Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Isn't this like saying "Only start threads that everyone already agrees on?" Would that mean any amount of controversy that may exist with certain topics would be off limits to even be discussed amongst yourselves?People are rude because they think they are better than the other person that disagrees with them.
With definitive boundaries upon which we can agree, much of this rudeness will be eliminated, since certain ideas which tend to give rise to such feelings will not be permitted to be inculcated in this forum. Hence, when much of the tension is removed people might just learn how to get along with each other in a more efficacious and productive manner.
Isn't this like saying "Only start threads that everyone already agrees on?" Would that mean any amount of controversy that may exist with certain topics would be off limits to even be discussed amongst yourselves?
Can you name a few topics that all different 'varieties' of SDA's would have absolute agreement on?
But do you have a 'list' of criteria that all SDA's would agree on in order to avoid any and all flaming?It would only apply to certain subjects that tend to cause a lot of unnecessary tension.
But do you have a 'list' of criteria that all SDA's would agree on in order to avoid any and all flaming?
so no questioning EGW? what do you mean by degrade? if i don't beleve she is a prophet then I can't talk about it here?Well, for starters people can stop putting up Ellen White threads that are designed to degrade her ministry.
This is one topic that causes a lot of tension in here. And as it has been disclosed already, it constitutes a flame to speak of her in a condescending manner.
so no questioning EGW? what do you mean by degrade? if i don't believe she is a prophet then I can't talk about it here?
this is the wrong prescpective to take. This makes any question about EGW off limits. That is not real adventism.Why would you want to talk about her faults? Would you like to discuss your faults in an open forum? Why throw stones?
wh? what is the purpose of that. The only trouble is in the mind of those who don't want to talk about the issues. you are making something a crime that is not a crime. You and people of your persuasion do not define adventism.If you don't believe she was a prophet then don't you think you should just keep that to yourself rather than come in here and stir up trouble with those who have great respect for her and the role that she played in the church?
i believe you ar misinterpeting and misapplying the issue. questioning is not disrespect.I do believe one of the Mods addressed this matter as being inappropriate.
that is your interpation. It is a debatable issue that is why we debate.So I don't see this as a debatable issue.
I don't think anyone has declared her to be a false prophet. that is your interpation of events. people have come looking for answers to convince them that EGW is what she and the church claim her to be.To come in here and declare her to be a false prophet constitutes a violation of the no flaming rule, since she is held in high regard (greatly respected) by several members of this forum (including myself).
To say that we cannot talk about issues that face adventism in the adventist fourm is wrong. This is something that is on going in Adventism. There are 2 well known and widely read magazines that talk about these issues in adventism. "Adventist Today" and "Specturm" magazine. This is not "your" adventism but it does represent a large segement of adventism. what you are saying is that as long as adventists "agree" with you they are adventist. As long as they agree with "your" understanding of how adventism is there is no problem. that is brainwashing. you do not represent what Adventism really is.
People are rude because they think they are better than the other person that disagrees with them.
With definitive boundaries upon which we can agree, much of this rudeness will be eliminated, since certain ideas which tend to give rise to such feelings will not be permitted to be inculcated in this forum. Hence, when much of the tension is removed people might just learn how to get along with each other in a more efficacious and productive manner.
If a person cannot tolerate other views I think that fits under the category of rudeness. Now it may be that rudeness is used as a more gentle word then we may want to use.I think the problem is not rudeness. I think the problem is that some people want to define Adventism according to themselves and what they believe. They cannot tollerate that Adventism has more variety they they want to make it out to be. they think varity is unfaithfulness
If a person cannot tolerate other views I think that fits under the category of rudeness. Now it may be that rudeness is used as a more gentle word then we may want to use.
Is it possible that there is something being taught by the SDA church represented by SDA members here could be untrue? Is it possible?So what then do you say about God, while knowing that He hates a lie?
He may put up with a lie for a time, but without a shadow of a doubt, He hates a lie.
Now then, should we entertain demons by allowing them to promote their false teachings among the brethren, or should we cast them out from among us?
You do not realize how serious these matters are! I know two people that used to be members here. Both of them are now atheists!
I imagine this forum did not help them much in making the decision to stay with Christ.
Without having boundaries of some sort, things like this will continue to happen.
Keep in mind that they will not be the only ones to answer for the decision that they have made to turn away from God. Those who helped them to make that decision will also answer for this!
Just to let you know, the teaching of Deism played a major role in their decision. The denial of a literal 7 day creation plays a part in all of this too.
Is it possible that there is something being taught by the SDA church represented by SDA members here could be untrue? Is it possible?
Respectfully...
It's a completely different question. I know dozens of people who have left their denomination over false teachings and NONE of them are atheist.A better question would be: If there is such a teaching, does it induce people to become atheists?
It's a completely different question. I know dozens of people who have left their denomination over false teachings and NONE of them are atheist.
Interestingly it is the fundamentalist view that I think drives people out of Christianity. For instance if I had to believe in 6 literal days of Creation and the assumption of a worldwide flood I would also leave Christianity. So I would put it to you that it was the fundamentalist who were the demons that drove people out of the church and into atheism.So what then do you say about God, while knowing that He hates a lie?
He may put up with a lie for a time, but without a shadow of a doubt, He hates a lie.
Now then, should we entertain demons by allowing them to promote their false teachings among the brethren, or should we cast them out from among us?
You do not realize how serious these matters are! I know two people that used to be members here. Both of them are now atheists!
I imagine this forum served in some way to help them make such a decision.
Without having boundaries of some sort, things like this will continue to happen.
Keep in mind that they will not be the only ones to answer for the decision that they have made to turn away from God. Those who helped them to make that decision will also answer for this!
Just to let you know, the teaching of Deism played a major role in their decision. The denial of a literal 7 day creation plays a part in all of this too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?