| Author | Message | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1145 Registered: 11-2002 |
I occassionally write letters to the Review, the Signs or other SDA publications. I write very nice letters. Never has one been prited. I get back a form letter thanking me for my interest and saying that the editors and others that work for the publication will further check out what I have stated. And, that's it. Nothing more on the topic ever. Not in the maagazine and not personally to me. I do get a nice form letter back though. Just like when I write to our president and give him advice on internal and international concerns. Oh well, woe is me. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 237 Registered: 4-2000 |
Today I sent an e-mail message to William Johnnson of the Adventist Review about his deception of misinformation. If your letter to the Adventist Review editor gets published, don't be surprised to discover that it was heavily edited. They have a knack of removing all barbs--making it sound much better than the original. This has been my experience when they published two of my letters in the past. This is certainly in stark contrast to the letters found in Proclamation magazine. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1001 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dennis, I'm glad you wrote. I'll be interested to see whether or not they publish it. (I hope others will also write!) Colleen | ||
| Dennisrainwater Registered user Username: Dennisrainwater Post Number: 103 Registered: 8-2000 |
Dennis -- You are so right! I was very surprised when they printed my letter to Signs (over a year ago now) -- I just couldn't contain myself when they published that utterly blasphemous banner article "When We'll Judge God". But, as you said, they snipped so much of my original letter that it took nearly ALL of the punch out of it! (And I was VERY careful to keep it within the limitations of their acceptance policies...) Boy, was I fuming! While it probably wouldn't make a dent, it would be a good example of us doing our "due diligence" if we were to start a letter-writing campaign on this... What a crock of lies! I have a hard time just letting a lie slip by.... ---------- Touching briefly on another point, it was said above that 'millions of years' might have passed between the time Adam and Eve were created and their fall. However, in Genesis 5:5 it says very clearly that "Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died." Just before this, it says that he lived 130 years and had Seth... So the period between the creation and the fall HAS to be a fair bit less than 130 years, as Seth was born *after* Cain and Abel. Just a thought, Den <>< | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 243 Registered: 4-2000 |
Dennis, I agree with your comments about Adam and Eve not having spent a great length of time in their Edenic home. My speculation on this is based on biological factors as well. They had no offspring until after the Fall. As a healthy, robust, fertile couple, they would seemingly have had children while in Eden if it was a long time. Their being infertile or celebate for millions of years and then suddenly having babies is hard to imagine or seriously believe. God's commandment to reproduce was given to Adam and Eve prior to the Fall (see Gen. 1:28). My guess is that they were in Eden only a few months at most. According to Genesis 4:1, they were not expectant parents at the Fall. Historically, this is the only commandment that humankind has consistently obeyed without complaint(smile). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 781 Registered: 3-2004 |
I have suggested before and will suggest again, that those who get the Review should inundate the editor with letters when the Review prints lies. Please do that. Diana | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 192 Registered: 6-2004 |
I don't get The Review myself (and I don't want it mailed to me). However, is it available to read online? I really miss out on some of the topics discussed from what various readers have encountered. It really shouldn't surprise us how the SDA views the way other churches deal with issues like creation. They think they know it all and everyone else is either partial or no where close to the "truth". | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1154 Registered: 11-2002 |
Yes, it is online. In fact, the SDA's even have a special online edition that is only abailable on the Internet. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 136 Registered: 10-2004 |
Pw, You can read it at http://www.adventistreview.org. The issue with the article by William Johnsson is not on yet, though. Jeremy | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 194 Registered: 6-2004 |
Thanks for the website info. I'm sure I'll find some "flashbacks" on it. | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 195 Registered: 6-2004 |
OK, I'm on this site. Now you got me going here! There's a section called Ask the Doctors (with Dr. Peter Landless and Dr Allan Handysides) . The article revolves around Surving The Holidays and they are telling people to exercise 5 times or more a week and cut refined foods and candy. The irony is...they have their photo posted on this page and it sure doesn't look like they follow their own advice. Dr. Handysides....I almost fell over when I saw his name! Physician...HEAL THYSELF. :> | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1162 Registered: 11-2002 |
