FreeinChrist, could we have some clarification on something?

[tall73]

I kind of thought that this is what this thread was about, since T&O did post the new rules REMINDER (whattha) here. But I may go ahead and start a new thread about this new rules issue. It really is not right at all.

This is asking for a new rule in addition to that one.

 

[tall73]

Welcome to proving my point that ex-Adventists bully us. Not all of them try to help make our rules like you do, but it's coming I'm sure. There has to be a stopping point somewhere!

Discussing your ideas is not bullying.

I'll talk about them WITH them and TO them.

If I want to talk about an issue specific to Traditional Adventists though, I will do that in our non-debate area and I will NOT be bullied by you or anybody else about it.

You were just mad you couldn't go in there and lambast me. Welcome to the rules. You helped vote that particular bunch in.

I wasn't all that worked up about it. I just posted it where the rules permit. It is you that wants to change the rules so you can talk about people and prevent them from responding.

However, I think you will find that many trad issues are discussed by making reference to the other side.

For instance, a book review on anything by Pippim would now be outlawed in your area.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Comfortable discussing folks where they can't set the record straight?

For pete's sake, Byfaithalone is here, he's already been in this thread, and I did tell him what I thought about his "you should pack your bags and run" comment in the thread he said it in.

THIS thread is in the debate section, he can defend himself all he wants.

And again Tall, if you thought my thread was talking specifically about you.....then maybe you need to think about WHY you did.

And as for me being here, I am here because I was here before all this started and have been discussing issues all along. It helps me in my process to find the truth.

Now that I have changed some positions there is something helpful about debating with those who think similarly to how I used to to test my presuppositions.

However, I don't mind if folks are influenced. Discussion does influence.

Let's see, you're convinced in your own mind, but you need to come here to MAKE SURE you are? Please. We're not stupid.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Let's say I accept your explanation about why you're here (which I absolutely do NOT, just so we're clear)...it still wouldn't explain why you think you should have any say about our rules for this forum.

I still can't believe you even tried that. You are stepping way over the bounds in so many ways. Do you really not see that at all?

 

[tall73]

For pete's sake, Byfaithalone is here, he's already been in this thread, and I did tell him what I thought about his "you should pack your bags and run" comment in the thread he said it in.

THIS thread is in the debate section, he can defend himself all he wants.

And mine was in the debate section and he could defend himself as well.

And again Tall, if you thought my thread was talking specifically about you.....then maybe you need to think about WHY you did.

I didn't think it was about me. Sometimes I like to discuss comments made about others too.

Let's see, you're convinced in your own mind, but you need to come here to MAKE SURE you are? Please. We're not stupid.

You may think what you like. After believing something for 30 years that I now think is wrong I like to investigate things a bit more thoroughly these days and probe the issues. If you don't understand it that is fine

 

[tall73]

Let's say I accept your explanation about why you're here (which I absolutely do NOT, just so we're clear)...it still wouldn't explain why you think you should have any say about our rules for this forum.

I still can't believe you even tried that. You are stepping way over the bounds in so many ways. Do you really not see that at all?

Because your forum is part of a larger whole. And poor rules in one spot effects all posters, and can spread.

If your rule proposal is sound then you shouldn't fear other views.

More to the point, I am for open discussion of ideas. And that includes you, Catholics, or anyone else. When I was moderating I pushed to allow folks to post their views, though they were not always popular. If CC really felt that birth control was a form of sodomy, they should be allowed to say that. If Protestants really felt the pope was antichrist, they should be allowed to say that.

You have every right to do that. But then your ideas are public and open for discussion. I have no interest in seeing CF become a place where ideas cannot be discussed. You thanked the mods for one rule that does that and are now proposing another.

 

[TrustAndObey]

You may think what you like. After believing something for 30 years that I now think is wrong I like to investigate things a bit more thoroughly these days and probe the issues. If you don't understand it that is fine

You just said it...you think it's wrong. You were convinced a LONG time ago that EGW wasn't a true prophet of God. Are you really trying to cement that fact or are you trying to convince others that she wasn't?

Tall, it's see-through. Plain and simple, it is see-through. You have an agenda.

You could probe all these questions with others that are as convinced as you are, but you choose to do it in the debate section of the Seventh-day Adventist forum. Hmmm.

One thing should be enough to convince you, do you really need to keep piling on to the list in order to be convinced?

Like I said, we're not stupid.

I asked a moderator to help us with an issue in our forum. I didn't ask you to come in here and prove my point, but thanks for doing it.

 

[TrustAndObey]

More to the point, I am for open discussion of ideas. And that includes you, Catholics, or anyone else. When I was moderating I pushed to allow folks to say what they felt was right, even though it was not popular.

