FreeinChrist, could we have some clarification on something?

[TrustAndObey]

Edit, I wasn't finished but I guess I hit CTRL S or something and it submitted.

BRB

 

[TrustAndObey]

Sorry, I went to get my son and completely forgot to log out before I did.

BFA, I know CF is not a subsidiary of my church. But the Adventists that post in this area are real human beings that go to Adventist churches.

I recognized a lot of the same people posting anti-Adventist rhetoric from message board to message board. When I'd click on some of their names to look at posts, I noticed that some of them have never once posted in their OWN church's section of those sites. They don't feel the need to defend their beliefs I guess, but feel it's healthy for us.

The ironic part....a lot (I didn't say "all") of the people I repeatedly saw, you know, the ones that think they're the Holy Spirit and will get us out of Babylon themselves....guard the name of THEIR church and its doctrine like Fort Knox.

They hide what they believe in so we can't put IT to the test.

I think it's shameful, but what can you do? You can't make people be honest and I recognize that as a job for the Holy Spirit, not me.

This is way off-topic though. We need to stick with the new rules.......

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, I know CF is not a subsidiary of my church. But the Adventists that post in this area are real human beings that go to Adventist churches.

I submit that every poster here is a real human being. The question is whether non-SDAs are welcome in this debate area. You feel we are not, and the administrators have indicated that we are.

I recognized a lot of the same people posting anti-Adventist rhetoric from message board to message board.

Well, I certainly recognize SDAs from a number of different forums. The fact that you recognize such people suggests that you have also visited more than one.

When I'd click on some of their names to look at posts, I noticed that some of them have never once posted in their OWN church's section of those sites.

This is an interesting statement. CARM has a forum dedicated to discussion on Evangelical issues. I frequent that forum, and posted on it several times today. And I've raised concerns in it. In fact, I am currently debating other evangelicals about the way in which Democrats are treated by Evangelicals.

They don't feel the need to defend their beliefs I guess, but feel it's healthy for us.

I don't feel the need to defend my beliefs, but I do find that it is helpful to discuss my beliefs as this tends to expose blind spots that I didn't know that I had. I find that, when posting in a forum of only like believers, my positions aren't challenged in the same way as they might be in a forum where open debate is welcome.

The ironic part....a lot (I didn't say "all") of the people I repeatedly saw, you know, the ones that think they're the Holy Spirit and will get us out of Babylon themselves....guard the name of THEIR church and its doctrine like Fort Knox.

To be fair, the only persons who I have ever seen referring to others as being connected with Babylon have been SDAs. If you are aware of non-SDAs referring to SDAs as being a part of Babylon, perhaps you might enlighten us with a link to a specific post?

They hide what they believe in so we can't put IT to the test.

I've never hid my denominational affiliation. Every time I have been asked, I answer directly. I attend a non-denominational church. It is generally considered to be evangelical in nature (although that term can mean so many different things, it isn't all that descriptive). I've also been quite forthright in answering questions about what I believe. I have nothing to hide.

In contrast, it would seem that some SDAs deny what their denomination teaches. They deny that SDAism teaches that we must be sinless prior to the close of probation in order to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. They deny that SDAism links salvation with law-keeping while also denying the SDA position on the mark of the beast. But what can you do? You can't make people be honest and I recognize that as a job for the Holy Spirit, not me.

BFA

 

[TrustAndObey]

BFA, I disagree with a lot of what you said, but I'm not going to debate it with you here.

We're straying too far off-topic, which even though you are welcome here, is against the rules of our forum.

As the OP I am requesting that this thread stay on topic from now on.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

As the OP I am requesting that this thread stay on topic from now on.

Fair enough. In the spirit of staying on topic, here's hoping that we will not see any more posts such as this one:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=45592779&postcount=61

BFA

 

[TrustAndObey]

Not anymore you won't. I'm just as guilty as everybody else, but I'm asking that we stay on-topic from here on out.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

No, they are not bringing up a SUBJECT of something they want to discuss, RC. They are pulling our threads out of our area and addressing the PERSON that made the comments.

If Tall wanted to discuss the issue of former Adventists trying to get people out of the church in the debate area, fine and dandy. That isn't what he did though. He acted like I started a thread to bash CARM and that wasn't the case at all. I stated very plainly that there are several sites where people try to bully Adventists out of the church.

Rules are being made that address specific problems the mods see in this forum...I'm just making them aware of another one.

Well I would disagree with your assertion in the first paragraph. Of course a person can also be a subject but your statement is made with no evidence so as such I will merely treat it as a gratuitous assertion which it is. Such logical fallacies carry no weight.

If you thought the opening comments were in error you are free to discuss the meaning in the debate forum in the thread or you are free to ignore them. Either way the choice is yours. The idea that choices of others should be restricted because you don't want to discuss something is without merit.

I don't know of any current discussions of rules. The FSG discussion is over and the rules were posted. If you are merely making your statements to show that we need to have rules which violate are FSG then I an others will vigorously disagree with you, and if it is to make others aware of potential rules then we have a right to our statements in this thread also.

