Changing the purpose of this forum

[sentipente]

i would like to apeal to the mod to purge this thread. it is so off topic. the topic is changing the purpose of the forum. not a theological discussion

Something tells me this is not a desire to protect a thread but to hide the truth from view. The purpose of the forum is to express progressive Adventist views.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Something tells me this is not a desire to protect a thread but to hide the truth from view. The purpose of the forum is to express progressive Adventist views.

Well, that is partly true. According to the FSGs:

"The Progressive/Moderate/Former Adventist Forum is made up of both current and former Adventists."
​

BFA

 

[mva1985]

senti you are ridiclous, you can start a thread with the same disscussion some where else. you just love to argue and fight. it is a waste of time to talk and to argure, no learning has taken place,

+1

 

[Adventtruth]

Paul did not know the Creator better then I can. Thankfully he admitted that he only saw through a glass darkly.

Even though Paul said he recieved the gospel from Christ you still claim he did not know Christ then you?

(Gal 1:11) For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.
(Gal 1:12) For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

The advantage of using humans as an example in this discussion about the Creator is because we are capable of being less than He is and that is good for illustrative purposes.

Capable??? You used the word capable???? WOW!

Humans are the center. We are the apple of His eye. He is willing to sacrifice His kingdom for us. How can you not be persuaded of how important the human race is.

I never ever thought I would see a professed believer say it. Humans are the center...wow, so I guess God revolves around humans because humans are the center, and God is on the outside. Unbelievable!

Matt. 1:20 declares we are all His people "for He shall save His people" from their sins.

Are the unrighteous Gods people? Does that passage pertain to those who will not trust by faith alone? will He save those as well? What about the children of wrath? What about that passage inlight and context of the chapter its in as well as the context of all of scripture?

Sentipente I have mixed emotions right now concerning you. I feel like laughing and crying at the same time. I will pray for you.

I do find it curious that when Christians find two passages that give conflicting messages they prefer to use the one that works against the interest of the entire human race. Why do we exhibit so much self-hatred when the Creator has declared how much He loves the entire race?

I don't know about others but I don't find those two passages to be in conflict with one another...you are the only person I know of that say those passages are talking about differnt things....you even went so far as to say Paul the apostile was in error on Eph 2:8. And I can't speak for others but I understand how much God loves humanity. I also know Gods is just and righteous and will reserve those who trust in self for hell.

I am praying for you sentipente.


AT

 

[Adventtruth]

I'm not scared!

was there something magical about his blood?

It was what the blood represented.

Was sin so devastating that Christ could not save us while living?

If God decreed it should be as such, but seeing He did not, then it had to be the blood.

Are we to believe that it took a God/human sacrifice to save humanity?

Yes we are to believe it. The bible says in so many words, if you don't believe it, you have no blood, thus you have no life. Plain and simple.

Questions like those are likely to get one branded as all kinds of things,

By whom?

rather than being answered....

I just did and I did not brand you all kinds of things.


AT

 

[StormyOne]

I'm not scared!



It was what the blood represented.



If God decreed it should be as such, but seeing He did not, then it had to be the blood.



Yes we are to believe it. The bible says in so many words, if you don't believe it, you have no blood, thus you have no life. Plain and simple.



By whom?



I just did and I did not brand you all kinds of things.


AT

no you didn't answer any of the questions.... you repeated the traditional explanations.... that works for you, it's not working for me, but I believe we have covered this ground already...

 

[sentipente]

AT, try doing some independent thinking instead of simply becoming an expert in previously digested intellectual property. You may find it liberating.

 

[Adventtruth]

no you didn't answer any of the questions.... you repeated the traditional explanations.... that works for you, it's not working for me, but I believe we have covered this ground already...

Oh...just because I believe what other countless believers believe, through my own study of the written record and sources, and answered your questions with what I found to be true, I did not answer your question?

Give me a break stormy. If a person is of the traditional club they are wrong....It's as if you want to form your own club, well go ahead, from reading the things you write about matters of faith it's as if you live in relativism, and conjecture.

First you acuse us of not answering the question, then when I answer you say I did not answer the question, then you say I answered with the traditional answers, but it works for me but not you. Make up your mind will you.

AT

 

[sentipente]

AT, he asked you if there was something magical about his blood and your response was "It was what the blood represented." How is that an answer to the question? Are you saying that the magical thing was what the blood represented or that the blood represented that it was magical? What is the answer?

 

[Adventtruth]

AT, try doing some independent thinking instead of simply becoming an expert in previously digested intellectual property. You may find it liberating.

sentipente...sentipente....sentipente. Do you think your thinking is independent? If so you are in for a rude awakening, you are in bondage.

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

AT, he asked you if there was something magical about his blood and your response was "It was what the blood represented." How is that an answer to the question? Are you saying that the magical thing was what the blood represented or that the blood represented that it was magical? What is the answer?

This is becoming laughable.

You are the one who is not in error, who knows Christ better than Paul who error, who is the independent thinker, who is at the center and not God, who is not of the main club but an exclusivist, and you ask about simple matters of blood? You can't comprehend what I said? Do you know what blood represents in the matters of the christian faith which you profess openly?


AT

 

[sentipente]

sentipente...sentipente....sentipente. Do you think your thinking is independent? If so you are in for a rude awakening, you are in bondage.

AT

Evidence works wonders in these matters. You have no inherent authority here. I will gladly review your evidence as soon as you provide them.

