Changing the purpose of this forum

[Adventtruth]

I tend not to report people because in reality it does nothing, several days later a moderator will delete an offensive or violating report. The damage has been done by then people just get hot and start responding with an escalation of attacks.

I certainly have said things that I thought where truth like some not trusting Christ and the such. They where not kind remarks at all. If you want to call that an attack have at it. But you are not without sin either RC. All one has to do is read many of your postings to me on this forum. So I hope you put yourself in that catagory as well.

A forum is only as good as the forum members. Rude or narrow minded members lead to a rude and narrow minded forum. Just look at some of the comments on the other SDA forum about what is going on here.

But RC can't you see you are part of the problem as well? If you think you have not been narrow minded and rude , I'm sure the objective reader would beg to differ.

I simply think it would be easier to have a respectful and profitable forum if the members are in fact Progressive Adventists

Are you now saying that only Progressive Adventist are without attacking remarks? Because it sure sounds like it. Progressive Adventist are no better than formers or any body else.

rather then former Adventists with axes to grind or bent upon attacking anything that is different from their beliefs.

Now I like what you said here...former attack anything that is different from their beliefs.

Rather than call it an attack, we call it a debate of the issues. And I have challenged you to debate the issues from the context of the bible. This is the real truth of the matter. When we challenge and you respond with ideas that are not found in the bible we simply give scripture that refutes your conjecture and hold you accountable and ask for sources of your beliefs. When we say that it does not follow biblical teaching from the bible, it turns into an all out war with such ideas as the OP of this thread.

You have made it plain RC, you have a different perspective of the bible than most of us. You have also made it known that you believe salvation can be found outside of faith. Each time it has ended with you getting angry over the issues, and you spewing insults and name calling.

I admit I like debates. Is that a bad thing in its self? No it's not. But when tempers fly because one is proven wrong in their assumptions and can't stand to be wrong, rather than recieveing the love of the truth, then its an all out fight.

1) If one can prove to me from scripture that salvation can be had outside of Christ, I will humbly bow and recieve that truth. But you have yet to do so, and thats all I asked.

2) IF one can prove to me from the context of scripture that the legal matters of the atonement is worthless, then I will believe it, but you have not.

3) If one can prove from the word of God that Christ was not the vacarious substitution for the human race, then I will buy it but you have yet to prove this from the bible.

4) If one can prove from context of the bible that New Covenant believers must observe the 7th day sabbath and the law Of Moses, then I will worship the 7thday, and follow after the law of Moses but until one does, I will not.

Now these issues can be debated without insults and fighting and call each other names. If you don't want to debate these issues then fine...just don't say you will not debate and then continue to add little remarks as the subject continues to be debated by others as you have done. That is nothing more that fuel to the fire.

That was the main problem with the other forum, the people did not know how to discuss without attacking and accusing, now we have those kind of people here, and so far they have been in the former Adventist camp. We could certainly respond in kind to them but that is not good for the forum or for us individually.

RC....none of us live in a perfect world. You do have some forums that have private areas for select groups that require a special membership to get in. I mean you can't even get in to read or lurk without being a member of that select group. I think Club Adventist have such areas. But this forum is not like that. Maybe the mods or owners of the forum can explore that Idea. So until they get something like that, you are going to have those heated times during debate. I suggest if you do enter a debate you set some rules for that debate before you debate.

Most Progressive Adventists have gotten past those accuse and attack techniques.

And who would they be? I have certainly not seen them.


AT

 

[tall73]

I never understood why former adventists had to be named in the first place. We can discuss without being part of the heading.

In any case I agree that some of us formers are more fundamentalist. Looking back Progressive Adventism was never a good fit for me. We agreed on things that Adventism was wrong about. That was about it. In the end I couldn't agree with progressive Adventism either.

 

[sentipente]

But I can't agree with progressive Adventism either.

That would make it difficult to agree with Christianity as well.

 

[tall73]

That would make it difficult to agree with Christianity as well.

I wouldn't think so.

But I disagree with you constantly Senti. Nor do I see you as reflective of Christianity as a whole.

 

[sentipente]

I wouldn't think so.

But I disagree with you constantly Senti. Nor do I see you as reflective of Christianity as a whole.

That's an intriguing comment. I'm not sure how to respond.

 

[StormyOne]

I never understood why former adventists had to be named in the first place. We can discuss without being part of the heading.

