Should we ignore some churches and peoples?

[John317]

I have many ex-Catholic friends and they stay as far away from Catholic circles as they can. There is something quite odd about a breed of ex-Adventists that continues to fight against what they supposedly have left behind them.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

I believe there are two main reasons for this, (1) they have a guilty conscience and fighting SDAs and their doctrines is one way they convince themselves that they are right and SDAs are wrong; and (2) Satan uses them to keep SDAs busy defending the faith and to discourage those who are looking into SDA beliefs or who are either new or weak in the faith.

Originally Posted By: cardw

I have openly said why I post here. And this talking about me in the third person is really dishonest.

I wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote that. I was frankly thinking of some friends of mine on the Forum.

If I was thinking of you, I would say it. But I wasn't. You are completely mistaken to think I was talking about you in the third person.

[John317]

This last point explains why it happens more among SDAs than among some other groups, because we know that Satan is making war against God's last-day church. The church and people who love Christ are his primary target. He knows his time is short.

Originally Posted By: cardw

This last statement proves that you base your views on fear of Satan, not on the facts and reason.

This is a mistake. I'm not afraid of Satan in the sense you evidently mean. But I do take him seriously and I do beleive in his existence.

I believe I have fact and good reason to believe in Satan and to believe that he has been given powers by God to do many evil things. The Bible teaches this, but I understand that you don't believe in the Bible, so it is not surprising that we disagree on this.

From my viewpoint, though, you are only accepting part of the evidence, so you don't see the whole picture. You deny that the evidence even exists.

Quote:

No one has addressed the problems with this statement in any direct manner. I gave a list of it's implications and the problems it presents and no one has addressed them.

Instead you have been playing this blame the world and Satan nonsense. It really is a reflection of how Ellen White addressed her critics in this dishonest manner.

Could you explain what you mean here in the first part of this quote? I really don't have any idea of what you're talking about.

You have a habit of talking about Christians being "dishonest." You said in a recent post that I was dishonest for speaking about you in the third person. But I wasn't even talking about you or thinking of you. If I was, I would have no trouble telling you and saying it straight out. But I was actually thinking of three people I know personally on the forum. I consider them friends of mine but we do disagree. But it's been a friendly disagreement, among friends. I have met them in person and had a good time eating with them and talking. But no, I wasn't thinking of you at all.

"Dishonest" in reference to Ellen White means that you believe you know her heart and her intentions and that she was deliberately trying to deceive people. Do you really know this for a fact?

What is your evidence of this dishonesty? Do you have documented evidence of it?

[aldona]

Quote:

And the woman whose hair is her adornment... let her not think that that consummates her toiletries. Should the adornment of her hair suffice?—egads – think not so!—but let her toilette be as an offering to her Gd – for He created her in His image.

Typical Adventist mindset re female comeliness...

"You are still judged by your appearance, no differently than the world judges. You still have to make yourself look beautiful in order to be accepted by God and man. But here is an extra level of difficulty for you...you have to achieve this without using jewelry, face paints, "broided hair", gold, pearls or costly apparel (a la 1 Timothy 2:9)."

I long for the day when we will truly understand the difference between outward and inward beauty, for both males and females.

AJ

(sitting back and waiting for the deluge of posts equating simple, modest and orderly attire/appearance with laziness, ugliness and lack of effort)

[Dr. Shane]

this talking about me in the third person is really dishonest.

Don't flatter yourself too much there. Of course, if the shoe fits... go ahead and put it on. In the past when I have directed a comment specifically at you, I have referred to your user name "cardw" or Richard. There are many such people that fit that description that come into boards like this.

Adventism is based on love. Over the past 25 years of being in a 12 step group I have learned more and more about how much of Christianity is based on fear. My eyes have really been open to that fact from listening to members of other churches talk about their religious experiences. And there are certain groups within Adventism that are influenced by other Christian denominations in that way. While I believe Ellen White was a messenger of God who received divine dreams and visions and also spoke with angels, she wasn't beyond being influenced by other Christian denominations either. That aside, the Adventist doctrines found in our 28 fundamental beliefs are based on love completely. Perfect love casteth out all fear. God wants a love relationship with us and the more that becomes a reality the less fear will be a part of our lives.

[Dr. Shane]

I long for the day when we will truly understand the difference between outward and inward beauty, for both males and females.

I was discussing this with my sister-in-law's husband this past summer. They live in Costa Rica and were here on vacation. He was asking me why I don't object to the use of jewelry. I tried to explain inward and outward beauty.

I told him that certainly there is a problem when a person tosses $20 in the offering basket on Sabbath and then goes out on Sunday and spends $200 on a piece of jewelry.

However I see no problem with the person that tosses $200 in the offering basket on Sabbath and goes out on Sunday and buys a $20 piece of jewelry.

