CF Rules

Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.
Christian Forums > Congregation > Congregation Staff Discussion
User Name User Name Remember Me?

Staff/Membership Meeting to discuss the Password Log in
changes to the Controversial Topics rule
Register Blogs Prayers Jobs Arcade Calendar
B
Welcome to Christian Forums
S
Join over 250,000 Members
a
-Discuss Faith
T
-Encourage Each Other
-Get Accountability G
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
Congregation Staff Discussion Forum created to house discussion between the CF staff and congregational members.
Page 1 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 11 > Last »
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
27th September 2010, 01:52 AM #1
Join Date: 28th February 2005

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,495
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
Staff/Membership Meeting to discuss the changes to the Controversial Topics rule
Hi everyone,
We would like to use this thread to help review the new controversial topics rule with you.... please post your
questions and suggestions here
(Please bring your complaints about CF staff actions to the MSC, as we will not spend time here defending or
explaining staff actions in this meeting)
Thanks,
Tishri1
on behalf of CF staff
PS we will hold this meeting open for two weeks ( 9/27/2010-10/11/2010 ) and longer if needed
__________________
Forgiveness is not pretending the offense never happened. It’s valuing the person more than the offense.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!
Join Date: 1st October 2005

Tenebrae Posts: 13,369
anti-antiintellectualism, pro charismatic Blessings: 8,633
My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
I think you need to nail down what consititutes promotion of homosexuality.
I could say 'my girlfriend and I are very happy together" I mean this as a statement of my relationship with my girlfriend. Whats to
stop a mod saying "thou shall not promote homosexuality"
Personally I think this is a step too far down the conservative path. I appreciate that this forum adheres to the nicene creed, and
that for conservative christians christianity and homosexuality is not compatible, however by really nailing down on this, you run
the risk of pushing those people away from CF
__________________
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome
you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If
there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved
ones. I am not afraid." - Marcus Aurelius
What we do in life echos in eternity

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
Could you also explain the rationale behind this latest rule if thats possible. From an observers point of view, it seems like a new
rule for the sake of it. Definately dont mean that to be disrespectful have not noticed an abundance of homosexuality promotion on
the forum
__________________
Join Date: 3rd March 2006

Posts: 13,800
Blessings: 3,332,406
My Mood
Davidnic Reps: 112,652,206,258,470,768 (power: 112,652,206,258,488)
Have Fun
For some areas of the congregation forums it poses other difficulties. I will speak in relation to the Catholic forum OBOB.
The Catholic Church has a fairly clearly defined position in relation to homosexuality and the discussion of it is a discussion of
one of the decisions of our Bishops. So how would the new rule relate to:
Discussing direct Bishops letters on the topic
Discussing direct papal statements on the topic
General discussions of such things like the Theology of the Body on the proper place of sexuality in Catholic lives
General discussions of letters and Papal statements on sexuality that will have, in part the discussion of this topic
People must be free in their own congregation areas, if their Church has a clearly defined policy, to state that policy in
defense/discussion of (in our case) Dogma and discipline respectively
More importantly
There have been times when a Catholic, usually a young person comes to OBOB struggling with this issue, either in a general sense
or as a matter of personal struggle and pain. To my knowledge there is no Catholic in the chaplain area. And the rules as I
understand them for that area would make a Catholic there very unlikely; since we do not certify ministers the same way and there
are no Catholic priests in union with Rome or Deacons on the board. So the Catholic equivalent simply does not exist in the laity of
our Church.
Because of that if a Catholic is struggling with this they will have to go to a non-Catholic Pov for an answer or help. I am not saying
comfort and understanding can not come from all sources in the name of Christ. But I am saying that if they come for a Catholic
view and help, it should be available.
In these cases, when they have happened, they get advice but really need to go to a priest. However that process...getting them to
a priest can be long and delicate. If they come to OBOB it is for, in many cases anonymity from relatives...feeling out the water in a
process when they might be tentative or reluctant to reveal themselves otherwise.
So this rule become and issue from that view as well. To me this is the more pressing issue even though it is less common that the
first points. It is not about autonomy in a sub-forum of a message board but the true suffering, confusion and pain of someone and
how they can get to help in/and directed to the pastoral tradition and directives of our Church if they come to the Catholic
sub-forum.
__________________
Other causes demand commitment, abortion demands complicity. Other causes survive by energy and attention. The survival of the
abortion industry - and it is an industry - depends upon avoidance and silence.
Bob Casey Sr.
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy
comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold
out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this
question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America?
That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
Join Date: 14th May 2002

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Priest, Liberal, theologian and tssf.
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
And what of we clergy in churches that both accept homosexuals and ordain them? Are we simply to shut up? As well I would point out that many
of us come from countries other than the US and find this ruling a piece of cultural imperialism.
__________________

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Originally Posted by kiwimac
And what of we clergy in churches that both accept homosexuals and ordain them? Are we simply to shut up? As well I
would point out that many of us come from countries other than the US and find this ruling a piece of cultural
imperialism.
I would also add, what of congregations having an honest debate on this issue where they are, say, ordaining clergy who are openly
gay and having a deep and serious debate on it.
That is not relevant in my Church but in others it is like CF ruling on what...say the United Methodist General Conference decides
or the Lutheran ELCA meetings that takes up the discussion. Both of which have already discussed it, but just illustrating a point.
These groups are having a debate on it and CF can not become the arbitrator of where a congregation should be on this issue above
what their own Church decides by whatever means are binding to them.
The whole point of the congregation areas is that we be who we are and in that grow in the understanding of each other in Christ.
And that we all have a place to discuss, fellowship and practice as our own teachings dictate.
Yes, there is a standard for what is Christian on the site. But the issue of homosexuality is being looked at by many major
denominations who easily fit into the traditional and CF definition of Christian. So I fail to see how the discussion of this can be
removed from the congregation areas in any form. With, of course, the common sense thought that flames are not allowed. But that
is a different issue already covered by the rules.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
Last edited by Davidnic; 27th September 2010 at 05:37 AM.
Join Date: 20th July 2005

DeaconDean Location: Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
Resident Trouble Maker Posts: 13,128
Blessings: 88,817
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I for one, applaude this decision.
I can only speak of my denomination and of course, the Southern Baptist Convention who have since 2000, taken a hard line stance
against homosexuality.
The Southern Baptist Convention, the entity that represents the autonomous Southern Baptist Churches and the largest
Protestant group in the U.S., considers homosexual behavior to be sinful.
Homosexuality and Christianity - ReligionFacts
That is the position I hold, and the position I will stand for.
In 2001, the SBC expelled a church in Charlotte No. Carolina for accepting and ordaining openly gay members.
If a person is struggling with homosexuality, then CF as I understand, provides places where this can be discussed in private if
necessary.
But I will not accept the position that I must be made to accept a position that I believe is wrong.
According to 40 years of preaching and teaching that I have been raised in, this is wrong and morally unacceptable. I could care
less about what the world thinks or accepts as the moral norm.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter!" -Isa. 5:20 (KJV)
While other areas may deem it acceptable discussion, historically, Baptists do not. It has only come to surface in the last 30 years.
With all the issues being debated, with traditional Christian values being thrown into the tank, with what God's "Law" and mans
"law" says on the subject, why should we throw another log on the fire to steep the flames?
God called this activity an adomination. Paul said that if they continue, God would eventually turn them over to a reprobate mind.
I think it is a good idea to remove this discussion.
Even though CF will not allow members like me to say what we really think on the subject, I applaude this decision.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">
"It may be that in the sight of heaven your more worthless and less fit to live than millions"
-The Ghost of Christmas Present to Ebenezer Scrooge

-Charles Dickens, A Chrismas Carol, 1843
He that always gives way to others will end in having no principles of his own.
-Aesop
dir="ltr">
All a man has that he can call his own are his principles, compromise them and he has nothing.
-DeaconDean
Know Law, no grace; no Law, know grace.
-Paul the Apostle, AD 55, Gal. 4:1-5

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,495
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
To try to be fair to all, we shut down the discussion on both sides of the fence. We dont want homosexuals (Christian or otherwise)
bashed here on CF, and yet we do not believe it should be promoted as well as both types of discussion lead to division and hatred.
For more than a year this has been weighing on our hearts and we have tried many other ways to stop the divisive and hate filled battles
being played out here a daily basis....this is just ongoing and will never end here at CF unless we end it.
Some forums are soooo bad that this topic dominates the majority of all the threads started in them.
Please believe we have tried other ways to stop flaming alone, nothing has stop the personal, inflammatory remarks on both sides, and it
was finally seen that this problem would just continue on and on forever, and continue to seriously divide our body here as long as the
discussion is allowed.
David if we allow discussion only in the Congregational forums as you suggest, wont we be encouraging some of what we have seen in
other forums to happen to you all? Wont we be setting you all up for the same division? Whats to stop this from destroying the unity
you all share in OBOB?
__________________

Location: The land of 10,000 lakes
PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
3700 babies or 2400 trees. You decide.
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
Tish has asked the question that has been on my mind this entire weekend. There is such animosity in the other forums on this
topic...even in my own home forum we see it through the disagreements from those who are members in the ELCA (with each other
even) and other Lutheran synods.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
PM me if you have any questions, if you need help or if you need prayers.
~~~~~~~~~~
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Ephesians 4:31-32
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:6
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the
devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers
of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that
when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then,
with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the
readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all
the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in
the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the
saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------
Got time? Want to serve? Consider being a CF moderator.

Read more about what we're looking for
and then PM me if you're interested!
27th September 2010, 10:02 AM #10

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Originally Posted by Tishri1
David if we allow discussion only in the Congregational forums as you suggest, wont we be encouraging some of what we have
seen in other forums to happen to you all? Wont we be setting you all up for the same division? Whats to stop this from
destroying the unity you all share in OBOB?
Well for OBOB, we have a Magisterium that is clear on this and it is a bigger problem for many to no allow the topic and slippery
slope to forbid us to discuss anything our Bishops teach.
Each group needs to find their own balance on the issue with whatever structures of authority exist in their own congregations. To
force that unity by removing an uncomfortable but valid topic will only lead to resentment and/or empty unity.
People must come to their own balance on this. For some there is a clear line in the teachings of their group. And that line should
not be crossed in that area. For some, it is a very turbulent issue with great strife and they have a less clear line from their teaching
authority and teachers. But we are called to address the difficult as Christians, not ignore it.
Yes, it is an issue that divides. But if we do not allow the congregations to discuss it within the bounds of their own teaching for
each group then we are moving down a road where we start a CF Christianity...and that will be good for no one. Our strength at CF
comes from each group having an area to be themselves so they can learn about each other with their own teachings so they can
honestly and productively dialog with other who disagree on some issues.
We need to be who we are, warts and all, and come through strife with Christian behavior to each other that comes from our hearts
and not overly enforced (beyond basic rules of flaming and civility).
This issue is a massive issue in many places. If we are to be Christian we must learn to embrace each other in differences. Not to
just ignore those differences.
That is why the rule bothers me in the congregation areas. It prevents people from addressing an issue that can not be ignored and
addressing it in the context of the teachings of their group.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
Page 1 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 11 > Last »
« most outrageous things your pastor did | - »
Return to Congregation Staff Discussion
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 PM.
Home | Contact Us | Community Rules | Privacy Policy | Search | TOP
Guitar Forum | Green Forum

-- CF2 Renew
COPYRIGHT 2000-2010 CHRISTIANFORUMS.COM, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
CF.COM IS POWERED BY vBULLETIN COPYRIGHT ©2000 - 2008, JELSOFT ENTERPRISES LTD.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2

B
S
a
-Discuss Faith
T
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
Page 2 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 > Last »
27th September 2010, 10:29 AM #11

Blessings: 88,817
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
To try to be fair to all, we shut down the discussion on both sides of the fence. We dont want homosexuals (Christian or
otherwise) bashed here on CF, and yet we do not believe it should be promoted as well as both types of discussion lead to
division and hatred.
At least I for once, can say with a clear conscious, that I have never openly bashed another member because they were "gay".
For more than a year this has been weighing on our hearts and we have tried many other ways to stop the divisive and hate
filled battles being played out here a daily basis....this is just ongoing and will never end here at CF unless we end it.
Sister, this will not stop.
As long as you have members like me, who think this is a sin, and those engaging in such activity are openly sinning, this will not
stop.
I think I know the majority of these.
Please believe we have tried other ways to stop flaming alone, nothing has stop the personal, inflammatory remarks on both
sides, and it was finally seen that this problem would just continue on and on forever, and continue to
seriously divide our body here as long as the discussion is allowed.
Agreed.
The only solution that comes to mind right off the bat is that CF will have to take a stance on this issue.
Right or wrong, CF will have to take a stance and issue a declaration on whether they (CF) view this topic as acceptable
(homosexual behavior, active homosexuals accepted in the church as pastors, deacons, elders, teachers, members, etc.), or whether
CF rules that this is unacceptable behavior for Christians.
And then again, if you make the wrong choice, you could stand to lose a majority of the membership, in either direction.
I agree.
Even though in 5 years I have never ventured into the OBOB area, because I respect their views, even though I don't agree with
most of them.
What is to stop this issue from destroying their peace and harmony?
The bottom line still is, CF is going to have to take a position.
Yes this is aceptable behavior for Christians; or, No this is not an aceptable behavior for Christians.
I'm sorry to say that there can be no "grey area" in regards to this topic.
There will be fallout from either choice, however, I agree to the latter.
And it ultimately will come down to the fact that you guys with the Blue "A's", Advisors, will have to make.
I would ask two things though,
1) Watch the one hour video: www.silencingchristians.com
2) Pray.
As one of the biggest, if not the biggest internet Christian Fourms, the ramifications of your choices will greatly influence the
direction of this forum.
There are only two paths:
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go
in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." -Mt. 7:13-14
(KJV)
You must choose. But choose wisely. For as the True Grail will bring you life -- the False Grail will take it from you.
-Grail Knight
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
LucasFilm Ltd., Paramount Pictures, 1989
No doubt opinions from both sides will be heard in this thread, but ultimately who makes the choice?
Remember one choice a crowd made?
"Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable
prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto
you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on the
judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day
in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy
Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate
saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the
governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he
could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am
innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our
children." -Mt. 27:15-25 (KJV)
We have a situation very much like that in the movie "King of Kings":
Lucius: Pilate offered that mob a choice.

Barabbas: [incredulous] And they chose me?
Lucius: Your followers yelled the loudest! Go; look at Him who is dying for you!
Please do not give in to "mob mentality".
Black Sabbath had a song (Mob Rules) which puts forth good advice:
Close the city and tell the people that something's coming to call
Death and darkness are rushing forward to take a bite from the wall, oh
You've nothing to say

They're breaking away
If you listen to fools...
The Mob Rules
The Mob Rules
Kill the spirit and you'll be blinded, the end is always the same
Play with fire, you burn your fingers and lose your hold of the flame, oh
It's over, it's done

the end is begun
The Mob Rules
You've nothing to say

Oh, They're breaking away
Break the circle and stop the movement, the wheel is thrown to the ground
Just remember it might start rolling and take you right back around
You're all fools!

The Mob Rules!
I sincerely, prayfully, and hope that you guys make the right choice. For that choice, will have ramifications.
You must choose. But choose wisely.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
Last edited by DeaconDean; 27th September 2010 at 10:37 AM.

27th September 2010, 10:32 AM #12

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,495
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
If what has happened else where on CF happens in the Congregational forums it could divide them completely, is that
something a congregational forum is willing to risk? I know for a fact that we as staff have decided not to risk it for the
entire site anymore, we simply cannot have this one topic causing so much division and disunity for all of us as a
whole group...but has the same thing been considered by each of these very close family groups? Does the risk out
weigh the gains for them?
__________________
27th September 2010, 11:01 AM #13
Join Date: 21st February 2003

Jase Posts: 3,878
Angel of Music Blessings: 46,292,813
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
entire site anymore, we simply cannot have this one topic causing so much division and disunity for all of us as a whole
group...but has the same thing been considered by each of these very close family groups? Does the risk out weigh the
gains for them?
Well, speaking for Whosoever Will, May Come - It is in our Statement of Purpose, that homosexuality is allowed to be discussed. So
this rule has effectively destroyed that congregation - so if your intention was to prevent division, you've only fostered it in that
faith group.
I realize that your purpose for ending this discussion was to stop the arguing, but you also fail to look at the slippery slope.
Censorship is NEVER a good thing. All this does is set a precedent that whenever a controversial topic comes up, where people
strongly disagree - we can count on it eventually being shut down. In which case, why bother having these discussion forums?
Christianity is a divided religion. Current approximation is between 32-38,000 Christian denominations on this planet. These issues
have been debated for countless centuries (the homosexuality issue much less, since orientation is a very new scientific discovery).
The debate between Catholicism and Protestantism is the most famous "argument" among Christians, and from what I've seen on
this board - that topic gets pretty nasty. I'd say more so than the homosexuality debate. Evolution vs. Creationism is also a very
heated topic.
There is no way to avoid them. The boards that support censoring any topic seem to be the ones that are trying to force people to
accept the viewpoints of the majority.
Yes, most conservatives believe homosexuality is wrong based on their interpretation of the Bible. But that's what it is, an
interpretation. A hundred years ago, conservatives believed black people were inferior, and interracial marriage was a sin.
Hundreds of years ago, the Church imprisoned people for daring to suggest the Earth is not geocentric. Once again, proven wrong.
History shows that anyone who claims "my viewpoint is without a doubt correct, because the Bible says so" is almost 100%
guaranteed to be proven wrong eventually.
But that's what you've effectively claimed with this rule. Despite your belief being that by censoring both sides, you are being equal
- you still allow an issue that many Christians do not agree is condemned, to be condemned in the Recovery/Chaplain forums, but
you don't equally allow positive discussion of the issue in the forums that specifically were designed to allow it (like WWMC).
I just think strict moderation like this is unncessary, and it's already driven lots of people away from CF.
__________________
"To love another person is to see the face of God."
27th September 2010, 11:16 AM #14

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Originally Posted by Jase
Well, speaking for Whosoever Will, May Come - It is in our Statement of Purpose, that homosexuality is allowed to be
discussed. So this rule has effectively destroyed that congregation - so if your intention was to prevent division, you've
only fostered it in that faith group.
And in OBOB there are many willing to leave over the issue who effectively represent the left, right and middle in viewpoints. So
OBOB is also more divided by the decision than before it.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
27th September 2010, 11:25 AM #15

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
entire site anymore, we simply cannot have this one topic causing so much division and disunity for all of us as a whole
group...but has the same thing been considered by each of these very close family groups? Does the risk out weigh the
gains for them?
Again, mostly I can only speak for OBOB. Our unity comes from the Magisterium even if we disagee there is general assent to
teaching on this issue. More conflict has risen from not being able to discuss it.
My advice poll the congregation forums and allow them to decide on the manner of how it is to be discussed within the context of
their own groups.
Disallow promotion across the board but allow discussion in the congregation areas based on the views and issues of those
particular groups.
People must be allowed to police their own unity. It is why the Congregational areas exist...to be who they are even in difficulty.
I understand the difficulties in some areas compared to the definitive ruling we have from the Magisterium in OBOB. But each place
has their own needs here, a blanket rule in this case will not put out the fire, only suffocate growth and real unity.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
27th September 2010, 12:59 PM #16
Join Date: 9th June 2005

arborvita Location: Sitting in a chair
God is Good. Posts: 23,490
Information Management Chief Blessings: 210,443
Site Advisor My Mood
Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
Originally Posted by Davidnic
My advice poll the congregation forums and allow them to decide on the manner of how it is to be discussed within the context
of their own groups.
Disallow promotion across the board but allow discussion in the congregation areas based on the views and issues of those
particular groups.
People must be allowed to police their own unity. It is why the Congregational areas exist...to be who they are even in difficulty
I understand the difficulties in some areas compared to the definitive ruling we have from the Magisterium in OBOB. But each
place has their own needs here, a blanket rule in this case will not put out the fire, only suffocate growth and real unity.
*taking notes.
__________________
Know that Jesus loves you and is praying for you right now!
27th September 2010, 02:26 PM #17
Join Date: 29th September 2006

desmalia Location: Canada
Those who stand for nothing fall for anything Posts: 5,019
My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
To try to be fair to all, we shut down the discussion on both sides of the fence.
This statement troubles me. In general I was quite happy to see the new rules put in place. However, if it's not about glorifying the God
of the Bible, but instead trying to avoid stepping on any toes, I'm extremely doubtful that the problem will ever be solved.
We dont want homosexuals (Christian or otherwise) bashed here on CF,
Nor should they ever be! Regardless of what direction you as staff choose to take, this portion can and should be kept. It really has little
to do with the actual problem at hand, IMHO.
and yet we do not believe it should be promoted as well as both types of discussion lead to division and hatred.
For more than a year this has been weighing on our hearts and we have tried many other ways to stop the divisive and hate
filled battles being played out here a daily basis....this is just ongoing and will never end here at CF unless we end it.
And I believe that whatever decisions staff make, so long as a clear stand is not made with a united front, those divisions on the forum
will always exist. CF is and has been riding the fence on this and other moral issues for quite some time now. It's time to make a stand.
I really want to encourage you as staff to make a clear decision on this and stand by it. I'm sure you know what I want that decision to
be, but that's not my call. However, I think you'll find that no matter who posts here, just as with the 7/7/7 debacle, members are tired
of the fence sitting and need to know what direction this forum is taking. I'd rather know that clearly, even if I don't like it.
I also realize that one of the biggest hurdles with that is not that members may leave (as they always do, and then more join), but that
some staff will either leave or be forced out by it. But honestly, I think for the sake of God's glory and the witness of the Gospel message
on this forum (if that is still possible?), that's a price well worth paying. Where some staff leave, others will rise to the challenge.
Please believe we have tried other ways to stop flaming alone, nothing has stop the personal, inflammatory remarks on both
sides, and it was finally seen that this problem would just continue on and on forever, and continue to seriously divide our body
here as long as the discussion is allowed.
As long as there are online forums there will always be heat and disagreement, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But as Dean
mentioned, when you try to make a black and white area gray to cater to all people, you're going to have serious division, no matter
what "tweaks" you try to make.
Originally Posted by DeaconDean
At least I for once, can say with a clear conscious, that I have never openly bashed another member because they were "gay".
Nor I, and none of us as believers should be bashing people, period.
Sister, this will not stop.
As long as you have members like me, who think this is a sin, and those engaging in such activity are openly sinning, this will
not stop.
I think I know the majority of these.
Agreed.
(homosexual behavior, active homosexuals accepted in the church as pastors, deacons, elders, teachers, members, etc.), or
whether CF rules that this is unacceptable behavior for Christians.
And then again, if you make the wrong choice, you could stand to lose a majority of the membership, in either direction.
I agree.
Even though in 5 years I have never ventured into the OBOB area, because I respect their views, even though I don't agree
with most of them.
What is to stop this issue from destroying their peace and harmony?
I would ask two things though,
1) Watch the one hour video: www.silencingchristians.com
2) Pray.
As one of the biggest, if not the biggest internet Christian Fourms, the ramifications of your choices will greatly influence the
direction of this forum.
There are only two paths:
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be
which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
-Mt. 7:13-14 (KJV)
-Grail Knight
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
LucasFilm Ltd., Paramount Pictures, 1989
No doubt opinions from both sides will be heard in this thread, but ultimately who makes the choice?
Remember one choice a crowd made?
"Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a
notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I
release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was
set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have
suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they
should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I
release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all
say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying,
Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and
washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all
the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." -Mt. 27:15-25 (KJV)
We have a situation very much like that in the movie "King of Kings":
Lucius: Pilate offered that mob a choice.

Barabbas: [incredulous] And they chose me?
Lucius: Your followers yelled the loudest! Go; look at Him who is dying for you!
Please do not give in to "mob mentality".
Black Sabbath had a song (Mob Rules) which puts forth good advice:
I sincerely, prayfully, and hope that you guys make the right choice. For that choice, will have ramifications.
God Bless
Till all are one.

As staff, I think you guys really need to make a clear decision, and stand by it. The issue, as far as I can see is not whether members are
divided, but a.) Whether God's truth and glory are truly the goal, and b.) Whether staff is united. If not, something really needs to be
done, and soon.
Yes, there are lots of issues that don't need to be defined in the SoF or guidelines or whatever. But some do. I've been praying for CF for
some time now, and genuinely hoping for God's glory in its direction. I was hoping the latest rules were a step in that direction. Is it?
27th September 2010, 02:28 PM #18

Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
No one is claiming that the topic of homosexuality is not a divisive one however a rule saying that it cannot be discussed will not make it go
away. Would CF have had a rule, had it existed in the 60s, saying integration and civil rights could not be discussed?
Whether you will it or nil it, Churches like the ACI, the Quakers, the MCC and others will continue to support homosexual Christians and we will
continue to consider it our duty as Christians to support them in the face of, frankly, prejudice.
Now, CF can either actually engage with the topic (and yes, that means some folk will leave or be made to feel challenged) or it can ignore it. If
you ignore it your statistics may be be slightly larger but your community will be the poorer. Real discussion requires a willingness to engage on
issues which are really important in the lives of people.
Grace and Peace,

__________________
27th September 2010, 03:18 PM #19
Join Date: 14th August 2006

Zecryphon Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Zeckypoo Posts: 8,529
Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
I think what we all have to remember is, that while we are at CF or any other internet forum to discuss anything, we all are guests
in someone else's house. So, while many may not like this ruling and may in fact, leave over this ruling, you've gotta remember, you
don't own this forum. The owner of this forum, owns the forum and is free to do as he sees fit for the overall good of the forum.
I've seen this topic intelligently discussed on this forum, but the majority of the threads on this topic do not involve intelligent
discussion. I remember C,P&E debate threads on homosexuality and same-sex sex and the majority of what was posted there, was
not intelligent. It was a flame war, that from what I understand generated a lot of reports. So much so, that staff had no choice but
to shut that particular forum down. What happened after they did? The conversation moved to other places and continued to be a
flame war, and all sides are guilty of it, liberal, conservative, homosexual, heterosexual, everybody was flaming everybody else.
I, for one am very pleased with this ruling. I do have the same question Tenebrae has though, and that is: "what constitutes
promotion of homosexuality?" CF needs to clarify that first, before this rule can be enforced. Because if CF is gonna take the stance
of "Well, we can't define it, but we'll know it when we see it," then I see a lot of potential abuse of power by staffers. Warnings and
bans can be handed out willy-nilly and nobody can object really, because "promotion of homosexuality" was never defined.
I do think that if this ruling actually does stand, a lot of people will leave this forum and this forum will shrink in size. Does the
owner want that? Don't know, I'm not the owner, but any forum owner, generally wants their forum to grow and not shrink. If CF
can define what constitutes the promotion of homosexuality, then maybe they can allow the congregational areas to discuss this as
well and define along which lines this topic can be discussed and before the liberals cry foul with accusations of censorship,
remember, we're all just guests on Pauler's forum. If any of us don't like how CF is run, we are ALL free to leave and go to forums
that cater to our individual biases.
__________________
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
27th September 2010, 03:26 PM #20

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
If we go with the definition of what promotion is, which is already in place on CF, it reads like this
Promotion: To encourage the progress, growth, or acceptance
This definition is what was come up with by the community in the Christianity and World Religion SOP which can be found here.
If we continue to use this definition it creates a level moderation field across the board.
__________________
Page 2 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 > Last »

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
Join over 250,000 Members Today
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Accountability Go Away!
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
Congregation Staff Discussion Forum created to house discussion between the CF staff and congregational
members.
Page 3 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 > Last »
27th September 2010, 04:12 PM #21

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Originally Posted by arborvita
If we go with the definition of what promotion is, which is already in place on CF, it reads like this
This definition is what was come up with by the community in the Christianity and World Religion
SOP which can be found here.
Except that first and foremost, homosexuality is an orientation. So what you are basically saying is it's a
violation of the rules to accept gay people. Is that really the "Christian" message you want to be sending?
That's no different than making a statement that you will not "encourage the progress, growth, or acceptance
of black people".
And this, I think is the core of the problem. Conservatives want to define homosexuality solely as fornicative
behavior, not as a psychological disposition to be attracted to members of the same-sex - which is what
homosexuality is.
So as long as some people keep misrepresenting the core issue, this will always be a biased, divisive problem.
__________________

27th September 2010, 04:21 PM #22

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Except that first and foremost, homosexuality is an orientation. So what you are basically saying is it's
a violation of the rules to accept gay people. Is that really the "Christian" message you want to be
sending? That's no different than making a statement that you will not "encourage the progress,
growth, or acceptance of black people".
And this, I think is the core of the problem. Conservatives want to define homosexuality solely as
fornicative behavior, not as a psychological disposition to be attracted to members of the same-sex -
which is what homosexuality is.
So as long as some people keep misrepresenting the core issue, this will always be a biased, divisive
problem.
This conservative does not define homosexuality as solely fornicative behavior. Fornication happens in both
sexual orientations, heterosexual and homosexual. This conservative acknowledges that homosexuality is a
valid sexual orientation. I have always made it clear that I consider same-sex sex a sin, just as the Bible says it
is, and for this stance, I have been attacked and ridiculed endlessly. Not by the homosexuals themselves, but
by the person who is fighting for the civil rights of the homosexual to marry and be ordained, aka the
homosexual supporter, who themselves are typically not homosexuals.
__________________
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of
God,
27th September 2010, 04:45 PM #23
Join Date: 10th November 2006

sunlover1 Location: jonesin' for a turtle sundae
Beloved, Let us love one another Posts: 12,213
My Mood
Reps: 841,004,893,628,208,768 (power: 841,004,893,628,224)
I realize that your purpose for ending this discussion was to stop the arguing, but you also fail to look
at the slippery slope. Censorship is NEVER a good thing. All this does is set a precedent that
whenever a controversial topic comes up, where people strongly disagree - we can count on it
eventually being shut down. In which case, why bother having these discussion forums? .
Some good points. This is what I was thinking as well.
We have the same disagreements in GT with RCism and protestantism.

Non stop, we can't get along that well because we both think the other
is in left field. So ... what to do...
__________________
Life Isn't About Waiting for the Storm to Pass;
It's About Learning to Dance in His reign..
27th September 2010, 04:45 PM #24

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Originally Posted by Zecryphon
This conservative does not define homosexuality as solely fornicative behavior. Fornication happens
in both sexual orientations, heterosexual and homosexual. This conservative acknowledges that
homosexuality is a valid sexual orientation. I have always made it clear that I consider same-sex sex a
sin, just as the Bible says it is, and for this stance, I have been attacked and ridiculed endlessly. Not
by the homosexuals themselves, but by the person who is fighting for the civil rights of the
homosexual to marry and be ordained, aka the homosexual supporter, who themselves are typically
not homosexuals.
Well, once again - many of us disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. That's why Christianity has so
many denominations. It's unfair to just assume that for example, your position is correct, and anyone who
disagress with you is wrong. But that's what this ruling has done, by allowing a couple forums to discuss
orientation as though it's a sin and a curable illness, without the congregation forums being able to support
those who can't change who they are.
__________________
27th September 2010, 04:56 PM #25

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
As far as OBOB goes it has never been a question of: Is an active homosexual lifestyle acceptable?
We have that answer from our Church and it is not changing. Those who disagree occasionally discuss the
whys of the teaching but we have very little, if any, promotion or dissent from it.
And that is the issue, if those who struggle with the teaching can not discuss it then it becomes a problem
where it was not one before. We need to be able to discuss this vital aspect of human sexuality and how it
relates to the The Theology of the Body and the proper use of our sexuality. They are core teachings. Not being
able to discuss that as well as any messages from our Bishops on the issue is not really feasible for us. And, to
my understanding from the threads we had when this was announced...all the Catholics there agree on this.
Plus the second part of my post #4 still greatly concerns many in OBOB.
We are not asking to promote homosexuality. We are asking to be allowed to discuss it in the context and
boundaries of our teaching. And to be able to discuss it with those Catholics struggling with the teaching
either in the abstract or in a physically personal way.
This rule is creating a problem in OBOB because it was not a problem for us that needed to be solved. I fully
appreciate that other Congregational areas have a different dynamic on this. But that is why forum specific
rules used to exist and why we have the statements of faith.
__________________
Other causes demand commitment, abortion demands complicity. Other causes survive by energy and
attention. The survival of the abortion industry - and it is an industry - depends upon avoidance and silence.
Bob Casey Sr.
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And
when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child
with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true
character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an
adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0
posts.
posts.
27th September 2010, 05:02 PM #26

Location: michigan
Posts: 7,175
seajoy My Mood
Senior Veteran Reps: 2,068,028,736,806,797 (power: 2,068,028,736,818)
48
Are the sigs and avatars promoting the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality going to be removed as well? Also, I've seen sigs promoting abortion - will
those be removed too?
__________________
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by
faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20
27th September 2010, 05:06 PM #27

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Well, once again - many of us disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. That's why Christianity
has so many denominations. It's unfair to just assume that for example, your position is correct, and
anyone who disagress with you is wrong. But that's what this ruling has done, by allowing a couple
forums to discuss orientation as though it's a sin and a curable illness, without the congregation
forums being able to support those who can't change who they are.
The passages I use to support my position on the issue of same-sex sex are not metaphorical, poetic or
figurative in nature, so there's nothing to interpret, Jase. The Bible is very clear on this. It says what it says
and it means what it means. I get it, you don't like what the Bible says, but it's got nothing to do with "my
interpretation of the Bible."
The Bible does not say the orientation of homosexual is a sin. It does say that same-sex sex is a sin and that's
what I say as well. Could you stick to the topic at hand, please? The topic at hand is the new rule on CF, not my
interpretation of the Bible or the reason there's so many denominations. This new rule has not made me right. I
can't talk about this issue anymore either. The ruling does not declare a winner of the debates. What it does do
is restrict conversation of this topic to those that homosexuality actually applies to, homosexuals.
Heterosexuals, homosexuals, conservatives, liberals, moderates... we've all had our say for years on this topic
on this forum. What's so wrong with it now being a private matter for the homosexual to discuss with someone
else if he or she so chooses, without a lot of other people sounding off about what they believe is right or
wrong?
__________________
God,
Last edited by Zecryphon; 27th September 2010 at 05:12 PM.

27th September 2010, 05:11 PM #28

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Originally Posted by seajoy
Are the sigs and avatars promoting the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality going to be removed as well?
Also, I've seen sigs promoting abortion - will those be removed too?
I would be for the prevention of promotion of abortion across the forum, but I am Catholic and our position on
that is well known.
The issue of abortion in signatures has come up before. I remember that huge fight from late 2006 early 2007.
Old Alpha: Newman99, P_G and Constance (I think it was her at the time) made the rule that we would not be
allowed to promote abortion in sigs and it was a firestorm. Things went back and forth, people wanted the rule
to be that if it could not be promoted then we could not promote pro-life. And the forums exploded. It got
nasty.
Eventually it was rule that it could not be promoted in sigs. But before it could be enacted the old Discuss
Rules Forum became an issue, the implementation was delayed and it drug on and on and in July of 2007 it
became a non-issue with 777.
And still whenever I see a sig promoting abortion my stomach turns.

__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And
when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child
with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true
character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an
adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
27th September 2010, 05:13 PM #29

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
As far as OBOB goes it has never been a question of: Is an active homosexual lifestyle acceptable?
