Fundamental Belief 1 questions

[BobRyan]

Ok - a thread on "sola scriptura" and FB#1 will be started in the Moderate-Progressive board area per your request.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[RND]

If you truly want to discuss, start a thread in the Progressive section. This is a "safe haven" and if I post anything here contrary to the 28 FBs, I get sanctioned

Not in the D&D section. One gets sanctioned in the D&D section for issues of character, not content.

 

[JohnT]

Not in the D&D section. One gets sanctioned in the D&D section for issues of character, not content.

Unless you believe that posting something contrary to the 28 FBs is "an issue of character", and I sincerely hope you do not, then I can say from experience that any thread or post deemed "to be against the 28 FBs" by whomever, and no matter the tone of the post or thread, it will be removed.

This and the trad area are both considered "safe havens". End of discussion about the possibility of debating or discussing here if one is not 100% pro Adventist.
(There has to be a pro and anti side to do any debate properly, so the term 'debate' as used in this sub section, is a misnomer, to say the least)

 

[Man-ofGod]

Unless you believe that posting something contrary to the 28 FBs is "an issue of character", and I sincerely hope you do not, then I can say from experience that any thread or post deemed "to be against the 28 FBs" by whomever, and no matter the tone of the post or thread, it will be removed.

This and the trad area are both considered "safe havens". End of discussion about the possibility of debating or discussing here if one is not 100% pro Adventist.
(There has to be a pro and anti side to do any debate properly, so the term 'debate' as used in this sub section, is a misnomer, to say the least)

This entire thread is against the 28 fundamental beliefs and has yet to be removed. So your concerns, as far as I see it, is a non-issue at this time. So, if at all possible, I would like you to continue in this forum. Thanks!

 

[JohnT]

This entire thread is against the 28 fundamental beliefs and has yet to be removed. So your concerns, as far as I see it, is a non-issue at this time. So, if at all possible, I would like you to continue in this forum. Thanks!

Not unless they change the rules! UNLIKELY

This was begun by me PRIOR to the new rules adopted in April, and this was dormant until Bob searched all my posts, and found this one and resurrected it, begun almost a year ago.

Therefore while it is against FB1, it has been off the radar of the mods until a few days ago. That is the ONLY reason why Bob could find it.

The ONLY way I could continue posting the anti FB 1 position is if I get a special dispensation from the mods.
That also is UNLIKELY

 

[RND]

Unless you believe that posting something contrary to the 28 FBs is "an issue of character", and I sincerely hope you do not, then I can say from experience that any thread or post deemed "to be against the 28 FBs" by whomever, and no matter the tone of the post or thread, it will be removed.

John, I've seen you and lots of other folks make points in the D&D section that are decidedly at odds with the 28FB's. Can't recall anyone being sanctioned for anything other than rude content, AKA issues of character. This includes myself. I think it's pretty much a free for all here in D&D and I think, compared to any other denominational section, quite lenient. The stuff I've seen you and other folks say in the SDA section would get one sanctioned in a hurry in other sections.

This and the trad area are both considered "safe havens". End of discussion about the possibility of debating or discussing here if one is not 100% pro Adventist.
(There has to be a pro and anti side to do any debate properly, so the term 'debate' as used in this sub section, is a misnomer, to say the least)

I've never seen anyone's post's in the D&D section removed or sanctioned for any other reason than being rude and demonstrating poor character. If you've been reported over here for any reason it has nothing to do with the content of your posts. We're all big boys and big girls over here and we can take it. Jesuit Pythons is a perfect example. He constantly is at odds with us about EGW and SDA doctrine, teaching and understanding. I think he's a bit extreme at times but I think for the most part he's generally respectable. Can't recall him being reported lately.

 

[TrustAndObey]

It's kind of interesting, but everybody is right. How often do we get to say that?!

We do have a rule that no one can come in and post against our fundamental beliefs, so John is right. It took me and others a long time to point out our rules to people so they wouldn't get reported, so I don't think we should mislead anyone that it isn't a rule--because it is.

However, MoG and RND are right too, because the only time I've seen it get reported is when someone is being rude about it.

I don't think anyone here is against discussing WHY we believe what we do. I love to discuss my beliefs and I think all the regulars here can say the same thing, but when it starts feeling like an apologetics site or stops being fruitful to anybody, it's gone too far.

Our answers to disputes over our 28 FBs will never be good enough for some people. Never. If we answer and they don't like the answer and keep hounding, I suppose that is when the reports do occur.

But if it was reported every single time someone outside of the Adventist denom posted something against our FBs, most of our regular "critics" (for lack of a better word) would be gone already, so obviously people here aren't report-happy.

 

[BobRyan]

This entire thread is against the 28 fundamental beliefs and has yet to be removed. So your concerns, as far as I see it, is a non-issue at this time. So, if at all possible, I would like you to continue in this forum. Thanks!

I have to agree that there are numerous threads here where BFA or Tall or others are taking a distinctively non-SDA POV.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However, MoG and RND are right too, because the only time I've seen it get reported is when someone is being rude about it.

