The CSDA!!

[honorthesabbath]

Someone brought this new break away group, entitled "CREATION 7th-Day Adventist" (formed in 1991) to my attention this am. The reason they broke away from the GC SDA's is because the GC decided some years ago to protect our name and beliefs thru "a patent" process. Because of this move by the GC, this small group is now calling the SDA church, Babylon. They are also denying that there will ever be a "Sunday Law", since "right now" that little piece of legislation doesn't look at all feasible. (Oh they of little faith--lol). One of the first instances that I became aware of the name of our church being misused was when that group of gays tried to make it look like the SDA church "approved" of their sin by carrying the name. The GC, after attempts failed to persuade them to stop using our name--then did sue them.

I believe that all that EGW has said about it looking as if our curch would fall is coming true. Just another bit of evidence that we ARE in the final days before our Lord's rescue mission.

So what are your thoughts fellow SDA's?? Do you think the CG should deny off-shoot groups to continue to use our name and yet deny our doctrines??

http://csda.us/index2.html

 

[TrustAndObey]

I think the GC absolutely should deny off-shoot groups that stray so far away from the church's original doctrine! I mean, come on, if these new groups want to turn our church into other churches, then why don't they just go to other churches?

Your statement just solidified something I've noticed a lot of lately...when some Adventists find what they consider "new light", they seem to decide Traditional Adventists their "enemy". They take their eye off the ball.

 

[SassySDA]

Someone brought this new break away group, entitled "CREATION 7th-Day Adventist" (formed in 1991) to my attention this am. The reason they broke away from the GC SDA's is because the GC decided some years ago to protect our name and beliefs thru "a patent" process. Because of this move by the GC, this small group is now calling the SDA church, Babylon. They are also denying that there will ever be a "Sunday Law", since "right now" that little piece of legislation doesn't look at all feasible. (Oh they of little faith--lol). One of the first instances that I became aware of the name of our church being misused was when that group of gays tried to make it look like the SDA church "approved" of their sin by carrying the name. The GC, after attempts failed to persuade them to stop using our name--then did sue them.

I believe that all that EGW has said about it looking as if our curch would fall is coming true. Just another bit of evidence that we ARE in the final days before our Lord's rescue mission.

So what are your thoughts fellow SDA's?? Do you think the CG should deny off-shoot groups to continue to use our name and yet deny our doctrines??

http://csda.us/index2.html

You bet I do. If they no longer agree with our fundamental beliefs, why would they want to keep the name? You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's my take on THAT.

 

[HoneyDew]

You bet I do. If they no longer agree with our fundamental beliefs, why would they want to keep the name? You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's my take on THAT.

Just a quick question: so what do you really think of having the forum further divided into "Traditional or Historical Adventists" and "Progressive or Reform Adventists?" Do you think the "Progressives" no longer agree with the 28 Fundies and therefore should not even be under the Seventh-day Adventist umbrella?

 

[PaleHorse]

I think the GC absolutely should deny off-shoot groups that stray so far away from the church's original doctrine! I mean, come on, if these new groups want to turn our church into other churches, then why don't they just go to other churches?

Your statement just solidified something I've noticed a lot of lately...when some Adventists find what they consider "new light", they seem to decide Traditional Adventists their "enemy". They take their eye off the ball.

I completely agree - if one doesn't adhere to the Adventist doctrines then how can they, in good conscious, continue to label themselves as such? That would be like having a group of Baptists suddenly deciding that baptism isn't important, starts teaching that it isn't important, yet still want to call themselves Baptist. To me this doesn't make a lick of sense.

While I would not call Adventists an "elitest" group, I would say that one either agrees with the basic beliefs (as outlined in the 28) or they don't - which means one is either Adventist or they are not.

 

[PaleHorse]

Just a quick question: so what do you really think of having the forum further divided into "Traditional or Historical Adventists" and "Progressive or Reform Adventists?" Do you think the "Progressives" [who] no longer agree with the 28 Fundies and therefore should not even be under the Seventh-day Adventist umbrella?

In a nutshell, yes. They shouldn't be under the Adventist umbrella.

 

[HoneyDew]

In a nutshell, yes. They shouldn't be under the Adventist umbrella.

Thanks for the reply.

Could you not change my question, though? I asked one question, but you edited it while still using my name. If there is a point to be made with a poster's quote, do it outside of the quote so you won't be thought of as messing with the integrity of the forum.
Thanks, again.

Please retain the integrity of the forum by being true to the fellow members' posts.

 

[StormyOne]

Actually, its not all that big.

Well the good thing is that you nor I are holding the umbrella, so only God knows how big it is... unless you are suggesting you have some inside info that we aren't privy to.....

 

[PaleHorse]

Well the good thing is that you nor I are holding the umbrella, so only God knows how big it is... unless you are suggesting you have some inside info that we aren't privy to.....

