Why I am a former SDA

[Tom Wetmore]

...The Forum attracts all sorts of people who aren't SDA or who aren't active, committed SDAs, and many others who are downright anti-SDA and/or anti-EGW and anti-Bible. It would be helpful if people would identify themselves as SDA or non-SDA, etc., but very few will do it for some reason.

Yeah, it would make it so much easier. Then we could read the label and really not pay any attention to what they actually say before we yell "AMEN!", excoriate them, or just plain ignore them. We wouldn't have to read what they say anymore before we launch into our preset agenda...

Life would be so much easier if everyone really had a visible label marked in their forehead ...

[ClubV12]

If folks can't determine if you are or are not a Seventh-day Adventist here on this forum, your neighbors won't have a clue either! How sad is that, the people called to be a light to the world are to embarrased and confused to let the light shine.

...remarkable.

Chaff is chaff, whether you got a high school education or a PhD, God is not respector of persons. There are only two classes of people, those who serve God and those who don't. Those who are unafraid to witness for Him and those who hide their light.

[fccool]

Quote:

Chaff is chaff, whether you got a high school education or a PhD, God is not respector of persons. There are only two classes of people, those who serve God and those who don't. Those who are unafraid to witness for Him and those who hide their light.

I think I could be more reasonable and diplomatic and say it in terms of Tom, who would elaborate and explain, but it does not see that people generally respond to reason.

So let me give you an analogy from the opposite of your sentence above.

There are really two types of people in the world. The non-religious, and simpletons...

If you can't discuss subjects apart from desperate ab-hominem to validate what you believe, then perhaps you can't really rationally defend your belief to resort to such low mentality.

[miz3]

Just read bits and pieces of thie thread. There is much that I have not absorbed, but I am very sympathetic to Bravus' perspective. I am still active in my SDA church despite deep personal conflicts with the bulk of what most people identify as Adventism and the thinking that surrounds it. The biggest problem for me is how little "loyal" Adventists examine the beliefs.

Consider the two previous posts.

I am sure John317 knows what the Bible has to say, but why don't we consider it applicable to Adventism. Never has God invested more in a movement than He did the Isrealites as a people to represent His truth to the world, but when God appeared in the flesh the religious instituion put him to death. It was those who the institution would have viewed as the chaf that accepted him.

Bravus comments on the SDA concept of a shaking and how those who leave the organization are always considered the chaf. But, Jesus clearly withdrew from the "God established establishment" of his day and called the people to "follow Him". Was he calling them to be chaf? The protestant reformation resulted in a shaking and many left the Roman Catholic church. Were they the chaf?

I think when Paul said "we wrestle against principalities and powers" we should interpret this to include institutions and organizations. History teaches us that in this world institutions and organizations will eventually be shaped by those who put their own agenda before God's. No matter how righteous they might appear, spirtual leaders who have substituted a personal agenda for God's will, lose the ability to respect the conscience of the truth seekers because the themselves have given up the search.

Well said.

[miz3]

'Shaking' is a convenient concept, isn't it? It got a run at Adventist Today, too.

It immediately defines all who leave as the chaff and all who stay as the wheat.

Pretty sure it ain't always that simple...

[doug yowell]

But, Jesus clearly withdrew from the "God established establishment" of his day and called the people to "follow Him". Was he calling them to be chaf? The protestant reformation resulted in a shaking and many left the Roman Catholic church. Were they the chaf?

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.

[ClubV12]

fccool, Ellen White is the one who says there are only two classes of people, I was being somewhat politically correct in the way I said it. SHE said, and I fully agree there are only two classes:

Those who are working for the devil.

Those who are working for God.

How many groups will be there in the judgment? Those who enter the city and those who do not, only two.

God isn't concerned about being "politically correct", lives are at stake, this is no time to be wishy washy and unclear on the concept.

[miz3]

Right vs wrong has never been determined by "who leaves" - nor do you find in the SDA set of voted beliefs that "anyone that leaves any group must be wrong".

The standard, the test of all faith and doctrine is the Bible. All doctrines of the SDA church are proved, and tested via the Bible.

If you have a Bible case against them - then make it.

If your position is that you simply do not but that must faith, trust, stock in the Bible - then you would be making the right observation to note that such a world view is not compatible with Seventh-day Adventist beliefs.

in Christ,

Bob

Typically weak. The SDA Doctrines (28) are not supported from the Bible. This has been truly expressed to you Bob, however, you reject the clear Word of God in order to protect your misguided views and fantasies of the SDA Church (.org).

For example, the Sanctuary doctrine, IJ doctrine, 1844, Ellen White as being foretold in the Bible, etc. are not Biblical but SDA believe in them because of their Western Civ roots which Ellen White also believed and gave her stamp of approval to. Thus, SDA beliefs and theology is built on this human foundation and interpretation of Scripture. It is not based solely on the Scripture itself.

Without such narrow minded roots to depend on and taking the Bible only as it is those 'doctrines' go out the window because they are unBiblical and as such are just plane wrong.

In short, the SDA doctrines are based on Western Civ/Ellen White and not on the Bible alone.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: John317

...The Forum attracts all sorts of people who aren't SDA or who aren't active, committed SDAs, and many others who are downright anti-SDA and/or anti-EGW and anti-Bible. It would be helpful if people would identify themselves as SDA or non-SDA, etc., but very few will do it for some reason.

Yeah, it would make it so much easier. Then we could read the label and really not pay any attention to what they actually say before we yell "AMEN!", excoriate them, or just plain ignore them. We wouldn't have to read what they say anymore before we launch into our preset agenda...

