Hi - did you get our link? I saw your post about having 45 minutes was not sure if you got it.
Bob
Thanks for the response, yes I did, but what I was looking for was he Email address. I was using a library computer and it wasn't set up for sending emails and I wasn't able to access the address for the site. I have since been able to obtain it and send the corresponse I had been trying to send. Again thank you for your assistance.
You know, usually, I skip over posts critical of the SS lesson. But I'm wondering if anyone else caught this most glaring error besides me:
"The fourth commandment is, in a sense, a test commandment. It
tests humanity’s spirituality. Because it deals with time, which is invisible,
rather than with tangible objects, it is well suited to measure
humanity’s attitude toward God. How we feel toward the Sabbath is an
indicator of how we feel toward God. It is the only commandment an
individual can break and yet be fully accepted as a good person in any
conservative Christian society.
In a certain sense, the Sabbath is arbitrary. Why the seventh day over any other? It’s because God said so, that’s why.There’s a lot of
obvious and apparent logic in not stealing, not killing, not coveting,
and so forth. You don’t have to be a Christian to follow those precepts;
many non-Christians do."
This actually was discussed quite a bit yesterday in class. If the 4th commandment is in any way arbitrary then all Ten are arbitrary. In fact, the author when he says "In a certain sense..." leaves the door open that he doesn't consider the 4th arbitrary, until he says It’s because God said so, that’s why. That is an absolute arbitrary statement. How many Christians would be converted to a greater understanding of the sabbath if someone was to ask, "Why do you observe the sabbath?" if the answer from us was, "because God said so, that’s why??" If anyone was to observe and keep the sabbath for that reason then they are observing the sabbath for all the wrong reasons.
Keeping the 4th Commandment "because God said so" is not the heart response out of love; a desire to please and do right by God because of the love He showed first. To keep any commandment especially the 4th Commandment "because God said so" is a "fear" response. We observe an keep these Commandments because they are a revelation of God's minimum standards of love. We are to have a heart response of love that God first showed us, not do things just because He is arbitrary. That's not true love, to do things based on force, fear, intimidation or manipulation nor to ask someone to do something for you based on those things as well.
This struck me as well. Even if we are to do things "because God said so". This in and of itself borders on "legalism" of which love has nothing to do. If one's sole purpose for obeying God's Law is "because God said so" then they need to reevaluate their relationship with God. Yes, fear of the Lord is wisdom, but this fear is not that fear in which one is afraid of some horendous (sic) punishment, but it is rather a deep respect of who he is. An awe and wonder of his power. He was the first to command us to "love me and keep my commandments" as early on as the giving of the commandments, see Exodus 20:6. It is not enough that we are obedient to God, we must also love him. And how could we not, who do you know that would give up their only son to die so that you could continue living? What unspeakable love is that? How could anybody express appreciation for such a sacrifice other then by love?
I'm wondering if anyone else caught this most glaring error besides me:
An appeal to the simplest/lowest reasoning isn't an "error," much less a "glaring error." The latter would a the supposition that the appeal was a "glaring error."
__________________ Because the critics have not studied any subject in any sort of depth (at least 3,000 pages), they quite literally do not know how little they know. In fact, they don't even know that they don't know.
---
When they are wrong on the simple, why should you listen to them on the more complex?
---
One rule you can always count on: never, ever trust the critics on anything. They've proven that they cannot, and will not, tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
---
I now have 99 authors in my plagiarism study. The critics still have zero.
An appeal to the simplest/lowest reasoning isn't an "error," much less a "glaring error." The latter would a the supposition that the appeal was a "glaring error."
Gee DJ, I thought I was asking people that drove planes, trains and automobiles, tricycles!
I have an opinion (as well as others I've talked to), that the writer of this SS lesson most likely knew better, and if he didn't someone at the conference responsible for oversight of these lesson should have caught this "most glaring error."
If there are any Adventist's out there in "Adventistland" that think this "wasn't" an error then I suspect they are sadly mistaken.
Gee DJ, I thought I was asking people that drove planes, trains and automobiles, tricycles!
I have an opinion (as well as others I've talked to), that the writer of this SS lesson most likely knew better, and if he didn't someone at the conference responsible for oversight of these lesson should have caught this "most glaring error."
If there are any Adventist's out there in "Adventistland" that think this "wasn't" an error then I suspect they are sadly mistaken.
It seems like these SS quarterlies have alot of 'lowest' reasoning so our members who are mostly surface-readers can't have any higher reasoning.
__________________ John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Not "can't," most don't want to. They are in the Laodecian state.
That's why we say most won't make it. Too lazy to study and they haven't been trained how.
__________________ Because the critics have not studied any subject in any sort of depth (at least 3,000 pages), they quite literally do not know how little they know. In fact, they don't even know that they don't know.
---
When they are wrong on the simple, why should you listen to them on the more complex?
---
One rule you can always count on: never, ever trust the critics on anything. They've proven that they cannot, and will not, tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
---
I now have 99 authors in my plagiarism study. The critics still have zero.
If there are any Adventist's out there in "Adventistland" that think this "wasn't" an error then I suspect they are sadly mistaken.
Yeah, I keep forgetting that I'm too stupid to be an SDA.
Good bye.
__________________ Because the critics have not studied any subject in any sort of depth (at least 3,000 pages), they quite literally do not know how little they know. In fact, they don't even know that they don't know.
---
When they are wrong on the simple, why should you listen to them on the more complex?
---
One rule you can always count on: never, ever trust the critics on anything. They've proven that they cannot, and will not, tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
---
I now have 99 authors in my plagiarism study. The critics still have zero.
Linear Mode
