Decide which Sub-Forum

[StormyOne]

Thanks Awesumtenor for your timely comments.. some posters don't appreciate the comments of other posters. Some members think that all members should think in the exact same way.... some members believe that we all fit in boxes neatly....

Anything can be discussed, anything, as long as its done in a respectful manner.... Instead some have opted not to discuss the issues mentioned, choosing instead to attack and disrespect the person or persons who have made information about the issues available. Then the claim is made that church bashing is happening and that people are negative, miserable or whatever....

I agree there should not have to be separate forums, and in the end it would make much difference because those who are hateful will continue to be hateful be there one forum or several sub-forums....

 

[HoneyDew]

Which is part of the problem. All any should be calling any is 'brother or sister'. Everyone here believes that God never abrogated the Sabbath for Christians and everyone here awaits Christ's return. Those are the two doctrines from whence the name of this church comes. The 28 FB is not a creed...according to the church and as such is not a test of fellowship. The are the foundation of religious instruction for new believers and converts but ther are not etched on stone by the finger of God and the church can and, as we saw at the most recent GC, will change them, adding to or taking from they see fit. If there is a test it should be whether one abides by the policies and procedures of the current church manual; many of those who deem themselves 'Historic' SDAs reject the church manual and the policies/procedures as currently constituted and try to live in the past... whether it be by the 1950 Church Manual or the 1888 Church Manual... or whenever... the only valid policies of the church are those contained in the current church manual, however.

My point is, with labeling comes demonization and disrespect, both of which are in no short supply in certain circles among us. Personally I dont believe there should be a split forum at all; segregation on any basis is contrary to Christ's prayer in John 17 where He prays that we 'be one, even as' He and the Father are one. But rather than put in the work that would be required, some would prefer to sequester themselves with "their own kind". The disciples could not recive the Holy Ghost until they were in one place and in one accord. That cannot happen here until some come to grips with the fact that men of good conscience and honestly seek and still draw differing conclusions about non-essential aspects of the Christian faith; if this were not so, CF would be able to get by with a significantly smaller number of forae. The Seventh-day Adventist church, like every other church in Christendom is NOT monolithic or homogeneous and segregating into the gluten ghettos of our personal preference will not change this fact.

Mainstream Adventism... true mainstream Adventist understands and accepts this. The course you are suggesting here does not lead to the middle of the road; it leads to the fringe and the narrowest of views where any who does not think exactly as you do is deemed not a true Adventist... or worse deemed not Adventist enough.

Christ is not in such... Christ is not in division based on man's biases. Paul rebuked Peter for what is being proposed here and he asked the church at Corinth 'Is Christ divided'? The answer is no... and as such, we who claim to have put on Christ cannot... must not be divided either. There will not be a divided heaven but the saddest part is that those who insist there will be will never find out how wrong they are because they wont be there...

Segregating one group of believers from another is never the 'right choice', ultimately.

In His service,
Mr. J

and



***New term alert*** "Gluten ghettos"

 

[Seraph1m]

I have observed a number of instances where some have been accused of being hostile. That however does not make the accusation true. The problem is, once an accusation is interjected into the discussion the waters have been muddled. Thus a subtle but negative picture is painted in the mind of thosee observing and, the fact that a different perspective does not automatically make one hostile gets completely lost in the shuffle. As noted in a previous statement, objectivity is the key.

 

[SnowBird77]

and



***New term alert*** "Gluten ghettos"

I noted that. Before I knew of the salt works.

 

[StormyOne]

I have observed a number of instances where some have been accused of being hostile. That however does not make the accusation true. The problem is, once an accusation is interjected into the discussion the waters have been muddled. Thus a subtle but negative picture is painted in the mind of thosee observing and, the fact that a different perspective does not automatically make one hostile gets completely lost in the shuffle. As noted in a previous statement, objectivity is the key.

Isn't that the truth... I can testify to that given that I have been accused in this forum (and another) of being negative, of church bashing, and of being miserable... by people who do not know me.... of course the justification for these accusations by the members in question boils down to two things, their uncomfortableness discussing the issues I post, and because I don't appear to embrace everything about the church as they do... a comment was made early on that I am only getting what I deserve or something akin to that.... If my memory serves me correctly it begin the moment I questioned the icon thingy.... then mushroomed from there...

