| Author | Message | ||
| Paulcross Registered user Username: Paulcross Post Number: 197 Registered: 4-2005 |
For me? Point #1 - The pervasive absence of skill in contextual Bible Study and little effort to engage in contextual Bible Study. What little is used of context is in the "safe" areas where there is little chance of encountering information that will challenge SDA doctrine. This is why SS Lessons that pretend to be about a book of the Bible "leap-frog" over large passages and rely on verses that hold the cliches and proof texts. For Example, SS Lesson studies in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians. Without context it is difficult -rather it is almost impossible to get the message of the Bible. Praise God for the work of the Spirit that cracks through my complacency with questions, insights and cognitive dissonance. It is as hard to play a recognizable tune on the piano if you have no fingers as it is to digest the message of the Bible without reading and studying it in context. You can make a noise but where is the tune? This is a big one for me. Still struggling to read and listen to the Spirit. Paul Cross | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 455 Registered: 5-2009  |
This thread is outstanding. Thanks for dissecting the barriers in this way. | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 457 Registered: 5-2009 |
I have a couple of thoughts to add. I agree with your assessment that SO MUCH SDA theology is based on speculation and adding meaning to the text. What makes it particularly dangerous is that every Adventist (okay, 98% of them) speculate in the exact same way. They think their answers are completely independent thoughts and the obvious, logical conclusion that anyone reading a particular passage would come to. For example, the story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4 and Hebrews 11). Adventist insert into the text that God told both to bring an animal sacrifice (that pointed to the crucifixion) but Cain disobeyed and brought whatever he wanted and that's why God rejected his offering. Then they go on to say that this is an example of how we can't just worship on any day, we must worship on the Sabbath. *sigh* I encourage you to read the story and notice what it actually says. The indoctrination is so pervasive that individual members think that these thoughts are their own. The other thing I wanted to add is that Adventist studies (Amazing Facts takes the gold medal for this) rely on faulty logic to make their points. Wiredog has made mention of this in the past. Here are some common ones (from wikipedia): Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[14] Equivocation: the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)[16] Etymological fallacy: which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[19] Fallacy of division: assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts[21] False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy): two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[22] If-by-whiskey: an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive. Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. False attribution: an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[25] Historian's fallacy: occurs one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[28] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.) Kettle logic: using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position. Mind Projection Fallacy: when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is. Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy): when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation): submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. Psychologist's fallacy: an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event Red herring: a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.[32] | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12642 Registered: 12-2003  |
Oh, Cloudwatcher, you have totally hit it on the head. It is ALL of these tactics that make me want to scream and pull on my hair when encountering SDA arguments. Doug Batchelor is a master of these. Their entire construct is founded on straw-man arguments, bad logic, subtle manipulation, and sleight-of-hand. Unless you know what is actually true, you're powerless against their fast-and-furious verbiage. For example, here's an email I just got today. It sounds exactly like dozens of other emails I've received; the arguments are the same, the "logic" is the same...the points and sequences are the same...and where on earth does one step in and expose the false assumptions? You have to go underneath the words they say and build an entire case from the ground up in order to begin to show that the deeply-believed argument is entirely fallacy:
Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1050 Registered: 7-2004  |
When will people realize that the problem with SDA theology isn't just some legalism mixed into their teachings. I swear that the SDA church promotes this fallacy to hide the truth. Ther teachings are based on a false prophet, not the Bible. Their gospel is a false gospel, that is no gospel at all. They teach, like it or not, that Satan is ultimately the one who bears their sins. They venerate a day that was a shadow, and largely ignore the One to Whom the shadow pointed. They have a view of God incompatible with Scripture, a god who could have sinned, a god who could lose a battle with a created being, a god who was taken by surprise when man sinned, a god who is a three being committe rather than truly One. Their Jesus is an essential equal to Satan (for example they are represented as two identical goats, they are both archangels). A little legalism could be overlooked and forgiven, while still knowing they are Christian to the core (take for instance some of our more radical Baptist siblings who can place too much emphasis on lists of rules-they don't have these glaring anti-truths scattered throughout their theology. And please, save the flames, I know there are legalism pockets in every group. Among Lutherans they are called "dark Lutherans". There are just so many more Baptists, that more of us have probably come across a rules-focused Baptist. Absolutely no offense is meant. It is just an example that hopefully people have seen and can relate). | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12645 Registered: 12-2003 |
That's a big "AMEN" from my corner, Rick. Colleen | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1578 Registered: 11-2007  |
