Wiki: Seventh-day Adventists

[longhair75]

These are the SDA Forum rules pending an approval vote. A poll will be created after we have allowed a reasonable time period for all SDA members who are interested to voice their opinions. Voting will be open only to Seventh-day Adventists. Use of socks in order to vote more than once will not be allowed.

Welcome to the Seventh-day Adventist Forum. In accordance with the intent of Christian Forums, the SDA Forum is open to everyone–Adventist Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians. All general Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) apply in the SDA Forum and sub-forums. In addition, all posters are expected to observe the following forum-specific rules:

1. Main SDA Forum

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

Sub-forums

2. Debate/Discussion

2.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in an Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists. Other Christians and non-Christians are allowed to debate respectfully.

2.2 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

2.3 There is a specific Creation & Evolution (http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html) forum, which would provide greater opportunity for discussion if the interest is to debate evolution without God’s involvement versus intelligent design. Therefore, the topic of atheistic evolution is not to be discussed/debated in the SDA forum, nor is the topic of theistic evolution to be discussed/debated in the SDA forum.

2.4 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion.

For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."


2.5 No topics that are considered to be heresy, such as, claiming that Christ had a sinful nature shall be discussed on this forum.

2.6 If a poster makes a claim they have the responsibility of showing the proof for it at the time they make the claim.

3. Traditional Adventist Fellowship

3.1 This sub-forum is for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

3.2 Non-Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists. Debate in this forum is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Adventists.

4. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

4.1 Please stay on topic as much as possible. Temporary deviation from the topic will be permitted as long as the integrity of the topic is not compromised.

5. Right to Privacy

5.1 You will not violate the privacy of either members or non-members by posting identifiable personal information about them; e.g. full names, addresses, email addresses or telephone numbers. You will not repost the contents of private messages or emails without the prior permission of the sender. You will also not post your own personally identifiable information such as full name, address, email address, or telephone number in the open forums.

[TrustAndObey]

I hope I'm doing this right!

My two cents to add:

I like the suggestions for rules so far. Some of them are rules that were already in place on CF as a whole (such as not bashing an important figure in a person's denomination, no foul language, etc).

I agree that when someone asks about the Adventist doctrine, it should be answered with either the official teachings of the church or expressly stated as personal opinion.

If a person asks a question about our doctrine, we need to quit arguing in those threads. It looks horrible and another thread could be started to discuss it without a visitor having to endure reading through all the comments.

I also like the idea of changing the names of the subfora.

Sarcasm and ridicule are pretty common in our subforum and I really hate to see it coming from anybody. We need to treat each other with respect. Sarcasm and flaming were already against the rules, so I'd like to see those rules stay in effect.

I would like to see the subfora for Conservative and Liberal Adventists remain a safe haven where one or the other cannot come in there to debate. I would like for them to remain non-debate subfora. Sometimes we don't want to defend, we just want to fellowship with people that feel the same way.

Non-Adventists should be totally welcomed in our subforum, but I think there needs to be a sticky about acceptable conduct while visiting. We've had trouble with a few particular people and I think if they step over the line with their comments, they should expect to be have some disciplinary actions taken.

I'm sure I want to add more but I have to go take a nap! :)

[RC_NewProtestants]

Most of the rules suggested are not rules but restrictions of discussions. Rules should be directed at conduct on the forum.

I would recommend we get a copy of the previous forum rules and simply those and use that as our rules. Unfortunately some here seem to think that rules are meant to limit content of discussion which would be fine if it was restricted to flames, or foul language.

I will ask Woob to change his opening wiki thread to reflect that of rules rather then restrictions on contents it should reflect a more realistic set of rules. If you want the discussion then that is held here on the discussion forum of the wiki.

Since there is only one page of Wiki if Woob does not edit it down I will do so. Wiki is not made to remain unedited by the users and Woob has violated the concept by asking that it not be edited.

[woobadooba]

Most of the rules suggested are not rules but restrictions of discussions. Rules should be directed at conduct on the forum.

I would recommend we get a copy of the previous forum rules and simply those and use that as our rules. Unfortunately some here seem to think that rules are meant to limit content of discussion which would be fine if it was restricted to flames, or foul language.

I will ask Woob to change his opening wiki thread to reflect that of rules rather then restrictions on contents it should reflect a more realistic set of rules. If you want the discussion then that is held here on the discussion forum of the wiki.

Since there is only one page of Wiki if Woob does not edit it down I will do so. Wiki is not made to remain unedited by the users and Woob has violated the concept by asking that it not be edited.

RC,

other congregational forums are discussing options before editing things out. What I have listed merely serves as something to work with.

If MAJORITY rules that something should be taken away from what I put up, then that is fine. But if you go and delete something without getting a majority vote you will be in violation of the purpose for this Wiki, which is to establish rules for the SDA forum via Majority vote. Now, you can add something to it if you want to, but you are not to delete anything until a majority vote is made to do so.

So far Majority rules that they remain as they are.

However, I believe that a time frame should be established before a final ruling is given on what will ultimately remain or be added.

Now if you take it upon yourself to edit anything that I have put up out, then I will simply put it back up again, until MAJORITY rules otherwise.

Now you can choose to be mature about this, or childish. The choice is yours.

Let's just discuss the options and be civil here.

By the way, a rule does constitute a restriction of some sort. So your point about what I have put up as not being real rules is moot.

[woobadooba]

T&O,

I like the suggestion that you have made about keeping threads that are put up for answers to questions to remain non-debative.

Please add this to the OP.

As we move along here more things will be added, and some things may be taken away. Majority rule will ultimately determine what will be.

Please feel free to add other rule suggestions.

[woobadooba]

I would also like to submit that unless a member has an SDA icon, that person can not participate in this voting process.

Moreover, a person that does not have at least 100 posts, but does have an SDA icon can not participate in this voting process.

My reasons for this are:

1. We can not be sure that those who do not have an SDA icon are looking out for the best interests of the SDA forum. They very well may be impostors. Now that anyone could have any icon they want to at will, this is not an unreasonable thing to suggest.
2. Those that do have an SDA icon and have less than 100 posts could very well be trolls wishing to come in here to make this voting process a difficult task.

Of course, we already know those who belong to our church that are members of the forum. So this rule will only apply to those with whom we are not familiar.

How do all of you feel about this?

[Sophia7]

RC,

other congregational forums are discussing options before editing things out. What I have listed merely serves as something to work with.

If MAJORITY rules that something should be taken away from what I put up, then that is fine. But if you go and delete something without getting a majority vote you will be in violation of the purpose for this Wiki, which is to establish rules for the SDA forum via Majority vote. Now, you can add something to it if you want to, but you are not to delete anything until a majority vote is made to do so.

Actually, people in many of the other congregational forums are at this point discussing and editing and writing rules, not necessarily voting. Anyone can edit these wikis (just look at what's been happening in the general CF rules wiki), and while discussion is important, it is not a requirement that people get your permission before changing the rules that you individually wrote without taking a vote on them.

So far Majority rules that they remain as they are.

So far you have only T&O agreeing with you in this wiki discussion. That's not a majority.

However, I believe that a time frame should be established before a final ruling is given on what will ultimately remain or be added.

Now if you take it upon yourself to edit anything that I have put up out, then I will simply put it back up again, until MAJORITY rules otherwise.

Majority didn't rule in the first place; you took it upon yourself to dictate the rules that you think should be adopted in the SDA forum.

Now you can choose to be mature about this, or childish. The choice is yours.

Let's just discuss the options and be civil here.

By the way, a rule does constitute a restriction of some sort. So your point about what I have put up as not being real rules is moot.

For the record, my opinion is that we should keep the SDA forum-specific rules similar to how they were before. We should allow debate among Adventists (all Adventists) and not restrict the topics that can be discussed. Non-Adventists and non-Christians (since all of CF is now open to them) would be limited to fellowship posts and questions.

If the subforums remain, I think we should keep the subforum titles as they are, or we could get rid of the subforums altogether and create separate fellowship and debate subforums instead.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I have added more relevant parts to Woobs opening.

Non-Adventists and non-Christians (since all of CF is now open to them) would be limited to fellowship posts and questions.

We might want another forum for questions and debate with Non Adventists. That would be the easiest way to deal with non adventists but not sure how that would be created.

[woobadooba]

Actually, people in many of the other congregational forums are at this point discussing and editing and writing rules, not necessarily voting. Anyone can edit these wikis (just look at what's been happening in the general CF rules wiki), and while discussion is important, it is not a requirement that people get your permission before changing the rules that you individually wrote without taking a vote on them.

If you had payed any attention at all to what I had said, you would know that I had said that the suggestions that I have offered already for rules are not final, but merely serve as a means to get things going.

Also, you do not have my permission to delete anything that I have said; and unless majority rules that something be deleted from what I posted, I will post it again.

Now, if you want to add to it, that is fine.

The idea here is to add to what was written. Then we can all vote on what goes and what stays; but to delete any suggestion for a rule without a vote is not proper, because then you are taking it upon yourself to dictate what stays and what goes.

Let's not be hypocritical here!


Majority didn't rule in the first place; you took it upon yourself to dictate the rules that you think should be adopted in the SDA forum.

I never said majority ruled. I simply suggested that the majority agreed with what I had` posted. There is one other person that I know of that sent me a PM, agreeing to what I had posted.

What we need to do is come to a decision on what constitutes a majority vote, and when the final vote will be ratified.

