Am curious about some here

[M. T. Cross]

I absolutely understand the point you are making.

I don't think you understand what you are saying.

This is what it appears you are saying.

"This is how I see things should be. I knew they were not that way when I signed up here. But I signed up none the less. Now I am going to be disruptive about those rules and complain when I get called on that disruptiveness."

Let me ask you this. Any message board where Seventh Day Adventistism should be accountable to the GC? If that is the case then the GC should financially support it. This is a privately run board that recieves no money from the conference for its functionality. So how it is run is up to the creators and admin of the board. They started it for the purpose that they had in mind. Its really not your place to tell them how that purpose should be administered.

[Twilight II]

I absolutely understand the point you are making.

I don't think you understand what you are saying.

This is what it appears you are saying.

"This is how I see things should be. I knew they were not that way when I signed up here. But I signed up none the less. Now I am going to be disruptive about those rules and complain when I get called on that disruptiveness."

Let me ask you this. Any message board where Seventh Day Adventistism should be accountable to the GC? If that is the case then the GC should financially support it. This is a privately run board that recieves no money from the conference for its functionality. So how it is run is up to the creators and admin of the board. They started it for the purpose that they had in mind. Its really not your place to tell them how that purpose should be administered.

You are assuming it is somehow wrong to engage in a community and question the principles it is run on.

That is illogical.

If this truly is a community, then the community has the right to question the very foundational principles it is built on.

If it is not allowed, it is not really a community.

And what you have to remember, is that the owner of this forum is asking for money from the community, whilst denying accountability to that community for his own actions.

And he is also claiming this is an Adventist community.

Unfortunately it ignores the most basic foundational principles of Adventism, which is accountability to a community on a democratic and not arbitrary basis.

[Twilight II]

I absolutely understand the point you are making.

I don't think you understand what you are saying.

This is what it appears you are saying.

"This is how I see things should be. I knew they were not that way when I signed up here. But I signed up none the less. Now I am going to be disruptive about those rules and complain when I get called on that disruptiveness."

Let me ask you this. Any message board where Seventh Day Adventistism should be accountable to the GC? If that is the case then the GC should financially support it. This is a privately run board that recieves no money from the conference for its functionality. So how it is run is up to the creators and admin of the board. They started it for the purpose that they had in mind. Its really not your place to tell them how that purpose should be administered.

You are assuming it is somehow wrong to engage in a community and question the principles it is run on.

That is illogical.

If this truly is a community, then the community has the right to question the very foundational principles it is built on.

You live in Canada, maybe if you lived in North Korea for example, the principle would be more obvious to you.

If it is not allowed, it is not really a community.

Example:

North Korea is a country run in an arbitrary manner.

Canada however is a country run on democratic principles.

In Canada, you can raise issues through the right channels in an open and public way.

That is not the case in North Korea, where arbitrariness is granted to all the leaders.

And what you have to remember, is that the owner of this forum is asking for money from the community, whilst denying accountability to that community for his own actions and for the actions of his moderators.

And he is also claiming this is an Adventist community.

Unfortunately it ignores the most basic foundational principles of Adventism, which is accountability to a community on a democratic and not arbitrary basis.

[M. T. Cross]

How exactly is he denying accountability?

From what I have observed he has been very accountable.

For instance you broke the rules of a certain forum. A forum people post in partially because of those rules. He denied you access to it. He owned doing that just a couple posts up there. What he was doing was being accountable to the people that enjoy that forum for its rules.

Logical enough there Mr. Spock?

[Stan]

TL

I cannot believe some of the comments. You really seem to be missing what a forum is.

The GC did have one, it really did not work out that well and needed to be shut down.

The moderation is very mild compared with why they had.

There are 25 or so moderators, they have the largest input on what happens.

If you want to start your own forum, and spend the $$$$$ to get members there, I would glad even host that for you. What we do not allow is milking members on this forum to go to another.

I really am not going to allow you to hijack my time. This is volunteer by so many, and to have you come in and say STOP THIS, do it the way I WANT IT TO... just does not go over as much as you think it should.

[nuff sed]

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!................NUFF SED

[Twilight II]

If there is a problem with my argument please show it Stan.

Your argument:

1. Arbitrariness is okay, this board is arbitrary.

2. Some people do not like Arbitrariness.

3. Therefore they should leave the board.

My argument:

1. Arbitrariness is not okay, it is not Christian.

2. Christian should stand up against arbitrariness.

3. Therefore the arbitrary nature of this board should be challenged.

What you have not dealt with, and the point I want people to understand and see, is that you think arbitrariness is okay.

-------------------

Whilst your other points my be true, they are irrelevant to my observation.

Whether the GC had a board or not is irrelevant to whether you should be arbitrary.

Your subjective arbitrary judgement of the moderation being mild is irrelevant to my point, mild arbitrariness or strong arbitrariness is still arbitrariness.

Stating that moderators have input, does not stop the board being arbitrary in principle, when those moderators are given the right to be arbitrary.

Objecting against arbitrariness does not automatically conclude with the idea that you must go to another board.

There have been no recommendeations on my part for other boards, so that point is invalid.

