Gregory, Can you explain.................

August 5, 2006

Can you explain when it is acceptable to judge another and when it is not? Is there a list that mods and administration go by that makes it acceptable for A and unacceptable for B?

Bonnie

August 5, 2006

In the following you and a few others had a problem with what D.Bishop posted to Pam in the "Was Jesus Selfish" discussion

Re: Was Jesus selfish? [Re: D_Bishop]

#225277 - Wed Jul 26 2006 11:24 AM Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply

Darryl, that is exactly the kind of comment that we expect you not to make in this forum.

There are a number of us here who have probably had more contact with Pam, than you, who accept her questions as sincere one. Further, I have seen these same questions come from other sincere people. They are not questions that could only come from an insincer person.

It is not for you to judge Pam as you have done. If that is what you want to do here, please go elsewhere.

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

Gregory

D.Bishop is invited to go elsewhere if he chooses to judge Pam. While I think the remark was unnecessary and uncalled for, it pales by comparison in judgements against others that is routinely accepted in the area's you moderate and all throughout the forum.

How do any of us know what Dr Cabalo has? I certainly don't and am not envious enough I guess to worry about it. How does Robert know Gerry has nice things because of his law performance. I have never read anything remotely like that in his posts. Robert states it as fact. He also states Gerry should not be an adventist and further compounds his uninformed opinion of Gerry by stating he would do well with those interested only in prosperity. To me this sounds a little more serious than a statement of "goofy questions"

I realize Pam is struggling with some issues within the church and has unanswered questions. That needs to be protected, but in general if it is wrong to judge, it is wrong to judge.

Robert said......

Really? Isn't ironic that Doctor Cabalo has very nice things, but many Christians do not? Funny, I didn't think that God was partial! Oh, I get it...you have nice things because of your law performance. Silly me, forgot all about that.

You know...you really shouldn't be an Adventist. Instead you should follow one of those prosperity preachers around. You two would do well together.

Rob

August 5, 2006

When everyone's motives are questioned, deliberated, and judged by one to be something it is not,or just assumed to be, what do you call that??? When this is repeated endlessly in every discussion, to me, it is not only judging another, but shows extreme jealousy and envy. Not done with the "liberal claim of concern for the salvation of another"

What is it to you???

Here we go again, altho no one that is a member of the forum.

Motives are known and found wanting by WHO??????

Robert sais.....

Oh yeah, this is funny. I remember when I was coming up as an SDA kid....I remember this rich guy (or the bank was rich) who had a real nice home with a swimming pool. Well I over heard a discussion going on. The man said He bought it so the kids could come over and swim. Isn't that nice! I guess he didn't spend any time enjoying it for himself?

My point? The flesh comes up will all sorts of reasons and justifications to get what it desires. I gave up on justifying the selfish things I do....The thing here is we do like to enjoy things that are mainly for us. Is that sin? Yes, technically....Does that mean I am going to buy nothing in the future for my enjoyment? Probably not! Does this mean I am lost? No! Why not?...

What is funny about this statement?? Unless funny is in the odd sense that even as a child someone is showing extreme bias against any that may have what he does not. Jealousy and judgement again????

I don't think I am alone as a parent that has seen something and purchased it that I thought my children and friends would enjoy. Horrors of horrors, the great sin, I even found myself enjoying it a time or two.

August 5, 2006

I can go thru your section and find the following kinds of statements throughout. This also holds true for all of the other forums.

Robert said.......

"The reason why I stress this issue of iniquity isn't to knock doctors...it's to knock legalists! Gerry just happens to be a doctor who's a legalist

Ecc 2:24 A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, [why?] 25 for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment?

Again, without God you wouldn't have life, right? In fact without God you wouldn't be sinning, right? You are able to sin because God has given you life. You gain wealth because you have life, but it doesn't mean that it's not self-centered.

Actually, no! You are the guardian of the law. You are the one who bashes believers with law, law, law and more law. You are a blooming legalist!

No reaction at all from those that would jump with both feet firmly planted in the middle of the back if it were said to selected ones. (Pam, this in no way is about you, I enjoy your questions)

We have in other area's those that routinely tell others to "PUT UP OR SHUT UP" or those they disagree with sound like the beast of Rev. In addtion we also have those that have emphatically stated there is stupidity involved in being a SDA. I think something the other day was referred to rubbish.

No where on this forum would it be acceptable, tolerated, or allowed to stand if a post was made concerning "The stupidity it required to be a catholic with the rubbish they teach or articles they print.

