Stan Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Please keep them down to one thread. Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
doug yowell Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Please keep them down to one thread. Thanks,good idea,Stan.OA has been trying and I'm all over the place trying to put out fires!Sometimes I forget what's been posted where and how to find it.Sheesh.And good luck. Quote
Woody Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Originally Posted By: Stan Please keep them down to one thread. Thanks,good idea,Stan.OA has been trying and I'm all over the place trying to put out fires!Sometimes I forget what's been posted where and how to find it.Sheesh.And good luck. Ahhh - so we are all suppose to join the one thread where only anti-WO info is allowed? Give me a break. I won't be posting there any time soon. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Members phkrause Posted July 2, 2012 Members Posted July 2, 2012 Ahhh - so we are all suppose to join the one thread where only anti-WO info is allowed? Give me a break. I won't be posting there any time soon. On this I most definitely have to disagree, because there are as many that are for as there are against. Stan has a great point, we need to keep it together and not all over the place. And I agree with Doug, there has been a number of times I wanted to post something and couldn't find the thread I wanted to place it. Oh and I haven't seen one thread where only anti-WO is not allowed. But if that is the case I think we'd like to see that. Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Woody Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Originally Posted By: Woody Ahhh - so we are all suppose to join the one thread where only anti-WO info is allowed? Give me a break. I won't be posting there any time soon. On this I most definitely have to disagree, because there are as many that are for as there are against. Stan has a great point, we need to keep it together and not all over the place. And I agree with Doug, there has been a number of times I wanted to post something and couldn't find the thread I wanted to place it. Oh and I haven't seen one thread where only anti-WO is not allowed. But if that is the case I think we'd like to see that. Pk. This is what started all the problems with multiple threads: In Support Of Traditional Ordination This topic is for the purpose of those not in support of women's ordination as Pastors, or Elders, to explain their viewpoints, without having to defend themselves all the time. Any expressed viewpoints must include ALL of the following criteria: 1/ No posts allowed to "prove" that women's ordination should be allowed. 2/ Only posts in support of the traditional view of ordination for men only, when it comes to Pastor, or Elder 3/ Your posts here must contain elements of personal testimony, personal Bible study, and experience, regarding the traditional views of ordination. What are the benefits of keeping things the way they are? What are the dangers/concerns about changing things so that women can be ordained as pastor or Elder? http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post552938 Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Members phkrause Posted July 2, 2012 Members Posted July 2, 2012 But if I'm not mistaken, either Gail or Stan, said there would be one thread for each side. Don't recall which thread, that's problem I believe and why many have complained about all the different threads for the same topic. Maybe Gail or Stan can verify that for us. Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Woody Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Originally Posted By: Woody Ahhh - so we are all suppose to join the one thread where only anti-WO info is allowed? Give me a break. I won't be posting there any time soon. On this I most definitely have to disagree ... Oh and I haven't seen one thread where only anti-WO is not allowed. But if that is the case I think we'd like to see that. What is it that you are disagreeing with pk? I'm lost. And I hope now that you have seen where only anti-WO is allowed. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
M. T. Cross Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Maybe Stan or Gail could start and sticky one where all view points on the topic could be discussed? Quote
Woody Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Maybe Stan or Gail could start and sticky one where all view points on the topic could be discussed? I have to agree with you. I felt that banning people in a thread because of their views - seemed childish. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
olger Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Yes, Tom should not do that. rejoice always, G Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Woody Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Neither side should do that. This childish activity should never have started and should never have been esculated. It should have been handled on the inside with the moderators coming to a suitable solution. But here we are. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
teresaq Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Thanks Stan, good idea! Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Woody Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 . Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
teresaq Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Quote: Oh and I haven't seen one thread where only anti-WO is not allowed. But if that is the case I think we'd like to see that. Tom had a thread started PK for pro-WO only sources. ( I think that's what you meant) It was a sources only thread, but I wouldn't take away from OA's thread, as tempted as any might be to jump in. I wonder what a thread where anti- only could talk to each other, and pro- only could talk to each other? The rest of the threads would be joint. Do you think we could be mature enough to allow that? I'm not sure... Tho I would still prefer Tom's sources only thread. Getting into discussions on the same thread would just bury the sources. Woody, Tom' thread for pro-WO was first, before OA's anti- only thread. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Yes, Tom should not do that. rejoice always, G Let's not slander. Its against God's law. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 That is a subjective stance, isn't it, Naomi? Some may be tired of it because they have already made up their mind. Others of us have not...still others see more and more issues and info coming up every time it is discussed. As long as it is an issue in the church it is an issue. Each man, (woman, and child) should be allowed to study, think, and decide for themself. We should be allowed to discuss it with others also. Bottom line, those who are against WO should not be able to dictate whether others can continue to study or not... Nor should those who are for decide the same for those against. As I see it. :) Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Woody Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Quote: Woody, Tom' thread for pro-WO was first, before OA's anti- only thread. Not that it matters who was first and how kept it going. But it is worthy to note that Tom's thread was a blog for him to post references. OA's retaliation was for only posters who agreed with his belief against WO could post on his forum. Both were wrong in my opinion. Kinda like which is worse Eve for yielding to temptation - or Adam for continuing it with his eyes open. Water under the bridge now. Stan has stepped in and solved the issue with a good solution in my eyes. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
teresaq Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Hindsight is wonderful is it not? Lol. If Tom hadn't locked it everyone and their mama would have been posting there and buried the sources. But yes it did prevent others from being able to post sources... Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Woody Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 That is a subjective stance, isn't it, Naomi? Some may be tired of it because they have already made up their mind. Others of us have not...still others see more and more issues and info coming up every time it is discussed. As long as it is an issue in the church it is an issue. Each man, (woman, and child) should be allowed to study, think, and decide for themself. We should be allowed to discuss it with others also. Bottom line, those who are against WO should not be able to dictate whether others can continue to study or not... Nor should those who are for decide the same for those against. As I see it. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Administrators Naomi Posted July 3, 2012 Administrators Posted July 3, 2012 That is a subjective stance, isn't it, Naomi? Some may be tired of it because they have already made up their mind. Others of us have not...still others see more and more issues and info coming up every time it is discussed. Dear lady, To what are you referring? Quote If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God
doug yowell Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Yes, Tom should not do that. rejoice always, G You crack me up,og! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.