Stan/Moderators - Can we have a Creation forum please?

[Twilight]

Either way ... You are not my judge. End of discussion.

No the bible is all of our judges.

The minute we start to reject what it plainly says and take offense at those that point that out, should be a warning sign to us that we are on a slippery slope.

And it teaches that anyone practicing known willful sin on a consistant basis will be lost.

That was the issue we discussed and that claim was what you found to be offensive.

Just to be clear.

But why did you bring it up if you did not want to discuss it?

The only time it has ever come up since is because of your insistence to bring it up again...

[Woody]

Quote:

Mark: "I know you are not saved."

"I know you are lost. Because you do not know the Lord."

Making this judgment is not your job. End of story Mark.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

.... and yet another topic degenerates down to squabbling amongst forum members on an unrelated issue.

[Woody]

Yep. Kinda typical.

[phkrause]

Teresa, as far as I am aware, Bravus is an evolutionist, that is the impression I have gotten over the last couple of years.

If he is not, then I am willing to be corrected by him on that.

Stating that he is an evolutionist is not an insult to him.

Others have said he is not an evolutionist, but every discussion I have had with him results in him defending evolution.

If his is not an evolutionist, then I will obviously withdraw all of my objections.

I hope I'm not out of turn by stating that not all of us are at the same place in our faith of what we read in the Bible, maybe that's where Bravus is. He's still in a learning cycle. I for one do except what I read in the Bible's version of how the earth was created. I have no problem excepting this. As more and more archeology digs up things that proof the Bible to be accurate hopefully more will see that if that is accurate well than maybe this is also accurate, but I might have to wait to ask God myself for a deeper understanding.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Mark: "I know you are not saved."

"I know you are lost. Because you do not know the Lord."

Making this judgment is not your job. End of story Mark.

[Woody]

My quotes were accurate.

And don't worry Mark. I can assure you that I am saved. I expect to be amoung the Great Multitude of those who will be saved.

Just keep your eyes on Jesus instead of men.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Teresa, as far as I am aware, Bravus is an evolutionist, that is the impression I have gotten over the last couple of years.

If he is not, then I am willing to be corrected by him on that.

Stating that he is an evolutionist is not an insult to him.

Others have said he is not an evolutionist, but every discussion I have had with him results in him defending evolution.

If his is not an evolutionist, then I will obviously withdraw all of my objections.

I hope I'm not out of turn by stating that not all of us are at the same place in our faith of what we read in the Bible, maybe that's where Bravus is. He's still in a learning cycle. I for one do except what I read in the Bible's version of how the earth was created. I have no problem excepting this. As more and more archeology digs up things that proof the Bible to be accurate hopefully more will see that if that is accurate well than maybe this is also accurate, but I might have to wait to ask God myself for a deeper understanding.

I understand that PK and I agree with that.

I am not condeming Bravus, that is not the issue.

[Twilight]

I can assure you that I am saved.

And that indeed is the desire of my heart Woody.

I spent time yesterday at the bedside of a dying friend that I doubt very much will be saved.

One of the saddest experiences of my life.

I have no hatred or animosity towards you Woody.

But I do want us both to be in heaven.

It makes me so sad to see people lost that could have been saved.

[Woody]

Quote:

I spent time yesterday at the bedside of a dying friend that I doubt very much will be saved.

Well, you told me I was lost but as it turns out ... I am saved. So, don't give up hope. Stuff that doubt in your pocket. We serve a loving and gracious God. He would have ALL to be saved.

[Bravus]

Ok, I saw Twilight's post about an evolutionist as moderator not being right just before bed last night, and decided rather than responding immediately to just let the discussion ride for a while. And, when I woke up this morning... 35 new posts!

I'm glad I made that choice, though. Shane did a great job of explaining my actual position. Which goes to show that (1) he's a good man who listens and (2) I've been pretty clear here over the years, and those who listen know what I stand for.

Twilight, you haven't been around over those years, and I do understand your caution. I'll try in a brief post below to clarify my views.

