SDA Hypocrisy?

The PROBLEM is that you are coming at the issue from the WRONG ANGLE!. You START WITH "I don't want to do anything God's Word says in the OT IF I don't have to -- what things in the OT DO I have to listen to anyway".

SDA's come from the OTHER end of the spectrum. We say "SCRIPTURE IS GOD's WORD - God's WORD is LAW. The RULE is that God's WORD is binding. Once we fully understand the context and what He is saying then we follow HIS word EXACTLY as HE states it".

That means that when you see RESTRICTIONs on MANKIND FAR REMOVED from ALL Jews (in the case of NOAH and ALL MANKIND in Gen 6-8 and the DISTINCTION with "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs" ) you "obey".

That means when we go to dinner we are not ordering another heaping helping of "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs".

Why that is so shocking to you - is almost beyond imagination!

When we see our Christ Creator God condemn mankind for Chewing "on RATS" in Isaiah 66 and says he will burnt them in fire and brimstone in future judgment -- we "easily GET THE point"!!

When we see NATIONAL CIVIL laws established under a THEOCRACY in force in Israel - we have no doubt that once GOD RESTORES a true THEOCRACY on Earth those same laws will apply "only more so".

(I.E no "sin" in the New Earth when God says "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66)

In any case - EXEGESIS is NOT bound up with "how many good ways do OTHERS find to ignore the Word of God" that is not "remotely exegesis".

If Adventists said "Hey we are going to obey everything but COVETING" that does not make coveting correct NEITHER does it form a kind of "exegesis" for others to say "WELL then I am going to ignore the OT statement on God actually creating the WORLD in SIX days because ADVENTISTS get to ignore God's Law against Coveting". That kind of bad-logic is not a kind of "exegesis" -- not even remotely!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Nate - if you were to admit to the truth in this you would obviously admit that you AGREE With Christ the Creator that "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs" were not CREATED as human food!

Your only "objection" is that God might have goofed up and picked something you DO like and associated it with the NON-FOOD creatures such as ""kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs". YOUR ojbection is really to the ASSOCIATION Christ our Creator God made - NOT to the fact that HE said "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs" are actually NOT FOOD for humans!

That is obvious to ALL no matter which side of this issue we come from. Why not start there in your side of the arugment since ALL can see it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is actually a very good point. IF you were really able to show good solid exegesis - without simply glossing over inconvenient details to make your case -- then your point is well taken.

The problem is "in the details". When asked to actually "show your work" in the text "sola scriptura" - a lot of stumbling and "harrumphs!" follow - rather than sound exegesis.

And "that" is the real problem - because those methods could be suited to almost any
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is another vaccuous claim without any link any example any reference at all!

Why not post a link?

POINT to some post you are making that is getting "glossed over"?

 

It has nothing to do with HEALTH. God singled out the pig because it has one of the worse reputations because of it's behavior. When a person is called a pig, it is always a very negative connotation. So it represented spiritual and moral degradation. That's why "defiled" is used. A person getting sick from eating something healthy, such as beef infected with mad cow disease is not "defiled". Shellefish on the other hand has largely been considered a heath food!

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ perfectly "fulfilled the law" to Love God with all His heart as well as perfectly "fulfilling" the Law of God saying that we are to "Love our Neighbor as ourselves".

We must not only "admit" that this is a "good Law" we must ALSO keep it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You dodged the point entirely.

PRESCRIPTIVE LAW such as "Love GOD" and "LOVE your neighbor" and "DO NOT MURDER" and "KEEP God's CREATION memorial Sabbath HOLY" are not ABOLISHED by simply obeying them. The Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 example illustrates that point "perfectly".

PREDICTIVE LAW (such as kill a lamb pointing to Christ as our Sacrifice -- "Christ our PASSOVER has been slain" 1Cor 5) DOES end when the moment PREDICTED takes place.