In any case I agree that some of us formers are more fundamentalist. Looking back Progressive Adventism was never a good fit for me. We agreed on things that Adventism was wrong about. That was about it. In the end I couldn't agree with progressive Adventism either.

that is interesting, an aspect I never thought about... i.e. just because you are not adventist doesn't mean you won't be more fundamentalist..... hmmmm......

 

[StormyOne]

I wouldn't think so.

But I disagree with you constantly Senti. Nor do I see you as reflective of Christianity as a whole.

not reflective of Christianity in what sense? How is christianity being defined?

 

[sentipente]

not reflective of Christianity in what sense? How is christianity being defined?

I need to know as well.

 

[StormyOne]

I need to know as well.

I will admit the comment was eyeopening and perhaps I will rethink some things.....

 

[moicherie]

that is interesting, an aspect I never thought about... i.e. just because you are not adventist doesn't mean you won't be more fundamentalist..... hmmmm......

If you have any more lingering doubts just watch TBN

 

[Adventtruth]

If what is ment by the word fundamentalism is infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming then I will kindly welcome the title fundamental....only don't call me a Dispensationaist fundamental.


AT

 

[StormyOne]

If what is ment by the word fundamentalism is infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming then I will kindly welcome the title fundamental....only don't call me a Dispensationaist fundamental.


AT

well that clarifies things.... it also explains why religion is probably a topic you and I need not discuss because there is no common point from which to begin dialog..... glad that's been cleared up.... have a good evening....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well I have to admit I rarely agree with Senti either on theological matters. But that is one of the things that make Progressive Adventists a much larger tent and far more tolerant then the fundamentalists. By the way AT defined fundamentalist very well. It derived from a series of pamphlet/books of the early 1900's entitled the fundamentals and AT covered most of them though there are certainly nuances and assumptions rolled into those statements. For instance we can agree that Jesus sacrificed for us. But the fundamentalist see the atonement as a vicarious substitutionary atonement and disregard any other theory of the atonement. Which is why it was a series of books rather then a neat statement, even among fundamentalist you won't find a list of the five fundamentals, the lists very. So I believe in creation also, I don't believe in the 6 literal day creation however. The fundamentalist restricts the statements to a particular way of looking at them. Then they can set them forth like AT did and sound like how could any Christian possible not agree with those.

 

[StormyOne]

Well I have to admit I rarely agree with Senti either on theological matters. But that is one of the things that make Progressive Adventists a much larger tent and far more tolerant then the fundamentalists. By the way AT defined fundamentalist very well. It derived from a series of pamphlet/books of the early 1900's entitled the fundamentals and AT covered most of them.

then I would never ever be mistaken for a fundamentalist... infallibility of the bible, and a literal historical record? dealbreakers for me.... as I said earlier, this has been enlightening....

 

[StormyOne]

the fundamentalist view then might be akin to someone suggesting that the history of the U.S. is the history of the world....

 

[Adventtruth]

Well I have to admit I rarely agree with Senti either on theological matters. But that is one of the things that make Progressive Adventists a much larger tent and far more tolerant then the fundamentalists. By the way AT defined fundamentalist very well. It derived from a series of pamphlet/books of the early 1900's entitled the fundamentals and AT covered most of them though there are certainly nuances and assumptions rolled into those statements. For instance we can agree that Jesus sacrificed for us. But the fundamentalist see the atonement as a vicarious substitutionary atonement and disregard any other theory of the atonement. Which is why it was a series of books rather then a neat statement, even among fundamentalist you won't find a list of the five fundamentals, the lists very. So I believe in creation also, I don't believe in the 6 literal day creation however. The fundamentalist restricts the statements to a particular way of looking at them. Then they can set them forth like AT did and sound like how could any Christian possible not agree with those.

By that same definition I gave for fundies, you could very well include SDAism in that group as well can't you?

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

the fundamentalist view then might be akin to someone suggesting that the history of the U.S. is the history of the world....

How so? I see no relation whatsoever.


AT

 

[StormyOne]

How so? I see no relation what soever.


AT

I don't expect that you would....

 

[Adventtruth]

I don't expect that you would....

Can you kindly answer the first part of the question that I might be enlightened


AT

 

[StormyOne]

Can you kindly answer the first part of the question that I might be enlightened


AT

it is an analogy..... fundamentalists believing that only their view is the correct one theologically is like a person from the U.S. believing that the only history in the world that matters is U.S. history....