Seventh Day Adventists

[atypican]

I am visiting some Christian family members who are Seventh Day
Adventists.

What do you think of this Christian Sect? How does their doctrine
differ from the one you accept?

[atypican]

I bet most here would like: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/sc/sc.asp#13

[e_space]

not into religion, but would never be interested in any organization
which has so many rules that demand acceptance of unsupportable
beliefs, such as the following question "do you accept by
faith ..." answer ... ummm no

the following "vows" [oddly presented as questions] are scarey to
me ...

"The 13 baptismal vows are:

"1. Do you believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and
in the Holy Spirit?
2. Do you accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as the
atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and believe that through faith
in His shed blood men are saved from sin and its penalty?
3. Renouncing the world and its sinful ways, have you accepted
Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour, and do you believe that God,
for Christ's sake, has forgiven your sins and given you a new heart?
4: Do you accept by faith the righteousness of Christ, recognizing
Him as your Intercessor in the heavenly sanctuary, and do you claim
His promise to strengthen you by His indwelling Spirit, so that you
may receive power to do His will?
5. Do you believe that the Bible is God's inspired word, and that
it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian?
6. Do you accept the Ten Commandments as still binding upon
Christians; and is it your purpose, by the power of the indwelling
Christ, to keep this law, including the fourth commandment, which
requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath
of the Lord?
7. Is the soon coming of Jesus the blessed hope in your heart, and
are you determined to be personally ready to meet the Lord, and to do
all in your power to witness to His loving salvation, and by life and
word to help others to be ready for His glorious appearing?
8. Do you accept the Biblical teaching of spiritual gifts, and do
you believe that the gift of prophecy in the remnant church is one of
the identifying marks of that church?
9. Do you believe in church organization, and is it your purpose
to support the church by your tithes and offerings, your personal
effort, and influence?
10. Do you believe that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit
and that you are to honor God by caring for your body, avoiding the
use of that which is harmful, abstaining from all unclean foods, from
the use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages, the use,
manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human
consumption, and from the misuse of, or trafficking in, narcotics or
other drugs?
11. Knowing and understanding the fundamental Bible principles as
taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is it your purpose, by the
grace of God, to order your life in harmony with these principles?
12. Do you accept the New Testament teaching of baptism by
immersion, and do you desire to be so baptized as a public expression
of your faith in Christ and in the forgiveness of your sins?
13. Do you believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the
remnant church of Bible prophecy, and that people of every nation,
race, and l"

[SM]

Like e_space, I'm "not into religion", but I consider the list above to be theologically sound.  I think that their primary distinctive is an emphasis on the importance of the Sabbath, which is also theologically sound.

Coincidentally, about three or four weeks ago I heard for the first time about Ellen G. White and have since been reading with curiosity some writings about her life.  I consider the following statement necessary and am pleased to have seen it articulated on their site: 

“The writings of Ellen White are not a substitute for Scripture. They cannot be placed on the same level. The Holy Scriptures stand alone, the unique standard by which her and all other writings must be judged and to which they must be subject”

[SM]

I think this a helpful commentary as well: http://www.gotquestions.org/Seventh-Day-Adventism.html

[ornamentalmind]

David, in response to your topic, I’ve known and lived among Seventh
Day Adventists in the past. Overall, I found the group I knew quite
agreeable as people.

Now to your questions:

I am not conversant enough with their full doctrine to comment much
about their doctrine or as you ask, “this Christian sect.” However, I
will say that those who embrace full vegetarianism knowingly or
otherwise are doing the world a great favor.

As an aside, having eaten most of the Worthington food line decades
ago, they were instrumental in producing a very healthy product as a
meat alternative and, in my view, most of the line was quite tasty
too.

Also, I’ll say that a ‘simple life’ practice if fully embraced is
quite alright and may even be healthier than other excesses in many
ways.

As to the sect’s origins in the Millerite movement, like similar
beliefs that continue to today, it seems clear to me that they are
based on confusion and a lack of clarity.

I’ll skip to your 2nd question… the one about how their doctrine
differs from mine.

First, it can be argued that the use of the term ‘doctrine’ contains a
hidden agenda if one has a problem with adhering to any set of
beliefs. Leaving this epistemological and philosophical question
aside, I’ll simply say that the majority of theological beliefs within
SDA (and most other sects for that matter) seem to be at once
personified as well as being a projection of mind itself without the
understanding thereof. This is a major difference between such ways of
the book and the way of knowledge. Of course there are similarities
too.

[e_space]

wow, you dont drink, smoke, do drugs, or eat "unclean" food? i got the
distinct impression [could be wrong], that one of those "special
plants" you were referring to that you and your friend "enjoyed" was
mary jane ... no?

do you believe that to fully accept Christ, your full body has to be
immersed in water? does this mean that you cannot be baptized in the
dessert unless you find an oasis with lots of water in it? ...

do you believe that it is a "purpose" to support the church with
tithe? do you give 10% of your salary to the church? if so, do you do
so gladly, or because you are told to?

isnt theology the study of religion, not the doctrine? i dont see any
theology in the 13 vows, i see specific rules

On May 20, 10:23 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> site<http://www.whiteestate.org/>
> :

[SM]

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:08 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

wow, you dont drink, smoke, do drugs, or eat "unclean" food? i got the
distinct impression [could be wrong], that one of those "special
plants" you were referring to that you and your friend "enjoyed" was
mary jane ... no?

do you believe that to fully accept Christ, your full body has to be
immersed in water? does this mean that you cannot be baptized in the
dessert unless you find an oasis with lots of water in it? ...

do you believe that it is a "purpose" to support the church with
tithe? do you give 10% of your salary to the church? if so, do you do
so gladly, or because you are told to?

isnt theology the study of religion, not the doctrine? i dont see any
theology in the 13 vows, i see specific rules

atyp's question wasn't about my personal habits - it was a request for comments regarding perception of the SDA.  My comment was that the list (which I think you provided) was theologically sound (i.e., generally consistent with the guidelines of Scripture).

[e_space]

sorry ... i was sure you were a religious person, and concerned with
following the scriptures ... my mistake

On May 20, 5:15 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On May 20, 2011, at 19:48, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> sorry ... i was sure you were a religious person, and concerned with
> following the scriptures ... my mistake

Indeed it is your mistake...I've lost count how many times I've informed you that I have no interest in pursuing 'religion'.

[Brock Organ]

e_space,

Watching SM interact with you I've concluded he is really a patient
and kind poster. A real gem of an online poster, and friendly. One
could profitably interact with a gentle person like that. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Joe]

SM, do you go to church on Sundays, or on Saturdays?

On May 20, 10:23 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> site<http://www.whiteestate.org/>
> :

[Joe]

On May 20, 4:11 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll answer as a Catholic, who has encountered representatives of the
SDA "church," and who has investigated their doctrines, comparing them
with the Scriptures from which they purport to derive those doctrines.

This group gave me trouble in mind for a time. Their principal
doctrine appears to be that me and folks like me are going to hell.
They themselves, naturally, want to go to heaven, so they assure
themselves of this by being not like me. In particular, the way that
they have chosen to be not like me, and that matters to God the most,
is to not hold themselves to an obligation to go to Church on Sunday,
but in contrast, to hold themselves to an obligation to go to Church
on Saturday. That is why they call themselves, "Seventh-Day
Adventists." Because Saturday is the seventh day of the week, and not
the first, and all those who will be in heaven, according to them, set
aside the seventh day of the week and not the first, as the day of
worship. Setting aside the first day of the week, as Christians
throughout the world do, is the accepting of the Mark of the Beast,
which guarantees that one will be cast into the Lake of Fire.
(Revelation 14)

Basically, they teach the way to salvation is to avoid at all costs,
being Catholic. And Protestants in general, because they have
accepted Sunday worship, are just as bad as the Catholics, and a
equally hellbound. Sunday worship is the Mark of the Beast, and all
who do not renounce it and worship on Saturday as they do will be in
hell.