The interactions have been interesting, but I was not feeling the love... not from some folks here...

 

[awesumtenor]

If one was to remember back 25 years to Glacier View I think that many of the administrators of the Church would know Des Ford. I would also think that many members would know what he believes.

This coming Saturday in Sydney Dr's Ford, Young, and Patrick will be reviewing Glacier View.

It just happens to be October 22. I wonder why that date was chosen to review Glacier View?

And had you not mentioned it here, nearly noone in the NAD would have known... or cared.

Some, now knowing, still don't care; there are far more pressing issues. Des Ford is back in the church; that in and of itself says that what was viewed 25 years ago as so extreme he had to be fired and removed from fellowship is no longer such, seeing that he never recanted of his views.

He may be an issue in Australia... He has not been for at least a decade in North America... and in the NAD regional conferences he was never an issue at all.

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[awesumtenor]

It is not a criteria to join in the Traditional at all.

Just an observation in passing.

I can get both channels here and often switch from one to the other.

As a general rule I would watch far more 3ABN than Hope. Not everything on Hope is bad. There are some good things.

Just like you think about what the GC is doing with the TV channel, I also think it would have been far better to work with 3ABN and not set up its own TV channel.

So, in your estimation, the entire worldwide church should be at the mercy of Danny Shelton's whim?

I dont think so.

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[StormyOne]

And had you not mentioned it here, nearly noone in the NAD would have known... or cared.

Some, now knowing, still don't care; there are far more pressing issues. Des Ford is back in the church; that in and of itself says that what was viewed 25 years ago as so extreme he had to be fired and removed from fellowship is no longer such, seeing that he never recanted of his views.

He may be an issue in Australia... He has not been for at least a decade in North America... and in the NAD regional conferences he was never an issue at all.

In His service,
Mr. J

Interesting that he didn't abandon his views in fact some of the concepts have found their way into how we view that issue now.... you are correct though, many, and I mean many in the regional conferences (regional conferences is the term used for the black conferences here in the U.S.) had no clue as to who Des Ford or Walter Rea was.... and many still don't know... probably like many had no clue as to what a regional conference was until told...

 

[moicherie]

Des Ford never heard of him, is he a test of fellowship now? lol
Regional conferences heard of that one - mmm a case of separate but equal? (sounds errily familiar) ok moving swiftly on.........
People can't seem to accept that having a different view on something does not equate to being a personal attack, anti-God or on the Road to perdition. Good thing we not an Adventist Christian theocracy it might be one man no vote!

 

[tall73]

It is not a criteria to join in the Traditional at all.

Just an observation in passing.

I can get both channels here and often switch from one to the other.

As a general rule I would watch far more 3ABN than Hope. Not everything on Hope is bad. There are some good things.

Just like you think about what the GC is doing with the TV channel, I also think it would have been far better to work with 3ABN and not set up its own TV channel.

ok, I see where you are coming from. I kind of figured it was just an observation.

I don't know the inner workings of the politics at 3abn well enough to say for sure, but a lot of it stemmed from 3abn not coming under the gc banner as some other media ministries have done. I don't think they necessarily would have to either.

But I am a bit mystified why they didn't play the appearing on 3abn for instance. That would have been a simple thing to do, and would have made it reach more people.

 

[tall73]

If one was to remember back 25 years to Glacier View I think that many of the administrators of the Church would know Des Ford. I would also think that many members would know what he believes.

This coming Saturday in Sydney Dr's Ford, Young, and Patrick will be reviewing Glacier View.

It just happens to be October 22. I wonder why that date was chosen to review Glacier View?

I think some are still aware of Ford and his teachings, but a great deal here have forgotten, or came in later. And really, once it went out of the headlines, the only ones who would note it are those who enjoy discussions on such matters.

More recently Cottrel has been perhaps more influential in North American circles on the issue of the sanctuary teaching.

