Adventism and Catholicism

[Bronwen]

This is actually telaquapacky's post, carried over from the 'Open Invitation' thread. My reply follows - Bronwen

tel wrote:

Bronwen, thank you for your thoughtful and challenging reply.

"We are indeed born in sin, but that sin is remitted by Baptism. We then receive God's sanctifying grace, which can be lost only by serious sin, and the key word here is 'serious'. Peccadillos and human shortcomings may be displeasing to God, but do not negate nor drive out His sanctifying grace."

This is an easily understood position, and it does sound very reasonable. In fact, it?s the natural gut-reaction every Christian, including Seventh-day Adventists, even me, has toward their own sins. Though this reasoning makes sense to the natural mind, there are some hidden conflicts with the gospel revealed in the Bible.



A. Adventists don?t believe that human beings have the wisdom to discern which sins are serious and which are not. A ?small? sin under certain circumstances can bring a person down as badly as a ?big? one. Take pride for example. All of us suffer from this from time to time. It seems to us a small thing. But pride can cause a person to make choices that ultimately lead to their ruin. It seems churches are always eager to ?administer? the graces of God, as if they had the wisdom to judge as only He can. We humans don?t use the same yardstick He does, that?s why our way of thinking is called the ?carnal mind.? We are not safe to take any position other than that large or small, sin is sin.



Proverbs 16:25

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.



Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?



B. If after conversion, a believer?s ?small sins? are left undisturbed by God?s grace, but the sins that rise above the threshold are remitted, regardless of what ?remitted? means, this is contrary to the gospel description of conversion. If my small sins don?t count, and all I have to do is watch my step for the big ones, then my ?conversion? is in effect merely patching up the ?Old Man.? But the gospel says that the old self, whose little sins come from corrupt and deceitful desires that are natural for the carnal mind- that old guy has to go! He can?t merely be instructed and reformed. True Christian conversion as Jesus and Paul taught is death to the old self and being remade as only our Creator can, into an entirely new creature.



Ephesians 4:22-24

You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.



2 Corinthian 5:17

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!



Matthew 9:16

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17 Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."



Romans 12:2

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.



To SDA?s the issue is whether when Jesus comes again, He will find a people who are seeking Him to give them victory over every sin. With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. It isn?t that we?re trying to be holier than anyone, but that we worship a God who can do anything, so why limit Him?

Bronwen wrote:

?overly analytical? That?s our lot. We claim to be ?people of the book,? that is, the Bible, yet as I mentioned in my last post, the Bible does contain paradoxes. In seeking to harmonize those paradoxes, we are not trying to ?strain out a gnat.? We?re trying to understand as deeply as limited humans can with the help of the Holy Spirit, the profound depths of God?s ways.



You challenged me to answer some points of contention between Seventh-day Adventists and Roman Catholics.Bronwen[/i wrote: 1. The SDA's anti-Catholicism often crosses the line between sectarian disagreement and slanderous false witness. I'll be glad to provide examples if you wish. What you?re saying is true. There?s no need for you to provide examples, I?m probably aware of more of them than you are. I can not deny that there have been many instances over the years when Seventh-day Adventists both officially and unofficially, have made statements about Catholics in which we have carelessly broken God?s commandment not to ?bear false witness against thy neighbor.? Your opinion and mine of what fits into that category and what doesn?t, and where SDA?s have crossed over the line will probably differ. But first, I would like to sincerely apologize and repent of the unloving attitudes we Seventh-day Adventists have held towards Roman Catholics.



We Adventists have inherited most of our Protestant apologetics and eschatology from the Reformers. They all believed that the Papacy, that is, the office of the Pope, is the beast, the antichrist, the 666, mentioned in Daniel and Revelation, and the ?man of lawlessness,? of 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Before I even heard of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, my own personal study of the Bible and history led me to the same conclusion about the Papacy. But to say ?the papacy is the antichrist,? is not the same as saying Roman Catholics are bad people. We also teach, and have taught for over a hundred years, that the United States Government is the ?false prophet,? the second of two beasts mentioned in Revelation 13, the first of which was the Papacy. At first, that came as a (small) surprise to me. I myself am an American. For me to say that the U.S. Government represents the false prophet is an altogether different thing than saying that Americans are bad people.



The question for each individual soul or citizen is the same as it has been since governments or churches were established among men. The question is whether we as individuals will act according to our conscience when ordered by someone in civil or ecclesiastical authority over us, to do something we know is wrong, or if we will merely follow orders. God does not judge us according to our nationality, or creed, or church affiliation. He judges us according to our deeds and according to His moral law. In every instance where the decrees of a government or church lead us to do harm or injustice to other people, we are as guilty as the one in power. Wherever our leaders pursue policies that cause harm or injustice to be done to other people- if we are not participating, and know nothing about it, we are innocent. But if we know and make no opposition, we are just as guilty, even if we don?t actually participate.



We as Adventists have taken up where the reformers left off in studying the Bible prophecies regarding the antichrist. In our opinion, the Papal inquisition and Papal political dominance of the nations of Europe in the Middle Ages matches prophetic descriptions of the antichrist, beast and 666 in too many specifics to be merely a coincidence. These are points where our prophetic view puts us on the line. If we are right, good for us, and for God?s cause. If we are wrong, we are committing the basest and most condemnable evil against God?s cause. Even if we are right, if we present it in an unloving and unChristlike way, we are just as contrary to the will of God as if we were wrong. Being a voice in the wilderness is a big responsibility, and it?s not easy, but we do the best we can as God helps us. That?s all any reformers have ever done.



Roman Catholics have also made some big assumptions and bear an equal burden of responsibility. The assumption that Christ gave specifically to Peter the keys to His kingdom, with the universal authority to govern as if in the place of God Himself on earth, and furthermore that Peter passed this on to the papacy is also a major assumption that if true brings glory, and if false, shame. History reveals that the Papacy has taken some extreme actions based on that premise which have hurt a lot of people. Pope John Paul II apologized for those extremes, but his failure to renounce the Papist claim of supremacy and apostolic authority upon which those actions were based, fails to alleviate any concern about how the Papacy will use it?s self-perceived power and prerogatives in the future.



Based on our understanding of prophecy we expect that in the last days there will be a National Sunday Law. We have expected for over a hundred years, civil legislation that would penalize us for keeping the Biblical Seventh day of the week holy as God commanded in the fourth commandment. If you will recall, in his encyclical entitled, ?Dies Domini,? Pope John II called for all Catholics to ask their governments to enact laws that ?protect the sanctity of Sunday.? How does civil law work? When they pass a speed limit law in my state, and if I go over it and am pulled over by an officer, will he say, ?Oh please, Mr. Telaquapacky! Please don?t drive so fast! It?s not nice!?? No. He?s going to slap a fine on me. If I am going too far above the limit, I can be thrown in jail. That?s how civil law works. John Paul II in effect asks for laws that will impose civil penalties on me for obeying God?s Ten Commandment Law, because he perceives himself to have the authority to overrule it. He would rather I obey him than God- and he would punish me for obeying God. What will the cardinal say to God when God asks him in the judgment why he sought to punish God?s people for keeping God?s law? That will be interesting. Bronwen wrote: 2. They err by basing so much of their theology on Daniel and Revelation, which they claim to be books of prophecy while both are actually books of literature.



We try to base our theology on the entire Bible. We are a prophetic movement, and so we respect what the prophetic books have to say. In the case of Revelation, I would let the text speak for itself:



Revelation 22:18, 19

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.



As literature is concerned, I just learned recently- and were you aware, that the Greek used in Revelation is terrible? John?s grammar was really bad! There on Patmos, he had no one to help him as he did when he wrote the other books. So if it?s merely literature, it?s not very good literature. The best way John could encourage the Christians of his day was to show them how their time in history fit into the overall scheme of things leading up to the consummation of all things at the second coming of Jesus. Were it not a prophetic book, it would be cold comfort.



And is Daniel prophecy? Bible prophecy most often consists of predictions of things that will happen in the future, told in symbols or metaphors. The full meaning of prophecy is not often understood until the prophecy is fulfilled. Daniel, especially chapters 11 and 12 consist almost exclusively of predictions of things that will happen in the future, told in symbols and metaphors. At the end, the angel who revealed those things to Daniel told him what he wrote will not be fully understood until it is fulfilled at the time of the end. It?s hard to imagine how the book of Daniel presents itself as anything other than a prophetic book.



Daniel 12:1

"At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."



Daniel 12:9

He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.



A book whose words were to be sealed up until a distant future time cannot be said to be primarily literature of contemporary significance, but primarily prophecy.

[quote=Bronwen]3. The SDA is even dishonest with its own history. I believe (and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that they continue to deny that Mrs. White was a Negress, possibly to avoid losing converts in the American South. Of course, there is nothing wrong with Mrs. White having been a Negress, but the denial is dishonest. It has been suggested that because of her appearance in photographs, that Ellen White was black. Her appearance, with a receeding nasal arch, and a somewhat flat and broad nose was the result of a childhood injury. A schoolmate threw a rock at her that broke her nose, damaged her sinuses, and created misery for the rest of her life. The African American brethren are more apt to suggest that Sister White was black, and no one I know objects to that. Still, some things EG White wrote would seem to give evidence to the contrary- for example, she counseled against mixed race marriages, not because there was anything morally wrong with the practice, but because of the social pressures the couple and their children would face in her day. She married a white man. This is something Adventists sometimes wonder about in a trivial sort of way, but there isn?t enough evidence one way or the other.



You have to remember that we are a controversial denomination, and there are folks out there who attack SDA?s and Ellen White every way they can, and the story you related might be just another one that someone concocted to embarrass us. I?ve also heard them accuse her of being a white racist. You get immune to these things after awhile.Bronwen wrote: 4. The 'explaining away' of Miller's false predictions is mere doubletalk, and also rather dishonest. Why not simply say that he was wrong just as the Catholic Church has done with regard to events in its own history? Here?s where SDA?s and Roman Catholics have something in common. Daniel 8:14 is as important to us as Matthew 16:18,19 is to you.



We do say Miller was wrong about the event, but we believe he got the date right. There is a time prophecy in Daniel 9 that predicts the exact year of the first advent of Christ. It predicted that the Messiah would come in A.D. 27- the same year that Luke 3:1 says Jesus was baptized and began His public ministry. It also predicts the year of His crucifixion. It was the second part of a two-part message the angel Gabriel gave to Daniel. The first part gives the final end of the same time prophecy, saying at the end of 2,300 ?days? the temple would be reconsecrated, or cleansed, as in the Jewish ceremonial Day of Atonement. If we apply the same interpretive formula to Daniel 8:14 as Daniel 9:24, it predicts that the temple would be reconsecrated in 1844. There are other parts of Daniel that independently corroborate the time, though not the exact year.



There were probably about a dozen Bible teachers around the world in the 1830's and 1840?s, who read Daniel 8:14, did the math and recognized that the time prophecy of that verse concluded in 1844. At the conclusion of the 2300 days (1844), so said the angel Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, "the sanctuary will be reconsecrated (or cleansed)." These dozen or so men in different places around the world, independently came to the same conclusion- that the reconsecration or cleansing of the sanctuary was "prophetic-speak" for the second coming of Jesus. They thought the world was the temple and that it would receive a cleansing by fire at the second coming of Jesus, as described in 2 Peter 3. So they started teaching that Jesus' second coming would occur in 1844. This ushered in a period called the ?Great Second Advent Awakening.? The most influential (and in the end, the most popularly ridiculed) of them all was a retired American Baptist minister named William Miller. In the late 1830's, Miller started holding tent meetings all over New England, presenting a prophecy seminar including a detailed explanation of the time prophecies in Daniel that led him to conclude that Jesus was going to return in 1844. (Miller at first thought 1843, but had miscalculated because he forgot that there is no ?zero year? and you can?t algebraically add a number of years to a B.C. year and arrive at the appropriate A.D. year- you?ll be one year short) Miller gained quite a following from people in mainline Protestant churches- they were called Millerites. The leaders of those churches rejected, ridiculed and later disfellowshipped Millerites from their churches. Through more study of the Jewish ceremonial feast days- especially the Day of Atonement, which is in focus in Daniel 8:14, the Millerites narrowed down the date they expected Jesus to come to October 22, 1844- the date when Yom Kippur was to fall.



The Millerites were so strongly convinced that Jesus would come that they did stupid things like giving away prized posessions, and farmers leaving their crops in the field. The story about some of them going onto a mountain wearing white "ascension robes" is probably urban folklore, but it hints at how ridiculed the Millerites were by other Christians. When Jesus did not come, for them it was a sorrow worse than a death in the family. We call it "The Great Disappointment." Many renounced their former faith that Jesus would ever come again at all. Some stubbornly went on setting date after date for Jesus coming, that never materialized. But a core group of Millerites, convinced that they had the date right, but the event wrong, spent long nights together in fasting and prayer and Bible study, trying to find out where they went wrong. One day a small group of these Millerites were walking from one of their all-night sessions. As they passed through a cornfield, one of them, a farmer named Hiram Edson was given a vision of Jesus in the Holy of Holies as the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, in the sanctuary in heaven, referred to in the book of Hebrews. It occurred to Mr. Edson that the mistake they had made was thinking that the "sanctuary" referred to in Daniel 8:14 was the earth. As a result of his vision, Hiram Edson suggested that the reconsecration of the sanctuary was the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. This particular group of former Millerites, scattered around the northeastern U.S. in small companies, began to prayerfully study the sanctuary and it?s services, and concluded that Hiram Edson was right. Even more, if he was right, their studies gave evidence that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary was the beginning of the last phase of God?s pre-advent judgment of all men who ever lived on planet Earth. They called it an ?investigative judgment? of all who were living, in preparation for the dividing of sheep and goats at the second coming of Christ.



