Moderator Malfeasance

[RC_NewProtestants]

Since my ban starts today I thought I would point out that some of our moderators are using ideological means to make determinations. Which in this case lead to my ban. It is interesting in that two mods thought it no violation until swayed by the false reasoning of Daryl. This is a clear instance of an ideology interfering with real moderation duties.

The following is my response to the Report about my post:
I see I am already banned but you should know that you have been led astray on a number of lines in the report http://foru.ms/t6149505
First as far as a rule violation

Daryl wrote:
If the words "these sinless perfection people" and "perverse" were not there, then I would agree to a no rule violation, however, seeing that it is there, I say it is a rule violation.

Rule Violation.

His next post said the violation was of this rule:2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

No mention was made of the SDA church and in fact in the thread I believe I mentioned other denominations which have people in them who hold to perfectionism.

Daryl then quotes from the SDA fundamental belief which is not even talking about the type of sinless perfection under discussion.

Interestingly Daryl has used the latest addition to the fundamental belief as his explanation. The previous 27 beliefs have explanatory chapters in the book (Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines ). contrary to the intent of the fundamental belief this one which did not use either the word sinless or perfection is attributed to mean by Daryl that it is talking about sinless perfection.(See Adventist Review quote at end of this post)

The Adventist view is expressed from our SDA church sponsored Adventist Research Institute in an article by How Perfect Is "Perfect" Or Is Christian Perfection Possible?
Edward Heppenstall ( a pretty Famous SDA)
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/How%20Perfect%20Is%20Perfect.htm

Sinful Nature: Controlled But Not Eradicated The greatest men in the Bible never claimed sinless perfection. They were all painfully aware of the fact that they were sinners and remained so throughout their lives. So long as a man is in a state of sin with a sinful nature still present in him, he will confess himself to be a sinner. The Christian always recognizes himself to be a sinner in need of divine grace.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)
We find here the most solemn warning against the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life. The incontrovertible meaning of this passage is that the man is a self-deceiver who claims for himself what the apostle John dared not claim. The truth is not in him. The doctrine of sinless perfection leads to the conclusion that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are unnecessary once this state of eradication of the sinful nature is reached. Wherever the professed Christian claims to have the sinful nature eradicated in his life, there is a corresponding loss of true dependence upon Christ. There is a break in the only saving relationship that man needs for victory. This allows people to sin and call evil good. It discourages those who strive to be like Christ, but fall short of this false idea of perfection.
It is God's will that, having surrendered to Christ at conversion as best he knows, the believer will maintain that attitude that as fast as anything further is revealed to him contrary to the will of God, he will promptly give that up also. God will see to it that throughout the Christian life here on earth, there will be deeper insights into the sinfulness and selfishness of our own natures. There will be increased dependence, increased repentance, and prayer for forgiveness. The believer will never come to the place where he will not pray the Lord's prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." By this increased insight, we shall continually need an increased "looking unto Jesus the author and the finisher of our faith." There are no limits to God's power. He is always willing and able to give us the victory. But man limits God by virtue of his lack of insight and lack of surrender. In proportion to the maturity and completeness of his knowledge will be the completeness of his surrender and victory.

This is a gross miscarriage of the moderators process as well as logic. It is based upon assumptions not present to claim a rule violation and supports the claim with biased and inaccurate information.

As supplemental information about the Fundamental belief now numbered 11"Growing in Christ" here is the information from the Official SDA publication the Adventist Review. You will notice it has nothing to do with the idea of sinless perfection. Even in the debates at the council the idea of sinless perfection was not viewed as a part of this fundamental belief statement.

Delegates to the Annual Council today voted to recommend the addition of a new statement to the 27 doctrinal affirmations currently identified in the church's Fundamental Beliefs. The proposed statement, "Growing in Christ," will be placed on the agenda of the church's worldwide General Conference in July 2005 inSt. Louis, Missouri. It is the first addition to be recommended by an Annual Council since the original document was approved at the church's 1980 session in Dallas, Texas. The new statement addresses several areas of Christian belief and practice that many church leaders and theologians felt did not receive adequate attention in the present articulation of core beliefs. The power of Christ in confronting and vanquishing demonic powers is highlighted, and the freedom of believers from past deeds and influences is affirmed. Specific spiritual practices, including personal Bible study, prayer, worship, and witness, are described as supporting the believer's new life in Christ.