We should allow debate among Adventists (all Adventists) and not restrict the topics that can be discussed. Non-Adventists and non-Christians (since all of CF is now open to them) would be limited to fellowship posts and questions.

I do not agree with this.

If the subforums remain, I think we should keep the subforum titles as they are, or we could get rid of the subforums altogether and create separate fellowship and debate subforums instead.

I actually think it is a good idea to get rid of the sub-forums. But if they remain I think the title 'progressive' should go, because it is a covert insult to the traditionals.

[Sophia7]

We might want another forum for questions and debate with Non Adventists. That would be the easiest way to deal with non adventists but not sure how that would be created.

I think that would be a good idea.

[woobadooba]

RC,

I edited out the flame that you put in the OP.

If you want to add something to the OP, please do so without flaming.

[honorthesabbath]

I want to add my support for the suggestions to the new rules that Woo and T&O have written.

And I would also add that I agree too that a section should be added for answers and debate with non-Adventists.

I cannot right now think of any additions I'd like to see. But may add some later.

[Sophia7]

I do not agree with this.

Do you want to allow non-Adventists and non-Christians to debate with us in the SDA forum then, or what part specifically were you disagreeing with? You did not address that in your proposed rules. RC added some lines from the old SDA forum-specific guidelines about allowing only those who identify themselves as Adventists to debate.

The new rules are now in effect, and the old Christians-only restrictions are gone. Therefore, atheists can now post in our forum, as well as non-Adventist Christians. We can't restrict their access, but we can decide if we want to allow them to debate there or not. We need to come to some concrete conclusions soon so that the moderators can handle any reports that come in.

However, regardless of what we decide about debating by non-Adventists and non-Christians in the SDA forum, my opinion is that it would be a huge mistake to censor discussion among Adventists by outlawing the topics that Woob has written in his wiki entry.

Also, the general CF rules will cover flaming, proselytizing for other religions, etc., so those things don't need to be addressed in our forum-specific rules.

[Sophia7]

I want to add my support for the suggestions to the new rules that Woo and T&O have written.

And I would also add that I agree too that a section should be added for answers and debate with non-Adventists.

I cannot right now think of any additions I'd like to see. But may add some later.

Keep in mind that if we added a subforum for debate with non-Adventists, we still could not restrict their access to the rest of the SDA forum, only the content of their posts. Our rules have to cover whether they can debate in the main SDA forum and/or any subforums.

[woobadooba]

Do you want to allow non-Adventists and non-Christians to debate with us in the SDA forum then, or what part specifically were you disagreeing with? You did not address that in your proposed rules. RC added some lines from the old SDA forum-specific guidelines about allowing only those who identify themselves as Adventists to debate.

This is what I had said in the OP:

"7. The SDA forum welcomes all people for discussion. However, please note that aggressive and antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated."

And I still stand by this.

Now then, as for your fear of allowing Atheists to discuss things with us in the main forum, there is no need to be troubled by this, because if my other point of contention concerning the worldview of evolution is heeded, we would have no reason to fear atheist's coming in and creating trouble for our forum.

However, regardless of what we decide about debating by non-Adventists and non-Christians in the SDA forum, my opinion is that it would be a huge mistake to censor discussion among Adventists by outlawing the topics that Woob has written in his wiki entry.

A huge mistake to forbid the discussion of dangerous heresies???

Nonsense!

If anything, it is a huge mistake to allow for the discussion of dangerous heresies. TWO of our members have already left the faith (not just the SDA church, BUT THE FAITH) as a result of one of these heresies.

Don't you care about that!!!

Yes, I am angry about this, because I feel that you just don't care anymore.

I am amazed that you would be worried about atheists coming into the main forum, but you are OK with discussions that promote the teaching of evolution.

TRULY AMAZING!

[TrustAndObey]

Woob, I didn't want to be the first person to suggest the new rules because I knew this would happen. I commend you for doing it, because now you'll be the punching bag (which you probably already knew).

I have a question. Is there a Progressive Adventist church anywhere in this country, or are all of the "progressives" attending Traditional churches?

If there aren't any churches then I'm wondering if there is Progressive Adventist doctrine separate from the church that has been in existence all this time?

If the progressives are attending Traditional churches, shouldn't all this debating be within the walls of the particular church they attend?

Back to the rules.....

I don't think Atheists should be allowed to debate in the main SDA forum. I think we should have a special debate section. I also think we should keep the conservative and liberal sections (with the new names).

I think it needs to be a rule that when we have guests asking about a particular belief, they get the traditional in-existence Adventist view with no debates allowed in those threads.

I'm totally okay with not allowing debates on evolution. I only know of one progressive that believes in that anyway, so it's definitely not a majority-based topic, even for progressives.

Opening several threads on the same exact topic is spamming, am I right? We need to keep that rule for sure.

Also, I liked one of the current moderator's suggestion that when we start a thread we need to put "[non-debate]" or "[debate]" in the thread title. If it's non-debate that means no debating between Conservative and Liberal.

I think that's a great rule that we could start doing now.

[woobadooba]

I have a question. Is there a Progressive Adventist church anywhere in this country, or are all of the "progressives" attending Traditional churches?

If there aren't any churches then I'm wondering if there is Progressive Adventist doctrine separate from the church that has been in existence all this time?

If the progressives are attending Traditional churches, shouldn't all this debating be within the walls of the particular church they attend?

You raise a good point here. In the Pentecostal wiki they define what a true Pentecostal is; and unless a person fits that description he can't identify himself as a Pentecostal.

I think we should do the same thing in our forum.

I don't think Atheists should be allowed to debate in the main SDA forum. I think we should have a special debate section. I also think we should keep the conservative and liberal sections (with the new names).I am OK with this.

I think it needs to be a rule that when we have guests asking about a particular belief, they get the traditional in-existence Adventist view with no debates allowed in those threads.I am also OK with this.

I'm totally okay with not allowing debates on evolution. I only know of one progressive that believes in that anyway, so it's definitely not a majority-based topic, even for progressives.Personally, I don't see how someone can call himself a Seventh-day Adventist while believing in theistic evolution, since one of our core beliefs is that the seventh day sabbath is to be kept holy.

If you do away with a literal 6 day creation, you don't have much use for a seventh day Sabbath. There just isn't any sense in it at all!

Opening several threads on the same exact topic is spamming, am I right? We need to keep that rule for sure.Agreed

Also, I liked one of the current moderator's suggestion that when we start a thread we need to put "[non-debate]" or "[debate]" in the thread title. If it's non-debate that means no debating between Conservative and Liberal.I think this is a good idea too.

[Sophia7]

This is what I had said in the OP:

"7. The SDA forum welcomes all people for discussion. However, please note that aggressive and antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated."

And I still stand by this.

But that doesn't specifically state whether they can debate there or not. We need to make it clear. And "aggressive and antagonistic behavior" is too subjective. Flaming is already against the general CF rules; we don't need to address it.

Now then, as for your fear of allowing Atheists to discuss things with us in the main forum, there is no need to be troubled by this, because if my other point of contention concerning the worldview of evolution is heeded, we would have no reason to fear atheist's coming in and creating trouble for our forum.

I have no fear of atheists coming in to discuss things with us. I actually wouldn't mind having more open rules that would allow non-Adventists to debate respectfully (as the Lutheran forum has done for a long time). I thought it was you who worried about "wolves" coming in to attack us. In any case, the reason that I brought it up is that our rules need to specifically address it. They can't be vague about whether debate is allowed or not.

A huge mistake to forbid the discussion of dangerous heresies???

Nonsense!

It's your opinion that these are heresies. Not everyone agrees with you. For example, the postlapsarian nature of Christ was not that long ago the majority view among Adventists, and it is still held among many. It is presented in an article on the Biblical Research Institute site as one possible Christological perspective, and the prelapsarian view is also presented, without any judgment by the denomination as to which is correct. The Adventist Church does not have an official position on this.

If anything, it is a huge mistake to allow for the discussion of dangerous heresies. TWO of our members have already left the faith (not just the SDA church, BUT THE FAITH) as a result of one of these heresies.

I read their posts in the non-Christian forums and had some discussions with them at the time. One of the reasons that they left Christianity was that they were directed by non-Christians to Deist websites, which undermined their faith. They did not deconvert because 3ABN was being discussed or because EGW was being questioned in the SDA forum.

Don't you care about that!!!

Yes, I am angry about this, because I feel that you just don't care anymore.

Of course I care; I had several discussions with those two members and tried to encourage them in their faith. I also protested in the staff forums against the policies that allowed Deist websites to be promoted here at CF. However, I disagree with your identification of heresy and with your ideas about what things should not be discussed in the SDA forum.

I am amazed that you would be worried about atheists coming into the main forum, but you are OK with discussions that promote the teaching of evolution.

TRULY AMAZING!

I would welcome atheists into our forum. I just think that we need to make it clear whether they can debate or not. I wouldn't mind making the SDA forum much more open than it has been. If people want to make a separate debate subforum, I would be fine with that, too.

[woobadooba]

I thought it was you who worried about "wolves" coming in to attack us. In any case, the reason that I brought it up is that our rules need to specifically address it. They can't be vague about whether debate is allowed or not.

This is a concern; but since we have the right to make up our own rules, there is no need to be concerned about this, because we can devise our rules in such a way that we can allow for them to come in and enter into discussion with us, while not permitting them to discuss certain things such as evolution.

