Adventist Online

Okay well, Yesterday, I received a phone call from someone who is trying to join this site It's been 2 weeks and no one has approved her membership, who is charge?

Views: 397

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

JohnB I promised Reasoning I will refrain from responding to James posts. Regarding Sodomy, I have not accused him of that nor has anyone else. Some time back Raymond mentioned something about what goes on in Happy Clapper congregations, while sodomy was mentioned he did not accuse him of that. But as what usually happens with James is he makes it a hyperbole, I never accused him of it but now he accuses me of saying that. But I will refrain from responding to his Goading and provocations and maybe he will go away as he can not pick a fight with anyone. 

 

James would not go away just like that unless he is removed. I wish members here could understand what's going on here. Read between the lines of what he writes: the repetitions; the grandiosity;  exaggerated sense of his own abilities and achievements; the  constant need for attention, affirmation, and praise; the sense of entitlement and expectation of special treatment (even claiming that demons [or satanists] don't tread him the way he is treated here; etc . I could list more manifestations ... 

I said the sodomy thing?  I don't think I ever said James was a sodomite.  Well hopefully someday soon I will learn to keep my trap shut.  Especially with people who use hyperbole as is used by some.  Thank you Elijah for bringing this up and reminding me, cannot learn unless it is pointed out. 

No, Elijsh accused me of belonging to a church involved with evil, including practice of sodomy. I informed Elijah the last church I attended was SDA. Elijah was calling his own denomination evil and practicing sodomy thereby unknowingly to him by HIS false accusation to me which was without truth. Never did I claim SDA church was involved in sodomy whatsoever. I exposed the irony of his accusation. John B, you never addressed Elijah or Jason’s evil accusations when they occurred including the above and mental illness. You are and continue to be biased.

My listing various false accusations by various people in summary does not mean everyone said every accusation. That should be obvious by context.

The extreme hatred and accusations done here are minimized by some here and bias causes me to be blamed in the extreme as the problem and things are slanted in favor contrary to fairness.

James, it is not my job to address anyone here. Why does your behaviour always depend on other people? Have you no self-control?

You are accountable for your own actions. 

Of course I am biased... I am a SDA chilling with fellow SDAs, do you really expect me to support someone who dishonestly came onto the board and spends all their time being abusive to me and others. SMH.

Ok, as I see it this is the progression:

22nd December 2017 Raymond refers to, "some denominations which are pro sodomy and or abortion".

On the same day Elijah says, "As Raymond seems to suggest Gifts of the flesh is also manifested in your church like Sodomy, that is a thing God has condemned outright in the Bible."

Five months later James says, "I have been accused of even sodomy!"

When challenged on this, the same day, James changed his mind and stated that Elijah had suggested that he belongs to a church that practices sodomy and as he had attended an SDA Church (not as a member) James then tried to infer that Elijah was saying that the SDA Church practices sodomy.

I believe that is the root of the problem. James refuses to point posts out to me as he believes that it is my "work" to find what he is referring to, so any lack is down to non-cooperation rather than a failing on my part. 

So...

1. Raymond mentions churches being pro-sodomy

2. Elijah spins it to suggest James is a member of a church that practices sodomy

3. James digs it up months later and spins it further as an allegation that he commits sodomy.

4. James then resiles from that position and says it was an inference not an allegation.

5. Everybody gets upset about it all over again.

James and Elijah seem to be the cause of the problem, Elijah for misrepresenting what Raymond said and James for blowing it all out of proportion by exaggerating it to claim an actual allegation of sodomy and digging up a grievance from 5 months ago.

All posters should be clear and concise in their writing and not exaggerate what others say. 

This appears to be a problem with both Elijah and James and I will encourage you both to follow the rules and speak the truth in love.

Hopefully we have some kind of "truce" in effect at the moment so I suggest learning and moving on.

Thank you for clearing that up.  I remember some sexual scandals in Pentecostal churches but I didn't remember saying anyone here was a sodomite. Even one of the members who had same sex attraction problems I thought was a good contributor here and I never called him that name. I have been called far worse but I don't have thin skin anymore, but I should have known a label like that would get picked up and tossed around like a football. I didn't read all the back and forth between James and Elijah so I didn't know they were using this to call each other sodomites.  

