Umm...apparently this isn't as obvious as I thought.
At the Second Church of Odyssey you'll find different ways of expressing your beliefs, finding prayer support or being encouraged through regular devotionals.
Christian A. wrote:Since you're Seventh Day Adventist, do you also believe that Jesus is the same as the archangel Michael, and vice versa? That's one other thing I've been taught that you guys believe.
Christian A. wrote:
Amythistic wrote:I think you're getting Seventh Day Adventism mixed up with Jehovah's Witnesses, which is not a Christian denomination.
I know Jehovah's Witnesses say that, but I was thinking that the Seventh Day Adventists had that in their teachings somewhere as well.
They do believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel, yes, although their definition of "Michael the archangel" (and Jesus) has varied a bit throughout their history. (I was raised in Seventh-day Adventism.)
Danielle Abigail Maxwell wrote:I also gave you links to my denominations beliefs. And no, we don't believe that. Jehovah's Witnesses - much different from SDA's. pretty sure.
That is incorrect. The Seventh-day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses both emerged from the "Adventist" movement in the 1800s, and they share many of the same beliefs.
Christian A. wrote:Thank you very much for confirming that, Jeremy. I was pretty certain that I had heard right.
Where do you find evidence in the Bible for that belief?
(By the way, to be clear, I was raised in Seventh-day Adventism, but my whole family left Adventism a number of years ago.)
They try to string certain (unrelated) "proof texts" together to support the idea of Jesus=Michael. But the real reason they cling to that belief is because their prophet, Ellen G. White, taught that it is so:
"Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, 'The Lord rebuke thee.'" (Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 164, paragraph 2.)
Amethystic wrote:So then why are SDAs considered Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses not?
That's a great question. I wonder the same thing. Both are really just cults. But Roman Catholics call themselves Christians, and they have a bunch of weird theology too.
Christina I don't know if you know this but we have some Catholics on here so calling their theologies weird isn't very nice. After all most of us belong to different denominations some of which are drastically different from each other and most of us really have no idea what the others believe.
Okay, I'm sorry if I seriously offended anyone. But I understand quite extensively what the Catholics believe, and a lot of it is not Biblical (thus my use of the word "weird.") I do want to be offensive though, in a sense, because some of the Catholics' teaching is heretical, and it could send someone to hell. Therefore, it is my duty as a Christian with a heart for the lost to show them the fallacy of their beliefs and point them to the truth.
Once I called Catholicism a cult at school when I was little. I was in troooouble. (A friend of mine had Catholic cousins. ) I have since corrected my beliefs, observing that while not all Catholics are Christians, there are Christian Catholics--which is no different than any other denomination, in some ways.
And Christian A., whether or not your views are correct, I don't think you trying to "point them in the right direction" will be any more useful than if they were trying to persuade you that your beliefs were wrong. Living out your faith in the real world is far more effective than preaching/debating in cyberspace. Besides, if you were speaking to these people in real life, you wouldn't call their beliefs heretical right into their faces. Not only would it be rude, but they'd immediately be closed off to any suggestions or opinions you stated.
Amethystic wrote:If you were speaking to these people in real life, you wouldn't call their beliefs heretical right into their faces.
I'm not so sure about that.
Amethystic wrote:Not only would it be rude, but they'd immediately be closed off to any suggestions or opinions you stated.
Not necessarily. It might be rude, but if you do it right--especially with a good Bible verse--it will get them to question their beliefs, and that might give you a chance to share the true Gospel.
Again, sorry if I offended any of you (heretical) (JK) Catholics out there.
Amethystic wrote:If you were speaking to these people in real life, you wouldn't call their beliefs heretical right into their faces.
I'm not so sure about that.
...So, how well do you usually get along with people? Just wondering.
Christian A. wrote:
Amethystic wrote:Not only would it be rude, but they'd immediately be closed off to any suggestions or opinions you stated.
Not necessarily. It might be rude, but if you do it right--especially with a good Bible verse--it will get them to question their beliefs, and that might give you a chance to share the true Gospel.
Again, sorry if I offended any of you (heretical) (JK) Catholics out there.
No, you'll just upset them and leave a negative impression of those who share your beliefs. Besides, everyone and their dog has a good Bible verse to back up their opinions; it doesn't matter how good your argument is, people will still cling to their beliefs religiously, for lack of a better word. Again, imagine if the situation was flipped, and they were the ones trying to convince you. Do you really think you'd renounce your convictions because they had a few good verses that appeared to condemn your viewpoint and/or uplifted theirs? People don't change their mind that easily, especially in a world of so many conflicting viewpoints.
Last edited by Amethystic on Sat May 21, 2011 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Christian A. wrote: I do want to be offensive though, in a sense, because some of the Catholics' teaching is heretical
Well most Catholics would say the same about you so if we do want to have ecumenical discussions we have to be willing to have a discussion that acknowledge differences without being offensive.
Many Catholics don't know their beliefs or their Bible well enough to know that the two don't line up. So I'm not sure they'd want to call me heretical. My definition of heretical means "something that doesn't line up with the clear teaching of Scripture." There are a lot of Catholic teachings that fall under that umbrella--thus my use of the word.
That's an offensive stereotype, there are people in every denomination that don't know much about their beliefs or the Bible.
Seriously though why do you hate Catholics so much? You really need to chill, I mean do you dislike other Protestant denominations that disagree with about what you think the "clear teaching of Scripture" is this much or is it just Catholics?
I'm sorry if I ever came across as hating or disliking Catholics. I don't. And I don't want to stereotype only Catholics (that's one reason I said "many Catholics" and not "most Catholics). I agree that probably the majority of professing Christians in mainstream denominations don't know their Bibles as well as they probably should, and yes, some do have doctrines I might consider heretical. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to burn them at the stake.
I'm not writing this with a snarl on my face, btw. You seem to think so. I'm not angry or anything, if it seems to come across that way. Sorry if it does.
You can call it rude or insensitive if you want to, but I'm just trying to stand up for the Bible and what I believe it teaches. I'm sorry if that seems to come across as rude, angry, or hateful. That's not how I mean it at all.
Amethystic wrote:I know. That's why I said you were just being tactless.
I looked up synonymns to that word (because I didn't know exactly what it meant), and I came up with stuff like "rude" and "inconsiderate." That's what I thought you meant.
You're standing up for what you believe the Bible says, Catholics are doing the same, you don't seem to realize that and what you're saying implies to people that disagree with you that they don't read the Bible or truly understand what they believe. You obviously disagree with people, you don't have to agree with them or say you're wrong to be respectful, you can respectfully disagree.
Amethystic wrote:I know. That's why I said you were just being tactless.
I looked up synonymns to that word (because I didn't know exactly what it meant), and I came up with stuff like "rude" and "inconsiderate." That's what I thought you meant.
Tactless - lacking tact; showing no tact; undiplomatic; offendingly blunt: a tactless remark.
Synonyms are only similar; each word has its own exact meaning.