A Baptist...for most of my life

[sentipente]

Well, once you enter into a study with someone it usually becomes apparent down the line what their intentions are.

So you admit that you can't read the individual's mind and must first enter the discussion. Problems arise when people begin to play God.

 

[sentipente]

Well, once you enter into a study with someone it usually becomes apparent down the line what their intentions are.

So you admit that you can't read the individual's mind and must first enter the discussion. Problems arise when people begin to play God.

 

[mva1985]

So you admit that you can't read the individual's mind and must first enter the discussion. Problems arise when people begin to play God.

Hmmmmmmmmm...... never claimed I could read minds.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I'm back, and I promise this post may not be as long as the last one.

I think where we might be getting ourselves in trouble is two-fold. Number one....StormyOne posted something from Ellen White yesterday that really hit home. She stated that many will try to leave the church and that we should not lambast these people (paraphrasing).

If we earnestly believe that the Adventist message is correct, then it just stands to reason that we need to start seeing people that want to leave it as "lost sheep", not the enemy.

Either those of you that read Ellen White believe what she says or you don't, and what Stormy posted made a lot of sense to me.

I wish I could find it again so I could quote him.

Anyone that loves Christ and wants to spread His truth is my brother or sister.

I have repeatedly said that I think God's people are in every denomination, and I sincerely mean that, so that absolutely has to include people that left the Adventist church. It just stands to reason.

Of course I find it odd when someone leaves and then Sunday is holy to them or they think the righteous are just going to disappear in a secret rapture....but all we can do is plant seeds. Seriously, that really is all we can do and we can't take it as a personal defeat when our seed didn't start spouting tomatoes right way (I have to be consistent...lol).

I'm strong enough in my faith to know that no one is going to change how I feel about certain things (death, evolution, the resurrections, etc). But admittedly there are some things in scripture that I'm very unclear about.

When there's something I'm unclear about I actually like to see arguments on the subject that I'm not involved in (as long as they're civil of course).

If I see a question that I personally couldn't answer....there you go, I need to research it for myself and it may be something that I hadn't even ever considered before.

So the second part of how we're messing up....we need to take into consideration that someone may have ALREADY questioned a scriptural subject and their conclusion may have been different than yours.

We have to respect that, from either position.

Now....all that being said, I really don't understand staying in a church that opposes a lot of your beliefs after doing the research.

 

[NightEternal]

He was referring to the thinking, not to the individual. If we don't allow people the ability to use the language to its fullest we will end up with a forum that is sterile and uninteresting. There is sufficient obnoxious behavior for us to object to.

Exactly.

Just goes to show, you know? I specifically worded the post to say intolerant THINKING so this sort of reaction would be avoided. If I had meant it as a personal attack, I would have typed intolerant PERSON.

Obviously it is useless to try and get this distinction across.

I stand behind what I said. It is intolerant thinking.

Funny, when certain others do blatantly personally attack me, the cries of protest from the Traditional side are less heard.

 

[NightEternal]

I think where we might be getting ourselves in trouble is two-fold. Number one....StormyOne posted something from Ellen White yesterday that really hit home. She stated that many will try to leave the church and that we should not lambast these people

Trust, I challenge you to point out any Progressive here who is trying to 'leave' the church. Maybe you're seeing something I am not. In fact, I am seeing quite the oppsite, especially with Tall. He is desperately studying to reconcile things so he can STAY. This is a man who can out-study most of us here and has been formally trained in Theology.

Why is this fact always completely lost on the Traditionalists?

The only close case you might be able to present is Ice, who is pretty much on the fringes of leaving. However, I suspect that he feels the SDA church has the most truth of any other denomination, so that is why he stays. I think Sophia is also of that understanding.

I have no problems with this. Believing Adventism has more truth than any other denomination is far better than rejecting the SDA church as false on every point of doctrine as some formers contend.

 

[NightEternal]

It hosted an SDA forum and the SAME exact arguments were being discussed ~ let's eat pork whilst wearing our jewelry and drinking wine and 'dissing EGW. This is the same song, 457th verse.....

Speaking for myself, I do not eat certain foods for health reasons because they are scavengers. I have had maybe two glases of wine in the last 10 or so years (I do not see abstinence taught in the Bible-let each be convinced in his own mind.) I believe EGW was inspired, but my understanding of inspiration differs from most Traditionalists. I wear a wedding ring only and have no piercings.

So, maybe I am not the big, bad, evil liberal after all.

My wife also only wears a wedding ring. However, if she chose to wear other items of jewelry, I have no issues with it.

If you have such a problem with wine and jewelry, you had better stay out of most southern California Adventist churches.

