayal of Satanism or occultism as an acceptable belief system.

Sorry you missed it.

Crazy Liz

20th May 2008, 11:31 AM

The link in the OP to what purports to be the
Original Announcement (http://christianforums.com/t7207259) doesn't work.

Can someone in authority let us know if it has been rescinded or what?

Rep Daddy

20th May 2008, 11:43 AM

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion may be understood as any portrayal of Satanism or occultism as an acceptable belief system.

Like it. So let it be done.

CaDan

20th May 2008, 12:05 PM

The link in the OP to what purports to be the
Original Announcement (http://christianforums.com/t7207259) doesn't work.

Can someone in authority let us know if it has been rescinded or what?

Still there. There is a format change in the links with the upgrade.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7207259

Rep Daddy

20th May 2008, 12:08 PM

CaDan

20th May 2008, 12:18 PM

A post to iidb and things get done. amazing.

Yup.

Rep Daddy

20th May 2008, 12:22 PM

nm/

HI CL

Crazy Liz

20th May 2008, 12:34 PM

Must be. We know you would never create a new membership at a website and lurk in violation of a ban.

Rep Daddy

20th May 2008, 12:36 PM

nm.

KatAutumn

20th May 2008, 04:01 PM

[/b]

Maybe you missed this?

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity. Promotion of Satanism and occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

listed here in the rules of the site : http://christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0 and its been a guideline for a while now. Sorry that you missed it.

The portion in red text has been used under the new guidelines to define "promotion" in terms of non-nicene religions except for Satanism or the Occult (which Satanism would technically fall under "Occult").

With the new rule in place, Pagans can no longer defend their beliefs against baseless attacks. If a member was to say, "Christianity is right and you are wrong" it would, technically, be grounds for a warning or infraction if I (a practicing Wiccan) were to say, "it may not be acceptable for you, but it's acceptable for me." How am I supposed to defend my beliefs or answer questions on the NCR forum without conveying an image that my "Occult" beliefs are acceptable? What are we supposed to do? Go along with slanderous and baseless attacks against the Occult so as not to "promote" our beliefs?

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 04:04 PM

The portion in red text has been used under the new guidelines to define "promotion" in terms of non-nicene religions except for Satanism or the Occult (which Satanism would technically fall under "Occult").

With the new rule in place, Pagans can no longer defend their beliefs against baseless attacks. If a member was to say, "Christianity is right and you are wrong" it would, technically, be grounds for a warning or infraction if I (a practicing Wiccan) were to say, "it may not be acceptable for you, but it's acceptable for me." How am I supposed to defend my beliefs or answer questions on the NCR forum without conveying an image that my "Occult" beliefs are acceptable? What are we supposed to do? Go along with slanderous and baseless attacks against the Occult so as not to "promote" our beliefs?

I agree. People of other faiths should have the ability to defend themselves from ridiculous claims from Christian members. Otherwise, it's too one-sided and not fair.
Ringo

KatAutumn

20th May 2008, 04:14 PM

I agree. People of other faiths should have the ability to defend themselves from ridiculous claims from Christian members. Otherwise, it's too one-sided and not fair.
Ringo

Agreed. Which also raises another interesting aspect of the whole server switch, new ownership of CF, new guidelines, etc. - NCR used to be under Discussion & Debate. Now it is under "Outreach". I can't speak for all non-christian members, but I know I, personally, have gotten the general vibe that we are marginally tolerated on this site. Granted, we'd be more welcomed if we were receptive for a Christian conversion.

I honestly don't feel that the powers-that-be really care if it seems unfair or one-sided. I think they prefer it that way. Either we will convert or we will leave. That's been the overall tone of this site for as long as I can remember.

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 04:15 PM

Agreed. Which also raises another interesting aspect of the whole server switch, new ownership of CF, new guidelines, etc. - NCR used to be under Discussion & Debate. Now it is under "Outreach". I can't speak for all non-christian members, but I know I, personally, have gotten the general vibe that we are marginally tolerated on this site. Granted, we'd be more welcomed if we were receptive for a Christian conversion.

I honestly don't feel that the powers-that-be really care if it seems unfair or one-sided. I think they prefer it that way. Either we will convert or we will leave. That's been the overall tone of this site for as long as I can remember.

This site is supposed to be about dialogue and discussion. Erecting unfair rules and not allowing non-Christians to defend themselves is a direct violation of everything for which CF is supposed to stand.

I can't speak for fellow Christians on this site, KatAutumn, but I'm definitely on your side. I don't like the surreptitious elitism here. Where's the Christian tolerance on this site?
Ringo

A New Dawn

20th May 2008, 04:56 PM

Last I heard, with the new owner, this was supposed to be a site like 80% geared to Christian fellowship and edification and 20% geared to outreach. If someone who is not Christian comes here, they need to accept the fact that it is a Christian site. It is not a site to promote something that is antithetical to Christianity. I think that Christians here are fairly tolerant, considering that Christ spoke out against satanism and the occult.

"Christian tolerance" is not the same as allowing promotion.

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 05:07 PM

they need to accept the fact that it is a Christian site. It is not a site to promote something that is antithetical to Christianity.

Defending one's beliefs is not "promotion" of something antithetical to Christianity.

Yes, it's a Christian site. That doesn't mean that non-Christians have to shut up and not express their beliefs on certain subjects.

"Christian tolerance" is not the same as allowing promotion.

Christian tolerance is having the maturity to handle the fact that some people have different beliefs than you. Promoting non-christian beliefs like: "you should worship Satan" is one thing. Saying, "that's not what my beliefs are all about. Let me correct you" is quite another.
Ringo

A New Dawn

20th May 2008, 05:25 PM

Defending one's beliefs is not "promotion" of something antithetical to Christianity.

Yes, it's a Christian site. That doesn't mean that non-Christians have to shut up and not express their beliefs on certain subjects.

Christian tolerance is having the maturity to handle the fact that some people have different beliefs than you. Promoting non-christian beliefs like: "you should worship Satan" is one thing. Saying, "that's not what my beliefs are all about. Let me correct you" is quite another.
Ringo

I don't think it has anything to do with "having the maturity to handle the fact that some people have different beliefs than [me]". I think it is the fact that many people want to have a time and space to be lifted up and edified and not have to defend their beliefs all the time. It is bad enough that atheism and satanism, etc., is crammed down our throats at the same time we are told we can't even mention God or Jesus. What is your problem with having a site that gives people some of the peace they need and deserve? There are lots of other sites that do allow people to promote their alternative beliefs.

I, personally, think you are over-reacting. Promotion is not correcting someone about beliefs if the beliefs are mis-represented. There was a post previously that stated what promotion is (and is not), and it did not include correcting when someone misrepresents the belief.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43539611&postcount=1

Crazy Liz

20th May 2008, 05:38 PM

I don't think it has anything to do with "having the maturity to handle the fact that some people have different beliefs than [me]". I think it is the fact that many people want to have a time and space to be lifted up and edified and not have to defend their beliefs all the time. It is bad enough that atheism and satanism, etc., is crammed down our throats at the same time we are told we can't even mention God or Jesus.

Where is anyone advocating this?

What is your problem with having a site that gives people some of the peace they need and deserve? There are lots of other sites that do allow people to promote their alternative beliefs.

I, personally, think you are over-reacting. Promotion is not correcting someone about beliefs if the beliefs are mis-represented. There was a post previously that stated what promotion is (and is not), and it did not include correcting when someone misrepresents the belief.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43539611&postcount=1

I think we need a clarification. This is how I understand the announcement regarding promotion. If the following is correct, then promotion is being defined differently when it comes to "satanism" or "occultism" than for other religions:

Old rule:

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity. Promotion of Satanism or occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

New rule:

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Christianity. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith.

and

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion may be understood as any portrayal of Satanism or occultism as an acceptable belief system.

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 05:40 PM

I think it is the fact that many people want to have a time and space to be lifted up and edified and not have to defend their beliefs all the time.

What about giving non-Christians a place where they don't have to defend their beliefs all the time?

It is bad enough that atheism and satanism, etc., is crammed down our throats

"Crammed down our throats"? The mere existence of others with differing beliefs is "cramming it down your throat"?

at the same time we are told we can't even mention God or Jesus.

Who said you can't mention God or Jesus? That sounds quite suspect to me.

hat is your problem with having a site that gives people some of the peace they need and deserve?

When Christians are the majority religion in this country and Christian beliefs are everywhere, I can't imagine why Christians would need peace or from whom they would need it.

I, personally, think you are over-reacting.

That's fine, but I don't think I am. There seems to be some elitism on this site concerning non-Christians. I think they should have the same amount of latitude as Christians on this site.

Promotion is not correcting someone about beliefs if the beliefs are mis-represented. There was a post previously that stated what promotion is (and is not), and it did not include correcting when someone misrepresents the belief.

Good. I'm glad to hear it.
Ringo

Crazy Liz

20th May 2008, 05:58 PM

Personally, as a staff member, I want clarification whether we should still use the "Nicene Creed and Promotion (http://christianforums.com/t6856148-nicene-creed-and-promotion.html)" guidelines, only applying it to the new Statement of Faith instead of the Nicene Creed. Those guidelines outlined some fairly clear expectations of what "promotion" was and was not. Doesn't seem to make sense to throw it completely out.

It says:

If we changed "Nicene" to "Christian" in this, it would be a good start.

Is the separate definition of promotion for satanism and occultism part of the old rule or the new rule?

