Should we witness to smokers?

[cardw]

If I tell you that "we should listen to and follow Ellen White" and then in the same breath say that no one can be sure of what she means, it is obvious that those words are not encouraging people to listen to and follow Ellen White's counsels. Many examples of these kinds of remarks can be given.

I think it's telling that opponents of Ellen White defend the use of this tactic.

[John317]

It's a matter of giving half-truths and dropping lines here and there that cause people to doubt and question Ellen White's dependability and honesty. This is exactly what Satan did in heaven and what Ellen White said Dr. Kellogg did in regard to the Lord's messenger. It is also what she said would be done more and more often as we draw closer to Christ's coming. Instead of people being straight forward about their viewpoints, they often couch their true beliefs in speech that indicates they believe just the opposite of the surface meaning. It's related to the rhetorical device, irony.

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is exactly what Ellen White did to her critics. She basically retreated to accusing everyone who challenged her as being under Satan's influence.

I replied to this question already and I believe Mark did also.

Originally Posted By: John317

People have a right to do this on the Forum, but we also have a right to comment and make observations about it.

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is an example of a half truth you are talking about.

Who is restricting your right to comment? You obviously are commenting right now.

Did I say my right to comment is restricted? Sure I'm commenting. All I said is that people have a right to say what has been said on the Forum and that we also have a right to comment on it. That is not saying that someone has tried to deny us the right to comment.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Whating is that if someone questions what you believe or say then they are restricting your right to comment.

That's a misrepresentation and a dishonest statement. It has nothing to do with the facts.

But you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never suggested that if someone questions what I believe, they are restricting my right to comment. Where did I ever say or even suggest it? You're twisting my words.

Why are you so often accusing people of being "dishonest" after you make up things they never even said? This is the third time I've seen you do this and have commented about it before. I never made the "dishonest statement" to begin with. You are assuming that I thought something that I never did think or say. You did the same thing yesterday when you accused me of talking about you in the third person when I wasn't even thinking about you.

What's up this this, cardw?

Originally Posted By: cardw

It is obvious to me that you are unable to meet the questions head on.

I just did. See above.

What are the questionsyou find that I obviously can't meet head on?

I may not answer quetions to your satisfaction, but I always meet questions head on.

[cardw]

People have a right to do this on the Forum, but we also have a right to comment and make observations about it.

Did I say my right to comment is restricted? Sure I'm commenting.

[John317]

If I tell you that "we should listen to and follow Ellen White" and then in the same breath say that no one can be sure of what she means, it is obvious that those words are not encouraging people to listen to and follow Ellen White's counsels. Many examples of these kinds of remarks can be given.

I think it's telling that opponents of Ellen White defend the use of this tactic.

Originally Posted By: cardw

OK, let's look at something specific. Here are a couple quotes by Ellen White on health. I have posted this before, but all I get are answers on some generality of the prophetic gift which basically would allow any writer to be a prophet.

"The use of soda or baking powder in bread making is harmful and unnecessary. Soda causes inflammation of the stomach and often poisons the entire system." (Ministry of Healing, p. 300)

The byproduct of baking soda is common salt. Explain to me how salt is now a poison which causes inflammation. Even if there was excess salt it would absorb inflammation and dehydrate, not inflame.

Is this a mistake?

No.

I'm not a doctor but here is what I found:

Quote:

What Causes Inflammation?

Many factors, including emotions, diet and lifestyle, contribute to inflammation. Diet is a big one. Foods are naturally pro-inflammatory or anti-inflammatory, so depending on what you eat you may be fueling inflammation in your body.

Sugary, highly processed foods rank high on the list of "pro-inflammatory" foods.

Pro-inflammatory foods include sugar, soda, .....

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/02...do-about-it.htm

Ellen White was a long ways ahead of her day in terms of health matters. Seventh-day Adventists have been blessed by God through her ministry. We do well to trust her even when science has not yet caught up with the counsels that God has given her for His people. A good example is that it is only fairly recently that science agrees with her that meat-eating inceases disease and that a good vegetarian diet leads to a longer and healthier life. This has been demonstrated by studies regarding the health of SDAs. It is the direct result of what Ellen White was shown in vision by God in the 1860s and 70s.

