An open letter to Club Adventist

[Gary K]

Hi All,

I have been debating writing this since Neil blew up. At first I thought I'd just let things simmer down on their own, but certain things have come to light since then that caused me to change my mind.

First was the use of deceit by “there buster” in thinking that he could humiliate me. He knew his ministry was in agreement with much of what I've been promoting here. Yet, he deliberately hid that information and made it appear the programs his church were implementing would be completely unacceptable to someone with conservative theology. It was a complete troll, and outside any Christian principle, but no one called him on his behavior. It was acceptable to you because it was done to me, who most of you disliked.

Why did you dislike me? Because I was blunt? Because I jumped to possibly incorrect conclusions? I don't know if I did, because Neil refused to answer all my questions along those lines. If I did, well, I was wrong. Could I have been more polite in my questioning? Yes. My bad. Could one of Neil's friends PM'd me and told me Neil was reaching a boiling point? Yup. Nobody did.

I'm obviously used to a much more rough-and-tumble exchange than Neil. The forums I've been on asking pointed questions might result in having someone swearing at you, but they don't just up and accuse you of trolling them or leaving in a rage. They also don't result in an almost complete freeze out due to being disliked just because you ask hard questions. Many people on those forums relish hard questions because it gives them a chance to explain their point of view in detail I know I do. I have always taken the Biblical admonition to always be ready to give an answer for what I believe seriously. I like to know what I profess to believe. I want to understand it from the ground up. I believe that if I'm asked a question I can't answer that the fault lies within me, not the person asking the question.

I knew from years ago that the forum was made of mostly liberal SDA's, but I could not have known how much it has moved away from accepting Biblical principles and Biblical ideas. I've seen statements that assert that truth is subjective coming from SDA's. Really? How can that be? That idea just undermined all of Christianity. If truth is subjective than Christ may or may not have died for our sins. The plan of salvation may or may not be real. Your Bible may or may not be true. Sin may or may not exist. If these ideas are not absolutes then Christianity is a lie. It has no relevance.

I came here, once again after an absence of several years, to discuss and find truth. So far I have found this forum to be much like political forums where winning an argument is more important than truth from what I've seen so far. Why? Because people don't seem to like to answer hard questions, and ambiguity seems to be a good thing here.

My assumption is that on an SDA forum all questions concerning God, coming from people claiming to be Christians, should accept the Biblical way of looking the issue as the parameters for the discussion. I mean, if we are talking about how God views something the logical starting point for that discussion is what God says about the issue. That the Bible is considered to be a secondary source here and to be subjective just amazes and saddens me.

Once again I say I'm sorry for my part in creating such a firestorm. If you see me coming across as angry in the future, well, take into account that I may not even recognize it at the time. I have diabetes, high blood pressure, thyroid problems, and have had chronic pain from major back problems for more than a decade now. None of these issues are being treated at this time as the wife and I have enough money to pay for medical care for one us, and since she is working we take care of her first. I'm not trying to excuse any bad behavior on my part, just saying that there are some valid reasons I may come across as angry when I'm not.

Once again. I don't want your sympathy. All I ask is for you not to judge me as harshly as you have up to now. Be the Christians you claim to be.

[John317]

Hey, Gary, I don't dislike you and I also have diabetes, and a number of other people on the forum have it too.

As for Neil D, I don't think you're to blame for what happened. That had been brewing for a while. Maybe you just pushed something over the edge when it was about ready to go in that direction anyhow.

[Gary K]

Hey, Gary, I don't dislike you and I also have diabetes, and a number of other people on the forum have it too.

As for Neil D, I don't think you're to blame for what happened. That had been brewing for a while. Maybe you just pushed something over the edge when it was about ready to go in that direction anyhow.

Ok. Thanks, but I still feel bad for my part in the explosion.

I didn't have you in mind when I said there were people here who dislike me pretty intensely. I never got that feel from anything you've said to me.

[phkrause]

I have not seen anyone here that dislikes you. It looked that Neil was getting fustrated at more than just you. And you seem to attacked the person and not speak directly to the opinion or idea, and you seem to think that only you have the answers on any given subject. That's my 2 cents worth.

[Bravus]

Most people here are able to distinguish between disliking the person and disliking the person's actions. I think if you reflect carefully you will realise that some people have expressed dislike of some of your actions, rather than of you personally. (And, if they have appeared to dislike you personally, that may have been down to poor communication.) I think if you assume that people are of good will, your experience will be more positive.

In terms of 'hard questions', there are hard questions asked civilly and hard questions asked aggressively. It is possible to challenge a person's views without challenging the person's faith or very existence (or right to post here). I think sometimes your zeal for the truth has led you to ask your questions in unfortunate ways - and that is what people have reacted to.

Dividing issues and people into 'liberal' and 'conservative' is part of the problem, not part of the solution. How about takin each issue on its merits and addressing it using Biblical evidence - as you know, that's something I personally have been consistently campaigning for, and something that seems to be a challenge for people on all 'sides'.

