Buying groceries on sabbath

[Tom Wetmore]

Those things are not mutually exclusive, are they? Of course it speaks of loving them. Teaching them rules and how to respect themselves and others in not antithetical to loving them.

The question here is, why does God command us to love, obey and worship Him?

Who said they were? If you paid attention to what I posted, they weren't. The point is what makes the most difference. What is most important. Reread 1 Corinthians 13.

This is how misunderstandings happen...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Why does God command obedience, worship, and love?

Commanding to love is not love. Commanding obedience results in perfunctory obedience. And commanding worship does not result true worship.

Why did God give us that commandment?

Why does the Bible tell us that God said:

"You shall love the Lord with all your heart and your strength," etc.?

Did God give this command? Or do you believe it is strictly man-made and not anything God commanded?

[fccool]

I don't think you are understanding my point about human perception as it relates to true nature of God. True nature of God is not explainable in human terms. There's no real example in this world that you can compare or relay God to us.

That's why certain functions and ideas are used to relay the idea. It does not mean that that language is literal.

- Genesis speaks about God walking. Does God have legs with muscles and ligaments?

- There's no one that God would mate with to have a "son". He does not have a gender. He's God. Gender is a human idea.

But, as humans there's only way we can understand certain ideas, especially as ancient humans with extremely limited understanding and knowledge. That's why Bat was referred to as a bird, when it was clearly not a bird.

God is beyond "personality". God is beyond understanding. But, he is loving enough to relay some ideas that make sense to us and that are helpful in our human relationship with each other. We can't have a "relationship with God". We don't understand true nature of God, and we will never do. We can only understand it in context of our reality.

[BobRyan]

Bible is known for its symbolism and metaphorical meaning. In fact, this entire passage is a metaphor, calling Christ "Word" (of the Father?).

I don't think there are 3 literal persons of God. I believe that Christ is one of the expressions of God, the one that we can relate to Him through.

By definition, God is not a "person". Person is only applicable to a human being. God is a God. It's an entity that we can't describe. It's beyond description or perception.

In John 14 where we find the statements of Christ linking relationship with obedience ("If you love Me keep My commandments") -- Jesus also says that the Father is "greater than I" and that he is "Going to the Father".

Thus they are 3 distinct beings - persons but as we see in John 17 the prayer is that we may be one with Christ - even as Christ and the Father are one.

This is not the place to over analyze the text - but at least nothing there that justified doing away with the distinct person.

Jesus even said "My God My God why have you forsaken me" - on the cross. This only makes sense if they are different persons.

in Christ,

Bob

[fccool]

Quote:

Why did God give us that commandment?

He did not give it to "us". We read about it as a story in the book that tells about God relaying it to the nation. Then we draw our own conclusions about our theology. That's why there are so many different interpretations.

If God really came down and said, John and Andrey, I command you to love and obey me and do #1 #2 #3, then there would not be a question about it.

There's a reason why this does not happen. God does not want us to do things because it was "commanded to us". For some people on this earth, the Bible is a foreign concept. It's a legend, or great fable of the Jews. How are they to relate to is as "God gave us a command"?

The idea is not merely a verbal idea. It's woven into the fabric of reality and it works through human relations with each other. It can't be any other way.

Quote:

Why does the Bible tell us that God said:

"You shall love the Lord with all your heart and your strength," etc.?

Did God give this command? Or do you believe it is strictly man-made and not anything God commanded?

Once again. You read it and you personalize it. God did not send you and e-mail saying that you should do these things. You read them in a story about a group of semitic people that God chose for purpose of illustrating certain concepts. It does not mean that we are to do those things exactly the same way that they were commanded to do them. These are principles. They are not absolutes. If these were absolutes, then we would still gather in tabernacles and ate lamb for every passover to commemorate what Christ did.

They were commanded to do a lot of things that would be considered quite odd, and quite sadistic, and criminal in our society. Yet it served a certain purpose for these people, and for the whole world in general.

I can't knock on your door and tell you, I've read in the Bible that God commands us to love him. Would you like to love him with me?