"As a church, we've set a priority on reaching those who live in the 10/40 window-nearly 70 percent of the world's population," says Mike Ryan, vice president for strategic planning and director of the church's Global Mission initiative. "Most of these people go to bed each night fearing evil spirits. Their first question to us invariably is 'What will your Jesus do about the evil spirits?'
"If we're going to be a people of hope, we also have to be able to show people where to find it-and that's why these spiritual resources and practices that point to Jesus have been identified in the new statement."
The complete text of the "Growing in Christ" Fundamental Belief, along with supporting Bible references, can be viewed here.

http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1541/update3.html

And one final thing on the meaning of perverse since it has more meaning then being a pervert as in a sexual pervert. Moderators should be aware of language and its usage rather then merely making assumptions.

per·verse

/pərˈvɜrs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[per-vurs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective
1.
willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.

2.
characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.

3.
wayward or cantankerous.

4.
persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.

5.
turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.

The only way that the word perverse could be a rule violation is if one restricted it's meaning to #5 above. I would expect some corrective action upon this moderator's error.

RC_NewProtestants

 

[freeindeed2]

Since my ban starts today I thought I would point out that some of our moderators are using ideological means to make determinations. Which in this case lead to my ban. It is interesting in that two mods thought it no violation until swayed by the false reasoning of Daryl. This is a clear instance of an ideology interfering with real moderation duties.

The following is my response to the Report about my post:
I see I am already banned but you should know that you have been led astray on a number of lines in the report http://foru.ms/t6149505
First as far as a rule violation

Daryl wrote:
If the words "these sinless perfection people" and "perverse" were not there, then I would agree to a no rule violation, however, seeing that it is there, I say it is a rule violation.

Rule Violation.

His next post said the violation was of this rule:2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

No mention was made of the SDA church and in fact in the thread I believe I mentioned other denominations which have people in them who hold to perfectionism.

Daryl then quotes from the SDA fundamental belief which is not even talking about the type of sinless perfection under discussion.

Interestingly Daryl has used the latest addition to the fundamental belief as his explanation. The previous 27 beliefs have explanatory chapters in the book (Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines ). contrary to the intent of the fundamental belief this one which did not use either the word sinless or perfection is attributed to mean by Daryl that it is talking about sinless perfection.(See Adventist Review quote at end of this post)

The Adventist view is expressed from our SDA church sponsored Adventist Research Institute in an article by How Perfect Is "Perfect" Or Is Christian Perfection Possible?
Edward Heppenstall ( a pretty Famous SDA)
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/How Perfect Is Perfect.htm
This is a gross miscarriage of the moderators process as well as logic. It is based upon assumptions not present to claim a rule violation and supports the claim with biased and inaccurate information.

As supplemental information about the Fundamental belief now numbered 18 "Growing in Christ" here is the information from the Official SDA publication the Adventist Review. You will notice it has nothing to do with the idea of sinless perfection. Even in the debates at the council the idea of sinless perfection was not viewed as a part of this fundamental belief statement.

And one final thing on the meaning of perverse since it has more meaning then being a pervert as in a sexual pervert. Moderators should be aware of language and its usage rather then merely making assumptions.
The only way that the word perverse could be a rule violation is if one restricted it's meaning to #5 above. I would expect some corrective action upon this moderator's error.

RC_NewProtestants

All I have to say is this. In two weeks, after you've spent your time in 'prison' for not conforming to the SLEW of 'conservative SDA forum rules', you better be back. They may have a market on the SDA section of Foru.ms, but that doesn't make them 'right'. It just means they have a majority that is able to inflict their control on this forum (or multiple forums) currently. We'll still be here dealing with the legalism.

 

[NightEternal]

RC, I fought for you on this one. My exchange with Woob on that report thread is there for anyone to read.

We all expected it, but it still bears repeating nonetheless: Things that the non-SDA mods don't even remotely consider violations will be considered as such under the new regime.

You were robbed RC, and I fully back you on this.

Let it be known and consider it fair warning all: Just attacking the content of a post or belief instead of the person is enough to be construed as an RV by Daryl. Conversations will soon all be rendered vanilla, sterile and safe, yes-but you might as well add boring to that as well.

I am glad I have already had my say about this sinless perfection......(fill in appropriate word here) before the new system came into effect. I may not be able to outspokenly bash this false belief anymore now, but my opinion is recorded in the archives.

