We need to stop the latest desperate attempts

[OntheDL]

We are witnessing a wave of anti-EGW, anti-SDA posts lately in desperate attempts to inflict maximum damage before the changes take place in this forum. Is this not the case?

It seems to me certain mods and admins work very hard to help our 'persecuted' progressive brethrens while paying no attention to the other group who are 'left behind'.

It pleases some that the group they identify with is moving from the 'dire' situation to a safe haven while the other they don't is left in the same struggle.

What must we do to have mods start a thread to discuss new rules for our forum now that the prog's are leaving?

[TrustAndObey]

I saw you ask this question in the Trad area, and I'm so sorry I didn't reply. I just forgot. I am juggling a few things here at once.

Here's the thing DL, the people starting this type of thing have NO plans on leaving us at peace on this forum once the new forum starts. They've said it plainly.

It's not a last-ditch effort. They have absolutely no plans of stopping, and have said as much.

I will say this...it's been an eye-opener for a lot of people to see Tall doing this (even though he isn't the only one).

We definitely need new rules, and quickly. He has admitted he is trying to "persuade" (i.e. teach).

[TrustAndObey]

Listen, our forum is governed by the congregation-wide guidelines.

Here is what those guidelines define as membership:

MEMBERSHIP

Only those who agree with a congregational forum’s Statement of Faith may post as members of that forum. Statements of Faith are found in the congregational forum’s forum-specific guidelines (FSGs), found at the top of each specific forum.

All are welcome to post in fellowship (see below for definition).

Those who do not agree with the congregational forum’s Statement of Faith may not debate or post teaching or instruction posts. NOTE: Some forums may allow more debate by non-members than others. If so, it will be stated in their forum-specific guidelines (FSGs).

In general, questions asked in a congregation’s forum should be answered only by members of that forum.

For right now, wouldn't it be easiest just to scrap our FSGs and go with the congregation-wide guidelines UNTIL the new forum is created and we're here by ourselves???

What does everyone think?

[TrustAndObey]

We'll have to keep our Statement of Faith in our FSGs, but that's the only thing I see we would need to keep until the dust settles down.

[OntheDL]

I know some don't intent to leave us alone. But I think they know changes are coming nonetheless.

I remember in the last FSG discussion, we couldn't limit the topics of discussion, but we could limit who can debate. We chose not to place a limit on that because the progs were still living under the same roof. Now that they are leaving, we need to protect ourselves from these outside attacks.

[TrustAndObey]

I agree DL. I posted a suggestion in the Trad section.

[tall73]

Actually the two were unrelated. I did not start posting them because of a new section. I started posting them because they were on my mind lately.

Since then I proposed to move the debate area to the prog section since it was becoming clear that some did not care for the kind of issues that can be discussed in a debate area. I figured this would remove the issue for you by moving the debate section out of this area.

If you want to change your rules you may. You have always had that opportunity.

[TrustAndObey]

I enjoy our debate section Tall. I just don't care for you trying to teach in here.

[tall73]

It seems to me certain mods and admins work very hard to help our 'persecuted' progressive brethrens while paying no attention to the other group who are 'left behind'.

It pleases some that the group they identify with is moving from the 'dire' situation to a safe haven while the other they don't is left in the same struggle.?


The struggle you had was completely of your own making when you all as a group voted in a debate section. The admins were not even involved then as it was during the 777 reforms.

You have every right to change your rules. And if you do then you will have no issue. I proposed a solution myself to the problem already.

[tall73]

I enjoy our debate section Tall. I just don't care for you trying to teach in here.

The debate section allows for teaching. The debate section was specifically for debating Adventist doctrine, and that is what occurred.

[freeindeed2]

One thing I have noticed since the day I stepped a cyber-foot into this forum is the tremendous effort made to make rules to exclude/protect. And then to redo the rules. And then to redo the rules that were already redone. A few weeks after the 'new rules' you're discussing now are 'established' I'm sure they'll be redone even again. Maybe we should change the name of this forum to 'The Art of Perpetually Making Rules Forum'.

Just an observation.

[TrustAndObey]

The debate section allows for teaching. The debate section was specifically for debating Adventist doctrine, and that is what occurred.

According to the congregation-wide rules only members can post or debate UNLESS there's a debate section mentioned in our FSGs. We do have a debate section in our FSGs, but our FSGs do not say former Adventists can teach.

We could certainly add that one thing to our FSGs I suppose instead of scrapping all the rest of it.

[TrustAndObey]

One thing I have noticed since the day I stepped a cyber-foot into this forum is the tremendous effort made to make rules to exclude/protect. And then to redo the rules. And then to redo the rules that were already redone. A few weeks after the 'new rules' you're discussing now are 'established' I'm sure they'll be redone even again. Maybe we should change the name of this forum to 'The Art of Perpetually Making Rules Forum'.

Just an observation.

Have you read ANY of Night's posts about the new forum? He wants us completely excluded (which is fine by me).

We didn't get to make our last set of rules Free.

[tall73]

According to the congregation-wide rules only members can post or debate UNLESS there's a debate section mentioned in our FSGs. We do have a debate section in our FSGs, but our FSGs do not say former Adventists can teach.

We could certainly add that one thing to our FSGs I suppose instead of scrapping all the rest of it.


You have a debate section which allows for--debate. Change it if you like. But all of these attempts up until now to raise issues with debate are pointless. You have a debate section for debating doctrine. Debate involves at least two different views. Debate has occurred. And that was the purpose of the section all along.

[TrustAndObey]

I'm all for going under congregation-wide and site-wide rules until the new forum is created.

Debate would be limited to those that agree with the official Seventh-day Adventist statement of faith.

[tall73]

We didn't get to make our last set of rules Free.

That is the new system. But you did get to make your own debate forum previous to that.

[TrustAndObey]

That is the new system. But you did get to make your own debate forum previous to that.

Oh yeah, I know. And we voted in a debate section thinking that we'd get to make our rules for this forum from now on. Obviously that is not the case anymore and we need to revisit how we do things here. That's all.

[tall73]

Have you read ANY of Night's posts about the new forum? He wants us completely excluded (which is fine by me).

I think that is a poor idea as well. But that is fine. There will always be some place to discuss the issues, even if it is GT, etc.

To exclude the trads is to exclude those who actually have a knowledge of their position, and therefore to exclude any real input.

To exclude formers from the trad area in debate is the same.

But if that is what folks want, they can do that. But to complain about what happened in a debate area, when what happened was debating doctrine as the area allowed, is fruitless.

[honorthesabbath]

Well--I just think there is something terribly wrong when a person feels the compulsion to bash another's belief over and over and over and over again. Is there a name for that?

[tall73]

Well--I just think there is something terribly wrong when a person feels the compulsion to bash another's belief over and over and over and over again. Is there a name for that?


Yes, the remnant doctrine. Or an Amazing Facts seminar, as they do a fair amount of critiquing of the Catholic church and fallen protestantism.

Now is that wrong for them to do?

Or are they pointing out what they feel is necessary for people to know?

You belong to a church who believes whole-heartedly in critiquing the beliefs of other churches, and believes they are assisting in the second angel's message of calling people out of Babylon. And what do they consider to be Babylon?

[OntheDL]

Actually the two were unrelated. I did not start posting them because of a new section. I started posting them because they were on my mind lately.

Since then I proposed to move the debate area to the prog section since it was becoming clear that some did not care for the kind of issues that can be discussed in a debate area. I figured this would remove the issue for you by moving the debate section out of this area.

If you want to change your rules you may. You have always had that opportunity.

The debate area should stay here since it's been a part of the SDA forum. You guys can create a new debate area in the new forum or even copy threads started by progs/formers. If you chose not to let us comment there, we can use the denomination specific theology forum or GT. But I don't know how frequently I would visit those areas.

[TrustAndObey]

LOL Tall, I don't go into other people's denominational forums and bash them OR their churches.

I disagree with their teachings, absolutely, but I don't harass the PEOPLE!

