ClubV12 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Doctrines are "absolutes" that come from reading the bible. An absolute belief in something so well defined and believed that it cannot be shaken, it cannot be debated, it cannot be changed, your mind is closed and thats it. Science, math, logic, physics need not apply, nothing can shake that "absolute". Doesn't THAT sound frightening to someone who doesn't have any? To a scientist? To any reasonable and well educated person such thinking would a sure sign of an "idiot"! I have many such "absolutes" in my life, I call them anchors. There is a God, done, nothing can change that doctrine, dogma if you want to call it that. He created the heavens and the earth, done. Saturday in the seventh day of the week, a Sabbath unto the Lord, the fourth commandement in the bible, done. Heaven is a real place with real angels. Christ died on a cross for me that I might live. The bible is the inspired word of God. There are many more such "doctrines" and "dogmas" I hold to be true. They are anchors in your life. The speed of light? NOT an absolute! The laws of physics? NOT an absolute! Gravity itself, NOT!! Why? Because these so called "natural laws" only exist as the creator sustains them and keeps them in existence. He is not subject to them, He created them! He can easily exceed the speed of light, if He so pleases, so could I, so could (and do) the angels. He can make the sun stand still or change the laws of physics and gravity as it pleases Him. What He WON'T do, change anyone's heart decision, freewill reigns supreme above all the laws of the universe. It is the one thing the Lord will not change for any created being at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted November 16, 2011 Members Share Posted November 16, 2011 Excellent points Club phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. T. Cross Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 See that belief in absolutes it just the problem in my view. Bliblical absolutes are as far as I can tell a bit of a farce. It it was so full of absolutes, we would not have so many different religions and denominations based on it. Hence the exact reason why there should be less religion and more spiritual searching, more finding what this book says to YOU and going to the Divine for the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted November 16, 2011 Members Share Posted November 16, 2011 For me RmptyCross, I see it just the opposite way. I think if there were more absolutes you'd have less denominations. Look at the Sabbath, do you see that as an absolute? I do, I see no where, where Jesus says to worship on any other day. If we say we believe that the Bible is the word of God than we have to except that the 7th day is the day God has called us out to worship. That doesn't mean that on the others days we can be as awful as we want. Another absolute would be the 10 Cs. If we believe Jesus is the Messiah, does he not tell us that if we love him to keep his Commandments? So from just these two absolutes we find almost all other churches that would not be necessary. Now that doesn't mean that people within those denominations will not be saved, because Jesus tells us he has followers in every fold. And EGW tells us also that many from other denominations will be saved, and many from the SDA church will not. No I think absolutes and very much needed. I have to agree with Club we need doctrines (absolutes). phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. T. Cross Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 For me RmptyCross, I see it just the opposite way. I think if there were more absolutes you'd have less denominations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted November 16, 2011 Administrators Share Posted November 16, 2011 I don't think I understand the comments concerning "defend the church", I'm not sure what that means... Perhaps framing it differently might help. What is more important, people or the church? People or doctrine? People or rules? People or the law? People or the Sabbath? Jesus answered that last one rather clearly, by both word and deed. Man before Sabbath! And the people who thought the Sabbath more important didn't like what he did or said. So they plotted how to kill him. And they decided to kill one man was better than the "danger" of what he did and said. But they made sure that they murdered him in time so they could keep the Sabbath. They considered that an absolute. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Quote: Hence the exact reason why there should be less religion and more spiritual searching, more finding what this book says to YOU and going to the Divine for the answers. That is exactly what Christ did and preached...should we do any less or more? That is to me what Christ is asking each of us to do! Good Thought!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aliensanctuary Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 As time passes, we all "evolve", that is, change for the better or the worse. Physically, we are all in decline, and unfortunately, our brains are relentlessly shrinking, millimeter by millimeter, as we mark the passing of time. Our beliefs "evolve", too, sometimes migrating from one end of the spectrum of religion to the distant other, from blind, murderous, fanaticism, to atheism. Many SDA's believe that they, above all others, possess "truth", but they are not alone in their conceit. There are so many conflicting religions, with so many followers thinking that their particular beliefs are correct and everyone else is wrong. We might suspect that they're all wrong if we focus on the Temple and its functions. There are no churches in the Kingdom of the Stars, but there is a Temple. What went on in Moses' tent in the wilderness is similar to what we will see in the real Temple. True worship is not the stand-up/sit-down service of rituals, recitations, customs, and practices we are accustomed to when we attend churches or other places of worship. True worship is what we do to acknowledge God's ownership of ourselves when we're all alone. In the future, there will be no more pseudo-worship or conflicting religions. Whatever choices we make in this life here on Earth, I think we can expect to be treated fairly by those from above who are looking for subjects who can be loyal to God, no matter what their circumstances were in the first life. Going to a particular church, or not going to church at all, are only external behaviors that can fool people. Only the Spirit of God knows what's in our minds, and what we are capable of. The Parable of the Lamb and the Pigpen https://www.createspace.com/3401451 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I think most folks have at least some absolutes (doctrines, dogmas) in their life. Some believe in God absolutely, others aren't sure, no absolute for them, no anchor. Some absolutely don't believe in God, thats an anchor for them. As we grow, learn, we tend to add more anchors to our life, some good, some bad. For me it started simple enough, a belief in God was the only anchor point I had, everything else was optional. In this spiritual searching, finding out more about what the book says to you, looking for that divine interpretation and meaning of life you should "hold fast" that which is good! To "hold fast" is to plant an ancor point. I searched, I found out more about God, I added to my data base of divine knowledge and added more absolute anchor points to my life. The quest continues, there is MUCH that is not yet absolute, there is much that is, many things will never be absolute this side of heaven. Speaking of heaven, a real place? Absolutely! Is the bible more important that people? I cannot separate the two. The bible is life and people are dieing for a lack of knowledge. Where there is no vision, the people perish. If you feed the hungry you demonstrate the principals of the bible, but man cannot live by bread alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobRyan Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 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. Darwin said he had no way to reconcile the true understanding of evolutionism with Christianity. You have stated that you find no way to reconcile the statement of your beliefs and preferences - with that of the Seventh-day Adventists based on our vote published doctrinal statement. In my view - you are both correct in that regard. I have been saying this all along. No need to agree disagreeably. in Christ, Bob John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted November 16, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted November 16, 2011 Discussion of this post at Adventist Today: http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=921 Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Gail Posted November 16, 2011 Administrators Share Posted November 16, 2011 Bravus, how did you manage that? Did you submit it? Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted November 16, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted November 16, 2011 Nope, Erv Taylor must have spotted it here or had it pointed out to him... I didn't know about it until a friend alerted me to it. Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Quote: Jesus started out with a group of flawed, human, like-minded friends, and ended up the same way. He didn't build any edifices or huge congregations. He comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable. *That's* who I want to be. Bravus comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I agree with Taylor. If Bravus, or others like him, wanted to stay in the Adventist church they would be welcome in most Adventist congregations of the western world. He may be tossed out on his ear in some developing countries but so might I - for other reasons. In my opinion, many make mountains out of mole hills. I think Bravus is guilty of doing that in a way that he exaggerates his differences of opinion with the Adventist church. I am sure some that disagree with Bravus are just as guilty of exaggerating those differences. I saw a thread once where Bravus went one-by-one through the 28 fundamentals and at that time he was in much more agreement with the church than disagreement. Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobRyan Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Discussion of this post at Adventist Today: http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=921 John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobRyan Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 In my opinion, many make mountains out of mole hills. I think Bravus is guilty of doing that in a way that he exaggerates his differences of opinion with the Adventist church. I beg to differ. This is a case where Bravus is spot on. He agrees with evolution - it is only fitting that he should agree with the father of evolution (Darwin) on this actual point and purpose of that line of thinking. in Christ, Bob John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I beg to differ. That doesn't surprise me. Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Being welcomed to attend church and being a MEMBER of the church are two different things. Shane, are you suggesting the Adventist church should allow those who are married and living in a gay lifestyle, for instance, should be allowed to become a member of the church? Hold office within the church? Be an ordained Seventh-day Adventist Pastor? This issue is hardly a "mole hill", if the Adventist church tommorow welcomed gay Pastors it would be headline National news overnight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Shane, are you suggesting the Adventist church should allow those who are married and living in a gay lifestyle, for instance, should be allowed to become a member of the church? Hold office within the church? Be an ordained Seventh-day Adventist Pastor? We are talking about Bravus. He is not gay. Certainly there are some roles in the church where Bravus wouldn't be a good fit but I would have no problem with him serving as a deacon, men's ministry director, family-ministry director or similar roles. Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Your post is called 'sidetracking', focus on the issue at hand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I was just wondering if you agree with Bravus' position on gay marriage, or evolution or any number of other things he has stated, as you leave the impression that you do agree. Thread topic: "Why I am a former SDA" A number of reasons are then listed. #2 deals with gay's and church membership. Some have opinioned that gays should be allowed Adventist church membership. The Adventist church, and myself, disagree with that view point. Is to OK to disagree with popular opinion on this thread or is "free speech" allowed only for those who oppose the church doctrines? Just wonderin'..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I don't have to agree with people in order to tolerate them. If someone has some troublesome views like believing in evolution or condoning homosexuality I don't think they should be excluded from church membership. However if we are going to ask them to serve the church in a leadership capacity I think there needs to be a conversation and an agreement that they will not teach those beliefs to others entrusted to them. I would have no problem asking someone like Bravus to be a Pathfinder leader or a Sabbath School teacher but if he were to use that position to teach beliefs contrary to the church, I would take issue with that. Many people that believe like Bravus do not have a burden to tell the world about it and keep such beliefs to themselves. If they have to broadcast their positions, I still wouldn't want to deny them membership but would limit their positions of service much more to those where they would not be teaching doctrinal issues. Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted November 17, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted November 17, 2011 Quote: The Adventist church, and myself, disagree with that view point. Is to OK to disagree with popular opinion on this thread or is "free speech" allowed only for those who oppose the church doctrines? Just wonderin'..... Disagreeing with you is not taking anything away from your freedom of speech. This is a bizarre statement! *Of course* you have the freedom to disagree, and no-one is saying you don't, or moderating your posts. By the same token, *you* seem to be suggesting that it is not appropriate for me to have the views I do. Who, then, is threatening freedom of speech? Perhaps we can leave the whole freedom of speech issue aside, and look at the actual beliefs that all of us are completely free to discuss. Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Earlier there were several comments suggesting that those who "defend the church" are not capable of "listening" and another comment (or two) agreed with that and noted it was a wide spread problem. Whereas, Bravus states his opinions on why he is a former SDA and is encouraged and applauded for speaking openly and honestly. I to wish to speak openly and honestly. Without being referred to as someone who is not able to listen. Labeled as a "group" of those who are so eager to disagree with popular opinion they are in effect, "stupid", as in lacking in communication skills, ready to jump to a conclusion, operating from extreme prejudice, not well thought out, a member of a "wide spread" group. Bravus, surely you see the irony in this!!! Free speech indeed, free as long as you agree with popular opinion, if you don't, you WILL pay a price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts