Should Trad debate be disallowed in here?

[DarylFawcett]

I agree with Red on this for the reason that most of us don't go around labelling people as either Trad, Prog, or whatever in our local churches on Sabbath.

 

[JonMiller]

I and others have been told here that we aren't welcome in the 'traditional' adventist area. I am not told that at church.

I wonder at the difference.

JM

 

[sentipente]

I am with you on this one RC... the system of labeling is arbitrary and impractical, and this is why I say the labeling of 'trad' and 'prog' should be done away with and people learn to get along, plain and simple...

But as long as it is being maintained in the Trad section and the known Trads are not willing to respect the wishes of the Progs in their forum this FSG is valid.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I am with you on this one RC... the system of labeling is arbitrary and impractical, and this is why I say the labeling of 'trad' and 'prog' should be done away with and people learn to get along, plain and simple...

I think you misunderstood me. I think the Traditional sub-forum thinks that they are doing fine based upon the exclusion of PSDA's, They seem to know who are Traditional and who are not and I have seen numerous quips telling people such as Sophia they are not to debate. For the most part the visitor's have not debated but followed the rules and simply asked questions.

I did a Google search on "traditional Adventists" and there were a substantial amount of hits. It is a phrase that is widely used. And the meaning seems to be understood as just what it sounds like.

People should learn to get a long with others but clearly they are not and many are not even trying and some of the moderators are behaving in totally illogical ways. So we have to deal with reality rather then the way things ought to be.

 

[Sophia7]

I agree with Red on this for the reason that most of us don't go around labelling people as either Trad, Prog, or whatever in our local churches on Sabbath.

The reality is that as long as you have the Progressive and Traditional sub-forums and prohibit debating/teaching in them by those who are not members of those groups, labeling is inevitable and necessary in order to uphold the FSGs.

 

[reddogs]

The reality is that as long as you have the Progressive and Traditional sub-forums and prohibit debating/teaching in them by those who are not members of those groups, labeling is inevitable and necessary in order to uphold the FSGs.

Well lets do away with them and get everyone to show a little Christian brotherly and sisterly love....

 

[reddogs]

I think you misunderstood me. I think the Traditional sub-forum thinks that they are doing fine based upon the exclusion of PSDA's, They seem to know who are Traditional and who are not and I have seen numerous quips telling people such as Sophia they are not to debate. For the most part the visitor's have not debated but followed the rules and simply asked questions.

I did a Google search on "traditional Adventists" and there were a substantial amount of hits. It is a phrase that is widely used. And the meaning seems to be understood as just what it sounds like.

People should learn to get a long with others but clearly they are not and many are not even trying and some of the moderators are behaving in totally illogical ways. So we have to deal with reality rather then the way things ought to be.

Well, RC, you have always been respectful with me, isnt it possible that everyone else can at least do the minimum and show at least that to their brother/sister in Christ.

 

[Sophia7]

Maybe Sophia would like to provide posts so that we know who everyone is?

I did. Perhaps you missed this, too:

I noticed that mva posted today that he is a Traditional:

I am traditional, but I appreciate being accepted in both areas.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=44817339#post44817339

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=44855524#post44855524

As I said before I missed the last line of Night's original post.

That's OK, mva. You're welcome to state your opinion since this sub-forum is still open to everyone for now. I was just pointing out that you've made your affiliation clear, so your vote wouldn't count in the poll.

 

[reddogs]

I and others have been told here that we aren't welcome in the 'traditional' adventist area. I am not told that at church.

I wonder at the difference.

JM

Well lets shed the labels, and come out of our bunkers and see what we can work out to make everyone feel welcome......we got enough 'haters' in the world to deal with, lets at least try to show a little of Christs love to each other, and see if we can discuss in fellowship as one brotherhood......

 

[NightEternal]

To those Progs who voted NO-

Am I to assume you guys enjoy all of the thread derailment, harassment, intolerance, antagonism and baiting we have endured from certain Trads in here?

