Why I am a former SDA

[Dr. Shane]

Just for the record, I would never say that Muslims have a problem with reality.

[BobRyan]

Disagreeing with me is fine, it's disagreeing with reality I have a problem with. And I think that's a fair description. It's not meant as an insult.

hint - we all say that about the other guy's view.

The Bible calls the Christian view "the Truth" and "Light" and talks about the alternative as darkness.

There is nothing new in the claim "I believe my world view is how things really are -- and yours is less accurate, less true to reality".

Everyone is doing it.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

Indeed: but then, of all the people I know both face-to-face and online, BobRyan is the single individual who I would say is least in touch with reality. Since he'd say the same about me, the symmetry is almost perfect.

Almost: I have millions of empirical measurements to support my view, he has none to report his...

Wait, that's not symmetrical at all!

[BobRyan]

you say that "like you believe it" -

And here I was thinking you did not want this to be an origins discussion...

Hint - Creationism HAS a demonstrated proven mechanism for the existence of life - a Creator - a Designer intelligent enough to create that which rocks and sand would never make on their own. We see this in action in every book written, every work of art, every airplane every computer program written.

By contrast - evolutionism "imagines" a mechanism whereby eukaryote organisms like amoeba turn into horses by adding new information to their genomes and walking up the ladder of life from phyla to phyla. (Provided you say "beeeellions and beeeellions of years" enough times when telling that story)

A mechanism never observed to exist in nature!

And then you make the argument that your blind-faith evolutionist model can be seen to work?

Interesting that Richard Dawkins - when asked to SHOW the mechanism at work - merely settles for some quality time starring at the ceiling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

and atheist evolutionist Colin Patterson goes after the blind-faith evolutionist principle with a passion outing evolutionists as affirming evolutionism as if it were fact while still be clueless as to a proven demonstrated mechanism.

How is it that these diehard atheist evolutionists can manage more objectivity than the so-called TEs??

in Christ,

Bob

[fccool]

I would agree with Bravus here. As ironic as it may sound, the theology generally asks us to deny reality and believe in things that we have never observed, and explain things via unobservable and unknown means. In a way, faith is a denial of knowledge, which by definition is ignorance.

I understand that many of you will find such characterization a bit unfair and perhaps offensive. But, I merely speak from experience. Faith is in a very simple terms... denial of reality. It's there for very obvious reasons, but in the end it comes from the opposite of knowing, not from knowledge.

When a religious person says "I know the truth", he really says "I believe that this is true". Now, when points the finger at something that rather obvious and says "I believe it's not true", it's a denial of knowledge, and denial of reality.

Most of the people have misconception about what science is. SCIENCIA, literally means knowledge of something acquired by study. It's different from religious belief, because that knowledge is demonstrable and requires solid reason to back it up. Science cares about knowing. Faith does not. Faith operates in spite of knowing. It operates on denial of knowledge, and belief that things are not the way the seem to be.

[fccool]

Quote:

Hint - Creationism HAS a demonstrated proven mechanism for the existence of life - a Creator - a Designer intelligent enough to create that which rocks and sand would never make on their own. We see this in action in every book written, every work of art, every airplane every computer program written.

Hint - is the creator that you describe a complex being?

[Bravus]

You're right, I don't want this to become an Origins thread. Origins discussion destroys everything in its path on the web.

I tried to resist but got drawn in, but can I request that people please take all Origins discussion to another thread from now on, since it's off topic for this thread (as one of many issues raised) and will swamp what I think has the potential to be a useful discussion.

[ClubV12]

"Things" were very old the very second they were created. The chicken DID come before the egg. Adam WAS "middle aged" when he was created. Etc, etc. God made them that way, not a big mystery really.... Evolution, now THAT is a mystery, not to mention a THEORY, FAR from a proven fact. :)

[fccool]

Quote:

God made them that way, not a big mystery really.... Evolution, now THAT is a mystery, not to mention a THEORY, FAR from a proven fact.

I think generally people have problem with mystery. They don't like it. They need to know. Some people can't handle it.

I've learned to embrace it, instead of relying on explanations that both contradict reality and are incomplete or unseen and derived from not-knowledge, which belief is.

Life is worth living, because we don't know. That's what keeps us in motion. In Buddhist understanding of this matter, life and experience because of imbalance that moves towards the balance. Mystery is exciting, and that's what gives the life purpose and meaning. To a certain degree, we are to know through experience.

Religion attempts to bypass it by saying "You don't really need to do that. Here's everything that you will ever need." Thus, to re-iterate what you are saying, coming from that perspective... that's a perfect example of such thinking.

