The problem with that, is most of the people in Origins believe just as I do that the verses 2 Peter 3:3-7 have to do with Evolution. That's my theory. If you want to test it, do a poll, and ask how many people there believe 2 Peter 3:3-7 is the foretelling of the rise of Evolution.

But you might not want that poll if you feel strongly against it.

And now you have just admitted that it's not because I have an unusual tendency to attack or insult a person, but it's because of my beliefs. And because you think I'm too ignorant to know when to say certain things and when to not.

To me, this is how moderation should work. If I had said something about Bible prophecy and Evolution / Atheism, in Origins forum. Like if I made a topic called "The Bible and the French Revolution", and discussed the rise of Atheism. Then you could move the topic and give me a warning. And that system works. What doesn't work is singling a person out for his beliefs. Especially because, as I've said, most of the people in Origins forum have the same beliefs. These are standard SDA beliefs, and this is an SDA board.

Or if I would have said how Ellen White says Evolution theory abuses the Bible. You could move that to the other forum, as well. It doesn't belong there.

I can understand and appreciate the kind of conversation you want to have there. I really do. I'm not the out-of-control fanatic you seem to think I am. For all you know, I never would have said anything like what I thought EGW or Peter or John said about Evolution, in a forum called "Origins", but in a forum like: "What Seventh Day Adventists Believe", which I would argue would be the appropriate forum for such thoughts. Wouldn't you agree?

So, what I would do, if I where you, is use this opportunity to make a sticky in Origins forum, stating your cause, and making it perfectly clear what kind of discussion you want, and what kind of discussion would belong in another forum. Use examples. Have a list of things. It might take you a good hour. You can use my posts as an example. I give you permission.

I really think that would help.

I'm still not clear what you want and what you don't want, exactly. For instance, what do you think of this discussion?

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/187620/Creation#Post187620

Is that it, or not?

I hope you can make that sticky. It would do me alot of good if you would do that. If you don't know everything you want to say, just make a space-holder sticky for now. Start by stating the purpose why you want the sticky. In fact, you can ask for suggestions, and let the people have a voice. That wouldn't show that you don't know what you're doing. That would actually show that you value what the people say.

So, thanks, Bravus for taking the time to clear this up some. I think you got a little bit more clearing up to do.

God bless.

If you do unrestrict me, to give me a fair shot, then don't be offended if I don't post there. I'm not going to have time to post about these things for a couple weeks.

There are already 3 (?) stickies in Origins that do exactly this, in exhaustive detail. They took a lot more than an hour.

Just by way of clarification, it's not your beliefs about origins that are the problem, but your belief that it is appropriate to discuss topics in the way that you do.

Oops, the stickies seem to have vanished. I think that was in response to someone else saying the forum seemed over-regulated. Will see if I can dig them up.

And I will start that poll, because I'm interested.

[quote=rush4hire

I really don't know what you mean by "personal attack". That's why I've been wanting an example, so I'll know what you mean.

I thought a "personal attack" was like an insult. Like flaming. I really don't think I've flamed anyone.

Of course I don't believe in insulting people. I really don't think I've done that. If I've insulted someone, just show me, and I'll apologize.

Have I said: "You idiot!", or "You're Mama's so fat, she should have her own zip code.", or anything like that? Have I done anything to make sport at someone else's expense?

Witness against me.

I think if a person says something like: "Evolution is of the Devil", that could not qualify as a "personal attack". That's just a person sharing their opinion. I wouldn't try to censor someone for that.[/quote]

I agree that we should be able to point to the flaws in a doctrinal statement on Origins or on idol worship or on praying to the dead without having to insult the person that holds to them.

I believe that praying to the dead is an idea that is evil and the source for it is evil - but I do not believe that Catholics and others who engage in that activity are themselves evil.

The ad hominem approach is "you are evil".

The more objective approach is "that idea is wrong" and if you really feel that it is "evil" say so.

