Why I am a former SDA

[M. T. Cross]

Read Exodus 20 after the Ten Commandments part is ended - and Isaiah 8:12-13 -- then get back to us on that.

Uh huh........... sorry Bob missing your point there.

I was very clear on what kind of fear I was speaking of. Club responded with a post about fear. Really if he is talking about the other kind then its a pretty childish twisting of words.

[Overaged]

Well as nice as that sounds on the surface - the details do not support your take in this case - if you actually pay attention to EmptyCross's stated positions and Bravus' stated positions about SDA doctrine.

Maybe you meant that post for another thread.

in Christ,

Bob

Tom's post was actually just fine in this thread. People who have left the church are not our enemies, in most cases. Often; they have regrets about not being in the church; yet there are reasons they cannot go back. We should learn to look past the doctrinal thing in the interest of showing them some human decency and respect.

It might come as a shocker to some here; but the real straight testimony is something that has always made "real adventists" shudder in repulsion. The real straight testimony speaks to us of the love of Christ shown and practiced to the helpless human agent. The "straight" part comes when some decide that we shall not be friends, or friendly with ones who have wandered. They have decided that certain do not merit being shown this love; and that the only way this could be changed is if they "accept" the same beliefs as us. Correct belief of any or all doctrines will not earn us one iota of merit with Christ Correct belief of all doctrine does not make us a "true Adventist."

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

It is understandable that you as a non-SDA would identify with Bravus leaving the SDA church.

I think we can all see how such a thing could be.

in Christ' date='

Bob

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

From a simplistic pov this attempt at mastery of the obvious might seem witty and a self-satisfying affirmation of ones pov, but it is simply incorrect in too many cases to give it any credence.

People leave the church for many reasons and very often because of differences that are quite incompatible. There are any number of ex-Adventists with whom you likely agree on certain points and topics. And as is painfully obvious there are huge conflicts amongst those here professing strongly that they are solid Adventists.

I find it difficult to understand the mentality that if someone leaves the group, we must reject everything they say. That is the nonsense of labeling that I spoke against perviously.

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Well as nice as that sounds on the surface - the details do not support your take in this case - if you actually pay attention to EmptyCross's stated positions and Bravus' stated positions about SDA doctrine.

Maybe you meant that post for another thread.

in Christ,

Bob [/quote']

I do identify with Bravus on this - cause we just happen to share very similiar opinions.

I also identify with hockey fans, metal fans, people that like spagetti, apples and lemon honey tea. Also I feel a common ground with people that like old architecture, people that struggle with addictions, people taht come from homes that left them empty and hollow. I bet somewhere in there we have a common ground Bob.

My view on Adventist doctrine, EGW, The Bible, and Christianity are based on my personal experience. Why my opinion, or Bravus' opinion gets some so up in arms is beyond me. If you are secure in what you believe should you not be able to engage in a mature debate and discussion? If you disagree with my beliefs I have no issue with that. I expected that coming in here. What surprises me is the aggressive, borderline hateful direction that disagreeing takes. Again - if that is the way a "True Saved Christian " acts then I guess I will resign myself to hell. Good thing for me I don't think that is the way it is tho.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Based upon some discussions that we have had, I'd tend to think that you agree more with the SDA position than disagree with it...

Those are 'for starters"...I am curious...are you saying that you have major disagreements with these questions?

I'll have a go at answering these, though I suspect some might use it as ammunition... I want to be honest and as clear as I can be.

Quote:

1]For example, God exists....right?

Yes. This is something I continue to wrestle with... I'm firm in the belief that God exists, but at the same time the God that most SDAs believe in fairly clearly does not exist. The interventionist, miracle-doing, prayer-answering God, as far as I can tell from all the evidence and experience I have accumulated, does not exist. We've had this discussion here in the past, and I've also written a number of blog posts on the issue, over a number of years, some of which I'll link here.

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2580

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2364

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2331

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2257

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1994

I certainly don't believe in the vengeful God, waiting to pounce on those who don't do it exactly the way he wants, that is being implicitly portrayed in many of the comments here. If the words of Jesus and the Bible as a whole tell us anything, it's of a God who is eager and desperate for salvation and reconciliation, not destruction and 'gotcha'.

Quote:

2]Ten commandments was given by God to the world...right?

See below on the Bible.

Quote:

3]Bible is the clearest expression of God's will for mankind, as opposed to ...oh, say...the Koran?

