Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

bob_2 · 02-05-09 4:43 pm

On another forum our dear Maggie stated: there's no 'give' in SDA doctrines Is that an accurate atatement. When I was active in the SDA church, I taught a Sabbath School class, we discussed a wide range of topics, and lots of times left the issue open with a number of differing opinions on the topic. One prominent top once was about wedding rings, and what the finger through the band meant in the mind of this one lady. I felt like telling her, even if it represented what she said, the finger a phallic symbol and the ring the female anatomy, during marriage that does happy, or should in a healthy conjugal situation. DAH!! Anyway, my experience was, even as a Head Deacon, the Board is usually Ultra Conservative to Conservative because 15 pews back it started to get pretty liberal, in function.

don · 02-06-09 5:42 am

Is that an accurate statement? I think in theoretical terms, all is open for reconsideration. In practical terms, the basic gist of the doctrines are quite unchangeable but the wording and logic used to support the "gist" are flexible. Also, in areas undefined as doctrine, the church is quite open, even vulnerable. Our official doctrines, the 28, represent quite a narrow range of interest compared to modern areas of contemplation and action. .

bob · 02-06-09 12:18 pm

Just as long as you are a faithful tithe payer the church over looks much. Paying tithe is even a qualifier for the prestigious jobs. Bob

lijhakim · 02-09-09 1:30 am

Pilate asked a cogent question: "What IS truth?" He did not wait for an answer, but the TRUTH stood right before him. We focus too much on doctrine. It is important. God is never honored by error, even "innocent error." One doctrine must begin and end in Jesus Christ, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Having said all this, let me make a proposal: Each one of us holds in our minds a concept of reality (truth). The framework of this concept is founded on clear Bible texts, observations, and experience. But there are still gaps. To complete the picture we must use logic, conjecture, and speculation. None of this is wrong. The only problem is that we often cannot tell the difference between what is proved and what is speculation. Hubb

maggie · 02-09-09 2:01 am

The only problem is that we often cannot tell the difference between what is proved and what is speculation. Can you please give me an example of something that is "proved." I'm only asking for one. Meant friendly. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>

elaine · 02-09-09 10:33 am

I'll ditto Maggs request: Please supply an example of something that has been proved (not to you, but objectively).

elaine · 02-09-09 10:34 am

If we are to "prove all things" how is that applied?

lijhakim · 02-09-09 12:27 pm

To me the Bible proves many things. But I think you were asking for something else. So to be elementary: There is life on this earth. Proved by observation. Water runs down hill. A real problem if it just sloshed around everywhere. Gravity holds things down. Helps organize my stuff. The sun shines. Makes it easy to see things. There is food to eat to support life. This is just a beginning. You asked for just ONE thing! Disappointed? You gotta admit that these are very important things. Would you want it different? Hubb

john8verse32 · 02-09-09 2:39 pm

one of the top ten "truths" Water runs down hill another proposed "truth" the Old Test says that after the "flood", the waters went down. sounds logical so how did this happen? <a href="http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/archeosm/en/fr-cosqu1.htm" target=_top>http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/archeosm/en/fr-cosqu 1.htm</a> and how might it affect our understanding of "truth"???? (Message edited by john8verse32 on February 09, 2009)

bob_2 · 02-09-09 4:24 pm

Question, why are Evolutionists and Creationist not debating your perennial question about Cosquer's Cavern? Ever asked that question?

john8verse32 · 02-09-09 5:30 pm

maybe because some peoples minds are already made up and they don't want to be confused with facts?

bob_2 · 02-09-09 5:36 pm

An aweful lot of people fitting into that catagory of not using it as a major Darwinistic argument.

