Should we ignore some churches and peoples?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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.)

You care so little that you had to let me know.

Ok, thanks for being honest.

[cardw]

[quote name='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' date=' 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? [/quote']

I didn't ask for info on Baking Soda, I gave information on baking soda.

You posted irrelevant information on baking soda.

We weren't talking about the effect of baking soda on vegetables. We were talking about its effect on bread.

When you have info on its poisonous effects on people in bread let me know.

[John317]

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

Originally Posted By: John3:17

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

Originally Posted By: cardw

What evidence?

I'm saying that it seems clear to me on the basis of the posts you've written over the last few years that you aren't willing to look with an open mind at any evidence related to Ellen White. I could be wrong but it appears to me that you've decided you dislike what she says and don't want to accept her or her message. Like I say, though, I could be wrong. But can you see why I've come to this conclusion? Am I far wrong about this?

[cardw]

I'm saying that it seems clear to me on the basis of the posts you've written over the last few years that you aren't willing to look with an open mind at any evidence related to Ellen White. I could be wrong but it appears to me that you've decided you dislike what she says and don't want to accept her or her message. Like I say, though, I could be wrong. But can you see why I've come to this conclusion? Am I far wrong about this?

This is a tangent.

Addressing the facts of this particular quote are not affected by my bias.

[Dr. Shane]

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.

Actually, saying, "those people who hold Ellen White as a prophet are deluded and are spreading lies and Satan is the father of lies." is much better than saying, "Shane, because you hold Ellen White as a prophet, you are deluded and are spreading lies and Satan is the father of lies." That would be an direct attack on me as an individual. The third person statement is an opinion about a group of people. If the shoe fits, I can wear it but the statement isn't directed at me as an individual.

[Dr. Shane]

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)

I have never heard of baking soda in bread causing stomach problems but one should not use baking soda as an antacid on a full stomach because the CO2 released by the baking soda can burst the stomach. I think if one bakes it in bread all the umf is out of it but just as it makes bread rise, it can cause inflammation of the stomach.

[John317]

It would be better to discuss the question asked by the beginning post of the thread rather than questions about baking soda. This isn't the place to try and solve the question of whether Ellen White was right about baking soda in bread.

Are there any times and circumstance when it is right to ignore some churches and people? My answer is that we generally should not ignore people or churches, but there are circumstances when that may be the best thing do to. The Bible, I believe, supports this.

What are your thoughts about this?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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.

Actually, saying, "those people who hold Ellen White as a prophet are deluded and are spreading lies and Satan is the father of lies." is much better than saying, "Shane, because you hold Ellen White as a prophet, you are deluded and are spreading lies and Satan is the father of lies." That would be an direct attack on me as an individual. The third person statement is an opinion about a group of people. If the shoe fits, I can wear it but the statement isn't directed at me as an individual.

I don't think so. At least you can know who they are talking about. In the other you have this vague group that may or may not include you.

It is dishonest because one can hide behind vagueness and generalities.

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote:

I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee." 1 T 225

I think we need to update the list to include caffeinated sodas and energy drinks, anything with artificial sweetener or MSG, and any foods that are artificially flavored or genetically modified.

That updated list will greatly simplify the health-reform work by excluding most of the US population who persist in eating junk food, caffeine, or foods with artificial ingredients.

What we need for our time is an EGW Back-On-the-Farm Cookbook, filled with her favorite recipes from the 1800's. Church members could also grow organic foods and raise chickens in their backyards or balconies and sell them at farmer's markets to each other.

There really should be signs at the entrance of our churches informing persistent tobacco and caffeine users to attend some other denomination, as they are not welcome, and will be ignored or otherwise not helped if they choose to enter. If anyone wishes to be helped, they must sign an affidavit testifying to their non-use of tobacco, coffee and tea, and baking soda. Baking soda biscuits are the worst---there's nothing more toxic...brain fever, catarrh, consumption, night sweats...all caused by a simple, gas-producing ingredient.

[cardw]

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)

I have never heard of baking soda in bread causing stomach problems but one should not use baking soda as an antacid on a full stomach because the CO2 released by the baking soda can burst the stomach. I think if one bakes it in bread all the umf is out of it but just as it makes bread rise, it can cause inflammation of the stomach.

All of this is irrelevant information. The issue is baking soda after it has been used to bake bread which isn't baking soda at all but salt.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Baking soda biscuits are the worst---there's nothing more toxic...brain fever, catarrh, consumption, night sweats...all caused by a simple, gas-producing ingredient.

There's always Gas-X.... LOL

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The issue is baking soda after it has been used to bake bread which isn't baking soda at all but salt.

I concede that nowadays the baking soda that is used in bread is not harmful. Potash was used in the manufacture of baking soda in earlier centuries.. It is not currently used in the US or Europe for the manufacture of baking soda. Potash breaks down into Potassium Chloride. That is not table salt. KCl toxicity symptoms include: Convulsions. Diarrhoea. Nausea. Vomiting. Weakness.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The issue is baking soda after it has been used to bake bread which isn't baking soda at all but salt.

I concede that nowadays the baking soda that is used in bread is not harmful. Potash was used in the manufacture of baking soda in earlier centuries.. It is not currently used in the US or Europe for the manufacture of baking soda. Potash breaks down into Potassium Chloride. That is not table salt. KCl toxicity symptoms include: Convulsions. Diarrhoea. Nausea. Vomiting. Weakness.

