| Author |
Message |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 114
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 11:33 am: |     |
wow. yes, well said. |
Pw
Registered user
Username: Pw
Post Number: 226
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
One poster (who is SDA) said that the church started off with some mistakes but are now getting a clearer picture. Is that crazy or what? If you start with a wrong doctrine how will it get any better? I replied that what will seem accurate today could possibly be changed again in the future, when will the SDA have it right? Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow...unlike the SDA belief system. |
Tracey
Registered user
Username: Tracey
Post Number: 115
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
I told C that there's a 28th coming.. He was ticked, I think for me searchnig and learning more than for the idea of "this fluid-- ever-changing teaching" but then he says he's non-denominational.. Then why get ticked off if you don't care. |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 490
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
Colleen, Without having heard what Halvorsen actually said, I'm not too hopeful about the statement that "the Pope is not the antiChrist". This approach was brought into vogue a few years ago, to the best of my knowledge by Dwight Nelson at PMC. Nelson would say, "I want to be clear about this, the anti-Christ isn't a person, it's not an organization, it's not any group of people. The anti-Christ is system that's against the true Gospel." This sounds like he's retreating from the SDA claim that the anti-Christ is the Pope, or Roman Catholocism, or Catholics in general. He is not. If you listen longer it gradually becomes apparent that the "system" he is talking about is Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. It's just a kinder gentler way of saying the same thing in code.
Chris |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
I agree, Chris. While I don't know exactly what Halvorsen said, I suspect it's what you said above. I've heard that same explanation, too.
I find these public "changes" to be extremely disturbing because they're masks to hide the reality that is still Adventism. The student who happily reported that Halvorsen had said the antichrist is NOT the pope, incidentally, is Catholic. She had been disturbed by Adventists telling her the pope WAS the antichrist. When she heard this evangelist say the opposite, she felt relieved.
It's a perfect illustration of the effect they're hoping to achieve. Deceive people so they don't feel put off by the doctrines, pull them in, then gradually reveal the core.
I'm coming to believe that a great many "converted" Adventists (as opposed to life-long Adventists) are really in the dark about what the church really is--especially if they haven't been in long and aren't particularly curious to study it.
Colleen |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 822
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 6:19 pm: | |
I have said before and will probably say it again, I did not know how deceptive the SDA church can be. I was raised to believe the RCC and the Pope were going to come after "us" some day and kill us. Because my Mom's family is all RCC and some are good Christians, I did not believe all the things said about the RCC. Until I got on this forum I did not know about some of the things the SDA church has done and is doing that are not fair, are deceptive and outright dishonest. Colleen, you are correct in saying new members to the SDA church are in the dark about what the church really believes.
I have to not worry about all that and remember that God is still in charge and that He is an awesome God.
Diana |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 7:31 pm: | |
Your words, "the fluidity of the SDA doctrines" is a great way to word it. That is the very same foundation that JW's get from the WT Society. The WT Society has its members convinced in it's "continuing revelation of truth". Which means that the leaders of the cult can change the doctrines and policies at any time and claim "new revelation" from Jehovah. What is very interesting to me in this topic is that the SDA church and the JW had the very same origions. They both stem from the Millerite Movement. There was two main groups. They couldn't agree on the date Jesus was to return. One group became the SDA, the other group became the JW. Both groups were wrong then and both groups have been wrong on most everything else that distuingushes them ever since. So, you want my opinion on these new fangled religions? It's this-give me that old time religion. O.K., I attend the Lutheran. It's only 600 years old but that's still way older than 160 years.
|
Bb
Registered user
Username: Bb
Post Number: 43
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
Isn't it eerie how similar JW and SDA are? Both have explained away their date setting as strange non-biblical phenomenons. We used the IJ and they say that God really did return, only in spirit. Neither of these theories can be proved so they continue on with their false doctrines. And did we steal the "no caffeine" from the mormons?
Today, a JW friend said he was going to go to his "end of the year deal" (translate that to Christmas party) and pick up his bonus check. I remember when we had a JW working at our office and the boss (Baptist woman) would hand the bonus check to the JW secretary and say "This is your CHRISTMAS present!" The lady would just take that check. Their elders have said it is o.k. for them to accept these "Christmas" bonuses. |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 9:42 pm: | |
My husband, whom I haven't seen in a year or heard from in 11 months because he left me for his true love, crack-well, he was raised JW. I couldn't have a cross in the house and I couldn't have my wall hanging of the Last Supper but he could sling crack. Some things I will never make sense of. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 171
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Susan,
That sounds like the drug dealer who wouldn't break the Sabbath.
The Mormons also keep changing their doctrines wiht each new "prophet" that gets selected to be President/Prophet of the "church"!
Jeremy |
Bb
Registered user
Username: Bb
Post Number: 44
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
What is wonderful is that the good old gospel of Jesus doesn't need the constant updates as in JW's, SDA's, and Mormons do. That thought just occurred to me! If they need to do that it should be a big red flag. Actually the SDA's don't have a new prophet every time the old ones die, so we were supposed to follow a decorum from the 1800's!!!!! I am thankful to have found my way out, and am free! I feel free to love Jesus without all the baggage! |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Yeah, Jeremy, I have a l-o-n-g history of hooking up with shady people. Honestly, though, the drug dealer who wouldn't sell drugs on Sabbath was a long time friend, our fmilies attended the same SDA church, he was never a "boyfriend", more of a mutual acquaintance. However, my husband, well I'll try to put it mildly, I was scammed-big time. When we were dating he was Mr. Congeinality, Mr. Gentleman all the way. I never saw him do illegial drugs until after we'd been married for several months. Then he would huff on his crack pipe just once in awhile, telling me it was just an occassional induldgence. Well, within a year I knew it was an all day every day idulgence. Then when he totaled my car from being under the influence and lied and told me he'd been taking care of the upkeep on the next car I got and I ended up having to spend many thousands of dollares on a new engine because the machanic said the car hadn't had an oil change in over a year, the same amount of time I'd had the car. So, I kept telling him we needed to go to counseling so one day he said he needed to go to his friends house and he left me stranded in a large city far away and I took the Greyghound home and that's the end of the story. However, I am many thousands and thousands more dollars in dept because of him and I doublt if I'll ever get out from under that. Please, keep this situtation in your prayers. |
Pw
Registered user
Username: Pw
Post Number: 227
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 6:40 am: | |
Bb...funny story about the Christmas check being accepted by the JW. Bottom line....money. I'm sure the "elders" said it was ok because they expected a nice cut from it.
Susan-2...sorry about your ordeal. It only makes it harder to trust someone in your life again. I pray all works out for you. However, don't be surprised if he turns up on your doorstep one day with a sob story, looking for another handout. Tell him to leave. |
Praisegod
Registered user
Username: Praisegod
Post Number: 219
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 2:30 pm: | |
Over at the forum at christianity.com things seemed to have sort of leveled off. The weirdest thing is that people who want to keep us under the law are getting so extreme that they are saying we must leave Paul out of the Bible, plus Hebrews. But then Luke is sort of suspect too because he wrote Acts. Anyway, I just don't want to spend a lot of time on that.
So I happened upon another site: http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion_list.asp?boardID=31530
This is the SDA debate forum on beliefnet. I've just looked it over very briefly but it doesn't look like they have many voicing a "formers" viewpoint. Anyone want to check it out?
Praise God... |