 

[tall73]

Perhaps it is time to ask if we really want three separate forums? I used to worry a bit that some of the fighting in the main forum would turn off visitors. But considering we still have fighting in the main forum, and now we have broadcast our problems to the world with the new forums, maybe we should agree to some terms and go back to one.

Some suggested terms.

1. If a post bothers you, exercise your free will and don't post there. If there is a rule violation, report the post.

2. If a thread is geared to fellowship, don't intrude with theologically divisive discussion.



I know the moderators are only trying to help. But we need to help ourselves.

 

[SnowBird77]

Perhaps it is time to ask if we really want three separate forums? I used to worry a bit that some of the fighting in the main forum would turn off visitors. But considering we still have fighting in the main forum, and now we have broadcast our problems to the world with the new forums, maybe we should agree to some terms and go back to one.

Some suggested terms.

1. If a post bothers you, exercise your free will and don't post there. If there is a rule violation, report the post.

2. If a thread is geared to fellowship, don't intrude with theologically divisive discussion.



I know the moderators are only trying to help. But we need to help ourselves.

I think you are saying that the original forum rules were appropriate. The problem was with those Adventists who see themselves as the "defenders of the faith" and had to "expose evil" wherever they could find it.

"A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent." William Blake.

 

[tall73]

I think you are saying that the original forum rules were appropriate. The problem was with those Adventists who see themselves as the "defenders of the faith" and had to "expose evil" wherever they could find it.

"A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent." William Blake.

Snowbird, it is fair to say that antagonism can happen from both sides. Statements by the "persecuted" dropped into every thread don't exactly make for a great environment either.

And we have seen a bit of both.

The sooner we drop both the better off we will be. Just state your view as your view. If folks are so worried about being classified, then stop speaking of everything as though you were still classified.

 

[SnowBird77]

Snowbird, it is fair to say that antagonism can happen from both sides. Statements by the "persecuted" dropped into every thread don't exactly make for a great environment either.

And we have seen a bit of both.

The sooner we drop both the better off we will be. Just state your view as your view. If folks are so worried about being classified, then stop speaking of everything as though you were still classified.

You know more than I. I can only speak from the reaction that came from my simple post about the Reformed Adventist movement. It felt like I had dropped into a hornet's nest.

 

[StormyOne]

Perhaps it is time to ask if we really want three separate forums? I used to worry a bit that some of the fighting in the main forum would turn off visitors. But considering we still have fighting in the main forum, and now we have broadcast our problems to the world with the new forums, maybe we should agree to some terms and go back to one.

Some suggested terms.

1. If a post bothers you, exercise your free will and don't post there. If there is a rule violation, report the post.

2. If a thread is geared to fellowship, don't intrude with theologically divisive discussion.



I know the moderators are only trying to help. But we need to help ourselves.

Tall,
The division here is a small representation of how the larger church is divided don't you think? The original setup was fine, however one can only deal with being called a nonadventist for so long.... and while I don't consider myself one of the persecuted, there was (is) a lack of tolerance or love....

 

[StormyOne]

Snowbird, it is fair to say that antagonism can happen from both sides. Statements by the "persecuted" dropped into every thread don't exactly make for a great environment either.

And we have seen a bit of both.

The sooner we drop both the better off we will be. Just state your view as your view. If folks are so worried about being classified, then stop speaking of everything as though you were still classified.

What do you mean when you say "statements by the persecuted dropped into every thread don't exactly make for a great environment either?"

Is it possible for a person to disagree and still be considered an adventist? Initially my objections here were met with "are you an adventist?" In spite of all we have studied you as a pastor know that we do not have "all the truth." To think we have arrived at that point and not need to restudy a position is foolish. I have asked difficult questions, I have disagreed with maintaining the status quo, I have shared with some information about the church that they didn't even know, yet the treatment I have received has not been what Christ would want.... So help me understand what you are saying....

 

[Cliff2]

What do you mean when you say "statements by the persecuted dropped into every thread don't exactly make for a great environment either?"