Nope, I'm afraid not. *Everything* on earth, including the Bible, includes something of Eden and something of the Fall. Some God and some humanity (and perhaps even some Satan). The Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the oral traditions of the animist tribes of New Guinea, Zoroastrianism, the narratives of the Greek and Roman gods... all can point us toward God, and all can also cause harm.

It really does boil down to a form of prejudice, this conviction that the tradition into which we were born - through the purest historical and geographical accident - is higher than all others. All it really takes is lifting our eyes enough from our own ethnocentrism to realise that everyone in every other tradition believes the same thing, and that it's arrogant to raise our own historical accident above theirs.

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2273

Quote:

4]Seventh day is God's Sabbath...right?

See above. The notion of a Sabbath is an awesome one, and something I still keep, even though perhaps not along the lines of the SDA rules. But the whole 'Sabbath as the seal of God, Sunday as the Mark of the Beast' argument was a branding exercise in the early SDA church, a point of difference from mainstream Christianity. There is less and less likelihood of even a national Sunday law in the US, let alone a universal one. Again, lifting our eyes outside the bounds of our own culture helps us realise that these claims simply do not gibe with reality. But I still enjoy my Sabbath rest.

Quote:

5] God created mankind...right?

Yes, I believe he did. But he used the mechanisms of the Big Bang and evolution to do so. The evidence is pretty much irrefutable on those points. Now, *to me*, that should not put me beyond the pale of Adventism, but you have seen here - and it's been over many, many years - that I have been told very firmly and clearly that there's no place for me in the SDA fold if I believe in evolution (biologically and cosmologically). Apparently I have to limit God's creative power and majesty to a particular literalistic take on Genesis...

Apologies for all the links out to the blog, but these are not simple issues and simple questions, and I've put in the work and thought over the years to wrestle with them. I'd rather point people in the direction of those on-going wrestles... by all means skip the blogs and just read what's here if you like.

I don't mean to disparage the beliefs of others, either: if it sounds like it, please recognise that it's unintentional... if I'm occasionally disparaging it's actually toward my own former self and former beliefs.

Yer gonna draw some flak from this post, Bravus. Explosive stuff that may or may not burn and hurt. From me, just a few soft snow balls.

I agree with and endorse everything you wrote, with deep appreciation and thanks, except for some of the characteristics of God underlined below:

" Yes. This is something I continue to wrestle with... I'm firm in the belief that God exists, but at the same time the God that most SDAs believe in fairly clearly does not exist. The interventionist, miracle-doing, prayer-answering God, as far as I can tell from all the evidence and experience I have accumulated, does not exist. We've had this discussion here in the past, and I've also written a number of blog posts on the issue, over a number of years, some of which I'll link here.

"I certainly don't believe in the vengeful God, waiting to pounce on those who don't do it exactly the way he wants, that is being implicitly portrayed in many of the comments here. If the words of Jesus and the Bible as a whole tell us anything, it's of a God who is eager and desperate for salvation and reconciliation, not destruction and 'gotcha'."

You need, in your words, additional evidence and experience. Personal, indisputable experience perceived by your own senses.

Knowing God, and I think, knowing you, you will eventually have such experiences. Pardon one personal example:

A dying man presented to my clinic one afternoon, asking me to pray with and anoint him before his emergent visit to his cancer specialist. His oncologist's treatment for cancer was failing. He had raging fever, dangerously low blood pressure was dangerously, weak rapid pulse, pneumonia, and ravages of skin fungus due to his weakened immune system.

My thoughts during my prayer were "________, your faith will not be tested, because tomorrow you will be dead. But here I am, praying for your recovery in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. I am afraid I am testing God, and certainly my faith will be tested."

With a tearful embrace and goodbyes, he then left.

That was over twelve years ago. He is still alive, enjoying a long remission.

Don't forget what Shakespeare said. Thank you for the references to your blogs.

God's miraculous blessings,

[CoAspen]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

That is one of the sickest statements in this thread. Why would I EVER want to spend an eternity with a being that I live in fear of? That is just wrong on so many levels.

I would certainly agree with you on this. Well; but, except for one thing maybe.

One of the most preposterous and ostentatious things I have ever read on this forum, in over 11 years of membership has been right here in this thread. People giving me heck for being friendly/reaching out with certain ones not meeting the approval of those who have "the straight testimony;" and that just makes no sense of any kind. There are several reasons I say this.

1/ The "straight testimony" is not being accurately depicted here.

