Why I am a former SDA

[Twilight II]

In terms of specific issues:

1. I cannot be a recent creationist and remain sane: the evidence is just far too overwhelming in the direction of evolution and long time spans. I'll get push back on this, I always do, but I'm explaining my reasons.

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

3. Caring for the poor is a massive thrust of the whole Bible and of Jesus (sheep and the goats has nothing at all to do with denominational identification, in fact says it *won't* save you if you don't help the poor) yet I see here again and again how 'Christians' want to side with the rich and clutch their possessions and demonise the poor.

4. PK will probably disagree with me on this, but when I was in church while Israel was bombing the life out of the Palestinian settlements and heard prayed from the front 'Lord be with your people Israel', I just about exploded. People are people, whether they're on the 'right' side or not, and again, it's the oppressed, not the oppressors, we're called on to help.

5. The glee for the destruction of the earth exhibited here and by other Christians. The job God gave us in Eden (metaphorically) was stewardship of the earth, but burning it all down as quickly as possible seems almost to be doctrine these days.

6. Ellen White has some great stuff and some abysmal stuff. Sadly those who use her as a club tend to focus on the latter.

So, I dunno: maybe those are my doctrinal differences. But most of them are more cultural than doctrinal (though some struggle with that distinction). But 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*.

I hope you do not mind me pointing this out Bravus, but a lot of your rationale here is secular.

It seems you have bought into a secular world view, as most of the arguments you present here are no different from what I have heard from die hard athiests.

This is what happens when we step off of the authority of the Bible, underpinned by its prophetic evidences, and step onto secular rationality.

I have to be direct with you here Bravus, but this is what I see.

You have adopted a secular worldview that is irrational, in that its authority is derived from opinions of fallible man.

And lost sight of Jesus Christ in the process.

[Bravus]

You're entitled to that view. Actually, pretty much all my views on these issues are strongly influenced by the Bible. If time permits maybe I'll show how.

It's interesting that so many people are able to precisely diagnose my world view from a quick list of issues I reeled off off the top of my head...

[Bravus]

Let me paraphrase the original 6 issues down to a word or two each, then discuss the Biblical support.

1. Origins

I read the creation story as a poetic account of who and why. It is not the Bible I put aside - not at all - it is a particular approach to reading the Bible.

2. Homosexuality

There are not a large number of texts on the topic, and almost all of them relate to things other than committed relationships. Things like temple prostitution. The Biblical case that homosexual relationships are wrong is not strong. The Biblical case that marriage is sacred is much stronger... and should be extended to everyone. The Biblical case against sex outside marriage is strong, so forbidding marriage to homosexual people forbids sex to them for life. But "it is better to marry than to burn".

3. Poverty

Over 300 texts about how we treat the poor. Yet we decide that the only text that is relevant is "the one who won't work shouldn't eat"? Massive imbalance... and it is not secular to say so.

http://www.zompist.com/meetthepoor.html (skip the 'why God is a liberal' tag line: the point is what the Word says)

4. Politics

God supports no political party. Every political party has something of Eden and something of the Fall, some truth and some error. In particulur, by the way we define our politics, each party is imbalanced. This is true on foreign affairs as well as on domestic issues. But the Bible is very strong on the idea that we should be found standing with the oppressed, not the oppressor. Again and again Scripture emphasises this.

5. Environment

"The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof". "...destroy them which destroy the earth". It's not hard to make the case that if the earth is the Lord's we ought to respect it and care for it, and find sustainable ways to live, rather than destroy it rapidly in unsustainable ways.

6. Ellen White

She just does say some things that contradict Scripture. People can do whatever rhetorical dances they like, but that's a fact. If she's a lesser light to point to a greater light, we shouldn't be shy of acknowledging when occasionally she points away from it. The quote in the 'Does prayer work?' thread in the 'Matter of Prayer' forum is a prime example.

[Bravus]

Part of the problem is that issues 1, 2 and 6 are matters of SDA doctrine, the others are matters of SDA culture.

It's probably useful to make that distinction.

[Twilight II]

You're entitled to that view. Actually, pretty much all my views on these issues are strongly influenced by the Bible. If time permits maybe I'll show how.

It's interesting that so many people are able to precisely diagnose my world view from a quick list of issues I reeled off off the top of my head...

Maybe you haven't considered that your world view is very secular in nature then Bravus?

Sometimes we cannot see what is apparent to those observing us.

But what I do find interesting when talking and listening to people who have "left the church", is that many time the reason given is:

"Someone elses fault - bad example, bad character etc..."

No one ever says:

"I left the church because I like to sin and do my own thing..."