On the broader themes of the discussion (I mean prior to the spiritualist/lost digression/squabble) I do encourage all who are interested to take the time to read through this thread. Basically, olger raised the exact same issue a while ago, and we went through the exact same discussion - with the exact same outcome. It's worth noting that there were very extensive efforts at the time to find a good creationist co-moderator to work alongside me (something I was and am amenable to) but nothing eventuated.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Woody

As I stated. Moderators control their forum to their liking. If they don't like the direction it's going or if they feel something is "Off Topic" they can delete the posts. So, in a sense they are teaching by their control of the discussion to make the tone and direction to their liking.

When myself and Woody start agreeing, you know there is a truth in there somewhere... :-)

woody may correct me, but i dont believe that he is applying his comments to all moderators, but is referring to a particular on-going situation, that, unfortunately, can eat at a person and "come out" on occasions.

course i am privy to some private conversations with him that you are not...

[Twilight]

Ok, I saw Twilight's post about an evolutionist as moderator not being right just before bed last night, and decided rather than responding immediately to just let the discussion ride for a while. And, when I woke up this morning... 35 new posts!

I'm glad I made that choice, though. Shane did a great job of explaining my actual position. Which goes to show that (1) he's a good man who listens and (2) I've been pretty clear here over the years, and those who listen know what I stand for.

Twilight, you haven't been around over those years, and I do understand your caution. I'll try in a brief post below to clarify my views.

On the broader themes of the discussion (I mean prior to the spiritualist/lost digression/squabble) I do encourage all who are interested to take the time to read through this thread. Basically, olger raised the exact same issue a while ago, and we went through the exact same discussion - with the exact same outcome. It's worth noting that there were very extensive efforts at the time to find a good creationist co-moderator to work alongside me (something I was and am amenable to) but nothing eventuated.

I look forward to your clarification Bravus. :-)

[teresaq]

Basically, olger raised the exact same issue a while ago, and we went through the exact same discussion - with the exact same outcome. It's worth noting that there were very extensive efforts at the time to find a good creationist co-moderator to work alongside me (something I was and am amenable to) but nothing eventuated.

i am a die-hard creationist, but not an "educated" creationist...

it seems to me that the ones complaining are the very ones who would delete posts they didnt agree with, meaning anything they considered evolutionist...

the ones complaining are the ones guilty of what they are complaining of--they just dont have power to do anything about it except...

[Bravus]

OK, the short(ish) version:

I am interested in the truth, and I am interested in the evidence. I hold Biblical evidence in high regard, and I also hold empirical evidence (when carefully gathered) from the natural world in high regard. I am a scientist and science educator, and a believer.

I believe in God, and I believe God created the universe, this world and life. I also believe God is omnipresent and omnipotent: his creative power is unlimited. No view can be ruled out on the grounds that God does not have the power to do it.

Beyond that, I am less sure about the timings and mechanisms that God used to create. I fully believe he *could have* created the entire universe by fiat 6000 years ago - or, indeed, last Tuesday.

I also believe, though, that there is a lot of empirical evidence that, if looked at with an open mind and taken seriously, strongly suggests that this earth and life on it are billions of years old.

God could have 'planted' that evidence, but then it is not a question of God's power but of His character: why would he deliberately deceive or mislead us?

For that reason, I do not have a firm position on origins. There is a lot of evidence, and there is as yet no synthesis view that brings it all together in a consistent and coherent way.

Given that I have no position, I certainly do not proselytize for any position. I have no interest in having others change their views on this issue on the basis of my views.

But as I said, I'm interested in the truth. I can teach *about* evolution without *teaching evolution*. I believe that creationists bring the Gospel into disrepute when they use arguments for their position that betray complete ignorance of the position they're arguing about. Truly understanding evolutionary theory makes creationists more, not less, effective.

[teresaq]

wont happen. lol he will continue to be accused of what is convenient.