We rarely every buy jewelry that costs more than $20.

The same would apply to putting on make-up. How much time is spent in Bible study compared to putting on make-up. A woman that spends five minutes in front of the mirror and 30 minutes in Bible study each day would seem to have her priorities in order.

[John317]

this talking about me in the third person is really dishonest.

Originally Posted By: Shane

Don't flatter yourself too much there. Of course, if the shoe fits... go ahead and put it on.

You're correct here about Richard flattering himself too much. Richard talks about people being dishonest just for writing about someone in the third person, but his statement about it is false. He made the mistake of thinking that I was talking about him, whereas I was talking about a general situation in the church and wasn't even referring to anyone in particular.

But personally I don't believe it's necessarily dishonest or unethical to talk about someone in the third person. It would depend on what's being said and why it's in the third person.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

this talking about me in the third person is really dishonest.

Don't flatter yourself too much there. Of course, if the shoe fits... go ahead and put it on.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

this talking about me in the third person is really dishonest.

Originally Posted By: Shane

Don't flatter yourself too much there. Of course, if the shoe fits... go ahead and put it on.

You're correct here about Richard flattering himself too much.

John you're something else.

I give you a whole bunch of evidence on Ellen White's incorrect view on baking soda being this harmful poison and you choose this to post instead.

You simply can't defend Ellen White, so you pass judgments on me instead.

You still haven't demonstrated that Ellen White wasn't mistaken about baking soda. She makes these severe statements when she doesn't know what she is talking about. And apparently god didn't see fit to correct her knowledge on these things.

[John317]

you pass judgments on me

How did I pass judgment on you? Please quote.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I give you a whole bunch of evidence on Ellen White's incorrect view on baking soda being this harmful poison and you choose this to post instead.

You simply can't defend Ellen White, so you pass judgments on me instead.

You still haven't demonstrated that Ellen White wasn't mistaken about baking soda. She makes these severe statements when she doesn't know what she is talking about. And apparently god didn't see fit to correct her knowledge on these things.

See below:

Originally Posted By: Oxford University Press

However, it [baking soda] also induces limpness [of vegatables] (by breaking down hemicelluloses) and the loss of vitamins B1 and C; and in the practice, which dates back to classical Rome and used to be recommended in Britain and N. America, has largely died out."

---The Oxford Companion to Food, Alan Davidson [Oxford University Press:Oxford] (p.73)

Apparently God knew that baking soda could rob food of vitamins B1 and C. Baking soda in the 19th century was popularly used in cooking not only breads and pastries, but also with vegetables. My grandmother used it in that manner, as did her mother and grandmother. No, it didn't kill them, but it would have been much better not to use it with vegetables. Note that the Oxford Companion to Food states that the use of baking soda in that manner has "largely died out."

Hmmm. Wonder why???

[John317]

It is in reference to comments that start with, "Those people who are critical of Ellen White must have an agenda or are angry or are being used by Satan or had a difficult childhood, etc. etc.."

I didn't say those words. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Originally Posted By: cardw

I'm openly being critical of Ellen White. What am I supposed to think?

I don't know what you should think. As I said, when I wrote what I did, I wasn't even thinking about you. I had forgotten all about you.

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is a cowardly dishonest way to present a counter view.

What it is is your imagination getting the best of you. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I said either ethically or according to the rules of the Forum.

Quote:

It is using the principle of plausible deniability. A person using this simply has to say, "I wasn't talking about you." And guess what, that happened.

I wasn't talking about you. Do you want me to say I was talking about you?

If you would like me to say it, I will. It really does not matter to me. Like I said, if I was talking about you, I would say straightfowardly that you are the one I was talking about.

Quote:

It's all vague and general with a lot of wink winks and smiley faces. It's a very dishonest way to communicate.

I was writing about a situation in the church and you took it mean I was speaking of you. It's that simple.

But if you wanna believe I was talking about you, then go ahead and think it. I just want to go on and talk about something else besides the fact that you got confused about whether someone was talking about you. I think it would be a waste of time talking about it any further.

I have no hard feelings towards you and am not angry with you. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by talking that way, but I sincerely had no idea it would bother you for me to say what I did. :-)

[John317]

John you're something else.

I give you a whole bunch of evidence on Ellen White's incorrect view on baking soda being this harmful poison and you choose this to post instead.

You're confusing the issues. I wasn't talking about Ellen White and soda. I was responding to your earlier posts where you spoke about "dishonesty" because you thought I was talking about you in the third person.

Originally Posted By: cardw

You simply can't defend Ellen White, so you pass judgments on me instead.

I didn't pass judgment on you. I said that you are wrong to think I was talking about you in the third person. I know this because I know why I wrote what I did.

But as for defending Ellen White, can you give me a good reason why I should defend Ellen White to you?