It's your opinion that these are heresies. Nonsense!

The Bible is very clear on these matters. Just because you choose to ignore its testimony, that doesn't mean it is a mere opinion that such teachings are heretical.

This is a battle that you will not win, Sophia.

I read their posts in the non-Christian forums and had some discussions with them at the time. One of the reasons that they left Christianity was that they were directed by non-Christians to Deist websites, which undermined their faith. They did not deconvert because 3ABN was being discussed or because EGW was being questioned in the SDA forum.Deism promotes the idea of theistic evolution. It was the worldview of theistic evolution that ultimately led them down the wrong path, to become full blown atheists. Yet, you would like to have such heretical views promoted in our forum, while knowing that it has caused people to turn away from the faith?

We're done here, Sophia.

I have nothing more to say to you.

Majority vote will rule!

[Sophia7]

Woob, I didn't want to be the first person to suggest the new rules because I knew this would happen. I commend you for doing it, because now you'll be the punching bag (which you probably already knew).

I have a question. Is there a Progressive Adventist church anywhere in this country, or are all of the "progressives" attending Traditional churches?

If there aren't any churches then I'm wondering if there is Progressive Adventist doctrine separate from the church that has been in existence all this time?

If the progressives are attending Traditional churches, shouldn't all this debating be within the walls of the particular church they attend?

There is no Progressive Adventist denomination, but individual congregations can vary, ranging from traditional/conservative to evangelical or progressive or liberal (or whatever other labels may apply). There is debating among these groups within the walls of many churches.

Back to the rules.....

I don't think Atheists should be allowed to debate in the main SDA forum. I think we should have a special debate section. I also think we should keep the conservative and liberal sections (with the new names).

A special debate section could be a good idea. We would have to specifically state in our rules that non-Adventists could debate only in that area.

I think it needs to be a rule that when we have guests asking about a particular belief, they get the traditional in-existence Adventist view with no debates allowed in those threads.

I totally disagree with this. Woob's version is a little better:

4. When people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion.

I could live with that.

I'm totally okay with not allowing debates on evolution. I only know of one progressive that believes in that anyway, so it's definitely not a majority-based topic, even for progressives.

It doesn't matter how many people agree with it. I don't think it should be banned. It is an issue among many Adventists (just not too many around here currently). I don't believe that we should limit discussion to "majority-based topics." If CF did that, annihilationism would still be a restricted topic.

Opening several threads on the same exact topic is spamming, am I right? We need to keep that rule for sure.

This could too easily be abused in order to censor discussion of a certain topic. Spamming would be more like intentionally making duplicate posts. The new CF rules do cover spamming but only in regard to "promoting personal commercial ventures."

Also, I liked one of the current moderator's suggestion that when we start a thread we need to put "[non-debate]" or "[debate]" in the thread title. If it's non-debate that means no debating between Conservative and Liberal.

I think that's a great rule that we could start doing now.

If we keep the subforums as they are (name change or not), then I don't see the point of this. Those who don't want debate from the other side could post in their respective subforums. If we got rid of the subforums, then it might be a good idea. I would be more in favor of having separate fellowship and debate subforums, though.

[Sophia7]

You raise a good point here. In the Pentecostal wiki they define what a true Pentecostal is; and unless a person fits that description he can't identify himself as a Pentecostal.

I think we should do the same thing in our forum.

How would you define an Adventist?

[Sophia7]

I would also like to submit that unless a member has an SDA icon, that person can not participate in this voting process.

Moreover, a person that does not have at least 100 posts, but does have an SDA icon can not participate in this voting process.

My reasons for this are:

1. We can not be sure that those who do not have an SDA icon are looking out for the best interests of the SDA forum. They very well may be impostors. Now that anyone could have any icon they want to at will, this is not an unreasonable thing to suggest.
2. Those that do have an SDA icon and have less than 100 posts could very well be trolls wishing to come in here to make this voting process a difficult task.

Of course, we already know those who belong to our church that are members of the forum. So this rule will only apply to those with whom we are not familiar.

How do all of you feel about this?

I skipped over this post earlier, but I disagree. I don't think that Adventists should be forced to use the SDA-specific icon. We are Christians and Protestants as well. All of those icons are applicable.

[tall73]

I say leave the sub-forums for fellowship among the groups, leave the main forum for fellowship among all Adventists and respectful questions and then have a debate area where anyone can discuss anything. This would solver our problems for the most part.

[thecountrydoc]

SORRY ABOUT THIS, BUT THIS IS THE FOURTH ATTEMPT TO POST HERE. EACH POST HAS DISAPPEARED WHEN I HIT SEND. IF THIS GETS THROUGH, I WILL ONLY SAY THAT I WILL TRY AGAIN LATER.

DOC

[RC_NewProtestants]

Woob wrote:
If MAJORITY rules that something should be taken away from what I put up, then that is fine. But if you go and delete something without getting a majority vote you will be in violation of the purpose for this Wiki, which is to establish rules for the SDA forum via Majority vote. Now, you can add something to it if you want to, but you are not to delete anything until a majority vote is made to do so.


Like you deleted my material, was that a majority vote. but I will not delete your material I will simply say Reject after each one I disagree with. Why would the SDA forum want to be known as the place where nothing outside of traditional Adventist viewpoints can even be discussed. If you are concerned about how Adventists are viewed then you cannot have such incredibly restrictive rules.

[woobadooba]

Woob wrote:


Like you deleted my material, was that a majority vote. but I will not delete your material I will simply say Reject after each one I disagree with. Why would the SDA forum want to be known as the place where nothing outside of traditional Adventist viewpoints can even be discussed. If you are concerned about how Adventists are viewed then you cannot have such incredibly restrictive rules.

I am not saying we can't discuss things outside of traditional adventism. What I am saying is that there are certain doctrines that ought to have no place at all in the SDA forum.

[Sophia7]

I say leave the sub-forums for fellowship among the groups, leave the main forum for fellowship among all Adventists and respectful questions and then have a debate area where anyone can discuss anything. This would solver our problems for the most part.

I think this would be fair.

[woobadooba]

I think this would be fair.

Fair to who, the progressives who want to have an anything goes forum?

When I say 'anything goes' I am referring to doctrine.

[Sophia7]

Here's something to think about: how does it look to non-Adventists who read our rules and see a prohibition against discussing Danny and Linda Shelton, and they have no clue who those people are? Do you really want them Googling the names out of curiosity and reading a bunch of anti-3ABN websites? For those who are worried about the image that we present to other Christians, that's not going to help.

[woobadooba]

Here's something to think about: how does it look to non-Adventists who read our rules and see a prohibition against discussing Danny and Linda Shelton, and they have no clue who those people are? Do you really want them Googling the names out of curiosity and reading a bunch of anti-3ABN websites? For those who are worried about the image that we present to other Christians, that's not going to help.


Their personal problems are none of our business.

If people find 3ABN hate sites it will not be our fault.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Their personal problems are none of our business.

If people find 3ABN hate sites it will not be our fault.

And they will find this site that says Adventists are not allowed to talk about them on this Adventist forum. I placed a reject on most all of you material woob. It is nice that you got the ball rolling but your technique is pretty poor. It would be nice if the people on this forum thought about other perspectives and not merely their own. Freedom is much better then restricting freedom. Right now Woobs rules reads as a "things I don't like"list. The rules should be guiding principles rather then specific topics forbidden. Look at the guidelines I posted, I would suggest that you read those and see if you can agree, remove your list and lets work on statements that are agreeable between everyone on the forum rather then one particular view. And if you don't think that diversity is actually allowed in the Adventist church I will be happy to post an article by our current GC president which acknowledges the diversity of opinion in the SDA church.

[Sophia7]

Their personal problems are none of our business.

If people find 3ABN hate sites it will not be our fault.

They'll be much more likely to look for them if we mention the subject in our rules.

[Sophia7]

Freedom is much better then restricting freedom. Right now Woobs rules reads as a "things I don't like"list. The rules should be guiding principles rather then specific topics forbidden. Look at the guidelines I posted, I would suggest that you read those and see if you can agree, remove your list and lets work on statements that are agreeable between everyone on the forum rather then one particular view.

Yes, I'm in favor of a few guiding principles such as you have suggested, rather than censorship of specific topics. I think we should keep things as simple as possible.

[tall73]

Fair to who, the progressives who want to have an anything goes forum?

When I say 'anything goes' I am referring to doctrine.


The suggestion would make it fair to all. There would be an official place to ask questions and fellowship--the main forum. It would be free of the sorts of debates we see now. It would be the first, welcoming place they see.

It would be fair to the traditionals and progressives who get their own fellowship sub-forum.

It would be fair to those who want to debate because they would have a sub-forum.

[tall73]

There seems to be a notion that this process is majority rules. it is not. The guidelines call for consensus, or some level of agreement. That is why they are using a wiki process. The goal is to get folks to all come to terms and find something they can live with. That takes dialogue and at times compromise.

If that is not done then, if groups can't come to terms, then they have said they may make sub-forums. Of course, in our case we already have those. So likely they would leave it more or less the way it was before. Therefore it is in the best interest of all of us to begin working towards something we can all live with.

Also, the sub-forums we already have are guided by consensus of those who post there. So the traditionals can come to terms in their sub-forum and the progressives in theirs.

[tall73]

For the progressive sub-forum I suggest that debate is allowed only by those who do not hold to all 28 fundamentals, or who have questions on them, or who interpret them differently.

