Porn, the Bible Belt and the Sabbath

[aldona]

A general reply to a few people here, not just one specific person...

Quote:

For those wanting to know where the Bible says that Adam & Eve were "clothed" with light check out Genesis 3:7 & 8 "the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons... And He said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

They were obviously clothed with something that prevented them from seeing their nakedness. Or maybe some biological phenomenon happened to their eyes when they sinned.

Read the text just as it is written, without adding or subtracting bits. Their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked.

Something happened to their eyes. Nothing has happened to their bodies. They were naked before, and they are naked now. But now they know (or realize) that they are naked. Previously they had no reason to give it any thought. It was just the normal state that they were in.

Go back and read Genesis 1:25. "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." Read it again. It does not get any more straightforward than that. Go back to the previous texts, and then forward to the next chapter, and find me even one hint of any word that means anything close to "covering", "robe" or "light". It is not there.

We Adventists are very good at taking parts of the Bible literally and at face value when it suits us. But if something does not sit comfortably with our pre-conceived ideas and traditions - watch the verbal and mental gymnastics.

Quote:

Or it was just that nakedness was not a source of shame in their state of innocence. The 'clothes of light' are an EGW addition.

Exactly my point. Before sin entered the world, when everything God had created was perfect, there would have been nothing about the human body that was shameful, or that could be abused, or used to abuse or harm another person. This is no longer the case now that we are living in a fallen world, and that is why we wear clothes now. But what possible reason would Adam and Eve have had to be ashamed of parts of their bodies in their sinless innocence?

Quote:

Have you guys ever thought that not everything EGW might have said to have come from God? Maybe it was sorely her opinion.

And this, in my opinion, is what it comes down to.

Which is the "lesser light" here, and which is the greater?

Are we taking the Bible as the standard, and holding up the words of EGW to scrutiny to see how they compare to the plain and unambiguous words of Scripture?

Or are we twisting the Bible text, turning it upside down and inside out, and desperately trying to read into it something that is not there, in order to show how EGW got it right and how inspired is every word that she wrote?

I think this thread has (once again) answered this question loudly and clearly.

And we wonder why some other Christians consider us a cult.

aldona

[GoLions]

Quote:

Have you guys ever thought that not everything EGW might have said to have come from God? Maybe it was sorely her opinion.

And this, in my opinion, is what it comes down to.

Which is the "lesser light" here, and which is the greater?

Are we taking the Bible as the standard, and holding up the words of EGW to scrutiny to see how they compare to the plain and unambiguous words of Scripture?

Or are we twisting the Bible text, turning it upside down and inside out, and desperately trying to read into it something that is not there, in order to show how EGW got it right and how inspired is every word that she wrote?

I think this thread has (once again) answered this question loudly and clearly.

And we wonder why some other Christians consider us a cult.

aldona

Aldona, are you saying that EGW was a lesser light? If so, a light is still a light. Her writings have been very very very much apart of my becoming a Christian. When you are in darkness, a lesser light maybe exactly what you need (I did). As far as other Christians considering us a cult. Who really gives a load of soy beans about what they think? If what I understand to be the little time of trouble to be correct, then they will not only think us a cult but will try to kill us. We are called to be faithful. Are you saying that if EGW doesn't quote from the Bible itself then its just her opinion? Or does she have to say "I was shown" before you believe it to be from God? If this was just her opinion, does it make it wrong and if so why didn't God correct her? I love the Bible, EGW helps me understand the Bible more fully. Have you been special light from God that allows you trample underfoot what she has written? Here is what I think. EGW writings are inspired, and what isn't inspired is inspiring. That is good enough for me. The Bible was written for all time, EGW wrote for the end time...both apply to us today.

[Robert]

Have you been special light from God that allows you trample underfoot what she has written?

[GoLions]

Originally Posted By: GoLions

Have you been special light from God that allows you trample underfoot what she has written?

Uh-oh did I go to far???

[Bravus]

So basically, yeah, aldona, what you said.

[Bravus]

GoLions, the approach of hanging onto both only works until EGW contradicts the Bible. Then you have to choose.

[Outta Here]

From Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 310-312:

Quote:

The white robe of innocence was worn by our first parents when they were placed by God in holy Eden. They lived in perfect conformity to the will of God. All the strength of their affections was given to their heavenly Father. A beautiful soft light, the light of God, enshrouded

Page 311

the holy pair. This robe of light was a symbol of their spiritual garments of heavenly innocence. Had they remained true to God it would ever have continued to enshroud them. But when sin entered, they severed their connection with God, and the light that had encircled them departed. Naked and ashamed, they tried to supply the place of the heavenly garments by sewing together fig leaves for a covering.

