Revival Sermons

News => Guidelines for Participating on This Forum => Topic started by: Agatha on August 13, 2008, 03:25:53 PM

Title: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Agatha on August 13, 2008, 03:25:53 PM
"Love one another as I have loved you."
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Raven on August 13, 2008, 05:23:40 PM
"Love one another as I have loved you."

Too radical; too subjective.  It will never catch on.  :wink:
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on August 13, 2008, 05:32:25 PM
Too radical; too subjective.  It will never catch on.  :wink:
Agatha and Raven, I am familiar with 2 Adventist discussion forums whose members are probably in general more conservative in their views than many on this one, but I do not think that the kinds of personal attacks and contemptous attitudes that we too often see here are tolerated on either of those forums. After all, we do claim to be Christians. I don't think that claim would stand up to close biblical scrutiny in some instances. What do you think is the answer to correcting this?
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Dalfie on August 13, 2008, 05:38:03 PM
I don't think comparing this forum to "those" forums is completely apples to apples... they are much more restrictive in some ways.


That doesn't change the need for us to grow.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: colporteur on August 13, 2008, 05:56:17 PM
Agatha and Raven, I am familiar with 2 Adventist discussion forums whose members are probably in general more conservative in their views than many on this one, but I do not think that the kinds of personal attacks and contemptous attitudes that we too often see here are tolerated on either of those forums. After all, we do claim to be Christians. I don't think that claim would stand up to close biblical scrutiny in some instances. What do you think is the answer to correcting this?

 Could it be Larry that there is less contention allowed because there is less allowance for subtle undermining of the SOp asnd church standards. I think  that more conservative forums do not invite and tolerate so much liberal posting and subtle underming of the SOP. This in itself lessens the frustration and the contention. For years a man was allowed to constantly gray up almost every forum topic and was not honest some of the time. He was finally banned but not before years of  subtle attacks on church standards and a myriad of arguements. You know of whom I speak.

I think if we were reaching more souls we would have less to argue about. I believe the most productive aspects of the forum are those  that are most informative whether it be the news and politics or recipes and such.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Raven on August 14, 2008, 03:28:58 AM
Agatha and Raven, I am familiar with 2 Adventist discussion forums whose members are probably in general more conservative in their views than many on this one, but I do not think that the kinds of personal attacks and contemptous attitudes that we too often see here are tolerated on either of those forums. After all, we do claim to be Christians. I don't think that claim would stand up to close biblical scrutiny in some instances. What do you think is the answer to correcting this?

You ask hard questions, Larry.  Having never been faced with this type of problem in the way that you are it's hard to come up with a hard and fast answer.  One of the problems with this unique way of communicating is that it is so remote.  If we were sitting together in a Sabbath School class discussing some of these issues, I don't think it would get as heated.  Then, again, maybe I've led a sheltered life, and am out of touch.  We've never had heated discussions like this in our SS class (I wouldn't tolerate any personal attacks, anyway).  There have never been any personal attacks or accusations (we won't discuss the sad history of the fur that flew in the division over a pastor some years ago--now that was bad).  It's not as easy to say these things when face to face.  I believe people are more open in a situation where they can vent and then go mow their lawn and forget about it.  Having said all that, I still haven't provided a good answer to you question.  I suppose you could lock topics sooner, but that would tend to stifle open discussion.  Or, you could temporarily ban individuals who engaged in judgmental personal attacks.  But then you would look like an agent for the KGB.  :evil:

It is very disappointing to see these discussions go from substantive give and take to making unsubstantiated accusations, questioning one's motives, making unwarranted assumptions about one's motives, taking one's statements out of context, and making unwarranted extrapolations, etc.  Sometimes we must simply agree to disagree, and do it civilly.  But, no one can be forced to be civil--and there's the rub.  Oh, I should have put this first--maybe we should spend more time praying for each other--especially those with whom we have fundamental disagreements.

I'm not much help, am I?  :-D  I probably should be banned for muddying the waters. :nono:
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Dalfie on August 14, 2008, 05:43:41 AM
I'm not much help, am I?  :-D  I probably should be banned for muddying the waters. :nono:


That's it! Temporary ban for Raven.... oh look, ban's up! Welcome back, Raven.