 

[mva1985]

Evidence works wonders in these matters. You have no inherent authority here. I will gladly review your evidence as soon as you provide them.

How do we know that you are qualified to review his evidence?

 

[sentipente]

How do we know that you are qualified to review his evidence?

If I am not qualified to review his evidence I am certainly not qualified to consider his conclusions.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Remember now...it was you who wrote that posting asking for answers....If its not the answer you want, then thats fine, but don't tell me I did not answer when I did. A answer is nothing more than a reply to a question.

AT

Rather like when a person is asked a question and they say "huh" There you go answered. I hope our children never hear this that an answer is nothing more then a reply to a question. But teacher I wrote something down, it may not be what you wanted but I answered the question with that little squiggly line.

AT this is our Forum Specific guideline, as we don't have a lot of rules you especially should try to abide by this rule:

Non-members may debate here, but we ask that those wishing to discuss present the reasons for your ideas rather then the traditions which may have informed your ideas. Even though various church traditions may have merit, they are to be used as secondary or supporting material for a reasoned argument. Whether you are arguing from faith or from logic or some combination thereof, respect the other person's point of reference, and address the post topic rather than the posting member.

A reply that you have answered a question merely by saying you answered the question or because you simply responded by making another post is not a reasoned argument. Nor is it respecting the other person to say that merely a reply is an answer to a question.

I have learned not to expect much from you but this is certainly a new low.

 

[sentipente]

A answer is nothing more than a reply to a question.

AT

I can't believe this comes from someone who wishes to be taken seriously. Shameful. If that's your view then you are not here to engage intelligent discourse.

 

[Adventtruth]

Rather like when a person is asked a question and they say "huh" There you go answered.

This is certainly not my case, but I am sure some do answer in this way.

I hope our children never hear this that an answer is nothing more then a reply to a question.

I hope our children are smart enough to understand the true meaning of words, because that is one way the word is defined in the dictionary.

But teacher I wrote something down, it may not be what you wanted but I answered the question with that little squiggly line.

I think you are bringing a situtation and a little drama that you perhaps created in your mind and trying to apply it to our situtation here. You must have some hidden motive for this posting to me.

AT this is our Forum Specific guideline, as we don't have a lot of rules you especially should try to abide by this rule:

Well I don't see how that posting was in violation of that rule. But I do recall several times in the past that you where in violation of that same rule. And for that matter, we all have broken that rule. I ask again...what is your purpose for directing this posting to me??? If you are bitter with me, which seems to be the case, I suggest you let it go. Now I can't tell you what to do...the choice is yours, but you should at least try to establish a dialog pertaining to the matters of faith and doctrine rather than take pokes at me. But if its in your best interest to continue to direct your bitterness towards me, go right ahead....I am unmoved by it. If this is your way of working off steam, then have at it. I have no ill feeling towards any one here.

A reply that you have answered a question merely by saying you answered the question or because you simply responded by making another post is not a reasoned argument.

And yet stormy has said negative remarks about theology calling it theobabble. I see no reason to answer his simple questions with theology.

Nor is it respecting the other person to say that merely a reply is an answer to a question.

And why not? I disagree. A reply and an answer is the same. For example...stormy asked a simple question like

"is there something magical about the blood? to which I responded "its what the blood represented."

Whats wrong with that answer? Do I need to present some bible study here? No I don't need to do such. I answered the question with an honest answer. All I got was, "you did not answer" or "thats not an answer".Then you enter the converstation saying the same thing. But truth be told, every person here has answered questions in the same fashion that I did, but because perhaps emotions are high, I get yelled at for giving such a simple answer. But thats ok...If I am to be a punching bag for others, if I am a target for anger and bitterness and frustration then thats ok as well.

I have learned not to expect much from you but this is certainly a new low.

Well perhaps your anger and bitterness towards me is the cause for your frustation. Or perhaps its because we are given permission to post in this thread. Or perhaps its because we don't see eye to eye in matters of faith and doctrine. Whatever the case, those are things you have to sort through. IF you need me to be a punching bag, or just need to screem at me, then go right ahead if it helps you, but until the mods say formers can't post here, then I will be here to up lift God, Christ, The Gospel, and the Truth of the Bible, and the fact that there is no other way to salvation other than through Christ!


AT

 

[Adventtruth]

I can't believe this comes from someone who wishes to be taken seriously. Shameful. If that's your view then you are not here to engage intelligent discourse.

And yet that is what an answer is...a reply. But I understand you just wanted to take a punch at me, but thats ok.

But its odd that you would say that about intelligent discourse sentipente. I think you dwell in conjecture and relativism more than any one here. There is no factual reason of any of the things you believe. Its as if you make it up as you go. If thats your ideal of intelligant discourse, have at it my friend.


AT

 

[sentipente]

And yet that is what an answer is...a reply.

That is what happens when you try to be cute. You were not asked to give an answer. You were asked to answer the question. That requires one to address the issues raised in the question. Certainly you understand that.

 

[Adventtruth]

That is what happens when you try to be cute. You were not asked to give an answer. You were asked to answer the question. That requires one to address the issues raised in the question. Certainly you understand that.

sentipente....I have no reason to try and be cute. I am far from that. I answered the questions. Example:

The poster asked the question "was there something magical about the blood", to which I answered "its what the blood represented".

Did I answer the question?


AT