Adventtruth
God is the Gospel!
- Sep 7, 2006
- 1,527
- 40
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
Originally Posted by Byfaithalone1
(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.
Your exact words were:
"I have had enough with trying to dialog with you."http://christianforums.com/showpost....3&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!
Religious fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4]
The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;[5] the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.[6]
The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.[6] The collective use of the term fundamentalist to describe non-Christian movements has offended some Christians who desire to retain the original definition.
You then show that your statement above is false yet you don't seem to realize it
That is the problem I find with you and AT, you twist statments in ways that is illogical and false.
I never asked that my posts be defended. My point was that the former Adventists don't respond to the other former Adventists when they misuse logic etc.
The reason I think this is the case is that the former SDA's are antigonistic to the purpose of this forum,
they don't care about progressive adventism
and they don't seem to have regard for truth.
That is not consistent with what we want this forum to be and thus the need for a change here.
As for fundmentalism, if you could read the wikipedia then you should have a good idea what it is,
you listed articles dealing with culture such as dancing and music which have not been a part of any of the discussion's here.
It is summed up in the first paragraphs of the wikipedia article
no one is saying that you have to make a choice between Evangelical or Progressive sub forum. We CAN do both. Evangelical/Progressive SDA That covers most everyone.I disagree... not all who are Progressive are Evangelical... and there are many I suspect who are Evangelical who are not progressive at all....
Let's try to keep this on topic and less about our feelings for one another.
I don't think anyone should be banished unless they are flaming, harassing, or badgering the members.... is that what you are doing? If not, then where would be the problem? The reality is that with most topics we will reach an impasse where there will be no agreement... at that point we have to be mature enough to leave the issue alone and move to another.... example: there will probably be very little AT and I can discuss before that point is reached, we would be better discussing cars, or paint color, because when it comes to religious issues we are usually not even in the same book, much less on the same page... so knowing that, why go there?OK. That's fair. I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the topic relates to RC's desire that formers should be banished from this forum. If I've misunderstood the topic, please let me know. If that is the topic, could you--as a moderator--weigh in on this subject? What is the statement of faith that I have deviated from? I'm a bit lost and don't understand my offense that seems to be leading me to banishment.
I'd welcome further clarification.
BFA
I don't think anyone should be banished unless they are flaming, harassing, or badgering the members.... is that what you are doing? If not, then where would be the problem? The reality is that with most topics we will reach an impasse where there will be no agreement... at that point we have to be mature enough to leave the issue alone and move to another.... example: there will probably be very little AT and I can discuss before that point is reached, we would be better discussing cars, or paint color, because when it comes to religious issues we are usually not even in the same book, much less on the same page... so knowing that, why go there?
I don't think anyone should be banished unless they are flaming, harassing, or badgering the members.... is that what you are doing?
If not, then where would be the problem?
The reality is that with most topics we will reach an impasse where there will be no agreement... at that point we have to be mature enough to leave the issue alone and move to another
OK. That's fair. I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the topic relates to RC's desire that formers should be banished from this forum. If I've misunderstood the topic, please let me know. If that is the topic, could you--as a moderator--weigh in on this subject? What is the statement of faith that I have deviated from? I'm a bit lost and don't understand my offense that seems to be leading me to banishment.
I'd welcome further clarification.
BFA
All you have to do is ignore those posts.The idea is that Progressive Adventists can discuss other topics other then explaining why they are not traditionalist anymore.
You would think that if my opening post was about banishment it would have said so. It does not.The title would have been banish the former's rather then change the purpose of the forum. There was agreement among several here to create a subforum for debate open to all.
an area where non progressive Adventists can practice their antagonism or argue their position where Traditional Adventists could do likewise.
Yet there would still be a home forum for Progressive Adventists, those who self identify as Progressive Adventists can talk about things without the constant insertion of assumptions that the Progressive Adventists no longer have.
The idea is that Progressive Adventists can discuss other topics other then explaining why they are not traditionalist anymore.
You already have that freedom, as does every poster here. You exercise that freedom by picking and choosing which posts you will respond to. And, if you are being inappropriately "badgered," you avail yourself of the report feature.
BFA
Moderators can we do something now or is everything fixed in stone so that we can't change the forum name or add subforums?
I think a better answer might be a fellowship sub-forum for Progressives.
I'm making the assumption that the name of the main forum will remain as it is; that formers would remain welcome in the main forum and that a subforum would be created that would be limited to progressive SDAs. I am curious, though, what criteria will be created to determine who is and who is not welcome in the newly created subforum. Since progressive SDAs do not have a uniform statement of faith, couldn't this be a rather tricky issue?
BFA
As I have said before self proclaimed Progressive Adventists would be the method of knowing who can post in the Progressive Adventist forum section. For our purposes of making this forum known it is a disadvantage to have the former Adventists in the forum title. Adding a subforum for the Progressives will in effect hide that forum from visitors and make it difficult to publicize the Progressive Adventist side of things. And that was really the purpose of the forum rather then a home for former Adventists which really makes no sense.
But the problem is that you aren't allowed to prohibit people from posting in your forum; you can restrict the content that they post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?