It is amazing to me that any of you would have voted NO. You must be suckers for punishment.

 

[Pythons]

I'm trying to understand this issue and intend no insult to anyone in asking.

If an individual member of the Seventh-day Adventist church openly rejects one or more of the Articles of Faith issued by the General Conference does that not initiate some type of action from Church govt to correct the heresy or expell it?

I know SSPX is now outside the Vatican as with several other groups that look similar to the Catholic Church but are not because they were "excommunicated".

I got a taste of how serious this issue is to some SDA's by pointing out I didn't know someone who was active in the thread was SDA.

I've read the tags associated with Traditional and Progressive SDA's and still don't understand where the Church officially stands. I.e. if Traditional is a description of individual SDA's then there would have to be another group which contrasts the definition for the term traditional to even exist.

I'm confused.

 

[Sophia7]

Well lets do away with them and get everyone to show a little Christian brotherly and sisterly love....

I doubt that the other Traditionals would be in favor of getting rid of the sub-forums.

 

[reddogs]

To those Progs who voted NO-

Am I to assume you guys enjoy all of the thread derailment, harassment, intolerance, antagonism and baiting we have endured from certain Trads in here?

It is amazing to me that any of you would have voted NO. You must be suckers for punishment.

Night,

There are just a few that constantly show up on the reports, if they would stop the bikering and backbiting, we could have some real fellowship discussions.......

Red

(Yes, my granny always told me its not polite to point so I wont... )

 

[reddogs]

I doubt that the other Traditionals would be in favor of getting rid of the sub-forums.

Anyone that cant love a brother or sister enough to sit down and discuss the Gospel of Christ and the plan of salvation, is missing the whole point.......

 

[NightEternal]

Well lets shed the labels, and come out of our bunkers and see what we can work out to make everyone feel welcome......we got enough 'haters' in the world to deal with, lets at least try to show a little of Christs love to each other, and see if we can discuss in fellowship as one brotherhood......

Red, you have made it clear that you feel I and the others in here are not Adventists and have no standing in the church. Therefore, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to even consider your attempts at peace-making.

There will never be true unity between myself and the militant Trads in your camp. Nor do I desire it. The best you are ever going to get from me is base, civil, surface fellowship and that grudgingly. Even that is too much to ask from me in regards to the militant, intolerant Trad haters.

You want to know what sort of garbage we have been tolerating as Progs?

Take a gander at this:

I'm sorry to see that you guys are still going through this foolishness.

Just remember, you will be persecuted by those who hate our faith until the end of time.

Many will pretend to be brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are really wolves in sheeps clothing. Their hateful words make this very clear!

They don't want to be SDAs, and now they want to take your identity away from you too. And then there are a few who want to call themselves SDAs, but demonstrate that they are only here to stir up trouble and complain about our beliefs. They want to obscure our faith with their cunning words by claiming that there are two paths, when in reality there is only one. They think they are wise, but they are really fools, because when they should be working to build people up in the faith they are trying to cause all kinds of arguments to destroy faith in others and to discourage anyone who might be considering becoming a part of our church from doing so.

I think it is best to follow the example of Jesus and let them have their way in here. Their glory will only be enjoyed for a short period of time anyway. Don't let them take yours away from you!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=44901669&postcount=42

And you want us to wave the white flag and embrace this sort of hate?

Please. Not even going to happen.

The breach will always be there, both on this forum and in the church. And it will only get wider and wider as time goes on until there is an official rupture and split in the denomination.

 

[Sophia7]

To those Progs who voted NO-

Am I to assume you guys enjoy all of the thread derailment, harassment, intolerance, antagonism and baiting we have endured from certain Trads in here?

It is amazing to me that any of you would have voted NO. You must be suckers for punishment.

