A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
In your previous comments you state the following:
Quote:
Maxwell's theology, like Kellogg's, does away with the substitutionary atonement, the necessity of the mediatorial work of Christ, the necessity of a literal sanctuary in heaven, etc.
As you can see, you argue that Maxwell's non legalistic theory of atonement is evidence that he is in the pantheistic camp. Twice I attempted to respond to this claim of yours, but every time you have deleted my comments regarding Maxwell's position on the atonement. I do not understand this!
If you do not want your readers to make any reference to the atonement, then why do you make reference to it here in connection with Maxwell's alleged pantheism? This terribly confuses me! In your personal email to me you explain that this is off the subject. Is it? If it is, then why do you bring it up in your response? I will not repeat my comments here the third time, because I know that you will delete them again!
You state that "Maxwell's theology, like Kellogg's, does away with the substitutionary atonement."
Maxwell's non-legalistic view of the cross is firmly grounded in the following statement by Ellen White in Education p. 63: [code]"The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God."
This non-forensic explanation for the atonement is seconded by Jesus' statement in John 12:32: "If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me."
Following my last submission, you deleted my reference to the atonement, and I would not be surprised if you do this again. I do not understand this. You reserve the right to refer to the atonement in your effort to connect Maxwell to pantheism, but you deny your readers the right to respond to your argument.
This is your web site, and you have the right to delete what you do not like, or do not agree with, but then you run the risk of loosing the interest of those who admire the impressive web site you have built.
That’s not a question. It’s an invitation to correct your misunderstanding. The issue about Maxwell’s denial of substitutionary atonement isn’t about the truths he affirms but what he denies.
Scripture says that everything should be done decently and in order. The correct thread to ask questions about Maxwell’s denial of substitutionary atonement is titled, Musings About An Adventist Antichrist.
I’m not hiding anything. It’s no secret that the Plain of Megiddo forums are reserved for fighting, contention and the teaching of error and that the Midheaven and High Mountain forums are sacred places for teaching truth.
I haven’t refused to answer a single question. If you can phrase a question on the forum without accusing or presuming to be teaching, I would answer it. You have the right to use the forum freely to openly protest my administrative decisions.
Because I'm a purist at heart, I was compelled to edit your post. I simply don't see what this paragraph has to do with pantheism. You composed it nicely. I suggest you save it for a thread on why Jesus died.
nicsamojluk wrote:
As far as the atonement is concerned, Ellen White has the best description of why Jesus died. It was to provide us with a glimpse of the suffering God was subjected to since the inception of sin. Here you have a non-legalistic view of the cross. Jesus dies not to assuage an angry God, he does not die to enable God to forgive sins, but rather to reveal to us how much suffering God was subjected to as a result of rebellion.
You have the right to openly challenge my decision to edit this out. The Courtroom at the forum would be a suitable location for a formal complaint.
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2002 10:58 am Post subject: Maxwell's Pantheism
For the sake of fairness, I would make the following two suggestions to you:
1. Include a warning stating that it is a crime to present any alternative views that may differ from yours, and that such action might force the responder to face the judge. Being dragged to the courtroom is not a pleasant experience for an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
2. Place a note advising readers that a reply to your article has been removed to the courtroom, coupled with a link to that reply. Most people who read your articles are not aware that somebody's answer has been removed to this other page.
Lacking this, you will reap a large number of disappointed readers!
It’s obvious that I allow alternative views on this forum. What do you think the Plain of Megiddo forums are for? You are here to answer for the crime of interrupting my thread on pantheism. Hence the title of this thread. If you haven’t noticed, the title asks, “Is this a question about pantheism?”
The rules of conduct for the Midheaven forums are presented in this link. The user agreement states that the High Mountain forums are for those who at least respect this ministry. If you respect my view that Kellogg was an archetype foreshadowing Maxwell, then you should allow me the courtesy of explaining my view without interruption. You should at least show that you understand my position before you start to completely deny everything I say. If I start a thread on pantheism, I want it to focus on pantheism.
Any member of this 7-layered universe has the right to ask questions in any thread. That includes the jail and courtroom forum. Also, everyone has the right to openly lobby for a reform of the forum rules. I would welcome any thread on the subject of forum justice.
