Poll Revision

[RC_NewProtestants]

Woob wrote:

This is merely your opinion, as you have a tendency to make such condescending generalizations.

Yes and all of your answer was merely your opinion. And very frankly you have been one of the major offender's in the subjective world of condescending generalizations. If you want to stick all these silly rules in the Traditional forum then take that up with them. But they have no place as rules for all the forums. They have no place for the debate sub- forum or the Progressive sub-forum.

All of this appears to be over emotional Traditionalist SDA's trying to turn the entire SDA Forum into their narrow minded sancturary. If someone comes and starts a thread in the debate sub-forum to glorify satan and we don't have SDA,s here who can argue down that thesis we don't deserve to have our own forum. And frankly those that always want to restrict things tend to produce the least intelligent church members. People who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

 

[reddogs]

Simple is better then more complicated. Allow the moderators some leeway.

JM

Please, or you may be the one suffering, saying 'how did this happen".........

 

[reddogs]

Woob wrote:



Yes and all of your answer was merely your opinion. And very frankly you have been one of the major offender's in the subjective world of condescending generalizations. If you want to stick all these silly rules in the Traditional forum then take that up with them. But they have no place as rules for all the forums. They have no place for the debate sub- forum or the Progressive sub-forum.

All of this appears to be over emotional Traditionalist SDA's trying to turn the entire SDA Forum into their narrow minded sancturary. If someone comes and starts a thread in the debate sub-forum and we don't have SDA here who can argue down that thesis we don't deserve to have our own forum. And frankly those that always want to restrict things tend to produce the least intelligent church members. People who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

RC, me and you dont always see eye to eye, but when your right your right, so go ahead and roll with it and lets see what we can clean up and simplify......

 

[woobadooba]

Could you add the words "or Satanism" at 2.6 as shown below:

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify Satan or Satanism...

This would actually be redundant, as the mention of one already implies the other.

Could you add the words "Unmerited" at 2.7 as shown below:

2.7 Unmerited sexual content within a post will not be tolerated.

The rule already implies that it is unmerited, as it is written within a context that constitutes 'non-allowance of'.

Can you change the word "forbidden" to "not allowed" in 2.8 and spelling corrected ....and take out "It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condecsneding or derrogatory remark be made about God." it is redundant. So it should read as follows:

2.8 Blasphemy of God is not allowed.

But not everyone understands what constitutes blasphemy. So what I had said isn't redundant, as it just simply adds clarity to the rule.

Can you take off "nor will any variations of it be allowed." in 2.9 as it is redudant and rewrite it simply as below:

2.9 Profane language is not allowed.

It is necessary to speak of variations for reasons already implied within the rule. Not all words are defined as profane according to the dictionary; but some words can be used in a profane manner as a substitute for words that the dictionary defines as profane.

We need to make the rules as clear as we can, so that there will be no room for misunderstanding as to what they mean.

Can you rewrite 2.10 as shown below:

2.10 No unnecessary or undue disparaging remarks about Adventists or the SDA church will be allowed.

So are there times when it is necessary to do these things?

 

[NightEternal]

I have read the revisioned poll and my original observations remain unchanged.

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

What if the thread ended with accusations or statements about yourself that are untrue and inaccurate? Should the charges go unaddressed just because the thread has suddenly been locked at that time? Does not one have the right to answer the charges and set the record straight for the eyes of the rest of the forum? What if starting a new thread is the only way to do this?

I suppose I can abide by the first stipulation, but not the underlined part. Who decides what topic is 'similar' to the locked one? Will any other topics that might be even remotely related to a locked topic also be locked? Where will this end and how far will it be taken?

Also, why has the thread been locked in the first place? Is it because the thread descended into fighting or was the topic itself too controversial? Who decides what is too controversial to be discussed?

There is no way I can vote in favor of such a vague rule.

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him should constitute satanic glorification.

Are we or are we not trying to be a witness to all sorts of people here? Just because I do not agree with the above said premises, does not mean I have to censor the other person. Truth does not need censorhip and the muzzling of different beliefs to help it. It will stand on its own, shining brightly, and people can make thier own choice when they see the contrast.

I cannot vote for this. It smacks of censorship and the crushing of out free speech.

If a Satanist comes here and begins to pontificate on the virtues of child sacrifice or sex with animals, action should be taken out of respect for the laws of common decency. If a Luciferian or a LaVeyan practitionier wants to dialogue on the main forum (Statanism is an official religion), than as long as they abide by the rules of order, I have no problems dealing with what they believe.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated.

If it is pornography under discussion, I concur. And even though I can appreciate art that is sensual in nature such as works from Michaelangelo or Raphael, I realize others might not have that appreciation.

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

Again, smacks of censorship and the crushing out of open discussion. If this what a person honestly believes, I feel no need of taping thier mouths shut. I don't have to agree with them. The truth of the Bible will stand in striking contrast. This forum is not communist China. Why are we trying to make it thus?

I cannot vote for this one either.