Originally Posted By: cardw

You still haven't demonstrated that Ellen White wasn't mistaken about baking soda.

And you haven't proved that she was mistaken. Can you prove she was mistaken? If so, do it. It's not my respondibility to prove anything to you about Ellen White. I believe you already have your mind made up about her.

Or are you open-minded about her?

Originally Posted By: cardw

She makes these severe statements when she doesn't know what she is talking about.

I believe she did know, but your way of writing about this makes me think it's possible you are not open-minded about the topic.

Originally Posted By: cardw

And apparently god didn't see fit to correct her knowledge on these things.

Again, it seems to me you are not willing to look at the evidence with an open mind.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I give you a whole bunch of evidence on Ellen White's incorrect view on baking soda being this harmful poison and you choose this to post instead.

You simply can't defend Ellen White, so you pass judgments on me instead.

You still haven't demonstrated that Ellen White wasn't mistaken about baking soda. She makes these severe statements when she doesn't know what she is talking about. And apparently god didn't see fit to correct her knowledge on these things.

See below:

Originally Posted By: Oxford University Press

However, it [baking soda] also induces limpness [of vegatables] (by breaking down hemicelluloses) and the loss of vitamins B1 and C; and in the practice, which dates back to classical Rome and used to be recommended in Britain and N. America, has largely died out."

---The Oxford Companion to Food, Alan Davidson [Oxford University Press:Oxford] (p.73)

Apparently God knew that baking soda could rob food of vitamins B1 and C. Baking soda in the 19th century was popularly used in cooking not only breads and pastries, but also with vegetables. My grandmother used it in that manner, as did her mother and grandmother. No, it didn't kill them, but it would have been much better not to use it with vegetables. Note that the Oxford Companion to Food states that the use of baking soda in that manner has "largely died out."

Hmmm. Wonder why???

Wonderful, thank you Rudywoofs.

When you open the box properly, it is always interesting what you will find.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

"Those people who are critical of Ellen White must have an agenda or are angry or are being used by Satan or had a difficult childhood, etc. etc.."

I'm openly being critical of Ellen White. What am I supposed to think?

[phkrause]

See below:

Originally Posted By: Oxford University Press

However, it [baking soda] also induces limpness [of vegatables] (by breaking down hemicelluloses) and the loss of vitamins B1 and C; and in the practice, which dates back to classical Rome and used to be recommended in Britain and N. America, has largely died out."

---The Oxford Companion to Food, Alan Davidson [Oxford University Press:Oxford] (p.73)

Apparently God knew that baking soda could rob food of vitamins B1 and C. Baking soda in the 19th century was popularly used in cooking not only breads and pastries, but also with vegetables. My grandmother used it in that manner, as did her mother and grandmother. No, it didn't kill them, but it would have been much better not to use it with vegetables. Note that the Oxford Companion to Food states that the use of baking soda in that manner has "largely died out."

Hmmm. Wonder why???

Interesting stuff rudywoofs, I didn't know that, now I do. There's always something behind what EGW wrote, and of course what God supplied to her, we just need to find out why she stated it.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Quote:

If this statement about not helping people who use tobacco, drink coffee or tea isn't a conditional statement...

...more a ‘sectual’ – than a “conditional statement”.

Quote:

If a group of people doesn't want our message, we need to move on to the next folks.

Thread header – Re: Should we ignore some churches and peoples?

I believe the context is “ignore” – as opposed to attempted ‘proselytizing’. Either may be considered wrong. Moreover, factoring (on the oblique) into the discussion of “ignore” – is the idea of witnessing by a life lived – rather than insinuating or more overtly intruding one’s dogmas upon another’s conscience or free will (isn’t much made of man’s free will in theological circles?).

Writ enjoins its adherent to plant, or to water that which is already planted – not to belittle or reject another’s freedom of conscience or to ‘shun’ by arbitrary (or redundantly, denominational) action – re such mundane matters as tobaccy, coffee, or tea.

It is the Gospel! mon petites – not the silly.

[John317]

Actually debating in the third person is a more refined method. It tends to keep discussions focused on the topic rather than personalities.

True. Excellent point. Most of the things we talk about here aren't not about persons but about concepts and ideas. So as you say, when we can get it off personalities and the individual, we will usually be better off. Truth isn't really about any one person. So the name of the person is irrelevant and can only serve to take our minds of what's really important. Like it all too often does.

[John317]

Very good information, Pam. I didn't realize those things. Thank you.

[cardw]

See below:

Originally Posted By: Oxford University Press

However, it [baking soda] also induces limpness [of vegatables] (by breaking down hemicelluloses) and the loss of vitamins B1 and C; and in the practice, which dates back to classical Rome and used to be recommended in Britain and N. America, has largely died out."