Isn't that interesting?

[Bravus]

Not very, no. Because that's not why I left the church and it's not why most people leave the church. In fact, my current values place *more* demands on me, not less.

Seriously, dude, you're coming here trying to claim you have some deeper insight into me than I do into myself, and then bringing this kind of half-baked, off-base analysis?

Not even worth posting: I know where my mirror is, perhaps you should go in search of yours.

[Bravus]

And if you can show a single line in the over 400 posts in this thread where I have said my leaving the church is 'someone else's fault', I will eat my hat. *And* retract, withdraw and apologise for the above post.

I never said it. It's all in your head. So don't pretend you can diagnose me - you can't even get the symptoms right.

[Twilight II]

Let me paraphrase the original 6 issues down to a word or two each, then discuss the Biblical support.

1. Origins

I read the creation story as a poetic account of who and why. It is not the Bible I put aside - not at all - it is a particular approach to reading the Bible.

2. Homosexuality

There are not a large number of texts on the topic, and almost all of them relate to things other than committed relationships. Things like temple prostitution. The Biblical case that homosexual relationships are wrong is not strong. The Biblical case that marriage is sacred is much stronger... and should be extended to everyone. The Biblical case against sex outside marriage is strong, so forbidding marriage to homosexual people forbids sex to them for life. But "it is better to marry than to burn".

3. Poverty

Over 300 texts about how we treat the poor. Yet we decide that the only text that is relevant is "the one who won't work shouldn't eat"? Massive imbalance... and it is not secular to say so.

http://www.zompist.com/meetthepoor.html (skip the 'why God is a liberal' tag line: the point is what the Word says)

4. Politics

God supports no political party. Every political party has something of Eden and something of the Fall, some truth and some error. In particulur, by the way we define our politics, each party is imbalanced. This is true on foreign affairs as well as on domestic issues. But the Bible is very strong on the idea that we should be found standing with the oppressed, not the oppressor. Again and again Scripture emphasises this.

5. Environment

"The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof". "...destroy them which destroy the earth". It's not hard to make the case that if the earth is the Lord's we ought to respect it and care for it, and find sustainable ways to live, rather than destroy it rapidly in unsustainable ways.

6. Ellen White

She just does say some things that contradict Scripture. People can do whatever rhetorical dances they like, but that's a fact. If she's a lesser light to point to a greater light, we shouldn't be shy of acknowledging when occasionally she points away from it. The quote in the 'Does prayer work?' thread in the 'Matter of Prayer' forum is a prime example.

1. Common secular argument.

2. Common secular argument.

3. Someone did something I didn't like, it is their fault.

4. Someone did something I didn't like, it is their fault.

5. Someone did something I didn't like, it is their fault.

6. Someone said something I didn't like, so I reject her.

Now I am being a little blunt here Bravus, but I think this summations would reflect the core of your arguments.

Your choices are seperating you from Christ.

But it seems you cannot rationalise your own arguments with honesty, where you consider that "YOU" might be in the wrong.

I hope my honest assessment will spur/enrage/engage you to reconsider your position, or at least drive deep into your heart in some way, that you wake up from this deception that has bound you.

The "we love you Bravus and everything is fine" woolly support from some on this forum, obviously has not helped you as you step off of the solid rock that is Jesus Christ.

Everything is NOT FINE.

You are giving your chance of salvation away, inch by inch, and some here want to hug you into oblivion.

I honestly do not think you understand the logical rationale for the bibles usage in defining worldviews.

And I do not think you are able to look at your own ideas objectively and consider that you are in fact on the wrong path.

[Twilight II]

And if you can show a single line in the over 400 posts in this thread where I have said my leaving the church is 'someone else's fault', I will eat my hat. *And* retract, withdraw and apologise for the above post.

I never said it. It's all in your head. So don't pretend you can diagnose me - you can't even get the symptoms right.

You repeatedly state that what others are "doing" is a cause for your leaving...

[Twilight II]

Not very, no. Because that's not why I left the church and it's not why most people leave the church. In fact, my current values place *more* demands on me, not less.

Seriously, dude, you're coming here trying to claim you have some deeper insight into me than I do into myself, and then bringing this kind of half-baked, off-base analysis?

Not even worth posting: I know where my mirror is, perhaps you should go in search of yours.

The mirror is the Law of God Bravus.

When we look at that and see our own short comings, we are driven to Jesus Christ.

He rectifies and amends the issues by writing His Law on our hearts.

And no.

I am not going to sit here and "confirm" you as you make choices that cost you your eternity.

Or indeed as you present leaving Christ's church as a "viable choice" for others to be influenced by...