In other words, pretty much the way it used to be.

[DrStupid_Ben]

The first step, I think, is to have a plan for a structure. Consider this as a development of some previously proposed models:

Structure

Main SDA Forum

“An official place to ask questions and fellowship”
When questions are asked, official church statements and guidelines should be referred to. Opinion should be identified as such.
Conduct rules should apply.

Sub Forums

Debate/Discussion

No restriction on scope of discussion. This allows for consideration of different views when engaging in discussion.
By the nature of it being under the Main SDA Forum, the majority of its users will no doubt identify as SDA, however people of other denominations and non-Christians are not restricted.
Conduct rules should apply.

Traditional

The label “traditional” is in common usage in the Adventist community, and the simplest description is “those who agree with all 28 fundamentals.”
This sub-forum will be for questions and fellowship between those who identify themselves as such.
The specific rules of this sub-forum can be decided by those who use it regularly.
Conduct rules should apply.

Progressive

The label “progressive” is also in common usage in the Adventist community, and the simplest description is “those who disagree with, question, or differently interpret the 28 Fundamentals.”
This sub-forum will be for questions and fellowship between those who identify themselves as such.
The specific rules of this sub-forum can be decided by those who use it regularly.
Conduct rules should apply.


So, in short, the structure could be:

Main SDA Forum

Sub-Forums:
Debate and Descussion
Traditional Fellowship
Progressive Fellowship


RC_NewProtestants

And if you don't think that diversity is actually allowed in the Adventist church I will be happy to post an article by our current GC president which acknowledges the diversity of opinion in the SDA church.

I think you should post a link to the article RC. I would be interested in reading it. I recently watched one of the Lets Talk programmes where Jan Paulsen stated that the SDA Church acknowledges and welcomes diversity in opinion by its members, and has provided the 28 Fundamentals as a guideline by which to view the diversity.

Once we get an organised structure, we can then work out the details of conduct. ie. no flaming, no abusive language, no spmming etc.

[tall73]

Just one note on that Ben, the current top-level CF rules do not allow ANY forum to exclude posts by anyone.

Therefore all sub-forums will have to allow anyone to post there, but debate can be limited to certain groups.

[Sophia7]

Once we get an organised structure, we can then work out the details of conduct. ie. no flaming, no abusive language, no spmming etc.

Those details will be covered by the general CF rules, so we don't need to address them. Otherwise, I think your suggestions could work.

[maco]

Jesus is the foundation of the Christian faith. There is no salvation found in any other name. Having said that, I believe there are people at different levels of spiritual understanding and ability.

People who are happy with believing the basics of their Christian faith, for whatever reason, need a peaceful place to be nourished and encouraged in their faith to continue on in loving God and loving neighbor as they serve without debate or questions. Now, as the Lord leads, these same people need a place to test what they believe. If and when the Lord leads them to seek deeper truth they need a place where things can be tested, questioned and strengthened by Scripture and by the leading of the Spirit. A place where they can test ALL things so that, through Scripture, we may hold fast to that which is good.

If a doctrine is of God it will stand the test of Scripture as a whole through debate. This takes time and hard work with freedom to question ALL things. Once all the fluff, traditions and denominational influeneces are removed from any particular doctrine, then and only then, can the Spirit reveal the deeper things of God. Now, the problem with this is that we may find it hard to find fellowship once we have allowed the Spirit to lead us into all truth. There are not many people who are willing or even able to travel down this road.

As for me, let the debates begin and let God be true and every man a liar.

Remember, iron sharpens iron. Sometimes sparks fly when iron is being sharpened.

[reddogs]

I hope I'm doing this right!

My two cents to add:

I like the suggestions for rules so far. Some of them are rules that were already in place on CF as a whole (such as not bashing an important figure in a person's denomination, no foul language, etc).

I agree that when someone asks about the Adventist doctrine, it should be answered with either the official teachings of the church or expressly stated as personal opinion.

If a person asks a question about our doctrine, we need to quit arguing in those threads. It looks horrible and another thread could be started to discuss it without a visitor having to endure reading through all the comments.

I also like the idea of changing the names of the subfora.

Sarcasm and ridicule are pretty common in our subforum and I really hate to see it coming from anybody. We need to treat each other with respect. Sarcasm and flaming were already against the rules, so I'd like to see those rules stay in effect.

I would like to see the subfora for Conservative and Liberal Adventists remain a safe haven where one or the other cannot come in there to debate. I would like for them to remain non-debate subfora. Sometimes we don't want to defend, we just want to fellowship with people that feel the same way.

Non-Adventists should be totally welcomed in our subforum, but I think there needs to be a sticky about acceptable conduct while visiting. We've had trouble with a few particular people and I think if they step over the line with their comments, they should expect to be have some disciplinary actions taken.

I'm sure I want to add more but I have to go take a nap! :)

I agree with one small adjustment, Non-Adventist should have some type of a "Visitors Pass" (msg box?) that they must read first and agree to about acceptable conduct so their is no argument about what is acceptable and what is not....

[TrustAndObey]

The suggestion would make it fair to all. There would be an official place to ask questions and fellowship--the main forum. It would be free of the sorts of debates we see now. It would be the first, welcoming place they see.

It would be fair to the traditionals and progressives who get their own fellowship sub-forum.

It would be fair to those who want to debate because they would have a sub-forum.

I would be totally willing to compromise and agree to this Tall.

So there would be NO debate in the main forum or the two subfora, but we'd have a subfora specifically for debate? That sounds good.

But what about non-Adventists and atheists? Are they allowed to debate in the debate section as well?

I guess if they saw one place was for fellowship ONLY and then another was for debate, they could choose which one they posted their question/comments in and follow the general rules of no flaming, etc.

I like this idea a lot.

Woob, I really don't think we should try to censor what is discussed. It's just going to leave people feeling censored and bitter (like I was with the annihilation topic) and this really is OUR forum. We don't have to agree though!

So the question is, are we allowed to ask CF for another subfora for debate? Do we have that kind of power?

I'm not siding with anyone or trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I just think compromise is inevitable and this sounds very reasonable to me.

I still think we need to start any outsider's answers with "this is the traditional view, or this is my opinion........"

I think that really should be a rule.

I foresee not too many "fellowship" posts in the main forum though. There's way too much animosity going on here and we need to reflect Christ in there. I'll be good I promise. I think all of us should consider what others see and how we interact.

[TrustAndObey]

I still vote for the subforas being renamed to Conservative and Liberal.

[woobadooba]

Woob, I really don't think we should try to censor what is discussed. It's just going to leave people feeling censored and bitter (like I was with the annihilation topic) and this really is OUR forum. We don't have to agree though!

If the topic of evolution is not censored in all parts of our forum, I feel that it will result in causing great distress and spiritual harm.

Just keep in mind that you guys are voting on this.

If this is allowed you will take full responsibility for whatever happens as a result of your vote.

I no longer wish to be a part of this process.

[TrustAndObey]

I also agree with Reddogs that we have a sticky or whatever that people need to read before posting. We already have that now, but people don't really read it.

Then again they're subjected to the rules whether they read them first or not, and that's really all we can do.

[TrustAndObey]

If the topic of evolution is not censored in all parts of our forum, I feel that it will result in causing great distress and spiritual harm.

Just keep in mind that you guys are voting on this.

If this is allowed you will take full responsibility for whatever happens as a result of your vote.

I no longer wish to be a part of this process.

Woob you cannot bail out just because no one agrees that we should censor discussions.

We're obviously outnumbered here. What if they decided to censor all discussion about EGW? We wouldn't be happy about that.

I've only seen one person that believes in evolution....and he hasn't flooded the forum with posts about it or I'd definitely think something should be done.

There are still rules in place about bashing people important to a person's belief. There are still rules about flaming, spamming, etc.

I agree with you on everything except the censorship. I think Tall's suggestion was very reasonable.

It's important to have a say right now, but we can't just bail out if we don't win. Let's compromise!

[TrustAndObey]

You know Woob, I hadn't really considered what you meant about evolution until now.

I guess it could get really overwhelming with atheists being allowed to come in and ask questions about it.

I do foresee a problem that I hadn't really thought about until now.

Can we restrict that one topic for the atheists only? And maybe give a brief statement of our view of creation and ask them not to debate about it even in the debate section?

I mean seriously, there's already a subforum just for that discussion. Can we keep it out of ours?

[woobadooba]

Let's compromise!

"Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you: But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." (2Co 10:1-6)

[TrustAndObey]

I don't disagree Woob. I think evolution is very anti-biblical.

I do think it would be a good idea to censor the evolution questions from atheists because there's a subforum for that topic specifically already.

I was reading over some of the other Wiki discussions and they are setting TONS of limits so I do not think this is unreasonable.

Creation is a very sacred thing for Adventists and I don't want to be constantly defending it like we already have to do with the Sabbath.

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, I think your idea was a good one.

I do agree with Woob about censoring evolution discussions from atheists however. I am NOT trying to censor RC though, just so that's clear.

Will you compromise with us on this one?

[DrStupid_Ben]

Just one note on that Ben, the current top-level CF rules do not allow ANY forum to exclude posts by anyone.

Therefore all sub-forums will have to allow anyone to post there, but debate can be limited to certain groups.

I'm cool with that. We wouldn't tell a non-Christian to be quiet if they sat in on a Sabbath School class would we?

How about limit debate in the Main SDA Forum, then allow debate in the specific Debate/Discussion sub-forum?

