2.3 Wiki rules discussion

[woobadooba]

so far 5 say no to theistic evolution, and 3 say yes to it.

there are a few others that will vote on this, I'm sure.

 

[djconklin]

"Only the literal six day view of creation and the literal flood water covering the entire earth shall be allowed in the Adventist Forum."

I'd git ya on the "covering the entire earth" bit!

 

[tall73]

Please see this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5708882-we-need-a-facilitator.html

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I vote that we leave the rules at stoping discussion of atheistic evolution, that is, without God at all. So I say no.

If we want to limit the discussion of theistic evolution, at least some discussion over the Genesis text should be allowed.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

On this issue there has been considerable discussion with the three faith and science conferences, while they never really decided anything they did provide dialog and understanding and they provided something that this forum may want to consider as well. Here is a quote from an article about one of the faith and science conferences reflecting the comments of Jan Paulsen:

The world church president commented on the way, as he sees it, the church should respond to discussing difficult issues. "I submit to you that even before we summarize matters and think in terms of outcomes with respect to any report or statement, learning to communicate in an atmosphere of courtesy and respect is an invaluable quality of life in a community such as ours. If there is to be found among us, as has been demonstrated, a mix of views and approaches with respect to origins, some of which are clearly mutually irreconcilable, we owe it to each other to hear what we have to say and to try to understand, especially in a select group of leaders and thinkers such as we are. Let no one walk away from this conversation and say that they were not heard."

In Paulsen's view, "A community which is strong and healthy is in no way threatened by the kind of conversation on this issue [of origins] that we have had spread over three years."
http://news.adventist.org/data/2004/07/1093986842/index.html.en

 

[woobadooba]

On this issue there has been considerable discussion with the three faith and science conferences, while they never really decided anything they did provide dialog and understanding and they provided something that this forum may want to consider as well. Here is a quote from an article about one of the faith and science conferences reflecting the comments of Jan Paulsen:

RC,

It's not that we don't think people should discuss these things. There are forums for such topics. And some of us just don't want to see such topics discussed in here. It doesn't make us closed minded; rather it just simply means that we are cautious about what we will allow to be discussed and debated in our forum.

If you want to discuss these things then there is a forum for that; but don't expect us to want to give in to your demands that we not censor such topics.

This is the SDA forum, not the creation/evolution forum.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

RC,

It's not that we don't think people should discuss these things. There are forums for such topics. And some of us just don't want to see such topics discussed in here. It doesn't make us closed minded; rather it just simply means that we are cautious about what we will allow to be discussed and debated in our forum.

If you want to discuss these things then there is a forum for that; but don't expect us to want to give in to your demands that we not censor such topics.

This is the SDA forum, not the creation/evolution forum.

Again I have to agree here. there is already a subforum on Creation issues. you can go there?

 

[Endium]

since there is another forum for this, I don't think there should be any discussion of it in here either.

 

[DarylFawcett]

I disagree with censoring/not allowing certain topics solely for the reason that if we don't allow this, we will soon be censoring/not allowing a multitude of others, such as The Trinity for there seems to be division on that one.

And what about the Ordination of Women? There seems to be division on that one also.

And what about the IJ? As some here do not accept this one, shall we not allow that one either?

If we can't stand up for declaring and defending the truth, then we will not be ready for The Mark of The Beast, and/or The Time of Trouble.

 

[woobadooba]

I disagree with censoring/not allowing certain topics solely for the reason that if we don't allow this, we will soon be censoring/not allowing a multitude of others, such as The Trinity for there seems to be division on that one.

And what about the Ordination of Women? There seems to be division on that one also.

And what about the IJ? As some here do not accept this one, shall we not allow that one either?

If we can't stand up for declaring and defending the truth, then we will not be ready for The Mark of The Beast, and/or The Time of Trouble.

Daryl,

Your point is moot. The whole purpose of censoring this topic is because it is a dangerous doctrine to a person's faith. I suppose you haven't been around long enough to know that two members of this forum left the faith completely as a result of a teaching that is similar to it. They are now atheists.