Quote:

God made them that way, not a big mystery really.... Evolution, now THAT is a mystery, not to mention a THEORY, FAR from a proven fact.

Could one likewise say that men made God that way... no big mystery really?

[ClubV12]

The mysteries in the bible will take a lifetime and then some of the eternal time to come to understand. If indeed these things can ever be understood! Sister White says we will be studying the mystery of the plan of salvation and the cost to heaven for eternity. We will increasingly see new wonder, new understanding, new love as we explore this single question above all others.

Some aspects of creation are quite simple. The chicken came before the egg, the earth was old at the time of creation and other things. But there remain mysteries of creation we may study for 10 of thousands of years to grasp.

It's gonna be great, I am SO looking forward to exploring the myseries of Gods Universe!

[M. T. Cross]

Think of being told that if you are SDA, you will be killed! That will happen.

So if we quit the Church because of getting "hurt," what will we do when we're REALLY HURT BAD under constant persecution and when it looks like we will be killed?

"Oh, the irony," is right!

Compare our easy way of life now with the rough times that millions of other Christians have lived through-- and died in-- over the last 2000 years. Compare it with the suffering endured by our pioneers.

I guess that would be comparable to the hundreds of thousands of so called heathens and pagans that where killed by Christians for their beliefs over the last 2000 years.

People that follow these beliefs to this day, while no longer persecuted, are still mocked and ridiculed by many Christians.

eta - Killing in the name of religion may be one of the dumbest things that mankind has ever done to each other - no matter which side.

[ClubV12]

Yeah, the future crusade the world will face will exceed the brutality of anything we have ever seen on earth at any time. History WILL repeat itself, and more...

[M. T. Cross]

Sadly I think you are right on that one Club. And it will likely end with the same amount of tragedy that all the others did

[Overaged]

In my framework, I haven't missed anything. I believe what the bible says, you don't. I'm not making a judgment, that is what the bible is doing. Some folks accept what it says, most don't. Those who openly reject it are in a better position to perhaps one day see it and accept it. Those who accept it partially, kind of, sort of, are Laodecia.

[Overaged]

I certainly would not want to go over the same ground again.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

I see no purpose in going over all the same old ground with all the same old people who have convinced themselves that they can't believe in God and reality at the same time.

I think that unfairly characterizes those that disagree with you.

Perhaps it does Shane; but I wonder how seriously you have considered why Bravus has reached that conclusion?

Bravus wears a lot of different hats on this forum and in his life. (what I know of them).

And most of them I like.

[John317]

...Being a "good man", a worthy in the worlds view, doing much to help the poor, loving your neighbor, being honest and upright in business can be said of many men. Hindu's, Buddhist's, Christians of various denominations, Islamists, atheists, agnostics, etc. In all these you can find "good men", is that all it takes to find yourself worthy of the Kingdom of heaven?

Sadly,,, no.

There is only one way, by accepting Jesus as your personal saviour. That applies to the "good men" of the earth as well as the mass murderer, the lowest of the low whom society has utterly rejected. God is no respector of persons, your worldly admiration or lack thereof means nothing in the sight of God.

All true and biblical but not politically correct and certainly not "reasonable" or "realistic" from the viewpoint of those who take human reasoning over the testimony of the Scriptures.

[John317]

If Bravus wishes to stay in the Adventist church I do not believe anyone will run him out. The church has a variety of believers in it.

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

If he feels he cannot in good conscience stay in the church, that is a decision he has to make for himself.

Yes, sure. I don't hear anyone claiming that people have no right to decide whether to join the church or get out.

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Oh, but people have run him out...

Is this really true? How did SDAs run Bravus out of the SDA church?

Wasn't it his own choice to leave?

You say yourself that "he cannot in good conscience stay in the church" and that it "is a decision he has to make for himself." If this is true, then he wasn't "run out."

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Remember, Shane, he left the political thread because of ultra conservatives posted the dumbest stuff...It was the beginning of his leaving here...when he removed himself from that forum....remember?

When people leave of their own free will because they decide they don't want to stay for whatever reason, is it right to say they were "run out"?

Would it be right for people to leave a political thread because they feel "progressives" posted "the dumbest stuff," but then claim they were "run off"?

Both the Left and the Right, as well as those in the Center (of religious and political discussions), have a perfect right to express their beliefs and feelings about things without feeling that they must change in order to prevent people from leaving a thread.

I would never ask or expect people to change their "tune" so that I can stay on a Forum or in a discussion. It seems to me that is what some people are expecting others to do.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

If you're not living up to the light you have, you will be lost.

Living up to the light I have is *exactly* why I've made the decision I have.

This is exactly where I have come. It was from the ideals that Adventism claimed that it was based on (truth seeking) that I left the church as well.

I simply could no longer endorse ideas that were based on fallacies and no amount of claiming that faith was evidence can counter real truth.

It has nothing to do with pride or wanting to get away with things or wanting to be in the world or whatever projection is hurled my way.

It has to do with much higher values of truth than Adventism is willing to face.

To me it is Adventism that is based on pride and fear. It long ago lost the ability to seek truth when it clung to authority as its basis for truth.

[Overaged]

Is this really true? How did SDAs run Bravus out of the SDA church?

Wasn't it his own choice to leave?

It is not very honest of us to expose a man to the aroma of steak and apple pie; and then accuse him of being a glutton for licking his lips.

[John317]

Is this really true? How did SDAs run Bravus out of the SDA church?

Wasn't it his own choice to leave?

Originally Posted By: Overaged

It is not very honest of us to expose a man to the aroma of steak and apple pie; and then accuse him of being a glutton for licking his lips.

But is that really what has happened?

I don't hear Bravus suggesting that his decison to leave was the responsibility of anyone but himself. And if he did, it would be false. That is not to say that people have been perfect, of course. But in the final analysis each will bear the responsibility if they are lost.

The SDA church has always told its members not to look to other people because when they do they will always be disappointed. No humans apart from Christ are without sin. And no church is perfect. Someone has said truly that every church ceases to be perfect the moment we walk into it.

Every one of us could find a good excuse to leave the SDA church or even to leave Christianity itself if we looked for it. But is that what we're looking for? I'm looking for reasons to stay in because I believe it is the right thing to do-- it's what God would have us do.

[fccool]

Quote:

Every one of us could find a good excuse to leave the SDA church or even to leave Christianity itself if we looked for it. But is that what we're looking for? I'm looking for reasons to stay in because I believe it is the right thing to do-- it's what God would have us do.

It's a matter of perspective. You may find Bravus clasping for excuses to leave, at the same time one may view you from the opposite spectrum, looking for excuses to stay.

I have a lot of excuses to stay, although I no longer believe... at least on the level of Christian reality, perhaps I still get and believe that Christianity can survive in a form of a pragmatic metaphor, or a motivational community. It's really all it becomes in our world of 1-day church experience with a concert, followed by motivational sermon to get one through the week. And that's what most people are looking for.

Religion has been trying to survive the modern changes, but fundamentalism has very little fit in the modern world without some very strict mental gymnastics. Consider the following passage...

Quote:

If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in

hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God…. (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)

This passage has no place in our society. It has ZERO value or influence, while in Ancient Israel, it was a reality commanded by God. This was the rule of faith and the law. One must put religious preservation above his children to the point of stoning them to death, and it was actually done.

Now, we can go through all of the mental gymnastics of Christianity and say that this type of conduct has no place because Christ has set a new way, but that would in fact be a morally relative issue. It was ok before, and not ok now.

My view of this is that religion simply went alone with a changing culture and rooted these barbaric ways out, not the other way around. Therefore, religion is changing in such a way in order to survive. It's adopting it's interpretation to accommodate scientific and societal progress in both morality and social structure.

To me the very reason we don't stone or burn people that disagree with us relays the higher moral conduct than that described in the Bible. It simply is better morality that of a Judeo-Christian mindset.

Consider what would happen if we judged criminals the way Judeo-Christian morality works? A murderer feels genuinely sorry for what he's done, a judge brings out his son and tells the police to beat him to death. Then he asks the murderer, "Do you accept my son's sacrifice? If you do, you are free to go, and you are forgiven". The murderer accepts, and walks away happy and joyful and changes his ways.

What kind of morality is that? It's ludicrous if taken literally and does not carry some underlying metaphorical context.

Thus, Bible today is not read as a whole. Most of it is avoided like a wildfire, because these pieces simply don't fit into our cultural understanding and morality. It will be interesting to see where the religious faith will be 20-30 years down the road, when the present generation of fundamentalists who are so convinced that Christ would return in their lifetimes would die, and carry their beliefs with them.

I believe that Religion has a very important role to play in society. As Ricky Gervais said in an interview "Religion is a great babysitter". It is. It gives structure through fear to the immature ones. We should feel sorry for immature people with lack of structure and who go about in self-destructive manner.

But, at certain point in time, we should mature and grow up. We should take responsibility for our actions and life, instead of laying our sins on Christ to feel some sense of relief. Once again, some people need it to feel good, but so do kids who need the Santa to bring presents every year. They feel disappointed when they find out that it was their parents who bought the presents, but why? There's still good value in that act on its own.

