I’m not sure it’s a good idea to love an ideology, which is what a set of religious doctrines add up to be. We may like, or even love the lifestyle an ideology leads to, or the people with which we associate. Too picky? Perhaps. I, too, have been in love with being part of an SDA college community at a time I especially needed security. But, being in love with an institution often leads to emotional adoration that excludes intellectual inquiry. So, can we be emotionally attached to the Adventist community; and, at the same time, intellectually separated from it? Many are.
3 Likes
You aren’t kidding George. The way they handled Mr. Ford, without any verifiable explanation for the IJ from the bible, was deplorable and disastrous for those paying attention.
7 Likes
If only there really were a commitment to following all available evidence wherever it leads…
Truth? Are you kidding? I HAD to leave the church in order to be honest. The young earth
notion is so anti-truth and counter to evidence that insistence on its verity kills all confidence
in the rest of the church dogma.
SDA’s reason for existing is to be RIGHT while everyone else is wrong. Fortunately (for the
church), some adventists are able to tolerate a lot of ambiguity and are content with living
in ignorance regarding the time scale of life on earth. There continue to be adventists who
recognize that some of the dogma is not true, but they have not been very successful in
persuading the institutional church to moderate its positions on such things as young
earth origins.
It is embarrassing to see that the AoG has a more enlightened and progressive stance
on this issue than the official SDA position.
6 Likes
That is not exactly the case. SDA exist, not to be RIGHT, but to warn the world of its soon end, and to try to sanve as many as possible. I am sorry you are bitter about some past dissolusionment. That others may be right or wrong of little consequence. That is between them and God. If we accept our orders, and are faithful, that is what really matters.
1 Like
Hi Joe, If there is actually a Creator wouldn’t that Creator be a part of natural reality, even if The Creator is uncreated?
For at least 3, maybe 4 Centuries European Observers, which included many Theologians of a number of European countries were observing Natural Phenomenon. They knew Latin, wrote in Latin so could converse with each other that way, and share their observations. And they were “finding” unusual things as well, putting them into collections.
These were observations and findings that “said things” different from the Bible. Seemed to indicate a longer time span than Ussher’s chronology. And, many of the Theologians were stumped as to what to make of them. Then in the early 1800 we had the Beagle Voyage. Things were sent back to England. Darwin make his observations in a notebook, but kept it at home in a drawer. It wasnt until 20 years later he felt compelled to share his notebooks with the world. He wasnt the first person to question the abundance of Variety of plants and animals. Then there was Mendel. Who showed that inside plant seeds there were Varieties of ways plants could be manipulated to make Varieties. We call that Genetics now.
America came late on the Scene. Nobody in America were conversing with the Europeans. No White people had been out West yet, looked over and saw the bones. By the time Americans met Darwin through his book in English, European intellectuals, observationists, explorers, collectors were discussing it for almost 200 years, both in and out of The Church.
When Ellen was writing, all she had was Ussher, and the time lines at the bottom of the Biblical pages. The early SDA fathers and mothers were not into “natural history”. Most were self taught to read and study. Books were limited due to their economic status. Living conditions prevented them from wasting time and money traveling, sight-seeing. And transportation accommodations were limited to horse and buggy [stagecoach]. And all this in a little sector of New England to begin. By the time of Darwin’s book, we were moving to Ohio, and Michigan areas. And the gold rush had been on, Walla Walla outpost established. But we were doing Bible School, and some Health Education.
So America was NOT in a position to Understand the 200 Year Old Conversation in Europe.
@GeorgeTichy-- Thanks. Ellen did have “visions” and described those. But those were all we SDAs had to go on. George Price finally became our intellectual and writer in the area of “Natural Phenomenon”. He was well thought of. Was well acquainted with William Jennings Bryan [it was said Bryan asked him for advice at the “Monkey Trial” in Dayton, TN, as George was on lecture tour in England at the time].