ISTM, most of the discussion here recently has to do with this.

Could someone in authority please clarify? The more I read, the more confused I become about this issue. :confused:

Glass*Soul

20th May 2008, 06:01 PM

Crazy Liz

20th May 2008, 06:10 PM

Is there a wiki article where all this is being summarized? Or are the wiki summaries of rule discussions gone in the new version?

If so, how do I navigate there?

I can't seem to open a wiki article for this discussion.

Angel4Truth

20th May 2008, 07:55 PM

The OP of this thread announces that the promotion rule is being changed.

What Kat quoted was the new language.

Sorry you missed it.
Actually Kat made the claim that she had never seen promotion defined on this site since shes been here. I showed otherwise and its defined as we speak. Whether or not that changes isnt an issue in my response to her posted claim that it had never been clearly defined here.

Sorry you missed the context.

Angel4Truth

20th May 2008, 07:58 PM

Christ made an elite claim. That there is no way to the Father but by Him. We should accept no less as His disciples.

Ramona

20th May 2008, 08:04 PM

I've noticed that most of the people who get upset about activities in NCR have never actually been regular posters there.

All well, many of us have moved on to a different (and really fantastic!) forum.

Angel4Truth

20th May 2008, 08:06 PM

What about giving non-Christians a place where they don't have to defend their beliefs all the time?

"Crammed down our throats"? The mere existence of others with differing beliefs is "cramming it down your throat"?

Who said you can't mention God or Jesus? That sounds quite suspect to me.

When Christians are the majority religion in this country and Christian beliefs are everywhere, I can't imagine why Christians would need peace or from whom they would need it.

That's fine, but I don't think I am. There seems to be some elitism on this site concerning non-Christians. I think they should have the same amount of latitude as Christians on this site.

Good. I'm glad to hear it.
Ringo
This is a christian site aimed at christians. IIDB sounds more like what you would be needing. This isnt IIDB north. I think its time some members here figured that out and stopped trying to make this site something it isnt and was never even designed to be.

It was designed for christian fellowship and issues primarily and that is what it is being returned to thankfully.

Ramona

20th May 2008, 08:09 PM

Ha ha ha, using IIDB as an insult!

Ringo is a Nicene creed affirming Baptist, just FYI.

Angel4Truth

20th May 2008, 08:11 PM

Ha ha ha, using IIDB as an insult!

Ringo is a Nicene creed affirming Baptist, just FYI.Perhaps you should read what i bolded in his post and my response again.

The concern was a place for non believers to feel comfortable in non belief and have their "rights" so i suggested IIDB as the place for that not CF.

Really unsure what you believe that has to do with him personally or where anyone was insulted.

Ramona

20th May 2008, 08:15 PM

Perhaps you should read what i bolded in his post and my response again.

The concern was a place for non believers to feel comfortable in non belief and have their "rights" so i suggested IIDB as the place for that not CF.

Mmmhmm. And by silencing them, you do realize that "they" will come to resent Christians and seek comfort among more hardened unbelievers in places like IIDB, right? The best way to witness is with respect and love, not telling your audience to just sit down, shut up, and listen.

Really unsure what you believe that has to do with him personally or where anyone was insulted.

Oh come now, Miss Aeris, we all know how you feel about us over there. :D

Angel4Truth

20th May 2008, 08:30 PM

Mmmhmm. And by silencing them, you do realize that "they" will come to resent Christians and seek comfort among more hardened unbelievers in places like IIDB, right? The best way to witness is with respect and love, not telling your audience to just sit down, shut up, and listen. Anyone can find insult where they want one even when none exists- your last post is self evident of that.

Anyone who truely seeks Christ will find Him. There wont be a convenient blame before God on judgment day.

Oh come now, Miss Aeris, we all know how you feel about us over there. :DNot sure why you are refering to my old IIDB username perhaps you can enlighten us as I havent posted there in quite some time (quite a while actually) and also personally requested my membership cancelled there also some time ago (quite a while again) so fill us in.

In fact I rarely posted there the entire time that I was once a member there so again unless you are seeking trouble i cant think of any good reason for you to even mention it.

Your attempts though to make this about me instead of adressing issues and posts has been duely noted however. Strawmen never impress me though.

A New Dawn

20th May 2008, 09:19 PM

What about giving non-Christians a place where they don't have to defend their beliefs all the time?

What about it? This is a Christian site. If they want a place to go to where they don't have to defend their beliefs all the time, they can go to an appropriate board for their beliefs. LDS can go to LDStalk, atheists can go to IIDB, etc. There is no reason to allow promotion of atheism or any non-Christian religion on a Christian discussion board.

Since I see you are already putting words in my mouth, let me say that I don't have a problem with them being here, I just don't think promotion should be allowed.

"Crammed down our throats"? The mere existence of others with differing beliefs is "cramming it down your throat"?