Did you go into the Catholic thread about FSG discussions and participate there Tall?

 

[tall73]

You just said it...you think it's wrong. You were convinced a LONG time ago that EGW wasn't a true prophet of God. Are you really trying to cement that fact or are you trying to convince others that she wasn't?

I don't limit it to either or. I am convinced of it. I am willing to be persuaded. I am willing to persuade.

I am convinced the sanctuary doctrine is wrong. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I am willing to persuade others if the evidence is convincing.

I am not sure about the Sabbath, state of the dead etc. entirely. I am ready to be convinced on them. I am ready to convince others if the evidence is convincing.

I am here to discuss the issues.

Tall, it's see-through. Plain and simple, it is see-through. You have an agenda.

Thanks for your opinion. I have already said I don't have a problem if folks are persuaded. So I don't deny that. Yet I am also new to these ideas I am promoting. I believe they are solid. But the only way to find that out is to put them to the test.

When I had to defend the Sabbath against non-Sabbatarians they came up with things I would not have expected.

The same is true when I discuss here. New details are brought forward that need to be addressed.

The reason I abandoned my views on some issues is that I could not address all the details with my old view. The same may be true of my new views. But one doesn't know until they test them.

You could probe all these questions with others that are as convinced as you are, but you choose to do it in the debate section of the Seventh-day Adventist forum. Hmmm.

Because you don't learn much from folks who think like you do.

Hmmm...

One thing should be enough to convince you, do you really need to keep piling on to the list in order to be convinced?

Yes. Because these are not simple issues and the details need to be addressed.

Like I said, we're not stupid.

I asked a moderator to help us with an issue in our forum. I didn't ask you to come in here and prove my point, but thanks for doing it.

You asked a moderator to make you comfortable by allowing you to say things about people where they couldn't be responded to.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I wasn't all that worked up about it. I just posted it where the rules permit. It is you that wants to change the rules so you can talk about people and prevent them from responding.

I mentioned that I went to several message boards where ex-Adventists go to belittle current Adventists. It was a generalization of what I saw on forums that don't have rules like this one does. I then thanked God for THIS forum because we do have rules.

Do you really think I should have to go to every one of those message boards, even though I didn't list them, and alert people that I'm talking about an issue that relates to them so they could come and comment on it?

I'm done fighting with you. We need some clarification of the rules from a moderator.

 

[tall73]

I mentioned that I went to several message boards where ex-Adventists go to belittle current Adventists. It was a generalization of what I saw on forums that don't have rules like this one does. I then thanked God for THIS forum because we do have rules.

At least one that you mentioned--CARM does have rules. I saw a post edited yesterday by a flaming non-Adventist directed to an Adventist.

Do you really think I should have to go to every one of those message boards, even though I didn't list them, and alert people that I'm talking about an issue that relates to them so they could come and comment on it?

No. I think it is public info and it can be discussed, just as your comments on it can be discussed.

I'm done fighting with you. We need some clarification of the rules from a moderator.

Clarification or a new rule?

 

[TrustAndObey]

I don't limit it to either or. I am convinced of it. I am willing to be persuaded. I am willing to persuade.

I am convinced the sanctuary doctrine is wrong. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I am willing to persuade others if the evidence is convincing.

I am not sure about the Sabbath, state of the dead etc. entirely. I am ready to be convinced on them. I am ready to convince others if the evidence is convincing.

I am here to discuss the issues.

Thanks for your opinion. I have already said I don't have a problem if folks are persuaded. So I don't deny that. Yet I am also new to these ideas I am promoting. I believe they are solid. But the only way to find that out is to put them to the test.

When I had to defend the Sabbath against non-Sabbatarians they came up with things I would not have expected.

The same is true when I discuss here. New details are brought forward that need to be addressed.

The reason I abandoned my views on some issues is that I could not address all the details with my old view. The same may be true of my new views. But one doesn't know until they test them.


Because you don't learn much from folks who think like you do.

Hmmm...


Yes. Because these are not simple issues and the details need to be addressed.

You asked a moderator to make you comfortable by allowing you to say things about people where they couldn't be responded to.

LOL. A bunch of anti-EGW comments (and at least one thread) started by you is pretty telling don't you think?

See-through.

I'm done talking with you.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

For pete's sake, Byfaithalone is here, he's already been in this thread, and I did tell him what I thought about his "you should pack your bags and run" comment in the thread he said it in.

This is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how things can go awry in this discussion forum when folks begin to single people out. Trustandobey, I challenge you to cite the post in which I wrote that "you should pack your bags and run." I assert that I never wrote such a thing and that I have been falsely accused.

This is an opportunity for a person's integrity to be demonstrated in a real life situation.