1 Like
Anything that contradicts Ellen White, will be rejected. The bottom line…at it’s core, Adventism is the church of EGW.
Sadly, recent and past history proves, that anyone who goes against her visions/teachings will be demonized and slandered. I don’t know how much clearer it can be.
7 Likes
Thank you, Darrel. I am committed, and have been for many years, to changing what I believe as new information comes to my attention. I hold knowledge gently, never grasping it so tightly that I would be devastated if it turned out not to be as I thought. I learn new things every day. My belief system is quite flexible, and I maintain an open mind. At least that’s what it looks like from in here (my “mind”).
I feel that one can only be aware of one’s own subjective experience. Anything about any other “mind” is an inference or is imaginary. Due to attentional restrictions and other factors, most of us do not really have a complete awareness of our own “minds,” let alone any other mind or Mind. Guessing that there is an over arching Mind without which nothing else exists seems to me to be a pretty big leap of faith. But, faith can apparently encompass much. And, I know that something that exists does not cease to exist if my “mind” cannot grasp it.
Ultimately, it seems to me (although I do not pretend to write the rules of the universe), that if an ultimate Creator/Mind exists, the Creator is responsible for me, not the other way around.
2 Likes
I have followed your conversation with @agingapes with intrigue and have learned a lot. I wonder why you would contend that “logic of non contradiction” is not biological when it is common knowledge in neurology and psychiatry that the mind is the product of the brain. No more and no less.
Would you please explain?
1 Like
The stupendous adoration of ignorance is not spirituality.
Lord, have mercy.
1 Like
Thanks for the effort to defend Adventism, Jason, but it seems germane to point out that people have professed to love lots of things–abusive spouses, intoxicating substances, immoral activities, etc.–that really aren’t good for them.
If nothing else, inertia causes some lovers to stay in destructive relationships long after they could or should realized that that their devotion is detrimental to their mental, physical and spiritual health.
I’m not doing an “altar call” here, or suggesting that it’s time for anyone to come out of the babbling-on that is organized religion unless they’re ready to do so but it seems to me that any person who’s truly seeking truth will eventually see that there is no truth to be found in words–no matter how supposedly holy and inspired they are claimed to be–and that worshipping words, or boldly adhering to any system of thought that can be expressed in symbols, basically amounts to so much idolatry.
Maybe this is overly Zen for anyone, right at this point in their journey, but trying to find what’s good and true in characters that are intended to represent something they aren’t–that is, words–is like confusing a menu for a meal, or eating a picture of a VegiBurger and wondering why he doesn’t feel “full”.
For my part, I slipped past the need for fundamentalism, in general, and gave up on Adventism, specifically, when it dawned on me that if God is “omni-anything”, He must have the power to communicate directly with any and all of His creations and on a personal level.
And it was only by unlearning the “truths” I’d learned in Sabbath School that I was able to relinquish my childish "knowing"and learn that the real problem I’d had in “hearing” those messages was that I’d been taught to expect that they would come in the form of written words and/or tangible thoughts expressed by those who claimed to have a more direct connection to God than was, or is, available to me.
But there’s a huge risk in trying to express any of this in words, so please don’t get me wrong.
What I’m saying is that this is exactly the opposite of insisting that I can hear The Voice of God, or speak for Him, given that any implication of verbal communication only tends to confuse and corrupt the process.
In other words (and yes, I know, I’ve used the word “word” too much, right?) I’m not saying God has not given me a message for anyone on the planet, and the reason I’m not saying that is not just because I know that saying so would put the new life I’ve come to enjoy in jeopardy, given humanity’s historical treatment of messengers.
Rather, my main concern is that I’ve been shown that any attempt at playing “Grapevine” with “The Words of God”, results in a message that is inherently untrue and basically anathema to the creator’s intent.
Instead, I would encourage you to watch and listen for yourself, as long as you’re not doing so only with your eyes and ears.
3 Likes