Did I say that?

Who said you can't mention God or Jesus? That sounds quite suspect to me.

Do you not read the newspaper or watch the news, or anything? It's just about everywhere, and so ..............

When Christians are the majority religion in this country and Christian beliefs are everywhere, I can't imagine why Christians would need peace or from whom they would need it.

.................... it is to escape what the world is cramming the stuff down our throats that Christians need a place to gather to support and edify each other.

That's fine, but I don't think I am. There seems to be some elitism on this site concerning non-Christians. I think they should have the same amount of latitude as Christians on this site.

Why? Would I get the same latitude on a site for Moslems? or atheists? or LDS? (The correct answer would be NO!)

Good. I'm glad to hear it.
Ringo

Great.

EmperorConstantine

20th May 2008, 09:42 PM

Ha ha ha, using IIDB as an insult!

Ringo is a Nicene creed affirming Baptist, just FYI.
If there were faith icons, we'd know that! ;)

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 09:42 PM

This is a christian site aimed at christians. IIDB sounds more like what you would be needing. This isnt IIDB north. I think its time some members here figured that out and stopped trying to make this site something it isnt and was never even designed to be.

It was designed for christian fellowship and issues primarily and that is what it is being returned to thankfully.

You must have mistaken me for someone else. I do not regularly log onto IIDB and do not intend to make this site "IIDB North", as you claim. Though I do admit that I have friends over at IIDB, and I sometimes enjoy fellowshipping with them more than with some Christians on this site.

Jesus allowed everyone to fellowship with Him - even lepers and taxpayers. What kind of an image are we giving to non-Christians when we don't do the same and make CF a "Christians only club"?
Ringo

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 09:44 PM

Perhaps you should read what i bolded in his post and my response again.

The concern was a place for non believers to feel comfortable in non belief and have their "rights" so i suggested IIDB as the place for that not CF.

Really unsure what you believe that has to do with him personally or where anyone was insulted.

I'm not insulted. I don't look down on the people who frequent IIDB, and neither should you.

Do I take the bolded portion to mean that non-Christians can have no "rights" on this site?
Ringo

A New Dawn

20th May 2008, 09:49 PM

You must have mistaken me for someone else. I do not regularly log onto IIDB and do not intend to make this site "IIDB North", as you claim. Though I do admit that I have friends over at IIDB, and I sometimes enjoy fellowshipping with them more than with some Christians on this site.

Jesus allowed everyone to fellowship with Him - even lepers and taxpayers. What kind of an image are we giving to non-Christians when we don't do the same and make CF a "Christians only club"?
Ringo

Most people have a real life where they associate and fellowship with non-believers. And nobody has a problem with associating and fellowshipping with them here. What we do have a problem with is promotion of another religion on a Christian website.

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 09:49 PM

What about it? This is a Christian site. If they want a place to go to where they don't have to defend their beliefs all the time, they can go to an appropriate board for their beliefs. LDS can go to LDStalk, atheists can go to IIDB, etc. There is no reason to allow promotion of atheism or any non-Christian religion on a Christian discussion board.

Yes. I'm quite aware that it's a Christian site. I don't think it makes a difference.

Since I see you are already putting words in my mouth, let me say that I don't have a problem with them being here, I just don't think promotion should be allowed. It's like saying: "This is a Christian church. Nobody but Christians can worship and fellowship here".

Did I say that?

Well, I'm glad that's not what you meant.

Do you not read the newspaper or watch the news, or anything? It's just about everywhere, and so ..............

Yes I do. I debate church and state issues frequently on this board, and I can state with confidence that nobody is disallowing you or anyone else from saying "God" or "Jesus" anywhere.

................... it is to escape what the world is cramming the stuff down our throats that Christians need a place to gather to support and edify each other.

We do that at churches that are open to the general public all the time, and there's no problem. Why would there be a problem here?

Why? Would I get the same latitude on a site for Moslems? or atheists? or LDS? (The correct answer would be NO!)

Does it matter either way? We're not talking about an Atheist or LDS site. We're talking about this site.
Ringo

A New Dawn

20th May 2008, 10:02 PM

Since I see you are already putting words in my mouth, let me say that I don't have a problem with them being here, I just don't think promotion should be allowed. It's like saying: "This is a Christian church. Nobody but Christians can worship and fellowship here".

I'm sorry, you are not making any sense. We don't allow promotion of non-Christian religions at church, but non-believers are always welcomed to participate in the way non-Christians should participate in a Christian church. Same should be with CF. Fellowship is fine, promotion of their beliefs isn't.

Yes I do. I debate church and state issues frequently on this board, and I can state with confidence that nobody is disallowing you or anyone else from saying "God" or "Jesus" anywhere.

It doesn't appear that you do or you'd understand some of the problems that the Christians of the US are facing.

