Adding to the Word?

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 28, 2007

Bradford’s implication that because it was commonly held in Ellen White’s day that such races as the African Bushmen were a mixture of animal and human genes, that Ellen White probably held this view also (p. 65), is completely groundless.

Now how can it be groundless if it was a common belief in Ellen White's day and if Uriah Smith held it and defended it and James White praised Uriah Smiths defense. You can see that quote in this presentation. http://www.forthegospel.org/files/Amalgamation_of_Man_and_Beast.pdf
See slide 47:
"While carefully reading the manuscript I felt very grateful to God that our people could have such an able defense of those view that they so much love and prize, and which others despise and oppose....James White

StormyOne · Dec 28, 2007

some will not see it no matter how plain it is...

moicherie · Dec 28, 2007

mva1985 said:
Is the absence of a direct Biblical text for these to give up polygamy God's way of condoning it?

I don't think so.....

Did you read my post? Its not about God condoning polygamy or condoning anything its about God dealing with people where they are socially and culturally even when they behave differently from our present cultural/social norms. Polgamy was used as an example.
(Your quotation does not take into consideration what I was talking about as per above and falsifies my thread, hope that was not intentional)
Perhaps I need to make my point clearer EG White and her white church colleagues were not as racially enlightened as we are today (I hope) she lived in 19th century racist America, the country was not even 100 years old as a state. Knowledge of peoples of African and other non European descent was based on racial superiority of being white, whether you like it not our Adventists pioneers were not exempt from this attitude despite their anti slavery position. Being in denial of this does not IMO lessen God's ability to use her or others, so can we please stop living in Egypt and just accept the facts?
After all I believe God still used people in the church even when the GC was practising racial segregation in the USA and South Africa. So our church has a racist heritage,....... surprise... surpise not.

mva1985 · Dec 28, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
Now how can it be groundless if it was a common belief in Ellen White's day and if Uriah Smith held it and defended it and James White praised Uriah Smiths defense. You can see that quote in this presentation. http://www.forthegospel.org/files/Amalgamation_of_Man_and_Beast.pdf
See slide 47:
"While carefully reading the manuscript I felt very grateful to God that our people could have such an able defense of those view that they so much love and prize, and which others despise and oppose....James White

RC,

It was a common belief that the world was flat but not everyone shared the view!

But why didn't "they" refute the statements that Uriah Smith made? Who knows? But to think that because they are silent on one thing in his publication means that they shared the exact same view point of Smith is ridiculous.

Plain and simple you can't prove it. This is one statement - "amalgamation". That is used to discredit EGW. It really is fine with me if you all don't want to believe in her - believe me I'm not losing any sleep over it.

mva1985 · Dec 28, 2007

moicherie said:
Did you read my post? Its not about God condoning polygamy or condoning anything its about God dealing with people where they are socially and culturally even when they behave differently from our present cultural/social norms. Polgamy was used as an example.
(Your quotation does not take into consideration what I was talking about as per above and falsifies my thread, hope that was not intentional)
Perhaps I need to make my point clearer EG White and her white church colleagues were not as racially enlightened as we are today (I hope) she lived in 19th century racist America, the country was not even 100 years old as a state. Knowledge of peoples of African and other non European descent was based on racial superiority of being white, whether you like it not our Adventists pioneers were not exempt from this attitude despite their anti slavery position. Being in denial of this does not IMO lessen God's ability to use her or others, so can we please stop living in Egypt and just accept the facts?
After all I believe God still used people in the church even when the GC was practising racial segregation in the USA and South Africa. So our church has a racist heritage,....... surprise... surpise not.

Yes, I read your post - as well as a lot of your posts - you are stuck on the whole racism issue. You need to move on.

Did God send Nathan to reprimand David concerning Bathsheba?

Did God send Peter (a Jew) to the house of Cornelius? I think God was pretty clear about calling things common or unclean.

sentipente · Dec 29, 2007

mva1985 said:
Yes, I read your post - as well as a lot of your posts - you are stuck on the whole racism issue. You need to move on.

Why are you still stuck on the sin issue? Do you realize how long ago it was that A&E fell? No one here was alive when it happened so why do you keep bringing it up? It is time to move on. We are who we are.

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 29, 2007

mva1985 said:
RC,

It was a common belief that the world was flat but not everyone shared the view!

But why didn't "they" refute the statements that Uriah Smith made? Who knows? But to think that because they are silent on one thing in his publication means that they shared the exact same view point of Smith is ridiculous.

Plain and simple you can't prove it. This is one statement - "amalgamation". That is used to discredit EGW. It really is fine with me if you all don't want to believe in her - believe me I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I did not expect you to be disturbed by it. Neither are the Mormon missionaries when they are told that their prophet Brigham Young said there are people living on the sun

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet. God gives light to our eyes.[54]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology

But if you reject the meaning of mix of breeding between man and animals which was a popular thought of her time. You are left with the breeding of different races of people and breeding of who knows, different colors of animals I guess. But that does not leave you any better off. It leaves you in the position of saying it is a base crime to have a partner of a different race. And woe unto you if you dog mates with another breed or mix because that would be a base crime as well.

But with the aid of rationalization people can claim that even after James White "carefully" read Uriah Smith's manuscript he ignored the defense of EGW amalgamation statement by making a completely different defense which would be no defense at all if she did not believe that way anyhow. It is the same logic that the Mormon's use, and that is the person is a prophet so whatever they say is true even if it is shown to be wrong, we just don't understand what they meant.

Yet words have meaning and such a position is seen by others to be nothing but weak rationalizations.

moicherie · Dec 30, 2007

mva1985 said:
Yes, I read your post - as well as a lot of your posts - you are stuck on the whole racism issue. You need to move on.

Did God send Nathan to reprimand David concerning Bathsheba?

Did God send Peter (a Jew) to the house of Cornelius? I think God was pretty clear about calling things common or unclean.

As a Christian you are stuck on your desire to ignore the racism issue so which attitude is more disturbing....
back to the scheduled programming so which race was EGW refering to in the amalgamation statement if it was not the ones Uriah Smith believed she was refering to?

NightEternal · Feb 28, 2008

A good thread.

Mankin · Feb 28, 2008

Lol Night you appear to have an obsession with filling the entire first page of the prog area with your threads

NightEternal · Feb 28, 2008

The first rule of good marketing Mankin: Shameless self-promotion!

Lebesgue · Feb 29, 2008

moicherie said:
Did you read my post? Its not about God condoning polygamy or condoning anything its about God dealing with people where they are socially and culturally even when they behave differently from our present cultural/social norms. Polgamy was used as an example.
(Your quotation does not take into consideration what I was talking about as per above and falsifies my thread, hope that was not intentional)
Perhaps I need to make my point clearer EG White and her white church colleagues were not as racially enlightened as we are today (I hope) she lived in 19th century racist America, the country was not even 100 years old as a state. Knowledge of peoples of African and other non European descent was based on racial superiority of being white, whether you like it not our Adventists pioneers were not exempt from this attitude despite their anti slavery position. Being in denial of this does not IMO lessen God's ability to use her or others, so can we please stop living in Egypt and just accept the facts?
After all I believe God still used people in the church even when the GC was practising racial segregation in the USA and South Africa. So our church has a racist heritage,....... surprise... surpise not.

Being a "product of her times" argument doesn't cut it for me. Racism is a SIN, IF she were a TRUE prophet of G-d she would have spoken out against racism rather than go along with it.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

annie1speed · Mar 1, 2008

Perhaps I need to make my point clearer EG White and her white church colleagues were not as racially enlightened as we are today (I hope) she lived in 19th century racist America, the country was not even 100 years old as a state. Knowledge of peoples of African and other non European descent was based on racial superiority of being white, whether you like it not our Adventists pioneers were not exempt from this attitude despite their anti slavery position.

I understand your point about the culture at that time. But God had the facts, and like Lebasgue said ... if she was an inspired prophet of God, how did she have it wrong?

mva1985 · Mar 2, 2008

Lebesgue said:
Being a "product of her times" argument doesn't cut it for me. Racism is a SIN, IF she were a TRUE prophet of G-d she would have spoken out against racism rather than go along with it.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

Didn't Moses give rules concerning the treatment of slaves?

If slavery was a sin then shouldn't he have just said so, and ordered the release of all slaves?

I wonder why he didn't do that considering the close relationship he had with God?

sentipente · Mar 2, 2008

mva1985 said:
Didn't Moses give rules concerning the treatment of slaves?

mva1985 said:
If slavery was a sin then shouldn't he have just said so, and ordered the release of all slaves?

I wonder why he didn't do that considering the close relationship he had with God?

The problem is chattel slavery.

mva1985 · Mar 2, 2008

sentipente said:
The problem is chattel slavery.

My point has been made. You are obviously avoiding it.

RC_NewProtestants · Mar 2, 2008

Lebesgue said:
Being a "product of her times" argument doesn't cut it for me. Racism is a SIN, IF she were a TRUE prophet of G-d she would have spoken out against racism rather than go along with it.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

If you use that argument then you lose the authority of all the New Testament writers as well as Jesus Christ. In fact you could even argue as some do that slavery was helped by the Judeo-Christian religion. Even though in reality it was Christians who were instrumental in ending slavery in the Western World.

It is actually a good example of progressive revelation in that the idea of do unto others as you would have them do to you is ancient but the application took a long time to be seen in the real world, only after those words can be taken to heart by a large portion of a country.

sentipente · Mar 2, 2008

If you still think your point has been avoided then there is nothing more to be said.

mva1985 said:
My point has been made. You are obviously avoiding it.

moicherie · Mar 4, 2008

annie1speed said:
I understand your point about the culture at that time. But God had the facts, and like Lebasgue said ... if she was an inspired prophet of God, how did she have it wrong?

Because God uses imperfect humans, read the NT where even Peter had issues eating with Gentiles, Paul had to reprimand him for that, did that lessen God ability to use Peter at Pentacosts? No. I'm sure David knew shagging another man's wife was a bad idea did that mean God's spirit left him until Nathan showed up? No. Read the story of Samson as well. Expecting God to use perfect human beings rules us all out.

Adding to the Word?

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

True Brit

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

True Brit

Evangelical SDA

A Strange Mixture of Random Components.

Evangelical SDA

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

True Brit

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency