Debating rules applied

[NightEternal]

Brother. I have seen Fred Astaire display less dancing around footwork than this thread.

From my earlier post:

SHE WAS WRONG.

Good luck at getting the EGW spinmasters to admit that however, without qualifiers and apologetic gymnastics.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41531657&postcount=7

Did I call it or did I call it?

At least we managed to get RND to almost admit it after pulling teeth:

Do we throw out all of Mrs. White's writings and advice simply because she may have missed one?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41555058&postcount=24

 

[freeindeed2]

I'm not an medical expert. However it does not seem to be a certainty in medical world today on how humans contract the virus m leprae.

Doctors as late as 1960s were recommending tobacco's to treat asthma.

So the questions on EGW's inspiration does not answer to scientific support as much as the bible does not need to answer to science about creation, flood...

Yet another elevation of EGW to the same level as the Bible.

 

[NightEternal]

Yup.

 

[sentipente]

Yet another elevation of EGW to the same level as the Bible.

This is not even a case of apples and oranges, free. EGW was not a book. The Bible is not a human being. They are not in the same class. The fact is that God speaks to all his children. He spoke to the goatherders of old and He must have spoken to EGW. Well, let's say that His revelation has been available to both. EGW's writings contain errors and so does the Bible. It is disingenuous to pretend that the Bible is 100% accurate in its facts. That's simply not the case. Those who treat the Apostle Paul as if he did not see "through a glass darkly" are no better than those who attempt to place EGW on a pedestal.

 

[RND]

Just because medical science hasn't yet verified this, as was once the case in other things she wrote before their time, doesn't mean what EGW said about pork and leprosy is wrong.

Daryl, I think the sad thing is how the prohibition against eating pork by God the Father is muddled and downplayed simply because of what Mrs. White wrote.

Whether or not eating pork leads to leprosy is of little significance in relationship to the actual things that eating pork can cause to occur in the human body. This validates the word of God and God's admonishment to simply stay away from pork products.

I see this argument as a huge attempt to discredit Mrs. White. It's sad really. It's as if that since it can not be 100% conclusively proven that eating pork leads to leprosy that somehow then either 1) Mrs. White is wrong and thus can not be "inspired" or 2) Eating pork must be a.o.k.

It merely reminds me why we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

[RND]

At least we managed to get RND to almost admit it after pulling teeth:

Do we throw out all of Mrs. White's writings and advice simply because she may have missed one?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41555058&postcount=24

Your self-inflated ego is getting the better of you. Could you document fully all those posts of yours and others that amounted to "pulling teeth?"

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I'm not an medical expert. However it does not seem to be a certainty in medical world today on how humans contract the virus m leprae.

Doctors as late as 1960s were recommending tobacco's to treat asthma.

So the questions on EGW's inspiration does not answer to scientific support as much as the bible does not need to answer to science about creation, flood...

Certainly you are less medically informed then most. I think it was even on this forum that I listed why smoking was used to treat acute bronchitis because it opened up the air passages. It worked and there is no denying that it worked (of course today we have better medicines but in the 1800's to first half of the 1900's they did not). Now is the possibility of cancer many years hence worth the risk or would it be better to die of lack of oxygen because one can't breath. There are even cases where doctors still use leeches also. And guess what they have good reasons contrary to what some may want to portray.

As far as leprosy the one you mentioned is not a virus but a bacteria:

The organism that causes leprosy is called Mycobacterium leprae. Leprosy is common in parts of tropical and subtropical Asia, Africa, Central and South America, some Pacific countries, and in parts of the USA. In Australia, leprosy is now rare. With the introduction of multi-drug therapy in the early 1980s, the disease is now curable.

How leprosy is transmitted
It is considered likely that leprosy is spread from person to person in respiratory droplets or, in cases of children under one year of age, via the placenta.

Leprosy is not highly infectious. People at risk are generally in close and frequent contact with leprosy patients or living in countries where the disease is more common. The incubation period is thought to range from nine months to 20 years.
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Leprosy_explained?open

Of course you statement is fairly accurate in that "it does not seem to be a certainty in medical world today on how humans contract the virus m leprae." Being it is not a virus I would not expect there to be certainty that medical people thought it was a virus.

 

[Jimlarmore]

What year did she make the statement? And, based on what information did she make it? (Or did God tell it to her?)

I'm not a EGW scholar. I have read the Great Controversy and the Desire of Ages. I am currently reading Patriarchs and Prophets. I don't own any of the testimonies to the Church yet and it's my understanding that it's in them that most of her controversial issues are. I absolutely feel blessed every time I read her writings and I can feel the Holy Spirit on her pen.

I know she wasn't perfect,,, none of us are. Based on what I have read so far from her writings I feel she was touched by the very hand of the Creator. Based on that assessement I've decided to reserve judgement on the controversial aspects of her writings until I can studied them myself. From what I have read so far her critics come down on her for the most part on some pretty petty things/issues. Things like the shut door etc. are things I need to research out for myself and see just how it all went down.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[OntheDL]

Yet another elevation of EGW to the same level as the Bible.

hmm...critics don't read carefully. I agree fully.

The subject in my post is not EGW, not the inspiration of EGW (in question).

 

[StormyOne]

Just because medical science hasn't yet verified this, as was once the case in other things she wrote before their time, doesn't mean what EGW said about pork and leprosy is wrong.

you can't bring yourself to admit that she might be wrong. You believe her to be infallible I suspect... Face it, sometimes she was wrong...