Debate is a good thing most of the time, but posting all those threads when you admit you are "honestly convinced" goes beyond debate.

I'm just glad others finally see it.

[tall73]

LOL Tall, I don't go into other people's denominational forums and bash them OR their churches.

I disagree with their teachings, absolutely, but I don't harass the PEOPLE!

Debate is a good thing most of the time, but posting all those threads when you admit you are "honestly convinced" goes beyond debate.

I'm just glad others finally see it.

I didn't bash you either. I debated your doctrine. And what you do is your own issue. The Adventist church has again and again publicly debated other people's doctrine, and makes it a point to do so.

Debate involves people who are honestly convinced all the time. Therefore this idea of yours that people can only debate when they are not honestly convinced is one of your own making.

[tall73]

The debate area should stay here since it's been a part of the SDA forum. You guys can create a new debate area in the new forum or even copy threads started by progs/formers. If you chose not to let us comment there, we can use the denomination specific theology forum or GT. But I don't know how frequently I would visit those areas.

I am fine with the debate area staying as well. But clearly folks don't want to leave it an open debate area.

[OntheDL]

One thing I have noticed since the day I stepped a cyber-foot into this forum is the tremendous effort made to make rules to exclude/protect. And then to redo the rules. And then to redo the rules that were already redone. A few weeks after the 'new rules' you're discussing now are 'established' I'm sure they'll be redone even again. Maybe we should change the name of this forum to 'The Art of Perpetually Making Rules Forum'.

Just an observation.

All the rule tweaking had been trying to reduce the strives in this forum. But you see it had worked.

I think we were trying to make compromises to make everyone happy. But since the progs and formers are leaving, no compromises will be necessary.

[TrustAndObey]

All the rule tweaking had been trying to reduce the strives in this forum. But you see it had worked.

I think we were trying to make compromises to make everyone happy. But since the progs and formers are leaving, no compromises will be necessary.

That's what I'm trying to tell you DL. Tall and others have plainly stated that they are not planning on "leaving" even when the new forum is established.

Right now, tensions are too high and I think we need to put a temporary stop to debate.

They can discuss forum rules for their new forum somewhere else and "rejoice" as Dean put it SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[honorthesabbath]

The difference tall is that those in attendance came willing to here. In this forum where it is suppose to be our 'home tuft', we are subjected to bashing CONSTANTLY--we cannot get away from it. If those attending a seminar don't like what they hear--they can get up--walk out--and never hear it again! OH HOW NICE THAT WOULD BE!

[OntheDL]

I am fine with the debate area staying as well. But clearly folks don't want to leave it an open debate area.

Maybe we can create a link to the denominational-specific theology forum.

I'm all for debate. But I don't care for for someone coming in my house to start a gun fight. We can do it on a neutral terf.

[tall73]

DL, I think you of all the people in this thread can see the real issue. Adventists do not have a weenie message that shrinks back from discussion. Adventists believe they have the truth and believe they are calling people to it. They believe that it is their duty to inform others, including those in Babylon. That is in fact what I was doing when I got here. I was going into GT, all of babylon gathered together, and I was pushing the Adventist view. And no one from the Adventist section complained a bit.

So when did the Adventist church suddenly decide that debating is only good if someone might agree with you? When did Adventism decide that their position couldn't win out in open debate?

What is wrong with pointing out perceived doctrinal errors? Does not the Adventist church make a point of doing this? And do they not intend to in the future? And if they do not are they not being unfaithful to their mission? Do they not claim to be the remnant and to play a role in calling people out of Babylon?

So if your real goal is to do that then you would be wise to not limit discussion, to promote for open conversation so that you can convince on the facts. Because on this board as a whole there is a far larger movement to limit anything uncomfortable, any debate which might not be pleasant. And if that happens the Adventists can't even give their view. Because the nature of their view is unpleasant. They believe the CC to be the beast. They believe fallen protestants to be in league with it.

So if you believe that message you can't be shrinking back from debate. It is inevitable. Adventism's claims demand debate and decision.


But here in the debate area I have now been debating and instead of merely addressing the facts I keep having to contend with this idea that pointing out doctrinal errors is wrong. Despite the fact that the Adventist church openly does this.

Simply put this is a debate area. Debate is completely on topic and allowed.

[TrustAndObey]

I didn't bash you either. I debated your doctrine. And what you do is your own issue. The Adventist church has again and again publicly debated other people's doctrine, and makes it a point to do so.

Do you go to anybody else's denominational forum to debate their doctrine?

Debate involves people who are honestly convinced all the time. Therefore this idea of yours that people can only debate when they are not honestly convinced is one of your own making.

But you admit you're trying to persuade, not just debate.

[tall73]

Maybe we can create a link to the denominational-specific theology forum.

I'm all for debate. But I don't care for for someone coming in my house to start a gun fight. We can do it on a neutral terf.

A. You invited them to your house.

B. When did Adventists stop going door -to-door?

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, not answering the same questions over and over and over again isn't shrinking away from ANYTHING!

See, that's people's mindsets around here. That if we don't want to go into hostile territory that we have something to hide. That is just simply not true.

But I will NEVER, EVER go into a denominational-specific forum and drag people through the mud over their doctrine. NEVER.

GT is a totally different story, and you know it.

[honorthesabbath]

There comes a point when normal, natural debating crosses the line into obsession and this is what has happened here.

This is why the rules were set in place because the formers and progs repeatedly harassed (s) those who rejected their 'questionings".

I too found it shocking when Night and others said they have every intention of continuing their abusive behavior in here even after they get their own forum. Now how telling is that?

[tall73]

The difference tall is that those in attendance came willing to here. In this forum where it is suppose to be our 'home tuft', we are subjected to bashing CONSTANTLY--we cannot get away from it. If those attending a seminar don't like what they hear--they can get up--walk out--and never hear it again! OH HOW NICE THAT WOULD BE!


Honor, there is no difference because you invited us here by having a debate forum. You all chose that.

How nice would it be if you realized that we were doing just what your rules allow.

How nice it would be if you realized how inconsistent it is to say that we are bashing when what we do is what the Adventist church does all the time--examining beliefs.

[TrustAndObey]

Let me reiterate for any lurkers that might stumble by that when we voted in a debate section, we were allowed to formulate the rules for said section.

Since then, apparently we have no say in the rules.

Things have changed. Our forum has changed.

[tall73]

Do you go to anybody else's denominational forum to debate their doctrine?



But you admit you're trying to persuade, not just debate.

Many Adventist churches were started by a public debate with the most prominent minister in town. Are you saying they were not debating because they agreed with their position and wanted to promote it?


Debate involves promotion.

de·bate (dhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)play_w("D0061900")v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discuss).
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

v.tr.1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

n.1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

[TrustAndObey]

The ORIGINAL rules WE voted in for the debate section is that guests had to be answered with the OFFICIAL Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal view, Tall.

If they stated an opinion that was contrary to the OFFICIAL Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, they had to expressly state that fact (even though they didn't).

[tall73]

Tall, not answering the same questions over and over and over again isn't shrinking away from ANYTHING!


And how many times has the Sabbath been debated in GT? How many times have Adventists pressed the issue?

Now ask the other question. How many times have we looked at specific Ellen White comments on Zoar? um..maybe one or two.



See, that's people's mindsets around here. That if we don't want to go into hostile territory that we have something to hide. That is just simply not true.

But I will NEVER, EVER go into a denominational-specific forum and drag people through the mud over their doctrine. NEVER.

GT is a totally different story, and you know it.

No, actually it is not a different story. You invited debate right here.

[TrustAndObey]

Now that different rules were basically forced on us, we have a right to change things around, especially in light of the new forum coming about.

[tall73]

The ORIGINAL rules WE voted in for the debate section is that guests had to be answered with the OFFICIAL Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal view, Tall.

If they stated an opinion that was contrary to the OFFICIAL Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, they had to expressly state that fact (even though they didn't).


They had to be answered with the official view in the main section. The debate section was for debating of views.