Those details will be covered by the general CF rules, so we don't need to address them. Otherwise, I think your suggestions could work.

Good point. I think that's what I had envisioned, I just didn't articulate it well enough.

I agree with one small adjustment, Non-Adventist should have some type of a "Visitors Pass" (msg box?) that they must read first and agree to about acceptable conduct so their is no argument about what is acceptable and what is not....

Maybe you should call it a "Christian Visa" or something...lol

That would complicate things way too much. We need to engender a sense of trust and freedom with those that may visit this particular section of CF. You wouldn't force visitors to your church to sign a conduct agreement before they enter.

[RC_NewProtestants]

It seems Tall's plan would require an overhaul of the layout of the forum. I am not sure who or how that would be done. I would operate upon the premise that what we have now is what we have and develop rules accordingly. The debate forum like it or not will always be the most popular forum and it is likely the one most people will want to see. So it seems reasonable to leave it where it is as the first area where people can see the topics. The other forums being less used remain where they are. If the debate forum remains the main SDA forum then people with questions could simply ask their questions there rather then search out the more hidden forums.

I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here just lay down some simple rules.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I have written up a more detailed model of the structure that follows along the lines of a compromise that has been discussed here.


Structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Denominational Forum

1. Main SDA Forum


1.1 This will include a place for fellowship and questions, as well as including sub-forums.

1.2 As per the intent of Christian Forums, the SDA Forum is open to all – Adventist Christians, as well as other Christians and non-Christians.

1.3 There is a request for no debating in the Main SDA Forum. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum; however, it is asked that these posts do not lead into debate. There will be an appropriate place for discussion/debate.

1.4 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the 28 Fundamentals. This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

1.5 It is expected that all posters follow the general rules of conduct that apply for Christian Forums in general.

1.6 As stated below, debate/discussion will be allowed in the Main SDA Forum at this point. Topics that are intended for debate/discussion should be marked appropriately with the disclaimer [Debate/Discussion] in the title of the thread. If a thread becomes a debate/discussion, then another thread with the appropriate disclaimer should be started, or the title of the original thread should be modified like wise.

Sub Forums


2. Debate/Discussion

[Note: This is a proposed sub-forum, and has not been developed/under discussion. The following points should only be read as a proposal for a future sub-forum. At this point, debate/discussion will still be allowed in the Main SDA Forum. See point 1.6 above.]

2.1 There will be no restriction on the scope of discussion in the Debate/Discussion forum. This allows for consideration of different views when engaging in discussion.
By the nature of it being under the Main SDA Forum, the majority of its users will identify as SDA, and as a result, discussion will probably be in an Adventist context. However, people of other denominations and non-Christian’s are not restricted.

2.2 A proposal to restrict the debate of (theistic) evolution has been raised and is still under discussion. T is already a specific forum for this in the Theology section, which will provide greater opportunity for discussion.

2.3 CF conduct rules should apply.

3. Traditional Adventist Fellowship

3.1 This sub-forum is for fellowship and discussion amongst “traditional” Adventists. “Traditional” refers to people who agree with all 28 Fundamentals.

3.2 Non-Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

3.3 CF conduct rules will apply.

3.4 There has been a proposal to rename this sub-forum to “Conservative Adventist Fellowship”.
[Note: I believe that this may not be wise, as it may unduly characterise those who agree with all 28 Fundamentals as “conservative”. Traditional seems to capture the spirit of the sub-forum; the 28 Fundamentals would be considered the “tradition”]

4. Progressive Adventist Fellowship

4.1 This sub-forum is for fellowship and discussion amongst “progressive” Adventists. “Progressive” refers to people who disagree with, question, or have different interpretations of the 28 Fundamentals.

4.2 Non-Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Progressive Adventists.

4.3 CF conduct rules will apply.

4.4 There has been a proposal to rename this sub-forum to “Liberal Adventist Fellowship.
[Note: I believe this to be unwise, as well, because it will confuse progressive Adventists with Liberal Christianity, or Liberal politics. Most progressives still remain towards the centre (moderate) of the political and religious spectrum.]


As this is a Wiki, and not a government referendum, I am going to add this to the Wiki. You can discuss it here, and we can make changes to it as we see fit.

[Sophia7]

I still vote for the subforas being renamed to Conservative and Liberal.

I disagree. I think the names should stay as they are, but it's not that big a deal if others want to change them.

[tall73]

I still vote for the subforas being renamed to Conservative and Liberal.

I would be alright with that if we make some of the other concessions. We have to start building agreement somewhere.

[tall73]

Tall, I think your idea was a good one.

I do agree with Woob about censoring evolution discussions from atheists however. I am NOT trying to censor RC though, just so that's clear.

Will you compromise with us on this one?


I think we could work something out. The big thing is we could just refuse to discuss it and point them to the appropriate forum. We don't have to debate everything someone says.The new rules are less complicated than the old ones, or at least that is the hope.

The desire behind that is to see folks begin to take more responsibility for their own behavior. In this case that would mean simply being polite but expressing that we really don't have an interest in that conversation.

If we then did become bombarded then we could modify the rules to include that.

Until it actually looks like it is a problem I wouldn't want to turn people off for no reason. But if it is a problem, and this starts turning into GA, we could shut it down.

[Sophia7]

I would be totally willing to compromise and agree to this Tall.

So there would be NO debate in the main forum or the two subfora, but we'd have a subfora specifically for debate? That sounds good.

I think this would be a good compromise.

But what about non-Adventists and atheists? Are they allowed to debate in the debate section as well?

Yes.

I guess if they saw one place was for fellowship ONLY and then another was for debate, they could choose which one they posted their question/comments in and follow the general rules of no flaming, etc.

I like this idea a lot.

Yes, the general rules would cover flaming, etc., so they couldn't just come in and attack us.

Woob, I really don't think we should try to censor what is discussed. It's just going to leave people feeling censored and bitter (like I was with the annihilation topic) and this really is OUR forum. We don't have to agree though!

Exactly!

So the question is, are we allowed to ask CF for another subfora for debate? Do we have that kind of power?

I think we can request it.

I'm not siding with anyone or trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I just think compromise is inevitable and this sounds very reasonable to me.

That's what this whole process is about. We can work together to reach a consensus that everyone can live with.

I still think we need to start any outsider's answers with "this is the traditional view, or this is my opinion........"

I think that really should be a rule.

My opinion is that a rule is not needed. People usually do say something like, "I disagree with the traditional Adventist view on this." It's clear that that's their opinion.

I foresee not too many "fellowship" posts in the main forum though. There's way too much animosity going on here and we need to reflect Christ in there. I'll be good I promise. I think all of us should consider what others see and how we interact.

We can always hope and pray for more fellowship and less animosity. :) I do think that having a fellowship forum is a good idea.

[tall73]

It seems Tall's plan would require an overhaul of the layout of the forum. I am not sure who or how that would be done. I would operate upon the premise that what we have now is what we have and develop rules accordingly. The debate forum like it or not will always be the most popular forum and it is likely the one most people will want to see. So it seems reasonable to leave it where it is as the first area where people can see the topics. The other forums being less used remain where they are. If the debate forum remains the main SDA forum then people with questions could simply ask their questions there rather then search out the more hidden forums.

I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here just lay down some simple rules.

There are staff members with the ability to create sub-forums, and the possibility has already been raised by the policy director. If it would make folks happier I say we should ask for it.

Even if debate winds up being the most trafficked i don't think it should be the first things visitors have to look at. You want your greeter at the door, not your lawyer!

It used to be that it was hard to get a sub-forum made because only Erwin could code it and he was not around. Well others can now code it too, and Erwin is around for the reforms. So overall the picture is different. We have an opportunity.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I think we could work something out. The big thing is we could just refuse to discuss it and point them to the appropriate forum. We don't have to debate everything someone says.The new rules are less complicated than the old ones, or at least that is the hope.

The desire behind that is to see folks begin to take more responsibility for their own behavior. In this case that would mean simply being polite but expressing that we really don't have an interest in that conversation.

If we then did become bombarded then we could modify the rules to include that.

Until it actually looks like it is a problem I wouldn't want to turn people off for no reason. But if it is a problem, and this starts turning into GA, we could shut it down.
Good idea. I tried to say something about that in my addition to the Wiki, by I didn't articulate it as well.

[Sophia7]

Maybe you should call it a "Christian Visa" or something...lol

That would complicate things way too much. We need to engender a sense of trust and freedom with those that may visit this particular section of CF. You wouldn't force visitors to your church to sign a conduct agreement before they enter.

I agree. I think we need to keep things as simple as possible. We shouldn't make our rules more complicated than they were before.

[tall73]

If folks don't like the term liberal then come up with something that is suitable to all sides.

[Sophia7]

It seems Tall's plan would require an overhaul of the layout of the forum. I am not sure who or how that would be done. I would operate upon the premise that what we have now is what we have and develop rules accordingly. The debate forum like it or not will always be the most popular forum and it is likely the one most people will want to see. So it seems reasonable to leave it where it is as the first area where people can see the topics. The other forums being less used remain where they are. If the debate forum remains the main SDA forum then people with questions could simply ask their questions there rather then search out the more hidden forums.

I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here just lay down some simple rules.

It would be possible for us to request a new subforum if that's what people want to do.

[Sophia7]

I have written up a more detailed model of the structure that follows along the lines of a compromise that has been discussed here.