Morality... is simply the best way to live... as we see it. For some it was moral to stone their children to death for telling that Judaism seems unreasonable. Not anymore.

[Dr. Shane]

Every one of us could find a good excuse to leave the SDA church or even to leave Christianity itself if we looked for it. But is that what we're looking for? I'm looking for reasons to stay in because I believe it is the right thing to do-- it's what God would have us do.

Each of us must choose a God to follow. Some of us choose to follow Jesus, other choose to follow Allah, others choose other deities. Some choose to follow their own ability to reason thus making themselves into their own personal deity. Those that make a god out of reason do not usually look for reasons to follow any given religion. They tend to be more concerned about casting doubt than spreading hope. It is said that misery loves company and typically we find those that believe only in themselves trying to drag others into their world of misery. Common sense itself calls us to avoid such a pit.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: John317

Is this really true? How did SDAs run Bravus out of the SDA church?

Wasn't it his own choice to leave?

Originally Posted By: Overaged

It is not very honest of us to expose a man to the aroma of steak and apple pie; and then accuse him of being a glutton for licking his lips.

But is that really what has happened?

I don't hear Bravus suggesting that his decison to leave was the responsibility of anyone but himself. And if he did, it would be false. That is not to say that people have been perfect, of course. But in the final analysis each will bear the responsibility if they are lost.

The SDA church has always told its members not to look to other people because when they do they will always be disappointed. No humans apart from Christ are without sin. And no church is perfect. Someone has said truly that every church ceases to be perfect the moment we walk into it.

Every one of us could find a good excuse to leave the SDA church or even to leave Christianity itself if we looked for it. But is that what we're looking for? I'm looking for reasons to stay in because I believe it is the right thing to do-- it's what God would have us do.

You and others are totally missing my point. I didn't say that Bravus said/did any such thing. What I meant with my wry sense of humor above here is that Bravus has simply exclaimed that the church has proffered herself as something, [to him] desirable to aim for; yet in reality, and in practice, they failed to live up to what they proffered to others. He simply portrayed a struggle that many have which is very real, and to him, the best solution was to still try and preserve the ideals, where his life and circumstance would allow.

Everyone is so fast to defend the church rather than just listen to people and see what is going on and what they are saying. Bravus may not be as "wrong" here as some would imply

[miz3]

Indeed: but then, of all the people I know both face-to-face and online, BobRyan is the single individual who I would say is least in touch with reality. Since he'd say the same about me, the symmetry is almost perfect.

Almost: I have millions of empirical measurements to support my view, he has none to report his...

Wait, that's not symmetrical at all!

I apologize for interrupting this love fest. I want to emphasize that I am not taking sides between you two.

I only want to make a comment in regard to Bravus' "millions of empirical measurements". In spite of those "facts" you and I both know that ultimately everything is based on a foundational assumption and that foundational assumption is arrived at by "Faith".

Having said that does not disprove or prove the validity of those measurements.

[miz3]

I would agree with Bravus here. As ironic as it may sound, the theology generally asks us to deny reality and believe in things that we have never observed, and explain things via unobservable and unknown means. In a way, faith is a denial of knowledge, which by definition is ignorance.

I understand that many of you will find such characterization a bit unfair and perhaps offensive. But, I merely speak from experience. Faith is in a very simple terms... denial of reality. It's there for very obvious reasons, but in the end it comes from the opposite of knowing, not from knowledge.

When a religious person says "I know the truth", he really says "I believe that this is true". Now, when points the finger at something that rather obvious and says "I believe it's not true", it's a denial of knowledge, and denial of reality.

Most of the people have misconception about what science is. SCIENCIA, literally means knowledge of something acquired by study. It's different from religious belief, because that knowledge is demonstrable and requires solid reason to back it up. Science cares about knowing. Faith does not. Faith operates in spite of knowing. It operates on denial of knowledge, and belief that things are not the way the seem to be.

fccool, in the world of "Origins" which is in fact the beginning of all that we observe now or observe has been (the after evidence is what you are observing and measuring) no human was there to observe the "Origin" and see the mechanisms that make the "after evidence". Thus, regardless of you view when it comes to "Origins" everything must be based on FAITH. There just is no other alternative.

Although all your measurements and observations may seem to tell you something they can only lead you so far. In the end you have to deal with the "Origin" and in that realm you can only do so by FAITH.

Thus, such forced FAITH is a death knell for science. Every human existent decides one way or the other about "Origins" and it is totally based on FAITH.