Why I am a former SDA

[Dr. Shane]

As I have said before, we read what others write in our own voice. That means that you project your tone onto their words...

[doug yowell]

not all Adventists are really Christians.

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.

This, of course, does not make the assertion any less true. Most of the earliest Christian writers wrote that there were, in fact, many who claimed to be Christians who were not.Even the Person who the religion was named after agreed ("...saying Lord, Lord..."). One also often asserted that the same thing was true about the Jewish religion, the prototype of the Christian belief system. The bottom line was the exhibition of the one who claimed to be the "true" follower of the objective standard set by the Bible as the determinate of who was or was not living the morally "superior" (isn't there a better word to employ?) life.I believe that even Bravus would agree with this.

[ClubV12]

"...not all Adventists are really Christians."

I think that is just common sense. One aspect of that is we are not to judge who might be wheat or tares. I maintain a hope for all those within the church in particular, a broader hope for those in the world as well.

But the church has a responsibility to judge in some cases, as not all who profess to be Adventists are in fact Christians by any reasonable and minimum standards. Not all can be ordained Pastors, no matter how much they want that, it is not enough, they have to meet certain minimum standards. Likewise, to be an official member of the church you have to meet certain minimum standards. To be a "Christian" the world accepts a much lower standard. Some lower it to the very dust. The name "Christian", to me, says you have certain minimum standards to be worthy to carry that name. The name "Adventist" is a higher calling, please don't call yourself that if you don't meet certain minimum standards.

What are the standards? Because some folks are unable to read and understand the bible and it's deeper meanings or come up with varying interpretations of scripture the church had to "spell it out for them". It's in a book, it's called the "church manual".

The only book for defining Christians is the bible, and because of the wild interpretations, we have a whole host of those known by many different names. Baptist, Mormon, etc. But even those "sub groups" of Christians have a "book" which for them "spells out" the minimum standards to BE a "Baptist".

Based on the church manual, Bravus doesn't qualify for Adventist membership. I think he's OK with that, and so am I.

[Bravus]

The point I've been trying to make all along, apparently without success, is that I do believe my values are better *for me*. Otherwise, why would I choose them? Of course I want to choose the best and most moral position available.

But that does not mean that I think everyone should be like me, choose like me, think like me. That is something you believe, Shane - that the belief system you have is the best and only one *for everyone in the world*. You can't believe otherwise, because the belief system itself says anyone who doesn't share it is damned.

You're projecting that universalism onto my very modest and very careful claims about what is good and right *for me*. Read what you quoted above, and the whole of the first two posts, again in that light.

And because I am only talking *for me*, I am *not* saying your, or SDA's, values are inferior in any absolute sense. The strongest thing I could possibly be saying is that they are inferior *for me*.

Shane, you have known me many years. You *know* I don't fling insults and insult others' belief systems. You *know* I don't consider myself superior to others.

You have done me an injustice, because you have - as Tom very perceptively said - read my posts in your own voice. You have applied your own universal claims where I made none.

[Gail]

Life has taught me that:

It isn't over until it's over, and

We can only make a decision based on the information we have.

We are all on a journey There will be many surprises before it's all over

[Woody]

Good thoughts Gail.

[miz3]

The point I've been trying to make all along, apparently without success, is that I do believe my values are better *for me*. Otherwise, why would I choose them? Of course I want to choose the best and most moral position available.

But that does not mean that I think everyone should be like me, choose like me, think like me. That is something you believe, Shane - that the belief system you have is the best and only one *for everyone in the world*. You can't believe otherwise, because the belief system itself says anyone who doesn't share it is damned.

You're projecting that universalism onto my very modest and very careful claims about what is good and right *for me*. Read what you quoted above, and the whole of the first two posts, again in that light.

And because I am only talking *for me*, I am *not* saying your, or SDA's, values are inferior in any absolute sense. The strongest thing I could possibly be saying is that they are inferior *for me*.

Shane, you have known me many years. You *know* I don't fling insults and insult others' belief systems. You *know* I don't consider myself superior to others.

You have done me an injustice, because you have - as Tom very perceptively said - read my posts in your own voice. You have applied your own universal claims where I made none.

Well put.

[Woody]

Let me add one more thing. I think Bravus' jounney is just fine. I am of the opinion that God let's us each go on a different journey that we may each Glorify Him in a different way or aspect.