It's like walking over to a person and saying "I command you to marry me" It's stupid. That's not what God wants. And Israel was an illustration that without proper perspective, meaningless obedience that's void of understanding does not do anything to change person for the better. In fact, it changes them for the worse, because it makes them feel better and more important (close to God) than other people. That's not what God is all about. He's not going to love you more or less if you obey him more or less. That's not love. That's a financial transaction.

You can't command a person to love you. You can't even ask them to love you. Love is a voluntary expression that's reserved to a free-willing individual to give. You can't beat it out of him.

The same goes for worship, and obedience.

[John317]

But based on what you believe the Word of God teaches, can you give cardw your reasoned response to what he is asking here?

Why does God command obedience, worship, and love?

Originally Posted By: gretta

God commands that we obey, worship, and love Him for our own good (much like everything else). We become like what we worship, and we all worship something, and God alone is worthy.

Thank you for your comment. I totally agree with you.

[fccool]

Thus they are 3 distinct beings - persons but as we see in John 17 the prayer is that we may be one with Christ - even as Christ and the Father are one.

This is not the place to over analyze the text - but at least nothing there that justified doing away with the distinct person.

Jesus even said "My God My God why have you forsaken me" - on the cross. This only makes sense if they are different persons.

Bob,

Thank you for the perspective. Person, or "personality" is a mask of conciseness that has none. It's an expression of conciesness. I don't want to sound too "New Agy" and turn people off, but it's a fact of psychology.

Person is an ego. It's our idea of "self" that we associate with and are aware of and relate with other people using a "mask", hence the etymology. It's a mask. We give ourselves a name, we associate ourselves with certain likes and dislikes that we have, our skills, our jobs, our location, our style, and our looks. All of that eventually makes a "person".

In terms of unchanging and perfect being, that idea is somewhat very difficult to conceive. God is not something we can describe in terms of a person. It somewhat primitive, but I guess it does work with us, and it had to work with people whose only concept of gods were a collective of Statues assembled from mixing and matching human and animal parts.

True nature of God is very difficult to conceive. You are saying that God has 3 distinct beings based on theology perspective strung up together by a certain theological stream.

The history of the issue is much more complex and is not as "clear" as you think it to be, and solution for many problems is a trinitarian view of three distinct entities of God, each having their own "body", their own thoughts and their own desires. I don't believe that's what God is. That's by definition a poly-theism (not that it would be negative, if it was true).

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: fccool

A dog is an intelligent and thinking living being. Is dog a person?

There are so many people who think so. hehehe

sorry carry on.

Not so far off the topic actually... at least not the current sidetrack.

Some seem hung up on words and fail to understand what is meant, i.e. obvious metaphors and contemporary English words translated from Greek, which were likely originally spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic that were ancient human languages, explaining divine things that were beyond human language spoken to ancient man by the divine to people who did not speak or understand the language of heaven.

It is like having a conversation with a dog. I look at him and tell him I am rather fond of him. He tilts his head and looks at me quizzically. So I try again. This time, I give him a biscuit. He happily eats it, wags his tail and follows me wherever I go. That is, until he sees a rabbit. I yell after him that I am rather fond of him and that I want him to stop chasing the rabbit and stay with me. (The rabbit is my other pet, so I'd rather he not eat it.) He pays no heed to my request so I yell, "STOP!" He stops. So I give him another biscuit. He lick my hand, so I think he finally gets what I mean... until he sees the mailman. This could go on forever, so I grab him by the jowls and say "Arf! ARF!" He wags his tail, licks my face and lays down at my feet... I think he gets it... until the rabbit shows up again. I decide that the only way I can get him to understand is if I can become a dog somehow and live like a dog and speak doggy language with him.

We are like that dog and God is trying to speak to us in barks and whines and growls. He did clone himself into a dog just like us. We still don't understand all that well, because he came as a French poodle and we are English bulldogs.

[John317]

Those things are not mutually exclusive, are they? Of course it speaks of loving them. Teaching them rules and how to respect themselves and others in not antithetical to loving them.

The question here is, why does God command us to love, obey and worship Him?