It seems a bit ironic that all of this is not being said by the uncompassionate conservative, but by the tolerant, forgiving, accepting liberal.

But aside from that can you give me the wording in the above examples that make it acceptable for some to treat others this way?

August 5, 2006

Bonnie/gregory and others.... when you quote people please use the quote option it is [ quote ]place text here [ /quote]

The space after the [ needs to be removed for it to work

August 5, 2006

Just some general comments. I am not trying to speak for Gregory or about him.

There is not a consistancy among the forums or sections here because each moderator is different. One may permit certain comments or even topics that another will not.

A given moderator may not be consistant and may even hold a double standard for editting posts. This is normally because they will try and protect a member they see as fragile while they let other members that have better roots or "thicker skin" fend for themselves.

There are some members here that openly attack the Adventist church and many of its beliefs. I think most moderators will permit such things as they challenge us and if our faith cannot withstand being challended by a few critics, we have some issues we need to work through that silencing the critics will not address.

As Adventists we need to guard our reputation. That is why critical statements about other religions or denominations may be editted. However that too will vary from moderator to moderator. While we can be critical of other belief systems, we don't want to come off as hate-mongers.

I know it gets frustrating when a moderator edits a post. It would be thoughtful of moderators to send the users a kind private message when they do so. That is what I do in the Spanish forum - and I pray for God to give me the correct words. We are not all the same. Many of us communicate in different ways and sometimes we say things on line we would not say in person. It takes effort on everyone's part to keep things civil.

August 5, 2006

Thanks for one explaination

1.There is not a consistancy among the forums or sections here because each moderator is different. One may permit certain comments or even topics that another will not.

I understand that. However there is a consistency among all forums allowing certain ones

2. A given moderator may not be consistant and may even hold a double standard for editting posts. This is normally because they will try and protect a member they see as fragile while they let other members that have better roots or "thicker skin" fend for themselves.

I am sure to a degree that is necessary also. I am not talking of losing one's temper, speaking out of turn occasionaly, but a consistent pattern of accepting some who judge routinely, while isuing an invitation to leave to the one who may do so once

3.There are some members here that openly attack the Adventist church and many of its beliefs. I think most moderators will permit such things as they challenge us and if our faith cannot withstand being challended by a few critics, we have some issues we need to work through that silencing the critics will not address.

Has it been determined by mods and administrators that if you are an adventist you must be challenged on an adventist forum by being told the level of your stupidity in remaining an adventist. I am not talking of those that are critics of the adventist faith, I am talking of those that cannot be critical without rude and obnoxious comments concerning the intelligence of others

4.As Adventists we need to guard our reputation. That is why critical statements about other religions or denominations may be editted. However that too will vary from moderator to moderator. While we can be critical of other belief systems,

we don't want to come off as hate-mongers.

You or the other mods ever wonder what redeeming value there is to a hate monger. Seems to me that is another routinely condemned, unless of course it involves the SDA denomination

5.I know it gets frustrating when a moderator edits a post. It would be thoughtful of moderators to send the users a kind private message when they do so. That is what I do in the Spanish forum - and I pray for God to give me the correct words. We are not all the same. Many of us communicate in different ways and sometimes we say things on line we would not say in person. It takes effort on everyone's part to keep things civil.

I am not talking of an edited post, or about frustration for that matter. Frustration is a long dead issue. Now, just kind of curious as to the explainations. The only reason it would be said online and not in person is ACCOUNTABILITY.

Maybe that is something to consider

August 5, 2006

Please use the quote option

August 5, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

A given moderator may not be consistant and may even hold a double standard for editting posts. This is normally because they will try and protect a member they see as fragile while they let other members that have better roots or "thicker skin" fend for themselves.

That is an extremely dangerous position to take. It is subjective, and opens the door to abuse of power. A form of favoritism can easily develop, and the effect on a forum can be demmoralizing. IMO it is critical to the prosperity of such a forum, to have clearly defined parameters applicable to all, administered in an even-handed way. Another option, if a moderator wishes to take sides or to show some form of favoritism, is to ask someone else to moderate pro tem while the regular moderator steps down and becomes a participant.

That really does work, by the way. For years, I have chaired Board meetings--in churches for years, and now a nonprofit corp. I adopted a practice which I read about in a seminary extension class. If, as chairman, I felt a need to speak to an issue, I asked someone else to chair the meeting while I speak as an advocate. The folks have really appreciated that. I recommend such a practice for moderators as well.