Raymond no one has called anyone sodomite. But I am sure you know how James is making a hyperbole out of this as he does with everything. I have made the decision not to respond to his idiotic claims any more. 

You fail to include the other materials that were presented about setting the example for unbelievers and those not saved, concerns about their eternal state etc, in addition to welcoming all those seeking the truth communicates that the site is primarily for SDA but ”We welcome all seekers of God's truth here.” sets an exception as written.

Therefore the rules and introductory examples of how to treat others with the scriptures presented all do not categorically agree or state only a SDA may join. Even some members here agree with me that others seeking the truth may join.

Your continual calling me a liar is refuted by the agreement with its ambiguity. It is contradictory when the examples are given of how unbelievers and those that disagree should be treated. That means some may disagree, contrary to your opinion. Some here disagree with many OFFICIAL SDA DOCTRINES  including the Trinity. Are you hating them and want them to leave the site also? NO!

Taken as written it never stated categorically only SDA members may join. YOU ARE A RESPECTER OF PERSONS, SDA EVEN EVEN WHO DRNY THE TRINITY YOU DONOT INSIDT THEY LEAVE YHOUGH THEY DON’T SGREE EITH SND UPHOLD ALL SDA DOCTRINES.

Sorry, typos, iPad had small keys.

Oh James, how many times do we have to over the same ground... over and over and over again.... How many times do we have to repeat the same things... how many years before you are finally able to grasp the meaning of simple English?

<sigh>

Top of the page, any page, what does it say? "ADVENTIST ONLINE Connecting Seventh-day Adventists Every Day"

Now read it again, very, very slowly. Connecting who? Seventh-day Adventists. Do you see it? Read it again, who is it referring to? Seventh-day Adventists. Are you clear? Do you need to read it again? Note the word "primarily" is not found. It is unambiguous.

Now lets go to the tab on every page called "Forum" and to the section marked "Site Rules".

It gets a bit tricky here as you have to actually read the rules but I know that you have read them before so this should not be too hard. Rule #12, what does it say? "This is a site by Seventh-day Adventists for Seventh-day Adventists." 

Now read it again, very, very slowly. Who is the site for? Seventh-day Adventists. Do you see it? Read it again, who is it referring to? Seventh-day Adventists. Are you clear? Do you need to read it again? 

"This is a site by Seventh-day Adventists for Seventh-day Adventists." 

If you have any problems reading any of the words or putting them together as a meaningful sentence then please let us know and we will explain it further.

You keep mentioning "We welcome all seekers of God's truth here" as if it contradicts the previous sentence which said "This is a site by Seventh-day Adventists for Seventh-day Adventists." It doesn't, it follows on. It does not contradict or negate the previous words. This is still "a site by Seventh-day Adventists for Seventh-day Adventists."

The page for signing up to this site says, "Adventist Online is the largest social network for Seventh-day Adventists. Find your SDA friends on the most active & fun Adventist forum!"

Now I think this is pretty straightforward but let's check. Who is the site for? "for Seventh-day Adventists". That's a direct quote which seems to me to say that "Adventist Online is the largest social network for Seventh-day Adventists." Now I may be wrong but I think that is pretty clear... "Adventist Online is the largest social network for Seventh-day Adventists." Yes, I can't see any ambiguity there. It appears to be quite clear that "Adventist Online is .... for Seventh-day Adventists." Can you see any ambiguity?

It says that you can find "your SDA friends" here. Which kind of friends? SDA. Does it say "primarily SDA"? No. It says clearly and unequivocally, "SDA friends". Why only SDA? Because "this is a site by and for Seventh-day Adventists". Can you see some logic at work here?

Finally, what kind of forum are you signing on to? Adventist forum. Perhaps here is where the ambiguity lies? Because it says "Adventist" and not "Seventh-day Adventist" did you think that it is open to all "Adventist"s not just Seventh-day Adventist? Well, it isn't because it states "this is a site by and for Seventh-day Adventists", that should clear any remaining doubts.

So... let's go to the "Create a profile" page. This is where everyone who wants to join the site creates their profile. There is a question on the page and it says, "Do you agree to uphold the principles and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church in your conduct on this site and follow the Site Rules & Guidelines?"