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Who said they were? If you paid attention to what I posted, they weren't.

The Bible says they were.

You flatly contradict Jesus Christ:

Matt. 22:37 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.

22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

There's a diffence between paying attention to your opinion and paying attention to the plain word of God, Tom. I do pay attention to what you write, but that does not mean that I am persuaded by your private interpretations.

You claim that God did not give humans the command to love, obey, and worship Him.

Would you by any chance also say that God did not command human beings to love their neighbor as they love themselves? Matt. 19: 19;

Did God command us to honor our father and mother? Ex. 20: 12.

Did God command us to keep the Sabbath day holy? Ex. 20: 8-11.

Didn't God also command us not to have any other Gods before Him? Ex. 20: 3

[ClubV12]

The concept of the triology,,,, how did we get THAT far off topic?

Anyway, it's not complicated at all, Seventh-day Adventists fundamental beliefs explain it in easy to understand terms. It's fundamental belief, #2 the Trinity, #3 the Father, #4 the Son and #5 the Holy Spirit. Three separate and distinct eternal beings with no beginning and no end by whom ALL things were created. Every atom, every ray of light, every molecule, every clump of dark matter, gravity, every piece of matter, every spec of space dust, every heavenly Universe, every star, every planet, every heavenly intelligence of any and every description, every inhabited planet (there are many, earth is only one, a tiny spec of creation). Before all of this, there were three beings ever in existence, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If your a Seventh-day Adventist, the Trinity is "fundamental".

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

A dog is an intelligent and thinking living being. Is dog a person?

There are so many people who think so. hehehe

sorry carry on.

I find a lot of human traits in my dogs. They certainly are a good example of unconditional love. They love you just because they have it in them to give. Your approval is a plus.

Is it an accident that God and dog are so similar in spelling (this one is a joke, but not a meaningless one)

[fccool]

The concept of the triology,,,, how did we get THAT far off topic?

Anyway, it's not complicated at all, Seventh-day Adventists fundamental beliefs explain it in easy to understand terms. It's fundamental belief, #2 the Trinity, #3 the Father, #4 the Son and #5 the Holy Spirit. Three separate and distinct eternal beings with no beginning and no end by whom ALL things were created. Every atom, every ray of light, every molecule, every clump of dark matter, gravity, every piece of matter, every spec of space dust, every heavenly Universe, every star, every planet, every heavenly intelligence of any and every description, every inhabited planet (there are many, earth is only one, a tiny spec of creation). Before all of this, there were three beings ever in existence, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If your a Seventh-day Adventist, the Trinity is "fundamental".

Lol. It's like saying that if you are an American patriot, then you support all three of the wars, and you should vote for a Republican president. I really don't mean to be political, but that's what it sounds like.

Adventism is not a "set" collection of ideas that you "fit into". Adventism is an ever-evolving movement of certain theological perspectives. Historically it was a composite of various ideas that went through various revisions and changes.

You can't say that just because a person does not hold a distinctly Trinitarian view, that would disqualify him/her from being a uniquely Adventist.

My view on the subject does not disqualify trinitarian view. It simply enhances it. You see water, ice, and steam. I see H20.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: John317

Those things are not mutually exclusive, are they? Of course it speaks of loving them. Teaching them rules and how to respect themselves and others in not antithetical to loving them.

The question here is, why does God command us to love, obey and worship Him?

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Who said they were? If you paid attention to what I posted, they weren't.

The Bible says they were.

You flatly contradict Jesus Christ:

Matt. 22:37 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.

22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

There's a diffence between paying attention to your opinion and paying attention to the plain word of God, Tom. I do pay attention to what you write, but that does not mean that I am persuaded by your private interpretations.

You claim that God did not give humans the command to love, obey, and worship Him.

Would you by any chance also say that God did not command human beings to love their neighbor as they love themselves? Matt. 19: 19;

Did God command us to honor our father and mother? Ex. 20: 12.

Did God command us to keep the Sabbath day holy? Ex. 20: 8-11.

Didn't God also command us not to have any other Gods before Him? Ex. 20: 3

WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU RANTING ON AND ON ABOUT!?!?

