I think you are correct as to why he is not coming back, although you have not stated it specifically. You are holding me responsible for his not coming back. However, Brito extended the invitation to challenge his challenging questions, and his position was pretty successfully challenged. Until that happened, he was having quite a field day, calling the rest of us dishonest, and saying that we would be condemned by Jesus Christ in the judgment. Sorry Stan, but he brought it on himself, then when things starting going badly for his ten points, he became quite unkind, even more so by PM, and finally took his toys and left.

Yes, "serious discussion," but not a charade. In your latest remarks, you've made Brito out to be disinterested in a serious discussion of the issues, and to be unable to answer your questions, but that is far from the truth. The fact is that he left the discussion after realizing that you were not giving answers that you really believe in; that you were pretending to be something you are not. Do you seriously think that under the circumstances, Brito should have stuck around for more of the same?

After all, why give your time and effort to someone who doesn't even believe what he's saying but only wants to make himself look better than the other person and teach them a lesson? That is what he thought, and therefore he left in order to go to sites where he can talk with people who are interested in a sincere, honest discussion, not in role playing or in a phony debate.

I can't blame him for leaving, can you? Would you yourself take part in the kind of "discussion" you were attempting to have with him? Maybe you would, but I don't think you can honestly blame other people if they choose not to. People like to be able to know that other people are saying what is really on their hearts and minds. That is reasonable, isn't it?

Charade? That was no charade. You asked about that by PM at the very beginning, and I explained to you what I was doing, and why, and you wished me well.



I said no such thing, nor did I even think such a thing. Of course he was interested in a serious discussion of the issues. Although he engaged in ridicule and put-downs in the process, and that was inappropriate.



That fact is that he was unable to answer my questions. He began checking me out at that time.



You are assigning motives here. But you did not receive the PM's from him which I did, and which were so offensive that I removed myself from them. I think you have called this one wrong.



That is an extremely inappropriate statement, and you are suggesting motives for me which you have no right to do. I am surprised and disappointed at your doing this. My motives in doing so were honest and appropriate. I think you owe me an apology.



Brito was unable to answer the points I raised. As it turned out, his knowledge of the issues was limited. I was not aware of that initially. And, I thought he was an Adventist pastor. He is not. I was looking forward to a pleasant discussion with a Christian minister. That did not happen.



These issues are extremely important. They should be thoroughly discussed. One very helpful way to improve understanding is to examine different views about a question, find out if there is merit, explore, dig, get all the evidence in support of a position, and then find out if it is valid. That is part of learning.

This type of post, (be it accurate or not, is not the question,) kills forums and drives away people.

Are you addressing your remarks to John317 or to me, or to both of us? John317's post was very personal and very critical, and certainly in violation of the rules which have been posted. Is that what you are talking about? Or are you referring only to my post? Is it okay for John317 to post that way, but not for me to respond?

There are some very sincere Christian brethren out there, outside the Adventist church. They are sincere students of the Word. They have studied, and they take the Word seriously. They do not happen to agree with the SDA position. Does that mean that they should be dismissed as 'dishonest,' or as being under God's condemnation? I do not believe so. It is ever so important to study together, to study with them, to consider them fellow believers, to take seriously and try to understand their beliefs--and to see if perhaps we as individuals may have missed or misunderstood something. 'They' are not the enemy. They are brothers and sisters in Christ. Explore their beliefs, seek to understand where they are coming from. By doing so, we not only will be able to understand them better. We will also be better able to give an answer for 'the hope that is within us.'

Dave

I suggest that this may go to the heart of the question. Such phrases as 'defend himself,' 'his ideas' and the like. What really was, and is the purpose of these discussion threads. The section is 'Bible and Theology,' described as 'in-depth discussion.' Is this, or is this not accurate? What is the purpose of presenting ideas on a forum like this? No doubt there are different ideas about that, different expectations.

First of all, I suggest separating the 'ideas' from the person. Subordinate self, leave self or one's identity out of it, and focus on the ideas. Those who are serious about discovering truth will understand and welcome such an approach. To raise questions about ideas propounded is a good thing, because in the process of discussion, truth can be discovered. Vigorous peer review can be a very helpful tool in discovering truth.

On the other hand, there may be some who simply want to present ideas, and do not want them to be questioned or disagreed with. We are not talking about a discussion forum in such a case, but a presentation format. In such cases, perhaps there should be sections specified for such presentations, not for serious discussion or disagreement with such ideas.

Perhaps, then, a forum could have two sections: one, a discussion forum for serious consideration and vigorous peer review; and two, a presentation forum where no such peer review is desired. As for me personally, I am very serious about discovery and seeking to know the truth, and I am very much into vigorous peer reviews, expecting the same in return. That is a huge reason why I participate on Club Adventist. Perhaps others have different reasons. To each his own.

Dave

I find it interesting that when it suits certain individuals ... the rules of this forum can be suspended. Personal issues and attacks aired. I find it strange that it happened on this thread that was so clearly made out to be 'serious'.

Maybe one reason for the downfall of this thread was that it WAS made out to be serious. From the beginning Stan made it clear that we could not have fun. No pirate talk. No jokin around. No innocent fun ... just serious study of the issue.

Soon it was clear that Mr. Brito was not going to be tolerant or charitable. He proved to be dogmatic offensive and intolerant of anyone with beliefs different from his. Then he became defensive because he didn't have the same level of knowledge as Dave.

The red flag for me was that he presented himself as a Pastor and wanted debate. Like Dave has indicated .... he showed no love or concern for those who viewed issues differently than he. Yet he 'claimed' to be a Pastor ... which we later determined he wasn't.

IF only the atmosphere of this thread would have been allowed to remain friendly and light hearted. But threats were made that this had to be 'serious'. I hope that doesn't happen again.

This has been quite a detour. It was supposed to be a serious discussion of the issues, was billed as such, and has now degenerated into accusations and finger-pointing. It would have been WAY better not to have had the detour which took place. It would have been far better to stick to the issues, and not engage in the personal attacks and imputations of motives which took place. I am particularly disappointed in John317 and his very harsh and negative judgments of intent and motives. That really crossed the line, and was extremely inappropriate and in violation of the forum rules. Questions about such should have been addressed via PM, not on a public forum dedicated to the issues. I also hold Stan responsible for derailing the discussion and opening the door to a series of personal attacks. That certainly was in violation of forum rules. How about getting back on track and to some very important questions pertaining to the Sabbath? In participating in this discussion, it will be my intention to focus on issues, not on personalities. I would certainly hope for serious peer review. How about trying to set the other stuff aside, and proceeding in an orderly and appropriate manner with this inquiry?

Dave

Getting back to the issues, then, before the detour occurred we had been discussing the ceremonial aspects of the seventh-day Sabbath. The fact is that under the Old Covenant, the weekly Sabbath did indeed have ceremonial aspects. Here is the question: does that fact mean that the weekly Sabbath was ceremonial, to be abolishd at the cross. Please note that this is itended as a serious question, calling for serious discussion.

Dave