No, I do not claim such information. I am going by common sense in the descriptive usage of titles, labels, and names. The name/label/title exists to describe a certain thing - a name is merely a short-hand way of describing something. For example; I could say "you know, the big metal thing that has glass-covered openings, and round rubber things, 2 (or 4) doors that people ride around in"...or I could simply say "car". The name "car" saves from having to give the large description. The same concept holds true for groups/organizations.

When one claims a particular name/label that means they are aligning themselves with that group's beliefs and/or institutions. If someone claims to be "Adventist" then that means they hold true to the beliefs that name/label/title carries with it. If they do not, then they should not claim the name. Its really a rather simple concept. Its a question of clarity.

 

[tall73]

The first instance of legislation on the name was with homosexuals but the second was with conservative Adventists. The groups were running billboards declaring the pope to be the anti-christ etc. and in general holding that the church was not going far enough to avoid compromise with babylon.

So the umbrella scoots both ways.

The truth is I understand the denomination not wanting to be associated with a homosexual church, but I have a hard time with them suing members who some consider to be overzealous. Of course, tithe also enters into the question, because some of those same groups accept tithe for their publications etc.

While we don't want to be associated with some things, taking people to court over a religious issue goes against Paul's advice, and makes us look pretty harsh.

 

[PaleHorse]

I am glad that you aren't claiming some special insight. Your simplistic description of people claiming to be adventist misses the mark IMO....You are a U.S. citizen, but I am sure you have not agreed with everything that the U.S. has ever done, nor have you agreed with every action of recent presidents, yet even when you don't agree it makes you no less a U.S. citizen. To suggest that adventists are monolithic, all holding the exact same views, dressing the same way, practicing adventism in the same manner is a disservice to adventism. However, if that is the definition that works for you, good for you and God bless you....

Apples and oranges. Your problem is lack of discernment, my friend. We are discussing a specific religion group with a common set of beliefs, the Seventh-day Adventist church. The United States, a governmental institution on the other hand, was intentionally formed to be a conglomeration of different peoples. Apples and oranges.

No debating please. This isn't the area for that.

 

[StormyOne]

Interesting that you would suggest that I lack discernment and then tell me no debating... I asked a few questions, you responded... that is not a debate, nor would I debate with you, not worth it and it wouldn't change anything...
I see quite clearly that you are missing the big picture, the principle involved... that being there are groups that you belong to which you don't always agree but your disagreement does not automatically mean you are no longer a part of that group...

 

[Cliff2]

Someone brought this new break away group, entitled "CREATION 7th-Day Adventist" (formed in 1991) to my attention this am. The reason they broke away from the GC SDA's is because the GC decided some years ago to protect our name and beliefs thru "a patent" process. Because of this move by the GC, this small group is now calling the SDA church, Babylon. They are also denying that there will ever be a "Sunday Law", since "right now" that little piece of legislation doesn't look at all feasible. (Oh they of little faith--lol). One of the first instances that I became aware of the name of our church being misused was when that group of gays tried to make it look like the SDA church "approved" of their sin by carrying the name. The GC, after attempts failed to persuade them to stop using our name--then did sue them.

I believe that all that EGW has said about it looking as if our curch would fall is coming true. Just another bit of evidence that we ARE in the final days before our Lord's rescue mission.

So what are your thoughts fellow SDA's?? Do you think the CG should deny off-shoot groups to continue to use our name and yet deny our doctrines??

http://csda.us/index2.html

I have just had a quick look at their site and much of what they say I can agree with but there seems to be some statements that do not agree with what we believe.

In fact EGW says we should not be setting up another organisation as if that happens we know that it is wrong.

In reading Revelation it does not talk of an 8th church at all.

I would think that one would really have to be very careful about getting involved with this group or any other group that wants to break away from the main body of Christ.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Cliff--the other thing I noticed that this group is doing is using the "sacred name" non-sense. I think it's funny how they quote EGW (arbitrarily at times) and yet ignore the fact that she NEVER used the name of YAH or Yahsua. As a matter of fact--she uses the name JEHOVAH most of time--a name that the Yah's would absolutely have a conniption over.

Also, the national/global Sunday law is a firm tenent of the Adventist doctrine--so to deny that THAT is going to happen just because at this time it looks so unlikey--is shear apostasy in my book.

PS--I hope those those nay-sayers like the taste of crow!!!!! lol

 

[PaleHorse]

Thanks for the reply.

Could you not change my question, though? I asked one question, but you edited it while still using my name. If there is a point to be made with a poster's quote, do it outside of the quote so you won't be thought of as messing with the integrity of the forum.
Thanks, again.

Please retain the integrity of the forum by being true to the fellow members' posts.