BFA

 

[tall73]

LOL. A bunch of anti-EGW comments (and at least one thread) started by you is pretty telling don't you think?

See-through.

I'm done talking with you.

And don't forget the many anti-Sanctuary threads, and one questioning the role of the Sabbath as a testing truth.

Yes, those are the issues I am discussing. I thought I made that clear. I currently don't accept EGW or the sanctuary doctrine or aspects of the Sabbath doctrine.

But I know my thoughts. And I am weighing all the evidence throughout to see what are the strong and weak points of both sides. This process eventually led me to switch sides, but I still follow the process.

And if I switched sides once based on the evidence then it remains open that I could again based on the evidence should convincing evidence come forward.

That is the way I am approaching this.

If you like to think of it this way each person is donating their perspective in DISCUSSION. I am using those that disagree with mine to test mine. If you don't like donating your perspective then don't put it in public.

Here is another idea. Get your own forum where you can make your own rules, invite just who you want, and not allow others to see it.

Then you have no issues talking about whatever you want. They are free. I could even help you set one up. But this forum is public.

 

[TrustAndObey]

This is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how things can go awry in this discussion forum when folks begin to single people out. Trustandobey, I challenge you to cite the post in which I wrote that "you should pack your bags and run." I assert that I never wrote such a thing and that I have been falsely accused.

This is an opportunity for a person's integrity to be demonstrated in a real life situation.

BFA

My sincere, genuine, and heartfelt apology! I was typing fast and it was actually Bourbaki, not you.

I am really, really sorry!!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42840873&postcount=99

 

[Byfaithalone1]

My sincere, genuine, and heartfelt apology! I was typing fast and it was actually Bourbaki, not you.

I am really, really sorry!!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42840873&postcount=99

Your apology is received as it was intended and gratefully accepted.

I pointed out the error because my position on this subject could not be more opposite than the one attributed to me. I am not here to tell anyone to leave the SDA denomination. I am here to proclaim the good news of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone. Because I believe that salvation has absolutely nothing to do with denominational affiliation, it matters little to me which roster a person's name appears on (and I suspect that it also matters little to God).

Ultimately, the question on my heart is whether each person (SDA or otherwise) understands salvation to be a free a gift (rather than seeking to earn it).

BFA

 

[tall73]

In fact there are some lively conversations on CARM among formers about the issue of leaving the church. Some think to be an Adventist is to be lost. By and large the ones who think otherwise are the ones who have migrated.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, this is the Seventh-day Adventist forum. Do you ever go to your current church's forum to discuss the current doctrine that you now hold to be true with THEM?

I have not seen any posts made by you in a very long time where you are just merely looking for answers. You are trying to teach.

Here's an idea, quit tryng to make rules for a forum for Seventh-day Adventists. You have absolutely no right to do that, and you have overstepped the boundaries.

Seventh-day Adventists should be the only people helping to make the rules for this forum.

I do take issue with these "off-the-cuff" rules that appear to be retroactive and were made without any input. I do understand the rules but they need to be clarified and reworded, and other problems we have here need to be raised and addressed by moderation.

I didn't take this up with you, your name appears NOWHERE in my thread title. I'm going straight to the source so we can all find out what is going on.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with something Seventh-day Adventists see as a problem. It isn't up to you to decide what rules we have here.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

In fact there are some lively conversations on CARM among formers about the issue of leaving the church. Some think to be an Adventist is to be lost. By and large the ones who think otherwise are the ones who have migrated.

I would assert that the group of formers on CARM who have taken such a position are a small group. A number of formers have been quite vocal in opposing such a view. I, for one, do not believe that "to be Adventist is to be lost." With that said, I believe that the SDA version of the gospel does not fit with the gospel that I read about in Scripture, and so I have grave concerns about the denomination.

BFA

 

[TrustAndObey]

I really am sorry BFA. I have a thousand things going on right now, and I really didn't mean to attribute that post to you.

In fact there are some lively conversations on CARM among formers about the issue of leaving the church. Some think to be an Adventist is to be lost. By and large the ones who think otherwise are the ones who have migrated.

And if we don't address this problem here on CF, we're going to have a whole lot of lively discussions just like that on here.

People need to worry about their own salvation, and quit trying to bully people. I was addressing (in my thread in the Trad area) the general problem of what I saw on other message boards, and why some people can't seem to just go and be happy that they found another church they agree with.

It really is a problem that I'm seeing, and I wanted to discuss it with my fellow Trad Adventists. You know as well as I do that Progressives don't get badgered the way we do, so it was a Trad-specific problem that I was addressing.

I didn't WANT to debate about it. If I did, I would've put it in the debate section.

I am not okay with people pulling my posts out of our area. There are a lot of other people that feel the same way I do.