Why I am a former SDA

[CoAspen]

Quote:

When we have a difference of opinion we tell it in order to push our beliefs on others. It is all about control.

Ah, speaking about your self I presume. Thanks, honesty goes a long ways!!

[CoAspen]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

If you're *feeling* as though I'm placing myself above you, therefore, I can only submit that it must be because you are choosing to place yourself below me.

Just because I observe that it appears you are trying to place yourself on a higher moral ground than the rest of us does not mean I feel you actually are on such a ground. I don't. In fact, I don't believe there is any higher ground above that of an Adventist, Bible-believing Christian.

So, by all of your comments to this point you are the one placing yourself higher than Bravus, since he is not claiming to be SDA anymore and by your own words, doesn't believe as you do.

So is that the real bone of contention, Bravus says he isn't claiming to be better but you are?

A little 'projection' going on?

[Dr. Shane]

So, by all of your comments to this point you are the one placing yourself higher than Bravus, since he is not claiming to be SDA anymore and by your own words, doesn't believe as you do.

It is not about me. Bravus is stating that his personal morality is better than the Bible. I, and many other Sola-Scriptura Bible believers say that our own personal morality falls far short of that expressed by God in the Bible. What Bravus is really claiming (although perhaps without realizing it) is that he knows better than the God of the Bible. I am disagreeing and say that the God of the Bible knows better than I do so I will follow the Bible before I place my trust in my own ability to reason.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

When we have a difference of opinion we tell it in order to push our beliefs on others. It is all about control.

Ah, speaking about your self I presume. Thanks, honesty goes a long ways!!

You're welcome. That is pretty much true for all humanity. There are times when we are asked for our opinions. This forum is an example. We come here to express our opinions and read those of others. There is certainly nothing controlling about giving an opinion when it is asked for. It is when we give our unsolicited opinion to others that, most every time, we are trying to control the other person. The reason I don't give my unsolicited opinion about God's plan for my gay relatives' lives is because to do so would be an attempt on my part to control them. I won't go there. If they come to me and ask my opinion, I will provide it.

[Bravus]

Nope, you're still not listening: or at least, you're responding only within your own framework.

The point I have made is that 'the morality of the God of the Bible' and 'the morality of the Bible' and 'the morality of God' are not synonyms for each other.

I am absolutely *not* saying that my morality is 'higher', better or whatever than the morality of God.

I am saying that it is better than the morality of some parts of the Bible, and at the same time I am saying clearly that I believe some parts of the morality of the Bible are human rather than divine.

It is uncontroversial to say that some human morality is better than other human morality: the morality of the Nazis who considered the Jews subhuman, for example, is just an inferior morality.

I am saying that some human morality is better than other human morality, and that I choose the better - more humane, kinder, better adapted to human life, progress and happiness - part.

If you're going to accuse me of arrogance, at least understand what I am, and, crucially am not saying.

[Dr. Shane]

The fact that you believe parts of the Bible are of human origin means you believe the god of the Bible should be spelled with a lower-case "g" and not an upper case "G". I get that. You make the case that your personal morality is better than the God of the Bible. When you say it you use a lower-case "g" and when I say it I use an upper case "G". I understand what you are saying and I think you understand what I am saying. I don't trust my own ability to reason more than I trust the Bible. You obviously do trust your own ability to reason more than you trust the Bible.

[BobRyan]

In SDA churches on what planet does creationism not come up?

Agreed. "Seventh-DAY" Adventist is all about the REAL seven days of Creation week - so REAL that every seven "real" days we are called by God to remember that fact.

How can you belong to a group that celebrates the literal creation of the world and all life on it in a REAL 7 day week - and call yourself a self-respecting evolutionist??

Darwin was right about not being able to marry evolutionism to Christianity. How much MORE SO - not being able to marry darwinism to that form of Christianity that is Seventh-Day Adventist!!

Trying to "big tent the world" with "all doctrines welcomed" was never the mission or mandate of the SDA church.