As this is a Wiki, and not a government referendum, I am going to add this to the Wiki. You can discuss it here, and we can make changes to it as we see fit.

Thanks, Ben. I think I could live with your proposals.

[DrStupid_Ben]

If folks don't like the term liberal then come up with something that is suitable to all sides.
Apart from the two options of progressive and liberal, I can't think of something that would be appropriate. I included a note on the Wiki that "liberal" would be too easily confused with Liberal Christianity or Liberal politics.

I personally don't think that the word "progressive" is taking a shot at traditionals.

[Sophia7]

I think we could work something out. The big thing is we could just refuse to discuss it and point them to the appropriate forum. We don't have to debate everything someone says.The new rules are less complicated than the old ones, or at least that is the hope.

The desire behind that is to see folks begin to take more responsibility for their own behavior. In this case that would mean simply being polite but expressing that we really don't have an interest in that conversation.

If we then did become bombarded then we could modify the rules to include that.

Until it actually looks like it is a problem I wouldn't want to turn people off for no reason. But if it is a problem, and this starts turning into GA, we could shut it down.

Yes, keep things as simple as possible, and if we run into problems, we can address them when they happen.

[Sophia7]

Apart from the two options of progressive and liberal, I can't think of something that would be appropriate. I included a note on the Wiki that "liberal" would be too easily confused with Liberal Christianity or Liberal politics.

I personally don't think that the word "progressive" is taking a shot at traditionals.

I agree. I'm definitely not a Liberal Christian. As far as Christians go, I would be considered pretty conservative on most things. I don't think the term Progressive is meant to insult Traditionals either. As RC said, it has an accepted meaning in Adventism. People who are new to our forum could identify with that title more than with some others. I guess we could make it more all-encompassing and call it the Evangelical/Progressive/Liberal SDA subforum or something, but that gets too clunky. We need to keep it as simple as possible, I think.

[tall73]

How about traditional and non-traditional

[tall73]

I will pm the policy director and find out whether we can get a sub-forum if that is what we choose. Let's not rule out this small new area of agreement if we don't have to.

[Sophia7]

I will pm the policy director and find out whether we can get a sub-forum if that is what we choose. Let's not rule out this small new area of agreement if we don't have to.

Good idea. :)

[RC_NewProtestants]

I like Ben's proposal if you want to make the debate thread less noticeable that is ok, it may cause some Adventists to visit and think the SDA forum is dead however. Frankly the fellowship forums on other sites are not well utilized probably because if I had fun at the zoo I likely won't take the time to write about it. Just like in debates we don't debate everything only the things that are important to you.

As for liberal and conservative vs. progressive or traditional it seems that those labels should be applied by those who hold to them not by the other side. So conservative, traditional, historic, or orthodox should choose their label and progressive, liberal, non traditional, heterodox, evangelical should define their label.

For my side I would choose to hold on to Progressive SDA, it is not perfect as it has common language with progressive politics but it has the advantage of contemporary meaning within the SDA church.

One more thing we can't restrict topics that may go into theistic evolution because it is a part of the SDA church. We have a book on the topic available published by Adventist Today. It is very much a topic for educated Adventists both in Educational institutions and medical institutions.
see: Understanding Genesis (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Genesis-Contemporary-Adventist-Perspectives/dp/0978614119)

[Sophia7]

I like Ben's proposal if you want to make the debate thread less noticeable that is ok, it may cause some Adventists to visit and think the SDA forum is dead however. Frankly the fellowship forums on other sites are not well utilized probably because if I had fun at the zoo I likely won't take the time to write about it. Just like in debates we don't debate everything only the things that are important to you.

As for liberal and conservative vs. progressive or traditional it seems that those labels should be applied by those who hold to them not by the other side. So conservative, traditional, historic, or orthodox should choose their label and progressive, liberal, non traditional, heterodox, evangelical should define their label.

For my side I would choose to hold on to Progressive SDA, it is not perfect as it has common language with progressive politics but it has the advantage of contemporary meaning within the SDA church.

One more thing we can't restrict topics that may go into theistic evolution because it is a part of the SDA church. We have a book on the topic available published by Adventist Today. It is very much a topic for educated Adventists both in Educational institutions and medical institutions.
see: Understanding Genesis (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Genesis-Contemporary-Adventist-Perspectives/dp/0978614119)

Good points.

[TrustAndObey]

How about traditional and non-traditional

That sounds good to me! It just seems like the simplest way to put it honestly.

[tall73]

That is not all ironed out yet apparently. We need to participate in the "new forum" wiki! lol no end of wikis

[Sophia7]

That sounds good to me! It just seems like the simplest way to put it honestly.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[tall73]

Alright, let's get that done then. Traditional and non-traditional seems fine.

If we can get the sub-forum for debate is that agreeable then? I will see about getting it done, or taking necessary steps to allow fir it.

[Sophia7]

If we can get the sub-forum for debate is that agreeable then? I will see about getting it done, or taking necessary steps to allow fir it.

I would be in favor of that.

[TrustAndObey]

RC, I don't think anyone is trying to censor discussions on theistic evolution among Adventists...just for the atheists coming in.

I noticed some of the other denominations are putting this restriction in too.

I don't have a lot of time and didn't carefully go over Ben's proposals so can I state my case (Sophia help me out here by not letting these points just get ignored, please, okay?) since I'm leaving in the morning?

I'd really like to see a restriction for ATHEISTS only that come in and want to talk about evolution. I like Tall's idea of just telling them to go to the forum for that topic, but we've all been baited at one time or another.

I really would like to see that as a rule.

And I do think there needs to be a renaming of the subfora. (I like Traditional and Non-Traditional). Non-Traditional covers Progressive, Evangelical, etc.

And I think all the general CF rules about flaming, spamming, etc should still apply.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

OH! And I really would like to see a debate subfora created to keep the main forum for fellowship only.

I would also like to ask that we be allowed to mention the rules for a short time during this transition. For instance, if someone comes into the main forum and starts a debate topic, I think the mods should move it, but I also think we should be allowed to tell the OP that we do not debate there. It keeps us from looking "report happy".

Reporting people that really just didn't know seems really unfriendly and uninviting to me, although I know the mods like for us to go to them first.

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, my vote is for the subfora for debate, so thank you.

I'm leaving very early in the morning and I won't be back until late Sunday night.

Stone mentioned that we get to vote on all the proposals (he mentioned it in our Subforum). Does anyone know when the voting will be?

[TrustAndObey]

PS....are we going to vote on new mods or are we keeping the ones we have?

[DarylFawcett]

I did not care for Woobadooba's list, however, I like the one I see there now.

I am also in favour of the main forum being like a "welcome" or "fellowship" forum with directions on where to go regarding debating, etc.

[DarylFawcett]

As far as Mods. goes, I suggest we do this one step at a time.

Once the rules and new subforum/s are done and in place, then we can focus on the Mods. next.

[thecountrydoc]

Well, I think I've finaly gotten through!:clap:

There are some additional issues that no one has appearently thought about. Before bring up any additional points, I'm going to get my thoughts together so that I'll make sense when I attempt to post.

In addition, as an owner and a moderator on other web sites that include SDA forums, I would like to do a little cut/paste of some highlights that have worked very well on other sites. I'll return a little later when I've finished my homework.

Your brother in Christ,
Doc

[TrustAndObey]

As far as Mods. goes, I suggest we do this one step at a time.

Once the rules and new subforum/s are done and in place, then we can focus on the Mods. next.

I agree, I just don't want to be gone when we get to vote, so that's why I was asking. I can't change my plans for this weekend, so I guess if the voting is this weekend sometime I'll give my password to SassySDA or Doc to vote for me.

[TrustAndObey]

Well, I think I've finaly gotten through!:clap:

There are some additional issues that no one has appearently thought about. Before bring up any additional points, I'm going to get my thoughts together so that I'll make sense when I attempt to post.

In addition, as an owner and a moderator on other web sites that include SDA forums, I would like to do a little cut/paste of some highlights that have worked very well on other sites. I'll return a little later when I've finished my homework.

Your brother in Christ,
Doc

I'm sure there are some things we're not even thinking about. Any suggestions would be welcomed, especially if they've been proven to work on other forums.

I think we're just trying to keep everything simple without anyone feeling left out.

But man, poor Woob got the brunt of this one and he didn't deserve it. I think it was very cool of him to get this ball rolling, even if people didn't agree with him, at least he got everyone motivated (so easy on Woob Daryl, he's a good man).

[tall73]

So far there is no rule about preventing discussion of rules anymore, and most mentions of it have been struck down. I hope that continues. A friendly reminder of the rules is a lot better for all involved than needless actions.

[DarylFawcett]

As I am also an owner/ administrator of a SDA forum with forum moderators working with me, I will see what we have there for forum rules that may also be good here in this interesting setting. :)

[Sophia7]

RC, I don't think anyone is trying to censor discussions on theistic evolution among Adventists...just for the atheists coming in.

I noticed some of the other denominations are putting this restriction in too.

I don't have a lot of time and didn't carefully go over Ben's proposals so can I state my case (Sophia help me out here by not letting these points just get ignored, please, okay?) since I'm leaving in the morning?

I'd really like to see a restriction for ATHEISTS only that come in and want to talk about evolution. I like Tall's idea of just telling them to go to the forum for that topic, but we've all been baited at one time or another.

I really would like to see that as a rule.