I solemnly affirm that I am not making any of this up, and am willing
to cites sources if challenged.

[e_space]

could you point out where i suggested you were "pursuing religion"?
could you point out the countless times youve said you werent?

would you care to comment on the second part of my comment, about
following the scriptures?

On May 20, 8:56 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

well brock, i suggest that you try picking up a few of his traits, and
then you may have more luck attracting people who enjoy conversing
with you? right now, he seems to be the only one who even comes close
to exchanging "patient and kind" comments with you ... have you
noticed that? even the patient and kind atyp and orn dont really seem
to have the time of day for you ... is this what you classify as a
profitable interaction? if you relied on a profitable interaction with
your readers for a living, youd be looking for a new job, wouldnt
you?

btw, i dont think im especially mean, in fact, i dont think im mean at
all ... i just question people on factual sounding claims that they
cannot support [you know, the ones that you dodge or ignore?] ... if
you have a problem with that, i suggest you stop making them, or
clarify that you are speaking from belief, not knowledge ...

On May 20, 11:22 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:56 PM, 14SM.jcil <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

from my perspective, a person doesnt need to set foot inside a church
to be a good christian ... those are man made directives ... did jesus
have a church? did he only gather his followers on sunday, or did he
do so on any given day? the multitude of man made rules that the
christian hierarchy enforces, is often what drives people from the
church ... especially when they see that these admonishers dont always
follow their own rules ...

[14SM.jcil]

Thanks for the kind words, Brock! I am humbled that you would so assess.

I recall a time when e_space himself was able to make a similar statement (almost verbatim!) by virtue of objective observation as well. :)

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 1:45, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> SM, do you go to church on Sundays, or on Saturdays?

Sometimes both. Why do you ask?

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 3:34, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> could you point out where i suggested you were "pursuing religion"?
> could you point out the countless times youve said you werent?
>
> would you care to comment on the second part of my comment, about
> following the scriptures?

Given up so soon on your commitment to substantive discussion (or was your earlier post really a ploy to divert attention from the exposure of your application of double standards?)?

How about making an effort to acknowledge my perspective? I've never insisted that you 'agree' with anything I say, but it does demonstrate respect for others when you acknowledge what they claim to believe, and the explicit statements that they make.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 3:50, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> from my perspective, a person doesnt need to set foot inside a church
> to be a good christian ... those are man made directives ... did jesus
> have a church? did he only gather his followers on sunday, or did he
> do so on any given day? the multitude of man made rules that the
> christian hierarchy enforces, is often what drives people from the
> church ... especially when they see that these admonishers dont always
> follow their own rules ...

I agree. However, we fool only ourselves if we consider that we don't need and benefit from worshipping alongside other believers. God values relationships and our fullest experience of existence necessarily includes the interaction and harmony of relating with others who are similarly in right standing with our Creator.

[e_space]

oh dont be so sensitive ... im just asking a few questions ... if you
dont feel like answering them, just ignore them as you have in the
past ... no big deal

On May 21, 7:55 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 2011, at 23:22, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:56 PM, 14SM.jcil <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

what perspective are you talking about? please try to be a bit more
explicit in your charges, such as the "double standards" claim ... or
substantiating your comment that i said you were "pursuing religion",
or that you have told me "countless times" that you werent? if you are
going to make these types of statements, i suggest you at least show
one example ...

how can one have substantive discussions when one does not respond to
questions about claims the other is making? ... anyway, how about
reflecting on my question about following scripture? do you feel you
follow scripture ... if not, why not?

On May 21, 8:13 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

please dont tell me what God values ... these are the type of belief
statements that you have NO way of knowing or verifying ... and are,
in reality, repeating what you have been told ... they are the type of
claims that elicit my pointed commentary [you know, the ones that you
claim are uncivil?] ...

imo, you fool yourself in your belief that you need to worship
anything ... from my viewpoint, if god created man, then man is part
of god ... the more one feels separate from god, the more they may
feel that something is superior, or worthy of worship, subservience,
etc.

to me its like love ... in the case of humans, one can claim to love
another, but unless it is shared love, the purity and value of the
love pales in significance ... in other words, instead of loving god
as a separate entity, love "it" "him" "her" or whatever because you
are part of it, not apart from it ...

On May 21, 8:22 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 10:12, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> what perspective are you talking about? please try to be a bit more
> explicit in your charges, such as the "double standards" claim ... or
> substantiating your comment that i said you were "pursuing religion",
> or that you have told me "countless times" that you werent? if you are
> going to make these types of statements, i suggest you at least show
> one example ...

<sigh>

> how can one have substantive discussions when one does not respond to
> questions about claims the other is making?

If I have missed a substantive question that you've asked, it was inadvertent. Please ask it again. I maintain my willingness to serve you.

> ... anyway, how about
> reflecting on my question about following scripture? do you feel you
> follow scripture ... if not, why not?

You asked a question whether I 'follow Scripture'? I'm not sure that I know the context or meaning of what you're asking, but since I've repeatedly expressed how I believe that the Bible is a reliable source for truth and God's revelation to mankind, I would think that the answer to your question would be axiomatic. But, as I said, perhaps there's a nuance or context inherent in your question that's not readily apparent.

[SM]

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:36 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

please dont tell me what God values ... these are the type of belief
statements that you have NO way of knowing or verifying ... and are,
in reality, repeating what you have been told ... they are the type of
claims that elicit my pointed commentary [you know, the ones that you
claim are uncivil?] ...

I consider that your inability to entertain the beliefs and perspectives of Christianity (in my observation, it's only the beliefs which are based on the Bible, no matter how they're stated, that seem to incite your rancor) to be curiously revealing.

Finding yourself at a loss to challenge the substance of such assertions (since you've recently indicated your desire to set aside childish comment and focus on 'substantive discussions', if you could substantively challenge them you no doubt would), you exhibit an apparent uncontrollable urge to continually register your disagreement (as if we don't already know where you stand!).

I enthusiastically welcome any substantive thoughts you'd like to provide in response to the many reasons I've provided (let's start with the list I posted several weeks ago) for my confidence in the reliability of the Bible.  I expect that you disagree with my reasons but I've yet to hear a substantive argument against any of them.

This is a debate forum where people intentionally express ideas of belief.  I welcome your substantive participation and arguments in response to the ideas I (and others) assert.  If you cannot do so (either from unwillingness or inability), then you're nothing more than a distraction from the good dialogue.  You'd do better to just watch those who can.

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 3:44 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Watching SM interact with you I've concluded he is really a patient
>> and kind poster.  A real gem of an online poster, and friendly.  One
>> could profitably interact with a gentle person like that. :)
>

> well brock, i suggest that you try picking up a few of his traits

Yes, you do suggest. And I hope that I can and do: SM is a resource
worthy of good treatment. Of course, if your comment is good for me,
I hope you would consider it to be good for yourself also. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Joe]

It has relevance to the thread. Do you understand what the SDA's
teach?

Which day do you consider yourself obliged to go to church? On which
day must you go to church to avoid breaking the Third Commandment, or
Fourth according to your numbering?

According to SDA, that is the key to everything. It is less important
that you do good to other people, and more important that you worship
on the right day of the week. Another example of what happens when
people use the Bible to invent their own religions.

[e_space]

echo sigh ... i dont keep every comment i make at the forefront of my
mind, but usually have a pretty good recollection of what i have
said ... i dont ever recall saying that you were "pursuing
religion" ... if you are going to make the claim that i said that
numerous occasions [since you cant count the number of times you have
refuted it], then please show me where i have said it, just once ...
if you cant, then i will presume you are mistaken, confused or
lying ...

another echo sigh ... to repeat, you said "the list (which I think you

provided) was theologically sound (i.e., generally consistent with the

guidelines of Scripture)." ... in reference to the admonitions of the
SDA ... i followed, with the "wow, you dont smoke, drink ... etc"
remark ... to which you replied "atyp's question wasn't about my
personal habits" ... but my question WAS ... do you follow the
admonitions that you have determined to be "generally consistent with
the guidelines of Scripture"? yes or no? its a simple, straight
forward, clear and precise question ... im not sure why you are having
such a tough time answering it ...