Many Christians are being told that they can't read a verse out of the Bible to kids at school, but then are told they can read books on Wiccan to the kids. They are told they can't discuss Christmas or Easter, but Channukah and Kwaanza are discussed without incident.

And now churches and preachers are facing lawsuits for their beliefs.

Don't know where you've been lately. :scratch:

We do that at churches that are open to the general public all the time, and there's no problem. Why would there be a problem here?

:scratch: Other than your statement making no sense in response to the portion of my post you responded to, I'd say it was because no one comes into our churches and tries to cram non-Christian beliefs down our throats.

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 10:12 PM

I'm sorry, you are not making any sense. We don't allow promotion of non-Christian religions at church, but non-believers are always welcomed to participate in the way non-Christians should participate in a Christian church. Same should be with CF. Fellowship is fine, promotion of their beliefs isn't.

That's what this site is all about: discussion of different ideas. Tying non-Christians' hands so that they can't discuss beliefs other than Christian beliefs seems a violation of that vision.

It doesn't appear that you do or you'd understand some of the problems that the Christians of the US are facing.

What problems? Being the majority religion in this county?

Many Christians are being told that they can't read a verse out of the Bible to kids at school, but then are told they can read books on Wiccan to the kids.

By whom? Congress? The President? No religion can be established in public school, but individual students have always had the right to read from the Bible and pray silently.

They are told they can't discuss Christmas or Easter, but Channukah and Kwaanza are discussed without incident.

By whom? As I said: the public school should be neutral to all religion, but students can discuss whatever they choose. The problem often comes when school boards believe fundamentalists who whine and complain about not being able to pray or read the Bible in school (which is malarkey).

And now churches and preachers are facing lawsuits for their beliefs.

Churches are facing lawsuits for using the pulpit as a political forum - not because of their beliefs.

Don't know where you've been lately. :scratch:

I don't know where you've been. The Bible has never been banned from school. Christmas has never been banned from school. Pastors have never been fined because of their beliefs. There is no persecution against Christians in this country. I thought everyone had the good sense to realize that.

:scratch: Other than your statement making no sense in response to the portion of my post you responded to, I'd say it was because no one comes into our churches and tries to cram non-Christian beliefs down our throats.[/quote]

"Cram[med] down our throats". That's what's often said when people simply express beliefs that are different from one's own.
Ringo

A New Dawn

20th May 2008, 10:35 PM

By whom? Congress? The President? No religion can be established in public school, but individual students have always had the right to read from the Bible and pray silently.

By the school boards.

And no one is talking about a religion being "established in a public school". Could you please read and respond to what I say instead of what you think I said, or wanted me to say?

By whom? As I said: the public school should be neutral to all religion, but students can discuss whatever they choose. The problem often comes when school boards believe fundamentalists who whine and complain about not being able to pray or read the Bible in school (which is malarkey).

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure you put your total faith in the liberal media, too, who would try to convince us that all of Iraq hates us being there, too.

Churches are facing lawsuits for using the pulpit as a political forum - not because of their beliefs.

And......................... your point is..................? I'm sure that most political beliefs stem from religious beliefs.

I don't know where you've been. The Bible has never been banned from school. Christmas has never been banned from school. Pastors have never been fined because of their beliefs. There is no persecution against Christians in this country. I thought everyone had the good sense to realize that.

You are so blind. Maybe you should pay attention to what is really happening, instead of just trusting the media for your information.

"Cram[med] down our throats". That's what's often said when people simply express beliefs that are different from one's own.
Ringo

Not hardly.

KatAutumn

20th May 2008, 10:44 PM

This is a Christian site.

No, that would be impossible. It is a site aimed at Christians, but unless the site can accept Jesus as Lord and Savior it is not a "Christian site".

If they want a place to go to where they don't have to defend their beliefs all the time, they can go to an appropriate board for their beliefs.

See, herein lies the problem. You assume that Christians have it so bad in today's society. Have you ever had a stranger pull their child away from you and run off because you're ordering a Wiccan book at the help desk at Barnes & Noble? Have you ever been wearing a sigil of your religion around your neck and had a complete stranger approach you in the grocery store and tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself for "flaunting your Satanism" (the pendant in question was a discrete Celtic style pentagram)? In America, how often do Christian book stores get death threats, experience vandalism and have the city shut them down for no reason? It happens a lot to metaphysical shops.

This happens because there is still a tremendous amount of fear and ignorance surrounding the Occult. Christians don't dare venture to Pagan sites to ask questions, because that could "open a demonic portal". Or, when they do pop in it's usually to try and tell us we're worshiping the devil by default and will burn in hell. How are we all supposed to co-exist on this planet if no one is ever permitted to exchange dialog and dispel the harmful stereotypes?

Since I see you are already putting words in my mouth, let me say that I don't have a problem with them being here, I just don't think promotion should be allowed.