[Woody]

especially by a certain element who want Adventism confined to ...

[WayneV]

I do not post much in the "Origins" forum, but I do peruse the postings there on each visit to C/A. If this kind of bickering begins to inhabit that forum now that it is open, I will probably cease reading.

Agape`

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The Adventist position on Creationism should be discussed in an open public forum.

Take a look at all the current postings in all forums....Would you say that most of these postings are reflective of current SDA values, doctrines?

The amount of angst that can be found on the current open forums when it comes to Ellen White, the Sanctuary Doctrine, issues about Paul, Sabbath, Gay rights, the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, SDA church history, the last GC session in Atlanta etc where various people come in to post strong opinions one way or the other - causes the Origins board history to pale by any standard of comparison.

It is the nature of discussion when it comes to doctrinal points of view that some posters will be found going overboard - beyond what I would call the bounds of good Christian ethics.

If I were to avoid every board area where someone here posted something out of line - my participation would have been extremely limited in the past.

I for one am glad that our denomination is taking this subject to the next level in coming up with even more creationist language in FB#6. I really don't think there was a problem with the prior statement - but I certainly don't mind that new emphasis on "over communicating" the point.

A good topic for all SDAs to get engaged in -

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight]

OK, the short(ish) version:

I am interested in the truth, and I am interested in the evidence. I hold Biblical evidence in high regard, and I also hold empirical evidence (when carefully gathered) from the natural world in high regard. I am a scientist and science educator, and a believer.

I believe in God, and I believe God created the universe, this world and life. I also believe God is omnipresent and omnipotent: his creative power is unlimited. No view can be ruled out on the grounds that God does not have the power to do it.

Beyond that, I am less sure about the timings and mechanisms that God used to create. I fully believe he *could have* created the entire universe by fiat 6000 years ago - or, indeed, last Tuesday.

I also believe, though, that there is a lot of empirical evidence that, if looked at with an open mind and taken seriously, strongly suggests that this earth and life on it are billions of years old.

God could have 'planted' that evidence, but then it is not a question of God's power but of His character: why would he deliberately deceive or mislead us?

For that reason, I do not have a firm position on origins. There is a lot of evidence, and there is as yet no synthesis view that brings it all together in a consistent and coherent way.

Given that I have no position, I certainly do not proselytize for any position. I have no interest in having others change their views on this issue on the basis of my views.

But as I said, I'm interested in the truth. I can teach *about* evolution without *teaching evolution*. I believe that creationists bring the Gospel into disrepute when they use arguments for their position that betray complete ignorance of the position they're arguing about. Truly understanding evolutionary theory makes creationists more, not less, effective.

Thank you Bravus.

How do you then reconcile being a member of a church that has a decided position, that does not allow for evolution of life over billions of years?

Surely you are at odds with the truths you were baptised into?

Mark :-)

[Bravus]

The truth does and must trump church membership. That's actually a key principle of Adventism. The founders of the movement followed the truth wherever it led. They were also very against the establishment of creeds and tests of orthodoxy.

[Twilight]

The truth does and must trump church membership. That's actually a key principle of Adventism. The founders of the movement followed the truth wherever it led. They were also very against the establishment of creeds and tests of orthodoxy.

There was a time when I was challenged on something I believed.

It was represented to me that it was not "what the church believed".

I was immediately willing to step my membership down as I would not be a member of a church that was not teaching what I regarded as truth.

But afterwards, a friend pointed out, that the church did not have a position on that and the members had no right to claim they did.

Maybe you are right and it does not matter if someone accepts the church position, but that is not my understanding of the churches own position.

I came in from the outside, so if this is wrong, I would like to see it corrected.

So my question is not to you specifically, but to anyone who does not hold to the 28 fundamentals.

I will make a new topic on this, so that it is not personal, it should be interesting...

Mark :-)

[Bravus]

Kind of interesting: Origins forum has been thrown wide open... and is about as quiet as it ever was...

[olger]

We're all thinking...

[Bravus]