Should we ignore some churches and peoples?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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.

I for one will not be seeking to reject the SOP because of one individuals disagreement about Baking Soda, with a confirmed prophet of the Lord...

[Twilight]

This quote was taken out of context.

It always is... :-)

A more than basic examination, will usually show that this is the case, when those that attack SOP, present their position.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

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.

Do you think Tea and Coffee was cheap in Ellen Whites day?

I deal in antiques, in the past people "locked up" their tea, so as to protect it.

Do a search on "Tea Caddy" and you will see my point.

It was not a "cheap" commodity and I doubt if Coffee was also "cheap".

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

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.

If you'd like to see it that way, that's your prerogative.

btw, do you post similar argumentative things about Joseph Smith's writings on LDS forums? Or do you choose to comment only on Adventist beliefs? Just wondering...

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: 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"?

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?

This is a problem if one is going to give any importance to reason.

My bottom line, in terms of what I perceive to be true, is based on testing if something does what it claims.

Your bottom line seems to be if the Bible or Ellen White claim something is true then it is true no matter what.

I spent almost half of my life trying to defend the Bible and Ellen White fully expecting that a reasonable explanation could be found for every point they made. I was forced to admit by the strength of evidence that this is impossible and improbable.

I have looked at and examined and experienced many different belief systems and no one has all the answers or is infallible. No one.

The vast majority of human experience is interpreted through world views we simply make up. For most people it is too frightening to contemplate the wonderful mystery of what it means to be conscious and alive. So we tend to cling to certainties so we can feel secure. I understand and empathize with this common human experience.

I think part of the maturation process is the confrontation of the fact that we really don't know and that we probably don't have the tools of intellect and perception to know. It takes a while to accept this. But guess what? The world does not collapse. Satan doesn't take over my life. My life doesn't suddenly become meaningless. All the doom and gloom and fearful messages of warning don't come true.

In fact quite the opposite. It is a humbling experience which opens up a whole new way of experiencing the world.

I realize that what I present is disturbing. It's supposed to be. That's the nature of growth. I do it because I am grateful for those who challenged my assumptions earlier in my life. There is no reason to be afraid of what is true.

[phkrause]

Do you think Tea and Coffee was cheap in Ellen Whites day?

I deal in antiques, in the past people "locked up" their tea, so as to protect it.

Do a search on "Tea Caddy" and you will see my point.

It was not a "cheap" commodity and I doubt if Coffee was also "cheap".

Good point Twilight, it reminds me of the statement about bicycles, and how that gets taken out of context time after time.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Do you think Tea and Coffee was cheap in Ellen Whites day?

I deal in antiques, in the past people "locked up" their tea, so as to protect it.

Do a search on "Tea Caddy" and you will see my point.

It was not a "cheap" commodity and I doubt if Coffee was also "cheap".

Good point Twilight, it reminds me of the statement about bicycles, and how that gets taken out of context time after time.

I think PK, that if we consider these types of arguments against the character of Ellen White as the strongest that the opponents have, then we do not have too much to be concerned about...

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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.

Do you think Tea and Coffee was cheap in Ellen Whites day?

I deal in antiques, in the past people "locked up" their tea, so as to protect it.

Do a search on "Tea Caddy" and you will see my point.

It was not a "cheap" commodity and I doubt if Coffee was also "cheap".

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Do you think Tea and Coffee was cheap in Ellen Whites day?

I deal in antiques, in the past people "locked up" their tea, so as to protect it.

Do a search on "Tea Caddy" and you will see my point.

It was not a "cheap" commodity and I doubt if Coffee was also "cheap".

Ok, I did a search and this is what I found...

In 1666 a pound of tea was down to $80 - $100 because of a monopoly on tea by the East India Company. England was importing 800,000 pounds of tea and making a killing. So yes it was very expensive.

But by 1880 a pound of tea would be $1.52. A bag of flour for a week was $1.80 and a weeks worth of potatoes would be $1.17. A weeks worth of meat would be $7.00.

So a pound of tea would last a long time and would be quite a bit less expensive than other food stuffs.

It is true that when tea was tied to a monopoly it was very expensive. But that would have been from the mid 1600's up to the early 1800's. Ellen White is obviously quoting from much later when tea prices were reduced. The idea that tea had to be locked up in a caddy had long passed. A tea caddy was more for preservation of freshness and decoration by Ellen White's time.

Here is a summary from a Tea Caddy site...

Quote:

The first half of the 19th century saw great social and economic changes. Medical improvements contributed to the increase of the population of the country to 18 million, double of what it was fifty years previously. Trading with other countries gave opportunities to more people to increase their wealth and their social standing. Country towns almost unknown a hundred years previously developed their own class structures. The potential for tea drinking was reaching new heights. The government being aware of the pressure to reduce prices took a major step in 1833 by withdrawing the monopoly of the East India Company to import tea. This reduced prices considerably. In 1839 another major development happened in the history of tea. Up to that date tea was only imported from China. In 1839 tea began to be imported from India too. The India trade was encouraged and developed and tea became much more accessible.

We also have the American revolution and it's protest over taxation of imported tea. Thus the famous Boston Tea Party.