Roger Mornaue who wrote a number of books on the topic "Incredible Answers to Prayer" mentioned belonging to a Satanist cult prior to becoming a Christian. We was informed there about the role that evolutionism plays in Satan's plans. The book where he discusses that topic is called "A trip into the supernatural".

I think SDA pastors and bible teachers should be able to address that point all day long.

I also think it is instructive that Europe's move to becoming entirely evolutionist quickly resulted in Europe entering the post-christian age.

I also think it is instructive that when they compare US statistics on acceptance/rejection of evolutionism to the EU - they attribute the lower US percentage to the fact that the US still has a higher percentage of Chrsitian per capita.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't know how to comment about your poll. I can't post there. Looks like you got a couple more saying no, so now you're going to rub it in my face and I can't say anything there. Good one.

Not many participated. It says 5 and 7. When the poll was in this forum, it was 3 and 5, so, take away the 3 and 5 and you get 2 and 2. So really it's a tie. Then if you remove the 3rd option, which was not part of the original plan, I would assume those 2 votes would say "Yes", making it 4 (yes), and 2 (no).

The 3rd option messes up your test. People need to decide, not decide to be undecided. If that's their option, they can't vote.

Well, anyway, we know at least 2 people voted "Yes" there, not including me. So you need to find those people, and ban them from your forum, for applying Bible prophecy against Evolution. Because that's what you banned me for, right?

You might do a poll, and ask: "Would the prophets support Evolution?"

Or you could even ask: "Does Ellen White support Evolution?"

If you did that, be sure not to quote anything from Education Chapter 24:



Looks like Ellen White called everyone that didn't agree with her infidels. Insidious, dangerous infidels, at that.

Ellen White would have been banned from your forum. You don't think about these kinds of things, do you?



The fossils and the layers give evidence for the flood. That's why they are there.



If professed Christians accept human reasoning in opposition to plain Scripture facts, they will be left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity. I didn't say it, Ellen White, the last prophet that God has raised up for this world, did.

If you ban and censure those who use the Word of God, and not just scientific evidence, against Evolution, you dishonor the Word of God.

Final response to you on this issue: in the final analysis, I am the moderator, I am accountable for my decision, and I don't have to explain it to you. I'm doing it as a courtesy.

Firstly, you are not banned - you are uninvited. If I have a party at my house and don't invite you because I think you will be rude to my other guests, I am not banning you, I am deciding not to invite you.

Secondly, no, the issue about the 2 Peter quote is not the reason you have not been invited, as I explained clearly. The reason is that you call into question the faith of those with whom you disagree. You have done so again in the post above, and you do it in almost every post. You have been admonished for it all over this site, so it's not just something that I'm seeing and no-one else is.

Thirdly, as I also clearly said, almost everyone in the Origins forum disagrees with me, so the criterion is nothing to do with my beliefs, it's all about your behaviour.

I'm done. You can be invited to the Origins forum the very day I see clear evidence in your posts that you understand the criteria for receiving an invitation and are able to post in appropriate ways. Other than that, I won't be discussing the issue further with you.

Bravus.


Througout the ages, wise men have sought to align their lives with reality through faith, righteousness and discipline.

Modern man seeks to make reality conform to their passions through science and technology.



Ger

Good quote, mate. Did you write it or is it from somewhere else?

I disagree, of course, because I don't see evolutionary perspectives as being about our passions at all, except for a passion for following the evidence where it leads. Although there are nonsense efforts in 'evolutionary psychology' that attempt to explain human behaviour through evolution, those are definitely pseudoscience. Evolution has nothing to say about morality, and about curbing or giving in to our passions. That is (part of) the role of religion, which it still plays.

There is also a discussion there about what is meant by 'reality' if it is not empirical, measurable reality. The notion that God is more real than the physical universe (which C S Lewis has expressed nicely) makes sense to me, but your quote above doesn't really talk about God explicitly. What counts as 'reality' is left undefined... and a modern person's reaction is most often going to be to assume that that means physical, not spiritual reality.