2.3 Wiki rules discussion

[RC_NewProtestants]

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.

I have known people who have left the SDA church because of fundamentalism also, should we ban that subject too? Why don't you read SDAapostasy.org the SDA church isn't fundamentalist enough for them so then encourage people to leave it. Everything is important to ones faith, any of a number of factors can make people reject the church or Christianity.

All the material I have referenced here is from Adventist to Adventists is there another forum dealing with alternate creation views in the Adventist church. No you reference the creation evolution sub-forum but that is not what the faith and science conferences were about. If you fear having atheists here then ban them not fellow Adventists in an Adventist forum.

These were the first attempts by woob, see how restrictive they were:

1. Within the context of the 'origin of life', no other view is to be discussed/debated in the SDA forum other than what the Bible clearly identifies as a literal 6 day creation.

2. Any threads discussing Ellen White's role in the church ought to be uplifting and respectful. This is not to suggest that her ideas can't be questioned; rather, it is to propose that if such ideas are to be brought into question, such investigation must not be tainted by hatred. In other words, the actions of those who appear to post nothing but negative things about her should be viewed as unacceptable behavior which constitutes spamming.

Notice how Ellen White is restricted to the subjective "tainted by hatred", anything negative about her is unacceptable, well if you say she is wrong about something, say amalgamation between man and beast still seen in certain races today, that would be saying negative things about her and be unacceptable.

5. The moral influence theory is not to be promoted in the SDA forum. This is the idea that states that Jesus didn't die on the cross in our place, because He had to die for our sins, but merely died to illustrate a moral lesson.

6. The idea that Jesus had a sinful nature should not be discussed or debated in the SDA forum, since it constitutes blasphemy.

Don't believe that this is only censoring of theistic evolution. this is an attempt to shut down anything that does not agree with the Traditional Adventists views. There has not been a problem with topics in our forums, it has not been overrun by atheists or evolutionary discussions. Those are merely fear monger tactics used to make it seem that censorship is necessary.

There is no Biblical idea for censorship if you find that it is just babbling then there would be no need for you to engage in the thread. If you find a topic is going to destroy your faith then don't read the thread or just read the parts where you think it is where people agree with your views.

I reject the concept that we must protect the weakest people that come to a discussion forum because they may see other views. In the end that will mean that we will have to protect them from everything someone may think may subject their faith in stress. In other words we can only allow the Traditional SDA view as everything else is of the devil. Have we not already on this forum seen such ideas? This is far more then merely evolution debate.

 

[woobadooba]

RC,

I have provided Biblical proof for the idea that open discussion on everything is not wise, especially when it comes to dangerous doctrines. In fact, the Bible even says that we ought to avoid such discussion. You have not provided such proof, but merely stated your opinion.

So your words mean nothing to me, because they do not agree with the Word of God.

 

[TrustAndObey]

We'll just have to take this one to the polls. We aren't going to hammer it out here I'm afraid.

Has anyone considered asking for two totally different forums for Traditionals and Non-Traditionals? It might come down to that, but I'm hoping it doesn't.

 

[woobadooba]

We'll just have to take this one to the polls. We aren't going to hammer it out here I'm afraid.

Has anyone considered asking for two totally different forums for Traditionals and Non-Traditionals? It might come down to that, but I'm hoping it doesn't.

We don't need to do this. All we need to do is allow the Bible to dictate our decision making.

 

[StormyOne]

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?

The bible says that rebellious children should be stoned. I suppose you would have me believe that you follow that directive? How about killing those who break the sabbath? You follow that directive too?

If not why not? My point is simple, every directive in the bible you don't follow, or even pretend to.

The devil has no playground, or have you forgotten the text that tells us that the earth is the lord's and the fullness thereof?

It seems like there is an effort to restrict what people discuss (term used loosely), and what they think. As if discussing a topic is going to make a person abandon "truth." The reality "truth" never convinces anyone of anything. It is the Holy Spirit. Not to mention we cannot say we have all the truth anyway, only God can make that claim.....

 

[woobadooba]

The bible says that rebellious children should be stoned. I suppose you would have me believe that you follow that directive? How about killing those who break the sabbath? You follow that directive too?

If not why not? My point is simple, every directive in the bible you don't follow, or even pretend to.

Of course, there is such a thing as 'context'; and people that know how to ascertain it don't have issues with such directives, because they are wise enough to identify the underlying themes of such passages and apply them accordingly.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The bible says that rebellious children should be stoned. I suppose you would have me believe that you follow that directive? How about killing those who break the sabbath? You follow that directive too?

