Progressives: Please Vote on New Rules

[Sophia7]

As a result of this discussion (http://foru.ms/t5822612), I am creating this poll with the proposed rules for the Progressive SDA Sub-forum. There was a consensus to make this sub-forum more open. With that in mind, please vote for or against the following statement:
Welcome to the Progressive Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum. This sub-forum is open to everyone–all Seventh-day Adventists, other Christians, and non-Christians. We invite fellowship, questions, discussion, and respectful debate from anyone on any topic, as long as posters comply with Foru.ms Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules).
Voting in this poll is open to all those who consider themselves non-Traditional or Evangelical or Progressive Adventists. This poll will remain open for one week. If this measure passes, the new rules will be posted in a sticky.

[sentipente]

Good.

[NightEternal]

This is not what I agreed to when I voted for a Progressive subforum. I supported it on the condition that it be Progressive only. In fact, I would prefer it be locked and available to select members only allowing others no access or ability to see the conversations transpiring inside. I have already explained why I want this.

I want the ability to start controversial threads on EGW and SDA doctrine without the TSDA brigade barging in and declaring me a heretic, a false Adventist as well as an EGW hater who is attacking her. You guys know very well this WILL happen and it's not a headache I want or need at this time. Why you are wanting this subforum to be open for all is beyond me. I have serious questions, and blind SDA/EGW apologists and black and white thinkers only serve to limit, hinder and cripple the process for open and free discussion and the search for answers to the problems facing our church. I wanted a medium where only the few who can tolerate open questioning and free thinking are allowed to participate. I do not want input from the apologists that I can easily get from the EGW Estate or the GC. If I desire that, I can post in the main forum or the debate area.

I may be convinced to make an exception for non-SDA's and Moderates, but I will not budge one inch on the Traditionalists. They have made it clear they do not want our presence defiling thier subforum. That is fine. I, in response to that, also demand that our subforum be exclusive as well.

Those who cannot think outside the box and only make it clear thier presence there is to criticize, judge and condemn those who question things, are neither wanted nor welcome in an area where Progressive conversation is taking place, IMO.

I am opposed to this idea. You guys are making a big mistake and I will not support it. This will render our Progressive subforum no different than the main forum and, thus, pointless. As well, nothing from the way the Progressive subforum is now has even changed as a result.

If this rule goes through, you can be sure my topics will never go beyond the sterile and the safe. That is neither a stimulating nor a productive forum practice to me.

[sentipente]

The restrictions you refer to can be voted in as a condition of participation in this forum. The bottom line is that you cannot retrict access.

What about: "Posts that question the right of posters in this sub-forum to identify themselves as Seventh-day Adventists will not be tolerated, unless evidence is provided indicating that the poster has been officially disfellowshipped from a member church of the Seventh-day Adventist sisterhood of churches."

[Sophia7]

That's true. We are not allowed to restrict access; we can only limit who can debate and the content that is posted.

Anyone opposed to the proposal in this poll is welcome to vote against it. If it doesn't pass, that's fine. We'll go back to the drawing board and come up with something else.

[StormyOne]

This is not what I agreed to when I voted for a Progressive subforum. I supported it on the condition that it be Progressive only. In fact, I would prefer it be locked and available to select members only allowing others no access or ability to see the conversations transpiring inside. I have already explained why I want this.

I want the ability to start controversial threads on EGW and SDA doctrine without the TSDA brigade barging in and declaring me a heretic, a false Adventist as well as an EGW hater who is attacking her. You guys know very well this WILL happen and it's not a headache I want or need at this time. Why you are wanting this subforum to be open for all is beyond me. I have serious questions, and blind SDA/EGW apologists and black and white thinkers only serve to limit, hinder and cripple the process for open and free discussion and the search for answers to the problems facing our church. I wanted a medium where only the few who can tolerate open questioning and free thinking are allowed to participate. I do not want input from the apologists that I can easily get from the EGW Estate or the GC. If I desire that, I can post in the main forum or the debate area.

I may be convinced to make an exception for non-SDA's and Moderates, but I will not budge one inch on the Traditionalists. They have made it clear they do not want our presence defiling thier subforum. That is fine. I, in response to that, also demand that our subforum be exclusive as well.

Those who cannot think outside the box and only make it clear thier presence there is to criticize, judge and condemn those who question things, are neither wanted nor welcome in an area where Progressive conversation is taking place, IMO.

I am opposed to this idea. You guys are making a big mistake and I will not support it. This will render our Progressive subforum no different than the main forum and, thus, pointless. As well, nothing from the way the Progressive subforum is now has even changed as a result.