We have that answer from our Church and it is not changing. Those who disagree occasionally
discuss the whys of the teaching but we have very little, if any, promotion or dissent from it.
And that is the issue, if those who struggle with the teaching can not discuss it then it becomes a
problem where it was not one before. We need to be able to discuss this vital aspect of human
sexuality and how it relates to the The Theology of the Body and the proper use of our sexuality. They
are core teachings. Not being able to discuss that as well as any messages from our Bishops on the
issue is not really feasible for us. And, to my understanding from the threads we had when this was
announced...all the Catholics there agree on this.
Plus the second part of my post #4 still greatly concerns many in OBOB.
We are not asking to promote homosexuality. We are asking to be allowed to discuss it in the context
and boundaries of our teaching. And to be able to discuss it with those Catholics struggling with the
teaching either in the abstract or in a physically personal way.
This rule is creating a problem in OBOB because it was not a problem for us that needed to be solved.
I fully appreciate that other Congregational areas have a different dynamic on this. But that is why
forum specific rules used to exist and why we have the statements of faith.
Couldn't you still discuss this in private messages?

__________________
God,
27th September 2010, 05:16 PM #30

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Why should we have to? Our faith groups allow the discussion by their Statement of Faith.
Why don't we just create an "Enter at your own risk" forum for all controversial issues, and warn people that
moderation is limited or non-existant.
I don't understand the need for constant moderation. If something offends someone, don't go there.
__________________
Page 3 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 > Last »


-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
members.
Page 4 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 > Last »
27th September 2010, 05:16 PM #31

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
what I say as well
Which is our teaching as well and how we have self policed discussion in OBOB in accordance with our teachings.
Having the orientation is not sinful it is a struggle or predisposition just as some are predisposed to other sins. It is the
active indulging in the lifestyle that is prohibited. Not the struggle with the sin. And that is and has been the general
tone of our discussions for years. It prevents vilification of the person struggling but does not condone the act.
__________________
Other causes demand commitment, abortion demands complicity. Other causes survive by energy and attention. The
survival of the abortion industry - and it is an industry - depends upon avoidance and silence.
Bob Casey Sr.
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a
pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection
and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation
to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an
abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
27th September 2010, 05:22 PM #32

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
When new people come in they do not know who to talk to, and they can not get a wide view. Remember many people
lurk on the forums. It is important in the congregational areas, in my opinion, to have the teaching and view of that
group visible in threads (warts and all so to speak) for those reading and searching for answers who never post. But
edify themselves reading.
I have had many conversations on issues with people who see a post of mine and ask me a follow up...but never or
rarely post.
But the conversation of the topic needs to be visible, in my opinion. Because it is what we believe and an issue that
people struggle with...and they may be too self conscious or worried to expose themselves publicly until they see the
tone of the discussions and the discussion of the issue.
In all issues for every post we make we are not only posting to those we are talking to...but to hundreds who will read
it who we will never know. That is why Charity and Truth in Charity are so important.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
27th September 2010, 05:26 PM #33

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
Again, mostly I can only speak for OBOB. Our unity comes from the Magisterium even if we disagee there is
general assent to teaching on this issue. More conflict has risen from not being able to discuss it.
My advice poll the congregation forums and allow them to decide on the manner of how it is to be discussed
within the context of their own groups.
Disallow promotion across the board but allow discussion in the congregation areas based on the views and
issues of those particular groups.
People must be allowed to police their own unity. It is why the Congregational areas exist...to be who they
are even in difficulty.
I understand the difficulties in some areas compared to the definitive ruling we have from the Magisterium in
OBOB. But each place has their own needs here, a blanket rule in this case will not put out the fire, only
suffocate growth and real unity.
And define what consitutes promotion, or otherwise we run the risk of however many mods there are at CF all giving
different definitions of what consitutes promotion which is going to foster even more decision.
Originally Posted by aborvita
Promotion: To encourage the progress, growth, or acceptance
Far too broad and open to multiple interpretations.
How about something along the lines of "Many christians do not believe that being a christian and being gay is
compatible. Promotion of homosexuality consitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with
members of the same sex. We realise that this is an issue that many christians struggle with, and while we do not wish
to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to
address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings"
I've always been of the POV that I do not see how being gay and being a christian is compatible, I believe that its far
more effective to love and value a person for where they are at, than bombarding them with "gays are abominations"
"being gay is a sin" "being gay is not acceptable, abnormal" and heaping further guilt and condemnation down on
their heads.
If someone truly desires to change, and atmosphere of love and being valued is far more conducive to that change
__________________
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but
will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not
want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will
live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid." - Marcus Aurelius
27th September 2010, 05:35 PM #34

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Originally Posted by Tenebrae
How about something along the lines of "Many christians do not believe that being a christian and being gay
is compatible. Promotion of homosexuality consitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships
with members of the same sex. We realise that this is an issue that many christians struggle with, and while
we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that
allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their
churches teachings"
I would add a line to the end: "as always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not
our desire to shut down productive discussion but be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced"
With that it gives staff the ability to end a discussion that starts to become vitriolic before it shatters peace.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
27th September 2010, 05:39 PM #35

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
And define what consitutes promotion, or otherwise we run the risk of however many mods there are at CF
all giving different definitions of what consitutes promotion which is going to foster even more decision.
Far too broad and open to multiple interpretations.
How about something along the lines of "Many christians do not believe that being a christian and being gay
is compatible. Promotion of homosexuality consitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships
with members of the same sex. We realise that this is an issue that many christians struggle with, and while
we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that
allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their
churches teachings"
I've always been of the POV that I do not see how being gay and being a christian is compatible, I believe
that its far more effective to love and value a person for where they are at, than bombarding them with "gays
are abominations" "being gay is a sin" "being gay is not acceptable, abnormal" and heaping further guilt and
condemnation down on their heads.
If someone truly desires to change, and atmosphere of love and being valued is far more conducive to that
change
But an atmosphere of love is not what I saw in the debates or discussions on this issue. It was hostility from both sides,
and for every person who said that same-sex sex is an abomination, which homosexuals or their supporters would
consider an attack, the immediate response would be something like " well you're just a Bible-thumping, homophobe."
I think it's this type of exchange that CF is trying to eliminate by making this change to their controversial topics rule.
And what's really interesting is that out of all the topics mentioned in the announcement, homosexuality is still the one
people wanna talk about more than anything else. I think that shows just how hot of a topic this actually is. I think
people who wanna talk about this, should be thanking CF that they haven't banned talking about this topic altogether.
If CF gives in a little on this and allows the congregational areas to talk about homosexuality, those threads can't be
allowed to denigrate into what was going on in C,P&E Debates on Homosexuality. So a clear explanation of what it
means to promote homosexuality needs to be given, and any thread that discusses this issue, needs to be monitored
very closely to make sure that it is actually an intelligent discussion about homosexuality and it doesn't turn into a
debate about who's right, who's wrong, who's an abomination and who's a homophobe.
__________________
27th September 2010, 05:56 PM #36

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Why should we have to? Our faith groups allow the discussion by their Statement of Faith.
Why don't we just create an "Enter at your own risk" forum for all controversial issues, and warn people that
moderation is limited or non-existant.
I don't understand the need for constant moderation. If something offends someone, don't go there.
Jase, you don't have to discuss this issue at all. But if you do, I'm trying to find ways to do so, that hopefully fit within
the new rule. All I see you doing is complaining. We already have an enter at your own risk forum, it's called CF. Can
you please try and post something helpful?
__________________
27th September 2010, 06:13 PM #37

Octorock Location: California
Octorockin' Posts: 449
30 Reps: 28,908,334,960,976,184 (power: 28,908,334,960,977)
I understand that this rule was created with the stated intent of trying to avoid division, but I don't think the staff has
yet realized that the rule itself has actually caused division. Many active posters have already stated that they will no
longer take part in the CF community because of how this rule has offended them.
If the issue was about flaming, then why were the rules against flaming previously not (or inconsistently) enforced?
27th September 2010, 06:14 PM #38

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
I would add a line to the end: "as always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity.
It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion but be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced"
With that it gives staff the ability to end a discussion that starts to become vitriolic before it shatters peace.
I like that
__________________
27th September 2010, 06:50 PM #39

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
Originally Posted by Octorock
If the issue was about flaming, then why were the rules against flaming previously not (or inconsistently)
enforced?
Exactly. That's really a separate issue, IMHO. No matter how heated a discussion gets there is just no excuse for flaming.
But perhaps with the dwindling number of people willing to staff CF, this new rule is a way to give them a break from all
the reports. (I'm just making a guess on that one, btw.)
27th September 2010, 06:53 PM #40

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
I have proposed before and I will again (I know it has not been ignored just that the mechanics are difficult and it
would be a big change and requires discussion on many levels)...if we find a way with the software to limit reports to
maybe two per person per week it would stop the hyper-reporting and the spite reporting. And staff would have more
time to police trolls and things that are emergency reports and staff would have unlimited reporting power to deal
with trolls and blatant violations. People could not report ten posts in a row. And logically the reports made by staff
would/should be violations at a higher percentage since they know how the rules apply.
Then the number of reports would drop and staff would not be overworked and people would have to learn to be
charitable to each other without spite or hyper-reporting.
The only problem is that with trolls we need a way to end that quickly...staff having more time would be a step toward
that.
Sorry about the off topic but since the amount of reports plays into everything (staff time, forum culture and interest
in being mods) it does relate.
It should be just a matter of tweeking the wait time. Right now you get a message that the system requires you to wait
so long between reporting posts. Change that wait time to 4 days. Two reports every eight days.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
Last edited by Davidnic; 27th September 2010 at 07:02 PM.
Page 4 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 > Last »


-- CF2 Renew

Be
C
Su
Join over 250,000 Members T
an
-Discuss Faith
Th
-Get Accountability Go
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
Page 5 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 > Last »
27th September 2010, 07:33 PM #41

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,495
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
Are the sigs and avatars promoting the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality going to be removed as well? Also,
I've seen sigs promoting abortion - will those be removed too?
Our rules are in effect for avatars and sigs as well as they are for posts and threads. If something violates the rules
report it and staff will take care of it
I would be for the prevention of promotion of abortion across the forum, but I am Catholic and our position
on that is well known.
The issue of abortion in signatures has come up before. I remember that huge fight from late 2006 early
2007. Old Alpha: Newman99, P_G and Constance (I think it was her at the time) made the rule that we
would not be allowed to promote abortion in sigs and it was a firestorm. Things went back and forth, people
wanted the rule to be that if it could not be promoted then we could not promote pro-life. And the forums
exploded. It got nasty.
Eventually it was rule that it could not be promoted in sigs. But before it could be enacted the old Discuss
Rules Forum became an issue, the implementation was delayed and it drug on and on and in July of 2007 it
became a non-issue with 777.
And still whenever I see a sig promoting abortion my stomach turns.
Please report it if you see it again

__________________
27th September 2010, 07:53 PM #42

Join Date: 3rd June 2007
Location: 2 weeks from everywhere
Posts: 19,759
Blessings: 80,268
Redheadedstepchild
My Mood
Child of God
Blog Entries: 2
Reps: 187,332,920,775,068,960 (power: 187,332,920,775,091)
41
subscribing
__________________
"The Bible knows nothing of solitary religion." -John Wesley
Redheadedstepchild
Administrator
(NOT on LOA
)
27th September 2010, 07:58 PM #43
Join Date: 8th December 2007

MarkRohfrietsch
Posts: 9,094
Contributor
My Mood
51 Reps: 350,293,789,871,096,960 (power: 350,293,789,871,108)
subscribing also
__________________
No longer on Leave of Absence from Staff... I'm baaaaack
.
dir="ltr">
Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the
highest reverence.
Augsburg Confession Article XXIV; 1, 2.
27th September 2010, 07:59 PM #44

Location: michigan
Posts: 7,175
seajoy My Mood
48
Our rules are in effect for avatars and sigs as well as they are for posts and threads. If something violates the rules report it and staff will take care of it
Please report it if you see it again
Is this part new? Because I had reported these types of sigs and avatars before and nothing was done.
__________________
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of
God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20
27th September 2010, 08:02 PM #45

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,495
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
could be that staff removed it and the member put it back, or could be staff by consensus didnt see anything in
violation, sometimes a quick PM helps, they cannot disclose the outcome of the report but they can be brief and
explain why you still see it there
__________________
27th September 2010, 08:16 PM #46

Posts: 355
My Mood
contango Reps: 4,330,760,214,500,628,992 (power: 4,330,760,214,500,630)
...and you shall live...
I think you need to nail down what consititutes promotion of homosexuality.
I could say 'my girlfriend and I are very happy together" I mean this as a statement of my relationship with my
girlfriend. Whats to stop a mod saying "thou shall not promote homosexuality"
Personally I think this is a step too far down the conservative path. I appreciate that this forum adheres to the nicene
creed, and that for conservative christians christianity and homosexuality is not compatible, however by really nailing
down on this, you run the risk of pushing those people away from CF
I think this post raises an important distinction. As far as I can see it is no more sinful for a gay man to be attracted to other men
than for me as a married man to be attracted to other women.
What matters is what we do about those attractions. If a gay person is attracted to people of their own sex but does not enter into
a physical relationship (and refrains from lustful thoughts etc) I don't see that as sinning at all. I recall some Christian groups are
willing to ordain gay ministers as long as they are not involved in a homosexual relationship.
I agree entirely that promoting of homosexuality runs counter to Scripture in the same way that promoting adultery or fornication
does. I just instinctively become concerned when one sin is elevated over other sins in ways that the Bible does not support. I
don't struggle with homosexuality but that doesn't mean the sins I do struggle with are any less significant.
__________________
Isa 54:17 NKJV No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall
condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD.
27th September 2010, 08:21 PM #47
Join Date: 21st September 2009

Location: Alabama
Posts: 9,911
Jeffwhosoever My Mood
Fisherman Reps: 3,690,964,725,476,113,920 (power: 3,690,964,725,476,125)
46
Subscribing
__________________
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things
there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)
Now recruiting Moderators -
if interested or
27th September 2010, 08:26 PM #48
Join Date: 8th January 2009

lux et lex Posts: 1,480
light and law Blessings: 44,156,375
My Mood
Reps: 42,175,080,475,787,440 (power: 42,175,080,475,790)
25
I understand that this rule was created with the stated intent of trying to avoid division, but I don't think the staff has
yet realized that the rule itself has actually caused division. Many active posters have already stated that they will no
longer take part in the CF community because of how this rule has offended them.
If the issue was about flaming, then why were the rules against flaming previously not (or inconsistently) enforced?
I don't mean to be cynical, but perhaps that was the desired outcome and this was the way of doing it.
__________________
27th September 2010, 08:35 PM #49

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
Originally Posted by contango
I think this post raises an important distinction. As far as I can see it is no more sinful for a gay man to be attracted to other
men than for me as a married man to be attracted to other women.
What matters is what we do about those attractions. If a gay person is attracted to people of their own sex but does not
enter into a physical relationship (and refrains from lustful thoughts etc) I don't see that as sinning at all. I recall some
Christian groups are willing to ordain gay ministers as long as they are not involved in a homosexual relationship.
I agree entirely that promoting of homosexuality runs counter to Scripture in the same way that promoting adultery or
fornication does. I just instinctively become concerned when one sin is elevated over other sins in ways that the Bible does
not support. I don't struggle with homosexuality but that doesn't mean the sins I do struggle with are any less significant.
Agreed. And that's certainly true for all of us. However you probably don't defend the sins you struggle with as good, natural, and
glorifying to God (nor should you, lol). That's where the problem is with this whole thing.
27th September 2010, 08:46 PM #50

Posts: 355
My Mood
Originally Posted by desmalia
Agreed. And that's certainly true for all of us. However you probably don't defend the sins you struggle with as good,
natural, and glorifying to God (nor should you, lol). That's where the problem is with this whole thing.
True, hence the last paragraph. I guess there's a bit of a gap between allowing homosexuality to be promoted (and since we
wouldn't allow adultery or witchcraft to be promoted why make exceptions for that particular sin) and the other extreme of
assuming that the temptation homosexuals experience is sinful just because it relates to someone with different struggles to our
own.
Instead of loving the sinner while hating the sin it seems some people are quick to hate the sinner and obsess about the specific
sins, but only where homosexuality is involved. In the meantime they turn a blind eye to their own adultery (or whatever else it
is) figuring everyone else does it.
__________________
Page 5 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 > Last »

-- CF2 Renew
Christian Forums > Congregation > Congregation Staff Discussion User Name User Name Remember Me?
Password Log in
Staff/Membership Meeting to discuss the
Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
members.
Page 6 of 38 « First < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 > Last »
27th September 2010, 09:11 PM #51

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
I agree entirely that promoting of homosexuality runs counter to Scripture in the same way that promoting
adultery or fornication does. I just instinctively become concerned when one sin is elevated over other sins
in ways that the Bible does not support. I don't struggle with homosexuality but that doesn't mean the sins I
do struggle with are any less significant.
__________________
27th September 2010, 09:46 PM #52

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
True, hence the last paragraph. I guess there's a bit of a gap between allowing homosexuality to be promoted
(and since we wouldn't allow adultery or witchcraft to be promoted why make exceptions for that particular sin)
and the other extreme of assuming that the temptation homosexuals experience is sinful just because it relates
to someone with different struggles to our own.
Instead of loving the sinner while hating the sin it seems some people are quick to hate the sinner and obsess
about the specific sins, but only where homosexuality is involved. In the meantime they turn a blind eye to their
own adultery (or whatever else it is) figuring everyone else does it.
Yet another reason why promotion of that particular sin (homosexual behavior) should not be an issue on a Christian
forum. If a forum is going to be helpful and challenging for each of us to examine ourselves and our own sins, having
something like this to bolster our fallen/sinful defenses (ie. well at least I'm not as bad as they are) is definitely not helpful
or useful whatsoever. Sin is sin, and it dishonours God. We should care about that as believers, whether it is homosexual
activities, adultery, gossip, hate, envy, or whatever else. Promoting or excusing any of them is simply unacceptable.
Wouldn't it be better if we had a place where we can honestly handle this issue in a God-honouring way? I'd love to see
this place be one where people who are struggling with gay temptation can come for support and help, not a place where
they are encouraged to sin.
27th September 2010, 09:57 PM #53

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
In the announcement a few sins are listed. From memory they are: pre-marital sex, adultery, illegal activities and
abortion. So I don't see this particular rule change elevating one sin above the others. I see it as saying that all these
sins can not be discussed except in the designated areas that CF has chosen. What's interesting to me is that no one is
freaking out about not being able to discuss these other sins like they are about homosexuality.
__________________
27th September 2010, 10:31 PM #54

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Originally Posted by desmalia
Yet another reason why promotion of that particular sin (homosexual behavior) should not be an issue on a
Christian forum. If a forum is going to be helpful and challenging for each of us to examine ourselves and our
own sins, having something like this to bolster our fallen/sinful defenses (ie. well at least I'm not as bad as
they are) is definitely not helpful or useful whatsoever. Sin is sin, and it dishonours God. We should care
about that as believers, whether it is homosexual activities, adultery, gossip, hate, envy, or whatever else.
Promoting or excusing any of them is simply unacceptable. Wouldn't it be better if we had a place where we
can honestly handle this issue in a God-honouring way? I'd love to see this place be one where people who
are struggling with gay temptation can come for support and help, not a place where they are encouraged to
sin.
Well, since once again, not all of us agree it's a sin and have studied the original language of the Bible regarding the
issue and do not agree with the English translation, shouldn't each congregation be allowed to decide how they are
willing to support gays? Encouraging gays to join ex-gay ministries or "pray the gay away" is neither supportive, or
healthy.
__________________
27th September 2010, 10:33 PM #55

Supernaut454 Location: Sacramento, CA
Emergent Christian Posts: 3,170
Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
If we go with the definition of what promotion is, which is already in place on CF....
This definition is what was come up with by the community in the Christianity and World Religion SOP which
can be found here.
This new rule/law is contrary to the teachings of many churches and denominations. The UCC would not stand by this
new censorship rule. I agree with the earlier poster, that leaving the congregation area open to discussion concerning
homosexuality is a good thing.
If someone who is gay comes into WWMC or the UCC subforum with an issue regarding homosexuality, like needing
support/affirmation, i will have to violate the rules as I am called to affirm that said person is a child of God and in line
with the teachings of the UCC. Not trying to be a pain of course. But this new rule/law puts many into a bind and
contradicts our denom's teachings. We are to uphold these teachings without fail.
Blessings
__________________
As Christians, too often we have forgotten the teachings of Jesus about making peace and turning the other cheek and
crossing boundaries to serve people formerly considered "outsiders." We have instead launched or baptized wars,
perpetuated racism, and defended an unjust status quo. We have betrayed the message that the kingdom of God is
available for all, beginning with the least and the last and the lost--and have instead believed and taught that the
kingdom of God is available for the elite, beginning with the correct and the clean and the powerful. we have been
preoccupied with guilt and money, power and fear, control and status--not with service and love, justice and mercy,
humility and hope.
-Brian McLaren
27th September 2010, 10:34 PM #56

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
Well, since once again, not all of us agree it's a sin and have studied the original language of the Bible
regarding the issue and do not agree with the English translation, shouldn't each congregation be allowed to
decide how they are willing to support gays? Encouraging gays to join ex-gay ministries or "pray the gay
away" is neither supportive, or healthy.
Agreed. It is immoral and unhealthy to treat gays as subhuman.

__________________
humility and hope.
-Brian McLaren
27th September 2010, 10:34 PM #57

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
In the announcement a few sins are listed. From memory they are: pre-marital sex, adultery, illegal activities
and abortion. So I don't see this particular rule change elevating one sin above the others. I see it as saying
that all these sins can not be discussed except in the designated areas that CF has chosen. What's
interesting to me is that no one is freaking out about not being able to discuss these other sins like they are
about homosexuality.
Probably because things like pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce etc. are all rampant in Christian churches, and receive
a blind eye. Since homosexuality doesn't affect most people, it's a much easier target. Sins that the majority commit
constantly will always take a backseat to those they don't have to personally struggle with.
__________________
27th September 2010, 10:37 PM #58

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
and abortion. So I don't see this particular rule change elevating one sin above the others. I see it as saying
that all these sins can not be discussed except in the designated areas that CF has chosen. What's
interesting to me is that no one is freaking out about not being able to discuss these other sins like they are
about homosexuality.
I invite you to go back and reread this announcement. You can discuss abortion and adultery...illegal activities in
virtually every subforum on CF. It is painstakingly clear the difference between the new treatment of homosexuals and
the afformentioned sins.
__________________
humility and hope.
-Brian McLaren
27th September 2010, 11:01 PM #59

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
and abortion. So I don't see this particular rule change elevating one sin above the others. I see it as saying that
all these sins can not be discussed except in the designated areas that CF has chosen. What's interesting to me is
that no one is freaking out about not being able to discuss these other sins like they are about homosexuality.
Yes, that is certainly interesting.
Well, since once again, not all of us agree it's a sin and have studied the original language of the Bible regarding
the issue and do not agree with the English translation, shouldn't each congregation be allowed to decide how
they are willing to support gays? Encouraging gays to join ex-gay ministries or "pray the gay away" is neither
supportive, or healthy.
That's a debate I suspect is far beyond the scope of this particular thread. What is clear is that staff needs to make a clear
and defined decision as to whether CF is supportive of gay behavior/activity or against it. If they continue to try and keep it
a "gray area" then these debates and discussions will continue, and with the same potential opportunity for
flaming/bashing.
27th September 2010, 11:10 PM #60

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
Probably because things like pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce etc. are all rampant in Christian churches, and
receive a blind eye.
None of those issue should be considered as acceptable in the Christian community, or in a forum that claims to be
Christin. I'd go so far as to say that if they are, they should be reported. (Call me a crazy fundy, but c'mon!)
Since homosexuality doesn't affect most people, it's a much easier target.
Na. Only because gay behavior is promoted by so many as something we should all embrace and celebrate, not because it's
worse than other sins.
Sins that the majority commit constantly will always take a backseat to those they don't have to personally
struggle with.
That should never be. Sin is sin.

-- CF2 Renew

B
S
a
-Discuss Faith T
-Encourage Each Other G
-Get Accountability
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
27th September 2010, 11:51 PM #61

Posts: 355
My Mood
Originally Posted by Supernaut454
Agreed. It is immoral and unhealthy to treat gays as subhuman.
I agree entirely, even though I do consider an active homosexual lifestyle to be sinful. We shouldn't treat anyone as subhuman -
"there but for the grace of God" and all that.
__________________
27th September 2010, 11:53 PM #62

Posts: 355
My Mood

Probably because things like pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce etc. are all rampant in Christian churches, and receive a
blind eye. Since homosexuality doesn't affect most people, it's a much easier target. Sins that the majority commit
constantly will always take a backseat to those they don't have to personally struggle with.
I'd hope those other sins aren't "rampant" in any church that claims to represent Christ on earth. That said it's very easy to justify
my sin as being something I struggle with - nobody is perfect after all - and I'm trying... while at the same time pointing fingers at
someone else's sin because it's, well, it's so flagrant and it's so obviously contrary to Scripture and because, well, it's a sin I don't
struggle with so I'm obviously so much more spiritual than they are. Never mind that the homosexual might not have issues with
anger, or envy, or covetousness, or whatever else it is that ties me up in knots.
__________________
28th September 2010, 12:29 AM #63

Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
The passages I use to support my position on the issue of same-sex sex are not metaphorical, poetic or
figurative in nature, so there's nothing to interpret, Jase. The Bible is very clear on this. It says what it says
and it means what it means. I get it, you don't like what the Bible says, but it's got nothing to do with "my
interpretation of the Bible."
what I say as well. Could you stick to the topic at hand, please? The topic at hand is the new rule on CF, not my
interpretation of the Bible or the reason there's so many denominations. This new rule has not made me right.
I can't talk about this issue anymore either. The ruling does not declare a winner of the debates. What it does
do is restrict conversation of this topic to those that homosexuality actually applies to, homosexuals.
Heterosexuals, homosexuals, conservatives, liberals, moderates... we've all had our say for years on this topic
on this forum. What's so wrong with it now being a private matter for the homosexual to discuss with someone
else if he or she so chooses, without a lot of other people sounding off about what they believe is right or
wrong?
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is not as clear on this topic as you consider it to be. That means that it is your interpretation that is being
discussed. It is my argument that doing what has been done here has simply silenced those churches that support GLBT Christians and that this
reflects a particular doctrinal view point.
__________________
#64
28th September 2010, 12:33 AM

Blessings: 88,817
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I have proposed before and I will again (I know it has not been ignored just that the mechanics are difficult and it would
be a big change and requires discussion on many levels)...if we find a way with the software to limit reports to maybe two
per person per week it would stop the hyper-reporting and the spite reporting.
Ok, lets say you have used your "two reports" for the week.
You get involved in a discussion where you are deliberately flamed by someone.
You can't report it. Why? Because CF has agreed to limit individuals from reporting more than two posts/week.
I would have a major problem with this as I discuss/debate in at least three other ares of CF.
This would be to the effect that if I use my two reports in the Congregational area, if I see a violation in, oh lets say, Soteriology, I
couldn't report it because I have used my two "freebies".
Like I said, I have a major problem with this.
Especially when I'm a 3rd shift worker and I see what goes on in the night when most staff are asleep.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 12:41 AM #65

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
I'd hope those other sins aren't "rampant" in any church that claims to represent Christ on earth. That said it's very easy
to justify my sin as being something I struggle with - nobody is perfect after all - and I'm trying... while at the same time
pointing fingers at someone else's sin because it's, well, it's so flagrant and it's so obviously contrary to Scripture and
because, well, it's a sin I don't struggle with so I'm obviously so much more spiritual than they are. Never mind that the
homosexual might not have issues with anger, or envy, or covetousness, or whatever else it is that ties me up in knots.
Well, seeing as 50% of Christian marriages end in divorce, 70% of people will cheat on a spouse or significant other in their lifetime,
and 90% of people have pre-marital sex, I'd say those sins are quite rampant in the Christian community.
__________________
28th September 2010, 12:50 AM #66

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
**MOD HAT**
We are not going to debate in this thread. If it turns into a debate we will shut this down and make decisions without
the feedback.
Please calm down.
**Mod Hat**
__________________
28th September 2010, 12:51 AM #67

Blessings: 88,817
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Well, seeing as 50% of Christian marriages end in divorce, 70% of people will cheat on a spouse or significant other in
their lifetime, and 90% of people have pre-marital sex, I'd say those sins are quite rampant in the Christian community.
Which only shows how far from God people have drifted.
So, are you saying that homosexuals are better people than Christians who are divorced, cheat, or engage in pre-martial sex?
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 12:54 AM #68

Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
We are not debating, we are discussing. How on earth can you expect us to clearly make any decision without clearly knowing where the other
person stands?
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:05 AM #69

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
Some of these remarks are off topic are more about the homosexuality issue proper and not how it fits in with the congregation area.
They are posted to get people upset and are not helpful.
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:07 AM #70

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
I was having trouble sleeping thinking about this, so I feel the need to say it - so bear with me. I'm not trying to start an argument,
but I feel this is a relevant issue to the discussion.
If we look at the conservative views on homosexuality, we have a few premises that must be outlined.
1) Celibacy is a gift from God. The typical conservative response is that the only solution for gays is to remain celibate. And while
maybe possible for a few gay Christians, scripture itself says that celibacy is not something everyone is blessed with, and it is better
to marry than to burn.
But, obviously we have an issue there because a) conservatives are trying to change secular laws to conform to their beliefs and
prevent gays from being able to marry and b) even if they can marry legally, no conservative considers it blessed by God, so the
couple would still be fornicating.
2) The stigma, discrimination, and loneliness projected at gays makes them statistically far more depressed and suicidal. The only
group with a higher suicide rate than gays are transsexuals (and they are condemned by conservatives as well). And suicide is a
sin.
3) Sexual orientation cannot be changed in the overwhelming majority of cases. I have no intention of arguing this point, because it
is well established, regardless of the exact cause, that orientation is set long before we have a choice in the matter. Scientific and
anecdotal evidence prove that you can not "pray the gay away" or force yourself to be attracted to the opposite-sex. In some cases,
a gay person may shift on the sexuality spectrum and become a Kinsey 5 or 4 (bisexual), but there is not a shred of evidence that
one can go from a Kinsey 6 to a 0. Based on the fact that we have numerous accounts, even on this board, that gay Christians have
prayed for 10, 20, 40+ years for God to change their orientation - he has not and has no intention of ever doing it. And on this
point, scripture infers that God created gays. Nothing can come into existence without God wanting it to be, and this includes gays.
He knew them in the womb.
When we combine these 3 premises, we are left with a very bad situation. Gays cannot change the way they are. Gays cannot marry,
either legally or spiritually, so they will always be living in sin, and not all of them are capable of celibacy. If they attempt celibacy
without being gifted with it or forcing themselves to marry the opposite sex, they will almost inevitably end up in a deep depression
and suffer from severe loneliness - which is very likely to lead to suicide.
So effectively, the conservative belief on this issue is that gays are in a Lose, Lose situation, and are a "Lost Cause".
As to the thread topic, what if a gay Christian or seeker came to this board for support and guidance. They have tried to change
their orientation for decades with no results except depression, so they have accepted God does not want them to change. They
can't go to the recovery forum, because by claiming they should embrace their orientation, God made them that way, is a violation
of the rules.
And since every other section prohibits this discussion, where do they turn for help? You may claim, they can go to another board.
But this is the largest Christian focused board on the internet, and most other Christian boards also stigmatize gays, and condemn
them.
So effectively, this decision has negated the parable of the Good Samaritan, and instead of inviting gays in for food, drink, and
shelter - you have told them, you will always live in sin and are a lost cause.
Do you really think that's what Jesus would do? Do you think Jesus would tell gays who can't be celibate as described by Paul that
their only option is 1) live in sin or 2) suicide?
Not all congregations believe it's wrong. It's only fair to allow this to be discussed in the faith groups that allow it
instead of forcing other people's beliefs on everyone else.
__________________
Last edited by Jase; 28th September 2010 at 01:14 AM.

-- CF2 Renew

B
S
a
-Discuss Faith
T
-Encourage Each Other G
-Get Accountability
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
28th September 2010, 01:10 AM #71

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Some of these remarks are off topic are more about the homosexuality issue proper and not how it fits in with the
congregation area. They are posted to get people upset and are not helpful.
As Kiwimac said, this is a discussion. You cannot evaluate how to approach this issue, without looking at the facts.
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:16 AM #72

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
Some of these post have not been helpful and do not relate to how this topic fits in the congregation area. I have been watching,
reading, and rereading every post. We want this to be a data collection process so we can move forward in the congregation community.
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:20 AM #73

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Some of these post have not been helpful and do not relate to how this topic fits in the congregation area. I have been
watching, reading, and rereading every post. We want this to be a data collection process so we can move forward in the
congregation community.
Um, they seem pretty related to me. The conclusion of this discussion being that not all Christians agree this issue is "clear" and it's
wholly unfair to force everyone to abide by the conservative viewpoint, when certain congregations allow the discussion.
So, allow it to be discussed in the WWMC, OBOB, and whatever other group permits it.
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:27 AM #74

Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
Um, they seem pretty related to me. The conclusion of this discussion being that not all Christians agree this issue is "clear" and it's
wholly unfair to force everyone to abide by the conservative viewpoint, when certain congregations allow the discussion.
So, allow it to be discussed in the WWMC, OBOB, and whatever other group permits it.
I agree.
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:30 AM #75

LawsonAlan
Posts: 168
Regular Member
Blessings: 48,182
Reps: 47,890,572 (power: 47,893)
48
If one assumes that the only proper way for a Christian to view same-sex attraction is as an abomination and a sin, and that the only
proper way for it to be discussed is in private with the goal of overcoming this sin; then I'm curious why there isn't a rule against
discussing all behaviours that are seen as sinful.
__________________
If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I'm in big trouble!!!
#76

Blessings: 88,817
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I was having trouble sleeping thinking about this, so I feel the need to say it - so bear with me. I'm not trying to start an
argument, but I feel this is a relevant issue to the discussion.
If we look at the conservative views on homosexuality, we have a few premises that must be outlined.
1) Celibacy is a gift from God. The typical conservative response is that the only solution for gays is to remain celibate.
And while maybe possible for a few gay Christians, scripture itself says that celibacy is not something everyone is blessed
with, and it is better to marry than to burn.
But, obviously we have an issue there because a) conservatives are trying to change secular laws to conform to their
beliefs and prevent gays from being able to marry and b) even if they can marry legally, no conservative considers it
blessed by God, so the couple would still be fornicating.
2) The stigma, discrimination, and loneliness projected at gays makes them statistically far more depressed and suicidal.
The only group with a higher suicide rate than gays are transsexuals (and they are condemned by conservatives as well).
And suicide is a sin.
3) Sexual orientation cannot be changed in the overwhelming majority of cases. I have no intention of arguing this point,
because it is well established, regardless of the exact cause, that orientation is set long before we have a choice in the
matter. Scientific and anecdotal evidence prove that you can not "pray the gay away" or force yourself to be attracted to
the opposite-sex. In some cases, a gay person may shift on the sexuality spectrum and become a Kinsey 5 or 4 (bisexual),
but there is not a shred of evidence that one can go from a Kinsey 6 to a 0. Based on the fact that we have numerous
accounts, even on this board, that gay Christians have prayed for 10, 20, 40+ years for God to change their orientation -
he has not and has no intention of ever doing it. And on this point, scripture infers that God created gays. Nothing can
come into existence without God wanting it to be, and this includes gays. He knew them in the womb.