Rather we are a light to the world. Those who want to "Big-Tent BE-the-World" are imagining an SDA denomination that does not exist.

At least not yet.

in Christ,

Bob

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I am saying that it is better than the morality of some parts of the Bible, and at the same time I am saying clearly that I believe some parts of the morality of the Bible are human rather than divine.

Absolutely!! Even a casual reader of the Bible can read and understand that. I can not fathom why anyone would argue with that.

What is really the issue here and I don't believe some people are understanding it, is your journey is different than theirs, and not wanting to accept that. Because you have been a SDA member it really rankles them to think that, for you, the church is no longer needed. We, as SDA's have been raised to believe the truth begins and ends with us. For you to to simply state why and how just can not be tolerated, fault must be found with you in order to bolster their own beliefs...you shake them. Tis not unusual, this phenomenon, I have seen it many times when SDA's leave the church. You have stated your belief in Christ/God and it is not for me to judge. Your journey is different then mine and you owe me nothing other than honesty. God is judge and jury, prosecutor, defender, etc, thankfully!! You have been accused of trying to convince others that your way is superior, regardless of your denial. They just can't handle the truth!!!

You don't need me defending you, you are doing quite well on your own. But I must speak up and against the misrepresentation some are doing of you. To do less would be wrong!

[Alchemy]

On the evolution question, I did answer it a few pages back. Will have another go below.

It doesn't surprise me that people with a gay child are forced to reconsider their views, when they didn't feel the need to do so for more distant gay people. No, both my daughters are straight. I have some gay friends, and knowing them has helped me think through the issues, but it's about universal human rights rather than special pleading.

On evolution, there's a massive amount of evidence. Try talkorigins.org if you want good clear simple primers on a lot of the issues.

Before I can really answer your question in any detail I'd need to have some sense of your position: some SDAs believe the universe is old and earth and the life are young, some believe the universe and earth are old and only life is young, some believe everything is young, and so on. Rather than trying to cover the whole vast plethora of issues, it's probably simpler to start with one... and which one will to some extent depend on you and your questions.

My apologies, Bravus. I looked and obviously missed your response to me.

As far as origins is concerned, I would call myself a young life creationist. Even though the universe could be young, I don't know of anywhere the Bible says it's less then 10,000 years old. But, I don't believe in millions or billions of years either. I guess I am saying less than 2 million years old. Just a guess.

But, I do believe life as we know started with sin, and that was roughly 6,000 years ago.

As far as the gay point I made. I had an older brother who died not too long ago who was gay. I had a rather interesting relationship with him. He was an atheist who believed Christians were free to live according to their beliefs. I am a Christian who believed, and still believes, gays are free to live by their convictions as long as it was in private.

What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, with obvious limitations of course, but should not be exposed to others in public.

I hope this helps.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

What i get from everything Bravus has said in this thread is that he can't continue to be a member of an organization that bases its whole system of belief on a book he does not feel to be more than a moral guideline.

I agree. He believes his ability to reason is morally superior than the Bible.

How is that different from anyone else on this forum?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Are you saying that you think a Bible believing Adventist are better than all that are not?

First, not all Adventists are really Christians.

Second, I believe the Adventist faith best embraces the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Third, I believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates a belief system which has the highest morality.

One and three I agree with you. However number two is totally wrong.

SDA faith is based on the Bible and Ellen White with Ellen White being used to actually tell us what the Bible says. Thus, SDA put Ellen White on a higher plain while all the while lying to themselves and others that they are Sola Scriptura.

[doug yowell]

So, by all of your comments to this point you are the one placing yourself higher than Bravus, since he is not claiming to be SDA anymore and by your own words, doesn't believe as you do.

It is not about me. Bravus is stating that his personal morality is better than the Bible.