john8verse32 · 02-09-09 8:20 pm

Cosquers Cave is not presented as, nor is it necessarily an argument for evolution.... but it IS PROOF that the oceans have come UP...not gone down... in the last 10- 20,000 yrs or so, contrary to what one version of "truth" has been presented to us for a long time. the extended time frame, and the waters coming "UP" (instead of "going down") are two of the issues here relative to what one believes about "truth". and that relates to whether or not long cherished SDA doctrine is able to be "updated" to new information when necessary, without admitting that cherished dogma needs to be "adjusted". Hope reigns eternal, but how many years did it take the Mother Church to stop killing people who believed the sun revolved around the earth? Good news: unlike those who are still hanging on to 6th century beliefs, often handed down from 2000 yr old ideas, who want to kill you if you disagree....at least those whose science has graduated to the 16th century do not try to kill disbelievers directly....they magnanimously simply threaten dismemberment now, and leave it up to their God to kill them later, painfully, and while alive....and worse: after showing them where they went wrong!!! is that the part you dont like" Maggie and I reminding everybody of this conundrum? how a "loving God", our "heavenly father", could just burn us alive for not being able to choose between Ussher's 6kyr chronology, and Cosquers cave?? between Noah's flood "going down", and NOAA's charts showing oceans "coming up"? Maybe there are more than a few doctrines that many suggest should be reviewed for both fairness, decency, philosophical justification, as well as scientific accuracy (alignment with God's Book of Rocks} not to mention "truthiness". but either way, Bob,,,,,we love you..here's a pat on the back to thank you for keeping your mind open to change. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/482.gif" alt=""> (Message edited by john8verse32 on February 09, 2009)

elaine · 02-09-09 10:37 pm

There is life on this earth. Proved by observation. Water runs down hill. A real problem if it just sloshed around everywhere. Gravity holds things down. Helps organize my stuff. The sun shines. Makes it easy to see things. There is food to eat to support life. All these things really need no "proof" unless one is blind, deaf and dumb. All of them are self-evident. Those that are NOT self-evident, should they require proof? If so, what would it be? That there is a god cannot be proved; that there is an earth with plants, people, etc., needs no proof. That it was created in six days is NOT self-evident. Such things are based on faith in a tradition that began long before we were born. This is not ridiculing anyone's belief; but is is based on faith, not objective evidence accepted by everyone universally. Faith and facts operate in different spheres and faith is not subject to investigation as are facts. People own their own opinions; they do not own the facts.

lijhakim · 02-10-09 12:58 pm

Hey, Elaine, I think you finally got it! God does not "prove" anything. He offers evidence. And there is a big difference there. The Bible is purposely written to offer evidence to those who wish to believe, but leave room for doubt for those who wish to doubt. See Hebrews 4:12. A beautiful way for God to preserve free will. ------------------------- Hubert F. Sturges .

george · 02-10-09 3:52 pm

Hubb, Isn't "evidence" what leads to "proofs"? I guess what you're saying is that we declare our faith right from the get-go and then find the evidence FOR the faith and ignore evidence AGAINST it. But I have to ask, FAITH in what, or, in HOW MUCH? When I figured out that the Christian religion, as such, is the product of man-made beliefs organized into a system of beliefs by the council of Nicaea, and all this at the request of Constantine who simply wanted to settle the unrest that all the contrary ideas were causing, which is called political expediency, I determined to go back as far as possible to dig out what Jesus was all about, but without input from all these difference factions. That's no easy job. The problem is that when you call for belief based on evidence you are actually calling for faith in the systems that produced the story. I suppose you would say that God watched over the process and it all turned out the way it should. Except, we don't all accept everything that went down back then and so we do have to make choices after all - choices in what to believe. Personally, I believe we choose to believe or not based on our background and upbringing, as well as our life history. It's all very personal and I have confidence that God takes all that into consideration when all is said and done.

john8verse32 · 02-10-09 7:36 pm

God does not "prove" anything. He offers evidence. so, of what does this said-to-be-innerrant event provide "evidence"?? 2 Samuel 6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him 1 Chronicles 13:9 And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Childon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him. is this evidence of a loving, heavenly father? killing a guy who only tried to help, while the neighbors who had taken the ark were only afflicted with hemmoroids or boils...not killed. or is this evidence of an ancient peoples interesting stories, not always remembered correctly, but told and retold until finally written down with a moral behind the story: OBEY!!! or die!!

elaine · 02-10-09 8:56 pm

Hubb, that has been my belief for a number of years, since I began studying the history of Christianity. Sirje has reminded us that all religions are man-made and that Christianity is no exception. There are hundreds of different Christian religious groups, all differing in some, or many respects. Men have decided the rules, rituals, and the interpretation of the Bible. No one reads the Bible without interpreting while he reads. Studying the history of all the Bible, both the Hebrew and Christian portions, and those that were once incorporated (apocrypha) in the original Septuagint, but were eliminated centuries later. Both Jesus and the NT writers used the apocrypha. Was it "inspired" and if so, it was part of the Scripture which was declared in the NT to be inspired. One must make a choice to have faith in God, the Bible, and choose a religion based on his belief system. That there are other religions with equal appeal is largely based on one's heritage; what he was taught (the Bible as sacred and inspired) or the Koran as the most important sacred book. We forget that one's birth has far more reason for our beliefs than an other one thing. Most people never ask questions of their religious belief but merely accept what they were taught and seek to reinforce and augment those beliefs without checking on the origin. All religions give comfort and hope to people, otherwise, they would no longer be practiced. Death was the origin of all religions: an explantion offered for what happpened after death and what and where was the afterlife. Christianity is no different in that respect. It offers either Hell or Heaven for those who have died; even the Egyptians, more than three millennia ago, had a definite hope for an afterlife.