God has a purpose for Bravus that is entirely different than His purpose for me. And I think that the way Bravus views things is fine. I think God would approve. I also think that there may be ways that appear to conflict with Bravus' conclusions that God approves of also. As Bravus has so correctly stated - this is HIS voice. This is HIS experience. These are HIS values. They come from HIS experience. Who are we to condemn that.

[Gail]

Let me add one more thing. I think Bravus' jounney is just fine. I am of the opinion that God let's us each go on a different journey that we may each Glorify Him in a different way or aspect.

God has a purpose for Bravus that is entirely different than His purpose for me. And I think that the way Bravus views things is fine. I think God would approve. I also think that there may be ways that appear to conflict with Bravus' conclusions that God approves of also. As Bravus has so correctly stated - this is HIS voice. This is HIS experience. These are HIS values. They come from HIS experience. Who are we to condemn that.

And when you think about it, each of our experiences has to be personal. There is no way we can inherit salvation. We must personally embrace it. We must see sense of the way our lives have gone in the bigger sphere of God's plan. We must recognize our need and His grace and seek Him with our whole hearts.

[Woody]

Thanks Gail. I think that must have been meant for me even if it wasn't meant for me. (IF that makes any sense)

[Gail]

Thanks Gail. I think that must have been meant for me even if it wasn't meant for me. (IF that makes any sense)

Just an aside, Woody, but check out Pastor Harold's messages (I think in the Inspirational section) He is such a lift!

[Dr. Shane]

But that does not mean that I think everyone should be like me, choose like me, think like me. That is something you believe, Shane - that the belief system you have is the best and only one *for everyone in the world*.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Thanks Gail. I think that must have been meant for me even if it wasn't meant for me. (IF that makes any sense)

Just an aside, Woody, but check out Pastor Harold's messages (I think in the Inspirational section) He is such a lift!

I pray you are not referring to Pastor Harold Camping.

[Woody]

Okay. I found it. Thanks. I particularly liked this statement of his:

"The only real FAILURE is the one from which you learn nothing.” - Harold

But who is this Harold. Is it a secret? Or does he have a last name?

[Gail]

His name is Harold J. Duarte-Bernhardt, and he is a pastor in the Pasadena area. He has a Bible study at a local restaurant, so if you go you get a free meal PLUS the word of God!

But let's get back to the topic at hand...

[Jeannieb43]

His name is Harold J. Duarte-Bernhardt, and he is a pastor in the Pasadena area. He has a Bible study at a local restaurant, so if you go you get a free meal PLUS the word of God!

Are you referring to Pasadena, California??

[M. T. Cross]

The point I've been trying to make all along, apparently without success, is that I do believe my values are better *for me*. Otherwise, why would I choose them? Of course I want to choose the best and most moral position available.

But that does not mean that I think everyone should be like me, choose like me, think like me. That is something you believe, Shane - that the belief system you have is the best and only one *for everyone in the world*. You can't believe otherwise, because the belief system itself says anyone who doesn't share it is damned.

You're projecting that universalism onto my very modest and very careful claims about what is good and right *for me*. Read what you quoted above, and the whole of the first two posts, again in that light.

And because I am only talking *for me*, I am *not* saying your, or SDA's, values are inferior in any absolute sense. The strongest thing I could possibly be saying is that they are inferior *for me*.

Shane, you have known me many years. You *know* I don't fling insults and insult others' belief systems. You *know* I don't consider myself superior to others.

You have done me an injustice, because you have - as Tom very perceptively said - read my posts in your own voice. You have applied your own universal claims where I made none.

That right there

[Tallmark]

Gay people need to love and be loved, get married, be included as full members of the community.

Most just want their next climax, not marriage. And what about men that want to marry their daughters, or women who want to marry their sons? Or people who want multiple spouses? Why can't people who want to have sex with children be included as full members of the community? Because 21st Century society says that it's wrong, but gay isn't. It used to be, though. Have you seen the Gay Agenda of 1972? http://pc540.blogspot.com/2005/09/1972-gay-rights-platform.html

[Bravus]

By that same 'logic', why wouldn't straight people want to marry dogs and rocks...

You've *assumed* homosexuality is a perversion and then reasoned from there... which is circular reasoning if you want to establish anything about homosexuality.

[doug yowell]

By that same 'logic', why wouldn't straight people want to marry dogs and rocks...

You've *assumed* homosexuality is a perversion and then reasoned from there... which is circular reasoning if you want to establish anything about homosexuality.

