I had hoped...

[woobadooba]

I had hoped that we could come together to make this forum a safe haven, and thus protect our identity from those who might come in here and try to distort it; but it appears that most of the members here aren't interested.

I am really amazed by this too, since we have been given the power to better control what goes on in here, and people who have expressed concern about certain teachings and ideas that have been shared in the past in here, don't really seem to care about taking full advantage of this long awaited opportunity .

Anyway, I'm not even going to bother anymore. You guys are on your own. Whatever happens happens. I tried to make this place a better place for all of us, but my efforts have been made in vain.

 

[smooze]

that sounds like someone who has givien up which is sad. I hope whatever you do brother it enrich's your life.

 

[thecountrydoc]

I know I'm old and slow sometimes, but did I miss a commitee meeting? Just what would you like us all to do Woob? This afternoon was the first time I've been able to even get connected to CF. If I've missed somthing please tell me and I for one will sure help.

Your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[woobadooba]

The following thread was viewed 154 times. So what happened? Did most of the people

that viewed it think it to be worthless?
​

http://www.christianforums.com/t5662446-cf-is-changing-now-what-do-we-do-about-it.html

 

[TrustAndObey]

Woob, my sister is visiting from Colorado until Thursday and I'm leaving on Friday morning to go see my husband in Oklahoma....so things have been insane around here for me.

I got more rest when I was in school (seriously).

I'd like to help make this forum a better place in any way that I can.

Every time I've tried to log on this week, the site was down and I gave up. I'm glad to see it's back up.

I'll be around a little more after this weekend.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

The following thread was viewed 154 times. So what happened? Did most of the people

that viewed it think it to be worthless?
​

http://www.christianforums.com/t5662446-cf-is-changing-now-what-do-we-do-about-it.html

Not worthless, Woob, I just don't like the authoritarian approach you were advocating. It is one thing to say, this area is for fellowship and this area is for discussion, but you shouldn't try to limit the scope of discussion alltogether. Forget about conservative-liberal labels. Some of us who are Adventists want to engage a wide discussion of issues as Adventists, and to not be limited in what we can discuss.

 

[Sophia7]

Not worthless, Woob, I just don't like the authoritarian approach you were advocating. It is one thing to say, this area is for fellowship and this area is for discussion, but you shouldn't try to limit the scope of discussion alltogether. Forget about conservative-liberal labels. Some of us who are Adventists want to engage a wide discussion of issues as Adventists, and to not be limited in what we can discuss.

I agree.

 

[woobadooba]

Not worthless, Woob, I just don't like the authoritarian approach you were advocating. It is one thing to say, this area is for fellowship and this area is for discussion, but you shouldn't try to limit the scope of discussion alltogether. Forget about conservative-liberal labels. Some of us who are Adventists want to engage a wide discussion of issues as Adventists, and to not be limited in what we can discuss.

I'm not being any more authoritarian than the Bible instructs us to be on matters of doctrine and morality.

"(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds, Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's." (2Co 10:4-7)

 

[woobadooba]

I agree.

You agree to what, that we should allow abusive people to have their way with babes in Christ, that we should allow false doctrine to plague our forum, to put the little ones in danger of losing their way, that we should be intolerant of those wolves that seek to tear us to shreds with their evil surmising, that we should allow members to slander each other with impunity?

These are the things that I seek to protect this forum from.

If you don't think this matters then perhaps it would be best to re-examine your heart!

 

[Sophia7]

You agree to what, that we should allow abusive people to have their way with babes in Christ, that we should allow false doctrine to plague our forum, to put the little ones in danger of losing their way, that we should be intolerant of those wolves that seek to tear us to shreds with their evil surmising, that we should allow members to slander each other with impunity?

These are the things that I seek to protect this forum from.

If you don't think this matters then perhaps it would be best to re-examine your heart!

Flaming will most likely be against the general CF rules, no matter what specific rules the congregational areas decide on. No one advocates allowing abuse.

I agree with DrStupid_Ben that discussion should not be limited as much as you want to make it. I also agree with my husband's post here:

Just a little note for folks to ponder. Whatever issues you don't permit Adventists to discuss here will be pushed to GT etc. which are far busier and folks will be less sympathetic to traditional Adventist views. For those who have been around a while, consider the EGW threads in GT started by YMS and Goya..

You may be wise to keep in-house issues in house.

Moreover, having seen what rules such as the no discussion of annihilationism one did, I don't know why we would want to be ruling out topics. I say those who value truth also value the openness to discuss all options. Just my take.

 

[woobadooba]

I agree with

DrStupid​

_Ben that discussion should not be limited as much as you want to make it. I also agree with my husband's post here:

The fact that it is discussed in GT is irrelevant.

What is discussed in there doesn't necessarily have to be associated with who we really are or what we really believe. If people

honestly want to know what we really believe they can at least know that they can come here and find out.

