new Anti Adventist website

[honorthesabbath]

one more time because apparently you have yet to understand... all progressives DO NOT think the same thing.... while you claim to be a traditional adventist, I would not assume that everyone who is a traditional adventist shares the views you hold.... in fact I know they don't....

Stormy--did you not notice that I DIDN'T say ALL progressives were anti-SDA? But we do know who the ones that are, don't we?

 

[sentipente]

Stormy--did you not notice that I DIDN'T say ALL progressives were anti-SDA? But we do know who the ones that are, don't we?

Fidelity to the truth would require that you say "Icedragon" rather than progressives. Those were Icedragon's sentiments. He was not speaking on behalf of progressives of any stripe. You knew better than to fan those flames.

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy--did you not notice that I DIDN'T say ALL progressives were anti-SDA? But we do know who the ones that are, don't we?

no "WE" don't... some people here barely know adventism so I know they have no clue about anti-adventism....

 

[StormyOne]

Welcome back Senti. It's obvious what I am asking the mods to do. DELETE this thread. I would also like to see some changes concerning who can call themselves SDA's--but don't hold out much hope in that area.

its not enough for you to have your own section, you wish to rule in the progressive section too.... give some folks an inch and they take a mile.... I know how the native americans felt...

 

[sentipente]

Welcome back Senti. It's obvious what I am asking the mods to do. DELETE this thread. I would also like to see some changes concerning who can call themselves SDA's--but don't hold out much hope in that area.

Icedragon no longer calls himself an SDA as far as I know.

 

[RND]

Icedragon no longer calls himself an SDA as far as I know.

Wouldn't there be rules in place if it's a clear case of a non-Adventist posting anti-Adventist material?

As a non-Catholic I don't think the Catholic's would appreciate it none-too-much if I posted inflammatory (yet true) information regarding the Mark of the Beast. As a result of that type of posting (which I believe is called 'flamming') I'm certain that type of post would be removed from their forum board and I would be reported and possibly disciplined.

Same goes for any other group one could think of.

If this was the case, I could see a little better why some of the regular SDA crowd might be a little miffed. If other groups, boards and denominations here at CF wouldn't put up with that type of posting why should Adventist, no matter where it's posted?

 

[sentipente]

But we should direct our fire in a targeted way. This was Icedragon's doing. Honor should not characterize it as the action of progressives. I see no value in the post and am surprised that the Mods did not see it the same way. The Mods have spoken. They closed the thread for review and reopened it with no change.

 

[RND]

But we should direct our fire in a targeted way. This was Icedragon's doing. Honor should not characterize it as the action of progressives.

In a way Senti, I certainly agree with you. We damage our cause and witness when we begin to paint everyone with the same broad brush.

And as far as I can tell there are plenty of painters on both sides of the T v. P debate.

I see no value in the post and am surprised that the Mods did not see it the same way. The Mods have spoken. They closed the thread for review and reopened it with no change.

It is shocking when you think about it, isn't it? While I certainly find no merit and even less Biblical understanding on the site in question from my cursory perusal of it, I do have to say that in a way, I'm glad it was posted.

The types of arguments these and other sites make only go to further my belief in the Bible, God and Jesus but go to hone my skills and make me believe even more that the general message and stance of the Adventist message is sincere and correct. In fact, I bookmarked the site for further review. We can learn lots of things from others, no matter how incorrect they may be.

BTW Senti, welcome back.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

ha ha ha, you guys are so easily rattled and see fires where there are none. The reason I posted it in the progressive was, for those with short memories, this was the area designited to talk about controversal subjects, there are many progressive that don't have a problem with reading the issues. AS for the list I wanted to just see what was out there. sorry you did like it. just the venom coming from you is sad in one respect and humours in another, chalk this up to the sky is falling the sky is falling. like I earlier if you don't like the subject matter then don't come here.

As far as my views I still believe in the Sabbath, State of the Dead and The visible Second Coming, that is enough to quallify me as an "evenglical SDA"

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The types of arguments these and other sites make only go to further my belief in the Bible, God and Jesus but go to hone my skills and make me believe even more that the general message and stance of the Adventist message is sincere and correct. In fact, I bookmarked the site for further review. We can learn lots of things from others, no matter how incorrect they may be.
[/QUOTE] now that is the right spirit, care to tell what you find inaccurate?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Wouldn't there be rules in place if it's a clear case of a non-Adventist posting anti-Adventist material?

