No more Preterist talk

[parousia70]

Great points Acts!

I agree totally!

 

[davo]

Originally posted by Acts6:5
Frankly, I'm glad that I no longer have to spend over half my posts defending myself as if I were charged in a Salem witch trial.

So I do appreciate that the Administrators have given us a place to post our ideas. I'm happy we have been given the chance to have "preterist talk" here.

Well said Acts -I always appreciate your clarity

davo

 

[seebs]

I think part of it is a question of volume, more than anything else. If the eschatology section could have had one or two threads on preterism, that would probably have been fine. However, in practice, it ended up being way too much volume, and disrupting other conversations.

 

[davo]

G'day seebs . I don't mind where they put us as long as we have place to talk -maybe they might decide to create a specific "Fulfilled Prophecy" section, might be a good idea -that way we won't tread on any toes [apart from those that venture in there ]

davo

 

[jenlu]

Also seebs...many of those posts were started by futurists...so the volume was not solely due to preterists...

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Yeah? "Who's yo abba?" That's pretty silly. I mean, what purpose does that serve? I wish you'd change it.

And your name as well. I hate it when people's user names are their real names. So you should change that. I mean, who really wants to know your name?

You want to know it's pupose huh? Well, it has to do with reaching our current culture for Jesus Christ. Ever heard the phrase "who's your daddy" ? Well, I, like many christians, like taking what the world has to offer and using it for kingdom purposes. Abba means daddy, except this time, I ask who your daddy is, ie, if you have God as your daddy. Is this good enough or should I remove it?

Gosh, I hope you were just being sarcastic. I wish more people would use their real names. Why make something up? It's almost as silly as the artist formerly known as prince, who is again known as prince, using a symbol to describe himself. If people like chatting with me, then they can call me by my name, instead of calling me something I make up to describe myself. But if you need a handle, you may refer to me as

DaWhoneAndOnlyGuyWithoutAcoolNameLikeEveryoneElse

please type it just like that when you type my s/n, thanks.

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by parousia70


I'll take ya one further..

Do you believe it even matters that Jesus, the prophets and the apostles all preached about the "last days" at all?

Do you believe the "last days" themselves even matter, or can we just cut that part of the Bible out since it seems it isn't necessary to you?

How far are you willing to take your apparent distain for "Last days" theology?

Ok, I didnt ask you to ask me questions, I asked a question to get an answer. Answering with a question is not a good answer.

When you wake up tomorrow morning (assuming you do), why would it matter if that day is part of the last or not. Like I said before, excuse me if I don't have six hours to spend online reading all the posts with preterist in the title.

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by Back To The Future
I like the preterist forums. Its the one place I am allowed to be. Since as a preterist I can't go into the Eschatology boards, at least I can fellowship with people of the same belief.

By the way, I have been wanting to know this. I can't go into the eschatology forum because of some creed that Doesn't match up with my Eschatology beliefs. But why are those that are not Preterist allowed to come into these forums and posts things that make no sense or seem not so kind?
Just wondering.
Nancy

please excuse me for my ignorance. I am new to these boards and didn't know the history of it. So now that I know the preterists threads were moved into the ethics forum, things are making more sense.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Hi Seebs,

I understand your point, but the problem is the only eschatology that ever really dominated the eschatology forum was futurism. Think about it: out of the 4 or 5 eschatologies in Christianity, the predominate end-time view presented on the forum over the past 5 months was futurism, not preterism. Whole pages are full of futurist threads, while the odd-man out has been preterism.

So even though I understand your point, I don't understand why you think preterism should be relegated to 2 or 3 threads, while futurism should not. Preterism only dominated 1 or 2 pages of the old forum (and some threads were started by futurists), while 8 or 9 pages contained solely futurist topics. I simply cannot fathom why you think it's justified to limit preterism while at the same time futurism is given free reign. Do you see what I'm getting at?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[NumberOneSon]

please excuse me for my ignorance. I am new to these boards and didn't know the history of it. So now that I know the preterists threads were moved into the ethics forum, things are making more sense.

That's cool, DaWhoneAndOnlyGuyWithoutAcoolNameLikeEveryone ( or I should say, "the Artist Formely Known as Dave" ).
I think we'll call you DWAOGWANLE, for short.

I can understand now why you were a little miffed at all of the preterist threads. Glad to have you aboard.

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by DaveKerwin

Well, I, like many christians, like taking what the world has to offer and using it for kingdom purposes. Abba means daddy, except this time, I ask who your daddy is, ie, if you have God as your daddy. Is this good enough or should I remove it?

Don't you dare remove it.....I like it.

I wish more people would use their real names. Why make something up?
If people like chatting with me, then they can call me by my name...

Hello Dave My real name's Judi, nice ta meet you & welcome to the Preterist Forum.

 

[kern]

Preterists are banned not only from the Eschatology forum, but from *all* Christian-only forums because the moderators have voted that they are not Christians by the definition that this site uses (the Nicene Creed).

This puts the move of the preterists on an entirely different level than simply a matter of post volume, or anything like that. I would comment more, but I don't want to break rule #7. I will say that although I am not a Preterist, that move by the moderators made me seriously consider whether I even wanted to spend time here any more.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

While I'm a bit bothered by it too, I can see their point; it was *impossible* to have a discussion of futurist beliefs without being bombarded with preterist attacks on them... that got annoying.

I do think they should be allowed to post in the Christians-only areas, but there's a discipline problem that would have to be resolved first.

 

[kern]

The only thing I had a problem with was the idea that the moderators would pronounce a certain group "non Christian". In the end it wasn't as big a deal as it could have been for me because it was based on a fairly objective criteria. I still think they made the wrong decision (now I am definitely breaking rule 7) but as I'm not a preterist or a futurist then I don't really feel like getting too involved.

I agree that some action probably needed to be taken, I'm just not sure that branding the preterists non-Christian was the right one.

-Chris

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by seebs
While I'm a bit bothered by it too, I can see their point; it was *impossible* to have a discussion of futurist beliefs without being bombarded with preterist attacks on them... that got annoying.

Simply untrue.

Before we got the boot, I myself, and several other fellow prets pledged to ,and followed through with the promise not to "disrupt" futurism threads.

The trouble was, all the futurists would create threads that either called preterism into question, or flat out attacked it. Under those conditions, you can surely undestand why we prets were compelled to respond with sober reason for our faith to those who were calling us to account, in fact that is all we ever did in the eschatology forum, which is not something you could say for most futurists there, sadly.

That having been said, you seem to have this notion that when it comes to eschatology, futurism should be beyond reproach. I could be wrong but it seems that opinion is shared by this forum as well, that it is not ok to question futurism and put it to the test of scripture.

Why is that?

 

[NumberOneSon]

I sure hope you don't go, Kern. I always appreciate your comments.

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um


Don't you dare remove it.....I like it.



Hello Dave My real name's Judi, nice ta meet you & welcome to the Preterist Forum.

hey Judi, that cute

 

[DaveKerwin]

There is an underlying irritation that I have, and this is it:

I think it's to our shame that we allow separations among us. It is to our shame that christianity has over 33,000 different denominations. And guess what.. no denomination has it right yet. We will never have it right. It is wrong that we allow petty differences to come between us and separate us. To be honest, it makes me sick. I hate that terms like futurist and preterist even exist. How about we call ourselves christians and that is it. Let's take our common denominator and focus on that, and throw out the rest of the crap. I don't care if you call youself a baptist, a catholic, or whatever else. I call myself a believer in Christ Jesus. If I ever claim to know God or scripture enough to separate myself from any of you, then please quote me and rebuke me, because I need to embrace your difference from me and focus on our common faith. There needs to be a line drawn here. We can only take separation so far. Satan loves to split us up, and here we sit letting him do it, as a matter of fact, we help him do it. To quote a band I like...
Who's gonna draw the line?? We're gonna draw the line! Who's gonna draw the line ???? We're gonna draw the line!!
Together! In any endevor! Forever and ever!

I like this quote also:
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.

Maybe it's time that we stop this separation and love on eachother. I`m sorry if I opened a can of worms in starting this thread, sometimes I am a little too frank in the way I say things. But I will not apologize for this post you are reading. Group hug

 

[NumberOneSon]

I understand your frustration Dave, I really do. It saddens me to see division in the Church, myself. I agree with your quote. I think that one of the reasons we all discuss our various views is in the hope that, through such interactions, our doctrinal differences can be resolved. Maybe not en masse, but on an individual level. Such discussions has helped cause that to happen in my life at least.

I have no problem with ecumenical movements as long as the attempt to bring unity involves resolving all of the things that brought division in the first place. Usually, denominational division occurs due to doctrinal divisions (like Catholicism/Protestantism). The solution is not to ignore those divisions and just love on each other, but the solution is to express love while trying to resolve the doctrinal problems that caused the division. Do you agree with me on that?

Thanks for your post.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by Acts6:5
I understand your frustration Dave, I really do. It saddens me to see division in the Church, myself. I agree with your quote. I think that one of the reasons we all discuss our various views is in the hope that, through such interactions, our doctrinal differences can be resolved. Maybe not en masse, but on an individual level. Such discussions has helped cause that to happen in my life at least.

I have no problem with ecumenical movements as long as the attempt to bring unity involves resolving all of the things that brought division in the first place. Usually, denominational division occurs due to doctrinal divisions (like Catholicism/Protestantism). The solution is not to ignore those divisions and just love on each other, but the solution is to express love while trying to resolve the doctrinal problems that caused the division. Do you agree with me on that?

Thanks for your post.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

I understand the need to not ignore those differences. I agree that they should not be treated like they don't exist. But like I said, where does the line get drawn? What needs to happen before we agree to disagree? If love is truely being expressed while discussing these things, then I suppose I support it. But I don't see that being done corporately. Maybe I don't see it as well as you do. For as many posts about separation, should there be just as many about our similarities? Perhaps I should start a new thread called "Why pretereists and futurists can have lunch together and enjoy each other's company"