I should add that our system of jurisprudence recognizes the importance of fairplay. Remember the statue of the woman wearing a blindfold, and holding a pair of scales in her hand?

Dave

August 5, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I am talking of those that cannot be critical without rude and obnoxious comments concerning the intelligence of others.

very interesting. How can you see the motes of others with those beams in your eyes? Judge not lest ye be judged. Never hate your enemies; It clouds your judgement. Why is this in a public forum and in B&T when it is clearly neither?

August 5, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Amelia said:

very interesting. How can you see the motes of others with those beams in your eyes? Judge not lest ye be judged. Never hate your enemies; It clouds your judgement. Why is this in a public forum and in B&T when it is clearly neither?

Well Amelia, This isn't about judging anyone. It is statements that have been made by others that in some cases have been allowed to stand and in another the poster was invited to go elsewhere.

Hate my enemies. Maybe it would be best if your own personal feelings were not interjected. I said nothing about hating anyone. If disagree is hate, where does that leave you?

Is your judgement clouded when you disagree??

The reasons I posed the questions here was the recent and ongoing topic "Was Jesus Selfish"

Actually, judging others is an appropriate topic here, I think.

Also the reason that so much judging, depending on who you happen to be, takes place here as well as other forums.

Here I believe an attempt at an answer will be given, whether I agree with it or not. Elsewhere I have my doubts.

I have not called anyone names, I have not questioned anyone's chance for eternal life, I have told no one they need to put up or shutup, I have told no one that I disagree with they sound to me like the beast of Rev, I have told no one that what they believe requires a level of stupidity, I have not called anyone a legalist and told them they have no business being an adventist. Which could raise another interesting questioning. Where was your concern as adminstrator as shown by this remark

(quote)very interesting. How can you see the motes of others with those beams in your eyes? Judge not lest ye be judged. Never hate your enemies; It clouds your judgement. Why is this in a public forum(/quote)

Maybe the mentioned statements were considered by you and others in the adminstration to be fact and my questions due to the ongoing topic is considered judgement

Or is it the question WHY that disturbs you????

August 5, 2006

By using this thread title

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Gregory, Can you explain.................

you have made this personal and confrontational. Thus this thread is not about Bible and Theology but about how Gregory's moderation works. In my mind that belongs in a private area not public. And even though you don't seem to see it, you judge as much as everyone else. That's the only thing that disturbs me.

August 5, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Amelia said:

By using this thread title

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Gregory, Can you explain.................

you have made this personal and confrontational. Thus this thread is not about Bible and Theology but about how Gregory's moderation works. In my mind that belongs in a private area not public. And even though you don't seem to see it, you judge as much as everyone else. That's the only thing that disturbs me.

If Gregory sees it as personal I am sure the title can be changed. It is not confrontational and personal Against Gregory.

It is questions as to why. Funny, I seem to remember other topics very similar to this one by others and your concern was absent.

Have I judged people , Probably have. Again, there is nothing in my questions to indicate to you that I am claiming not to have said things I shouldn't. One little item that is missing in your statement concerning that is hasn't taken long before you have made your displeasure known and/or deleted.

I am simply asking in how you determine who can be the one to judge and who can't be. How you determine who hates by what they may say and who is calling another names,"in love of course"

The ongoing topic took place in a public forum without an apparent flinch from you, why would the explaination cause so much concern.

I believe Gregory can handle the question without feeling I am being confrontational. Gregory is not and never has been considered anything other than a friend.

August 5, 2006

Bonnie, for various personal reasons, I did not follow the Was Jesus Selfish thread as closely as I should have done so. over the past couple of days. As a result some posts were made which were inconsistent with my intentions for the areas in which I moderate.

I will accept the responsibility for that. It was simply oversight on my part.

Shane is correct when he tells us that different Moderators have different standards.

David has suggested a style for Chairmanship that works very well in such situations, and complies with Robert's Rules of Order, and other such. What he fails to recognize is that such is not the style here in Club Adventist. I, and the other Moderators do not fill that role. All of us fill another role. It is likely that some of us are closer to that role than are others. That is likely true for me. I was not appointed as a Moderator to be as passive as the style that David suggests. My guidance was clearly to take a more active role, and I do so.

Due to human limitations, lack of time, other responsibilities (I have been off the Internet for the past 7 hours or more.) the weaknesses of the style of moderation that I practice are evident for all to see.