If you can't understand a simple statement of me agreeing with you how on earth can I expect to you to understand anything else I say!?!?

Good grief man! Slow down and pay attention to the flow of the conversation before you respond!

Speaking of love and obedience you asked, "Those things are not mutually exclusive, are they?"

Seeing that as unnecessarily misunderstanding and reading something into what I had actually posted, I responded, "Who said they were? If you paid attention to what I posted, they weren't."

That is all I was responding to.

[ClubV12]

"Adventism is not a "set" collection of ideas that you "fit into"."

Uh,, yes,, it is. Like any group, organization or club, it has rules for membership. I could call myself a member of Congress, but that won't make it so. If your a Seventh-day Adventist, a baptized member of the church, you have accepted, at some point, the fundamental beliefs of that organization. If you have rejected them, at some point, you shouldn't call yourself an Adventist any more than you would call yourself a Senator. I COULD call myself a Senator and not declare what Senate or where said Senate is. But I'm not fooling you if I do, you just know better. And trust me, those who call themselves Seventh-day Adventists around here don't fool people for to long either. There are a number of folks on this forum that call themeselves Seventh-day Adventists. Uh huh, yeah, right, well OK then, carry on and good luck with that. Your only fooling yourself....

You know, for the last 30 years or so I never called myself a christian for one reason. I didn't want to lower the standard of what it meant to be a christian. I had to much respect for that group, that organization, that body of believers. Today, I'm glad to call myself not only a christian, but a Seventh-day Adventist.

[Parade Orange]

rules for membership to our exclusive club are broad and played out diferently in our lives cause we are different and individuals

i know many christians are all about being comfortable!!!

and its very comforting to see other SDA christians doing everything like we think they should

it is not very comfortable when they dont!

[fccool]

The problem with your analogy is that being a Congressman, or a Senator does not revolve around certain set of standards outside of being certain age, and certain geographic location. There are Democratic, Independent, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Tea Party Senators Congress People. All of them are united under certain idea that Democratic process is the proper way of governing a society. They will have their distinct disagreements, but they probably agree on more things that they disagree, when you break it down point-by-point.

The statement above is a very proud statement. Essentially it rings of certain familiar "I'm glad that I'm not like all of the other _____ " sentiment.

I've met a lot of loving people who put me to shame as to their love for their fellow men. They hardly have the same theological education that I do, but they understand and love God more than I do. I admire those people. They are not distinctly Chirstian, or Adventists. Neither they can quote Bible verses to support their belief. But they GET IT. Because they ARE IT, for many people.

Adventism is a label. It's a box of beliefs that you go through like you would through a box of old school notebooks. It can enhance your knowledge of Biblical trivia, but in the end it's meaningless if you view it as a club that you join by passing a quiz with with "yes" to all of the questions that are presented to you. God does not care how much you know. He care how much you love.

Unfortunately, that's what it is for many people, a club. And clubs do go out of style, and they simply turn into a building full of old people entertaining themselves in a way that works for them.

( if you are an old person on this board, I have a great deal of respect for you. The analogy does hold for young people too :)

[John317]

WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU RANTING ON AND ON ABOUT!?!?

If you can't understand a simple statement of me agreeing with you how on earth can I expect to you to understand anything else I say!?!?

Good grief man! Slow down and pay attention to the flow of the conversation before you respond!

Here was the exchange:

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Those things are not mutually exclusive, are they? Of course it speaks of loving them. Teaching them rules and how to respect themselves and others in not antithetical to loving them.

The question here is, why does God command us to love, obey and worship Him?

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Who said they were? If you paid attention to what I posted, they weren't. The point is what makes the most difference. What is most important. Reread 1 Corinthians 13.

Why does God command us to love, obey and worship Him?

[ClubV12]

How you live out your christian life is between you and God. How you live out your Seventh-day Adventist life comes with "rules", some of which are not open to discussion or debate. Now I'm just telling it like it is, if bothers some folks, talk to your Pastor or the Conference or the GC about changing the rules. Until they change, it is what it is. To be baptized there is a certain set of rules you agree to, or not get baptized, free choice. After baptism you get voted into membership, or not, that depends on the local members. If you violate any of a set of rules outlined in the Church Manual you can be removed from membership. I didn't write the rules, but I do support them.