When we combine these 3 premises, we are left with a very bad situation. Gays cannot change the way they are. Gays
cannot marry, either legally or spiritually, so they will always be living in sin, and not all of them are capable of celibacy.
If they attempt celibacy without being gifted with it or forcing themselves to marry the opposite sex, they will almost
inevitably end up in a deep depression and suffer from severe loneliness - which is very likely to lead to suicide.
So effectively, the conservative belief on this issue is that gays are in a Lose, Lose situation, and are a "Lost Cause".
As to the thread topic, what if a gay Christian or seeker came to this board for support and guidance. They have tried to
change their orientation for decades with no results except depression, so they have accepted God does not want them to
change. They can't go to the recovery forum, because by claiming they should embrace their orientation, God made them
that way, is a violation of the rules.
And since every other section prohibits this discussion, where do they turn for help? You may claim, they can go to
another board. But this is the largest Christian focused board on the internet, and most other Christian boards also
stigmatize gays, and condemn them.
So effectively, this decision has negated the parable of the Good Samaritan, and instead of inviting gays in for food, drink,
and shelter - you have told them, you will always live in sin and are a lost cause.
Do you really think that's what Jesus would do? Do you think Jesus would tell gays who can't be celibate as described by
Paul that their only option is 1) live in sin or 2) suicide?
For me, this is the true danger of promoting a false interpretation of the Bible based on an erroneous
understanding of the text, and then trying to apply that belief onto every Christian here. Not all congregations
believe it's wrong. It's only fair to allow this to be discussed in the faith groups that allow it.
While I do agree with the Conservative/Fundamental position, what I have read so far from your post is a condemnation of my
beliefs, based on:
a false interpretation of the Bible
And:
an erroneous understanding of the text
Which by any clear reading and open interpretation makes your view and those who share it, the only acceptable view.
What is being played out here, is being played out everyday in the pulpits of America and in the United States Supreme Court even
as we speak.
Proposition 8 in California, The Matthew Shepard Act, and now the EDNA bill.
Please tell me why I must accept this?
The bottom line is this, as long as there are Conservative/Fundamentalists here, and as long as there are
Liberal/Modernists here, this issue will continue to stir trouble.
And as long as both groups continue to post here, this topic will continue to pop up over and over again.
Its time to take a stand, right or wrong.
Take a stand CF.
Miyagi: Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later [makes squish gesture]
get squish just like grape.
-The Karate Kid

Columbia Pictures Corp.
1984
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
#77
Join Date: 4th March 2005

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
RIP Sarah June, my beautiful daughter 11/24/09
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
Some of these post have not been helpful and do not relate to how this topic fits in the congregation area. I have been
watching, reading, and rereading every post. We want this to be a data collection process so we can move forward in the
congregation community.
I think it's fairly obvious what posters are saying arborvita, if this rule goes into effect then some congregations are not allowed to
share how they feel on subjects like homosexuality. This is wrong.
The liberal board should be a place where liberals are allowed to express that they accept homosexuals, why shouldn't they? It is
part of their faith, along with a few other congregation boards.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant

trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
28th September 2010, 01:41 AM #78

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
Take a stand CF.
Are you now saying that Liberals/Modernists should stop posting and/or not be allowed to post?
__________________

28th September 2010, 01:53 AM #79

Blessings: 88,817
My Mood
48
Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Originally Posted by dinonum
Are you now saying that Liberals/Modernists should stop posting and/or not be allowed to post?
Where did I say that?
Point that out ot me.
What I did take issue with is:
While I do agree with the Conservative/Fundamental position, what I have read so far from your post is a condemnation of
my beliefs, based on:
a false interpretation of the Bible
And:
an erroneous understanding of the text
I take issue with anybody who says the things above about my viewpoint of the scriptures.
Now point me to where I said my view point was the only acceptable one.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 02:03 AM #80

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
Where did I say that?
Point that out ot me.
What I did take issue with is:
I take issue with anybody who says the things above about my viewpoint of the scriptures.
Now point me to where I said my view point was the only acceptable one.
God Bless
Till all are one.
I marked quite clearly what lead to the question, and it wasn't an accusation, but a question. Do you wish CF to take a stand so that
it is no longer acceptable for Liberals/Modernists to post their opinions and interpretations of Scripture? I realize that question is a
little different, but it better indicates what I meant with the original question.
__________________


-- CF2 Renew

Password Log in
B
S
a
-Discuss Faith
T
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
28th September 2010, 02:14 AM #81

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I marked quite clearly what lead to the question, and it wasn't an accusation, but a question. Do you wish CF to take a
stand so that it is no longer acceptable for Liberals/Modernists to post their opinions and interpretations of
Scripture? I realize that question is a little different, but it better indicates what I meant with the original question.
This is not a matter of interpretation.
This the advocation of homosexual behavior and is this behavior acceptable or not for born-again Christians.
And once again, I refer back to what I said previously on page 2:
Please believe we have tried other ways to stop flaming alone, nothing has stop the personal, inflammatory
remarks on both sides, and it was finally seen that this problem would just continue on and on forever, and
continue to seriously divide our body here as long as the discussion is allowed.
Agreed.
(homosexual behavior, active homosexuals accepted in the church as pastors, deacons, elders, teachers, members, etc.),
or whether CF rules that this is unacceptable behavior for Christians.
That has been my stance, and it will continue to be my stance.
Right or wrong, I have made my choice and I stand by it.

God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 02:27 AM #82

Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
As I have made my stance clear. I will accept all of God's children regardless of their sexual orientation!
__________________
28th September 2010, 02:40 AM #83

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
So are you saying that Liberals/Modernists should no longer be able to post their liberal/modern opinions?
__________________

28th September 2010, 02:59 AM #84

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
So are you saying that Liberals/Modernists should no longer be able to post their liberal/modern opinions?
Again, point me to where I said that.
Should be simple.
Again, I point back to what I said earlier:
Take a stand CF.
As a former military personel, I have stood for what the US Constitution says, everybody has the right to speak their mind. Whether
it right or wrong.
But some issues go deeper than that.
And this issue, continues to divide the body of Christ.
And it will always do so.
While I cannot speak for all Baptists, I can speak for the SBC:
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosex...ristianity.htm
And that is the position I stand with. And I might add that 16,000,000 others agree with me. Nearly 20% of the Christians in the
United States agree with me.
So where have I said:
Liberals/Modernists should no longer be able to post their liberal/modern opinions
Where?
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 03:05 AM #85

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
Just to be clear, once again, I do not believe you ever stated that. Your language in previous posts made it seem like you were
possibly saying that. It was a pretty direct question, not an accusation.
__________________

28th September 2010, 03:11 AM #86

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Ok, lets say you have used your "two reports" for the week.
You get involved in a discussion where you are deliberately flamed by someone.
You can't report it. Why? Because CF has agreed to limit individuals from reporting more than two posts/week.
I would have a major problem with this as I discuss/debate in at least three other ares of CF.
This would be to the effect that if I use my two reports in the Congregational area, if I see a violation in, oh lets say,
Soteriology, I couldn't report it because I have used my two "freebies".
Like I said, I have a major problem with this.
Especially when I'm a 3rd shift worker and I see what goes on in the night when most staff are asleep.
God Bless
Till all are one.
We agree on the difficulties of my proposed approach. As a fellow third shift worker I agree on that aspect in particular.
But I see the flame wars that become report battles as one of the main problems faced by staff. And there needs to be a way to
mitigate it so staff can actually post and participate in the forums. Rather than use all online time to police the community...they
should rather be a part of setting the tone from within. After all they become mods because they are active member and participate
in discussion.
Maybe 5 reports per person per week. The issue is we have more than a few people who will make 5 in a day. And sometimes all 5
are no violations. At least we used to...I can not see that as having changed in some areas. Some people report anything a particular
poster posts.
And that seems to be part of this, these massive divisions and breakdowns where people rely on reports and staff to enforce the
charity they should be freely giving.
And for many why give it...they have a silent private hammer they can used to attack others unseen. The report button is just so
misused forum wide. Particularly in issues like this.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
28th September 2010, 03:13 AM #87

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Just to be clear, once again, I do not believe you ever stated that. Your language in previous posts made it seem like you
were possibly saying that. It was a pretty direct question, not an accusation.
This is getting us nowhere.
Three times in this thread you have asked me:
So are you saying that Liberals/Modernists should no longer be able to post their liberal/modern opinions
And all three times I have asked you to direct me to where I have said that.
As far as this issue creating reports and flaming for staff, I agree with their position to remove discussion from the Congregational
areas.
Whether it is your area where it is allowed, or my area where it is not.
I agree and staste further, that CF needs to take a stand on this issue.
Sitting on the fence does no good. And it only prolongs and complicates the problem.
Take a stand, if not for this what? If not now, when?
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 03:23 AM #88

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
This is getting us nowhere.
Three times in this thread you have asked me:
And all three times I have asked you to direct me to where I have said that.
I'm really not sure why you think I said you said that , because as I've said now multiple times, it was merely a question to better
understand what you were posting. It was not an accusation.
Although, then you posted
As far as this issue creating reports and flaming for staff, I agree with their position to remove discussion from the
Congregational areas.
Whether it is your area where it is allowed, or my area where it is not.
I agree and staste further, that CF needs to take a stand on this issue.
Which again, begs the question, do you believe that Liberals should no longer be allowed to express their opinions on CF regarding
homosexuality? Even though they have a specific congregational area for liberal beliefs to be discussed?
__________________

28th September 2010, 03:32 AM #89

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Lets look at what we have so far.
Of all the posts, nine pages thus far, only three individuals have come out for the Conservative/Fundamental side.
With the exception of one post, who was agnostic, the majority have been from the Liberal/Modernist position.
14 people have sounded off thus far.

Again, what we have seen in this thread is typical of what is happening in the real world.
The history that I know of, from three years on staff myself, is that when CF gave homosexuality its own area, this did not solve the
problem.
So CF decided to move this discussion to the Congregational area.
This has not solved the problem.
So what to do?
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 03:36 AM #90

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Which again, begs the question, do you believe that Liberals should no longer be allowed to express their
opinions on CF regarding homosexuality? Even though they have a specific congregational area for liberal
beliefs to be discussed?
Where have I said you shouldn't?
Where have I said that Liberals/Modernists should not voice their opinions?
I only know what history has shown.
God Bless
Till all are one.
__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean

-- CF2 Renew

Password Log in
Become a
CF Site
Supporte
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ad
-Get Accountability Go Away
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
28th September 2010, 03:39 AM #91

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
Where have I said you shouldn't?
Where have I said that Liberals/Modernists should not voice their opinions?
I only know what history has shown.
God Bless
Till all are one.
I'm not asking you what you have said or haven't said, I'm asking you if you believe that Liberals/Modernists should no
longer able to speak in their congregational areas about particular beliefs concerning homosexuality.
__________________

28th September 2010, 03:44 AM #92

Join Date: 21st May 2004
MollieSue Location: England
Legend Posts: 47,258
My Mood
Reps: 437,145,246,044,974,720 (power: 437,145,246,045,028)
DeaconDean I totally agree with you and totally am aagainst homosexulity this is a Christian Forum but
Christians who believe this are not allowed to express their convictions and this is not right.
28th September 2010, 03:44 AM #93

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I'm not asking you what you have said or haven't said, I'm asking you if you believe that Liberals/Modernists
should no longer able to speak in their congregational areas about particular beliefs concerning homosexuality.
I am not falling into that trap.
Your baiting me into a debate on my beliefs.
This thread was started with the intent to come to some understanding as to the reasons why the topic of homosexuality
was stopped. (flaming, and countless reports)
I have said many, many times that this issue will continue to cause discension.
As long as Liberals/Modernists like yourself, and Conservative/Fundamentalists like myself can post here, this "problem"
over this topic will not stop.
That is why I advocate for CF to take a stand.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 03:50 AM #94

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
I am not falling into that trap.
Your baiting me into a debate on my beliefs.
This thread was started with the intent to come to some understanding as to the reasons why the topic of
homosexuality was stopped. (flaming, and countless reports)
I have said many, many times that this issue will continue to cause discension.
As long as Liberals/Modernists like yourself, and Conservative/Fundamentalists like myself can post here, this
"problem" over this topic will not stop.
That is why I advocate for CF to take a stand.
God Bless
Till all are one.
FYI, I believe that homosexuality is a sin , I have no reason to debate that because it is what I believe.
What stand are you saying that CF should take exactly? I've read your previous posts and it seems a little unclear,
especially if you would like me to believe you think we should all be free to post our beliefs within our congregations (or
not), but you have chosen not to answer my question
__________________

28th September 2010, 03:57 AM #95

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
14 people have sounded off thus far.
Are you meaning to be negative with this statement. I have expressed my POV with a deliberate determination not to run
anyone down and some how i get lumped in with those "sounding off"
This is where I have an issue with conservative christians, differing viewpoints no matter how courteously they are
expressed get labeled as "sounding off"
__________________
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will
welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to
worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the
memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid." - Marcus Aurelius
28th September 2010, 04:00 AM #96

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
I think there are two issues here...the promotion of homosexuality and the discussion of homosexuality and where the line
of promotion falls in the discussion.
Where many in my area have a problem is banning the discussion altogether. It has effects on many discussions that are
simply necessary when discussing other issues of morality, theology and belief.
In my opinion the net is too broad and is having unforeseen effects. There are people upset or leaving who have no
intention of promoting homosexuality but feel that this prohibition of the topic makes discussion simply impossible on other
things or is a slippery slope and a warning sign.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and
love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to be seen
- let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic?
Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
28th September 2010, 04:01 AM #97
Tenebrae Join Date: 1st October 2005

anti-antiintellectualism, pro charismatic Posts: 13,369
Blessings: 8,633
My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
Originally Posted by MollieSue
DeaconDean I totally agree with you and totally am aagainst homosexulity this is a Christian Forum but
Christians who believe this are not allowed to express their convictions and this is not right.
Untrue.
I see christians every day expressing their convictions against homosexuality on christian forums, and I do not seek to deny
them that right of disagreement.
Surpressing the viewpoints of those we dont agree with is heading into censorship and an incredibly dangerous position
__________________
28th September 2010, 04:07 AM #98

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
What stand are you saying that CF should take exactly? I've read your previous posts and it seems a little unclear,
Evidently not, my position was spelled out very clear on page two:
There is my stance.
especially if you would like me to believe you think we should all be free to post our beliefs within our
congregations (or not), but you have chosen not to answer my question
I never said you couldn't or shouldn't voice your opinion.
But I'll say it again:
I applaude this decision.
If it stops contention, if it stops division, if it stops numerous reports, if it stops the flaming, etc., I'm for it.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 04:16 AM #99

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Are you meaning to be negative with this statement. I have expressed my POV with a deliberate determination
not to run anyone down and some how i get lumped in with those "sounding off"
This is where I have an issue with conservative christians, differing viewpoints no matter how courteously they
are expressed get labeled as "sounding off"
First off, by "sounding off" I mean those who have given an opinion.
Secondly, it wouldn'tbe right to resolve an issue based on the opinions of only 14 people.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 04:18 AM #100

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
If it stops contention, if it stops division, if it stops numerous reports, if it stops the flaming, etc., I'm for it.
But it does not stop it through getting people to treat each other like adults and have civil discussions or treat each other
with truth in charity. It stops it by removing a topic that is part of our daily world with consequences for the whole
Christian community.
It is a false solution to stop all discussion of it. Promotion of it, yes. Discussion of it...I can not see.
There are multiple groups that allow gay clergy, are they not allowed to talk about how the issue is effecting their
congregations? There are other groups considering the move, they should be able to talk about the future of their
congregations and the decision. And there are groups opposed to it and they should be allowed to talk about why when a
question comes up about the teaching.
This banning of all discussion of a topic that has ramifications for each congregation and is not uniform in those
ramifications is not feasible long term because non uniform problems and situations rarely require blanket solutions.
Evangelicals, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists...ect...ect...all have different congregational needs an consequences in

discussing and from discussing this issue.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.

-- CF2 Renew


Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
members.
28th September 2010, 04:24 AM #101

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
In my opinion the net is too broad and is having unforeseen effects. There are people upset or leaving who
have no intention of promoting homosexuality but feel that this prohibition of the topic makes
discussion simply impossible on other things or is a slippery slope and a warning sign.
What about the other side of the coin?
What f those members who might leave if "homosexuality" is allowed to be discussed as if there was nothing wrong with
it at all?
Your in the proverbal:

Rock and a hard place.
Do you accomodate one group while offending the other, or do you offend one and accomodate the other?
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 04:28 AM #102

DeaconDean
Location: Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
Resident Trouble Maker
Posts: 13,128
Blessings: 88,819
48 My Mood
Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
This banning of all discussion of a topic that has ramifications for each congregation and is not
uniform in those ramifications is not feasible long term because non uniform problems and
situations rarely require blanket solutions.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has said that all discussion is to be banned.
I think the rule says:
Homosexuality will not be promoted anywhere at Christian Forums. Furthermore,

homosexuality may only be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the
purposes of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual
issues.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7500858/
Where is the banning of all discussion?
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 04:38 AM #103

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
What f those members who might leave if "homosexuality" is allowed to be discussed as if there was nothing
wrong with it at all?
Do you accomodate one group while offending the other, or do you offend one and accomodate the other?
God Bless
Till all are one.
In my congregational forum that is not a problem. That is why we have different areas and statements of faith. That is
why I maintain a blanket solution is not only unfeasible but does not use the strengths of how the CF system is
organized.
Each congregation has their own views, nuanced beliefs and needs. That is why we have the congregational section
and the different subforums. Because they are there we have the ability to tailor aspects of things to how it works for
each group according to how they view things.
Now, there is a standard of what is and is not Christian to even be given a congregational forum. But if you have
one...you have one; and should have some degree of freedom to discuss as you see fit on issues that effect your faith and
belief within the rules.
Discussion is not promotion. And if someone leaves because people simply want to talk about something without
promoting it...well, why are they on an internet discussion forum?
There are people who look at Scripture and just as vehemently maintain that It prohibits the Catholic and Orthodox
view of Mary and the Saints just as strongly as it forbids homosexuality. Should that view be given credence in those
sub-forums and no discussion of those topic be allowed by Catholic or Orthodox. I would hope such a suggestion would
seem silly on a multi-denominational/congregational message board.
CF works by a simple set of propositions. Have a basic definition of Christian. Using that the board has sub-forums for
the groups that fit that definition in the congregational area and other areas for fellowship, debate and common
interest to all groups as well as sections where non-Christians participate.
People can not promote things against the basic definition of what the site considers Christian and moral....but
discussion and promotion are not identical.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to
be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an
Bob Casey Sr.
28th September 2010, 04:44 AM #104

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
From the adviser level all threads on the topic in anyway were shut down in OBOB. When we asked where the line was
we were given the answer that:
"You can discuss topics that are about homosexuality like news, new laws, etc, but homosexuality can not be the
primary topic nor can the topic of homosexuality proper be discussed in the thread. If you have any questions about a
specific thread or thread that you are wanting to start you are welcome to pm ... any member of staff."
That is not feasible. If someone wants to start a thread in OBOB on why we believe what we believe about
homosexuality or a new Bishops letter on the topic they should be able to even if it is the subject proper of the thread.
We asked for examples of what types of threads would be allowed and what ones would not. I think that is still be
decided. And that is why I am here...to argue for what type should be allowable without promotion in the
congregational areas.
I hope that clears up some of the history of the last week from where OBOB is with this rule. Homosexuality and our
teaching on it should be able to be discussed with those who struggle and learning why we believe what we believe as
the main subject of a thread without promotion of the lifestyle.
And those who are struggling with it in their lives should have access to those of the same belief to help them through
it and help them get to proper channels of advice on dealing with it.
This rule prevents all that.
No one in OBOB that I talked to or who complained wanted to promote the lifestyle. We just wanted to be able to
discuss our Church's view on it as a subject proper within the bounds of our own area.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
28th September 2010, 04:49 AM #105

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Discussion is one thing, and very rarely does it stay civil.
And that is the whole issue brother.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 05:09 AM #106

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Discussion is one thing, and very rarely does it stay civil.
And that is the whole issue brother.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Well yes, and that can be said for more than this issue.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
28th September 2010, 09:51 AM #107

Location: Northeast, USA
Posts: 30,401
Philothei
My Mood
Love never fails.
Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 1,187,297,879,798,398,464 (power: 1,187,297,879,798,432)
Subscribing here for now...
__________________
Such is the power of love: it embraces, and unites, and fastens together not only those who are
present and near, and visible, but also those who are distant. And neither time, not separation in
space, nor anything else of that kind, can break up and divide in pieces the affection of the soul. St.
John Chrysostom
He who loves little gives little. He who loves more gives more. He who loves a lot what more can he
give than himself...
Elder Porphyrios
28th September 2010, 10:38 AM #108

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
The bottom line is this, as long as there are Conservative/Fundamentalists here, and as long as there
are Liberal/Modernists here, this issue will continue to stir trouble.
I think this basically sums it up. Staff, it's nice of you to offer a place for members to discuss this issue. But it also creates
further instability because it shows that you guys are not united on the issue and appear to be looking at us to solve it. But
that's not going to happen. There simply is no middle ground on this.
Look:
That has been my stance, and it will continue to be my stance.
Right or wrong, I have made my choice and I stand by it.
God Bless
Till all are one.
And
As I have made my stance clear. I will accept all of God's children regardless of their sexual orientation!
And I'm in agreement with Dean on this, while Jase is in agreement with Kiwimac. None of that will change by this thread
or anything else. That's just an example of four people, but it's quite true for the hundreds of other regular members on CF.
So please, get together and figure this thing out. Draw some clear lines and be done with it. Yes that means some staff may
resign and need to be replaced. But at least you'll finally have a much-needed direction for this site. It's much overdue. Ban
promotion of homosexuality, porn, etc. Or ban people from speaking against them. Or make a choice one way or the other
for the general sections and leave each congregational section to have their own guidelines again. Whatever you're going to
do, please just do it already. Thanks.
Now if I don't get out of here now I'm gonna be late for work, lol.
28th September 2010, 10:48 AM #109

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Probably because things like pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce etc. are all rampant in Christian churches,
and receive a blind eye. Since homosexuality doesn't affect most people, it's a much easier target. Sins that
the majority commit constantly will always take a backseat to those they don't have to personally struggle
with.
Actually, none of the sins you mentioned are given a blind eye in the WELS church I attend and were not given a blind
eye in any church I've attended, and I've attended many, including a Non-Denominational church, an Evangelical Free
church, and an LCMS church. So you're blanket statement doesn't hold true and is just a generalization based upon
nothing more that your personal opinion and therefore is dismissed as irrelevant.
__________________
28th September 2010, 11:02 AM #110

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
I invite you to go back and reread this announcement. You can discuss abortion and adultery...illegal
activities in virtually every subforum on CF. It is painstakingly clear the difference between the new
treatment of homosexuals and the afformentioned sins.
I invite you to read the announcement ONCE and pay particular attention to this section:
Controversial Topics
The following subjects are considered controversial topics on Christian forums:
o Abortion
o Adultery/Premarital Sex
o Homosexuality
o Illegal Activity
Abortion, Adultery/Premarital Sex and Illegal Activity will only be discussed in Ethics & Morality, Christian
Philosophy and Ethics, Congregation category, Recovery category, and any of its sub-forums. You will not
post about these subjects in other forums.
This means that you may post about: Abortion, Illegal Activity, Pre-Marital Sex and Adultery ONLY in the forums listed
which do not comprise the majority of CF or the whole of CF. Here are some forums where you can not discuss the
aforementioned topics:
Christian Apologetics
General Theology
Current Christian Affairs
Christian Scriptures
Unorthodox Theology
Christian History
Denomination Specific Theology
The entire Edification forum
The entire Christian Ministries forum
Men's Corner
Outreach
Life Stages
I would imagine that Faith Groups is out too as it is not a Congregational area. So we see that you can not discuss:
Abortion, Illegal Activity, Homosexuality and Pre-Marital Sex/Divorce in virtually any forum and it's subforums on CF.
Your assertion of such being the case is false.
Homosexuality will not be promoted anywhere at Christian Forums. Furthermore, homosexuality

may only be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purposes of seeking
support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.
I've included this in my post to clear up the false statement that ALL conversation about homosexuality has been
banned at this site. It has not. It has just been moved to Recovery and Ask a Chaplain. So there is no censorship going
on here, and discussion of homosexuality has NOT been banned. It's just been moved.
__________________

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
Congregation Staff Discussion Forum created to house discussion between the CF staff and
congregational members.
Page 12 of 38 « First < 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 > Last »
28th September 2010, 11:13 AM #111

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is not as clear on this topic as you consider it to be. That
means that it is your interpretation that is being discussed. It is my argument that doing what has
been done here has simply silenced those churches that support GLBT Christians and that this
reflects a particular doctrinal view point.
That is not the fact of the matter, that is YOUR opinion of the matter, which hardly constitutes any type of
fact whatsoever. My interpretation of the Bible is not being discussed, what is being discussed is this new
change to the Controversial Topics rule. My interpretation of the Bible was brought out as a strawman tactic
to move the focus of this thread onto something else. What has been done here is not aimed at silencing
churches who support GLBT's. What has happened is that everybody has been silenced on this issue.
I can't talk about this issue either. I can't even talk about this rule in my own forum of TCL. When I tried to I
had an Admin come in to my newly created thread about this ruling, and tell us all to voice our concerns
elsewhere meaning here or maybe in the Members Center. They're enforcing this rule already and it looks
like it's not even solidified yet, because if it were, why ask the membership what they think of it? Sounds to
me like they're giving this rule a test run first. I wouldn't be surprised to see CF back down on this and
reverse this ruling. I have never viewed CF as a strong conservative Christian forum. So backing down on
this and giving the liberals and moderates what they want, wouldn't surprise me in the least.
__________________
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift
of God,
28th September 2010, 11:14 AM #112

Michie Location: Woods
Shrine of the Holy Query Posts: 29,837
My Mood
Reps: 321,373,763,894,632,512 (power: 321,373,763,894,670)
You cannot be Christian & not discuss the human struggle. This includes homosexuality.
You cannot turn a certain group of people into lepers to discuss their struggle in one forum only.
You cannot make a whole community of people stop discussing certain topics because of the few that do try
to promote homosexuality or adultery, masturbation... whatever the case may be.
The problem is not the topics in themselves but those that try to promote pet issues as if they are the faith to
be defended all the while leaving the Christian faith by the wayside as if it is the side issue, the thorn in
society's side that prevents the I'm ok, you're ok utopia some seem to think it would be.
It seems to me that there are certain groups of people that are here to defend politics, homosexuality, etc.,
instead of looking at these issues through the lense of faith.
Faith is first & foremost, everything should be looked at through that lense. This board claims Christianity
afterall.
Christianity is not something that can be fashioned to suit our personal tastes. Some seem to think it is. I
think everyone should discuss these issues in light of the doctrinal statements & traditions of their Church.
But then you have some Churches that openly accept homosexuality. So it's not a cut & dry situation
because there are some that feel justified in promoting homosexuality.
So what to do?
IMO, it is simple. People discuss what their Church teaches in their own forums. No cross overs because
your Church does not agree with my Church...
If something goes against the forum's faith then notify the offender.
Don't we have that already???
The main issue here is the snark, sarcasm, the broad brush remarks & those here simply to stir the pot. You
got those that claim the faith yet do everything possible to be the devil's advocate against it. It's a form of
trolling.
This has been going on for years. If these issues were acted on with individual posters in a more effective
manner then the whole community would not have to pay for those that make it their mission to constantly
stir the drama & tear down the faith of others.
I don't understand why everything on CF has to be so complicated. These types of bans/rules is only
shooting yourself in the foot.
If someone wants to moderate then moderate. Dealing with reports is the name of the game. It's simple.
Sorry for the ramble but making lunch.

__________________
Your socks stink.
dir="ltr">
From what does such contrariness arise in habitually angry people, but from a secret cause of too high an opinion of themselves
so that it pierces their heart when they see any man esteem them less than they esteem themselves? An inflated estimation of
ourselves is more than half the weight of our wrath.
St. Thomas More
Last edited by Michie; 28th September 2010 at 11:29 AM.
28th September 2010, 11:16 AM #113

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
I've included this in my post to clear up the false statement that ALL conversation about
homosexuality has been banned at this site. It has not. It has just been moved to Recovery and Ask
a Chaplain. So there is no censorship going on here, and discussion of homosexuality has NOT
been banned. It's just been moved.
Except it has since all threads about it in OBOB, a congregational area were closed. And we were given the
answer from the advisers that I posted that it could not be the topic proper of threads. And we have yet to
get examples of threads that would or would not be acceptable.
And it is not feasible long term to tell a group that they can not discuss a topic central to the understanding
of a component of their teaching and theology. So the rule has problems in that respect.
And I have raised the other problems with it being only allowed in recovery and ask a chaplain.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child?
And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and
child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is
our true character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to
be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
28th September 2010, 11:25 AM #114

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
If it stops contention, if it stops division, if it stops numerous reports, if it stops the flaming, etc.,
I'm for it.
God Bless
Till all are one.
It's not going to stop any of this, the division will just shift to other issues. The Catholic vs. Protestant
argument, the Evolution vs. Creationism argument, every political discussions, etc. etc. all create division,
reporting, and flaming.
If you are going to stop one issue, you might as well stop them all and end discussion period - which is
where the slippery slope of this decision comes from.
The church will always be divided. So again, my question is - why, on a board of adults, is so much
moderating necessary? No one should have to constantly be in fear of getting warnings and infractions for
speaking their mind on an issue.
__________________
28th September 2010, 11:28 AM #115

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
What f those members who might leave if "homosexuality" is allowed to be discussed as if there
was nothing wrong with it at all?
Do you accomodate one group while offending the other, or do you offend one and accomodate the
other?
God Bless
Till all are one.
Homosexuality has always been allowed to be discussed here, so I don't see why someone would leave just
because things are kept the way they've always been.
__________________
28th September 2010, 11:29 AM #116

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
I fail to see how allowing discussion but not promotion is somehow liberal or modernist. That would mean it
is somehow against conservative principles to think about and discuss a belief and it is not.
And what is to stop the slippery slope of abortion being too controversial to discuss except in recovery and
ask a Chaplain?
Why is one singled out?

__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
28th September 2010, 11:30 AM #117

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
To the best of my knowledge, no one has said that all discussion is to be banned.
I think the rule says:
God Bless
Till all are one.
It's a slippery slope. If this topic is banned, what's to prevent another topic just as heated to be banned?
Mods have already told me, if the Evo/Creo debate gets too heated, it will be banned. And honestly, I'm
amazed the Catholic vs. Protestant debate hasn't been banned yet, since that's nastier than the gay debate.
__________________
28th September 2010, 11:37 AM #118

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
So, asking the advisers, what types of threads are banned in the congregational areas and what kinds are
not? Examples would be nice. Or I can come up with some and you can tell me if they would be banned.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
28th September 2010, 11:48 AM #119

LawsonAlan
Posts: 168
Regular Member
Blessings: 48,182
Reps: 47,890,572 (power: 47,893)
48
Isaiah 59:1
Behold, the LORD'S hand is not so short That it cannot save; Nor is His ear so dull That it cannot hear.
It would be a shock to me if the Lord did not want to hear of the lives and tribulations of His children.
It is not shocking that a website's leaders have no intention of hearing these things.
This website is not God. It does not roughly imitate the mercy of God, nor does it pretend to learn from the
lessons of God.
While God would keep His ears open, this website will not.
While God loved the whole world, this website loves no one.
While God shows us mercy, this website shows us division.
I am not saying this to knock CF. It is what it is. I'm only saying this because it seems that some people have
an expectation for an inanimate website to have any of the characteristics of a loving God.
I have stopped looking for any such relationship here.

__________________
If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I'm in big trouble!!!
28th September 2010, 11:48 AM #120

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Originally Posted by Philothei
Maybe David that answers the question "why this issue is singled out"
It does, there was a particular hostility discussing this issue that was worse than others. But then this sets
the precedent that if a topic becomes too heated this is an option. And for some that would be an even
greater problem.
In OBOB I can think of a few topics that have been far more troublesome than this one. But I get this was an
issue site wide.
I still think my points on why it is problematic in general and for OBOB in particular remain. And this is
only one issue that is a symptom and not the problem...the problem is that people lack charity with each
other. This won't fix that. It will only cause problems that were not there before.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
28th September 2010, 12:07 PM #121

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Except it has since all threads about it in OBOB, a congregational area were closed. And we were
given the answer from the advisers that I posted that it could not be the topic proper of threads.
And we have yet to get examples of threads that would or would not be acceptable.
And it is not feasible long term to tell a group that they can not discuss a topic central to the
understanding of a component of their teaching and theology. So the rule has problems in that
respect.
And I have raised the other problems with it being only allowed in recovery and ask a chaplain.
This ruling affects more people than just those in OBOB. I had a thread completely removed that dealt with
this new tweak to the Controversial Topics rule. CF wants the issue of homosexuality discussed in either the
Recovery forum or the Ask a Chaplain forum. So the topic isn't banned, it's been moved. Is it currently
banned in the Congregational forums? Yes. But it hasn't been banned altogether.
The ban of this topic in the Congregational forums is causing me problems too. We're currently discussing
polygamy in TCL, and while others are saying that Polygamy is not specifically banned in the Bible, I can
not ask the rhetorical question of, well if a man is allowed to marry multiple wives, why is man not allowed to
marry another man? Both models of marriage violate what God set forth in Genesis 2:24 and what Jesus
re-iterated in Matthew 5 and 19, but this would be discussing a part of homosexuality and that is forbidden.
So conversations are being hindered by this rule and it's affecting more people than just you and OBOB.
__________________
of God,
28th September 2010, 12:12 PM #122

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
It's not going to stop any of this, the division will just shift to other issues. The Catholic vs.
Protestant argument, the Evolution vs. Creationism argument, every political discussions, etc. etc.
all create division, reporting, and flaming.
If you are going to stop one issue, you might as well stop them all and end discussion period -
which is where the slippery slope of this decision comes from.
The church will always be divided. So again, my question is - why, on a board of adults, is so much
moderating necessary? No one should have to constantly be in fear of getting warnings and
infractions for speaking their mind on an issue.
Just because a person is an adult by age, doesn't mean they always act their age. I've seen a lot of childish
behavior from adults on this forum. I don't think there is a lot of moderation on this board, and I don't think
anyone is living in fear of getting an infraction or a warning. There are ways to speak your mind without
violating the rules. If you can't do that and are receiving multiple warnings and infractions, you will either
need to revise how you speak your mind on an issue or risk be being banned from this forum.
__________________
of God,
28th September 2010, 12:16 PM #123

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
I fail to see how allowing discussion but not promotion is somehow liberal or modernist. That
would mean it is somehow against conservative principles to think about and discuss a belief and it
is not.
And what is to stop the slippery slope of abortion being too controversial to discuss except in
recovery and ask a Chaplain?
