New policy not very Christian.

[Crazy Liz]

For the record, I would like to say that kicking people out of the Theology forums is not a consistent with Christian hospitality.

[CaDan]

For the record, I would like to say that kicking people out of the Theology forums is not a consistent with Christian hospitality.

And considering the worst behaved people in the theology forums carry Christian icons, not really effective for doing anything except providing stimulation to separatists.

It's not going to work, Hen.

[Joykins]

For the record, I would like to say that kicking people out of the Theology forums is not a consistent with Christian hospitality.

You are right.

It is, however, consistent with "inreach." And you know what I've always said about "inreach" and latex gloves.

Henry, CaDan, Liz--love ya all but these policies have come to the point that this forum is no longer a hospitable place to hold normal discussions. I am therefore doing the obvious.

:hug: to all the wonderful people I have met here. I'm updating my sig to where I can be reached. And don't bother giving me a notifiction for this because I won't be here to receive it.

:wave:

[The_Master]

when do the forms get filled out?

[Sylvanspirits]

For the record, I would like to say that kicking people out of the Theology forums is not a consistent with Christian hospitality.

I agree.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

For the record, I would like to say that kicking people out of the Theology forums is not a consistent with Christian hospitality.
Second that.

[FundamentalistJohn]

And considering the worst behaved people in the theology forums carry Christian icons, not really effective for doing anything except providing stimulation to separatists.

It's not going to work, Hen.


Opinions vary, I disagree with you on both counts.

[beamishboy]

For the record, I would like to say that kicking people out of the Theology forums is not a consistent with Christian hospitality.

What new policy is there? Do tell me. The beamishboy is always not told of new policies. Everyone waits for the beamishboy to take a step outside the policy so they can pounce on me.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Nothing you would have to worry about Beamish.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Opinions vary, I disagree with you on both counts.
Well, you bes perfectly entitled to be wrong, just like anyone else who doesn't see the truth.

Oh wait, did that statement sound arrogant and offensive? Gee, wonder why??? :doh:

[beamishboy]

Nothing you would have to worry about Beamish.

What's the new policy anyway?

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

What's the new policy anyway?
The theology sections have been deemed "Christian Only".
This effectively drives non-Christians not merely to the back of the bus but off the bus entirely.
It has also raised concerns about impending faith-icon witch-hunts by self-appointed heresy sniffers for whom adherence to the Nicene creed would not be sufficient Christian buttsniff to satisfy conformity-demands for the pack (dog socialization ritual analogy here, not trying to be gross).

http://kamaladolphinkingsley.com/otisblog/images/butt-sniffing-train-web.jpg

i.e., "Are YOU one of US??? Or do we ATTACK NOW???"

[synger]

Please see the Announcement (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48770584#post48770584)about this policy. There will be no forced icon-changes.

[FundamentalistJohn]

Well, you bes perfectly entitled to be wrong, just like anyone else who doesn't see the truth.

Oh wait, did that statement sound arrogant and offensive? Gee, wonder why??? :doh:



Perhaps because it was. For the record Moriah have I ever been rude or arrogant towards you?

[CaDan]

Please see the Announcement (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48770584#post48770584)about this policy. There will be no forced icon-changes.

For now.

I will make a challenge. Every Staffer who posts, "There will be no forced icon-changes," will pledge on their honor to resign from any position at CF if there are any forced icon-changes.

Are you willing to put your position of power on the line?

[synger]

For now.

I will make a challenge. Every Staffer who posts, "There will be no forced icon-changes," will pledge on their honor to resign from any position at CF if there are any forced icon-changes.

Are you willing to put your position of power on the line?

Yes, I am. I will not be part of icon wars.

[CaDan]

Yes, I am. I will not be part of icon wars.

I know. You are a person of honor.

I also know there will be Staffers who are not willing to take up this challenge. You do, too.

[pgp_protector]

For now.

I will make a challenge. Every Staffer who posts, "There will be no forced icon-changes," will pledge on their honor to resign from any position at CF if there are any forced icon-changes.

Are you willing to put your position of power on the line?

:D :D :D

Why do I doubt anyone would sign up for that :D ROFL :D

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Perhaps because it was. For the record Moriah have I ever been rude or arrogant towards you?
Not you personally, no, but many of those you implicitly defended by your statement have been, pretty much in precisely the same type of terms as what it posted there to illustrate. And just to clarify -- it did not seek to be rude or arrogant toward you by what it posted, but merely to illustrate the point.

[ReadingForOrders]

Has there been an explanation for the decision posted anywhere? Perhaps it would help if we knew the reason for the decision.

[Criada]

For now.

I will make a challenge. Every Staffer who posts, "There will be no forced icon-changes," will pledge on their honor to resign from any position at CF if there are any forced icon-changes.

Are you willing to put your position of power on the line?

I am.
I would be resigning anyway, should this occur.

[PreachersWife2004]

For now.

I will make a challenge. Every Staffer who posts, "There will be no forced icon-changes," will pledge on their honor to resign from any position at CF if there are any forced icon-changes.