But should we be allowed to positively respond to questions asked or defend ourselves against slanderous remarks against our chosen religion (or lack thereof)?

Why? Would I get the same latitude on a site for Moslems? or atheists? or LDS? (The correct answer would be NO!)

The correct answer would be "no" only in cases where Christians come to, say, a Wiccan forum and troll and post spam messages about how we worship Satan and we're going to burn in hell. That's the difference between the way many of us nonnies try to interact with those of other beliefs systems on CF and the way most Christians approach the nonnies on their own turf. No one here is asking that we be allowed to openly try and convert Christian members. All we're asking for is a little clarity as to what is considered "promotion" in terms of Occult sects. That's not too much to ask for.

Ringo84

20th May 2008, 11:21 PM

By the school boards.

Since no national law has been passed that bans reading the Bible and praying in school, I will say with confidence that those rights are not under attack in this nation.

And no one is talking about a religion being "established in a public school". Could you please read and respond to what I say instead of what you think I said, or wanted me to say?

I'm talking about religion being established in public school. When a teacher reads from a Bible or an entire school is lead in prayer, that's what happens. It has nothing to do with what I thought you said or didn't say.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure you put your total faith in the liberal media, too, who would try to convince us that all of Iraq hates us being there, too.

Now who's putting words into someone's mouth?

And......................... your point is..................? I'm sure that most political beliefs stem from religious beliefs.

What I mean is that a church speaking out on moral and political issues of the day is one day. A church using its pulpit to endorse a particular party or candidate - either party - there's a problem. Christians don't forfeit their rights to political beliefs, but such political activity cheapens the church and raises concerns about establishment of religion.

You are so blind. Maybe you should pay attention to what is really happening, instead of just trusting the media for your information.

You're the one who is blind. There are parts of the world where Christians are killed for owning a Bible. Or thrown in jail. If all American Christians have to complain about are issues about reading the Bible in public school, they should consider themselves quite lucky.

Your assumption that I've trusted some media outlet to feed me information about church/state issues runs hollow. I am quite conversant on this issue; it's one of my "hot button" issues, and I discuss it all the time with Christians who are so busy whining about how bad they have it in this country, they can't see that they're the most free and wealthy Christians the world has ever seen.

Not hardly.

Maybe not in your case. I just object to the use of this phrase, as though the mere presence of non-Christians is "ramming" a belief down your throat.
Ringo

A New Dawn

20th May 2008, 11:24 PM

No, that would be impossible. It is a site aimed at Christians, but unless the site can accept Jesus as Lord and Savior it is not a "Christian site".

I know it is easy to follow the pack and jump in with statements that don't make sense, but maybe we can elevate the level of discussion to encompass the meanings people speak of words with (that would be the context). For instance, let's look at the definition of "Christian" in the dictionary.

Christian
ADJECTIVE: 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. 3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. 4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
NOUN: 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/C0332000.html)

I see from meanings 2 and 4 under the adjective form of the word that "Christian" can be used exactly how I used it, and it is not an inappropriate usage at all. Perhaps people can actually look things up in a dictionary if someone uses a word in a manner we are not familiar with (or that we approve of).

The correct answer would be "no" only in cases where Christians come to, say, a Wiccan forum and troll and post spam messages about how we worship Satan and we're going to burn in hell. That's the difference between the way many of us nonnies try to interact with those of other beliefs systems on CF and the way most Christians approach the nonnies on their own turf. No one here is asking that we be allowed to openly try and convert Christian members. All we're asking for is a little clarity as to what is considered "promotion" in terms of Occult sects. That's not too much to ask for.

I posted a link to what is (and what is not) considered promotion, and I believe it states that discussion that isn't meant to try to convince someone of the benefits, etc., of a non-Christian religion isn't considered promotion. That would include most discussion. Did you check the link?

CaDan

20th May 2008, 11:30 PM

Prescriptive definitions.

*sigh*

A New Dawn

20th May 2008, 11:40 PM

I'm talking about religion being established in public school. When a teacher reads from a Bible or an entire school is lead in prayer, that's what happens. It has nothing to do with what I thought you said or didn't say.

I'm glad you clarified, but since I made the original remark you responded to, and I wasn't talking about religion being established in a school, I'd appreciate it if you actually responded to what I said and not what you wanted to expound on.

Now who's putting words into someone's mouth?

It was meant as sarcasm, but from the way you are talking, it sure appears that is what you are doing, because you seem to be completely oblivious to the problems that Christians are reporting all across the country, except for how the liberal media reports it.

What I mean is that a church speaking out on moral and political issues of the day is one day. A church using its pulpit to endorse a particular party or candidate - either party - there's a problem. Christians don't forfeit their rights to political beliefs, but such political activity cheapens the church and raises concerns about establishment of religion.