 

[TrustAndObey]

This is something we'll just have to vote on RC. Unlike the rules that got posted last night, I'm assuming we'll have a say in any other new ones that affect our forum.

 

[happywiththelord]

why wont a mod chime in???

 

[gcfrankie]

T&O,
I have spent the afternoon reading all of these posts and my question to you is do you want to keep all ex/non adventists out of the SDA D&D section? I have come here not to bash SDA or the church but to learn more. Yes I left the church and because of this I have indirectly been refered to as a harlot. I do not appreciate people who have left the church being labled this way!
Jesus is the only one who knows and judges our hearts and that is not up to us.

I am a christian and follow Jesus first and church denomination is down on my list.
Here are two of your quotes from the a.m. "I don't see anything about the rules that should make it more comfortable for EX-ADVENTISTS" and " Nothing I said was Progressive or progressive concept. I was specifically talking about ex-adventists". By these two quotes, you do not want any one here except SDA church members? I know EGW and the church has taught to not have anything to do with non-members, so is this what your intentions are? To run others out?
Since you seem to not want any one on your trad forum why don't you see if you and your friends can not have your forum locked down and then you would not have anything to complain about. I came on there a while back and asked politely if I could post on scripture and was ignored. That spoke volumes to me. I was not looking for a debate (fight).
Before you start I am not angry at you as I do not know you but I want some clarification of where you are coming from.
Thank-you for answering my questions.
gc

 

[TrustAndObey]

gcfrankie, I don't have a lot of time right at the moment, but no, I do not want to keep ex-Adventists out. I want to keep them from trying to help make the rules for our forum though.

The rules in this particular forum are for current Adventists, because we're the ones that have to be comfortable here.

An ex-Adventist jumped in and started trying to contribute to our rules, and I thought it was totally unacceptable.

But no, I do not care if people want to debate here in the debate section. They just have to follow the rules like everybody else does, that's all.

Gotta go!

 

[gcfrankie]

T&O,
Thank-you for your quick answer.
gc

 

[FreeinChrist]

If our mods are making up impromptu rules about posting things in the non-debate areas, then they can certainly make up a rule about this problem too.

I'm not the only one that has a problem with this, and it's a problem here that I'd like to discuss with one or all of our moderators.

In regards to the sticky that was posted, it came about because of the many, many, many reports. It was agreed on by the mods and then run by a number of admins who made suggestions and gave advice. So it isn't like we are just making something up or creating rules on our own. As to making a rule about pulling out posts from a nondebate area and debating it elsewhere - that would also have to be discussed and we would again want advice from admins on staff. There are some pairs of threads that were closed - an original thread and one in response to that thread - and that was more about the many reports and what we saw as flaming going back and forth as the threads moved on. But as to making a blanket rule about it, I don't know. Each one would need to be looked at and how it progresses. This "trad vs. prog" war is so discouraging. In fact, I don't like the term 'prog' or 'trad' but would like to see PSDA or TSDA used.

 

[FreeinChrist]

wow this thread got long fast.....

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/b][/color]

Another question would be if these mystery rules are retroactive and if people's posts were pulled due to rules we didn't know anything about.

Good question!

First of all, they are not so much as new rules as stating how we as mods are going to do our job. As one part says: "To help keep things in order, we will be moderating rather more strictly for a time." and "When there is a flood of reports, staff are more likely to staff edit or fully delete a post when we find a violation, rather than ask you to edit your own posts."


I went to Mexico week before last. Twice I paid $7/hour to get online and feed my virtual cat, check what is going on....and saw lots of reports. In fact, by the time I got back, I had 300 pm's in my pm box and many were report pms for the SDA forum or about the SDA forum. So then I spent 4 plus hours a night for the next three nights and 8 more hours later in the week working SDA reports. That's insane. If I get a bit snarky in those reports and not exactly see what was meant - probably it is because there are so many.

But this has been building. Yes, it would be great to say, "Hey, this is a problem because....will you change it" as a way to handle a problem post all the time. But with so many, there is no time for that and we just have to do staff edits and are more free with the warnings. This part is right out of our moderating instructions:
"Staff give warnings FOR MINOR violations of the rules, and infractions for MORE SERIOUS violations."
(yes, I had permission to post that).

There are some specific things mentioned though. One is commenting about reporting as in "I'm going to report you" or "I was reported by ___" or "look at all the posts reported". This was brought up for discussion among staff (overall, not just one group) and most staff delete those comments and view them as baiting, and disrupting the peace of any forum. They were removed in the other congregational forums I have modded in the past year, and in a number of the debate forums, they are removed. They just stir up anger and hurt and are baiting most of the time.

Another is starting a thread about the other group in the other forum. This is new in how it is stated. It comes across as baiting, and promoting the fight that is already going on. It is a type of 'call-out thread' and they are totally discouraged by all staff.

So actually, these are not really "new" but posted so that you are more aware. They are covered by the site wide rules but hopefuly we are clarifying rules and explaining what approach we have to take when moderating with a a flood of reports, as opposed to when there are fewer reports.


Does that help?