I answered your question and did not edit one word - so your question was not changed whatsoever. The underline was simply to show what part of your post I was responding too. This is a pretty common practice on forums; sometimes folks bold the part they are responding to, other times they underline. I would hope you know this by now considering how long you've been on forums.

Also, how can I use your name? Was it not your post I quoted verbatim?

No need to be snappy.

 

[Cliff2]

Cliff--the other thing I noticed that this group is doing is using the "sacred name" non-sense. I think it's funny how they quote EGW (arbitrarily at times) and yet ignore the fact that she NEVER used the name of YAH or Yahsua. As a matter of fact--she uses the name JEHOVAH most of time--a name that the Yah's would absolutely have a conniption over.

Also, the national/global Sunday law is a firm tenent of the Adventist doctrine--so to deny that THAT is going to happen just because at this time it looks so unlikey--is shear apostasy in my book.

PS--I hope those those nay-sayers like the taste of crow!!!!! lol

Agree with you on this one.

 

[Vaudois]

Although the CSDAs are very small potatoes (2 families or 25 people, last I heard) the problem is not small.

Babylon means "confusion" and sifting through all the vague claimers of the SDA name on the Internet is just that...confusion.

It's the tripping up of seekers I dislike, not the "holiness" of the name. Names aren't holy: characters are.

Why cannot those who disagree with SDA Church ideals start their own, without the name?

Come on! Call your self something else: Here I'll give you some free,non-copyrighted samples:

1. The Sabbath-keeping Free Thinkers Community Church
2. The Church of JAH, between the 6th and 1st Day, Inc.
3. The Humanistic Fellowship of Proud Liberals Who Meet on Saturdays, Holding Co.
4. The 4th Commandment Agreers, (Non-SOP) Synod
5. The Mad and Hurt Non-reading Reactional Emotionist Congregation of Breast-beaters (whew!)

 

[HoneyDew]

I answered your question and did not edit one word - so your question was not changed whatsoever. The underline was simply to show what part of your post I was responding too. This is a pretty common practice on forums; sometimes folks bold the part they are responding to, other times they underline. I would hope you know this by now considering how long you've been on forums.

Also, how can I use your name? Was it not your post I quoted verbatim?

No need to be snappy.

"Snappy?" Where? Please, Palehorse, do me the courtesy of not ascribing emotions to me. We don't know each other.
*Sigh*
Since I have to repeat this: You quoted me and inserted a "who" in the sentence you underlined. Ergo, you did not quote my post verbatim.

I said this:

Just a quick question: so what do you really think of having the forum further divided into "Traditional or Historical Adventists" and "Progressive or Reform Adventists?" Do you think the "Progressives" no longer agree with the 28 Fundies and therefore should not even be under the Seventh-day Adventist umbrella?

You responded with this edited version:

Quote

Originally Posted by: HoneyDew

Just a quick question: so what do you really think of having the forum further divided into "Traditional or Historical Adventists" and "Progressive or Reform Adventists?" Do you think the "Progressives" [who] no longer agree with the 28 Fundies and therefore should not even be under the Seventh-day Adventist umbrella?

In a nutshell, yes. They shouldn't be under the Adventist umbrella.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Although the CSDAs are very small potatoes (2 families or 25 people, last I heard) the problem is not small.

Babylon means "confusion" and sifting through all the vague claimers of the SDA name on the Internet is just that...confusion.

It's the tripping up of seekers I dislike, not the "holiness" of the name. Names aren't holy: characters are.

Why cannot those who disagree with SDA Church ideals start their own, without the name?

Come on! Call your self something else: Here I'll give you some free,non-copyrighted samples:

1. The Sabbath-keeping Free Thinkers Community Church
2. The Church of JAH, between the 6th and 1st Day, Inc.
3. The Humanistic Fellowship of Proud Liberals Who Meet on Saturdays, Holding Co.
4. The 4th Commandment Agreers, (Non-SOP) Synod
5. The Mad and Hurt Non-reading Reactional Emotionist Congregation of Breast-beaters (whew!)

Amen Vaudois--thats my point. When you have so many "trumpets" sounding DIFFERENT tunes--then the "band" makes no sense--the sound is NOISE not melody. This is what the splinter groups are doing.

But hey--I like your alternative names!!!! lol

 

[SassySDA]

Amen Vaudois--thats my point. When you have so many "trumpets" sounding DIFFERENT tunes--then the "band" makes no sense--the sound is NOISE not melody. This is what the splinter groups are doing.

But hey--I like your alternative names!!!! lol

Amen buddy Vad, I didn't say it well in my post...it's the CONFUSION that is the problem.

If they don't want to be SDA anymore, they shouldn't want the name. Even if they just veer from the doctrine a tiny amount, they should leave the name behind.