As to the other topics you mentioned, I don't see that they can really do this kind of damage to a person's faith. So your point irrelevant.

Again, if you feel a need to talk about this stuff, then go to the proper forum to do it.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Moot to you maybe, but then you are only one person here, just as I am, therefore, what the majority says is what will be, whether you or I like it or not.

 

[woobadooba]

Moot to you maybe, but then you are only one person here, just as I am, therefore, what the majority says is what will be, whether you or I like it or not.

Daryl, the majority has already voted against it.

Why do you insist on kicking against the pricks?

You enjoy gossiping about Danny and Linda Shelton, and now you want to put babes in Christ in danger by allowing for the discussion of a deadly doctrine.

What else do you want to do?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Daryl, I do see your point, but please consider this....

We're going to share our forum with atheists now.

How do you counter an atheist about evolution? Unless you have a degree in science you're going to use the bible and guess what? They'll laugh at you.

I've debated with atheists on evolution several times and some of them were actually more curteous than other Christians (seriously), but it never went anywhere.

They do not believe in the Word of God. They do not respect our Creator or even believe He exists so to them we HAD to evolve.

And it is their number one objective to get others to believe that we evolved as well, because they can't believe otherwise or they have to look in the mirror. For them, answering to a higher power is the last thing in the world they want to do.

If you give them a good solid piece of evidence that they can't explain, they resort to personal attacks.

It goes NOWHERE.

This is the second time someone has mentioned that "we better know how to defend our faith in the real world". Well, no kidding. And I HAVE.

I've defended it more times than I care to count...against atheists, against other Christians, against my own family. But I can't report my family or anyone "in the real world" for personal attacks, so a message board really is not good preparation for life!

I'm not asking for censorship of any other topic.

And I'll be really honest, if evolution isn't banned from this forum, I'm going to campaign for totally separate subforums for Progressives and Traditionals.

There really just has to be some limit at some point and I think we all know it's almost like we belong to two totally different denominations anyway. We rarely agree on ANYTHING and because of that, we hardly ever lift up God in here.

I actually like talking about evolution sometimes....but those are the times I could go to GT or the Creation vs Evolution forum.

This should be a safe haven for Adventists.

 

[DarylFawcett]

I would simply direct them to http://www.halos.com where Robert Gentry has provided irrefutable proof of an instant creation. So far, nobody in the scientific community has refuted what is there.

As far as voting goes, we are supposed to be starting again with a blank Wiki, therefore, this 2.3 rule, will need to be presented and discussed again at the appropriate time in the new Adventist Wiki article/topic.

 

[woobadooba]

Daryl, I do see your point, but please consider this....

We're going to share our forum with atheists now.

How do you counter an atheist about evolution? Unless you have a degree in science you're going to use the bible and guess what? They'll laugh at you.

I've debated with atheists on evolution several times and some of them were actually more curteous than other Christians (seriously), but it never went anywhere.

They do not believe in the Word of God. They do not respect our Creator or even believe He exists so to them we HAD to evolve.

And it is their number one objective to get others to believe that we evolved as well, because they can't believe otherwise or they have to look in the mirror. For them, answering to a higher power is the last thing in the world they want to do.

If you give them a good solid piece of evidence that they can't explain, they resort to personal attacks.

It goes NOWHERE.

This is the second time someone has mentioned that "we better know how to defend our faith in the real world". Well, no kidding. And I HAVE.

I've defended it more times than I care to count...against atheists, against other Christians, against my own family. But I can't report my family or anyone "in the real world" for personal attacks, so a message board really is not good preparation for life!

I'm not asking for censorship of any other topic.

And I'll be really honest, if evolution isn't banned from this forum, I'm going to campaign for totally separate subforums for Progressives and Traditionals.

There really just have to be some limit at some point and I think we all know it's almost like we belong to two totally different denominations anyway. We rarely agree on ANYTHING and because of that, we hardly ever lift up God in here.