You comment about Dr. Handysides got me laughing. Which makes me wonder how anyone could honestly look to EGW as an example of a "health message". She even claims to have been addicted to vineguar. And, look at the weight problem there. I don't think I would go to her for advice on health! Also, is there even one photograph of her anywhere that she is smiling in? BTW, she said we should not take pictures or have photographs either so why all the pictures of her in SDA literature and elsewhere? | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 245 Registered: 4-2000 |
ANTICARNIVORISTS OR VEGETARIANS? In his article, "Why I Am Not a Vegetarian," Dr. William T. Jarvis from Loma Linda University (School of Public Health)writes: "I disclaimed vegetarianism after many years of observance...The term "vegetarian" is MISLEADING, for it is not for people who favor vegetable consumption, but a code word for those who disfavor or protest the consumption of animal foods. The neologism "anticarnivorist" better characterizes the majority of those who call themselves vegetarians. I call myself a "vegetable enthusiast," because I strongly encourage eating lots of vegetables, including legumes, whole grains, and fruits. I believe that these foods are desirable not only because of their high nutrient density and low caloric density, but also because of aesthetic and gustatory factors. Being a vegetable enthusiast doesn't entail rejecting the use of meat or animal products..." "My experience with the ongoing Seventh-day Adventist Health Study (SDAHS), a series of studies conducted from LLU School of Public Health, has been largely positive. Its chief researcher, the late Roland Phillips, M. D., Dr. P. H., was an outstanding scientist in whose objectivity I had the utmost confidence. He recognized the problem of the influence of social expectations on SDAs responding to questions about their lifestyle. Adventist groupthink makes it likely that SDAs will UNDERREPORT activities disfavored by the church community (e.g., meat-eating, coffee drinking, and imbibing) and OVERREPORT those that are approved (e.g., dining meatlessly and exercising)...As a health educator, I feel I have an obligation to endeavor to stick to whatever unvarnished facts scientific research uncovers." He concludes his article by saying that, "...I believe that crusading vegetarian ideologues are dangerous to themselves and to society." Dennis Fischer | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1165 Registered: 11-2002 |
I sent in the card from the Review to be included in this LLU health study. On the card it asks to verify SDA membership. I put on the card that I am not SDA but maybe I could partisipate anyway or even be in the control group. I got a reply thanking me for my offer but he study was for only SDA's. By the way, do SDA's really have longer life expectancies than non-SDA's who have the same basic health profile? Like, other people who don't overuse illegial drugs, alcohol or smoke? And, growing up SDA the term "health message" only referred to various foods. Has the SDA's ever placed any emphasis on exercise? I only ask this because I et a monthly magazine called The Lutheran. In each issue is a list of Lutherans who during the past month had their 100th birthdays, the list seems to have more and more names on it as the months past. It's just really hard for me to believe that SDA's are any more healthy tanother regular God-fearing, right living folks. When it comes to the regular normal health problems are there less occurances in the SDA''s than with other peoples? Asthma, sinus problems, arthuritis, high blood pressure, chelostoral problems, most all cancers except lung, migranes, sleep disorders, anything and everything, what do the studies show? I just really have a hard time believing SDA's are considerably more healthy than non-Adventists. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 287 Registered: 7-2000 |
Good question, Susan. Don't hold your breath waiting for answers though! The SDA's love to compare themselves to the 'general population' and not to other Christians. I'd guess that the lifespan is about the same for other Christians based on what I've seen. I love to tweak SDA pride on the health message. I tell 'em that they push the 'health message' because they're afraid to die as they don't believe in going immedietly to be with the Lord. If I was going to lay around in a grave for who knows how long, I probably would be afraid of dying too! | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 199 Registered: 6-2004 |
I think loneviking basically wrapped up the whole SDA health issue by saying the main reason to try and stay on a strict & boring diet is because of trying to live longer and the fear of death. We all know exactly how these people act, they may be vegetarian but consume sugar in huge amounts. It always amazed me at how SDA's pick and choose which rules and regulations they prefer to enforce. Of course their claims are just plain silly, especially when it comes down to EGW's ideas of what should and shouldn't be consumed. As for the reason she never smiled in any photos, why should she? Look what kind of depressing issues she was trying to get her and her followers to live by. Either that or her teeth rotted out. | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 89 Registered: 5-2004 |
It was funny. Here at AU the past couple weeks there's been significant talk of changing benefit plans. We had a huge campus wide meeting regarding the topic, where the big wigs went through presentation after presentation showing us how our medical expenses had sky rocketed over the past 5 years...even above and beyond the national averages by a very large percent. One of the staff asked "wouldn't we expect to have lower health costs because of our health message...ie, we don't drink or smoke...why would our costs go up"? Luckily, as I was rolling my eyes and growning internally, one of the faculty from the social sciences dept made the comment that that was a little narrow minded...as the rest of the world stopped smoking 5 years ago. I wanted to high-five him. Not so much what he said, but how it cut the whole room to the chase. You could just hear the rumblings. What is it with these people? They think everyone not SDA, has little horns growing out of their head and spends each night passed out at the local bar. Since leaving, we've met so many just christians who are so much more health concious than the majority of SDA's... Loneviking...I love your poke to SDA's on the health message. Sometimes you just get tired of reasoning with them (because there is none most of the time) and it's great to say something that they just can't answer too  | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 602 Registered: 7-2003 |
I read an article by a former SDA who was also an MD. He said if the stats on life expectancy were adjusted for smoking and drinking, they would be about even with the general population. He said when compared to Mormons, who also strictly abstain from such things, their life expectancies are the same. When i gave these "facts" to B, he said the MD was a liar. I also read an article in Time a few months back on world-wide centurians because B had historically said they were usually vegetarians (which I knew was a lie since my great aunt had lived to be 103 and they raised pork for sausage...so I'm sure she ate it regularly). Anyway, this article actually challenged SDA claims that vegetarianism increased longevity. They noted that most of the centurians were not vegetarians, and some were boasting of their love of chocolate, which gave me great pleasure that perhaps my favorite food group has not caused premature demise afterall. I can just never get around the verse that says people who teach others to abstain from foods are teaching doctrines of demons.... 1 Tim 4. And if you read Genesis 9, you have to see God gave meat to eat as freely as he gave plants. Who am I to replace my "knowledge" over Gods? It just seems awfully dangerous to me. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1168 Registered: 11-2002 |
I would like to see a study of SDA's compared to Lutherans. Or, SDA's compared to Nazarenes. Or, SDA's compared to Methodists, or Prespertarians. If they pick only one denomination, their own, then why not compare it to only one more denomination? That is what would make sense to me. And, what about exercise? I have never heard from a SDA with any authority (preacher, teacher, editor of magazine, etc.) any encouragment for the folks to get out and pump iron, or walk several miles per day, run, jog or join the local gym. And, of course since EGW said not to ride bicycles that excellant form of exercise is out. At the Lutheran church where I attend we have what is referred to at St John's Health Ministry. Here is what it is; the chucrh lets AA meet in it's social hall weekly, several times per year the mobil blood bank van comes to the church and gets our blood after the Sunday service, we have a Christ centered weight loss program that hld its meetings weekly at the church which is very successful, there are some other things that I can't recall right now. I just don't think SDA's are as a group any more healthy than their Christian ounterparts. Go into any SDA church and lookaround. You'll see a lot of pale sickly looking people. But, maybe the look is not from their physical condition but rathr from the spiritual condition. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1016 Registered: 12-2003 |
I think you've hit the truth there, Susan--"Maybe the look is not from their physical condition but rather from the spiritual condition." Have you ever noticed how much you can tell about a person's spirit/heart from their eyes? I've also heard the same thing about adjusting for drinking and smoking, Melissa. Adventists fare no better than Mormons or the general public that doesn't smoke/drink. And Loveviking, I absolutely believe that down deep, at the core of things, your assessment of the Adventist health message is true. Since Adventists do not believe they have a real, viable spirit that survives the body,then all they have is their body. Their body, then becomes the only means they have of knowing God (through the mind) or of functioning in any way. If they lose their body, they lose their life and their meaning. They MUST preserve the body or they die! Praise God for raising our spirits to life! Colleen |