OK, I wouldn't have a problem with putting in a clause about refraining from discussing atheistic evolution in our forum and sending people to the forums that are designated for that purpose instead.

And I do think there needs to be a renaming of the subfora. (I like Traditional and Non-Traditional). Non-Traditional covers Progressive, Evangelical, etc.That would be fine with me.

And I think all the general CF rules about flaming, spamming, etc should still apply.They will apply to all of the congregational forums. We wouldn't have a choice about that, even if we wanted to.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

OH! And I really would like to see a debate subfora created to keep the main forum for fellowship only.I agree. This would also help to resolve the point of contention about how questions are answered in the main forum because by default, there would be no debate there.

[Sophia7]

We can request a new debate subforum in the Suggest New Forums (http://www.christianforums.com/f395-suggest-new-forums.html) area. See also the Creation of a New Congregational Forum (http://www.christianforums.com/t5677070-wiki-creation-of-a-new-congregational-forum.html) wiki.

[Sophia7]

Tall, my vote is for the subfora for debate, so thank you.

I'm leaving very early in the morning and I won't be back until late Sunday night.

Stone mentioned that we get to vote on all the proposals (he mentioned it in our Subforum). Does anyone know when the voting will be?

When we come up with a consensus here and finalize our list of rules, I think a poll will be created in the SDA forum. I'm sure we could leave the poll open long enough to give everyone who wants to an opportunity to vote.

[Sophia7]

PS....are we going to vote on new mods or are we keeping the ones we have?

Erwin has announced that all of the current staff who want to stay will be on staff at least until December, when they would be subject to a vote. I'm not sure if all of them will be staying in their current forum assignments, though. We can vote in new mods for the SDA forum, in addition to whomever is assigned there currently.

At some point, we should probably also talk about whether we want to make non-Adventists eligible to be mods in the SDA forum, as well as Adventists. Personally, I think it can be good to have a mix of people who are familiar with Adventist beliefs and people of different denominational backgrounds. That's how many of the congregational forums (including ours) have done things previously because there were not enough mods of each denomination to cover them only with their own members.

I guess we could maybe discuss this in another thread.

[Sophia7]

As far as Mods. goes, I suggest we do this one step at a time.

Once the rules and new subforum/s are done and in place, then we can focus on the Mods. next.

Good idea. :)

[RC_NewProtestants]

Maybe we don't even need any new forums we just need to rename what we have.

Main SDA = Fellowship and non sda questions
Traditional = traditionals can debate topics with other traditionals
Progressive = Becomes main debate forum for SDA

I don't think we really need a special forum for progressive SDA to use for fellowship and any debating between progressive SDA's can be done on the debate forum. I don't see a need for a special place needed for progressive to debate with other progressives or to use for fellowship.

[Sophia7]

Maybe we don't even need any new forums we just need to rename what we have.

Main SDA = Fellowship and non sda questions
Traditional = traditionals can debate topics with other traditionals
Progressive = Becomes main debate forum for SDA

I don't think we really need a special forum for progressive SDA to use for fellowship and any debating between progressive SDA's can be done on the debate forum. I don't see a need for a special place needed for progressive to debate with other progressives or to use for fellowship.

I just want to see if I'm understanding this correctly. The main SDA forum would be for everyone (fellowship and questions only), the Traditional SDA subforum would be for debate and fellowship by Traditionals only, and the PSDA subforum could be renamed the Debate/Discussion subforum and be open to everyone? And we wouldn't have a Progressive subforum anymore? That could work. The current PSDA subforum isn't used very often anyway.

[Sophia7]

I updated the wiki and got rid of the extraneous stuff so that just Ben's proposed rules are there. We can revise them as needed depending on how we decide to work the subforums.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I just want to see if I'm understanding this correctly. The main SDA forum would be for everyone (fellowship and questions only), the Traditional SDA subforum would be for debate and fellowship by Traditionals only, and the PSDA subforum could be renamed the Debate/Discussion subforum and be open to everyone? And we wouldn't have a Progressive subforum anymore? That could work. The current PSDA subforum isn't used very often anyway.
If this were to happen, would it be as simple as a mod renaming the current forums?

Does anyone object to renaming the current Progressive Fellowship Subforum into the Debate/Discussion Subforum?

We don't use the current one nearly enough.

Please comment on this idea. If it is an easy process to change the names of forums, then it may work.

[DrStupid_Ben]

In the meantime, I gather people can agree with the Traditional/Non-Traditional idea?

I will make the changes in the Wiki and remove the points about proposed name changes.

[TrustAndObey]

I'm okay with that idea. That alleviates the debate of renaming that subfora to Non-Traditional or Liberal or whatever.

[DrStupid_Ben]

In the meantime, I gather people can agree with the Traditional/Non-Traditional idea?

I will make the changes in the Wiki and remove the points about proposed name changes.
I will hold of on making the change that I was talking about. I have made minor edits instead.

[Sophia7]

If this were to happen, would it be as simple as a mod renaming the current forums?

Does anyone object to renaming the current Progressive Fellowship Subforum into the Debate/Discussion Subforum?

We don't use the current one nearly enough.

Please comment on this idea. If it is an easy process to change the names of forums, then it may work.

It would be easy enough to rename it. Not all mods can do this, but we could ask whomever is designated to do so.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I propose we change this point:

2.1 There will be no restriction on the scope of discussion in the Debate/Discussion forum. This allows for consideration of different views when engaging in discussion.By the nature of it being in the SDA Forum, the majority of its users will identify as SDA, and, as a result, discussion will probably be in an Adventist context. However, Christians of other denominations and non-Christians are not restricted.


And replace it with these points:
2.1 The Debate/Discussion Subforum is for debate and discussion of doctrine, current issues and events.

2.2 Christians of other denominations and non-Christians are allowed to post in this Subforum.

2.3 See Section 5 for guidelines on topics

Reason: better wording

[DrStupid_Ben]

I take that back, good edit Sophia

[Sophia7]

I added an introductory paragraph and cleaned up some of the other wording. I think the whole thing is more concise now. All we have to do is decide on the subforum issue, unless anyone else has anything to add.

Also, do we want to specify that questions about Adventist doctrine in the main SDA forum can be answered only by Adventists or not? That was how the old rules were.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Sophia wrote:

I just want to see if I'm understanding this correctly. The main SDA forum would be for everyone (fellowship and questions only), the Traditional SDA subforum would be for debate and fellowship by Traditionals only, and the PSDA subforum could be renamed the Debate/Discussion subforum and be open to everyone? And we wouldn't have a Progressive subforum anymore? That could work. The current PSDA subforum isn't used very often anyway.You got it right. In real life we never really debate with only other progressives and I don't see any real advantages to doing it here. We did use it somewhat to try and not offend the Traditionals in the main forum but that won't be a problem in the debate forum so I think that is all we need. The traditionals probably would still want their own for their own reasons.

I looked at the wiki page and it looks much nicer now though I have not read it over throughly, you have done a very good job in one day I must say.

As for your last question I don't know that it is necessary I would think if a question is asked only someone with a reasonable knowledge would answer, say it was a former Adventist they would be able to back up their answer just as well as a current SDA. In a debate forum you can always ask for the source of something controversial. If it is going to be a welcoming forum and non SDA's are encouraged to ask questions it is best not to make too many restrictions. If problems do occur modifications can be made later.

[TrustAndObey]

I added an introductory paragraph and cleaned up some of the other wording. I think the whole thing is more concise now. All we have to do is decide on the subforum issue, unless anyone else has anything to add.

Also, do we want to specify that questions about Adventist doctrine in the main SDA forum can be answered only by Adventists or not? That was how the old rules were.

That definitely needs to be put in there.

Ben, I just looked over the original page.

1.3 As stated below, debate/discussion will be allowed in the main SDA forum at this point. Topics that are intended for debate/discussion should be marked appropriately with the disclaimer [Debate/Discussion] in the title of the thread. If a thread becomes a debate/discussion, then another thread with the appropriate disclaimer should be started, or the title of the original thread should be modified likewise.

I thought we decided to create a subforum for debate, and leave the main forum for fellowship??

[Sophia7]

I thought we decided to create a subforum for debate, and leave the main forum for fellowship??

I think we're just waiting for more input on whether people want to change the PSDA subforum to a Discussion/Debate subforum instead before we change the wording on those points.

[DrStupid_Ben]

That definitely needs to be put in there.

Ben, I just looked over the original page.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

I thought we decided to create a subforum for debate, and leave the main forum for fellowship??
That point is only temporary. It was included before because we were still figuring out the details. I guess it just says that we can still debate/discuss while any structural change is pending.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Might as well take it out and put in at the start that these rules are pending and write the rules from that perspective, since until the vote there are no rules. Would have been easier if they had left the old cf rules up and then switched to new rules when approval was voted but such was not the case. So now we live with anarchy, anarchy I tells ya.:sorry:

[RC_NewProtestants]

I rewrote the rules as:

Wiki SDA Forum rules pending approval vote:

Welcome to the Seventh-day Adventist forum. In accordance with the intent of Christian Forums, the SDA forum is open to everyone--Adventist Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians. All general Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) apply in the SDA forum and sub-forums. In addition, all posters are expected to observe the following forum-specific rules:

1. Main SDA Forum

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum; Questions asked which are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the main SDA forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the 28 Fundamentals. This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

Sub-forums

2. Debate/Discussion

2.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, discussion will probably be in an Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists. Christians of other denominations and non-Christians are allowed to debate respectfully.