If 98% of the world's population is not homosexual, and homosexual behavior is not only unnatural, physically harmful as well as emotionally harmful to the human psyche, and unable to propagate the future of the species why is it an assumption that it is a perversion? If the human race evolved thru the evolutionary process and the reproductive system required a heterosexual bent in order to foster that race then why isn't the failure to possess that bent a perversion of the evolutonary process? You argue on one hand that murder is easily assumed as immoral without the need of a Divine guide but that the same cannot be assumed about homosexuality.Why the double standard?

[doug yowell]

But that does not mean that I think everyone should be like me, choose like me, think like me. That is something you believe, Shane - that the belief system you have is the best and only one *for everyone in the world*.

If you are really consistent about what you say you are saying then we should expect that you would have no criticisms of those opinions,like Shane's, which voice a worldview in contradiction to yours. Even the instructions of Numbers may be of equal moral value for others though you yourself may find it repulsive. So while you may advocate a more "moral" approach you should not be adverse to someone else targeting you with their unique belief system,isn't that fair? IOW if there is no moral system more beneficial for everyone in the world then who is anyone to insist that any system, including their own, is on any higher or lower moral plane? And what would be the point of any law except to benefit the personal whims of the one strong enough to be able to force others to adhere to it?

[doug yowell]

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.

Yes, thanks though it creates a bunch more questions.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

But that does not mean that I think everyone should be like me, choose like me, think like me. That is something you believe, Shane - that the belief system you have is the best and only one *for everyone in the world*.

If you are really consistent about what you say you are saying then we should expect that you would have no criticisms of those opinions,like Shane's, which voice a worldview in contradiction to yours. Even the instructions of Numbers may be of equal moral value for others though you yourself may find it repulsive. So while you may advocate a more "moral" approach you should not be adverse to someone else targeting you with their unique belief system,isn't that fair? IOW if there is no moral system more beneficial for everyone in the world then who is anyone to insist that any system, including their own, is on any higher or lower moral plane? And what would be the point of any law except to benefit the personal whims of the one strong enough to be able to force others to adhere to it?

Well said Doug.

If my morality says that blowing your head off with an AK47 is good for the world then who are you to say that I cannot do it? If you prohibit me from such behaviors and ideas then you are "cramming your morality down my throat". What makes your morality better than mine? Who are you to decide what I can and cannot do? The "progressive model" is exactly like that, which is why the "progressives hate Christianity".

In its bare bones "progressive ideology" is not compassionate at all. It reaps the most egregious results possible while all the time preaching that they are the ones compassionate toward the weak/downtrodden. A brief look at most US cities is all you need to know the Truth of this statement. These US cities are the real life test tubes and data of the "progressive model".

Yet we turn a blind eye of denial to these actual FACTS.

Ultimately that makes each one us "god". In such a world indeed only the strongest will survive and the weak and helpless will die.

Unless their is an "objective standard" for all humans period, then there can only be chaos and as I said the strong will survive and the weak will die/or be oppressed.

We actually have real life data for this kind of world.

The "progressive model" states that everyone does their "own thing" no matter what that "thing" is as long as that thing is not God/Christianity and the Bible.

[doug yowell]

[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.

That's just plain nuts!! Unlike your incorrect caricature of my experience the SDA church did not teach me either the Bible or what I should believe. Believe it or not I never took any SDA Bible studies I was actually quite an active Bible student on my own.When I read what SDA's taught it clicked with what I already had discovered in my journey. I concluded that "they believe what I believe" not "I believe what they tell me to believe". NO EGW.No Revelation Seminars.Just me and my concordance.Why does EGW always get all the credit? Besides Adventism is mostly a continuum of traditional Protestant teachings that existed hundreds of years before EGW's birth. Can't blame her for that can you?

[Sylvia49]

Bravus: Friend, the Bible isn't supposed to be a science textbook (though it contains scientific ideas stated before they were "discovered" - such as "hanging the earth on nothing"). It is a book about the spiritual journey of God's people, Jewish and Gentile. In my view, a book still relevant today.

I have not had the experience of "gleefully" looking forward to the "last days," but instead watching and praying with my fellow church members that we will be ready for Jesus to come.

And, John, I agree - once in the church, we should be looking to fill the needs of others; and in such a way we will find to our surprise that OUR needs will be filled.

God bless you, Bravus, on your journey...