So you aren't disagreeing with me on this. You are disagreeing with the facts that I was able to find with a simple search of price of tea in 1800s and tea caddy.

What was the real value of $1.52 in the late 1880's Cardw?

[Twilight]

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?use%5B%5D=DOLLAR&use%5B%5D=GDPDEFLATION&use%5B%5D=VCB&use%5B%5D=UNSKILLED&use%5B%5D=MANCOMP&use%5B%5D=NOMGDPCP&use%5B%5D=NOMINALGDP&year_source=1880&amount=1.52&year_result=2010

Current data is only available till 2009. In 2009, the relative worth of $1.52 from 1880 is:

$32.90 using the Consumer Price Index

[cardw]

What was the real value of $1.52 in the late 1880's Cardw?

I gave you comparative prices so you could see what its real value was.

You're the one who failed to check your facts and you are incapable of admitting it. This is why your dialog is dishonest.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

What was the real value of $1.52 in the late 1880's Cardw?

I gave you comparative prices so you could see what its real value was.

You're the one who failed to check your facts and you are incapable of admitting it. This is why your dialog is dishonest.

You do seem to like casting the "dishonest" charge around, don't you Cardw?

[Twilight]

What do you make of the calculation with link above Cardw?

[cardw]

Current data is only available till 2009. In 2009, the relative worth of $1.52 from 1880 is:

$32.90 using the Consumer Price Index

So I could buy a pound of tea for 32.90. That is about right. That would make about 260 cups of tea. If I had one cup of tea a day that would last me for 8 and a half months.

A bag of flour at 1.80 would only last one week.

That's your comparison.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Current data is only available till 2009. In 2009, the relative worth of $1.52 from 1880 is:

$32.90 using the Consumer Price Index

So I could buy a pound of tea for 32.90. That is about right. That would make about 260 cups of tea. If I had one cup of tea a day that would last me for 8 and a half months.

A bag of flour at 1.80 would only last one week.

That's your comparison.

When I used to drink Tea and Coffee, I would happily drink 6 cups a day.

Which by your calculations would be about 6 weeks worth.

For one person drinking tea in a home.

But if it was a family of four, that would come down to about 10 days worth of tea.

So about $3.29 per day, in real money.

About $21.00 a week.

I wonder what tobacco would be if that was added to the pot, so to speak?

So we have quite a different perspective with a little widening of the usage of tea in a household.

[cardw]

When I used to drink Tea and Coffee, I would happily drink 6 cups a day.

Which by your calculations would be about 6 weeks worth.

For one person drinking tea in a home.

But if it was a family of four, that would come down to about 10 days worth of tea.

So about $3.29 per day, in real money.

About $21.00 a week.

I wonder what tobacco would be if that was added to the pot, so to speak?

So we have quite a different perspective with a little widening of the usage of tea in a household.

If the issue was abuse or over use then the advice should have been reduce your use of these things. She clearly was referring to the health issues around these substances because she used the phrase "persist in using"

Your calculations are assuming that everyone in the household is consuming 6 cups of tea per day including children and they are not using a tea pot. Individual use is the least efficient use of tea because much of the tea is wasted.

Tea is a benefit to many aspects of health when it is used moderately. I gave you evidence of this from several studies on both black and green tea.

Ellen White is not talking about an individual family here anyway. She is making a general rule. That's the problem with generalizations. Her whole statement is a rational fallacy simply on its own.

The reason I continue to call you dishonest is because you are willfully misrepresenting the facts. You don't do the work of checking your facts. And when you are mistaken you don't admit it.

You expect me to provide evidence but you rarely, unless pressed, come up with anything to support your claims. And when you do come up with something it is often unrelated or simply wrong.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

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.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Do you think Tea and Coffee was cheap in Ellen Whites day?

I deal in antiques, in the past people "locked up" their tea, so as to protect it.

Do a search on "Tea Caddy" and you will see my point.

It was not a "cheap" commodity and I doubt if Coffee was also "cheap".

Originally Posted By: cardw

Ok, I did a search and this is what I found...

In 1666 a pound of tea was down to $80 - $100 because of a monopoly on tea by the East India Company. England was importing 800,000 pounds of tea and making a killing. So yes it was very expensive.

But by 1880 a pound of tea would be $1.52. A bag of flour for a week was $1.80 and a weeks worth of potatoes would be $1.17. A weeks worth of meat would be $7.00.

So a pound of tea would last a long time and would be quite a bit less expensive than other food stuffs.

It is true that when tea was tied to a monopoly it was very expensive. But that would have been from the mid 1600's up to the early 1800's. Ellen White is obviously quoting from much later when tea prices were reduced. The idea that tea had to be locked up in a caddy had long passed. A tea caddy was more for preservation of freshness and decoration by Ellen White's time.

Here is a summary from a Tea Caddy site...

