Maybe a Christian forum worth looking at

This forum showed up on an unrelated web search, and I scanned it for relevance. There is not much activity, but they do have a section called “debate central” where it looks like folks can actually speak!

The rules afford moderators unlimited power….that’s bad….but the rules SEEM to view the primacy of scripture as important…then again, so did CF.

Maybe I will start a thread and see what happens, we could draw some users away from that other mess.

http://www.ichristianforums.com/index.php

Advertisements

57 thoughts on “Maybe a Christian forum worth looking at

  1. Definitely looks promising, but lack of activity may be a problem. Shall we start a bit of a “recruitment drive” to see if we can kickstart it a bit?

    The overall tone definitely seems much more in keeping with truly conservative(theologically speaking) thinking than CF ever did.

  2. Yea, I would like to pick one and yes, draw some folks in, a place were “both sides” can speak, and ultimately some red pills be swallowed. Its no secret, at least for me….I have some agenda involved, not just debate for sport

  3. Well of the two that I just linked, the first looks a bit better in terms of existing prevailing viewpoints, but the second looks a little better in terms of activity.

  4. I made an account there and posted some, they hold the posts in moderation it seems, maybe until they sort me out, not sure, but there are some good discussions and they are current. Mods are heavy, deleting and moving things (which I never liked, even some of the members used to recommend moving things, whats with the urge to micromanage…I bet moderators are also on their HOA)

  5. Heavy mods can be hugely problematic or merely annoying. If it’s a case of some OCD need to keep things on a narrowly defined topic, that’s just annoying. If it’s a matter of silencing certain viewpoints or posters, it’s just CF with a different face.

  6. What is your screen name there? I just joined under the same name I always use.

  7. Its the christianforums.net one and I am empathologicalism….they hold 1st comments in moderation until approved, then you are normal posting.
    I posted in the parenting and marriage area under the thread about sex refusal and the other one about many wives or something like that

  8. It looks like a view point specific obsession. Ive already called one woman out for arguing back a point that was never said. Took me 5 minutes to get that, so, I asked her nicely why she sis it. Lets see

  9. I’m just waiting for approval.

    In terms of trying to make this work, as frustrating as it is, try to simply,and calmly stick to “I didn’t mean X I meant Y”. Even when one of the typical huge leaps or additions of meaning, like when we say sex is important and the response goes off about sex not being the only thing or something similar. But if we can stay polite but firm, we’ll pretty quickly see where the mods are in terms of putting up with the usual nonsense.

  10. And one not worth looking at, that EC place….chaz….wow…..what I am learning, and its like masochism to read that….is that if not for the moderators at CF the women would have been even worse. The stuff they are saying about Murrows book and masculinity, the inane notions of what he is even talking about….and if that wasnt enough, the piece de resistance is the claim, “why would anyone want to go to church to get masculinity, or femininity for that matter”…when they have made a full on idol of a version of Biblical womanhood.

  11. Like I said in that e-mail, in terms of that place I’m out. What I can’t for the life of me figure out though is how, in reading the Eggerichs book they can claim that it’s “all about” the woman walking on eggshells. There’s some pretty direct suggestions to guys too. I guess it’s just evidence that they can’t or won’t accept any correction/suggestion directed at women. That the norm is so far skewed that a balanced approach is perceived as full on woman attacking.

  12. Found one that was founded specifically by people who grew tired of CF nonsense:

    http://theorama.org/

    I actually got a specific invite to it from a CF member who is a FB friend.