Why is one singled out?
One hasn't been singled out. But one has been restricted to just two forums. The other issues mentioned in
this announcement have been restricted to certain forums too and may not be discussed site-wide. But since
the other topics can be discussed in more forums than homosexuality can be, people are assuming that only
one issue has been singled out and that is not the case.
__________________
of God,
28th September 2010, 12:18 PM #124

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
This ruling affects more people than just those in OBOB. I had a thread completely removed that
dealt with this new tweak to the Controversial Topics rule. CF wants the issue of homosexuality
discussed in either the Recovery forum or the Ask a Chaplain forum. So the topic isn't banned, it's
been moved. Is it currently banned in the Congregational forums? Yes. But it hasn't been banned
altogether.
The ban of this topic in the Congregational forums is causing me problems too. We're currently
discussing polygamy in TCL, and while others are saying that Polygamy is not specifically banned
in the Bible, I can not ask the rhetorical question of, well if a man is allowed to marry multiple
wives, why is man not allowed to marry another man? This would be discussing a part of
homosexuality and that is forbidden. So conversations are being hindered by this rule and it's
affecting more people than just you and OBOB.
Yes and I am bringing the point of view of the area in the congregational section I frequent. It is the point of
view I can speak to with a degree of knowledge.
As I mentioned about 5 times now the congregational areas exist so each group can discuss things within
the bounds of their own teachings and point of view and this rule is preventing that. I mention OBOB in
examples because that is where I am. I have said multiple times that this is unfair to all congregational areas
and defeats the purpose of why we have them.
Like I said over 100 posts ago:
Each group needs to find their own balance on the issue with whatever structures of authority exist in their
own congregations. To force that unity by removing an uncomfortable but valid topic will only lead to
resentment and/or empty unity.
People must come to their own balance on this. For some there is a clear line in the teachings of their group.
And that line should not be crossed in that area. For some, it is a very turbulent issue with great strife and
they have a less clear line from their teaching authority and teachers. But we are called to address the
difficult as Christians, not ignore it.
Yes, it is an issue that divides. But if we do not allow the congregations to discuss it within the bounds of
their own teaching for each group then we are moving down a road where we start a CF Christianity...and
that will be good for no one. Our strength at CF comes from each group having an area to be themselves so
they can learn about each other with their own teachings so they can honestly and productively dialog with
other who disagree on some issues.
We need to be who we are, warts and all, and come through strife with Christian behavior to each other that
comes from our hearts and not overly enforced (beyond basic rules of flaming and civility).
This issue is a massive issue in many places. If we are to be Christian we must learn to embrace each other
in differences. Not to just ignore those differences.
That is why the rule bothers me in the congregation areas. It prevents people from addressing an issue that
can not be ignored and addressing it in the context of the teachings of their group
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
28th September 2010, 12:19 PM #125

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)

It's a slippery slope. If this topic is banned, what's to prevent another topic just as heated to be
banned? Mods have already told me, if the Evo/Creo debate gets too heated, it will be banned. And
honestly, I'm amazed the Catholic vs. Protestant debate hasn't been banned yet, since that's
nastier than the gay debate.
It hasn't been banned, Jase. It's just been restricted to two forums. You can talk about homosexuality in
Recovery and Ask a Chaplain, and since you can talk about this issue in those forums, it obviously has not
been banned on this site. Nothing is nastier than the gay debate. I've been in Evolution v. Creation debates,
I've been in the Protestant v. Catholic debates, I've been in the Universalist debates, I've been in the
Abortion debates and I've been in the homosexuality debates. I know what I'm talking about. Nothing,
NOTHING is nastier than the homosexual debates.
__________________
of God,
28th September 2010, 12:21 PM #126

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
One hasn't been singled out. But one has been restricted to just two forums. The other issues
mentioned in this announcement have been restricted to certain forums too and may not be
discussed site-wide. But since the other topics can be discussed in more forums than
homosexuality can be, people are assuming that only one issue has been singled out and that is not
the case.
The controversial topic rule has been around in some form for years, having been on staff through at least
three versions of it, and the new addition does further restrict and single out discussion on homosexuality.
And it does so in a way that was never done before. And having been there for the discussions it was not
done for the reasons we are seeing now.
Compare it to the old rule from 2007:
3.5 Controversial Topics to Be Discussed Only in Certain Forums
A. You will not post content regarding the following subjects anywhere on CF except in Ethics &
Morality, Liberal Theology, Christian Philosophy, or any subforums in the Congregation or
Recovery* categories:
drug use
gambling
polygamy
extramarital or premarital sexual activity
homosexuality
transsexuality
abortion
*You will not make posts promoting or endorsing any of these subjects in Recovery forums.
There have been many versions of this rule and this new one has a very significant difference with
restricting discussion from the congregational areas for a single topic out of the controversial list. That has
never been done before with this rule. And it is that difference that is causing problems.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
28th September 2010, 12:31 PM #127

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Yes and I am bringing the point of view of the area in the congregational section I frequent. It is
the point of view I can speak to with a degree of knowledge.
As I mentioned about 5 times now the congregational areas exist so each group can discuss things
within the bounds of their own teachings and point of view and this rule is preventing that. I
mention OBOB in examples because that is where I am. I have said multiple times that this is
unfair to all congregational areas and defeats the purpose of why we have them.
Like I said over 100 posts ago:
Each group needs to find their own balance on the issue with whatever structures of authority
exist in their own congregations. To force that unity by removing an uncomfortable but valid topic
will only lead to resentment and/or empty unity.
People must come to their own balance on this. For some there is a clear line in the teachings of
their group. And that line should not be crossed in that area. For some, it is a very turbulent issue
with great strife and they have a less clear line from their teaching authority and teachers. But we
are called to address the difficult as Christians, not ignore it.
Yes, it is an issue that divides. But if we do not allow the congregations to discuss it within the
bounds of their own teaching for each group then we are moving down a road where we start a CF
Christianity...and that will be good for no one. Our strength at CF comes from each group having
an area to be themselves so they can learn about each other with their own teachings so they can
honestly and productively dialog with other who disagree on some issues.
We need to be who we are, warts and all, and come through strife with Christian behavior to each
other that comes from our hearts and not overly enforced (beyond basic rules of flaming and
civility).
This issue is a massive issue in many places. If we are to be Christian we must learn to embrace
each other in differences. Not to just ignore those differences.
That is why the rule bothers me in the congregation areas. It prevents people from addressing an
issue that can not be ignored and addressing it in the context of the teachings of their group
Look, I agree with you, it should be allowed to be discussed in the Congregational areas. But there is a
problem with that too. Some congregations will affirm the unrepentant homosexual, support them in their
sin and tell them that their sin isn't a sin. We can't have that on a Christian forum. We can not and must not
tolerate any affirmation of any sin, whether it be adultery, divorce, lust, worshiping other gods, coveting,
homosexuality, etc.
Another thing you have to remember that no congregational area can have a discussion about a topic that
goes against the rules of the forum on which it is located. As of right now, any discussion of homosexuality in
the congregational forums goes against the rules of CF site wide. So unless CF revises this decision and
allows the congregations to talk about this issue, we're gonna have to deal with the fact that we can't talk
about it right now and adjust our posts accordingly. Am I happy about this? No. But this is Pauler's site and
if this is what makes him happy and if this is what he wants, then he has every right to not only make this
rule but enforce it as well. This is his forum. We don't have to post here if we don't want to or if we don't like
the way it's set up.
I've left this forum numerous times, but I always come back because as mad as I may be about certain things
or rules here, my friends are here as well and I keep coming back to this site to talk with them. Now granted
I no longer really leave the Lutheran section because it's just not worth it in my opinion as anything I say
outside of that section usually gets me in trouble. The conservative viewpoint is not the one that has
historically been defended at CF and since I'm a conservative, I'm of course the one that gets into trouble
with the things I say.
__________________
of God,
28th September 2010, 12:34 PM #128

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Look, I agree with you, it should be allowed to be discussed in the Congregational areas. But there
is a problem with that too. Some congregations will affirm the unrepentant homosexual, support
them in their sin and tell them that their sin isn't a sin. We can't have that on a Christian forum.
We can not and must not tolerate any affirmation of any sin, whether it be adultery, divorce, lust,
worshiping other gods, coveting, homosexuality, etc.
Another thing you have to remember that no congregational area can have a discussion about a
topic that goes against the rules of the forum on which it is located. As of right now, any
discussion of homosexuality in the congregational forums goes against the rules of CF site wide. So
unless CF revises this decision and allows the congregations to talk about this issue, we're gonna
have to deal with the fact that we can't talk about it right now and adjust our posts accordingly.
Am I happy about this? No. But this is Pauler's site and if this is what makes him happy and if this
is what he wants, then he has every right to not only make this rule but enforce it as well. This is
his forum. We don't have to post here if we don't want to or if we don't like the way it's set up.
I've left this forum numerous times, but I always come back because as mad as I may be about
certain things or rules here, my friends are here as well and I keep coming back to this site to talk
with them. Now granted I no longer really leave the Lutheran section because it's just not worth it
in my opinion as anything I say outside of that section usually gets me in trouble. The conservative
viewpoint is not the one that has historically been defended at CF and since I'm a conservative, I'm
of course the one that gets into trouble with the things I say.
We pretty much agree.
I would like to see the rule changed to allow discussion but not promotion in the congregational areas.
If the rule stays it does, but I think it is not workable long term.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
28th September 2010, 12:34 PM #129

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
It hasn't been banned, Jase. It's just been restricted to two forums. You can talk about
homosexuality in Recovery and Ask a Chaplain, and since you can talk about this issue in those
forums, it obviously has not been banned on this site.
That is basically a ban, since the only thing you can say in recovery is homosexuality is an abomination, and
encourage people to try and "cure" it.
Nothing is nastier than the gay debate. I've been in Evolution v. Creation debates, I've been in the
Protestant v. Catholic debates, I've been in the Universalist debates, I've been in the Abortion
debates and I've been in the homosexuality debates. I know what I'm talking about. Nothing,
NOTHING is nastier than the homosexual debates.
Well, it's understandable. At the end of the day, the age of the earth or human evolution has little bearing
on most people's daily lives. Homosexuality is about who people are, and the fact that laws are being forced
to condemn it, is a direct attack on people's lives.
It's no different than the previous issue of whites telling blacks they were inferior, and passing laws to prove
the case.
__________________
28th September 2010, 12:39 PM #130

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
The controversial topic rule has been around in some form for years, having been on staff through
at least three versions of it, and the new addition does further restrict and single out discussion on
homosexuality. And it does so in a way that was never done before. And having been there for the
discussions it was not done for the reasons we are seeing now.
Compare it to the old rule from 2007:
3.5 Controversial Topics to Be Discussed Only in Certain Forums
A. You will not post content regarding the following subjects anywhere on CF except in
Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology, Christian Philosophy, or any subforums in the
Congregation or Recovery* categories:
drug use
gambling
polygamy
extramarital or premarital sexual activity
homosexuality
transsexuality
abortion
*You will not make posts promoting or endorsing any of these subjects in Recovery
forums.
There have been many versions of this rule and this new one has a very significant difference with
restricting discussion from the congregational areas for a single topic out of the controversial list.
That has never been done before with this rule. And it is that difference that is causing problems.
As the previous rule that you have posted here from 2007 has been changed, this rule in time will probably
be changed too. Obviously the 2007 ruling wasn't strict enough to bring the homosexuality debates under
control, so further steps have been taken. While I do think the congregations should be allowed to discuss
this issue, as I said in another post that can cause problems because there are some congregations such as
the UCC, that will not identify same-sex sex as a sin and that will cause a lot of problems and I think CF staff
is trying to avoid that situation as well. Is this new decision a step too far in one direction? Maybe. But this
is what CF has decided, and whether or not we like it, is ultimately irrelevant. We don't own this forum.
Pauler does. It's his decision. Now we can either abide by this decision or we can leave. No one is forcing
you to stay here. If discussion of homosexuality is so important to you, there are plenty of other Christian
forums where you can discuss this topic.
__________________
of God,

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporte
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ad
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
28th September 2010, 12:45 PM #131

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
No one is forcing you to stay here. If discussion of homosexuality is so important to you, there are plenty of other
Christian forums where you can discuss this topic.
Well since the advisers are inviting this discussion with this thread I assume the matter is not closed. If it was this would
be a rather cruel joke.
I trust them and staff to listen to the points raised and then make the call. So the like it or lump it attitude is not really
called for yet.
They did not have to open this thread, asking for suggestions, and to do so if the matter was closed would be rather ill
advised since it would only cause more problems.
I assume they are looking at the situation to see if there are tweeks to be made to the rule or not. So I will present the
argument that it can be improved and how.
As far as congregations who would allow promotion of homosexuality...well that is a different matter for the higher ups to
consider. But it should not be resolved by restricting those who would abide by the rule and not promote but would
discuss it within their groups. That is a rather large and unfair net to cast.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to be
seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion
clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.

28th September 2010, 12:47 PM #132

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
That is basically a ban, since the only thing you can say in recovery is homosexuality is an abomination, and
encourage people to try and "cure" it.
Well, it's understandable. At the end of the day, the age of the earth or human evolution has little bearing on
most people's daily lives. Homosexuality is about who people are, and the fact that laws are being forced to
condemn it, is a direct attack on people's lives.
It's no different than the previous issue of whites telling blacks they were inferior, and passing laws to prove the
case.
Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not an abomination and there is not one verse of scripture to support that
assertion. If that is being asserted in Recovery then that needs to change. What is called an abomination in the Bible is
same-sex sex. There is no cure for homosexuality just as there is no cure for heterosexuality. Why would you need to cure a
sexual orientation? That doesn't make any sense. Jase, this is very different than the civil rights issue. I am a conservative
and I have never told a homosexual that they are inferior or sub-human or anything derogatory like that. So no, this is not
like the whites v. blacks issue of the civil rights movement at all. By saying this is like the issue of whites v. blacks you
essentially equate a conservative who is against same-sex sex with a member of the KKK.
__________________
28th September 2010, 12:53 PM #133

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Well since the advisers are inviting this discussion with this thread I assume the matter is not closed. If it was
this would be a rather cruel joke.
I trust them and staff to listen to the points raised and then make the call. So the like it or lump it attitude is not
really called for yet.
They did not have to open this thread and to do so if the matter was closed would be rather ill advised since it
would only cause more problems.
I assume they are looking at the situation to see if there are tweeks to be made to the rule or not. So I will present
the argument that it can be improved and how.
As far as congregations who would allow promotion of homosexuality...well that is a different matter for the
higher ups to consider. But it should not be resolved by restricting those who would abide by the rule and not
promote but would discuss it within their groups. That is a rather large and unfair net to cast.
This new tweak to the Controversial topics rule is already in the site wide rules. Kind of a weird thing to include in the site
wide rules if it is not a set rule. What you want, by wanting CF to allow discussion of homosexuality in the Congregational
forums, creates a very big problem. Some congregational forums, will not condemn same-sex sex as a sin. They will not call
the sinner to repent of their sins. They will tell them that they are indeed not sinning and have nothing to feel guilty about.
This will confuse people who lurk on these forums and visit many different forums. They will see some forums saying
same-sex sex is not a sin, and some forums saying it is. This will leave the lurker with many confusing questions. That's not
a good thing. While it would make YOU happy to have this topic open for discussion in the congregational sections, we
have to keep in mind those who lurk and never post. Do we want to confuse them or do we as a forum want to send a
message that same-sex sex and those who are struggling with their desires for such are encouraged to go seek help with
their struggles in Recovery and Ask a Chaplain?
__________________
28th September 2010, 12:55 PM #134

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
We pretty much agree.
I would like to see the rule changed to allow discussion but not promotion in the congregational areas.
If the rule stays it does, but I think it is not workable long term.
One thing I've learned from posting at this site for as many years as I have been is that NOTHING is workable long term
here. As they say, this too shall pass.
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:05 PM #135

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not an abomination and there is not one verse of scripture to support
that assertion. If that is being asserted in Recovery then that needs to change. What is called an abomination in
the Bible is same-sex sex. There is no cure for homosexuality just as there is no cure for heterosexuality. Why
would you need to cure a sexual orientation? That doesn't make any sense. Jase, this is very different than the
civil rights issue. I am a conservative and I have never told a homosexual that they are inferior or sub-human or
anything derogatory like that. So no, this is not like the whites v. blacks issue of the civil rights movement at all.
By saying this is like the issue of whites v. blacks you essentially equate a conservative who is against same-sex
sex with a member of the KKK.
I realize that you may have never made such claims, but don't pretend that it doesn't happen. Violence and hate against
gays is rampant, largely because of the conservative views on it. So yes, in that regard it is like the civil rights issue. Gays,
a minority, are being treated by many (not necessarily you) as second class citizens. And many Christians on this board
have claimed the orientation itself is a sin. So, as we've been trying to tell you - this issue is not black and white.
And as I outline in my previous post, you've left no option for gays.

Which is all the more reason banning this discussion is a bad idea. How are we supposed to support gays in our
congregation, when the only thing we're allowed to tell them is - deal with being celibate, that's your only option despite
that being against scripture?
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:06 PM #136

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
What you want, by wanting CF to allow discussion of homosexuality in the Congregational forums, creates a very
big problem. Some congregational forums, will not condemn same-sex sex as a sin.
A different matter to be dealt with separately. That is about the identity the site wants to present and this issue is only a
small part of it. Make promotion of homosexuality against the rules in any respect. And hold all congregation forums to
that.
And it does not just make me happy, I am synthesizing and presenting the concerns that were expressed by almost a dozen
people in my area. This includes the inability of a Catholic struggling with Homosexuality to get a Catholic view point in
the ask a chaplain area because we have no equivalent here at CF in that area to help get someone like that to the point
where they go see a priest face to face. And since that situation has happened multiple times in OBOB that is a concern for
us.
So I am thinking about those who lurk and do not post. As well as those whose concerns I am personally familiar with who
have asked me to present them.
Yes this effects many areas I am presenting the concerns of mine with a mind to both those concerns and the overall
picture.
I've worked close to a thousand reports in GT in OBOB and the rest of the congregational areas and in Recovery. I've done
it from entry level to admin level. So yes...you are right on the money when you say the homosexuality debates are the
worse. I was admin in CP&E so I really do know how vile those fights get. So I am keeping in mind ramifications outside my
own congregation, but I am also presenting those concerns.
The advisers specifically asked for suggestions. They are getting them.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
28th September 2010, 01:08 PM #137

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
One thing I've learned from posting at this site for as many years as I have been is that NOTHING is workable
long term here. As they say, this too shall pass.
We agree there.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
28th September 2010, 01:18 PM #138

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
I realize that you may have never made such claims, but don't pretend that it doesn't happen. Violence and hate
against gays is rampant, largely because of the conservative views on it.
Wrong! Violence against gays is not prevalent because of the Conservative viewpoint. It's prevalent because all people
have a sinful nature and desire to do what is evil rather than what is good. So stop the "Let's Blame the Conservative
Viewpoint For All of Society's Woes." game. The Conservative viewpoint on same-sex sex does not control the actions of a
secular society.
So yes, in that regard it is like the civil rights issue. Gays, a minority, are being treated by many (not necessarily
you) as second class citizens. And many Christians on this board have claimed the orientation itself is a sin. So, as
we've been trying to tell you - this issue is not black and white.
Off topic and irrelevant to the rule at hand.
And as I outline in my previous post, you've left no option for gays.

Which is all the more reason banning this discussion is a bad idea. How are we supposed to support gays in our
congregation, when the only thing we're allowed to tell them is - deal with being celibate, that's your only option
despite that being against scripture?
Oh I'm sorry, Jase. What option would you like me, a non-staff member on this board to make available to homosexuals that
I have somehow denied them, according to YOU? How are you supposed to support gays in your congregation? Are you
talking on the forum or in real life?
To answer your question I first need you to define what you mean by support? Do you mean telling them they're not
committing a sin when they have same-sex sex? Do you mean treating them like anybody else and having fellowship with
them and praying with them as they struggle with whatever struggles they have, not just the ones that pertain to their
bedroom activities? How is telling a gay person to be celibate against scripture? Telling a gay person to have same-sex sex
is against scripture. But I'm gathering from your posts that you would never do that, because you don't consider that
loving or supportive.
__________________
28th September 2010, 01:27 PM #139

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
The issue for discussion is if we want to remove it completely from the Congregational areas. This is the topic.
The Issue of Homosexuality is discussed in the Recovery Forum and Ask a Chaplain BUT needs to adhere to the
RULES as they are posted in these areas. There are restrictions. Discussion per an individual member seeking
advice then there can be discussion; and again NO PROMOSSION.
That's not the issue for discussion, because if it were, then my thread in TCL about the tweak to the Controversial Topics
rule, would not have been deleted off the board. I told Nilla that if I could not seriously have a conversation about this new
rule at TCL and how it is going to affect Congregational areas, to delete the thread. You guys don't want this discussed at
all in the Congregational sections. You want this discussed either here for the moment, or in Recovery and Ask A Chaplain.
I think you and Nilla and all the other staffers need to get together and get it straight about how this rule actually applies
to the Congregational areas and to the forum as a whole because I'm seeing two different responses from two different
staffers.
__________________
28th September 2010, 02:05 PM #140

Studeclunker Location: Northern California. Almost heaven except for quazi-communist state government.
Senior Member Posts: 1,705
Blessings: 132,524
My Mood
54
Reps: 822,300,575,794,125 (power: 822,300,575,799)
Sorry, I'm just a dyed in the wool old American. Censorship of any kind just... goes against my grain. Do not all the world's despots say
that they are Censoring the media for the public's good? I agree that this issue should be kept out of the public arenas in this
website. There aren't sufficient ground-rules to deal with it. Even in the common forum for the Lutherans (the conservatives and
liberals had to be separated) it is a problem. However, that issue is working itself out (for the Lutherans anyway), either that or
everyone is just sick of the fighting. The current rules are more than sufficient for this issue. Just enforce the current rules,
please. Stifling free debate is not the answer.
__________________
Sufficient for the day are the troubles therein.
"Nothing sucks more in a conversation, than the moment you realize you're wrong."
On a personal note, I would add to the above; except when you realize your opponent is right!

-- CF2 Renew

B
S
a
-Discuss Faith
T
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
28th September 2010, 02:29 PM #141
Join Date: 8th April 2006

Nilla Location: Sweden
Lord, You have my heart Posts: 23,838
Blog Entries: 24
31 Reps: 522,111,515,124,110,912 (power: 522,111,515,124,138)
I just to let you all know that this thread is here because we want input, thoughts from you all about this. This is not a joke thread.
Nilla
*subscribing*
__________________
CF Admin
Looking for new staffers! Please check

.
about it and then fill out an
.
Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. (Luke 6:31, NASB)
Prayer Team member - PM me if you have a Prayer Request
28th September 2010, 02:52 PM #142

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
And for those who may be skiddish about giving opinions I have worked with most of the staff here and they really do care about the
opinions expressed. The final call likely will not be to everyone's liking but they will evaluate input.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
28th September 2010, 03:43 PM #143

sacerdote Location: North Carolina
Chaplain Posts: 3,466
Blessings: 364,186
My Mood
Reps: 566,746,670,219,466 (power: 566,746,670,225)
Hi everyone,
We would like to use this thread to help review the new controversial topics rule with you.... please post your questions
and suggestions here
(Please bring your complaints about CF staff actions to the MSC, as we will not spend time here defending or explaining
staff actions in this meeting)
Thanks,
Tishri1
on behalf of CF staff
PS we will hold this meeting open for two weeks ( 9/27/2010-10/11/2010 ) and longer if needed
Just dropped in and would like to discuss but I haven't any idea what it is. Do you have a link? God bless.
__________________
Sacerdote
US Army Retired
Hospital Chaplain
There is nothing you can do to make God love you any more and there is nothing you can do to make God love you any less. -- Philip Yancey
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no
record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never
fails. (1 Cor 13:4-8)
28th September 2010, 03:54 PM #144

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Over the course of five years here on CF, I have just my signature says, i have never compromised my beliefs.
Homosexuality is one of those.
AS far as I am concerned, this is a sin. And no amount of discussion, no amount of placating, no amount of condemnation of me for
my beliefs will ever make me back down from my position.
Those who actively participate in homosexual acts while claiming to be "Christian" aren't.
They are only fooling themselves.
And because of that reason, I believe there should be no discussion because those who practice this lifestyle are sinners.
There is no "grey area" with me.
In a comment directed squarely at Conservative/Fundamentalists like myself, it was said that I (we) suffer from:
a false interpretation of the Bible based on an erroneous understanding of the text
Be that as it may, I am entitled to my own view of God's word and according to it, it is the authority.
So to me, there is no such thing as a "gay Christian".
Therefore, there should be no discussion.

Now I'll step aside and see how long it takes for the bashing of me to begin.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 03:56 PM #145

My Mood
Reps: 42,175,080,475,787,440 (power: 42,175,080,475,790)
25
I don't understand this whole "promotion" thing, and the people who say we should not be "promoting" homosexuality. Some
denominations sincerely believe that the verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality are being taken out of the context from
which they are written, deal with pedastery, or are a mistranslation. That's why I liked WWMC, and am now very saddened that we
can't talk about why it's okay to be a homosexual and Christian. It's all very frustrating.
__________________
28th September 2010, 04:07 PM #146

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Over the course of five years here on CF, I have just my signature says, i have never compromised my beliefs.
Homosexuality is one of those.
AS far as I am concerned, this is a sin. And no amount of discussion, no amount of placating, no amount of condemnation
of me for my beliefs will ever make me back down from my position.
Those who actively participate in homosexual acts while claiming to be "Christian" aren't.
They are only fooling themselves.
And because of that reason, I believe there should be no discussion because those who practice this lifestyle are sinners.
There is no "grey area" with me.
In a comment directed squarely at Conservative/Fundamentalists like myself, it was said that I (we) suffer from:
Now I'll step aside and see how long it takes for the bashing of me to begin.
God Bless
Till all are one.
You have no right to claim who is and who isn't a Christian. I don't care what you believe, but you are capable of being wrong. A
little humility is in order.
__________________
28th September 2010, 04:13 PM #147

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
You have no right to claim who is and who isn't a Christian. I don't care what you believe, but you are capable of being
wrong. A little humility is in order.
I agree. Only God knows who are truly His and who are not. Saving faith is a gift from God. Engaging in same-sex relations does not
automatically make someone not a Christian. Using that line of thinking anyone who engages in heterosexual sex, who is not
married must also not be a Christian. What makes a person a non-Christian, is lack of faith in Christ.
__________________
28th September 2010, 05:03 PM #148

Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
And therein is the problem. If the Bible is mistranslated then your authority is wrong. If the Bible is translated according to a particular
denominations' POV then your doctrines and views of the textus are tainted. Needless to say that I disagree with your point of view. Both I and
the Church which ordained me will continue to support GLBT Christians.
__________________
28th September 2010, 05:07 PM #149

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
The issue for discussion is if we want to remove it completely from the Congregational areas. This is the topic. The Issue of
Homosexuality is discussed in the Recovery Forum and Ask a Chaplain BUT needs to adhere to the RULES as they are
posted in these areas. There are restrictions. Discussion per an individual member seeking advice then there can be
discussion; and again NO PROMOSSION.
If that is an option, I think you'll find that most, if not all congregational areas would like the leeway to discuss the topic. However, that
will only work if CF makes a clear distinction as to what constitutes as acceptable for Christians to promote. Basically, we see examples of
how CF doesn't want sin promoted as "good". So you guys really need to define whether you are including homosexual activities as sinful
or not (and then stick to it!). Once that's defined, I suspect you'll have a much easier time enforcing and clarifying guidelines so that
discussion can proceed in a (hopefully) respectful intelligent manner.
As for me, I really have no problem working within the new rules because I don't have a great need to discuss homosexuality. I've rarely
bothered with the debates because I find them fruitless for the most part. Additionally the new rules actually may offer me more
freedom to post without constantly being bashed for being "too conservative" or "too fundamentalist". I like coming to a Christian forum
to talk with other Christians, not to be cut down and attacked for believing in the word of God. But there are a lot of forums here that
don't allow me that freedom, so I just don't bother with them anymore. I've been hoping that this most recent rule addition will help
improve on that. Time will tell. However, as has been said a number of times now, please make some decisions and stick to them. You're
never going to make everyone happy, and that's OK. What matters infinitely more is whether it will glorify God.
28th September 2010, 05:28 PM #150

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
I don't understand the need to define "promoting" in the congregation forums. Those forums already don't allow members who do
not belong to that group to post there and start an argument. Liberals for example, don't consider homosexuality a sin. For the
mods to claim we are not allowed to express that view in our own forum, they're telling us we're required to believe what they want
us to believe. Which defeats the whole purpose of the congregation forums.
__________________

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
Welcome to Christian Forums CF Site
Supporte
and Make
-Discuss Faith These Ad
-Encourage Each Other Go Away
-Get Accountability
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
28th September 2010, 05:46 PM #151

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
Here is the issue I'm seeing as I skim through posts this afternoon. I am seeing that many are saying they are not against us
being allowed to discuss homosexuality, but they agree there should not be promotion of it. Unfortunately, promotion falls
under what kiwimac believes though, which is that we should be accepting of homosexuals.
This hinders discussion as well because then all discussions become why homosexuality is sinful and etc. What about those
who choose to accept homosexuality? Their voice is being squashed because if they express their opinion, that
homosexuality should be accepted according to their congregational beliefs, they are in violation of rules. How is this not a
problem?
__________________

28th September 2010, 06:19 PM #152

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
If I can interject here for a minute. This is going to upset some of you but the fact of the matter is we are not going to allow
promotion of this topic.
So, I guess what we need from you all as members of the congregation community is
a definition like Davidnic and Tenebrae wrote out

and the parameters you would like to discuss this issue within the congregation section.
__________________
28th September 2010, 06:58 PM #153

My Mood
Reps: 42,175,080,475,787,440 (power: 42,175,080,475,790)
25
If I can interject here for a minute. This is going to upset some of you but the fact of the matter is we are not
going to allow promotion of this topic.
Then in WWMC and ELCA/Liberal Lutheran how are we supposed to talk about supporting the policies of openly gay clergy
or that it's okay to be gay and Christian? It's hard to outline a policy or discuss any parameters when they are essentially
being set out for us on the liberal side of things.
__________________
28th September 2010, 07:15 PM #154

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
You can talk about the policies but the promotion of the lifestyle is something that will be prohibited.
The definition is where we need help in defining it.

__________________
28th September 2010, 07:16 PM #155

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Well for OBOB the parameters are covered by our statement of faith and an understanding of assent as opposed to dissent.
I've put what that is in a spoiler box because although it matters for OBOB it does not for anywhere else and I don't want
this to be a theological debate..so if you don't care how we define it don't look, but it is how we generally view it in line
with the Statement of faith where that mentions assent in relation to issues like homosexuality.
Spoiler for how we have historically viewed it in OBOB: Show
That covers it for us. But that is not an option for other areas.
So if we come up with something that fits everyone in the congregation area that allows us to still operate generally as we
have and address their concerns as well that would be effective.
It is possible each congregation area will need to have slightly different bounds depending on the needs and teachings of
their groups.
That might be difficult for the mods so we should try to make the bounds fairly standard with only slight differences where
necessary so the congregational areas can express themselves as their teachings and beliefs allow while staying within the
no promotion rule.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.

28th September 2010, 07:21 PM #156

Posts: 355
My Mood
It seems to me that we've got one group of people who think being gay is a sin, another who think that being gay is not a
sin but a physical homosexual relationship is sinful, and another who think that a physical homosexual relationship is not
sinful.
Likewise we have people who think that masturbation is sinful in and of itself, another who think that it's only sinful if it is
accompanied with lust, and others who think it's an entirely natural thing for anyone to do.
Ditto for adultery... fornication... the list goes on.
I guess the question comes back to what counts as promoting and what counts as meeting people where they are. If CF
wants to take a stance that engaging in a physical homosexual relationship is sinful / not sinful that's obviously the decision
for the board management to take and the members then get to decide whether to stay or leave based on what they think of
it.
It does seem that sexual sins of any nature seem to get special treatment from many quarters - there's all sorts of discussion
over whether this or that sexual behaviour is sinful in a way that doesn't seem to happen when we're talking about envy or
pride or covetousness. A few folks might quibble over what exactly counts as covetousness but I don't see rifts in the
church because one person thinks it's coveting to want a faster car while another does not.
Makes me wonder why, in this sex-saturated age, Christians who are supposed to be set apart will seemingly tear into each
other over sexual practises in ways we don't over other issues.
__________________
Isa 54:17 NKJV No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You
shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD.
28th September 2010, 07:31 PM #157

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
Thank you for clarifying that. Very helpful.

LOL we could have saved about 14 pages of discussion if it had been said right from the beginning.
Will this congregational policy be individual for each denom/faith group or one for the entire congregational section?
28th September 2010, 08:23 PM #158

Location: Michigan
Posts: 11,703
Blessings: 12,631
Jim47
My Mood
Heaven Bound
Reps: 847,647,777,115,895 (power: 847,647,777,132)
62
My answer here is that what will make it work in recovery that won't allow it to work in the congregational forums? Would you rather
discuss this in a real life situation in court or in your church?
I still believe the congregational forums are the best place for any discussions of sin and if they can't be discussed in the
congregational forums then they shouldn't be allowed at all. I will not go to recovery to discuss this or anything else. I want only to
discuss it in my home congregational forum, and no place else.
Part of the problem is that you are trying to accomadate those who wish to live a sinful life style (not a persoanl level maybe, but
certainly within CF) Their is no place within the walls of God's house to condone sin. Sin is utterly sinful and if we take the worldly
attitude to accept it then we are no longer true witnesses of God's hoolliness and His will concerning sin.
God holds his hand out all day just waiting to forgive those who are repentant and give them full parden. It was for this reason that
Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross, so that we sinners could be redeemed and become children of faith.
28th September 2010, 08:23 PM #159

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
If I can use a bit of self promotion for a moment, I do like our definition. I do believe that any definition of promotion of
homosexuality needs to be very specific or else you are going to end up with 15 mods all with a different interpretation,
and some very annoyed members.
__________________
28th September 2010, 08:27 PM #160

Location: Michigan
Posts: 11,703
Blessings: 12,631
Jim47
My Mood
Heaven Bound
Reps: 847,647,777,115,895 (power: 847,647,777,132)
62
This is fine in my eyes.

__________________
Jn 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was
no longer any sea.
Rev 21:2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed
for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They
will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.
Rev 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of
things has passed away."

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
28th September 2010, 08:44 PM #161

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
How can this be thrown into areas such as WWMC, ELCA Lutheran, and UCC?? All three areas do not in any way find
homosexuality to be sinful. None of the above mentioned groups find it a sin to endorse openly gay clergy in commited
relationships. None of the groups find it to be a sin if two same sex people are in a committed relationship with one
another.
If our denom's and congregations support this, how are supposed to look the other way?
There has to be a concession made for the open and affirming congregation groups on CF.
__________________
available for all, beginning with the least and the last and the lost--and have instead believed and taught that the kingdom
of God is available for the elite, beginning with the correct and the clean and the powerful. we have been preoccupied
with guilt and money, power and fear, control and status--not with service and love, justice and mercy, humility and hope.
