Leaderboard

In my opinion, there is NO particular "percentage" of held beliefs that one must have to consider one's self a Seventh-day Adventist. Some SDAs (even ministers) *do* drink alcoholic beverages, and fully believe they are doing nothing wrong. Some work on the Sabbath when they feel there is a need. Some don't pay tithe. Most don't smoke, but yet are overweight potluck gluttons. There are SDAs who are blackguards in private life, and pillars of the SDA denomination in public. The SDA church isn't a club for perfect people, though some would like it to be. There are all flavors of Adventists, representative of some of the worst of humanity, as well as some of the best. If an Adventist is fully convinced in his or her own mind that his or her chosen behaviors or morality is wholly acceptable to God, then who am I to gossip or condemn? I am not of the opinion that 100% of the doctrines need to be perfected in a person before he or she is considered eligible for baptism and membership. Everyone is a work in progress. Is God going to be judging people by whether or not they smoke, dance, eat pork, wear jewelry, etc? Maybe. I dunno. Kinda reminds me of the adage that says, "Don't judge someone just because they sin differently than you" .....

You dislike Trump. I despise him. I take my license for this from Psalm 15. Has there ever been a more vile public figure? I'm not sure if Nero was a worse character, although he certainly had the power to accomplish more evil. Same goes for Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and many others. You are right, of course, about the limitations of what legislation can accomplish. Only the grace of Christ can save this world, one person at a time.

I agree, I'm not a Trump hater though, I just dislike him!! I'm not for abortions at all! God gave us the ability to choose right from wrong? If someone comes to me for advice about it, I'd tell them they have other choices!! I obviously have issues with this issue! Why are we not up in arms about people that choose to smoke? Secondhand smoke?? How we treat others? etc., etc.!!! There are many more issues, and all we say than is, well its a choice?? Yes everything we do is a choice and we will have to deal with those choices with God, not the state or the government!! And if people actually think that making abortions illegal is going to stop this murdering there wrong. We will get back to before abortion was made legal, and that wasn't very pretty! As long as we have free choice, which we do, per God, people are going to make the wrong choice!! That's how we got here, isn't it??

You see how you act! I do not watch CNN! You could have asked and I would have told you what news I watch. It is so sad that we cannot disagree, so we stoop to Trump tactic. This is what I am talking about is the character instead of a party. Insulting a person because we don't agree. Thinking you know what I watch, or feel, or do and you don't. You put down that I am not a historian base on your standard. Prejudice is not only about the color of someone skin It is how you think you are better than another person. What have I done to you but disagreed with your comments and show you your action, not mine? It's alright because this is a test for me to bless you and to pray for both of us. My goal is to make it to heaven and to make the new earth my home. I have battled over the lost of my mother, depression, illness, disability (a neck and back surgery others surgeries too) and soon another surgery. I only sharing this to let you know those are high mountains I've climbed. So your insults help me to see what I've been through and why I have changed. I will continue to stand for what's right so I will continue to pray for us both. Blessings! Be Bless!

She was awarded the money by the Vaccine Court because that Court determined that her injury was a result of being administered that vaccine. All medical treatments may have adverse side effects. The reality is that the rate of such adverse side effects from vaccines is rare compared to the problems with a person who gets the illness because they were not vaccinated. I will give a personal example from a different treatment: On a regular basis I received injections into each of my eyes in an attempt to keep me from going blind. Those injections might delay me from going blind, but not prevent it. They might (rare) cause further damage. However, without those injections I will go blind, in both eyes. They are not comfortable, for a period hours after the Injections, I can not see well enough to drive. But, I had decided that I will take the discomfort and the potential risk in order to keep my eyesight a long as possible. I believe that the potential benefit is greater than the potential risk.

No more than there is a prophecy foretelling that Iran will attack US warships!

The person mentioned may have won a lawsuit by blaming vaccines, but that does not mean that a vaccine caused the problem. A sample of one is not scientific. It really demonstrates nothing more than she got a vaccine around the time of her illness. I have seen far worse cases of neurological problems when there was no vaccine involvement. This person in the story just happened to win the lawsuit lottery.

This thread had developed in several directions, all of which deserve responses. In this post, I am responding to a post made last Thursday by Gustave in which he associated the Jehovah Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Church of God and Armstrong's World Wide Church of God with Adventism and William Miller. In commenting on his post, I suggested agreement, with minor disagreements. In this post, I will expand on where I am on this issue. Generally, I express my position in simple terms, such as this: With the failure of Christ to return, the followers of William Miller went in a number of directions. Some returned to their previous denominations. Some gave up on God and religion. Others united into newer, smaller religious groups, some which do not exist today. The largest group of people that may be traced back to William Miller is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The second largest group that remains today is the Advent Christian group. In this simple statement, I do not include some of other groups that Gustave mentioned as I place their beginnings much later in time than William Miller. An example of this is Armstrong's World Wide Church of God. However, the term "Adventist" can be used in more than one sense. It is often used to specifically refer to the SDA denomination. In addition, it is correctly used in a generalized sense to refer to religious groups that believe in a 2nd Advent. This valid definition expands the meaning beyond the SDA denomination. The "gold standard" in the study of U.S. Religion is: J. Gordon Melton, The Encyclopedia of American Religions. The 1st edition was published in 1978 and the 9th edition was published in 2017. My personal copy is the 3rd edition, which will be my reference point in my post today. Beginning on page 77, in an eleven (11) page discussion of the Adventist family of religious groups, Melton discusses which groups he believes should be included in the larger Adventist family. He expands beyond what Gustave has proposed. But, he generally includes the groups that Gustave had mentioned. Then, on pages 511 - 555 he again addresses the Adventist Family of religious groups. In this section, he further divides the Adventists into the following groups: Sunday Adventists (2), Seventh-day Adventists (7), Church of God Adventists (22), Sacred Name Movement (12) Jehovah's Witness Groups (13), Southcottites (3) Other Adventists (5), British Israelism (13). My listing of Adventist groups probably more fits this listing than it does the earlier listing that Milton has given us. This is some of the background for my comment to the effect that I had some minor disagreements with the listing of Gustave.

Thanks for the answers, all. It is clear to me that what I am trying to ask is not being fully understood by the readers. I do not struggle with any of the examples I've provided. I am not looking for a church that allows or disallows beliefs in each of the examples I provided. In response to the original post regarding the variations in belief, I was merely asking, What is the percentage of complete, whole Seventh-day Adventist beliefs that a person must believe in order to be considered a Seventh-day Adventist? I *do* know SDAs who drink alcohol; some who commune with other denominations; some who eat pork;some who are vegan; some who have affairs; some who gamble; some who don't believe EGW was a prophet; some who put EGW above the Bible; some who work on the Sabbath; some who only come to church if they *have* to work at the church: some who pay others to work for them on the Sabbath; some who do not believe in the Trinity; some who believe in evolution; some who believe in "once saved, always saved"; some who believe infant baptism is enough; some who are baptised 3 and 4 times: some who do not believe tithing is enough; some who do not tithe; some who pray only when barefoot; some who celebrate Christmas; Some who celebrate Halloween: some who will avoid any pork related food or medicine" some who will not call God by any other name than "Yeshua"; some who curse and swear; some who speed in the church parking lot; some who are sexually promiscuous; some who cheat on their taxes; some who spread rumors; some who abuse children; some who flirt with others during the sermon: some who abuse their spouse; some who file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat; some who believe having insurance is a sin...and yet, they are ALL considered Seventh-day Adventist. But I wonder, how much is too much? How much is not enough? And as an aside: I never stated that I don't understand dry humor; nor did I state that I personally struggle with any of the examples that I "questioned". And no, I was not offended by the idea that perhaps you, Gregory, thought I might be in a situation where there was more than one spouse per spouse. I am slightly offended at (what I perceive to be) the insinuation that I might not comprehend dry humor. Have a blessed week. I'll return after a respite from my perception of being slighted.

