Finding a new name for the Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church

[miz3]

To pastorchick and your little minions,

It appears to me a Judge who in fact was an expert on "trademark law" and had the resources to research the briefs and all the issues involved did in fact:

Find for the GC!

You lost! You lost because you were wrong and you were found to be STEALING!

If God was so on your side, as you are claiming Him to be, then tell me, WHY DID YOU LOSE?

It seems clear to me that God, who I know, can do anything but in your case it is clear that God didn't intervene.

Could it be because God knew that you "stole"? I would think that God would defend what He told you explicitly (as you claim) belonged to you. God did that for the Children of Israel.

Maybe your claim to have DIRECT WORD FROM GOD is actually NOT TRUE!

It can't be both ways!

[ClubV12]

miz3

"To pastorchick and your little minions,"

It wouldn't hurt to tone it down just a little miz3. There is a slightly better way to win friends and influence enemies. Yeah, I know, I AM trying to take my own advice here! :)

[Scion]

Hello to all,

I am looking around for some of the other threads I used to post at, but I can't seem to find the Theological Town Hall. I do find several who posted there are now posting here, so I found this topic, and frankly I am nauseated by it. Matters of conscience are matters of conscience, and being a Protestant (not even an Adventist) means that we consider conscience to be of a higher order than who "won" or "lost" a court case - such infantile terms for the relationship between God and man. I can see men standing in the crowds jeering at the martyrs who were "losing" to the Roman law and being eaten by lions, and while that may not appear to be what is happening in this case, I can have sympathy... and I can have no part in this kind of mean-spirited mockery. I would not want anyone to treat me this way.

Now, if anyone can help me find where the threads from the Theological Town Hall are now located, I would appreciate it; but I just couldn't resist sharing my thoughts on this issue as I look around the restructured folders.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ellen G. White

"We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, 'No, no! We are not. It is the name the Lord has given us. It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches.'" [selected Messages, Book 2, 384]

I count four so far who are comfortable with attempting to take the place of the Lord Almighty. I have no intention of acknowledging you as my God - the one who reserves the right of naming His people to Himself - so it would seem your goal here is simply to have that attempt on record in earth as it is in Heaven.

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. 2:4)

Continue as you must. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

The group of believers that was originally given the name "Seventh-day Adventists" was substantially different than the group that claims exclusive rights to that name today. The original group had no creed and tolerated diverse beliefs. The current group has a creed and uses it to drive out folks who put the Bible above the creed. The original group was a church. The current group is a corporation.

Legally and technically, a new and different entity was created when the Seventh-day Adventist Church became a corporation, an entity that did not exist prior to incorporation

I don't see any evidence in the Bible that shows the followers of Jesus should be protecting any name other than the name of the Creator and the name of the Messiah. Jesus commissioned his followers with tasks to do before He returns. Bickering about organizational names doesn't seem to be part of that commission.

Jesus prayed for unity among His followers. Denominations build walls that destroy unity among believers.

[Pastor_Chick]

Originally Posted By: Qinael

I count four so far who are comfortable with attempting to take the place of the Lord Almighty. I have no intention of acknowledging you as my God - the one who reserves the right of naming His people to Himself - so it would seem your goal here is simply to have that attempt on record in earth as it is in Heaven.

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. 2:4)

Continue as you must. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

The group of believers that was originally given the name "Seventh-day Adventists" was substantially different than the group that claims exclusive rights to that name today. The original group had no creed and tolerated diverse beliefs. The current group has a creed and uses it to drive out folks who put the Bible above the creed. The original group was a church. The current group is a corporation.

Legally and technically, a new and different entity was created when the Seventh-day Adventist Church became a corporation, an entity that did not exist prior to incorporation

I don't see any evidence in the Bible that shows the followers of Jesus should be protecting any name other than the name of the Creator and the name of the Messiah. Jesus commissioned his followers with tasks to do before He returns. Bickering about organizational names doesn't seem to be part of that commission.

Jesus prayed for unity among His followers. Denominations build walls that destroy unity among believers.

Ron,

If you are SDA, it seems you are "the exception and not the rule." AND, if I have rightly understood your words, I can say that I fully agree.

Actually, it is an interesting study to find the roots of "religious corporations." They are a "child of the Papacy."

[Overaged]

'nuff,

"Seventh-day", "Adventist" and "SDA" are all protected by law, so variations using those words are not allowed, by law.

Are you sure "SDA" is protected by law? I thought the GC has asked people to not use this abbreviation, and to use the recommended on of "Adventist?"

Just asking/wondering.

[Pastor_Chick]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

"Seventh-day", "Adventist" and "SDA" are all protected by law, so variations using those words are not allowed, by law.

Are you sure "SDA" is protected by law? I thought the GC has asked people to not use this abbreviation, and to use the recommended on of "Adventist?"

Just asking/wondering.

Nice observation. The ludicrous part is that the GC wants BOTH to have control of the acronym "SDA" (exclusive rights to use it) and at the same time avoid all use of it. This is NOT "the mind of Christ."

The plan is to work towards having complete control of the term "Adventist" in the service mark class for "conducting religious observances and missionary services." Even though they have previously filed legal papers admitting to "no exclusive rights" in the name "Adventist," the GC wants to make a case for reversing that.

[Light Fox]

Along those lines, there's a thread over in Religious Liberty Issues that has a link to a court decision in Vanuatu, where the GC was able to get far more control than the U.S. has, as of yet, allowed them. In that country, "Seventh Day" was given exclusively to them as well.

[skyblue888]

"The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men." T.M.481.

Trademarking is a devising of men, is it not?

sky

[Pastor_Chick]

"The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men." T.M.481.

Trademarking is a devising of men, is it not?

sky

And, all who support the trademarking of the religion's name are "putting God aside." That "mistake" is sure to reap eternal consequences.