The idea of an ?investigative judgment? is a big sticking point for most Christians. In fact, there are several instances throughout the history of God?s dealings with man in which He checks out the situation on earth in advance of a major judgment act. There are other evidences in Daniel that the cleansing of the sanctuary and the pre-advent judgment are the same event. In addition, Christ?s ministry can be observed to be a prophetic recapitulation of the Jewish Ceremonial days. There is a whole lot more to this than I have time to relate or you have time to read. There are too many parallels, matching metaphors and corroborations in Scripture for it to be someone?s crackpot scheme. No human being has that creative an imagination. I recommend a book by Ellen White entitled, ?The Great Controversy.? Anyone can read it on the internet by accessing the website of the EG White Estate. This site enables text searching of the publications of Ellen White. Check it out! We got nuttin? to hide.



http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/ ... id=default



The Seventh-day Adventist view of 1844 is that, according to Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary in heaven (not on earth) was cleansed. Christ?s ministry as our High Priest in the holy place in the sanctuary in heaven ended, and the antitypical Day of Atonement began, in which Jesus entered the most holy place in a final phase of the plan of salvation. When Jesus comes again, at that time all the cases of all living on earth will have had to be decided in advance. In all other ages it was, first you die and then the judgment. But if you live to see Jesus come again, your judgment must be completed while you?re still alive- otherwise where?s the justice of some being translated and raised to meet Jesus in the air, while others are slain by the brightness of Christ?s coming? This judgment must be based on a thorough review of all the evidence (what we call the investigative judgment), and a test of loyalty which all humans will face in the form of the mark of the beast. The full understanding of this was in place more than a hundred years ago, and has been unfolding consistently in world events since then. I don?t think that the early Adventists who came to rethink 1844 as the cleansing of the sanctuary rather than the second coming did this in a dishonest way, or as a cover up. Those people who expected Jesus, and were disappointed- had reached the point where every earthly thing was of no value to them in comparison to the expectation of seeing Jesus. Only in that state of mind could they receive the fullest inspiration from God, and only with conscientious Bible study and fervent prayer.



About Miller?s being mistaken, I don?t think it?s unusual that a servant of God would not fully understand the significance of their mission from the beginning, or that God would lead them through an experience that could be confusing, painful and embarrassing for them. Think about one of the greatest prophetic miracle signs ever given- the birth of Jesus. Certainly Mary and Joseph were embarrassed and misunderstood, when they stood on their wedding day, with Mary showing and obviously with child. Certainly no believer would suggest that the idea that Jesus was the virgin-born Messiah was an alabi or a cover-up concocted to save His family from embarrassment, or that Mary made up the story of her encounter with Gabriel. But this was a miracle for which there was no proof- only the testimonies of a few people who had received information in vision or were told by angels. This is why I say that the sanctuary understanding of 1844 was not a cover-up but rather a welcome revelation that rescued a group of hurt, confused and embarrassed people, and filled them with a holy purpose. Look at Revelation 10:10 through 11:1:



10 I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour.

11 Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings."

11:1 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there.



Miller had prophesied about many peoples, nations languages and tongues. He had given the people a message- that Jesus was coming again in the fall of 1844- that tasted sweeter in their mouths than all earthly things. But when it didn?t come out as they expected, it was sour- a bitter experience. Then the angel said, ?You must prophesy again?? The first thing they did was measure the temple in heaven- a symbol of studying the sanctuary. We think this prophecy is about us, as much as your community believes Matthew 16:18,19 is about your leader.

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: 1. Adventists don’t believe that human beings have the wisdom to discern which sins are serious and which are not. A “small” sin under certain circumstances can bring a person down as badly as a “big” one.

2. I can not deny that there have been many instances over the years when Seventh-day Adventists both officially and unofficially, have made statements about Catholics in which we have carelessly broken God’s commandment not to “bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

3. Your opinion and mine of what fits into that category and what doesn’t, and where SDA’s have crossed over the line will probably differ.

4. We Adventists have inherited most of our Protestant apologetics and eschatology from the Reformers. They all believed that the Papacy, that is, the office of the Pope, is the beast, the antichrist, the 666, mentioned in Daniel and Revelation, and the “man of lawlessness,” of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

5. Before I even heard of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, my own personal study of the Bible and history led me to the same conclusion about the Papacy.

6. We also teach, and have taught for over a hundred years, that the United States Government is the “false prophet,” the second of two beasts mentioned in Revelation 13, the first of which was the Papacy. At first, that came as a (small) surprise to me. I myself am an American. For me to say that the U.S. Government represents the false prophet is an altogether different thing than saying that Americans are bad people.

7. In our opinion, the Papal inquisition and Papal political dominance of the nations of Europe in the Middle Ages matches prophetic descriptions of the antichrist, beast and 666 in too many specifics to be merely a coincidence.

8. Roman Catholics have also made some big assumptions and bear an equal burden of responsibility. The assumption that Christ gave specifically to Peter the keys to His kingdom, with the universal authority to govern as if in the place of God Himself on earth, and furthermore that Peter passed this on to the papacy is also a major assumption that if true brings glory, and if false, shame.

9. History reveals that the Papacy has taken some extreme actions based on that premise which have hurt a lot of people. Pope John Paul II apologized for those extremes, but his failure to renounce the Papist claim of supremacy and apostolic authority upon which those actions were based, fails to alleviate any concern about how the Papacy will use it’s self-perceived power and prerogatives in the future.

10. Based on our understanding of prophecy we expect that in the last days there will be a National Sunday Law. We have expected for over a hundred years, civil legislation that would penalize us for keeping the Biblical Seventh day of the week holy as God commanded in the fourth commandment.

11a. If you will recall, in his encyclical entitled, “Dies Domini,” Pope John II called for all Catholics to ask their governments to enact laws that “protect the sanctity of Sunday.” How does civil law work? When they pass a speed limit law in my state, and if I go over it and am pulled over by an officer, will he say, “Oh please, Mr. Telaquapacky! Please don’t drive so fast! It’s not nice!”? No. He’s going to slap a fine on me. If I am going too far above the limit, I can be thrown in jail. That’s how civil law works.

11b. John Paul II in effect asks for laws that will impose civil penalties on me for obeying God’s Ten Commandment Law, because he perceives himself to have the authority to overrule it. He would rather I obey him than God- and he would punish me for obeying God.

11c. What will the cardinal say to God when God asks him in the judgment why he sought to punish God’s people for keeping God’s law? That will be interesting.

12. We try to base our theology on the entire Bible. We are a prophetic movement, and so we respect what the prophetic books have to say. In the case of Revelation, I would let the text speak for itself...

13. As literature is concerned, I just learned recently- and were you aware, that the Greek used in Revelation is terrible? John’s grammar was really bad! There on Patmos, he had no one to help him as he did when he wrote the other books. So if it’s merely literature, it’s not very good literature. The best way John could encourage the Christians of his day was to show them how their time in history fit into the overall scheme of things leading up to the consummation of all things at the second coming of Jesus. Were it not a prophetic book, it would be cold comfort.

14. And is Daniel prophecy? Bible prophecy most often consists of predictions of things that will happen in the future, told in symbols or metaphors. The full meaning of prophecy is not often understood until the prophecy is fulfilled. Daniel, especially chapters 11 and 12 consist almost exclusively of predictions of things that will happen in the future, told in symbols and metaphors. At the end, the angel who revealed those things to Daniel told him what he wrote will not be fully understood until it is fulfilled at the time of the end. It’s hard to imagine how the book of Daniel presents itself as anything other than a prophetic book.

15a. It has been suggested that because of her appearance in photographs, that Ellen White was black. Her appearance, with a receeding nasal arch, and a somewhat flat and broad nose was the result of a childhood injury. A schoolmate threw a rock at her that broke her nose, damaged her sinuses, and created misery for the rest of her life.

15b. The African American brethren are more apt to suggest that Sister White was black...

15c. Still, some things EG White wrote would seem to give evidence to the contrary- for example, she counseled against mixed race marriages, not because there was anything morally wrong with the practice, but because of the social pressures the couple and their children would face in her day.

15d. You have to remember that we are a controversial denomination, and there are folks out there who attack SDA’s and Ellen White every way they can, and the story you related might be just another one that someone concocted to embarrass us.

15e. I’ve also heard them accuse her of being a white racist.

16. There is a time prophecy in Daniel 9 that predicts the exact year of the first advent of Christ. It predicted that the Messiah would come in A.D. 27- the same year that Luke 3:1 says Jesus was baptized and began His public ministry. It also predicts the year of His crucifixion.

17. We do say Miller was wrong about the event, but we believe he got the date right.....Well, tel, that is quite a lot for one exchange, and I hope we are not boring the other readers here, but I'll try to take 'em one by one, and comment briefly on each.

1. That is an excellent point, and that is exactly why auricular confession, instituted by Christ Himself (John 20:22-23) is so important. The Catholic Chruch does not deny that God can and does forgive sin through prayer, but one might ask oneself, 'Was my confession sincere enough, how do I know I am really forgiven?" By confessing to a priest we actually hear the words of absolution. In addition, the confessor can give whatever counseling he deems helpful. That having been said, few would dispute that some sins are worse than others.

2. Would that those who maintain the hundreds - possibly thousands - of websites that defame the Church through lies of the most outrageous sort would share your contrition. Some of these websites are so atrocious that I have no doubt that the content is coming straight from the depths of hell. I'm not implying, of course, that it appears on the web miraculously. The devil has never had much trouble finding humans willing to do his dirty work.

I can only say that I have never noticed any such thing within Catholicism, and if there is any Catholic website that bears false witness against any Protestant denomination, I would like to know about it.

3. Agreed.

4. Here I take issue with you strongly. If you can provide quotes from any of the well-known, recognized 'reformers' that support that assertion, please do so. I'm not saying that no such quotes can be found, but only that that was not the underlying motivation of the Reformation. It was rather rejection of the corruption within the Church's temporal leadership. After all, if Luther, for example, had regarded the pope so, why would he have become a priest in the first place? His initial purpose was to mend the Church from within, which would certainly not have included abolition of the papacy.

In addition, the assertion fails on logical grounds. Even then most Bible scholars would have agreed that Revelation was written for John's own time and that the descriptions pertained to pagan Rome, which was persecuting the Church of John's time terribly. While not everyone may have agreed that the number 666 pertained to Nero, there is nothing to connect it with the papacy, which is, in any case, an office, not a man as John states. The only connection is the city of Rome. On that basis, one could just as well say that the Fiat car company, which has offices there, is the antiChrist.

5. I would be interested to know why you came to that conclusion. You stated earlier:It's the Pope, and many of the teachings of RC that we take exception to. We think some of those teachings, which have been embraced by other "protestant" denominations, defame God, mix Paganism with Christianity, and dangerously mix Church and State. Sorry if I am being too frank.It's not the frankness I object to, but that I don't see any of that as being true (except, as we previously agreed, that both Christianity and Judaism contain some residual elements of paganism). Can you give specific examples of Catholic teachings 'defaming God' and/or 'dangerously mixing Church and state'?

6. Well, I'm not going to get into that at all, except to reiterate what I said before, that Revelation is a book of encouragement for the Christians of John's time, not of prophecy of things for which he could not possibly have had any knowledge, which would certainly include the United States of America.

7. Same comment as before. Please give specific examples.

8. That is not an assumption, that is clearly spelled out in Christ's own words following Peter's confession of faith. To say that Christ did not intend the episcopacy to be passed on is to say that wished his community of believers to end with the death of the last apostle.

9. LOL! Here it's hard to believe you're serious. Apostolic succession is the very basis on which the Church's authority rests. That authority does not, however, extend to civil matters, nor did Christ intend it to, hence the apology. The Church's, or if you wish, the pope's civil authority today extends only to the few hundred acres of land known as Vatican City. Hardly a threat to any of the world's governments!

10. I don't doubt that the SDA believes that, but I don't see the least indication that any such thing is in the USA's future. Of course, there are many Christian - not just Catholic - countries where Sunday closing is customary. In some countries it's dictated by law, elsewhere by voluntary agreement among the merchants. With regard to 'the last 100 years', however, I see the situation having gone in exactly the opposite direction, especially in the USA, with no indication of reversal. And by the way, in Germany we solve the problem very easily by simply laying out the calendar from Monday through Sunday, so that Sunday is the day of the Lord's Resurrection and also the seventh day of the week.

11a. I do not recall that, but I will take your word for it unless I find some information to the contrary. The pope is certainly entitled to his opinion on any such issue, but such opinions are hardly binding on Catholics. The pope is also aware that in countries with very few Catholics it is common to have 'circuit-riding' priests, so that different days of the week may be regarded as 'the Lord's Day', that is, the day when the priest comes to celebrate Mass, in different parts of that country. The focus of the Commandment, to most Christians at least, is not which day is observed, but of a weekly day of rest and worship. And as you may know, Catholics have for several decades been given the choice of attending Mass on either Saturday or Sunday.

11b. Nonsense. The pope is not saying that nor does he believe himself to have any such power.

11c. What cardinal are you talking about?

12 & 13. I have nothing more to add regarding Revelation, so this is something on which we'll have to agree to disagree. And by the way, John the Revelator did not write any other books of the Bible. The old custom of equating him with John the Apostle/Evangelist is now completely out of date, since modern literary analysis precludes common authorship.

14. Here again, there is no indication that the 'prophecy' in Daniel is anything other than a literary device. Otherwise the Jews would certainly have placed him with the Prophets rather than with the Writings.

15a. If that is true, I am, of course, sorry that she suffered so, as I am a sinus sufferer myself!

15b. Indeed!

15c. I understand such a position and do not find it in any way racist, especially considering the times.

15d. Well, I don't see it as an attack on Mrs. White as a person. She certainly looks African-American.

15e. Yes, I'm aware such charges have been made, but I think not very well substantiated. That having been said, there are indeed, unfortunately, black-hating blacks just as there are anti-Semitic Jews. The late sleezeball Roy Cohn comes to mind as an example of the latter.

16. I have read Daniel many times and have not observed that. If that could be credibly demonstrated, I would agree with you that Daniel is indeed a book of prophecy, because there is no doubt that it was written before Christ. Please support this.

17. Well, here is what you posted previously:1844 wasn't when Jesus was coming to earth, but when He entered the final phase of His ministry in heaven. What on earth does that mean? Are you saying that heaven uses the same calendar as earth? I'm not necessarily being dismissive here, I'm just asking for a clarification. It SOUNDS like nonsense, but perhaps you can explain it more clearly.

[Bronwen]

I would like to state that the formatting problems in the top post are not my doing, but appeared a couple of hours after posting.

To read tel's post in its original form, go to page 19 of the 'Open Invitation' thread and scroll down to the eighth post.

[telaquapacky]

You’re probably right in moving our discussion to another thread, although here I expect we’ll have a much smaller audience.

1. The topic of confession is a big one. Seventh-day Adventists confess our sins to directly to God to receive forgiveness, and we have to trust God, that He keeps His promises that we are forgiven, without any physical evidence.

James 5:15

And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

We confess to one another in order to be accountable to one another. You have prompted me to re-think what I said before. We do believe that before God, sin is sin. Not that there is no gradation of severity, only that God wants us to overcome every sin His Holy Spirit reveals to us. But I have to agree with you that for the purpose of our relationships with others, our congregation, our family, our work, our friends, there are some things we can let slide, and others that actually require a full public confession before the entire church.

At my last church in Bakersfield, a congregation very near and dear to my heart, one Sabbath, the Men’s Ministry did the worship service. At one point, my friend Charlie, who I thought was perfect in every way, confessed that he had become addicted to porn, and asked the church to pray for him. Spontaneously, the men surrounded him and laid hands on him to pray. Then some of the men got that “deer-in-the-headlights” look on their faces, and they started confessing too. Not long after that, an evangelist who is attached to our church, and his wife did an entire service in which they candidly testified about his unfaithfulness to her, and, repeating a confession he had made to the small group study where we all had been counseling with them and praying with them, he confessed his sin in front of the entire church, and they revealed how God’s Holy Spirit had reconciled them, healed their relationship, and given him victory over his sin. I had attended that small group on occasion, and I can say that for a time it seemed that there was no hope for them. That church, which had been comparatively sleepy and dead before the event, became on fire for the Lord and for the Holy Spirit. No, they didn’t speak in tongues or roll in the aisles barking and laughing. They committed themselves to seeking the Holy Spirit to help them live transformed lives.

I’ve no doubt that there are priests who are gifted at counseling. But this issue brings out one of the most important differences between Roman Catholicism and Adventism. We believe in the universal priesthood of believers.

Revelation 1:5,6

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

1 Peter 2:2-5

Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, :3 now that you have tasted that the Lord is good. 4 As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- :5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Neither the above verses nor our understanding of this make any distinction between the clergy and the laity. I get the impression that in the Roman Catholic system there is a chain of authority, with the laity on the bottom, the priestly hierarchy above that, and somewhere along the line, Mary, Jesus and God the Father. We don’t accept that. Our pastors are on the same level with us, as sinners in need of God’s grace. We do expect them to have an expertise in the Scriptures, our denomination requires an ordained minister to perform baptisms, and the state gives them license to perform marriages- but other than that, they are regular blokes like the rest of us. Their function is not to serve as any kind or intermediaries between God and us. Find me a verse in which any one of the apostles pronounced forgiveness upon an individual. We believe we each have direct, private access to the throne of God which no man can intervene or claim to help or hinder, because with Christ as our intercessor, we can come boldly directly to Him.

Hebrews 4:14-16

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

1 John 2:1

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.

1 Timothy 2:5

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

I can also understand how a penance prescribed by a priest can be a powerful token to a contrite sinner that their sin is not irremediable. But we have always taught that there is nothing we can add to Christ’s sacrifice. It is all sufficient for all the sins of the whole world. We think that to try to add some of our own merit to that of Christ is to deny His all sufficiency on which we believe a saving faith is based, and to veer off into righteousness by works.

Hebrews 9:25-28

Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Hebrews 10:10

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This may balloon out- and I am presently suffering from a terrible flu. You’ll have to excuse me if I can’t continue at the pace I did before. But I appreciate the respectful tone you have set in this discussion, and I feel free to agree with you on points we have in common, and I also feel free to acknowledge whatever criticisms you have that may lead me to re-think a position.

[Ted]

Bronwen/tel:-6

This is indeed, and interesting thread. I'm finding the information from both sides interesting and informative. While I don't always agree with either of you it is an excellent thread.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: This may balloon out- and I am presently suffering from a terrible flu. You’ll have to excuse me if I can’t continue at the pace I did before. But I appreciate the respectful tone you have set in this discussion, and I feel free to agree with you on points we have in common, and I also feel free to acknowledge whatever criticisms you have that may lead me to re-think a position.

1. Seventh-day Adventists confess our sins to directly to God to receive forgiveness, and we have to trust God, that He keeps His promises that we are forgiven, without any physical evidence.

2. I’ve no doubt that there are priests who are gifted at counseling.

3. We believe in the universal priesthood of believers.

4. I get the impression that in the Roman Catholic system there is a chain of authority, with the laity on the bottom, the priestly hierarchy above that, and somewhere along the line, Mary, Jesus and God the Father.

5. We don’t accept that.

6. function is not to serve as any kind or intermediaries between God and us.



7. Find me a verse in which any one of the apostles pronounced forgiveness upon an individual.

8. We believe we each have direct, private access to the throne of God which no man can intervene or claim to help or hinder, because with Christ as our intercessor, we can come boldly directly to Him.



9. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...

10. I can also understand how a penance prescribed by a priest can be a powerful token to a contrite sinner that their sin is not irremediable.

11. But we have always taught that there is nothing we can add to Christ’s sacrifice. It is all sufficient for all the sins of the whole world.

12. We think that to try to add some of our own merit to that of Christ is to deny His all sufficiency on which we believe a saving faith is based, and to veer off into righteousness by works. First of all, regarding delays and limited time for posting, please do not feel rushed. I am very sorry that you're under the weather, and I thank the Lord that I was able to avoid the flu so far this winter. I usually get a shot in the fall, but this year I was 'too busy' and foolishly did not.

I have spent the winter on sabbatical in the USA and have a ticket back to Germany for Monday; I have, however, some unfinished business to wrap up and I may delay my return until later in the month. In any case, I will probably be offline for a few days sometime in April while getting resettled.

1. Understood, and as I explained, Catholics do that too. The sacrament of Reconciliation, however, availeth much in addition to the actual forgiveness.

2. Indeed. Perhaps some more gifted than others.

3. This is, of course, shared by other denoms to different extents. Catholics believe in the COMMUNITY of all believers, which includes the triumphant saints in heaven, the faithful on earth, and the souls of the departed in purgatory (Mark 9:49). It is perhaps a different manifestation of the same basic concept, and that is why Catholics ask not only their brethren on earth but also the saints for their spiritual support and intercession.

4. I'd say that's pretty accurate, as long as it is understood that the function of the clergy is to SERVE, not rule or dominate. The hierarchy, up to and including the pope, serve also, but are more concerned with the functioning of the Church as an organization.

5. Surely you have some sort of hierarchy.

6. See 4. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'intermediary'.

7. I believe that a few such verses exist, and I will try to locate a couple and post them later in the thread. Nonetheless, the delegation of the authority to the clergy, not to all believers, to remit sins is clear in John 20:22-23. To what extent the NT writers report the use of that authority is not really important.

I might add, and this was discussed briefly on another thread, that the Protestant Churches of the Anglican communion also make individual auricular confession and absolution available to their members. These Churches, however, more often grant general absolution as part of the Communion service, and the Catholic Church does this also, but to a much lesser extent lest it replace individual auricular confession, which, as I remarked earlier, availeth much.

8. Well, as a sinner, I would not come BOLDLY to Christ but rather humbly and contritely.

9. This verse is problematic because it seems to deny Christ's divinity, although it seems unlikely that that was the intention of the anonymous author, writing in Paul's name. Christ can, according to Christian belief, no more be placed BETWEEN God and man than Chicago can be placed BETWEEN Chicago and Milwaukee. That is why we Catholics pray DIRECTLY to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and also to the saints, particularly the Virgin Mary, as intercessors. Note that we do not believe that such intercession is NECESSARY for salvation. There are many things that are unnecessary but very helpful. Sliced bread is a good example.

10. The penance given in confession is a holdover from the days when public penance was required, which would have been similar to the public confession you describe in your own Church. The modern penance is also public to the extent that it is to be performed in most cases before leaving the church.

11. Tell that to the next cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation. My guess: You will still have to pay the penance.

12. Here I would refer you back to a previous post where I listed verses from nearly every NT book assuring us of the importance of our works in God's sight. You are, however, correct to the extent that Christ's atoning sacrifice will make up for our deficiencies if we ask Him to do so. We are nonetheless expected to make the effort.

[telaquapacky]

Bronwen wrote: 3. This is, of course, shared by other denoms to different extents. Catholics believe in the COMMUNITY of all believers, which includes the triumphant saints in heaven, the faithful on earth, and the souls of the departed in purgatory (Mark 9:49). It is perhaps a different manifestation of the same basic concept, and that is why Catholics ask not only their brethren on earth but also the saints for their spiritual support and intercession.I would never think of praying to anyone but the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. I sometimes convey through the Lord my gratitude to my own guardian angel for his constant vigilance and intervention on my behalf- but I don’t generally speak to my angel directly because to me that would be akin to mugging at a Buckingham Palace guard in an attempt to make him laugh or avert his gaze from straight ahead.

I realize that you have an entirely different gestalt than I do. For one thing, Adventists don’t regard those who are asleep in Christ as either conscious or available for support. We look to their stories for encouragement, but not to them personally. In our view, the sleeping saints are unconscious ‘til the resurrection at the second coming of Christ. In that state, they don’t experience any passing of time, but will have experienced one moment their last earthly breath, and the next moment, seeing Jesus at the resurrection however long a time period it is later being irrelevant. Mary the mother of Christ, for example, would be one whom we would expect to be unconscious- temporarily non-existent as a sentient being except in the creative memory of God, until her Son calls her to rise from her dusty grave, as all the faithful of old (exceptions: Moses and Enoch).

We don’t believe in Purgatory. If Christ died for our sins, and we cannot add anything to that, the concept that a saved believer could die with some "unpaid sins" is foreign to us. The concept that they would be asked to remit themselves, even more foreign.

Seventh-day Adventists believe in the creation account in Genesis. For the earliest members of our spiritual community we look back to Adam, and the family line down through the Jewish patriarchs who kept the hope of the coming “seed of the woman,” the Messiah. In New Testament times, we hold in especially high esteem groups who lived and taught according to the Scriptures, especially when this led to their standing against the majority, or being persecuted by the authorities- like the Waldenses and Lollards.

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: 1. I would never think of praying to anyone but the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

2. I realize that you have an entirely different gestalt than I do.

3. For one thing, Adventists don’t regard those who are asleep in Christ as either conscious or available for support....In our view, the sleeping saints are unconscious ‘til the resurrection at the second coming of Christ.

4. We don’t believe in Purgatory. If Christ died for our sins, and we cannot add anything to that, the concept that a saved believer could die with some "unpaid sins" is foreign to us. The concept that they would be asked to remit themselves, even more foreign.

5. Seventh-day Adventists believe in the creation account in Genesis.

6. For the earliest members of our spiritual community we look back to Adam...

7. In New Testament times, we hold in especially high esteem groups who lived and taught according to the Scriptures, especially when this led to their standing against the majority, or being persecuted by the authorities- like the Waldenses and Lollards.1. Well, that is fine. Hopefully, however, while not believing in the Communion of Saints, you do understand that communing with them involves an entirely different type of prayer. It is by no means prayer of adoration, for that belongs to God alone.

A good example is a young person who is facing a gruelling test. That person, if s/he is a believer, might say to his/her parents or siblings, 'Please say a prayer for me, that I might do well on the test'. I don't think that most Christians, or Jews for that matter, would object to that.

Now, if one can ask a family member to pray for him/her, why not also ask one of God's great intellectuals like, say, Augustine, or Aquinas, or one's patron (name) saint to pray for him/her? It's difficult for me to see how any Christian could find that objectionable, though I understand some Christians doubting that such prayers would actually be heard by the saint to whom they are directed, for that, like so many other religious beliefs, is a matter of faith.

2. Possibly true, and if so, that might go far beyond differences in religious belief.

3. I understand that, while finding very little scriptural support for it, and much against it.

4. I understand the concept, yet we know that the Jews prayed and offered sacrifices on behalf of their departed, as they do today; indeed, there is no reason to believe that Christ Himself did not embrace this custom. In the verse I cited, He assures us that 'EVERYONE [my emphasis] will be purified by fire as a sacrifice is purified by salt.' Even when Jesus spoke of civil lawsuits ('You will not get out [of the prison] until you have paid the last penny'), the analogy with God's judgment seems implicit. St. Paul also assures us that if a man's works are insufficient for salvation, '..the man himself will be saved..through fire.' It's important to note here that we are not talking about forgiveness but about responsibility and restitution. Regardless of what else one believes or disbelieves, however, one thing is certain: in all such matters God will be just and merciful.

5. So do we. We believe in it as ALLEGORY. The problem with believing it as literal truth is that the factual evidence against such a belief is overwhelming, and the factual evidence supporting such a belief is non-existant. Ignoring the evidence does not make it any less real or valid. God gave us the Bible but also our intellect.

6. What about the millions of years of human history prior to the timeframe of 'Adam'?

7. Well, I agree, and the modern Church agrees, that many of these people were persecuted excessively. The fact remains, though, that they were heretics, and this must be considered in the context of the times, when subversion of the Church was considered subversion of the State. That is, unfortunately, still the case within Islam, and that is why separation of Church and State in modern times is so important. Thank God we live in countries where we can believe as we wish without fear, and in that regard, you still have not explained how you think the Catholic Church 'defames God' and endangers the separation of Church and state. I have never noticed any such thing within modern Catholicism, only within some of the more extreme versions of fundamentalist Protestantism.

[telaquapacky]

Bronwen wrote: 6. What about the millions of years of human history prior to the timeframe of 'Adam'?

7. Well, I agree, and the modern Church agrees, that many of these people were persecuted excessively. The fact remains, though, that they were heretics, and this must be considered in the context of the times, when subversion of the Church was considered subversion of the State. That is, unfortunately, still the case within Islam, and that is why separation of Church and State in modern times is so important. Thank God we live in countries where we can believe as we wish without fear, and in that regard, you still have not explained how you think the Catholic Church 'defames God' and endangers the separation of Church and state. I have never noticed any such thing within modern Catholicism, only within some of the more extreme versions of fundamentalist Protestantism.6. Believing in Genesis means Seventh-day Adventists believe that God created the world in six literal twenty-four hour days. To us there were no millions of years of human history prior to the creation of the first human- which, by calculating the ages of the patriarchs would make the earth scarcely six thousand years old.

7. If one believes in freedom of conscience, that religious belief is voluntary and the prerogative of the believer, any religious persecution is an intolerable and inexcusable moral wrong. One man's heretic is another man's faith hero. The greatest danger to separation of Church and State in the United States is indeed from right-wing fundamentalist Protestantism- These fine people have absolutely no idea the slippery slope they are on which could lead to their eternal ruin.

About "defaming God," I have to clarify a bit and use less pejorative language. I am learning from our discussion that you have conscientious reasons for believing as you do- even though I interpret the same evidence differently. You and I live in different spiritual worlds, and have very different concepts of God. In this thread I am using Scripture less and less, because I realize that we read very different meanings into the same verses. Scripture in general can mean the exact opposite depending on what things one takes literally and what one takes figuratively. So, for us to try to prove our points to one another from Scripture would not really work, because we use different basic assumptions to interpret Scripture, and come to different conclusions. Rather than "defame God," it would be fairer to say that the concept of God taught by Roman Catholicism is incompatible with the concept of God taught by Seventh-day Adventists.

Every time we look at a doctrine, we always say, “What does this say about God?” Probably the most telling doctrine is that of Eternal Hellfire. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe there’s any such thing as never-ending punishment. I know this doctrine is not unique to Roman Catholics- Baptists seem to take a special shine to it. But Adventists find it offensive. What this would say about God is that He is sadistic, cruel, and not really merciful or loving at all. Now, I have seen all the verses you use, and I admit it looks a lot like there’s eternal punishment, but again, we take the same verses symbolically- as a metaphor for a punishment that is permanent and eternal in it’s effects- not in the continual experience. I know, “day and night, forever and ever.” Still, we see that as symbolic.

First of all, we are told in Scripture that humans are not immortal. God alone is immortal. Eternal life is a gift to the saved. If human beings had an immortal spirit that went on living after the body was destroyed, and the person was a lost sinner, then, yes- you’d have to send them somewhere. But we believe that when the lost dead are judged, and sentence is passed, they will be annihilated- cease to exist permanently, with no chance of another resurrection.

Besides the mortality of humans, there is the justice of God. God never breaks His own laws. God said, “An eye for an eye.” Some think this means God was vengeful. That wasn’t the point. God was limiting penalties to actual damage done (“an eye for an eye-“ not gouge out both eyes, chop off arms and legs, flay you alive, throw you in the fire, pierce you with pikes, etc.). No human being is capable of causing enough grief in a lifetime of sin to deserve an eternity of punishment. By eternal hellfire, God would be breaking His own law. We don’t believe God does that.

But our main point is, “What does eternal hellfire say about God?” A god who is that vindictive, vicious, cruel and sadistic is not worthy of worship or obedience. He would be worse than Hitler. At least Hitler was humane enough to gas his victims to death before burning them. I don’t believe any such god exists, except in the imaginations of men. It is human beings who are vindictive, vicious, cruel and sadistic (before you get insulted, I include myself in this as well) We are of the type who would send our enemies to an eternity of limitless, merciless punishment. What a fantastically lucky and fortunate universe we inhabit that it is created and ruled by God and not a man! Praise God that He is so unlike what men have imagined! This is what I meant when I mentioned “defaming God.”

The other point about hellfire is what it says about how God wins us to His side. Seventh-day Adventists believe that God wins us to believe in Him, Trust Him and worship Him, simply by revealing to us His altogether lovely character. When we see how wonderful a person He is, our hearts are melted, and when we see what He did for us in Jesus to forgive our sins, we fall in such an astonished love and adoration for Him that nothing in life seems more desirable than the pleasure of His company and the pursuit of His approval, by enlisting His help to overcome our sins (He’s more than willing to help us in that anyway). He is like the suitor who asks us to marry Him- to pledge our lives to Him. Now, in contrast, imagine a suitor who says to a young lady, “If you love and trust and obey me, I will bless and protect you, and I will be your husband. But if you don’t, I will burn you with fire in torment forever and ever! -Now do you love me?” That would be absurd. Who would fall in love in a scenario like that? The second scenario would more fit a situation in which love was demanded with a threat of punishment. We don’t believe love can be demanded, nor won with a threat of punishment. That would be tyranny. If the whole universe lived in obedience to a god like that, knowing that “one false move and I burn forever,” then who needs hell? Mere existence under such a tyrant would be hell even in heaven. Seventh-day Adventists believe God has far more respect for the dignity of His creatures, and bids them to choose life in an informed and intelligent way. This isn’t the same as “love me or die.” People who don’t believe in God generally don’t believe in eternal life anyway, and don’t like the restrictions of God’s law. For them to have to live in heaven, where God’s law will be kept, would be miserable! For them to cease to exist, might be sad when they see what they are missing out on, but it wouldn’t be more than they expected anyway.

[Ted]

tel:-6

I can most certainly agree with your concept of God not being some tyranical monster. That is not the image that we see in the God manifested in Jesus of Nazareth.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[BabyRider]

telequapacky wrote: 6. Believing in Genesis means Seventh-day Adventists believe that God created the world in six literal twenty-four hour days. To us there were no millions of years of human history prior to the creation of the first human- which, by calculating the ages of the patriarchs would make the earth scarcely six thousand years old.




Having been raised SDA, (I still show scars and cringe at the term), I have always had a problem with this belief of theirs. How, pray tell, do they explain the fossils of dinosaurs scientifically PROVEN to be millions of years old? I had asked that question many MANY times in the 15 years I was involved in the church and to this day have never been given an adequate answer. Or even one that makes an iota of sense.



Can anyone make sense of that????

[BabyRider]

mrsK wrote: Originally Posted by telequapacky

6. Believing in Genesis means Seventh-day Adventists believe that God created the world in six literal twenty-four hour days.



I always thought that those six days consisted of a "thousand years" to each day,which would be 6 thousand years 2Peter 3:8 not a 24 hour day
Oh no, MrsK...SDA's actually believe that God created the whole she-bang in 6, 24-hour days. Like I said, they also believe that the earth is not yet 10,000 years old. Someone please explain dinosaurs to me then.....please??

[BabyRider]

mrsK wrote: I don't like to put down other religions but I don't see how the earth could be created in a 24 hr day,or a human for that matter.And I am sorry to all those who believe in evolution,but there is no way I can bring myself to believe I came from a monkey.My children believe in evolution but I just can't.:-6

There had to have been dinosaurs or where did the bones in museums come from???????????
They explain away the 24-hour day thing by proclaiming God capable of anything. He could snap his fingers and have done the whole job in a nano-second if he chose to. (So, why didn't he?....ahhh....that's another topic)

I can't and have never been given an acceptable answer to the dinosaur thing. You know what they told me? "Oh, that's just someone telling you things who doesn't WANT to believe in God and is looking for reasons to not believe." Seriously. That's the type of answers I got. :-5

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: 1. Believing in Genesis means Seventh-day Adventists believe that God created the world in six literal twenty-four hour days. To us there were no millions of years of human history prior to the creation of the first human- which, by calculating the ages of the patriarchs would make the earth scarcely six thousand years old.

2. If one believes in freedom of conscience, that religious belief is voluntary and the prerogative of the believer, any religious persecution is an intolerable and inexcusable moral wrong.

3. One man's heretic is another man's faith hero.

4. About "defaming God," I have to clarify a bit and use less pejorative language....Rather than "defame God," it would be fairer to say that the concept of God taught by Roman Catholicism is incompatible with the concept of God taught by Seventh-day Adventists.

5. Every time we look at a doctrine, we always say, “What does this say about God?” Probably the most telling doctrine is that of Eternal Hellfire. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe there’s any such thing as never-ending punishment. I know this doctrine is not unique to Roman Catholics- Baptists seem to take a special shine to it. But Adventists find it offensive. What this would say about God is that He is sadistic, cruel, and not really merciful or loving at all. Now, I have seen all the verses you use, and I admit it looks a lot like there’s eternal punishment, but again, we take the same verses symbolically- as a metaphor for a punishment that is permanent and eternal in it’s effects- not in the continual experience. I know, “day and night, forever and ever.”

6. Still, we see that as symbolic. 1. Well, OK, but that doesn't answer my question. How do you account for all of the evidence to the contrary, and for the total lack of any evidence whatever supporting that position. Simply ignoring the evidence does not make it any less real or valid. If you wish to live in an imaginary world, I suppose that is your prerogative, but, frankly, THAT seems to me to 'defame God', because it shows a complete rejection of human intellect.

2. Well, that is a big 'if'. Jesus Christ certainly didn't believe in 'freedom of conscience' as you describe it, that one view of morality was as good as another. I agree with you, though, that the state should not have ANY involvement with religion, nor should religion be involved in civil government.

3. That is true as far as it goes, but what is the point? Why follow the heretic rather than remaining faithful to the community that Christ established?

4. That is certainly better stated, but that brings us back to 3. Why reject Christ's community in favor of Miller's/White's? Because hundreds of years ago there were some bad popes? What have any of the recent ones done that you find particularly evil or ungodly? For that matter, how did even the bad popes change or invalidate Church doctrine that had existed back to the early days of Christianity and still exists today in Catholicism? If the concept of God is different, it is because each of the 'reformers', including Miller, had his own, let's not say 'bastardized', to be charitable let's say 'revised' ideas of God and of Christianity. Why are the bas... - excuse me - why are the various revisions correct and the original corrupt? I don't see it.

5. Are you sure you haven't confused me with some other poster here? I don't recall mentioning that subject at all; in fact, my views on it are possibly not as far from your own as you might think. In any case, though, you are seriously mis-stating the Catholic position, which is that hell, whatever form it might take, is a free choice made by those who completely reject God's love and His sanctifying grace. The rest of us, who live our lives in His service, even though we are imperfect, have little to fear.

You also, I think, misunderstand the concept of eternity. Time is only a manifestation of space, or let's say that both are manifestations of the same reality. In heaven there is presumably no physical space as we know it and therefore no time. We can choose eternal, that is, unchanging, communion with God and His saints, or we can reject it.

6. So, in other words, you pick and choose what is symbolic. Fair enough, in that respect you are not alone, but now we have come full circle back to number 1, because the two contradictory Biblical accounts of creation cannot possibly be anything BUT symbolic.

[Bronwen]

mrsK wrote: I am sorry to all those who believe in evolution,but there is no way I can bring myself to believe I came from a monkey. My children believe in evolution but I just can't. That's because you misunderstand it, K, and that is exactly what the so-called 'creationists' want.

Of course you didn't come from a monkey. The evidence for evolution doesn't indicate that. Rather, EVERY species on earth, including humans and monkeys, evolved from other species, the entire process taking billions of years.

It just so happens that modern humans and modern monkeys have much in common, as anyone can see, so somewhere in the dim past they very probably had a common ancestor.

In any case, the evolution of species is the absolute cornerstone of modern biology, and your children obviously realize that. Without evolution, you can throw away the entire biology textbook, because without evolution, nothing else in it makes any sense.

[Ted]

Bronwen:-6

For what its worth I am in complete agreement here on evolution. I, as a Christian, have no problem with it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[telaquapacky]

Babyrider wrote: Having been raised SDA, (I still show scars and cringe at the term) Sounds like, “My parents belong to the Humane Society, and I have scars to prove it.” I won’t argue that your experience in the church was unhappy for you. Every family is different and every congregation is different. I converted to SDA as an adult. I wasn’t dragged to church by Mom and Dad- it was a conscious choice for me. I have experienced my share of slights and disappointments, but from the beginning this was something between me and God, and I didn’t need people to live up or down to any expectations. People are people, and I don’t let the hang-ups of a few bad apples hang me up. I have also found my first really true lasting friends, and my lovely wife in this church. As horrible an experience it may have been for you, it has been the greatest blessing in my life. Maybe I came to it with a different attitude and different expectations.

I don't want to sound defensive or unsympathetic. Why don't you unload it on us, Babyrider? This may be your only chance. I'm listening.

Babyrider wrote: I have always had a problem with this belief of theirs. How, pray tell, do they explain the fossils of dinosaurs scientifically PROVEN to be millions of years old? I had asked that question many MANY times in the 15 years I was involved in the church and to this day have never been given an adequate answer. Or even one that makes an iota of sense.

Someone please explain dinosaurs to me then.....please??


Try this link. I don’t know if this organization is Adventist or not.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... osaurs.asp

MrsK wrote: There had to have been dinosaurs or where did the bones in museums come from???????????Dinosaurs of course. No one is saying they didn’t.

The thing you have to bear in mind about the Evolution establishment is that they come from a pre-conceived position, and interpret all data they collect from that pre-conceived position. “Why is this rock layer 10 million years old?” “Because it has a fossil in it that we know to be 10 million years old.” “How do you know that fossil is 10 million years old?” “Well, because it’s in this rock layer that we know to be 10 million years old.” (need I continue?)

Babyrider used the “P” word, “PROVEN.” When you study science deeply and in detail, you realize that there are a lot of things about this physical world that are not “proof,” but only “evidence.” Carbon-14 dating is used as a dating method, but it works on the same assumption that most other paleologic investigation relies on- the assumption that the rate of change we observe today has always been constant. Yes, if Carbon-14 decays at a constant rate and always has, it might serve as a reliable yardstick for dating ancient materials- even then it might not. There is no proof that the rate of decay has never changed. There are other factors, like the initial carbon isotope state. If someone had been there millions of years ago with the necessary equipment to measure it (picture a australopithicus with a Geiger counter and a notebook), then, maybe we’d have “PROOF.” As it stands, all we have is evidence- and evidence is always subject to interpretation. When I go to Death Valley, I see deeply eroded mountains with large alluvial fans sloping down from them. At the present rate of rainfall (0.1 inch per year), that kind of erosion would take millions and millions of years. Or not. All it would take is one very large, catastrophic flood and less than a year. Anyone who looks at all the scientific evidence with an open mind knows that there is more than one possible explanation. But most people look at the evidence from their pre-conceived world view, religious or not, and say, “I have PROOF.” That’s nonsense. A truly honest, open minded person knows it’s all in the way you look at the information. What is clear is that we have is a scientific community which has lost their objectivity and has become partisan and dogmatic. Any scientist who asks questions or presents evidence that challenges the evolutionary status quo is committing career suicide. They’ll get blackballed. The “proofs” that come out of that establishment are about as unbiased and objective as the news in North Korean newspapers.

I saw some particularly interesting slides of a sedimentary rock formation in Washington State. This was a tall cliff with the typical sedimentary layers in strata, many feet thick, identical to layers elsewhere which geologists will say took thousands of years to deposit. Guess what. These layers were the result of the eruption of Mount Saint Helens. They were deposited overnight. Then a river cut through them and exposed this cliff of layers- in months- not thousands of years. Of course, this was a catastrophic event. You don’t have volcanic eruptions every day. Neither do you have world wide floods. That happened only once, I believe. There is no “proof” of anything, but if you take an unbiased look at the geologic record, you’ll see there is plenty of evidence for a world wide flood as described in Genesis, that is, if you’re willing to acknowledge the possibility of one. If you cannot tolerate the thought of the possibility of a Genesis flood, then you’re stuck with “millions of years.” There are places in the world where there is evidence against millions of years, but the scientific community turns a blind eye to them, and you won’t read about them in National Geographic any time soon.