Are you willing to put your position of power on the line?

I am too, based on assurances. However, I don't hold much power so I don't know how much that counts. We've been told time and time again that it will not happen, PERIOD. I believe it.

[Texas Lynn]

The manner in which this decision was issued was disrespectful to the members. No explanation has been offered. Staff who supported this decision should show honor by signing their names to it and explaining it.

[Crazy Liz]

Yes, I am. I will not be part of icon wars.

Could these pledges be collected in one place? I think the Announcement thread would be a good central place.

[synger]

While it might seem so, I don't think this decision happened without warning. It was discussed in an open thread (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7261589) a few months ago. While that was not an official announcement, it did make it clear that making a couple of the areas of the site Christian-only again was likely to occur.

Also, please try to keep this in perspective. Just looking at the major forums listed on the home page (not counting the subforums), this will affect about 40 forums. Forty forums will be Christians-only, on a Christian website.

That leaves about 250 that are open to all members.

It is my hope that all our members will find a couple of forums where they can find fun, fellowship, and discussion.

[Crazy Liz]

Has there been an explanation for the decision posted anywhere? Perhaps it would help if we knew the reason for the decision.

That would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Crazy Liz]

:D :D :D

Why do I doubt anyone would sign up for that :D ROFL :D

Three or four already have. Blessings be upon them.

[Crazy Liz]

While it might seem so, I don't think this decision happened without warning. It was discussed in an open thread (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48770922&postcount=16) a few months ago. While that was not an official announcement, it did make it clear that making a couple of the areas of the site Christian-only again was likely to occur.

Also, please try to keep this in perspective. Just looking at the major forums listed on the home page (not counting the subforums), this will affect about 40 forums. Forty forums will be Christians-only, on a Christian website.

That leaves about 250 that are open to all members.

It is my hope that all our members will find a couple of forums where they can find fun, fellowship, and discussion.

Let's not just count numbers of forums. There will now be certain topics that will be off-limits for discussion by certain people, since there are no longer any open forums where any type of theology discussion is allowed.

[pgp_protector]

Three or four already have. Blessings be upon them.

Well I'm glad I'm wrong, may we never have to hold them to there words.

[Crazy Liz]

While it might seem so, I don't think this decision happened without warning. It was discussed in an open thread (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48770922&postcount=16) a few months ago. While that was not an official announcement, it did make it clear that making a couple of the areas of the site Christian-only again was likely to occur.

Which thread did you intend to link to?

[synger]

Which thread did you intend to link to?

The Trouble with Faith Icons (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7261589). I've fixed the link in my post, above, too.

[Texas Lynn]

While it might seem so, I don't think this decision happened without warning. It was discussed in an open thread (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7261589) a few months ago. While that was not an official announcement, it did make it clear that making a couple of the areas of the site Christian-only again was likely to occur.

Also, please try to keep this in perspective. Just looking at the major forums listed on the home page (not counting the subforums), this will affect about 40 forums. Forty forums will be Christians-only, on a Christian website.

That leaves about 250 that are open to all members.

It is my hope that all our members will find a couple of forums where they can find fun, fellowship, and discussion.

Most of us will not find that at CF, for the paradigm appears to be an eagerness to stifle the politically incorrect. What "warning" of this occurred beforehand is of no significance. It was not right then and it is not right now. The method of announcement is insulting to the members. The refusal of those who imposed this policy to state their names and their support for it and the reasons for it is a pretty shabby way to treat folks. This cannot be excused with the old "half a loaf" argument. That's like telling Southern Blacks in 1955 "You cannot sit in the dining room at the barbecue shack to eat your meals, but you can go to the back door and get them to go."

[Crazy Liz]

While it might seem so, I don't think this decision happened without warning. It was discussed in an open thread (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7261589) a few months ago. While that was not an official announcement, it did make it clear that making a couple of the areas of the site Christian-only again was likely to occur.


The Trouble with Faith Icons (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7261589). I've fixed the link in my post, above, too.

Thanks for fixing the link. Yeah, I guess it was a warning for the few people who read that post before that forum was closed to discussion.

But I didn't see that staff listened to any of the concerns posted there. Letalis just said what was going to happen, and later announced that he did it. I am very dissatisfied that the decision-makers here never discuss issues with the membership. Maybe there will be a hint in some obscure place that a change is going to happen sometime in the future, but if there is a response, nobody listens.

Yeah, they claim they read, but they never respond, so there is no way to know if they understand.

[Crazy Liz]

The method of announcement is insulting to the members. The refusal of those who imposed this policy to state their names and their support for it and the reasons for it is a pretty shabby way to treat folks.

:amen:

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Most of us will not find that at CF, for the paradigm appears to be an eagerness to stifle the politically incorrect.
You forgot to add "while complaining said political incorrectness actually constitutes political correctness which attempts to stifle the 'political incorrectness' of the politically correct by merely existing." Never forget who/what bes driving all this nonsense, after all. :doh:

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Oh and don't forget all the special member-specific rules, such as "the only people not permitted to discuss X would be those actually having firsthand experience with X, because everyone knows firsthand experience equates to promotion and heaven forbid anyone should tidy up superstitious and fearful urban legends and stupid half-mythologies constructed from horrible hermaneutics with anything remotely resembling truth or factual accuracy on the subject."

[beamishboy]

I don't understand the fuss. The beamishboy doesn't mind if you force me to change my icon so long as it's not an RC icon. If you think I belong more to the Church of Scotland than the CoE because like many CoE priests, I call my Archbishop a papal puppet. But in reality, he's more a politician than a priest. But I'm still an altar boy in the CoE and now, in a foreign land (where I'm on a student exchange programme), they've still made me an altar boy in the local Anglican cathedral.

The only reason for any mod to ask me to change my icon is if they think an Anglican cannot disagree with the Archbishop of Canterbury. But ours is not a papal system and 90% of Anglicans disagree with him. Still, I don't mind an icon change provided it's a mainstream Protestant icon. The beamishboy has no problem with the outside veneer.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Beamish, not even if it bes deceptive because it falsely represents your own personal faith?
Of course, the thing what concerns ppls here bes not swapping out denominational icons, but forcing those self-identifying as Christian to be regarded as non-believers because their understanding of Christ or Scripture does not conform to some mere human's arbitrary odious self-appointment as Universal Pope of All "Orthodoxy".

[beamishboy]

Beamish, not even if it bes deceptive because it falsely represents your own personal faith?
Of course, the thing what concerns ppls here bes not swapping out denominational icons, but forcing those self-identifying as Christian to be regarded as non-believers because their understanding of Christ or Scripture does not conform to some mere human's arbitrary odious self-appointment as Universal Pope of All "Orthodoxy".

I thought CF follows a very broad definition of Christianity, doesn't it? Just the Nicene Creed. The interpretation of the Nicene Creed may differ between RCs and Protestants but I can't imagine how someone who doesn't even believe in the most basic Creed can be termed a Christian.

[BreadAlone]

I thought CF follows a very broad definition of Christianity, doesn't it? Just the Nicene Creed. The interpretation of the Nicene Creed may differ between RCs and Protestants but I can't imagine how someone who doesn't even believe in the most basic Creed can be termed a Christian.

Not even! You're only required to agree with the Website's Statement of Faith, and badda-boom! You're a Christian as far as this site is concerned.

Basically beamish, in the old days of CF, when people who were not Trinitarian Christians said they were, Staff would force them to have a Non-Christian/Non-Nicene icon (at least this seems to be the scenario that everyone is having a hernia over.)

[CaDan]

Not even! You're only required to agree with the Website's Statement of Faith, and badda-boom! You're a Christian as far as this site is concerned.

Basically beamish, in the old days of CF, when people who were not Trinitarian Christians said they were, Staff would force them to have a Non-Christian/Non-Nicene icon (at least this seems to be the scenario that everyone is having a hernia over.)

Are you willing to pledge on your honor that if there are any forced icon changes, you will resign from CF Staff?

[beamishboy]

Are you willing to pledge on your honor that if there are any forced icon changes, you will resign from CF Staff?

Why should any one pledge to resign because someone is forced to change his icon. As BreadAlone tells us, it's so easy to be Christian. If someone calls himself a Christian and CF thinks he's not, then he clearly CAN'T be a Christian but would only be an impostor. I think changing the icon is the least he could do to stop the pretence.

Why would anyone want to pretend to be a Christian if he is not? Isn't that being a wolf in sheep's clothing? Should not the wolf be asked to remove the fake clothing? I really don't understand at all!!!

[PreachersWife2004]

In the past, CF has seen its share of trolls wishing to put Christianity in a bad light. They would do this by assuming a Christian icon and then commencing insulting everyone, giving false doctrine, taking a nominal stance on something and turning it into a major fiasco, that kind of stuff. There's been a couple of legendary ones, from what I've been told, but I wasn't here to see them.

[CaDan]

Why should any one pledge to resign because someone is forced to change his icon. As BreadAlone tells us, it's so easy to be Christian. If someone calls himself a Christian and CF thinks he's not, then he clearly CAN'T be a Christian but would only be an impostor. I think changing the icon is the least he could do to stop the pretence.

Why would anyone want to pretend to be a Christian if he is not? Isn't that being a wolf in sheep's clothing? Should not the wolf be asked to remove the fake clothing? I really don't understand at all!!!


Because in the past at this site there have been amateur inquisitions into whether or not people were "Christian" enough to be posting in "Christians-only" areas. Staff has often said they will not return to those inquisitions.

I am putting them on the spot to back up those promises. I am keeping a record in my blog of those who are willing to back up those promises.

[beamishboy]

Because in the past at this site there have been amateur inquisitions into whether or not people were "Christian" enough to be posting in "Christians-only" areas. Staff has often said they will not return to those inquisitions.

I am putting them on the spot to back up those promises. I am keeping a record in my blog of those who are willing to back up those promises.

