We need some SDA moderators

[Dathen]

Jumping back a bit, I agree with you TrustandObey. Those that are suitable for mods don't want to be, and those that want to be arn't suitable.

eg....
Cliff2, would be a good mod, yet dosn't want too and osn't have time.

I could, and have plenty of time, but I'm underage. If there was a SDA whp wanted to moderate, by now they would of applied. I know I would have if I was over 16..

Choosing a mod, is proving a hard task.....

 

[freeindeed2]

Hence, your view states that anyone that merely considers himself to be an SDA is an SDA. Thus this person can teach anything he so desires, and such teachings would be called SDA doctrine.

Sorry but this just doesn't make any sense at all. There is no point in calling this forum SDA if there isn't something in play to define what an SDA is. And if there is something in play to identify what an SDA is, and that person does not concur with it, then he is not an SDA. It's as simple as that.

And in all honesty, does this principle that you are speaking of really work in the Church?

Did the Apostles inculcate such an idea?

If so, what sense was there in Paul telling the Corinthians to be of the same mind and judgement? 1Cor. 1:10

For that matter, why not apply this principle of yours to Christianity in general? Why not let us be whatever we want to be and still be called Christian?

Hence there would be no use for the Bible, or the Day of Judgment. How well would that fair against what Jesus said in Matt. 7:21-23?

This is exactly the reason the question has been asked, how many of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs can a 'member' not believe in and still be called, or call themselves SDA?

 

[woobadooba]

Instead of arguing over these things, I think it would be more constructive to allow all active members of this forum to vote on what constitutes an SDA.

Once that is established, any teaching that does not agree with what we have agreed on as a group should not be inculcated in this forum.

Now, you ought to see that this doesn't mean people are going to be forced to leave this forum as a result of this. It just simply means they can't promote such teachings in here.

Now please keep in mind that this does not mean the 28 fundamental doctrines will determine what an SDA is. Those issues that the Church is not totally clear on can not be used as a means to make this determination.

 

[freeindeed2]

Now please keep in mind that this does not mean the 28 fundamental doctrines will determine what an SDA is. Those issues that the Church is not totally clear on can not be used as a means to make this determination.

Why would they be called 'Fundamental Beliefs' if the SDA church is not totally clear on them?

 

[woobadooba]

nevermind...

 

[woobadooba]

Why would they be called 'Fundamental Beliefs' if the SDA church is not totally clear on them?

Actually, I should re-state that. It's not a matter of what the Church thinks is totally clear, but what the Bible makes very obvious.

 

[tall73]

A moderator eliminating heresy by their view of what is biblical is just what we do not need. The current mods know the rules. That is all we need.

 

[Dathen]

I think at least one SDA mod would be good.

 

[woobadooba]

A moderator eliminating heresy by their view of what is biblical is just what we do not need. The current mods know the rules. That is all we need.

No, that is all you need, but that is not what's best for the group/forum, and you know it!

This forum is a mess right now because there is no order. And there is no order because there is nothing that we have all agreed on to define what an SDA is. Such things are to be obvious teachings of the Bible, not grey areas.

It's not about what the 28 fundamentals tell us we are, but what the Bible makes very obvious.

If you are willing to work with me on this, this place can turn into something beautiful. But if you are not willing to work with me on this then that is your choice.

I think it is a good idea to have a set of definitive beliefs that we all must agree on to constitute what will be allowed to be inculcated in this forum.

 

[tall73]

Hence, your view states that anyone that merely considers himself to be an SDA is an SDA. Thus this person can teach anything he so desires, and such teachings would be called SDA doctrine.

Not my view--the rules for this forum.
[/quote]

Sorry but this just doesn't make any sense at all. There is no point in calling this forum SDA if there isn't something in play to define what an SDA is. And if there is something in play to identify what an SDA is, and that person does not concur with it, then he is not an SDA. It's as simple as that.
[/quote]
If they are an sda member then they qualify.

And in all honesty, does this principle that you are speaking of really work in the Church?
[/qote]

This is not the church. And it makes perfect sense to allow someones local church to make that determination rather than an internet forum mod.

Did the Apostles inculcate such an idea?

If so, what sense was there in Paul telling the Corinthians to be of the same mind and judgement? 1Cor. 1:10

For that matter, why not apply this principle of yours to Christianity in general? Why not let us be whatever we want to be and still be called Christian?

Hence there would be no use for the Bible, or the Day of Judgment. How well would that fair against what Jesus said in Matt. 7:21-23?