-Brian McLaren
28th September 2010, 08:58 PM #162

My Mood
Reps: 42,175,080,475,787,440 (power: 42,175,080,475,790)
25
How can this be thrown into areas such as WWMC, ELCA Lutheran, and UCC?? All three areas do not in any way
find homosexuality to be sinful. None of the above mentioned groups find it a sin to endorse openly gay clergy in
commited relationships. None of the groups find it to be a sin if two same sex people are in a committed
relationship with one another.
I agree completely. Well said.

__________________
28th September 2010, 09:26 PM #163

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
Both I and the Church which ordained me will continue to support GLBT Christians.
Same here. I will not take a step back towards regression.

__________________
-Brian McLaren
28th September 2010, 09:39 PM #164

Posts: 355
My Mood
How can this be thrown into areas such as WWMC, ELCA Lutheran, and UCC?? All three areas do not in any way
find homosexuality to be sinful. None of the above mentioned groups find it a sin to endorse openly gay clergy in
commited relationships. None of the groups find it to be a sin if two same sex people are in a committed
relationship with one another.
My concern with this would be that phrase "find it a sin". What if we were to come across a church that labelled itself a
Christian church but did not find adultery to be a sin, or did not find witchcraft to be a sin? Should a community allow
those people to promote lifestyles and behaviours which it (the community) considers sinful simply because the specific
individuals do not consider it sinful?
This just creates more questions about where lines are drawn.
__________________
28th September 2010, 09:45 PM #165

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
Yall bring up an interesting point about groups and how they are governed.
Faith based forums that are not actual denominations are not governed by a body of any sorts and the beliefs are all mixed
together. In this thread we have talked about what the denominations believe and how they act accordingly so it would appear
to me that only the denominations proper will be allowed to discuss this topic. WWMC, Spiritfilled, Conservative Christians as
well as other groups that are not governed by a body merely a group of like minded from mixed beliefs.
SO if we are talking just the governed bodies like you all have been talking about then we are left with only the ones that are
the denominations proper not mixed faith groups.
ex OBOB, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.,
So if we do allow the talks it will have to be done inside the proper denomination home forums from the argument that has
been on both sides.
__________________
28th September 2010, 09:55 PM #166

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
My concern with this would be that phrase "find it a sin". What if we were to come across a church that labelled
itself a Christian church but did not find adultery to be a sin, or did not find witchcraft to be a sin? Should a
community allow those people to promote lifestyles and behaviours which it (the community) considers sinful
simply because the specific individuals do not consider it sinful?
A church by itself does not have a subforum within CF. So that is too extreme to be taken as a serious threat IMO.
Witchcraft and adultery are not orientations and are not supported in any way whatsoever by even the most liberal of
Christian churches. The denom's have drawn the line....CF does not have to in this sense.
I can understand for some that this is a valid worry and I am not trying to discount that....but ultimately, there is not one
mainline Christian Denom that will support these things...not even the UCC.
__________________
-Brian McLaren
28th September 2010, 09:58 PM #167

Dark_Lite Posts: 12,216
Yup yup yup yup Blessings: 2,767,976
Reps: 537,319,194,746,246,272 (power: 537,319,194,746,267)
Faith based forums that are not actual denominations are not governed by a body of any sorts and the beliefs are
all mixed together. In this thread we have talked about what the denominations believe and how they act
accordingly so it would appear to me that only the denominations proper will be allowed to discuss this topic.
WWMC, Spiritfilled, Conservative Christians as well as other groups that are not governed by a body merely a
group of like minded from mixed beliefs.
SO if we are talking just the governed bodies like you all have been talking about then we are left with only the
ones that are the denominations proper not mixed faith groups.
So if we do allow the talks it will have to be done inside the proper denomination home forums from the
argument that has been on both sides.
Well, there is the ELCA and UCC forums.

__________________
Uh huh, uh huh.
28th September 2010, 10:01 PM #168

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
Originally Posted by Dark_Lite
Well, there is the ELCA and UCC forums.
Thats true but it appears in both of those forums they are pretty much dried up.
__________________
28th September 2010, 10:02 PM #169

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
Faith based forums that are not actual denominations are not governed by a body of any sorts and the beliefs are
all mixed together. In this thread we have talked about what the denominations believe and how they act
accordingly so it would appear to me that only the denominations proper will be allowed to discuss this topic.
WWMC, Spiritfilled, Conservative Christians as well as other groups that are not governed by a body merely a
group of like minded from mixed beliefs.
SO if we are talking just the governed bodies like you all have been talking about then we are left with only the
ones that are the denominations proper not mixed faith groups.
I think that this would be appropriate (though I feel that WWMC should be allowed the same) and would serve well to
keep the arguments down as debate is not even allowed in the congregation areas.
Now, my question is, how would this "promotion" work in the UCC, ELCA, United Methodist, and Anglican groups? They
are all open and affirming.
__________________
-Brian McLaren
28th September 2010, 10:03 PM #170

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
Thats true but it appears in both of those forums they are pretty much dried up.
With this new rule, I would expect a considerable influx of folks into both forums.
__________________
-Brian McLaren

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
members.
28th September 2010, 10:10 PM #171

Location: Astral
Gwenyfur
Posts: 27,927
Stand where you cannot lose
My Mood
40 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
Same here. I will not take a step back towards regression.
I thought your signature bore a bit of re-reading and introspection considering the current topic:
crossing boundaries to serve people formerly considered "outsiders." We have instead launched or baptized wars, perpetuated
racism, and defended an unjust status quo. We have betrayed the message that the kingdom of God is available for all,
beginning with the least and the last and the lost--and have instead believed and taught that the kingdom of God is available
for the elite, beginning with the correct and the clean and the powerful. we have been preoccupied with guilt and money, power
and fear, control and status--not with service and love, justice and mercy, humility and hope.
-Brian McLaren
I know I don't count on CF any longer due to my beliefs...but your signature is immently relevant to the subject.
__________________
Men should be judged, not by the tint of their skin, the Gods they serve, the Vintage that they drink, nor by the
way they fight, or love, or sin, but by the quality of the thought they think.
--Laurence Hope
Warriors dance along a knife edge, maintaining the balance of their totality...celebrating strength while keeping it
rigidly under control, only bringing it to bear when it is appropriate and unavoidable.
--Anon
28th September 2010, 10:13 PM #172

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
This is a definition that put together in this thread of what they think constitutes promotion
Originally Posted by Tenebrae/Davidnic
Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible. Promotion of
homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of
the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do
not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions
that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the
bounds of their churches teachings as always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a
lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion but be aware flame rules will
be strictly enforced"
__________________
28th September 2010, 10:21 PM #173

Michie Location: Woods
Shrine of the Holy Query Posts: 29,837
My Mood
Reps: 321,373,763,894,632,512 (power: 321,373,763,894,670)
Much better!
__________________
Your socks stink.
dir="ltr">
From what does such contrariness arise in habitually angry people, but from a secret cause of too high an opinion of themselves so that it
pierces their heart when they see any man esteem them less than they esteem themselves? An inflated estimation of ourselves is more than
half the weight of our wrath.
St. Thomas More
28th September 2010, 10:22 PM #174

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Define "lifestyle"? It's an insult fabricated by the conservative right.

__________________
28th September 2010, 10:28 PM #175

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
My concern with this would be that phrase "find it a sin". What if we were to come across a church that
labelled itself a Christian church but did not find adultery to be a sin, or did not find witchcraft to be a
sin? Should a community allow those people to promote lifestyles and behaviours which it (the
community) considers sinful simply because the specific individuals do not consider it sinful?
This just creates more questions about where lines are drawn.
Interracial marriage used to be a sin. The argument of what is sin and what isn't is pointless, because it's as divided
as religion itself and anyone can find justification for their beliefs, regardless of how wrong they might be.
__________________
28th September 2010, 10:30 PM #176

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Faith based forums that are not actual denominations are not governed by a body of any sorts and the
beliefs are all mixed together. In this thread we have talked about what the denominations believe and
how they act accordingly so it would appear to me that only the denominations proper will be allowed to
discuss this topic. WWMC, Spiritfilled, Conservative Christians as well as other groups that are not
governed by a body merely a group of like minded from mixed beliefs.
SO if we are talking just the governed bodies like you all have been talking about then we are left with
only the ones that are the denominations proper not mixed faith groups.
And what about those of us who do no belong to any governing body?

__________________
28th September 2010, 10:32 PM #177

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Can you please remove the "being gay and being Christian" not being compatible? Gay is an orientation. It has
nothing to do with behavior.
__________________
28th September 2010, 10:46 PM #178

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
Define "lifestyle"? It's an insult fabricated by the conservative right.
definition is the way a person lives
And what about those of us who do no belong to any governing body?
You hold an MJ icon.
Can you please remove the "being gay and being Christian" not being compatible? Gay is an orientation. It
has nothing to do with behavior.
That is your pov not the pov that was written by the community.
__________________
28th September 2010, 10:49 PM #179

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
That goes against the SOF of certain congregation forums. How can you expect any ECLA, UCC or any other open
and affirming congregation to lie to a homosexual telling them that they need to step away from a sin that is not
recognized by these congregations?
Unless of course, you plan on removing these congregations...they have after all, dried up.....right?
I smell something nasty brewing here on CF.

__________________
As Christians, too often we have forgotten the teachings of Jesus about making peace and turning the other cheek
and crossing boundaries to serve people formerly considered "outsiders." We have instead launched or baptized
wars, perpetuated racism, and defended an unjust status quo. We have betrayed the message that the kingdom of
God is available for all, beginning with the least and the last and the lost--and have instead believed and taught
that the kingdom of God is available for the elite, beginning with the correct and the clean and the powerful. we
have been preoccupied with guilt and money, power and fear, control and status--not with service and love, justice
and mercy, humility and hope.
-Brian McLaren
28th September 2010, 10:56 PM #180

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
definition is the way a person lives
In other words, there is no such thing as the "gay lifestyle" and it's basically indistinguishable from the straight
lifestyle.
You hold an MJ icon.
Yes, but I reject all organized religion.
That is your pov not the pov that was written by the community.
No it is an attraction. "Being gay" even if celibate, is not, and will never be a sin.
__________________

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
These Ads
-Discuss Faith Go Away!
-Get Accountability
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
members.
28th September 2010, 11:11 PM #181

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
That goes against the SOF of certain congregation forums. How can you expect any ECLA, UCC or any other
open and affirming congregation to lie to a homosexual telling them that they need to step away from a sin
that is not recognized by these congregations?
Unless of course, you plan on removing these congregations...they have after all, dried up.....right?
I smell something nasty brewing here on CF.
The alternative is to have no discussion on the subject what so ever which is where we started from and what prompted
this thread.
In other words, there is no such thing as the "gay lifestyle" and it's basically indistinguishable from the
straight lifestyle.
Yes, but I reject all organized religion.
No it is an attraction. "Being gay" even if celibate, is not, and will never be a sin.
I am not sure what you are getting at here.
The bottom line is I think most everyone wants to have discussions allowed on this topic with the stipulation from the
site that there is no promotion. If we cannot come to an agreements as a community then the topic will be re-banned
out right and I don't think that everyone wants that.
CF will never make 100% of the membership happy and we realize that however we do strive for the happiest medium
possible.
Now we have to work to a solution with the guidelines that are here.
__________________
28th September 2010, 11:31 PM #182

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
You have no right to claim who is and who isn't a Christian. I don't care what you believe, but you are
capable of being wrong. A little humility is in order.
So, it didn't take long for the bashing to begin.
Just as I thought.
Scriptures says you'll know them by their fruit.
Is homosexuality fruit of the Spirit?
Evidently it is, according to some in this thread.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 11:32 PM #183

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I agree. Only God knows who are truly His and who are not. Saving faith is a gift from God. Engaging in
same-sex relations does not automatically make someone not a Christian. Using that line of thinking
anyone who engages in heterosexual sex, who is not married must also not be a Christian. What makes a
person a non-Christian, is lack of faith in Christ.
Faith, and not a changed life.
hum...then I gues it is also possible for a "Christian" to engage in adultry willingly, as long as they have faith.
Yea...right.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 11:38 PM #184

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
And therein is the problem. If the Bible is mistranslated then your authority is wrong. If the Bible is
translated according to a particular denominations' POV then your doctrines and views of the textus are
tainted. Needless to say that I disagree with your point of view. Both I and the Church which ordained me
will continue to support GLBT Christians.
Lets take your line of thought.
Since we don't have the original autographs of the Prophets and Apostles, then Christianity has no basis.
On what authority does the church stand on?
Word of mouth passed down that could in and of itself be tainted and added to?
You get 20 people in a circle, whisper to one a secret and tell them to pass it on to the nect person. What are the
chances that by the time it gets to the last person, an idea or extra line has been added, or who is going to assure
me that it will word-for-word what was passed on?
Now who is making themselves judge and jury of what is and isn't God's word?
Ya'll can pint your fingers at me and condemn me for what I believe to be right, ya'll accuse me of judging who is
and who isn't a Christian, yet you sit here and judge me.
Strange
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 11:42 PM #185

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)

The alternative is to have no discussion on the subject what so ever which is where we started from and
what prompted this thread.
I will "try" to be a good "christian".

__________________
-Brian McLaren
28th September 2010, 11:48 PM #186

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
How can this be thrown into areas such as WWMC, ELCA Lutheran, and UCC?? All three areas do
not in any way find homosexuality to be sinful.
Herein lies another problem.
If WWMC and ELCA do not view "homosexual" behavior as a sin, and someone comes asking about it, any advice
given them in that direction (i,e,: committed gay relationships) would go against the new rule.
This group would be given an exception to the rule while other groups like Baptists would be held accountable.
This is extremely unfair to the rest of us.
You can't make one rule apply to one group while granting exceptions to others.
Either make promotion of "homosexual" activities verboten across the board or resend the rule.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
28th September 2010, 11:49 PM #187

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
So, it didn't take long for the bashing to begin.
Just as I thought.
Scriptures says you'll know them by their fruit.
Is homosexuality fruit of the Spirit?
Evidently it is, according to some in this thread.
God Bless
Till all are one.
I didn't bash you. I told you that you have no right to claim who is or isn't Christian. It's a rule violation.
__________________
28th September 2010, 11:56 PM #188

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I didn't bash you. I told you that you have no right to claim who is or isn't Christian. It's a rule violation.
Did I say "Jase is not a Christian"?
Have I judged anybody in this thread and said they weren't a Christian?
Then you have no right to level such a claim or accuse me of doing so.
My beliefs allow me to judge for myself who is and who isn't a Christian.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -Mt. 7:20 (KJV)
From the general attitude I'm getting, its perfectly alright for a person to come to church, repent, and go right
back out committing whatever sin they were committing before repenting.
That is not true repentance.
If that constitutes being "Christian" then I'm sorry. There will be a lot of people saddened on that day they have to
stand before the Lord.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
29th September 2010, 12:03 AM #189

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Did I say "Jase is not a Christian"?
Have I judged anybody in this thread and said they weren't a Christian?
Then you have no right to level such a claim or accuse me of doing so.
My beliefs allow me to judge for myself who is and who isn't a Christian.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -Mt. 7:20 (KJV)
From the general attitude I'm getting, its perfectly alright for a person to come to church, repent, and go
right back out committing whatever sin they were committing before repenting.
That is not true repentance.
If that constitutes being "Christian" then I'm sorry. There will be a lot of people saddened on that day
they have to stand before the Lord.
God Bless
Till all are one.
There are many Christians on this board, who also happen to be gay - so yes, your statements have accused them of
not being Christian, which is not allowed.
__________________
29th September 2010, 12:11 AM #190

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
Herein lies another problem.
If WWMC and ELCA do not view "homosexual" behavior as a sin, and someone comes asking about it, any
advice given them in that direction (i,e,: committed gay relationships) would go against the new rule.
This group would be given an exception to the rule while other groups like Baptists would be held
accountable.
This is extremely unfair to the rest of us.
You can't make one rule apply to one group while granting exceptions to others.
Either make promotion of "homosexual" activities verboten across the board or resend the rule.
God Bless
Till all are one.
I agree that it would be unfair. I would prefer it if this new rule was recinded. It in itself is unfair (IMO).
My question was not intended to come across that way...It was more a question of what to do when these rules go
against the foundations of these certain congregation groups.
Agree with your "till all are one".

__________________
-Brian McLaren


-- CF2 Renew

B
S
a
-Discuss Faith
T
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
29th September 2010, 12:16 AM #191

Location: Astral
Gwenyfur
Posts: 27,927
My Mood
40 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
I think it would behoove everyone, and the productivity of the conversation if we stop taking remarks as personally addressing, and stick to the
very impersonal rule and its wording of how to accomodate some members who are gay and who believe they are christian and reconcile their
need to discuss issues unique to their lives on this board amongst other members who are christian and believe homosexuality is a sin.
Objectivity in this situation gains much.

__________________
Men should be judged, not by the tint of their skin, the Gods they serve, the Vintage that they drink, nor by the way they fight, or
love, or sin, but by the quality of the thought they think.
--Laurence Hope
Warriors dance along a knife edge, maintaining the balance of their totality...celebrating strength while keeping it rigidly under
control, only bringing it to bear when it is appropriate and unavoidable.
--Anon
29th September 2010, 12:28 AM #192

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
There are many Christians on this board, who also happen to be gay - so yes, your statements have accused them of not
being Christian, which is not allowed.
For you, it may be "OK" but for me, it isn't.
And please show me where I have singled out any "homosexual" on this forum.
Point me to them.
We are supposed to practice fidelity to our faith.
Jesus said:
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" -Mt. 7:16 (KJV)
I am perfectly able to judge for myself whether a person is a Christian or not.
It will show in their fruits.
Like I said before:
From the general attitude I'm getting, its perfectly alright for a person to come to church, repent, and go right back out
committing whatever sin they were committing before repenting.
The SBC, of which I am a member of says:
This is also reflected in the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000:
XV. The Christian and the Social Order

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society.
Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly
and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in
Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice,
and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to
provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the
unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to
bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly
love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause,
always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth.
Exodus 20:3-17; Leviticus 6:2-5; Deuteronomy 10:12; 27:17; Psalm 101:5; Micah 6:8; Zechariah 8:16; Matthew
5:13-16,43-48; 22:36-40; 25:35; Mark 1:29-34; 2:3ff.; 10:21; Luke 4:18-21; 10:27-37; 20:25; John 15:12; 17:15; Romans
12–14; 1Corinthians 5:9-10; 6:1-7; 7:20-24; 10:23-11:1; Galatians 3:26-28; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:12-17; 1
Thessalonians 3:12; Philemon; James 1:27; 2:8.
Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, Section XV, The Christian and the Social Order
The Baptist Faith & Message
And here you are telling me I am wrong for beliving what I believe scriptures teach, and I'm wrong for upholding what my Baptist
faith teaches.
My faith, my demonination says that homosexuality is a sin. And anybody who actively engages in this sin are sinners. They are not
true Christians.
Nobody but the Holy Spirit can make me, or force me to compromise what I believe is true.
Like my signature says:
Calling a spade a spade is not wrong. Calling a spade and pickaxe is.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
#193

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
Gentlemen STOP arguing with each other.
It does not help the argument either way it just highlights the schism on this board.
__________________
29th September 2010, 12:36 AM #194

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Gentlemen STOP arguing with each other.
It does not help the argument either way it just highlights the schism on this board.
I offer my sincere and heartfelt apologies to you.
But I will not be made to be wrong in adhering to what I believe and what my denomination believes to be true.
I will not compromise what I believe for nobody except God.
When His Spirit convicts me that I am wrong, then and only then will I change.
But until then...
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
29th September 2010, 01:56 AM #195

Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
And neither will I. My denomination both ordains and accepts Homosexuals. I can & Will support them regardless of what this board believes or
accepts.
__________________
29th September 2010, 02:33 AM #196

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
And neither will I. My denomination both ordains and accepts Homosexuals. I can & Will support them regardless of what
this board believes or accepts.
Yes.
__________________
As Christians, too often we have forgotten the teachings of Jesus about making peace and turning the other cheek and crossing
boundaries to serve people formerly considered "outsiders." We have instead launched or baptized wars, perpetuated racism, and
defended an unjust status quo. We have betrayed the message that the kingdom of God is available for all, beginning with the least
and the last and the lost--and have instead believed and taught that the kingdom of God is available for the elite, beginning with the
correct and the clean and the powerful. we have been preoccupied with guilt and money, power and fear, control and status--not
with service and love, justice and mercy, humility and hope.
-Brian McLaren
29th September 2010, 02:41 AM #197

Posts: 355
My Mood
I am concerned by the comment "Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible.". I don't doubt for
a minute that some do but at the same time I think we need to differentiate the passive state of "being gay" with the active choice to "pursue a gay relationship".
As a heterosexual man I'm attracted to women... it's the way I am, I can't help it, God made me this way etc, etc, etc. But if I were to act on those attractions my wife
might have something to say about it. The desire isn't a sin, to act on it is. Likewise (in my opinion) someone who is gay is merely someone who has a particular area
of temptation that I do not happen to share. Someone who chooses to pursue a gay relationship has crossed the line from passive temptation to the active decision to
sin.
__________________
29th September 2010, 03:40 AM #198

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
I am concerned by the comment "Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible.". I don't
doubt for a minute that some do but at the same time I think we need to differentiate the passive state of "being gay" with the active choice to "pursue a
gay relationship".
As a heterosexual man I'm attracted to women... it's the way I am, I can't help it, God made me this way etc, etc, etc. But if I were to act on those
attractions my wife might have something to say about it. The desire isn't a sin, to act on it is. Likewise (in my opinion) someone who is gay is merely
someone who has a particular area of temptation that I do not happen to share. Someone who chooses to pursue a gay relationship has crossed the line
from passive temptation to the active decision to sin.
What would you offer as an alternative to that statement?

__________________
29th September 2010, 03:56 AM #199

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Perhaps since many groups, my own included believe that the orientation is not a sin but the act is; that something more like this
instead would split that difference and more accurately represent the tenor of the rule:
Many Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life is against Christian
morality.
That way it also represents those groups that believe that having the orientation is much like being weak and prone to other sins
but it is the choice you make with the struggle you are given that is the issue.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
29th September 2010, 04:13 AM #200

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
The decision is made that homosexuality will not be promoted or validated on the board, as far as I know that is not up for
discussion. So our goal should be making sure that charity and compassion are represented in the rule we make for the discussion
but not promotion of homosexuality in the congregational areas while upholding the new site rule against promotion.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!

29th September 2010, 04:18 AM #201

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
So the proposed change would look like this:
Many Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life is
against Christian morality. Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue
relationships with members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with,
and while we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive
discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the
bounds of their churches teachings. As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of
charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with
this issue as part of their lives. So be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced."
I also added, "Or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives" near the end.
Does that address the concerns brought up...does it bring up new ones for others or does it split the
difference adequately at this point within the room we have been given to work?
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
29th September 2010, 04:46 AM #202

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
To those who have a problem with the fact that homosexuality can not be promoted or validated. My
brothers and sisters, and I do not use that term as a throw away honorific but mean it deeply, allow me to
say something in all honesty and good intent.
That part of the rule will not, to my understanding, change. I do not doubt your love and compassion. I do
not, for a second pretend to see the heart of you or anyone else in this world and I do not presume to judge
you. Although we disagree I love you and call you a brothers and sisters in Christ with the force and depth
of my whole heart.
My advice is to focus on making the wording of the rule for allowing discussion but not promotion as
compassionate and charitable to those who could and will be hurt as we can. Help us make sure that flames,
derision and hate will not be shown to a young man or woman we never see who is reading posts on this site
but came here confused and searching.
Do what you can within the bounds you have. Although you may feel obligated to raise the larger issue, this
would not be the place and doing so will likely prevent your contributions to the charity of what we come up
with here.
Even if it is not to the wording of the rule, contribute to the conversation of the spirit of its' enforcement and
the overall discussion.
Do not let what you view as perfect become the enemy of good. In that I mean work with those with whom
you disagree on where you can agree...and that would be that although we do not all agree on the broader
issue we do on the fact that love and compassion must not be tossed aside for those who struggle with this
and any post on the board must not cross the line from: "I believe strongly this is wrong for these reasons..."
to essentially telling someone "you are not loved by God"
I urge you to do the good you can here in making what we do as charitable as possible.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.

29th September 2010, 05:26 AM #203

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Many Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively

homosexual way of life is against Christian morality. Promotion of homosexuality constitutes
actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the same sex. We realize that
this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of
homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address
these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings.
As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to
shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of
their lives. So be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced."
I also added, "Or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives" near
the end.
Does that address the concerns brought up...does it bring up new ones for others or does it split
the difference adequately at this point within the room we have been given to work?
I have a problem with it in that as I have said numerous times Baptists do not believe that one can be "gay"
and "Christian" at the same time.
The phrase: "Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible." essentially
describes the Southern Baptist position.
The SBC and my home church refuse to admit into membership/fellowship any person who is actively
involved in a homosexual relationship.
Neither will we ordain as Pastors, Elders, Deacons, teachers, etc. those actively particapating in a
homosexual relationship.
The Southern Baptist Conference felt so strongly over this issue that in 2001 they split with a group of
Baptists in Texas (GBCT) over this issue and also withdrew from the Baptist World Alliance.
The Presbyterian Conference of America (PCA) recently split from the Presbyterian Conferance of the United
States (PCUSA) over this very same issue.
While I understand some here feel this "lifestyle" or "orientation" is not a sin, I know others who do. And to
change "Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible." to: "Many
Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life is against
Christian morality." is a slap in the face to us. Its saying basically that what we believe (SBC) and the PCA
does not matter.
I believe the statement: "Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is
compatible." acturately reflects the attitude of over 16,000,000 Christians within the Southern Baptist
Conference.
And I will fight against any form to change it to reflect otherwise.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
posts.
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
posts.
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
29th September 2010, 05:36 AM #204

Location: Astral
Gwenyfur
Posts: 27,927
My Mood
40 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
Dean,
Not all gays are actively involved in relationships. Some, who are members of churches who believe homosexuality is a
sin, choose to live a celibate life rather than commit a sin against God.
They give up the flesh in order to live godly lives, and live lonely, isolated lives because of who they are...even as they
try to live a righteous life and are outcasts...or live on the fringe because of who they are.
I believe (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that this is what Davidnic means by the phrase
against Christian morality
__________________
Men should be judged, not by the tint of their skin, the Gods they serve, the Vintage that they drink, nor by
the way they fight, or love, or sin, but by the quality of the thought they think.
--Laurence Hope
Warriors dance along a knife edge, maintaining the balance of their totality...celebrating strength while
keeping it rigidly under control, only bringing it to bear when it is appropriate and unavoidable.
--Anon
29th September 2010, 05:42 AM #205

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
I believe the statement: "Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is
compatible." acturately reflects the attitude of over 16,000,000 Christians within the Southern
Baptist Conference.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Well how about changes highlighted:
"Christian Forums does not allow the promotion of Homosexuality. On this topic the congregations represented
at CF have two general views. Many do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible. Many
believe that it is the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life that is against
Christian morality. As far as Christian Forums is concerned promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively
encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue
that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not
wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home
congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings as expressed at the beginning of this
statement. As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to
shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives.
So be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced."
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
#206

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Originally Posted by Gwenyfur
Dean,
Not all gays are actively involved in relationships. Some, who are members of churches who
believe homosexuality is a sin, choose to live a celibate life rather than commit a sin against God.
They give up the flesh in order to live godly lives, and live lonely, isolated lives because of who
they are...even as they try to live a righteous life and are outcasts...or live on the fringe because of
who they are.
Yep that is what several churches here teach. That the desire to express your sexuality homosexually is a
temptation.
Much like some have other weaknesses to other sins. be it other forms of Lust, Pride, Anger...ect. It is how
we respond to the temptation. Do we give in or not that defines the sin. Not the weakness toward it.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
29th September 2010, 06:34 AM #207

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Well how about changes highlighted:
"Christian Forums does not allow the promotion of Homosexuality. On this topic the congregations
represented at CF have two general views. Many do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is
compatible. Many believe that it is the the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual
way of life that is against Christian morality. As far as Christian Forums is concerned promotion of
homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with
members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and
while we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive
discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums
within the bounds of their churches teachings as expressed at the beginning of this statement. As
always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut
down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their
lives. So be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced."
I still have a problem with the highlighted section above.
As I said several posts ago, in the more Liberal congregation sections, a person struggling with the
homosexual "lifestyle/orientation" may ask for some guidance, Suppose some in these Liberal sections tell a
member that as long as they have faith, and are in a loving committed relationship, alls good.
Isn't that "promotion"?
Yes it is.
I understand passions run "high" on both sides of the issue here.
Even though I disagree with most who have posted here in favor of this, I respect their right to do so even
though I disagree with them.
But I have been hit especally hard because I have stood up for what I believe, and for what my denomination
believes. And I would be remiss in my duties as an Elder in the Baptist church to back away from what I
believe.
There can be no "middle" ground here.
That is why I advocate either completely do away with the rule, which accomodates the Liberal
congregations and is a slap in the face to the more Conservative congregations, or enforce it and
accomodate Conservative Congregations and slap the Liberals in the face.
Dean,
Not all gays are actively involved in relationships. Some, who are members of churches who
believe homosexuality is a sin, choose to live a celibate life rather than commit a sin against God.
They give up the flesh in order to live godly lives, and live lonely, isolated lives because of who
they are...even as they try to live a righteous life and are outcasts...or live on the fringe because of
who they are.

homosexual way of life is against Christian morality
Gweny, you of all people here know how much I love you and respect your opinion above all others.
While "celibacy" may be an opition for some, not all who struggle with this are blessed to stay that way. Paul
says that is a gift, (cf. 1 Cor. 7:7) and not all are blessed with that gift.
Even the Catholic church agrees with me on this:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Christian virgins, called by the Lord to cling only to
him with greater freedom of heart, body, and spirit, have decided with the Church’s approval to
live in a state of virginity" (922; emphasis added). As this statement points out, celibacy also bears
strong witness to true sexual liberation. For liberation consists of man being able to master his
passions rather than giving in to his whims.
Celibacy Is a Gift
By Greg Mockeridge
Celibacy Is a Gift (This Rock: February 2001)
Suppose a "gay" person is in Sunday school teaching and the lesson that day is on the "homosexual" issue.
Suppose they said that here is what scripture says, but I don't believe it.
Does this not open the door to eventual teaching of others that there is nothing wrong with the homosexual
lifestyle?
In my opinion it does.
I'm trying very hard here to be considerate of both sides. That is why I also have been an advocate for CF to
pick a side, right or wrong, and go with it.
Either enforce the rule and cut off discussion completely, which would anger the Liberal congregations and
some Catholics, or allow discussion and do the same to the Conserative Congregations.
I can live partially with Davidic's defintion, however, as I pointed out, even that has flaws.
If discussion is allowed, Conservative/Fundamentalists like mysellf will always speak out against it. And, of
course, the Liberal/Modernistics will always speak out in favor if it. And more than likely the flaming will not
stop on either side.
So where has this gotten us? Nowhere. All this discussion has done thus far is to stop reports being
generated for a period of two weeks.
Which brings up another issue.
If discussion is only allowed in Recovery or the Ask a Chaplain section, what if a person who is struggling
with this is counciled by a Presbyterian or Baptist Chaplain? We can guess what the answer would be.
However, if they are counciled by a Chaplain from a Liberal congregation, we know their stance. Would not
this Chaplain be guilty by default of promotion?
As I see it, yes.
I have continually been the voice of the Conservative/Fundamentalist in this thread, and it isn't hard to see
how many times I have attacked because of my beliefs and stance.
I see no middle ground here.
Allow discussion for the sakes of the Liberal/Modernistic congreagations and anger the
Conservative/Fundamentalists. Disallow discussion for the sakes of Conservative/Fundamentalists and anger
my Liberal/Modernistic brethren.
As long as this is a topic for the church to address, and it is a topic, and as long as CF has
Conservative/Fundamentalists and Liberal/Modernists voicing opinions on both sides, the reporting/flaming
will continue.
And I still see no middle ground here.
From 1742 when the first Baptist Confession in America was made until today, Baptist have maintained the
position I advocate for.
The Philadelphia Confession, 1742, Chapter 26 , Of Marriage
1. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman; neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for
any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.1
2. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife,2 for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue,3
and for preventing of uncleanness.4
3. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent;5 yet it is the duty of
Christians to marry in the Lord;6 and therefore such as profess the true religion, should not marry with infidels, or
idolators; neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are wicked in their life,
or maintain damnable heresy.7
4. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity, forbidden in the Word;8 nor can such
incestuous marriages ever be made lawful, by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live
together as man and wife.9
Footnotes:
1. Ge 2:24; Mal 2:15; Mt 19:5-6.

2. Ge 2:18.
3. Ge 1:28.
4. 1Co 7:2,9.
5. Heb 13:4; 1Ti 4:3.
6. 1Co 7:39.
7. Ne 13:25-27.
8. Lev 18:1-30.
9. Mk 6:18; 1Co 5:1.
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/pc26.htm
And yet, I'm in the wrong.
Well, I've said enough for now, I'll back away and watch to see how long it takes for me to get bashed for
what I said this time.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
posts.
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
posts.
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
29th September 2010, 06:44 AM #208

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Well, I've said enough for now, I'll back away and watch to see how long it takes for me to get
bashed for what I said this time.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Well I hope you don't get bashed you are just giving your opinion and standing by what you believe like
everyone else and you should be able to do that.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
29th September 2010, 06:47 AM #209

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
I still have a problem with the highlighted section above.

As I said several posts ago, in the more Liberal congregation sections, a person struggling with
the homosexual "lifestyle/orientation" may ask for some guidance, Suppose some in these Liberal
sections tell a member that as long as they have faith, and are in a loving committed relationship,
alls good.
Isn't that "promotion"?
Yes it is.
It is my understanding that would be promotion and not be allowed under the new rule no matter what is
decided here about discussion. So that is an issue for the advisers to figure out how that will go down and
what the situation is for those congregational areas.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.
posts.
posts.
29th September 2010, 06:49 AM #210

Location: Astral
Gwenyfur
Posts: 27,927
My Mood
40 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
Well, I've said enough for now, I'll back away and watch to see how long it takes for me to get bashed for
what I said this time.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Didn't say you were wrong

I guess I misread your post a bit
Be well and travel light today

__________________
Men should be judged, not by the tint of their skin, the Gods they serve, the Vintage that they drink, nor by
the way they fight, or love, or sin, but by the quality of the thought they think.
--Laurence Hope
Warriors dance along a knife edge, maintaining the balance of their totality...celebrating strength while
keeping it rigidly under control, only bringing it to bear when it is appropriate and unavoidable.
--Anon

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
29th September 2010, 06:56 AM #211

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Didn't say you were wrong

I guess I misread your post a bit
Be well and travel light today
I know you didn't.
As a matter of fact, I'm probably more in agreement with you than you think or give me credit for.
I'm not at work, I called in last night and I stayed at home because I'm coming down with either the flu or the common
cold.
Stopped up nose, coughing, hard to breath.
And with the rains we had this week (five to six inches in two days) and the impending tropical storm heading my way,
(another 5-6 inches) I may not go to work again tonight.