What's your blog address? The beamishboy used to put the URL address on my signature but a mod told me not to do it cos it's against the rules.

[CaDan]

What's your blog address? The beamishboy used to put the URL address on my signature but a mod told me not to do it cos it's against the rules.

It's my CF blog: http://christianforums.com/blog.php?u=24881

[Jase]

I am.
I would be resigning anyway, should this occur.
:hug: Criada, you can't leave!

[PETE_]

In the past, CF has seen its share of trolls wishing to put Christianity in a bad light. They would do this by assuming a Christian icon and then commencing insulting everyone, giving false doctrine, taking a nominal stance on something and turning it into a major fiasco, that kind of stuff. There's been a couple of legendary ones, from what I've been told, but I wasn't here to see them.
My question in this is how will these situations be handled under the new system. Will they be allowed to keep the icon and just recieve regular process for posting against the SoF?

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

The rules for discussing "unorthodox" theologies, then, need to be kept consistently. We cannot have people posting things bashing those theologies in "protected" areas where defenders or advocates of those theologies cannot answer them with facts concerning those theologies. Instead, all such discussion should be moved to Unorthodox or wherever, regardless of who starts it or what perspective they post from.

[DeaconDean]

I thought CF follows a very broad definition of Christianity, doesn't it? Just the Nicene Creed. The interpretation of the Nicene Creed may differ between RCs and Protestants but I can't imagine how someone who doesn't even believe in the most basic Creed can be termed a Christian.

Just a little FYI for you.

I am a Baptist, and as such, we have strived to separate ourselves from the patterns set by the Roman Catholic church several centuries ago.

Now wait a minute, before you jump all over me, let me say this.

The Baptist faith believe in a lot of the things that are stated in the Nicene Creed. But, from history, Baptists have always been anti-creedal.

We don't use creeds or confessions to "identify" who is and who isn't a "Christain."

So while I do agree with what the Nicene Creed says, and it does state a lot of good things. I will not be identified as a Christian on the basis of whether or not I agree with the Nicene Creed.

Ask me, I'll tell you that I believe Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God. Born of a virgin. Lived 33 years. Died on a cross at Calvary for my sins. Raised from the dead by the power of God for my justification. Who now sits at the right hand of the Father. And some day, will return to bring His bride home.

And why does all this "rule changing" come as a suprise to you? Since November of 2007, we have averaged a new set of rules every two (2) months. It was about time for another set of changes. After the 7/7/7 changes last year, I stepped down as a moderator. When they changed it back, I came back on staff. Since then, in 9 months, we have had 3 rule changes. And now, we're set up for a 4th. That is 4 changes in 9 months.

Now as for myself, I do not have the power to change any icon. Even back last year when I was a supervisor, I did not have the power. That was reserved for the people with the Blue or Green A's.

As a Moderator, I sit at the bottom of ladder. What I can do is very limited. Very limited. So I don't have that ability anyway. (Thank God!)

And I have to agree with CaDan. Most of the problems here are from Christians. Very little trouble comes from Non-Christains and Christians.

You want to see trouble? Visit the GT area and look at the strife there between Catholicism and Protestantism. Granted its not as bad as it was last year, but still.

Go to the Soteriology room. Look at the battlelines there between Arminians and Calvinists. In fact, its so bad there, I used to post there quite frequently, but there are one, maybe two posters there who have made it their mission to bad mouth, put down, slander Calvinism at every chance, and because of that, I have not posted in the Soteriology room in about 9 months.

This isn't gonna change a thing. Its the same thing only packaged differently.

And if you stick around, in 2-3 months, there will be another set of rules and another change.

Imagine that, a Christian forum wanting to limit discussion and debating of Christians doctrines and theology to only Christians. What were they thinking? :doh:

So, why does this suprise you guys?

As I said before, if you don't like these "rules," stick around. There will be another set out in 2-3 months time.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[beamishboy]

Just a little FYI for you.

I am a Baptist, and as such, we have strived to separate ourselves from the patterns set by the Roman Catholic church several centuries ago.

Now wait a minute, before you jump all over me, let me say this.

On the contrary, I'm all for it! Separating oneself from the RC church is the way to go. My church is built on the blood of Protestant reformers even if some of our prelates are (if I may use the words of the Protestant Truth Society of which many of our clergymen are members) papal puppets.

The Baptist faith believe in a lot of the things that are stated in the Nicene Creed. But, from history, Baptists have always been anti-creedal.

We don't use creeds or confessions to "identify" who is and who isn't a "Christain."

So while I do agree with what the Nicene Creed says, and it does state a lot of good things. I will not be identified as a Christian on the basis of whether or not I agree with the Nicene Creed.

Ask me, I'll tell you that I believe Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God. Born of a virgin. Lived 33 years. Died on a cross at Calvary for my sins. Raised from the dead by the power of God for my justification. Who now sits at the right hand of the Father. And some day, will return to bring His bride home.