[John317]

People have a right to do this on the Forum, but we also have a right to comment and make observations about it.

Did I say my right to comment is restricted? Sure I'm commenting. All I said is that people have a right to say what has been said on the Forum and that we also have a right to comment on it. That is not saying that someone has tried to deny us the right to comment.

Originally Posted By: cardw

When you state that you have a right to do something you are defending that right. Why would you defend that right unless you thought someone was restricting that right?

My purpose in saying what I did was to let it be clear that I am not saying that people do not have the right to make those kinds of posts on the Adventist Forum. That needs to be stated clearly because there are some Forums which ban people for doing those things. That is, you can be banned on some of the Forums for making it appear that you believe something when you really don't.

For instance, if a person claims to believe in SDA teachings but they really oppose them and they say things to mislead people into believing falsehoods, they can be banned. The same applies to people who claim to support Ellen White's prophetic ministry when they really don't. People aren't always forthright about their beliefs, and much of it is due to their attempt to change the church's doctrines and practices. Instead of leaving the church when they have fundamental disagreements over doctrine, they remain in it for the purpose of changing it to conform to their viewpoints. There are people who do this with respect to the Sabbath, Ellen White, the Trinity, the doctrine of salvation and many other teachings.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Who is restricting your right to comment and make observations?

No one. Again, I never claimed anyone was restricting anything at that point. Nor did I suggest it. If I say that as an American I have a right to say something, it doesn't mean I am accusing anyone of trying to restrict my freedom. A person can say this with the intention of emphasizing that he is exercising his right to freedom of expression, likely something that others may not like to hear.

Originally Posted By: cardw

What your saying is that if someone questions what you believe or say then they are restricting your right to comment.

That's a misrepresentation and a dishonest statement. It has nothing to do with the facts.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

But you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never suggested that if someone questions what I believe, they are restricting my right to comment. Where did I ever say or even sugget it?

Originally Posted By: cardw

The fact is you are defending your right to comment and make an observation.

Yes, I am. Clearly.

Originally Posted By: cardw

That implies that someone is restricting that right.

No. I explained this already. Please see above.

It could imply what you say but it need not do so under every circumstance, and this is plainly one of those circumstances when it does not imply any such thing.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Otherwise it's irrelevant to the topic of conversation.

But just because you don't see how a statement I make is relevent does not make it so. You are again evidently persuaded that you can read people's minds. See above where I explained why I said what I did. From my viewpoint, I had a good reason to say what I did, and without implying that someone was trying to restrict my freedom to post. I didn't think that was true then, and I don't think it is true now. That was not the reason I made my statement as I did.

Originally Posted By: cardw

That is an example of a half truth. It's an accusation by implication.

You may think so, and that is your right. But I also have the right to repond directly to your accusation here. You are accusing me directly of making accusations by implications, and I deny it categorically.

If I had something to accuse someone of, I would say it plainly and clearly and not merely "imply" it.

Originally Posted By: cardw

It's a form of dishonest conversation because the person it's directed to has to keep clearing up all the implied accusations.

It's incredibly frustrating.

I've noticed that you have become adept at making people clear up accusations. Your post here is a good example of how you accomplish this. You did it yesterday also when you made the accusation that I had been talking about you in the third person when in actuality I was thinking about 3 other people. You said it was dishonest of me to say what I did. If you check your posts, Richard, you will find a pattern of telling people they are being dishonest when there's no evidence of dishonesty at all but only of your misunderstanding them or putting words in people's mouths.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

OK, let's look at something specific. Here are a couple quotes by Ellen White on health. I have posted this before, but all I get are answers on some generality of the prophetic gift which basically would allow any writer to be a prophet.