If not why not? My point is simple, every directive in the bible you don't follow, or even pretend to.

Corporal punishment and our right to judge each other was nailed to the cross. That's why we don't do those things anymore.

The devil has no playground, or have you forgotten the text that tells us that the earth is the lord's and the fullness thereof?

It seems like there is an effort to restrict what people discuss (term used loosely), and what they think. As if discussing a topic is going to make a person abandon "truth." The reality "truth" never convinces anyone of anything. It is the Holy Spirit. Not to mention we cannot say we have all the truth anyway, only God can make that claim.....

I don't think anyone here claims to have the whole truth. I know I certainly don't have it and neither does anyone labelling themselves as Progressive.

There IS an effort to restrict what people discuss and it's happening in every subforum on CF right now. Some are not allowing atheists to post in their subforums, some aren't allowing any debate whatsoever.

This is not an unreasonable suggestion. Creation is very important to Adventists and Adventist beliefs should be reflected in this forum.

I have no problem with offshoot discussions, but they can't take over and try to change what Adventists stand for.

Every Progressive in here that I've talked to goes to a Traditional Adventist church. If they can't change the members in their own church, they certainly aren't going to change us here either.

 

[StormyOne]

Every Progressive in here that I've talked to goes to a Traditional Adventist church. If they can't change the members in their own church, they certainly aren't going to change us here either.

That I suspect is the real issue. Those from a traditional viewpoint will not change and it is their goal to make sure that this subforum reflect traditional adventism.

 

[DarylFawcett]

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

Wooba,

When you can stop making such rash and judgemental statements against me, maybe we will get somewhere, but right now I am very close to placing you on my ignore list! This is one very good reason why I would be in opposition to you being a moderator here.

 

[TrustAndObey]

That I suspect is the real issue. Those from a traditional viewpoint will not change and it is their goal to make sure that this subforum reflect traditional adventism.

I don't see any Progressives change their opinions either Stormy. This isn't about pointing fingers, it's about representing the Adventist church and its beliefs.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Don't believe that this is only censoring of theistic evolution. this is an attempt to shut down anything that does not agree with the Traditional Adventists views.

If Wooba is an example of what Traditional Adventists are, then the Tradional Adventists, or even the SDA Church is in real trouble, therefore, don't label the rest of us based on what Wooba is posting and suggesting so very strongly and dogmatically.

 

[TrustAndObey]

If Wooba is an example of what Traditional Adventists are, then the Tradional Adventists, or even the SDA Church is in real trouble, therefore, don't label the rest of us based on what Wooba is posting and suggesting so very strongly and dogmatically.

Daryl, you and Woob have some prior disagreement that just KEEPS spilling into all topics on this forum. I understand that you might both be mad, but the rest of us have to live here too.

I wish you two would show some brotherly love and give it up already. It reflects poorly on BOTH of you, not just Woob.

Enough already.

 

[thecountrydoc]

This argument over evolution is somewhat like swiming in a cesspool that is full of sharks. Even if you are sucessful getting out of the cesspool without being eaten by the sharks, you still have to get rid of the smell.

Since there is a place where the topic is welcomed, it would seem unwise to put out the welcome mat.

I also agree with Woob and T&O about the inability to change anyones mind no mater which side of the discussion you're on, and no amount of degrees seems to change that. The only thing that may change is a person's personal faith as a result of the controversy. As the old saying goes, "A confused mind always says no."

The suggestion for seperate forums for traditionals and progressives does have merrit.

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't see any Progressives change their opinions either Stormy. This isn't about pointing fingers, it's about representing the Adventist church and its beliefs.

So you would be happier if a progressive said ok lets restrict our discussion topics that members of the Adventist church can discuss on the SDA forum.

the forum is not about representing the Adventist church it is merely a place where Adventists can discuss things. The Adventist church has on official paper, the Adventist Review, they have an official Website and even an official internet network called Tagnet. The church has never asked that the SDA forum on CF to represent the Adventist church. If that is really what you want then you should restrict all conversation to fall within the 28 fundamental beliefs. Make the warnings of the early Adventist come true about having a creed and limiting the truth and growth. They did not want a creed, in 1980-1 we in essence produced one and now we see that it only serves to limit theological expression.

