We need some SDA moderators

[freeindeed2]

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?

 

[woobadooba]

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?

It would only apply to certain subjects that tend to cause a lot of unnecessary tension.

 

[freeindeed2]

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?

 

[woobadooba]

But do you have a 'list' of criteria that all SDA's would agree on in order to avoid any and all flaming?

We would have to come together as a group to determine what won't be tolerated in here.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

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 beleve she is a prophet then I can't talk about it here?

 

[woobadooba]

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?

Why would you want to talk about her faults? Would you like to discuss your faults in an open forum? Why throw stones?

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 do believe one of the Mods addressed this matter as being inappropriate. So I don't see this as a debatable issue. 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).

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Why would you want to talk about her faults? Would you like to discuss your faults in an open forum? Why throw stones?

this is the wrong prescpective to take. This makes any question about EGW off limits. That is not real 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?

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.

I do believe one of the Mods addressed this matter as being inappropriate.

i believe you ar misinterpeting and misapplying the issue. questioning is not disrespect.

So I don't see this as a debatable issue.

that is your interpation. It is a debatable issue that is why we debate.

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).

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 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.

 

[erin74]

Well this thread is only mildly off topic from where it started....

just a couple of points of clarification.

1. I'm not asking you to 'pick' mods as such. I was merely asking for a suggestion of a few names of people who you think might make good mods.
I am just looking for people who seem to be respected generally across the board, no matter what theology.

I'm not looking for a popularity contest, nor was I trying to eliminate any group/people from being within criteria of nomination. I just didn't want a battle where everyone put up the name of the person who they thought could best get one better of those with whom they disagree.

2. Congregational forums are self-identifying. At times this does get a bit grey as you have people who are in more than one congregation, etc. It is not the job of CF to define what constitutes an Anglican, SDA, Lutheran, etc. I have found in Anglican churches I've been in people who hold views hugely different to mine. We don't kick them out - they choose to attend our church. The same can be said here.

In the Anglican forum we have an enormous diversity of views. Even Higgs2 and I are probably poles apart theologically. What we both recognise is that we both are Anglican, and we both attend and are members of Anglican churches.

I think that the 39 articles are foundational to Anglicanism - many Anglicans on this forum reject them entirely.

If we wanted to we could become militant over which version of the Prayer Book you have to follow to be Anglican, we could eliminate those members who belong to continuing Anglican churches, we could take all kinds of steps. But CF is structured on self identification. So if you self identify you are permitted to post in that forum. Yes it can be confronting to have completely different views espoused in your own forum. But you are free to disagree with them. You are not free to flame them though, or to tell them they are not SDA.

I hope that helps - feel free to come back on it.
If you want to continue with the other discussion, it might be better in a seperate thread though.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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.

The problem is the rudeness in the discussion and it is because someone is so certain that they are right and others wrong. You solution is to merely limit discussions, it does nothing to help the underlying problem. In fact you have chosen a method which is often used by Adventists and that is limit anything about Ellen White. But Ellen White is used as F.D. Nicols and Morris Venden have said as a "divine commentator". So in any given discussion all someone has to do is bring in what they think EGW said or a real quote and according to your rule the discussion is over.

As for the moderators, I think it would be a good idea to have SDA moderators but rather then nominate some it might be best to have some volunteers who would be willing to spend the time moderating. and then maybe get some input from the group. I think the committment is something that many of us can't find the time to do, I certainly know that is the case for me.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

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

 

[DarylFawcett]

From what I read here I think TrustAndObey would make a good moderator.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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.

 

[woobadooba]

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.

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.

 

[freeindeed2]

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...

 

[woobadooba]

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...

A better question would be: If there is such a teaching, does it induce people to become atheists?

 

[freeindeed2]

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.

 

[woobadooba]

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.

You just don't get it.

 

[freeindeed2]

You just don't get it.

Oh, I get it.

But, is it possible?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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.

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.

When people start to declare what God hates it is generally really only what they themselves hate, and often their reasons for hating those things are poorly developed and mostly based upon some tradition. Look at Islam it has become the most intolerant Religion in the world while claiming it is following the will of God.

So if your boundary is that you can't question a six literal day creation you will just as surely drive people away from Christianity. As the old CCR songs says: "before you 'cuse me take a look at yourself". I have become pretty convinced that fundamentalism has become the biggest problem in Christianity. While Liberal Christianity certainly has its problems at least it does not throw people out of the religion over differences of interpretations.

 

[woobadooba]

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2Ti 4:3-4)