Your soul has much to high a value.

And so does theirs.

[Twilight II]

And if you can show a single line in the over 400 posts in this thread where I have said my leaving the church is 'someone else's fault', I will eat my hat. *And* retract, withdraw and apologise for the above post.

I never said it. It's all in your head. So don't pretend you can diagnose me - you can't even get the symptoms right.

[Bravus]

Mmm, tasty hat... Well, not quite. I can see how you would read it as 'I'm leaving because of their attitudes', but what I meant and maybe didn't express as clearly as I could have is that I've left because of my attitude - and because of what the Bible has to say on the topic. I don't fit culturally with that particular facet of modern Christianity (not just Adventism), but neither does Jesus. Neither does the Bible.

But that is a quite different thing from blaming others for my leaving. I blame no-one because it's a good thing and no blame needs to be cast.

I understand to cause of your confusion, and take the responsibility for the way my lack of clarity confused you, but you're still confused.

[Bravus]

We are each accountable for our own souls. To God. No-one else.

I'm creating no splinter group, setting up no church, seeking no followers. The last thing I would ever say is 'follow me'.

I'll say 'think for yourself': perhaps the most subversive thing of all.

[Twilight II]

We are each accountable for our own souls. To God. No-one else.

I'm creating no splinter group, setting up no church, seeking no followers. The last thing I would ever say is 'follow me'.

I'll say 'think for yourself': perhaps the most subversive thing of all.

Check your thoughts with God is actually more subversive to our carnal natures...

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

"Who's this 'we' white man?" Maybe that's what you would do, Tom, but I've never seen anyone else here who agreed with anyone here merely because they said they were an active Adventist,or immediately punked them because they were not, particularly John. Your post implies that you have your own preset agenda that you just exercised in response to the above suggestion.Not only a false conclusion but completely uncalled for.

Perhaps you are unable to understand irony or statements made tongue-in-cheek. I thought it obvious enough to not need explanation...

But sadly, I would say that what seems to be your preset perception of me meant you simply assumed the worst from your own framework.

You have confirmed that the label some have already plastered on my forehead results in whatever I post as being viewed with skepticism and disdain and mostly likely wrong.

The truth is those labels are already in place. And if there is uncertainty where a poster is coming from, they are systematically backed into a corner and intimidated into confessing their heresy. Those who refuse to comply with that strategy are branded with the big red "H" anyway. We have our own form of the Inquisition. We just don't burn them at the stake. We just drive a stake through the heart of their ideas.

I have seen it time after time and experienced it enough myself to know what I said ironically to have a bitter truth in it nonetheless. Some are just too blind to see it.

With all due respect to everyone posting in this thread.

I don't know the background or context that Tom Wetmore is talking about. I didn't even try to figure it out. I don't mean any disrespect to those involved, its just I want to address something in particular that Tom Wetmore said. Please, forgive me if I am not addressing an issue important to you, by stressing a point important to me.

Tom Wetmore wrote; "The truth is those labels are already in place. And if there is uncertainty where a poster is coming from, they are systematically backed into a corner and intimidated into confessing their heresy. Those who refuse to comply with that strategy are branded with the big red "H" anyway. We have our own form of the Inquisition. We just don't burn them at the stake. We just drive a stake through the heart of their ideas.

I have seen it time after time and experienced it enough myself to know what I said ironically to have a bitter truth in it nonetheless. Some are just too blind to see it."

I could and probably a lot of people could say the exact same thing about many experiences in the Seventh-day Adventist Church! And not just on the internet, but in real life in the pews. People love living by the labels.

Its easy; you don't have to think, test or get to know anyone you don't want to know. You have all you want in the group you hang with.

And so many people claim these experiences that everyone must be doing it and getting beat down by it all at the same time! What are we to make of this dilemma?

First; lets not draw people into thinking something about us that isn't true.

Second; Lets judge with a righteous judgment.

Third; Lets expose these episodes wherever and whenever we can.

There is a lot of pain in the church because of this and few people want to do anything about it. It makes me very suspicious.

[Rudy G]

Quote:

This is not completely accurate in the context of what is now being discussed. Jesus did not leave the organization into which he was born. In fact, one could easily make the case that He was born raised, lived and died within it. Jesus was the actual center of the very essence of the existing organization. Remember He said that "Salvation is of the Jews" and is prophesied to be wounded "in the house of my friends".It was not Jesus who called His followers to leave the Jewish organization but the organization who excommunicated Jesus and then ordered His followers to leave. The same was true in the Protestant Reformation. History records that the early leaders (Luther,Calvin,Jerome,ect...)wanted to reform their church not leave it to start their own movement. They were excommunicated against their wishes.

