Hi again Sparkman, I pray all is well, My response will be the bolded.
I think most of the Sabbath observers on this thread should be honest and admit they are accusing non-observers of being in sin, whether openly or not.
Isn't this why SDAs proselytize non-SDA believers, sometimes not clearly identifying themselves on the Bible study announcements and publications?
I can not speak for all who claim to be an SDA, The reality is that there are churches who have broken free from the SDA body and have found loop holes so that they can legally identify as SDA when they are not. That being said most people do not start with "Hi, I am a....." what ever faith they may be. The Issue of the Sabbath from the official perspective of the actual SDA church is that the Sabbath will in the future become an identifying issue in Christianity that will at that time put those who reject it under sin yes. But that time is not yet. SO no currently Yes in the future. There are bible based reasons for that, which I will not go into now.
I think most Sabbath observers holds that position, but they try to hide it. That's my big concern with their view. I have no issue with those who observe Sabbath and festivals without making this accusation, but in reality that is the underlying implicit or explicit claim of most.
Most who hold that view avoid it because those who question are unreasonable and unwilling to listen to the reasons. Most want a simple Yes, no answer, The problem is that is a simplistic childish rational for a reaction not based in facts. Most who ask are not looking to understand why some hold the view they do and thus are arguing on a childish level to simply attack the second anything is said. SO frankly those who ask the question are responsible in part to the lack of wanting to talk about it.
And, once someone takes the approach that a non-observer is in sin, I throw them in the heretic bucket. I have no issue with Sabbath observers who don't make that claim, but when they do, I throw them in the heretic bucket. I was in the heretic bucket myself as an Armstrongite. I'm not going back into it.
And..if I am the one with bad theology, how can you honestly support all the SDA dietary assertions?
You know that the Bible speaks nothing of forbidding all the foods SDAs claim should not be eaten. Alcohol, spices, coffee, tea, pickles, chocolate, eating vegetables with fruit in the same meal, meat, eggs, etcetera. Jesus and the disciples wouldn't even meet SDA standards.
They ate lamb. They drank wine. They ate fish. They ate eggs..in fact Christ spoke of a father giving an egg to his child as a good gift.
You have made this argument before and frankly make yourself guilty of sin by continuing to make false accusations which is slander by the way thus sin, when you have had these things explained to you before.
For the sake of those who read this I will re-explain this point. We do not use the bible to argue individual points on health. The bible clearly teaches that to be healthy is one way to glorify God. But the guidelines, we promote are based on science and research that show curtain foods to be healthy and life promoting and others to be unhealthy and life damaging. We have spoken about this before sparkman and I have explained them to you. We do not enforce them upon members but suggest them for healthy living.
Do you have a problem with the church giving guidance to those who wish to live healthy? Do you have a problem with what we say is healthy? Because all you will have to do is study health and you will see why we say those things. I expect better form you sparkman.
That health is important from a bible perspective is not in question. But to eat healthy and give Guidelines for those who wish to honour God by what they eat and drink and whatever they do is not wrong. We don't have a theology of eggs and chocolate as you seem to be inferring above. Please drop this topic, You are putting a false spin on it and showing you have not looked into it properly. No trying to be offensive as you know I respect you. But we have dealt with this issue and you are still putting a false spin on it.
In addition, why do SDAs allow abortions? They allow abortion for members who are pregnant due to rape, incest, and severe congenital deformities (including Downs' Syndrome). Do not such children have a right to live? Did not God initiate the process of birth? Wouldn't interrupting this process, once conception has occurred, be a sin? Nope, I guess not..maybe it's because abortion isn't listed explicitly in the Ten Commandments..it's probably not even in the Torah..that's what happens when one is not Spirit-led and lives by the letter of the law. A Spirit-led believer knows intuitively that abortion is sin. In their health care facilities, they perform elective abortions. I guess it's ok if the mother is a non-Adventist to slaughter them regardless of reason. While loudly proclaiming the Sabbath, they are engaged in dismembering children in the womb. I guess they are fair game until they become a "breather".
We have decided as a church to both respect the wishes of the mother to a degree and give moral guidence on the issue. But the choice in the end belongs with the Parent and we respect that. You may disagree, and that is fine. We even question it but also respect the right of the parent to decide but only in a few areas and the case is taken case by case.
4) The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.
That is an official position above, One should not mix this either with the immoral ways that have been done in public hospitals. The Church will do all to avoid this scenario with the parent but in the end, it is the parents decision.
To sit there and compare it to the Sabbath or any other moral issue is childish and I expect better from you. This is emotional manipulation on a topic that is difficult on many levels to deal with. If you want to see it as straight forward then fine that is how the Pharisees did it. They respect one class and dismiss another. The Reasons we allow in only some circumstances is because we don't just take the child into account, The mother needs to be loved and cared for also. Her salvation Her life needs to be taken into account. And we simply realise that there are some circumstances where the line goes grey and we need to show mercy and love to the Mother. That is the reality of living in a world of sin. You can disagree that is fine, but you don't have a real solid basis to say we are wrong. Unless your only focus is on the child and the parent who's very life may be in danger does not matter to you.
Abortion in Adventism
I saw a website where a SDA refuses to do bible studies on the Sabbath now because he has been laughed at by Roman Catholics who point out the obvious inconsistencies of claiming the Sabbath applies while his own organization is allowing abortion, and SDA health care facilities are performing elective abortions. I guess the 4th commandment trumps the one over murder.
So, you guys can answer for your inconsistencies.
It would be nice, gotime, if you could simply state that you don't agree with your church on this issue but I've brought it up multiple times and you haven't denounced your church's teaching on this subject. To be honest, I think you are indoctrinated by your organization and will not say anything in opposition to their teachings. I was the same way about Armstrongism. To question the church on any of its teachings was the same thing as challenging God, to them. That's why I like belong to the Evangelical Free church I attend. They categorize doctrines by essentials and non-essentials, and their essentials are core Christianity, so I have no reason to question those doctrines, as I've proven them Scripturally. Neither would they endorse anything as grossly immoral as abortion.
The Reason I have not dealt with this is because just like now you bring it up when that is not what we are talking about. It seems to me that you dodge the issue we talk about by going else where. You do this a lot. We were talking about the Sabbath particularly the origin and purpose of it, But instead of speaking ot this issue you have once again skipped it altogether and used defaming tactics to win your argument. This is a sign of a weak argument by the way.
As far as questioning my church, what right do you have to say that? What facts do you have to say that? none, You don't have any idea how I came to what I did, You don't know my story and you dare to presume? This is not right brother and then to compare me to your deluded past state when you have no idea if I am or not.
As I've said, I would consider fellowshipping in a church that observes the weekly Sabbath and festivals if they didn't judge non-observers as being in sin, so my issue isn't with the Sabbath or festivals, but with the accusing, condemning mentality that accompanies most of the observers. I don't want accusers as friends and I don't want to associate with them. They draw a line between us so I respect their line.