Work on the Sabbath? Uh,,, well, fact is, you can be disfellowshipped for that. Now thats a fact. Some may not like it, but if we ignore, we lower the standards of what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist to the very dust. If your disfellowshipped, your not a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church. There are of course a number of other "rules" that must be followed to maintain membership in this particular group. I've been a member of many different groups throughout my life, the too had "rules". Violate the rules, your kicked out. It's a rather simple concept, it pretty much works that way for all groups, all over the world.

Maybe I'll start calling myself a Mormon again, I'm not sure certain family members would appreciate that, but why I should I care what they think? I'll just blow 'em off and call myself whatever I want, if they get uptight about it, thats there problem. It's not like they can kick me out, right?

[fccool]

John, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

[John317]

Yes, I've a great interest in Plato's dialogues and have the complete set in several different translations. I've read most of them, some of them several times.

But what I'm talking about on this thread isn't a philosophical discussion. It's about what the Bible teaches. That is not the same thing as having a philosophical dialogue about some abstract idea or even about the philosophy of religion.

It would be interesting to do that on a different thread, but that isn't appropriate here.

[fccool]

Quote:

How you live out your christian life is between you and God. How you live out your Seventh-day Adventist life comes with "rules", some of which are not open to discussion or debate. Now I'm just telling it like it is, if bothers some folks, talk to your Pastor or the Conference or the GC about changing the rules. Until they change, it is what it is. To be baptized there is a certain set of rules you agree to, or not get baptized, free choice. After baptism you get voted into membership, or not, that depends on the local members. If you violate any of a set of rules outlined in the Church Manual you can be removed from membership. I didn't write the rules, but I do support them.

I don't even know how to begin to respond to this statement in a way that you can understand. I can see that you have a different mindset that I can't particularly communicate with really well.

Let's just say that God does not really care about "the rules". I know this may sound as a heresy to you, and quite shocking, but "the rules" are not of primary concern to God.

It may seem odd having all of those rules in the Bible that Jews were to follow. But those rules were called "the law of the land" that were punished by death if you broke them. You were signing an agreement with God with a blood that you would enter the land that expects perfection for the sake of the world to which that perfection was to be relayed to. But the essence of that perfection were not "rules". The essence of that perfection was love. Hardly any of those "We will follows all your rules" people really followed the rules. They cheated. They fulfilled the obligation, but they failed to reach understanding.

Church is a voluntary organization of people who love God. It's not a "club". It's not a "corporation". It's a gathering of people who want to spread and share and communicate the love of God to each other and people around them. You can't do that through "rules"

Quote:

Work on the Sabbath? Uh,,, well, fact is, you can be disfellowshipped for that. Now thats a fact. Some may not like it, but if we ignore, we lower the standards of what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist to the very dust. If your disfellowshipped, your not a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church. There are of course a number of other "rules" that must be followed to maintain membership in this particular group. I've been a member of many different groups throughout my life, the too had "rules". Violate the rules, your kicked out. It's a rather simple concept, it pretty much works that way for all groups, all over the world.

Instead of condemning people who work on Sabbath, how about helping them to find a job or situation that would allow them not to?

It's a very abrasive attitude that points out the "rule-breakers", yet ignores their personal situation. If it was a choice between working on Sabbath, and my family starving... I would work on Sabbath until God could provide other means. My love for my family is a fulfillment of God's love. If there are no other means, then I would rather burn in hell out of existence than my family suffer needlessly.

God knows love from "rules". God is not about rules, he is about love. The essense of SDA theology should revolve around love. If it's anything more or less than that, then it's a form of meaningless exercise of self-gratification.

Quote:

Maybe I'll start calling myself a Mormon again, I'm not sure certain family members would appreciate that, but why I should I care what they think? I'll just blow 'em off and call myself whatever I want, if they get uptight about it, thats there problem.

God does not care what you call yourself. He cares that you love people.