And I haven't seen that happen since watching Obama's preacher a few weeks ago. And before that, I hadn't seen it happening for, ohhhhh, about 150 years.

You're the one who is blind. There are parts of the world where Christians are killed for owning a Bible. Or thrown in jail. If all American Christians have to complain about are issues about reading the Bible in public school, they should consider themselves quite lucky.

Your assumption that I've trusted some media outlet to feed me information about church/state issues runs hollow. I am quite conversant on this issue; it's one of my "hot button" issues, and I discuss it all the time with Christians who are so busy whining about how bad they have it in this country, they can't see that they're the most free and wealthy Christians the world has ever seen.

Maybe if I say it again, you'll understand.

When someone mentions Jesus, or reads something out of the Bible in school, they are told that they cannot perform that activity. Then they are told that they can teach about wiccans in school. In another case, around the holidays, at some schools, they are not allowed to teach about Christmas, but they are allowed to teach about other religious holidays.

The point is that the "laws" are not being fairly applied. If we can't teach about Christmas, then they shouldn't be allowed to teach about Channukah, or Kwaanza. If we can't read something out of the Bible, then they shouldn't allow stuff about wiccans to be taught, either.

Do you understand now? The point is about fair application of the laws.

KatAutumn

21st May 2008, 12:01 AM

=I posted a link to what is (and what is not) considered promotion, and I believe it states that discussion that isn't meant to try to convince someone of the benefits, etc., of a non-Christian religion isn't considered promotion. That would include most discussion. Did you check the link?

I have been to the link several times now. There are different rules for different belief systems. Here is what the rules say about Occultism:

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism

Promotion of Satanism and Occultism is strictly prohibited. Promotion may be understood as any portrayal of Satanism or occultism as an acceptable belief system. (red emphasis mine)

That is the part I want clarified. How do you discuss or defend your Occult beliefs without portraying Occultism as an acceptable beliefs system?

Ringo84

21st May 2008, 12:33 AM

I'm glad you clarified, but since I made the original remark you responded to, and I wasn't talking about religion being established in a school, I'd appreciate it if you actually responded to what I said and not what you wanted to expound on.

I'm pleased to hear that you are not interested in establishing religion.

It was meant as sarcasm, but from the way you are talking, it sure appears that is what you are doing, because you seem to be completely oblivious to the problems that Christians are reporting all across the country, except for how the liberal media reports it.

What problems? Christians have it better in this country than most other places in the world. That fact is not something the "liberal media" pulled out of its hindquarters; it's the obvious truth.

And I haven't seen that happen since watching Obama's preacher a few weeks ago. And before that, I hadn't seen it happening for, ohhhhh, about 150 years.

Both parties are guilty of doing it. It's wrong when either party does it.

Maybe if I say it again, you'll understand.

When someone mentions Jesus, or reads something out of the Bible in school, they are told that they cannot perform that activity.

I understood you perfectly well the first time. I don't care what "someone" tells a person when they're reading the Bible; reading the Bible in public school is not unconstitutional - as long as it's not the teacher or some other person in charge trying to evangelize from the Bible.

Then they are told that they can teach about wiccans in school.

They educate students about Islam and Buddhism in school too. That doesn't mean that Islam and Buddhism are more free than Christians.

In another case, around the holidays, at some schools, they are not allowed to teach about Christmas, but they are allowed to teach about other religious holidays.

From what I understand, neither Christmas nor any other religious holiday are supposed to be officially recognized by the public school. That doesn't bar individual students from celebrating those holidays.

The point is that the "laws" are not being fairly applied. If we can't teach about Christmas, then they shouldn't be allowed to teach about Channukah, or Kwaanza. If we can't read something out of the Bible, then they shouldn't allow stuff about wiccans to be taught, either.

Perhaps in some cases, that's true. But some school official who erroneously told a student something in Ottumwa, Iowa doesn't amount to a nationwide "problem" for us Christians.

To a point, I agree with you. I have no problem with students learning about religions in public school, but they shouldn't be indoctrinated in any religion. And that principle should be fairly applied. In most cases, it is.
Ringo

Angel4Truth

21st May 2008, 12:38 AM

That's what this site is all about: discussion of different ideas. Tying non-Christians' hands so that they can't discuss beliefs other than Christian beliefs seems a violation of that vision.Where did you get that idea? Funny I remember the 'vision' of this site originally being to" unite all believers as one body." i mean that was Erwins vision when the site was formed and it doesnt match your vision.

Now that Lee D is the webmaster and owner here the vision is where 2 or 3 are gathered ... signifying the joining of believers as well. This sites purpose has never been a place where "non believers can discuss their different ideas" and push them. Promotion of other religions)and lack of) has always been frowned on here.

Ringo84

21st May 2008, 12:47 AM

Where did you get that idea? Funny I remember the 'vision' of this site originally being to" unite all believers as one body." i mean that was Erwins vision when the site was formed and it doesnt match your vision.

That's also the vision of the church. That doesn't mean that non-Christians are excluded from fellowshipping there as well. So no, I don't think it interferes with "my vision" at all.

This sites purpose has never been a place where "non believers can discuss their different ideas" and push them.

This is an online forum. Online forums are meant to be places where discussions of different ideas take place - including the ideas of non-Christians. There is no reason to exclude non-Christians from this friendship; they are adding variety to our fellowship by discussing relevant issues with us here.
Ringo

Angel4Truth

21st May 2008, 12:52 AM

That's also the vision of the church. That doesn't mean that non-Christians are excluded from fellowshipping there as well. So no, I don't think it interferes with "my vision" at all.
No one is excluding non christians from fellowship here either.

CaDan

21st May 2008, 12:53 AM

I think we will continue to take a casuistic approach.

Ringo84

21st May 2008, 12:54 AM

No one is excluding non christians from fellowship here either.

Good. Nor should they be denied the right to defend themselves from unfair attacks or discussion of theology.
Ringo

Ringo84

21st May 2008, 12:57 AM

KatAutumn

21st May 2008, 01:23 AM

No one is excluding non christians from fellowship here either.

I wouldn't exactly call it fellowship when someone accuses you of worshiping satan by default or being possessed by demons and when you go to correct their statements you're issued a warning for "promoting the Occult".:doh:

Philothei

21st May 2008, 01:32 AM

1. Things like the statement of faith are above my pay grade.

2. The site has to cater to a dominant majority of American Evangelicals who have a weak understanding of Trinitarian doctrine (43% Nestorian according to my survey ;)).

3. I know the issue of terminology--"denominations"--is being worked on.

1. Good but someone's else pay grade should be able to answer this...:P

2. Now this is problematic... If majority rules in this site ....then you will have to give core information of that majority... such as demographics to persuade me that they are "weak on their understanding on Trinitarian Doctrine"...YOUR SURVEY can be a. subjective, b. inacurate which one is it?? Can a higher upper gives us a better idea of this one??
Mr. Cadan you will have to do a bit better than that some of us we are not very pleased with these kind of changes... It is shameful that we "sacrifice" the Trinity of God for "evangelical" groups .... which are denominations and come and go at will in this forum membership wise while the "regulars" such as Churches have to compromise their belief system...in the altar of "relativistic social Christianity".... :doh:

3. How long is that going to take??:o to bring up faith icons??

Also what about reports.??? I have outstanding reports/complains from April....:doh::sorry:

Tenebrae

21st May 2008, 04:35 AM

I wouldn't exactly call it fellowship when someone accuses you of worshiping satan by default or being possessed by demons and when you go to correct their statements you're issued a warning for "promoting the Occult".:doh:

I agree

A New Dawn

21st May 2008, 07:21 AM

I'm wondering why IIDB (and its members) seems to be perceived as something bad among some members here.

I feel as though I've missed something. Has there been some kind of civil war between CF and IIDB of which I wasn't aware?

Perhaps I'm opening up a can of worms by asking. But I have friends at IIDB that also frequent this forum, and I don't find them "bad" at all.
Ringo

Because the IIDB members can't seem to understand that this is a Christian discussion board set up with a specific purpose for a specific group of people. They think that they should be free to make the decisions about who has the right to post, what they can post, where they can post, etc., instead of the guy who owns it. They have fought against the site being Christian in nature since before I came 4 years ago. And they speak highly nastily of anyone who disagrees with them and agrees that the owner here has the right to do as he pleases with the site.

A New Dawn

21st May 2008, 07:28 AM

I have been to the link several times now. There are different rules for different belief systems. Here is what the rules say about Occultism:

(red emphasis mine)

That is the part I want clarified. How do you discuss or defend your Occult beliefs without portraying Occultism as an acceptable beliefs system?

I'm not talking about the rule, itself, I'm talking about how they are defining "promotion". Lots of people asked a while back, and they posted how they were defining promotion. They gave you just what you are asking for. Did you read the link I posted? It was not to the rule, it was to the definition.

Crazy Liz

21st May 2008, 09:54 AM

I'm not talking about the rule, itself, I'm talking about how they are defining "promotion". Lots of people asked a while back, and they posted how they were defining promotion. They gave you just what you are asking for. Did you read the link I posted? It was not to the rule, it was to the definition.

They are defining promotion 2 different ways, which is leading to confusion.

You are simply ignoring one of the definitions, which you can safely do, since it doesn't affect you. But it's not helpful to those who are affected by the second definition for you to tell them to ignore it. It's still there, and they are concerned about it.

Do you think the second definition, "Promotion may be understood as any portrayal of Satanism or occultism as an acceptable belief system," should be removed so as to remove the confus