No one is hijacking your time Stan. This is an open discussion on the nature of arbitrariness, you have the right to engage or disengage in that conversation. So this is an invalid claim on your part, no one is hijaking your time, you are choosing to engage.

Again, you make the false claim that I am pointing to these principles as if they are my own. These principles are not my own but are Christian principles.

--------------------

My fundamental point is this:

Christians should not be arbitrary and any Christian Community should not run on Arbitrary principles.

You clearly disagree with this foundational Christian principle.

That is my point.

[Twilight II]

When they crucified Christ, false accusations were made and were used to justify His execution...

There may be some insinuation floating around here that I am trying to lead others to another board and this is my purpose here.

This is totally false.

If anyone wants to make that claim, please do it openly and with evidence.

[olger]

If a person comes on this board as a Manchurian Montanist monk specializing in magical meatloaf mysticism, they have a MUCH BETTER likelihood of becoming a moderator than, say, a person who supports Amazing Facts and humbly appreciates the Advent Message. My opinion and my observation

[Bravus]

Be pleased that I am no longer any sort of moderator, and that there are wiser heads than mine in the (arbitrary?) admin team.

If it was up to me, the ejector seat would have been activated long ago.

[olger]

You Son of Thunder you..

[Twilight II]

If it was up to me, the ejector seat would have been activated long ago.

Of course.

You have openly supported the arbitrary position this board has adopted.

Why would you do anything else than act arbitrarily and impose your views by appealing for sanctions on another who does not agree with your viewpoint?

Maybe your support is because this board arbitrarily pushes extreme liberalism, which I believe you support (correct me if I am wrong)?

Question for you Bravus:

Can someone really be liberal, if they support arbitrary principles of moderation?

[Gibs]

The board to be fair must not be of extreme liberalism or the other way extreme legalism. Each must be careful to be fair middle of the road in farness to all.

There is it seems to me to be a heavy lean here to liberalism but yet haven't tried to determine if the board opperates with that lean. I hope it never does.

As long as it is realized by the board that the truth can stand investigation and invites it and that is allowed we are in a fair order it seems to me.

But if the board is made up of liberal members they need to be very careful to be fair to those whom they consider "legalists", or the other way around.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Twilight II]

But if the board is made up of liberal members they need to be very careful to be fair to those whom they consider "legalists", or the other way around.

Indeed Gibs.

That is the issue at hand.

There is a strong liberal contingent on this board that moderate in a very arbitrary manner.

Stan openly supports the principles of Arbitrary Moderation.

I am trying to point out to him, that this is not a Christian principle, but a worldly principle.

The underlying original discussion, was a question from Stan, as to why some people do not contribute.

Some, including myself, openly shared our concerns about the board and explained why we do not support the board financially (though we would be willing if the lack of openness and arbitrariness was removed and brought into line with our normal church policies).

So far the overwhelming response has been:

"If you don't like it, then leave".

Which is of cause a totally arbitrary response and also totally illogical.

[joeb]

>>>I don't support any site that promotes the loss of my privacy.

Yet you have no problem using the resources...

Just say you have no interest in covering your share of the expenses without make a bunch of excuses

You asked for my reasons. I gave them to you. You didn't like them for whatever reason, but I don't really care. Both of us are free to think and act as we like.

This forum is listed as a free service to anyone who finds it. Apparently, what you say publicly about this site being free and what you think privately are two different things.

Your attitude has been clear toward your non-paying users for a while, but you've made it very clear with your latest drive for money. The very idea that a non-paying user of this site won't have good ideas for improving its mission shows your attitude towards those of us who don't contribute financially. Your basic attitude is, if I get money from you, you're good. If I don't get money from you, you're no good.

Since my usage of a site you setup as a site for anyone to use freely bothers you so much you need to hand out insults, I'm gone. So long, Stan. I hope you accomplished your goal.

[Bravus]

'Liberal' is not really a useful label for me when it comes to SDAism: I'm not a liberal SDA, I'm not an SDA at all. Politically, I'll wear the 'liberal' label with pride, knowing it means 'generous'.

But all of that is actually irrelevant to the discussion in hand. I don't think you should be out of here because you're conservative: I have lots of conservative friends here whose friendship and views I value.

I think you should be out of here because you're an utterly discourteous, self-centered, arrogant leech who drains the resources of this community while spitting on it. Your self-righteousness is breath-taking. If you'd ever spend just a moment looking in the mirror you'd recognize to what extent your attitude mirrors the exact opposite of Jesus' servant leadership.

I'm not a moderator, and the claim that there is a bias toward liberal moderators is nonsense. Moderators are chosen in the basis of their ability to moderate.

[Gibs]

Bravus,

The liberal and conservative label concerned with here is pertaining to the look and understanding of the salvation issue. You may be very conservative with your temporal means and be an extreme liberal about what you see is needed for salvation.

I think you can see if most moderators are very liberal on that issue the very conservative ones might have trouble getting a fair shake.

For me I don't think I have had any problems.