Even a casual look at Bravus' post should reveal that he no longer claims to be a Christian. Adventism is merely a subset of Christianity so the title of this thread is greatly inconsequential.Perhaps we can be more focused by asking Bravus what he means by believing that some parts of the Bible contain a morality inferior to his? A couple of examples would help? What do you base that judgment on? Is there a moral source that is higher than yourself that sets that objective standard upon which the Bible's morality is judged? What moral standard do you follow that you think should be set as the model for all the world to imitate?

[doug yowell]

SDA faith is based on the Bible and Ellen White with Ellen White being used to actually tell us what the Bible says.

That's a typical misrepresentation, miz,good for dismissing Adventists, bad for establishing facts. Many SDA's (like myself) received the truths of SDA teachings before we ever read anything EGW said. Sola Scriptura!! And why don't you apply the same test to the constituents of Greg Laurie, Charles Stanley, the Bible Answer Man, and millions of other pastors, preachers,theologians,and teachers?

[Alchemy]

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not healthy spiritually. Personally, I believe it is degrading itself as time goes by.

What actually gets under my skin at times is we do it to ourselves! How bad is that! But, that is how our carnal nature works. It is self destroying. Drugs, booze, work, money, sex, gambling, etc... Our carnal nature can only destroy itself. It is not wise or insightful. And this is what what see so much of in the church today.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: miz3

SDA faith is based on the Bible and Ellen White with Ellen White being used to actually tell us what the Bible says.

That's a typical misrepresentation, miz,good for dismissing Adventists, bad for establishing facts. Many SDA's (like myself) received the truths of SDA teachings before we ever read anything EGW said. Sola Scriptura!! And why don't you apply the same test to the constituents of Greg Laurie, Charles Stanley, the Bible Answer Man, and millions of other pastors, preachers,theologians,and teachers?

Excellent post.

I know when I joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I didn't even know "you guys" believed Ellen White to be a prophetess of God! My whole experience at the beginning was strictly Bible and Bible only!

This Remnant Message that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is so honored to convey to the world is strictly supported by the Bible and Bible only.

[John317]

Nope, you've missed it completely. Your fundamental assumption is that it is sin, and then you think of it in that light.

Doesn't the Bible teach that the practice of homosexuality is sin-- outside the will of God?

You apparently concede that it does, but you claim that it is due to the prejudices of the time. Therefore you don't deny the Bible teaches that it is a sin to practice homosexuality.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Try thinking differently.

I've thought differently before. For most of my life I thought that the practice of homosexuality was beautiful.

But since about the beginning of 2004, I've determined to conform my thinking to the teachings of the word of God.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Or else just accept our differences. I've been very, very clear and consistent on this. It's as though you seem shocked by it, when my position has been clear for years.

I'm not shocked that someone takes your position. There is nothing new in it. When I was a member of the Metropolitan Community Church, everything you've said about the Bible's view of homosexuality was taught in the literature and from the pulpit at that church. I simply hadn't heard the same ideas expressed by people who were (or had been) Seventh-day Adventists.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Bravus is stating that his personal morality is better than the Bible.

Even a casual look at Bravus' post should reveal that he no longer claims to be a Christian. Adventism is merely a subset of Christianity so the title of this thread is greatly inconsequential.

I have variously described myself as post-Christian, panentheist and even as a 'quantum theist'. No label I have found fits neatly. I believe in an infinite God, and believe that all religious traditions are in part revelations of God and in part human projections onto God. I believe that to be true of Christianity, so while the label 'Christian' also does not fit neatly, Christianity has formed and informed my thinking and understanding of God. In particular, I aspire to 'Christ-ianity': following the teachings and example of Jesus.

Quote:

Perhaps we can be more focused by asking Bravus what he means by believing that some parts of the Bible contain a morality inferior to his? A couple of examples would help? What do you base that judgment on? Is there a moral source that is higher than yourself that sets that objective standard upon which the Bible's morality is judged? What moral standard do you follow that you think should be set as the model for all the world to imitate?