'there buster' and I have had our own conflicts in the past, but he has enormous experience in this field and very valuable knowledge to share if we're willing to listen. Your charge against him above is completely unfair: he posts relatively rarely and relatively briefly here these days, but if you'd asked him he would have provided all the information you wanted. He did not 'troll' you or deliberately hide information at all: you made assumptions that were unwarranted.

I'm saying all of this because I *do* like you, and want you to keep posting here and to feel that you are part of the community. If you go looking for courtesy and thoughtful debates - including around the hard questions - that's what you'll find. If you go looking for reasons to feel upset and slighted, you'll probably find that too.

I try to keep in mind Romans 14:1, the text Stan put at the top of this forum, and the first half of Proverbs 18:24: "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly".

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

You know what? At this moment, I can't think of any C/A member who I dislike. Some aggravate me, like a puppy who chews up a shoe, but "dislike"... no.

[bonnie]

Quote:

First was the use of deceit by “there buster” in thinking that he could humiliate me. He knew his ministry was in agreement with much of what I've been promoting here. Yet, he deliberately hid that information and made it appear the programs his church were implementing would be completely unacceptable to someone with conservative theology. It was a complete troll, and outside any Christian principle, but no one called him on his behavior. It was acceptable to you because it was done to me, who most of you disliked.

Gary,

Above all "there buster" is not a deceitful man. Direct and to the point which is not always appreciated. He has been called his share of names and at this point rarely posts.

I would guess he was unaware of what you had been promoting or had any intention of being deceitful

[Gary K]

I have not seen anyone here that dislikes you. It looked that Neil was getting fustrated at more than just you. And you seem to attacked the person and not speak directly to the opinion or idea, and you seem to think that only you have the answers on any given subject. That's my 2 cents worth.

Thanks for the feedback, pkrause.

If I came across as attacking him, as you say I was, that is something I have to look at. In my mind I was addressing the issues we differed on. I know I came across as irritated a few times after rereading things, but I don't remember making any personal attack. That's something I really try to avoid as ad hominen attacks are pretty despicable.

I mocked his position sometimes because it was clearly unbiblical and he would not answer any questions as to his belief in the Bible, but I don't see that as mocking a person. Had I mocked him, personally, I would have mocked some personal attribute of his such as his intelligence or something like that, not a position he had taken.

I don't know, just ruminating out loud, so to speak.

[Gary K]

Gary,

Above all "there buster" is not a deceitful man. Direct and to the point which is not always appreciated. He has been called his share of names and at this point rarely posts.

I would guess he was unaware of what you had been promoting or had any intention of being deceitful

That's not how he came across to me. Read how he described the ministry he was involved in and how he specifically mentioned concepts that the ministry would not address. He knew what he was doing and what he was saying.

He'd read the original thread and started a new thread just to talk about the ministry. To then describe the ministry in the terms he did, avoiding describing it as an individual--person-to-person--ministry patterned after Ellen Whites advice and the Biblical example, and then specifically deny any mention of obedience in what has to be the obvious end discussion to which their program is designed to lead people, was an obvious way to bait a conservative.

You can't deny any mention of obedience and have people come back multiple times to discuss progressively deeper levels of SDA theology with them. Obedience is an unavoidable subject in SDA theology.

I bit and that was his intent. I'm sorry, but I don't see any other explanation for his behavior.

[Bravus]

If you'd been around here long, you'd know that me standing up and defending there buster is pretty much unprecedented. I respect him and his knowledge a lot, but we see eye to eye on almost nothing.

Be told on this - your interpretation is wrong. You've been told by bonnie, who I won't characterise because I'll get it wrong but is definitely at the conservative end of the spectrum, and by me, who is probably the most flaming liberal regularly posting on the site. Worth thinking about.

[Gary K]

If you'd been around here long, you'd know that me standing up and defending there buster is pretty much unprecedented. I respect him and his knowledge a lot, but we see eye to eye on almost nothing.

Be told on this - your interpretation is wrong. You've been told by bonnie, who I won't characterise because I'll get it wrong but is definitely at the conservative end of the spectrum, and by me, who is probably the most flaming liberal regularly posting on the site. Worth thinking about.

Wouldn't be the first time I've ever been wrong, but from the evidence I have to go with what I see. I just can't see another motive for him telling me what he did knowing he started the thread with Niel's thread in mind.

I appreciate the fact that you will stand up for someone you disagree with though.

[bonnie]

Nah,not wrong,you just forgot "Flaming" conservative

[Woody]

Well your accusations against there buster are blatantly wrong.

There buster is one of our most best, intelligent,and accomplished posters.

Why not just look at yourself and leave the rest to the rest and LET it rest.

[Gary K]

Bravus,

I would like to think, along with you, that everyone here could distinguis between disagreement and the person. However, life has taught me otherwise. I've had friends drop me from their list of friends more than once over theological differences, and none of our theological exchages were even heated.

[Guest]

I have not seen anyone here that dislikes you. It looked that Neil was getting fustrated at more than just you. And you seem to attacked the person and not speak directly to the opinion or idea, and you seem to think that only you have the answers on any given subject. That's my 2 cents worth.