As a non-Catholic I don't think the Catholic's would appreciate it none-too-much if I posted inflammatory (yet true) information regarding the Mark of the Beast. As a result of that type of posting (which I believe is called 'flamming') I'm certain that type of post would be removed from their forum board and I would be reported and possibly disciplined.

Same goes for any other group one could think of.

If this was the case, I could see a little better why some of the regular SDA crowd might be a little miffed. If other groups, boards and denominations here at CF wouldn't put up with that type of posting why should Adventist, no matter where it's posted?

we specifically made the Progressive forum open to ideas. Most progressives are not frighted by views that go contrary to our views. It is why this was created because elsewhere too many restrictions were instituted. Now those who wanted those restrictions still have their area's and they don't have to come here. Which certainly seems fair.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

thanks for backing be up RC finally some sanity. This is not the trad sub forum or the discussion area, which is why i posted it here in the first place. He is right this sub-forum is not representative of Mainline or tradiditional SDA views, that is why it is progressive. so like I said take it as it is or invite yourself elsewheres.

 

[sentipente]

we specifically made the Progressive forum open to ideas. Most progressives are not frighted by views that go contrary to our views. It is why this was created because elsewhere too many restrictions were instituted. Now those who wanted those restrictions still have their area's and they don't have to come here. Which certainly seems fair.

Is that what you call ideas? A call for a list of anti-Adventist sites? I must have temporarily moved into an parallel universe.

 

[sentipente]

BTW, thanks for the Welcome back.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Is that what you call ideas? A call for a list of anti-Adventist sites? I must have temporarily moved into an parallel universe.

Yes most anything can fit under the term idea. As Ice probably had an idea to post what he posted, it therefor represents his idea. Just as your idea was to insult. Of the two I think Ice had far nobler intentions then yours.

 

[sentipente]

You guys are such . . . I don't know exactly what to call it. You are so quick to cry Wolf.

You seem incapable of recognizing the difference between the posting of a site and a call for a list of anti-Adventist sites so I'll leave you to yourself.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You guys are such . . . I don't know exactly what to call it. You are so quick to cry Wolf.

You seem incapable of recognizing the difference between the posting of a site and a call for a list of anti-Adventist sites so I'll leave you to yourself.

Thanks as your help was not needed.

As the thread was started by information about a new site by Dirk Andersen I found it interesting and relevant.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Deu 5:2
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. (Funny isn't it, but isn't this before Mt. Sinai?)

Them thar kooky Adventist are just so mistaken about the Bible it ain't funny!

Senti might have better dealt with such comments as the above which apparently don't realize that Horeb and Sinai are the same place.

From the Jewish Encylopedia:

Different Names.

—In Rabbinical Literature:
The Rabbis consider "Sinai" and "Horeb" to be two names of the same mountain, which had besides three other names: (1) "Har ha-Elohim" (= "the mountain of God"), the Israelites having received there the knowledge of the divinity of God; (2) "Har Bashan," the latter word being interpreted as though it were "beshen" (= "with the teeth"), that is to say, mankind through the virtue of this mountain obtains its sustenance; and (3) "Har Gabnunim" (= "a mountain pure as cheese"). The names "Horeb" and "Sinai" are interpreted to mean, respectively, "the mountain of the sword," because through this mountain the Sanhedrin acquired the right to sentence a man to capital punishment, and "hostility," inasmuch as the mountain was hostile to the heathen (Ex. R. ii. 6). Shab. 89a, b gives the following four additional names of Sinai: "Ẓin," "Ḳadesh," "Ḳedomot," and "Paran," but declares that its original name was "Horeb" (comp. Midr. Abkir, quoted in Yalḳ., Ex. 169); according to Pirḳe R. El. xli., it acquired the name "Sinai" only after God had appeared to Moses in the bush ("seneh"; comp. Sinai, Biblical Data).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=817&letter=S

 

[sentipente]

Funny

 

[RND]

Senti might have better dealt with such comments as the above which apparently don't realize that Horeb and Sinai are the same place.

From the Jewish Encylopedia:

Of course, not all Biblical scholars agree that Horeb and Sinai are the exact same place right RC?

"In certain biblical passages these events are described as having transpired at Mount Horeb, but though there is a small body of opinion that Sinai and Horeb were different locations,[2] they are generally considered to have been different names for the same place."

I have no problem being part of that "small body."