Should we ignore some churches and peoples?

[phkrause]

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.

I can agree with that.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane, use some insight here.

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

One only uses "my worthy opponent" when he or she cannot avoid addressing their opponent. It would be much better to say "Liberals believe..." or "Conservatives talk about..." then to say "My worthy opponent believes..." It is always better and less confrontational to talk in the third party. The person "we are talking about" doesn't matter and is really quite irrelevant. What is relevant are the ideas and opinions being discussed.

[Dr. Shane]

But this is the crux of the problem here, Shane. For most this is not a debate.

[Dr. Shane]

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.

We are not in the same room here, are we? We are communicating in a text format. Misunderstandings are quite easy to happen in this format. While I was not the one that upset Richard by posting in the third person, I post in the third person all the time. In fact, in the politics forum here, one of the suggestions I make in a sticky thread at the top of the forum, is to post in the third person when disagreeing with others. It is a good way to stay focused on a topic and not switch the focus to other participants in the discussion.

[Gordon1]

Richard is the one that turns this into a debate...He is just blowing steam.

Shane, it takes two to tango.

Engaging Richard is what he seeks and needs to stir strife & debate. We enable him. This is not the Lord's work.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think this is about Richard. We have a lot of lurkers that come here, read and never post. Many have had the same thoughts pass through their minds as Richard has expressed. I don't have any problem with Richard expressing his thoughts. Truth need never fear investigation. The only issue I object to with Richard is where he claims that speaking in the third person is dishonest. Not only isn't it dishonest, it is good manners when disagreeing with one or more people in a discussion.

My comment about Richard starting the debate was directed at Tom, who seemed not to be too pleased with the debate tone and expressed a desire to have a friendly exchange of ideas. I share Tom's desire to have such a friendly exchange. However when a non-Adventist comes into the forum and starts hurling accusations, I reserve the right to respond to them.

[Gordon1]

BTW, I've watched TV ever since Howdy Doody was on. So did my brother. TV did not affect me or my brother. BUT, TV is a lot different these days...no class to the programs at all. Violence, sex, and language that would make a sailor blush. Where's Yogi Bear, Huckleberry Hound, Quick Draw McGraw, The Flintstones, Bonanza, Mr. Ed, I Love Lucy, Topper, Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, Beverly Hillbillies, It's About Time, Star Trek, Perry Mason, Here Come the Brides, F Troop, and Bullwinkle, when you need them?

Hi Pam,

I don't know how one could prove that such a lifelong habit did not affect them, but I'll gladly consider your evidence for my experience shows otherwise.

Would you assess your mental state as completely balanced (never irritable or depressed) and your physical condition to be exemplary? Your brother too? If so then perhaps TV does not harm everyone.

Despite the excessive violence and pornography of modern programming, the ground was laid by the very shows you listed above. They would have shamed earlier generations.

One of the worst effects of TV is the lying or 'acting' - artificial lifestyles used to mold the psyche of the masses. Television is Satan's tool, there's no safety to be found.

[Tom Wetmore]

...My comment about Richard starting the debate was directed at Tom, who seemed not to be too pleased with the debate tone and expressed a desire to have a friendly exchange of ideas. I share Tom's desire to have such a friendly exchange. However when a non-Adventist comes into the forum and starts hurling accusations, I reserve the right to respond to them.

Shane, if you see them as accusations that perhaps is the first turn in the wrong direction. The second is to respond as if under attack. The third mistake is to start hurling accusations in return. Regardless of whether true or not, responding as if we are under attack only escalates the rancor and increases the temperature of the place. It's hot. time to chill.

[doug yowell]

Boy, Alot of really sensitive people here. to quote a cultural icon:"Why can't we all just...?"

[Dr. Rich]

Did Jesus do that? I don't think so!

[doug yowell]

Did Jesus do that? I don't think so!