  13. Texas Lynn is there…….oh man oh oh man oh man, if she is left unrestrained it will be a blood bath, hopefully tamara goes there and they get on opposing sides, both lawyers (am I right about Lynn? Seems I knew her somewhere else cannot recall where)

  14. Double by the way….yea Lynn is who I thought she was and she is batcrap nuts liberal. That it was formed by CF rejects …..cool…..but it is an echo chamber for typical liberal hyperbole.
    They post an article, then they all post one liners with the word f**k in them….and thats that I s’pose

  15. Nah, Lynn was a social worker I think. She did seem to try to project an air of being a legal expert, and as relates to the area of law around her area of social work, she probably is. Texas Lynn was on both CF and FL and she was on another small board that I can’t remember the name of where I had some of my most intense interactions with her. She’s annoying to be sure, I disagree with her positions on nearly everything, and she’s a bit prone to personal sniping, but at least it’s possible to have an honest discussion with her as she will accept clarification of your meaning after she’s made a wild, and usually negative assumption about it. Crazy Liz is there too, and that’s good as she is really good at seeing both sides of a conversation that’s gotten heated, and stepping in and calming things.

  16. Give it a little more time, and maybe post some not too terribly controversial conservative positions and see what happens. Looking at a few of the familiar names there,I suspect it’s not as much of a liberal echo chamber as you think.

  17. I think the ones I’m recognizing are from before your time at FL and maybe from that other board I mentioned that I had interacted with Lynn on.

    Crazy Liz
    seebs
    Joykins – definitely from CF

  18. I dont know any of em.
    I dont think I will hang much, as much as I like politics personally, I lost interest in forums that were about politics while back. That area at CF drove me nuts, I didnt go there for a year or more before I was banned, just because its not interesting to read more liberal stuff, thats just me.

  19. Well I just poked Lynn with a sharp stick over one of the people on her “most evil person on the internet” list.

    In reading that list is would seem that her criteria for considering someone to be evil is simply having some degree of power and influence and having an opinion or position that differs from her’s. It’s a small mind indeed that can’t deal with an opposing viewpoint without calling it evil.

  20. Oy, I can’t take it….wow wow wow. How can you suffer that and be upset by the Egal forum, this place is much worse in terms of being extreme and utterly lacking much content.
    Liz may see both sides, she aint gonna bend or nod or wink
    Then, the final straw, someone harped on a spelling error I made……sheesh…..cheap

  21. At this point I’m, just happy to be interacting with someone who doesn’t assign stupid meanings to my words and when they do honestly misunderstand, they accept my clarification at face value. Not sure if there’s going to be much content of worth though. I will also be hanging at cf.net though.

  22. You got your wish re: Tamara. Faith Prevails….interesting….CF Mod.
    Definitely not a site I would post to. No maturity in the faith, no reflection on you Empath.

  23. Hey Empath!
    Went to theorama site that chaz indicated. Saw Tamara224 there. You said, “hopefully Tamara goes there…” so you got your wish. I also saw Faith Prevails there. She was/is a CF Mod. She’s not on the current staff list but I have learned that doesn’t mean anything. Anyway, I just found that interesting. Also, there seemed to be a total lack of maturity in the faith and decorum/taste there. Was just pointing that out but I didn’t want you to think that was a reflection on you, or Chaz for that matter.

  24. Brother Chaz, not everything about CF is nonsense. It serves a purpose and it’s a good purpose. The problem is in the staff and their refusal to stand on God’s word and the forum’s own rules as they relate to God’s word. Until that changes, I wouldn’t recommend CF to any Christian. I had a conversation with one of the CF Admins who confided that she stays to try to make a difference having understood exactly what I am saying here. She is one of very few. I believed as she does but no longer. The problem is that when the fish stinks at the head, there’s not much that can be done about the body. I’m not talking about the owner, I’m talking about Godly priorities. CF’s priorities have to change. Perhaps that means that the owner’s priorities have to change or perhaps not. Perhaps it just means that he has to take a more personal interest in the site and a firmer hand on the reins, under God, and increase the number of staff who understand God’s priorities.