Love this thread. My recent observation - which is fully outlined here - SDAs are terrified of the Bible on its own. A very devout relative of mine has an sda study bible, ss quarterly, and another devotional/journal type book all in the daily reading time. The truth is constantly hazed by the reinterpretations. If there is one thing my heart aches for is to have my sda family read the Word on its own with an honest, seeking heart. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2834 Registered: 8-2004  |
Amen!! | ||
| Grace1958_f Registered user Username: Grace1958_f Post Number: 56 Registered: 3-2011 |
In re to 8thday post #1578 "If there is one thing my heart aches for is to have my sda family read the Word on its own with an honest, seeking heart." My husband and I identify with your heart's ache as we have that same hearts desire for my husband's SDA son & DIL. We challenged them to try studying the bible alone without EGW teachings. They said they could not put aside her teachings because they firmly believe EGW was divinely inspired of God. *Deep sigh* If they could only see the truth. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1786 Registered: 3-2009 |
Looking at Ric post 1050 I get the idea that for us little people who are not as verse as a lot of you, it wold be so nice if a list similar to that one could be put together. Like a table with left side SDA believes,and right side, Bible believes. I think that would be a fantastic project where one could refer to when one wants to compare SDA VS Bible. Hec | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 466 Registered: 5-2009 |
Ric, I just found a good example to your "speculation" theory above: It's a quote from "Seventh-day Adventists Believe": “As Adam and Eve’s loyalty was tested by the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil placed in the midst of the Garden of Eden, so every human being’s loyalty to God will be tested by the Sabath command placed in the midst of the Decalogue. Scripture reveals that before the Second Advent the whole world will be divided into two classes: those who are loyal and “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” and those who worship “the beast and his image” (Rev. 14:12, 9). At the time God’s truth will be magnified before the world, and it will be clear to all that the obedient observance of the seventh-day Sabbath of Scripture gives evidence of loyalty to the Creator.” | ||
| Treasurehntr Registered user Username: Treasurehntr Post Number: 103 Registered: 7-2007 |
Every barrier described makes Adventism look less and less like a protestant denomination. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12661 Registered: 12-2003 |
Just about every Adventist argument I encounter is based on a straw-man, a false assumption that's assumed and stated as a universal truth. It makes it very hard to argue because, as Rick has shown, it's speculative, and they can argue that their assumption is as good as mine...and they insist that anyone else's understanding of Scripture is as subjective as is theirs. Past discussions with my in-laws have demonstrated this frustrating reality many times. We would quote a very clear Bible text (such as Mark 7:19 where it says, "Thus He declared all foods clean") and they'll say, "That's you're interpretation." (Because, you know, unclean meats are not food.) End of discussion... Colleen | ||
| Jdpascal Registered user Username: Jdpascal Post Number: 281 Registered: 10-2003 |
If unclean meats are not food, why did the SDA food industry create WAM and stripples and all the other substitutes for the 'unclean'? Just askin'..... | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 468 Registered: 5-2009 |
good question, Jdpascal. Why create food to mimic non-food? | ||
| 1john2v27nlt Registered user Username: 1john2v27nlt Post Number: 299 Registered: 5-2009 |
Always a counterfeit - so there is counterfeit meat. . . . as my mom used to refer to veggie meats: "Image to the beast" | ||
| Jdpascal Registered user Username: Jdpascal Post Number: 282 Registered: 10-2003 |
Another question.... How many unclean foods are there that aren't meat as in 'flesh foods'? How does WAM and Stripples and frychik and linkettes fit in with the 'back to Eden' movement?? (Message edited by jdpascal on June 05, 2011) | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1929 Registered: 7-2007 |
That fake meat sure seems to make people grumpy! Back when I was an SDA at the Redwood camp meeting, they had an Adventist Book Center set up, selling the fake meat and books. When I went inside, it was full of customers who had the most unhappy looks on their faces. Even as an Adventist, I wondered how they could be SO unhappy when Jesus was coming back soon and all of Ellen White predictions would be coming to pass! We were at camp meeting after all, and I was delighted to be there! I did wonder why a camping space in the sun should cost 60 or 70 dollars for 9 nights (I think that's what it cost for out-of-state-ers back 15 or so years ago) and why the books and fake meat were so expensive, but even that didn't give me cognitive dissonance. (The cognitive dissonance didn't happen until after a Christian friend had fasted and prayed for me for awhile and then pointed out some verses in the Bible about Michael the archangel, particularly the verse in Daniel 10:13 that says that Michael is one of the chief princes. It wasn't until then that I was even willing to even look in the Bible and see whether or not Adventism was true or not. Then I was shocked to learn that Jesus HADN'T waited until 1844 to go into the Most Holy Place in Heaven! (Hebrews 6:19-20; Hebrews 9:12,25; Hebrews 10:12) And then I learned that Jesus brought in a whole new covenant (Hebrews 9:15-17) and that the first one became obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). And I learned that the covenant from Sinai was just for Israel (Deuteronomy 5:2,3) and that it was the Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 4:13; Exodus 34:28, and others). | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 584 Registered: 4-2007 |
like the Sabbath, Wham, Stripples, frychik and linkettes were created at the very beginning. It's the perfect diet that we will be eating in heaven, without the indigestion and bloating. We'll also have pet whogs | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1930 Registered: 7-2007 |
Actually I like frychik and Stripples, although bacon tastes a lot better than Stripples! |