"Love is not easily offended"

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote:

Why can't we all just...

lighten up.

unplug it.

zip it.

ignore each other.

chill.

be happy.

be nice.

grow up.

stop pushing each other's buttons.

leave people alone.

live and let live.

get along.

take a deep breath and count to 100.

take a vacation.

take a moment to compliment someone.

have a nice day.

get some pizza and share it with friends. (No baking soda in the crust, pleeze.)

take some Gas-X after the toxic-crust pizza party so we can feel much better about ourselves once we get rid of the pressure. We should have known better than to eat the baking soda pizza crust. We warned ourselves, but due to our insatiable cravings, we are now beyond the help of the church. (Let's not mention the diet cokes we ordered with the pizza, OK?)

...

Disclaimer:

The above comments are not intended for anyone specific, and any apparent reference to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

BTW, I've watched TV ever since Howdy Doody was on. So did my brother. TV did not affect me or my brother. BUT, TV is a lot different these days...no class to the programs at all. Violence, sex, and language that would make a sailor blush. Where's Yogi Bear, Huckleberry Hound, Quick Draw McGraw, The Flintstones, Bonanza, Mr. Ed, I Love Lucy, Topper, Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, Beverly Hillbillies, It's About Time, Star Trek, Perry Mason, Here Come the Brides, F Troop, and Bullwinkle, when you need them?

Hi Pam,

I don't know how one could prove that such a lifelong habit did not affect them, but I'll gladly consider your evidence for my experience shows otherwise.

Would you assess your mental state as completely balanced (never irritable or depressed) and your physical condition to be exemplary? Your brother too? If so then perhaps TV does not harm everyone.

Despite the excessive violence and pornography of modern programming, the ground was laid by the very shows you listed above. They would have shamed earlier generations.

One of the worst effects of TV is the lying or 'acting' - artificial lifestyles used to mold the psyche of the masses. Television is Satan's tool, there's no safety to be found.

Gordon, there is nobody on God's green earth who has never been somewhat irritable or depressed.

My brother happens to be a highly regarded SDA minister who is more mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually balanced than most everyone I know. And he can still recite the words to "Mr. Terrific"... and *his* favorite program was "Batman" (which I detested).

I became a witch. But it wasn't because I watched "Bewitched," "The Addams Family," or "My Mother the Car" when I was a kid... LOL

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Despite the excessive violence and pornography of modern programming, the ground was laid by the very shows you listed above. They would have shamed earlier generations.

No, I don't think so. My parents (who grew up during the depression) and my grandparents (who grew up at the turn of the century) watched the programs I listed. My parents and grandparents saw nothing wrong in those programs. My relatives who also watched those programs became, among other things, the CFO of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, police detectives, educators, and attorneys. And my dog loved Hawaii 5-0 and Fantasy Island. Those programs didn't seem to affect his psyche either.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

@ Aliensanctuary: would you PLEASE get off the baking soda wagon? It's been battered around for awhile here on the forum, and you don't need to stir it up anymore. Okay? Thanks.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane, if you see them as accusations that perhaps is the first turn in the wrong direction.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Shane, use some insight here.

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

One only uses "my worthy opponent" when he or she cannot avoid addressing their opponent. It would be much better to say "Liberals believe..." or "Conservatives talk about..." then to say "My worthy opponent believes..." It is always better and less confrontational to talk in the third party. The person "we are talking about" doesn't matter and is really quite irrelevant. What is relevant are the ideas and opinions being discussed.

Let me clear up a few things here.

The first is I am not offended. My approach is if you can't hang with the big boys get out of the game.

The issue of talking in the third person using the terms "those people" or "liberals" or "conservatives" or any other categorical designation is generalization.

The idea that generalization is intellectually dishonest isn't my idea. It's a logical fallacy that is listed among a number of other logical fallacies. On an emotional level it's condescending.

Here is a list of these fallacies and you will find a number of subsets under generalization.

List of Fallacies

Shane you are free to use generalized references to whole imaginary groups of people, but most people don't like to be categorized and on an informal logical level it is a logical fallacy.