That's my belief too! Every word of it. Of course we have some minor differences and as an altar boy I'm dressed in a nice surplice and I carry a heavy (it's very heavy) candlestick and soon I'll get to swing the thurible (which is good fun) but come on, all that is the external - it's all extra-biblical pomp that can be done away with and that does not affect one iota of doctrine. So, I do identify myself with the Baptists and the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans and all groups that are mainstream Protestant.

You want to see trouble? Visit the GT area and look at the strife there between Catholicism and Protestantism. Granted its not as bad as it was last year, but still.

The other moderators here will tell you that the beamishboy is not one who has kept himself from the fray and the melee of RC-Protestant battles. But I've grown up quite a lot since the last bloodshed and I now know how to use adult's sarcasm in a way that will not seem churlish and out-of-control. In a few words, I now know how to keep my cool. Hehe.

[Texas Lynn]

Why should any one pledge to resign because someone is forced to change his icon.

Honor.

If someone calls himself a Christian and CF thinks he's not, then he clearly CAN'T be a Christian but would only be an impostor.


That implies CF staff don't make mistakes. But they do, frequently. They get so many things wrong there's no reason they wouldn't get that one wrong as well.

[DeaconDean]

On the contrary, I'm all for it! Separating oneself from the RC church is the way to go. My church is built on the blood of Protestant reformers even if some of our prelates are (if I may use the words of the Protestant Truth Society of which many of our clergymen are members) papal puppets.



That's my belief too! Every word of it. Of course we have some minor differences and as an altar boy I'm dressed in a nice surplice and I carry a heavy (it's very heavy) candlestick and soon I'll get to swing the thurible (which is good fun) but come on, all that is the external - it's all extra-biblical pomp that can be done away with and that does not affect one iota of doctrine. So, I do identify myself with the Baptists and the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans and all groups that are mainstream Protestant.



The other moderators here will tell you that the beamishboy is not one who has kept himself from the fray and the melee of RC-Protestant battles. But I've grown up quite a lot since the last bloodshed and I now know how to use adult's sarcasm in a way that will not seem churlish and out-of-control. In a few words, I now know how to keep my cool. Hehe.

Brother, I hope my comments did not offend you, because that was not my intent. If it did, I sincerely apologize. My post was only directed to the fact that Baptists have always been anti-creedal.

I am opposed to any organization that uses a "creed" to identify just who is and who isn't a Christian.

If my confession of Jesus Christ and my belief in His finished work isn't sufficent, then I'm sorry.

And also, my post was only here to direct everybodies attention to the fact that since 7/7/7, this forum has undergone one change after another. With the 7/7/7 changes, and the ones here recently, that is 4 major changes since July of last year. I have been a member here since July of 2005, and prior to July 07, I can't remember a rule change. (Although as I get older, I admit my memory isn't what it used to be) But including the 7/7/7 change, there have been 4 major changes. And we are set for another.

If those aren't liked, stick around, I'm sure in 2, 3, or 4 months, there will be another round of rule changes.

And I only want to point one previous comment I said before:

Imagine that, a Christian forum wanting to limit discussion and debating of Christians doctrines and theology to only Christians. What were they thinking? :doh:


So beamishboy, my comments weren't meant to offend. And if it seemed that way, I sincerely apologize for that. Please forgive me, it was not my intent to offend.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Crazy Liz]

What's your blog address? The beamishboy used to put the URL address on my signature but a mod told me not to do it cos it's against the rules.

Did the rule against external links in siggies come back?

When?

[PreachersWife2004]

Here is how I look at it.

At my church, we always welcome ANYONE to worship with us. We would never turn anyone away at the door. But there are certain things that a non-member could not do, such as take communion, hold an office within the church, etc. If someone wished to do these things, then we would encourage them to become a member through bible study and informational classes. They are not excluded from hearing any part of the word, and I don't see how making these sections CO is stopping the non-believers or seekers, etc. from hearing the word. There are plenty of forums within CF that allow for that.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

If someone calls himself a Christian and CF thinks he's not, then he clearly CAN'T be a Christian but would only be an impostor.
So CF now has supreme authority in the universe to determine who bes Christian and who not? :doh:
Hardly.

[CaDan]

So CF now has supreme authority in the universe to determine who bes Christian and who not? :doh:
Hardly.

I wanna see a mitre and a crosier before I consider giving someone that authority.

[DeaconDean]

Form the course of this thread, I take it it is perfectly acceptable for a person to claim to be a Christain, yet deny the core doctrines of Christianity, curse, spam porn, and other such actions that clearly show a person is not a Christian.

And we are not to question as to whether or not said person is actually a Christian?!?

As Artie Johnson would say:

Interesting, very interesting.

http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/uploaded_images/Laugh-In%20Artie%20Johnson%20with%20cigarette-729062.jpg

Even though the Bible grants us the authority to do such things?

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." -2 Tim. 3:5 (KJV)

Interesting, very interesting.

Or as Arsenio Hall would say:

Things that make you go, Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Crazy Liz]

Form the course of this thread, I take it it is perfectly acceptable for a person to claim to be a Christain, yet deny the core doctrines of Christianity, curse, spam porn, and other such actions that clearly show a person is not a Christian.