Actually, temporary bans are possible. Its possible to set them with expiration dates.


In all seriousness, I heard a quote from the SOP last night that I think has some relevance to each one of us, at some point or another. Sometimes we are unwilling to see our error, and at other times we are critical of others... (of course, the quote doesn't totally apply to this situation, but I still think we can learn from it).

Quote
Some have manifested a spirit of Pharisaic prejudice and criticism. As soon as this is indulged, the holy angels depart from you; for they cannot administer to sin. You possess in a large degree the same spirit that was revealed in the Conference at Minneapolis. The deception that was upon minds there still exists. Some have not been willing to see and acknowledge their errors, and their blindness of mind remains. {GCDB, April 13, 1891 par. 2}

     You who have been educating yourselves and others in a spirit of criticism and accusing, remember that you are imitating the example of Satan. When it suits your purpose, you treat the Testimonies as if you believed them, quoting from them to strengthen any statement you wish to have prevail.

Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: reaching4heaven on August 14, 2008, 12:29:45 PM
Actually, temporary bans are possible. Its possible to set them with expiration dates.

I think that should be seriously discussed among forum leaders. When someone starts the personal attacks it distracts fom the topic, and when it is locked to prevent the attacks those of us wanting to comment on other posts cannot because of a bad apple or two. I usually re-read my posts several times in an attempt to re-word anything that might offend others in stating my opinions & presenting Bible & SOP. Yes, Bible & SOP can offend, but it should not come from my words. If I have offended any because of my posts, please forgive me, it was not intentional. It is obvious that some are out to draw as much blood as possible by pointed remarks. This should not be allowed.

Cannot the offending posts also be deleted when this happens & the offender warned of an impending temporary ban if they continue their diatribe? I would like to see some of the last posts on the drug topics deleted so as not to contaminate the forum with bad attitude.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Ruth on August 14, 2008, 02:12:43 PM
"Love one another as I have loved you."

Amen!

I agree with r4h.  I tried following the essence of the discourse on the thread about drugs . . . an exercise in futility, I tell you. :-(
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on August 14, 2008, 03:16:54 PM
I think that should be seriously discussed among forum leaders. When someone starts the personal attacks it distracts fom the topic, and when it is locked to prevent the attacks those of us wanting to comment on other posts cannot because of a bad apple or two. I usually re-read my posts several times in an attempt to re-word anything that might offend others in stating my opinions & presenting Bible & SOP. Yes, Bible & SOP can offend, but it should not come from my words. If I have offended any because of my posts, please forgive me, it was not intentional. It is obvious that some are out to draw as much blood as possible by pointed remarks. This should not be allowed.

Cannot the offending posts also be deleted when this happens & the offender warned of an impending temporary ban if they continue their diatribe? I would like to see some of the last posts on the drug topics deleted so as not to contaminate the forum with bad attitude.
That is a possibility and we have done that on occasion in the past.
 I am concerned about  the tendency to have a "White Fight," to sling EGW quotes at one another in an argument. They may seem to support opposite positions, but if they do, that doesn't mean that one quote cancels the other out, that means we are not seeing and considering the whole picture that EGW presents on a subject.  And we are not considering any truth that the other person is presenting. I believe that those kinds of interactions, where we seem to be using an EGW or a Bible quote to beat each other over the head, are a misuse of the Bible and the SOP even if our position is sound. I think Ellen White would have been appalled and I believe that God is not pleased to see this happen. I suppose that it is the job of the moderator to intervene in those situations, but so far it has not helped.

There is another potential problem in disucssing health matters on an open forum. This is an open forum. Anyone can come here and read what is being posted. It was pointed out that there is a danger involved in advocating our personal views on medical treatment vs. alternate methods. It may be far fetched, but someone could get the idea that taking their heart medicine or their insulin is a sin, and the Pastor could have a big legal problem on his hands. We have had a medical disclaimer on the website, but that would not stop someone who is determined and feels they have been harmed. Dalfie is experimenting with placing the disclaimer on the first post of each page of the health discussions.


Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: ejclark on August 14, 2008, 06:12:51 PM
This is just my opinion so please take it for what it is worth to you.

I believe that if the moderators were more knowledgable of a topic being discussed, they could be more effective in their moderating. 

If the moderators aren't knowledgable or don't feel comfortable being the moderators of a certain topic, then make an explanation and close the topic.  I would be very respectful of those in authority who would do such.  I view it the same as when there have been topics closed when the topic or poster was in clear error by those of authority.

Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on August 14, 2008, 08:07:01 PM
This is just my opinion so please take it for what it is worth to you.

I believe that if the moderators were more knowledgable of a topic being discussed, they could be more effective in their moderating. 

If the moderators aren't knowledgable or don't feel comfortable being the moderators of a certain topic, then make an explanation and close the topic.  I would be very respectful of those in authority who would do such.  I view it the same as when there have been topics closed when the topic or poster was in clear error by those of authority.


Ej, FYI  I worked in the health care field as a registered nurse for many years. I read the Spirit of Prophecy material almost every day.  One of my very favorites is Ministry of Healing. Another is Counsels on Diet and foods. I have been an advocate of the Seventh-day Adventist health message for years. I certainly don't know all there is to know. I may have a lot to learn, but it is not as though I am totally ignorant of the subject.

I see the problem with this subject, and other subjects that stir up controversy is that some people are frozen in their positions.  They are unwilling or unable to see and consider other points of view which they may not really have much direct knowledge of  and which may be also valid. Instead they reject any alternate points of view with apparantly no thoughtful consideration. There is black and white thinking; there have been accusations, and a rigid "I'm right and you're wrong"  attitude with a sense of spiritual and moral superiority. This  destroys any chance of any reasonable discussion and destroys our witness to any of the public that may well be reading these posts. Sometimes we have 30 or more guests reading who never post. That is something we should keep in mind.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: newbie on August 14, 2008, 09:26:54 PM
Larry,
I'm reminded that every word I speak and every word I write is also being recorded by a recording angel.  Someone earlier said that they read their post and proof it several times before posting.  This seems wise advice.

The reason for such heated debate is that some believe we must hit the untruth head on and meet it!  Like EGW said about the titanic and the iceberg... if they had hit it head on it would have survived.  Are we to be like John the Baptist and openly meet the untruth so that people are not led astray?  We are to love one another and only see the good in each other but then correct the wrongs by reproof.   I'm caught up between these two views constantly. To me, unless we are converted, this is an impossible contradiction.

Jesus could rebuke with a cutting edge to the Pharisees and yet cry tears for them on palm sunday. He sifted and  rebuked  his disciples in love.  They might have been fearful or felt bad but still stayed with Him.  How many of us really can do as Jesus did in these cases?
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on August 14, 2008, 11:35:04 PM
Larry,
I'm reminded that every word I speak and every word I write is also being recorded by a recording angel.  Someone earlier said that they read their post and proof it several times before posting.  This seems wise advice.

The reason for such heated debate is that some believe we must hit the untruth head on and meet it!  Like EGW said about the titanic and the iceberg... if they had hit it head on it would have survived.  Are we to be like John the Baptist and openly meet the untruth so that people are not led astray?  We are to love one another and only see the good in each other but then correct the wrongs by reproof.   I'm caught up between these two views constantly. To me, unless we are converted, this is an impossible contradiction.

Jesus could rebuke with a cutting edge to the Pharisees and yet cry tears for them on palm sunday. He sifted and  rebuked  his disciples in love.  They might have been fearful or felt bad but still stayed with Him.  How many of us really can do as Jesus did in these cases?
Those are all things we need to think about.  It has been my experience that unless we have good rapport with people and they know that we have their best interests at heart, our reproofs will not be accepted and will merely harm our attempts to gain their confidence. We have to have a loving attitude when dealing with others, especially when taliking about spiritual matters. I think all too often we personalize things and our carnal fallen natures rise to the surface and we "meet it head on" with a bare knuckle fist fight so to speak. That never helps anything at all.

