Questions for SDA?

[sentipente]

With all this talk about laws that would mandate church attendance on Sunday, would someone who believes in the Bible show me where the Bible prohibits attendance at church on Sunday.

 

[sentipente]

T&O wrote:


Why would that be? Is God limited to one place at one time? Could not humanity die without divinity dying?

If only part of you has died then you have not died. That's all.

 

[JonMiller]

I personally don't see what is wrong with worshiping on Sunday. I mean, we often worship on Friday and Wednesday. Often on Sunday also.

I would not like it if they didnt' allow us to keep Saturday... which they do do in some countries (by having school on that day, or expecting you to work).

That is the real issue, not whether or not you go to church on Sunday.

Also, for Catholics, both Sunday and Saturday have mass.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

If only part of you has died then you have not died. That's all.

Broaden your mind about who God is.

Old school SDAs seem to fall for the greek (and other pagan) idea that God is just like us humans.

JM

 

[djconklin]

Old school SDAs seem to fall for the greek (and other pagan) idea that God is just like us humans.

Hmmm, I have never, in almost 45 years as an SDA, met anyone who thought like that.

 

[djconklin]

I personally don't see what is wrong with worshiping on Sunday. I mean, we often worship on Friday and Wednesday. Often on Sunday also.

The Sabbath is not simply a day of worship. It is a day to rest in Christ. If you don't do it then, then you are not resting in Him the rest of the week either. Also, the commanment says that you are to work 6 days; the boss would get upset if he caught you resting when you were supposed to be working.

 

[sentipente]

Broaden your mind about who God is.

Old school SDAs seem to fall for the greek (and other pagan) idea that God is just like us humans.

JM

Humans can only describe the Creator in human terms and not without justification. Humans are God's X-rays. They were made in His image. Death is a human quality so to speak of the Creator dying requires you to think of Him in human terms. Even our worship ideas think of Him in human terms. I am certain it has not eluded your notice that God resembles an ancient absolute ruler. Do you truly think that any being who is as powerful as the one we identify as the Creator would require people to worship Him and have creatures singing "Holy, Holy, Holy?" The biblical writers simply superimposed the charateristics of the rulers around them over the one who is the Ruler of the Universe.

 

[sentipente]

The Sabbath is not simply a day of worship. It is a day to rest in Christ. If you don't do it then, then you are not resting in Him the rest of the week either.

The "blue laws" are supposed to be about Sunday. You are describing activities on the Sabbath. These are two different issues.

 

[JonMiller]

The Sabbath is not simply a day of worship. It is a day to rest in Christ. If you don't do it then, then you are not resting in Him the rest of the week either. Also, the commanment says that you are to work 6 days; the boss would get upset if he caught you resting when you were supposed to be working.

I am well aware of that. But Blue Laws are about what we do on Sunday, not about what we do on Saturday.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Hmmm, I have never, in almost 45 years as an SDA, met anyone who thought like that.

Well, you have met many people here (especially the semi-arrians).

The internet, giving people new experiences for over a decade!

JM

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If only part of you has died then you have not died. That's all.

That might be true for someone who is only human, but human and divine in one...then the singularity makes your statement inapplicable.

 

[sentipente]

That might be true for someone who is only human, but human and divine in one...then the singularity makes your statement inapplicable.

Human and divine in one is nice sermon material. The problem is that we claim that He was ONLY divine from eternity. It is surprising we think we can get away with claiming that the idea cannot be understood even though it was developed by a man.

 

[JonMiller]

We are claiming that God can't be defined in any such way. You are defining Him in a way, so that another beleif is wrong. You are defining what He can't be.

The divine and human view is giving some aspects of what He can be.

One is a restrictive definition. The other is an illumination, but incomplete. So yes, the idea of God can't be understood... and the theology of an illumination was developed by men (inspired by God). It isn't complete though.

On the other hand, your "God can't do this, because He is a person just like us" is making God just like the pagan gods... a human and only a human.

JM

 

[sentipente]

So you are claiming that the human of Christ died and the divine in Him was bound by the dead human until the divine raised the human from the dead? Is that your philosophy?

 

[JonMiller]

That isn't what I think, no.

JM

 

[TrustAndObey]

Brimac, I'd like to encourage you to ask these questions in the Traditional subfora so you can be answered without any debate. I apologize for what's happened in this thread and I really would like to contiue talking with you without it.

 

[sentipente]

That isn't what I think, no.

JM

Then what is it that you think?

 

[JonMiller]

Brimac, I'd like to encourage you to ask these questions in the Traditional subfora so you can be answered without any debate. I apologize for what's happened in this thread and I really would like to contiue talking with you without it.

It was someone from the 'Traditional' group who posted something against the 28 fundamental beleifs (which they are suppose to hold to post there, but don't), namely semi-arrianism, which got this thread off topic to begin with.

Currently people there (and yourself) claim to be proper adventism, but don't hold with the claimed positions of the Adventist church.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Then what is it that you think?

I think the divine died. I admit that I could be wrong... But that is what I currently think. We should have a different thread of a discussion of semi-arrianism.

JM

 

[TrustAndObey]

It was someone from the 'Traditional' group who posted something against the 28 fundamental beleifs (which they are suppose to hold to post there, but don't), namely semi-arrianism, which got this thread off topic to begin with.

Currently people there (and yourself) claim to be proper adventism, but don't hold with the claimed positions of the Adventist church.

JM

JM, if that's how you feel, you should absolutely no problem with Brimac coming into that forum to discuss this without your input. Correct?