Think about natural selection. Remember what you were taught in school? Two animals compete for the same resources and one succeeds and the other fails. The one more likely to survive is the one more likely to breed, therefore the more fortuitous adaptations survive. I have no problem with that. But look carefully. At the start you had two animals. After natural selection you have only one. How can a system that works by taking two species and eliminating one produce more variety and more complexity? There is a case of a flying insect that is found on a number of Pacific islands. On one particular island, they found the same kind of insect, identical in every respect- even it’s genome- except that it had no wings. There was some selection factor, like the wind was so strong on that island, that if an insect flew, it would be blown into the sea and die. So the insects lost their wings. Evolutionists said, “See! A perfect example of evolution.” But the “evolution” resulted in genetic material being lost or failing to express in the phenotype- it did not result in a more complex animal- but a simpler one. Show me an example of wings appearing on an animal that previously did not have them. There is no such example. Natural selection only results in the loss or suppression of genetic information, not in the emergence of new, more complex information. My opinion is that you need a Designer and Creator to get more complex genetic information.

Ever studied biochemistry? I took biochemistry at U.C.L.A. Do you have any idea how fantastically complex and mechanical the molecular apparatus is that transcribes DNA into proteins? Makes a laptop computer look like a flint axe. “Oh, yes, that happened entirely by accident.” -And they accuse us of having mindless faith.

MrsK wrote: I always thought that those six days consisted of a "thousand years" to each day,which would be 6 thousand years 2Peter 3:8 not a 24 hour day Now, that’s an interesting one.

In the Creation account in Genesis, the Bible writer uses the expression, “the evening and the morning were the first day.” If I’m not mistaken, a thousand years has more than 364,000 evenings and mornings. I’m too lazy to do the math, what with leap years and all, But I think my estimation is reasonably in the ball park.

Genesis 1:5

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If you read Exodus 20, which is one of the texts of the Ten Commandments, you’ll find that God established the weekly Sabbath as a memorial that He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. If God had taken six thousand years to create the world, a more appropriate commemoration would be a creation celebration once every six thousand years.

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Now let’s look at the verse in 2 Peter:

2 Peter 3:8

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

What was Peter talking about in this verse? Was he talking about the creation of the world? No- he wasn’t talking about creation, he was talking about prophecy. He was talking about the apparent delay in the second coming of Christ. People expected the second coming of Christ in Peter’s day. What Peter was saying was, “He hasn’t come yet, and people are getting impatient and skeptical, but He will come.” That’s called “context,” when you try to figure out what someone is saying based on what subject they’re talking about at the time, rather than lifting the words out as if they were said in a vacuum.

The last time period in prophecy described in the Bible is called the Millennium- a thousand year period that begins at the second coming of Christ. The saved will spend the millennium in heaven. It will be like a Sabbath. If, in terms of the time the world has waited for the second coming of Christ, “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years,” imagine a week of six days, followed by one special day of rest, called the Sabbath. Now imagine all those days are a thousand years long. The millennium is a thousand years long. Before it would be six “days,” each lasting a thousand years long. So from the beginning of creation until the second coming of Christ would be six thousand years, then after the second coming is the millennium, like a “Sabbath,” but a thousand years long.

Don’t ask me to do it here, but most Bible commentators say that if you take the genealogy in the Bible, and the stories of the partriarchs, and add up all the years to the first datable events, you come to the conclusion that the world is somewhere around six thousand years old. This is not a time prediction- no one knows the day or the hour- but it seems that it is about time for the Lord to return.

I'm not putting words into Peter's mouth- I doubt he was making a time prediction. But he was saying that (from his day) it may be thousands of years before Jesus comes again, and "don't lose hope."

About the Creation/Evolution question, the most important thing I can say about my belief is that it is based on a relationship with a Person. Do you have a brother, or sister, or close friend whom you have known for years- someone whose personality you know, with whom you have spent time, and had real encounters? I doubt that a few dusty dinosaur bones would shake your faith in the existence of your brother, sister or friend. That is why it is so important for a Christian to have a relationship with God, something deep and personal- so that they know when God is talking to them, so that they have experiences with a real Person. I believe I have had that, and am having that now. That’s why dusty dinosaur bones don’t make me nervous or insecure in my faith.

[telaquapacky]

Bronwen wrote: 1. Well, OK, but that doesn't answer my question. How do you account for all of the evidence to the contrary, and for the total lack of any evidence whatever supporting that position. Simply ignoring the evidence does not make it any less real or valid. If you wish to live in an imaginary world, I suppose that is your prerogative, but, frankly, THAT seems to me to 'defame God', because it shows a complete rejection of human intellect.I can't answer anyone's question regarding Creation to their complete satisfaction. But in fact, there's plenty of evidence for Creation if you look for it, and aren't already biased against it. But there's no proof on either side.

Human intellect is human. It's not perfect. There are good minds on both sides. Which human intellect is the one that if I reject it, I'm defaming God? Yours? The wisdom of your church? You seem to operate under the preconception that there is no other wisdom than yours. I know. It's BIG. It's OLD. I've been to the Vatican and seen the antiques. Wowie. More than we Adventists have in Silver Spring, I betcha. So what?Bronwen wrote: 2. Well, that is a big 'if'. Jesus Christ certainly didn't believe in 'freedom of conscience' as you describe it, that one view of morality was as good as another. I agree with you, though, that the state should not have ANY involvement with religion, nor should religion be involved in civil government.If Jesus did not believe in liberty of conscience, why didn't He use His powers to force everyone to be a Christian and overthrow the Roman Empire, and save us two thousand years of turmoil?

Bronwen wrote: 3. That is true as far as it goes, but what is the point? Why follow the heretic rather than remaining faithful to the community that Christ established?Again you're assuming Christ established your community, rather than your community arising later and suppressing the original community.

Bronwen wrote: 4. That is certainly better stated, but that brings us back to 3. Why reject Christ's community in favor of Miller's/White's? Because hundreds of years ago there were some bad popes? What have any of the recent ones done that you find particularly evil or ungodly? For that matter, how did even the bad popes change or invalidate Church doctrine that had existed back to the early days of Christianity and still exists today in Catholicism? If the concept of God is different, it is because each of the 'reformers', including Miller, had his own, let's not say 'bastardized', to be charitable let's say 'revised' ideas of God and of Christianity. Why are the bas... - excuse me - why are the various revisions correct and the original corrupt? I don't see it.Again, you don't acknowledge any other way of seeing things but your own, and assuming the originality of Roman Catholicism. That is your assumption.Bronwen wrote: 5. Are you sure you haven't confused me with some other poster here? I don't recall mentioning that subject at all; in fact, my views on it are possibly not as far from your own as you might think. In any case, though, you are seriously mis-stating the Catholic position, which is that hell, whatever form it might take, is a free choice made by those who completely reject God's love and His sanctifying grace. The rest of us, who live our lives in His service, even though we are imperfect, have little to fear.You know something? Neither of us plan to go to hell. Maybe we ought not to worry about it, or use it to frighten others either. Maybe people's motivations to seek God should be based on something more positive than threats of eternal suffering. But the eternal hellfire doctrine as I described was taught in Catholic schools to people in my generation when they were impressionable young children. Maybe the RC church has changed it's teaching. If the new view taught by Catholicism is more humane, I am more than happy to applaud it.Bronwen wrote: You also, I think, misunderstand the concept of eternity. Time is only a manifestation of space, or let's say that both are manifestations of the same reality. In heaven there is presumably no physical space as we know it and therefore no time. We can choose eternal, that is, unchanging, communion with God and His saints, or we can reject it.As I said, we have different concepts of time and eternity. Go ahead and speak as if yours is the only one- I'll say, "uh-huh, uh-huh, okay, whatever." It's not like either of us has been there and come back to tell about it.Bronwen wrote:

6. So, in other words, you pick and choose what is symbolic. Fair enough, in that respect you are not alone, but now we have come full circle back to number 1, because the two contradictory Biblical accounts of creation cannot possibly be anything BUT symbolic.Until Jesus comes, what can and cannot be is in the eye of the beholder.

[Ted]

The early church was a developing tradition. Some groups even back then splintered off and developed alternative traditions. I'm not sure that I could say the RC Church suppresed the original community. The church developed and changed as time went on. New traditions were developed and replaced some of the older ones. That is the nature of the beast, so to speak.

Even the views of Jesus changed and this is reflected in the gospels that were written in a particular order. This says nothing about the concepts of God that developed over the centuries from the oldest documents in the OT to the newest in the NT. Their understanding of God changed. Did God change? No. Human understandings did. Jesus in his whole life did not reflect a God that would promote and encourage war crimes such as we see in Num. 31. Nor did he relect a God that revelled in the drowning of hundreds if not thousands of Egyptian soldiers in the Red or Reed Sea.

If in Jesus we see manifested the true God then we have to change our views from the OT. Jesus wasn't like that. Nor did he preach that.

Then we have those who would claim that with one's own exception all other denominations are abusing scripture. Oh, okay????

Shalom

Ted:-6

[BabyRider]

telequapacky wrote: I don't want to sound defensive or unsympathetic. Why don't you unload it on us, Babyrider? This may be your only chance. I'm listening.


Plenty here have heard my story about how the SDA church completely fu*ked me over. How my father found the woman he screwed around with while he was married to my mother in this church, how a teacher who acted...shall we say..."inappropriately" with me was protected, lied for and transferred out of "harm's way" to ANOTHER SDA school to hide his acts. I could go on and on, but telling this to a member of this church, (that's a term I use VERY loosely when referring to this particular group of lying hypocrites) is pointless. I'm sure you, like the rest of these compulsive, willing, blinders-wearing sheep will find ways to excuse, explain away, or sweep under the rug the complete and utter betrayal and shunning I received.

[telaquapacky]

BabyRider wrote: Plenty here have heard my story about how the SDA church completely fu*ked me over. How my father found the woman he screwed around with while he was married to my mother in this church, how a teacher who acted...shall we say..."inappropriately" with me was protected, lied for and transferred out of "harm's way" to ANOTHER SDA school to hide his acts. I could go on and on, but telling this to a member of this church, (that's a term I use VERY loosely when referring to this particular group of lying hypocrites) is pointless. I'm sure you, like the rest of these compulsive, willing, blinders-wearing sheep will find ways to excuse, explain away, or sweep under the rug the complete and utter betrayal and shunning I received.I don't know what to say. In some ways I am not surprised at all, because I have seen behavior in my church that shocked, angered and dismayed me. When I first joined the church, I myself was unconverted, and if I had gotten away with it, I might have committed acts that would have hurt and betrayed someone. What happened to you should never have been swept under the rug. I don't know in what locality it happened, or how long ago, but these things happen because a church is only as good as it's people. Church membership does not guarantee that a person is converted, or has the Holy Spirit. Even church leadership sometimes falls into the wrong hands. This is why the True Church of God, what we call the "Invisible Church" is not any denomination. It's not SDA or Roman Catholic. They are merely human organizations, filled with fallen human beings.

My wife and I paid the way for my niece to go to an SDA academy (church high school) Her experience there was terrible. Her class was the most reprobate, mean, cruel, ungodly bunch I have ever seen. Their parents also had their share of adulteries and divorces, and the business of the church school was handled in what I felt was a corrupt way, favoring the wealthy and selfish members who provided the most funds for it's operation. It was a sham! When the church adjacent to the church school tried to exclude our chuch (in another part of town) from the school board to do more of what they were already doing without our oversight, I was on the church board when we all signed a formal protest to the Conference. This is what should have been done in your case. If your own church board wouldn't do it, another SDA church in the same area should have been contacted, and the story told to them, and they should have lodged a formal complaint with the Conference, which would have resulted in an investigation, and the church employee being terminated and turned over to the law for prosecution.

I believe you, BR. I am profoundly sorry for what you experienced. I know it will do no good to say this, but just to let you know that my church teaches that men and women must be faithful to their husbands and wives, that church teachers have a particularly heavy responsibility before God to be selfless servants of Christ and set only the highest moral example for the young ones in their care, and that church leaders are responsible and will be held accountable before God for their failure to take open and transparent disciplinary action against offenders who work under their authority. I have a feeling we will not be seeing many members from that congregation or church school in heaven- but since the church is only a human organization, like any other, unless the people have the will to repent and straighten out their ways, the people who sinned against you, and the ones who stood silently by will continue stained with corruption and under the curse of God.

I have to say this, though. In all what they have done to you, there is nothing worse than if they have robbed you of a saving faith in Christ.

Luke 17:1,2

Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."

Did you report the sexual offense committed against you to the police? You should have raised the stink to end all stinks! Unfortunately, young people feel so powerless, and rarely think of that. Your church and school should have been splashed all over the newspapers so they might think about what they have allowed to happen in their midst. The more I think about it, you have me royally PI**ED off at those people! I wonder if it's not too late to do something about this. Have you consulted LadyCop?

So how is it now in your family? Has your father ever apologized to you? Has he ever repented and reformed? Is he still a churchgoer?

[Bronwen]

Before responding to tel's latest post addressed to me, I'll comment briefly on one from the previous screen addressed to BR:telaquapacky wrote: a. The thing you have to bear in mind about the Evolution establishment is that they come from a pre-conceived position, and interpret all data they collect from that pre-conceived position.

b. “Why is this rock layer 10 million years old?” “Because it has a fossil in it that we know to be 10 million years old.” “How do you know that fossil is 10 million years old?” “Well, because it’s in this rock layer that we know to be 10 million years old.” (need I continue?)

c. Carbon-14 dating is used as a dating method, but it works on the same assumption that most other paleologic investigation relies on- the assumption that the rate of change we observe today has always been constant. Yes, if Carbon-14 decays at a constant rate and always has, it might serve as a reliable yardstick for dating ancient materials- even then it might not. There is no proof that the rate of decay has never changed.

d. Remember what you were taught in school? Two animals compete for the same resources and one succeeds and the other fails. The one more likely to survive is the one more likely to breed, therefore the more fortuitous adaptations survive. I have no problem with that. But look carefully. At the start you had two animals. After natural selection you have only one. How can a system that works by taking two species and eliminating one produce more variety and more complexity?

e. Don’t ask me to do it here, but most Bible commentators say that if you take the genealogy in the Bible, and the stories of the partriarchs, and add up all the years to the first datable events, you come to the conclusion that the world is somewhere around six thousand years old.

f. This is not a time prediction- no one knows the day or the hour- but it seems that it is about time for the Lord to return.a. An absolutely outrageous statement! Modern biology is the result of centuries of study and research by millions of dedicated scientists, most of whom devoted their entire adult lives to their profession. Today's biology textbooks differ enormously from those of a century ago, just as discoveries of the next century will render today's knowledge obsolete.

'Creationism' is ENTIRELY about pre-conceived positions. In fact, 'Creationism' IS pre-conceived positions and nothing more. No facts, no proof, no evidence, no research, no interest in any of their material by ANY reputable publisher, no scientist anywhere in the world without a pre-conceived religious agenda who agrees with them.

Science is always advancing. Ignorance, superstition and nonsense are eternal.

b. There are literally SCORES, if not hundreds of ways to date rocks and fossils and make various other geological determinations. Nothing in geology provides the slightest indication of an earth less than several billion years old.

c. There is certainly no proof that it HAS ever changed. How could it have changed? Saying, as you seem to be doing, 'The rate must have changed because that would support my position' doesn't cut it. Explain how it could have changed, in scientific terms, and name a nuclear physicist whose work supports such a claim.

d. Tel, I don't know what sort of school you went to. No one, except possibly the SDA and the other 'creationists', teaches natural selection in terms of 'two animals'. Natural selection involves one SPECIES, not one animal, eventually becoming two due to environmental and other factors.

Two rats, say. Both pregnant with lots of little ratlets. Each stows away on a different ship. One is taken to a land where, for some reason, a long tail is advantageous, maybe to help it climb. The other goes somewhere that a short tail is advantageous, maybe to help avoid being caught. In the first locale, the longer the tail, the better the survival rate. In the other locale, just the opposite. There may be various other environmental factors as well. After thousands of generations, you have two or possibly three species rather than one. That may be a simplified explanation, but it makes logical sense, while yours is meaningless doubletalk, like all of 'creationism'.

e. An outrageous lie! Most Bible commentators do NOT come to any such conclusion, only those on the outer fringes of Christianity. Most Bible commentators, unless they are complete idiots, come to the conclusion that 8-10,000 years ago, more or less, is about right for the dawn of RECORDED history, the time when humanity became advanced enough to start becoming self-referential, and they are absolutely right, but that says nothing of the millions of previous years of human and pre-human civilization or the billions of years of cosmological history, which are matters of fact rather than of faith. You seem to be saying that one must regard all of science as a lie in order to qualify as a Bible commentator.

f. Well, since He promised to return within the lifetime of at least some of His contemporaries, which is to say, within three or four gererations at the most, I'd say that it has been 'about time' for quite a while.telaquapacky wrote: 1a. I can't answer anyone's question regarding Creation to their complete satisfaction. But in fact, there's plenty of evidence for Creation if you look for it, and aren't already biased against it.

1b. But there's no proof on either side.

2. The wisdom of your church? You seem to operate under the preconception that there is no other wisdom than yours. I know. It's BIG. It's OLD. I've been to the Vatican and seen the antiques. Wowie. More than we Adventists have in Silver Spring, I betcha. So what?

3. If Jesus did not believe in liberty of conscience, why didn't He use His powers to force everyone to be a Christian and overthrow the Roman Empire, and save us two thousand years of turmoil?

4. Again you're assuming Christ established your community, rather than your community arising later and suppressing the original community. Again, you don't acknowledge any other way of seeing things but your own, and assuming the originality of Roman Catholicism. That is your assumption.

5. As I said, we have different concepts of time and eternity. Go ahead and speak as if yours is the only one- I'll say, "uh-huh, uh-huh, okay, whatever." It's not like either of us has been there and come back to tell about it.

6. Until Jesus comes, what can and cannot be is in the eye of the beholder.1. Fine, but you are changing the parameters here, and not very artfully, I might add. We were not talking about 'Creation', we were talking about the two contradictory tales in Genesis both being somehow literally true and factual.

1b. The evidence supporting the scientific view of both cosmological and human origins is enormous. There is no evidence whatever that supports the Biblical creation myths except to the extent that Genesis 1 is really pretty accurate, in a general sort of way, if one substitutes 'billions of years', for 'days', but this need not be attributed to any sort of Divine inspiration but rather to a logical progression by the author from the simple to the more complicated.

2. What on earth are you talking about? You seem to imply that everything I believe or have learned in life comes from the Catholic Church. As I said earlier, the Church never taught me anything that I later found to be factually incorrect or deceitful, and that is one reason why I hold it in such high regard, especially when I compare the absolute nonsense, and in some cases outright slander and false witness that children are taught by Protestant Fundamentalists at so-called 'Christian schools', but in terms of the current discussion, the universe would be billions of years old if everyone believed it or if no one believed it. You seem to obscure the difference between fact and faith, and that might be a characteristic of your Church, about which, I have admitted, I know little.

3. Again you are changing the focus. Free will is not freedom of conscience. Of course Christ realized that humans have free will. I don't know of anything He said that implied that one man's conscience was as good or as moral as another's.

4. That is not an assumption, that is a fact of Church history, and well-supported. The various schisms and heresies can all be historically catalogued and documented. It's fine for a Christian to say, 'Here is where I think the Roman Church went wrong, and that's why I choose to be a Protestant'. That is consistant with Church history. Your view of Church history seems as artificial as your view of science. If it doesn't conform to SDA teaching, it didn't happen.

If you wish to seriously espouse such a view, you should give examples that can be supported by secular accounts of Church history, such as can be found in encyclopedias. Go in either direction. Begin with the Petrine Confession and show where it leads that is inconsistant with Roman Catholicism, or begin with contemporary Catholicism and trace it back to its origin.

5. Well, we may have different concepts, but anyone who knows how a photo-finish camera at a racetrack (which photographs time rather than space) works realizes that time and space are the same thing. It has nothing to do with religious belief. Christ promised eternal life, not eternal time.

6. I think that you have stated your position fairly well here, but it's not a concept with much logical validity. The universe is billions of years old or it is not. That has very little to do with the beholder. I could use the same logic to claim that China does not exist because I have never been there, and that all the claims to the contrary by geographers are 'pre-conceived' and therefore false.

[BabyRider]

While I appreciate your outrage, Tele, what was done to the one particular teacher is laughable. We did go to the police, I testified against him in court, but he had bought off many of the kids in the school, some of whom he had also been inappropriate with. They made up a card, for his birthday and said that I had signed it and showed it in court, asking why, if he had been so horrible to me, did I sign his birthday card? They forgot to spell my name right. These are the lengths the school went to to protect him, and not me. Most of the parents whose kids were involved in this simply stuck their heads in the sand and hid from it. It was my word against his and about 9 other students, who lied for him.

After my father's and the ORGAN PLAYER'S affair was found out, my mother is the one who was snickered at and talked about and made to feel uncomfortable. My father still attends the church on occassion, strictly for the purpose of strutting around.

There are 2 SDA churches in my area, and both were involved in the cover-up and hiding the teachers who were guilty of these crimes. I pursued every avenue I could to make right what was wrong.

If you ever come across a teacher named Anavatarti or Sutherland, keep your kids away from them.

[Accountable]

Bronwen wrote: [...]

e. An outrageous lie! Most Bible commentators do NOT come to any such conclusion, only those on the outer fringes of Christianity. Most Bible commentators, unless they are complete idiots, come to the conclusion that 8-10,000 years ago, more or less, is about right for the dawn of RECORDED history, the time when humanity became advanced enough to start becoming self-referential, and they are absolutely right, but that says nothing of the millions of previous years of human and pre-human civilization or the billions of years of cosmological history, which are matters of fact rather than of faith. You seem to be saying that one must regard all of science as a lie in order to qualify as a Bible commentator.

[...]
There it is: Bronwen's idea of mutual respect in a nutshell.



Tel, persevere in this farce of a conversation, please, despite being accused of being a liar. There are others of us that are interested and learning.

[telaquapacky]

BabyRider wrote: While I appreciate your outrage, Tele, what was done to the one particular teacher is laughable. We did go to the police, I testified against him in court, but he had bought off many of the kids in the school, some of whom he had also been inappropriate with. They made up a card, for his birthday and said that I had signed it and showed it in court, asking why, if he had been so horrible to me, did I sign his birthday card? They forgot to spell my name right. These are the lengths the school went to to protect him, and not me. Most of the parents whose kids were involved in this simply stuck their heads in the sand and hid from it. It was my word against his and about 9 other students, who lied for him.

After my father's and the ORGAN PLAYER'S affair was found out, my mother is the one who was snickered at and talked about and made to feel uncomfortable. My father still attends the church on occassion, strictly for the purpose of strutting around.

There are 2 SDA churches in my area, and both were involved in the cover-up and hiding the teachers who were guilty of these crimes. I pursued every avenue I could to make right what was wrong.

If you ever come across a teacher named Anavatarti or Sutherland, keep your kids away from them. I know that in any situation, all it takes is one honest and courageous person to stand up. Two churches, and not one. I am so brokenhearted for you, and I am humiliated for my church!

At my last church, I found out that one of my close friends was being unfaithful to his wife. I followed Biblical counsel and went to him to talk him into honoring his commitment to his wife. He didn't listen to me. Again, following Biblical counsel, I went with another elder, and I counselled him again. He didn't listen. As soon as he could, he moved out of home and moved in with the other woman. As it happens, she got sick of him and sent him packing. He went back to his wife and family. Did he confess or repent of his wrong? No. And following Biblical counsel, I have had nothing to do with him ever since.

There's probably nothing I can do- but even so, I would be thankful to you if you would provide by PM some names, dates and the church locations. I wouldn't do anything hotheaded, but this kind of thing ought not to be allowed to just go away quietly without any protest. They need it more than you or I do.

[Ted]

Unfortunately it is not just one church that faces those problems. All churches, including my own, or if you will denominations have similar problems. I am not trying to single out any one here. That is the nature of some human beings. It is too bad that innocent folks get hurt. It most assuredly should be dealt with by the the civil authorities as well as the church establishment.

"It is too bad . . . hurt." does not do the damage justice. It is a great tragedy and horrible crime that often marks folks for the rest of their lives.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[BabyRider]

telequapacky wrote: There's probably nothing I can do- but even so, I would be thankful to you if you would provide by PM some names, dates and the church locations. I wouldn't do anything hotheaded, but this kind of thing ought not to be allowed to just go away quietly without any protest. They need it more than you or I do.
I will consider that, Tele. Thanks for your concern.

[telaquapacky]

Telaquapacky wrote: Think about natural selection. Remember what you were taught in school? Two animals compete for the same resources and one succeeds and the other fails. The one more likely to survive is the one more likely to breed, therefore the more fortuitous adaptations survive. I have no problem with that. But look carefully. At the start you had two animals. After natural selection you have only one. How can a system that works by taking two species and eliminating one produce more variety and more complexity? There is a case of a flying insect that is found on a number of Pacific islands. On one particular island, they found the same kind of insect, identical in every respect- even it’s genome- except that it had no wings. There was some selection factor, like the wind was so strong on that island, that if an insect flew, it would be blown into the sea and die. So the insects lost their wings. Evolutionists said, “See! A perfect example of evolution.” But the “evolution” resulted in genetic material being lost or failing to express in the phenotype- it did not result in a more complex animal- but a simpler one. Show me an example of wings appearing on an animal that previously did not have them. There is no such example. Natural selection only results in the loss or suppression of genetic information, not in the emergence of new, more complex information. My opinion is that you need a Designer and Creator to get more complex genetic information.


Bronwen wrote: d. Tel, I don't know what sort of school you went to. No one, except possibly the SDA and the other 'creationists', teaches natural selection in terms of 'two animals'. Natural selection involves one SPECIES, not one animal, eventually becoming two due to environmental and other factors.

Two rats, say. Both pregnant with lots of little ratlets. Each stows away on a different ship. One is taken to a land where, for some reason, a long tail is advantageous, maybe to help it climb. The other goes somewhere that a short tail is advantageous, maybe to help avoid being caught. In the first locale, the longer the tail, the better the survival rate. In the other locale, just the opposite. There may be various other environmental factors as well. After thousands of generations, you have two or possibly three species rather than one. That may be a simplified explanation, but it makes logical sense, while yours is meaningless doubletalk, like all of 'creationism'.


When I said “two animals,” I was using layman’s terms. If you studied genetics (I took classes that covered the material at Cal State University Northridge, U.C.L.A. and U.C. Berkeley) you know that there is “genotype,” which is the DNA in every cell, and “phenotype,” which is the physical appearance and characteristics of the creature that results from the genotype. The genotype is like a blueprint, the phenotype is like the actual house or structure that is built from the blueprint. Anyone who has ever done construction knows that at the site, you can deviate from the blueprint to suit certain needs. If you have ever looked at new housing in a development where they had models to choose from, you know that though they have a few floor plans, they’re willing to modify them to suit the buyer. You can have a larger kitchen, for example, or a three-car garage. But you’re starting from the same basic floor plan. In genetics, it’s the same thing. Certain genes can be “switched on” or “switched off.” Every cell in the body has the entire genotype in it- all the chromosomes with all the genes, and all the same information. What tells a cell in the ectoderm to develop into a cell of the lens in the eye, and another to develop into a fingernail at the tip of the finger? Based on the location, the genes specifying the cell type are switched on or switched off. This happens on the cell level, and it happens on the level of the phenotype as well.

One of the observations Darwin made that made him doubt the Genesis account in the Bible, was when he observed the wide variety of animal life on the Galapagos Islands. How could Noah, for example, have fit all of the different species in the world onto one ark? In Origin of Species, Darwin illustrated his famous finches- a wide variety of birds- all finches, but with different styles of beaks. Some had a long, narrow beak for penetrating deep holes or crevices and extracting insects. Others had large, strong, viselike beaks adapted to breaking open nuts. Others had small beaks. But they were all finches. All were adapted to different conditions, like the “ratlets” you wrote about. But Darwin did not know anything about genetics. Gregor Mendel’s work had not yet been published (Mendel published his first paper on genetics in 1866- but the Origin of Species came out in 1859) Fact is, all of Darwin’s finches, as it turns out, have the same genotype. It’s only that different genes were “switched on” and “switched off.” The same thing applies to dogs. Look at all the different breeds of dogs. By selective breeding, certain traits are magnified, and so the phenotypes of a Chihuahua and Russian Wolf Hound are very different. But they have the same basic genotype- it’s only that different genes are expressed. If you keep breeding Chihuahuas together with Russian Wolf Hounds, eventually, you’ll produce offspring like the original ancestors from which the different types of dogs were bred. Likewise wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and domesticated dogs all have the same genotype. When I lived in Africa, I saw a wide variety of antelopes, the giant Kudu, (which my game park guide claimed could run right through a chain link fence without stopping) down to the duiker, the size of a dog. We saw Elands, Caribous, Waterbucks, Springboks, and some antelopes whose names I couldn’t remember. They all have the same genotype. Noah did not have to pack all that many different animals on board the ark, to produce the variety of living things we have today. Darwin made some wrong assumptions, because he did not know anything about genetics.