As always Sister, you command my love and respect.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean

29th September 2010, 07:30 AM #212

Posts: 355
My Mood
I'd suggest something that referenced a physical homosexual relationship rather than the generic "being gay" and to be
honest I would also be a little way of saying it is not possible to be a Christian even if one is involved in such a
relationship.
Thinking of homosexuality as a form of sinfulness much like lust, pride, etc, most Christians struggle with one or more
forms of sin. For example we don't say that Christianity is incompatible with watching pornography because it implies that
someone who watches porn is not a Christian, as opposed to the fact we would expect a Christian to avoid watching porn
while realising that many Christians face very real struggles with it. At the same time I would expect any Christian
struggling with any form of sin to be seeking to escape from it rather than promoting it or saying it's OK to sin because
everyone else does, or whatever other excuse is en vogue at the moment.
So with that in mind I would say something along the lines of what DavidNic said here:
On this topic the congregations represented at CF have two general views. Many do not believe that being a
Christian and being gay is compatible. Many believe that it is the promotion of and/or participation in an
actively homosexual way of life that is against Christian morality. As far as Christian Forums is concerned
promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of
the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to
allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to
address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings as
expressed at the beginning of this statement.
To be honest I think this accepts the difference between inclinations and actions and makes clear that the actions are
what matters. I think a lot of the arguments in favour of homosexuality fall down when applied to heterosexual couples - if
as a heterosexual man I find myself unable to settle down with one partner does that make it OK for me to sleep with a few
women outside of marriage? If my wife decides for whatever reason she no longer wants a physical side to our marriage do
I get to argue that I don't have the gift of celibacy and therefore divorce her and remarry, or take a mistress on the side?
At some point we have to draw the line and say certain actions are sinful no matter how inconvenient that is to us as
individuals. For myself I find much of the book of James inconvenient but I can't imagine the argument "well I never had
the gift of charity so I ignored that bit" would carry much weight at the Throne of Judgment.
__________________
29th September 2010, 10:50 AM #213

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Faith, and not a changed life.
hum...then I gues it is also possible for a "Christian" to engage in adultry willingly, as long as they have faith.
Yea...right.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Drop the attitude, you really don't know it all and you clearly don't know what you're talking about on this one. The
Christian life is one of daily repentance for sins we know we commit and sins we don't know we commit. The Christian is
simultaneously saint and sinner and the two natures are constantly at war. As long as we live in these bodies of flesh,
which are tainted by the sinful nature, we will continue to sin.
As Christians we repent of these sins, because we know that sinning is wrong. It is possible for a Christian to commit a
sin, adultery is not uncommon among Christians and taking your position it seems you're saying that if a Christian does
commit adultery they do so inadvertently. How does that one work? You also seem to believe that when a person is
made a Christian by God, then that person ceases to sin. This position contradicts this scripture:
1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
Also keep in mind that what a person posts on a message board is not the whole of their lives. It's just a tiny snippet. You
have declared that people can not be gay and Christian. Yet Christ died for the whole world so that their sins could be
forgiven, they could be born-again and could be Christians, this includes homosexuals, regardless of whether you and the
SBC like it or not.
__________________
Last edited by Zecryphon; 29th September 2010 at 11:29 AM.
29th September 2010, 10:56 AM #214

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
*snip
Ya'll can pint your fingers at me and condemn me for what I believe to be right, ya'll accuse me of judging who
is and who isn't a Christian, yet you sit here and judge me.
Strange
God Bless
Till all are one.
1 Corinthians 5:12 gives Christians the right to judge those within the church. Are you in the church? If so, then we can
judge you. You go around and act like a fruit inspector of others and saying "you will know them by their fruit," yet when
other Christians do the same to you, you don't like it and consider it "bashing of you and your beliefs." So apparently it's
okay for YOU to judge others, but not for others to judge you.
__________________
29th September 2010, 11:00 AM #215

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
For you, it may be "OK" but for me, it isn't.
And please show me where I have singled out any "homosexual" on this forum.
Point me to them.
We are supposed to practice fidelity to our faith.
Jesus said:
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" -Mt. 7:16 (KJV)
I am perfectly able to judge for myself whether a person is a Christian or not.
It will show in their fruits.
Like I said before:
The SBC, of which I am a member of says:
This is also reflected in the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000:
Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, Section XV, The Christian and the Social Order
The Baptist Faith & Message
And here you are telling me I am wrong for beliving what I believe scriptures teach, and I'm wrong for
upholding what my Baptist faith teaches.
My faith, my demonination says that homosexuality is a sin. And anybody who actively engages in this sin are
sinners. They are not true Christians.
Nobody but the Holy Spirit can make me, or force me to compromise what I believe is true.
Like my signature says:
Calling a spade a spade is not wrong. Calling a spade and pickaxe is.
God Bless
Till all are one.
You did not single out any one homosexual and say they are not Christian. You said a person could not be gay and be a
Christian. You condemned an entire group. God decides who is and is not a Christian, not you or the SBC.
__________________
Last edited by Zecryphon; 29th September 2010 at 11:32 AM.
29th September 2010, 11:05 AM #216

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Many Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life is against
Christian morality. Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships
with members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do
not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow
members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches
teachings. As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut
down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives. So be
aware flame rules will be strictly enforced."
I also added, "Or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives" near the end.
Does that address the concerns brought up...does it bring up new ones for others or does it split the difference
adequately at this point within the room we have been given to work?
I like this and am very comfortable with it.

__________________
29th September 2010, 11:09 AM #217

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
I have a problem with it in that as I have said numerous times Baptists do not believe that one can be "gay" and
"Christian" at the same time.
The phrase: "
Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible." essentially describes the Southern
Baptist position.
The SBC and my home church refuse to admit into membership/fellowship any person who is actively involved in
a homosexual relationship.
Neither will we ordain as Pastors, Elders, Deacons, teachers, etc. those actively particapating in a homosexual
relationship.
The Southern Baptist Conference felt so strongly over this issue that in 2001 they split with a group of Baptists
in Texas (GBCT) over this issue and also withdrew from the Baptist World Alliance.
The Presbyterian Conference of America (PCA) recently split from the Presbyterian Conferance of the United
States (PCUSA) over this very same issue.
While I understand some here feel this "lifestyle" or "orientation" is not a sin, I know others who do. And to
change " Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible." to: "Many
Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life is against
Christian morality." is a slap in the face to us. Its saying basically that what we believe (SBC) and the PCA does
not matter.
I believe the statement: " Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible."
acturately reflects the attitude of over 16,000,000 Christians within the Southern Baptist Conference.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Be that as it may, the Southern Baptist belief, does not rule this board. So while you may wrongly believe that someone
who is gay can not be a Christian, many more people, who far outnumber the SBC convention, do. If you wanna play the
numbers game, you lose. If you wanna play the scripture game, you lose on that one too. Because Christ died and rose
again to forgive the sins of everyone, not just heterosexuals, not just whites, not just those people that agree with you and
the SBC. Everyone. All I see in your posts is condemnation of other people, no compassion and certainly no grace. That is
not the whole message of Christ.
__________________
29th September 2010, 11:23 AM #218

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Deacon, I don't understand your position. You are claiming celibacy is a gift that not all gays have (which I agree with),
but you are also saying gays cannot be Christian, and cannot be redeemed. So you're basically asking this rule to
effectively say "Homosexuals are a lost cause and will be going to hell. Supporting them in anyway is strictly prohibited."
Arborvita already said this rule will not please everyone. So I see no reason why we should be catering to the miniscule
16,000,000 Southern Baptists and outright condemning all gay people to hell with this rule. Your beliefs are in the
extreme minority among Christianity. This rule at the very least should cater to a majority.
__________________
29th September 2010, 11:34 AM #219

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
Please, folks, keep it civil and stop making it personal.
Regardless of what one's personal beliefs are, we're discussing CF's stance on the matter and how we're dealing with it in
the congregational areas.
We are NOT debating about whether homosexuality is a sin or not. That is off the table.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand
against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities,
against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the
full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done
everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of
righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all
this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of
salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of
prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------

29th September 2010, 11:41 AM #220

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Deacon, I don't understand your position. You are claiming celibacy is a gift that not all gays have (which I
agree with), but you are also saying gays cannot be Christian, and cannot be redeemed. So you're basically
asking this rule to effectively say "Homosexuals are a lost cause and will be going to hell. Supporting them in
anyway is strictly prohibited."
Arborvita already said this rule will not please everyone. So I see no reason why we should be catering to the
miniscule 16,000,000 Southern Baptists and outright condemning all gay people to hell with this rule. Your
beliefs are in the extreme minority among Christianity. This rule at the very least should cater to a majority.
I agree. DeaconDean's position that a person who is gay can not be a Christian is wrong. But I disagree that this rule
should cater to any one group in particular. The rule should allow discussion on the congregational level, and the rules
for flaming should be enforced a lot more strongly than they have been in the past, so we don't get threads that generate
a lot of reports. We already have people in this thread saying that they will not honor or follow the new rule. It's a
no-brainer what should be done with these people. Watch them and their posts and when they refuse to follow this rule
run 'em through the staff actions tier until they either change their behavior or refuse to change their behavior and get
themselves banned.
If people are not capable of civil discussion without resorting to flaming others who disagree with them, then they really
don't belong on a forum of adults who wish to discuss things in a civil tone and not have to up with being attacked for
what they believe, regardless of which side of the issues of same-sex sex and homosexuality as an orientation they fall on.
__________________

-- CF2 Renew

Be
C
Su
Join over 250,000 Members T
an
-Discuss Faith
Th
-Get Accountability Go
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
29th September 2010, 11:45 AM #221

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Originally Posted by PreachersWife2004
Please, folks, keep it civil and stop making it personal.
Regardless of what one's personal beliefs are, we're discussing CF's stance on the matter and how we're dealing with it in the congregational areas.
We are NOT debating about whether homosexuality is a sin or not. That is off the table.
Well CF's stance on this doesn't seem all that solidified yet. While they have said they will not tolerate promotion of homosexuality,
they have not really defined what constitutes promotion. If they have, could you direct me to the post where this was defined, so
that I may no longer be in ignorance.
As for making it personal, let me just remind you that if someone comes after me for what I believe... well you know what typically
happens. I tend to shred them on the spot. I have tried to refrain from doing that here, but if I have, I apologize and you are free
to take whatever action against me you deem necessary.
__________________
29th September 2010, 12:56 PM #222

TheManeki Posts: 3,052
Christian Humanist Blessings: 136,514
My Mood
32 Reps: 6,342,253,318,534,939 (power: 6,342,253,318,541)
I'm reminded of a story my grandmother told me about the church she once attended in the 1960s in rural north Georgia. One of
the girls in the congregation had caused a scandal by doing the unthinkable -- marrying a black man. The good Christians leading
the church, holding to the orthodox view of the time that miscegenation was a sin, immediately expelled the happy couple. Then
they expelled anyone who objected to or even asked to discuss the leadership's actions -- for promoting an un-Christian lifestyle,
as it were. (My grandmother, being unable to refrain from referring to stupidity as such, also was purged from their ranks).
The expelled Christians formed a new church, the aptly-named Battlefield Church, which is still going strong today. The other
church eventually wasted away; Granma took me by where it once stood, now replaced by a vibrant AME church with a different
name, the old church forgotten by all but the old-timers.
I've invested a few years here, and because I've grown fond of this place it pains me greatly to see CF's leadership now making a
similar mistake in their own pursuit of orthodoxy and harmony. Since this decision was made because of rancorous discussion, I
would suggest that a better use of the staff's time would be to ensure that the tone of the discussions remain civil, instead of
hunting down and cutting off discussion altogether. As history has shown, today's orthodoxy may be tomorrow's heterodoxy, and
discussion allows the Body of Christ to more easily adapt to such changes instead of wasting away like my Granma's old church.
__________________
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world..and this
knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to
hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn...
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are
caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred
books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof
and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they
say nor the things about which they make assertion.
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Last edited by TheManeki; 29th September 2010 at 02:42 PM.
29th September 2010, 01:06 PM #223

JacktheCatholic Posts: 16,278
MATTHEW 18:3-6 Blessings: 17,717,165
My Mood
Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 1,004,342,598,547,742,848 (power: 1,004,342,598,547,762)
I am just now subscribing.
I would like to thank Davidnic for doing a great job of representing OBOB.
I would also like to thank Administration for having this thread opened.
__________________
Sister Churches: Communion between Orthodox and Catholic Draws Near
29th September 2010, 01:08 PM #224

Posts: 355
My Mood
I'd just like to very loudly second the comments made by a few people that whatever form of words is decided it needs to show
compassion to all, gay or straight.
The last thing people need is to be hounded and made out to be some kind of walking evil incarnate... for all I believe any form of
physical homosexual relationship is a sin the words of Jesus regarding logs and specks come to mind and for all I believe it is my
duty to call sin sin, it is neither my duty nor even my right to be casting the first stone whether it be literal or metaphorical.
__________________
29th September 2010, 01:21 PM #225

Join Date: 20th April 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,648
Wesley1738
My Mood
Think yourself, and let think.
Blog Entries: 4
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,854,792)
23
Subscribing.
29th September 2010, 01:48 PM #226

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Deacon, I don't understand your position. You are claiming celibacy is a gift that not all gays have (which I agree with),
but you are also saying gays cannot be Christian,
Yes, that is the position of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Greater Gaston Baptist Association, and mine.
and cannot be redeemed.
Now I have a problem here, please quote to me exactly where I said that. Post it here for me and the whole world to see.
So you're basically asking this rule to effectively say "Homosexuals are a lost cause and will be going to hell. Supporting
them in anyway is strictly prohibited."
Again, please quote to me exactly where I said that.
Arborvita already said this rule will not please everyone. So I see no reason why we should be catering to the miniscule
16,000,000 Southern Baptists and outright condemning all gay people to hell with this rule. Your beliefs are in the
extreme minority among Christianity. This rule at the very least should cater to a majority.
Oh, I see now.
Who cares what the largest Protestant group in America believes.
Lets cater to what everybody else believes and force Baptists to accept others POV.
The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 says:
In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of
sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography.
And I am wrong for standing up for what I believe to be true and also for believing that Christians should oppose homosexuality.
But yet, I am wrong for Baptists are but a "miniscule" and a "extreme minority".
This is not Congress, this is not the House of Representatives where people are represented by population with larger groups
have more of a say-so because their denomination is bigger than others.
I see now.
Our believes aren't valid. Since 3/4's of Christian denominations say homosexuality is a valid lifestyle, lets force this
viewpoint on Baptists.
Strange that also in 1992, then Cardinal John RatRatzinger:
authored a Vatican document that condemned homosexuality as an "objective disorder" and a "strong tendency ordered
towards an intrinsic moral evil" Rejecting the concept of gay human rights, the document asserted that there is no
"right" to laws protecting homosexual people against discrimination, suggesting that the civil liberties of lesbians and
gay men can be "legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct."
Source
And:
The Pope has attacked same-sex marriages as "evil" and vilified supporters of gay equality as "gravely immoral." He has
also denounced homosexual equality as a "deviant trend" and condemned same-sex love as being "without any social
value." He even threatened to excommunicate Catholic legislators who voted for gay rights laws.
Source
So it does not look like the Baptists are the only denomination that believes the same way we do.
Both you and Zecryphon have attacked me from the start for my denominations beliefs.
And it does not look like it is likely to stop.
"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men
shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding
glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." -Mt. 5:10-12 (KJV)
"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also
persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." -Jn. 15:20 (KJV)
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter!" -Isa. 5:20 (KJV)
That you Lord for the persecutioins I am enduring in this thread. Thank you Lord that I am being attacked for standing up for
what I believe to be true. Let them keep attacking and persecuting me Lord for your sake. I know I am right for the persecutions
sake.
Let it keep coming Lord.
Thank you Lord.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
Last edited by DeaconDean; 29th September 2010 at 02:08 PM.
29th September 2010, 02:22 PM #227

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
When did this become a debate on the Catholic position? If you want me to state the direct and full Catholic position I can. But it
is not the purpose of this thread. But I do feel the need to clarify since Moral Theology is my specialty within my degree. I will
spoiler box it since it is not the point of the thread.
Spoiler for Catholic Position: Show
As far as the rule goes. Keep giving your opinion. Propose a form, you seem to like the first one. And let the advisers decide. Stick
to your guns and stand by your belief and let the decision be made how it is made.
That is my thought. My proposal is that at the end of this thread we gather all proposed forms of the rule for the congregational
areas and put them in one post so the advisers have them handy.
Dean my brother, I respect you standing by your position and beliefs as befits and is your responsibility as an elder in your
church.
But let's not make this a debate on the Catholic position beyond what is already stated. It will detract from the purpose of the
thread.
__________________
Other causes demand commitment, abortion demands complicity. Other causes survive by energy and attention. The survival of
the abortion industry - and it is an industry - depends upon avoidance and silence.
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
29th September 2010, 02:23 PM #228

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
MOD HAT ON
KNOCK. IT. OFF.
This is not about what your church believes or what his church believes or what my church believes
regarding homosexuality.
What we are trying to do here is formulate what it means to promote homosexuality for the purposes of
congregational forums being able to discuss homosexuality.
Whether it is a sin or not is OFF THE TABLE. Do not continue to argue about that. Posts that do so will
more than likely be summarily deleted as they will be considered off-topic to the thread.
CF has taken the stance that discussion of homosexuality is not allowed. We are trying to work this so
that it is allowed in congregational areas, but if you guys can't discuss this without erupting into the very
flames we're looking to stop, then we can go back to the outright banning of the topic.
MOD HAT OFF

__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the
devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers
of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that
when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then,
with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the
readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all
the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in
the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the
saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------

29th September 2010, 02:31 PM #229

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Would it help if we gathered all proposed forms for reference at this point since the thread is getting long?
I think we have three or four with different wording. Plus other suggestions like, just do away with the rule or enforce it fully.
First version:
Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible. Promotion of homosexuality
constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the same sex. We realize
that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of
homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues
within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings as always discussions
are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive
discussion but be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced"
second:
Many Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life is against
Christian morality. Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with
members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish
to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address
these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings. As always
discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive
discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives. So be aware flame rules will be
strictly enforced."
Third:
"Christian Forums does not allow the promotion of Homosexuality. On this topic the congregations represented at CF
have two general views. Many do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible. Many believe that it is
the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life that is against Christian morality. As far as
Christian Forums is concerned promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue
relationships with members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and
while we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow
members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings
as expressed at the beginning of this statement. As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of
charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue
as part of their lives. So be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced."
Thoughts on the three versions. Succinct reasons you have problems with what you have problems with and proposed solutions.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
29th September 2010, 02:43 PM #230

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Oh and I am not trying to be pushy...sorry if it seems that way. Library work makes me reflexively organize things. Sorry if it
comes across in any other way.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
Go Away!
-Get Accountability
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
29th September 2010, 02:55 PM #231

My Mood
Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 1,004,342,598,547,742,848 (power: 1,004,342,598,547,762)
I like this one:
against Christian morality. Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue
relationships with members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with,
and while we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive
discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the
bounds of their churches teachings. As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of
charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with
__________________
29th September 2010, 02:56 PM #232

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
I'm gonna close this for now for a cool-down.
Arbor or any one of the other admins/advisors can reopen it when they see fit.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities,
against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the
full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done
everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of
righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all
this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of
salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of
prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------

29th September 2010, 06:01 PM #233

Blog Entries: 1
30 Reps: 141,495,005,278,843,760 (power: 141,495,005,278,872)
Reopening....
I would like to remind everyone that we have to work towards a definition of what promotion is.
Please work together and not fight with each other.

__________________
29th September 2010, 06:09 PM #234

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
I like this one, I think it works best within the boundaries we have:
"Christian Forums does not allow the promotion of Homosexuality. On this topic the congregations represented
at CF have two general views. Many do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible. Many
believe that it is the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life that is against
Christian morality. As far as Christian Forums is concerned promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively
encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that
many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to
shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational
forums within the bounds of their churches teachings as expressed at the beginning of this statement. As always
discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive
discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives. So be aware flame rules
will be strictly enforced."
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
29th September 2010, 06:17 PM #235

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)
Whether it is a sin or not is OFF THE TABLE. Do not continue to argue about that.
I appreciate you clarifying that it's not up for discussion here, and I hope that can be kept in mind for future
posts. But I'm wondering if you can please clarify whether it's off the table because CF will not hold any formal
stand on the issue, or because it does. Thanks.
29th September 2010, 07:22 PM #236

Posts: 355
My Mood
I like this one, I think it works best within the boundaries we have:
compatible. Many believe that it is the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way
of life that is against Christian morality. As far as Christian Forums is concerned promotion of
homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the
same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish
to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow
members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their
churches teachings as expressed at the beginning of this statement. As always discussions are subject
to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion or
to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives. So be aware flame rules will
be strictly enforced."
I like this one too... I think it reflects the compassion we are called to show to all while also making clear that encouraging
it is not permitted.
__________________
29th September 2010, 07:30 PM #237

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
I still consider the statement "many do not believe being Christian and being gay to be compatible" to be insulting. It is a
claim that the way someone is, makes them incapable of being Christian. Do we make rules prohibiting the promotion of
being black or left-handed? The above quote just sounds painfully biased and ignorant.
I also think you should clarify "pursuing relationships with members of the same sex". While we know what it's intended to
mean, it still technically prohibits even forming friendships.
__________________
29th September 2010, 07:51 PM #238

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
I still consider the statement "many do not believe being Christian and being gay to be compatible" to be
insulting. It is a claim that the way someone is, makes them incapable of being Christian. Do we make rules
prohibiting the promotion of being black or left-handed? The above quote just sounds painfully biased and
ignorant.
I also think you should clarify "pursuing relationships with members of the same sex". While we know what it's
intended to mean, it still technically prohibits even forming friendships.
Well it is a compromise in wording. A not insignificant percentage of denominations believe that and the other not
insignificant percentage believe the other phrase. Those are the two views that are not promotion.
As far as the relationships would the addition of the word Homosexual before relationships satisfy your concerns? I think
everyone knows what that means and as long as the mods have an agreed understanding of what that means it will work.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
29th September 2010, 08:41 PM #239

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I have one question and it is only for those with the Blue A's:
Does CF and its executive staff view homosexuality as a sin?
Nowhere is its position made.

You may also or you may prefer to answer me in private via Pm, this would be acceptable also.
Rule Change effective immediately...

It has come to the attention of staff, that some of the topics we discuss on our site are not only causing
contention within our forums, but are also dividing us as a family of Christ, and this should not be. We should
not be tearing one another apart over any issue. So in the best interest of you, our family in Christ, we are
making these changes to our controversial topics rule:
Controversial Topics
The following subjects are considered controversial topics on Christian forums:
o Abortion
o Adultery/Premarital Sex
o Homosexuality
o Illegal Activity
Abortion, Adultery/Premarital Sex and Illegal Activity will only be discussed in Ethics & Morality,
Christian Philosophy and Ethics, Congregation category, Recovery category, and any of its
sub-forums. You will not post about these subjects in other forums.
Homosexuality will not be promoted anywhere at Christian Forums. Furthermore,

homosexuality may only be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the
purposes of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.
Just to clarify CF's position, it needs to be made abundantly clear to the membership that we are
stopping the promotion of homosexuality but if folks are dealing with this issue personally and want
help or need someone to listen to them in their time of need, a loving, listening ear can always be
found on this site in our Recovery forums and with our Chaplains.
We do not condone the flaming/belittling of individuals who practice or who are struggling with
any of these things.
In addition, any topics which are contrary to Christian Forums' Statement of Faith, such as
Universalism and non-Trinitarianism, may only be discussed in the Unorthodox Theology Forum.
Thank you. If you have any questions or concerns please start a thread in the Member Services
Center. Discussion of this new policy in CF public forums is also not allowed.
Tishri1
on behalf of
CF Staff
And, after further discussion in private, I am also pleased to announce that I will fully support Davidic's third
proposal:
compatible. Many believe that it is the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way
of life that is against Christian morality. As far as Christian Forums is concerned promotion of
homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the
same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish
to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow
churches teachings as expressed at the beginning of this statement. As always discussions are subject
to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion or
to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives. So be aware flame rules will
be strictly enforced."
This is flexible to the point that it recognizes that the majority of Protestants (Baptists, Anabaptists, Reformed,
Presbyterian (PCA), Charasmatics, Pentecostals, etc.) do not accept homosexual actives as acceptable or morally Ok, but
also recognizes that certain Liberal congregations do.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
Last edited by DeaconDean; 29th September 2010 at 09:07 PM.
29th September 2010, 08:57 PM #240

My Mood
32 Reps: 6,342,253,318,534,939 (power: 6,342,253,318,541)
Since you are looking for a compromise, David, it would be tough to do better than something along the lines of:
"Many Christians do not find being gay and Christian compatible, and many Christians find being gay and Christian
compatible."
__________________
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world..and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for
an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we
should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian
and laugh it to scorn...
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when
they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to
call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position,
although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!

29th September 2010, 09:05 PM #241

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Originally Posted by TheManeki
Since you are looking for a compromise, David, it would be tough to do better than something along the lines
of:
"Many Christians do not find being gay and Christian compatible, and many Christians find being gay and
Christian compatible."
I think that would go against the promotion part of the new rule unless it specified that the compatible type was one
that was celibate.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion
Bob Casey Sr.
29th September 2010, 09:13 PM #242

My Mood
32 Reps: 6,342,253,318,534,939 (power: 6,342,253,318,541)
I think that would go against the promotion part of the new rule unless it specified that the compatible type
was one that was celibate.
It is very interesting to see that something as innocuous as stating an indisputable fact is viewed with such suspicion.
__________________
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing
for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics;
and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn...
29th September 2010, 09:35 PM #243

Location: been in the USA and Canada
2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)
I still consider the statement "many do not believe being Christian and being gay to be compatible" to be
insulting. It is a claim that the way someone is, makes them incapable of being Christian.
Some people appear to have expressed that belief. I personally believe something different as very well outlined by what
Davidinc has put in her spoilers. However, I see no reason to pretend that such beliefs do not exist simply because I
don't agree with them.
Do we make rules prohibiting the promotion of being black or left-handed? The above quote just sounds
painfully biased and ignorant.
I also think you should clarify "pursuing relationships with members of the same sex". While we know what it's
intended to mean, it still technically prohibits even forming friendships.
__________________
"I am tradition" Pope Pius IX
29th September 2010, 09:36 PM #244

2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)
I think A lot of what Davidinc has said is good and represents what I've seen in the OBOB better than I could.
I have no problem with promotion being off the table, as long as everybody knows what promotion is as regards to the
rule and Seeing as promotion IS off the table it needs to be defined well in the rules, so we know what exactly is off the
table. It also helps to explain why to some degree as that helps define the borders too.
__________________
29th September 2010, 09:53 PM #245

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,497
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
Would it help if we gathered all proposed forms for reference at this point since the thread is getting
long?
I think we have three or four with different wording. Plus other suggestions like, just do away with
the rule or enforce it fully.
First version:
Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible. Promotion of
homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members
of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while
we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive
discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational
forums within the bounds of their churches teachings as always discussions are subject to the
rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion
but be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced"
second:

homosexual way of life is against Christian morality. Promotion of homosexuality
constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the
same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we
do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive
discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational
forums within the bounds of their churches teachings. As always discussions are subject to
the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive
discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives.
Third:
"Christian Forums does not allow the promotion of Homosexuality. On this topic the
congregations represented at CF have two general views. Many do not believe that being a
Christian and being gay is compatible. Many believe that it is the promotion of and/or
participation in an actively homosexual way of life that is against Christian morality. As far
as Christian Forums is concerned promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively
encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the same sex. We realize
that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow
promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow
members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the
bounds of their churches teachings as expressed at the beginning of this statement. As
always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our
desire to shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with
Thoughts on the three versions. Succinct reasons you have problems with what you have problems
with and proposed solutions.
I really appreciate all the constructive discussion and team work happening here, yet I am still partially
disappointed with the in house bickering but can appreciate that emotions do run high....Please try to keep
that side of the discussion to a dull roar ok so we can work here, but in all honesty this just shows again
why we have to do something about this.
Ok all that to say, I love each of these examples and any one of them will work fine.... Can I offer a couple
of lines that might resonate well in here? I actually heard them first from one of our moderate brothers so
my hope is that it does find favor because of that, and may help with the wording to better describe
promotion in "the actions" vs "the group" and avoid vilifying any group here
here is the proposed statement:
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of same-sex sex and same sex attraction. Many
Christians believe that this affirmation runs counter to Christian morality.
Realizing this is an issue, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address
this topic within the bounds of their churches' teachings, in their own home congregational forums.
Therefore discussion without promotion of this topic will be allowed in congregational/church forums.
Understand though, every discussion is subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our
desire to shut down productive discussion but we will not allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue
as part of their lives either.
So be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced.
How does that fit for everyone?

__________________
Last edited by Tishri1; 29th September 2010 at 10:25 PM.
29th September 2010, 09:57 PM #246

My Mood
Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 1,004,342,598,547,742,848 (power: 1,004,342,598,547,762)
that side of the discussion to a dull roar ok so we can work here but in all honesty this just shows again why we
have to do something about this.
Ok all that to say, I love each of these examples and any one of them will be fin.... can I offer a couple of lines
that might resonate well in here? I actually heard them first from one of our moderate brothers so my hope is
that it does find favor because of that, and will help with the wording to better describe both promotion and
"the actions" vs "the group" and avoid vilifying any group here
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of same sex sex and same sex attraction. Many
Therefore this topic will be allowed in congregational/church forums.
how does that fit for everyone?
I like it
__________________
29th September 2010, 10:03 PM #247

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
I think that would go against the promotion part of the new rule unless it specified that the compatible type
was one that was celibate.
Why? Nothing in the statement "many Christians do not find being gay and being Christian to be incompatible" refers to
behavior. It clearly says being gay.
I don't understand why there is such a need to equate every reference to a gay person with their behavior. It's making
faulty assumptions. The APA does not define being gay as a behavior - nor should we.
__________________
29th September 2010, 10:06 PM #248

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
that side of the discussion to a dull roar ok so we can work here, but in all honesty this just shows again why
we have to do something about this.
Ok all that to say, I love each of these examples and any one of them will work fine.... Can I offer a couple of
lines that might resonate well in here? I actually heard them first from one of our moderate brothers so my
hope is that it does find favor because of that, and may help with the wording to better describe both
promotion in "the actions" vs "the group" and avoid vilifying any group here
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of same sex sex and same sex attraction.
Many Christians believe that this affirmation runs counter to Christian morality.
Realizing this is an issue, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members
to address this topic within the bounds of their churches' teachings, in their own home
congregational forums.
Therefore this topic will be allowed in congregational/church forums.
One question.
In the Liberal areas, this (homosexuality) is not viewed as a sin. Fine, they are entitled to their beliefs.
If it is against the rule to "promote" same sex sex, and/or same sex attraction, what is proposed when a member of said
area comes with a question about their committed relationship with another member of the same sex, and want to
persue it with another.
Wouldn't any advice given constitute "promotion"?
God Bless
Till all are one.
__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
29th September 2010, 10:06 PM #249

Location: Astral
Gwenyfur
Posts: 27,927
My Mood
40 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
The problem with defining promotion here is the same problem we had defining promotion in the CWR (formerly NCR) area...
What one views as sharing fact/belief system when asked a direct question, another views as promotion.
It's a sliding scale, with ever shifting lines and limits, and a complete area of gray with thin borders of white and black on the outer
edges.
__________________
Men should be judged, not by the tint of their skin, the Gods they serve, the Vintage that they drink, nor by the way
they fight, or love, or sin, but by the quality of the thought they think.
--Laurence Hope
Warriors dance along a knife edge, maintaining the balance of their totality...celebrating strength while keeping it
rigidly under control, only bringing it to bear when it is appropriate and unavoidable.
--Anon
29th September 2010, 10:11 PM #250

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,497
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
One question.
In the Liberal areas, this (homosexuality) is not viewed as a sin. Fine, they are entitled to their
beliefs.
If it is against the rule to "promote" same sex sex, and/or same sex attraction, what is proposed
when a member of said area comes with a question about their committed relationship with another
member of the same sex, and want to persue it with another.
Wouldn't any advice given constitute "promotion"?
God Bless
Till all are one.
I forgot to add one part just added it to be more clear about no promotion
Dean Im sorry but Im not going to add lots of examples as that just not necessary here, lets keep this short
and sweet ok?
__________________

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporte
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ad
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
29th September 2010, 10:13 PM #251

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,497
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of same sex sex and same sex attraction. Many
desire to shut down productive discussion but we will not allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as
part of their lives either.

__________________
29th September 2010, 10:18 PM #252

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
My question is this, if a homosexual gets on to say, the liberal board where homosexuality is thought to not be sinful by
most posters and asks for prayers about their relationship with their SO - although they are within a congregation who
believes there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, how they are living, etc. - would anyone be able to respond in a
supportive way without it being considered promotion of homosexuality?
__________________

29th September 2010, 10:21 PM #253

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
I forgot to add one part just added it to be more clear about no promotion
Dean Im sorry but Im not going to add lots of examples as that just not necessary here, lets keep this short and
sweet ok?
Sister, I'm not trying to be obtuse, or hard-headed.
I'm just trying to get a grasp on the situation.

So to the best of my understanding, discussion will be allowed in the Congregational areas but area where this is viewed as
a sin, promotion will be viewed as a violation of the rule while in other areas where it is not viewed sin, advice, (promotion)
will not be ruled a violation.
Is this correct?
Just asking for clarification.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
29th September 2010, 10:21 PM #254

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Tishri, might I ask why "same sex attraction" is included? Attraction is 100% uncontrollable, and there is not a shred of
scriptural verses even mentioning it. I could live with the rest of it, but the word "attraction" requires us to tell people
their mental processes are a sin - which I will not do.
__________________
29th September 2010, 10:30 PM #255

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
Just to chime in . Sooo .. i like the no flaming part . i just have a problem when homosexuality is treated different than other
sins . that's all .
so if saying the mental processes of one sin is wrong . then is it okay in keeping with consistency . . . is it okay to speak
against other thought processes that the bible speaks against as sin . i.e. "anything that doesn't come from faith is sin"
(Romans 14:23) not sparing biblical interpretation methods?
and i think attraction perhaps is redeemable as "appreciation" of what God has made . as a response to the above post .
__________________
May God's love bless you and ever surround you .
-Michael Collum, A seeker to the end
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.
16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that
Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have
power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to
know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
20Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work
within us, 21to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
29th September 2010, 10:34 PM #256

Location: Astral
Gwenyfur
Posts: 27,927
My Mood
40 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
Actually...taht's a truly valid point Michael...
IIRC all sins are equal in the eyes of God, that being the case will there be a no promotion rule for every type of sin?
Is homosexuality being singled out because of the political hot buttons it has become in the USA?
__________________
Men should be judged, not by the tint of their skin, the Gods they serve, the Vintage that they drink, nor by the way they
fight, or love, or sin, but by the quality of the thought they think.
--Laurence Hope
Warriors dance along a knife edge, maintaining the balance of their totality...celebrating strength while keeping it rigidly
under control, only bringing it to bear when it is appropriate and unavoidable.
