Changing the purpose of this forum

[RC_NewProtestants]

I have been thinking for a while that this forum has lost it's purpose. We tried to encompass too much. I wanted to keep it open to former Adventists such as Tall and Sophia and some others. Well they seem to be gone anyway so maybe it is time to change the forum to Progressive Adventists. I am kind of tired of the former Adventists here people who are basically calvinists though they deny it yet they deny free will. So maybe it is time we really become a Progressive Adventist forum, where we communicate with Progressive Adventists rather then have to argue with the fundamentalists who used to be Adventists, fundamentalist who traded one form of fundamentalism for another.

Frankly the presuppositions between Progressive Adventists are so different from Fundamentalism that there is little in common anymore. Maybe we need to create a more uniform group of Adventists here. We don't need to agree on everything but I think a personal acknowledgement that the members self identify as Progressive Adventists. There actually are a lot of them around but we don't have any sort of organization or way to communicate effectively. Maybe this would be the place to start.

What do you think?

 

[StormyOne]

I have been thinking for a while that this forum has lost it's purpose. We tried to encompass too much. I wanted to keep it open to former Adventists such as Tall and Sophia and some others. Well they seem to be gone anyway so maybe it is time to change the forum to Progressive Adventists. I am kind of tired of the former Adventists here people who are basically calvinists though they deny it yet they deny free will. So maybe it is time we really become a Progressive Adventist forum, where we communicate with Progressive Adventists rather then have to argue with the fundamentalists who used to be Adventists, fundamentalist who traded one form of fundamentalism for another.

Frankly the presuppositions between Progressive Adventists are so different from Fundamentalism that there is little in common anymore. Maybe we need to create a more uniform group of Adventists here. We don't need to agree on everything but I think a personal acknowledgement that the members self identify as Progressive Adventists. There actually are a lot of them around but we don't have any sort of organization or way to communicate effectively. Maybe this would be the place to start.

What do you think?

agreed.... especially with the idea that some have traded one form of fundamentalism for another..... sheesh.... being accused of abandoning the faith of God's record, is no different than those who accuse others of not observing sabbath.....

I am all for self-identifying, and if you could include your summary again of some basic things Progressives believe in, that would be good.... that way we would not have to have these constant battles about what the role of the bible is, how one is saved, etc..... I hope we can get something done soon, otherwise my participation here will be limited....

 

[DeanM]

Hi folks.

I'm sure you already know that CF has a progressive Adventist forum. But from reading your post, it seems like you're not quite ready to embrace former Adventists like they do in the current Prog area.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your OP.

But it sounds like you'd like to alter the Trad area to open it up to the Progs, but not the formers. Is that about right?

Again, please forgive me if I'm not fully understanding what you're saying~

Dean

 

[VictorC]

I have been thinking for a while that this forum has lost it's purpose. We tried to encompass too much. I wanted to keep it open to former Adventists such as Tall and Sophia and some others. Well they seem to be gone anyway so maybe it is time to change the forum to Progressive Adventists. I am kind of tired of the former Adventists here people who are basically calvinists though they deny it yet they deny free will. So maybe it is time we really become a Progressive Adventist forum, where we communicate with Progressive Adventists rather then have to argue with the fundamentalists who used to be Adventists, fundamentalist who traded one form of fundamentalism for another.

Frankly the presuppositions between Progressive Adventists are so different from Fundamentalism that there is little in common anymore. Maybe we need to create a more uniform group of Adventists here. We don't need to agree on everything but I think a personal acknowledgement that the members self identify as Progressive Adventists. There actually are a lot of them around but we don't have any sort of organization or way to communicate effectively. Maybe this would be the place to start.

What do you think?

I believe you're advocating for the Church of the Progressive Adventist NonFundamentalist, a church that will have a membership of but one.

The heading for this congregational forum is Progressive/Moderate/Former Adventists, which is reasonably consistent with my observation that this "congregation" appeals to people in various stages of transition out of the seventh-day Adventist church.

A people in transition do not hold a codified set of beliefs, nor does a transitory church exist. Many of these people are leaving Adventism with an object of where they're going (and not all know the destination yet). Some are prepared to live in the House of the Transition.

What do I think?

I think that the split of the two Adventist forums into comfortable homes was the result of popular demand calling for a place where those in transition could engage in apologetic discussions, and the "traditional" Adventists could have their shelter far away from the rages of life.
This is what the democratic process has produced on CF.

The result?

The Progressives are looking for change.
The Adventist forum is as boring as watching mold grow on stones, and we're not permitted to liven up the place.
These people also avoid the Denom-Specific Theology page like the plague; they have no desire to engage in a defense for their distinctive sect anymore.