And we are not to question as to whether or not said person is actually a Christian?!?

As Artie Johnson would say:



http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/uploaded_images/Laugh-In%20Artie%20Johnson%20with%20cigarette-729062.jpg

Even though the Bible grants us the authority to do such things?

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." -2 Tim. 3:5 (KJV)



Or as Arsenio Hall would say:



God Bless

Till all are one.

I think CF's flaming rule is a little peculiar in this area.

[kiwimac]

CF does not have the authority to decide who is and who is not a Christian.

[DeaconDean]

CF does not have the authority to decide who is and who is not a Christian.

I mean absolutely no disrespect at all, but in all my inquiries in this matter, the closest explaination I have gotten is an understanding that basicly, we are going to re-word and re-adopt the old 7/7/7 rule that if one says they are a Christian, they are, we can't question it. Even though by scripture we can.

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Mt. 7:20 (KJV)

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." -2 Tim. 3:5 (KJV)

2 Timothy 3:5 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/2_Timothy/3.html#5)

Ver. 5. Having a form of godliness,.... Either a mere external show of religion, pretending great piety and holiness, being outwardly righteous before men, having the mask and visor of godliness; or else a plan of doctrine, a form of sound words, a scheme of truths, which men may have without partaking of the grace of God; and which, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, or else the Scriptures of truth, and profess to hold to, maintain and preserve; and which contains doctrines according to godliness, and tend to a godly life and godly edification:

but denying the power thereof; though in words they profess religion and godliness, the fear of God, and the pure worship of him, yet in works they deny all; and though they may have a set of notions in their heads, yet they feel nothing of the power of them on their hearts; and are strangers to experimental religion, and powerful godliness: or though they profess the Scriptures to be the word of God, yet they deny the use, the power, and efficacy of them; they deny the use of them to the laity, and affirm that they are not a sufficient rule of faith and practice, without their unwritten traditions; and that they are not able to make men wise, or give them a true knowledge of what is to be believed and done, without them; and that the sense of them is not to be understood by private men,

from such turn away; have no fellowship with them, depart from their communion, withdraw from them, and come out from among them:

(Note: Edited for content)

Link (http://www.freegrace.net/gill/)

Oh well.

"Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die"

I don't make the rules, I have no say so in the rules, I'm just the "hired" help, I do as I am told to do.

Sorry to have disturbed this thread.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[kiwimac]

God alone knows hearts, God alone knows who is Christian or not. Our job is not to judge another's Christianity, it is to try and live our own.

[PreachersWife2004]

CF does not have the authority to decide who is and who is not a Christian.

For the purposes of this website, yes, CF has the "authority". If LeeD today decided that Lutheranism was a cult and he didn't want us having access to the Christian areas, that would be his decision to make. And I, wishing to be a member here, would have to follow that.

However, I'm not one to let a website determine whether I'm a Christian or not.

Are you?

DeaconDean, you made some very valid points.

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

To me there should simply be balance. I've seen Christian people behave in ways worse than that of non-Christians. I've seen non-Christians infiltrate good threads with what seemed like an agenda to wreck it, not add to the discussion. It cuts both ways. Just curious, are Christians excluded from non-Christian forums?

Go Cards!

[kiwimac]

For the purposes of this website, yes, CF has the "authority". If LeeD today decided that Lutheranism was a cult and he didn't want us having access to the Christian areas, that would be his decision to make. And I, wishing to be a member here, would have to follow that.

And he would be as wrong about that as he is about this. You are confusing authority with ability PW. LeeD has the ABILITY to say X are not able to access Y but he does not have the authority to decide DOCTRINE and MEMBERSHIP in Christ's mystical body. God alone has that ability.

[PreachersWife2004]

And he would be as wrong about that as he is about this. You are confusing authority with ability PW. LeeD has the ABILITY to say X are not able to access Y but he does not have the authority to decide DOCTRINE and MEMBERSHIP in Christ's mystical body. God alone has that ability.
My dear friend, that's why I put "authority" in quotes. Ability here online = authority.

On the last day, though, Lee's judgment of what is Christian and what is not will not matter in the least.

[Crazy Liz]

My dear friend, that's why I put "authority" in quotes. Ability here online = authority.

On the last day, though, Lee's judgment of what is Christian and what is not will not matter in the least.

For Lee's sake, I hope you're right.

Matthew 18:6

[PreachersWife2004]

For Lee's sake, I hope you're right.

Matthew 18:6

Doesn't really apply here, though. Lee is not causing or forcing anyone to sin.

[Crazy Liz]

Doesn't really apply here, though. Lee is not causing or forcing anyone to sin.

Read it in a few translations.

I think a number of people may have stumbled (been offended, been scandalized) by humans making their own definitions of who is and is not a Christian, thereby wrongly excluding some brothers and sisters. But I hope in the long run, you are right and it doesn't matter.

Perhaps I should have cited Matthew 7:2 instead.