This whole topic is a Red Herring.

I understand the motivation to do this because the evidence that Ellen White is mistaken on the issue of baking soda in bread as being poison is a slam dunk. It's not my idea. The proof I provided is facts determined by experts in the history of these baking substances and their chemistry.

The quality of response has been dismal. It has moved from factual to personal.

If no-one can recognize the obvious fact that she is wrong on this issue, then they are by definition intellectually dishonest.

I have been accused of bias and I admit bias, but I see evidence of flagrant bias in the inability to accept clear evidence. If you present evidence I change my mind, but, so far, the evidence that has been presented has either been mistaken or made up.

If you note I can have very civil conversations with Tom or Bravus and at times with others. I have respect for their opinions because they don't claim to know things without good reasons. And in the areas they don't know they admit they don't know. They clearly differentiate between what is factual and what is inspiring to them in the form of their beliefs.

They don't suggest that Satan is controlling me or that I'm a trouble maker or I'm a bull in a china cabinet or other such condescension. They recognize good reasoning and when they have commented generally excellently on flaws in mine, I have changed my mind. There is no point in holding on to ideas that have no support.

On the other hand, many of you hold on to some of these ideas no matter how damning the evidence. That is not being honest. I have no respect for that, nor should I.

[John317]

Speaking as the moderator to all:

I'll give everyone a few more posts on this topic and then we need to get back to the topic. After that, all posts not on topic will be deleted.

If cardw or Tom or anyone else wants to continue talking about this topic, you may start a new discussion devoted to it.

PS. posts that argue about this on the discussion board will also be deleted. It's time to move on.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Shane

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?

Amazingly, we would seek to deny someone as a Christian and Prophet based on the fact we disagree with her on "baking soda"....

What seems absurd to me, is that those that attack Ellen White, have so little to criticise her with, that they have to resort to these types of "tactics" to try to show her to be a false prophet.

Baking soda?

Come on now...

:-)

[Tom Wetmore]

Is a prophet that makes mistakes necessarily a false prophet?

Or does evidence of mistakes by a prophet simply reinforce a prophet's humanness and remind us of the importance of the admonition to "test all thing"? Even the words of a prophet that may have passed the test on other things or at some other point in time?

(Or are our words that a prophet is human, liable to err, not infallible, just empty lip service to salve ourselves that we have not deified EGW?)

As admonished, let's refocus on the OP that launched this topic. It's conclusory statement was:

Quote:

So it is clear that we are to ignore both entire church organizations and their people ... and also those individuals who ignore and reject our health message.

And since the baking soda example is indeed directly and specifically within the context of that health message, it is a relevant point.

The health message quote in the OP addressed other substances, of course. But the point is validly placed, if she was mistaken about baking soda, which the weight of evidence presented here certainly seems to confirm, than should we perhaps question the reliability of her views on tea, or coffee, for which current science is decidedly far less categorically negative about?

And yes, let's face honestly the question that if the foundation premise of her instruction to ignore certain people engaged in the use of those things she thought as bad, but that perhaps aren't as she thought they were, that maybe, just maybe, the whole rest of the idea is suspect?

What are we left with on this passage of any value?

[Tom Wetmore]

...Come on, folks, don't tell someone why they are wrong, tell them why you believe that god is not as depicted or maybe.....that is The God you follow??

Good points all around... But let me focus on your last point.

It would seem some, consistent with our human nature, are indeed quite fond of a god that bashes our enemies, destroys the bad guys, thunders mercilessly at those different from us. And as the thrust of the OP suggests, we strive mightly to defend the prophet that seems to very similarly allows us to turn our back on people that don't conform to our standards.

Is that really in harmony with Jesus' absolute command to love even our enemies?

The opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. Love hangs in there no matter what. Apathy easily walks away because it does not care...

[John317]

When my faith is under attack, there are multiple ways that I respond. Typically I will pray for guidance. I have a gay friend that a couple of years ago told me that he hates my F***ing Jesus. I responded by telling him that if I had the same history as he did, I may well feel the same way. I have been very kind to this person and he has become a friend. This past week he shared with me that he visited a Seventh-day Adventist church which is only 1 1/2 blocks from his house. My response to his attack on my faith seems to have caused him to re-question his previous conclusions. Different circumstances require different reactions.

We need to pray for him and for the SDAs that he comes in contact with. I hope they are friendly and thoughtful and share Christ's love for him.

[John317]

Is a prophet that makes mistakes necessarily a false prophet?

Or does evidence of mistakes by a prophet simply reinforce a prophet's humanness and remind us of the importance of the admonition to "test all thing"?

Depends on the mistakes you're talking about. Moses made mistakes and so did Elijah and all the other prophets and apostles. But did they write messages in God's name that were false?

You say the mistakes show they're human. Are you talking about mistakes in the writings in which they're communicating messages for God to His church? Or are you referring to mistakes in the course of their ordinary activities when they express their personal opinions?

Does the Bible support the idea that it's no big thing when prophets make mistakes in their writings-- that is, when they make those mistakes in their messages that are given in the name of God? If it does, where is it found?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

From the OP:

And from Ellen White ...

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

So it is clear that we are to ignore both entire church organizations and their people ... and also those individuals who ignore and reject our health message.

This quote was taken out of context. EGW was writing about stewardship. She was telling people not to give money to people who would use it to buy tobacco, tea, and coffee.

Here's the whole thing:

Quote:

Chap. 43 - The Poor

Some who are poor in this world's goods are apt to place all the straight testimony upon the shoulders of the men of property. But they do not realize that they also have a work to do. God requires them to make a sacrifice. He calls upon them to sacrifice their idols. They should lay aside such hurtful stimulants as tobacco, tea, and coffee. If they are brought into straitened circumstances while exerting themselves to do the best they can, it will be a pleasure for their wealthy brethren to help them out of trouble. {1T 224.3}

Many lack wise management and economy. They do not weigh matters well, and move cautiously. Such should not trust to their own poor judgment, but should counsel with their brethren who have experience. But those who lack economy and good judgment are often unwilling to seek counsel. They generally think that they understand how to conduct their temporal business, and are unwilling to follow advice. They make bad moves, and suffer in consequence.

225

Their brethren are grieved to see them suffer, and they help them out of difficulty. Their unwise management affects the church. It takes means from the treasury of God which should have been used to advance the cause of present truth. If these poor brethren take a humble course and are willing to be advised and counseled by their brethren, and are then brought into straitened places, the brethren should feel it a duty to cheerfully help them out of difficulty. But if they choose their own course, and rely upon their own judgment, they should be left to feel the full consequences of their unwise course, and learn by dear experience that "in multitude of counselors there is safety." God's people should be subject one to another. They should counsel with one another, that the lack of one may be supplied by the sufficiency of another. I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee. {1T 224.4}

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

OK, where did Ellen White get her information in this case?[baking soda, coffee, tea]

Amazingly, we would seek to deny someone as a Christian and Prophet based on the fact we disagree with her on "baking soda"....

What seems absurd to me, is that those that attack Ellen White, have so little to criticise her with, that they have to resort to these types of "tactics" to try to show her to be a false prophet.

Baking soda?

Come on now...

:-)

I agree that this issue of baking soda is trivial. Except it is not I who places such importance on baking soda, it is Ellen White.

The issue is if one is to exclude help based on the use of baking soda, it is not so trivial.

[cardw]

This quote was taken out of context. EGW was writing about stewardship. She was telling people not to give money to people who would use it to buy tobacco, tea, and coffee.

As I outlined before, the context doesn't help the issue because she is not arguing a financial point, but a "persist in using" point. If she was talking financial she would use a term or phrase similar to "wasting money on."

If you look at my previous post you will see that the relative cost is very little compared to staples. And tea, rather than being a harmful stimulant, is quite beneficial both black and green.