2/ God and the church are being defamed by religious bigotry shown against people who leave the church

3/ We are told in clear lines it is better to "err on the side of mercy:"

Quote:

You should each be converted anew and transformed into the divine likeness. You would better err, if you err at all, on the side of mercy and forbearance than that of intolerance. {4T 64.3}

Mild measures, soft answers, and pleasant words are much better fitted to reform and save, than severity and harshness. A little too much unkindness may place persons beyond your reach, while a conciliatory spirit would be the means of binding them to you, and you might then establish them in the right way. You should be actuated by a forgiving spirit also, and give due credit to every good purpose and action of those around you. Speak words of commendation to your husband, your child, your sister, and to all with whom you are associated. Continual censure blights and darkens the life of anyone. {4T 65.1}

4/ It is being claimed that those who leave the church "have had great light and turned their backs on it;" when the fact of the matter is that in many cases; they have received that love that "waxes cold" in the last days.

5/ We are in the final throes of an ominous prophetic period where everything that can be shaken will be shaken; and yet we are being told that those who leave the church are our 'enemies;" and I am sorry but those who waste their computer space and internet space with blanket condemnations like this which are rarely, at this time justified, may be the true enemies that we need to be concerned about. The "wolves" of scripture work from within - so the ones we reject can't be one of them.

6/ "Now is the day of salvation;" and if we truly cared about others who "are not one of us" being saved; we would drop all this satanic mumbo-jumbo and quit using the scriptures and Ellen G White to support kicking the very people out the doors of the church, who will come in when we "go out;" because of our hardness of heart towards those who are (in our eyes) "weak in the faith."

[/quote']

Outstanding comment

[Guest]

lovely story, but not evidence. I think there are many stories that could be told of where someone did all and more of the above, yet died. Convenience does not make evidence. And is convenient to point to something that suits and call it proof/disproof.

[ClubV12]

FEAR:

yir-aw'

Noun Feminine

Definition

Fear, terror, fearing fear, terror

awesome or terrifying thing (object causing fear)

fear (of God), respect, reverence, piety

revered.

I meant it just like the KJV compilers meant it.

This thread is dealing specifically with X Adventists. Christians who have left the faith and turned to other gods. That becomes more clear when you examine the testimony offered. How did the Lord respond to Israel when they followed after other gods? No doubt some had alters to the living God as well as other gods, a mixture of truth and error, there is no difference between the two groups. There is only ONE way, straight and narrow.

This thread is NOT dealing with someone on the street who barely has a knowledge of God or a basic working knowledge of God.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. As it pertains to THIS thread I see very little of that no matter HOW you define it!! Folks are "comfortable" where they are at. They have no "fear" in any regard. No terror of what is sure to come (when they call for the rocks and mountains to hide them from the glory of God) or a deep reverence for the creator of the Universe. A showing of some piety, but denying the power thereof.

That man on the street with only a basic understanding of God? Blessed is that man in comparison!

[Guest]

///This thread is dealing specifically with X Adventists. Christians who have left the faith and turned to other gods.///

Sorry mate, but you are dismissing a straw man here. The X adventist you describe is not typical, and is a gross generalisation.

I am a christian, but not an Adventist. Other God's? Uriah Smith Et Al created the other gods back in the day. Pot Kettle Black.

[CoAspen]

We might want to remember some basic definitions when talking/posting about Bravus and others......

self-righteous

adjective

sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self-satisfied, smug, priggish, pious, moralizing, preachy, superior, hypocritical. ANTONYMS humble.

Self-righteousness

Self-righteousness (also called sanctimoniousness, sententiousness, a holier-than-thou attitude[1]) is a feeling of (usually) smug moral superiority[2] derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person.

self-righteousness

noun

sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, self-satisfaction, smugness, superiority, priggishness, complacency, piety, unctuousness, hypocrisy; rare pietism, Pharisaism. ANTONYMS humility.

Take your pick, everyone and myself. Is that word what we would others looking in on this 'discussion, loosely used' to use when describing the tone of the words used here?

........

[ClubV12]

Much of this dialog applies to everyone, including myself, a member of the Adventist church, a Christian.

But the TOPIC of this thread is FORMER ADVENTISTS, not current Christians, agnostics, atheists, professed Adventist or any other group of "straw men". It is about those who have either left the church or have been disfellowshiped (kicked out) of the church.

I support the concept of disfellowship, as did Paul, it is bible based. Was Paul self righteous when he counseled that in some cases the only road left was to remove from membership someone in the church? No, he was reasonable, intelligent and applying common sense (something in short supply here).

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Christians who have left the faith and turned to other gods.

I am continually astounded by the basic lack of reading skills and comprehension expressed by a small number of individuals. How many times do Bravus and Cross have to refute this accusation?

[ClubV12]

How many times have you MISSED that declaration????