See, the “ratlets” in your example would have had the same genotype. In your scenario, no new genetic information emerges- only genes “switched on” or “switched off” and expressed differently. You still haven’t, nor has the evolution regime produced any evidence that natural selection, or any naturally occurring process can, or ever has produced useful new genetic information. All mutations do is lose useful genetic information. All natural selection does is switch genes on and off. It doesn’t result in the emergence of new genes, or in the phenotype having any useful or complex new feature it’s parent species didn’t have before- like wings, or eyes. Your “ratlet” scenario totally failed to refute what my scenario explained, on the level of the genotype- instead it was merely wishful thinking and presupposition.

Years ago Creationists were saying, “If man and apes came from a common ancestor by gradual changes, like evolution would predict, why are there no intermediate forms in the fossil record?” So lo and behold, some evolutionist finds a fragment of a jaw bone of some baboon, or whatever, names it “Lucy,” and pronounces it an intermediate form. The establishment, which so wanted to believe there was some intermediate form somewhere saw in that little fleck of bone what they wanted to see. I believe Lucy was a hoax. Bronwen, a hoax perpetrated by a bunch of PhD’s is no less a hoax than a hoax perpetrated by a two-bit con artist. I guess some people think that if a bunch of PhD’s say it’s so, it must be so. Likewise, If a line of robed popes with diamond and ruby encrusted tiaras, riding on gold sedan chairs (claiming to be the earthly representative of the impoverished and humble Carpenter of Galilee) say that something is true, some people just automatically assume it is true, without thinking. I don’t.

Look, I don't mean to put anybody down. But we need to be more critical in our thinking and look at all the information before merely taking someone else's word for it. Otherwise we hold onto pet theories with only a vague, superficial idea of what's going on, assuming that we can trust in the studies and opinions of others who claim they have all the scholarship and all the answers. One of my instructors at Berkeley made a remarkable comment. He said that whenever your professor tells you something, you should ask yourself two questions: "Yeah?" and "So?" In other words, "Is that really true, or is it only your opinion?" and "If it's true, does it mean what you are saying it means, or might it mean something entirely different?"

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: When I said “two animals,” I was using layman’s terms. Well, tel, I'm using 'layman's terms' too. I did not study genetics academically; of course, it would be easy for me to say that I had if, like most 'creationists', I had no regard for the truth. The example I gave was 'off the top of my head', but I think it is a reasonable approximation of the basic idea of natural selection. Your own example, 'you have two animals and one dies', is just silly, but of course, all of 'creationism' is silly.

I think that you have mis-represented both the science of genetics and Darwin's contributions. But if you disagree, it is easy enough for you to support your position - simply list the name of any recognized geneticist - a SCIENTIST, not a religious fanatic, who supports or agrees with your position. Oops, I forgot. They're all part of a vast hoax. Yep, that sure explains why you can't name one.

I assume that you will be responding to the remainder of my previous post as time permits. I'm especially eager to read your version of Church history, which I hope you will document from non-sectarian sources. Of course, those might all be part of a vast conspiracy too (?).

[Accountable]

Bronwen, are you proud of your bigotry?

[Bronwen]

Accountable wrote: Bronwen, are you proud of your bigotry?Acc, I have asked you this before: Why don't you make a contribution to the thread rather than just trying to annoy me?

I wouldn't use the word 'proud'. I am GLAD that I belong to a religious community that doesn't require me to believe things that can't possibly be true, to 'check my brains at the door', so to speak.

My purpose in starting this thread was to engage tel in a discussion of Seventh-Day Adventism and how it differs from Roman Catholicism. I didn't intend it to tangent off into a discussion of 'creationism', which I think would be better discussed in a separate thread, one in which I would very likely not participate, becaue claiming that the earth is only is only a few thousands years old is like claiming that the moon is made of green cheese or that storks bring babies. Calling silliness and ignorance what they are is not bigotry.

If you will look back through what I have posted here, you will see that tel has responded to very little of it, which leads me to suspect that he is unable to defend his position and the tenets of his sect. That is understandable.

If you would like to help him by answering in his place, please do so. This is not a closed discussion and I would welcome your input, whatever it might be, if it is something substantial and you are able to support it with documentation.

I suggest you go back and re-read my posts here, then give us your own views. Perhaps you are SDA also; if so, that is fine. Help tel by contributing something MEANINGFUL, not just vapid insults aimed at me. The latter prove nothing but your own stupidity.

[BabyRider]

claiming that the earth is only is only a few thousands years old is like claiming that the moon is made of green cheese or that storks bring babies. Calling silliness and ignorance what it is is not bigotry.


THANKYOUVERYMUCH!!!!








to 'check my brains at the door', so to speak.


Definitely an SDA requirement. Been there, done that.

[Accountable]

Bronwen wrote: Acc, I have asked you this before: Why don't you make a contribution to the thread rather than just trying to annoy me?
I am making a contribution. I'm trying to keep it civil, so when you're unable to contain your arrogance I call you on it - hoping against hope that you will reflect and see how very disrespectful you are.



Bronwen wrote: I wouldn't use the word 'proud'. I am GLAD that I belong to a religious community that doesn't require me to believe things that can't possibly be true, to 'check my brains at the door', so to speak. You're discussing religion, where all things are possible. Open your mind.



Bronwen wrote: My purpose in starting this thread was to engage tel in a discussion of Seventh-Day Adventism and how it differs from Roman Catholicism. I didn't intend it to tangent off into a discussion of 'creationism', which I think would be better discussed in a separate thread, one in which I would very likely not participate, becaue claiming that the earth is only is only a few thousands years old is like claiming that the moon is made of green cheese or that storks bring babies. Calling silliness and ignorance what they are is not bigotry.



If you will look back through what I have posted here, you will see that tel has responded to very little of it, which leads me to suspect that he is unable to defend his position and the tenets of his sect. That is understandable.If by "it" you mean your bigotry, the subject of the post, it's because he's displaying far more restraint and respect than are you, and far more than you deserve.



Bronwen wrote: If you would like to help him by answering in his place, please do so. This is not a closed discussion and I would welcome your input, whatever it might be, if it is something substantial and you are able to support it with documentation.



I suggest you go back and re-read my posts here, then give us your own views. Perhaps you are SDA also; if so, that is fine. Help tel by contributing something MEANINGFUL, not just vapid insults aimed at me. The latter prove nothing but your own stupidity.They seem vapid to you because they are not insults. They are simple observations. I too show you more respect than you deserve.

[Bronwen]

mrsK wrote: Each person has a right to their own beliefs,no one should be saying it is silliness & ignorance. We have a right & choice to believe what we want.K, you are absolutely correct. Nearly all religions require some degree of faith in things unseen and unprovable.

For example, if I as a Catholic believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist and a Baptist believes that it is only symbolic, that is a situation where each should respect the other's belief. I cannot prove that Christ is really present, neither can my Baptist friend prove that He is NOT really present. We both accept our Church's teachings as matters of religious faith.

Things like the age of the earth and the evolution of species are matters of FACT, not of faith. There are many things in science, such as, for example, quantum physics, about which relatively little is known. Great discoveries have been made in such fields, but there is still much to learn. But the age of the earth does not fall into that category. Its antiquity is beyond question, as is the evolution of species. These are things that can be examined 100 different ways and the result will always be more or less the same. The only way to challenge this knowledge is through deception and ignorance.

'Creationists' simply ignore orthodox science and invent their own as they go along. That is dishonesty and falsehood, pure and simple, and does not deserve the tolerance given to matters of religious faith. No one is saying that 'creationists' should be arrested or persecuted, but to claim that their nonsense should be given the same respect as, or taught in schools alongside, scientific fact is really quite outrageous.

[Bronwen]

While we wait for tel's next post, please allow me to get a little somethin' off my chest:telaquapacky wrote: If a line of robed popes with diamond and ruby encrusted tiaras, riding on gold sedan chairs (claiming to be the earthly representative of the impoverished and humble Carpenter of Galilee) say that something is true, some people just automatically assume it is true, without thinking. I don’t.Acc, if you want bigotry and arrogance, I suggest you reread this snippet from tel's recent post. My comments are addressed to you and tel jointly (and of course, to anyone else who wishes to respond):

First of all, what on EARTH does any of that have to do with natural selection, which was supposed to be the subject of the post?

Secondly, there is no such thing as 'a line of robed popes'. There is only one at a time.

Thirdly, where are the 'diamond and ruby encrusted tiaras' and 'gold sedan chairs'? I have never seen any such thing. I saw the pope on TV over the weekend and he was wearing an ordinary mitre as all bishops wear on official occasions. It seemed to have been made of some kind of cloth. There is no question that the Church possesses priceless works of art of various kinds, some of which are sometimes used liturgically. That is neither illegal nor immoral as far as I know, nor can I imagine why anyone would find it offensive. On the contrary, the antiquity and solemnity of the Catholic Church's liturgy is one of the main reasons it is so attractive to converts.



Fourthly, the traditional pageantry of the Church, which tel seems to find so outrageous, is there for one and only one purpose: to give honor and glory to God.

Fifthly, the pope has no need to CLAIM to be Christ's earthly vicar. The Church hierarchy, direct successors of the Apostles, elected him to that position.

Sixthly, the pope's personal living accomodations in the Vatican are extremely spartan, like those of a monk in one of the Church's most cloistered monastic orders. I can assure you that the most humble backwoods Protestant preacher probably lives better than the pope in terms of physical comforts.

Seventhly, and perhaps most relevant to the present discussion, the pope, as a rule, does not make proclamations on matters of scientific fact. There have been popes who have been knowledgable in certain areas of science (for example, a pope laid out the contemporary Western calendar that we all use daily, even you, tel), but such interests have little or nothing to do with his duties as pope, and in such cases Catholics would have no obligation whatever to respect his opinions on such matters.

Eighthly and lastly, the font of scientific knowledge on matters of biology, anthropology, paleontology and cosmology, among other sciences, was not assembled 'without thinking'. I have no first-hand knowledge of all the discoveries in these fields, so I rely on the findings of the experts. That is why I keep asking tel, and I extend that invitation to you, Acc, and others here, to tell me why every scientist in the world (in the fields just mentioned) is wrong and the crackpots and charlatans of 'creationism' are right.

Claiming that all of science is a great deception, hoax, or conspiracy is not very convincing, and using one's personal hatred, of the community of believers Christ founded on Peter, and of Peter's successor, to attempt to bolster such a claim makes it even less convincing.

[Accountable]

My apologies. I thought this was a discussion of Adventism and Catholicism. I see now it's a competition Catholicism vs Adventism , just like the other thread you started of Bronwen's version of Catholicism vs all other Christians. The title must've thrown me. :rolleyes:

[Ted]

It seems to me that in any discussion there will arise controversy. I am not sure how it can be avoided.

tel has made his comments about the "line of popes" which was no more or less controversial then Bronwen's comment re evolution and moon being made of green cheese. Storks bring babies, eh? An interesting thought. LOL. Someone is bound to take all the pleasure out of life. LOL

I don't think that we expect either or any of the participants to give up their feelings and beliefs. On the other hand it seems to me that we are asking folks to present their beliefs. I think where we run into problems is when any of us takes such comments personally. I don't think that is the intent, at least not in the overall scheme of things.

Ones beliefs are of course personal and when you have competing beliefs you will have folks disagreeing with one another. It seems to me that we must learn to see these as personal comments but not personal attacks.

I guess the best we can hope for is that we have no name calling or put downs, and that we enter the spirit of debate which includes controversy and thus respect the right of others to believe as they do. It is tough at times and leads to a great deal of thinking, which in itself is good.

I'm not really sure if this says anything. I just see some controversy as a natural part of discussiona and debate.

I was raised in a very fundamentalist church and I know how some fundamentalists think and sometimes it is difficult to discern whether a post is typical of what I saw. Also knowing that not all fundamentalists are that way. Some are indeed very respectful of others and there are some who are not. In fact there are some who think that they alone have the direct access to God and everyone else is wrong.

Such a discussion or debate as this is no place to proselytise.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

I think if folks want a thread of peace and contentment without controversy then such a thread could be started. Foks just need to be asked to respect the thread and take their controversies elsewhere. It could be called "The Quiet Room" or some such title.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[telaquapacky]

Bronwen wrote: First of all, what on EARTH does any of that have to do with natural selection, which was supposed to be the subject of the post?What do lavishly adorned clerics and scientifically-biased PhD's have in common? Simple. The principle of humanism: the pride of man in elevating himself to a position equal to or greater than God. The popes have elevated themselves to a position equal to or greater than God. The evolutionary establishment claiming they can prove with their speculation and technology that God doesn't exist clearly think themselves superior to God, since to them God our Creator is a figment of someone's imagination.Bronwen wrote: If you wish to live in an imaginary world, I suppose that is your prerogative, but, frankly, THAT seems to me to 'defame God', because it shows a complete rejection of human intellect.So to challenge human intellect is to defame God? That's humanistic. It's making man's thoughts God's thoughts. Bronwen, I think this is where our opinions diverge.

Isaiah 55:8,9

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

We could compare many doctrines, but there seems to be one basic root of all our differences. Your religion glorifies and elevates man and his ideas. Ours humbles man and exalts God. From the Seventh-day Adventist point of view, and that of many other Protestant bodies, Roman Catholic doctrine and practice glorifies man, and calls reverent attention to and gives authority to mere men which belongs rightfully only to God.

It glorifies man to attribute to any mere human being the prerogative to forgive sin. Only God can forgive sin.

It glorifies man for a human organization, a church on earth to consider itself the treasury of the grace of God purchased by the blood of Christ on the cross. Every spiritual blessing comes to us from Christ directly- not from any church.

It glorifies man for any man to be considered the earthly representative of Christ, infallable and supreme over all others. Christ is the Head of the Church.

It glorifies man for any man to think he has the authority to change God's law, and for his successors to consider themselves enforcers of a law changed that way by man.

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: 1. What do lavishly adorned clerics and scientifically-biased PhD's have in common? Simple.

2. The popes have elevated themselves to a position equal to or greater than God.

3. The evolutionary establishment claiming they can prove with their speculation and technology that God doesn't exist clearly think themselves superior to God, since to them God our Creator is a figment of someone's imagination.

4. So to challenge human intellect is to defame God? That's humanistic. It's making man's thoughts God's thoughts.

5. Bronwen, I think this is where our opinions diverge.

6. We could compare many doctrines, but there seems to be one basic root of all our differences. Your religion glorifies and elevates man and his ideas.

