Trinity, Semi-Arian, Modalist Differences and similarities

[StormyOne]

T&O said this:

You know what? I think I'll pass.

I don't think this is an attempt to peak into the my theological thinking, I think it's more of an attempt to try to ban me from posting in the Traditional section.

Now why would you think that something you said would lead to a ban in you posting in the Traditional section? If you were hesitant to say more it could be interpreted that you were afraid to really say what you thought because of a potential ban... or are you saying that is no longer true?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Stormy, this is part of the problem.

Why do I need TWO people grilling me on this....and you've made no bones about the fact that you agree with RC and your little snaps here and there aren't helping.

You haven't seen past discussions with RC and myself, so let me fill you in....

When I first expressed how I felt about this subject (briefly) RC immediately jumped in and started saying I wasn't Traditional.

He didn't really say anything about what I had to say, just that it wasn't in jive with the fundamental belief (which I still say it is).

I posted what I think. You can do as I instructed RC to and interpret how you will.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

No, as I have repeated several times I did not say you were not traditional I said you were not in agreement with the SDA fundamental beliefs on the trinity. And if that was the basis for the traditional sub-forum you would not be allowed to post there. Remember that was why the traditionals said that Progressives could not post there, because they said to post there you must be in agreement with the 28.

It was a one line passing comment and you made it into a major campaign against you.

You can see where it began at
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37067795&postcount=7

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, this is part of the problem.

Why do I need TWO people grilling me on this....and you've made no bones about the fact that you agree with RC and your little snaps here and there aren't helping.

You haven't seen past discussions with RC and myself, so let me fill you in....

When I first expressed how I felt about this subject (briefly) RC immediately jumped in and started saying I wasn't Traditional.

He didn't really say anything about what I had to say, just that it wasn't in jive with the fundamental belief (which I still say it is).

I posted what I think. You can do as I instructed RC to and interpret how you will.

T&O, I followed what you were saying, understood the flow of the thread... I simply posted an observation and a question.... I apologize, I forgot that you would let me know when I could address you... and I clearly overstepped the invisible line speaking to you without your permission... it won't happen again...

 

[TrustAndObey]

We will see Stormy, we will see.

The invisible line is right here ->

You can't go without addressing me though. You tried before and it didn't work.

It's the magic that I like to call me.

 

[tall73]

Stormy, this is part of the problem.

Why do I need TWO people grilling me on this....and you've made no bones about the fact that you agree with RC and your little snaps here and there aren't helping.

You haven't seen past discussions with RC and myself, so let me fill you in....

When I first expressed how I felt about this subject (briefly) RC immediately jumped in and started saying I wasn't Traditional.

He didn't really say anything about what I had to say, just that it wasn't in jive with the fundamental belief (which I still say it is).

I posted what I think. You can do as I instructed RC to and interpret how you will.

Inquisitions are no fun, no matter who is leading them.

Yet the standard has been set. Those who are in accord with the 28 are traditional, and can post in the traditional forum.

Of course it has not been that simple. Woob for some time has denied the traditional interpretation of the sanctuary--just as I do. Yet he is allowed to post in the traditional forum and I am not.

You now protest that some raise this issue with you. Why? That is the mark that has been encoded in the rules. I am sorry it doesn't feel good. It doesn't feel good to us either when it happens. Which is why I am all for getting rid of labels and inquisitions as soon as possible. Your statements raised the question, so what is it that you expected to happen?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Inquisitions are no fun, no matter who is leading them.

Yet the standard has been set. Those who are in accord with the 28 are traditional, and can post in the traditional forum.

And I am in accord and I WILL post in the Traditional forum.

Of course it has not been that simple. Woob for some time has denied the traditional interpretation of the sanctuary--just as I do. Yet he is allowed to post in the traditional forum and I am not.

You now protest that some raise this issue with you. Why? That is the mark that has been set. I am sorry it doesn't feel good. It doesn't feel good to us either when it happens. Which is why I am all for getting rid of labels and inquisitions as soon as possible. Your statements raised the question, so what is it that you expected to happen?

Woob hasn't given himself a self-proclaimed label of "Progressive" nor has he ever expressed wanting to leave the Adventist church. He doesn't debate in there, he's very kind to all of us, he clashes with some "Progressives" and doesn't feel comfortable in that subforum, etc etc.

If you ever saw a report about me or him come from the Traditional section, I'd sure like to see it.

The reports that I do know of went through because of debating.

Even if everyone was in perfect adherence to the fundamentals, but they insisted on debating in there, they'd get reported. It's a NON-debate area.