Do you even KNOW what other gods are? How confusing is that!

[M. T. Cross]

Bravus has never said that.

I have said that I think there are many Gods.

I have said that I think many teachings hold truth.

I have said that all said Gods and teachings come from the Divine. I think what I call the Divine is what Christians call God the Father.

[M. T. Cross]

To clarify, I believe Jesus likely was one of those Gods.

[ClubV12]

Bravus made clear his position, opposing the doctrines of the church on page 1. Among other things: A belief in evolution based on science, which is a "false god" replacing the Creator.

[BobRyan]

Read Exodus 20 after the Ten Commandments part is ended - and Isaiah 8:12-13 -- then get back to us on that.

[M. T. Cross]

I think you will find, if you read carefully, that he also states that he believes that God was the orchestrator of said evolution.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Read Exodus 20 after the Ten Commandments part is ended - and Isaiah 8:12-13 -- then get back to us on that.

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Uh huh........... sorry Bob missing your point there.

I was very clear on what kind of fear I was speaking of.

And you do or do not find that in Ex 20 just after the 10 Commandment "speaking" section ends -- or in Isaiah 8:12-13?

What is your view of those two chapters?

in Christ,

Bob]

Honestly my opinion is that those verses prove my point. They point to a God that desires people to be trembling before him, in fear rather than love. Really somewhat reminds me of the playgound bully mentality. Quite at odds with what I find Christ to be like.

[BobRyan]

Read Exodus 20 after the Ten Commandments part is ended - and Isaiah 8:12-13 -- then get back to us on that.

[M. T. Cross]

Not really.

If you take a lot of the old testament, get rid of the Gospels - actually just skip right to Paul and Revelations I could see that.

I know you DO get that out of it. Just does not make sense to me.

[Overaged]

Honestly my opinion is that those verses prove my point. They point to a God that desires people to be trembling before him, in fear rather than love. Really somewhat reminds me of the playground bully mentality. Quite at odds with what I find Christ to be like.

[M. T. Cross]

In the red letters I see a God showing his power, and then saying that power is a sanctuary.

Those two things to well together.

However this seems to nullify that. Its a "you will not sin cause you are scared to sin"

Quote:

Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

[Overaged]

In the red letters I see a God showing his power, and then saying that power is a sanctuary.

Those two things to well together.

However this seems to nullify that. Its a "you will not sin cause you are scared to sin"

Quote:

Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

Well; in a sense, there's nothing truly wrong when we see it this way. I mean, we should be afraid to sin - shouldn't we? Even before you & I were Christians, when we were into the rock & roll and all it's trappings, there were things we were afraid to do. With many; they would be afraid to do needles; I did those, but I was afraid to do other things. Why were we afraid of those things even then? Would it be much different once we become Christians?

One key thing that I see in these passages is how this power of God's was "a sanctuary;" but not to all. To others, it was "a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence." So here we see in the passage a very interesting dichotomy of theology!

So I guess the next question might be; why is this presented to us in this way?

Again; you can't give a wrong answer here. Your opinion and experience has the right of way here. We are simply exchanging notes, and trying to share in a positive, helpful way.

Feel free to throw a few internet rotten tomatoes at me if you think I need it. I have always enjoyed exploring like this...Maybe the next question is something else for you? Instead of my next question; we could look at your's. Just say the word. I can be flexible. (lol, sometimes)

[Gregory Matthews]

For some reason, I came across this topic today.  I did not take the time to read the 26 pages of responses that people have made.  But, I did read the beginning   posts that Bravus has made.  I can understand why he would call himself a "former Adventist."  I appreciate his commitment to following his conscience.   We should all do that.

If I were a congregational pastor, I would welcome Bravus into my congregation, as a member.  I do not think that we have to all agree on every point.

I welcome here in this forum and as he now posts in Adventist Today.

I went through a period of struggle once which included my questioning the extent to which   I was a Seventh-day Adventist.  That struggle extended beyond the boundaries of Adventism.  It reached the place where I decided that I needed professional help, which   I then got.

As to the part of Adventism, I made a decision that I would not let anyone define Adventism for me.  I would define it for myself.  As a result, I decided to remain in Adventism, and if others (the denomination) wanted to expel me from Adventism, they would have to do so and I was not going to initiate it myself.

This was only my personal decision and I can not tell others what they should do.

I consider myself to be a SDA and I have no intention of making a change.  SDAs are imperfect.  There are issues within Adventism.  But, I am willing to live with that and will continue to be true to what I understand and believe.

Bravus, stick around.  You are appreciated and I am glad you are here.