This is so obvious - so exegetically sound - so irrefutable -- I don't see how you can pretend to miss it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Every post we answer. Here's an example you just now posted:
"You START WITH 'I don't want to do anything God's Word says in the OT IF I don't have to...". Nobody says anything like that. Then, your oft repeated "Your only 'objection' is that God might have goofed up and picked something you DO like and associated it with the NON-FOOD creatures such as 'kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs'". You really think posting these ridiculous accusations is proving your point and exegeting the scriptures. It is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. In fact, they really should start deleting these lies against everyone else, because it is a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

James said --

Paul said --

But DHK said --

 

"Prescriptive" is yur own categorization. Just as you insist the Sabbath was a memorial, so the Passover was also a memorial of God's passing over the Children of Israel in judgment of Egypt. Yet it ALSO pointed forward to Christ. Likewise the weekly sabbath ALSO pointed forward to Christ. "Love GOD" and "LOVE your neighbor" and "DO NOT MURDER" are universal moral and spiritual laws. There is a difference.
As another example of your tactics, all you do is accuse others of dodging or missing something, but in fact, for you to do that and brush aside our answers like that is the real "dodging".

 

Here then is FACT stated so clearly it is impossible to ignore.

Eric can only "object that I put a NAME to the fact instead of having to state it in LONG form each time"

What kind of non-answer it that??

Is it your position that "I AM GOD"???

#1. GOD says REMEMBER
#2. GOD says "FOR IN SIX days GOD CREATED.."

Past tense - PAST history - God specifically points to the Gen 1-2:3 HISTORIC fact where "God SANCTIFIED the Seventh day and MADE IT HOLY".

This is GOD speaking in Exodus 20 - NOT ME!

How in the WORLD can you read that text and then eisegete to the point of saying "I see no MEMORIAL here"??

Where do you come up with this stuff Eric?

 

I think OP title is simply wrong and unjust.
Who can condemn any people who try to keep the commandments?

The main question is whether we can and should throw away 10 commandments? Don't we keep "Thou shalt not kill"?
What about Adultery? What about stealing? What about Idol worship?


Then do we keep only 9 commandments except Sabbath? I think Sabbath is included in believing Jesus. Then do we ignore it in actual life? That is the question.

 

You got me, Eliyahu,

I cant understand why we are treated like criminals just because we believe in keeping the Commandments.


Not to worry though, because sometimes God can use things like this to bring stuff to people's attention.

Rv:12:17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rv:14:12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rv:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

I like Pork but bad for me.

 

yep its bad for you, looks like God knw what He was talking about.... and the little trichina dont care if you're a jew or a christian..

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/trichiniasis
here's what that site says:

trichinosis (trĭk'ĭnō`sĭs) or trichiniasis (trĭk'ĭnī`osĭs), parasitic disease caused by the roundworm Trichinella spiralis. It follows the eating of raw or inadequately cooked meat, especially pork. The larvae are released, reach maturity, and mate in the intestines, the females producing live larvae. The parasites are then carried from the gastrointestinal tract by the bloodstream to various muscles, where they become encysted. It is estimated that 10% to 20% of the adult population of the United States suffers from trichinosis at some time. In many people the disease exhibits no symptoms and is discovered only at autopsy. In others it causes diarrhea and other gastrointestinal symptoms as the worms multiply in the digestive tract. When the larvae circulate through the bloodstream, the patient experiences edema, irregular fever, profuse sweating, muscle soreness and pain, and prostration. There may be involvement of the central nervous system, heart, and lungs; death occurs in about 5% of clinical cases. Once the larvae have imbedded themselves in the muscle tissue, the cysts usually become calcified; however, the infestation usually causes no further symptoms except fatigue and vague muscular pains. There is no specific treatment.

 

Condemning Sabbath keeping as heretic is like condemning Baptism by Immersion as heretic too. They advocate Baptism by sprinkling as Orthodox, then condemn Baptism by Immersion as Heretic, which has been the way of Satan's accusation.

 

WoW Claudia;
You make it sound so unappetizing.

 

I am not against anyone keeping the sabbath "in faith"...

What I am against is people basically calling me an uncircumcised Phillistine if I don't keep the sabbath...

