I am concerned about the tendency to have a "White Fight," to sling EGW quotes at one another in an argument. They may seem to support opposite positions, but if they do, that doesn't mean that one quote cancels the other out, that means we are not seeing and considering the whole picture that EGW presents on a subject. There is another potential problem in disucssing health matters on an open forum. This is an open forum. Anyone can come here and read what is being posted. It was pointed out that there is a danger involved in advocating our personal views on medical treatment vs. alternate methods. It may be far fetched, but someone could get the idea that taking their heart medicine or their insulin is a sin, and the Pastor could have a big legal problem on his hands. We have had a medical disclaimer on the website, but that would not stop someone who is determined and feels they have been harmed. Dalfie is experimenting with placing the disclaimer on the first post of each page of the health discussions.
I have quoted what appears to be an opposing EGW quote to another's post. It was in the spirit of wanting to understand how they fit together. I don't believe one cancels out the other, either. We need to be able to look at it all and get the whole picture. There never was a decent reply to my question on how they work together. I think that needs to be able to be discussed on the thread without it being considered an attack on someones position on drugs. I also take into consideration that there are many guests on the forum so we need to have support for our views, and people need to know not to make radical, unknowledgeable decisions. If one were so inclined to change methods of dealing with a health issue it should be clearly researched and if it is an issue with the heart there needs to be counsel with a professional who can help the person transfer from medication to natural remedies. That was stated on the thread. (If the person is so ill they cannot have an exercise program to strengthen the heart there might not be an option available - so many considerations...but we must be responsible for our own health & the choices we make.) There are natural remedies for most diseases. To not be open to that is allowing oneself to be blind. That doesn't mean that someone has to choose natural over Rx - we all have decisions to make in life but if we don't know the options we are crippling our decision making abilities. The health message is the right arm of the gospel; we should be able to discuss it without worry of lawsuit or flaming remarks.
Reaching, speaking in general terms, not directing it at any one in particular, I believe a Christian attitude and a little common sense would go a long way. We can't be telling people that taking medication that has been prescribed by their physicain means they lack faith in God or is rebellion against God. A lawsuit may be far fetched, but it is irresponsible to urge that on people, especially when we have no accountability for the outcome. And we can't continue making flaming remarks. That destroys the credibility of whatever else we might have to say, and it destroys our Christian witness no matter how correct we might be. I think your comparison of the two statements was valid and was taking the conversation in the right direction. I'm afraid it got lost in the middle of something else. I appreciate your input and your attitude.
Speaking for myself, I'm not offended. I just believe that even the best of topics require a rest sometimes.
Not only in this arena of discussion but in many I believe that we should be carefgul not to let our "experience" over-ride what God has clearly told us.Our experience is often not a reliable indicator and is apt to give us a bias that is not accurate. I am concerned when we think it is agreeable to place certain topics in files that are relatively unimportant when we are told that they are very important particuarly in the last days when everything is of significant importance. I too wish to offend no one and while a bit more than concerned over this topic have never been angry. I believe we should not mix SDA standards with those of the world. What I mean is that we should not use the ignorance, perhaps innocent ignorance of the world as a rationalization for considering our people who have great light shining on our paths to be equally and innocently ignorant. I do not think it unfair to consider it rebellion when our people continue in a lifestlye that is clearly of the world and harmful to health. I do not think it unfair to consider it a lack of faith for people to eccentially say, God cannot or will not work with the counsel He has given us therefore I must do otherwise. There are those of our people especially new converts who are not rebelling and do not lack faith they just are innocently ignorant. These people need accurate information that supports and is in harmony with Inspiration. Since we do not always know a person's experience it is not wise to categorize them in their expereince because we erring mortals are often wrong. On the other hand it is not presumption but faith to encourage our people to trust in the methods of treatment and healing that God has given us opposed to saying, that just doesn't work. I think, or at least hope that we all agree that natural methods of healing and treatment are not given enough emphasis, trust, and practice in our church.
I think, or at least hope that we all agree that natural methods of healing and treatment are not given enough emphasis, trust, and practice in our church.
The original guidelines for participation on the forum were lost when we were hacked. Before we post the "official rules" again, I would like to elicit some input from the members. What should be in the "guidelines" statement for participation? Along those lines, although it was not in the original guidelines, the pastor has pointed out that this is a discussion forum. Although Bible verses and EGW quotes are certainly welcome, but should not be the bulk of our participation. Discussion is the key word. The pastor has said that he doesn't read long quotes and long series of quotes. I have a suspicion that that may be true of others as well.
I plead guilty. I don't tend to read long quotes, either. Short, to the point quotes from either the Bible or the SOP are very helpful, but my eyes start to glaze over if they are too long. But then, how long is too long? One guideline that would be nice, although maybe hard to enforce is that all ad hominem attacks should be prohibited. We should be able to agree or disagree on issues and various subjects without questioning the motives and sincerity of each other. Of course, as a moderator, I realize that you have to make certain judgment calls relating to the agenda of some posters, but it seems that it should be off limits to the rest of us peasants.
so Larry does this put a damper on proof texting? newbie
Agatha and Raven, I am familiar with 2 Adventist discussion forums whose members are probably in general more conservative in their views than many on this one,
