| Author | Message | ||
| Lynn W |
I'll say one thing for defending the gospel, it puts all the petty little things in church into perspective. Like what color the carpet should be. We had one SDA visit our little country church and horror of horrors!! there was a coffee cup on the piano, left there by the worship leader after a long session of practice. The SDA let us know in no uncertain terms what a heathen, ungodly church we have. Jude, I agree. That's why I don't read the works of non-SDAs opposing SDA. I've only recently begun reading X writings & testimonies. For nearly 20 years, I searched high & low for an X who is still a Christian. They just didn't seem to exist till recently. Now you guys are "coming out of the woodwork" & I'm no longer alone. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Lynn, regarding coffee: The latest health and medical research shows that coffee is -- gasp! -- a health drink after all. I'm a medical and health journalist, and I've researched coffee and written about it. All the hullabaloo about it being conducive to heart disease and/or cancer has been shown to be false. And now they're discovering positive health benefits. Caffeine is harmful, as are most herbals, only if taken in excess. Hold on to your seats, gang, here's the kicker: Recent evidence has shown that de-caffeinated coffee IS harmful, due to the de-caffeinating process which introduces a chemical to combine with the natural caffeine and render it non-stimulating. How's EGW's angel faring now, huh? Which reminds me: What do you call a cow who's just given birth? Answer is written backwards: detaneflaced Best to you each morning, Jude | ||
| Colleentinker |
Jude, I love your humor! I agree; former SDA's are the most qualified to call the church a cult. And Lynn, you're right; most former SDA's do not remain Christian. Richard read a statistic a few months ago (and let me add a disclaimer here; I don't know how the research was done for this statistic, so I can't personally vouch for its accuracy) that said that only 2% of former Adventists actually move on to worship in another church. Most go into spiritual limbo. My experience is that most former SDA's are not involved in formal worship. There is a reason for this spiritual isolation. I do wish, however, that the Christian community would come to understand how subtle and destructive Adventism is. It's not mainstream evangelical Christianity as they like to pose. | ||
| Lynn W |
"I do wish, however, that the Christian community would come to understand how subtle and destructive Adventism is." AMEN! It takes one to know. I'm doing the best I can to educate. I think they just don't want to know. Sometimes the strongest defenders of Adventism are Evangelicals who haven't got a clue. "uh...they have a prophet?" | ||
| Ernie |
Hello friends: Since I left Adventism, I have been preaching and teaching all over the world about the spiritual dangers of Adventism. However, it seems to me that most evangelicals consider Adventism as just a "different" kind of evangelicalism. This position is worrisome since most former Adventists tend to become unchurch, once they have left the SDA Church. I have been proposing among some evangelicals in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Latin America, an agressive stance against Adventism. Those evangelicals are a bit worried about offending the so-called "evangelicals" among the Adventists. But the truth of the matter is that Adventism has to be denounced as a cult. I am always surprised when some people wonder why I left the Adventist Church, since "they are evangelicals who just keep the Sabbath." I think there is flagrant ignorance among evangelicals regarding Adventism. Let us keep figthing the good fight and trying to reach them [Adventists] with the Gospel of grace. In Christ, Ernie | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Not ready quite yet to lay down the bullet-ridden-bloody-shirt banner held aloft against the predations of SDA bullies from Old Jerusalem -- people known in Christendom generally as Judaizers. I want to hark back to Dale Ratzlaff's lecture, "Whatever Happened to the Law," at Trinity church in Redlands, Friday evening, January 14, 2000. There, in the Q&A period, at least four of these verbal ruffians took the mike and harangued Dale and the audience with their non-sequiter theological challenges and Dr.Tazz-like character-assassination attacks on those who have left "the ark of safety." That's not Noah's ark, friends; that's the old-covenant ark containing the stone tablets. At least four of these Judaizers said something like this: "The reason why you believe the way you do is because you're bitter." One fellow was looking right at me when he made his remark. His reason? I was -- gasp! -- smiling! He said so! Maybe he thought I was smiling over the masterful way Dale had answered a barbed question. If so, that was at least partially true. But I was also smiling because it felt so good to be in an audience that wasn't already prejudiced against me and the way I think. So he thought I was bitter, huh? I protested, saying loud enough for all to hear, "It's not true!" He repeated the charge, still looking at me, and again I said, "It's not true!" Finally he said, "It's only an observation." And again I said, "It's not true!" Another one who made the same accusation, only not looking at me, was an expensively-dressed elderly woman with an "I'd thrillingly lop off your head if only I could" look on her face. I approached her afterward and said, "I'm not bitter at the Adventists." She said, "Well, Dale Ratzlaff is!" obviously not wanting to have to tangle with me on an equal footing. I said, "No, he's not." So she grabbed a henpecked-looking hubby and humphed off still holding the same expression. And, believe me, those two incidents were among the mildest. One fellow yelled out from his seat something like this: "Last time you [meaning, I guess, the meeting's sponsors] made us write our questions on cards so you could weed out the good ones!" Here are the rules the Judaizers broke: 1. Ask a question; don't make a speech. 2. Address the speaker, not the audience. 3. Limit mike time, not the audience's patience. 4. Attack theological or Bible-oriented points, not the characters and motives of the people making the points. 5. Manage to sit down after; don't try to commandeer the whole meeting. I need to make clear that every single questioner who was not obviously opposed to Dale, behaved politely and with appropriate decorum. Only people who by their words were obviously unhappy with Dale and what he was saying transgressed these simple and reasonable rules. My point: Nobody stood up to these people. Dale, who was alone on the platform, was not in a good strategic position to tell them they had to behave. Certain others didn't, I assume, because they were related to Dale and could not be seen as impartial. I didn't because, being too new to these kinds of situations, I was in a state of semi-shock. After reflection, I now think that if I could ride a time machine back I would stand up, interrupt the haranguer, and verbally enforce the rules. Obvious public shaming of obvious public offense can be a powerful law-enforcement tool, even if you don't have any official authority. Your authority is perceived as moral and as defending the integrity and goodwill of the local community. And the local citizenry, which doesn't want to be perceived as condoning mean-spirited public misbehavior, will side with you with applause, amens, backup remarks, etc. I've done this before, and it has never yet backfired on me. The offender is embarrassed -- often to the point of forgetting what he or she is trying to say -- and sits down red-faced with nothing more to say to an audience that the offender now (unfairly) perceives as hostile. Okay, what do y'all think? "Hit me with your best shot." Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Great points, Ernie. Glad to know you're on the team, that you know the facts, and are actively engaged in the highest and best kind of missionary work. --Jude |