[TrustAndObey]

Let me say it again:

The ORIGINAL rules WE voted in for the debate section is that guests had to be answered with the OFFICIAL Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal view, Tall.

If they stated an opinion that was contrary to the OFFICIAL Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, they had to expressly state that fact (even though they didn't).

[tall73]

There comes a point when normal, natural debating crosses the line into obsession and this is what has happened here.

This is why the rules were set in place because the formers and progs repeatedly harassed (s) those who rejected their 'questionings".

I too found it shocking when Night and others said they have every intention of continuing their abusive behavior in here even after they get their own forum. Now how telling is that?


Obsession because you don't like what is said?

That is your view. It is debating doctrine.

[tall73]

Now that different rules were basically forced on us, we have a right to change things around, especially in light of the new forum coming about.

Feel free to change them. But objections to debate in a debate area are unfounded.

[TrustAndObey]

They had to be answered with the official view in the main section. The debate section was for debating of views.

That's not true. We expressly stated that in the debate section guests had to be answered with the OFFICIAL teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Instead, a lot of times, guests coming in here resulted in dog-piles.

[TrustAndObey]

Actually Honor, Night said he wouldn't come back here.

[TrustAndObey]

3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum (Effective September 16, 2007)

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in a Seventh-day Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists.

3.2 Other Christians and non-Christians are also allowed to debate respectfully.

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

3.4 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."

3.5 Those inquiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.
http://christianforums.com/t6109271-...sub-forum.html (http://christianforums.com/t6109271-guidelines-for-the-discussion-and-debate-sub-forum.html)

[RC_NewProtestants]

Let me say it again:

The ORIGINAL rules WE voted in for the debate section is that guests had to be answered with the OFFICIAL Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal view, Tall.

If they stated an opinion that was contrary to the OFFICIAL Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, they had to expressly state that fact (even though they didn't).
And that is wrong, even when you posted the debate rules we can see that what you said is incorrect.

The administration has already said also that it is not necessary to say this is my opinion on everything one writes because unless you quote someone else it is always the opinion or interpretation of the person writing.

The next point says to direct the questioner to the main sda forum for official statements. Of course that is not true as some people including moderators would post quotes from books which were not official SDA doctrines also. But that appears to be ok as only certain people are subject to the rules on this forum.

[ricker]

LOL Tall, I don't go into other people's denominational forums and bash them OR their churches.

I disagree with their teachings, absolutely, but I don't harass the PEOPLE!

Debate is a good thing most of the time, but posting all those threads when you admit you are "honestly convinced" goes beyond debate.

I'm just glad others finally see it.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing you go to another denominations forum and bringing up some of the unique SDA doctrines, such as the IJ. See what they say.
God bless! Ricker

[freeindeed2]

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing you go to another denominations forum and bringing up some of the unique SDA doctrines, such as the IJ. See what they say.
God bless! Ricker
Even more, if they don't then are they fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the 3 angel's message? Why would they NOT go proclaim it on every board here? As the 'remnant church' are they not concerned with the souls of those they believe will be lost?

In CHRIST alone...

[OntheDL]

DL, I think you of all the people in this thread can see the real issue. Adventists do not have a weenie message that shrinks back from discussion. Adventists believe they have the truth and believe they are calling people to it. They believe that it is their duty to inform others, including those in Babylon. That is in fact what I was doing when I got here. I was going into GT, all of babylon gathered together, and I was pushing the Adventist view. And no one from the Adventist section complained a bit.

So when did the Adventist church suddenly decide that debating is only good if someone might agree with you? When did Adventism decide that their position couldn't win out in open debate?

What is wrong with pointing out perceived doctrinal errors? Does not the Adventist church make a point of doing this? And do they not intend to in the future? And if they do not are they not being unfaithful to their mission? Do they not claim to be the remnant and to play a role in calling people out of Babylon?

So if your real goal is to do that then you would be wise to not limit discussion, to promote for open conversation so that you can convince on the facts. Because on this board as a whole there is a far larger movement to limit anything uncomfortable, any debate which might not be pleasant. And if that happens the Adventists can't even give their view. Because the nature of their view is unpleasant. They believe the CC to be the beast. They believe fallen protestants to be in league with it.

So if you believe that message you can't be shrinking back from debate. It is inevitable. Adventism's claims demand debate and decision.


But here in the debate area I have now been debating and instead of merely addressing the facts I keep having to contend with this idea that pointing out doctrinal errors is wrong. Despite the fact that the Adventist church openly does this.

Simply put this is a debate area. Debate is completely on topic and allowed.

I think you said very well. When you had the adventist message you went to GT, not the Catholic forum, not the respective protestant forums.

We left the debate forum open here wasn't for people to take advantage to push their agenda. That is not the spirit of debate.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I think you said very well. When you had the adventist message you went to GT, not the Catholic forum, not the respective protestant forums.

We left the debate forum open here wasn't for people to take advantage to push their agenda. That is not the spirit of debate.
That is funny, what do you think the spirit of debate is if not to express your agenda. It is to express your views on a subject. that is debate.

Now likely when we were arriving at the rules there were people who did not want any debate allowed. But there were others who wanted it and it was allowed and rules established. And once again the fearful and controling want to change the rules.

When we have the new forum then I think it would be appropriate for you to change your rules but at least wait until we have a new forum so that you can create the restrictive forum here that some of you want so badly.

[TrustAndObey]

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing you go to another denominations forum and bringing up some of the unique SDA doctrines, such as the IJ. See what they say.
God bless! Ricker

I used to go to GT all the time. Until I got a stalker.

[TrustAndObey]

I personally think it is rude to go to other people's denominational forum to try to convince them that they're wrong.

If God wants them to know it, they'll find out. Let the Holy Spirit do His job.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I personally think it is rude to go to other people's denominational forum to try to convince them that they're wrong.

If God wants them to know it, they'll find out. Let the Holy Spirit do His job.
And how do you know that the Holy Spirit does not use people on a forum to teach them what they should know?

Reminds me of the story:
It had been raining for days and days, and a terrible flood had come over the land. The waters rose so high that one man was forced to climb onto the roof of his house.

As the waters rose higher and higher, a man in a rowboat appeared, and told him to get in. "No," replied the man on the roof. "I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me." So the man in the rowboat went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters rose higher and higher, and suddenly a speedboat appeared. "Climb in!" shouted a man in the boat. "No," replied the man on the roof. "I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me." So the man in the speedboat went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters continued to rise. A helicopter appeared and over the loudspeaker, the pilot announced he would lower a rope to the man on the roof. "No," replied the man on the roof. "I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me." So the helicopter went away..

The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters rose higher and higher, and eventually they rose so high that the man on the roof was washed away, and alas, the poor man drowned.

Upon arriving in heaven, the man marched straight over to God. "Heavenly Father," he said, "I had faith in you, I prayed to you to save me, and yet you did nothing. Why?" God gave him a puzzled look, and replied "I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"

[TrustAndObey]

Armchair Saviors?

I think not.

People say things on a message board they wouldn't say in a normal conversation with another human being and in a way they would not speak to another human being face-to-face.

People do more harm than good on message boards IMHO. Not that it's impossible to get someone thinking, but then you couldn't take credit anyway. ALL GLORY TO GOD!

If you earnestly feel the Lord is leading you to do His work through a message board then fine. But going into someone else's denominational forum puts them on the defensive right away.

That joke reminded me of a cartoon I saw once. This man is standing out in an open field and he says "If You exist....PROVE IT!"

The cartoon shows a deer walk past the man with a tiny baby deer. It shows it start raining and the lightning in the sky, the birds flying by...etc.

After all that, at the end of the cartoon the guy says "I'm still waiting!"

[TrustAndObey]

RC, please answer me this...would you go into someone else's CHURCH and start debating them? Even the parking lot of their church unannounced and uninvited?

[Sophia7]

Armchair Saviors?

I think not.

People say things on a message board they wouldn't say in a normal conversation with another human being and in a way they would not speak to another human being face-to-face.