You guys wanted a democracy; well, now you have a democracy.
It is a perfect form of government for those in transition.
Democracy itself is an unstable form of government itself subject to transition:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-- Benjamin Franklin, leader of the American Revolution

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, author of the Bill of Rights

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
-- James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
-- John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

There is no Church of the Transition.
Why would you want one?

Victor

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I have been thinking for a while that this forum has lost it's purpose.

Am I wrong, or does this forum allow for more than just "progressive SDAs." Why would you seek to limit the stated purpose of this forum?

I wanted to keep it open to former Adventists such as Tall and Sophia and some others.

Are you suggesting that this forum isn't for all formers and only certain ones? What qualifications should I strive to obtain so I can have the right to post here?

Well they seem to be gone anyway so maybe it is time to change the forum to Progressive Adventists.

Not all formers are gone.

I am kind of tired of the former Adventists here people who are basically calvinists though they deny it yet they deny free will.

I am not a Calvinist. If you review the five points of Calvinism, you'll notice that there is more involved then simply denying free will.

So maybe it is time we really become a Progressive Adventist forum, where we communicate with Progressive Adventists rather then have to argue with the fundamentalists who used to be Adventists,

This sounds strangely familiar. Do I sense a pattern forming?

fundamentalist who traded one form of fundamentalism for another.

Interesting comment.

Frankly the presuppositions between Progressive Adventists are so different from Fundamentalism that there is little in common anymore.

Why does it seem that there is a presupposition in this forum that it is preferable to dialogue with only like-minded people? We've certainly seen the same position taken by the other SDA forum.

Maybe we need to create a more uniform group of Adventists here.

You already completely ignore my posts, and I fully respect your right to do so. I have not stalked you or tried to coerce you to dialogue with me. Since you already have the ability to pick and choose with whom you will dialogue, I'm having a hard time seeing the problem that needs to be fixed.

We don't need to agree on everything but I think a personal acknowledgement that the members self identify as Progressive Adventists.

Am I wrong, or does this forum allow for more than just "progressive SDAs." Why would you seek to limit the stated purpose of this forum?

What do you think?

I am 100% opposed, but I've noticed that formers don't really get a vote here on CF. What's next? Will we end up with four separate forums? One for trads, one for progs, one for moderates and one for formers? If so, why would that be a good thing?

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

Hi folks.

I'm sure you already know that CF has a progressive Adventist forum. But from reading your post, it seems like you're not quite ready to embrace former Adventists like they do in the current Prog area.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your OP.

But it sounds like you'd like to alter the Trad area to open it up to the Progs, but not the formers. Is that about right?

Again, please forgive me if I'm not fully understanding what you're saying~

Dean

it does? where?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Hello

I Think Now is a good time to bring up changing the name. I am good with droping the name Former from the list as long as they are still welcome. Since there is a defined postion in adventism associatecd with Mainstream christianity then we should reflect that. the name Evangelical/Progressive/SDA would be better. I also think a social subforum would be good

 

[moicherie]

I vote for a social subforum and for a debate subforum for anyone who does not identify themselves as Progressive Adventists (including Formers and Traditionals). Since the split IMO both areas are lacking.

 

[DeanM]

it does? where?

LOL I'm such an idiot sometimes....

Disregard my earlier post.

8)

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I vote for a social subforum and for a debate subforum for anyone who does not identify themselves as Progressive Adventists (including Formers and Traditionals). Since the split IMO both areas are lacking.

that is probably the best solution. I would like to see Progressive Adventists be able to communicate with like minded Adventists without the insertion of so many fundamentalists. When we started there were several Adventist who had just become former Adventists who were substantially in agreement on many things with Progressive Adventists. But they seem to have left which is understandable as when you leave an organization you often disassociate from it or at least stop caring about reforming it. So we can't really offer them the kind of forum home as the Progressive Adventist.

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

 

[Sophia7]

I have been thinking for a while that this forum has lost it's purpose. We tried to encompass too much. I wanted to keep it open to former Adventists such as Tall and Sophia and some others. Well they seem to be gone anyway so maybe it is time to change the forum to Progressive Adventists. I am kind of tired of the former Adventists here people who are basically calvinists though they deny it yet they deny free will. So maybe it is time we really become a Progressive Adventist forum, where we communicate with Progressive Adventists rather then have to argue with the fundamentalists who used to be Adventists, fundamentalist who traded one form of fundamentalism for another.

Frankly the presuppositions between Progressive Adventists are so different from Fundamentalism that there is little in common anymore. Maybe we need to create a more uniform group of Adventists here. We don't need to agree on everything but I think a personal acknowledgement that the members self identify as Progressive Adventists. There actually are a lot of them around but we don't have any sort of organization or way to communicate effectively. Maybe this would be the place to start.

What do you think?