I didn't see where Gary attacked Neil at all. All he did was address Neil's ideas, and used Bible and SoP to back up almost everything he said. That's not attacking the person in my book. If you can show me one example of Gary attacking Neil personally, I'll be glad to look at it, and say I was wrong, if he did. But that's not what I saw happen.

Not only that, but what Gary said was right. 100%.

If anybody attacked Neil, it was me. And that was due mostly to the fact that Neil jumped all over me when I responded to the topic, (the topic in the header) and tried to berate me for not answering a question that he hadn't even asked yet of all things. He even brought my manhood into question, which I thought was kinda funny coming from a guy who is pushing a mainly feminist platform. (without even knowing it, I might add)

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

I have not seen anyone here that dislikes you. It looked that Neil was getting fustrated at more than just you. And you seem to attacked the person and not speak directly to the opinion or idea, and you seem to think that only you have the answers on any given subject. That's my 2 cents worth.

I didn't see where Gary attacked Neil at all. All he did was address Neil's ideas, and used Bible and SoP to back up almost everything he said. That's not attacking the person in my book. If you can show me one example of Gary attacking Neil personally, I'll be glad to look at it, and say I was wrong, if he did. But that's not what I saw happen.

Not only that, but what Gary said was right. 100%.

If anybody attacked Neil, it was me. And that was due mostly to the fact that Neil jumped all over me when I responded to the topic, (the topic in the header) and tried to berate me for not answering a question that he hadn't even asked yet of all things. He even brought my manhood into question, which I thought was kinda funny coming from a guy who is pushing a mainly feminist platform. (without even knowing it, I might add)

I do agree with what you've posted Richard pretty much. It just seem he was pushing his agenda a little hard. But like I told Neil, he also needs to be able to take what he dishes out.

[there buster]

Quote:

First was the use of deceit by “there buster” in thinking that he could humiliate me. He knew his ministry was in agreement with much of what I've been promoting here. Yet, he deliberately hid that information and made it appear the programs his church were implementing would be completely unacceptable to someone with conservative theology.

Deceit? Humiliate you? To be brutally honest, I started a separate thread in hopes of avoiding the acrimony that I had seen in the other thread.

As far as what would be "acceptable" to you, frankly I have no idea. Repeating vague formulas with ever increasing ferocity does not constitute a theology I can understand.

Quote:

but from the evidence I have to go with what I see. I just can't see another motive for him telling me what he did knowing he started the thread with Niel's thread in mind.

Only God knows motives. You're not God. Perhaps you should stop assuming what a person's motives are.

[Gerr]

Hey Gary,

I don't even know you. I don't recall ever having a heated discussion with you. So how can I dislike you?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

STOP IT! EVERYBODY, JUST STOP IT!!!

There's a topic in my FB status about the way Adventists act (specifically at SDA schools, but it is just as relevant in this thread.)

Many of the negative comments on my FB page about the way Adventists act come from friends and family members who are not Adventist. I can think of only one positive comment that's been made. Most of my friends who commented were SDA at one time, but everything they said was true. But in my little topic there was also the most prominent ex-witch in the US who is now Christian and does Christian ministry. She is not Adventist. She was appalled that I was still in the Adventist church. I would be embarrassed for her to come to this forum, and she may well have already done so, and seen the carryings on, nitpicking, griping, nagging, whining, that I am seeing here. She was the leader of a very successful forum for ex-witches, witches, atheists, pagans of all persuasions, and it was a Christian forum. It was run as a Christian forum. People came and left because they got mad, but I can't think of a single moderator there who would have taken the abuse that certain moderators here have taken from members as has been done here. Members are warned three times, then they are banned for a time if the behavior continued. Come back and do it again, you are out and not welcome back. That very seldom happened.

I don't know who's right and who's wrong in this thread. I just know that it's a shameful example of Christianity.

I'm done.

[John317]

Pam, I sure hope you stay with us.

The other day a non-SDA relative of mine happened to drop by this Forum. I hope she saw good things. She knows almost nothing of SDAs. She's married to my cousin who lives in NYC.

Then I have an uncle who is 92 years old and is just starting to keep the Sabbath and attend an SDA church. I was thinking of inviting him to visit the Adventist Forum, but I am wondering what he would think if he came and saw all the arguing and the false doctrines that are taught.

What we all need to understand and care about is that this Forum is visited by thousands of people who just come here to read and find out what an Adventist Forum is like. It's not the differences in viewpoint that I am thinking about so much as it is attitudes about other people.

Even what we consider a friendly disagreement can appear to visitors as an unfriendly argument, especially if they see such arguments on practically every thread they look at. It could appear to them as if everyone is angry at everyone else. I know that is not how it is but it can appear that way. So I've been concerned about this ever since my cousin's wife visited the Forum. I would be so sad if I learned that she or people like her came away from our Forum with a bad taste in their mouth about the SDA church and its message even before giving it a chance just because of how they see things here.

[Guest]

I do agree with what you've posted Richard pretty much. It just seem he was pushing his agenda a little hard. But like I told Neil, he also needs to be able to take what he dishes out.

Keep in mind that it wasn't Gary who went into melt down Mode.