People do more harm than good on message boards IMHO. Not that it's impossible to get someone thinking, but then you couldn't take credit anyway. ALL GLORY TO GOD!

If you earnestly feel the Lord is leading you to do His work through a message board then fine. But going into someone else's denominational forum puts them on the defensive right away.

That joke reminded me of a cartoon I saw once. This man is standing out in an open field and he says "If You exist....PROVE IT!"

The cartoon shows a deer walk past the man with a tiny baby deer. It shows it start raining and the lightning in the sky, the birds flying by...etc.

After all that, at the end of the cartoon the guy says "I'm still waiting!"

RC, please answer me this...would you go into someone else's CHURCH and start debating them? Even the parking lot of their church unannounced and uninvited?

This is RC's denominational forum.

[TrustAndObey]

This is RC's denominational forum.

Yeah, I know. And he's already admitted there's things said in Sabbath school and in his church that he doesn't agree with but he won't disagree with it THERE where it would make a difference to the person saying it, he disagrees with it HERE though.

That's exactly what I'm saying....not all people would say the things in "real life" that they say on here.

That's why I have never agreed with the whole "well if they're on the books and haven't been disfellowshipped then you can't say....." yada yada.

If people said the things they do HERE in the way they do HERE....what do you think would happen?

Walk into any Adventist church and just take over the SS lesson or sermon.....start preaching a foreign doctrine and you don't think disfellowship would shortly follow?

I can't help it if they don't say it in their churches but I do know what would happen if they did.

[Paul101]

A Lot of very good points in this thread; FIRST: Im NOT a SDA Member; but my Parents were; so I got brought up in the church.
Much I Dont agree with, but on a Forum, I "Hope" everyone can debate about things in a adult manner,
ask questions, give answers; I Do hope you think im not Butting In, Trying to convert you to my Faith [Whatever that is, Im still looking];
But help me find the way....................

Paul

[TrustAndObey]

A Lot of very good points in this thread; FIRST: Im NOT a SDA Member; but my Parents were; so I got brought up in the church.
Much I Dont agree with, but on a Forum, I "Hope" everyone can debate about things in a adult manner,
ask questions, give answers; I Do hope you think im not Butting In, Trying to convert you to my Faith [Whatever that is, Im still looking];
But help me find the way....................

Paul

Paul, I welcomed you in the liquor thread, but let me say "Welcome!" again.

Unfortunately you walked in at the end of a hornet's nest abrewin'. Come sit by me. I'll protect you.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Yeah, I know. And he's already admitted there's things said in Sabbath school and in his church that he doesn't agree with but he won't disagree with it THERE where it would make a difference to the person saying it, he disagrees with it HERE though.


No that is not what I had said. You might want to learn something called discretion. There are times to say things and times not to say things. I never said I do not disagree in SS classes. You have a tendancy to read into statements things that were never there or ever intended. Possibly something that learning about discretion will help you with.


That's exactly what I'm saying....not all people would say the things in "real life" that they say on here.

In real life it would be unusual to make the type of statement you did above about what I do or don't do in a SS class. But you did it here and you were wrong. You are very often the most problematic in this regard about saying things that you should not say in real life, so your own actions negate the impact you may intend.


If people said the things they do HERE in the way they do HERE....what do you think would happen?


Walk into any Adventist church and just take over the SS lesson or sermon.....start preaching a foreign doctrine and you don't think disfellowship would shortly follow?

I can't help it if they don't say it in their churches but I do know what would happen if they did.

Walk into any meeting and try and take it over and see what happens. Your arguments are predicated upon the idea that people behave like charging bulls. I don't think there is really any subject I have talked about in discussion forums that I have not talked about within Sabbath School classes. I have never been disfellowshiped and I will be teaching our Sabbath School class this next Sabbath.
You can see my take on the lesson on my blog by tomorrow evening
Http://cafesda.blogspot.com

[StormyOne]

That's exactly what I'm saying....not all people would say the things in "real life" that they say on here.

That's why I have never agreed with the whole "well if they're on the books and haven't been disfellowshipped then you can't say....." yada yada.

If people said the things they do HERE in the way they do HERE....what do you think would happen?

Walk into any Adventist church and just take over the SS lesson or sermon.....start preaching a foreign doctrine and you don't think disfellowship would shortly follow?

I can't help it if they don't say it in their churches but I do know what would happen if they did.
everything I have said here (over the years) I have also said in church or sabbath school or other discussions regarding our theology... so while some might say things here they wouldn't say in real life, that would not apply to me.... in fact some of the more radical stuff I have not said here... imagine that...

[TrustAndObey]

No that is not what I had said. You might want to learn something called discretion. There are times to say things and times not to say things. I never said I do not disagree in SS classes. You have a tendancy to read into statements things that were never there or ever intended. Possibly something that learning about discretion will help you with.

RC, did you or did you not post about the discussion of creation in your SS where you said you totally disagreed with the guy talking but didn't say anything?

In real life it would be unusual to make the type of statement you did above about what I do or don't do in a SS class. But you did it here and you were wrong. You are very often the most problematic in this regard about saying things that you should not say in real life, so your own actions negate the impact you may intend.

I'm just as outspoken in person RC. I don't compromise ANYTHING I believe in for anybody.

Walk into any meeting and try and take it over and see what happens. Your arguments are predicated upon the idea that people behave like charging bulls. I don't think there is really any subject I have talked about in discussion forums that I have not talked about within Sabbath School classes. I have never been disfellowshiped and I will be teaching our Sabbath School class this next Sabbath.
You can see my take on the lesson on my blog by tomorrow evening
http://cafesda.blogspot.com

:)

[TrustAndObey]

everything I have said here (over the years) I have also said in church or sabbath school or other discussions regarding our theology... so while some might say things here they wouldn't say in real life, that would not apply to me.... in fact some of the more radical stuff I have not said here... imagine that...

Were you sweet with charming goodness? Or did you talk "down" to people?

[StormyOne]

Were you sweet with charming goodness? Or did you talk "down" to people?
I discuss, and I share.... in person it is much easier to do those things as people can see the expressions on your face as well as the inflection in one's voice.... I don't think its possible to "talk down" to anyone in a live discussion if everyone is expressing their opinion, articulating their position, then it is a time for exchange and sharing....

Unfortunately on the internet so much is lost and people read into comments things that are not being said.... but we gotta work with what we have...

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC, did you or did you not post about the discussion of creation in your SS where you said you totally disagreed with the guy talking but didn't say anything?



And so by what logic does one conclude that because in one incident something was done that in all or even the majority of times that things will always be done as the one incident.

Well of course you won't find a logic for it because doing what you did is a logical fallacy.

On top of that you continue to argue about what you don't have any knowledge, that is also a logical fallacy to say the least.

[Sophia7]

The Progressive SDA sub-forum has been moved and renamed. It is now a stand-alone congregational forum called Progresssive/Moderate/Former Seventh-day Adventists (http://christianforums.com/f569-progressive-moderate-former-seventh-day-adventists.html).

[gcfrankie]

T&C & Others,
Are you saying that you want an D/D for progs only and no one else may enter? If this is so then why not have a sign in on that D/D and anyone who is not on your list can be banned? It sounds like you don't want tad or outsiders.
Yes I agree there is a right way to debate and snipping is not acceptable. There will always be those who will do it and the only way to handle them is not to respond. As long as you respond you are just as much at fault for keeping the bad behavior going.
There is pro and con on any subject including religion that can be healthy and helpful.
When no one responds to the snipping they will eventually leave.
No one can force you to change your religious belief except yourself and the Holy Spirit. What it can do is make you search the scriptures for truth as Paul teaches as none of us or any church has all the truth.
I know I am butting in but I am trying to see if there is some way to come to a happy medium. As the saying goes "You can please some of the people all the time and some all the people some of the time."
God bless you all.

[gcfrankie]

Sophie 7
You posted before I could post mine as I got called away from the computer. Well I am glad to see that things my now settle down.
Thank-you for your information.