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

I concur with the first part. Not with the underlined part. I have no issues or problems using the term 'freaking' or 'fracking'. Neither do I have issues with 'darn', 'heck' or 'shoot'.

This is absolute, full-blown paranoia. How far do you plan to take this one as well?

Therefore, I cannot vote for this one either the way it is presently worded.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

This one is much too vague. If the disclaimers of 'some' or many' are in the statement, that should be fine. It's ridiculous that this even has to be done, as people should be intelligent enough to figure out it is never the whole SDA organization from the GC president right on down to the church janitor under discussion.

Who decides what is 'condescending'? What if it is true? What if it is valid according to the person's own personal expreinces in the church?

No way. I cannot vote for this one either.

It is clear this set of rules was rushed through as part of a knee-jerk reaction to the Moriah situation. We can do better than this.

 

[NightEternal]

Woob wrote:

Yes and all of your answer was merely your opinion. And very frankly you have been one of the major offender's in the subjective world of condescending generalizations. If you want to stick all these silly rules in the Traditional forum then take that up with them. But they have no place as rules for all the forums. They have no place for the debate sub- forum or the Progressive sub-forum.

All of this appears to be over emotional Traditionalist SDA's trying to turn the entire SDA Forum into their narrow minded sancturary. If someone comes and starts a thread in the debate sub-forum to glorify satan and we don't have SDA,s here who can argue down that thesis we don't deserve to have our own forum. And frankly those that always want to restrict things tend to produce the least intelligent church members. People who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

I agree with RC. He nailed it!

 

[woobadooba]

Night, I will address your post when I get a chance.

 

[djconklin]

Re-phrase a bit:

Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden.

 

[djconklin]

Woob wrote:

This is merely your opinion, as you have a tendency to make such condescending generalizations.

Yes and all of your answer was merely your opinion. And very frankly you have been one of the major offender's in the subjective world of condescending generalizations.

Actually, you just made a "subjective" "condescending generalization" of your own. You have no proof for what you said. You just made it up based on your own perception--with no evidence that your perception is correct. And it corrobrates my tag when others say you nailed it when they have no proof either.

 

[woobadooba]

Re-phrase a bit:

Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden.

Done

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Ok, I just worked on revising and clarifying the rules that went up in the poll.

Tell me what you think.

The Poll Version

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him should constitute satanic glorification.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated.

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

Revised Version With Some Additions

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of rule violations will be deleted

What this also means is that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread

2.6 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted. For example, referring to satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification.

What this also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.7 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated.

What this means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature

2.8 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condecsneding or derrogatory remark be made about God.

An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.9 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

For examples of a variation of profane language, it would be profane to tell someone to 'Frack' off, or to refer to a person as a 'jackass', or to tell someone that you are tired of their 'freakin' nonsense

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated

It is true that there are bad apples in the church. But that doesn't mean all adventists are like that. To suggest that they are is not only false, it is an insult. What happens within a minority does not constitute what the majoirty is.

2.11 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish is forbidden.

Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

i don't have a problem with most of the SDA a rules, but this this is just ridiculous. I understand that your want to be respected in your own house but this is terrible! why? because it assumes every thing we believe is biblically based and there is biblical support. let me give you 2 examples that we believe that are not supported by the scriptures.

1. sunday law. no where in scripture does the bible say that sunday is the mark of the beast. that is a conclusion we have drawn from history. While sda's are free to believe it. there is no proof of that.

2. the reviewing of the records of the lost for 1000 years. Where is that in the bible? not there. all you can say is that there will be 1000 years of christ's regin. where and what we will be doing is not consistent with the bible.


While both are ok for sda's to believe. neither can be proven from the scriptures.

 

[OntheDL]

Originally Posted by RC_NewProtestants
All of this appears to be over emotional Traditionalist SDA's trying to turn the entire SDA Forum into their narrow minded sancturary. If someone comes and starts a thread in the debate sub-forum to glorify satan and we don't have SDA,s here who can argue down that thesis we don't deserve to have our own forum. And frankly those that always want to restrict things tend to produce the least intelligent church members. People who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

I don't believe this is a christian apologetics forum. Unless I'm mistaken it's for like-minded christian to fellowship with each other.

That's why even this forum has a creed to disallow arian vs trinitarian debate.

That's not to say people can't ask question. But for the purpose of glorifying Satan, you can go to any christian forums online, you will it unacceptable and will be removed very quickly.

 

[woobadooba]

I have read the revisioned poll and my original observations remain unchanged.

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

What if the thread ended with accusations or statements about yourself that are untrue and inaccurate? Should the charges go unaddressed just because the thread has suddenly been locked at that time? Does not one have the right to answer the charges and set the record straight for the eyes of the rest of the forum? What if starting a new thread is the only way to do this?

It is already against forum rules to post a post from another poster in a thread without that person's consent.

You would have to take the issue up with the mods regarding libel. They would in turn take action against the person that accused you of something false, if in fact that person spoke falsely about you, to your hurt.

