Changing the purpose of this forum

[Adventtruth]

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....

Thanks for clearing that up. While I suppose there are those who believe what you said about the good old USA, I am not one of them.


AT

 

[StormyOne]

Thanks for clearing that up. While I suppose there are those who believe what you said about the good old USA, I am not one of them.


AT

not a problem.....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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

AT

Shocking! SDA fundamentalists! Where could they possibly be. Why something like that could split a forum or something!

Hey Stormy did you know that the sun warms the earth? Stay tuned for more shocking revelations!

 

[tall73]

In any case it does seem strange to me to list formers as part of a group. So if you all want to remove that part I don't think it would bother me any.

 

[moicherie]

I'm still trying to figure out how a book God did not write can be infallible. It seems that some Christians do not base faith on the Creator but on the picture of God the bible writers wrote, so if an account in the bible is proven not to be entirely accurate or has errors in it then I shall assume their faith is then weakened?

 

[StormyOne]

I'm still trying to figure out how a book God did not write can be infallible. It seems that some Christians do not base faith on the Creator but on the picture of God the bible writers wrote, so if an account in the bible is proven not to be entirely accurate or has errors in it then I shall assume their faith is then weakened?

it is a mystery and while I understand the mentality I do not agree with it.... nor would I allow a person or persons with that mentality teach my kids....

 

[sentipente]

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

This sounds like individuals who believe a dogma certain regardless of what the evidence says. That's a rather dangerous attitude to take and I hope none of my children are ever taught by someone with that approach to the world.

 

[Adventtruth]

Shocking! SDA fundamentalists! Where could they possibly be. Why something like that could split a forum or something!

Hey Stormy did you know that the sun warms the earth? Stay tuned for more shocking revelations!

While these kinda remarks don't bother me in the least bit, one such shocking revelation is the way RC complains about others, namely formers about how insulting and rude they are while seeking to kick them away from him as far as possible, and then he post rude and insulting postings himself. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! (Romans 2:1)

AT

 

[Mankin]

You know, you have a very serious attitude problem! And then you have the nerve to talk about my faults???

You really need to take the advice that I gave earlier concerning "What time is it?"

That thread was nothing more than perfectionalism. As Stormy himself said that post wasn't aimed towards you.

I don't mind fundamentalists being here if they are former adventists.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

As for the use of Evangelical I am not sure it is needed as it fits within the term Progressive Adventist.

I think the term Evangelical needs to be included, progressive is way to broad, it can mean anyone who disagrees with anything, from slight difference over minor detail to Major doctrine shifts, Like Theistic Evoloution. That is too broad. Evangelical is a well defined postion in Adventism and is clearly distinct from Progressive. it is well documented. To include it is just the natural course of things.

 

[StormyOne]

I disagree... not all who are Progressive are Evangelical... and there are many I suspect who are Evangelical who are not progressive at all....

 

[StormyOne]

I disagree... not all who are Progressive are Evangelical... and there are many I suspect who are Evangelical who are not progressive at all....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

No it is not simply about me and Adventruth. It is about the atmosphere on the forum.

Who creates the atmosphere in this forum? Is it just one person? Is it just one group?

It is where people like you will say nothing against the people like Adventruth,

I would note several things:

(1) You specifically told me that you wanted no interaction with me. In an effort to make peace, I backed out of the thread in which you have been posting, and I've concentrated my time on threads where you are not posting. I was hoping this might allow you some time to soften a bit. Obviously, I was mistaken.

(2) I have not posted anything in the thread in which you are posting because I have not been reading anything in the thread in which you are posting. It was only after you raised this thread that I began interacting with you again and reading your posts.

(3) My understanding of CF's rules suggests to me that, if I have concerns about any poster's behavior, I must bring it to a moderator and not address it publicly in this forum. I am trying to be respectful of that rule (although I may fail from time to time).

(4) I don't have the same perspective on your interaction with other posters that you seem to have.
​

nearly all the Progressive Adventists who regularly post here have in effect told him to back off,

And wouldn't that be an infraction? Isn't that what moderators are for?

none of the former Adventists say a thing.

I can't speak for any non-SDA but myself. You have asked me to not to have interaction with you. Until you began requesting that I be banished from this forum, I was trying to respect the wishes that you expressed.

That tells us a lot about what the former Adventist people want for this forum verses what the Progressive Adventists want.

Indeed it does not. It tells us a great deal about some of the animosity that exists. I would assert that it is quite naive to suggest that such animosity was created solely by former SDAs. My failed attempts to interact with you would suggest otherwise.