The topic under discussion is important but I don't see it as on the same level as some of the doctrinal pillars of faith. If we want to try and help some one who has health problems we can do it on one to one basis according to our knowlege and training. When we do this we know the person and we would be aware of whether to reccomend this or that without causing harm. On the internet we do not know who is reading what we post. When it comes to treating health problems, one size does not fit all. The  natural remedies that EGW urged can benefit almost anyone, and they should be freely reccomended.

But there is danger in taking it upon ourselves to tell  people that all or almost all medication should never be used and in fact demonstrates a rebellion against God. That is really the core of the argument we've been having.  It is not a position that is supported by the Seventh-day Adventist church.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: ejclark on August 15, 2008, 04:57:27 AM
Larry,
I didn't mean to get your ire up, I apologize if I did.  I was speaking in very general terms and speaking to all the moderators.  I was also thinking of other controversial topics that have come along.

Like the one you closed about Jesus not having power to raise Himself from the dead and banning the author.  I praised and supported you on that.

Then there was the topic of the person claiming to be a prophet.  Very early in that thread I posted a couple Biblical reasons why that person was a false prophet and yet even with a clear thus saith the Lord, hardly any one else saw it  After giving as much Biblical and SOP support as I could, I quit posting.  Same as with this last topic.  Except there is still plenty more SOP support that could be given.  If people want to ignore and make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God that's their business, I won't argue with that.  That's between them and God.

One of the things that unfortunately is promoted on an open forum like this is the spirit of compromise.  Many people promote truth as relative to the person presenting it and that we should be respectful for any and all views for the sake of not hurting any persons feelings.  This can be a very gray area.  Truth is truth according to God, not according to the person presenting it.  And I know I for one do my best not to attack the person presenting error, but try to guide them towards the truth.  Sometimes this can be quite difficult.

And as far as positions our church organization support, this is certainly not the first controversial position they've held and to give an evidence of a thus saith the SDA Church is weak indeed.  That said, I love my church and will always be a SDA.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: reaching4heaven on August 15, 2008, 07:16:32 AM
I am concerned about  the tendency to have a "White Fight," to sling EGW quotes at one another in an argument. They may seem to support opposite positions, but if they do, that doesn't mean that one quote cancels the other out, that means we are not seeing and considering the whole picture that EGW presents on a subject.  

There is another potential problem in disucssing health matters on an open forum. This is an open forum. Anyone can come here and read what is being posted. It was pointed out that there is a danger involved in advocating our personal views on medical treatment vs. alternate methods. It may be far fetched, but someone could get the idea that taking their heart medicine or their insulin is a sin, and the Pastor could have a big legal problem on his hands. We have had a medical disclaimer on the website, but that would not stop someone who is determined and feels they have been harmed. Dalfie is experimenting with placing the disclaimer on the first post of each page of the health discussions.

I have quoted what appears to be an opposing EGW quote to another's post. It was in the spirit of wanting to understand how they fit together. I don't believe one cancels out the other, either. We need to be able to look at it all and get the whole picture. There never was a decent reply to my question on how they work together. I think that needs to be able to be discussed on the thread without it being considered an attack on someones position on drugs.

I also take into consideration that there are many guests on the forum so we need to have support for our views, and people need to know not to make radical, unknowledgeable decisions. If one were so inclined to change methods of dealing with a health issue it should be clearly researched and if it is an issue with the heart there needs to be counsel with a professional who can help the person transfer from medication to natural remedies. That was stated on the thread. (If the person is so ill they cannot have an exercise program to strengthen the heart there might not be an option available - so many considerations...but we must be responsible for our own health & the choices we make.)  There are natural remedies for most diseases. To not be open to that is allowing oneself to be blind. That doesn't mean that someone has to choose natural over Rx - we all have decisions to make in life but if we don't know the options we are crippling our decision making abilities. The health message is the right arm of the gospel; we should be able to discuss it without worry of lawsuit or flaming remarks.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on August 15, 2008, 12:07:25 PM
I have quoted what appears to be an opposing EGW quote to another's post. It was in the spirit of wanting to understand how they fit together. I don't believe one cancels out the other, either. We need to be able to look at it all and get the whole picture. There never was a decent reply to my question on how they work together. I think that needs to be able to be discussed on the thread without it being considered an attack on someones position on drugs.