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him should constitute satanic glorification.

Are we or are we not trying to be a witness to all sorts of people here? Just because I do not agree with the above said premises, does not mean I have to censor the other person. Truth does not need censorhip and the muzzling of different beliefs to help it. It will stand on its own, shining brightly, and people can make thier own choice when they see the contrast.

There are plenty of places where people can go to glorify satan if they want to. But they will not do it in this forum.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated.

If it is pornography under discussion, I concur. And even though I can appreciate art that is sensual in nature such as works from Michaelangelo or Raphael, I realize others might not have that appreciation.

Moot point. The rule is written within a context that implies sexual content, or images that are morally innapropriate.

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

Again, smacks of censorship and the crushing out of open discussion. If this what a person honestly believes, I feel no need of taping thier mouths shut. I don't have to agree with them. The truth of the Bible will stand in striking contrast. This forum is not communist China. Why are we trying to make it thus?

I cannot vote for this one either.

There is nothing wrong with censoring certain ideas. In fact, there already is a large degree of censorship here. And did you not agree that things that are of a pornographic nature should be forbidden in this forum? Is this not censorship?

You seem to serve a double-standard.

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

I concur with the first part. Not with the underlined part. I have no issues or problems using the term 'freaking' or 'fracking'. Neither do I have issues with 'darn', 'heck' or 'shoot'.

The terms themselves aren't bad. What makes them bad is how they are used. I think I made that clear in the rule.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

This one is much too vague. If the disclaimers of 'some' or many' are in the statement, that should be fine. It's ridiculous that this even has to be done, as people should be intelligent enough to figure out it is never the whole SDA organization from the GC president right on down to the church janitor under discussion.

Presumption does not = reality. Not everyone will believe that you are referring to a minority while speaking in a generality.

Is it too hard to use words like, 'some', 'several', 'part', etc... before making a statement about our church or Adventists ?

 

[DarylFawcett]

if the people in the sub-forum have already decided what rules they will abide by, why must the rules you are proposing supersede those rules?

These section of rules are global in the SDA forum section as they are for both the Main SDA forum and sub-forums.

 

[OntheDL]

i don't have a problem with most of the SDA a rules, but this this is just ridiculous. I understand that your want to be respected in your own house but this is terrible! why? because it assumes every thing we believe is biblically based and there is biblical support. let me give you 2 examples that we believe that are not supported by the scriptures.

1. sunday law. no where in scripture does the bible say that sunday is the mark of the beast. that is a conclusion we have drawn from history. While sda's are free to believe it. there is no proof of that.

2. the reviewing of the records of the saints for 1000 years. Where is that in the bible? not there. all you can say is that there will be 1000 years of christ's regin. where and what we will be doing is not consistent with the bible.


While both are ok for sda's to believe. neither can be proven from the scriptures.

Not at all true. But I'm not going to debate it in this thread.

They are official SDA believes. You can question it, ask for evidence and make your own arguments, but you shouldn't be allowed to make condesending remarks about them.

This is to avoid the ongoing flame wars.

At what point you thought the existing rules have worked? That's why we need tougher measures.

 

[djconklin]

the reviewing of the records of the saints for 1000 years.

I agree that this is an unbiblical teaching--which is why we do not teach it.

 

[OntheDL]

I agree that this is an unbiblical teaching--which is why we do not teach it.

LOL missed that.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't believe this is a christian apologetics forum. Unless I'm mistaken it's for like-minded christian to fellowship with each other.

That's why even this forum has a creed to disallow arian vs trinitarian debate.

That's not to say people can't ask question. But for the purpose of glorifying Satan, you can go to any christian forums online, you will it unacceptable and will be removed very quickly.

We already have rules for the Debate sub-forum and yes you are mistaken: What is happening now is that rules are trying to be implemented which are contrary to our previously approved rules. You will notice that some of the new proposed rules will go against such rules as 3.3 below.

3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in a Seventh-day Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists.

3.2 Other Christians and non-Christians are also allowed to debate respectfully.

3.3 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

3.4 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion. For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."

3.5 Those inqiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.

The vulgarity and sexual stuff is covered in the main CF rules. see:
http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=rule_2#faq_rule_2_10

2.10 Members will not post threatening, obscene, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit (including the use of slang sexual euphemisms), graphically violent or illegal posts or links.

In fact before you go making anymore rules people should pay attention to the CF rules as there is no need for duplication. http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=rules

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
I agree that this is an unbiblical teaching--which is why we do not teach it.

LOL missed that.

Read slowly--the critics read too fast, woodenly, simplistically and literally. Trips them up every time.

 

[StormyOne]

These section of rules are global in the SDA forum section as they are for both the Main SDA forum and sub-forums.

and therein lies the rub.... in the progressive sub-forum we have agreed no flaming, and basically anyone can discuss anything.... the rules that are being hashed out now would overrule the rules established in the sub -forum.... so why allow each sub-forum formulate their own rules then negate them with the global rules?