Thoughts on the forum, and the future..

[Bravus]

For what it's worth, Shane, I've been enormously impressed by the changes in your posting style. You've always been a good guy with a good heart and a very clear spiritual sense, but you've also made an on-going effort to communicate more clearly and to try to understand others' perspectives. A forum full of Shanes would be a very enjoyable place to post!

[Bravus]

The issue about whether moderators must be orthodox was discussed in exhaustive (and exhausting) detail in relation to the Origins forum here: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post245590

(it's confounded somewhat because it focuses on me as an individual rather than unorthodox moderators in general)

One upshot of that discussion was that, while having orthodox moderators might be ideal, they're not exactly lining up for this difficult, thankless, unpaid labor...

I'm very happy to stand aside from all moderatorial duties as soon as a qualified orthodox replacement is found.

(that would have the added bonus of enabling me to use 'Ignore'...)

[BobRyan]

1. I think a case could be made for Moderators that agreed with the 28 fundamental beliefs to the point of not being offended when those beliefs are strongly supported by this or that poster.

2. Those moderators who do choose to differ with a belief or two should not feel too offended if some poster says "Hey - it looks like you differ with this or that belief".

3. Moderators should be foremost in avoiding all forms of ad hominem attacks on others who post. They should set the standard for other board members to follow in that regard.

4. Moderators are in a position to significantly shut down all views opposing their particular or even peculiar bent. (The original thoughts forum comes to mind). Thus it matters in those cases as to who is holding the septer.

In the past there has been a huge contrast for example in the moderating style and tolerance of the orthodox John317 vs one or two others.

5. At present I don't know if any problems at Club Adventist - but I am certain that it is possible for moderators to change the tone and bent of the board if given enough power over the discussions. In fact I think that one policy on this board is that moderator can ban or suspend a member from their specific board area with no reason at all - thus they have more influence on their area of the board than some non-SDA coming along and just complaining about the SDA church.

in Christ,

Bob

[teresaq]

Where is that "ban" button? lol

[fccool]

Quote:

What makes a forum adventist?

Pre-disposition to Adventist theology. I don't believe that is has to be text-book complete, but in some form it revolves around a and attracts a community of people who belong to Adventist denomination.

Quote:

Should theology forums be more like a theology classes where corrections are made for 'errors'?

You are not going to escape it in some shape or form. These forums in a way are the way theology classes should be ... an open discussion, instead of dogmatic drilling. Each person can "correct the errors" of others.

The problem with a typical school of theology as we approach it today is in fact that it's beyond change or correction. It

s perpetuated from the top down, and in a way it tends to interpret the new findings in terms of it's own established dogma.

Originally, the theology of the early church was in fact a directed forum of understanding and discussion. Sure, it can get out of hand, but if people truly love each other, they'll know the proper limits and thresholds.

Quote:

Should C/A be used by people to grab an audience for 'whatever cause' against or non supporting of the 28, or complaints about the GC? (I do not mean not having issues or comments but the constant hammering in every 2nd post by people)

Somewhat extending on the previous statement... there are ways of resolving this issue. Most of the people who voice disagreement generally desire to explain certain problematic issues that are worth examining IMO.

Here's a general problem that I see that shuts down discussions on this board:

People voice concerns in designated areas for these concerns and get no active discussion, responses or participation. They then end up taking it to wherever they can find active participation, and derail the thread to make sure their concerns are noted and discussed.

So, perhaps, a solution would be encouraging more active participation in threads that voice opposition or concern, be it from the active forum members, or the moderators.

Quote:

Are 'debates' something you want to see?

Sure, I'd like to both read the flow of thoughts and participate.

Quote:

If the constant debaters drive away members, what should happen?

Debaters are usually a type of people who have debate for a hobby. I think they are viewed in negative light too often, but these are the kind of people that enjoy lengthy discussion and responses and are not afraid to leave out controversial possibilities. True debate should examine the subject from various angles, that's why as a practice debaters are asked to debate "from the opposite side" in order to understand the arguments and respond properly.

The problem with injecting debate into discussion is improper format and lack of moderation.

I suggested recently to dedicate a specific forum to debates, where threads would be limited to 2 people per debated subject. One pro, and one Con. A participant may create a thread, and challenge another participant for a debate.

I would certainly be interested to both participate and read these.

True debate usually expands either worldview, if approached properly.

Quote:

A place for conspiracy theories to be promoted? (Wait are Jesuits forcing me to say that?)

Well, I hate to break it to you, but Adventism in itself is a conspiracy theory wrapped in theological undergarments. I'm not saying this in a trenchant, or derogatory way, but an argument that demonstrates the Catholic Church conspiring with Protestantism to bring about national (or global) Sunday law system, which is the eventual mark of the beast... is a conspiracy theory.

I guess, the real question is whether these theories have any logical base and support, or these are just pure speculation resulting from certain fear and paranoia?

[Stan]

I am not against people have unique thoughts, or semi-unique such as inspiration of Paul, or pro-live or pro-choice. Or anti-EGW or pro-EGW, or creation thoughts or evolution thoughts. etc etc

BUT when when it ends up going on every thread... not that much fun.

Not a support of the Trinity? Fine, keep it in one thread. Strong believer in same? Fine, keep it in one thread.

I remember one lady who thought that maybe we should celebrate sabbath at the same time in Jerusalem, unique, but she was jumped all over for that that she never came back. REALLY? REALLY??? was it that so important to those they had to slam her? REALLY????

DEBATES? yeah, "I AM SO WISE, I AM SO WISE" and it is all about me, and how I can out word others, and if I do it to the point that I can humiliate them so they never come back, then WOW.

more later............. just sayin'

[fccool]

I think you are misunderstanding what debate is, Stan . What you've described above is not characterized as debate. True debates are detached from "me" and revolve around ideas. In forum setting, the personality is "virtual", which makes it even easier to detach it from self-feeding, and rather focus on validity of certain ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

I really have not seen much "look how smart I am, and look how stupid you are" type of discussions here, outside of certain references to ignorance.

The purpose of the debate is to cross-educate people from opposing perspective of people who are well-researched and understood the subject. The audience then can make their own conclusions about certain ideas, based on logical arguments presented.

What you are describing above is not a debate. It's a verbal abuse .

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I really have not seen much "look how smart I am, and look how stupid you are" type of discussions here, outside of certain references to ignorance.

I have.. :(

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Where is that "ban" button? lol

I am in possession of the BooBan.. it is a legacy..

[teresaq]

...

I remember one lady who thought that maybe we should celebrate sabbath at the same time in Jerusalem, unique, but she was jumped all over for that that she never came back. REALLY? REALLY??? was it that so important to those they had to slam her? REALLY????

DEBATES? yeah, "I AM SO WISE, I AM SO WISE" and it is all about me, and how I can out word others, and if I do it to the point that I can humiliate them so they never come back, then WOW.

more later............. just sayin'

Thank you, Stan. I think we lost a very respectful, decent person that, for me, was quite an inspiration in the way he posted, so patient and thoughtful. Until he got tired of being misunderstood, misrepresented and overwhelmed with no intentions of listening to what he had to say. Just prove him wrong at all costs. Anyone interacting with him on a level other than shut him down was also misunderstood, misrepresented and overwhelmed.

And I disagreed with what he believed.

But we would have walked away from the discussion, still able to worship and pray together because, as "aberrant" as his particular belief is, he is a truly sincere Christian. Probably closer to heaven than those of us who are "right".

I wonder how many other good people just walk away shaking their heads, "by beholding we become".

I'll get off my soapbox now.

[LifeHiscost]

One thing that is hard for me is calculating what is going on with other members emotionally when we are disagreeing on the forum. I think sometimes when I am slapping my knee and having a good chuckle, they are turning red and pulling out their hair. That is, when I am being light-hearted, they are taking a discussion much more seriously than I am.

Overall I am happy with the forum. I have apologized on several occasions and probably will have to do so in the future. I don't have the answers for creating a forum where everyone will find what they are looking for and no one will find anything to complain about.

Me too.

OTOH I've had a recent experience that leads me to believe that if a person has an idea they are convinced is right and good (or wrong and bad) there will be some who come out swinging because they are hearing in a different language than you are speaking. One conveys ideas in a language more than what just words offer.

After all, other than what I've "heard" God speak through His Son, I've never heard Him talk to me in English.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

#465597 - Today at 00:53

And I suppose that makes cool appropriate to your name.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

#465609 - Today at 01:47

It probably didn't deserve that much of a guffaw, but it's mostly more fun to laugh at the exasperation of others than my own.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: fccool

I really have not seen much "look how smart I am, and look how stupid you are" type of discussions here, outside of certain references to ignorance.

I have..

Sometimes that can be more perception than intent. I know I have this weakness of thinking others think I'm stupid when I know for sure just how true that isn't. Do you suppose that might a reason why God settled us a thousand miles away from the nearest relative?

God blesses!

[teresaq]

So where does one post thoughts like this where they could get understanding instead of well-meaning attacks?

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/464161/1/What_do_you_call_yourself.html

[ClubV12]

Some people bring the same arguments to every thread, it doesn't matter what the subject is. Like a broken record, or fingernails on a chalk board. When that happens, often, the thread is derailed and the same old tired arguments and mudd slinging begin. Pretty much EVERY thread, same thing, it's dejavu all over again. :)

[teresaq]

...Pretty much EVERY thread, same thing, it's dejavu all over again.

I believe this is an exaggeration. It may be true in the theology forum, but unless you can show it happening all over the board in every forum in every thread then the statement is not true.

[ClubV12]

I believe your wrong, and it's a lie, what you just posted!

Wait, what? Oh, I get it, another recurring theme, "mole hills into mountains". And here I thought it was just limited to the Theology thread.

I'll put the stick down if you will...

Whew, will it never end?

[Bravus]

Solution to all the problems of this place, IMO:

[Stan]

there are very folks who view themself as confrontational, most view themself as being more conversational.

How weird is that?

[JawgeFromJawja]

1. I think a case could be made for Moderators that agreed with the 28 fundamental beliefs to the point of not being offended when those beliefs are strongly supported by this or that poster.