If this rule goes through, you can be sure my topics will never go beyond the sterile and the safe. That is neither a stimulating nor a productive forum practice to me.
those who dont think outside the box wont be posting here much....and because there is no flaming, they will not be able to come in lob their insults without consequences.... as progressives we DO NOT have to make our sub-forum legalistic and uptight like the other sub-forum, we can be more open in our discussions and who we discuss things with.... that is how I see it.... what you have suggested Night is the same type of forum the traditionals have, i.e. discussing among themselves, or reinforcing the same old thoughts... is that what you want? I don't, I want to be challenged, to dissect everything without reservation..... that to me is what a discussion forum is......

[RC_NewProtestants]

those who dont think outside the box wont be posting here much....and because there is no flaming, they will not be able to come in lob their insults without consequences.... as progressives we DO NOT have to make our sub-forum legalistic and uptight like the other sub-forum, we can be more open in our discussions and who we discuss things with.... that is how I see it.... what you have suggested Night is the same type of forum the traditionals have, i.e. discussing among themselves, or reinforcing the same old thoughts... is that what you want? I don't, I want to be challenged, to dissect everything without reservation..... that to me is what a discussion forum is......

As I have a few moments on a computer here are my thoughts:

As you all probably know in respect to Night's post on the subject of EGW there is already a wide range of views present within the Progressive camp. They range from a nice lady with some good thoughts to those who hold her as a prophet. I don't see how an open forum should cause Night to do anything different in a thread he starts. I agree I don't want people coming in and calling us heretics but then we are to their fundamentalism, so as long as they are able to communicate without abuse I have no problem being the bigger person and allowing the dissenters into the Progressive forum. For that is what we are as progressives. We disent and ask for a chance to be heard.

While I am on this little vacation I was reading Pipim's book (Recieving the Word) at a relatives house and I see that his thesis is very much that Progressives which he calls liberals are trading truth for lies and that pluralism is the enemy because it goes against what our founders believed and as a good historic/traditional he assumes that our past beliefs cannot be questioned because the old way is the right way and higher criticism is bad. Well I don't ever want to be as narrow minded as him so I say open the forum up and let it be what the whole SDA forum should be like. People unafraid of the contest of ideas.

[DrStupid_Ben]

As I have a few moments on a computer here are my thoughts:

As you all probably know in respect to Night's post on the subject of EGW there is already a wide range of views present within the Progressive camp. They range from a nice lady with some good thoughts to those who hold her as a prophet. I don't see how an open forum should cause Night to do anything different in a thread he starts. I agree I don't want people coming in and calling us heretics but then we are to their fundamentalism, so as long as they are able to communicate without abuse I have no problem being the bigger person and allowing the dissenters into the Progressive forum. For that is what we are as progressives. We disent and ask for a chance to be heard.

While I am on this little vacation I was reading Pipim's book (Recieving the Word) at a relatives house and I see that his thesis is very much that Progressives which he calls liberals are trading truth for lies and that pluralism is the enemy because it goes against what our founders believed and as a good historic/traditional he assumes that our past beliefs cannot be questioned because the old way is the right way and higher criticism is bad. Well I don't ever want to be as narrow minded as him so I say open the forum up and let it be what the whole SDA forum should be like. People unafraid of the contest of ideas.
Agree

By the way, I have often tried to read Pipim, but I don't have the stomach to fully commit. I often pick out quotes for essays and what not.

[tall73]

Yes, please focus on regulating (or not regulating as the case may be) thoughts, not people. This is what I am trying to push for in the traditional area too.

I am fine with progressives letting anyone in.

[tall73]

I got through Receiving the Word shortly after reading Thompson's Inspiration.

The contrast was quite great.

[sentipente]

Testing. Be patient with me.

[StormyOne]

Testing. Be patient with me.if you are having problems staying logged in, you have to click the "remember me" box when you log in.... it will keep you in...

[sentipente]

if you are having problems staying logged in, you have to click the "remember me" box when you log in.... it will keep you in...
Thanks. It must have been infested by those who believe you can lose your salvation.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Useing the remember me box makes it possible for phishing to track you on your computer, and to see what your computer activities have been on the internet.

[DarylFawcett]

Seeing that the POLL here is CLOSED, I edited the VOTED rule statement into the wiki as Rule 5.1

[StormyOne]

so what happens now?

[DarylFawcett]

I would say that once all the initial rules have been both proposed and voted in and added to the wiki plus the new sub-forums are created, then we will be ready to move from the temorary rules into the new rules as shown in the wiki.

[Sophia7]

I think we are still awaiting clarification on whether we can be autonomous in the PSDA subforum and not under subjection to the rules of the other sections of the SDA forum.

[StormyOne]

I think we are still awaiting clarification on whether we can be autonomous in the PSDA subforum and not under subjection to the rules of the other sections of the SDA forum.
Tall said that yes it is possible....

[Sophia7]

Well, then, since our rules have been added to the wiki by Daryl, and Letalis has said that the sub-forums can make their own rules, I am making a sticky thread for the PSDA sub-forum so that we can start applying our new rules in our sub-forum. That's how forum-specific rules are supposed to be made official under this new system.

[Sophia7]

OK, I have made a sticky thread with our new rules. I also edited the name of the site since it is no longer called "Christian Forums." Our sub-forum rules are now in effect.

[Bourbaki]

I want the ability to start controversial threads on EGW and SDA doctrine without the TSDA brigade barging in and declaring me a heretic, a false Adventist as well as an EGW hater who is attacking her.

I have serious questions, and blind SDA/EGW apologists and black and white thinkers only serve to limit, hinder and cripple the process for open and free discussion and the search for answers to the problems facing our church. I wanted a medium where only the few who can tolerate open questioning and free thinking are allowed to participate.

I may be convinced to make an exception for non-SDA's and Moderates, but I will not budge one inch on the Traditionalists. They have made it clear they do not want our presence defiling thier subforum. That is fine. I, in response to that, also demand that our subforum be exclusive as well.

Those who cannot think outside the box and only make it clear thier presence there is to criticize, judge and condemn those who question things, are neither wanted nor welcome in an area where Progressive conversation is taking place, IMO.

I am opposed to this idea. You guys are making a big mistake and I will not support it. This will render our Progressive subforum no different than the main forum and, thus, pointless. As well, nothing from the way the Progressive subforum is now has even changed as a result.

If this rule goes through, you can be sure my topics will never go beyond the sterile and the safe. That is neither a stimulating nor a productive forum practice to me.

I agree with NightEternal.

I do not want input from the apologists that I can easily get from the EGW Estate or the GC. If I desire that, I can post in the main forum or the debate area.

There are many things that the EGW Estate says that I agree with. I hope that that doesn't disqualify me from participating here.

[Bourbaki]

Anyone opposed to the proposal in this poll is welcome to vote against it. If it doesn't pass, that's fine. We'll go back to the drawing board and come up with something else.

Instead of just quickly voting for this proposal, I propose that we try to achieve the greatest consensus possible on the unique and distinguished purpose of a Progressive Adventist forum among those who consider themselves progressive Adventists.

[StormyOne]

Instead of just quickly voting for this proposal, I propose that we try to achieve the greatest consensus possible on the unique and distinguished purpose of a Progressive Adventist forum among those who consider themselves progressive Adventists.
why? if the people who regularly participate understand what they are voting on, there is no reason to delay a vote.....

[sentipente]

It is obvious to me that Bourbaki is a plant who has been sent to put a spanner in the works in this subforum. He is certainly not progressive in his thinking so his opinion on what is best for the operation of a Progressive subforum is merely of academic interest.

[StormyOne]

It is obvious to me that Bourbaki is a plant who has been sent to put a spanner in the works in this subforum. He is certainly not progressive in his thinking so his opinion on what is best for the operation of a Progressive subforum is merely of academic interest.
agreed..... seen his work before... maybe he will be different here....

[tall73]

Instead of just quickly voting for this proposal, I propose that we try to achieve the greatest consensus possible on the unique and distinguished purpose of a Progressive Adventist forum among those who consider themselves progressive Adventists.

Welcome to the forum :)

Please note the rules, and enjoy the conversation.

[Sophia7]

Instead of just quickly voting for this proposal, I propose that we try to achieve the greatest consensus possible on the unique and distinguished purpose of a Progressive Adventist forum among those who consider themselves progressive Adventists.

Well, the poll has closed, and the sub-forum rules passed with 84.62 percent of the vote, which included most of those who regularly post in the PSDA sub-forum. I'd say that's a pretty clear mandate. Among those who identify themselves as Progressive Adventists, the purpose of the PSDA sub-forum has been determined to be to allow open discussion and debate from anyone on any topic, as long as posters follow the general site-wide rules. However, we did put in a clause by consensus, limiting participation in the rule-making process to Progressive Adventists.