Quote:

The first half of the 19th century saw great social and economic changes. Medical improvements contributed to the increase of the population of the country to 18 million, double of what it was fifty years previously. Trading with other countries gave opportunities to more people to increase their wealth and their social standing. Country towns almost unknown a hundred years previously developed their own class structures. The potential for tea drinking was reaching new heights. The government being aware of the pressure to reduce prices took a major step in 1833 by withdrawing the monopoly of the East India Company to import tea. This reduced prices considerably. In 1839 another major development happened in the history of tea. Up to that date tea was only imported from China. In 1839 tea began to be imported from India too. The India trade was encouraged and developed and tea became much more accessible.

We also have the American revolution and it's protest over taxation of imported tea. Thus the famous Boston Tea Party.

So you aren't disagreeing with me on this. You are disagreeing with the facts that I was able to find with a simple search of price of tea in 1800s and tea caddy.

You didn't provide your sources. Your statement would be more credible if you provided your sources.

[Tom Wetmore]

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?

Your question suggests that the act of writing bypasses the human function that would make error not only possible, but indeed fairly likely. That would suggest, contrary to what EGW herself said, that in the act of writing the prophet is functioning as God's penman merely writing what is dictated by God. Or more precisely you seem to be suggesting that every word written by a prophet is inspired by God.

And yes, Jesus' commentary on Moses would suggest that indeed some of what Moses wrote was his own idea and not God's, i.e., the idea of divorce, or the Mosaic law of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. If God's law is unchanging, Jesus was not revising what he told Moses, but overriding what Moses came up with on his own to govern Israel. That does not diminish that Moses was called to lead and inspired to develop rules of conduct for the people.

[John317]

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?

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Your question suggests that the act of writing bypasses the human function that would make error not only possible, but indeed fairly likely. That would suggest, contrary to what EGW herself said, that in the act of writing the prophet is functioning as God's penman merely writing what is dictated by God. Or more precisely you seem to be suggesting that every word written by a prophet is inspired by God.

No, Seventh-day Adventists don't believe in verbal inspiration. Neither Ellen White nor any other prophet of God was God's pen.

But please quote the sentence in which you believe I suggest that Ellen White was God's pen and that He dictated to her.

When you speak of Ellen White making mistakes, are you talking about private, personal mistakes or are you talking about errors she made when directly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and writing God's messages for individuals or the church?

[Dr. Shane]

Critics of Ellen White take her words as if they were on the same level as the Bible. Only a small portion of Adventists read her writings that way. What the critics end up arguing is that when it comes to Ellen White, we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

When Ellen White writes "I was shown..." or "God has instructed me..." we know she is trying to convey a message given to her directly by God. However even then she is not completely without error as she is using human language to convey divine instruction. Much of what critics of Ellen White pounce on is found in the Testimonies which are letters written to specific people at a specific time.

The Ministry of Healing was a book Ellen White wrote toward the end of her life. People had been asking her to write the book about health and she did so to help relieve the debt many of the sanitariums were carrying at the time. The book is not a report from her summarizing all divine visions that she received during her life regarding health reform. Of course, there is a lot in the book that she did learn from visions and dreams but I suspect there is a lot in there that she picked up from doctors and health workers she was in contact with. It is a good book and most of it is still applicable today, over 100 years after it was first published. But it was not written by the hand of God Himself and should not be read that way.

[cardw]

You didn't provide your sources. Your statement would be more credible if you provided your sources.

Here are the links

History of Tea Timeline

History of Tea Caddys

Typical prices in 1800s

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Here are the links

History of Tea Timeline

History of Tea Caddys

Typical prices in 1800s

Thank you. Unfortunately, only one of those sources provided a cost estimate, with no comparisons for different areas of the country. Good try, though...the sites were interesting.

[Tom Wetmore]

Shane, what you have posted is essentially correct...

However, regarding your first paragraph I am not sure you can generalize that all (I know you didn't use the word "all" but the context sort of implies it...), or perhaps even most, critics approach EGW that way. But the problem is that the minority of Adventists that do (and some are right here) treat her words as Scripture. That will result in a reaction from even the many who have a more balanced, or even open-ended view of EGW, that have serious questions. Those people with quesitons are often incorrectly labeled as "critics" of EGW or worse that they are rejecting her or the SOP, which comes with the implication that they are sinning against the Holy Spirit and thus rejecting God. This is not helpful and in fact does more harm than good. Much better it would be to just honestly answer the questions and face the obvious that EGW indeed made some mistakes in her writing.

And your description of MH does hint at some of what got her in trouble. Notice the motive for writing that book. People and money pressure. That does not sound like an inspiration start. And the mix of human sources I think was more than some are willing to admit. She relied on many contemporary sources for her health ideas.

What this begs for is a thoughtful and better understanding of the real nature of inspiration and the prophetic gift as illuminated in the NT.

[Tom Wetmore]

No, Seventh-day Adventists don't believe in verbal inspiration. Neither Ellen White nor any other prophet of God was God's pen...

But the typical defense of EGW's writings approaches it as if each word must have come directly from God. I have yet to see any EGW apologist, including you, admit to even one mistake in her writings.

The idea of not being God's pen is that the person was inspired, and not the specific words themselves or even some specific ideas. Inspiration of a person speaks more of general motivation or orientation. But when defending EGW, most do not defend her so much as her specific words and ideas.