 

[OntheDL]

Certainly you are less medically informed then most. I think it was even on this forum that I listed why smoking was used to treat acute bronchitis because it opened up the air passages. It worked and there is no denying that it worked (of course today we have better medicines but in the 1800's to first half of the 1900's they did not). Now is the possibility of cancer many years hence worth the risk or would it be better to die of lack of oxygen because one can't breath. There are even cases where doctors still use leeches also. And guess what they have good reasons contrary to what some may want to portray.

As far as leprosy the one you mentioned is not a virus but a bacteria:

Of course you statement is fairly accurate in that "it does not seem to be a certainty in medical world today on how humans contract the virus m leprae." Being it is not a virus I would not expect there to be certainty that medical people thought it was a virus.

Oh right! Now I remember you are the one who denied smoking cause asthma even when modern science says so. And you deny there is a flood in the biblical account. That pretty much sums up all I need to reply.

 

[OntheDL]

you can't bring yourself to admit that she might be wrong. You believe her to be infallible I suspect... Face it, sometimes she was wrong...

As a human? Yes. But if under inspiration? No.

 

[JonMiller]

This is not even a case of apples and oranges, free. EGW was not a book. The Bible is not a human being. They are not in the same class. The fact is that God speaks to all his children. He spoke to the goatherders of old and He must have spoken to EGW. Well, let's say that His revelation has been available to both. EGW's writings contain errors and so does the Bible. It is disingenuous to pretend that the Bible is 100% accurate in its facts. That's simply not the case. Those who treat the Apostle Paul as if he did not see "through a glass darkly" are no better than those who attempt to place EGW on a pedestal.

I think that what in the Bible is guided for our spiritual consumption (note, I didn't say that it was all factually correct).

On the other hand, we just have all of EGW writings.

JM

 

[NightEternal]

Your self-inflated ego is getting the better of you. Could you document fully all those posts of yours and others that amounted to "pulling teeth?"

Normally, I wouldn't respond to a post as blatantly insulting as this one. However, I am feeling quite mellow right now and my report finger feels the same way.

The fact that you did not just simply answer the question of the OP and outright state from the beginning she was wrong, and even when pushed, can only manage that she MAY have missed one, is evidence enough of pulling teeth syndrome.

I see this argument as a huge attempt to discredit Mrs. White. It's sad really. It's as if that since it can not be 100% conclusively proven that eating pork leads to leprosy that somehow then either 1) Mrs. White is wrong and thus can not be "inspired" or 2) Eating pork must be a.o.k

BTW, no one here is trying to make a case for the moral rightness of eating pork, nor has anyone even remotely said anything concerning such. That has been covered in other threads, and you are just muddying the issues by throwing that in.

If what she says cannot be 100% conclusively proven, I simply deduce from that she was WRONG on the matter and leave it at.

There are others on the forum who will claim she was a charlatan and a false prophetess and deduce such from a blunder such as this.

I am not one of those.

 

[NightEternal]

you can't bring yourself to admit that she might be wrong. You believe her to be infallible I suspect... Face it, sometimes she was wrong...

Stormy once again nails down the bottom line. Absolutely correct.

 

[RND]

Certainly you are less medically informed then most.

This, of course, is coming from an apparent "English" major. The word you should have used is: "than."

 

[NightEternal]

Have I done this to you my brother? Have I leveled any false charces against you or made a deliberate "misrepresentation of your (my) position" by simply asking a question?

Not outright no. Implied, yes.

BTW, it doesn't make much sense to extend the right hand of fellowship to me and then tell me I have a 'self-inflated' ego.

The latter will negate the former in case you were not aware.

 

[RND]

Normally, I wouldn't respond to a post as blatantly insulting as this one. However, I am feeling quite mellow right now and my report finger feels the same way.

Yes, I understand you have a "hair trigger.' I don't find that to be a quality worth bragging about frankly.

The fact that you did not just simply answer the question of the OP and outright state from the beginning she was wrong, and even when pushed, can only manage that she MAY have missed one, is evidence enough of pulling teeth syndrome.

Again, can you document where you or anyone else "pushed" me into changing or recanting an answer?

Do you have any proof that you "pulled" my teeth? I didn't think so.

I see this argument as a huge attempt to discredit Mrs. White. It's sad really. It's as if that since it can not be 100% conclusively proven that eating pork leads to leprosy that somehow then either 1) Mrs. White is wrong and thus can not be "inspired" or 2) Eating pork must be a.o.k

Was this comment made regarding anything you said, or was it directed to another poster?

BTW, no one here is trying to make a case for the moral rightness of eating pork, nor has anyone even remotely said anything concerning such. That has been covered in other threads, and you are just muddying the issues by throwing that in.

I see.

If what she says cannot be 100% conclusively proven, I simply deduce from that she was WRONG on the matter and leave it at.

An again, 150 years ago she said tobacco was a serious danger, yet just as recently as fourty years ago some breathing problems were prescribed with smoking cigarettes as a cure.

There are others on the forum who will claim she was a charlatan and a false prophetess and deduce such from a blunder such as this.

I am not one of those.

You could have fooled me.

 

[RND]

Not outright no. Implied, yes.

You're paranoid then. (You are free to report me now!)

BTW, it doesn't make much sense to extend the right hand of fellowship to me and then tell me I have a 'self-inflated' ego.

I can understand you saying that. You don't seem like the type of friend that can take criticism and correction from another friend.

The latter will negate the former in case you were not aware.

In your case, that may be true. However, whenever I'm out of line or make a mistake I appreciate it very much when a friend corrects me.

Not everyone is the same.

 

[freeindeed2]

An again, 150 years ago she said tobacco was a serious danger, yet just as recently as fourty years ago some breathing problems were prescribed with smoking cigarettes as a cure.

Others said the same prior to her making comment.