Excellent!

Born of God ? 1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

While you are waiting for this, if you don't mind, I'll share my thoughts briefly. There are Scriptures that could be brought to bear on the matter, but I wish to share my personal sense of this, as one who is acquainted with the holy writings. I believe it is vital to our hope of salvation that we feel our nothingness -- our absolute helplessness against the sin and corruption of our own nature, apart from divine grace. Since the fall of man, but for God's intervention in human history, and in our personal lives, we'd never have had any power (nor any inclination) to resist Satan's temptation. Even now that we are born again, by the power of the Holy Spirit, our only hope is in Jesus. In ourselves, we have no hope whatsoever. Whether making Jesus a man of like passions with ourselves leads us to bring Him down to our level, ourselves up to His level, or (inevitably) a whole lot of each, the results are certain to be pernicious. On the one hand, if we really see ourselves as we are, how could anyone as inherently sinful and corrupt as we are ever be our all-sufficient saviour? Where indeed is a Saviour to uplift HIM from our pit of corruption? On the other hand, if a "sinful" Christ was capable of "overcoming" without himself needing a Saviour, then so are we. This kind of human pride and self-sufficiency is a sure path to perdition. No, but Jesus was an unblemished sacrifice for sins. If we look at ourselves as we really are, we see it is impossible for us to be saved, but if we look at Jesus as He really is, we see it is impossible for us to be lost. Moses' serpent in the wilderness has taught us the lesson: LOOK AND LIVE!

You are exactly right. Our only hope is in Jesus, who has a righteousness which we inherently do not possess, and who is both willing and able to impute and impart it to us. Those who either reject or do not understand the gospel, and who are trying to justify themselves before God by their own good works, cannot allow Jesus to have had any kind of "advantage" over them. So no amount of reasoning or evidence will sway them. Until they see the big platform (of justification by faith alone) that has been rolled in, they will never allow the props to be knocked out from under them, no matter how flimsy (and frankly blasphemous) they are.

If there are unlimited resources for the individual who trusts in God and does everything in his or her power to meet the need, then there are unlimited resources for the nation that does the same. The law of life is to give. Selfishness is ALWAYS counterproductive.

You are mistaken. Here is one Trump-hater (if that's what you call someone who has no regard for the man) who does NOT consider unborn children disposable.

What's interesting to me even if you/we don't believe in the Trinity one way or the other, all through the Bible it shows pretty clearly, at least to me, that Jesus was the one that actually created this earth!! So not sure how anyone can believe that Jesus was not divine and human at the same time?????

Exactly!!!!! These others stood up for something, not like this person!! And if some want to believe in a party first and not the US first than they have a problem, because this president does not represent the republican party, at least not to me!!!!!