It looks as if there are only two no votes at the most that would actually count, depending on Andrew's affiliation; he has so far refrained from calling himself either Progressive or Traditional although in his blog he said that he would probably fall more on the Traditional side:

I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. I do not consider myself to be either traditional or progressive, because, frankly, I see the bickering that goes on between them to be no better than that of political parties. Likewise, I am independent in politics. There are certain parts of our 28 fundamental beliefs I do not believe to be necessary according to scripture, but I probably agree more with the traditionals rather than progressives.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=41150504#post41150504

Ice changed his vote to yes, but he's a former anyway. So JonMiller's no vote may be the only one that counts.

On the yes side, in addition to Ice's vote, BGMCFAR's vote wouldn't count since he's a former as well.

(See how tricky this can be, Red? You can tell a lot from people's posts, though.)

 

[NightEternal]

Here are the final results of the poll:

Should we disallow Trad debate in the Prog area?

Yes 7
Digdeep, Mankin, Moicherie, NightEternal, RCNewProtestants, StormyOne, Sentipente


No 1
JonMiller,

It is pretty much a majority. The addition to the Prog FSG now has the go-ahead to be officially included and enforced.

 

[NightEternal]

Sophia, I already made the necessary clarifications and deletions in the FSG discussion thread yesterday. I am monitoring this vote closely and making sure only the ones that qualify are counted.

Could you please go into the poll and delete the votes that do not count?

 

[reddogs]

Red, you have made it clear that you feel I and the others in here are not Adventists and have no standing in the church. Therefore, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to even consider your attempts at peace-making.

There will never be true unity between myself and the militant Trads in your camp. Nor do I desire it. The best you are ever going to get from me is base, civil, surface fellowship and that grudgingly. Even that is too much to ask from me in regards to the militant, intolerant Trad haters.

You want to know what sort of garbage we have been tolerating as Progs?

Take a gander at this:

I'm sorry to see that you guys are still going through this foolishness.

Just remember, you will be persecuted by those who hate our faith until the end of time.

Many will pretend to be brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are really wolves in sheeps clothing. Their hateful words make this very clear!

They don't want to be SDAs, and now they want to take your identity away from you too. And then there are a few who want to call themselves SDAs, but demonstrate that they are only here to stir up trouble and complain about our beliefs. They want to obscure our faith with their cunning words by claiming that there are two paths, when in reality there is only one. They think they are wise, but they are really fools, because when they should be working to build people up in the faith they are trying to cause all kinds of arguments to destroy faith in others and to discourage anyone who might be considering becoming a part of our church from doing so.

I think it is best to follow the example of Jesus and let them have their way in here. Their glory will only be enjoyed for a short period of time anyway. Don't let them take yours away from you!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=44901669&postcount=42

And you want us to wave the white flag and embrace this sort of hate?

Please. Not even going to happen.

The breach will always be there, both on this forum and in the church. And it will only get wider and wider as time goes on until there is an official rupture and split in the denomination.

How is going to your brother and telling him 'all is forgiven' and reconciling a white flag of surrender... its what Christ asks of us constantly. We have to move forward to love and Christs coming, not back to the gates of hell, hate, anger and every other evil that sucks the life out of us........We have to start somewhere...

 

[Sophia7]

I'm trying to understand this issue and intend no insult to anyone in asking.

If an individual member of the Seventh-day Adventist church openly rejects one or more of the Articles of Faith issued by the General Conference does that not initiate some type of action from Church govt to correct the heresy or expell it?

I know SSPX is now outside the Vatican as with several other groups that look similar to the Catholic Church but are not because they were "excommunicated".

I got a taste of how serious this issue is to some SDA's by pointing out I didn't know someone who was active in the thread was SDA.

I've read the tags associated with Traditional and Progressive SDA's and still don't understand where the Church officially stands. I.e. if Traditional is a description of individual SDA's then there would have to be another group which contrasts the definition for the term traditional to even exist.

I'm confused.

The SDA Church does not disfellowship its members for not agreeing with all 28 fundamental beliefs. So although in theory those statements look like a creed that everyone must affirm in order to remain an Adventist, in practice they are not. In fact, many pastors don't even require people to accept all of them in order to become members of the SDA Church.