We can't control what is posted in there; but we can control what is posted in here. And we have been instructed by God's Apostle to control what is said about God and His children within the place to which He has given us the authority to do so (among ourselves).
​

However, if this place is plagued with all kinds of falsehood, it would be quite difficult for people to know where we really stand on matters of truth as a Church, since such teachings would bear the stamp of SDA, while not really being SDA.

As for open discussion and debate, I really have no issue with it in here, except that when it comes to matters that are blatantly heretical, such as 'Theistic Evolution', for example, it would be best to take a strong stand against the promotion of such ideas, rather than to entertain demonic doctrines that have the potential to do great harm to those who don't know better (babes in Christ).

Already, two members of this forum have gone astray as a result of such falsehood. Doesn't this concern you?

 

[Windmill]

You know, we can change the rules at anytime we want, can't we? Its a wiki. So, you know, we could keep the rules similar to how they are now, but then, you know, as we find problems, we could add in rules to deal with them as they crop up.

 

[woobadooba]

You know, we can change the rules at anytime we want, can't we? Its a wiki. So, you know, we could keep the rules similar to how they are now, but then, you know, as we find problems, we could add in rules to deal with them as they crop up.

This is true.

The thing is, we need to establish what rules are musts from the start, since we already know from history what kind of problems have surfaced within this forum.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Of course, you are referring to the 3ABN topics, which are really topics that should concern us as Seventh-day Adventists, and thus should be discussed, rather than squelched.

 

[DarylFawcett]

I agree with Windmill in that we should list the rules that we had been operating under and go from there.

 

[StormyOne]

I vote for discussing whatever. I disagree with Woobad's approach, it is too heavy handed in my opinion....

 

[Sophia7]

We have a wiki and related discussion regarding our forum-specific rules here. We need as many people as possible to voice their opinions.

 

[honorthesabbath]

I vote for discussing whatever. I disagree with Woobad's approach, it is too heavy handed in my opinion....

I don't find Woo's opinions heavy handed at all. He is merely trying to avoid confusion when non-SDA's come here wanting to know our beliefs.

If we have the 'liberals' giving out 'their' view of what Adventism is--which is against what the OFFICIAL BELIEF's are--then those visitors will go away with the idea that SDA's don't know what they believe. Then the beauty of the 3 Angels message is lost because of this heresy.

Personally--I have always disagreed in the "Progressive'/Traditional sub-forums. If you don't believe in the OFFICIAL doctrines of the church--then you don't belong to the church--period.

But we had to compromise with this faction and in my opinion, it brought disgrace upon the SDA church.

All Woo is trying to do is bring unity to the SDA forum. And I am with him on this. As a matter of fact--there are a few here now--wanting to decide about the SDA forum, who previously have voiced that they are about the leave the denomination. Should we even accept their input? I think not.

 

[Windmill]

I think, before we can discuss rules, we need to agree on many vauge issues. Currently, each of us here have our own agendas. Erin didn't quite consider this when he made these new rules, which is a shame.

Assuming the best in people is idiotic. Each of us wants what we want, and there are going to be many people with differing ideas. Giving into the majority does not always work, because hey, what the majority may want doesn't necessarily mean that its going to work.

Yet, that is what we have been called to do. However, we can't exactly go for what the majority wants because there is no majority. We on the SDA forum are very small- there isn't enough of us. Also, this leads to persecution, which we should know from times past when Rome ruled the world.

Due to these reasons, its best we be united as one body to a reasonable extent. Yet, here we are arguing over issues such as should evolution be allowed to be discussed or not!

What good will this do? This is far too specific. We are not ready for such things. We don't have a majority, we are a minority. We have to work together on this issue.

Before we can design rules, we need to know what we are designing them around. We need to ask such questions as;

• What do you want this forum to be? I.e, a place to fellowship, to discuss issues, are place to witness- what do we want to achieve?
• What is a Seventh Day Adventist? Just deciding you are one doesn't make you one! We need to figure out where the cut-off point is. This is not as vauge as being a Christian, you know. The definition of a Adventist can be far ore specific, for that is why it is a subgroup within Christianity- its point is to be specific. People here have different views which effects what they think should be allowed to be discussed or not.

These are questions we have to answer before we go and start talking about individual rules. We all have to be on the same page- currently, we are going no where.

While we figure these things out, and first of all have a common goal in mind that we can shape rules around, why don't we just keep with the old rules? I do vote in doing so, we allow non-Christians to be given the same rights as non-adventist Christians. That won't make any trolling at all, all it will mean is occasionally, a non-Christian will come on in here and like other Christians who aren't adventist just ask a question.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I agree with Windmill. We need to decide what constitutes an Adventist first and go from there.

I would like to keep the old rules, and not limit what can and cannot be discussed, but to add the rule that if an atheist or a non-Adventist come in (under the old rules of no debating), asking a question, they should get the OFFICIAL answer to what we believe with absolutely no debating in those threads from visitors.