The answer to the objections may very well be to move some, or all, of the sections in Club Adventist to what is called Active Moderation (AM). In AM you would write a post, but it would not be publicly seen until the Moderator had reviewed it, and allowed it to be posted. As an example, during the past seven hours while I have been off of the Internet, you would not have been allowed to post responses to this thread until I had approved them.

To be clear, I am opposed to AM.

August 5, 2006

Thanks, I was curious as to why.

Don't think you think so, but was not being confrontational. Perfect agreement and perfect moderation is an unreasonable expectation. I was fairly certain here I would receive an answer.

August 6, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Gregory Matthews said:

What he fails to recognize is that such is not the style here in Club Adventist. I, and the other Moderators do not fill that role. All of us fill another role. It is likely that some of us are closer to that role than are others. That is likely true for me. I was not appointed as a Moderator to be as passive as the style that David suggests. My guidance was clearly to take a more active role, and I do so.

I recognize that is not the style with some moderators here in Club Adventist. Yet, moderators are people, like everyone else, and are subject to error. Most, if not all of us, step out of bounds at times. Moderators sometimes do so as well. In moderating forums, as in other areas of life, experience can be a good teacher, for those who are teachable. Life consists of experiences which require course corrections. If experience reveals weaknesses or problems with how a particular style of moderation is applied, then one would do well to take heed to those lessons and be willing to consider making some adjustments. The need for impartiality and even-handedness on a forum, is critical.

August 6, 2006

David,

I was not really interested in seeing new rules set up by mods and adminstrators . Nor to quarrel with every post deleted. Nor as suggested was it intended to be confrontational to Gregory.

Having seen many times in the past a certain few repeatedly say things in their posts that another certain few would be stopped immediately for, and seeing it more frequently here the last few days, I was curious.

To know the different boundries for each clique of people would be nice.

I received three answers from three different sources. I am sure I look at those answers differently than most, I have been told by many that I view things in a different light than others, and suspect that I do.

The answers did satisfy what I was curious about.Agreement with me was not necessarily all that important.

Gregory explained satisfactorily what I found puzzeling here the last few days.

Shane gave me his viewpoint in how and why certain things are carried out. I know from what he said that he has thought this thru

The third answer was more in line with what I anticipated based on what I have read. I accept that for what it was. I am sure there will be disagreement as to what I saw, but each to his own. It settled in my mind the questions I had.

What I saw was again, "If you have sinned, keep your mouth shut"

If you have an opinion on what others have done/are doing, you do so out of hate" The deed can be done in public, the name calling can be as public as you wish to make it, but the discussion of such should be done behind closed doors.

By the very fact that was said, a judgement had been made. There was no hate involved and I don't believe implied. Disagreement and questions were translated to that definition.

That should stop every body cold, from having an opinion, stating so, asking questions. Or most importantly not liking something that is going on. The right to do so has been forfeited when you sinned. Just by the fact it was stated tells me someone has formed an opinion, passed judgement on me, decided in that judgement it was done out of hate, and is doing the very same they are accusing another of.

While I may not agree and may not like it, that is the opinion and judgement of some. I am not likely to change that and was not attempting to set C/A up as some kind of a boardroom and elect a chairman of the board. Nor was I looking for a solution to promote perfect harmony and agreement with the way things are done. It is what it is.

There is nothing that I know of when you register here that states you will have influence or input to the way things are done.

I was not headed in the direction of correcting the moderators or setting up a new system. I simply asked the questions and they were answered. Now I can decide if I can live within those boundries or not

August 6, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I am sure I look at those answers differently than most, I have been told by many that I view things in a different light than others, and suspect that I do.

None of us look at answer identical to others. We are all victims of our past experiences.

August 6, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Stan Jensen said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I am sure I look at those answers differently than most, I have been told by many that I view things in a different light than others, and suspect that I do.

None of us look at answer identical to others. We are all victims of our past experiences.

It may be past experience, but mostly it has more to do with the wisdom of my parents. They taught me to look past what a person was saying at the moment and watch words and actions over the long haul to see if it lined up. If it didn't, it was time to stop and reassess

Sign In

Gregory, Can you explain.................

Recommended Posts

bonnie

bonnie

bonnie

bonnie

Stan

Dr. Shane

bonnie

Stan

David Koot

Amelia

bonnie

Amelia

bonnie

Gregory Matthews

bonnie

David Koot

bonnie

Stan

bonnie

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity