posted
I have some questions about the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They are known, even among the institutionalized church, as the pharisee of the pharisees among the churches of today.
This is a "Fundamental Beliefs" statement?
"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. "
This would appear to be a direct link [of sorts] to 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Here are a few quotes, "I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope's, and not God's Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God's Sabbath, and keep the Pope's, and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image."
Ms. White obviously never read, Romans 14:4 "Who art thou that judges another man's servant? to his own master he stands or falls. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dies to himself."
Or this from one of her "visions," "Jesus opened them, and I saw the ten commandments written on them with the finger of God. On one table was four, and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth (the Sabbath commandment,) shone above them all; for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's holy name. The holy Sabbath looked glorious - a halo of glory was all around it. I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."
Ms. White never apparently read, Matthew 22: 36-40 "Master, which is the great commandment in The Law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love The Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Let me state here that it is clear from the evidence, that the seventh day adventist church teaches dogma that is in direct conflict with scripture.
Therefore, I must conclude the sda church has never seen Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Feeling right at home, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
quote:Originally posted by jqlogan: At first I listened with outrage at how our government had handled the situation. But then, intrigued with David's message about the 7 seals I grabbed my Bible and started searching. I studied and read intently--staying up until 2:30am many times--for a period of about 6 months. I learned so much and had pretty much established my beliefs from scripture before I ever stepped foot into an IC.
Thanks for sharing your background. I am beginning to understand where your authority comes from. Can we look at some facts? The fact is that the Branch Davidians, were an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists church. The fact is the (ATF) came under heavy gunfire while they were attempting to execute an arrest warrant for Vernon Howell, [AKA David Koresh]. The fact is, four ATF agents were killed and fifteen or so were wounded in the initial gunfire. The fact is, Howell selected his "wives" as early as age 10, and he had sexual relations with these girls at some point between the ages of 10 and 14. The fact is, Howell was, and will always be, no different than any other child molester, and murderer. The fact is, the FBI no more wanted those people dead than you did. The fact is, they killed themselves.
The fact is, 14 adults and 21 children departed the compound before the fire. In addition, another 9 Davidians (all adults) survived the fire that destroyed the compound. The fact is, The FBI did not fire a single shot during the entire standoff, including during the teargas operation on April 19, when the Davidians repeatedly fired on the FBI. The fact is, the FBI used only teargas, and warned the Davidians first what they were doing. The fact is, the Davidians started the fire in at least three places, and then began killing children and themselves. The fact is, the remains of 75 individuals (50 adults and 25 children under age 15) were recovered in the ruins of the compound. At least 17 of those individuals died of gunshot wounds, including several children. Another child was stabbed to death. In addition to the 75 persons who died during the April 19 fire, five other bodies, all with gunshot wounds, also were recovered. Those five bodies were of the Davidians presumably killed during the February 28 shootout with the ATF. Some of those five bodies showed evidence of having been shot from inside the compound. At least one of those five bodies showed evidence of suicide. The fact is, I'm REALLY curious as to why you were angry.
{NOTE: I personally knew a federal marshal (his name was Don) during that time. He helped take down "The Word, The Sword, and The Arm of The Lord" cult in Arkansas. Ever hear of it? No, that's because it went according to law enforcement's plan (without a shot being fired). The FBI never want to make heroes out of these people, and killing them tends to do just that.}
Still feeling right at home, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
I have now done a whole day's worth of internet research. I found some very interesting things in regard to the Seventh Day Adventist (sda) church. The first thing I encountered was the fact that there is MUCH debate over the listing of the sda church as a "Christian" denomination, or a cult.
This debate surrounds one of the co-founders, an Ellen. G. White. She is seen as "the Lord's messenger" to the sda church. Note that she has been dead for over ninty years.
I started with Wikipedia, where I came across this statement. "One such scholar was Anthony A. Hoekema, who grouped Seventh-day Adventism with Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science in his book 'The Four Major Cults.'"
I then searched the name Dale Ratzlaff (a former sda preacher and teacher), who according to Wikipedia, has a ministry for those who have left the sda church. His ministry is called "Life Assurance Ministries" and he has a very informative website.
There, I came across five profound videos at this address. http://www.ratzlaf.com/ankerberg.html These videos came about from the fact that a Dr. Walter Martin (Wikipedia states that, "most subsequent criticism of the church has been based on his work.") had gone to great lengths to try and form an educated opinion (to build a case) to either include them as Christians, or exclude them as a cult. He made a horrid error in trusting the sda church officials (this is addressed in the videos). He initially concluded (in 1955) that they were Christians.
He then began receiving letters from former sda church workers who were fired because they simply questioned Ellen White's authority as the "infallible interpreter" of Scripture when they found problems with her writings directly conflicting WITH THE GREEK!
The videos were a televised "debate" between Dr. Walter Martin, and Dr. William Johnson (editor for the Adventist Review). The entire "debate" (it was pathetic really) was centered around one question Dr. Martin asked over and over, and Dr. Johnson refused to answer directly. The question? Is Ellen White the "infallible interpreter" of Scripture?
Here is a quote that Dr. Martin read. It is in the fourth video. Please note here that it had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ellen White "borrowed" (what we now call plagiarized) much of her work, from "thousands" of sources! This is a direct quote:
"Does unbelief suggest that what Mrs. White writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, what time has she had to learn all of these facts? And who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman if she gives her ear to gossip, then writes it out as a vision from God? If Mrs. White has gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case, (then Dr. Martin inserts the fact that "she has in thousand of cases") and God has not shown her these things, but she has written these in her personal testimonies... and if they are not to be found in print, and not brought out in sermons from the pulpit... where did Mrs. White find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they did not contain such thoughts. Certainly she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. The case is a clear one."
The author of this quote was Mrs. White's husband, James White (who was proved to have plagiarized too). Her own husband gives us all the evidence we need (in a very clear and concise way) to conclude that Ellen White was a liar, thief, and a false prophetess.
The facts are, the sda church is a secretive, elitist, cult. They disassociate from anyone who questions the authority of a known false prophetess, and continue to follow "her" teachings blindly. This is a mystery to me. Ellen White had no idea that the Greek text (something she had no access to at the time) would become so widely available. All I have to say in closing is, 1844.
Feeling right at home, Matthew
P.S. More tomorrow.
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
Luke 12:1-3 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, He began to say unto His [disciples] first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
Feeling right at home, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
In order to do this topic justice, and quite frankly even begin to understand it, I decided to research this for an entire day in order to understand the history, background, and current belief of the Seventh-day Adventist (sda) church regarding what they call the Investigative Judgment (fundamental belief 24) - This is a belief that judgment “of professed Christians began in 1844, in which the books of record are examined for all the universe to see.” This supposed “judgment” is supposed to “affirm who is worthy of salvation, and vindicate God as just in His dealings with mankind.”
The history of this is interesting. From what I understand from reading Wikipedia, and other sources, this all started with a fellow named William Miller, who preached the return of Christ was going to be between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844 (Quoted in William Miller and the Advent Crisis, Everett N. Dick, p. 96-97). When nothing happened, he tried April 18, 1844. Still nothing. This was called the “great disappointment.”
Enter, Ellen White “who Adventists believe received her first vision in December of 1844.” Among her and other believers, “the conclusion became that Miller's calculations were correct, but that his interpretation of Daniel 8:14 was flawed.” According to Wikipedia, “these Adventists arrived at the conviction that Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ's entrance into the "Most Holy Place" of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second return. Over the next decade this understanding developed into the doctrine of the investigative judgment period where God is waiting to see who is worthy of salvation. I couldn’t figure out why He doesn’t already know!?!
Here is the theology, as I see it, in a nut shell (I know, bad pun). God had a bunch of folks in a pile or something, and was waiting to tell them how good, or how bad they had been (until 1844). Then, instead of returning as predicted, He tells Ellen G. White that the pile is big enough to prove He’s a good God and not a bad one, and He went ahead and started the judgment thing. It has now been going on for 164 years, give or take a month or three. This is only what I get from looking at this for a day. Somewhere in my research I came across a statement that went something like, “it takes a college degree to get into the sda’s heaven, where it took Peter three paragraphs or so to get 3000 saved!” Oh well, complications and organizations are necessary sometimes…
According to Wikipedia, Ellen White “supported her husband in the church's need for formal organization. The result was the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1863.” From there, Ellen G. White began to plagiarize like a insane woman! Take a look for yourself… http://www.bible.ca/7-plagiarism.htm
Course, there is always the statement Ellen made, “If you refuse to believe until every shadow of uncertainty and every possibility of doubt is removed, you will never believe. The doubt that demands perfect knowledge will never yield to faith.” (EGW, Selected Messages, bk. l, p. 27.)
……OH, No, wait… she didn’t say that, she copied it from Daniel March in “Night Scenes in the Bible,” Philadelphia: Zeigler, McCurdy & Co., 1823; p88. Oooops!!!
Tune in next time when Matthew explains what The Glacier View Controversy was, and how it is important in labeling the sda church as a true cult. Also, this is the perfect example of what jqlogan said below.
quote:Originally posted by jqlogan: A person can pull rank by excluding someone they disagree with simply because they are able to do so. And what they do not realize is that they appropriate to themselves the authority which belongs to Christ alone and in this they assume to themselves the prerogative of God.
Feeling right at home, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
One day is hardly enough time to give a subject matter thorough consideration. Especially if your intent is for sound judgment.
Here I am at your fingertips, ready at your disposal to answer your questions, and yet you turn to a questionable resource at best, the Internet, and are not willing to simply open scripture with me to seek the truth. What more can I do?
One day is hardly enough time... *snip* You are saying two things about yourself. One, that perhaps you have not given due dilligence in other matters which you freely speak about here. Two, you are quick to accept the counsel of men without knowing their fruits.
This lies at the heart of the problem why you still embrace doctrines you learned from the IC. You are not willing to take the proper amount of time to investigate things thoroughly in order to know the exact truth.
Here I am at your fingertips, ready at your disposal to answer your questions, and yet you turn to a questionable resource at best, the Internet, and are not willing to simply open scripture with me to seek the truth. What more can I do?
First of all, jqlogan, I clearly stated that one day is not NEARLY enough time to give this "subject matter thorough consideration." I also said that I am continuing my research. Here is my quote. *snip* "Somewhere in my research I came across a statement that went something like, 'it takes a college degree to get into the sda’s heaven, where it took Peter three paragraphs or so to get 3000 saved!'" and again, "Tune in next time when..." Number two, other than the fact raised by some that [Dr.] Miller got his credentials in a "paper mill" the sda church has used him as a "proof" of sorts (for a while) that they were not a cult. Also, unlike Ellen G. White, I was VERY careful to sight my work as coming [almost entirely] from Wikipedia, a very trusted source! This is where I got the information on [Dr.] Miller. As far as ME embracing IC doctern, WHERE DO YOU GET THAT!!! ROTFLMHO!!! Have you forgotten every word of mine you have ever read! I was the one that started the thread, "It's rank in the church." Are not you the one that said I was "blaspheme" (in private) because I dared to question the King James!?! And now you are doing it too!! How can YOU, of all people wright this stuff!?! As far as you being "at my fingertips" I openly invited you here days ago with my using your quote about Waco, (another in the list of questions you never answered) and now you show up as if you were clueless! Did you not know I was doing this until today? AND ANOTHER THING, why on earth would I ask a member of the sda church to tell me the truth about their own organization. Did I not cover the fact that Dr. Miller had made this error to his own hurt!
You are welcome to refute me [please use facts] point by point (I CHALLENGE YOU TO DO JUST THAT) but why would I trust you? You have never once done anything but state your opinion, choosing to remain silent or ignore the topic all together once I quote facts.
As far as your opinions goes, I was wondering... do you believe that Ellen G. White was and is the "infallible interpreter" of Scripture? Was she a plagiarist? Was she a prophetess? Was she even a Christian?
If so, what PROOFS do you offer to substantiate those claims ...If not, then what's the problem!?!
Right at home, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
First, let me apologize for breaking the posting rules and posting three times today. I am confined indoors due to weather so I have some time on my hand before I start my next job. Perhaps I will not be able to post for a few days.
Matthew, I would be glad to accept your challenge but there are a few problems. In order to defend the SDA church I would have to rely on their writings just as you must. The same for Ellen White. If I tried to speak for them I would very well place myself in the position of bearing false witness and therby transgress God's law. But if you care to know what Jeff believes then I can in truth answer those questions.
But that raises another problem. This forum is for house church discussion. People come here to learn and ask questions about home church. If you and I get into a heavy discussion and quickly retort each others comments then this thread will stay at the top and be the first thing visitors see. Do we want that to be their first impression?
I have written to the moderator to ask what would be the correct response to your challenge. I don't think we are going to get permission to continue in light of all of our personal issues. But before we are cut off let me try to quickly answer a question of yours and ask one of mine.
The reason I was angry about the way our government handled Waco is because of the loss of innocent life. Abortion is big on the Christian agenda. No one wants to kill a baby before it is born. But after it's born we don't seem to care any more. Aren't you enraged that children died in such an horrible manner? In my mind, it would have been better that these children were aborted than mistreated so by both the Davidians and then by our government as so much expendible "trash". That is why I was angry. The amount of force used to extract one man. Our government played right into their doomsday prophetic view even when they had foreknowledge of their predisposition to this thinking.
Now, let me ask you a question. You say that you do not embrace any unscriptural doctrines that you received from the IC. Then how is it that you believe in eternal hell fire as punishment for the wicked? Where is that taught in scripture? The good news of the gospel is that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. And as most Christians believe it was a complete atonement at the cross. Jesus paid it all so there is nothing for us to pay. But if the punishment of the wicked is to burn in hellfire for all eternity, as you believe, then how is it that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God in heaven, if indeed you believe He paid for your sins?
The Bible is very plain that "the wages of sin is death." Jesus did pay the penalty for our sins when He died on the cross. Yet, on the third day He rose, ascended into heaven, and is now seated at the right hand of Power. He is not now burning in hellfire to atone for our sins nor is any other person who ever lived. This doctrine was invented to secure power over the masses and to hold them in bondage through fear. Yes, sinners will burn in a lake of fire. Scripture confirms this. But their final disposition is death, when the fires consume them--as also confirmed in scripture.
Now, to answer another question of yours. This is why I say that even though you call yourself an heretic for Christ, you are only half-converted. You still embrace (hold as truth) things not taught in scripture but by men who stood in the pulpits of the incorporated church. You still have some purging to do if you want to be a true heretic (one who opposes establishment religion) for Christ.
quote:Originally posted by jqlogan: I have written to the moderator to ask what would be the correct response to your challenge. I don't think we are going to get permission to continue in light of all of our personal issues. But before we are cut off let me try to quickly answer a question of yours and ask one of mine.
I hate surprises. I also hate to be about doing something I'm not supposed to do. Therefore, I have already cleared what I am doing with the moderator. I try and cover all angles. I'm only interested in the truth, not opinion.
quote: In my mind, it would have been better that these children were aborted than mistreated so by both the Davidians and then by our government as so much expendible "trash". That is why I was angry.
I think our government went to GREAT LENGTHS to get those children out. Vernon was the one that killed those children, not our government!!!
quote: Now, let me ask you a question. You say that you do not embrace any unscriptural doctrines that you received from the IC. Then how is it that you believe in eternal hell fire as punishment for the wicked?
First, note that Jesus always spoke of heaven like this, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto this..." He never talked like this about hell. When he spoke of hell, Jesus always said things like: Mark 9:43 "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." [44 added to the king james] 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [46 added to the king james] 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [48 not added]
Now I've heard all the "religious crap" about the garbage dump and all of that, but where is that in the Bible? Do you know what NEVER means!?! Who is believing the lie now? You are spouting sda dogma!
quote: Now, to answer another question of yours. This is why I say that even though you call yourself an heretic for Christ, you are only half-converted. You still embrace (hold as truth) things not taught in scripture but by men who stood in the pulpits of the incorporated church. You still have some purging to do if you want to be a true heretic (one who opposes establishment religion) for Christ.
You have proven over and over here that you do not know, nor do you understand me. What you "say" is meaningless! Please prove something!!! I'm begging you here!