I know they think they are being original and 'discovering' things that MUST be brought to our attention, but it's old news. We've all heard the same arguments, the same quotes, etc.

Then you knowledge is faulty, because I do not see anyone here claiming originality. Most of us here have also been to many other chat forums and we have also seen the same issues and controversies being discussed.

 

[mva1985]

Exactly.

Just goes to show, you know? I specifically worded the post to say intolerant THINKING so this sort of reaction would be avoided. If I had meant it as a personal attack, I would have typed intolerant PERSON.

Obviously it useless to try and get this distinction across.

I stand behind what I said. It is intolerant thinking.

Funny, when certain others do blatantly personally attack me, the cries of protest from the Traditional side are less heard.

 

[Telaquapacky]

SassySDA,
I am a moderate SDA. I also love the pillars of the church and wouldn't for a moment wish them broken or vandalized. God led me to this church by a series of uncanny events that made me sure SDA was where He wants me. If I ever started having doubts about the pillars, woe to me, because, like Peter said, where else would I go?

Having said that, I learned that no organization is perfect. We hold this treasure (the gospel of Christ) in earthen vessels. I have learned over the years to love all the diversity in our Church and to accept people who think differently than me and do it lovingly. If I really take exception to their unorthodoxy, either I tell them politely in private- it I feel it is my place to do so- or I leave them alone and pray for them. But I never invite people to the exit door of the church.

Would you not invite someone to visit your church if they smoke or drank or caroused or had tatoos? Well, what about unorthodox doctrines? Again, I think everyone is better off in this church than outside- regardless of individual beliefs or habits. If we take exception to something I recommend letting the Holy Spirit take care of that. Who knows, someone might teach us something if we're open-minded. That wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Trust, I challenge you to point out any Progressive here who is trying to 'leave' the church. Maybe you're seeing something I am not. In fact, I am seeing quite the oppsite, especially with Tall. He is desperately studying to reconcile things so he can STAY. This is a man who can out-study most of us here and has been formally trained in Theology.

Why is this fact always completely lost on the Traditionalists?

The only close case you might be able to present is Ice, who is pretty much on the fringes of leaving. However, I suspect that he feels the SDA church has the most truth of any other denomination, so that is why he stays. I think Sophia is also of that understanding.

I have no problems with this. Believing Adventism has more truth than any other denominations is far better than rejecting the SDA church as false on every point of doctrine as some formers contend.

Actually, I was in a time crunch and I meant to type on the verge of leaving or has already left AND people within that are questioning the doctrine.

If someone is questioning doctrine I don't see them as the enemy, and that's the absolute truth.

I'd rather them be IN the church but I do still consider them lost sheep when it appears their doctrine is completely different than the one the church upholds.

That's not a high and mighty statement at all, I'm basically just trying to make it clear that I do believe the Adventist message is truth, so obviously anyone that disagrees with it, in MY opinion, is a lost sheep.

My catholic friends think *I'M* a lost sheep too....so along those same lines.

And really, if we all stopped and thought about it (Sophia and I have talked about this before)....is there any Adventist that has such an immense opposition to any one of the doctrines that it would be worth going to a church that has a several that we disagree with?

Whatever reasons people stay is really none of my business. That's my personal opinion from this moment on.

They just can't expect me to always agree with them when they disagree with a doctrine. More importantly, they cannot disrespect me by saying that I'm small-minded, well indoctrinated, or whatever thing I've been called in the past (ha) when I am honest about having ALREADY studied a subject and I just disagree with them period.

I don't like rehashing old arguments, and if I'm convinced within myself I don't see the need in having a similar argument over again in the future.

That's really all I'm saying. If I say I've researched it, then I did. If I say I disagree with someone, then I do. I'm not going to "defend" anymore or squabble back and forth about a particular subject when chances are that I already HAVE.

I'm still in a time crunch, so I hope all of that was understandable.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Telaquapacky, we just basically said the exact same thing.

I need to learn how to do it in 1,000 words or less though, huh?

 

[NightEternal]

And really, if we all stopped and thought about it (Sophia and I have talked about this before)....is there any Adventist that has such an immense opposition to any one of the doctrines that it would be worth going to a church that has a several that we disagree with.

This is all I'm saying, really. I couldn't have stated it better.

As for the 'small-minded' jabs, that sounds like an RCism to me.

Trust, you know that RC has that element of sarcasm. That's just the way he is. Take it with a grain of salt and just give it right back to him.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Funny thing about RC....(I don't feel like I'm talking about him behind his back because I know he'll be in this thread eventually)....he hit me with one of those "RCisms" on a really bad day and I put him on ignore.

A friend here begged me to take him off for the purpose of the wiki, and much to my amazement, I agreed with RC more than I didn't. In fact, I thought he was very articulate and considerate of everyone's ideas.

(There was some concern about deleting people's ideas on the wiki, and who was responsible for it, but I think we've alleviated that from happening in the future and it's water under the bridge anyway).

My point? First impressions aren't always the right impressions.

But he voted for stricter rules, and those rules would cover his sarcasm....so I'm curious to see how he words the RCims in the future (seriously).

 

[sentipente]

Whatever reasons people stay is really none of my business. That's my personal opinion from this moment on.

They just can't expect me to always agree with them when they disagree with a doctrine. More importantly, they cannot disrespect me by saying that I'm small-minded, well indoctrinated, or whatever thing I've been called in the past (ha) when I am honest about having ALREADY studied a subject and I just disagree with them period.

I am willing to bet that those charges are reserved for the attempts you make at refuting their positions. If you continually appeal to authority in a debate you leave many questions.

 

[Telaquapacky]

Telaquapacky, we just basically said the exact same thing.

I need to learn how to do it in 1,000 words or less though, huh?

Be hyperpolysyllabicsesquepedalianistic. (that means, "use bigger words")

 

[TrustAndObey]

Sentipente, can you put that in layman's terms?

 

[TrustAndObey]

LOL Telaquapacky, my mom has a saying about big words that I cannot share on this forum.

 

[StormyOne]

I'm back, and I promise this post may not be as long as the last one.

I think where we might be getting ourselves in trouble is two-fold. Number one....StormyOne posted something from Ellen White yesterday that really hit home. She stated that many will try to leave the church and that we should not lambast these people (paraphrasing).

If we earnestly believe that the Adventist message is correct, then it just stands to reason that we need to start seeing people that want to leave it as "lost sheep", not the enemy.

Either those of you that read Ellen White believe what she says or you don't, and what Stormy posted made a lot of sense to me.

I wish I could find it again so I could quote him.

Anyone that loves Christ and wants to spread His truth is my brother or sister.

I have repeatedly said that I think God's people are in every denomination, and I sincerely mean that, so that absolutely has to include people that left the Adventist church. It just stands to reason.

Of course I find it odd when someone leaves and then Sunday is holy to them or they think the righteous are just going to disappear in a secret rapture....but all we can do is plant seeds. Seriously, that really is all we can do and we can't take it as a personal defeat when our seed didn't start spouting tomatoes right way (I have to be consistent...lol).

I'm strong enough in my faith to know that no one is going to change how I feel about certain things (death, evolution, the resurrections, etc). But admittedly there are some things in scripture that I'm very unclear about.

When there's something I'm unclear about I actually like to see arguments on the subject that I'm not involved in (as long as they're civil of course).

If I see a question that I personally couldn't answer....there you go, I need to research it for myself and it may be something that I hadn't even ever considered before.

So the second part of how we're messing up....we need to take into consideration that someone may have ALREADY questioned a scriptural subject and their conclusion may have been different than yours.

We have to respect that, from either position.

Now....all that being said, I really don't understand staying in a church that opposes a lot of your beliefs after doing the research.

It is better to find the quote than to rely on one's memory.... especially as one gets older...(and yes that was said in fun)
The statements from Ellen White did not deal with people leaving the church, they dealt with how people with different views from ours should be treated, and the other statement dealt with allowing different people to exist in the church even if they might be tares because as humans we don't know the difference between the wheat and the tares. Consequently we may attempt to root out a tare and might actually be rooting out wheat... if you need the statements again, I can provide them....

 

[Telaquapacky]

This is all I'm saying, really. I couldn't have stated it better.

As for the 'small-minded' jabs, that sounds like an RCism to me.

Trust, you know that RC has that element of sarcasm. That's just the way he is. Take it with a grain of salt and just give it right back to him.

My favorite RCism was "...it's like talking to a child." I remember thinking, 'It's like being scolded by an old schoolmarm..' RC does make some good points, and it's refreshing that he's not syrupy like me.

 

[TrustAndObey]

It is better to find the quote than to rely on one's memory.... especially as one gets older...(and yes that was said in fun)
The statements from Ellen White did not deal with people leaving the church, they dealt with how people with different views from ours should be treated, and the other statement dealt with allowing different people to exist in the church even if they might be tares because as humans we don't know the difference between the wheat and the tares. Consequently we may attempt to root out a tare and might actually be rooting out wheat... if you need the statements again, I can provide them....

My memory is actually pretty good considering I can still remember what my body looked like at 22...but when it comes to quotes...yeah, I shouldn't even try.

If you wouldn't mind reposting those, I would really appreciate it...because the fact of the matter is...if you believe everything that Ellen White said then you cannot possibly dispute those statements either.

Am I right or am I right?