Should the SDA Forum Be Split?

[JonMiller]

Stricter rules has to do with establishing an SDA warning system that will bring about forum specific bans in here for those who violate these rules. The rules are not doctrinal, but moral. In other words, they have to do with how we behave towards each other.

You don't have to vote if you don't want to, but as it stands, these rules will be established if the forum doesn't split, since they are necessary.

I agree with this.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

If the vote for split wins, I suggest that SDAs have no forum. That would definitely present ourselves better then split forums.

For some reason, in my church, despite there being more 'traditional' sorts and more 'progressive' sorts, everyone worships together with just a bit of grumbling.

JM
(there might be more then a bit of grumbling, that I am just not party to, but still, I haven't seen the comments made here, or the actions, in practice)

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Sophia,

I know I do have a few senior moments from time to time, but for the life of me I don't remember voting on this poll. When I logged in it said I had already voted on this poll. This is the first time I've turned on the computer since Friday. Maybe you can tell me "which way I voted."

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[TrustAndObey]

Doc, I just now show you as having voted. Your name appears beside the option to split the forums.

 

[woobadooba]

I can't believe you people! Why do you want to jump off the boat so quickly? Can't we learn how to cooperate with each other so that we may make it to the same shore together?

I think that for those who voted for a split, you need to ask yourself if you did this because this is the best thing for all of us, or if you did this because you were angry at the time.

If you voted in this way out of anger, then you should be given the opportunity to recant your vote. Weigh your votes well people, because once a split takes place there will be no turning back; and we will look like a bunch of failures in here among the other congregations.

I think we can work this out if we just enforce a few rules. Keep in mind that the system that we will establish will not be like anything that we have had before. It will be much more effective.

As it stands now there will be a split. Do you really want this?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Woob, last night you were ready to jump ship.

So come on, this is really frustrating and we've TRIED more rules in the past and it worked for a while, as long as our poor mod came by constantly.

I'd like a forum without all the rules, because there wouldn't be conflict! I voted the way I did because I've thought about this for a long time. I didn't vote out of anger.

 

[sentipente]

You need to back away little man!

Little man? Do you always have to be mean?

 

[woobadooba]

Woob, last night you were ready to jump ship.

And then I asked myself what Jesus would do.

The Corinthians had the same problem that we have. Did Paul encourage them to split up, or to become one?

1Cor. 1:10; 3:1-11

So come on, this is really frustrating and we've TRIED more rules in the past and it worked for a while, as long as our poor mod came by constantly.

But we never enforced FSBs by our own power. CF used to make up the rules; and the rules were too generic to prevent what has been happening in our forum from occurring. This time we get to make up the rules. There is a difference. Our rules can be more definitive.

You don't think that every time a person issues a personal attack on another member and gets an FSB for two weeks, that that person will eventually stop acting in that way? You don't think that this system will reduce the amount of flames that we see in here? I think there would be a dramatic change as a result of this.

And it just may turn out that some problematic people won't be allowed to come back in here again except to read posts.

This can work if we give it a try.

I'd like a forum without all the rules, because there wouldn't be conflict!

What is happening in here right now is the result of a forum with no rules, or at least a forum that has rules, but no one that cares enough to enforce them. This can change.

Personally, I think we need rules. We don't serve a God of chaos, but one of order.

I voted the way I did because I've thought about this for a long time. I didn't vote out of anger.

You placed your vote when you assumed that Night would not agree with me on anything. You were upset about this. Thus your feelings dictated your choice, even though you may not see it this way.

 

[Mankin]

Mankin--may I ask that you mind our own business ?

I noticed in the thread that Night started against me last night that when it all over and apologises made--YOU tried to start in on me there and get the whole thing started again. You need to back away little man!

I'm six feet tall. I don't think that qualifies as little man. I wasn't the one throwing around insults. Back up.

 

[TrustAndObey]

No, actually, I cast my vote after what Happy said. Because I think she's absolutely right.

If it turns out that we don't have a split then I will be more than happy to stick around and help work on the new rules, but this is by majority vote, so we'll get what we get.

Did you not read the post by the person that said she didn't want to say anything because she felt she'd get attacked, and she hasn't come back in here in years because of all this conflict?

I think either vote is going to be a win, so don't get me wrong.

 

[sentipente]

I think either vote is going to be a win, so don't get me wrong.

Only if you think only of yourself can you think so. The entire forum is watching. This is not a win by any means.

 

[woobadooba]

No, actually, I cast my vote after what Happy said. Because I think she's absolutely right.

If it turns out that we don't have a split then I will be more than happy to stick around and help work on the new rules, but this is by majority vote, so we'll get what we get.

Did you not read the post by the person that said she didn't want to say anything because she felt she'd get attacked, and she hasn't come back in here in years because of all this conflict?

I think either vote is going to be a win, so don't get me wrong.

And what will you do with me when I come in here and share views with you that are contrary to certain doctrinal beliefs that are upheld by Traditional SDAs?

There may be greater consequences than you realize if this split goes through.

 

[sentipente]

There may be greater consequences than you realize if this split goes through.

Unintended consequences. Which raises a question. This split poll was forced on the group. It seems to be a strange policy that binds the hands of those who do not react to any poll that is set up.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Woob, I don't know how you want me to answer you.

If you came into the Traditional forum and started debating, obviously I don't think it would be something everyone was thrilled about.

I already voted and I'm not going to change my vote.

In order for the new FSBs and all that to work, we'd need mods that frequent the forum, and that's not something we have right now.

So the new rules would be two-fold, deciding what they'll be, and then getting a mod that has a lot of time.

Either way, seriously, I think it will be a nice change for this forum.

I'm not working against you.

 

[sentipente]

I'm not working against you.

But you seem to be working against the Christ. You should consider that.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Unintended consequences. Which raises a question. This split poll was forced on the group. It seems to be a strange policy that binds the hands of those who do not react to any poll that is set up.

Sentipente, you stated you didn't want to vote in any of our polls. When the first one came out...you voted.

Then it was determined that you didn't fit the criteria to vote so you haven't since.

Not "reacting" is a far cry from not being allowed to react, and you can't seem to keep away from talking about the poll, so obviously you do react in your own way.

I had absolutely nothing to do with this poll going up last night. I woke up this morning, and there it was.

But I'm glad, because either choice is going to help this forum tremendously.

 

[woobadooba]

Woob, I don't know how you want me to answer you.

If you came into the Traditional forum and started debating, obviously I don't think it would be something everyone was thrilled about.

But how would Christ feel if the words that I sought to present to you were of Him, and then you would refuse to accept them simply because they do not agree with one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church?

It is good to be firm in what you believe, but even better to be flexible enough to allow room for further light.

But I see that I will have no place to call my own on CF once a split takes place.

You will get what you want, but not without consequence.

 

[NightEternal]

And he starting to 'nitpick' on me again. Even after he asked for a truce.--hhhmmm man o man

What are you talking about? I have done no such thing. I merely corrected a poster on what specifically you apologized for.

I would just like to also make a clarification. Someone made the claim (Conklin I think) that a certain forum member boasted he was the only true Progressive. That is probably true, if it is who I think it is. While I am definitely aligning myself with the Progressive side, I am not a Progressive in the sense of RC where it is major denominational doctrinal restructuring from the ground up under question. I disagree with him on certain things such as theistic evolution and moral influence theory. I am an Evangelical Adventist. However, I am also Progressive in the sense that I am willing to take a second look at SDA doctrine and beliefs and am prepared to make changes if necessary. While I believe she has the most doctrinal truth in Christiandom, I do not believe our church has completely 'arrived' by any stretch of the means.

RC, I am totally baffled that you are pushing for a blended forum. You honestly enjoy dialoging with people who think you are a 'slithering Jesuit'? I am at a loss.

Tall and Sophia, they think you are an apostate pastoral couple who are traitors to the Ark Of Safety.

And Ice, they think you are about as Adventist as Billy Graham as well as an EGW hater.

I said I will support it if the split is voted down and I will. I am just really confused about this whole thing.

Now, how much longer will it take for this to be decided? I have served on church board meetings that were less painful than this process.

 

[Mankin]

Spilting the forum right now seems like the logical choice. Changes need to be made, and rule changes have failed.

 

[sentipente]

Sentipente, you stated you didn't want to vote in any of our polls. When the first one came out...you voted.

Please stick to the truth. I said I have no desire to take part in your rule making process.