You will notice that it mentions upholding "the principles and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church in your conduct on this site" To make a profile you had to answer "Yes" to this question. Just to make sure that you understand, when you said "Yes" it was you giving your word to "uphold the principles and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church in your conduct on this site and follow the Site Rules & Guidelines".

You didn't have to answer "yes". It was your own free will choice to make this agreement. Were you lying when you made this agreement?

Having agreed to uphold the site rules you will have seen that, rule 12 tells you that, "this is a site by and for Seventh-day Adventists" and secondly that you are requested to post with love, not bring up old grudges, not bring grudges from thread to thread. All of this you agreed to do, you gave your word. How do I know? Because you continue to use this site.

As it says at the very start of the site rules page, " Use of Adventist Online demonstrates your acceptance of these terms." You use AOL which demonstrates that you accept these terms. Do you understand? Nobody else gave your word for you, you were not forced to lie, you chose to.

Again, simple words that should not cause any problems of understanding to someone of average to below average ability.

Nowhere does it say that the site is "primarily" for SDAs. Nowhere. Anyone who suggests it does is... well, to be frank, lying.

What concerns me is that after literally years of explaining this to you we still seem to be in a position where you prove yourself to be incapable of reading plain English. Even if you did make a mistake in joining, how many years will it take before you finally accept that you are not SDA and you are not supposed to be here. Look, I'll just cut and paste from one of the previous responses:

How many times does this have to be explained to you? When you decided to pretend to be an SDA to get on this site, when you purposed to lie about your beliefs and your intentions, did it not occur to you that the reason why you had to break God's commandments to get access to this site was because, as it says very clearly, this is a Seventh-day Adventist site meant for Seventh-day Adventists?

Nobody forced you to lie to gain access. Nobody pleaded with you to break God's commandments. Nobody asked you to pretend to be SDA so that you could point out all our errors and boast about yourself.

At some point you decided within yourself that it was more important to pretend to be SDA than to keep the commandments of God. It was entirely your choice.

To risk your soul's salvation, to come in here as someone saying, 'I am a liar, believe me' was your choice.

Now, not only do you want to manipulate our beliefs but you want to manipulate this board as well. This is a SDA board set up so that SDAs could discuss amongst themselves. If you don't want to talk about what SDAs believe (other than to tell us we're wrong) then go away. The solution is so simple.

I couldn't care less about any claim that my sins are so much bigger than yours or how I am controlled by satan because I dare speak against you, or how you can behave as you want because others are bigger sinners than you.

How many more times will this have to be explained?

p.s. This is a site for Seventh-day Adventists by Seventh-day Adventists as you have known since you decided to dishonestly gain access. I will save this post so that it can be cut and pasted to you any time your memory "fails" you again.

I agree with principles and beliefs of the SDA that are in agreement with scriptures as that is the standard God expects. Others here do not agree either with the trinity for example. Are you asking those people to leave and calling them liars and dishonest?

If there is any error in beliefs of SDA church, then Jesus Christ himself would be told to leave the site after he stated the truth. Are you really interested in truth?

Often truth does not come from inside but outside. 

Perhaps the SDA will remain a Laodacean church and will never raise up in the faith and will go down in God’s history as the church that was opposed and antagonistic to the holy spirit which it quenched and opposed along with many others. There is a great deal of pride by some here, thinking they are the remnant and the cream of the crop for God. The Jews also thought so, and they also kept the law and the Sabbaths. But the majority opposed God’s redemption and spirit, and even the Messiah.

I hope not, but it so far appears to be coming to pass. Keep your closed society? Stay ignorant of and keep the holy spirit quenched and not manifested. Continue without the holy spirit in operation in your assemblies, you shall not profit thereby. Demons, disease and death will continue to take their toll.

There are people in SDA and other churches with very serious spiritual and mental and physical problems. Whom among you have any idea of how to minister healing for them?

NONE AS FAR AS I HAVE SEEN? CONTINUE TO REAP WHAT YOU SOW; QUENCHING THE SPIRIT IS A SIN AND WITHHOLDS GOD’S WORKINGS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2018   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service