It was Shane who started off with all this language of 'superior' and 'inferior': I don't even think of it or talk of it in those terms. I do think about it as 'different' and as 'better for me', but despite the attributions of others I am *not* arrogant enough to believe that my personal beliefs are the template for the world, and have never claimed so. I have chosen my values for me, and tried to share them with my family. I have described them to those here when asked, and tried to clarify when challenged. It's worth noting this quote from me in the second post in this thread: "...they're the reasons. By all means decide they're bad reasons *for you*, but you don't get to decide whether my reasons are good *for me*." Does that sound like someone trying to force his reasons on everyone else?

Examples of the morality that I choose as better for myself than that displayed in the Bible. The events of Numbers 31 spring to mind as one example. God commands genocide: every man, woman, child and baby to be slaughtered. The people slaughter the combatants but keep the children alive. God is angry at the people's incomplete genocide, and orders that they should kill in cold blood all the boys and all the non-virgin girls, but keep the virgin girls 'for yourselves'.

I shouldn't even need to explain what is immoral about that whole scenario. What would you say if it was carried out by Muslims or Somali pirates today?

The moral stance that I use in moral reasoning relates to tangible harm to others. Note the levels of Kohlberg's framework of moral reasoning (google it if you need to). Genocide is morally wrong because it is ultimately harmful. Rape likewise.

Such an approach to moral reasoning does not require a supernatural guarantor or even a system of absolutes guaranteed by such a guarantor: harm is real and tangible and agreed on by all sane human beings and cultures.

If I did wish to appeal to a supernatural moral guarantor for a system of morality, however, I would seek one who did *not* command genocide and rape. A guarantor for a moral framework must operate at a *higher* morality, not a lower one. Such a being must be more moral than me, not less.

Now - and here's the point often missed. I do not believe that God ordered genocide and rape. I believe in a good and moral God. I believe that the rulers of the Israelites at the time ordered genocide and rape, and then, to bolster their authority, claimed that the orders were coming from God.

Thus you will see from this example that the approach to the Bible that I have tried to outline in this thread respects and honours God *more*, not less, than a literalist or near-literalist view of the Bible. It ascribes the human evils to humans, not to God.

Again, I'm not sure people will find this compelling, but I hope I've made a decent attempt at answering your thoughtful questions, Doug.

[Dr. Shane]

I have variously described myself as post-Christian, panentheist and even as a 'quantum theist'. No label I have found fits neatly.

[Dr. Shane]

Examples of the morality that I choose as better for myself than that displayed in the Bible. The events of Numbers 31 spring to mind as one example.

We have had threads on this topic over the years. Members here have interpreted such passages using the Sola-Scriptura principle which showed a loving God but you have rejected that in favor of your own understanding which makes the passage to either be false or to show God as a tyrant. You do the same with the creation story. When your ideas disagree with the Bible you assume you are right and the Bible is wrong for whatever reason. You trust your own ability to reason more than you trust the Bible. The problem is, you don't fit in with any group of people. You don't fit with any Christian denomination, with Hindus, Buddhists, Islams, Jews or tribal religions. You are terminally unique. I will suggest the problem isn't Christianity or any other religion. The problem is the faith you place in your own ability to reason. Bravus is right and the world is wrong.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Are you saying that you think a Bible believing Adventist are better than all that are not?

First, not all Adventists are really Christians.

Second, I believe the Adventist faith best embraces the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Third, I believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates a belief system which has the highest morality.

The point at which one attempts even by the slightest implication to assert #1, is to divide the Adventist camp into the morally superior and inferior. And it has been my experience that few who make that assertion place themselves on the inferior side of the spectrum.

Number 2 merely widens the division to the wider Christian camp to the same effect. Numerous Christian denominations assert the same thing. Most would not be separated from other Christians if they felt otherwise.

The unspoken reality of # 3 is Sola Scriptura, as interpreted by me and those with whom I agree. And it again very easily results in the same superior moral attitude as 1 and 2 with the same divisive effect.