This is what the transgressors of God's law have done ever since the day of Adam and Eve's disobedience. They have sewed together fig leaves to cover the nakedness caused by transgression. They have worn the garments of their own devising, by works of their own they have tried to cover their sins, and make themselves acceptable with God.

But this they can never do. Nothing can man devise to supply the place of his lost robe of innocence. No fig-leaf garment, no worldly citizen dress, can be worn by those who sit down with Christ and angels at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Only the covering which Christ Himself has provided can make us meet to appear in God's presence. This covering, the robe of His own righteousness, Christ will put upon every repenting, believing soul. "I counsel thee," He says, "to buy of Me . . . white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear." Rev. 3:18.

This robe, woven in the loom of heaven, has in it not one thread of human devising. Christ in His humanity wrought out a perfect character, and this character He offers to impart to us. "All our righteousness are as filthy rags." Isa. 64:6. Everything that we of ourselves can do is defiled by sin. But the Son of God "was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin." Sin is defined to be "the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:5, 4. But

Page 312

Christ was obedient to every requirement of the law. He said of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God; yea, Thy law is within My heart." Ps. 40:8. When on earth, He said to His disciples, "I have kept My Father's commandments." John 15:10. By His perfect obedience He has made it possible for every human being to obey God's commandments. When we submit ourselves to Christ, the heart is united with His heart, the will is merged in His will, the mind becomes one with His mind, the thoughts are brought into captivity to Him; we live His life. This is what it means to be clothed with the garment of His righteousness. Then as the Lord looks upon us He sees, not the fig-leaf garment, not the nakedness and deformity of sin, but His own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah.

[Outta Here]

What does the "shame of thy nakedness" in Revelation 3:18 refer to? What shamefulness is there in nakedness?

[Robert]

Our standing before God without the wedding garment.

[Gail]

Good discussion and good involvement with a variety of members!

The biggest dangers that Mark Gungor brings out, which should cause us some fear, is the imprinting process that has been described in this thread, and the result that eventually the porn addict will become unable to perform normally sexually.

That's a pretty powerful addiction, wouldn't you say? What does that do for your marriage or future marriage?

[aldona]

Quote:

So basically, yeah, aldona, what you said.

(sigh) I rest my case.

Show an Adventist a discrepancy between EGW and the Bible...whether real or apparent, and no matter how trivial the subject...

...and they will choose Ellen over the Bible, and jump down your throat for daring to question Ellen.

Every. Single. Time.

Has not failed yet.

And I've been trying it for a long time now.

aldona

[GoLions]

Quote:

So basically, yeah, aldona, what you said.

(sigh) I rest my case.

Show an Adventist a discrepancy between EGW and the Bible...whether real or apparent, and no matter how trivial the subject...

...and they will choose Ellen over the Bible, and jump down your throat for daring to question Ellen.

Every. Single. Time.

Has not failed yet.

And I've been trying it for a long time now.

aldona

I have set my default button on EGW to 'she is a prophet', so I look at her writings and see how the agree with the Bible. On this subject it makes complete sense to how it compares favorably with what the Bible does say. I do not look at her writings as a lawyer does and question absolutely everything she says. The Pharisees did the same thing to Jesus. I have studied enough about her writings and whether or not they hold water, and have found them to be more than sufficient for me. Go ahead and look at her writings any which way you please. Search her writings as you please. But this argument dealing with this subject, seems to me, to be very weak. If you want to talk about whether or not she is a prophet, then I suggest starting a new topic.

[Dr. Shane]

Their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked... Something happened to their eyes. Nothing has happened to their bodies.

[melvin mccarty]

Usually nothing erotic about nudity until one has been taught or conditioned that way. How much "porn" could you sell in a nudist colony? (grin).....mel

[Woody]

Quote:

If this was just her opinion, does it make it wrong and if so why didn't God correct her?

God is a busy person. He can't go around correcting everybody's errors. EGW is a good source. Jon Paulien is a good source. George Knight is a good source. All of them have been inspired of God to write for our church ... great truths. But if you are going to stick with just one inspired source instead of a variety and in place of scripture ... you are headed down the wrong path.

[GoLions]

Quote:

If this was just her opinion, does it make it wrong and if so why didn't God correct her?

God is a busy person. He can't go around correcting everybody's errors. EGW is a good source. Jon Paulien is a good source. George Knight is a good source. All of them have been inspired of God to write for our church ... great truths. But if you are going to stick with just one inspired source instead of a variety and in place of scripture ... you are headed down the wrong path.

I am not familiar with those other fellows. Have they been recognized as and have passed the test of a prophet? If not then, I don't put them on the same level as EGW. Inspiring yes, well, maybe(I havn't heard of them) but inspired, no. (if we are talking in the sense of prophets being inspired).