I also take into consideration that there are many guests on the forum so we need to have support for our views, and people need to know not to make radical, unknowledgeable decisions. If one were so inclined to change methods of dealing with a health issue it should be clearly researched and if it is an issue with the heart there needs to be counsel with a professional who can help the person transfer from medication to natural remedies. That was stated on the thread. (If the person is so ill they cannot have an exercise program to strengthen the heart there might not be an option available - so many considerations...but we must be responsible for our own health & the choices we make.)  There are natural remedies for most diseases. To not be open to that is allowing oneself to be blind. That doesn't mean that someone has to choose natural over Rx - we all have decisions to make in life but if we don't know the options we are crippling our decision making abilities. The health message is the right arm of the gospel; we should be able to discuss it without worry of lawsuit or flaming remarks.
Reaching, speaking in general terms, not directing it at any one in particular, I believe a Christian attitude and a little common sense would go a long way. We can't be telling people that taking medication that has been prescribed by their physicain means they lack faith in God or is rebellion against God.  A lawsuit may be far fetched, but it is irresponsible to urge that on people, especially when we have no accountability for the outcome. And we can't continue making flaming remarks. That destroys the credibility of whatever else we might have to say, and it destroys our Christian witness no matter how correct we might be.

I think your comparison of the two statements was valid and was taking the conversation in the right direction. I'm afraid it got lost in the middle of something else. I appreciate your input and your attitude.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on August 17, 2008, 05:21:56 PM
Reaching, speaking in general terms, not directing it at any one in particular, I believe a Christian attitude and a little common sense would go a long way. We can't be telling people that taking medication that has been prescribed by their physicain means they lack faith in God or is rebellion against God.  A lawsuit may be far fetched, but it is irresponsible to urge that on people, especially when we have no accountability for the outcome. And we can't continue making flaming remarks. That destroys the credibility of whatever else we might have to say, and it destroys our Christian witness no matter how correct we might be.

I think your comparison of the two statements was valid and was taking the conversation in the right direction. I'm afraid it got lost in the middle of something else. I appreciate your input and your attitude.

Excellent points Larry.

I want to put my vote of confidence in for the job Larry does as moderator. I think he is quite fair, and has not been afraid to call people out when they are wrong (my posts included), or are out of line. I have had a fair number of my posts removed, but I don't hold it against him or the pastor as it is their web site. We as members are in a sense guests and to post on a forum is an extended privilege.

I stumbled on the drug thread quite by accident, as I hadn't posted here in quite some time, but as a Christian physician who trained at loma Linda, I felt I had an obligation to come on and try to balance what I considered to be a very problematic discussion.

Sorry if I offended anyone, but this was not my intent.

Stan
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Dalfie on August 17, 2008, 07:18:52 PM
Speaking for myself, I'm not offended. I just believe that even the best of topics require a rest sometimes.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: newbie on August 18, 2008, 08:20:51 AM
Speaking for myself, I'm not offended. I just believe that even the best of topics require a rest sometimes.
 

Yes, especially where there is a gray area ....  these topics need a rest.   8-)
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: colporteur on August 18, 2008, 09:17:58 AM
Not only in this arena of discussion but in many I believe that we should be carefgul not to let our "experience" over-ride what God has clearly told us.
Our experience is often not a reliable indicator and is apt to give us a bias that is not accurate.

On another forum a person rejected SOP statements on self abuse. Her experience led her  to believe that what EGW stated was not applicable or accurate because so called science "proved" otherwise. It became obvious that self abuse was her practice therefore her experience dominated her thinking.

I am concerned when we think it is agreeable to place certain topics in files that are relatively unimportant when we are told that they are very important particuarly in the last days when everything is of significant importance.

I too wish to offend no one and while a bit more than concerned over this topic have never been angry.
 I  believe we should not mix SDA standards with those of the world. What I mean is that we should not use the ignorance, perhaps innocent ignorance of the world as a rationalization for considering our people who have great light shining on our paths to be equally and innocently ignorant. I do not think it unfair to consider it rebellion when our people continue in a lifestlye that is clearly of the world and harmful to health. I do not think it unfair to consider it a lack of faith for people to eccentially say, God cannot or will not work with the counsel He has given us therefore I must do otherwise. There are those of our people especially new converts who are not rebelling and do not lack faith they just are innocently ignorant. These people need accurate information that supports and is in harmony with Inspiration. Since we do not always know a person's experience it is not wise to categorize them in their expereince because we erring mortals are often wrong. On the other hand it is not presumption but faith to encourage our people to trust in the methods of treatment and healing that God has given us opposed to saying, that just doesn't work.
     I think, or at least hope that we all agree that natural methods of healing and treatment are not given enough emphasis, trust, and practice in our church.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: GraceVessel on August 18, 2008, 10:02:04 AM
Not only in this arena of discussion but in many I believe that we should be carefgul not to let our "experience" over-ride what God has clearly told us.
Our experience is often not a reliable indicator and is apt to give us a bias that is not accurate.

I am concerned when we think it is agreeable to place certain topics in files that are relatively unimportant when we are told that they are very important particuarly in the last days when everything is of significant importance.

I too wish to offend no one and while a bit more than concerned over this topic have never been angry.
 I  believe we should not mix SDA standards with those of the world. What I mean is that we should not use the ignorance, perhaps innocent ignorance of the world as a rationalization for considering our people who have great light shining on our paths to be equally and innocently ignorant. I do not think it unfair to consider it rebellion when our people continue in a lifestlye that is clearly of the world and harmful to health. I do not think it unfair to consider it a lack of faith for people to eccentially say, God cannot or will not work with the counsel He has given us therefore I must do otherwise. There are those of our people especially new converts who are not rebelling and do not lack faith they just are innocently ignorant. These people need accurate information that supports and is in harmony with Inspiration. Since we do not always know a person's experience it is not wise to categorize them in their expereince because we erring mortals are often wrong. On the other hand it is not presumption but faith to encourage our people to trust in the methods of treatment and healing that God has given us opposed to saying, that just doesn't work.
     I think, or at least hope that we all agree that natural methods of healing and treatment are not given enough emphasis, trust, and practice in our church.

Couple of points:

1) It is essential that we as Christian's convey and support the inerrancy of the Bible and the validity of EGW/SOP and the  counsel it has provided us for these last years/days of the worlds history.

2) Experience is a good teacher and when combined with apt counsel from the bible and EGW/SOP... provides a balanced context to help apply principles in a timely, Christlike and correct way.

3) My viewpoint and opinion should never suffice as "proof" for another person, I am only to direct the hearer/reader to the source of all wisdom so that they can drink a full glass of Christ's grace for their daily needs and learn directly of and through Him.  My interpretation on how to "apply EGW/SOP" especially in areas on which there are myriad and conflicting counsels/interpretations, should suffice to myself and I should not "project" my views regarding my interpretation regarding truth and/or the interpretation thereof.  Each person must fully "flesh out" and prove what is good and acceptable, and what context to accept truth in.

4) I fully concur that we should as much as possible work to remove anything that "slows or mitigates" our walk with Jesus.  This includes diet, worship, family, entertainment, fellowship, social interaction, how we witness, etc.

5) That being said I will not "confer on those that don't measure up" a spiritual "label" of being rejected, unfit, or deficient.  Further, I am not going to judge a person as unfit for leadership that is fat, unhealthy, and/or old-young, etc... I will base their mettle for office/leadership based off their spiritual maturity and how dynamic their walk with God is - which includes any one of a number of factors.  There is a major disconnect in my opinion in the acceptance/rejecting of a person solely based on their conformity to EGW/SOP health practices as if not eating eggs or cheese gives a person some "extra credit" that qualifies them as "super Christian".

Since we do not always know a person's experience it is not wise to categorize them in their expereince because we erring mortals are often wrong. On the other hand it is not presumption but faith to encourage our people to trust in the methods of treatment and healing that God has given us opposed to saying, that just doesn't work.