"The use of soda or baking powder in bread making is harmful and unnecessary. Soda causes inflammation of the stomach and often poisons the entire system." (Ministry of Healing, p. 300)

The byproduct of baking soda is common salt. Explain to me how salt is now a poison which causes inflammation. Even if there was excess salt it would absorb inflammation and dehydrate, not inflame.

Is this a mistake?

No.

I'm not a doctor but here is what I found:

Quote:

What Causes Inflammation?

Many factors, including emotions, diet and lifestyle, contribute to inflammation. Diet is a big one. Foods are naturally pro-inflammatory or anti-inflammatory, so depending on what you eat you may be fueling inflammation in your body.

Sugary, highly processed foods rank high on the list of "pro-inflammatory" foods.

Pro-inflammatory foods include sugar, soda, .....

[cardw]

I've noticed that you have become adept at making people clear up accusations. Your post here is a good example of how you accomplish this. You did it yesterday also when you made the accusation that I had been talking about you in the third person when in actuality I was thinking about 3 other people.

Then you were talking about them in the 3rd person.

How is that any different than talking about me in the third person?

Sheesh!!!

[John317]

Why are you so often accusing people of being "dishonest" after you make up things they never even said? This is the third time I've seen you do this and have commented about it before. I never made the "dishonest statement" to begin with. You are assuming that I thought something that I never did think or say.

Originally Posted By: cardw

As I explained above I did not make it up.

You said that I had written about you in the third person when I hadn't even been thinking about you when I wrote the post. I just finished responding to another post in which you repeated your accusations of people being "dishonest." You do this very often. And you do it is really a matter of your either misunderstanding someone or when you actually put words in their mouth.

A good example of this is the way you claim that I was accusing people of trying to restrict my freedom to post. You say this also is "dishonest" on my part. But the only thing dishonest about it is what you've imagined.

When you accuse people of dishonestly, you really need to have better reason than simply the kinds of things we've been discussing here.

Originally Posted By: cardw

The method you use to reason is flawed because you don't pay attention to the specifics.

Please be specific and give an example or two. When did I fail to pay attention to specifics?

Originally Posted By: cardw

You may not be intentionally saying these things and that's why I don't take it personally, but it is tedious to have to defend the assumptions you present in the way your form your views.

What do you think I said unintentionally?

I don't say anything unintentionally, Richard. I may be mistaken in what I say, but I don't say things by mistake. There's a big difference.

Do you know how tedious it is to have to respond to your accusation in your recent posts? I suspect you might know, since you say doing it is tedious to you as well. So let us stop this tediousness. I am sure it is tedious as well to any unlucky reader who has to see this. But I write it because I take posters seriously and I try to repond as directly as possible to what they say. I know there are people who wonder why I bother, but the reason I do is that I think you deserve a heads-on answer. So I hope you are the only one reading this. If anyone else is, I would encourage them to go do something else. As you say, this is very tedious, but it is evidently necessary to ward off your accusations of dishonesty.

How do I form my views, Richard? Do you know me well enough to tell me how I form my views?

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone on this Forum how they form their views, and this is after writing back and forth to them for several years.

Originally Posted By: John317

I just did. See above.

What are the questionsyou find that I obviously can't meet head on?

I may not answer quetions to your satisfaction, but I always meet questions head on.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Quoting the Bible is not answering the questions.

I didn't quote the Bible in answer to your questions. I wouldn't quote the Bible to you because I know it is nonsense to you. Nor would I quote Ellen White because I know you reject her.

I only quote those sources to fellow-believers, that is, to Christians and to Seventh-day Adventists. I would quote the Bible only to people who I believe are interested in learning God's truth. If someone lets it be known they don't believe in God and don't want Him, I say nothing about Him to them. I respect their right to be left alone by God if that is what they choose.

What question do you believe I have failed to answer?

Originally Posted By: cardw

Generalizing is not answering the questions.

You mean like the generalization in your post? I notice you are doing a fair amoung of generalizing yourself. This very statement is one such example.

Where did I generalize and therefore not answer the question? If I did so, let me know what question you want me to be more specific about, and I will do it.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Redefining is not answering the questions.