=================

BTW, could you get some of the staff to look at this thread (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7291219) & respond to that question too?

[No Swansong]

[/size]

Honor.

[size=4]

Ridiculous; it can only be a matter of honor with those who actually have the ability to force an Icon change and who give their word they won't do so. There are only a handful of persons capable of doing so. Requesting such a commitment from those who can't affect the change is simply taunting.

[No Swansong]

CF does not have the authority to decide who is and who is not a Christian.


True that belongs only to Christ, however CF does have the undeniable right to limit who may post for whatever reasons they chose.

[Crazy Liz]

True that belongs only to Christ, however CF does have the undeniable right to limit who may post for whatever reasons they chose.

Of course CF has that right. But CF's choice to exercise that right can rightly be criticized on the basis of Christian principles.

[Crazy Liz]

Ridiculous; it can only be a matter of honor with those who actually have the ability to force an Icon change and who give their word they won't do so. There are only a handful of persons capable of doing so. Requesting such a commitment from those who can't affect the change is simply taunting.

All these things can change at any time.

And when CF forced icon changes in the past, the people who performed the technical task were not the same people who made the decision, and those who made the decision directed other people to conduct the actual inquisitions. Being on staff at any level meant cooperating with the process.

And the whole process was skewed so as to discourage lower-level staff members from speaking in a member's defense and to encourage them to either participate in their prosecution or get out of the way & let other people do it. Plus a staff member couldn't talk about it openly, as that would violate "confidentiality," which in most cases actually meant protecting the identities of those who were actually pulling the strings.

If there had been a mass resignation from staff at that time, CF would not have been able to continue operating as it was. This is why it is reasonable to make the request of staff members at all levels. Each one can choose to make the pledge or not, but the larger the number who do, the greater the chance TPTB will know they will not be able to carry out such a policy and still maintain the forum.

[No Swansong]

All these things can change at any time.

And when CF forced icon changes in the past, the people who performed the technical task were not the same people who made the decision, and those who made the decision directed other people to conduct the actual inquisitions. Being on staff at any level meant cooperating with the process.

And the whole process was skewed so as to discourage lower-level staff members from speaking in a member's defense and to encourage them to either participate in their prosecution or get out of the way & let other people do it. Plus a staff member couldn't talk about it openly, as that would violate "confidentiality," which in most cases actually meant protecting the identities of those who were actually pulling the strings.

If there had been a mass resignation from staff at that time, CF would not have been able to continue operating as it was. This is why it is reasonable to make the request of staff members at all levels. Each one can choose to make the pledge or not, but the larger the number who do, the greater the chance TPTB will know they will not be able to carry out such a policy and still maintain the forum.



This isn't the same CF nor is it the same staff. Could things change? Sure they do quite often around here but it is highly unlikely that the abuses of the past could be repeated under the current system in use. History has proven that neither mass exodus' of staff nor the threat of mass exodus' of staff has any effect on the policies of the board. In my opinion this is actually a good thing, I don't think LeeD should be coerced. Calling for the resignation of those who cannot prevent the activity being discussed is ridiculous. Additionally, if good staff members keep leaving what exactly will be left?

With that said I would point out that no one who opposes the current plan has presented any alternate to deal with those who fraudulently use the Christian Icon to bypass the rules of the board. Exactly how would you address such a situation?

[Spiritofprophecy]

I thought CF follows a very broad definition of Christianity, doesn't it? Just the Nicene Creed. The interpretation of the Nicene Creed may differ between RCs and Protestants but I can't imagine how someone who doesn't even believe in the most basic Creed can be termed a Christian.


Greetings in the name of Jesus: :hug:

My self imposed exile, I shall return to comment in this thread as to Beamish. And subject matter at hand.

Your Justification for Creeds, Is the basis for all evil of men. This says unless you believe in a "Man made Creed" your not Christian.

Let me say it back wards, In Christian Forum; A true Christian, is one that agrees with "Man made Creeds".

Theology forum exiles, and the list shall grow, and grow; More rejection and exiled concepts, its human nature, " My creed is better than yours"; when God and the word is the Only thing that really matters.

This is not a great forum any more, and Leaders did it to themselves, and Gods spirit has left; for his lost sheep have not a place;

And every Lost sheep which came to Christian forum, was sent here by God himself, and then is turned away.

For give me for saying this but it needs saying; Only the Ignorant in Knowledge, of Gods authority, will demand that authority of God, be put in Institutions of men. Most comprehend this not.

And the proof is in the pudding. Christian forums is Dead, God has removed his spirit; Because Christian forum, Now denies the Great commission of God, to witness unto the faithful, and bring the lost sheep in to Knowledge of God.

Moriah Conquering Wind; speaks also truth about the Inquisition style Universal Pope mentality of forum, And the original concept to bring Christians together is gone. So is the Great commission in this forum, which is the Only purpose of Christians existence.

Now I shall go back to my self imposed exile, to forums, which are Inclusive. and Not " Precepts of men Creeds" which claim are of God.