To ask that signs be posted at a crime scene seems like a request to encourage and even glorify the criminal act. I am of the opinion that the way the popular media reports on crime has a harmful effect on society. Anyone interested in crime and punishment will either discern the purpose of the jail and courtroom forum or ask questions about it. Those forums are not unnoticed. They are open to everyone.
You were alerted privately by email that you were off-topic. You persisted in disrupting my thread and that necessitates an open hearing.
Thanks for mentioning that being taken to jail or dragged into a courtroom is not a pleasant experience. Just realize that your posts were moved for just cause and that a forum jail and courtroom is only a virtual place. It isn’t real. It certainly can’t compare to a real jail and courtroom such as what happened to me in real life just for having my opinion about Maxwell. See Texas Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and Richardson Church verses Eugene Shubert. True evil is what exists in the church. Your sense of what constitutes wrongdoing on this forum is all imaginary.
Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2002 10:49 am Post subject: Is This a question About Pantheism?
Before I attempt at responding to many of your comments above, I want to admit that I am impressed with the sophistication of your web site. I have two web sites, one for my business, and the other for my hobby, which happens to be current events and ethics, and I know how time consuming is developing and maintaining a site like this. You have done a superb job, and you seem to be a very clever and well organized individual. This does not mean that I share your doctrinal views, which I have not had the time to explore yet.
My answer to the question posed by the title of this page
Quote:
Is This a Question About Pantheism?
is: Of course not! What you deleted and split from the thread was not a question! It was a
Quote:
Reply
, which is what you ask for. If you want only questions at that particular page of your site, then you should remove the invitation to reply and replace it with an invitation to ask questions. You wanted me to reply, and I did, and you punished me for doing so by sending me to your jail.
I posted my comment twice for the simple reason that I felt that I was doing what you were inviting me to do! In summary, I plead guilty of the crime of posting a reply in response to your invitation to readers to do so. I interrupted your thread on patheism because you clearly aks readers to post a reply. If you do not want any interruption, please remove the option entitled
Quote:
Reply
. I believe that this minor ammendment to your page will relieve the current congestion in your virtual jail.
It is very illuminating. Now I understand why you keep many of your readers in jail! You have been in one, a real one, and I agree with you that being in a virtual jail does not compare to beeing in a real one! You were jailed for distributing a paper containing writings by E.G. White. I can relate to this. You placed me in your jail for quoting E.G. White and the Bible. You felt it had nothing to do with the topic of pantheism. If if didn't, then why did you make a reference to the atonement? I would not have made any rcomments about the atonement, had it not been for the fact that you did so in your argument about Maxwell's alleged connection to pantheism!
What you … split from the thread was not a question! It was a “Reply,” which is what you ask for. If you want only questions at that particular page of your site, then you should remove the invitation to reply and replace it with an invitation to ask questions. You wanted me to reply, and I did, and you punished me for doing so by sending me to your jail.
Nic,
Let’s not exaggerate. I didn’t send you to jail. I moved one of your messages there. I make no apology that this seven-layered virtual world seems like the real universe. It is true that forum rules are strictly enforced.
Your complaint is understandable. It’s clear that you don’t understand the forum rules. I will try to explain them to you.
The High Mountain forums are for sincere interrogation, interview and respectful dialogue. Those who at least respect this ministry have the right to promote their issues there and to be spoken to with all the respect usually given to ambassadors, presidents and papal dignitaries. This ministry has the right to decide for itself which ideas and dignitaries are deserving of that high honor. It also has the right to decide what contributes to a thread and what does not. I realize that some people find that concept hard to understand.
When I wrote the user agreement, I didn’t expect sympathizers to the teachings that I declare to be from Satan to say that they respect my point of view.
All posters who see the value of a certain idea are encouraged to reply with helpful opinions, contributions and questions if they are interested. A submit button labeled Reply is not an open invitation to detract from the ideas being promoted in the Midheaven and High Mountain forums. Those posters who don’t see any merit in the topic being discussed are encouraged to reply in an opposing thread in The Plain of Megiddo forums.
You might think it’s unjust that one forum is reserved for advancing one school of thought and that another forum is reserved for an opposing point of view. However, jurisprudence demands the right of every argument to unfold without interruption and distraction. Our system of justice is based on this rule.
Those who oppose the rule of law and the Biblical principle that all things be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40) are not censored. They are free to post in the Bottomless Pit. The specialty in that place is “pure dissolution, chaos, without love or light and no restraints, within limits.”