I'm not gone. I still read stuff here, but I haven't been posting much. I've been a little tired of theological discussions. If you all want to change the name of the forum, that's fine with me, and I could even help you request it, but I hope you won't take away the openness of this area. I would hate to see it become as exclusive as the Traditional Adventist forum. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

 

[StormyOne]

I don't think it is fair for you to speak of the Traditionals like this. You come off as though you are making your little group look innocent.

What happened within that forum gave the Traditionals good reason to become exclusive. It wasn't always that way either. It's when certain people couldn't control their behavior that things got out of hand. In my opinion, the Traditionals are not entirely at fault, and the progressives are just as exclusive in their own way too.

The words, 'Back Off', do mean something to thoughtful people; but they don't mean anything to antagonists. And that was the problem. The antagonists just wouldn't back off. I can think of one who should have been banned long before he was. In fact, it is likely that much of what happened in there wouldn't have happened if this was the case. But they kept ignoring the complaints against him. And when they finally saw the light it was too late by then. He did his damage. He did what the devil sent him to do!

interesting revision of events......history seems to be written by those who are left.....

 

[sentipente]

Progressive has always seemed to be the best identifier. Fundamentalism stinks regardless of the flavor.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I tend to be a little dense sometimes, and it wouldn't be the first time that I have missed the handwriting on the wall. However, I wonder whether it may be time for me (and perhaps other formers as well) to pursue the proper application of this passage:

"He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits; and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff--no bread, no bag, no money in their belt--but to wear sandals; and He added, "Do not put on two tunics." And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave town. "Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them." They went out and preached that men should repent."
​

Having listened to the hurts that progressives have expressed regarding the way they feel they were treated by traditionals, I am a bit surprised and disappointed that they are so eager to exclude others in the same way that they have been excluded. However, perhaps Stormy and RC do not speak for every progressive who posts here.

With genuine sadness,
BFA

 

[JonMiller]

I know that I got tired of theological discussion. I will probably be interested in it later.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

I tend to be a little dense sometimes, and it wouldn't be the first time that I have missed the handwriting on the wall. However, I wonder whether it may be time for me (and perhaps other formers as well) to pursue the proper application of this passage:

"He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits; and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff--no bread, no bag, no money in their belt--but to wear sandals; and He added, "Do not put on two tunics." And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave town. "Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them." They went out and preached that men should repent."
​

Having listened to the hurts that progressives have expressed regarding the way they feel they were treated by traditionals, I am a bit surprised and disappointed that they are so eager to exclude others in the same way that they have been excluded. However, perhaps Stormy and RC do not speak for every progressive who posts here.

With genuine sadness,
BFA

no need to be sad, you have misread what my issue is.... How many times must I say, "I understand what you are saying but don't share your belief" before you (generic you) leave that issue alone and move on to something else... what I am concerned about is being badgered because I don't share the belief that the bible is infallible, or that Christ is the only one who can save, etc...

I enjoy interacting with everyone, but when it is apparent that we disagree and nothing more can gained from the discussion of a particular issue, why can we move on?

I also realize some like to debate or act as an apologist for some particular belief and that's fine, but when I choose not to engage in debating that choice should be respected without the other person resorting to personal attacks...

That's all I am saying.... you have a problem with that?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I think the forum could still be open to all in the debate area, So if some former Adventists wanted to try and tell us that we have no free will and Progressive Adventist wanted to argue with their assumptions they could in the debate subforum. I don't like the way these things keep intruding into other threads as it is now. Moriah was the only person who I have heard of who said she was a Progressive Adventist and who denied free will.

Now the debate which goes on in the Adventist church over the so called Openness of God, would be appropriate in the Progressive Adventist section because it is of concern to Progressive Adventists.

What we have now is probably a mistake because it makes former Adventists of whatever stripe think that this is a good forum for their "ministry" to Adventists. And as we have seen it is mainly used by fundamentalists who have little in common with Progressive Adventists. Why some of them simply deny that a Progressive Adventist can trust God or value the Bible because the Progressive Adventist does not hold to the fundamentalist dogma.

What it comes down to his college level discussion interjected with kindergarten discussion. They don't mess well, the black and white world of the fundamentalist does not mess with the world that is multicolored. And there is no reason to go back to that simplistic religion once you understand that there is far more then that simplistic religion. It is rather like having someone say "prove to me from the Bible that I can use electricity" It is not something found in the Bible so we have to rely on using reason but their reaction is that human reason is foolishness. There is no place to go with such people, at least in my opinion. But we can certainly provide a subforum for them to attempt to tell us that their reason is God's but I don't think we need to have them intruding upon the more progressive understanding.

 

[woobadooba]

interesting revision of events......history seems to be written by those who are left.....