There is no need for and it goes against what this forum put forth as objectives to have people on here saying that others don't trust God, or others don't see Jesus Christ atonement because it is a different atonement theory than theirs.

If you feel that a poster has created inappropriate posts, I would encourage you to avail yourself of this forum's report features. Rather than doing so, you suggest that formers must violate the forum's rules by condemning publicly the post of another in order to avoid being banished from this forum altogether. You have certainly backed us into a corner. Was that your intent?

The fact is that the narrow fundamentalist viewpoint is polluting the respect and acceptance that this forum tried to deliver.

What is this narrow fundamentalist viewpoint that you keep writing about?

Yes the former Adventists could have acted to change things

In what way? All of the actions that you have recommended represent a direct violation of the rules of this forum. So it would seem that you would either (1) encourage us violate to the rules of this forum so that we can get banished individually, or (2) request that the moderators banish colelctively as an entire group. It's really rather sad.

before but their inaction results in the need for the rest of us to change things before it is too late

Too late for what?

and all Progressive Adventists leave this forum,

All progressive SDAs, or only you? I have not heard others suggesting that they are leaving.

But that is one of the things that make Progressive Adventists a much larger tent and far more tolerant then the fundamentalists.

Really? A larger tent? Sure seems as though you're trying to make the tent much smaller, not larger.

Since you speak so passionately about the need for formers to stand up and say something is wrong, I might wonder why progressives aren't voicing their concerns about the witch hunt that is taking place in this very thread (however, I have not read every post and may have missed something)?!?

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

(1) You specifically told me that you wanted no interaction with me. In an effort to make peace, I backed out of the thread in which you have been posting, and I've concentrated my time on threads where you are not posting. I was hoping this might allow you some time to soften a bit. Obviously, I was mistaken.

​

​

I don't recall that, I may have said I was no longer going to discuss something with you. But that may have been how you misinterpreted what I said. Even if that was the case, it is not a violation of rules to note when people misuse logic or refuse to answer questions or make false declarations about others or even declarations which they can have no way of supporting. This is why I said a forum is only as good as those members of the forum. I think that most of the former Adventists on the forum now have no desire to support the forum and as such they tend to work against it.

I am always amazed also to see fundamentalist pleading they don't know what fundamentalism is. Probably caused by their denial of their own reality.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

[/indent]I don't recall that, I may have said I was no longer going to discuss something with you.

Your exact words were:

"I have had enough with trying to dialog with you."
​

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47167253&postcount=43

Even if that was the case, it is not a violation of rules to note when people misuse logic or refuse to answer questions or make false declarations about others or even declarations which they can have no way of supporting.

If you tell me that you have had enough of trying to dialogue with me, should I continue search out your posts, read them and defend them? What would the reasonable person do? Wouldn't the reasonable person dust his feet off, not read any more of your posts and not even know if you are locked in a conflict with another poster? The latter is exactly what I did. After it became clear that you had had enough of trying to dialogue with me, I offered no additional feedback in the "Sabbath School Discussion" thread and, after that point, I wasn't even reading that thread anymore!

If I make personal comments about the conduct of a specific poster, am I living within the rules and the purpose of this forum?

This is why I said a forum is only as good as those members of the forum. I think that most of the former Adventists on the forum now have no desire to support the forum and as such they tend to work against it.

I am unaware of any intent on my part to "work against the forum." Seems like a pretty subjective idea. Should I be banned from posting here based on such subjective criteria?

I am always amazed also to see fundamentalist pleading they don't know what fundamentalism is. Probably caused by their denial of their own reality.

I am always amazed to see the complaints made by some about the way they are treated in light of the way that this same "some" frequently treat others.

If I say to you that I am not a fundamentalist, and if you continue to refer to me as a fundamentalist, are you living within the rules and the purpose of this forum? How much do you even know about what I believe?

BFA

 

[sentipente]

If I say to you that I am not a fundamentalist, and if you continue to refer to me as a fundamentalist, are you living within the rules and the purpose of this forum?

He at least is obligated to illustrate, using definitions that are common to the two of you, why you are a fundamentalist even if you claim you are not.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

He at least is obligated to illustrate, using definitions that are common to the two of you, why you are a fundamentalist even if you claim you are not.

I agree.