However, I do know some reports that go through are petty and I'm sure some reports coming from the TSDA subforum are no different.

If someone is uncomfortable with a person posting in there they have a right to say so, but no one has said anything to me about posting in there. I even asked and lots of people told me they WANTED me there.

So that's where I'm staying.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Talk about petty reports though...I'd sure like to see that one.

"T&O is posting in the Traditional section. She's not debating and everyone in there seems to like her, but you better get her out of there".

Uh huh.

 

[TrustAndObey]

FYI..when the cable company tells you their technician will be there between noon and 5:30...it means 4:55.

I'll be back in a little while.

 

[tall73]

And I am in accord and I WILL post in the Traditional forum.

And shall we take your word for it or look at your statements?

If the standard is set shouldn't you be compared to it to see if you measure up? That has been the procedure so far with others.

Here is the standard:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

Woob hasn't given himself a self-proclaimed label of "Progressive" nor has he ever expressed wanting to leave the Adventist church.

Of course he hasn't. He said he was in the middle. There IS NO middle. Either you conform with the 28 or you don't, and he clearly does not. So what does that make him?

Let's look at the standard:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

Does he have to agree to what he is? If not then I declare myself traditional. I have only declared myself progressive because that is what the logic of the rule demands.

So why does woob get to play by another standard? Why do you let him?

He doesn't debate in there, he's very kind to all of us, he clashes with some "Progressives" and doesn't feel comfortable in that subforum, etc etc.

Does he teach in there? Of course he does, which the rules prevent.

What if I said I liked the topics better in the traditional forum (which I do). Would I be allowed there?

Here is the standard:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

If you ever saw a report about me or him come from the Traditional section, I'd sure like to see it.

And what does that say? That you all like each other? That is not the standard.

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

That above, is the standard.

Now, does Woob meet the standard for being progressive? Yes or no?

There is no middle. There is no sort of. It is a clear standard.

The reports that I do know of went through because of debating.

Reports are not the standard.

Who you like is not the standard.

Who gets along is not the standard.

Even if everyone was in perfect adherence to the fundamentals, but they insisted on debating in there, they'd get reported. It's a NON-debate area.

Or teaching?

Reports are not the standard.

However, I do know some reports that go through are petty and I'm sure some reports coming from the TSDA subforum are no different.

Reports are not the standard.

If someone is uncomfortable with a person posting in there they have a right to say so, but no one has said anything to me about posting in there. I even asked and lots of people told me they WANTED me there.

Wanting you there is not the standard.

What someone says is not the standard.

Here again is the standard:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

Does woob meet the standard?

So that's where I'm staying.

Do you meet the standard?


Do I?

Here is the standard:
Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

I read the standard and I clearly am a progressive, whether I like it or not.

 

[tall73]

Talk about petty reports though...I'd sure like to see that one.

"T&O is posting in the Traditional section. She's not debating and everyone in there seems to like her, but you better get her out of there".

Uh huh.

Liking someone is not the standard.

Here is the standard:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

Now does Woob for instance meet the standard?

 

[woobadooba]

Tall,

There is no 'all or nothing' program here!

I told you before that I am neither traditional or progressive.

Your petty forum rules don't dictate what I am, and I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting my intelligence with them.

 

[TrustAndObey]

If reports aren't the standard, how in the world have the mods in the past known the difference between a Prog and a Trad?

Seriously, what would've alerted them to someone having either "label"?

Woob is welcome to post in the Traditional forum any time he wants.

YOU are welcome to post in the Traditional forum any time you want.

It's for fellowship and discussions about the 28 fundamental beliefs (and various other things), but you won't see us in a flame debate about something.

You know that, you used to post there in the past.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Clearly there are people who think the rules apply to others and not to themselves. That is a problem. What I have tried to point out is that now while we are making rules we should consider these areas. But when I look over at the traditional sub-forum I see no rules in their rule discussion thread. It seems they are happy with their we are here you stay out non rules while ignoring the previous rules.

It is probably a symptom of the way Traditional SDA's think, but as they are part of this forum they need to join the community and really create some reasonable and enforceable rules or abandon their desire for a Traditional Sub-forum. The Progressive have not really set up rules either but then there are only a few who wanted the sub-forum and I think so far like the recommendation in the Traditional forum it is just for no flaming and harassment. Unlike the Traditionals tendancy to want to restrict who can post and what they can post about.