---The Oxford Companion to Food, Alan Davidson [Oxford University Press:Oxford] (p.73)

Apparently God knew that baking soda could rob food of vitamins B1 and C. Baking soda in the 19th century was popularly used in cooking not only breads and pastries, but also with vegetables. My grandmother used it in that manner, as did her mother and grandmother. No, it didn't kill them, but it would have been much better not to use it with vegetables. Note that the Oxford Companion to Food states that the use of baking soda in that manner has "largely died out."

Hmmm. Wonder why???

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is a cowardly dishonest way to present a counter view.

Actually debating in the third person is a more refined method. It tends to keep discussions focused on the topic rather than personalities.

Oh come on. It's rude to talk in the third person when people who actually hold those positions are in the room.

For example if I posted, those people who hold Ellen White as a prophet are deluded and are spreading lies and Satan is the father of lies.

Referring to people who are in the room in this way is not refined at all. It's cowardly. It allows plausible deniability.

If someone accuses me of calling them a follower of Satan I can respond with...

Where did I say that? I wasn't talking about you specifically, just those people who I was thinking of. And it's true that Satan is the father of lies, how can you disagree with that? I'm just telling the truth and I have a right to comment on these things. You know if the shoe fits, then wear it.

Instead I post, I don't believe that Ellen White was a prophet for these reasons.

That, to me, is far less confusing than including an unneeded third person reference. It is direct and honest and doesn't involve anyone personally. One simply has to respond to the reasons and facts.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

And apparently god didn't see fit to correct her knowledge on these things.

Again, it seems to me you are not willing to look at the evidence with an open mind.

What evidence?

John you quoted from a site that sells supplements as your authority on baking soda. And you even got that wrong because they were referring to the sugar content of soda pop, not baking soda.

I repeat this again and it's not my fact its what other authorities on chemistry say happens to baking soda in bread. It simply turns to salt, not poison.

I don't know how much more proof you need.

Ellen White said directly that baking soda in bread is poisonous.

Even if baking soda reduced the nutritional content of bread, it still would not be poisonous.

That clearly seems wrong to me.

And if you continue to avoid this by suggesting that I am biased, which would still not change the fact that baking soda turns to salt, then clearly you are being dishonest to the facts.

That's pretty cut and dry.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

See below:

Apparently God knew that baking soda could rob food of vitamins B1 and C. Baking soda in the 19th century was popularly used in cooking not only breads and pastries, but also with vegetables. My grandmother used it in that manner, as did her mother and grandmother. No, it didn't kill them, but it would have been much better not to use it with vegetables. Note that the Oxford Companion to Food states that the use of baking soda in that manner has "largely died out."

Hmmm. Wonder why???

Originally Posted By: cardwHere is the actual Ellen White quote which says nothing about loss of nutrients in vegetables. There is no evidence at all that she knew baking soda robs vegetables of B1 and C because she is talking about bread. The last time I checked bread is not a vegetable.

[quote

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)

Originally Posted By: cardw

You have your facts wrong. And loss of nutrients is far from being poisonous. If it was true that loss of nutrients is poisonous then simply cooking vegetables would be poisonous.

This is how myths start. Poor reasoning and altering the facts.

From the evidence Ellen White made a mistake here.

I don't have my facts wrong. You were getting your shorts in a wad because no one responded to your inquiry about baking soda. So I responded with information about BAKING SODA.

Sheesh. Have you nothing better to do than to come here and be ...uh.... rude?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Instead I post, I don't believe that Ellen White was a prophet for these reasons.

That, to me, is far less confusing than including an unneeded third person reference. It is direct and honest and doesn't involve anyone personally. One simply has to respond to the reasons and facts.

Does anyone really care why you don't believe that Ellen White was a prophet? I know I don't. (Just being direct and honest here.)

[John317]

... And if you continue to avoid this by suggesting that I am biased, which would still not change the fact that baking soda turns to salt, then clearly you are being dishonest to the facts.

That's pretty cut and dry.

After reading your posts, I've concluded that there's no reason for me talk to you about Ellen White. I think it would be waste of time, frankly.

If you want to call this being "dishonest,"-- and I doubt you can resist your habit of doing it-- that's fine with me.

I believe it only serve's Satan's purpose to argue about God, the Bible or Ellen White with people who have already made it abundantly clear that they are determind to reject them. Now, if people give evidence that they are sincerely interested in studying these things, we should be glad to talk to them about them, but just to argue about them for the sake of arguing or debating is a poor way to spend an evening.

PS. Having just seen Pam's response to you, I must say that she's expressed my sentiments exactly.

[cardw]

After reading your posts, I've concluded that there's no reason for me talk to you about Ellen White.

If you want to call this being "dishonest,"-- and I doubt you can resist your habit of doing it-- that's fine with me.

I have to agree with you that there has been very little reason.

And you are certainly free to interpret this any way you want, but I suspect that you have no answer because you have no evidence.