I'm not really sure how a person is to define "fundamentalist" as the term has been used to mean so many things about so many different groups of people. If you look up "fundamentalist Christian" in Wikipedia, you will find (in part) the following:

The fundamentalists emphasized the command to "be ye separate" and adopted a conservative social outlook that avoided many items deemed to be sinful, worldy, or inappropriate or sinful for christians. Whilst there is some variation in approach, most fundamentalists will share a majority of the following views:

• (1) rejection of popular music including rock and roll and contemporary Christian music - seen as worldly and associated with immorality
• (2) dancing is prohibited - seen as associated with immorality and immodesty
• (3) visiting the cinema or theatre is unacceptable - perception is that content is unchristian and lifestyles of performers are immoral
• (4) modest and traditional dress styles are required - women must not wear trousers, men must not have long hair or wear earrings
• (5) no drinking of alcohol - seen as worldly and associated with immorality
• (6) traditional gender roles - male headship, woman's role is to raise children - seen as the Biblical model
• (7) no sex outside of heterosexual marriage, opposition to homosexuality - seen as immoral and prohibited by the Bible
• (8) abortion is unacceptable - seen as murder (in some cases, all forms of birth control are opposed)

I couldn't begin to confirm whether or not this is a true definition of a "fundamentalist." However, if it is, I would note that:

(1) Many (if not most) Seventh-day Adventists put into practice the statements set out in Items *1-5 and #7 above;
(2) I do not agree with, nor do I practice, any of the statements set out in Items 1-6 above;
(3) One might wonder why the SDA denomination has not officially adopted the position set out in #8, and why many (but not all) SDA hospitals still perform abortions.
​

If this is the definition of "fundamentalist," I would not be a very strong candidate.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

BFA, what you posted is more of a description than a definition.

 

[Adventtruth]

I agree.

I'm not really sure how a person is to define "fundamentalist" as the term has been used to mean so many things about so many different groups of people. If you look up "fundamentalist Christian" in Wikipedia, you will find (in part) the following:

The fundamentalists emphasized the command to "be ye separate" and adopted a conservative social outlook that avoided many items deemed to be sinful, worldy, or inappropriate or sinful for christians. Whilst there is some variation in approach, most fundamentalists will share a majority of the following views:

• (1) rejection of popular music including rock and roll and contemporary Christian music - seen as worldly and associated with immorality
• (2) dancing is prohibited - seen as associated with immorality and immodesty
• (3) visiting the cinema or theatre is unacceptable - perception is that content is unchristian and lifestyles of performers are immoral
• (4) modest and traditional dress styles are required - women must not wear trousers, men must not have long hair or wear earrings
• (5) no drinking of alcohol - seen as worldly and associated with immorality
• (6) traditional gender roles - male headship, woman's role is to raise children - seen as the Biblical model
• (7) no sex outside of heterosexual marriage, opposition to homosexuality - seen as immoral and prohibited by the Bible
• (8) abortion is unacceptable - seen as murder (in some cases, all forms of birth control are opposed)

I couldn't begin to confirm whether or not this is a true definition of a "fundamentalist." However, if it is, I would note that:

(1) Many (if not most) Seventh-day Adventists put into practice the statements set out in Items *1-5 and #7 above;
(2) I do not agree with, nor do I practice, any of the statements set out in Items 1-6 above;
(3) One might wonder why the SDA denomination has not officially adopted the position set out in #8, and why many (but not all) SDA hospitals still perform abortions.
​

If this is the definition of "fundamentalist," I would not be a very strong candidate.

BFA

While being tagged a fundamentalist for support of such dooctrines as infallibility of the Bible in matters of faith and morals and as a literal historical record, the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection of Christ, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming. I too could be seen as a bad candidate rejecting such doctries as 1-6.

I love music of all kinds, especially Jazz. The church I attend has a wondful contemporary /prasie/rock band that likes to play it loud at times. I love it!

I don't think dancing is evil.

While I go to the movies every once in a while as a family outting, I do watch movies in my hometheater and one of my hobbies is audio/video...especially two channel music. (I love Marantz and Paradigm gear!)

Nothing wrong with females and trousers, and while I don't personally have earings, I see this not preventing one from salvation. Nothing wrong with long hair.

I don't drink, but others who do, will not be judged by me.

Females are equal with men and should be treated as such.


AT

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, what you posted is more of a description than a definition.

Good luck finding the one true definition. In fact, the term "fundamentalist" is so vague and is used to mean so many different things that it is meaningless. A number of online resources suggested that the term could be viewed by some as being a slur and by others as being a badge of honor. Seems to me that this term has little value in this setting, other than (perhaps) for the purpose of "name calling." Couldn't begin to tell you what RC means by the term.

BFA