Oh and for T&O it took me less then 5 minutes looking at the Traditional sub-forum to see the flaming there:
"Mr. Tenor, did you just come in here to harrass and annoy? I don't think that is being 'in His service' do you." http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37244999&postcount=79

 

[TrustAndObey]

The temporary rules are in place in our subforum. No debating.

I'd love to set up some rules (although I'm not sure we need any other than what we already have in there)....but I guess we're deciding rules for the MAIN forum first...according to the wiki.

 

[tall73]

Tall,

There is no 'all or nothing' program here!

I told you before that I am neither traditional or progressive.

Your petty forum rules don't dictate what I am, and I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting my intelligence with them.

A. It is not my rule.

B. If you want to post in the petty forum you need to follow the petty rules.

C. I am not speaking of your essential essence, nor do I agree with the standard. But it is what we have.

Your only argument seems to be to deny logical fact that you do not meet the standard.

Do I want to beat you over the head with the standard? No. I would rather we get rid of the divisions entirely. But for now we have the standard:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

 

[tall73]

If reports aren't the standard, how in the world have the mods in the past known the difference between a Prog and a Trad?

Read again the standard:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

Now, since Woob seems to resent being the example, let's use me.

Do I meet the standard?

No. Why not? I don't hold to all 28 any more.

There, that was simple.

Seriously, what would've alerted them to someone having either "label"?

So you agree that people outing others is alright? Then what is the problem? That is what we are doing.

But the measure is still this:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

Once I no longer met it I was progressive.

So, since you are fine with people telling the mods what to label people, why do you resist this attempt in your own case?

Woob is welcome to post in the Traditional forum any time he wants.

He is not allowed to teach or debate or give his view according to the standard and the rules.

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

DEFINITION OF FELLOWSHIP POST:

It is not debate.
Those who do not identify themselves as Adventists may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Those who do not identify themselves as Adventists may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal, or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question, "What do you think about keeping the Sabbath?" Only Adventists can offer an opinion about that. Other Christians may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-Adventists offer rebuttals to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching.
If a thread is started that asks a general question, such as "What do you think _________ means?" only Adventists may give instruction on the topic. While other members may have very good ideas on the subject, they may not give instruction in the Seventh-day Adventist forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is:
Essentially fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship--i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work, etc. These are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

YOU are welcome to post in the Traditional forum any time you want.

I am not allowed to debate or teach or give my view according to the standard and the rules.

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.


DEFINITION OF FELLOWSHIP POST:

It is not debate.
Those who do not identify themselves as Adventists may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Those who do not identify themselves as Adventists may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal, or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question, "What do you think about keeping the Sabbath?" Only Adventists can offer an opinion about that. Other Christians may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-Adventists offer rebuttals to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching.
If a thread is started that asks a general question, such as "What do you think _________ means?" only Adventists may give instruction on the topic. While other members may have very good ideas on the subject, they may not give instruction in the Seventh-day Adventist forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is:
Essentially fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship--i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work, etc. These are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

It's for fellowship and discussions about the 28 fundamental beliefs (and various other things), but you won't see us in a flame debate about something.

Read the description again. The limitation is not on WHAT is discussed but WHO is allowed to debate, teach or give their view.

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

You know that, you used to post there in the past.

In the past I met the standard.

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.


I wish I did now. But I cannot. Such is the nature of standards. They don't care what you want.

 

[tall73]

The temporary rules are in place in our subforum. No debating.

I'd love to set up some rules (although I'm not sure we need any other than what we already have in there)....but I guess we're deciding rules for the MAIN forum first...according to the wiki.

A. The temporary rules define what is fellowship right in them. I have posted for you what they say.

B. There is a thread in the traditional section and has been for some time, that would allow you all to form your own rules. I posted it as part of the wiki process, though of course I couldn't participate in the rules discussion because I don't meet the standard:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Was that your really long way of telling me that you aren't going to ALLOW me to post in the Traditional subforum of this forum?

Do you honestly think the mods (even the new ones) are going to tell me that I can't?

I have to wonder who would come into a thread where I'm fellowshipping and agreeing with EVERYTHING and tell me that I have to go.

Give me whatever label you want, I'm posting in the Traditional subforum Tall. I have very, very dear friends in there that are friends way past this forum (e-mails. letters, phone calls, etc). Are they going to report me for not debating? No way.

 

[tall73]

Clearly there are people who think the rules apply to others and not to themselves.

It would appear so.

The standard is clear:

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.


Yet the continue to try to make the standard:

a. who they like
b. who they get along with
c. who is not reported
d. who likes posting there.

That is not the standard.