| Author |
Message |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 312
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |     |
It seems that as long as you don't publicly disclose issues with Ellen White, and have some Sabbatarian tilt in your theology, you have de facto SDA ministerial credentials.
I'm dying to know why Hanegraaf won't (at least publicly) look the SDA issues in the face. Maybe this is why?!
Great work Chris! |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 456
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:01 pm: | |
Armstrongism may not be murderous (well...they do prohibit medical care, right?), but the cult certainly could be part of the reason for someone's depression and suicidal problems, etc.
Jeremy |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 737
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:16 pm: | |
To be fair, I probably should have linked the David Neff article on the Sabbath so you could decide for yourself what he is or isn't promoting. Here's the link to "Fallow Time: The Sabbath Can Protect Us From The Temptations of Wealth"
Chris |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 340
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:07 pm: | |
Last week Sylvia and I listened to Hank Hanegraaff answering a question from a caller about the SDA view of the weekly Sabbath being changed to Sunday. Hank did a great job in answering the caller's question. He cited several historical sources and ended by saying that the Adventist stance is just plain "historical revisionism." Maybe there is hope for Hank after all. :>)
Dennis J. Fischer |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 313
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:35 am: | |
Dennis, that sounds more hopeful than some of the soft shoe responses I have heard Hank give. He has a large audience, and SDA questions are not uncommon. I pray he begins consistently calling the SDA theology into question on his radio show soon. |
Praisegod
Registered user
Username: Praisegod
Post Number: 266
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 12:38 pm: | |
I was listening about one week ago and a man called in wanting to know why we don't keep the health laws and the Sabbath. It seems that SDAs must be targeting questioning because he often is pretty wimpy on dealing with the SDA worldview.
Anyway, Hank totally ignored even answering the Sabbath question but went on the attack about the food. He asked the guy, "Do you know what our Lord had to say about food?"
The man tried talking about the levitical laws, then the sheet vision etc and Hank kept saying, "No, what did our Lord himself say when he was on earth?" Finally the guy had to admit he didn't know. Hank told him to find out and then call him back!
Praise God...
|
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 741
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 12:50 pm: | |
Interestingly enough, while Hank will say that Christians aren't bound to food laws, I have heard him say that he personlly chooses not to eat many of the things considered to be unclean for health reasons.
I think it's quite difficult to prove that the distinctions of clean vs. unclean were given to Israel for health reasons. It seems evident, in context, that these distinctions were ceremonial, shadows of the work Christ would do.
It seems to me that many Christians in certain theological camps are just looking for reasons to apply Old Covenant law to New Covenant Christians under the guise of "principles". I think this is especially pronounced in reformed and puritain circles, both of which believe there is only one covenant and the law applies to Christians, just in slightly different ways than it once did.
Chris |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 285
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 8:33 pm: | |
A messianic jew, ap physician was on Christian t.v.
He had actually done a study on the unclean" foods and if they were worst to eat than something else.
It was interesting.. like shrimp eat junk off of other animals or something.. Anyway, I loooove shrimp but that did gross me out until the next time we hit the Cheesecake Factory where I promptly ordered the Shrimp Bistro pasta. (I digress)
He regularly acknowledged that all foods were free to us, but that there's nothing wrong with being concious about what we eat.
I just thought it was an interesting study of why the "unclean" foods would be bad for our health.. Which is different from saying they are unclean, so don't eat them.
Wasn't suprised that it was a Believing Jewish doc though! That part seemed about right.. : ) |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 742
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:36 am: | |
Yes, I am aware that some people say that unclean foods might have been unhealthy because of this or that. The problem is, it's all speculation. It's not stated in scripture and it's not supported by any peer reviewed research.
It cannot be shown that eating moderate amounts of pork has a deleterious health effect when compared to eating moderate amounts of beef. Nor can anyone point to long term health problems related to the moderate consumption of sea food. It's just not backed up by good science.
It's really a case of well intentioned people looking for a practicle principle in something that was ceremonial. It's like claiming that the command to not wear clothes made of two different cloths was given because God was worried about the children of Israel getting rashes. I suppose that's possible, but if the Bible doesn't say it, and science doesn't back it up, why try to make it into a principle for Christians to follow? Perhaps we should look for the symbolic meaning that God intended instead.
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on March 21, 2005) |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 288
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:09 am: | |
true. |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 238
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:40 am: | |
I've heard it said that in bible times, one would need to kill and cook seafood immediately, and eat at once, throwing away any remainder, in order to be certain you did not get some type of food poisoning. Seafood must be kept very cold or it will begin th break down almost immediately.
As for pork, it needs to be cooked very well, and modern ovens do that very well. Cooking methods in bible times were less efficient at eliminating trichanosis (sp?).
May have been God was making certain that the health of the individuals was protected. As for cloth being woven of two different sources, God was merely saying in every way possible that you cannot mix man-made religion with the divine.
Belva |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 748
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:10 am: | |
Belva, my point is, the ideas about food laws being based on health priciples are mere speculation. That's not what the Bible says and these same laws are mixed in with a number of other ceremonial distinctions that obviously couldn't have had anything to do with health. Why would anyone accept that the cloth command was purely symbolic, but not see the exact same type of imagery in the idea of not touching or eating anything that is ceremonially "unclean"? *ALL* of these laws were to be a symbolic illustration of the distinction between the holy and the profane. They *ALL* illustrated how Israel was to be set apart as a holy people unto God. It's possible that there may have been some health aspects as a side effect to some of the rituals and laws Israel was given, but to assume that this was the primary purpose or that there is a principle to be applied to the NC in these ceremonial distinctions is just unsupportable in scripture.
Chris |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 134
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:38 am: | |
Some people do not accept that even the cloth command was only symbolic and go to great lengths to still follow it. I remember a family we gave some clothes to as a kid.
The wife went thru and chose out clothes based on reading the tag to see what they were made out of (no synthetics allowed and only 100% one or another natural fibres accepted), then the husband got a lighter to check the items which had no tags. By burning a few fibres from inside a seam they decided if those items were pure enough!
helovesme2 |