I am also against the teaching that you must Keep the Sabbath to be saved or righteous or justified before God...

As for Baptism by Immersion, that, I am firmly convinced is the biblical standard...

After all doesn't the Greek word for baptizm literally mean "to dip" that is to make "Fully Wet"?

Of course, I suppose you could do that by doing an Anointing Service with Water instead of Oil and have it run down like Aaron's Beard! (Psalms 133:2)

But, that sure wouldn't portray our death, burial and ressurection in Christ.

Where I would disagree is when someone tells me I can't be saved if I haven't been baptized. (I have been, BTW)

Or, I can't be saved if I haven't been baptized in(to) their church or denomination...

SMM

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is another vaccuous claim without any link any example any reference at all!

Why not post a link?

POINT to some post you are making that is getting "glossed over"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One will do. So far you are at ZERO.

Try not to "gloss over the facts again" your unproven statement was that I was glossing over some sort of serious Bible-based "detail" you or someone had made on the point of the Ten Commandemnts or on Lev 11.

So far you seem to have entirely bailed on "proving that point"

How "surprising".

And that is your proof that YOU (or someone) on this thread has made a DETAILED substantive Bible based point that I have not responded too???!!!

Are you paying attention to your OWN argument at all???!!

Hint: Try actually posting the comment that I POSTED from the other side - the one I was responding TOO - instead of glossing over the "details" AGAIN in your own failed attempt to prove your initial statement that you (or someone) HAD provided some substantive Bible-detail that I glossed over... Remember... your initial failed claim??? You are "supposed" to be "proving it" Not simply ranting about OTHER details that you also don't like.

I have repeated the 'kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs' DETALS of Lev 11 that "you" and many others try to avoid!!

That much is true. But then that IS Lev 11!!

OR would you care to actually defend a position saying that these things ARE NOT being addressed in Lev 11??? In other words is there ANY POINT in your argument that you would care to actually SHOW from scripture?

But I have not OFT REPEATED the point in your quote from me above about the "association problem". In fact - I think that one is new. (I might have said something about it a few years ago - but not recently)

How do you expect any of your arguments to survive a close review if you can't even prove one?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

I'm no SDA and won't attempt to answer for them; I'll just answer as a Calvinist:</font>[/QUOTE]GE - You are Calvinist??!!!

SAY it aint so!

Surely then - just 3-point! Not 4 or 5 point! Surely not!

(I thought we agreed on more than that)

In Christ,

Bob

 

I "suppose" if we ignored Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath SHALL ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship"...

And IF we ignored Mark 2 "The SABBATH was MADE for MANKIND"

And if we ignored Gen 2:3 where God MAKES MANKIND and then MAKES the 7th day a Holy day...

Then we could take that snippet approach to Exodus 31 and "pretend" the scope mentioned there is the LARGEST scope for the application of the Sabbath that we knew about in scripture.

But to do that we would have to agree to ignore a lot of "inconvenient scripture".

Having said that - this argument is NOT unique to SDAs!! That is the same argument you see the Sabbath keeping NON-SDAs using!

And you see a somewhat similar argument EVEN among NON-Sabbath keeping non-SDAS if they ALSO are among those that claim to honor the TEN Commandments (the D.L. Moody thread might be used as "evidence" in that case).

So -- the bottom line is -- there is a dirth of focus on anything like "evidence" to support the title/topic of this thread in the OP.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. These threads on LEV 11 are typically NOT started by SDAS - they are started by NON-SDAs.

#2. And on other threads that are NOT about LEV - it is "again" the non-SDAs that want to drag that back in - I have not seen SDAs dragging that subject up for discussion - so far it is just RESPONSES to those efforts by non-SDAS.

#3. I NEVER mention the "P" Word when it comes to the heart of Lev 11 -- just the main point of that chapter which is "kittens, puppies, rats, bats and slugs" -- so far the details of LEV 11 seem to terrify those who reject that part of scripture.

But that would be "inconvenient" fact.

In Christ,

Bob