[Gregory Matthews]

Usually nothing erotic about nudity until one has been taught or conditioned that way. How much "porn" could you sell in a nudist colony? (grin).....mel

Your question is quite valid. The answer is:

1) On one level, porn is erotic. NOTE: There is another level on which pron is not erotic.

2) Nudity is real life, the real thing.

3) Porn, on some levels, is air-brushed, posed, lighted and otherwise "photoshoped" to the point where it is erotic.

Your question: How much porn could you sell in a nudist colony? The answer is: As much as you could sell outside of a nudist colonly. Many years ago I read an article that addressed this. The author had visited a bath house in Japan. It had a male attendent who let people in and was observant of all that transpired in the bath area. The person who wrote the article noted that he was sitting at his station reading (?) a copy of PLAYBOY while the unclothed people were walking in the background.

[Woody]

Quote:

I am not familiar with those other fellows. Have they been recognized as and have passed the test of a prophet? If not then, I don't put them on the same level as EGW. Inspiring yes, well, maybe(I havn't heard of them) but inspired, no. (if we are talking in the sense of prophets being inspired).

Have you tested them? Are you claiming that no one other than EGW can have the 'gifts of the Spirit"?

[GoLions]

Have you tested them? Are you claiming that no one other than EGW can have the 'gifts of the Spirit"?

Um, no I have not tested them, I don't recall having ever even hearing of them. Are they claiming to be prophets? I work with a lady who claims to have the gift of prophecy, but she sure doesn't pass the test. Did EGW even have ALL the gifts of the spirit? I do not know that. Certainly the gifts of the spirit are inevidence in the church today. So, in answer to your 2nd question, no.

[SivartM]

Quote:

I am not familiar with those other fellows. Have they been recognized as and have passed the test of a prophet? If not then, I don't put them on the same level as EGW. Inspiring yes, well, maybe(I havn't heard of them) but inspired, no. (if we are talking in the sense of prophets being inspired).

Have you tested them? Are you claiming that no one other than EGW can have the 'gifts of the Spirit"?

Since they never claimed to be inspired, I wouldn't give them that title. Ellen White, however, made obvious claims of inspiration (I doubt George Knight has ever seen angels in vision, but Ellen White did). I would consider good Christian authors to be inspired in the way that Luther and Miller were; God gives them good insights, but they don't receive direct messages from God or have the gift of prophecy.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Have you tested them? Are you claiming that no one other than EGW can have the 'gifts of the Spirit"?

Um, no I have not tested them, I don't recall having ever even hearing of them. Are they claiming to be prophets? I work with a lady who claims to have the gift of prophecy, but she sure doesn't pass the test. Did EGW even have ALL the gifts of the spirit? I do not know that. Certainly the gifts of the spirit are inevidence in the church today. So, in answer to your 2nd question, no.

This is what Ellen White believed:

"I would have humility of mind, and be willing to be instructed as a child. The Lord has been pleased to give me great light, yet I know that He leads other minds, and opens to them the mysteries of His Word, and I want to receive every ray of light that God shall send me, though it should come through the humblest of His servants." (1888 Mat. 163)

[aldona]

Quote:

I have set my default button on EGW to 'she is a prophet'

You have every right to do so, and it is commendable that you are at least honest enough to state this openly.

Mormons set their default button on Joseph Smith to 'he is a prophet' too, and their reaction when someone compares his writings to the Bible is very similar.

I have spent years trying to re-train myself to set my default button on the Bible to 'this is the word of God.'

Maybe I don't really have what it takes to be a good Adventist...

aldona

[Woody]

Aldona ... like Rob .... you are the real thing.

[aldona]

Quote:

If the problem was their eyes why didn't God make them a pair of glasses instead of coats of skins?

The 'problem' was not their eyes. Their eyes were just perceiving their nakedness in a new way. The 'problem' was that now they had knowledge of good and evil, so their nakedness (and everything else) took on a new meaning, and they could never go back to their previous way of thinking and experiencing.

aldona

[aldona]

Aldona ... like Rob .... you are the real thing.

Nooo...that's very kind of you, Redwood, but the more I think about it, the more I think that in the 'body of Christ' I must be the appendix...I just seem to cause inflammation, and don't have any obvious purpose.

Or maybe a hemorrhoid - the only thing I'm achieving is to prevent folks from sitting comfortably, while being too much of an embarrassment to discuss publicly.

Maybe someone will come along one day and 'remove' me.

OK, back to topic - I think my views on this particular subject have outstayed their welcome and I will retreat into 'lurk' mode.

aldona