Allow me a rational and unheated discussion and I am happy.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Twilight II]

I think you should be out of here because you're an utterly discourteous, self-centered, arrogant leech who drains the resources of this community while spitting on it. Your self-righteousness is breath-taking. If you'd ever spend just a moment looking in the mirror you'd recognize to what extent your attitude mirrors the exact opposite of Jesus' servant leadership.

What does this ad-hominem attack have to do with the point at hand Bravus?

Even if all the above was true, which I reject, how would that invalidate the point that a Christian Community should not be run on Arbitrary Values?

Your personal attack adds nothing to the discussion.

--------------

Further note.

If I on the other hand had made the above attack, I am sure it would have been moderated.

Your post is totally out of order, but due to the arbitrary nature of this board (which permits non-sda's and liberal sda's to insult others with impunity), I do not expect anything to be done.

[Bravus]

We have yet to see what will happen.

My post responded to the issue that you utterly refuse to see or acknowledge: this discussion is all about you. You have this claim about 'Christian principles', but it's not that at all, it's 'run this forum how I personally think it should be run'.

You do not get to impose that, and the demand is arrogant. Your character is at the very heart of the issue.

[Twilight II]

We have yet to see what will happen.

My post responded to the issue that you utterly refuse to see or acknowledge: this discussion is all about you. You have this claim about 'Christian principles', but it's not that at all, it's 'run this forum how I personally think it should be run'.

You do not get to impose that, and the demand is arrogant. Your character is at the very heart of the issue.

That is an interesting sidestep and a false claim Bravus, others have also raised concerns so your reasoning is suspect to say the least.

Even if it were true and this discussion was driven by me, how would that invalidate my point?

Christians should not behave in an arbitrary manner and should not have arbitrary systems such as we have on this board.

Clearly you are not able to discuss this simple principle without resorting to Ad Hominem attacks.

If you had a logical rational argument you would have presented it by now.

As for the arrogance charge, do you think your last couple of posts reflect humility on your part?

Have you looked in the mirror that you are waving around with much gusto?

[Twilight II]

Bravus, you are behaving like a bully.

Nothing less.

Nothing more.

[Bravus]

No.

But I'm very happy to get back onto the topic.

Your claim is that democracy is Christian.

Please show this from the Bible.

[Twilight II]

No.

But I'm very happy to get back onto the topic.

Your claim is that democracy is Christian.

Please show this from the Bible.

My claim is that this board should not be run on Arbitrary Principles, because Christianity does not support individuals using Arbitrary principles to rule over Christians.

Are you disagreeing with my claim Bravus?

Before we can discuss my position, you should take the opportunity to clearly state your own position.

A discussion that is civil follows this simple principle.

[Bravus]

I do not agree that this board is run on arbitrary principles. Each moderator of a particular forum is trusted to run that forum. The foundation of this site is trust and respect. And the moderators *do* run their forums that way, and not in any arbitrary or malicious way. Moderators actually trip over themselves to respect those with different opinions, and to ensure that they do *not* moderate so as to promote their own views and suppress other views.

But your proposed alternative to the current (very successful for everyone but you) system seems to be democracy. Such a system would be very unwieldy to operate, but even more than that...

Please show Scripturally that democracy is a Christian principle.

[Twilight II]

I do not agree that this board is run on arbitrary principles. Each moderator of a particular forum is trusted to run that forum. The foundation of this site is trust and respect. And the moderators *do* run their forums that way, and not in any arbitrary or malicious way. Moderators actually trip over themselves to respect those with different opinions, and to ensure that they do *not* moderate so as to promote their own views and suppress other views.

But your proposed alternative to the current (very successful for everyone but you) system seems to be democracy. Such a system would be very unwieldy to operate, but even more than that...

Please show Scripturally that democracy is a Christian principle.

I see that you do not have the courage to actual admit your own position Bravus.

Which is exactly what I anticipated.

You do not have the confidence in your own worldview to open it up for discussion.

You would rather just attempt to critique mine.

----------------

But let us just examine your argument.

We have a system where a moderator can decide on a whim whether to delete a post or ban a poster.

The poster has absolutely no recourse to an open discussion on that action by the moderator with independent witnesses.

The moderator is given the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

If it is taken any further, it is taken to a "secret court" that the "accused" has no access to.

Therefore it is arbitrary.

Your claim however is that it "suits everyone else".

But does it? Others have expressed the same concerns, so your "everyone else" really only refers to those that agree with your own point of view it seems.

But once again even that point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Whether it suits everyone or not, does not remove the point that it is arbitrary.

So your argument is extremely illogical:

1. The system isn't arbitrary, each moderator is trusted with arbitrary powers.

2. Other people do not object to this.

3. Therefore it is not arbitrary.

1st premise is totally contradictory.

As if that wasn't bad enough, it then spirals down into the most illogical chain of reasoning presented so far in this discussion.

And therefore your whole argument is unsound in the extreme.

--------------------

Now do you have the courage to share your own convictions?

Or do you want to try to define "democracy" in a fashion that allows you to control the discussion?

--------------------

Or you could just resort to ad hominem once again?

Or try to get emotional support by appealing to the liberal masses so that I get ejected from the board?

--------------------

You are so transparent Bravus except to your very self it seems?