I see o rules governing internet forums from the apostles. The local church deals w/ issues.

 

[tall73]

This forum is a mess because ppl can't have dicussion without flaming.

Mod's act on CF rules, they do not impose their own view of biblical orthodoxy.

 

[woobadooba]

This forum is a mess because ppl can't have dicussion without flaming.

Mod's act on CF rules, they do not impose their own view of biblical orthodoxy.

Most of these flames are the result of not having theological boundaries of some sort that the majority can rule on as being Biblically obvious.

Moreover, to take it even further, threads like the 3ABN ones that were active not too long ago, which publicly ridiculed certain leaders and ministries that are operative within our church, never should have been allowed to be posted in this forum. These threads hurt us significantly, as well as those that were the object of their hateful plot.

I also feel the same way about Ellen White threads. There are by far too many Ellen White bashing threads in the archives of this forum that never should have been posted. It's not a matter of questioning her prophetic gift. It's a matter of showing respect for the dead (Ellen White), as well as those who have cherished her writings.

Again, this wouldn't be the result of one mod, but something that as a group we would have to agree on.

Plain and simple, there ought to be boundaries. The current system is obviously not working to bring about peace within our forum. With such definitive boundaries in motion I believe we will significantly reduce the level of hostility that exists in here.

 

[woobadooba]

I see o rules governing internet forums from the apostles. The local church deals w/ issues.

It's not an issue of what constitutes an Internet rule; rather, it's an issue of what is morally accepted by the Church, and what type of conduct is promoted in the Bible.

Just as the Apostles expected God's people to be of the same mind and judgment during their time, such expectations as recorded in the Bible for our learning, exist for the Church today.

Hence, let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus. Phil. 2:5

 

[TrustAndObey]

My 2 cents...I know what a Seventh-day Adventist is.

I don't think we need group consensus to decide what an Adventist is.

The doctrine was defined for years and years before we were even born and any discussion of what is and isn't acceptable doesn't fly with me, because history proves it would just be another thread for flaming. It wouldn't be productive.

I also don't agree that the definition of Progressives are people that have found "newer" opinions/definitions. They're just different definitions, in my humble opinion.

When you have such different opinions and definitions, it's two different denominations at that point...again, in my humble opinion.

Even if it is, flaming someone that disagrees with you is doing a disservice to your belief system and theirs.

A moderator, I agree, can't decide what we talk about (within the rules) but the flaming has got to stop. Insulting someone's intelligence just because they disagree with you is ludicrous, unChristian, counterproductive, and against the rules here.

A moderator has to be willing to apply the rules no matter who it is that violates them.

All that being said, Erin has suggested that we pick Adventist moderators for this forum, so obviously people other than Adventists see that it's important to know the doctrine in order to know if someone is misrepresenting it to others.

Right?

Why else get people from a specific doctrine to come in and help out?

 

[woobadooba]

My 2 cents...I know what a Seventh-day Adventist is.

I don't think we need group consensus to decide what an Adventist is.

The doctrine was defined for years and years before we were even born and any discussion of what is and isn't acceptable doesn't fly with me, because history proves it would just be another thread for flaming. It wouldn't be productive.

But we have to start somewhere.

There are certain aspects of the 28 fundamental beliefs that aren't Biblically obvious, such as the time when the IJ began.

I don't think we have arrived on all matters of doctrine, as prescribed in the 28 fundamental beliefs.

There is still more to discover about God and His plan of salvation.


Moreover, there must be definitive boundaries in here. And we need to have a forum consensus to not override them.

It is because we lack such definitive boundaries that there are so many flames being thrown about in here. Furthermore, we must agree to support such boundaries, so as to report any violation of them to the proper authorities, to put a stop to such uncouth behavior.

If we do not have boundaries as such, we will continue to have a forum that is highly disruptive and
unChristlike.

If we all agree to work together on this, to incur the same mind and judgment as clearly prescribed in the Bible, we will have a forum that properly represents the body of Christ.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

all the historics,conservative evenglicals and progressives have some things in common even if they disagree on certian points. start there. what ties all these groups together.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Most of these flames are the result of not having theological boundaries of some sort that the majority can rule on as being Biblically obvious.

Quite the opposite flames are the result of people being rude, sometimes on purpose and sometimes by oversight. It is not a theological boundaries problem.

 

[woobadooba]

Quite the opposite flames are the result of people being rude, sometimes on purpose and sometimes by oversight. It is not a theological boundaries problem.

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.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

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.

so what boundries to you propose

 

[woobadooba]

so what boundries to you propose

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.