Where did I refefine anything? What question did you feel I answered by redefing? Was the redefinition wrong in your opinion? If so, point it out and I will gladly give it another try.

Originally Posted By: cardw

You need to read a book on reason which will help explain what a fallacy is.

Yes, I love reading such books. I took a class in logic in college and still have the text book. What book do you have in mind?

Originally Posted By: cardw

It makes communicating a lot more accurate.

Yes, it does. I agree with you.

But what part of the communicating here do you believe would be helped by reading a book on logic? You did not give me any examples of exactly what you have in mind.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Here is a link for your reference.

Rational Fallacies

Hey, thanks, Richard. I'll check it out. I hope it helps me out. I can use all the help I can get, I know that much. :-)

[John317]

I've noticed that you have become adept at making people clear up accusations. Your post here is a good example of how you accomplish this. You did it yesterday also when you made the accusation that I had been talking about you in the third person when in actuality I was thinking about 3 other people.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Then you were talking about them in the 3rd person.

How is that any different than talking about me in the third person?

Sheesh!!!

It's a lot different. For one thing I wasn't talking about any particular person but about a situation. And secondly, the persons that came to mind as examples weren't taking part in that particular discussion. So it isn't even true that I was talking about them in the third person. I said that I had thought of them as examples of the point I was making, but I didn't say anything about them personally or otherwise. Yet you took my words to mean I was speaking of you, which wasn't the case at all.

I agree with you that this is tedious stuff. Let's get back on topic. Enough of this detour. :-)

[John317]

Or so could you... And yes even EGW could have as well. Prophets are not perfect, sinless beings. They are human. They make mistakes.

Yes, of course prophets are not perfect and make mistakes. I don't think anyone is denying this. Moses and Paul and Elijah are good examples. Even John the Baptist, than whom there was none greater, made mistakes and sinned.

But having said this about the prophets, so what? What is the point of saying they make mistakes and are not sinless?

[Tom Wetmore]

The point, lost somewhere back in all the very unnecessary nitpicking on tangential stuff, is simply that there seems to be an overwhelming reaction of denial of this reality whenever an obvious mistake of EGW is identified.

There is good to be found in her writings. But weeding through it for those nuggets is sort of like weeding through many forum discussion like this one. It is tedious. It is very time consuming. There are too many distracting or confusing elements. And most folk just give up and move on to more time profitable pursuits and resources for answers.

Like I am now going to do...

[John317]

...There is good to be found in her writings. But weeding through it for those nuggets is sort of like weeding through many forum discussion like this one. It is tedious. It is very time consuming. There are too many distracting or confusing elements. And most folk just give up and move on to more time profitable pursuits and resources for answers.

Are you saying that it is tedious to weed through the writings of Ellen White to find the good nuggets?

[John317]

The point, lost somewhere back in all the very unnecessary nitpicking on tangential stuff, is simply that there seems to be an overwhelming reaction of denial of this reality whenever an obvious mistake of EGW is identified.

That's your opinion, Tom, but I don't see the "overwhelming reaction of denial" of the reality that Ellen White is not perfect or has made mistakes.

What are the obvious mistakes that Ellen White made? Are you talking about mistakes in her writings or in her life or both?

And how does the fact that she was human and made mistakes affect your view of her writings and her prophetic ministry?

There were never any prophets of God who were not human or made no mistakes. Ellen White was no different in those respects from anyone else.

[doug yowell]

The point, lost somewhere back in all the very unnecessary nitpicking on tangential stuff, is simply that there seems to be an overwhelming reaction of denial of this reality whenever an obvious mistake of EGW is identified.

There is good to be found in her writings. But weeding through it for those nuggets is sort of like weeding through many forum discussion like this one. It is tedious. It is very time consuming. There are too many distracting or confusing elements. And most folk just give up and move on to more time profitable pursuits and resources for answers.

Like I am now going to do...

See ya.

[cardw]

What question do you believe I have failed to answer?