 

[FreeinChrist]

I am curious why a staff member has not commented yet on this.

Because I work for a living and had to work all day. Then I had dinner out. Now I am responding.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I want to keep them from trying to help make the rules for our forum though.

Again, I take issue with this statement and believe it to be inaccurate. The D&D section is not only for SDAs.

BFA

 

[JohnT]

T & O

You began this thread seeking clarification, but as things progressed, you seemed to not like those clarifications. In particular, you seemed to make several references to "OUR thread" [emphasis added], and that got me to thinking about the rules of the FSB and the other rules in particular.

I also observed Tall's understanding that if it is published on a public forum, it is by definition, public property.

I see both of you correct, and both wrong in several areas.

If this whole subsection is merely a forum for present and past SDAS, then T & O is correct in your assumption that is ONLY a board for SDAs

Here are the guidelines for the CSBs: (http://christianforums.com/t6899690)

These guidelines do not replace the site-wide rules, but rather clarify the rule "Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens may choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed etc."

These guidelines apply to all congregational forums that have forum-specific guidelines. If a forum has FSGs, they will be stickied at the top of that forum.

NOTE: Some congregational forums have opted not to have a forum-specific guideline with a Statement of Faith to identify members. In general, this means that non-members may join the discussions in these forums. However, if you do not self-identify as that denomination or group, please remember that you are a guest in their forum, and act accordingly.
​

MODS AND ADMINS: Is this ENTIRE section a "safe haven" or is there a specific venue whereby ONLY those who are or were SDAs can post?

Or is this a unique sub section where people like me, never a SDA can discuss with others why I disagree with some of the teachings of SDAism?

I admit that the latter is my understanding, and I think that has been at the crux of the issues surrounding my postings here. I wanted to make a point, and others, taking this as a "safe haven" took offense, stated that, and I responded to what I believed was the same tone that I got from them. (This is not justification, merely explaining of a perspective.)

Since this is a publicly-viewed board, then Tall 73 is also correct that it is fair game for discussion. But where shall those things be discussed?

The solution to the dilemma seems to be one where a test of posting privileges need to be imposed on the boards:

On the TRADITIONAL board, all posting there must agree
(1) to believing in the entire 28 Fundamental beliefs

(2) NOT to discuss any people who do not agree with the first proposition on that board

On the PROGRESSIVE board, all posting there must agree
(1) that they once were or are present SDAs, but not in the same sense as the Traditionals. Therefore, traditionals, and those posting on that traditional board are not permitted to post there.

(2) NOT to discuss any people who do not agree with the first proposition on that board


On the DEBATE AND DISCUSSION board, all posting there must agree:
(1) it is open to never SDAs, like myself, traditionals and progressives; no one group has "ownership" of the forum.

(2) NOT to discuss any people who do not agree with the first proposition on that board

(3) EVERYTHING in SDAism may be questioned politely, from the writings and lifestyle of EGW onward to what the GC posted recently

(4) And in questioning everything, NO ONE is to be diminished or bullied, for the underlying principle of the sub section is a discussion of issues, not personalities or people.

This is offered in a way to get a solution, and to help display my perspective, gained from my posting hiatus

 

[TrustAndObey]

Again, I take issue with this statement and believe it to be inaccurate. The D&D section is not only for SDAs.

BFA

I don't know why you take issue with it, it was before your time here.

Even though SDAs are not the only ones that can post in D&D, we are the majority here and anyone that wants to debate our doctrine has to follow the general rules of CF and the Forum-Specific Guidelines that are put in place for here.

IOW, we're the ones that have to feel comfortable here or it wouldn't be an SDA forum at all. It isn't up to non-Adventists to contribute in rules we would like to have here, it's up to Adventists. This is our home subforum, not theirs.

 

[TrustAndObey]

JohnT, I have a ton of homework to get done before class, but I did want to answer a couple of your questions.

In the SDA forum here, we have a few separate subforums. Some allow debate between non-Adventists, ex-Adventists, atheists, etc. (D&D and the Progressive subforum).

There are three suforums (the Main Forum, the Bible Study forum, and the Traditional Adventist forum) that were set up for NO debate. No debate from outsiders (for lack of a better word) and no debate between people within the SDA church that disagree on doctrine.

The Traditional Adventist section is set up as a safe haven for Traditional Adventists. Instead of people just staying out of there (when they already know they disagree with us), posts are being taken OUT of our safe haven and put into the D&D section.

The one I have been specifically referring to was started by me. I posted it in our safe haven subforum for a reason, because it is a problem that only Traditional Adventists experience.

An ex-Adventist took it OUT of there and posted all my comments and wanted to openly debate me about it.

Several people took offense to it, not just myself, and we're asking for a new rule to cover this not being done in the future.

The IDEAS I discussed were already being discussed in a thread in D&D, but the ex-Adventist wanted to debate me specifically. If I wanted to debate him, I would've posted my thread in D&D to begin with.

I didn't get to read over everything you posted, but it looks like you're suggesting what we already have here.

Our rules just need a little tweaking, not a complete overhaul.