 

[freeindeed2]

RC, I fought for you on this one. My exchange with Woob on that report thread is there for anyone to read.

We all expected it, but it still bears repeating nonetheless: Things that the non-SDA mods don't even remotely consider violations will be considered as such under the new regime.

You were robbed RC, and I fully back you on this.

Let it be known and consider it fair warning all: Just attacking the content of a post or belief instead of the person is enough to be construed as an RV by Daryl. Conversations will soon all be rendered vanilla, sterile and safe, yes-but you might as well add boring to that as well.

I am glad I have already had my say about this sinless perfection......(fill in appropriate word here) before the new system came into effect. I may not be able to outspokenly bash this false belief anymore now, but my opinion is recorded in the archives.

Night, it will be forgotten in the 'archives' unless you and others are here to defend against the militant untra-conservative right. They are entitled to their own views, but that shouldn't take away from the larger SDA body who doesn't agree with their position. I, for one, look forward to your return after your time in 'prison'.

 

[Sophia7]

All I can say is that if everyone is banned or at risk of getting banned because of the myriad rules and reports, this is going to be a pretty dull place. About the only discussions going on here lately have been about rules. Those who are banned won't miss much, I guess, unless we find something else to talk about.

 

[NightEternal]

It's ridiculous Sophia. Daryl is like a man out of control, a supermod with special powers, who apparently is able to discern the intentions and motivations of a post and the poster as well as the subtle nuances and hidden meaning behind words with the greatest of ease.

Like anyone is going to want to say anything when thier posts are being dissected like that.

I hope the rule-mongers are happy. You have essentially castrated and emasculated this forum. Nice going.

Let the threads on talking about the weather and the latest ball game scores begin.

WOO HOO, anyone having fun yet?

 

[ObeyGod]

cant we all just be happy and get on.

 

[StormyOne]

It's ridiculous Sophia. Daryl is like a man out of control, a supermod with special powers, who apparently is able to discern the intentions and motivations of a post and the poster as well as the subtle nuances and hidden meaning behind words with the greatest of ease.

Like anyone is going to want to say anything when thier posts are being dissected like that.

I hope the rule-mongers are happy. You have essentially castrated and emasculated this forum. Nice going.

Let the threads on talking about the weather and the latest ball game scores begin.

WOO HOO, anyone having fun yet?

as I pointed out with a quote or two during the rule making frenzy, eventually you will make enough rules so that anything that anyone does will be criminal.

In my opinion those who opted to vote for the stricter rules either have no teenage children (or forgot what it was like during that period), or have little to no clue into human nature. Anyone who has raised independent, strong willed children could see that nothing positive would come of these numerous restrictions.....

 

[Jimlarmore]

None of us is perfect but I think the new moderators are facing a tough task in trying to get this forum back to a semblance of civility. Maybe they are over reacting in some cases but we have been pleading for them to start enforcing the rules here for a long time. Now when they do we get upset with that. I've debated RC many times and he can get flamy from time to time. He's a smart guy so he can learn to re-phrase his dialog to not flame. When some is accused of being perverse that is flaming in my opinion.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[reddogs]

as I pointed out with a quote or two during the rule making frenzy, eventually you will make enough rules so that anything that anyone does will be criminal.

In my opinion those who opted to vote for the stricter rules either have no teenage children (or forgot what it was like during that period), or have little to no clue into human nature. Anyone who has raised independent, strong willed children could see that nothing positive would come of these numerous restrictions.....

That was my thought also, and I thought we could start out with good behaviour all around with much grace and mercy by the mods, but some people just had to push the envelop to see how far they could go to test the words and phrases, tolerance, patience, rules and moderators......

 

[StormyOne]

That was my thought also, and I thought we could start out with good behaviour all around with much grace and mercy by the mods, but some people just had to push the envelop to see how far they could go to test the words and phrases, tolerance, patience, rules and moderators......

why would you expect any less? that is what people do, push the limits... as I said those who wanted strict rules must not have teens or have forgotten their own teen years.... most teens do what? push the limits..... and then push more.... its been interesting to watch though.....

 

[reddogs]

why would you expect any less? that is what people do, push the limits... as I said those who wanted strict rules must not have teens or have forgotten their own teen years.... most teens do what? push the limits..... and then push more.... its been interesting to watch though.....

Yes, like a train wreck.....