Stormy, there is no doubt that you went through some stuff in there early on. However, you also dished some stuff out.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

no need to be sad, you have misread what my issue is

Good. I'm glad that my impressions were merely a misunderstanding.

How many times must I say, "I understand what you are saying but don't share your belief" before you (generic you) leave that issue alone and move on to something else. what I am concerned about is being badgered because I don't share the belief that the bible is infallible, or that Christ is the only one who can save, etc...

Certainly, I would hate to badger anyone. However, I notice that, if you feel that you have gone as far with a subject as you'd like to go, you are also free to drop out of the discussion. Quite frequently, I am discussing with more than one person and a discussion continues because there are different voices coming into and out of the discussion. I see nothing wrong with that and I may view such a scenario differently than you do.

I enjoy interacting with everyone, but when it is apparent that we disagree and nothing more can gained from the discussion of a particular issue, why can we move on?

Please do. If you ever reach that point with me, feel free to move on. You'll quickly realize that I'll do nothing to try to retain you in that particular discussion. However, if there are others with whom I'm still dialoguing on that subject, hopefully you will grant me the freedom to continue even if you'd prefer to stop.

I also realize some like to debate or act as an apologist for some particular belief and that's fine, but when I choose not to engage in debating that choice should be respected without the other person resorting to personal attacks...

I agree completely with this statement.

That's all I am saying.... you have a problem with that?

If all you are requesting is respectful dialogue, I have absolutely no problem with that. If you are requesting that formers should be removed from this forum, then you can understand why I would have a problem with that.

Because there are only a couple of formers who post here regularly, it's a bit hard to imagine that some of the concerns about the posts of formers don't relate to my own posts (note that some of the non-SDAs who post here have never been SDA). If you'd like to clarify (either here or by PM) the ways in which my posts have been inappropriate, I'd appreciate the feedback. If you'd prefer not to provide that feedback, I'll certainly understand.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I think the forum could still be open to all in the debate area

Very generous. Thank you.

So if some former Adventists wanted to try and tell us that we have no free will

I admit that I have only been here a short time (6 months or so). During the short time that I've been here, I've never participated in or seen a debate regarding "Calvinism vs. Aminianism." I did make a comment once about "Arminianism vs. Pelagianism" (a comment you seemed to misunderstand). Although I don't doubt the subject of "free will" has come up, I question whether it is the pervasive issue that you seem to imply that it is.

and Progressive Adventist wanted to argue with their assumptions they could in the debate subforum.

So formers would be limited to one subforum? You do realize that this would represent a significant change in purpose in this forum? Which persons should have the ability to provide feedback regarding such a change in purpose?

I don't like the way these things keep intruding into other threads as it is now. Moriah was the only person who I have heard of who said she was a Progressive Adventist and who denied free will.

Again, I don't see the subject of "free will" intruding into other threads. In fact there are, right now, a number of thread that make no mention of this subject whatsoever. Perhaps you are viewing threads that I'm not seeing.

Now the debate which goes on in the Adventist church over the so called Openness of God, would be appropriate in the Progressive Adventist section because it is of concern to Progressive Adventists.

Please re-read the name of this forum. Formers are also permitted to raise concerns. It is not only progressives who have the freedom to raise concerns.

What we have now is probably a mistake because it makes former Adventists of whatever stripe think that this is a good forum for their "ministry" to Adventists.

What "ministry" is that?

And as we have seen it is mainly used by fundamentalists who have little in common with Progressive Adventists.

You must be talking about someone else. I am not a fundamentalist.

Why some of them simply deny that a Progressive Adventist can trust God or value the Bible because the Progressive Adventist does not hold to the fundamentalist dogma.

Just reviewed my posts in this forum. Not one of them implies that progressives don't trust God or value the Bible. Again, I have no clue what you're talking about.

What it comes down to his college level discussion interjected with kindergarten discussion. They don't mess well, the black and white world of the fundamentalist does not mess with the world that is multicolored.

Your depiction of the groups seems very foreign to me. I wonder whether it resonates with anyone other than with you?

And there is no reason to go back to that simplistic religion once you understand that there is far more then that simplistic religion.

You clearly have taken no time to understand what I believe, as this description does not even begin to describe me.

There is no place to go with such people, at least in my opinion.

You certainly have the right to reach that conclusion. In fact, you've already reached that conclusion with me and I've done nothing to try to urge you to resume dialogue (other than to voice my objections in this forum to your implication that formers should be banned or at least severely restricted).

But we can certainly provide a subforum for them to attempt to tell us that their reason is God's but I don't think we need to have them intruding upon the more progressive understanding.

So who has the ability to make that decision? If this forum is for progressives, moderates and formers, shouldn't formers have some input in that decision?

BFA