The only questions I'm asking "your opinion" on are: 1.)Do you believe that Ellen G. White was and is the "infallible interpreter" of Scripture? 2.)Was she a plagiarist? 3.)Was she a prophetess? 4.)Was she even a Christian?
Still at home, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
Do feel free to discuss these questions in a leisurely and gentlemanly manner. All truth is valuable and has it's place. Obviously, this isn't a burning topic of discussion for some of us. But others will no doubt find it useful at a later date.
To Jeff's credit, he has agreed not to proselytize for the sda. Also, Jeff, you should list the other cafe urls regarding the sda. You may want to use google to come up with a list. Then, it'll all be right here and they'll be no need to bring these issues up again in the forseeable future. Good.
Others, feel free to participate as well and to state your case. Equal access is what it's about. May the truth, like tasty cream, rise to the surface. May each of us be willing to review our beliefs and to amend them when they are incompatible with the gold standard, the holy scriptures.
posted
The “Glacier View Controversy” involved a man named Dr. Desmond Ford, and the fact that he looked into the matter of Ellen G. White’s theory that there has been an ongoing “investigative judgment” since 1844, when the date of “Christ return” was remedially misses by Adventist. Ellen G. White then came up with the notion that The Bible supported a judgment period [of sorts] and that Christ has been at this for quite some time now.
All Dr. Ford did, was peek at the Greek and then tell folks what he saw there. It was not what Ellen G. White claimed God told her. Since she is considered to be the “infallible interpreter” of Scripture, ant the prophetess by the sda church, Desmond Ford found himself without a job. This is talked about in great length in Wikipedia. All you have to do is type in the “Glacier View Controversy.”
This happened in 1980. According to Wikipedia, Time magazine claimed, that the sda church soon afterward “forced the resignation of 120 clergy and teachers. This was presumably for their support of Ford's theology.” and also, “180 pastors left the Adventist ministry in Australia and New Zealand over the succeeding 8 years.” And, “It is further speculated that a significant number of current ministers privately agree with Ford but refrain from speaking publicly on the issue for fear of losing their employment." Sounds like this fits your definition of "playing God" to me jqlogan. Also, another quote, "Many in the Adventist church feel that the events of 1980 represent a major milestone in the theological development of the church, and that the effects of this controversy continue to be felt today.”
I’m going to do a whole lot more here, but I fail to see the need to “beat a dead horse” at this point. I am waiting to give jqlogan’s some [what he asked for] input on these topics before I go further. I am also waiting for his answer to the infallible interpreter question Dr. Ford got fired for answering “incorrectly.” Please feel free to grow impatient and look for yourself!
Feeling right at home, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
I would like to participate in other topics here as well as answer your questions. But there is a daily posting limit. But because you have portrayed me in a bad light for not answering right away by your "grow impatient" remark I am compelled to break that rule, yet again. I hope I am choosing those questions which are most important to you.
Let me answer the easy questions first regarding my opinions of Mrs. White.
1.)Do you believe that Ellen G. White was and is the "infallible interpreter" of Scripture? Ans. No. Only God is infallible. God's testimony of all humans is that we have all sinned and fallen short.
2.)Was she a plagiarist? Ans. Some say so. I do not know because I simply do not have the resources to verify it. Consider that many things Matthew wrote about so did Mark, Luke, and John. In light of the harmony of the four gospels I must conclude that it is entirely possible for two different people to have the same God inspired thought.
3.)Was she a prophetess? Ans. No. She never claimed to be a prophet. Some may have called her one. She said she was a messenger. But then, aren't we all messengers for God?
4.)Was she even a Christian? Ans. Well, that depends upon who is assigning the title. I am confident that Jesus would call her a Christian, but other Christians are much more critical of each other and hardly allow anyone else to be as perfect as they. And, how can I know this for sure? How can anyone but God. Are we even to judge? But you asked my opinion and that is Yes, definitely Yes. She was Christ-like in every known aspect of her life. Though since she was human I am sure she shared like tempations and trials as we all do and must.
Now regarding the more difficult question. You quoted a passage in Mark as though that answered my question. It did not. It only substantiated my question and made it all the more wanting. Because, if it is true that hell fire never goes out, and this is the punishment of sinners, then why, since Jesus took on Himself the full penalty of my sins, is Jesus in heaven and not in those fires suffering the penalty of the sinner on your and my behalf? I will tell you why. There is a flaw in the doctrine of eternally burning hell fire. That is the only possible answer if everything else we believe about His death, burial, and resurrection is true.
BTW, I looked up the passage in the Interlinear Greek and what a surprise. The Greek word translated "hell" is Gehenna--the name of the garbage dump near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' teaching and the very word you thought wasn't in the Bible. Apparently Jesus used it as an apt illustration of what awaited the wicked. And, the word "NEVER" is not there. It actually says, "THE FIRE THE un-EXTINGUISHed." This simply means that the fire can not be put out. We can't read anything more into this.
quote:Originally posted by jqlogan: 2.)Was she a plagiarist? Ans. Some say so. I do not know because I simply do not have the resources to verify it.
That's why you use the internet, something I have seen you do, and something you now say is an unreliable source. How about my first post above? I highlighted quotes from Ellen G. White, then directly refuted them with The Bible. Any comment? This question then... why do you feel That Jesus must suffer in hell forever? He didn't live on earth forever, also He was not a victim of every crime that ever will be and ever was, yet He paied the price for them all at the cross. If He experienced the cross, for our sin's but didn't get "the chair" does he need to come back and be electrocuted? How about hung? I'm not trying to make fun here, I'm trying to understant the logic of "Jesus could have paid the price for our sins on the cross, but not in hell? I just don't understand this... Please tell me why you feel Jesus has to live in hell for it to be eternal. Is He still being beaten? Is He still on the cross ...people are still sinning you know.
quote: BTW, I looked up the passage in the Interlinear Greek and what a surprise. The Greek word translated "hell" is Gehenna--the name of the garbage dump near Jerusalem
BTW I looked up Gehenna using Wikipedia. It is a proper noun and is "(or gehenom or gehinom (גהינום)) is the Jewish hell or purgatory. In Judaism hell is a place of purification and fire for the wicked, most being punished there up to a year but some for eternity. In English, Jews commonly use the term "hell" in place of "gehenna." The name derived from the burning garbage dump near Jerusalem (the Hinnom gulch), metaphorically identified with the entrance to the underworld of punishment in the afterlife." Jesus was not talking about the dump. If you read it like "before you do this or that sin you should [whatever] or you will go to the dump" it sounds kinda funny huh? Also, note He did say, "where the worm of them is not deceasing and the fire not is being distinguished." Note "of them" not [of that place] and ...ever see an eternal worm? Me neither...
quote: And, the word "NEVER" is not there. It actually says, "THE FIRE THE un-EXTINGUISHed." This simply means that the fire can not be put out. We can't read anything more into this.
So in today's English, you don't think the King James did okay with the word never? How about this, "This simply means that the fire can [never] be put out. Oh, one more thing ...does the sda church you go to know you feel the way you do about Ellen G. White? You better be careful ...checking the Greek, discrediting Ellen G. White... you may start getting treated like a heretic!
Maybe you are right at home too, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
jq and Mathew- Thank you both for your grace towards one another- this could have turned into a doozie of a thread, but instead it has turned into quite an enjoyable read! If only we could get everyone face to face in one room- that would be a trip, hmmm?
jq- about your question about if the punishment for sin is eternal helfire than why isn't Christ still burning? This is actually a question I have asked myself, and don't have a logical answer for. I think we have to be careful about trying to logicaly understand issues reguarding the nature of God as well as the nature of eternity (or lack there of as jq believes), because these things are simply outside of the level that our human minds, which are bound to this earthly existance that is all we have yet to experience, can understand. God tells us about these things and we can grasp them to a certain degree, but we must give up the thought that we can grasp them at the same level that God can. It reminds me of the conversation I had with the Jehovas Witness about whether or not Jesus was God. She wanted me to logicaly explain to her how there is only one God and yet Jesus and the Father were both God and at 2 different places at the same time. Of course I couldn't explain it because it isn't logical- but that doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means that this is something that is outside of our human experience. Now, I don't think that jq's question is the same as the one about the diety of Christ- of course the diety of Christ is much more crucial, but it is along those lines (the calvinism vs arminianism debate falls in here as well I think). My point is that we need to stay open to believing all of what scripture says even if we do not completely understand it.
So what do I believe about this topic? I believe that the kind of death that most concerns God is spiritual. When adam and eve first ate of the naughty fruit thay didn't immediately die physicaly- but they did spiritually- they were separated from Him. This is hell! I remember it well enough from my pre-christian days to know that it is! If we physically die in this spiritual state, that is very bad! Jn 17:3 says "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent". So eternal life for us as believers has alredy begun- after our physical death we will remain reconciled to God- this will be very, very good!!!
Welcome Jeanne. Thanks for your contribution. I do think however that scripture offers an answer to this perplexing question. But first let me answer another of Matthews questions.
Matthew, I wasn't able to answer your question about plagiarism and I really didn't wish to take the time to investigate every alleged incident--though I did attempt to look up a few but the cited original source was not readily available to me. So I took a short-cut and went to the official EGW website. They refuted those allegation in what I thought was a very fair treatment.
Yes, they admitted that she did copy from other sources but denied that she plagiarized. I didn't read every bit of the article but found that in some cases she had obtained permission, in other cases the source was not copyrighted, in other cases the material was deemed by her and the original author to be the property of God and was therefore free for use by anyone, and that she did cite her sources when appropriate.
They also noted that plagiarism laws were a bit more lax in the 19th century and while she may have been guilty of plagiarism by today's laws we must judge her by the laws in existence then.
If you would like to read this in more detail you can find the article by clicking HERE
Thanks for giving me some breathing room. I am not prepared nor disposed to defend her writings but I will try since you asked as long as I can use their official website as a resource. Personally I feel this battle has been fought many times over already and all we are doing is rehashing it using their old arguments. I think it would be much more profitable to ask me to prove what I believe from scripture.
Now, back to my question about hell. I see I haven't made myself clear at all. The issue is not whether Christ must die in exacly the same manner as every sinner, the issue is whether or not Christ paid in full the penalty due the sinner. Was He, or was He not, our substitute? Did He, or did He not, stand in our place?
If the wages of sin is not death but is really an eternity in hellfire then Christ did not become my substitute because He never tasted eternal hellfire on my behalf. And, if this is so, He was not willing to suffer the consequences for my sins. This would make Him unjust because He was not willing to take upon Himself the very penalty He consigns other to endure. And that for as long as God Himself shall live!
But what does scripture say. It says that Jesus became flesh as you and I so "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." And, again, "the wages of sin is death."
So Christ did stand in my place. He did take upon Himself my punishment, my penalty for sinning. He did become my substitute. He gave His life so that my life might be spared.
The Bible says that it's appointed unto man to die once. But Revelation speaks of a second death. It speaks of the second death in these terms: that the righteous who have part in the 1st resurrection cannot be hurt by the second death (Rev 20:6) and that the second death is when the wicked are cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 21:8).
So my theology does not do away with hell fire, it merely involves a final death. Nor does it do away with unquenchable fires, it merely states that the fires cannot be put out until the fuel is gone. Peter tells us that the earth will melt with fervent heat and the earth and all the works in it will be burned up when the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night (2Pet 3:10-13). Then he says that we look for a new heaven and earth--because the old one just got burn up by the fires.
Now I may have difficulty getting some in my church to agree with me on this next point, but I do believe it is Biblically sound. Remember when Jesus prayed, "Let this cup pass from me"? Well, Psalms 11:6 says, "Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." And, in Revelation 14:10 it says, "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb." Well, I believe Jesus drank this cup for us. And, because it involves fire and brimstone I believe it also involves the second death. So what I am saying is that I believe Jesus did not die our first death, remember that is appointed unto every man, but that Jesus died the second death instead of us. I believe the second death is final and last forever. There is no resurrection from it. Even death and hell (grave) are cast into the lake of fire. They will cease to exist.
Well, hope you don't just cast me off as a complete idiot. Look up the verses and see if I am too far off the mark.
posted
Yes, welcome JeanneH! You are always so kind! The fact that Ellen G. White did "borrow" information is not in dispute. The huge article (read, red flags everywhere!) you led me to stated that "Canright raised the charge of plagiarism against Ellen White" way back in 1889. Take a look here. http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/case.htm I do not know if she "broke the law." If she did, she was never prosecuted for doing so, that I know of. What she did do was claim she got things in visions that she really "borrowed" from others. There was also the claim that she gave God full credit for "visions" she was not having. The information you seek is at this address: http://www.bible.ca/7-plagiarism.htm ,and there is way too much to post here, and this is just one internet source. Your sorce tries to soften the blow by naming others that did the same thing, (as if that makes it better) but did the others claim their writings were visions from God?
Also, there is the statement made by her husband (who also "borrowed" to write his books. "Does unbelief suggest that what Mrs. White writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, what time has she had to learn all of these facts? And who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman if she gives her ear to gossip, then writes it out as a vision from God? If Mrs. White has gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case, (then Dr. Martin inserts the fact that "she has in thousand of cases") and God has not shown her these things, but she has written these in her personal testimonies... and if they are not to be found in print, and not brought out in sermons from the pulpit... where did Mrs. White find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they did not contain such thoughts. Certainly she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. The case is a clear one."
PLEASE understand, I'm not trying to say you are the follower of a cult leader. I understand you because you are sda. Where you differ, please fill free to tell me why! I am just putting out information that you will not see coming from the sda church. And, I'm putting it right in front of you. I had someone criticize Intelligent Design Theory once[Creationism back then]. I had to find the truth. That truth held me through some really hard times. I always figure, why not research the truth? I hate surprises!
I wish someone would have shaken me years ago in regards to the IC, but no one took the time. I don't know why... Right after I post this, I will again visit your source. There is a 99.999% chance that I will not convert to the sda church. I had almost lost all hope, but now that I am going to a home church with likeminded (some of them have some ideas I've never even heard!) believers, I am beginning to again have hope...
Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
So you are not calling her a plagiarist any longer but wish to understand why she "claim[ed] she got things in visions that she really 'borrowed' from others." They addressed this in the article so I'll let them answer.
quote: How could it happen that Mrs. White, in describing what she was shown in a vision, employs the words of other authors? [44]
Most likely there were times when Mrs. White read an impressive passage in a book and later the Lord called her attention to the same truth while in vision, applying that truth to a specific need in her own life or the life of the church. In such cases, she could easily express a part of what she was shown in language paraphrased from another author. We know of a half dozen or so cases where this appears to have happened.[45]
A similar experience occurred in connection with the "Iceberg" vision. Mrs. White read an incident about a ship meeting an iceberg. Then, several days later, during a vision, a ship became a symbol of the church, and the iceberg became the symbol of the opposition and [p. 5] heresies of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and his faction.[46] Just as in the cases where Mrs. White used the words of other authors to describe, in part, what she had seen in vision, here a dramatic event about which she had read offered the Lord a symbolic vehicle in which to convey truth to her.
[44] The White Lie, pp. 53, 391. [45] Ron Graybill, "The 'I Saw' Parallels in Ellen White's Writings," Adventist Review, July 29, 1982, pp. 4-6. [46] Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981), p. 301.
To understand inspiration is to understand that those whom God chose to write scripture were not God's pen but His penmen. If God had written the whole of scripture with His own finger it would have been free from human errors like the Ten Commandments which were written with the finger of God. But rather, God impressed their minds with truth and the authors used language and symbols that were common to them in their day to convey the message.
When Jesus taught the people He drew upon the things of every day life to impart truth. Salt, marriage, the body, flowers, among other things. He likened the kingdom of God to many earthly symbols. When you and I describe something we have never seen before we often use other more common items in order to attempt to describe what we saw to others. Some believe Ezekial was describing a spaceship. Others believe John was describing helicopters firing air-to-ground missles in Revelation. I heard this on the 700 Club once.
BTW, this is in regard to one incident from the EGW official website addressing borrowing source.
quote: . . . Mrs. White was never accused of plagiarism by the British authors Conybeare and Howson, nor was she threatened with a lawsuit. . .
When the Crowell company was quizzed about the matter some thirty years later, they replied:
We publish Conybeare's Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul, but this is not a copyrighted book and we would have no legal grounds for action against your book and we do not think that we have ever raised any objection or made any claim such as you speak of. [Quoted in Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1951), pp. 455-457.]
And, in regard to much subject similarity between authors, they reply:
quote: What about the structure and chapter titles of Ellen White's Patriarchs and Prophets--Are they similar to Alfred Edersheim's Old Testament Bible History?[23]
It is easy to create a false impression by looking at superficial similarities. Close examination shows that of the 73 chapter titles in Patriarchs and Prophets, only nine of the titles are either identical to those in Edersheim's book, or differ only by the inclusion or deletion of the article "the." Furthermore, these nine include such common titles as "The Creation," "The Flood," "Destruction of Sodom," "The Marriage of Isaac," and "The Death of Saul."
The misleading nature of the comparison is even more obvious when one discovers that in Edersheim's book there are no chapter titles as such. Rather, there are up to half a dozen or more summary phrases indicating the subject matter of each chapter. It is from these summary phrases that the allegedly parallel "titles" have been drawn. Furthermore, the order of the chapters is really established by the order in which the stories appear in the Old Testament.
[23] The White Lie, pp. 77-81.
Matthew, I fully realize that people are faulty. I understand that there are probably errors in Mrs. White's writings. There are errors in scripture. But we have to look at the message as a whole to appreciate it. And, in the case of secular authors, we must compare it to scripture. It's a fairly common tactic to attack the individual when you cannot refute their message (or, secularly, logic). A very common practice in politics. Does the book, "The White Lie," ever attempt to show that her message was unbiblical, or does it simply attack her character?
Do I read Mrs. White's writings? Yes. It was her precious little book, "Steps To Christ," that was instrumental in my life to bring me to a desire to want to be close to Christ. Do I think she received visions from God? Yes, there is much physical evidence to support it. But the real proof is the fruit of the work. Does it bring souls to Christ, or lead them away? Does it bring them to scripture, or lead them away? Does it work to convict the sinner and bring them to confession. In other words, does the power of the Holy Spirit attend the work?
You believe that I hold Mrs. White's writings above scripture. On what basis do you charge me with this? On the sole basis that my interpretation of scripture does not align with yours. And who is to say that I am not correct and you are in error? Only the Bible. That is the only source that will resolve our differences and prove what is truth. It is for this reason that I have asked you the question about hellfire. I know that it is a difficult question to answer. But if go way back to Genesis and accept what God said to Adam and Eve and reject what the Serpent told Eve, many of your difficulties will fall away.
God said, "Thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:17) The Serpent said, Ye shall NOT surely die." (Gen 3:4)
In other words, God says man is mortal and the sinner must eventually die because the "wages of sin is death." While Satan says, 'your soul is immortal, your body may die but your soul cannot die. You have become like God.' And this battle regarding death has raged ever since with some believing Satan, that the soul is immortal and cannot die, and others believing God, that He is able to destroy both body and soul in hell and that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ez 18:4)
I am glad you are beginning to have hope again. Place your hope in Christ alone and you will not be disappointed by men.
posted
I did not stand down from the stated fact that Ellen G. White was a plagiarist.
Here is the qoute: "The fact that Ellen G. White did "borrow" information is not in dispute. The huge article (read, red flags everywhere!) you led me to stated that: "Canright raised the charge of plagiarism against Ellen White" way back in 1889."
I also Googled Canright. There is an online book I read from that which is just fascinating! The Whites, according to this man's writings, fit the ideal definition of leaders of a cult.
The fact is, folks left the church as far back as 1889 because of Mr. and Mrs. White. Because I put the word "borrow" in italics is to denote that the sda church called it that, not I. Also, my second point was, that I was amazed at the amount of time the sda church has to take to explain this. I consider this (most likely) outright dishonesty and at the very best, mental gymnastics due to their investment in the sda church. These religious folks have EVERYTHING to loose by just admitting the truth. The truth is, the whole sda church would have to disband. They have built their entire church on this woman's supposed authority.
I on the other hand, have nothing to loose by seeking the truth on this topic.
Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
Yes, Canright raised the charge but nothing ever came of it. People are charged all the time. Does that automatically make them guilty? Canright is not exactly an unbiased source. He is an ex-minister of the church who decided to renounce his faith.
I know that some sources you found on the internet say that the Adventist church is a cult. But why do you believe it is and what proof do you have outside of someone elses accusations? I don't think you have any firsthand knowledge.
Thinking now might be a good time to find a definition of a cult I went to the internet looking for a reliable source. What I found was interesting. Just about anything and everyone it seems is considered a cult by someone. Even Obama's presidential bid was called a cult by one group. Our government, too. The seculary monetary system, the Catholic church, etc... But I was glad to see that we did not make it in the top 10 list of cults which included these:
1) LDS (Mormonism) 2) JW 3) Church of Scientology 4) The Twelve Tribes 5) Unification Church 6) Int. Churches of Christ (Boston Movement) 7) The Family (Children of God) 8) Christian Identity Movement 9) The Nation of Islam (Black Muslim) 10) United Pentacostal Church
(According to Bob Pardon, Director of the New England Institute of Religious Research)
I also searched Wikipedia, one of your favorites, and found a large list of cults. Among those listed as cults in Academic sources were; Christianity and Protestantism. But I didn't find the Adventist church listed there. So I am asking you why you have chosen to call them a cult when they are not listed as a cult elsewhere. I feel you are simply reading someone else's opinion and accepting it as fact because this is what you want to believe. If that is the case then no amount of rebuttal will convince you otherwise. Personally, I don't think it fits any of the definitions of being a cult aside from having a few beliefs which are not held in common with any other group. None of the other typical characteristics of a cult are present.
Now to address some of your earlier questions, and I quote you:
quote: Here are a few quotes, "I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope's, and not God's Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God's Sabbath, and keep the Pope's, and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image."
Ms. White obviously never read, Romans 14:4 [Romans 14:4-7 quoted].
Oh, I think she did and understood it, not to mean we are free from our duty to God to keep His Sabbath, but in the spirit fully embraced by house church:
quote: In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. "Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rom. 14:12, 5. In Christ's kingdom there is no lordly oppression, no compulsion of manner. The angels of heaven do not come to the earth to rule, and to exact homage, but as messengers of mercy, to co-operate with men in uplifting humanity. -- The Desire of Ages, p. 550, by EGWhite.
I'll try to address the other objections you raised at a later time.
posted
Please answer this. "Does unbelief suggest that what Mrs. White writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, what time has she had to learn all of these facts? And who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman if she gives her ear to gossip, then writes it out as a vision from God? If Mrs. White has gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case, (then Dr. Martin inserts the fact that "she has in thousand of cases") and God has not shown her these things, but she has written these in her personal testimonies... and if they are not to be found in print, and not brought out in sermons from the pulpit... where did Mrs. White find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they did not contain such thoughts. Certainly she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. The case is a clear one."
And this: This is a "Fundamental Beliefs" statement?
"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. "
This would appear to be a direct link [of sorts] to 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
And this: Here are a few quotes, "I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope's, and not God's Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God's Sabbath, and keep the Pope's, and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image."
Ms. White obviously never read, Romans 14:4 "Who art thou that judges another man's servant? to his own master he stands or falls. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dies to himself."
And this: Or this from one of her "visions," "Jesus opened them, and I saw the ten commandments written on them with the finger of God. On one table was four, and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth (the Sabbath commandment,) shone above them all; for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's holy name. The holy Sabbath looked glorious - a halo of glory was all around it. I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."
Ms. White never apparently read, Matthew 22: 36-40 "Master, which is the great commandment in The Law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love The Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
And this: Let me state here that it is clear from the evidence, that the seventh day adventist church teaches dogma that is in direct conflict with scripture.
Therefore, I must conclude the sda church has never seen Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
I think I have gained wisdom on the problem here jqlogan. I spent some time [thinking about this] and I think I understand the dynamic here. Please let me explain.
I began this whole thread as an “explanation” of sorts (in my mind and to others) as to why you are here. When I first got on this forum you said some things that were “odd” to me. They sounded very unlearned and ignorant, and I had no idea where they were coming from. Then, to my surprise, you would have moments of what seemed to be perfect clarity… and I could not understand the conflict. Then you posted that you were going to a Seventh Day Adventist church, and everything became much more clear to me. It is growing clearer still.
The reason I started this thread as “The Pharisee of the Pharisees” is because that is all I had heard about the sda church (and my initial research supported this fact). The truth is, I was also bothered with the vague notion that I had once been told that they were a cult. If I had known then, what I now know, this thread would have had a totally different topic header.
Having said that, you are encountering the same problem I would have, if I were posting on an atheist forum and attempting to use The Bible as a proof text. My opinions would not only be disagreed with, but they would have no authority. In order to establish any legitimacy whatsoever, I would have to use math, geology, archeology, and basically ANY OTHER SOURCE BUT THE BIBLE!!!
Herein lies your problem. You are using a source text (all sda dogma) that holds absolutely no authority here on this forum. Not only that, as I have endeavored to show here, the foundational writings of Ellen G. White (she claimed God told her this stuff) are in direct conflict with the clearest teachings of Jesus Christ. There are also MANY accusations that she “borrowed” her work and claimed it as ONLY coming from God, and not “any other man.” I found that these accusations (at least) go back as far as 1889!!! This fact, as her husband clearly stated, is very damaging to any credibility she may have once had.
Why is all of this important? Because the entire sda church is built on the teaching of Ellen G. White, and not The Bible. You (it seems very clear to me) are looking at The Bible and trying to get it to say what you believe. We are looking at The Bible and trying to simply believe what it says.
Just like my entire belief system (the part that is based on The Bible) would be invalidated in an atheist’s mind, so likewise is your sda dogma. When you post sda opinion, I just Google their information and quickly find a counter opinion (often an entire book) that always bolsters my already growing case. The vastness of the internet, not my intellect, affords me this luxury.
The reason I have repeatedly asked for “facts” from you is because you offer none that are valid here. I have written this to “help” you understand [perhaps] a better way to address you belief system here. The use of The Bible (in place of what sda dogma teaches The Bible says) as your authority would be a refreshing and good start. I know you can think “outside of the box” because you have proved that you are intelligent and articulate. You just see things through a lens no one here looks through , and one we see as a great bondage.
Oh, one more thing. The definition I was using is listed in Merriam Webster online as "3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents." I think of it like this, they claim to follow The Bible, but they actually follow what someone (a leader) tells them The Bible says. Also, finding the most far fetched "authoritative expert" that calls all protestants or Christians a cult doesn't help your case either. http://www.cforrester.org/articles/dale2lake.html
Thanks, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
I apologize. Matthew and I are hogging the café like two bullies on the playground while the rest of you have receded into the cracks.
Matthew, I replaced my response to you with this text but still wanted to tell you that I am going to slow this down and give others a chance to participate.
Email this page to someone.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Right after I post this, I will again visit your source. There is a 99.999% chance that I will not convert to the sda church.