This statement is a conundrum and conflicts itself and I do not understand it's antithetical meaning?  Perhaps, I am not reading it correctly.

My opinion is mine alone, and I take responsibility for what I type and say.  Sometimes, to my detriment, I am to pointed in my commentary.  My goal is to draw strength from and be instructed by these boards.  There is very good commentary and counsel here.

It deepens my understanding.

Best regards,

Gracevessel
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: SDA4Life on August 18, 2008, 01:46:46 PM
I think, or at least hope that we all agree that natural methods of healing and treatment are not given enough emphasis, trust, and practice in our church.

Definitely agree!
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 16, 2008, 04:45:58 PM
The original guidelines for participation on the forum were lost when we were hacked. Before we post the "official rules"  again, I would like to elicit some input from the members. What should be in the "guidelines" statement for participation?

Along those lines, although it was not in the original guidelines, the pastor has pointed out that this is a discussion forum. Although Bible verses and EGW quotes are certainly welcome, but should not be the bulk of our participation. Discussion is the key word. The pastor has said that he doesn't read long quotes and long series of quotes. I have a suspicion that that may be true of others as well. 
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Raven on October 16, 2008, 04:58:25 PM
The original guidelines for participation on the forum were lost when we were hacked. Before we post the "official rules"  again, I would like to elicit some input from the members. What should be in the "guidelines" statement for participation?

Along those lines, although it was not in the original guidelines, the pastor has pointed out that this is a discussion forum. Although Bible verses and EGW quotes are certainly welcome, but should not be the bulk of our participation. Discussion is the key word. The pastor has said that he doesn't read long quotes and long series of quotes. I have a suspicion that that may be true of others as well. 

I plead guilty.  I don't tend to read long quotes, either.  Short, to the point quotes from either the Bible or the SOP are very helpful, but my eyes start to glaze over if they are too long.  But then, how long is too long?  One guideline that would be nice, although maybe hard to enforce is that all ad hominem attacks should be prohibited.  We should be able to agree or disagree on issues and various subjects without questioning the motives and sincerity of each other.  Of course, as a moderator, I realize that you have to make certain judgment calls relating to the agenda of some posters, but it seems that it should be off limits to the rest of us peasants.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 16, 2008, 08:35:34 PM
I plead guilty.  I don't tend to read long quotes, either.  Short, to the point quotes from either the Bible or the SOP are very helpful, but my eyes start to glaze over if they are too long.  But then, how long is too long?  One guideline that would be nice, although maybe hard to enforce is that all ad hominem attacks should be prohibited.  We should be able to agree or disagree on issues and various subjects without questioning the motives and sincerity of each other.  Of course, as a moderator, I realize that you have to make certain judgment calls relating to the agenda of some posters, but it seems that it should be off limits to the rest of us peasants.
Raven, I agree that it should be a given that ad hominum attacks are out of line. That shouldn't happen. Along with that, assigning of motives which is a form of "mind reading" is also a bad practice. We ought to be able to disagree and still have a satisfactory discussion rather than become angry, accusatory and contentious. It is OK to let the other person have the last word. It doesn't have to be experienced as a win-lose situation.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: newbie on October 17, 2008, 10:02:06 AM
so Larry does this put a damper on proof texting?   :?

newbie
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 17, 2008, 06:55:28 PM
so Larry does this put a damper on proof texting?   :?

newbie
That is not the intention, Newbie. The pastor has brought this up at least twice and the point he was making as I understand it is to talk to one another rather than mostly just using quotes. Sometimes we get involved in posting long seemingly contradicting quotes back and forth in an argument. The other thing the pastor has cautioned about is long dissertations that seem designed to preach on the forum rather than discuss. I think it is perfectly appropriate to use Scripture and EGW statements that fit what we are trying to say. We certainly don't wish to inhiibit using Scripture or EGW. The pastor was referring to the long posts that consist almost entirely of quotes. Sometimes 2 or 3 long posts in a row that mostly contain quotes.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Ed Sutton on November 12, 2008, 08:42:16 AM
Too long posts are when, by the end :

If with the poster (The first part is forgotten) - then the reader will also.