Ahh -- the stated rule vs the "practice of the rule"

I don't think anyone here is against discussing WHY we believe what we do. I love to discuss my beliefs and I think all the regulars here can say the same thing,

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TrustAndObey]

Ahh -- the stated rule vs the "practice of the rule"

It's like sexual harassment complaints that I witnessed as a human resource director (I didn't see a lot of 'em, but enough to notice a discrepancy). Woman would report men making advances if the men were disrespectful or someone they didn't care for, but someone they liked could say the exact same thing and they didn't have a problem with it. I saw a lot of things dismissed as a "joke" that would've gotten another guy thrown in the hoosegow.

Our view of a statement is mostly based on our opinion of the person making the statement.

However, 99% of the problem on this forum is HOW something is said, not WHAT is said or WHO is saying it.

 

[RND]

However, 99% of the problem on this forum is HOW something is said, not WHAT is said or WHO is saying it.

Which is seriously different than most of the "denominational" threads on this board.

 

[BobRyan]

It's like sexual harassment complaints that I witnessed as a human resource director (I didn't see a lot of 'em, but enough to notice a discrepancy). Woman would report men making advances if the men were disrespectful or someone they didn't care for, but someone they liked could say the exact same thing and they didn't have a problem with it. I saw a lot of things dismissed as a "joke" that would've gotten another guy thrown in the hoosegow.

good point -- statement-A is wecomed from Source-1 but is offensive if that same thing comes from source-2 in that workplace example above.

And I suppose that even if source-1 is a complete stranger and yet is a powerful entertainment or political figure they probably get by with even more surprising sayings as being "welcomed".

Human nature - aint it grand!

Maybe there needs to be a new category for those statments when one comes from a source-2. Something like "possibly acceptable statement but from wrong source" infraction??



.

 

[RND]

Hey, if it's any consolation I was threatened with being reported in the Messianic thread by a Jew for standing for the sabbath truth in a discussion with a non-Messianic!

No threats were forthcoming for the other guy!

Oy Vey!

 

[TrustAndObey]

good point -- statement-A is wecomed from Source-1 but is offensive if that same thing comes from source-2 in that workplace example above.

And I suppose that even if source-1 is a complete stranger and yet is a powerful entertainment or political figure they probably get by with even more surprising sayings as being "welcomed".

Human nature - aint it grand!

Maybe there needs to be a new category for those statments when one comes from a source-2. Something like "possibly acceptable statement but from wrong source" infraction??



.

I don't know why that struck me as so funny, but it did. I've been giggling for 2 minutes straight!

A rule like that wouldn't last long, but I love it! As much as I hate to admit it, it really is human nature to overlook certain things from certain people.

Poor spelling for instance. I don't notice it as much when it's a friend doing it as when it's someone that is insulting me.

I just figure if someone is going to insult me, they should use proper grammar and spelling when doing so. Anything less is unacceptable!

 

[TrustAndObey]

Hey, if it's any consolation I was threatened with being reported in the Messianic thread by a Jew for standing for the sabbath truth in a discussion with a non-Messianic!

No threats were forthcoming for the other guy!

Oy Vey!

Wow. Maybe he confused the two of you?

 

[RND]

Wow. Maybe he confused the two of you?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7308430

Read in for yourself T&O, you let me know where I went so wrong.

 

[TrustAndObey]

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7308430

Read in for yourself T&O, you let me know where I went so wrong.

I was hoping he had mistaken you for the other guy, but obviously that isn't the case.

RND, we (Adventists) will always get hit from both sides. Some that were born Jewish will always feel they are favored more by God and are the only ones worthy enough to be called Israel. Those that don't consider themselves Israel think that God has a different will for their lives than He had for Israel.

We can't win either way, but then someone like Visionary comes along to dispel both preconceived views I have, and shows the true spirit of love!

The only thing I can see that he'd disagree with is that he feels you're trying to teach in their forum. Any argument you present would naturally have an Adventist slant to it and it's quite obvious he has a disdain for Adventists already. It wasn't anything YOU said (because you were doing a great job, FROM SCRIPTURE).

It's just unfortunate that he lost his manners with you, and didn't try to hide that at all.

People are pretty territorial, but for different reasons. It's either "We were here first" or "we don't want to be like THEM". And again, Adventists are stuck somewhere in the beautiful (although lonely) middle.

I argued with someone that was a lot like the person you're having problems with and a stranger came in and asked her (the person I was disagreeing with): "hey, can you tell me what church you belong to because I want to be sure not to join it!"

People can do more harm than good, without even realizing it. You never know who's watching though, Brother! Personally, you made me feel proud you were representing the home team. I thought you handled yourself very well.

I would avoid what could be construed as teaching, though, definitely. You're on their turf in there.

 

[RND]

Thanks Lainie!

 

[TrustAndObey]

Thanks Lainie!

You're welcome.

 

[BobRyan]

Hey, if it's any consolation I was threatened with being reported in the Messianic thread by a Jew for standing for the sabbath truth in a discussion with a non-Messianic!

No threats were forthcoming for the other guy!

Oy Vey!

At some point - they have to use reason instead of "knee-jerk whack!"

(At leas that is what I like to imagine to myself).

in Christ,

Bob