bob_2 · 02-11-09 1:00 am

Sorry, Elaine the subjectivity of Secular Humanism in this day and age of computers, internet, etc, there is no excuse to espouse some of the more violent religions that impose on the rest of humanity. You are speaking academically. I was taught one way, but went another, and I believe others can also, inspite of what you are espouseing here. You underestimate man's curiosity and desire for truth.

roca · 02-11-09 12:50 pm

Elaine wrote: Death was the origin of all religions: an explantion offered for what happpened after death and what and where was the afterlife. Christianity is no different in that respect. I don't know that that is right. You could just as easily say life is the origin of all religions, because that was the purpose of all the religions, trying to explain life. The reason I don't think death works in the above statement is that the Jewish religion originally had nothing to say about life after death. It was in no way a part of their religion. I think all religions are largely man-made and just like everything man makes there is a range of useful and un-useful, good and bad. So it is not surprising that some religions fall into the bad category and that even a bad category religion could also have some good aspects just as a good category religion could have some bad aspects. However one may interpret the actions of God in trying to direct a religion it always seems to hit a problem when it encounters people. Either in interpretation or action. But I do think that people are intelligent enough to strive for a reasonable religion that builds people up and seeks the best. But just as in the political world seeking the best may not be an agreed upon method. So people have to be willing to debate the issues and the pros and cons.

elaine · 02-11-09 7:14 pm

While it is true that the Hebrews did not believe in an afterlife, there were cultures long before them who did believe and their burial customs reflect that belief. Christians often forget that, while they came out of Judaism, it was NOT the only religion at that time, and it was a relatively small one, also. Even the earliest Bible characters were not Hebrew, only so claimed by later writers, nor were they monotheists, but polytheists, or henothesists.

roca · 02-11-09 9:11 pm

Your statement said all religions.

bob_2 · 02-11-09 9:31 pm

Elaine, texts please, or at least EGW quote, please????

elaine · 02-11-09 10:09 pm

Ron, at the time the Bible covered, there was no "religion" but a group of people who were not called Jews initially. They were an ethnic group that claimed to be chosen by their god. Even most of this world's history they have been better known as a specific ethnicity, not by their religious beliefs as the majority are secular and non-practicing any religion.

elaine · 02-11-09 10:30 pm

Bob, it may be difficult to read undocumented opinions, but that is what most people do, you also give your undocumented opinion many times. The knowledge one has learned over many years' time and study cannot be documented as it is the combined years of studying that adds to the information one has. I have hundreds of books that I have ready access to, and dozens I have read. All these and more have given me an understanding when I write. To document them would be similar to asking a physician to "document" the information he has when he diagnoses and offers treatment: Hundreds, even thousands of bits of information accumulate to reach a diagnosis. There are no easy answers--which is what you seem to be requesting.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 02-05-09 4:43 pm

Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#2 02-06-09 5:42 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#3 02-06-09 12:18 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#4 02-09-09 1:30 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#5 02-09-09 2:01 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#6 02-09-09 10:33 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#7 02-09-09 10:34 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#8 02-09-09 12:27 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#9 02-09-09 2:39 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#10 02-09-09 4:24 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#11 02-09-09 5:30 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#12 02-09-09 5:36 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#13 02-09-09 8:20 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#14 02-09-09 10:37 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#15 02-10-09 12:58 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#16 02-10-09 3:52 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#17 02-10-09 7:36 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#18 02-10-09 8:56 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#19 02-11-09 1:00 am

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#20 02-11-09 12:50 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#21 02-11-09 7:14 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#22 02-11-09 9:11 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#23 02-11-09 9:31 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#24 02-11-09 10:09 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

#25 02-11-09 10:30 pm

Re: Is There Any Give in Adventist Doctrine?

Board footer