[RC_NewProtestants]

The Progressive SDA sub-forum has been moved and renamed. It is now a stand-alone congregational forum called Progresssive/Moderate/Former Seventh-day Adventists (http://christianforums.com/f541).
I was looking for that, I just put up my idea for the FSG at:
http://christianforums.com/t7115389-fsgs-progressive-moderate-former-seventh-day-adventists.html#post45729675

[tall73]

I think you said very well. When you had the adventist message you went to GT, not the Catholic forum, not the respective protestant forums.

We left the debate forum open here wasn't for people to take advantage to push their agenda. That is not the spirit of debate.

Actually I did debate in the EO forum a bit :) But the rules didn't permit it then. If they had a debate forum I would by all means be there.

And actually debating is not taking advantage of.

And as to going to Gt, of course, it was one-stop shopping. As an Adventist everyone else was wrong.

[OntheDL]

That is funny, what do you think the spirit of debate is if not to express your agenda. It is to express your views on a subject. that is debate.

Now likely when we were arriving at the rules there were people who did not want any debate allowed. But there were others who wanted it and it was allowed and rules established. And once again the fearful and controling want to change the rules.

When we have the new forum then I think it would be appropriate for you to change your rules but at least wait until we have a new forum so that you can create the restrictive forum here that some of you want so badly.

That's the difference between you and me. I don't have to win every argument and I don't have to have the last word.

Jesus said if you go somewhere they don't receive you, shake off the dust from your feet and take your message elsewhere.

Every argument the prog's and formers bring up here have been addressed over and over again.

Did Jesus whom the prog's also claim to serve say if they don't agree just pound them into submission???

If a large number of people go to the Catholic forum and post the pope is the anti-Christ. Even if they allow outside debate but if you repeat over and over when they have had enough, you should expect them to change their rules to restrict this type of 'debate'.

A man convicted against his will is the same opinion still. Common sense is not so common.

[RC_NewProtestants]

The Progressive SDA sub-forum has been moved and renamed. It is now a stand-alone congregational forum called Progresssive/Moderate/Former Seventh-day Adventists (http://christianforums.com/f541).
That link does not take you to anything other then the SDA forum page.

[tall73]

If I understand correctly you all want debate IF

a. no one who debates the other side actually is convinced of their position or wants to persuade.

b. it isn't too often

But that is not what the rules said.

[tall73]

RC, please answer me this...would you go into someone else's CHURCH and start debating them? Even the parking lot of their church unannounced and uninvited?

RC didn't need an invitation and you DID invite us. You can regret and fret now if you like ,but you did allow debate. You just didn't like it when debate actually occurred.

[OntheDL]

I'll second what T&O said. I'm sure you are as sweet and charming in person as you are online.

If you have said the things you have said here, there would be legitimate ground (apostasy is one of the two) for disfellowship. You should thank your local church for being graceful.

That poses a serious question: if you don't agree with foundational doctrine and the mission statement of the church and yet does not have the guts to leave it, what does it say about you?

everything I have said here (over the years) I have also said in church or sabbath school or other discussions regarding our theology... so while some might say things here they wouldn't say in real life, that would not apply to me.... in fact some of the more radical stuff I have not said here... imagine that...

[Sophia7]

That link does not take you to anything other then the SDA forum page.

Sorry about that. I fixed the link. It should work now:
http://christianforums.com/f569-progressive-moderate-former-seventh-day-adventists.html

[OntheDL]

Actually I did debate in the EO forum a bit :) But the rules didn't permit it then. If they had a debate forum I would by all means be there.

And actually debating is not taking advantage of.

And as to going to Gt, of course, it was one-stop shopping. As an Adventist everyone else was wrong.

When you started to debate our doctrines, it was understood you had nowhere else to go. We were ok with it and we (I at least at one point) tried to help you with these issues.

But the communication broke down about a year ago. You know this. I can think of no good reason for you to insist on bringing up the same issues over and over other than to annoy us. That I think you know also.

I'm a former Pentecostal and a former Baptist. But you don't see me going to the Pentecostal area to say how they are wrong about the covenant and the law. You don't see me going to the Baptist area and say how they are wrong on the eternal hell and on the immortal soul.

I respect myself enough to not to offer unwanted and unsolicited advice. At least I try to be respectful most of the time. Maybe you don't view it that way. Like I said before, it's not about what you think is acceptable for others, but what they actually find. I don't try to force my will on others. That's why people are likened to the sheep. You can't drive them from behind with a stick you would with the cattle. The good shepherd leads by example.

[tall73]

When you started to debate our doctrines, it was understood you had nowhere else to go. We were ok with it and we (I at least at one point) tried to help you with these issues.

But the communication broke down about a year ago. You know this. I can think of no good reason for you to insist on bringing up the same issues over and over other than to annoy us. That I think you know also.


Debate is not to simply agree or try to agree with you. And I in fact am still learning by debate.

Moreover, the issues I brought up recently were not the same ones as before.

You don't have to understand it. You don't even have to participate. In fact none of the people complaining had to participate in the debate section.



I'm a former Pentecostal and a former Baptist. But you don't see me going to the Pentecostal area to say how they are wrong about the covenant and the law. You don't see me going to the Baptist area and say how they are wrong on the eternal hell and on the immortal soul.


And?

If I want to debate in the debate area there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to avoid my thread there is nothing wrong with that. I was discussing Adventist doctrine which is of interest to me. That is the whole point of a discussion board.



I respect myself enough to not to offer unwanted and unsolicited advice. At least I try to be respectful most of the time. Maybe you don't view it that way. Like I said before, it's not about what you think is acceptable for others, but what they actually find. I don't try to force my will on others. That's why people are likened to the sheep. You can't drive them from behind with a stick you would with the cattle. The good shepherd leads by example.


I found a number of people participating and discussing. If you didn't want to you didn't have to. If you didn't like it you could certainly avoid it.

[freeindeed2]

If I want to debate in the debate area there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to avoid my thread there is nothing wrong with that. I was discussing Adventist doctrine which is of interest to me. That is the whole point of a discussion board.
Many here just haven't figured that out yet. What's the point of a discussion board if so many rules are formed that true discussion is not allowed to even take place. And many don't know what debate really is. Everything is taken personally, and when discussing SDAism as a system of beliefs many consider any questions (no matter how valid they are!) as attacks. It's ridiculous and childish, especially in light of the fact that this is a DISCUSSION/DEBATE BOARD.

In CHRIST alone...

[tall73]

When you started to debate our doctrines, it was understood you had nowhere else to go. We were ok with it and we (I at least at one point) tried to help you with these issues.
.


Ok with it? You all telling me I should resign when you thought it was best because I was trying to work through the issues was being ok with it?


And we have seen how ok with it you are with stormy in this very thread, again saying he should leave the church because you think that is what is best.


Sorry if we don't get the idea you were ok with it.


So let's review one more time the real issue here.

It doesn't matter whether you are ok with it. The rules say this forum is for debate of doctrine. That is what I did--debate doctrine. This idea of it being abuse of a privilege to do precisely what the section is for is ridiculous. We were afforded the privilege of debate. We debated. We did what the section was for.

And every step of the way we heard about how we were bashing and attacking and bullying etc.--for doing the very thing the board was designed for--discussing and debating doctrine. You have every right to avoid debate if that is your desire.

[moicherie]

delete double post

[moicherie]

Imagine Paul of Tarsus running from a debate..........nah he would love the challenge for he knew his stuff, maybe others are not so firm in their beliefs if so joining a discussion board that has a debate section should be the last thing they should do......

[sentipente]

DL, what official position do you hold within the SDA denomination? I think you may be presenting yourself as what you are not.

[sentipente]

Were you sweet with charming goodness? Or did you talk "down" to people?
Those who don't want to admit they are or could be wrong always claimed others are talking down to them. It is a familiar ploy.

[sentipente]

RC, please answer me this...would you go into someone else's CHURCH and start debating them? Even the parking lot of their church unannounced and uninvited?
Ever read the story of Jesus in the courtyard of the temple? Was He invited to overturn the moneychangers' tables? I guess you disagree with His tactics.

[StormyOne]

I'll second what T&O said. I'm sure you are as sweet and charming in person as you are online.

If you have said the things you have said here, there would be legitimate ground (apostasy is one of the two) for disfellowship. You should thank your local church for being graceful.

That poses a serious question: if you don't agree with foundational doctrine and the mission statement of the church and yet does not have the guts to leave it, what does it say about you?
not sure you are being sarcastic or genuine... I am choosing not to comment on the content of your post because while you may read my comments you don't know me... likewise since we are not friends nor do I think you are overly concerned about me the questions you posed to me are moot...

[Byfaithalone1]

We are witnessing a wave of anti-EGW, anti-SDA posts lately

I am not anti-SDA. I am pro-gospel.

in desperate attempts to inflict maximum damage before the changes take place in this forum. Is this not the case?

Desparate attempts? This morning was the first time I heard someone suggest that changes are being considered. And I've never heard from any sort of official source.

It seems to me certain mods and admins work very hard to help our 'persecuted' progressive brethrens while paying no attention to the other group who are 'left behind'. It pleases some that the group they identify with is moving from the 'dire' situation to a safe haven while the other they don't is left in the same struggle.

I'm having a hard time understanding the issue here. There are forums here on this website where SDAs can communicate with one another without any debate. Those who are open to debate come here to this forum that was specifically established to allow debate. What exactly is the problem here?

What must we do to have mods start a thread to discuss new rules for our forum now that the prog's are leaving?

Progressives are leaving? If so, why? Someone will need to explain to me what all of this is about because I don't get it at all.

BFA

[tall73]

I am not anti-SDA. I am pro-gospel.



Desparate attempts? This morning was the first time I heard someone suggest that changes are being considered. And I've never heard from any sort of official source.



I'm having a hard time understanding the issue here. There are forums here on this website where SDAs can communicate with one another without any debate. Those who are open to debate come here to this forum that was specifically established to allow debate. What exactly is the problem here?



Progressives are leaving? If so, why? Someone will need to explain to me what all of this is about because I don't get it at all.

BFA

The progressives have obtained their own section at CF.

[Byfaithalone1]

The progressives have obtained their own section at CF.

Should I conclude then that DL was focusing his comments to progressive SDAs? Why is TOA claiming that formers are going to be told they can no longer debate SDAs here? How does all of this impact those of us who aren't SDA?

BFA

[tall73]

They are considering changing their guidelines to limit the debate section.

[JohnT]

RC, please answer me this...would you go into someone else's CHURCH and start debating them? Even the parking lot of their church unannounced and uninvited?


This is RC's denominational forum.

I do not think that this has been made clear, but who's forum is the debate and discussion sub forum?

Is it the nature of the forum that permits only one certain "brand" of SDA to have posting privileges?

Does that mean that those no longer SDAs can no longer post here?

Or does the name "debate and discuss" have to be changed to reflect that this is a closed forum?

Since this is on a public website, then it is my belief that there should be some sort of place where some can debate those ideas and doctrines where they disagree with others. That is how we all learn, in a Hegelian sense.

Naturally, since this is fundamentally a series of SDA threads, there must be some common ground rules we can all agree to that respects the SDAs here, but also allows for freedom of discussion.

Naturally, there will be "forum Nazis" who will want to keep their clubhouse, and I favor that for them. Everyone who posts has an agenda, and for those wanting a closed area, it should be made clear to those who want to post there the purpose of the forum.

Once, I almost posted on the "traditional" forum. Can you imagine how that would have gone over?

I also believe I posted a thread on the "progressive", and it was not picked up well.

Then I tried to enter the "debate and discussion" forum with a spirit of open debate, for I honestly thought that the area was somewhat like CARM, but with stricter guidelines. I was mistaken about that.

Someone has to decide if this is an open area wholly, partially or very limited in its openness, if at all. That, I believe is the job of the administrators, alone.

That is because while this site is democratically run, anyone who has lived in a democracy can experience the tyranny of the minority in that they often frustrate the will of the majority. That is why I favor a republican form of government, and why the administrators, acting like the elected officials in this forum can and must impose the necessary rule changes.

Yes, people will squawk, but they do no matter what changes are made, and there is where it takes courage to lead.

Admins, the ball should be in your court, now.

[Sophia7]

I do not think that this has been made clear, but who's forum is the debate and discussion sub forum?

Is it the nature of the forum that permits only one certain "brand" of SDA to have posting privileges?

Does that mean that those no longer SDAs can no longer post here?

Or does the name "debate and discuss" have to be changed to reflect that this is a closed forum?

Since this is on a public website, then it is my belief that there should be some sort of place where some can debate those ideas and doctrines where they disagree with others. That is how we all learn, in a Hegelian sense.

Naturally, since this is fundamentally a series of SDA threads, there must be some common ground rules we can all agree to that respects the SDAs here, but also allows for freedom of discussion.

Naturally, there will be "forum Nazis" who will want to keep their clubhouse, and I favor that for them. Everyone who posts has an agenda, and for those wanting a closed area, it should be made clear to those who want to post there the purpose of the forum.

Once, I almost posted on the "traditional" forum. Can you imagine how that would have gone over?

I also believe I posted a thread on the "progressive", and it was not picked up well.

Then I tried to enter the "debate and discussion" forum with a spirit of open debate, for I honestly thought that the area was somewhat like CARM, but with stricter guidelines. I was mistaken about that.

Someone has to decide if this is an open area wholly, partially or very limited in its openness, if at all. That, I believe is the job of the administrators, alone.

That is because while this site is democratically run, anyone who has lived in a democracy can experience the tyranny of the minority in that they often frustrate the will of the majority. That is why I favor a republican form of government, and why the administrators, acting like the elected officials in this forum can and must impose the necessary rule changes.

Yes, people will squawk, but they do no matter what changes are made, and there is where it takes courage to lead.

Admins, the ball should be in your court, now.

The Discussion and Debate sub-forum is open to everyone to debate, teach, disagree with Adventist doctrines, etc. The FSGs currently allow that.

[happywiththelord]

just a question...why are formers and others still posting here??? you have your own forum now. why not post there?

[moicherie]

just a question...why are formers and others still posting here??? you have your own forum now. why not post there?
Is the debate section just limited to 'Traditional' Adventists? If not then you know the answer to your own question.

[TrustAndObey]

Hopefully it will be soon Moicherie.

[moicherie]

Hopefully it will be soon Moicherie.
yes im sure you will be glad to boot your fellow siblings outta here - christians are good at separatism...makes John 17 seem like a pipe dream oh well

[freeindeed2]

yes im sure you will be glad to boot your fellow siblings outta here - christians are good at separatism...makes John 17 seem like a pipe dream oh well
Yeah, it's pretty clear they want a place where questioning SDA doctrine and discussing it is not even allowed.
"We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake." Preach the Word, p.5(1905)
IOW, regardless of what the 'mass of Scripture' says, the SDA points of faith as presented by EGW are not to even be questioned.

Same song, second verse today.

In CHRIST alone...

[VictorC]

Yeah, it's pretty clear they want a place where questioning SDA doctrine and discussing it is not even allowed.
"We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake." Preach the Word, p.5(1905)
IOW, regardless of what the 'mass of Scripture' says, the SDA points of faith as presented by EGW are not to even be questioned.

Same song, second verse today.

In CHRIST alone...
That was an excellent quote from Ellen, that I remember was regarding the questions A.F. Ballenger raised about the sanctuary doctrine /investigative judgment.

I'm reminded of the presentation Adventist Dr Raymond Cottrell made, The Sanctuary Doctrine - asset or liability? (http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/AssetOrLiability-Q&A.html) in which he also documented the pillar of Adventism:
The ultimate argument in defense of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 every time questions have been raised concerning it, has been Ellen White’s explicit affirmation of it. As a presumably infallible interpreter of Scripture her support always settled the matter. For instance, in 1888, forty-four years after the great disappointment of October 22, 1844 she wrote: "The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith, was the declaration, ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’"8 She devoted an entire chapter in The Great Controversy to a defense and explanation of the sanctuary doctrine.9 Eighteen years later, in 1906, she wrote again: "The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith."10

In order to understand these two statements in their historical context it is important to remember that she and many others then living had personally experienced the great disappointment of October 22, 1844. Her statements about it were absolutely historically accurate. The experience was still vivid in her own mind and in the minds of many others.

In both of these statements Ellen White is simply stating historical fact; she is not exegeting Scripture. In 1895 she wrote: "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible."11 Her principle was that "The Bible is was the only rule of faith and doctrine. … The Bible alone … [is] the foundation of our faith. … The Bible alone is to be our guide. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of [God’s] will. … We are to receive God’s word as supreme authority."12 Numerous similar statements could be cited.13 It is important to remember that she never considered herself an exegete of the Bible. Upon numerous occasions when asked for what her questioners proposed to accept as an authoritative, infallible interpretation of a disputed Bible passage she refused, and told them to go to the Bible themselves for an answer.

It is also vital to remember that in Ellen White’s 47,000 or so citations of Scripture she makes use of the Bible in two distinct ways: (1) to quote the Bible when narrating the Bible story in its own context, and (2) to apply Bible principles in her counsel to the church today---out of its biblical context.
So when scholarship within the halls of Adventism approached Ellen White regarding serious conflicts of the IJ with the Bible itself, Ellen's response was to shut her door against it, as she testified she did for fifty years.

It was all to protect the pillar of Adventism.
It wasn't God who sustained that pillar, after all.
Just Ellen's imagination.
That's why this SDA 'distinctive' isn't to be found anywhere else.

Victor

[TrustAndObey]

yes im sure you will be glad to boot your fellow siblings outta here - christians are good at separatism...makes John 17 seem like a pipe dream oh well

That's pretty funny.

They have their own forum now by their own hand. Nobody kicked them out.

We asked for a split in July of last year but most Progressives voted NO and voted for stricter rules instead....then complained when they got reported for breaking the stricter rules.

This is incredible Moicherie. Don't try to put a guilt trip on us when you guys GOT what you asked for.

[TrustAndObey]

Yeah, it's pretty clear they want a place where questioning SDA doctrine and discussing it is not even allowed."We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake." Preach the Word, p.5(1905)
IOW, regardless of what the 'mass of Scripture' says, the SDA points of faith as presented by EGW are not to even be questioned.

Same song, second verse today.

In CHRIST alone...

LOL

We aren't harassing you guys in your forum. You wanted out of here pretty badly, but you can't quite keep away.

You don't think that's pretty telling?

[TrustAndObey]

Some guy came in and posted this morning about how he'd never seen a "former" forum.

You know why? It's uniquely Adventist here on CF. You guys cannot stand us but can't keep away from us.

So smooches all the way around. Love abounds!

[Byfaithalone1]

Hopefully it will be soon Moicherie.

Let's consider carefully what you have written. One could easily conclude that you hope that you will never have to publicly discuss the Scriptures with a non-SDA again? If that is true, one must wonder why? If you have the truth, why wouldn't you want to discuss it with non-SDAs? What is the source of your "hope" that leads you to want the administrators to preclude non-SDAs from dialoguing publicly with traditional SDAs?

BFA

[TrustAndObey]

Let's consider carefully what you have written. One could easily conclude that you hope that you will never have to publicly discuss the Scriptures with a non-SDA again? If that is true, one must wonder why? If you have the truth, why wouldn't you want to discuss it with non-SDAs? What is the source of your "hope" that leads you to want the administrators to preclude non-SDAs from dialoguing publicly with traditional SDAs?

BFA

Oh this just keeps getting funnier!!

BFA, I've debated you for DAYS now and I've used nothing but scripture, scripture, scripture.

*I* am not the one that had to make something up (about the feasts being on STONE), remember?

You could probably say a lot about me, BFA, but if you're honest, you won't say that I can't hold my own or that I don't know EXACTLY why I believe something. True?

[TrustAndObey]

Pssst...for those of you that don't know...there's several places here on CF to debate. Even if we lock out debate in our forum here, that doesn't mean you can't find us elsewhere on this site.

Well, you won't find us in other people's denominational forums telling them they're wrong....but check other places.

[freeindeed2]

LOL

We aren't harassing you guys in your forum. You wanted out of here pretty badly, but you can't quite keep away.

You don't think that's pretty telling?
Some wanted out of here, but the Gospel is still devoid here. I'm fine with the new forum. The 'telling' part is that this forum is headed to a place where doctrine can't even be discussed. It's almost like 'spiritual incest' to not even allow discussion/debate of doctrine. People seem to equate questions or discussion/debate with persecution! We live in a world where people are being KILLED (literally!) for standing for Christ alone, yet this board thinks they're persecuted because discussion takes place concerning SDA doctrine. A reality check and perspective are in order here! Discussing the beliefs of the SDA church is IN NO WAY persecution!

In CHRIST alone...

[VictorC]

Pssst...for those of you that don't know...there's several places here on CF to debate. Even if we lock out debate in our forum here, that doesn't mean you can't find us elsewhere on this site.

Well, you won't find us in other people's denominational forums telling them they're wrong....but check other places.
Some of us have learned a great deal from the education inherent on an apologetics forum. If that doesn't appeal to you, it leads to the question of "why?".

1 Peter 3:12-16
12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

I am not ashamed of the Gospel (Romans 1:16).
Victor

[TrustAndObey]

Victor, go tell that to the people in the new forum that wanted away from us and wanted to keep us from coming into their forum (which uhhh, is totally okay with me).

We don't have to go there and ask them to defend what they believe in.

I can go head-to-toe with every single one of you here now, and if you've been here any length of time, you know that.

And what do I use? SCRIPTURE!

[freeindeed2]

To the 'Come on!' person, adding to the Gospel is 'another gospel' than the ONE Paul and the apostles preached! It's a different gospel!

In CHRIST alone...

[RC_NewProtestants]

That's pretty funny.

They have their own forum now by their own hand. Nobody kicked them out.

We asked for a split in July of last year but most Progressives voted NO and voted for stricter rules instead....then complained when they got reported for breaking the stricter rules.

This is incredible Moicherie. Don't try to put a guilt trip on us when you guys GOT what you asked for.
Yes we now have a new interdenominational forum where we can freely engage with former Adventists because in many ways Progressive and Moderate Adventists have the same concerns with Former Adventists. By the administration action Former Adventists were prevented from discussions with the Progressive Sub-forum. Even though many of those people had a long history with us.

I don't see any reason to assume that just because we have a new forum where we can freely engage with Former Adventists as progressive and moderates that we have lost any standing in this forum.

This is still the SDA debate/discussion forum. And those saying that it should be shut down or restricted are going against the rules of this forum. They have no right under the rules to say that those of us who have used this forum for so long must stop.

That the writing is on the wall that the traditionals who are the majority here will someday change the rules and shut down discussion is pretty clear. Though it has not happened and should since the rules still exist it should not be acted as if the rules do not exist because some vocal traditionals don't like to follow the current rules.

If the rules are changed then they will have a right to complain. Right now they are complaining for no reason other then they don't like the rules they were involved with creating.

[freeindeed2]

Yes we now have a new interdenominational forum where we can freely engage with former Adventists because in many ways Progressive and Moderate Adventists have the same concerns with Former Adventists. By the administration action Former Adventists were prevented from discussions with the Progressive Sub-forum. Even though many of those people had a long history with us.

I don't see any reason to assume that just because we have a new forum where we can freely engage with Former Adventists as progressive and moderates that we have lost any standing in this forum.

This is still the SDA debate/discussion forum. And those saying that it should be shut down or restricted are going against the rules of this forum. They have no right under the rules to say that those of us who have used this forum for so long must stop.

That the writing is on the wall that the traditionals who are the majority here will someday change the rules and shut down discussion is pretty clear. Though it has not happened and should since the rules still exist it should not be acted as if the rules do not exist because some vocal traditionals don't like to follow the current rules.

If the rules are changed then they will have a right to complain. Right now they are complaining for no reason other then they don't like the rules they were involved with creating.
If they change the rules they are basically saying 'We do not want ANY discussion of our beliefs from anyone who doesn't already agree with us'. So there's no discussion! No questions! No debate/discussion of said beliefs! They will have 'arrived' and will more solidify the separation from the church/body which is made up of ALL who believe in CHRIST alone for salvation.

In CHRIST alone...

[Byfaithalone1]

Oh this just keeps getting funnier!!

BFA, I've debated you for DAYS now and I've used nothing but scripture, scripture, scripture.

*I* am not the one that had to make something up (about the feasts being on STONE), remember?

You could probably say a lot about me, BFA, but if you're honest, you won't say that I can't hold my own or that I don't know EXACTLY why I believe something. True?

Your posts suggest that you want that to end . . . that you want the admins to determine that I can no longer come here to discuss the Scriptures. If you are comfortable in discussing the Scriptures with me, then why the passionate appeals to have formers restricted? It's all very confusing. I guess I just haven't been around here long enough.

I have never made anything up. I gave you the Scriptural basis for each of my positions. There is no question that you disagree with my conclusions, but that doesn't mean that I made anything up.

On that subject, however, we are all still waiting for Scriptural evidence that more than one covenant was given at Sinai. Hopefully you'll be presenting that evidence quite soon . . . .

BFA

[VictorC]

Victor, go tell that to the people in the new forum that wanted away from us and wanted to keep us from coming into their forum (which uhhh, is totally okay with me).
You can tell them. I don't even know what new forum you're referring to.

I can go head-to-toe with every single one of you here now, and if you've been here any length of time, you know that.

And what do I use? SCRIPTURE!
I have seen some places where I don't believe you to be submissive to Scripture. One of these is the misapplication of the seventh day of creation that was sanctified as our eternal rest, as outlined in Hebrews 4:2-10

2: For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3: For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4: For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5: And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6: Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8: For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9: There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10: For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Even the SDA commentary avoids the use of this chapter when they assert that there was a sabbath observed every week at creation. For you to assert that, you would have to show:

God returning to His works of creation and ceasing from them every week.
Joshua leading Israel into the promised land every week (Numbers 14).
The curse from the provocation being repeated every week (Psalm 95).

Each of these is a single event, and that includes the seventh day, the eternal rest that we are invited to enter into estabished from the foundation of the world.

Look at the ordinance of the sabbath itself, from Exodus 20:11. It is written to show that the sanctified and blessed seventh day was the reason for the establishment of the sabbath shadow, to remember God as Creator - and then again to remember God as Deliverer in Deuteronomy 5:15. The sabbath is a shadow of a single time event. This is why Hebrews 4:9 places the rest of God in the future tense from Joshua's day, long after the sabbath ordinance was long established.

This is how the NLT renders Exodus 20:11, and this particular paraphrase expands on the "wherefore" that appears in the AV:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

The seventh day of creation and the weekly sabbath are two separate objects in this verse, and that is consistent with the presentation in Hebrews 4, which contains no weekly sabbath at all.

I'm at work now, and replies from me are going to have to be patiently waited for.
Please use the reply function, as your posts are never anchored as a reply to me.

Victor

[djconklin]

Excellant points Victor!

[djconklin]

BFA, did you really?!?

*I* am not the one that had to make something up (about the feasts being on STONE), remember?

[Jimlarmore]

I have seen some places where I don't believe you to be submissive to Scripture. One of these is the misapplication of the seventh day of creation that was sanctified as our eternal rest, as outlined in Hebrews 4:2-10

2: For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3: For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4: For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5: And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6: Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8: For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9: There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10: For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Even the SDA commentary avoids the use of this chapter when they assert that there was a sabbath observed every week at creation. For you to assert that, you would have to show:

God returning to His works of creation and ceasing from them every week.
Joshua leading Israel into the promised land every week (Numbers 14).
The curse from the provocation being repeated every week (Psalm 95).[Each of these is a single event, and that includes the seventh day, the eternal rest that we are invited to enter into estabished from the foundation of the world.

This is a rediculous assertion. For starters Heb 4:2-10 specifically speaks of the seventh day Sabbath as a day God set aside or limited a certain day. That in and of itself is conclusive rhetoric to tell someone that God made the Sabbath come around every 7 days afterward. Especially when you take this with Ex 20 8-11 where it clearly says the 7th day is the Sabbath.


Look at the ordinance of the sabbath itself, from Exodus 20:11. It is written to show that the sanctified and blessed seventh day was the reason for the establishment of the sabbath shadow, to remember God as Creator - and then again to remember God as Deliverer in Deuteronomy 5:15. The sabbath is a shadow of a single time event. This is why Hebrews 4:9 places the rest of God in the future tense from Joshua's day, long after the sabbath ordinance was long established.

This is how the NLT renders Exodus 20:11, and this particular paraphrase expands on the "wherefore" that appears in the AV:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

The seventh day of creation and the weekly sabbath are two separate objects in this verse, and that is consistent with the presentation in Hebrews 4, which contains no weekly sabbath at all.

This is what I call rationalizing away the scriptures to fit a cherished belief i.e. throwing out the necessity to celebrate God's holy day. If you go back to the original language and read it in a Green's interlinear you won't find that the NLT translation is warranted Victor.

Here look at this:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb4.pdf


God Bless
Jim Larmore

[freeindeed2]

This is a rediculous assertion. For starters Heb 4:2-10 specifically speaks of the seventh day Sabbath as a day God set aside or limited a certain day. That in and of itself is conclusive rhetoric to tell someone that God made the Sabbath come around every 7 days afterward. Especially when you take this with Ex 20 8-11 where it clearly says the 7th day is the Sabbath.

This is what I call rationalizing away the scriptures to fit a cherished belief i.e. throwing out the necessity to celebrate God's holy day. If you go back to the original language and read it in a Green's interlinear you won't find that the NLT translation is warranted Victor.

Here look at this:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb4.pdf


God Bless
Jim Larmore
Even the official SDA commentaries state that Hebrews 4 is NOT the place to go to establish Sabbath observance in the new covenant. It's been several years since I read it so I don't remember the exact wording, but if you have access to them you should look it up. It's clearly stated.

In CHRIST alone...

[VictorC]

This is a rediculous assertion. For starters Heb 4:2-10 specifically speaks of the seventh day Sabbath as a day God set aside or limited a certain day. That in and of itself is conclusive rhetoric to tell someone that God made the Sabbath come around every 7 days afterward. Especially when you take this with Ex 20 8-11 where it clearly says the 7th day is the Sabbath.
Jim, you're assuming something that doesn't appear in the text. Look again at Hebrews 4:3-4:

3: For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4: For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Where does the noun 'sabbath' appear in here? It doesn't!
Rather, it speaks of the seventh day of creation, when God rested by the use of the verb katapauō
.
You can view the Greek for Hebrews 4:4 youself on the Blue Letter site (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=4&verse=4&version=KJV#4) <-- hit the link.

This is what I call rationalizing away the scriptures to fit a cherished belief i.e. throwing out the necessity to celebrate God's holy day. If you go back to the original language and read it in a Green's interlinear you won't find that the NLT translation is warranted Victor.
I have Jay Green's literal translation (which is the interlinear you refer to), as well as Young's Literal, the 1769 Authorised Version we all know by its generic title 'King James', and a variety of others as well installed on my home computer. The "wherefore" that appears in the AV (Exodus 20:11) is portraying a reason the object of the seventh day was the impetus for the creation of the object of the sabbath ordinance - and each of these objects appear on opposite sides of the "wherefore" as disparate subjects.

That is the language used.
I have presented it as it appears, and that isn't rationalization.

What you have done is assumed a noun that doesn't even exist.

Victor

[djconklin]

many consider any questions (no matter how valid they are!) as attacks.

You have a hidden assumption in there.