Is it possible for a person to disagree and still be considered an adventist? Initially my objections here were met with "are you an adventist?" In spite of all we have studied you as a pastor know that we do not have "all the truth." To think we have arrived at that point and not need to restudy a position is foolish. I have asked difficult questions, I have disagreed with maintaining the status quo, I have shared with some information about the church that they didn't even know, yet the treatment I have received has not been what Christ would want.... So help me understand what you are saying....

I can't and will not try and speak for tall73 but I am wondering how you define an SDA.

We now have 28 FB, from memory about 13 statement of beliefs on the baptisimal certificate.

Are we going to throw them out to accomodate certain people who still want to be called SDA's but not go along with what a nominal belief that is put out by the Church.

I believe the above is only a starting point not the end of the road.

I wopnder what type of new truth you have in mind when you speak of wanting more truth.

Every SDA in their own mind should study to know where they stand for themselves. They cannot leave it for the Pr. Elder or anyone else.

But to question every belief all the time seems a bit much for me and then still say "I am a Seventh-day Adventist"

 

[tall73]

What do you mean when you say "statements by the persecuted dropped into every thread don't exactly make for a great environment either?"

Is it possible for a person to disagree and still be considered an adventist? Initially my objections here were met with "are you an adventist?" In spite of all we have studied you as a pastor know that we do not have "all the truth." To think we have arrived at that point and not need to restudy a position is foolish. I have asked difficult questions, I have disagreed with maintaining the status quo, I have shared with some information about the church that they didn't even know, yet the treatment I have received has not been what Christ would want.... So help me understand what you are saying....

I am not referring to posts that might be considered problematic, or even embarassing to the church. I am saying that those who have been labled have at times taken every opportunity real and imagined to cry out that they are labled.

I do agree that the 28 are not a creed, and that some might be overzealous in guarding them. But if folks want to say I am a liberal or non-SDA because I do have a different take on a few things, they must PROVE that to me from the Bible--not from the 28. And until they do that I won't worry about it.

I already explained my somewhat less than orthodox explanation of the Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast. But just about any traditional SDA who takes the time to see what I am saying agrees that the seal is not the Sabbath alone (as evangelists claim to strenghten their point at times) , but total dedication to God in all things, and in actuality, it is the seal of the Holy Spirit as in Ephesians.

So I am not afraid of of what folks call me. They simply have to back it up with the Bible.

There is danger not only that some will challenge people about being an SDA, but also that those challenged will make it a big issue by continually repeating it and reacting to it.

Incidentally, yes, there are divisions in the church. But those are artificially magnified in a format like this where there is no uniting mission, activities, etc. but mostly just discussion which tends to theological directions. And the danger is that we will buy into the notion that we are really divided this much in real life. We are not. I have liberals and conservatives in my church, and they really don't stress over it all that often.

 

[StormyOne]

I am not referring to posts that might be considered problematic, or even embarassing to the church. I am saying that those who have been labled have at times taken every opportunity real and imagined to cry out that they are labled.

I do agree that the 28 are not a creed, and that some might be overzealous in guarding them. But if folks want to say I am a liberal or non-SDA because I do have a different take on a few things, they must PROVE that to me from the Bible--not from the 28. And until they do that I won't worry about it.

I already explained my somewhat less than orthodox explanation of the Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast. But just about any traditional SDA who takes the time to see what I am saying agrees that the seal is not the Sabbath alone (as evangelists claim to strenghten their point at times) , but total dedication to God in all things, and in actuality, it is the seal of the Holy Spirit as in Ephesians.

So I am not afraid of of what folks call me. They simply have to back it up with the Bible.

There is danger not only that some will challenge people about being an SDA, but also that those challenged will make it a big issue by continually repeating it and reacting to it.

Incidentally, yes, there are divisions in the church. But those are artificially magnified in a format like this where there is no uniting mission, activities, etc. but mostly just discussion which tends to theological directions. And the danger is that we will buy into the notion that we are really divided this much in real life. We are not. I have liberals and conservatives in my church, and they really don't stress over it all that often.

where is your church... sounds like a great place to be....I agree with what you have stated, but let me ask, is it possible to get past the labeling and "protecting" the 28 fundies in a forum like this or is it a necessary distraction?