2.3 Wiki rules discussion

[tall73]

If you believe what you believe, and you wish to think of yourself as a PROGRESSIVE Seventh-day Adventist, then more power to you, and GOD BLESS. However, I should not have to deal with this on a daily basis, and frankly it's the main reason I only come here once in a great while...it's TIRING.

You don't have to in the Traditional Sub-forum.

If others are dealing with issues that you are not, why would you not allow them to talk about them?

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Wow. It's sad how much negativity came into this thread for a couple pages there. Satan's really trying to get a hold of us during this time, isn't he?

 

[stone]

You guys have your 1st poll to vote on. Regarding who can be allowed to vote on rule makeing.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Satan is after us big time Sarah.

 

[sentipente]

Satan is after us big time Sarah.

Satan? I didn't know he had an account here. What I saw was a bunch of humans behaving badly. I don't think Satan would want to be associated with such behavior. The guy has enough on his plate.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Satan? I didn't know he had an account here. What I saw was a bunch of humans behaving badly. I don't think Satan would want to be associated with such behavior. The guy has enough on his plate.

When we act with anything other than God's love and nature, we are doing so via Satan. Had it not been for him we would still be in God's perfect state of existance because we wouldn't have been tempted.

 

[sentipente]

When we act with anything other than God's love and nature, we are doing so via Satan. Had it not been for him we would still be in God's perfect state of existance because we wouldn't have been tempted.

I'm not so sure of that. Take a close look at the story in Gen. 3. The serpent (whom we assume is Satan) NEVER asked anyone in the garden to touch or eat of that tree. He provided the opportunity but he never gave an invitation of any kind.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I'm not so sure of that. Take a close look at the story in Gen. 3. The serpent (whom we assume is Satan) NEVER asked anyone in the garden to touch or eat of that tree. He provided the opportunity but he never gave an invitation of any kind.

As much as I wish to reply to this, it 'is' off topic by far..and I think that's the last thing this thread needs. Maybe it'd be a good subject to bring up in another post sometime.

 

[SassySDA]

Isn't that what the three different subForums are about?

Yes, they are. You'll notice there is one for "Progressives" as well, but they don't keep their thoughts and their, "you need to be more open minded and allow debate in this forum" comments, IN that sub-forum, now do they? No, they do not.

Your comment about "what do you do with the family dog just went right over my head.

If it was intended as a "point" I was supposed to get, I didn't get it. I don't have a dog, but I do have a cat, a cat that doesn't want to argue, debate, or pick apart points of contention on a daily basis with me. Oh, he can be tempermental on occassion and just like I love my christian brothers and sisters, I love my cat and allow him to be contrary every once in awhile.

You see, if it's "once in awhile", I have no problem with it, it's when it's on a continuous, daily basis that it becomes aggravating. When nothing positive comes of it, when there is no "END" that leads to the productive good of everyone who comes here to post, it's nothing more than an aggravation to me....and again, I don't think I'm alone in my feelings on this.

I'm simply trying to voice my feelings in an even-keeled manner. I'm not picking on anyone in particular either, as I feel we are ALL guilty of this pointless, endless bickering.

I'm not going to respond to anymore posts regarding this for one simple reason...if I do, it will NEVER END.

God's blessings to one and all.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Yes, they are. You'll notice there is one for "Progressives" as well, but they don't keep their thoughts and their, "you need to be more open minded and allow debate in this forum" comments, IN that sub-forum, now do they? No, they do not.

Your comment about "what do you do with the family dog just went right over my head.

If it was intended as a "point" I was supposed to get, I didn't get it. I don't have a dog, but I do have a cat, a cat that doesn't want to argue, debate, or pick apart points of contention on a daily basis with me. Oh, he can be tempermental on occassion and just like I love my christian brothers and sisters, I love my cat and allow him to be contrary every once in awhile.