5 Things You Didn't Know About Mount St. Helens On this day in 1980, Mount St. Helens, a volcanic peak in southwestern Washington, erupted, killing 57 people. Here are 5 things you probably didn’t know about the events that led to the eruption and the dangerous consequences… There Was Advance Warning That Mount St. Helens Would Erupt Several months before the devastating eruption of Mount St. Helens, small earthquakes began occurring, so a new seismograph system was installed by the University of Washington, particularly near the volcano. On March 20, there was a 4.2-magnitude earthquake and tremors grew steadily. The U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey held conferences and deployed teams, which went out and placed research posts, along with taking readings and photos. It was determined that the north side of Mount St. Helens had developed a bulge that was increasing six feet each day, and it was just a matter of time before an eruption occurred. A Landslide Set Off the Explosion Two people performing an aerial survey at the volcano spotted where a landslide had recently occurred, and seconds later, the north face of Mount Saint Helens collapsed, which released the trapped magma and superheated gases in a massive explosion. The blast wiped out everything within eight miles and leveled century-old trees for a distance of 19 miles. The direct force of the blast covered almost 230 square miles, leaving the heavily forested areas still standing but dead. The Explosion Was Heard a Long Distance Away The blast of the volcanic explosion at Mount St. Helens was so strong that people in California, Idaho, Montana and British Columbia heard it. However, those living in closer cities such as Portland, Oregon, which is 50 miles away, heard nothing because they were inside the quiet zone. This is related to the complexity of sound waves, depending on air motion, temperature, topography and atmosphere. The Ash Plume Was More Than 80,000 Feet High After the mountain’s summit had collapsed on its north side, a black, choking smoke and ash cloud appeared that rose high enough that people hundreds of miles away could view it. Within 15 minutes, it formed a mushroom cloud 15 miles across and more than 10,000 feet high. Because winds were strong, cities and nearby states experienced the ash fall. The Eruption Killed 57 People Even though the area around Mount St. Helens was lightly populated, it destroyed hundreds of houses and killed around 7,000 large animals such as bears and deer. Fifty-seven people died from breathing in the ash or were buried alive. One local resident, Harry Randall Truman, was adamant about staying in his home and is assumed to have died because of the eruption, but his body was never found.

The implication of what Gustave has said is that each of the groups that he mentioned can be traced back to the Millerite Movement. I am not certain that I would agree with that. In addition, Gustave seems to suggest the essentially all of the Trinitarians returned to their previous denominations. I would question that. I would add another consideration: Early leaders in what became the SDA Church, came from what was a "deist" denomination. (Yes, Deists are not Trinitarian.) But, it was an actual denomination, which does not exist today. If everybody else returned to their previous denominations, why did not these people return to the group from which they came?

In my understanding (and I may be wrong), the fundamentals are provided as a guideline for what SDA's believe rather than a mandatory creed. The Fundamentals have changed significantly over the history of the SDA Church. For example, the Fundies did not previously contain an item specifically addressing the Trinity. That being said, there are certain Biblical principles embedded in the Fundies (e.g., the Sabbath, Jesus as Savior, salvation by grace, the physical return of Jesus) that people do need to accept. I ain't no pastor; so I won't be assessing anyone's baptismal qualifications in the near future.

Actually, in a Christian sense, there is more to this situation. True, a person is entitled to their own individuality and autonomy especially in spiritual decisions. Religious freedom has been cherished by the SDA church and at times the bigger Christian community. However, in the vaccination discussion, yes, there are downsides to vaccines, but even greater downsides to not being vaccinated. When you are living in a "herd", but insist on your own autonomy when it can be demonstrated that you are a danger to others, you are valuing your own self over others in the community and that does not go well with "love your neighbor as yourself." In fact, it is a very selfish position to take. People die all the time for frequently hard to understand reasons, even children. I believe Jesus said he who saves his life shall lose it, but he who loses his life shall gain it. Not saying he was discussing vaccines, but measuring yourself more important than others would qualify. Sometimes you just gotta get over yourself! Actually, the government is not forcing anything. It is just saying if you wish to remain part of the group you will demonstrate, what seems to be by all evidence, responsible caring behavior to your neighbor. As previously noted, if you do not wish to be vaccinated, leave the "herd." Find an isolated place to live or even a colony of anti-vaxxers!

So, I have posted a number of articles that pointed out unseemly behaviors here at Adventistan. And overall, they are getting more and more strange. I keep thinking that sooner or later, one of them will see a general disapproval of the behaviors written about. But it seems like the floor has fallen out and nothing is too extreme. People anymore are afraid to speak out against things that are wrong, because "we don't want to be judging anyone!" Or that is not loving to point out things that are wrong. But can it be anymore unloving than to just let someone go into perdition without a warning?! If there was a physical danger and we saw and did not warn someone, it would come across as the most callous and uncaring of behaviors. But be sure and not hurt someone's feelings because feelings are more important than right.