7. Ours humbles man and exalts God. From the Seventh-day Adventist point of view, and that of many other Protestant bodies, Roman Catholic doctrine and practice glorifies man, and calls reverent attention to and gives authority to mere men which belongs rightfully only to God.

8. It glorifies man to attribute to any mere human being the prerogative to forgive sin. Only God can forgive sin.

9. It glorifies man for a human organization, a church on earth to consider itself the treasury of the grace of God purchased by the blood of Christ on the cross.

10. Every spiritual blessing comes to us from Christ directly- not from any church.

11. It glorifies man for any man to be considered the earthly representative of Christ, infallable and supreme over all others. Christ is the Head of the Church.

12. It glorifies man for any man to think he has the authority to change God's law, and for his successors to consider themselves enforcers of a law changed that way by man.tel, do you even read my posts? This was supposed to have been a discussion, not a diatribe. How about responding to some of my specific points, or else at least having the honesty to say that you have no response.

It's difficult to respond to the points above, because most of them are so nebulous. Let me try to sort them out and respond to those that are at least somewhat rational:

1. What on earth are you talking about? Clergy of many denominations conduct their liturgy in traditional ecclesiastical attire. Why do you find that offensive? Does your clergyman come out in a business suit? In khaki slacks and a sport shirt? Fine, wonderful, who cares?

2. More outrageous false witness. Would you care to give some examples? Of course not.

3. It's rare to find so much hogwash in one sentence. Let's try to take it phrase by phrase.

Firstly, there is no 'evolutionary establishment' just as there is no 'gravitational establishment'. Gravity and the evolution of species are both among the incontrovertible laws of nature. As I pointed out previously, EVERYTHING in modern biology hinges on evolution. Throw out evolution and everything else in the science of biology is hanging in mid-air. What does the SDA propose to replace all of that with? Two contradictory chapters of Genesis, both derived from pagan creation myths that can still be read in their original form? Chapters in which man is created before animals and animals before man, in which humans are created male and female together and man is created early in the process and woman last of all? No doubt the future will bring enormous advances in our knoweldge of biology, cosmology, and the other physical sciences, but those advances will not be in the direction of the fables in Genesis.

Secondly, there isn't anything atheistic in ANY branch of science, and no one is claiming that but the 'creationists'. There are scientists who are atheists just as there are garbage collectors and office workers who are atheists. I see God's handiwork more clearly in one page of Darwin that in all of the 'creationist' drivel ever published.

4. No, in my opinion, to refuse to use the intellect God gave you is to defame God. The irony, with regard to the SDA, is that they encourage the care of the human body, as they should, while discouraging intelligent thought processes.

6. Well, tel, you keep making amorphous statements like that and then refuse to give any specific examples. It's hard for me to respond to nonsense. If I had some idea of what you were talking about, I could give an equally specific response. Man is made in God's image, so it was God's will to 'elevate' him above the animals. But that brings us back to the human intellect. We do not honor God by refusing to use that intellect. That is why the Catholic Church operates arguably the best educational system in the world, especially the schools of the Jesuits. There are many fine Protestant schools also, and as I have mentioned before, the Wesleyan colleges and universities are good examples. None of these schools would be caught dead teaching 'creationism', which has no purpose other than to control people's minds and separate them from reality. In your case there's little doubt that they have succeeded.

7. Well, first of all, you should speak for yourself and not attempt to give yourself support that may not exist by invoking 'other Protestant bodies'. Let them speak for themselves. And secondly, once again I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be specific and I will give you a specific response.

8. So, when Christ gave that authority to his apostles (John 20:22-23) He was...lying...or what?

9. Here you are closer to reality. Jesus Christ clearly established a community of believers with Peter as his first earthly vicar, and on the other apostles as its hierarchy, and their successors, and this community and this hierarchy continues without interruption today. That is factual Church history, the study of which the SDA obviously discourages. Every bishop today in the Roman Catholic Chruch, the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Churches of the Anglican communion, including the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA, and certain so-called 'Old Catholic' Churches such as the Polish National Church, can trace his/her consecration as bishop directly back to the Apostles without a break. We consider that very important. Sects that do not have that try to minimize its importance, as would be expected.

10. That God's grace comes through the Church is, I suppose, a matter of semantics. In any case, God's grace does not come through error, heresy, and false prophets.

11. The traditional Catholic view, held also by some Protestants, is that when Christ's physical body left the earth, His mystical body remained in the form of His community, which in turn is composed of its members, so by our membership we actually share in His divinity just as He shared our humanity, and this is particularly true through His Holy Eucharist. If that meets your criterion of 'glorifying man', then I would agree that Christ, through His Church, does that.

Of course Christ is the head of the Church. Who else could possibly be its head?

Claiming, as you keep doing, that the pope, the SERVANT of both Christ and His faithful, considers himself, or is considered by the faithful to be above Christ or above God is really quite silly and outrageous, and it displays for all to see your ignorance of what Catholics believe.

12. Same comment. What on earth are you talking about? Meaningless diatribe is no substitute for intelligent discussion.

Like most Adventists, you obviously have very little knowledge of Catholicism or of Church history, and that, of course, seems to be just what your Church wants. I have never met an Adventist who could give me a logical, reasonably thought out explanation of his Church's hatred for Catholicism, and particularly for the pope. I had hoped that you might be the first, but alas...

The depth of hatred within the community of Miller for the community of Christ is absolutely PATHOLOGICAL. One wonders what, other than the influence of hell itself, could foster such acrimony. Reading your posts, I still haven't a clue. Disagreements with certain aspects of Catholicism I can understand; as I stated previously, I have some disagreements myself. Unbridled hatred such as you show here is really beyond my ken, but when I consider its source, it just increases my faith and my thankfulness that the Lord has accepted me, a sinner, as a member of His community.

[Bronwen]

Accountable wrote: My apologies. I thought this was a discussion of Adventism and Catholicism. Acc, if it is physically possible, you need to pull your head out of your nether region and follow the discussion more closely. I had intended it to be just that. If you will review the thread, you will see that I am attempting to address all of tel's points while he is mainly ignoring mine. That does not make for a very balanced discussion.

Now, for the fourth or fifth time, why don't you contribute something other than sarcasm?

[Ted]

I must say that I am in agreement with Bronwen. As she knows I have some problems with the Roman Catholic Church but would never refuse to accept it as part of the body of Christ, which it clearly is.

With all due respect to tel I see his diatribe, and cannot call it anything else, as a fear response to the logical points made by Bronwen. I think she has made, with all sincerity, a stab at having an intelligent conversation about two branches of the Christian faith.

I know of many fundamentalists who not only don't but won't look at other churches with some degree of respect and understanding. I know, because sadly, I was one of them at one time. I know how they think and respond and am not surpised at tel's response although, like Bronwen, I was sincerely hoping that his response might have been more open minded. Alas nothing has changed. For that I am deeply sorry.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bronwen]

I thank Ted for his kind words, and as regular denizens of these forums know, he and I have had disagreements on many issues of not only faith but Church administration, yet we remain loving brethren in Christ.

While we are waiting for tel to check in, I would like to ask him (tel, that is, though Ted's comments are always welcome) to support his postion on the following issues. It's a very short list, and I would think that the entire list could be easily covered in a single post:

1. tel, please support your assertion that... tel wrote: There is a time prophecy in Daniel 9 that predicts the exact year of the first advent of Christ. It predicted that the Messiah would come in A.D. 27- the same year that Luke 3:1 says Jesus was baptized and began His public ministry. It also predicts the year of His crucifixion.I am quite familiar with the chapter and can not see how, by any stretch of the imagination, such a late date can be supported. There have been various calculations by Biblical SCHOLARS, scholars, mind you, not apologists for a particular sect, all of whom put the date way before the birth of Christ; in fact, before the book of Daniel was written. What is your evidence to the contrary? Please be specific and provide documentation.

2. Please support your assertion that...tel wrote: In his encyclical entitled "Dies Domini", Pope John [Paul] II called for all Catholics to ask their governments to enact laws that 'protect the sanctity of Sunday'.... John Paul II in effect asks for laws that will impose civil penalties on me for obeying God's Ten Commandment Law, because he perceives himself to have the authority to overrule it. He would rather I obey him than God- and he would punish me for obeying God. I have skimmed through the text, which is rather long, and did not find that; however, I am perfectly willing to agree that he wrote that if you will quote his exact words in context and tell me approximately where they appear so that I may verify it. That he may have used the words you put in quotes, 'protect the sanctity of Sunday', is possible, that he urged the enactment of laws and the imposition of penalties I doubt.

3. While we're on the subject of the weekend, please explain why the SDA considers the Saturday Sabbath so important to Christians (that it is important to Jews is obvious). The way I read the NT, 'the sabbath' refers to the Jewish Saturday respite and 'the Lord's Day', in NT terms, refers to the day of the Lord's resurrection. Presumably, the first Christians, who were also Jews, would have observed both days, in different ways. As you know, of course, Peter thought that anyone wishing to become a Christian should have to become a Jew first, but he eventually capitulated to Paul and Christianity was opened to all, with no obligation that I am aware of for Christians to observe the OT regulations and Jewish practices regarding such things as food, clothing, sacrifice, and the Saturday sabbath, among others. As I also noted earlier, the Catholic Church has high regard for the Jewish sabbath and allows Catholics the choice of fulfilling their weekly Mass obligation on either Saturday or Sunday. But it is quite evident from the NT that Sunday observance goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Why are/were all of these Christians wrong and the SDA right? Do you also keep kosher and observe the rest of the Mosaic law with equal fervor? I don't know the answer to this, that's why I'm asking.

4. You wrote:tel wrote: I get the impression that in the Roman Catholic system there is a chain of authority, with the laity on the bottom, the priestly hierarchy above that, and somewhere along the line, Mary, Jesus and God the Father. We don’t accept that.I then asked what sort of hierarchy, if any, the SDA had, and you did not respond. I would still like to know. Forgetting for the moment the Communion of Saints, how is the temporal leadership set up, and what are the differences that would cause you to accept your own hierarchical structure, if any, but reject ours? You've already explained the concept of universal priesthood, but what about how the SDA is administered at the top?

5. Finally, you wrote:tel wrote: a. all believed that the Papacy, that is, the office of the Pope, is the beast, the antichrist, the 666 mentioned in Daniel and Revelation, and the 'man of lawlessness' of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

b. Before I even heard of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, my own personal study of the Bible and history led me to the same conclusion about the Papacy.

c. But to say 'the papacy is the antichrist' is not the same as saying Roman Catholics are bad people.

d. In our opinion, the Papal inquisition and Papal political dominance of the nations of Europe in the Middle Ages matches prophetic descriptions of the antichrist, beast and 666 in too many specifics to be merely a coincidence. Please support all of these assertions, and please be specific.

a. Name, not 'all', I interpret your choice of that word as mere hyperbole, but name at least SOME of the reformers who believed that, and give citations from their writings.

b. How did your study of the Bible lead you to believe that? It seems to me, without meaning to be hostile or sarcastic, that your knowledge of Catholicism, its history, teachings and practices, is severely limited. If that be true, it is difficult to understand how you could have reached such a conclusion. Once again, please be specific.

c. Fine, but on what evidence do you say that about the papacy? Can you name a single modern pope whom you consider particularly evil or sinful? If so, whom? And on what grounds? Can you match up any of the Biblical allusions to the Antichrist with any modern pope as having fulfilled them? Specifics, please.

d. Then please be specific and show how that is true. What on earth do those verses in Revelation, which obviously refer to pagan Rome, which was persecuting Christians terribly at the time the book was written, have to do with the modern Church, other than the fact that the city referred to is obviously Rome. How does the number 666 apply to the papacy? What about the many early versions of the Bible that give the number as 616? What does the Church do that is whorish, evil, or abominable? There are over a billion Catholics worldwide. I cannot see how the Catholic Church as you describe and envision it would be attractive to a single one of them, certainly not to myself. Isn't it possible that you really have very little idea of what Catholicism is all about?

If you can address those few issues straightforwardly I see no reason why the discussion can't continue at a level of mutual tolerance and respect.

I have no interest, however, in continued discussion of 'creationism' on this thread, but lest there be any misunderstanding, I certainly have no objection to ANY Church teaching the Biblical tales of creation as religion. It's only their presentation as valid science to which I object.

Edited a bit later in the day to add the following:

In addition to the items above, I am still interested in your own take on Church history. As I posted a couple of screens previously:Bronwen wrote: Go in either direction. Begin with the Petrine Confession and show where it leads that is inconsistant with Roman Catholicism, or begin with contemporary Catholicism and trace it back to its origin.

To this you have not responded directly, but you are still more than welcome to do so.

[telaquapacky]

Bronwen, you will just have to be patient. I have a life. I run two busy offices, and have numerous responsibilities in my church. Forum Garden has to take third place or less. I have every ability and intention to back up everything I have said, but you are not my professor or school marm, and your many homework assignments will just have to wait.

[Ted]

sigh:-6

All such a response needs is the comment that "I have been busy". The rest is basically unnecessary and somewhat inflamatory.

Looking back to the reformation and to the inquisition and judging it from today's point of view serves little purpose. Such items have to be judged on the basis of the era in which they happened.

Bronwen:-6

Your comments re "Revelation" are quite correct. Many scholars including Bible translator J. B. Phillips have all said that "Revelation" is about the Roman Empire and not about some distant time in the future. If that is the case then such a use of "Revelation" to try to scare, literally, the hell out of people could be seen as a misuse of the sacred writings.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: Bronwen, you will just have to be patient. I have a life. I run two busy offices, and have numerous responsibilities in my church. Forum Garden has to take third place or less. I have every ability and intention to back up everything I have said, but you are not my professor or school marm, and your many homework assignments will just have to wait.News bulletin, tel: We all have lives. I am able to spend a couple of hours (sometimes more) a day online only because I'm on sabbatical. I return to Germany later this month and thereafter my online time will be sustantially curtailed.

My problem with your posts on this thread is not the timing but that you have made lots of unsubstantiated charges against Catholicism which I, a Catholic, know are not true. I correct your false information and then a couple of screens later you repeat the same charge, again with no substantiation or specifics.

I admitted at square one that my knowledge of the SDA is quite scanty. If during this exchange I attribute anything to the SDA that is not factual, I would wish to be corrected. Your attitude toward my Church seems to be just the opposite: 'My mind is already made up so don't confuse the issue with the facts.'

I ask only that you be as open-minded about my Church as I am about yours. Surely that is not an unreasonable request.