[fccool]

Yes, I've a great interest in Plato's dialogues and have the complete set in several different translations. I've read most of them, some of them several times.

But what I'm talking about on this thread isn't a philosophical discussion. It's about what the Bible teaches. That is not the same thing as having a philosophical dialogue about some abstract idea or even about the philosophy of religion.

It would be interesting to do that on a different thread, but that isn't appropriate here.

I was actually pointing to the dilemma in theology, which is relevant to this thread.

1) Love is a voluntary expression.

2) Is it genuine, if it's a response to a command?

How can you command someone to love? Love can't be a response to a command by mere definition of what love is. Isn't that how you explain the problem of evil to begin with, that God does not desire robotic obedience? Commanding love can't bring about anything other than robotic obedience.

Perhaps commanding understanding can, but not commanding love. Love is a result of understanding. No matter how much you command a car to drive, if it has no fuel or a driver... it's a standstill.

But if the car has fuel and driver who is looking to drive, then command to drive is a mere formality. There's no need for that command.

[ClubV12]

Actually, Sister White makes it clear God cares a lot about the people who call themselves Seventh-day Adventist and use that name. The name itself is of divine origin, I would dare not take it in vain. Turns out the General Conference cares enough to sue you for improper use of the name, they have a "fundamental" obligation to protect it. I care about the name, my family cares about their name. They would be aghast if I called myself a Mormon, because their church cares about that name.

Well, I'm no Senator and I'm not a Mormon...

You don't get kicked out of any organization without going through a process. Like, trying to find another job so you don't have to work on Sabbath. If your not looking for another job, if you don't care, you leave the ORGANIZATION, the LEGAL ENTITY no choice but to take action. To protect their name and have at least minimum rules. This is not a difficult concept, it's recognized all over the planet AND in heaven!

[cardw]

Yes, I've a great interest in Plato's dialogues and have the complete set in several different translations. I've read most of them, some of them several times.

But what I'm talking about on this thread isn't a philosophical discussion. It's about what the Bible teaches. That is not the same thing as having a philosophical dialogue about some abstract idea or even about the philosophy of religion.

It would be interesting to do that on a different thread, but that isn't appropriate here.

[Words that were off topic and of a personal nature deleted by the moderator.]

So, since it is obvious that you have no understanding of my position, I will leave you to your world view.

[fccool]

Quote:

Actually, Sister White makes it clear God cares a lot about the people who call themselves Seventh-day Adventist and use that name. The name itself is of divine origin, I would dare not take it in vain. Turns out the General Conference cares enough to sue you for improper use of the name, they have a "fundamental" obligation to protect it. I care about the name, my family cares about their name. They would be aghast if I called myself a Mormon, because their church cares about that name.

The issue here is that this "divine name" is elevated above the love that it supposed to represent. That's why GC will have no problem throwing people in jail over it under the banner of godliness (it is no way resembles the dark age style of counter reformation/inquisition)

Quote:

Well, I'm no Senator and I'm not a Mormon...

You don't get kicked out of any organization without going through a process. Like, trying to find another job so you don't have to work on Sabbath. If your not looking for another job, if you don't care, you leave the ORGANIZATION, the LEGAL ENTITY no choice but to take action. To protect their name and have at least minimum rules. This is not a difficult concept, it's recognized all over the planet AND in heaven!

I don't think you properly understand concept of Godly love. You view Christianity as a collection of rules and organizational principles that are bundled under a banner of SDA. I don't.

We should love and welcome people irrespective of their religious status, or understanding of our theology. Likewise we should be more patient with those who have something to show us about ours.

You are coming from a perspective that what you believe is a %100 correct, as it is told to you by your organization. It's not a very great place to be, given the situation that our country in, and clearly demonstrable fact that organization of any type is prone to corruption, self-interest, and greed.

Organization is not the same as Church. Church is a voluntary organization, with God keeping the membership records. SDA membership is meaningless for the most part. It's a man-made formality that one can bend by checking "yes" to all of the answers. God on other hand, you can't do that to. You have to actually show something for people to see God in you.