This is a very typical Adventist way of arguing about spiritual issues.

Those who are sincere truth seekers are always reformers. One cannot honestly say that Jesus did not try to reform the institutional religion of his day (temple cleansing, pointed teaching, and eventually direct confrontation). Perhaps the precise wording of hy comment is debatable, but that Jesus rejected the instutional religion of His day is not debatable. And, the same can be said for the Martin Luther.

I have some questions? Do reformers have to wait for excomunnication to decide that their reform can only occur outside the institution they start out trying to reform? Are the only ones who stand for truth and oppose false teachings those who are excommunicated (or disfellowshipped)? Why isn't the Advent movement still a movement within established denominations? I have never heard an Adventist evangelist urge those convicted by his teaching to remain in another deonminational church as a reformer. On what basis to we expect those who believe they have a more meaningful connection to the body of Christ somewhere outside of Adventism to remain as a reformer?

[Rudy G]

Quote:

You are giving your chance of salvation away, inch by inch, and some here want to hug you into oblivion.

This might be a wonderful sentiment. A kind of of solidarity with Jesus in Matthew 25. Or, it might be a great self delusion, if the one expressing it is not Jesus Christ.

Ironically, when I read the posts of the author of this statement I have a similar concern about the author. I believe there is a level of certainity about "our" right-ness that can be the betrayal of how little we recognize our limitations and needs as sinnrs. Its a pretty dangerous place to be.

[Gibs]

Rudy G,

It's the many errors that have come in that the leadership will not change away from or repent of. It has been fought vigorously now for many a year. Now many years down the road those still in the denomination do not know of any or hardly any as it has become the theology accepted. I'm not going to go into them all as they keep being aired but no one within will hear so it has become apparent no reform can be had within, it must take place without. In few words the overcomers are the comeouters.

The one I testify against the most is the saved in sin theology that says we can't quit sinning so Christ has to do it all for us, that is it in a nutshell.

One small statement from EGW on that,

Will man take hold of divine power, and with determination and perseverance resist Satan, as Christ has given him example in His conflict with the foe in the wilderness of temptation? God cannot save man against his will from the power of Satan’s artifices. Man must work with his human power, aided by the divine power of Christ, to resist and to conquer at any cost to himself. In short, man must overcome as Christ overcame. And then, through the victory that it is his privilege to gain by the all-powerful name of Jesus, he may become an heir of God and joint-heir with Jesus Christ. This could not be the case if Christ alone did all the overcoming. Man must do his part; he must be victor on his own account, through the strength and grace that Christ gives him. Man must be a co-worker with Christ in the labor of overcoming, and then he will be partaker with Christ in His glory. {OFC 28.3}

Also the church is not a denomination but where the few are gathered together in His name and He is in the midst, He can only be there if the truth is being taught and only His presence constitutes Church.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Notice MUST and then in SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[olger]

"You are giving your chance of salvation away, inch by inch, and some here want to hug you into oblivion."

This ^^

[ClubV12]

"Hugged into oblivion", I understand that. Sister White calls it false sympathy.

There is a time to be sympathic in the classic definition of that word. There is a time to give the straight testimony. It's no different than the idea of loving someone to death or loving them so much you take action to stop them from killing themselves.

Letting friends drive drunk is a popular application of false sympathy today. You gotta stop them, out of love, even if they are spitting on you.

As a Christian I cannot support an active gay lifestyle. Sympathizing with someone in such a relationship by inferring it's OK is false sympathy.

Removing someone from membership in the church, when done correctly, is love. It may be the last resort to keep them from spiritually killing themselves. Complaining about how the church removed someone from membership when all you REALLY know are rumors and innuendo is false sympathy. It's like you are handing them a gun.

While I appreciate, to some degree, Bravus' clairity on where he stands, as a Christian, I conclude he is committing spiritual suicide.

Gib's says,

"it must take place without. In few words the overcomers are the comeouters."

Very dangerous theology there Gib's. There is no call for anyone to leave the church and work from the outside. That is a totally false concept and drawing others out of the church is nothing less than the work of the evil doer.

[olger]

`zactly

[Gibs]

His people hear this call, the rest don't,

Re 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[ClubV12]

There are many who THINK they hear a call. Bravus thinks he did.

[M. T. Cross]

One day I think I am going to sit down and count how many EGW quotes I read compared to the number of Bible quotes I see. I would not be surprised if I see a great number more EGW ones.

[cheddar]

The one I testify against the most is the saved in sin theology that says we can't quit sinning so Christ has to do it all for us, that is it in a nutshell.

Jesus Christ does do it all!