You were not jailed for quoting E.G. White and the Bible. The infraction that sent your comment to the jail forum was more like the crime of disorderly conduct and public intoxication.
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:59 am Post subject: Is This a Question About Pantheism?
The title of this page is
Quote:
Is This a Question About Pantheism?
You removed my comments twice on your alleged argument that my comments were not a question about pantheism. You are correct. My comments were not a question. They were a response to your invitation to "Post" a "Reply".
You invite your readers to reply. If you want your readers to limit their responses to questions, then you need to change your "PostReply" to "PostQuestionsOnly," and if you want only comments which tend to support your doctrinal views on your high mountains, then you need to change the "Post Reply" to "PostFavoriteReplyOnly." Your present invitation to "PostReply" will continue to confuse readers, who will be dissapointed and who will complain when they realize that their comments were removed to where readers do not see them in their logical context.
The reason I posted my comments twice was to alert you to this problem, and with the desire to help you improve your system. Evidently, you either do not want to correct this invitation to confussion and disappointment, or else you lack the technical ability to corrrect the problem. Unfortunately, with your present system, many innocent readers will continue to be locked in your virtual jail, when this could be remedied very easily and the problem be prevented from being repeated again and again to unsuspected visitors to your otherwise impressive website.
Thank you Nic, I understood you the first time. I responded by saying
Eugene Shubert wrote:
All posters who see the value of a certain idea are encouraged to reply with helpful opinions, contributions and questions if they are interested. A submit button labeled Reply is not an open invitation to detract from the ideas being promoted in the Midheaven and High Mountain forums.
The problem is, the rules of conduct change from one level of the forum to the next. You’re supposed to behave in the Midheaven forums just like you’re in church. Conduct in the Bottomless Pit is what you expect. The High Mountain forums are a place to speak to important people like ambassadors, presidents and papal dignitaries. When you’re there, just pretend that you’re a representative from the Seventh-day Adventist church and that you want to give a gold medallion to the pope. Everyone understands that when Barbara Walters interviews the President, the point of the show isn’t Barbara Walters’ opinion of politics or world affairs.
Everything on the forums is meant to solicit a response. No instruction set on a reply button could explain all that constitutes a proper or improper reply for each forum.
Posters are required to understand the user agreement. Posters who don’t understand their condition of use agreement should read all the clarifications of the forum rules expounded upon in the courtroom forum.
Here is an improper reply to the pantheism of A. Graham Maxwell thread on Mount Carmel: “There is no way anybody could convince me that Maxwell’s teachings are pantheistic. They do not fit the definition of what pantheism is.” A courteous reply is “How do Maxwell’s teachings fit the definition of what pantheism is?”
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:35 am Post subject: Your High Mountain Forums
Thanks for responding! I am still amazed at your dedication to your web site, and the promptness of your responses. I have read again the user's agreement, and I think I understand your reasoning behind your desire to keep a certain decorum in your High Mountain Forums.
Nevertheless, I still believe that your invitation to respond in your High Mountain forums is missleading. This invitation to post a reply (PostReply)contradicts your User's Agreement and is a source of missundertanding, confusion, and frustration to your readers. I am convinced that, unless you modify this, it will continue to detract you from the most important facets of your mission.
I devoted fifteen years of my life to the teaching profession. Besides, I have taught Sabbath School most of my adult life. There is one thing I know quite clearly: If I am teaching, and I stop and say "Any comments?" And one of my listeners makes a comment, I have no right to scold him for interrupting me! I have invited him to interrupt me. I have offered him the opportunity to tell me whether he agrees with me or not. Sending him to to the Principals office would be evidence of unfairness.
This hopefully illustrates what you are doing! Your "PostReply" is a clear invitation for an interruption. There is no mystery here! This represents an endemic problem which will continue to produce friction, unhappyness, and complaints from the visitors to your web site. Eliminating this source of confusion would enhance the effectiveness of your impressive web site, which I wish I could emulate in my own web site forum.
A simple way of solving this would be to replace your "PostReply" with "PostQuestion" or "PostFavourableCommentOnly." The way you have it not is unfair to the visitors of your web site. Your "PostReply" plainly contradicts the "User's Agreement" which creates confusion, frustration, and a sense of unfairness.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