The middle is muddy even to the poster - it is to the reader also.

then the conclusion makes no sense or is difficult to grasp because it was buried under tons and tons. 

Like when the 5000 character limit stops me 3 times in one post.


That is a tendency I have fight against.    Part of the damage from cerebral palsy.

The solution is first draft, second refining draft, third outline, fourth post.

When ever a post drones - it wasn't prepared with the first draft, second refining draft, third outline, fourth post - steps.

It's a quickie sermon - everyone got lost in it's wandering -  even the preparer.

It is not the work of the Holy Spirit, to be non-understandable if something worth while needs to be said.

That's one thing I realized when I read 1st Corinthinans chapters 12, 13, 14, and reflected upon it.
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Tammy on May 29, 2009, 01:33:38 PM
Agatha and Raven, I am familiar with 2 Adventist discussion forums whose members are probably in general more conservative in their views than many on this one,

Larry, could I have the website addresses for the other Adventist forums you refer to here?
Title: Re: An important Forum Guideline
Post by: Larry Lyons on May 29, 2009, 10:16:40 PM
Larry, could I have the website addresses for the other Adventist forums you refer to here?
Tammy, check your private mail.
Title: Re: Locking Topics
Post by: Doug Yowell on August 22, 2009, 03:53:05 PM
Sorry Larry, I'll have to disagree with your decision to lock up the topic of Adventists and abortion. Considering the overwhelming response this topic generated compared to almost every other subject on the table (the Asserick letter wasn't even a close second) and the unique way that it seems to affect every other aspect of the last day message,I'd have to say that your move was a little premature. If you felt that things were getting a little out of hand would not a word of warning(caution) have been effective in returning to the guidelines? At least you would have given the participants the opportunity to change course before pulling the plug. Personally, I saw no personal attacks,no attack on fundamental SDA church doctrines,no attacks on the Spirit of Prophesy (I don't consider questioning what EGW meant as an attack on her credibility). Maybe you sensed something I didn't but it seems to have had the effect of throwing water on the discussion of the other subjects as well. One last note. I don't know about your family but I've known very few families that don't have their (very) heated disagreements at times. This doesn't mean that they don't love each other. It means that they have the freedom to be a part of that inner circle even in times of disagreement.I hope you might consider reopening the topic in the near future. Your brother --Doug
Title: Re: Locking Topics
Post by: Larry Lyons on August 22, 2009, 04:47:54 PM
Doug, I locked it temporarily and intend to open it soon. Remember this is a public forum. Families do not have their disagreements or hang their dirty linen in the front yard for all the neighbors to hear. (hopefully)
Title: Re: Locking Topics
Post by: Raven on August 22, 2009, 04:55:47 PM
Sorry Larry, I'll have to disagree with your decision to lock up the topic of Adventists and abortion. Considering the overwhelming response this topic generated compared to almost every other subject on the table (the Asserick letter wasn't even a close second) and the unique way that it seems to affect every other aspect of the last day message,I'd have to say that your move was a little premature. If you felt that things were getting a little out of hand would not a word of warning(caution) have been effective in returning to the guidelines? At least you would have given the participants the opportunity to change course before pulling the plug. Personally, I saw no personal attacks,no attack on fundamental SDA church doctrines,no attacks on the Spirit of Prophesy (I don't consider questioning what EGW meant as an attack on her credibility). Maybe you sensed something I didn't but it seems to have had the effect of throwing water on the discussion of the other subjects as well. One last note. I don't know about your family but I've known very few families that don't have their (very) heated disagreements at times. This doesn't mean that they don't love each other. It means that they have the freedom to be a part of that inner circle even in times of disagreement.I hope you might consider reopening the topic in the near future. Your brother --Doug

Doug, I'm in full agreement with Larry on locking the topic.  If you go back and read the last few posts, you'll see where I responded to statements that appeared to me to be casting doubt on SOP statements relating to the future.  It wasn't the heated discussion that prompted his move so much as the questionable statements about some of our fundamental beliefs.  His post was just copied from his original post from back in February.  Sometimes it's good to be reminded of these things before things get too carried away.