I actually like talking about evolution sometimes....but those are the times I could go to GT or the Creation vs Evolution forum.

This should be a safe haven for Adventists.

But then the point will brought up that we aren't talking about allowing atheistic evolution, but theistic evolution. And I still disagree with this, because it is a dangerous doctrine.

The only one in here that believes it is RC. So why would those that don't believe it want it in here? They say that they want it in here so that we can have free discussion. But in my opinion that is very selfish of them, because it is a dangerous doctrine, and has the potential to bring a person's faith to ruin. So why would these people want to put others in danger in this way?

Again, there is a place for these topics, and those that think they can handle discussing them, can go there if they would like to. But don't put babes in Christ in danger of their faith for the sake of free discussion. Even the Bible does not agree with having free discussion on everything.

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." (2Ti 2:15-18)

I realize that Paul is addressing a certain teaching here; but the underlying point is, if there is a teaching that is not of God, and has the potential to cause harm to a person's faith, such teachings are not only to be shunned , but discussion about them ought to be avoided.

This open approach that is being advocated in here is not Biblical. Why are we not following the Bible? Shouldn't it be our guide in our decision making?

 

[DarylFawcett]

Woob,

I do not enjoy gossiping, as you call it, against Danny and Linda Shelton, however, I am concerned with and speak about the facts. As far as the facts goes, I believe Linda Shelton is a victim of the supremacy desires of Danny Shelton. Linda was getting in his way in relation to the leadership decisions at 3ABN, therefore, Linda had to go.

 

[woobadooba]

Woob,

I do not enjoy gossiping, as you call it, against Danny and Linda Shelton, however, I am concerned with and speak about the facts. As far as the facts goes, I believe Linda Shelton is a victim of the supremacy desires of Danny Shelton. Linda was getting in his way in relation to the leadership decisions at 3ABN, therefore, Linda had to go.

No, you just find pleasure in publicly ridiculing people. You remind me of the pharisees that caught the woman in the act of adultery.

 

[StormyOne]

It is becoming clear that there are those whose desire it is to discuss nothing except those things they are comfortable with. Adventism 1880's style. It seems that's where they are, and that's where they are choosing to remain. It seems to me that those who are of that mindset want this forum to reflect their reality.

Any decision that is contrary to what they believe the truth is will be seen as a compromise of the standards. So how can a consensus come from that?

 

[woobadooba]

It is becoming clear that there are those whose desire it is to discuss nothing except those things they are comfortable with. Adventism 1880's style. It seems that's where they are, and that's where they are choosing to remain. It seems to me that those who are of that mindset want this forum to reflect their reality.

Any decision that is contrary to what they believe the truth is will be seen as a compromise of the standards. So how can a consensus come from that?

It is clear that there are some that believe in following the counsel of the Bible, while others would attempt to play in the devil's playground with no thought at all about the little ones!

I have already proved that the Bible does not agree with an open approach to the discussion of everything. The progressives have not proved that the Bible supports open discussion for everything.

Should we follow the Bible, or those that give instruction that opposes what it says?

 

[TrustAndObey]

It is becoming clear that there are those whose desire it is to discuss nothing except those things they are comfortable with. Adventism 1880's style. It seems that's where they are, and that's where they are choosing to remain. It seems to me that those who are of that mindset want this forum to reflect their reality.

Any decision that is contrary to what they believe the truth is will be seen as a compromise of the standards. So how can a consensus come from that?

Stormy, I'm comfortable talking about evolution. I have discussed it AT LENGTH on message boards (and chat rooms) and with two of my college professors (one believed in it, one didn't).

I spent three hours talking with one of my professors about giraffes and butterflies for pete's sake and I was the one that initiated the conversation. We ended up in the parking lot because the college was closing down and we weren't done talking about it.

I am very comfortable talking about it. I went toe-to-toe with a science professor before I had my first degree in science.

However, this is an Adventist forum and you bet it should reflect Adventist beliefs.