[cardw]

Quote:

I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee." 1 T 225

I think we need to update the list to include caffeinated sodas and energy drinks, anything with artificial sweetener or MSG, and any foods that are artificially flavored or genetically modified.

That updated list will greatly simplify the health-reform work by excluding most of the US population who persist in eating junk food, caffeine, or foods with artificial ingredients.

What we need for our time is an EGW Back-On-the-Farm Cookbook, filled with her favorite recipes from the 1800's. Church members could also grow organic foods and raise chickens in their backyards or balconies and sell them at farmer's markets to each other.

There really should be signs at the entrance of our churches informing persistent tobacco and caffeine users to attend some other denomination, as they are not welcome, and will be ignored or otherwise not helped if they choose to enter. If anyone wishes to be helped, they must sign an affidavit testifying to their non-use of tobacco, coffee and tea, and baking soda. Baking soda biscuits are the worst---there's nothing more toxic...brain fever, catarrh, consumption, night sweats...all caused by a simple, gas-producing ingredient.

Brilliant use of humor!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

So you are making up the science here. You need to quote your references

No, I didn't. And you are not my boss. You are perfectly capable of looking things up yourself and twisting things around without my having to help you. You just proved my point about something. Thanks!!! I appreciate it!!! **snickers**

Hint: think about American History and intelligence. You can let me know when you've figured it out.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

So you are making up the science here. You need to quote your references

No, I didn't. And you are not my boss. You are perfectly capable of looking things up yourself and twisting things around without my having to help you. You just proved my point about something. Thanks!!! I appreciate it!!! **snickers**

Hint: think about American History and intelligence. You can let me know when you've figured it out.

This has nothing to do with my understanding. I look things up whether you quote references or not.

If you give references then it adds credibility for your claims.

And you are right, I'm not your boss. You are certainly free to make up what ever you want.

[Dr. Shane]

In "debate" one is to avoid addressing their opponent by name. It is best to stay focused on ideas or even opinions. If one must address their opponent they should do so in the third person. The General Rules for Debate state "Debaters must refer to one another in the third person (for example, my worthy opponent)."

[Dr. Shane]

The issue is baking soda after it has been used to bake bread which isn't baking soda at all but salt.

No. The issue is: "What was Ellen White trying to get across to us or those during her time?" "Where did she get her information? From God or from contemporaries?" That is the issue.

[cardw]

In "debate" one is to avoid addressing their opponent by name. It is best to stay focused on ideas or even opinions. If one must address their opponent they should do so in the third person. The General Rules for Debate state "Debaters must refer to one another in the third person (for example, my worthy opponent)."

Shane, use some insight here.

There is a qualitative difference between using the identifier of "those people" versus "my worthy opponent."

One clearly identifies who you are talking about, the other is vague and condescending.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The issue is baking soda after it has been used to bake bread which isn't baking soda at all but salt.

No. The issue is: "What was Ellen White trying to get across to us or those during her time?" "Where did she get her information? From God or from contemporaries?" That is the issue.

OK, where did Ellen White get her information in this case?

[Tom Wetmore]

In "debate" one is to avoid addressing their opponent by name. It is best to stay focused on ideas or even opinions. If one must address their opponent they should do so in the third person. The General Rules for Debate state "Debaters must refer to one another in the third person (for example, my worthy opponent)."

But this is the crux of the problem here, Shane. For most this is not a debate. And most here are not debaters or conversant in debate rules and techniques. Many of us would much prefer the approach to be a conversation or even the healthy exchange of thoughts and ideas. In normal conversation, referring the persons with whom you are speaking is at best oddly formal, or more commonly, condescending and rude.

[phkrause]

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.

John and Shane, on this point I have to agree with cardw. I do believe its rude to talk in the third person, if that person is right there in the room. I know that I have never liked that in the past. Just my thoughts on this.

[John317]

John and Shane, on this point I have to agree with cardw. I do believe its rude to talk in the third person, if that person is right there in the room.

But this whole exchange on this subject is out of place because in the first place I didn't talk about anyone in the third person. I was talking about a situation that arises in the church when people who reject the teaching of the church stay in the church in order to change the church. cardw simply took it to mean I was speaking of him when I wasn't. If I was thinking about him, I would have said so. And if I had been, I would say so now.

However, I wasn't even thinking of him. For one thing, cardw isn't in the church and doesn't claim to be SDA, so he had no real reason to think I was talking about him. I wasn't even discussing people who are outside the church. The fact is that I had forgotten all about him when I was writing at that point because he had nothing to do with what I was saying.

[phkrause]

But this whole exchange on this subject is out of place because in the first place I didn't talk about anyone in the third person. I was talking about a situation that arises in the church when people who reject the teaching of the church stay in the church in order to change the church. cardw simply took it to mean I was speaking of him when I wasn't. If I was thinking about him, I would have said so. And if I had been, I would say so now.

However, I wasn't even thinking of him. For one thing, cardw isn't in the church and doesn't claim to be SDA, so he had no real reason to think I was talking about him. I wasn't even discussing people who are outside the church. The fact is that I had forgotten all about him when I was writing at that point because he had nothing to do with what I was saying.

I do believe that you were not talking about him. I'm just agreeing with him on the third party thing that's all.

[John317]

Yes the third party way of communicating can be rude. But the circumstances will determine if it's appropriate or not. For instance, if three people are having a discussion, and two of the people talk about the other one in the third person or as if the other one is not in the "room," then that is clearly rude; but that wasn't the case that cardw is referring to.