Why the difference?

Pathetic.....

Good point!

Senti, you have a keen way of just cutting through the filler and getting right to the heart of ludicrous thinking.

It's one thing to point out inconsistencies and discuss them in a civil manner, but something entirely different to insult and antagonize those who don't see those inconsistencies during the process.

woobadooba said:

It's one thing to point out inconsistencies and discuss them in a civil manner, but something entirely different to insult and antagonize those who don't see those inconsistencies during the process.

Click to expand...

Your point?

It is one thing to be up front and direct and honest....

Another thing entirely to be decietful and avoinding and going here there and everywhere but to the point....

bellanegra1 said:

Your point?

It is one thing to be up front and direct and honest....

Another thing entirely to be decietful and avoinding and going here there and everywhere but to the point....

Click to expand...

And you asked me what my point was?

wow this is a neat little nest divided, innit.

sentipente said:

On this sub-forum no objection is raised when a member of this group attempts to speak authoritatively about Roman Catholic church teachings yet we have spent tons of bandwidth in an effort to prevent Adventists from speaking in the same manner regarding the church to which they belong. What is the reasoning behind that?

Click to expand...

Perhaps there is a misconception that questioning the teachings of this church is viewed as akin to questioning God. Maybe that is, in fact the actual perception. That certainly makes it harder to deal with basic problems within the organization as well as allowing one's mind to be open to further truth.

Do we really think that the 28 fundamentals Truth accomplished? Rather hard to believe since I hear we will be spending eternity learning.

PeacefulSDA said:

Perhaps there is a misconception that questioning the teachings of this church is viewed as akin to questioning God. Maybe that is, in fact the actual perception. That certainly makes it harder to deal with basic problems within the organization as well as allowing one's mind to be open to further truth.

Click to expand...

WOW, total wisdom here, PeacefulSDA. Nail, head, BANG.
You nailed it completely. That is the problem not just here but across the board within the dot-org itself. It is endemic to SDA-ism in copious effluvience ... but it is to some degree endemic in the RELIGIOUS SYSTEM WE CALL "CHRISTIANITY" at large, too.

Many who might seek are because of this, turned aside.

sentipente said:

On this sub-forum no objection is raised when a member of this group attempts to speak authoritatively about Roman Catholic church teachings yet we have spent tons of bandwidth in an effort to prevent Adventists from speaking in the same manner regarding the church to which they belong. What is the reasoning behind that?

Click to expand...

The reasoning is pretty obvious. Those who speak against the opinions, do not like the idea of pluralism. They believe there is one way to believe and that their denomination should only reflect that one way. To do this they have to rewrite history of the denomination and it founders. Once rewritten this becomes the Historic/traditional SDA orthodoxy and anything against the orthodoxy is heretical.

So your question should really have been (since I think you already knew the above answer) why is freedom of thought so often attacked on this forum? (though the above answer may also partially answer that question)

Freedom of thought has historically always been under attack by small minds, wherever the two clash. Just an observation. It just tends to be spikier when mixed with religion.