Outside "The Limits"

[8thdaypriest]

When you confine all discussion of God as a Trinity (or not) to a forum called "Outside the Limits" and place access to that forum almost at the bottom of your home page, you seem to be saying that such discussion is UNACCEPTABLE, and should not be viewed by visitors to this club.  

I would rather see access to discussions of the nature of our God under the regular "Theological Forum".  

[8thdaypriest]

It looks as if Stan is trying to please SDA church authorities.   I've heard that the official church is coming down very hard just now on the God as Three issue, to push back at those who have come to believe in only Father and Son, and to protect official Church positions.    The belief in only "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" is gaining momentum.  

[LifeHiscost]

3 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It looks as if Stan is trying to please SDA church authorities.   I've heard that the official church is coming down very hard just now on the God as Three issue, to push back at those who have come to believe in only Father and Son, and to protect official Church positions.    The belief in only "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" is gaining momentum.  

Since the Word tells me without Him I can do nothing, I'm satisfied accepting the below is safe to rely on for eternal life.

⁸ But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): ⁹ that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰ For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 8

Hope your week is a good one.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[JoeMo]

At first I liked the idea of having a place where people can freely discuss "outside the limits" topics.  I'm not so sure anymore.  In reviewing those topics, it seems like many of them come up as "rabbit trails" in other topics.  I got to thinking - why did these topics need to be moved?  Was the discussion upsetting or offensive to other members?  Was there pressure from "above" to confine these topics to a marginal location?  If the Trinity conversations are "outside the limits", shouldn't discussions supporting subjects like evolution also be segregated?  Who will determine what is "over the line"?

I dunno, maybe naming the group something besides "Outside the Limits" would help.  That name somehow sounds like people who post there are doing something wrong.  Every time I go there to post, I feel like I'm labelling myself as an infidel or a heretic or something.  What do you think of a name like "Outside of the Box"?

[JoeMo]

Why couldn't these discussions be listed under the existing group of "Things we Don't Talk About" under the Main discussion Topics?

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I have known Stan for more years than you; and I have been on this forum, (off and on) since it began and I have to disagree with you here. I have never known Stan to be the automaton that you describe here, and I have never seen him do this. If you believe that your antitrinity efforts on this forum are convincing anybody, then you need to take a closer look.

Glad to know Stan is not push-able.

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Why couldn't these discussions be listed under the existing group of "Things we Don't Talk About" under the Main discussion Topics?

I like "Outside the Box", but that would imply some are IN "the Box".   

Topic of whether our God is three, is definitely a theological debate.  "Theo" says it's about God.  

Why can't "Trinity Topics" be listed UNDER the Theological Forum, but then open to a distinct forum?  Would that work?

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

I dont think it is at all. With internet it is easy to make things look the way we want; but in actual fact, no one on this forum is even posting on the topic anymore. We all know whats going to happen if we do. I would imagine that Stan is trying to be nice about the whole thing, and that he is trying to avoid doing what will likely have to be done at some point. Its certainly not church leaders that Stan is trying to appease here. (if I am wrong; I am sure someone can correct me).

You seem to suggest that Stan will either ban me, or ban any discussion of the nature of our God.  

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

If you believe that your antitrinity efforts on this forum are convincing anybody, then you need to take a closer look.

My efforts may not have changed your thinking, but I don't think you can speak for "anybody".  "Anybody" would have to include every visitor too.

[Gregory Matthews]

In case there is any confusion on whether or not Rachel is about to be banned:

I am not aware of any such.  I have no reason to believe that Stan is thinking of doing so.  I am not.

For a link to that discussion, go to:

https://adventistan.com/forums/forum/225-trinity-topics/

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

On this forum, Rachel is one of the most polite and articulate posters of her thoughts and ideas, even in the face of what sometimes seems as veiled mockery. 

My opinion.

[Gregory Matthews]

No implication as to anyone who had suggested that Rachel would be banned.

I posted in response to a private message that asked me about her status in this forum.  As a result, I felt that there might be others who needed to know, so I posted.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

18 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

No one said she wasnt.

I didn't say anyone did.  Not sure why you posted that.