On May 21, 11:04 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

i consider your opinion that i dont have the "ability to entertain the
beliefs and perspectives of Christianity" to be a highly misguided
conclusion, stated in pure ignorance of the facts ... actually, i have
considered them for MANY years ... i was raised in such a religious
environment that i called my father "God on Earth" ... our house might
as well have been a church ... we read scriptures at every meal,
listened to ongoing prayers, went to church 3 times a week, followed
by endless lectures on the subject ... you have NO idea of my
religious past, yet here you are making unfounded comments, presumably
because you find my disagreement with your religious assessment to be
an insult to that which you worship and are subservient to ...

i also consider your opinion that my posts are made with rancor to be
a highly misguided conclusion ... in fact, i know they are ...
actually, your post seems much more full of rancor than mine ... i am
not angry, vengeful, witch-hunting, or have any other negative feeling
when i type them ... i simply disagree with your beliefs, and the way
you present them as fact ... not sure why you have such a hard time
when i question your beliefs, but that seems to be the nature of the
beast when unfounded statements of "truth" are challenged ...

how can i "substantially challenge" something that contains no
substance? ... you have not responded to my questions of your
factually stated beliefs with anything worth sinking my teeth into ...
if, as you say, "i welcome your substantive participation and
arguments in response to the ideas I (and others) assert.", then why
do i have to repeat my questions that you support the factual claims
you (and others) are making?

what good dialogue are you talking about? i must have missed it ...
can you point out one good conversation you have had with anybody that
disagrees with your claims of belief? actually, id REALLY love to
"watch" one ... ;-^)

On May 21, 11:31 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:36 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > please dont tell me what God values ... these are the type of belief
> > statements that you have NO way of knowing or verifying ... and are,
> > in reality, repeating what you have been told ... they are the type of
> > claims that elicit my pointed commentary [you know, the ones that you
> > claim are uncivil?] ...
>
> I consider that your inability to entertain the beliefs and perspectives of
> Christianity (in my observation, it's only the beliefs which are based on
> the Bible, no matter how they're stated, that seem to incite your rancor) to
> be curiously revealing.
>
> Finding yourself at a loss to challenge the substance of such assertions
> (since you've recently indicated your desire to set aside childish comment

> and focus on 'substantive discussions', if you *could* substantively
> challenge them you no doubt *would*), you exhibit an apparent uncontrollable

> urge to continually register your disagreement (as if we don't already know
> where you stand!).
>
> I enthusiastically welcome any substantive thoughts you'd like to provide in
> response to the many reasons I've provided (let's start with the list I
> posted several weeks ago) for my confidence in the reliability of the Bible.
>  I expect that you disagree with my reasons but I've yet to hear a
> substantive argument against any of them.
>

> This is a debate forum where people intentionally express ideas of *belief*.

[e_space]

worry about your own commentary brockie ... thats a good boy ;-^)

On May 21, 12:11 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 14:29, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which day do you consider yourself obliged to go to church? On which
> day must you go to church to avoid breaking the Third Commandment, or
> Fourth according to your numbering?

I'm convinced that God is more interested in the attitudes and intentions of our heart than in any specific overt action (which can contribute to one's mistaken perception of obedience while their heart lacks faith, conviction, and sincerity). Man looks at the outside while God looks at the heart. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

I respect the SDA's conviction about Saturdays, and I'm confident that God finds pleasure in their obedience to what they believe is required of them.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 16:25, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

echo sigh ... i dont keep every comment i make at the forefront of my
mind, but usually have a pretty good recollection of what i have
said ... i dont ever recall saying that you were "pursuing
religion" ... if you are going to make the claim that i said that
numerous occasions [since you cant count the number of times you have
refuted it], then please show me where i have said it, just once ...
if you cant, then i will presume you are mistaken, confused or
lying ...

e_space: "...i was sure you were a religious person..."

No need for presumption...especially those which reveal the contempt you have for those who believe differently from you.  You're treated better than you treat others.

another echo sigh ... to repeat, you said "the list (which I think you
provided) was theologically sound (i.e., generally consistent with the
guidelines of Scripture)." ... in reference to the admonitions of the
SDA ... i followed, with the "wow, you dont smoke, drink ... etc"
remark ... to which you replied "atyp's question wasn't about my
personal habits" ... but my question WAS ... do you follow the
admonitions that you have determined to be "generally consistent with
the guidelines of Scripture"? yes or no? its a simple, straight
forward, clear and precise question ... im not sure why you are having
such a tough time answering it ...

The difficulty I have sometimes is in understanding what you're asking.  Once your question has been made clear, I haven't ever had difficulty providing you with answer.

The answer to your question above is: "By God's grace I do so to the best of my ability."

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 16:45, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i consider your opinion that i dont have the "ability to entertain the
> beliefs and perspectives of Christianity" to be a highly misguided
> conclusion, stated in pure ignorance of the facts ... actually, i have
> considered them for MANY years ... i was raised in such a religious
> environment that i called my father "God on Earth" ... our house might
> as well have been a church ... we read scriptures at every meal,
> listened to ongoing prayers, went to church 3 times a week, followed
> by endless lectures on the subject ... you have NO idea of my
> religious past, yet here you are making unfounded comments, presumably
> because you find my disagreement with your religious assessment to be
> an insult to that which you worship and are subservient to ...

My observation was specifically about your actions in this forum (and not about your personal experience with a "religious environment"). You repeatedly show an inability to give respect and recognition to the Biblically based perspectives of others...in this forum.

> i also consider your opinion that my posts are made with rancor to be
> a highly misguided conclusion

I think I've demonstrated otherwise on several occasions, as have those who have felt the need to moderate you.

> ... in fact, i know they are ...
> actually, your post seems much more full of rancor than mine ... i am
> not angry, vengeful, witch-hunting, or have any other negative feeling
> when i type them ... i simply disagree with your beliefs, and the way
> you present them as fact ... not sure why you have such a hard time
> when i question your beliefs, but that seems to be the nature of the
> beast when unfounded statements of "truth" are challenged ...

One can and should be able disagree without attempting to suppress the free expression of those ideas with which they disagree.

You'd be hard pressed to find evidence where I've had a "hard time" when you actually provide me with a question about my beliefs. I've been repeatedly requesting that you do that very thing!

> how can i "substantially challenge" something that contains no
> substance?

If don't understand or perceive the substance ask questions to gain understanding.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 16:47, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> worry about your own commentary brockie ... thats a good boy ;-^)

Every other participant in this forum treats you better than you treat them in return. There is no reason at all for you to be so contemptuous.

You conduct yourself like a sad, small-minded, petulant child, Al. I truly feel sorry for you. That is not what God had in mind for you when he numbered your days before your birth.

[Joe]

Sure, man. Same with devout Buddhists.

Are you really saying that conviction counts for more than truth?

According to SDA, I am definitely going to hell, because I've already
investigated their teachings and flat-out rejected them. According to
them, I have bowed down and worshiped the Beast and accepted his mark
on my forehead or my right hand, all because I hold that God's Church
has the authority to make Sunday the Christian Sabbath.

They lead as many as they can away from the true Faith, and thus away
from salvation. But that's O.K., as long as they're sincere?

Did Jesus say, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
free," or did He rather say, "you shall obey what you believe, and
your obedience to what you believe shall set you free?"

[14SM.jcil]

On May 21, 2011, at 19:13, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you really saying that conviction counts for more than truth?

Of course not. We've already established that we're talking about Christians, and the specific distinctive of a Saturday Sabbath.

> According to SDA, I am definitely going to hell, because I've already
> investigated their teachings and flat-out rejected them. According to
> them, I have bowed down and worshiped the Beast and accepted his mark
> on my forehead or my right hand, all because I hold that God's Church
> has the authority to make Sunday the Christian Sabbath.

Yeah, so what? You're not answerable to them...what's your reason for concern about their perspective of you?

> They lead as many as they can away from the true Faith, and thus away
> from salvation.

I don't perceive that this is the case, at least not based on the few statements of faith that I saw articulated.

>

[e_space]

another collection of misguided assumptions, almost anticipated at
this stage ... i have no contempt for anyone, let alone you ... how
does your mind come to these silly conclusions? ... you sure are a
sensitive one arent you?

first of all, i dont live under a belief system, so that leaves me
either a whole lot of people to feel contempt for, or none ... for
your information, the latter is accurate ... contempt is the about the
furthest emotion that EVER crosses my mind ...

if asking you to verify you statements of "truth", is contemptuous, so
be it ... like i have said on numerous occasions, if you dont want
your beliefs questioned, dont state them as fact ... very simple
really ... claiming that asking these pointed questions is
contemptuous, is akin to a judge charging a prosecution lawyer with
contempt of court, for asking the defense to substantiate the claims
of innocence of their client ... doesnt make much sense to me, but i
do realize how terribly sensitive you are ...

let me get this straight, stating that "i was sure you were a
religious person" is being contemptuous? or your mind somehow comes to
the conclusion that this question indicates that i am saying that you
are "pursuing religion"? can you describe how your thought process
fumbled the math on this equation?

your vague, yet telling, answer that "By God's grace I do so to the
best of my ability" indicates to me that there are a number of things
that scripture dictates, that you dont follow ... is that the case?
are you having a hard time saying so?

if your moral code [or the one you prescribe to] was in the hands of
"God's grace", you would not have such a hard time adhering to it,
would you? why do you think that God has anything to do with your
ability, desire, or vigor to live within the moral code that you have
adopted?

i ask questions because some of your claims, and statements of belief,
dont make sense to me ... if you are so offended by these questions, i
suggest that you stick to making statements of fact based on
knowledge, not belief ... if you think that all statements that
question your belief are contemptuous, you probably shouldnt post
here ...

btw, could you post a statement of mine that you consider
contemptuous? just so i know the kind of comment that you are reacting
so strongly to?

On May 21, 6:26 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

regarding the inane charge that "You repeatedly show an inability to

give respect and recognition to the Biblically based perspectives of

others" ... first of all, giving respect is not an ability, its a
judgement of merit ... respect has no option to be given, because it
is an emotion, something that is felt ... it is not doled out because
it is anticipated or expected ...

respect is something that is earned and, although your biblical
perspectives are recognized [i recognize them, because i read them?],
they are not accepted as "truth" simply because you make them ... its
not that i dont respect your beliefs, but respecting the fact that you
hold them, does not preclude that i should question them, does it?
like ive said several billion times [yawn], dont state your beliefs as
fact, and i wont question you on them ... do you understand this
simple condition?

i was put on moderation because i ask pointed questions, not because i
have rancor ... i was removed from moderation because i really wasnt
breaking any rules of conduct in the first place ... i shoot straight
and dont hide my intent behind a coating of sugar that you and brock
used to employ, but which has long since worn off ... i am not making
statements that you have any "inability", that your comments are full
of rancor, etc etc etc ... it seems to me that you are using a lot
more adjectives than i am ... i am simply asking questions that you
dont like, and have a hard time answering, and thus you are responding
like the proverbial rat in the corner ...

do you recognize that you very often say, "if you have a specific
question, why not ask it" in an attempt to avoid the very clear
questions i have already asked? that ploy is getting kinda tiring ...

On May 21, 6:40 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

lol ... how cute ... do i call you contemptuous? small-minded?
petulant? sad? etc etc etc? ... if i did, i would sure provide
examples of it ... in my honest opinion, you are the one flipping
adjectives like big macs at the corner of main and front street ...
and i am simply asking you to support your claims ... maybe the come
out as petulant because i have to keep repeating them due to your lack
of a meaningful response?

instead of your incessant whining about how i treat you so badly, why
dont you offer an example of how your sensitivities are being abused?
you know, give me an indication of what is SO terrible about my
comments, that elicits this type of ongoing whimpering?

again, it is your belief that God somehow had a plan for me, and had
"he" numbered my days before birth ... to me, that concept is just
silly and childish ... and has no bearing in fact, science, or any
reasonable thought ...

On May 21, 6:47 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

As I point out for you regularly, it is you who finds satisfaction with the use of assumption (recall that I've pointed out to you on several occasions that your assumptions have led you to erroneous conclusions). I'm beginning to see that the default defense mechanism that you employ when you're directly confronted by your poor conduct is to make baseless accusations (i.e., 'you make statements of fact', 'you avoid my questions', etc)...in an effort to shift the focus away from your indefensibly poor treatment of others.

Based on other insights you've provided, your approach is understandable and as I said in my last post, I truly have compassion and empathy for you. You erroneously perceive my comments (and those of others) as an attack on you, when in actuality it's an effort to benefit you.

The following picture came to mind recently as a means to illustrate this dynamic:
A dog with a wounded leg, cowering in the corner, snarling, growling, and snapping at all of those who approach to assist it. The abuse he received as a puppy makes him unable to perceive the assistance he receives as anything but a source of more pain and threat.

After several months of observation of your interaction with participants, almost invariably this dynamic has been manifest. People will inevitably fail you in some way, this is unavoidable, but your preemptive effort to protect yourself from that inevitable event actually inhibits the opportunity to experience the goodwill that others more naturally intend for you.

Go back and look at some of the initial interactions you've had with various participants over the past many months. Invariably, it was an initial comment that was misunderstood or inappropriately personalized in a way that objective observation can see was not intended as you perceived and provided a reaction to.

For sure, it's difficult to trust people, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that the confidence that comes from an authentic relationship with our Creator makes it possible to do so...indeed possible to do all those things that we desire to do, but are otherwise daunted by.

I don't know how to express my willingness to serve you in such a way that I think you'd be receptive to, nevertheless I offer it as best I can.

Best to you.

[Joe]

On May 21, 8:12 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 2011, at 19:13, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you really saying that conviction counts for more than truth?
>
> Of course not.  We've already established that we're talking about Christians, and the specific distinctive of a Saturday Sabbath.
>
> > According to SDA, I am definitely going to hell, because I've already
> > investigated their teachings and flat-out rejected them.  According to
> > them, I have bowed down and worshiped the Beast and accepted his mark
> > on my forehead or my right hand, all because I hold that God's Church
> > has the authority to make Sunday the Christian Sabbath.
>
> Yeah, so what?  You're not answerable to them...what's your reason for concern about their perspective of you?
>

Anti-Church is Anti-Christ. They keep themselves away from the
truth. I know you don't hold the Church to be God's vehicle of His
Truth, but I, and the Scriptures, do.

> > They lead as many as they can away from the true Faith, and thus away
> > from salvation.  
>
> I don't perceive that this is the case, at least not based on the few statements of faith that I saw articulated.

That is because you don't consider the true Faith to be articulated by
those commissioned to preach the Gospel, the Apostles and their
successors. You believe that God gave us not a Church but a Book
only, and that anyone may read that book and decide for themselves
what it is commanding them. The SDA read it and decide for themselves
that God commands them to reject the authority of God's Church. Much
as you do, I suppose, but they take it a step further and actually
proclaim God's Church to be the Beast of Revelation.

The effect of that on them, is to keep them away from God's Church. I
know you believe the Church to be somehow "invisible" rather than the
City set on the hill that it is, so you don't think it's a big deal,
but I perceive that salvation is in the Church, not outside. Jesus
did not idly found His Church; He founded her, to teach the nations
the Truth. And SDA works against that.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 22, 2011, at 14:48, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>> According to SDA, I am definitely going to hell, because I've already
>>> investigated their teachings and flat-out rejected them. According to
>>> them, I have bowed down and worshiped the Beast and accepted his mark
>>> on my forehead or my right hand, all because I hold that God's Church
>>> has the authority to make Sunday the Christian Sabbath.
>>
>> Yeah, so what? You're not answerable to them...what's your reason for concern about their perspective of you?
>>
>
> Anti-Church is Anti-Christ. They keep themselves away from the
> truth. I know you don't hold the Church to be God's vehicle of His
> Truth, but I, and the Scriptures, do.

You [unintentionally] misrepresent my view. Look back at my dialogue with you a few weeks ago and be reminded that I indeed consider that God's grace is expressed through the RCC. Where we *might* differ is that I believe God's grace and truth is expressed through other means as well.

>
>>> They lead as many as they can away from the true Faith, and thus away
>>> from salvation.
>>
>> I don't perceive that this is the case, at least not based on the few statements of faith that I saw articulated.
>
> That is because you don't consider the true Faith to be articulated by
> those commissioned to preach the Gospel, the Apostles and their
> successors. You believe that God gave us not a Church but a Book
> only, and that anyone may read that book and decide for themselves
> what it is commanding them. The SDA read it and decide for themselves
> that God commands them to reject the authority of God's Church. Much
> as you do, I suppose, but they take it a step further and actually
> proclaim God's Church to be the Beast of Revelation.

Ok, I concur with the distinction that you're making, but think that both of you (the SDA and the RCC) err in your respective claims of exclusivity over Truth. I rather believe that, at best, each of us (both individually and as a part of any specific corporate group) understand in part, and that it's presumptuous and arrogant for any of us to consider otherwise.

[e_space]

you may have pointed your opinion of things out to me ... but that
doesnt make them accurate ... after all, the many assumptions that you
have posted in the last several comments are a prime indication that
your ability to come to coherent conclusions is quite spotty, to say
the least ... you also have this strong propensity to make blanket
accusations without offering any examples of what you are talking
about, as you have done, yet again -------->

for example, where have i indicated that i thought you were attacking
me? and even if you were, so what? you have no capacity to hurt, or
even bother me ... actually, id enjoy it a hell of a lot more if you
stood up like a man and addressed the issues you are being presented
with for a change, without all the whimpering ...

regarding my "poor conduct" ... hey, im not the one calling others on
their ability, or lack thereof ... actually, you seem to be using more
and more negative adjectives to describe me as time goes by, arent
you? it seems you have reverted to name calling as a way of dealing
with [or should i say, avoiding] issues ... yet you are calling me on
my attitude? hmmm ... doesnt add up kiddo

other than that ... i notice again [yawn] that you are fully avoiding
directly answering the questions i am asking you ... your ploy may
work, as i am growing quite weary of playing dodge ball ... now, if
you were to throw something back on occasion, conversing with you may
be at least a tad interesting ... as it is, it seems your main purpose
in posting to me is to moan and groan ... quite uninspiring from my
perspective ...

On May 22, 2:22 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Joe]

On May 22, 4:13 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 2011, at 14:48, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> According to SDA, I am definitely going to hell, because I've already
> >>> investigated their teachings and flat-out rejected them.  According to
> >>> them, I have bowed down and worshiped the Beast and accepted his mark
> >>> on my forehead or my right hand, all because I hold that God's Church
> >>> has the authority to make Sunday the Christian Sabbath.
>
> >> Yeah, so what?  You're not answerable to them...what's your reason for concern about their perspective of you?
>
> > Anti-Church is Anti-Christ.  They keep themselves away from the
> > truth.  I know you don't hold the Church to be God's vehicle of His
> > Truth, but I, and the Scriptures, do.
>
> You [unintentionally] misrepresent my view.  Look back at my dialogue with you a few weeks ago and be reminded that I indeed consider that God's grace is expressed through the RCC.  Where we *might* differ is that I believe God's grace and truth is expressed through other means as well.
>

As do I. And I am glad to see you say so. While I hold that there
are many, many expressions of grace and truth in this world, the
Church holds a special place in that she is *authorized* to teach the
fullness of the truth, and to freely dispense all the graces necessary
for salvation. It is specifically on this question of *authority,*
that we differ. And also with the SDA. They hold that the Popes
usurped the authority of God, that is their main beef with
Catholicism. I, by contrast, believe that all authority was invested
in the Popes, in the words of Our Lord,

Matthew 16:18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock
I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. 19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound
also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven.

Essentially, the entire conflict between RC and SDA can be summed up
thus: Catholics believe that Our Lord, in those words to Saint Peter,
gave him and his successors the power of binding and loosing, so that
it extends even so far as to proclaim Sunday the Christian Sabbath.
Adventists believe that in changing the day of obligation, the Popes
overstepped their authority. The question comes down to this: is the
authority of the Popes mere human authority, or does it come from God?

>
>
> >>> They lead as many as they can away from the true Faith, and thus away
> >>> from salvation.  
>
> >> I don't perceive that this is the case, at least not based on the few statements of faith that I saw articulated.
>
> > That is because you don't consider the true Faith to be articulated by
> > those commissioned to preach the Gospel, the Apostles and their
> > successors.  You believe that God gave us not a Church but a Book
> > only, and that anyone may read that book and decide for themselves
> > what it is commanding them.  The SDA read it and decide for themselves
> > that God commands them to reject the authority of God's Church.  Much
> > as you do, I suppose, but they take it a step further and actually
> > proclaim God's Church to be the Beast of Revelation.
>
> Ok, I concur with the distinction that you're making, but think that both of you (the SDA and the RCC) err in your respective claims of exclusivity over Truth.  I rather believe that, at best, each of us (both individually and as a part of any specific corporate group) understand in part, and that it's presumptuous and arrogant for any of us to consider otherwise.

You are placing the two groups on an equal footing, which goes again
to the question of authority. Did Christ, in fact, give His Apostles,
and in particular Saint Peter, authority over the whole Church, or
not? If He did, then the Catholic Church has a claim that the SDA
can't have. We have the unbroken Apostolic Succession, and they do
not. Does that count for anything, or not?

You are not only a Protestant but --- correct me if I'm wrong --- an
American. In America more than any place else, the ideal of liberty
is exalted. Americans in particular are extremely distrustful of any
authority. But the entire history of God's interaction with His
People as chronicled in the Bible is the continual assertion of
authority by God, and the continual rebellion against that authority
by His People. It began as long ago as the Garden of Eden. Adam and
Eve were commanded to respect God's Authority in deciding what was
right and wrong, and in return, they could live carefree, without any
thought of good and evil. Again with Moses, he had authority from
God, and Core, Dathan, and Abiron rebelled against his authority. God
made the earth open up and swallow them alive. See Numbers 16.

Look at the whole history of heresies in the Church, all the way up to
the Reformation, and then look at the Reformation. You will see that
it is entirely the history of the Church asserting her authority over
those who were rebellious against it. If you know some of the history
of the Reformation itself, then you should also know that one key
reason it succeeded in leading whole nations to rebel against Church
authority was because of Martin Luther's familiarity with and
exploitation of the very new invention, the printing press.

The question is, is the God of Saint Peter the same God as the God of
Moses, and the God of Adam, and does the authority of the Church thus
derive from that selfsame God, or not?

[e_space]

self *authorization* is a form of dictatorship, which of course, is
what your religion is ... they claimed squatters rights to
christianity, granted themselves *infallibility*, dictate what rules
"must" be followed, and have complete control over the sheep that they
rule with an iron fist ... just like other despots, they live in
unimaginable mansions, while admonishing their adherents to give up
their riches, and follow their directives ... to me, this sounds a lot
like some current news from iraq, syria, north korea, etc ...

it would seem reasonable to me, that if such a benevolent god exists,
that "he", "she" or "it" would not care what name people worshiped
under, what rituals they conducted, how much of their salary they
donated, etc. ... your premise that the RC is the true and only
church, with the only true god, is highly biased, self-produced and
worthless in the eyes of reason ...

[SM]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

As do I.  

I thought you might (although I consider that some of your judgements/conclusions/statements are a bit harsh for someone who holds such a view), and I'm glad we agree on this.

 

And I am glad to see you say so.  While I hold that there
are many, many expressions of grace and truth in this world, the
Church holds a special place in that she is *authorized* to teach the
fullness of the truth, and to freely dispense all the graces necessary
for salvation.  It is specifically on this question of *authority,*
that we differ.  And also with the SDA.  They hold that the Popes
usurped the authority of God, that is their main beef with
Catholicism.  I, by contrast, believe that all authority was invested
in the Popes, in the words of Our Lord,

Matthew 16:18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock
I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. 19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound
also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven.

Essentially, the entire conflict between RC and SDA can be summed up
thus: Catholics believe that Our Lord, in those words to Saint Peter,
gave him and his successors the power of binding and loosing, so that
it extends even so far as to proclaim Sunday the Christian Sabbath.
Adventists believe that in changing the day of obligation, the Popes
overstepped their authority.  The question comes down to this: is the
authority of the Popes mere human authority, or does it come from God?

I concur with your assessment.  Since I don't think the answer to this question is crucial to the understanding and acceptance of God's plan of salvation as articulated clearly in Scripture, I consider that this issue and the many that result from it are secondary issues.  As I've said to you recently, focusing on the secondary issues introduces unnecessary division and discord.

[e_space]

lol ... it seems that you think everyone's "judgements/conclusions/
statements are a bit harsh" ... yet here you are name-calling and
making false accusations based on nothing more than your misguided
conclusion making skills, or should i say, lack thereof ... heres a
suggestion, put on a pair of pants and speak your mind ... never know,
ya may like it ;-^)

[SM]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:27 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

lol ... it seems that you think everyone's "judgements/conclusions/
statements are a bit harsh" ... yet here you are name-calling and
making false accusations based on nothing more than your misguided
conclusion making skills, or should i say, lack thereof ... heres a
suggestion, put on a pair of pants and speak your mind ... never know,
ya may like it ;-^)

<chuckle> 

[e_space]

nice one brock ;-^)

On May 23, 11:29 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

nice one brock  ;-^)

 

> <chuckle>

[Joe]

Reason is a common false god among you atheists.

[Joe]

On May 23, 10:28 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fair enough. Although I am disappointed that a topic so relevant to
"A Civil Religious Debate"is kind of off limits for you, I understand
and respect your reasons why.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 23, 2011, at 22:12, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Reason is a common false god among you atheists.

I don't think e_space chooses to self-identify as an 'atheist', so that moniker may not be applicable, but in my observation of his posts you're right on target with his reliance on the false god of 'reason' and 'proven facts' as an avoidance mechanism.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 23, 2011, at 22:15, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. Although I am disappointed that a topic so relevant to
> "A Civil Religious Debate"is kind of off limits for you, I understand
> and respect your reasons why.

Cool. Thanks Joe.

[Joe]

I know that e_ doesn't self-identify as an atheist, but neither do I
self-identify as an adherent of the doctrines of men. So maybe we're
even on that score. (ha ha) But seriously, that isn't my actual motive
for using the word 'atheist' in his regard. An atheist is one who
lacks belief in the Theos, i.e. the God who reveals Himself and His
Will to man. E_ has said plenty of times that he does not believe God
does that at all, which seem to me to qualify him as an atheist. In
any case, he seems to be all about a do-it-yourself kind of
spirituality. If someone says God said something, then it cannot
possibly be true. I guess that is not so much atheism as antitheism.

[e_space]

as mentioned numerous times, im not an atheist, i just dont believe in
your man-made god ... quite a substantial difference ... very
substantial actually, and very profound ... but i dont expect you to
have any idea what im talking about ... just keep believing what you
have been taught ... if that comforts you, great ... sorta scared me,
to tell you the truth ... and very unreasonable ... actually, the
"reason" you hold such fanatic beliefs is puzzling to me ... but hey,
to each their own, right? ;-^)

[e_space]

theism is of man ... man wrote everything that has been written about
god, and i dont trust the accepted version of it ... unlike you and
yours, i like to have some sort of verification of "truth" before i
buy into it ... also, something that makes sense is a bit easier to
accept ... and the bible doesnt make much in regards to creation, the
eve-from-adams-rib thingy, the unproven resurrection, water-to-wine,
etc, etc, etc ...

that so many seemingly intelligent people accepted everything in the
book, lock stock and barrel, is really quite puzzling to me ... but
you know, the populace commonly thought the world was flat at one time
because that is what they were told ... so in general, we are naive
and gullible ...

i dont know what s&m is referring to when he claims i am using an
"avoidance mechanism" ... it would be quite simple to provide posts
that show that this is much more of a trait that he has, than i ...
its easy to make such silly claims, but as is his fervent propensity,
he never includes examples of what he is accusing me of ... which
makes sense, since the accusations are typically false and finding
such evidence would be hard ... actually, i consider this ongoing
childish behavior as his "avoidance mechanism", used to brush over the
questions that he is incapable of relevantly responding to ...

[SM]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:13 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

theism is of man ... man wrote everything that has been written about
god, and i dont trust the accepted version of it ... unlike you and
yours, i like to have some sort of verification of "truth" before i
buy into it ... also, something that makes sense is a bit easier to
accept ... and the bible doesnt make much in regards to creation, the
eve-from-adams-rib thingy, the unproven resurrection, water-to-wine,
etc, etc, etc ...

that so many seemingly intelligent people accepted everything in the
book, lock stock and barrel, is really quite puzzling to me ... but
you know, the populace commonly thought the world was flat at one time
because that is what they were told ... so in general, we are naive
and gullible ...

i dont know what s&m is referring to when he claims i am using an
"avoidance mechanism" ... it would be quite simple to provide posts
that show that this is much more of a trait that he has, than i ...
its easy to make such silly claims, but as is his fervent propensity,
he never includes examples of what he is accusing me of ... which
makes sense, since the accusations are typically false and finding
such evidence would be hard ... actually, i consider this ongoing
childish behavior as his "avoidance mechanism", used to brush over the
questions that he is incapable of relevantly responding to ...

<chuckle>

space_case, you've mentioned on numerous occasions that one of the concepts of the Bible that you consider beyond your ability to comprehend and which results in your inability to accept any of what it teaches is the "eve-from-adams-rib thingy".  In this post you've listed some other concepts, but in my observation the "rib thingy" is the one you mention the most frequently.  What exactly is the "eve-from-adams-rib thingy", and what seems so intellectually challenging to you about it?

[e_space]

my my ... arent we getting nasty? and here you are crying about my
lack of civility? how am i uncivil? by asking questions that you cant
answer? and now it seems your true personality is emerging ... so
maybe you can thank me for that ... i wonder how much reverse
exorcisms are going for these days ;-^)

the "intellectually challenging inability" i have with the rib thingy,
is getting an explanation from you that not only makes sense, but can
be supported by science, or any other evidence other than that some
guy i never met stated it as fact?

regarding your highly misguided assumption [man, im saying that a lot]
that i feel i dont have the "ability to comprehend the concepts of the
bible, and which results in *my* inability to accept any of what it
teaches" ... how do you come up with these things, other than through
blind spite? you have NO idea of my ability or lack thereof ... you
really are quite mean spirited arent you?

instead of making thoughtless statements such as this, why dont you
take a bit of the time that you are spending on your hateful campaign,
and describe to me how you think this "operation", "miracle", or
whatever you want to call it, is even possible ... how you can, with
your superior intellect and ability, actually "comprehend" this event
happening?

you accept this supposed event with blind faith, something that i am
not prone to ... i would say that the likelihood of eve being made
from adams rib is 0%, and you would say 100% ... obviously one of us
is wrong ... you think it is me who is wrong, yet you have not
contributed a single word to support your belief in its "truth" ...
why is that? ... that is all i am asking for, and if you cant deliver,
just say so, without all of the tearful theatrics ... is that too much
to ask?

On May 24, 8:11 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:03 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

my my ... arent we getting nasty? and here you are crying about my
lack of civility? how am i uncivil? by asking questions that you cant
answer? and now it seems your true personality is emerging ... so
maybe you can thank me for that ... i wonder how much reverse
exorcisms are going for these days  ;-^)

Astounding.  You describe the above (I haven't even bothered to read the rest of your post; no doubt it contains similar gems of civility) as:

"... i simply ask pointed questions..."

And then you evidently clearly see nastiness in:

<chuckle>
>
> space_case, you've mentioned on numerous occasions that one of the concepts
> of the Bible that you consider beyond your ability to comprehend and which
> results in your inability to accept any of what it teaches is the
> "eve-from-adams-rib thingy".  In this post you've listed some other
> concepts, but in my observation the "rib thingy" is the one you mention the
> most frequently.  What exactly is the "eve-from-adams-rib thingy", and what
> seems so intellectually challenging to you about it?

So you can clearly see how others are failing you but are blind (and/or unwilling to accept) your own failings (and I don't mean: "i guess ive been a bit harsh").  Every participant in this forum has been unrelentingly patient with you.  In hopes of reaching you, I personally have changed my approach with you (and you alone) three times...and BTW, in the last month of interacting with you, I have not once 'cried about your lack of civility'...I made numerous such appeals to you a few months back, but I found that my entreats to be rebuffed...and decided lately that I have to stoop to your level if I had any desire to communicate with you.  I'll leave the moderators to continue the appeal for an improvement and then support whatever actions that they consider are warranted.

I've never seen such an incorrigible participant treated with such forbearance and patience by an entire forum.  I think everyone in the forum would rather have your participation, and only now (after months of hopeful patience) are finally contemplating expulsion.  You cannot leave here thinking that you have been done wrong (well you can think that, but it'll be another accusation that has no basis in reality).

I acknowledge that you've had experiences in your past which make it difficult for you to treat with respect others who hold a view that you reject as a result of those experiences, and I empathize with your plight.  I continue to extend compassion and a willingness toward you to discuss how those experiences have wronged you (and admittedly how others are similarly wronged), and suggest ways that you might try to view things differently.  If you want to stay here for that, then I'm here for you.  However, thus far you've only demonstrated that you're here to strike blows to the source of your pain by directing it toward others who you perceive represent that pain.  I understand it (and have learned to adapt to it), but such an approach will not bring you peace for the wrongs that have been done to you in the experiences of your past; you'll not make progress until you confront those directly.

[Brock Organ]

Hi SM,

You've summarized things well. e_space does seem in a loop where he
eristically provokes a reaction, then feels justified when someone
responds to his goading. :(

Regards,

Brock

[ornamentalmind]

Most threads here devolve from the original topic into personal
attacks and/or “loops”.

My guess is that in each case the author (here I include every active
poster) feels ‘justified’.

“…When all else fails
We can whip the horse's eyes
And make them sleep
And cry” - http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/doors/the+soft+parade_20042755.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XlqCFi6o-E


On May 25, 8:44 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most threads here devolve from the original topic into personal
> attacks and/or “loops”.

But that doesn't make it normative.

> My guess is that in each case the author (here I include every active
> poster) feels ‘justified’.

Don't include me in such eristicism. There is a better way:
positional debate. :)

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

asking questions is goading? hmmm ... news to me ... and here i
thought a debate was where someone makes a speech, statement, comment,
observation, claim, etc, and then its open to a response and
questioning ... no? as mentioned on numerous occasions, if you dont
have anything to support your claims with, just state them as a
belief ... quite simple really, so i wonder why you and sm dont get
it ...

btw, sorry if the last word seems like goading ;-^)

On May 25, 11:44 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

re: "no doubt it contains similar gems of civility" ... oh, do you
mean like inferring that you are "incapable", "lacking ability",
"intellectually challenged" ... should i go on? ;-^)

i have a joyful demeanor, and some of my "petulance" is probably just
my humor shining through in the face of your negativity ... i suggest
you take a chill pill, man up to the simple but direct questions you
are being asked, and stop pulling the "civility" card in every
post ... in other words, relate to the issues and spare the tissues,
is my suggestion ...

btw, for your records, asking questions is not showing disrespect ...
using terminology, such as you have used [above], is ... to repeat,
respect is earned and, although i have nothing against your religion,
i do not accept your "truth" as mine, and asking you to support your
claims is not disrespectful ... it is what any reasonable person
SHOULD do ... if you want to accept with blind faith, that which you
have been told by men you have never met, thats your choice ... that i
have not taken that choice is not disrespectful of your decision ...
please analyze this and see if you can somehow come to grips with
it ...

On May 25, 8:35 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> would rather have your participation, and only now (after *months* of

> hopeful patience) are finally contemplating expulsion.  You cannot leave

> here thinking that you have been done wrong (well you *can* think that, but

[SM]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:02 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

asking questions is goading? hmmm ... news to me ... and here i
thought a debate was where someone makes a speech, statement, comment,
observation, claim, etc, and then its open to a response and
questioning ... no? as mentioned on numerous occasions, if you dont
have anything to support your claims with, just state them as a
belief ... quite simple really, so i wonder why you and sm dont get
it ...

Do you really believe that's all that you're doing...innocently asking questions?  You're really suggesting that everyone else is wrong in their perception of your conduct?

If you really can't see what's being patiently pointed out to you (for months), then there can be no hope of improvement.  Such incorrigibility leaves the forum moderators with few options.

[ornamentalmind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

On May 25, 10:15 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM, ornamentalmind
>

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:12 PM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

Well, I consider the Confession:

"All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only
Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption: by which
they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges
of the children of God; have his name put upon them; receive the
Spirit of adoption; have access to the throne of grace with boldness;
are enabled to cry, Abba, Father; are pitied, protected, provided for,
and chastened by his as by a father; yet never cast off, but sealed to
the day of redemption, and inherit the promises, as heirs of
everlasting salvation. "

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XII.html

Regards,

Brock

[ornamentalmind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

On May 25, 4:06 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:12 PM, ornamentalmind
>

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:43 PM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

Contrastingly, I note:

"All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only
Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption: by which
they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges
of the children of God; have his name put upon them; receive the
Spirit of adoption; have access to the throne of grace with boldness;
are enabled to cry, Abba, Father; are pitied, protected, provided for,
and chastened by his as by a father; yet never cast off, but sealed
to the day of redemption, and inherit the promises, as heirs of
everlasting salvation. "

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XII.html

What a wonderful privilege in prayer a believer has with the Lord! :)

Regards,

Brock

[ornamentalmind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

On May 25, 6:15 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:43 PM, ornamentalmind
>

[e_space]

ah, the "wonderful privilege" of purveying "civility" in its most
minimalistic form ... how charming ... "hey, we cant be uncivil, so
lets have a cold war instead, deal?" ;-^)

i presume you two feel this type of circular and repetitive "dialogue"
can somehow be considered civil? [although it is starting to seem more
like "flooding" there mr brock] ... while my direct approach, asking
sincere questions about faith-filled claims of "truth", is considered
uncivil?

my "petulance" is a reaction to asking simple questions that are
seldom answered directly, or even indirectly ... yet claims of "truth"
are repeated ad nauseum ... for example, since i have "known" brock,
he has quoted the confession, with no direct input, probably 200 times
at least, and thats just what i saw ...

i suggest that those who demand civility and thoughtful dialogue from
others, yet put out this type of repeated and uncivil redundancy,
should be more concerned with their own input ... i know which kind of
"dialogue" i would prefer to read ... and this aint it ...

you two seldom come in here, and hardly ever contribute much more than
1 liners, or quotes from others, or links to youtube ... the only
other thing you do much of, is bitch about my lack of civility? why?
cuz i back people into corners by asking to substantiate claims of
fact ... religious beliefs are not necessarily factual ... stating
them as such, is akin to false advertizing, which should not
allowed ...

however, in the spirit of freedom of speech, no probs on my part ...
so i dont think it should be a prob when i question them ... if they
dont respond, my seemingly inherent "petulance" seems to blossom ...
so sue me ... meanwhile, enjoy your cold and barren war ...

[e_space]

re: "Do you *really* believe that's all that you're doing...innocently
asking questions?" ... hold on, atyp is looking up some examples,
please be patient ...

if you have any specific posts that you consider uncivil, that you
would like to present to the court to support your accusations of
something negative that i im "doing", please provide them now ... if
not, please take your case elsewhere ... do you not weary of making
accusations that you never provide examples of ...

re: "You're really suggesting that everyone else is wrong in their
perception of your conduct?" ... as stressed, id much prefer to be
treated like i treat you, than how you are treating me ... i really
think most people would ... im questioning you, im not attempting to
demean you, as you are so rabidly doing ... or seemingly attempting to
have me booted eh?

re: "Such incorrigibility leaves the forum moderators with few
options." ... tsk tsk ... thumbing for my eviction are we? yet your
outrageous use of personal slurs [with the recurring and ever popular
"incorrigibility"] are somehow worthy of retention?

On May 25, 3:03 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:02 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > asking questions is goading? hmmm ... news to me ... and here i
> > thought a debate was where someone makes a speech, statement, comment,
> > observation, claim, etc, and then its open to a response and
> > questioning ... no? as mentioned on numerous occasions, if you dont
> > have anything to support your claims with, just state them as a
> > belief ... quite simple really, so i wonder why you and sm dont get
> > it ...
>

> Do you *really* believe that's all that you're doing...innocently asking

> questions?  You're really suggesting that everyone else is wrong in their
> perception of your conduct?
>

> If you *really* can't see what's being patiently pointed out to you (for

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

“Pray, then, in this way:
'Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.'"

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/matthew/6.htm

Regards,

Brock

[ornamentalmind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

On May 25, 10:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, ornamentalmind
>

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:39 AM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1g8WCA7mJk

"Then Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the stomach of the fish,
and he said,
“I called out of my distress to the LORD,
And He answered me.
I cried for help from the depth of Sheol;
You heard my voice.
For You had cast me into the deep,
Into the heart of the seas,
And the current engulfed me.
All Your breakers and billows passed over me.
So I said, ‘I have been expelled from Your sight.
Nevertheless I will look again toward Your holy temple.’
Water encompassed me to the point of death.
The great deep engulfed me,
Weeds were wrapped around my head.
I descended to the roots of the mountains.
The earth with its bars was around me forever,
But You have brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God.
While I was fainting away,
I remembered the LORD,
And my prayer came to You,
Into Your holy temple.
Those who regard vain idols
Forsake their faithfulness,
But I will sacrifice to You
With the voice of thanksgiving.
That which I have vowed I will pay.
Salvation is from the LORD.”

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/jonah/2.htm

Regards,

Brock

[ornamentalmind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddiJLecNHkI

On May 26, 1:52 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:39 AM, ornamentalmind
>

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddiJLecNHkI

I'll wait for the objection. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Joe]

I observe that e_ doesn't post here anymore, but I want to answer this
post of his, to demonstrate to him things about himself that he has a
hard time coming to grips with. To help him. To make him into the
kind of poster we want here. Once I write my response, I'll forward
it to him in email so he'll be sure to see it.

Keep in mind that e_'s *primary* complaint about others is that they
"make factual sounding statements" but fail "to either provide
something to support their claims, or state them as a belief, not
knowledge." Keep that in mind.

On May 24, 6:13 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> theism is of man ...

That is a "factual sounding statement" together with failure ""to
either provide something to support their claims, or state them as a
belief, not knowledge."

Let's see if later on, he does actually either support it or claim it
as his belief, and not knowledge.

>man wrote everything that has been written about
> god, and i dont trust the accepted version of it ... unlike you and
> yours, i like to have some sort of verification of "truth" before i
> buy into it ...

But why should we buy into what e_ is selling? No reason? Just his
belief? Wow. Do people normally just posts their thoughts about
things on these group, rather than incontrovertible facts? Why, yes.
Yes, it seems they do. And e_ is no exception! But when he does it
to us, we should accept it as the proven truth, but when we do it to
him, that gives him an excuse to get "flippant," and "humorous," at
our expense.

>also, something that makes sense is a bit easier to
> accept ... and the bible doesnt make much in regards to creation, the
> eve-from-adams-rib thingy, the unproven resurrection, water-to-wine,
> etc, etc, etc ...
>

Is it proven fact that the Bible doesn't make sense, or is it e_'s
personal opinion? Based on the fact that he didn't claim it as his
opinion only, it seems we are expected to accept it as proven fact.
But the lack of any support for his claims makes it seem more like he
just forgot to put in the required disclaimer, the disclaimer that he
demands from all others and uses the lack of as an excuse to abuse
them.

> that so many seemingly intelligent people

Nice little dig there, e_! Implying that they are only "seemingly
intelligent," and not really. Again, without any (a) disclaimer that
this is only his opinion, or (b) supporting evidence.

>accepted everything in the
> book, lock stock and barrel, is really quite puzzling to me ... but
> you know, the populace commonly thought the world was flat at one time
> because that is what they were told ... so in general, we are naive
> and gullible ...
>

Funny how e_ uses the personal pronoun "we" when plainly he means to
exclude himself from the group he is putting down. And he says they
believed it because "that is what they were told." Implying, of
course, that the only reason anyone believes the Gospel is because
"that is what they were told." Now I know that e_ went to great pains
to cleverly conceal the raw contempt he has for believers, but, can
you see it poking through? Can you discern it amidst the haze? Did
he maybe not bother very much to disguise it at all??

> i dont know what s&m is referring to when he claims i am using an
> "avoidance mechanism" ... it would be quite simple to provide posts
> that show that this is much more of a trait that he has, than i ...

Ad hominem tu quoque, a fallacy that e_ has used *countless* times
here.

> its easy to make such silly claims, but as is his fervent propensity,
> he never includes examples of what he is accusing me of ...

Let this post that I am bothering to tear apart serve as an example
--- there are literally hundreds more.

>which
> makes sense, since the accusations are typically false and finding
> such evidence would be hard ...

Note that this accusation from e_, like every other similar accusation
in the entire post, is (a) presented by him, not as his opinion, but
as fact, and (b) left entirely unsupported.

>actually, i consider this ongoing
> childish behavior as his "avoidance mechanism", used to brush over the
> questions that he is incapable of relevantly responding to ...
>

Is there a solitary *question* from e_ in this entire post? If there
is, I am certain I missed it.

[14SM.jcil]

Since e_space has made it clear that he prefers to view himself as a victim, and perceive his interactions with others (particularly those who hold a different worldview than he) in that light, I have no expectation that your effort "to help him" will yield fruit.

I am however, hopeful that your rather well articulated observations can be of assistance to another participant still among us who has expressed his perception of e_space's "brilliance".

Thanks for the effort, Joe.

[ornamentalmind]

I strongly suggest that we don't post about people who can no longer
post here. If you wish to communicate with them, back channel is much
more appropriate.

OM

[SM]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:48 AM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

I strongly suggest that we don't post about people who can no longer
post here. If you wish to communicate with them, back channel is much
more appropriate.

OM

Agreed.  For my part, I was communicating with Joe.

I can see how Joe thought that he might be communicating directly with e_space (using the text of an old post as the basis for his communication) since e_space is apparently still able to read the posts from the forum and his continued direct communications with the several of us indicate that he evidently continues to do so.