Quackventists

[Guest Bruno]

That said, I do think that there is a continuity in EGW statements that does indicate a caution in certain foods.

And I think that EGW is attempting to, in her writing, give warning to us about those things which MAY cause problem...

Yes, I agree. I think it's very clear that what she intended to do was to help humanity live more healthfully. However, she made broad statements, too broad for reality. There are certianly some who shouldn't eat certain things, and yet for others, they could eat them day and night.

Notice how she doesn't ever say it's right for some and not for others. She just say's "it's all bad, for all people". And that is not surprising, coming from a day when knowledge of human anatomy and physiology was very limited, at best. She was right on some stuff, and wrong on some stuff. She was after all, human.

Do you think God want's us to follow her words exactly? Or, do you think God wants us to use reason, intelligence, and critical thinking when it comes to our health? Does God really not want us to ride bikes? I think not. But, since SOP said they are not to be owned, then some would say, don't own one. I think they are failing to look at the big picture. Don't spend you hard earned money on foolish toys that aren't necessay, that's the true message. That was a time when bikes weren't practical, but that's no longer true.

I find it similar to when Rush said "salt is bad". I think what he meant to say, was "too much salt is bad". And that's true, every time. But the amount of salt that's "too much" varies for each person. So, it's not healthy for anybody to have too much salt, but it's also not healthy to not get enough salt. So, with a more broad, intellectual look at her writings, and warnings, I think one can find them to be very helpful. But, if you just take the words at face value, without weighing the information against current, tested, knowledge, then you are possibly going to harm yourself, and your loved ones.

I feel certain the SOP would change her mind on many health items, if she was able to have the knowledge we have today. It's not like she never changed her mind before, or was shown new, more enlightening information. She wanted us to be healthy, and she used the very best information of her day. And she would want us to use the very best information of our day.

[rush4hire]

Can you please give a link, or provide a source, for your definition of "feverish and impure" blood which equals to intoxication?

The terms "like" and "equal to" have different meanings. As I've said, it depends what you call "impure", "unclean", "toxic".

Some people drink tap water, and think it's pure. Compared to the lake water, it is.

If you are sick and have a fever, then your blood is impure, and the experience is somewhat like being intoxicated. LIKE, not equal to. So "feverish and impure" might be a suitable term to describe blood who's level of toxicity has been raised.

All blood has a certain level of toxicity.

[John317]

But the amount of salt that's "too much" varies for each person. So, it's not healthy for anybody to have too much salt, but it's also not healthy to not get enough salt. So, with a more broad, intellectual look at her writings, and warnings, I think one can find them to be very helpful. But, if you just take the words at face value, without weighing the information against current, tested, knowledge, then you are possibly going to harm yourself, and your loved ones.

This is all true. Ellen White often wrote about the importance of people knowing their own bodies. She said the most important thing to teach a child was to understand their bodies. There's not just one rule for all people but it depends on the reaction of our body.

For instance, beans are a good food for most people, but they were like poison to Ellen White.

[rush4hire]

Notice how she doesn't ever say it's right for some and not for others. She just say's "it's all bad, for all people".

[Neil D]

Quote:

Do you think God want's us to follow her words exactly? Or, do you think God wants us to use reason, intelligence, and critical thinking when it comes to our health? Does God really not want us to ride bikes? I think not. But, since SOP said they are not to be owned, then some would say, don't own one. I think they are failing to look at the big picture. Don't spend you hard earned money on foolish toys that aren't necessay, that's the true message. That was a time when bikes weren't practical, but that's no longer true.

Oh Puleeeze...don't lump me into the same catagory as a literalistic twit.....God gave us hands to reach for things and to work with, feet to walk with, and to exercise with. What makes you think I am advocating the non-use of a God given brain??? I know that there are times in which many here would think that I don't use my head, but I would tend to disagree with them...and give a somewhat logical reason for it. As for the bike side issue, I don't think that the bike was not necessary, but more of a money issue....Nevertheless, the principle from that issue is good stewardship...as it was then.

[Caribbeanized]

The "cult" label does stem from our seriousness about our beliefs.

Only Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are called "cults" more than we are.

The funny thing is that we might be the three largest "American" religions all born around the same time (mid to late 1800s). What are the chances of that?

Almost all the people who use the word "cult" do not know what a cult is and merely want to wield the pejorative part of the word as a club. These people must be ignored roundly.

[Caribbeanized]

I do sense there might be some sort of agenda to "go after the lady". In all honesty "Rush" has posted actual quotes while other have contented themselves with either twisting them to say what they did not say, or ignoring them altogether.

Listen, when Adventist Health Study-2 comes out maybe we should sit down and decide how much blame/credit the Spirit of Prophecy gets for the research findings.

[rush4hire]

The "cult" label does stem from our seriousness about our beliefs.

Only Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are called "cults" more than we are.

The funny thing is that we might be the three largest "American" religions all born around the same time (mid to late 1800s). What are the chances of that?

[Neil D]

Gentlemen...

The thread is about "quackventists", not cults.

And while there are Adventists fall into that category of cultish practices, it is best to contrast those practices with the practice of grace.

I believe the originator of this thread was attempting to identify those practices and those contrasts...

What personal experiences have you had to express grace to your cultish brethern...?

[Bravus]

Good perspective, Neil. Rather than wrangle over whether Adventism as a whole is a cult or not, it might be more useful to ask whether particular individuals or subgroups behave in ways that are cultic.

[guibox]

Am I to understand from your post that strict adherence & obedience to established doctrine is conservatism and legalism? And that those who discover living under grace somehow are less strict in their adherence & obedience to established truth?

Gerry

Sorry, Gerry, I haven't been on for a while and missed your question. No Gerry, I'm not saying that liberals are 'anything goes' and conservatists are 'cultists'.

I don't have a problem with conservatism per se. My problem is not with conservatism in general but conservatism masking as Pharisaism. My problem is dogmatic sectarianism that excludes fresh thinking, rational discussion, and agreeable disagreements.

When we hold EGW up too high on a pedastal, when we use her as a theological straightjacket on fresh looks of biblical interpreation and an infallible interpreter of scripture, when we use her to bash people over the head concerning nit-picky standards that aren't a salvation issue, then we are the cult that people say we are.

Quackventists adhere to the strict, fringe form of sectarianism under the name of the SDA church. They then tell us that if we don't follow their own brand of strict, SDAism, we aren't good SDAs, we are 'apostates' 'compromisers' and 'partakers of the wine of Babylon'. Any deviation from the SOP is practically grounds for dismissal from the church as far as quackventists are concerned. It is this cultic thinking that I have a problem with.

[Woody]

Well put Guibox. Thank you. This is what I have been trying to explain here for years. But you have done it much better. I hope you aren't attacked as much as I have been with my attempts. Good Luck. Be prepared for the onslaught though.

PS. It is good to have you here Guibox. Maybe you could fill in your profile and let us know what you feel comfortable with.