And my morally superior attitude is dismayed at the apparent hostility being expressed by some in response to Bravus' vulnerable honesty and courageous move to step out of the boat in faith. David my friend, may your walk on troubled waters be successful.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Examples of the morality that I choose as better for myself than that displayed in the Bible. The events of Numbers 31 spring to mind as one example.

We have had threads on this topic over the years. Members here have interpreted such passages using the Sola-Scriptura principle which showed a loving God but you have rejected that in favor of your own understanding which makes the passage to either be false or to show God as a tyrant. You do the same with the creation story. When your ideas disagree with the Bible you assume you are right and the Bible is wrong for whatever reason. You trust your own ability to reason more than you trust the Bible. The problem is, you don't fit in with any group of people. You don't fit with any Christian denomination, with Hindus, Buddhists, Islams, Jews or tribal religions. You are terminally unique. I will suggest the problem isn't Christianity or any other religion. The problem is the faith you place in your own ability to reason. Bravus is right and the world is wrong.

Nothing about that would make Bravus unique at all. There are millions of people that have that view. Thre is no one religion that has it all. I think its almost irresponsible to just accept something on faith if it makes no sense to you at all. In those cases you have nothing to trust but your own reasoning

[Dr. Shane]

There are millions of people that have that view.

I said I had met scores. Obviously I haven't met them all. But they are all terminally unique - regardless how many they are. They are heart-rending cases. But for the grace of God there go I. I could easily be one of them and at one time I was.

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually your first post in this thread was made in exactly that tone. I have already demonstrated this. You think you have a better grasp on reality than we do. You think you love people (i.e. gays) more than we do. You think you love the Earth more than we do. You think you love poor people more than we do. It is clear from the posts you have made in this thread that you believe your morality is superior than that of the Bible and thus the Adventist movement.

As I have said before, we read what others write in our own voice. That means that you project your tone onto their words and ascribe an attitude to their written words based on what is in your head.

It is abundantly clear that in the quote by Eleanor Roosevelt that Bravus earlier posted is very true - "No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

I cannot view anyone as trying to be morally superior than me unless I feel vulnerable down deep inside of me that it may be true. Otherwise they are just putting on comical airs, uttering nonsense, or whatever, that does nothing to threaten my morality.

[Dr. Shane]

The point at which one attempts even by the slightest implication to assert #1, is to divide the Adventist camp into the morally superior and inferior. And it has been my experience that few who make that assertion place themselves on the inferior side of the spectrum.

Well, Tom, perhaps this will be a first for you. The reason I had to make that distinction is that if I myself am found to be on the "inferior side" I would not want the entire Adventist movement to be judged by my poor example.

When a hurricane left my subdivision underwater another local Adventist family took us in until we could go back to our home. It was a poor family whose children were in public school. I thought I was doing good as a spiritual leader in my home until that week. They did not put on a show for us. I could see that it was all real. It inspired me to do better. And I am sure there are ways that family could improve. If there was a line drawn with 50% of the church members being more moral than the other 50%, I am not sure which side of the line I would be on and would never want to claim that I would be somewhere on the top.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

SDA faith is based on the Bible and Ellen White with Ellen White being used to actually tell us what the Bible says.

That's a typical misrepresentation, miz,good for dismissing Adventists, bad for establishing facts. Many SDA's (like myself) received the truths of SDA teachings before we ever read anything EGW said. Sola Scriptura!! And why don't you apply the same test to the constituents of Greg Laurie, Charles Stanley, the Bible Answer Man, and millions of other pastors, preachers,theologians,and teachers?

1. It is not a misrepresentation but is in fact a very true assessment of the SDA Church. In fact you are the one dismissing the truth and facts about SDA. Good for defending SDA wrong, but bad for establishing truth.

2. Ellen White may not have been mentioned during your Bible studies however the views expressed doctrinally to you were in fact based on Ellen White's interpretation of those Scriptures. Thus, you may have thought you were getting Sola Scriptura when in actual fact you were not. You were instead getting Ellen White's interpretation of the Scripture.

3. We are talking about Adventism (SDA) here and not those other entities you cited.