2. Those moderators who do choose to differ with a belief or two should not feel too offended if some poster says "Hey - it looks like you differ with this or that belief".

3. Moderators should be foremost in avoiding all forms of ad hominem attacks on others who post. They should set the standard for other board members to follow in that regard.

4. Moderators are in a position to significantly shut down all views opposing their particular or even peculiar bent. (The original thoughts forum comes to mind). Thus it matters in those cases as to who is holding the septer.

In the past there has been a huge contrast for example in the moderating style and tolerance of the orthodox John317 vs one or two others.

5. At present I don't know if any problems at Club Adventist - but I am certain that it is possible for moderators to change the tone and bent of the board if given enough power over the discussions. In fact I think that one policy on this board is that moderator can ban or suspend a member from their specific board area with no reason at all - thus they have more influence on their area of the board than some non-SDA coming along and just complaining about the SDA church.

in Christ,

Bob

04:12 in the AM. Can't sleep. But this is a great topic, with every post appropriate and genteel.

I wish a similar topic had cropped up last year, just after my enrolling.

Do we need individual feedback on our posts in general? The posting would probably best be anonymous. Anyone posting there would first be required to read a FAQ / Policies list for that topic or forum, covering tact, Christian politeness, avoidance of flaming and slamming, etc. A template covering desirable points to be critiqued would be handy.

Becoming a subject for feedback, review, criticism, or whatever the review process is labeled, IE,becoming a target in the barrel should be voluntary, realizing that the feedback (criticism) could be quite painful to strong egos.

The moderator would probably need a flak jacket and would possibly need to be armed.

Agape

[JawgeFromJawja]

Quote:

What makes a forum adventist?

Pre-disposition to Adventist theology. I don't believe that is has to be text-book complete, but in some form it revolves around a and attracts a community of people who belong to Adventist denomination.

Quote:

Should theology forums be more like a theology classes where corrections are made for 'errors'?

You are not going to escape it in some shape or form. These forums in a way are the way theology classes should be ... an open discussion, instead of dogmatic drilling. Each person can "correct the errors" of others.

The problem with a typical school of theology as we approach it today is in fact that it's beyond change or correction. It

s perpetuated from the top down, and in a way it tends to interpret the new findings in terms of it's own established dogma.

Originally, the theology of the early church was in fact a directed forum of understanding and discussion. Sure, it can get out of hand, but if people truly love each other, they'll know the proper limits and thresholds.

Quote:

Should C/A be used by people to grab an audience for 'whatever cause' against or non supporting of the 28, or complaints about the GC? (I do not mean not having issues or comments but the constant hammering in every 2nd post by people)

Somewhat extending on the previous statement... there are ways of resolving this issue. Most of the people who voice disagreement generally desire to explain certain problematic issues that are worth examining IMO.

Here's a general problem that I see that shuts down discussions on this board:

People voice concerns in designated areas for these concerns and get no active discussion, responses or participation. They then end up taking it to wherever they can find active participation, and derail the thread to make sure their concerns are noted and discussed.

So, perhaps, a solution would be encouraging more active participation in threads that voice opposition or concern, be it from the active forum members, or the moderators.

Quote:

Are 'debates' something you want to see?

Sure, I'd like to both read the flow of thoughts and participate.

Quote:

If the constant debaters drive away members, what should happen?

Debaters are usually a type of people who have debate for a hobby. I think they are viewed in negative light too often, but these are the kind of people that enjoy lengthy discussion and responses and are not afraid to leave out controversial possibilities. True debate should examine the subject from various angles, that's why as a practice debaters are asked to debate "from the opposite side" in order to understand the arguments and respond properly.

The problem with injecting debate into discussion is improper format and lack of moderation.

I suggested recently to dedicate a specific forum to debates, where threads would be limited to 2 people per debated subject. One pro, and one Con. A participant may create a thread, and challenge another participant for a debate.

I would certainly be interested to both participate and read these.

True debate usually expands either worldview, if approached properly.

Quote:

A place for conspiracy theories to be promoted? (Wait are Jesuits forcing me to say that?)

Well, I hate to break it to you, but Adventism in itself is a conspiracy theory wrapped in theological undergarments. I'm not saying this in a trenchant, or derogatory way, but an argument that demonstrates the Catholic Church conspiring with Protestantism to bring about national (or global) Sunday law system, which is the eventual mark of the beast... is a conspiracy theory.

I guess, the real question is whether these theories have any logical base and support, or these are just pure speculation resulting from certain fear and paranoia?

[JawgeFromJawja]

Finished this topic at 04:32 AM. Great topic, Stan. It's now on my watch and "encore" list.

Jawge

[LifeHiscost]

Solution to all the problems of this place, IMO:

The sentiment is correct, but continuing to watch that man leads down. The key to useful viewing is to look higher than ourselves.

"But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

2 Corinthians 3:18 KJV

God blesses!

[Gerr]

For what it's worth, Shane, I've been enormously impressed by the changes in your posting style. You've always been a good guy with a good heart and a very clear spiritual sense, but you've also made an on-going effort to communicate more clearly and to try to understand others' perspectives. A forum full of Shanes would be a very enjoyable place to post!