[skyblue888]

[Pastor_Chick]

If you are insinuating that I am supporting it just because I am not calling people to separate from the church, you are sadly mistaken brother Chick.

The Jews put God aside when they crucified Jesus and yet we are told that the Jewish people did not seal their rejection of God's mercy until the stoning of Stephen.

See C.O.L.308,308.

We are living in the time of "added probation" for the church.

sky

sky,

I find that you do not always read carefully. You have an agenda, and that is what comes out repeatedly. I made no insinuation about YOU at all. I was continuing with (building on) what you had already said.

This is ONE area we have some agreement on. Why do you become defensive?

As for your "added probation" theory, I find no light in it. The parallel you are trying to draw does not hold up for various reasons. But, this is not the thread for that discussion.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

"The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men." T.M.481.

Trademarking is a devising of men, is it not?

sky

__________________________

And, all who support the trademarking of the religion's name are "putting God aside." That "mistake" is sure to reap eternal consequences.

Pastor Chick______________________

Brother, I am not on the defensive. I'm on the offensive.

I said what I said because you and I may agree on this issue but we certainly do not agree on many other issues. You could have said something like, "I agree" it is one of men's devisings. That would have made a huge difference!

sky :)

[skyblue888]

As for your "added probation" theory, I find no light in it. The parallel you are trying to draw does not hold up for various reasons. But, this is not the thread for that discussion.

Pastor Chick

____________

Of course you don't find any light in that. Why would you brother Chick?

Can you give me one good reason why you would even consider that we might be living in the time of "added probation"?

In the meantime you may want to check C.O.L.228. You will see that it is no mere theory. Far from it.

sky

[skyblue888]

I find that you do not always read carefully. You have an agenda, and that is what comes out repeatedly.

Don't we all have an agenda and doesn't it come out repeatedly?

sky :)

[Guest arnie]

Sha-zam, talk about somebody being in the dark. . .I didn't know that our Church formed a corporation. It's rather embarrasing tohave been so far down in the cabbage patch. I've been part of a corporation, worked for corporations, filed corporation papers for businesses and so know a lot about what it means to be incorporated. There's no reason for this Church to incorporate. This entity was set up to protect businesses and was never intended to be involved in Church affairs. I find it appalling that this church would spend our tithe monies for such stupidity. This outfit is getting no more of my ten percent, period...They can protect their precious name out of there own deep pockets.

[Pastor_Chick]

Sha-zam, talk about somebody being in the dark. . .I didn't know that our Church formed a corporation. It's rather embarrasing tohave been so far down in the cabbage patch. I've been part of a corporation, worked for corporations, filed corporation papers for businesses and so know a lot about what it means to be incorporated. There's no reason for this Church to incorporate. This entity was set up to protect businesses and was never intended to be involved in Church affairs. I find it appalling that this church would spend our tithe monies for such stupidity. This outfit is getting no more of my ten percent, period...They can protect their precious name out of there own deep pockets.

Arnie,

Thank you for your input. Even though we (Creation 7th Day Adventists) are on the receiving end of the Corporation's wrath, we realize the potential necessity for establishing a corporation as a "holding company" for certain properties. It is when the Corporation steps into the realm of "religion," using the "sword of Caesar," to punish "heretics," we protest.

It is true that "business policy" within the mainstream has displaced the graces of Christ. We never collect tithes and offerings in a worship service -- we see no relevance in dealing with money on the Sabbath. And, we never solicit donations from others, but if you hold to your resolve not to pay tithes to the "corporate church," it is probably a reasonable decision. If more members would take your stand, perhaps the "money-changers" would eventually get the message.

[Planey]

"Seventh-day", "Adventist" and "SDA" are all protected by law, there may be more.

[Gordon1]

Sha-zam, talk about somebody being in the dark. . .I find it appalling that this church would spend our tithe monies for such stupidity.

You're not alone Arnie. Others are also concerned about stewardship.

Members for Church Accountability:

http://www.advmca.org/

[Stan]

there are a lot of scammers who impersonate Churches, including ours. Some of them milk members for huge amount of money.

they can easily start their own, but then they can not sludge after some organizations good name.

[CoAspen]

And that is the reason!

Perhaps if persons, all of us, were more concerned about our own walk with God and not others, we would have less time for some of the more inane topics that get devoured with such vigor!!!

[doug yowell]

there are a lot of scammers who impersonate Churches, including ours. Some of them milk members for huge amount of money.

they can easily start their own, but then they can not sludge after some organizations good name.

How bout this new name for the Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church: The Creation Church of Former Seventh-day Adventists? That should accurately cover all the bases. The name SDA stays and the good name of the mother church is not threatened.

[Gordon1]

How bout this new name for the Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church: The Creation Church of Former Seventh-day Adventists? That should accurately cover all the bases. The name SDA stays and the good name of the mother church is not threatened.

An interesting suggestion Doug.

But it may not lie well with the Creation Church if they believe they are bonafide Seventh day Adventists.

I've not examined their position.

[teresaq]

How bout this new name for the Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church: The Creation Church of Former Seventh-day Adventists?

I think it is rude and hurtful. And unnecessary.

I think we forget that there is a God in heaven Who looks down seeing the whole picture, while we see only a puzzle piece here and there.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

How bout this new name for the Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church: The Creation Church of Former Seventh-day Adventists?

I think it is rude and hurtful. And unnecessary.

As opposed to the present spiritual impasse? It was the OP thrust after all and I doubt that the present GC will ever acknowledge CSDAC as SDA or that the CSDA will ever give up their SDA identity. How bout this: The Former Creation Church of Seventh-day Adventists? Or this: The Creation Church of Reformed Seventh-day Adventists? (Think the Reform SDA will sue them?)