--Anon
29th September 2010, 10:36 PM #257

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
I was curious about this, since the controversial rule included more than just homosexuality - but it's being singled out.
__________________
29th September 2010, 10:40 PM #258

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
I think it goes a bit deeper than politics ..

__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
29th September 2010, 10:49 PM #259

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
I would also present the following passage of scripture for the board to meditate upon:
Romans 13:8-10 (King James Version)
8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou
shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.
10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
i'll keep watching the conversation and chime in as He leads . hope you guys work it all out .
__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
29th September 2010, 10:54 PM #260

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
I was curious about this, since the controversial rule included more than just homosexuality - but it's being
singled out.
it's the one that's causing the most issues on the board right now...
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against
the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against
the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor
of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to
stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of
faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the
Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in
mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------


-- CF2 Renew


Become a
CF Site
Supporte
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ad
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
View First Unread LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
29th September 2010, 10:54 PM #261

Blessings: 78,134
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of same sex sex and same sex attraction. Many Christians
believe that this affirmation runs counter to Christian morality.
Realizing this is an issue, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address this
topic within the bounds of their churches' teachings, in their own home congregational forums.
Understand though, every discussion is subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire
to shut down productive discussion but we will not allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of
their lives either.
All this amounts to, all bundled up in a fake semblence of love, is this:
"We can tell you it's wrong, but you can't tell us it's right...cuz you'll be real sorry mister!"
"We can tell you that you are living in sin (in a "loving" way) but other's may not tell you that you are not. We want to keep
this negative and rail against you with our interpretation of scripture all wrapped up like a bundle of love....you know...wolf
in sheeps clothing type stuff!"
Have your fun. Keep pretending you're fighting the "good" fight!!
Peace!
__________________
of God is available for the elite, beginning with the correct and the clean and the powerful. we have been preoccupied with
guilt and money, power and fear, control and status--not with service and love, justice and mercy, humility and hope.
-Brian McLaren
29th September 2010, 10:56 PM #262

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
"We can tell you that you are living in sin (in a "loving" way) but other's may not tell you that you are not. We
want to keep this negative and rail against you with our interpretation of scripture all wrapped up like a bundle
of love....you know...wolf in sheeps clothing type stuff!"
Peace!
I'm sad you feel this way. But being rude about it doesn't help the situation any.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------

29th September 2010, 10:57 PM #263

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
it's the one that's causing the most issues on the board right now...
I recall the Jews of the Apostles day lobbied the Roman gov't for the removal of the Christian sect because of all the trouble
it was causing . so from a spiritual perspective . it doesn't exactly follow .
the arguments might be happening for a Christ-like reason .

__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
29th September 2010, 10:58 PM #264

Blessings: 78,134
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
I am not trying to be rude. Also, I quoted Tishri, but that was directed specifically at her nor any one person in particular.
This is exactly how I feel...how I see things going...

__________________
-Brian McLaren
29th September 2010, 11:01 PM #265

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
want to keep this negative and rail against you with our interpretation of scripture all wrapped up like a bundle
of love....you know...wolf in sheeps clothing type stuff!"
Peace!
I agree, and I don't think you are being rude at all. This is the most realistic representation of what the new rule is. I'm
really not comfortable with it and it totally isolates homosexuals and those who do not believe homosexuality is sinful or
somehow worse than other sins.
__________________

29th September 2010, 11:04 PM #266

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
One of my friends i knew from another forum who joined recently stopped coming as soon as he read about this new rule .
he left a visitor message .
Hey Michael... I hope all is well with you... I tried to make a go here but after reading this (see below) in their
FAQ I realized this place is not for me...
I posted this topic below and it was promptly deleted... such a shame people and so unloving and closed minded...
I will pray for them...
Much Love Always joe
I find the text written below to be bigoted and offensive to anyone who is a REAL Christian. I was hoping to find
fellowship here but have realized this is not a loving place but rather a twisted place of judgment and fear...
I will pray for all of you who are lost in this place... however my conscious can not let me stay in such a dreadful
place. I wish you all well!
Please delete my account thank you...
Homosexuality will not be promoted anywhere at Christian Forums. Furthermore, homosexuality may only be
discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purposes of seeking support with struggles
overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.
__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
29th September 2010, 11:05 PM #267

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
Originally Posted by Michael Collum
I recall the Jews of the Apostles day lobbied the Roman gov't for the removal of the Christian sect because of all
the trouble it was causing . so from a spiritual perspective . it doesn't exactly follow .
the arguments might be happening for a Christ-like reason .
What kind of reason do you think they are happening for?
To what end could the insults hurled by both sides be edifying or glorifying to God?
I am not trying to be rude. Also, I quoted Tishri, but that was directed specifically at her nor any one person in
particular.
This is exactly how I feel...how I see things going...
So be it. It's wrong, but so be it. Many people will not like this policy. No one really likes being told what to do or what not
to say. This isn't the first time a topic has been banned at CF.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------

29th September 2010, 11:06 PM #268

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Well, many of us share the same sentiments as Super, but seeing as him like many others have quit over this issue, I don't
think there is a way to help this situation.
__________________
Last edited by Jase; 29th September 2010 at 11:17 PM.
29th September 2010, 11:08 PM #269

Blessings: 78,134
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
I agree, and I don't think you are being rude at all. This is the most realistic representation of what the new rule
is. I'm really not comfortable with it and it totally isolates homosexuals and those who do not believe
homosexuality is sinful or somehow worse than other sins.
Thank you for understanding me!

__________________
-Brian McLaren
29th September 2010, 11:13 PM #270

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Perhaps God is trying to show you guys that your view on this issue is not correct, and he's using us to show you. While you
guys may not like the comparison, every generation has an issue like this ( geocentrism, slavery/segregation, interracial
marriage, women's rights, etc.) where one side condemns it as sin, and the other has to waken them up to the reality of the
situation. I strongly believe this is another in a long line of these issues.
So be it. It's wrong, but so be it. Many people will not like this policy. No one really likes being told what to do or
what not to say. This isn't the first time a topic has been banned at CF.
The history of this board, however, shows that rarely do the mods make the best decisions for the welfare of this board.
However, you're right - none of us are going to agree, so we must deal with it, and either quit, or put up with a new
incarnation of CF.
__________________

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporte
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ad
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
29th September 2010, 11:15 PM #271

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
I think the insults and hurling of emotions is because this issue has a root in people's sexuality . it is so core to our identity
. and most people just don't go that deep . but regardless . Jesus expects us to be like Him to all people . and whether it be
people with actual skin diseases or social lepers like people who are inclined toward homosexuality in the churches .
yet people who have all sorts of sexual problems so long as they are heterosexual in nature can receive ministry . and a non
judgmental sharing atmosphere . but homosexuality is not even given that chance . i think it's emotional because those who
are called to serve in this community feel like they are being given no room to minister .
and those not called to serve .. don't understand anyway . and probably never will . i think in the interest of Christ serving
all sinners with the communion of the Holy Spirit . . . clamping down so harshly is not a good idea . because James did
speak of not showing favoritism . and said .. you can fulfill the royal commandment and love your neighbour but if you show
respect of persons .. then you are guilty . the age is coming to an end . so if homosexuality is hard for you to look at
because it is different than the original created order .. then you ain't seen nothing yet . but God did say when He was on
earth . . .
Matthew 24:12-13 (King James Version)
12because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
So we should take heed . that God knew such times would come . but the mandate now is as it ever was . to love and not let
your heart grow cold .
__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
29th September 2010, 11:21 PM #272

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
Perhaps God is trying to show you guys that your view on this issue is not correct, and he's using us to show you.
While you guys may not like the comparison, every generation has an issue like this ( geocentrism,
slavery/segregation, interracial marriage, women's rights, etc.) where one side condemns it as sin, and the other
has to waken them up to the reality of the situation. I strongly believe this is another in a long line of these issues.
and I don't believe that. But that's also irrelevant. Whether you agree with CF's position that promotion will not be allowed
or not, that's the stance that CF has taken. I'm not going to argue with you over whether homosexuality is a sin or not.
There was nothing going on that was edifying to anyone or glorifying God.
The history of this board, however, shows that rarely do the mods make the best decisions for the welfare of this
board. However, you're right - none of us are going to agree, so we must deal with it, and either quit, or put up
with a new incarnation of CF.
For many of the folks complaining here in this thread, CF did a fine job making decisions back in July of 07. Do you guys
have any idea what the number of members who left over that issue? Of course, that probably didn't bother you much
because it was mostly people who disagreed with your line of thinking.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------

29th September 2010, 11:25 PM #273

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
So be it. It's wrong, but so be it. Many people will not like this policy. No one really likes being told what to do or
what not to say. This isn't the first time a topic has been banned at CF.
The topic isn't being banned though, a particular group of people are being banned from speaking about it - which is the
problem. It is exactly how he said. People who condemn homosexuality and homosexuals are allowed to speak about it all
they want within context and without putting another down, but those who do not believe homosexuality and homosexuals
should be are not allowed to express that.
__________________

29th September 2010, 11:27 PM #274

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
For many of the folks complaining here in this thread, CF did a fine job making decisions back in July of 07. Do
you guys have any idea what the number of members who left over that issue? Of course, that probably didn't
bother you much because it was mostly people who disagreed with your line of thinking.
You make a good point .
i was one of the people who was not here in 2007 .
when i read through the rules i knew right away something must've happened . restrictions usually mean something bad
happened . and the love of God just could not prevail in said situation . it happens all the time . but it doesn't need to
happen this time .
besides, the precedent this restriction sets is different than the others .
__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
29th September 2010, 11:32 PM #275

30 Reps: 28,908,334,960,976,184 (power: 28,908,334,960,977)
This is exactly what's wrong with the new policy.
Also, the new policy is 100% unnecessary if rules against flaming were consistently enforced in the first place.
Last edited by Octorock; 29th September 2010 at 11:39 PM.
29th September 2010, 11:36 PM #276

PreachersWife2004 Location: The land of 10,000 lakes
3700 babies or 2400 trees. You decide. Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
The topic isn't being banned though, a particular group of people are being banned from speaking about it -
which is the problem. It is exactly how he said. People who condemn homosexuality and homosexuals are allowed
to speak about it all they want within context and without putting another down, but those who do not believe
homosexuality and homosexuals should be are not allowed to express that.
There are a number of topics that this is the case. Those who believe in the Trinity can talk about it at will here as much as
they like. Those who do not believe in the Trinity, though, are not allowed to express that.
If there are people who still want to flame homosexuals, they will be dealt with. This isn't a license for people to bag on
them.
You make a good point .
i was one of the people who was not here in 2007 .
when i read through the rules i knew right away something must've happened . restrictions usually mean
something bad happened . and the love of God just could not prevail in said situation . it happens all the time .
but it doesn't need to happen this time .
besides, the precedent this restriction sets is different than the others .
Not really...as I said, this isn't the first time a topic has been banned, or restricted and it probably won't be the last.
We've not done this lightly. We put in a lot of effort at trying other avenues for this topic to be discussed and we spent an
inordinate amount of time dealing with problem posters when it came to this topic.
We are getting off track here, though. The policy is not changing. What we need to do is get feedback as to how the
congregational areas can discuss this (something the membership asked for) without promoting it.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------
29th September 2010, 11:40 PM #277

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
IMHO, putting restrictions up because of troublemakers only encourages people to make more trouble so other topics (that
they don't like) cannot be discussed .
but yes off topic . let's start by defining again ..
"Promotion"
How is "promotion" defined as far as enforcement goes?

__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
29th September 2010, 11:45 PM #278

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
There are a number of topics that this is the case. Those who believe in the Trinity can talk about it at will here as
much as they like. Those who do not believe in the Trinity, though, are not allowed to express that.
If there are people who still want to flame homosexuals, they will be dealt with. This isn't a license for people to
bag on them.
This is the first I've heard about the Trinity issue, why wouldn't that just go in unorthodox theology or something . Plus,
if a denomination/congregational group believed that the Trinity was an inaccurate portrayal of Scripture, than I would
find it ridiculous that they couldn't discuss this on their sub-forum. Are there any?
CF separates flaming from condemning a practice/lifestyle/sin right? So, what Supernaut454 said was not wrong, it was in
fact correct. People are allowed to say that it's wrong, but those who are still Christian's and feel very strongly about the
matter are not allowed to say that they disagree and they see nothing wrong with it.
CF may as well ban the topic in it's entirety because I don't for one second see how controversy will somehow be brought to
a halt just because groups of people, followers of Jesus Christ, are being silenced.
__________________

29th September 2010, 11:49 PM #279

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
This is the first I've heard about the Trinity issue, why wouldn't that just go in unorthodox theology or something
. Plus, if a denomination/congregational group believed that the Trinity was an inaccurate portrayal of
Scripture, than I would find it ridiculous that they couldn't discuss this on their sub-forum. Are there any?
CF separates flaming from condemning a practice/lifestyle/sin right? So, what Supernaut454 said was not wrong,
it was in fact correct. People are allowed to say that it's wrong, but those who are still Christian's and feel very
strongly about the matter are not allowed to say that they disagree and they see nothing wrong with it.
CF may as well ban the topic in it's entirety because I don't for one second see how controversy will
somehow be brought to a halt just because groups of people, followers of Jesus Christ, are being
silenced.
Agreed. Ban the topic entirely....the amount of damage will at least be lessened for those "of whom we do not speak" who
happen to stumble in unawares.
__________________
-Brian McLaren
29th September 2010, 11:51 PM #280

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
IMHO, putting restrictions up because of troublemakers only encourages people to make more trouble so other
topics (that they don't like) cannot be discussed .
but yes off topic . let's start by defining again ..
"Promotion"
How is "promotion" defined as far as enforcement goes?
According to what is written on the Satanism section, promotion on that topic is:
Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including

advertising and publicity.
The biggest issue I find is that mere acceptance is portrayed as supporting, this should not be the same for homosexuality.
Homosexuality and Satanism are not the same thing, and many do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, many
belong to denominations/congregations which believe in the acceptance of homosexuals, even as far as letting them become
clergy.
The only way I can sense to be in any way shape or form reasonable with this is to define "promotion" would be as part of
what the dictionary defines it as:
to help or encourage to exist or flourish
__________________


-- CF2 Renew

B
S
a
-Discuss Faith
T
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
29th September 2010, 11:51 PM #281

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
This is the first I've heard about the Trinity issue, why wouldn't that just go in unorthodox theology or something . Plus,
if a denomination/congregational group believed that the Trinity was an inaccurate portrayal of Scripture, than I would
find it ridiculous that they couldn't discuss this on their sub-forum. Are there any?
Non-Trinitarianism can be freely discussed and even argued in Unorthodox Theology. There is no site-wide ban on discussing that
issue by either viewpoint.
__________________
-Brian McLaren
29th September 2010, 11:58 PM #282

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
There are a number of topics that this is the case. Those who believe in the Trinity can talk about it at will here as much
as they like. Those who do not believe in the Trinity, though, are not allowed to express that.
If there are people who still want to flame homosexuals, they will be dealt with. This isn't a license for people to bag on
them.
Calling homosexuality, or homosexuals "unnatural", "an illness", or needing to be "cured" is all flaming, but are the only adjectives
allowed under this new rule. Saying homosexuality is a naturally occurring orientation prevalent through all animal species falls
under "promotion".
So, sorry, but I don't believe your "they will be dealt with" ideal.
__________________
30th September 2010, 12:00 AM #283

Blessings: 78,127
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,671,686,648)
Calling homosexuality, or homosexuals "unnatural", "an illness", or needing to be "cured" is all flaming, but are the only
adjectives allowed under this new rule. Saying homosexuality is a naturally occurring orientation prevalent through all
animal species falls under "promotion".
So, sorry, but I don't believe your "they will be dealt with" ideal.
Agreed. This is only opening the door for more antigay sentiment.
__________________
-Brian McLaren
30th September 2010, 01:12 AM #284

Posts: 22,932
kiwimac
My Mood
Reps: 658,279,535,376,083,072 (power: 658,279,535,376,114)
50
"We can tell you that you are living in sin (in a "loving" way) but other's may not tell you that you are not. We want to keep this negative
and rail against you with our interpretation of scripture all wrapped up like a bundle of love....you know...wolf in sheeps clothing type
stuff!"
Peace!
Indeed!
__________________
30th September 2010, 01:35 AM #285

Location: Astral
Gwenyfur
Posts: 27,927
My Mood
40 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
and I don't believe that. But that's also irrelevant. Whether you agree with CF's position that promotion will not be allowed or not,
that's the stance that CF has taken. I'm not going to argue with you over whether homosexuality is a sin or not.
There was nothing going on that was edifying to anyone or glorifying God.
For many of the folks complaining here in this thread, CF did a fine job making decisions back in July of 07. Do you guys have
any idea what the number of members who left over that issue? Of course, that probably didn't bother you much because it
was mostly people who disagreed with your line of thinking.
Becky...I love ya...but this was below the belt...
You're a much better person than this!

__________________
--Laurence Hope
--Anon
30th September 2010, 01:35 AM #286

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
I still consider the statement "many do not believe being Christian and being gay to be compatible" to be insulting. It is a
claim that the way someone is, makes them incapable of being Christian. Do we make rules prohibiting the promotion of
being black or left-handed? The above quote just sounds painfully biased and ignorant.
Jase, I wrote that. I'm a celibate gay christian.
Its was written as a statement of fact, many christians do not see being gay and being a christian as being compatible. Stop looking
for offense where none of meant
I also think you should clarify "pursuing relationships with members of the same sex". While we know what it's intended to
mean, it still technically prohibits even forming friendships.
Do you enjoy arguing for the sake of it? 'pursuing romantic relationships with members of the same sex'
The aim of trying to get a specific definition of what consitutes promotion of homosexuality was so it wouldnt be open to as multiple
interpretations. Personally, I dont want a mod to jump on me, if I say "I had a lovely weekend with my girlfriend" and label a
statement of fact as promoting homosexuality.
__________________
30th September 2010, 01:37 AM #287

Gwenyfur
Location: Astral
Posts: 27,927
40 My Mood
Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
There are a number of topics that this is the case. Those who believe in the Trinity can talk about it at will here as much as they like.
Those who do not believe in the Trinity, though, are not allowed to express that.
If there are people who still want to flame homosexuals, they will be dealt with. This isn't a license for people to bag on them.
Not really...as I said, this isn't the first time a topic has been banned, or restricted and it probably won't be the last.
We've not done this lightly. We put in a lot of effort at trying other avenues for this topic to be discussed and we spent an
inordinate amount of time dealing with problem posters when it came to this topic.
We are getting off track here, though. The policy is not changing. What we need to do is get feedback as to how the congregational
areas can discuss this (something the membership asked for) without promoting it.
Actually ... it's not

It was a banned topic from the site's inception until 2005 IIRC.
The topic, in it's entirety, was banned from discussion or even reference everywhere on the site.
Which is what I was told in the member services are that we were returning to...guess that was wrong?
__________________
--Laurence Hope
--Anon
30th September 2010, 01:39 AM #288

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of same-sex sex and same sex attraction. Many Christians believe
that this affirmation runs counter to Christian morality.
Realizing this is an issue, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address this topic
within the bounds of their churches' teachings, in their own home congregational forums.
Understand though, every discussion is subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut
down productive discussion but we will not allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives either.
I dont like the bolded part. I am a celibate lesbian. I have an attraction to women, however choose to remain celibate.
Me stating that I am gay is a statment of fact, it is not promoting anything.
Including that in the rule, for people like me, is labeling us as second class sinful citizens.
__________________
30th September 2010, 01:45 AM #289

My Mood
Blog Entries: 22
Reps: 27,534,666,355,862,168 (power: 27,534,666,355,881)
Many christians do not believe that being a christian and being gay is compatible other christians do not agree.
Promotion of homosexuality consitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue romantic relationships with members of
the same sex. We realise that this is an issue that many christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow
promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these
issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings"
I have cried, prayed, begged God to remove my attraction for women. It hasnt happened. If CF is genuinely interested in
supporting people who struggle with this, I would hope that sexual attraction on its own will not be added to promoting
homosexuality, or you may as well ban me now
__________________

30th September 2010, 03:48 AM #290

My Mood
Reps: 42,175,080,475,787,440 (power: 42,175,080,475,790)
25
This is all very sad. I've read all of this discussion and it just makes me sad. I feel ousted because I'm a liberal Christian, and I can't
imagine how gay Christians much feel.
__________________

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
members.
30th September 2010, 03:55 AM #291

Febble Posts: 206
Newbie Blessings: 1,007,291
My Mood
Reps: 12,580,745,064,935,388 (power: 12,580,745,064,936)
58
I'm sad too. I think I just finally lost what was left of my Christianity. It's been nice meeting some of you, and
I've been touched by the welcome, but I think I've gotta go.
Cheers
Lizzie
30th September 2010, 04:46 AM #292

2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)
Originally Posted by Febble
I'm sad too. I think I just finally lost what was left of my Christianity.
That is sad because I would never make my status as a follower of christ dependent on what others do. I follow
Him because I believe in Him not because I believe in everyone of them.
__________________
30th September 2010, 04:46 AM #293

2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)

Tishri, might I ask why "same sex attraction" is included? Attraction is 100% uncontrollable, and
there is not a shred of scriptural verses even mentioning it. I could live with the rest of it, but the
word "attraction" requires us to tell people their mental processes are a sin - which I will not do.
I think he may have a point here to use adultery as an example. Attraction to another woman may be
disordered but not yet a sin. but acting on it is both. So we don't want to promote adulterous impulses but we
don't want to behave as if the attraction alone is a sins either.
__________________
30th September 2010, 04:47 AM #294

2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)
This is exactly what's wrong with the new policy.
Also, the new policy is 100% unnecessary if rules against flaming were consistently
enforced in the first place.
I think he might have point there. but I personally not going to argue the point except to say I agree with
what DavidInc has said up to this point with regard to the OBOB
__________________
30th September 2010, 04:48 AM #295

2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)

Perhaps God is trying to show you guys that your view on this issue is not correct, and he's using us
to show you.
Invective is note generally the best way to get people to believe things or show them things so may I
respectfully suggest that God tends to be more effective.
__________________
30th September 2010, 04:49 AM #296
2WhomShallWeGo Join Date: 14th May 2010

John 6:54-69 Location: been in the USA and Canada
Posts: 804
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)

want to keep this negative and rail against you with our interpretation of scripture all wrapped up like a
bundle of love....you know...wolf in sheeps clothing type stuff!"
Peace!
I agree, and I don't think you are being rude at all. This is the most realistic representation of what the new
rule is. I'm really not comfortable with it and it totally isolates homosexuals and those who do not believe
homosexuality is sinful or somehow worse than other sins.
I agree, and I don't think you are being rude at all. This is the most realistic representation of what
the new rule is. I'm really not comfortable with it and it totally isolates homosexuals and those who
do not believe homosexuality is sinful or somehow worse than other sins.
To be fair promotion of Homosexuality already goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church and yet we
don't really have this problem you speak of in the OBOB and there are People with same sex attraction in our
forums who can affirm this.
__________________
30th September 2010, 04:53 AM #297

Febble Posts: 206
My Mood
Reps: 12,580,745,064,935,388 (power: 12,580,745,064,936)
58
Originally Posted by 2WhomShallWeGo
That is sad because I would never make my status as a follower of christ dependent on what others
do. I follow Him because I believe in Him not because I believe in everyone of them.
But if believing in christ leads to stuff like this, then why should I?
tbh, I think it's profoundly unchristian.
30th September 2010, 04:58 AM #298

Sitswithamouse Location: Devon, UK
I look Time Lord Posts: 3,856
My Mood
41 Reps: 5,752,933,205,571,647 (power: 5,752,933,205,580)
"We can tell you that you are living in sin (in a "loving" way) but other's may not tell you that you
are not. We want to keep this negative and rail against you with our interpretation of scripture all
wrapped up like a bundle of love....you know...wolf in sheeps clothing type stuff!"
Peace!
^^^^^ This.
All in all these rules allow the "lovingly flaming" of homosexuality.
I also believe that the intention of these rules were to have this scenario all along. I am not the only one who
thinks this.
I'm not going to argue scripture or loving reason as It would be a waste of time, as it would not change
anything that has allready been decided.
Originally Posted by lux et lex
This is all very sad. I've read all of this discussion and it just makes me sad. I feel ousted because I'm
a liberal Christian, and I can't imagine how gay Christians much feel.
As a non-practising Bisexual and was at one time until a few days ago a christian with the Anglican church ( I
expect my post to be deleted TBH).
I struggled for months trying to reconcile my "sin" and how I could be christian and have same sex attraction
.
I had come to terms with many things and it was the love and support of the WWMC congregation that put me
at ease.
I feel whole heartedly that CF is letting many people on both sides down and these rules will ostrasize many
on both sides of the fence.
Discussion has been halted ,and in a way that feels tainted.
Good luck with the rule change and my love to all those affected in a negative way that these rules will affect.
I'm done.
__________________
Power to the people~Wolfie Smith
30th September 2010, 05:17 AM #299

Location: michigan
Posts: 7,175
seajoy My Mood
48
I'm sad too. I think I just finally lost what was left of my Christianity. It's been nice meeting some of you, and I've been touched by
the welcome, but I think I've gotta go.
Cheers
Lizzie
Not sure what the "cheers" is about. But anyway - Your faith is a gift from God and should not be dependent on what other sinful folk may or may
not be saying. God is still in the heavens even when people on this earth bug you.
__________________
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live
by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20
30th September 2010, 05:39 AM #300

2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)
Because your assuming that it's the believeing in Christ part that causes it.
__________________

-- CF2 Renew


Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
30th September 2010, 05:41 AM #301

2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)
Originally Posted by Sitswithamouse
^^^^^ This.
All in all these rules allow the "lovingly flaming" of homosexuality.
I also believe that the intention of these rules were to have this scenario all along. I am not the only one who
thinks this.
Flaming in any form has being addressed several times already.

__________________
30th September 2010, 05:59 AM #302

Location: Astral
Gwenyfur
Posts: 27,927
My Mood
40 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 143,022,763,452,135,536 (power: 143,022,763,452,168)
Well, I should probably keep my mouth shut...but those who know me...yeah...
Anyhow, as the past few posts have shown, it's not the insidious infiltration of sin that causes people to turn away from Christ, or His
teachings...
It's the near fanatical and maniacal actions "protection" and "my interpretation only" attitudes, judgements, and condemnation of
those who claim His name that lead to deconversion.
Time and again I've reviewed the teachings of Christ and compared them to the teachings and dogmas of the various denominations
and churches and in the process find a huge divide between the two.
Christ taught compassion, gentleness, goodness, longsuffering, love, and above all, to leave the judgement to Him.
Christianity, as taught by Christ, is a faith of judging oneself against the measure He set. Judging onesself.
I don't say this in an attempt to be judgemental, flaming, instigatory, or even mean...but in an attempt to get across what I tried to
express before leaving as an Advisor...
That our own "christian" judgements and decisions, some of my own included, were causing more to turn away from the fellowship and
nuturing that should be occurring within the fellowship of the brethren than any amount of non-christian, or non-traditional doctrines
and/or dogmas could ever do.
Be well.
__________________
Men should be judged, not by the tint of their skin, the Gods they serve, the Vintage that they drink, nor by the way they
fight, or love, or sin, but by the quality of the thought they think.
--Laurence Hope
Warriors dance along a knife edge, maintaining the balance of their totality...celebrating strength while keeping it rigidly
under control, only bringing it to bear when it is appropriate and unavoidable.
--Anon
30th September 2010, 06:32 AM #303

Febble Posts: 206
My Mood
Reps: 12,580,745,064,935,388 (power: 12,580,745,064,936)
58
Not sure what the "cheers" is about. But anyway - Your faith is a gift from God and should not be dependent on
what other sinful folk may or may not be saying. God is still in the heavens even when people on this earth bug
you.
OK, let me rephrase/rethink:
For fifty odd years I called myself a Christian. When I was about three or four, I found myself lying in the heather and
thyne on the Island of Caldy, off the Welsh coast, in the sun, gazing into the blue sky, listening to the bees, breathing in
the thyme. And a bell started tolling and the Cistercian monks started singing the angelus. At that moment I fell in love
with the entire universe, and called it God.
I sang in my local Anglican church choir (matins every Sunday) until I was 11 then went to Quaker boarding school. I
became a Quaker, but still felt drawn to churches with a more formal liturgy. I guess I never forgot that Angelus bell. I
was confirmed as an Anglican when I was 18, then married a catholic, and entered the catholic church a little later.
There I stayed until last year (I'm 58 now).
Christianity (not just catholicism) seems to have lost its way. I no longer recognise the God I fell in love with when I was
three. I no longer recognise the Jesus I came to understand from the gospels. As Gandhi allegedly said, when asked what
he thought of Christianity: "it would be a very good idea".
The Jesus I knew condemned, above all, hypocrisy. His targets weren't gays, or even unbelievers, but nitpickers who
wouldn't use their common sense, and insisted on rules at the expense of love. Of course it's better to rescue your donkey
on the Sabbath than leave it to drown. What does doing good mean? It means loving others as you love yourselves. Why
would a father give his son a snake when he asks for bread?
It's not rocket science, Jesus told us. Love one another as I have loved you. Whatever you do for the least of my brothers
you do for me. Which man was neighbour to the traveller on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho?
But Christianity seems to have become exactly what Jesus condemned the pharisees for making religion into.
So I'll rephrase: I will no longer call myself a Christian. That doesn't mean I've lost the last of my christianity though. It's
just that Christianity no longer describes the thing I had.
30th September 2010, 06:48 AM #304

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
I'm sad too. I think I just finally lost what was left of my Christianity. It's been nice meeting some of you, and I've
been touched by the welcome, but I think I've gotta go.
Cheers
Lizzie
That is sad because I would never make my status as a follower of christ dependent on what others do. I follow
Him because I believe in Him not because I believe in everyone of them.
Romans 14:14-16 (New International Version)
14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something
as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in
love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be
spoken of as evil.
As one who is in the Lord Jesus Christ i am fully convinced that no human being is unclean in and of
themselves . If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you do, you are no longer acting in love. Do
not by being opinionated destroy your sister or brother for whom Christ died . Do not allow the promotion of
what you consider to be good, to be spoken of as evil .
__________________

----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so
that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may
have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ,
19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of
God. 20Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at
work within us, 21to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
30th September 2010, 06:53 AM #305

My Mood
Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 1,004,342,598,547,742,848 (power: 1,004,342,598,547,762)
Nm...
__________________
30th September 2010, 06:59 AM #306

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
.
__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Last edited by Michael Collum; 30th September 2010 at 07:06 AM.
30th September 2010, 07:01 AM #307

2WhomShallWeGo
Posts: 804
John 6:54-69
My Mood
Reps: 27,318,961,610,636,060 (power: 27,318,961,610,637)
OK, let me rephrase/rethink:.............................................................

...................................
But Christianity seems to have become exactly what Jesus condemned the pharisees for making religion into.
So I'll rephrase: I will no longer call myself a Christian. That doesn't mean I've lost the last of my christianity
though. It's just that Christianity no longer describes the thing I had.
But you are a christian. unless you are somehow not anymore. Do you really think you can be one for 50 years and then
chose another way? I don't know but it's hard to believe.
This is a very tangential discussion but I'm not sure I can leave this alone. I think if christ was physically present he
would poke me in the ribs right now if I didn't say anything.
Would you let Judas influence your opinion of Peter? It seems you are letting some peoples inability to control themselves
influence your opinion of christ.
Do you believe Christ is God or not? Do you believe he came to redeem all fools and sinners or just specific kinds of
sinners like tax collecters and women of the night? The apostles made mistakes and flubbed up too.
God bless.
__________________
Last edited by 2WhomShallWeGo; 30th September 2010 at 07:13 AM.
30th September 2010, 07:06 AM #308

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
I think one of the points brought up . is the new rule considered flaming in and of itself? was valid .
As supplied earlier at my request .. (thank you)
"Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and
publicity."
So i would say .. let's focus on what is meant by acceptance?
and also this raises a question for me, how does this particular precedent affect our treatment of other sins listed and
implied in the bible?
__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
30th September 2010, 07:43 AM #309

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
disappointed with the in house bickering but can appreciate that emotions do run high....Please try to keep that
side of the discussion to a dull roar ok so we can work here, but in all honesty this just shows again why we have
to do something about this.
Ok all that to say, I love each of these examples and any one of them will work fine.... Can I offer a couple of
lines that might resonate well in here? I actually heard them first from one of our moderate brothers so my hope
is that it does find favor because of that, and may help with the wording to better describe promotion in "the
actions" vs "the group" and avoid vilifying any group here
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of same-sex sex and same sex attraction. Many Christians
believe that this affirmation runs counter to Christian morality.
Understand though, every discussion is subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire
to shut down productive discussion but we will not allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of
their lives either.
Maybe changing it by adding "acting on" before "same sex attraction"
I mean...the attraction is disordered as any temptation to sin, but if someone does not act on it they are resisting the sin.
Just like someone tempted to another sin.
Sorry I've been away overnight. Sick.

__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
30th September 2010, 07:44 AM #310

Febble Posts: 206
My Mood
Reps: 12,580,745,064,935,388 (power: 12,580,745,064,936)
58
But you are a christian. unless you are somehow not anymore. Do you really think you can be one for 50 years
and then chose another way? I don't know but it's hard to believe.
This is a very tangential discussion but I'm not sure I can leave this alone. I think if christ was physically
present he would poke me in the ribs right now if I didn't say anything.
Would you let Judas influence your opinion of Peter? It seems you are letting some peoples inability to control
themselves influence your opinion of christ.
Do you believe Christ is God or not? Do you believe he came to redeem all fools and sinners or just specific
kinds of sinners like tax collecters and women of the night? The apostles made mistakes and flubbed up too.
God bless.
I believe that what I know of Christ was God-like, where God is what I have always worshipped. As my son once said, God,
spelled with two O's. Salvation to me is no more or less than the simple recognition that that's what God is. That, to me,
was the essence of Jesus's message.
And, to get back to the topic of the thread (because, though tangential, it's relevant): where that message became
corrupted, it seems to me, was when people started to think that rescuing people from hell was more important - more
loving - than rescuing them from hunger, thirst and distress. The Good News, to me, wasn't: Pie in the Sky when you Die
(as long as you stick to some archaic set of hygiene rules, and come to a specific set of conclusions about the nature of
Jesus) but simply: God is love, and what God wants is Love, and greater Love has no man but he lay down his life for his
friend. Also: infinite love is infinite forgiveness. It's a hugely liberating message. Rules like the new one here, make
Christianity into a prison instead.
ETA: Oh, and bless you too

-- CF2 Renew

Password Log in
Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
30th September 2010, 08:02 AM #311

Location: michigan
Posts: 7,175
seajoy My Mood
48
So i would say .. let's focus on what is meant by acceptance?
We are going to be required to accept homosexuality? Don't think so.

__________________
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in
the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20
30th September 2010, 08:06 AM #312

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
So within the bounds of what the thread is about and the limits the advisers have set...most people working within those
parameters have said they either like all three versions of the rule and any will work or they like number three:
represented at CF have two general views. Many do not believe that being a Christian and being gay
is compatible. Many believe that it is the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual
way of life that is against Christian morality. As far as Christian Forums is concerned promotion of
homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of
the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do
not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions
that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the
bounds of their churches teachings as expressed at the beginning of this statement. As always
discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down
productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives.