You see, if it's "once in awhile", I have no problem with it, it's when it's on a continuous, daily basis that it becomes aggravating. When nothing positive comes of it, when there is no "END" that leads to the productive good of everyone who comes here to post, it's nothing more than an aggravation to me....and again, I don't think I'm alone in my feelings on this.

I'm simply trying to voice my feelings in an even-keeled manner. I'm not picking on anyone in particular either, as I feel we are ALL guilty of this pointless, endless bickering.

I'm not going to respond to anymore posts regarding this for one simple reason...if I do, it will NEVER END.

God's blessings to one and all.

Well Said.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Scientifically, micro-evolution is irrefuteable. What is unfounded in macro-evolution where you start out with Chemical evolution, cellular developement, then random mutation and natural selection to produce the biodiversity we see on earth. I don't think we need to have a discussion as to whether macro-evolution is valid or not in a SDA forum. My vote is to disallow it.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[sentipente]

Scientifically, micro-evolution is irrefuteable. What is unfounded in macro-evolution where you start out with Chemical evolution, cellular developement, then random mutation and natural selection to produce the biodiversity we see on earth. I don't think we need to have a discussion as to whether macro-evolution is valid or not in a SDA forum. My vote is to disallow it.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

That's why I never get into an evolution/creation discussion. The central issue is whether the universe was created or not. It is very easy to logically prove that the universe was created by an intelligent being. Of course, by the same methods we can show that popular views held by those who believe in creation are also flawed.

 

[JonMiller]

That's why I never get into an evolution/creation discussion. The central issue is whether the universe was created or not. It is very easy to logically prove that the universe was created by an intelligent being. Of course, by the same methods we can show that popular views held by those who believe in creation are also flawed.

Not at all true. In fact, it is, as far as forseeable, impossible to acquire any evidence for or against God's existence using science.

And metaphysics is mostly just a bunch of word games.

JM

 

[sentipente]

Not at all true. In fact, it is, as far as forseeable, impossible to acquire any evidence for or against God's existence using science.

Don't be too hasty. Nothing has never produced something. Non-life has never been known to produce or to reproduce so the existence of life and non-life points to a living creator. Every object is always less than its creator, meaning that the creator must at the least possess the greatest characteristics of the objects. Consequently, the universe was created by a living being who is at least as intelligent as humans are.

 

[JonMiller]

Don't be too hasty. Nothing has never produced something. Non-life has never been known to produce or to reproduce so the existence of life and non-life points to a living creator. Every object is always less than its creator, meaning that the creator must at the least possess the greatest characteristics of the objects. Consequently, the universe was created by a living being who is at least as intelligent as humans are.

Actually, particles are created and destroyed from the vacuum at all times. I won't even go into current cosmological models, except to note that the Big Bang is just a general idea, which (as envisioned by the layman) no longer represents current scientific thought.

JM

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You all seem to be forgetting that rule discussed here would be against theistic evolution also. In which case the creator would still be involved. In fact the rule as listed would prevent even the discussion of micro evolution even though that is even accepted by Christians as scientific fact.

It is this type of generalizations which make this a bad rule. Not because a person rejects the idea of God in favor of evolution but because this rule is meant to limit all discussion on origins.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

If you read any of the modern theoretical physicists you will find that they have good arguments, not to say they are the best though.

 

[JonMiller]

Yes, I read physics papers, including theoretical ones, as a physicist. I have freinds who are theorists (I am not), I know a bit about the subject.

I stand by what I posted.

JM

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Yes, I read physics papers, including theoretical ones, as a physicist. I have freinds who are theorists (I am not), I know a bit about the subject.

I stand by what I posted.

JM

Oh, I have alot of respect for those theoretical physicist and their work. I have read a bit of some of the literature, but my field is in the philosophical and religious side. I couldn't possibly claim to be able to have better scientific arguments than actual physicists.

 

[sentipente]

Actually, particles are created and destroyed from the vacuum at all times.

In the context of what I wrote please restate this in layman terms. A supporting reference would be a great help as well.