"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.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Rudy G

But, Jesus clearly withdrew from the "God established establishment" of his day and called the people to "follow Him". Was he calling them to be chaf? The protestant reformation resulted in a shaking and many left the Roman Catholic church. Were they the chaf?

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.

It is just semantics to say they were excommunicated or the left of their own self. The two are in effect the same thing.

Reformation if unsuccessful always ends in separation. The only difference is in who does the separating. Regardless the result is the same.

Whether Bravus left of his own free will because of his differences with/within the SDA .org or was excommunicated by the SDA .org because of said differences is irrelevant. Separation is separation regardless of the perpetrator of such separation.

Whether the Jews excommunicated Jesus and His disciples is not relevant. The separation is the separation regardless. Jesus Christ had deep differences theologically with the Jews and that alone is separation by FACT regardless of who formally performs the physical separation.

The differences remain regardless of whether you are formally and physically thrown out or you just left or whether you stay and nothing else happens.

[Tom Wetmore]

"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.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The parable of the blind men and an elephant has crossed between many religious traditions and is part of Jain, Buddhist, Sufi and Hindu lore. In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.

As often said....a failure to see the whole, being confident in the part we hold the dearest.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: 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.

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?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: miz3

[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?

Excellent post doug, the assumptions are just astounding. Kind of reminds me of Roberts posts that everything people do equals legalism. If you don't understand something just label it.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

In particular, I aspire to 'Christ-ianity': following the teachings and example of Jesus.

Here's another statement I'm having difficulty reconciling with your previous statements. Jesus never asserted that the OT was a book filled with a hodgepodge of human distortions and Divine revelation but rather validated it's overall authority on almost every occasion He spoke("The Scriptures cannot be broken"..."They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them...if they don't believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe though one rose from the dead" "they are they that testify of Me" "Do not think I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you---Moses...for if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, but if you don't believe his writings,how will you believe My words?" ect...ect... Given these assertions by Jesus as to the reliability of the writings of Moses (incuding Numbers 31)how can you dismiss the stories and teachings of the Bible (in this case, the OT) as a conflicting moral statement? Can you find one example where He casts doubt on the total Divinity of the Bible record? And how can you then say that you are following the teachings of Jesus? Can you clarify this?

Again doug an excellent post.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Rudy G

But, Jesus clearly withdrew from the "God established establishment" of his day and called the people to "follow Him". Was he calling them to be chaf? The protestant reformation resulted in a shaking and many left the Roman Catholic church. Were they the chaf?

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.

Another excellent post doug. And just to add, Jesus was not kicked out of the Jewish religion, he was rejected as the Messiah. He was born, raised, lived and died a Jew in good standing. It was after his death that a new movement was started, called "the way" and eventually this movement became the Christian Church.

[ClubV12]

A very important point phk, Jesus never left the church, He loved the church and blessed the widow and her two mites dropped in the offering plate to sustain that church.

[miz3]

Another excellent post doug. And just to add, Jesus was not kicked out of the Jewish religion, he was rejected as the Messiah. He was born, raised, lived and died a Jew in good standing. It was after his death that a new movement was started, called "the way" and eventually this movement became the Christian Church.

Once again vain worship of empty facts and logic on your part.

Jesus Christ as an adult was never accepted as a Jew in "good standing". They constantly railed against Him and His disciples because in their view Jesus and His followers were constantly breaking the Sabbath among many other "Jew in good standing doctrines". The "Jewish Leaders" were afraid to act because of the people otherwise they would have thrown Christ out of the Church. Eventually they got their opportunity and didn't just throw Christ out of the Church but killed Him as a criminal. At Christ's trial they denied ever having anything to do with Christ to the Romans.

Mr. pkrause you need to read the Gospels carefully so as to get an accurate picture before saying "good post doug".

Second the moment Jesus Christ began acquiring disciples Jesus was building His new Church. Before His death Christ told the disciples that they were going to part of His new Church.

Again, you need to read carefully and correctly the facts as they are found in the Gospels instead of worshiping at the shrine of false facts and gleefully saying "good post doug" because you don't like what others have to say.

[cheddar]

There are really two types of people in the world. The non-religious, and simpletons...

LOL

[Gail]

There are really two types of people in the world. The non-religious, and simpletons...

I wouldn't say that... Some of the most profound, humble people have been spiritual ones

[Bravus]

Let's note that that was offered as an example of a silly statement.

[Gail]

Let's note that that was offered as an example of a silly statement.

You gotta forgive me, Bravus, but I didn't follow back all the way to where it was first posted. If it was you, of course I would have taken it thus.

[BobRyan]

...The Forum attracts all sorts of people who aren't SDA or who aren't active, committed SDAs, and many others who are downright anti-SDA and/or anti-EGW and anti-Bible. It would be helpful if people would identify themselves as SDA or non-SDA, etc., but very few will do it for some reason.

[BobRyan]

But, Jesus clearly withdrew from the "God established establishment" of his day and called the people to "follow Him". Was he calling them to be chaf? The protestant reformation resulted in a shaking and many left the Roman Catholic church. Were they the chaf?

[aldona]

Originally Posted By: fccool

There are really two types of people in the world. The non-religious, and simpletons...

I wouldn't say that... Some of the most profound, humble people have been spiritual ones

There is a world of difference between "religious" and "spiritual." A person may be both, but not necessarily. The terms are not interchangeable.

AJ (striving to be more spiritual and less religious)