I pray my words do not offend, God bless all Christians in forum, and all those who use it. :wave:

[Tonks]

Seems that things don't change that much around here.

[PreachersWife2004]

Seems that things don't change that much around here.

Well, they change for some and not for others, that's all.

Too many people equate change with bad, and too many other people equate change with power.

[CaDan]

Seems that things don't change that much around here.

I got a spunky new avatar. That's new! :D

[milessinclair]

If the Flat Earth Society only had discussions on Flat Earthedness open to believers in a Flat Earth would you consider them to be open minded - or persisting in promoting their own delusion.

If christian theology is true, then it must be tested by peope who don't accept it - not agreed with by people who do.

[PreachersWife2004]

If the Flat Earth Society only had discussions on Flat Earthedness open to believers in a Flat Earth would you consider them to be open minded - or persisting in promoting their own delusion.

If christian theology is true, then it must be tested by peope who don't accept it - not agreed with by people who do.

Where does it say it must be tested by unbelievers?

Your first question can't be answered correctly, unless you include none of the above. If the knitting society got together and only discussed knitting, and only allowed those who knew how to knit, I figure I'd either learn how to knit or go find a different group. I'd never think they were being close-minded.

[milessinclair]

Christian Belief is not the same as knitting.

If someone claimed that knitting was the only way to find the truth - and this was not open to debate, would you thinkt hey were really after the truth?
If christians are after the truth, then surely you would want to have your claims challenged?

If I have an idea that I think is new, I won;t just talk to people who agree with me. I would want it testing with people who disagree. That is how one learns . . .

m

[PreachersWife2004]

Christian belief isn't the same as the Flat Earth society, yet the analogy was good enough for you.

The problem is that you assume that just because some areas of CF are CO, that Christians don't want their beliefs challenged. So 40 forums out of what, close to 300, are CO? Where Christians can gather together amongst themselves for a bit? And this makes us close minded? How so?

I see plenty of challenges to our faith every day, here at CF and at other places. There's no shortage of people testing us and challenging us. Which is exactly why it is nice to be able to go to an area every now and then where it's just Christians. Where at least I know the person I'm posting with believes in Jesus Christ and doesn't think I'm crazy for believing in God.

I just can't see how that is a bad thing. And I do not see how it limits anyone from "testing" us Christians.

Christian Belief is not the same as knitting.

If someone claimed that knitting was the only way to find the truth - and this was not open to debate, would you thinkt hey were really after the truth?
If christians are after the truth, then surely you would want to have your claims challenged?

If I have an idea that I think is new, I won;t just talk to people who agree with me. I would want it testing with people who disagree. That is how one learns . . .

m

[milessinclair]

Christian belief isn't the same as the Flat Earth society, yet the analogy was good enough for you

That is because both are beliefs.

The foums closed to non christians are the ones that discuss christianity.
I am not coming to a christian forum to discuss motor mechanics, or any of the other froums -

Where do I ask a question about christian theology?

m

[Hentenza]

Christian belief isn't the same as the Flat Earth society, yet the analogy was good enough for you

That is because both are beliefs.

The foums closed to non christians are the ones that discuss christianity.
I am not coming to a christian forum to discuss motor mechanics, or any of the other froums -

Where do I ask a question about christian theology?

m

Hi Milessinclair,

I answered your question here (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49000614&postcount=4).

[Jesus Is Real]

You are right.

It is, however, consistent with "inreach." And you know what I've always said about "inreach" and latex gloves.

Henry, CaDan, Liz--love ya all but these policies have come to the point that this forum is no longer a hospitable place to hold normal discussions. I am therefore doing the obvious.

:hug: to all the wonderful people I have met here. I'm updating my sig to where I can be reached. And don't bother giving me a notifiction for this because I won't be here to receive it.

:wave:

Hey my friend Joykins,

I hope you've been enjoying the package I sent you 2006. That package also shows the Great Falling Away Today.

I left CF mid 2006, only to now find the fights and strife and the offenses everywhere. If you speak God's Word others still attack. Coming back for a short time, since mid 2006, has been too long. has been a time too long. I will allso see you, at Erwin's webp as CaDan referred me to last week.

See you soon~

:prayer:

[mark kennedy]

I seen Creationists ran out of the Creationism forum with a flood of skeptics and critics who simply made it too unpleasant to bear. Creationists won't post there very much if they are under constant attack which has been what the policy here has promoted. I am dismayed that you can't question someone else's faith when in Christian Theology how you are saved and if you are saved are the most important questions ever asked.

There was a reason that there was a separate Creationism and Theistic Evolution forum in the Origins Forum. I was a moderator there for a while and I had the same problem with TEs that I did with Creationists, they didn't like respecting boundaries. It didn't happen that much and if someone wanted to debate something they could take it to the common forum. It worked great and creationists were starting to frequent the forum only to be thrown to the wolves.

Now I'll get off my soapbox and leave it at that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

[Hawkins]

My problem with people in other forums is that, whenever the obvious is pointed out they keep denying it. So a closed area for Christians at least provides some room for us to whine about it. :D:P:blush: