A Separation...

[woobadooba]

It seems to me that there is no hope for unity between the Progressives and the Traditionals. So it has been suggested that we have separate forums (not to be confused with subforums) for the sake of putting an end to all of this animosty.

This is your chance to decide what you want to do.

EDIT: I wish to elaborate on what I mean by the third poll choice. By enforcing stricter rules, I mean to say that we can establish a warning system that will be based on certain ideals, which will serve to identify what kind of behavior does not properly represent the SDA church whose objective is to be Christlike.

 

[freeindeed2]

It seems to me that there is no hope for unity between the Progressives and the Traditionals. So it has been suggested that we have separate forums (not to be confused with subforums) for the sake of putting an end to all of this animosty.

This is your chance to decide what you want to do.

Maybe you should bring in the larger body of Christ to mediate.

 

[tall73]

Separate forums would stain the Adventist name. That would be a selfish way to handle what comes down to interpersonal problems.

I agree there are doctrinal issues, but those are not the source of all the strife.

 

[tall73]

In addition, please define stricter rules. Please define as they are...is that accounting for the recent wiki process?

 

[woobadooba]

In addition, please define stricter rules. Please define as they are...is that accounting for the recent wiki process?

This forum is divided, and is therefore not doing anything good for the SDA church.

Many people have left already as a result of what has been going on in here. So your point about the church being hurt is moot.

As to stricter rules, we can start by defining what it means to be an SDA. Those who do not agree with such guidelines will not be permitted to call themselves SDA.

The way it is now is just foolish. One only has to consider himself to be an SDA to be an SDA. This is very shallow. There should be basic beliefs that we can agree on to determine who is or isn't an SDA.

 

[woobadooba]

I would also like to point out that this is not a discussion thread. Please just cast your vote, and we will know where to go from there.

 

[tall73]

I have a proposal in regards to the stricter rules.

Any post in the SDA section that is critiquing a poster rather than an idea or the post will result in one Adventist forum warning. We could keep a log.

After three of these a forum-specific ban would take effect for 2 weeks. Each subsequent offense will result in an additional 2 week FSB.

 

[tall73]

This forum is divided, and is therefore not doing anything good for the SDA church.

Many people have left already as a result of what has been going on in here. So your point about the church being hurt is moot.

As to stricter rules, we can start by defining what it means to be an SDA. Those who do not agree with such guidelines will not be permitted to call themselves SDA.

The way it is now is just foolish. One only has to consider himself to be an SDA to be an SDA. This is very shallow. There should be basic beliefs that we can agree on to determine who is or isn't an SDA.

Fine, then the only acceptable standard, GC approved is the 28.

I am out, you are out, trust and obey is out, (her tri-theistic views simply do not say the same thing as the belief), my wife is out, rc is out, NE is out because qualifications don't really equal compliance.


Let's do it.

 

[woobadooba]

Fine, then the only acceptable standard, GC approved is the 28.

I am out, you are out, trust and obey is out, (her tri-theistic views simply do not say the same thing as the belief), etc.

Let's do it.

Not quite so fast...

There are beliefs that are unquestionably true according to the Bible. Such beliefs would be those that we base our identity on.

 

[tall73]

Not quite so fast...

There are beliefs that are unquestionably true according to the Bible. Such beliefs would be those that we base our identity on.

No woob. There is only one voted on GC standard and it is the 28. Making your own list so those you want to stay can but those you don't can't is not going to work.

The 28 is the standard if anything. And not whether someone says they believe it but if it matches up to what they say.

If that is what you want then let's do it. But it would make far more sense to just deal with stupid behavior through a warning system.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Fine, then the only acceptable standard, GC approved is the 28.

I am out, you are out, trust and obey is out, (her tri-theistic views simply do not say the same thing as the belief), my wife is out, rc is out, NE is out because qualifications don't really equal compliance.


Let's do it.

Gosh--I guess that just leaves me--lol.

 

[NightEternal]

Exactly Tall.

The ironic thing is, I believe EGW is inspired. Ice and RC do not. I hold to the pre-advent judgment. Ice and RC do not. I believe all of the 28 with qualifications. Ice and RC have outright rejected some of them.

Who will take the role of judge and arbiter of who is an SDA?

The whole thing is just ridiculous. Our pioneers said we should never have formulated a creed and this witch-hunt mentality is the fruit of abandoning that counsel.

 

[tall73]

Gosh--I guess that just leaves me--lol.

Yup, enjoy. Unless of course you are a closet-non-trinitarian too.

 

[tall73]

Exactly Tall.

The ironic thing is, I believe EGW is inspired. Ice and RC do not. I hold to the pre-advent judgment. Ice and RC do not. I believe all of the 28 with qualifications. Ice and RC have outright rejected some of them.

Who will take the role of judge and arbiter of who is an SDA?

The whole thing is just ridiculous. Our pioneers said we should never have formulated a creed and this witch-hunt mentality is the fruit of abandoning that counsel.

''Yes.

 

[Letalis]

What I'd like to know is whether the differences between the two groups are so vast to warrant their own forums? Or perhaps an equally important question, is the tension so vast to warrant separate congregations?

 

[woobadooba]

No woob. There is only one voted on GC standard and it is the 28. Making your own list so those you want to stay can but those you don't can't is not going to work.

The 28 is the standard if anything. And not whether someone says they believe it but if it matches up to what they say.

If that is what you want then let's do it. But it would make far more sense to just deal with stupid behavior through a warning system.

We need to make a compromise here then.

Theistic Evolution and the moral influence theory must not be allowed to be discussed in here. These are clearly heretical views.

As to your idea concerning forum specific bans for uncouth behavior, I agree. We should have some kind of warning system. However, before we can even do that we need mods that actually do what they are supposed to do. We don't have any of them yet.

 

[tall73]

Some would say yes.

In my neck of the woods? no.

 

[tall73]

We need to make a compromise here then.

Theistic Evolution and the moral influence theory must not be allowed to be discussed in here. These are clearly heretical views.

As to your idea concerning forum specific bans for uncouth behavior, I agree. We should have some kind of warning system. However, before we can even do that we need mods that actually do what they are supposed to do. We don't have any of them yet.

technically I am not sure we need mods. Under the current system, unless it changes, members can see the reports anyway. We could copy the report to here and then weigh in as a group on whether there was a personal attack, which should be fairly objective, and then agree on a FSB on the third offense. Now the interesting part would be if they break the FSB and then we would need to involve someone in the staff chain.

As I understand it we currently have a lot of self-direction in our own forum.

Whether or not theistic evolution is allowed will still be part of the wiki discussion. So there is no need to discuss banning those outside of the 28 in order to accomplish what you are asking for, if the majority agree.

 

[Letalis]

Well, congregation forums aren't really supposed to be battle fields.

Is this what it's become?

 

[woobadooba]

Well, congregation forums aren't really supposed to be battle fields.

Is this what it's become?

It has gotten pretty bad in here.