2.2 Topics can include SDA theology, history, culture, or personalities.

2.3 There is a specific Creation & Evolution (http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html) forum, which would provide greater opportunity for discussion if the interest is to debate evolution without God’s involvement versus intelligent design.

3. Traditional Adventist Fellowship

3.1 This sub-forum is for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

3.2 Non-Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists. Debate in this forum is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Adventists.

[Sophia7]

Sounds good. I like the inclusion of the topic guidelines in Section 2. The only thing I'm wondering about is whether 2.2 gives the impression that discussion is limited only to those topics.

[Sophia7]

I rewrote the rules as:

I added your suggestions to the wiki page, RC.

[Sophia7]

The only thing I'm wondering about is whether 2.2 gives the impression that discussion is limited only to those topics.

I changed that line to this:

2.2 Topics can include but are not limited to SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.If you have a better way to say it, feel free to edit it.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I like the way the rules are taking shape. Well done to those who have contributed to the process.

Maybe we should expand 2.2 to make it clear that discussioin is not limited to "SDA theology, history, culture, or personalities."

I'm sure that people may object to some topics that we haven't raised here yet, like homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia. I don't want to limit these topics, but I just think that this could be the time to discuss other "controversial" topics. As long as people remain civil in their discussions, then there should be no problem.

[Sophia7]

I like the way the rules are taking shape. Well done to those who have contributed to the process.

Maybe we should expand 2.2 to make it clear that discussioin is not limited to "SDA theology, history, culture, or personalities."

I'm sure that people may object to some topics that we haven't raised here yet, like homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia. I don't want to limit these topics, but I just think that this could be the time to discuss other "controversial" topics. As long as people remain civil in their discussions, then there should be no problem.

I added some words to indicate that. See the last post on page 11. And thanks for all your input, too. :)

[RC_NewProtestants]

2.2 Topics can include but are not limited to SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

Sounds good.

Have we heard from the traditionals lately, T&O gone for a while but are there others who want to address concerns. I don't want to see this go up to a vote and find that the TSDA's reject it. It seems to me it addresses many of their concerns.

[Sophia7]

Have we heard from the traditionals lately, T&O gone for a while but are there others who want to address concerns. I don't want to see this go up to a vote and find that the TSDA's reject it. It seems to me it addresses many of their concerns.

I think we've been able to reach some reasonable compromises here, but I think it would be good if more people gave input, also. I posted links to this wiki in a few of the threads in the SDA forum in case people hadn't seen it yet. T&O is gone for the weekend. I wonder if honorthesabbath is around; I don't think she's commented here since yesterday. Countrydoc may yet have something to say. DarylFawcett seemed to like the rules but may come back with more suggestions.

I think the recommendation has been to gather opinions for a week or two and then make a poll of our finalized list of rules, but I guess that's up to us to decide. When we make our poll, we'll have to leave it open for a while, too, in order to give everyone an opportunity to vote.

[DarylFawcett]

I suggest adding this somewhere there:

You must stay within the topic of the particular topic or start a new topic wherever permissible.

It could be better worded.

[DarylFawcett]

Perhaps this would be a better wording:

Everybody will stay on topic as much as possible. Temporary deviation from the topic will be permitted as long as the integrity of the topic isn't compromised.

[Sophia7]

Perhaps this would be a better wording:

Everybody will stay on topic as much as possible. Temporary deviation from the topic will be permitted as long as the integrity of the topic isn't compromised.

I'll add that.

[Sophia7]

Thanks for the suggestion, Daryl. It doesn't appear to be covered under the main CF rules anymore, at least in their current state. I added it to the end of the list as a separate guideline because it would be applicable to all areas of the SDA forum, I suppose. If there's a better place to insert it, feel free to edit.

[Sophia7]

I also added a couple of sentences at the beginning to clarify that only Adventists will be allowed to vote in the poll when it is created. That was suggested by one of the mods in the SDA forum, and I think it's a good idea. We can discuss it here and see if people are agreeable to that and make any modifications to the wording or whatever.

[DarylFawcett]

I placed my suggested rule here as I wasn't certain where to edit it in there as it would pertain to all the forums there. It should really be a General Rule for CF.

I agree that only those claiming to be Seventh-day Adventists should be permitted to vote in the POLL.

[DarylFawcett]

After looking to see where it was, I decided to edit it to look like this:

4. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

4.1 Please stay on topic as much as possible. Temporary deviation from the topic will be permitted as long as the integrity of the topic is not compromised.

[Sophia7]

Sounds good. :)

[tall73]

Looks like this is coming together.

[DarylFawcett]

How many sub-forums are there in the SDA section?

I ask as there seem to be some new and not yet used ones there.

How would they fit into all of this rule discussion?

[Sophia7]

How many sub-forums are there in the SDA section?

I ask as there seem to be some new and not yet used ones there.

How would they fit into all of this rule discussion?

There are only two currently: TSDA and PSDA. The other links listed below them actually redirect you to other CF areas outside of the SDA forum; they are not our sub-forums. What we are proposing is simply changing the PSDA sub-forum to a Discussion/Debate sub-forum and then disallowing debate in the main SDA forum and the TSDA sub-forum (except among Traditionals).

[StormyOne]

There are only two currently: TSDA and PSDA. The other links listed below them actually redirect you to other CF areas outside of the SDA forum; they are not our sub-forums. What we are proposing is simply changing the PSDA sub-forum to a Discussion/Debate sub-forum and then disallowing debate in the main SDA forum and the TSDA sub-forum (except among Traditionals).
That sounds good as the split only occurred because the TSDA didn't believe anyone else was SDA. The latest revisions look good all things considered.....

[Sophia7]

That sounds good as the split only occurred because the TSDA didn't believe anyone else was SDA. The latest revisions look good all things considered.....

I think we've made a lot of progress here. Thanks for your input. :)

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well that is until woob messed it up again. We had got it down to a pretty good system here where we discussed things first and then made changes. I can't say I understand him because I really don't but then cooperation is something that maybe it takes some people longer to learn then others.


Seventh-day Adventists
Welcome to the Seventh-day Adventist forum. In accordance with the intent of Christian Forums, the SDA forum is open to all--Adventist Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians. All general Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) apply in the main SDA forum and subforums. In addition, all posters are expected to observe the following forum-specific rules:

1. Main SDA Forum

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the main SDA forum; however, we ask that these posts do not lead to debate. There will be an appropriate subforum for discussion/debate.

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the main SDA forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the 28 Fundamentals. This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

1.3 As stated below, debate/discussion will be allowed in the main SDA forum at this point. Topics that are intended for debate/discussion should be marked appropriately with the disclaimer [Debate/Discussion] in the title of the thread. If a thread becomes a debate/discussion, then another thread with the appropriate disclaimer should be started, or the title of the original thread should be modified likewise.

Subforums

2. Debate/Discussion

[Note: This is a proposed sub-forum, and has not been developed/under discussion. The following points should only be read as a proposal for a future sub-forum. At this point, debate/discussion will still be allowed in the main SDA forum. See point 1.3 above.]

2.1 There will be no restriction on the scope of discussion in the Debate/Discussion forum. This allows for consideration of different views when engaging in discussion.

2.2 By the nature of it being in the SDA forum, the majority of its users will identify as SDA, and, as a result, discussion will probably be in an Adventist context. However, Christians of other denominations and non-Christians are not restricted.

3. Traditional Adventist Fellowship

3.1 This subforum is for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

3.2 Non-Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

3.3 There has been a proposal to rename this subforum to Conservative Adventist Fellowship. We could call it the Traditional/Conservative Adventist Fellowship.

4. Progressive Adventist Fellowship

4.1 This subforum is for fellowship and discussion amongst Progressive Adventists, defined here as those who disagree with, question, or have different interpretations of one or more of the 28 Fundamentals.

4.2 Non-Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Progressive Adventists.

4.3 There has been a proposal to rename this subforum to Evanglical/Progressive Adventist Fellowship.

5. Topics

5.1 No topic related to SDA theology, history, culture, or personalities will be off limits.

5.2 A proposal to restrict the discussion of atheistic evolution has been raised and is still under discussion. There is already a specific Creation & Evolution (http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html) forum, which would provide greater opportunity for discussion.

Why not restrict theistic evolution, also??? Seems that if you are going to restrict one you ought restrict all, right?

Hypocrites usually don't act like that though.

And how about restricting people who have expressed in the past that they are thinking about leaving the SDA church from participating in this process, Sophia?

How could you vote on SDA forum rules when you don't even fully support the SDA movement?

Are you being honest?


Contributors: woobadooba (http://www.christianforums.com/u123414), longhair75 (http://www.christianforums.com/u22783), RC_NewProtestants (http://www.christianforums.com/u147686), honorthesabbath (http://www.christianforums.com/u120671), Sophia7 (http://www.christianforums.com/u125605), TrustAndObey (http://www.christianforums.com/u188637), DrStupid_Ben (http://www.christianforums.com/u146720), icedragon101 (http://www.christianforums.com/u163213), DarylFawcett (http://www.christianforums.com/u126147)
Created by longhair75 (http://www.christianforums.com/u22783), 10th July 2007 at 05:34 PM
Last edited by woobadooba (http://www.christianforums.com/u123414), Today at 02:17 PM

[woobadooba]

Well that is until woob messed it up again. We had got it down to a pretty good system here where we discussed things first and then made changes. I can't say I understand him because I really don't but then coope