Changing the purpose of this forum

[Adventtruth]

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

I agree!


AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

BFA originally said:

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.
​

You then show that your statement above is false yet you don't seem to realize it:

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!

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

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.

For more see:
Adventism and Fundamentalism
​

 

[Byfaithalone1]

You then show that your statement above is false yet you don't seem to realize it

You wrote that you have had enough with trying to dialogue with me. Why then should I conclude that you want to have interaction with me? The only reason we are having interaction now is due to the fact that you seem intent on having me banished from this forum for a crime that has not been identified.

That is the problem I find with you and AT, you twist statments in ways that is illogical and false.

I have twisted nothing. I set out your words verbatim.

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.

And my point is that I don't read every post. I've already explained why I gave up on the Sabbath School discussion thread and why I have had no input in that thread. If you'd like to amend your statement and indicate that you are now interested in trying to dialogue with me, then we can start fresh. Until then, my reasons for stepping away from the Sabbath School discussion thread are quite logical. The only reason I am dialoguing with you now is that you are seeking to have me banished from this forum even though you cannot articulate anything inappropriate that I have done.

The reason I think this is the case is that the former SDA's are antigonistic to the purpose of this forum,

To date, despite my many questions, you still have not stated what you believe is the purpose of this forum. Also, you have not set forth a progressive SDA statement of faith so we can see what it is we're discussing and/or antagonistic to.

they don't care about progressive adventism

This statement is false. That may be how you view me, but it isn't a fact.

and they don't seem to have regard for truth.

This is a prejudicial statement that has no basis in fact. My personal history and my candor in this forum would suggest otherwise.

That is not consistent with what we want this forum to be and thus the need for a change here.

You haven't even articulated what it is that must be fixed, other than you don't like Adventruth. If you aren't going to offer us something tangible so that we understand the nature of the offense, how can you conclude that you've offered non-SDAs the opportunity to dialogue reasonably?

As for fundmentalism, if you could read the wikipedia then you should have a good idea what it is,

I've posted most of it in either this thread or Senti's thread. The word "fundamentalist" means so many things that it could potentially describe any number of groups, including many progressive SDAs. It is possibly even less descriptive than the word "cult."

you listed articles dealing with culture such as dancing and music which have not been a part of any of the discussion's here.

But these subjects are certainly part of the Wikipedia article that you cited and therefore relevant to your use of the term "fundamentalist." If you are going to refer to people you don't even know, people with whom you've had no substantive dialogue, as "fundamentalists," it seems fair to consider all that the word could potentially mean.

It is summed up in the first paragraphs of the wikipedia article

Why do you conclude that the entire article isn't relevant?

BFA

 

[DeanM]

Mod Hat Post

Hi folks.

Let's try to keep this on topic and less about our feelings for one another.

Some other options:

1) Take it to PMs
2) Use the ignore button

I don't think the line has been crossed yet, but part of my job is to keep the threads running smoothly before there's any trouble.

Thanks,
DeanM

Mod Hat Off

 

[Adventist Dissident]

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

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.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Let's try to keep this on topic and less about our feelings for one 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

 

[StormyOne]

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?

 

[tall73]

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?

Avoid the thread if you don't want to discuss a certain topic. It is the same solution that could have prevented a split in the progressive and traditional forum. There will always be some topics I don't want to discuss. So I just skip over them. Everyone has that option.

I don't think it is badgering for others to discuss topics I don't like.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I don't think anyone should be banished unless they are flaming, harassing, or badgering the members.... is that what you are doing?

That isn't my intent. Hopefully my posts don't come across that way. This is the thread in which I have been most tenacious, and only because I would like to continue to post here.

If not, then where would be the problem?

According to the OP in this thread, it doesn't seem to matter whether I seek to conduct myself responsibly or not. It is for that reason that I have raised my concerns in this thread.

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

I agree completely, and have reached this point many times. However, even when reaching that point, I haven't regretted the time spent exploring the subject. Often, I find holes in my argument or things I had not previously considered and this compels me to study a subject further. The Spirit has used my interaction in forums for good in that I have grown from posting.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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

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. Which is something I am for (also a social forum 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.

 

[sentipente]

The idea is that Progressive Adventists can discuss other topics other then explaining why they are not traditionalist anymore.

All you have to do is ignore those posts.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

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.

I notice that this idea was not set out in your OP.

an area where non progressive Adventists can practice their antagonism or argue their position where Traditional Adventists could do likewise.

Do you believe that only one group practices "antagonism?" Who among us has clean hands?

As a newcomer to this forum, I've witnessed what has already happened between the trads and progs. After watching all of that, I wonder whether I have reason to be concerned that the same thing is about to happen between the progs and the formers. I would like to avoid that (and it seems that others would also like to avoid that).

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.

Are you suggesting that there should also be a "home forum" for formers?

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

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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

Or better yet change the purpose of the forum so that it is not a home for former Adventists since they have surely moved on and could find a forum more suitable then this one as their home forum. But you are simply causing me to repeat myself, as I have covered that already.

Moderators can we do something now or is everything fixed in stone so that we can't change the forum name or add subforums?

 

[Sophia7]

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'll ask if it can be done.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I think a better answer might be a fellowship sub-forum for Progressives.

I note the difference between the option set forth in the OP of this thread and the option presented by ProfessorMom in the above quote. I object strongly to the option set forth in the OP of this thread (for the reasons already cited in this thread) and I support the option presented by ProfessorMom. In supporting ProfessorMom's option, 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

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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

First I acknowledge we made a mistake to include former SDA's in our name. I am pretty sure there is no other former here that has former whatever's in their name. As I said we did it for some of the people who were SDA's but just very recently changed and we did not want them to be prevented from discussions.

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.

 

[Sophia7]

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. There aren't any icons anymore, so self-identification would be really hard for the mods to keep track of, not that all Adventists used SDA icons when we had them, and there wasn't a separate Progressive one anyway.

What you can do is limit debate by your FSGs and your statement of faith. If you want to change things, my suggestion would be to designate the main Progressive forum for fellowship only and add a debate sub-forum.

 

[Adventtruth]

Hi Sophia.

Is there away that one can make a private area that can only be entered through a special membership? I've seen posting areas within a forum which could only be read and eccessed by special membership.

AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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.

Obviously that has not worked as we get people violating both our current FSG's as well as the CF site rules. We don't want to restrict the content other then we already have with wanting people to post the reasons for something. Some have been every questioning of other opinions yet when they come to their reasons it is simply "I believe" on whatever subject without any reasons put forth. They are ever willing to criticize other's who give their reasons but they can't be bothered to give a reason.

Again obviously moderation can't fix that problem. Just as it has done nothing to help when people come here and declare that another poster does not trust God. So the first step should be to change the forum name so that it does not represent a forum home for people who are here simply because they are former Adventists.

 

[tall73]

Just ask the administration to change the name as a first step. There is no reason to have former Adventists as part of the forum name.

Now having said that, RC you are singing a TOTALLY different tune than you all were with the traditionals.