 

[TrustAndObey]

So you would be happier if a progressive said ok lets restrict our discussion topics that members of the Adventist church can discuss on the SDA forum.

the forum is not about representing the Adventist church it is merely a place where Adventists can discuss things. The Adventist church has on official paper, the Adventist Review, they have an official Website and even an official internet network called Tagnet. The church has never asked that the SDA forum on CF to represent the Adventist church. If that is really what you want then you should restrict all conversation to fall within the 28 fundamental beliefs. Make the warnings of the early Adventist come true about having a creed and limiting the truth and growth. They did not want a creed, in 1980-1 we in essence produced one and now we see that it only serves to limit theological expression.

RC, there are places to discuss this in other parts of this site. SPECIFICALLY this topic.

It is not a teaching of the Adventist church. In fact, it's obviously not a teaching of the progressive offshoots either, because I don't see too many people argreeing with you on it.

You absolutely have a right to your opinion, and you aren't being censored off this site. I have a right to my opinion too and I will vote against this topic being allowed here.

It is an endless debate. There is no winner or loser, just two people usually trying to look smarter than each other.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Wel, if this does actually make it into the suggested rules in the new Wiki, assuming there will be a new one, when the time comes, I will be voting against it, and I am one who believes in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA church.

 

[SassySDA]

So you would be happier if a progressive said ok lets restrict our discussion topics that members of the Adventist church can discuss on the SDA forum.

the forum is not about representing the Adventist church it is merely a place where Adventists can discuss things. The Adventist church has on official paper, the Adventist Review, they have an official Website and even an official internet network called Tagnet. The church has never asked that the SDA forum on CF to represent the Adventist church. If that is really what you want then you should restrict all conversation to fall within the 28 fundamental beliefs. Make the warnings of the early Adventist come true about having a creed and limiting the truth and growth. They did not want a creed, in 1980-1 we in essence produced one and now we see that it only serves to limit theological expression.

Ok, first of all RC, I would like some clarification on just WHAT faith you are, what CHURCH you actually attend, because I don't see an SDA emblem in your information anywhere. Not that you HAVE to have one to post in here, I'm just trying to figure out where "we" is coming from.

It seems we have been around and around this topic of Traditional SDA's and Progressive SDA's so much so that quite awhile back it was divided into subforums already.

I completely concur with Woob and T&O on this subject. It is a NEVER ENDING debate, and it will only bring about argument after argument....on and on and on ad nauseum.

If you believe in Evolution, there's not much room for God in that topic. SDA's believe in God, at least we "Traditional SDA's" do, and I personally don't feel like debating that belief OR my faith any longer. I've done it for a very long time, and I WILL if I have to, but if it's something I wanted to do on a daily basis, if I actually ENJOYED it, I would just go to Yahoo Chat and have at it. Maybe you should check out the SDA chatroom on there, I think you'd have a ball.

Admittedly I have not been here at CF as often as I used to in the past. I am a moderator now on a HUGE prison support site, and it takes up a huge amount of my time. I honestly do NOT see the amount of backbiting, and ankle-nipping there that I see in this forum every time I come here. It gets OLD. I finally get enough of it and leave because I can't stomach it any longer.

RC, if you don't like SDA's or what they believe, then why come here? As I said, I don't see ANY connection to my church in your information. I don't even know what a Transformation Life Center is, but if it's the church that satisfies your need, then God bless you, brother.

As I stated earlier I am sick to death of debating my church and steadfast beliefs with what should be my brothers and sisters, what should be my CHURCH FAMILY.

If I'm a TRADITIONAL SDA then so be it. I will wear that title proudly.

T&O has covered this topic magnificently. It truly IS the NEVER ENDING debate. It would go and on until Jesus comes back for us, and there would STILL be folks standing in the crowd debating it.

There are plenty of other forums on CF open for debate, take it there and leave my "home" in peace...please.

I vote NO, NO evolution debate in this particular forum.

 

[sentipente]

Why is a debate on evolution a No, No?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Something from history to consider before we go voting to restrict subjects.

Letter to Madame Christina


In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science."[8] The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.[9]
Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."[10]
He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.
"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"[12]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

I think Woob's assertion that previously that his Bible quote shows we should not even talk about theistic evolution is a good example of someone who has taken his own interpretation not found in the Bible.

Notice you who are new to the discussion that this is only about there being the freedom to discuss things which are already discussed in the Adventist church, in books, in magazines and in 3 faith and science conferences.

 

[djconklin]

Daryl, you and Woob have some prior disagreement that just KEEPS spilling into all topics on this forum. I understand that you might both be mad, but the rest of us have to live here too.

I wish you two would show some brotherly love and give it up already. It reflects poorly on BOTH of you, not just Woob.

Enough already.

HERE, HERE!