  25. Well, the theorama site has been populated with the worst CF had to offer. that coupled with another section of longer term CF rejects who are raving atheist left wing loonies and I can’t see myself finding dialog there that is interesting, unless I want to be beaten bloody with the same lack of facts and logic

  26. Empath, have you looked at CARM?
    And I went over to icf for the first time today. Recognized several from CF including staff. I am wondering about icf’s registration terms. One may not post any sexually orientated material whatsoever. I’m assuming that means one may not post God’s stance regarding homosexuality. That would also preclude anyone posting God’s stance regarding headship. These things are important to me in terms of taking God at His word. How can a “Christian” forum exclude these things? Am I being dense here, or what?

  27. In regard to what I found at icf, I’m getting a mixed message between their registration agreement and their SoF regarding their “sexually orientated material” stance. While they are absolutely (and most correctly, I might add) unafraid to post a notation regarding abortion, they waffle on homosexuality. It’s difficult to ascertain if they feel that an ongoing homosexual relationship is unacceptable. And again, there is this “Only members who agree with the Statement of Faith may debate and post in the Christians Only area of the forum” statement that presents an issue of vulnerability as well as exclusion. I would want to discuss these things with their staff before agreeing to join there especially after what I experienced at CF but I don’t see any way of doing that without first joining. Well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, I guess!

  28. Wait, I have wrongly posted something. icf does not waffle on homosexuality. I missed a section. I’m still a little confused about something but am hoping they will clarify. I have submitted my application. I’m probably just misunderstanding their wording. Well, I’m not the brightest bulb in the box!

  29. Empath, IAL and others,
    I would heartily recommend the ichristianforums site. This is a site with a sound SoF and a good location to platform your views. The more you post, the more that will come and eventually it will hop as you would like it to. The most important thing is that you will be able to stand firmly on God’s headship here, providing good witness and example. Isn’t that what good Christian men should do? This place is going to grow.

  30. In my opinion CF is a lost cause. In my years there, every single staff member who has even a shred of a clue has quit out of frustration. There’s too much inertia to change it for the better. No amount of influence by the owner will change it. At this point I am of the opinion that the owner’s priority is money in the form of site supporter revenue and ad revenue and that they run the site, not based on God’s word and values but on what will bring in the most money by bringing in the most people.

  31. I agree its a lost cause, I haven’t looked at it for a few weeks. Nor can I stomach theorama as it has become CF with no shackles, add in the venomous atheism and the rabid leftism and its unsavory.
    We are left wandering the cyber desert.

  32. christianforums.net seems to be the most promising of the one’s we’ve run into. ichristianforums could be good but it would take a lot of intentional effort by at least 3 or 4 of us to get the activity level up to a point where the place is interesting.

  33. I agree, christianforums.net….if any

    chaz, you are not posting at theorama? Ive not checked there in a week or so, I saw Janelle there, and some others, wondered how that was workin out

  34. I signed for christianforums.net the username is the usually. I haven’t even touched theorama though.

  35. How can you guys post over there? Especially since the crew is over there.

  36. I’m out in terms of Theorama. With “the gang” there it will just be same shit different place. Their continuing on for so long with their outright slander of Janel, after she has obviously left is disgusting. Typical though.

    But my main reason for leaving there is the same reason i e-mailed you about leaving Equality Central.

  37. @ Rookie,
    I was looking forward to posting there because the posters from there that I know from a long time ago are actually capable of carrying on a discussion that involves even passionate disagreement in a civil and respectful manner. Being able to talk about what you actually said and mean is a novel experience. But the presence of one poster makes that impossible for me now so I’m out.

  38. I’d like to maybe try to minimize naming the other places by name since it would be entirely within their typical behavior for “the gang” to come and disrupt anywhere we decide to go.

  39. I’m ok with that. Maybe instead of game I think Looney Tunes would a better phrase for them.

  40. Calling them Looney Toons is terribly insulting, to some really great cartoons.

  41. LOL… I’m sorry for insulting the Looney Tones. Well I’m refer to them as something else.

  42. A few of them, many moons and like 2 forums ago, I’m pretty sure it was on FL, referred to one male poster who was particularly irksome to them as “he who shall not be named”. It was a not in the least bit clever way to gossip about him and slander him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s