As far as how the staff views promotion and will enforce I think it needs to be changed from:
and same sex attraction
To
and acting on same sex attraction
It fits how the congregations will discuss it in line with the two large segments of thought.
If we change number three to read as below that would define promotion:
promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue homosexual relationships

with members of the same sex
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
30th September 2010, 08:08 AM #313

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
Since the main rule is not up for debate and we are here to get one that allows some discussion in the congregational
area then, don't we need to decide on some form of that rule first and then talk about how it will or will not allow flaming
and such.
So of all the versions proposed what can people deal with..1, 2, 3 or none.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.
30th September 2010, 09:15 AM #314

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
Becky...I love ya...but this was below the belt...
You're a much better person than this!
It's a statement of fact. I remember 777 clearly because that's when I came on staff. There were a lot of the same people
who thought the reforms then were great! and didn't care that people left in droves. Several of the same people made
statements that if those people didn't like the rules, they were welcome to leave.
I remember the nightmare that ensued in the Conservative Christian forum, too.
Unless you know something I don't know, there wasn't a whole lot of people who liked the reforms talking about how
many people left. That didn't get brought up again until the reforms were reversed.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the
authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and
after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the
breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all
occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the
saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------

30th September 2010, 09:15 AM #315

My Mood
32 Reps: 6,342,253,318,534,939 (power: 6,342,253,318,541)
For many of the folks complaining here in this thread, CF did a fine job making decisions back in July of 07. Do
you guys have any idea what the number of members who left over that issue? Of course, that probably didn't
bother you much because it was mostly people who disagreed with your line of thinking.
Great point, Becky. It would be interesting to quantify how many people have left Christianity because they no longer
were allowed to condemn something they felt was icky, versus how many people left Christianity because they couldn't
follow a church tradition that makes them ignore Scripture, their own reason, and their own experience.
Perhaps CF should start conducting exit interviews?

__________________
30th September 2010, 09:15 AM #316

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
Careful there sister, your going down the same path I did and you'll get bashed for it.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
30th September 2010, 09:18 AM #317

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,500
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
Tishri, might I ask why "same sex attraction" is included? Attraction is 100% uncontrollable, and
there is not a shred of scriptural verses even mentioning it. I could live with the rest of it, but the
word "attraction" requires us to tell people their mental processes are a sin - which I will not do.
affirming same sex attraction is different than having same sex attraction, have it all you want just dont
affirm it/promote it
does that clear it up
Maybe changing it by adding "acting on" before "same sex attraction"
I mean...the attraction is disordered as any temptation to sin, but if someone does not act on it
they are resisting the sin. Just like someone tempted to another sin.
Sorry I've been away overnight. Sick.
well acting on would definitely be promotion, maybe affirming needs to be inserted twice there to clear it up
a bit
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of same-sex sex and the affirmation of same sex
attraction. Many Christians believe that this affirmation runs counter to Christian morality.
this topic within the bounds of their churches' teaching on the subject, in their own home congregational
forums.
Understand though, every discussion is subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. We will not
allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives.

__________________
Last edited by Tishri1; 30th September 2010 at 09:24 AM.

30th September 2010, 09:21 AM #318

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
It's a statement of fact. I remember 777 clearly because that's when I came on staff. There were a lot of the
same people who thought the reforms then were great! and didn't care that people left in droves. Several of
the same people made statements that if those people didn't like the rules, they were welcome to leave.
Unless you know something I don't know, there wasn't a whole lot of people who liked the reforms talking
about how many people left. That didn't get brought up again until the reforms were reversed.
Thats exactly right.
I was on Staff then, and I chose not be a part of staff because of that, but I did not leave.
And once the reforms were reversed, how long did it take for memberships to swell again?
I just do not like the idea that I, DeaconDean, a Bapitst, must be made to accept something I believe is a sin just
because three liberal areas don't believe it is a sin.
Davidic, I still support you in the third version of your change brother.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
#319

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,900,087,408)
Originally Posted by TheManeki
Great point, Becky. It would be interesting to quantify how many people have left Christianity because they no
longer were allowed to condemn something they felt was icky, versus how many people left Christianity
because they couldn't follow a church tradition that makes them ignore Scripture, their own reason, and their
own experience.
Perhaps CF should start conducting exit interviews?
That wasn't why they left (and that's not what the reforms were about), but let's go with that for a moment.
People are leaving CF because they no longer wish to be participants at a site that will not allow the promotion of
homosexuality. How would that be different from people leaving the site because they couldn't participate in a site that
allowed the promotion of sinful things?
It's not different. What's different is that last time the people who left disagreed with your line of thinking. This time
around, you're in the "hot seat" so to speak.
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the
authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and
after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the
breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all
occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the
saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------

30th September 2010, 09:33 AM #320

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,500
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
changed it so its not sooo repetitive....
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of both same-sex sex and same sex attraction. Many
__________________
Last edited by Tishri1; 30th September 2010 at 09:56 AM.

-- CF2 Renew


Become a
CF Site
Supporter
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ads
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
30th September 2010, 09:34 AM #321

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)
People are leaving CF because they no longer wish to be participants at a site that will not allow the
promotion of homosexuality. How would that be different from people leaving the site because they couldn't
participate in a site that allowed the promotion of sinful things?
It's not different. What's different is that last time the people who left disagreed with your line of thinking. This
time around, you're in the "hot seat" so to speak.
Again, your absolutely right.
How many times in this thread alone was I attacked because Baptists believe the topic at hand is a sin?
The same principle applies in the real world.
If I went to church that allowed homosexual Pastors, Elders, Deacons, teachers, and allowed them to continue in the
relationship as if there was nothing wrong with it, and encourages them to continue, how long would it take me to find
the door?
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
30th September 2010, 09:44 AM #322

My Mood
32 Reps: 6,342,253,318,534,939 (power: 6,342,253,318,541)
Again, your absolutely right.
How many times in this thread alone was I attacked because Baptists believe the topic at hand is a sin?
The same principle applies in the real world.
If I went to church that allowed homosexual Pastors, Elders, Deacons, teachers, and allowed them to continue in
the relationship as if there was nothing wrong with it, and encourages them to continue, how long would it take
me to find the door?
God Bless
Till all are one.
As a Southern Baptist myself, I am well aware that we used to believe Scripture condoned slavery and condemned
interracial marriage. This has taught me not to accept tradition solely because it is tradition. Sadly, many others have yet
to learn this important lesson.
__________________
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for
an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we
should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian
and laugh it to scorn...
30th September 2010, 09:49 AM #323

Febble Posts: 206
My Mood
Reps: 12,580,745,064,935,388 (power: 12,580,745,064,936)
58
People are leaving CF because they no longer wish to be participants at a site that will not allow the
promotion of homosexuality. How would that be different from people leaving the site because they couldn't
participate in a site that allowed the promotion of sinful things?
It's not different. What's different is that last time the people who left disagreed with your line of thinking. This
time around, you're in the "hot seat" so to speak.
That's not why I'm leaving. I'm leaving, despite a very enjoyable time here, because I don't want to be associated with a
site that calls itself Christian and regards the expression of the evidence-based recognition that a homosexual orientation
is not a choice but a perfectly benign variant of the human condition as "promoting homosexuality".
There's no evidence that "promoting homosexuality" is even possible, any more than "promoting tallness" would be.
Promoting bigotry, sadly, is.
30th September 2010, 09:50 AM #324

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31
Well, people are required to accept the extra-scriptural theologies of the historic church . and yet other theologies that
Paul would characterize as "fallen from grace" and even yet attitudes that express views in a way that James would call
"earthly, sensual, devilish" yet proposes to call itself "wisdom" .
we are asked to tolerate all these things but we shouldn't . it seems like grace is under attack every where . yet in things
like this all we can focus on is what sin is . IMHO it's kinda sad .
but the point remains . what is meant by acceptance?

__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
30th September 2010, 09:57 AM #325

Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,860,317,439)
27
Jase, I wrote that. I'm a celibate gay christian.
Its was written as a statement of fact, many christians do not see being gay and being a christian as being
compatible. Stop looking for offense where none of meant
Do you enjoy arguing for the sake of it? 'pursuing romantic relationships with members of the same sex'
The aim of trying to get a specific definition of what consitutes promotion of homosexuality was so it wouldnt be
open to as multiple interpretations. Personally, I dont want a mod to jump on me, if I say "I had a lovely
weekend with my girlfriend" and label a statement of fact as promoting homosexuality.
Sorry Tenebrae, I think I missed your post regarding putting that in. My concern was merely what adding "being gay" to
the rule would end up being interpreted as, and obviously banning "attraction" is the end result.
__________________
30th September 2010, 09:58 AM #326

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,500
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
too long....
So within the bounds of what the thread is about and the limits the advisers have set...most people
working within those parameters have said they either like all three versions of the rule and any will
work or they like number three:
"Christian Forums does not allow the promotion of Homosexuality. On this topic the
congregations represented at CF have two general views. Many do not believe that being a
Christian and being gay is compatible. Many believe that it is the promotion of and/or
participation in an actively homosexual way of life that is against Christian morality. As far
as Christian Forums is concerned promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively
encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the same sex. We realize
that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow
promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow
members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the
bounds of their churches teachings as expressed at the beginning of this statement. As
always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our
desire to shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this
issue as part of their lives. So be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced."
As far as how the staff views promotion and will enforce I think it needs to be changed from:
and same sex attraction
To
and acting on same sex attraction
It fits how the congregations will discuss it in line with the two large segments of thought.
If we change number three to read as below that would define promotion:
promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue homosexual

relationships with members of the same sex
__________________
30th September 2010, 10:17 AM #327

psalms 91 Posts: 62,600
Legend Blessings: 10,000,038,209
My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,854,844)
61
It's a statement of fact. I remember 777 clearly because that's when I came on staff. There were a lot of the same
people who thought the reforms then were great! and didn't care that people left in droves. Several of the same
people made statements that if those people didn't like the rules, they were welcome to leave.
Unless you know something I don't know, there wasn't a whole lot of people who liked the reforms talking about
how many people left. That didn't get brought up again until the reforms were reversed.
That drove people out and all the changes since then have driven people away. If you want to draw some back then revert
the board back to the features it had prior to 777. It is not always about stopping attacks, it is also about bringing back
features people loved. Pets, blessings meaning something and a whoole lot of other things and yes 777 drove man7y away
and many were told if they didnt like it to leave. I had that thrown at me a few times. It would seem to me that if you want
meaningful change then the positions at the top should not be filled by those who supported 777.
__________________
They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary, and they shall walk and not
faint. Isaiah 40:31
Last edited by psalms 91; 30th September 2010 at 10:25 AM.
30th September 2010, 10:27 AM #328

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,500
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
changed it so its not sooo repetitive....
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes the affirmation of both same-sex sex and same sex
attraction. Many Christians believe that this affirmation runs counter to Christian morality.
naaaaaah forget my rewrite try this one on
(from another moderate here)

"Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being actively homosexual is compatible,
whilst others do not see this as a problem. The CF stance is that active homosexuality is a sin, and
therefore not to be promoted on this board.
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue romantic

relationships with members of the same sex, or to otherwise gratify sexual desire for those of the
same gender.
We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow
promotion of active homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow
church's teachings"
__________________
30th September 2010, 10:35 AM #329

Blessings: 88,819
My Mood
48 Reps: 47,600,074,712,763,856 (power: 47,600,074,712,782)

same gender.
church's teachings"
I like it.
One: It clearly states that Cf and its executive staff believe that homosexuality is a sin.
The CF stance is that active homosexuality is a sin,
Two: advising a person to go out and actively persue this kind of relation constitutes "promotion".
and therefore not to be promoted on this board.

same gender.
Three: It recognizes both parties, Protestant groups that also believe this is a sin:
Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being actively homosexual is compatible
While at the same time recognizing that some believe this is not a sin:
whilst others do not see this as a problem.
Four: It also gives the flexibility for the Liberal and other areas to have discussion while not promoting it.
Five: While at the same time not shutting down any or all discussion.
we do not wish to allow promotion of active homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive
discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums
within the bounds of their church's teachings"
I like it Tishri.
God Bless
Till all are one.

__________________
Remember this Dean:
dir="ltr">

-Aesop
dir="ltr">
-DeaconDean
30th September 2010, 10:36 AM #330

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Have Fun
"Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being actively homosexual is compatible, whilst
others do not see this as a problem. The CF stance is that active homosexuality is a sin, and therefore not to be
promoted on this board.
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue romantic relationships with
members of the same sex, or to otherwise gratify sexual desire for those of the same gender.
promotion of active homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to
address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their church's teachings"
I am fine with this because it draws the difference between having the feelings and acting on them and is clear as to what
CF believes on it.
__________________
Bob Casey Sr.
Bob Casey Sr.

-- CF2 Renew

Become a
CF Site
Supporte
and Make
-Discuss Faith
These Ad
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
Page 34 of 38 « First < 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >
30th September 2010, 10:43 AM #331

My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,854,844)
61
Originally Posted by psalms 91
That drove people out and all the changes since then have driven people away. If you want to draw some back
then revert the board back to the features it had prior to 777. It is not always about stopping attacks, it is also
about bringing back features people loved. Pets, blessings meaning something and a whoole lot of other things
and yes 777 drove man7y away and many were told if they didnt like it to leave. I had that thrown at me a few
times. It would seem to me that if you want meaningful change then the positions at the top should not be filled
by those who supported 777.
How about this as an added idea and I agree with the atatement and with the fact that it is a sin
__________________
They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary, and they shall walk and not
faint. Isaiah 40:31
30th September 2010, 10:45 AM #332

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,500
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor
I like it.
One: It clearly states that Cf and its executive staff believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Two: advising a person to go out and actively persue this kind of relation constitutes "promotion".
Three: It recognizes both parties, Protestant groups that also believe this is a sin:
While at the same time recognizing that some believe this is not a sin:
Four: It also gives the flexibility for the Liberal and other areas to have discussion while not promoting
it.
Five: While at the same time not shutting down any or all discussion.
I like it Tishri.
God Bless
Till all are one.
well I didnt write it, you guys did, just one of our moderate sisters arranged it to read like this
you all did the hard work here

__________________
30th September 2010, 10:47 AM #333

My Mood
36 Reps: 19,077,939,239,027,412 (power: 19,077,939,239,037)

Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue romantic relationships

with members of the same sex, or to otherwise gratify sexual desire for those of the same gender.
church's teachings"
This is excellent.
30th September 2010, 10:53 AM #334

Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 33,835
Tishri1
Blessings: 311,500
Legend
My Mood
Angels Team
Reps: 417,287,538,911,887,872 (power: 417,287,538,911,926)
Site Advisor

church's teachings"
I am fine with this because it draws the difference between having the feelings and acting on them
and is clear as to what CF believes on it.
David thank you for facilitating this as well, we honestly could not see this working at all in this area, but your
thought-filled posts made us consider that possibly the Denominations can and should own responsibly this
topic for discussion
Everyone contributed, and thank you I just wanted to give a shout out to this guy, as its kinda of his gift
to the world to help in these ways (yeh I read OBOB you guys do rock!)
__________________
30th September 2010, 11:14 AM #335

30 Reps: 28,908,334,960,976,184 (power: 28,908,334,960,977)
People are leaving CF because they no longer wish to be participants at a site that will not allow the promotion of
homosexuality. How would that be different from people leaving the site because they couldn't participate in a
site that allowed the promotion of sinful things?
Is this a confession as to the true intentions to this rule?
The way I see it, the rule was never intended to end flaming (considering there is already a rule against flaming, there
would be no need for this rule!) The rule was also never considered (even by admin) to be "fair" in the sense of simply
ending all discussion on both sides. We all saw through that dishonest statement, since obviously only one side of the
debate was being silenced while the other was being allowed to continue. At least you're starting to be honest about it.
30th September 2010, 11:39 AM #336

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
To be fair promotion of Homosexuality already goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church and yet we don't
really have this problem you speak of in the OBOB and there are People with same sex attraction in our forums
who can affirm this.
OBOB isn't the only congregational sub though, there are subs like the Liberal board that have many who feeling
homosexuality is not a sin. The new rules make it okay for groups who feel homosexuality is bad to talk about it, but not
those who do not believe it is a problem.
__________________

30th September 2010, 11:43 AM #337

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
Uh, not one person has said that and certainly not in that quote. He was saying that maybe we should work on defining
"acceptance" of homosexuality/homosexuals.
__________________

30th September 2010, 11:47 AM #338

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)
I just do not like the idea that I, DeaconDean, a Bapitst, must be made to accept something I believe is a sin
just because three liberal areas don't believe it is a sin.
No one is making you accept something you believe is a sin just because they accept that it isn't a sin. That doesn't even
make sense. Just because this country has freedom of religion, does that mean you have to accept all other religions? Of
course not! That doesn't mean that others can't choose to accept all other religions though.
__________________

30th September 2010, 11:50 AM #339

Location: Canada
Posts: 3,752
Michael Collum
My Mood
Ques Que What?
Blog Entries: 27
Reps: 944,580,539,595,674,624 (power: 944,580,539,595,678)
31

church's teachings"
I would like to acknowledge that this is a vast improvement from the previous versions . it lacks a conclusion . but it
definitely sounds better .
Would promotion also constitute giving general relationship advice to those in homosexual relationships as in treating
these relationships as any kind of relationship or would that be fine ?
__________________
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Ephesians 3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
30th September 2010, 11:52 AM #340

dinonum
Posts: 4,779
Blessings: 895
My Mood
21 Reps: 88,197,124,182,420,640 (power: 88,197,124,182,430)


church's teachings"
I think this is the best one so far, btw

__________________

Page 34 of 38 « First < 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >

-- CF2 Renew


-Discuss Faith
-Get Accountability
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
Page 35 of 38 « First < 25 31 32 33 34 35 36
View First Unread LinkBack Thread Tools Displ
30th September 2010, 12:04 PM

Blessings: 78,134
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,67
The way I see it, the rule was never intended to end flaming (considering there is already a rule against flaming, there would be n
need for this rule!) The rule was also never considered (even by admin) to be "fair" in the sense of simply ending all discussion on
sides. We all saw through that dishonest statement, since obviously only one side of the debate was being silenced while the other
being allowed to continue. At least you're starting to be honest about it.
Wouldn't take long till the true nature of the intent of this new rule would seep out.
__________________
As Christians, too often we have forgotten the teachings of Jesus about making peace and turning the other cheek and crossing boun
serve people formerly considered "outsiders." We have instead launched or baptized wars, perpetuated racism, and defended an unju
quo. We have betrayed the message that the kingdom of God is available for all, beginning with the least and the last and the lost--a
instead believed and taught that the kingdom of God is available for the elite, beginning with the correct and the clean and the pow
have been preoccupied with guilt and money, power and fear, control and status--not with service and love, justice and mercy, hum
hope.
-Brian McLaren

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Davidnic Reps: 112,652,206,258,470,768 (power: 112,652,20
Have Fun
Well at least it seems to be moving toward a general consensus on the wording...that is something after all of this thread so far. A posit
__________________
Other causes demand commitment, abortion demands complicity. Other causes survive by energy and attention. The survival of the ab
industry - and it is an industry - depends upon avoidance and silence.
Bob Casey Sr.
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes
difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the c
comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our tr
character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answ
Bob Casey Sr.

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,90
No, but I'm sure you'll see it that way. I wasn't happy when people left back in 07, or any other time we've made changes and I'm not h
about it now. CF will never make everyone happy, though, so I'm content with working with the people who are willing to ride this out
a go.
The way I see it, the rule was never intended to end flaming (considering there is already a rule against flaming, there would be n
need for this rule!) The rule was also never considered (even by admin) to be "fair" in the sense of simply ending all discussion on
sides. We all saw through that dishonest statement, since obviously only one side of the debate was being silenced while the other
being allowed to continue. At least you're starting to be honest about it.
I'm an admin and I thought the rule was fair as written. When it was written, it was designed to ban discussion on BOTH SIDES. The O
reason we're doing this is because many people asked about the congregational area and how that would impact them.
There was no dishonest statement and frankly I'm getting tired of people calling me a liar all the time. It's really making a bad argumen
and tolerance".
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world a
the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may
stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist,
breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to a
up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the swo
Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be
always keep on praying for all the saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------


Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,86
27
I'm an admin and I thought the rule was fair as written. When it was written, it was designed to ban discussion on BOTH SIDES. T
ONLY reason we're doing this is because many people asked about the congregational area and how that would impact them.
I don't think any of us are surprised you thought it was fair. But let's not kid ourselves about this banning both sides. It was still allowe
talked of negatively in recovery and chaplains forums.
It's really making a bad argument for "love and tolerance".
Um, this entire decision was a bad argument for "love and tolerance". Those have become foreign concepts here.
__________________

PreachersWife2004
Posts: 21,153
My Mood
36 Blog Entries: 3
Reps: 760,391,900,087,383,424 (power: 760,391,90
I don't think any of us are surprised you thought it was fair. But let's not kid ourselves about this banning both sides. It was still
allowed to be talked of negatively in recovery and chaplains forums.
No, it wasn't. It was meant to be dealt with in love for our fellow believers. The bible, afterall, is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcti
training in righteousness.
Um, this entire decision was a bad argument for "love and tolerance". Those have become foreign concepts here.
Loving a sinner doesn't mean giving them an avenue to promote their sin. Even Jesus told the sinners he associated with to go and sin
__________________
†Beckie
CF Admin
~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 4:31-32
John 14:6
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world a
the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may
stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist,
breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to a
up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the swo
Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be
always keep on praying for all the saints.
Ephesians 6:10-18
----------


Jase Posts: 3,878
My Mood
Reps: 18,588,860,317,428,684 (power: 18,588,86
27
No, it wasn't. It was meant to be dealt with in love for our fellow believers. The bible, afterall, is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness.
It would be nice if you would at least use that verse correctly. 2 Tim 3:16 never says "The Bible". There was no such thing. He was refe
the Tanakh, most importantly Jewish law. And it says "useful for", not the perfect, end all be all incarnation for smiting those you don't
with. History proves the only thing the current incarnation of the Bible has been useful for is justification for crimes against humanity.
Loving a sinner doesn't mean giving them an avenue to promote their sin. Even Jesus told the sinners he associated with to go and
no more.
Jesus did not selectively interpret the English Bible to suit his own prejudices. He knew what was right and what wasn't. You guys are
assuming you know, when history proves you're usually wrong.
And Jesus would have never told gay people to get lost, your concerns are not welcome on this board because we only promote "love an
tolerance".
__________________

Blessings: 78,134
My Mood
32 Reps: 1,290,076,671,686,643,456 (power: 1,290,076,67
[quote]
No, it wasn't. It was meant to be dealt with in love for our fellow believers.
It is designed soley to pander to the conservatives. Throwing them a bone.
Loving a sinner doesn't mean giving them an avenue to promote their sin. Even Jesus told the sinners he associated with to go and
no more.
Yup...He said that all the time....oh wait, yeah He only said to the woman at the well, a prostitute. John 8:1-11
__________________
As Christians, too often we have forgotten the teachings of Jesus about making peace and turning the other cheek and crossing boun
serve people formerly considered "outsiders." We have instead launched or baptized wars, perpetuated racism, and defended an unju
quo. We have betrayed the message that the kingdom of God is available for all, beginning with the least and the last and the lost--a
instead believed and taught that the kingdom of God is available for the elite, beginning with the correct and the clean and the pow
have been preoccupied with guilt and money, power and fear, control and status--not with service and love, justice and mercy, hum
hope.
-Brian McLaren
Last edited by Supernaut454; 30th September 2010 at 12:48 PM.

JESUS<3sYOU Posts: 197
BLESSEDareTHEYthatMOURN: FORtheySHALLbeCOMFORTED Blessings: 250,321
Reps: 131,020,712,345,368,288 (power: 131,020,71
I have to be honest with you:
Homosexuality is boring.
The site looks less like a sex site now too.

__________________
Mt 5:4

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,15
Would it help if we gathered all proposed forms for reference at this point since the thread is getting long?
I think we have three or four with different wording. Plus other suggestions like, just do away with the rule or enforce it fully.
First version:
Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible. Promotion of homosexuality
constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the same sex. We realize that this
is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do
not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home
congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings as always discussions are subject to the rules
for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion but be aware flame rules
will be strictly enforced"
second:
Many Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life is against Christian
morality. Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the
same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of
homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within their
home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings. As always discussions are subject to the rules for
flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggl
with this issue as part of their lives. So be aware flame rules will be strictly enforced."
Third:
"Christian Forums does not allow the promotion of Homosexuality. On this topic the congregations represented at CF have
two general views. Many do not believe that being a Christian and being gay is compatible. Many believe that it is the
promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life that is against Christian morality. As far as Christian
Forums is concerned promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with
members of the same sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to
allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these
issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their churches teachings as expressed at the beginning
of this statement. As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our desire to shut
down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives. So be aware flame
rules will be strictly enforced."
Thoughts on the three versions. Succinct reasons you have problems with what you have problems with and proposed solutions.
Personally, of the three versions listed here, I like the second one the best and would like to see a couple of tweaks to it, to be at least c
So I will post the second version as you have it in this post and then post the additions I would like to have considered for addition to t
choice and highlight those additions.
second:
Many Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual way of life is against Christian moral
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue relationships with members of the same sex. We r
that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of homosexuality, we do not w
to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within t
bounds of their churches teachings. As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. It is not our d
to shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives. So be aware flam
Now here it is again with my additions that I would like to be considered for inclusion.
second:
Many Christians believe that the promotion of and/or participation in an actively homosexual romantic relationship is against Christian
Promotion of such a romantic relationship constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue romantic relationships with members of
sex. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of same-sex sexual
relationships, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congr
forums within the bounds of their churches teachings. As always discussions are subject to the rules for flaming and a lack of charity. I
our desire to shut down productive discussion or to allow attacks on those who struggle with this issue as part of their lives. So be awa
I've made these suggested changes because I feel it tightens up the language. One thing I've noticed in the debates on homosexuality
been involved in, and there have been many, is that Christians are not precise enough in their use of terminology. The word homosexu
these debates was interchangeable with same-sex sexual relations. I believe homosexuality is a valid sexual orientation. For a Christian
that "homosexuality is a sin, and an abomination and it's forbidden in the Bible," is just plain false and the homosexual would respond
"Homosexuality is a valid sexual orientation and not condemned in the Bible." and be completely right.
Now I may be wrong on the dating of the identification of sexual orientations, but I believe it happened in the 19th century. Anyone fe
correct me if I'm wrong and I apologize now if i am wrong on that date. What I saw Christians doing was backtracking a sexual orientat
time when it was neither known nor recognized. The Bible condemns acts, not sexual orientations. So since the Bible and it's teachings
many are basing their positions on, we need to use the proper terminology when we speak out against things we believe to be wrong a
and this goes for both sides of the debate.
I believe that Christians should not use the word homosexuality unless they are speaking of a sexual orientation. If they are addressing
sexual relations, then they should say that. For effective discussion or debate on any topic, we need to be as tight and precise in the la
use as possible, because if we're not then we are not being clear in what we actually believe and a lot of false conclusions will be reach
people can be accused of believing things or doing things that they actually don't believe or actually have not done. The conversation
down essentially and also by not being precise in our use of terminology we create loopholes that can be exploited.
I believe that Christians should also not use the phrase "homosexual lifestyle," not because it's a flame created by the conservatives ag
homosexuals, as I saw another poster claim, but because with the exception of a homosexual's choice of sexual partner, there is no diffe
between the heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles.
Why are homosexuals the ones being singled out as living a certain lifestyle when heterosexuals are not? That seems like a blatant dou
standard to me. I have never seen the phrase "heterosexual lifestyle" used in reference to heterosexuals. So this type of singling out an
needs to stop. I've never seen anyone who used this phrase be able to define what a homosexual lifestyle actually is, and use of this phr
usually does nothing to further a conversation, as a lot of homosexuals find this phrase to be offensive and that's not what we as Christi
called to be. We are called to be loving, humble, kind, compassionate, forgiving, but in all these things we must stand firmly for what w
is true.
One last thing, and this is a question and has nothing to do with my proposed additions to the second phrasing. Does this new rule app
Bi-Sexual and Trans-Gendered people as well? Or is that another topic for another thread for another day?
__________________

Posts: 13,800
My Mood
Davidnic Reps: 112,652,206,258,470,768 (power: 112,652,20
Have Fun
zecryphon, one of the staff paraphrased them all into this:
"Many Christians do not believe that being a Christian and being actively homosexual is compatible, whilst others do not s
a problem. The CF stance is that active homosexuality is a sin, and therefore not to be promoted on this board.
Promotion of homosexuality constitutes actively encouraging a person to pursue romantic relationships with members of t
sex, or to otherwise gratify sexual desire for those of the same gender.
We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of active
homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within the
congregational forums within the bounds of their church's teachings"
Thoughts.
__________________
Other causes demand commitment, abortion demands complicity. Other causes survive by energy and attention. The survival of the ab
industry - and it is an industry - depends upon avoidance and silence.
Bob Casey Sr.
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes
difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the c
comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our tr
character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answ
Bob Casey Sr.
Page 35 of 38 « First < 25 31 32 33 34 35 36
Return to Congregation Staff

-- CF2 Renew


-Discuss Faith
-Get Accountability
-Get Connected
-Have Fun!
Join Now!
members.
Page 36 of 39 « First < 26 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 >
30th September 2010, 01:24 PM #351

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
It is designed soley to pander to the conservatives. Throwing them a bone.
Yup...He said that all the time....oh wait, yeah He only said to the woman at the well, a prostitute. John
8:1-11
Super, I'm sorry but your second statement here is in error. Jesus did not say "go and sin no more" to the woman at
the well. He said it to the woman caught in adultery. Did you read John 8:1-11 before you cited it? Here it is:
Joh 8:1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Joh 8:2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the
people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. Joh 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who
had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst Joh 8:4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been
caught in the act of adultery. Joh 8:5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you
say?" Joh 8:6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and
wrote with his finger on the ground. Joh 8:7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him
who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." Joh 8:8 And once more he bent down and wrote on
the ground. Joh 8:9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was
left alone with the woman standing before him. Joh 8:10 Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has
no one condemned you?" Joh 8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from
now on sin no more."
I don't see any mention of the woman at the well, here. I believe the section of scripture you're thinking of is John
4:5-29.
__________________
30th September 2010, 01:34 PM #352

Blessings: 82,489
My Mood
38 Reps: 48,386,157,157,454,040 (power: 48,386,157,157,467)
Your faith in Christ is a gift from God for the forgiveness of your sins which have been revealed to you by the Holy
Spirit. Your belief in Christ should be based upon your wanting to be forgiven of your sins, not how other Christians
handle the issue of same-sex sex or their treatment of homosexuals.
__________________
30th September 2010, 01:38 PM #353

My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,854,844)
61
How about this as an added idea and I agree with the atatement and with the fact that it is a sin
One more time to see if anyone wants to address the elephant in the room or will it bne ignored yet once again. They
leave in droves and changes keep taking place but noone wants to address the reasons why. It was not all 777
althought that drove a large part away.
__________________
They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary, and they shall walk and
not faint. Isaiah 40:31
30th September 2010, 01:38 PM #354

My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,854,844)
61
That drove people out and all the changes since then have driven people away. If you want to draw some
back then revert the board back to the features it had prior to 777. It is not always about stopping attacks, it
is also about bringing back features people loved. Pets, blessings meaning something and a whoole lot of
other things and yes 777 drove man7y away and many were told if they didnt like it to leave. I had that
thrown at me a few times. It would seem to me that if you want meaningful change then the positions at the
top should not be filled by those who supported 777.
Anyone care to answer this?

__________________
They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary, and they shall walk and
not faint. Isaiah 40:31
30th September 2010, 01:48 PM #355

My Mood
32 Reps: 6,342,253,318,534,939 (power: 6,342,253,318,541)
Thoughts.
David,
I would respectfully suggest that some explanation for the position be added -- if not directly, in some sort of appendix.
The purpose of this explanation would be twofold:
First, it would let everyone know that this conclusion was reached by thoughtful community discussion and not
authoritarian fiat.
Secondly, it would let people know exactly why the community decided to go with a traditional hermeneutic which
requires the believer to actively ignore large swaths of reality, instead of going with a modern hermeneutic in which
the Bible anticipated and agrees with the insights biology, psychology, and sociology have gifted us regarding God's
world.
__________________
call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their
position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Last edited by TheManeki; 30th September 2010 at 02:11 PM.

CF Rules

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CF Rules

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.

Christian Forums > Congregation > Congregation Staff Discussion

User Name User Name Remember Me?

Page 1 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 11 > Last »

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

27th September 2010, 01:52 AM #1

Join Date: 28th February 2005

Staff/Membership Meeting to discuss the changes to the Controversial Topics rule

Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

27th September 2010, 03:48 AM #2

Join Date: 1st October 2005

I think you need to nail down what consititutes promotion of homosexuality.

What we do in life echos in eternity

27th September 2010, 03:50 AM #3

Join Date: 1st October 2005

What we do in life echos in eternity

27th September 2010, 04:24 AM #4

Join Date: 3rd March 2006

27th September 2010, 05:02 AM #5

Join Date: 14th May 2002

27th September 2010, 05:28 AM #6

Join Date: 3rd March 2006

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Last edited by Davidnic; 27th September 2010 at 05:37 AM.

27th September 2010, 08:06 AM #7

Join Date: 20th July 2005

I for one, applaude this decision.

Homosexuality and Christianity - ReligionFacts

I think it is a good idea to remove this discussion.

Till all are one.

-The Ghost of Christmas Present to Ebenezer Scrooge

Know Law, no grace; no Law, know grace.

-Paul the Apostle, AD 55, Gal. 4:1-5

27th September 2010, 08:36 AM #8

Join Date: 28th February 2005

27th September 2010, 09:31 AM #9

Join Date: 15th May 2007

Got time? Want to serve? Consider being a CF moderator.

27th September 2010, 10:02 AM #10

Join Date: 3rd March 2006

Originally Posted by Tishri1

Page 1 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 11 > Last »

« most outrageous things your pastor did | - »

Return to Congregation Staff Discussion

Home | Contact Us | Community Rules | Privacy Policy | Search | TOP

Guitar Forum | Green Forum

Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.

Christian Forums > Congregation > Congregation Staff Discussion

User Name User Name Remember Me?

Page 2 of 38 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 > Last »

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

27th September 2010, 10:29 AM #11

Join Date: 20th July 2005

Originally Posted by Tishri1

Sister, this will not stop.

I think I know the majority of these.

seriously divide our body here as long as the discussion is allowed.

The bottom line still is, CF is going to have to take a position.

I would ask two things though,

1) Watch the one hour video: www.silencingchristians.com

There are only two paths:

Remember one choice a crowd made?

Lucius: Pilate offered that mob a choice.