GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: #95-106 whoppers  (Read 5075 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
#95-106 whoppers
« on: Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 14:49:49 »
"My husband was an SDA pastor and he was taught (in college and seminary) to put EGW in every sermon....every sermon."
« Last Edit: Sat Dec 18, 2010 - 18:24:49 by djconklin »

Christian Forums and Message Board

#95-106 whoppers
« on: Thu Sep 23, 2010 - 14:49:49 »

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: 96th to 100th whoppers
« Reply #1 on: Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 12:42:04 »
96. "Because they teach salvation OUTSIDE of Jesus. Mostly Jesus PLUS SDA membership PLUS Sabbath keeping PLUS acceptance and belief in EGW."

97. "Let's just say it: EGW was a racist. She did live in another century after all."

98. "she has plagiarized from many authors and taken entire paragraphs almost word for word."

One critic tried to defend the last half by posting a one sentence example.  I was able to show the rest of the paragraph in each work and thus show that they were completely different.

99. "She and her silly god confirmed jesus would arrive here on EARTH in OCT 1844.

100. "She is the one who taught that God's blood contaminated heaven."

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: 96th to 100th whoppers
« Reply #1 on: Tue Oct 12, 2010 - 12:42:04 »

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: 95th whopper
« Reply #2 on: Fri Oct 29, 2010 - 19:24:57 »
101. "Have you had an appointment with SATAN like EGW did??"
« Last Edit: Sat Oct 30, 2010 - 12:44:21 by djconklin »

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-102 whoppers
« Reply #3 on: Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 14:59:18 »
Whopper #102:

Another ploy is to rip a quote out of its context: "“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: #95-102 whoppers
« Reply #3 on: Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 14:59:18 »

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: 96th to 100th whoppers
« Reply #4 on: Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 20:56:44 »
96. "Because they teach salvation OUTSIDE of Jesus. Mostly Jesus PLUS SDA membership PLUS Sabbath keeping PLUS acceptance and belief in EGW."

97. "Let's just say it: EGW was a racist. She did live in another century after all."

98. "she has plagiarized from many authors and taken entire paragraphs almost word for word."

One critic tried to defend the last half by posting a one sentence example.  I was able to show the rest of the paragraph in each work and thus show that they were completely different.

99. "She and her silly god confirmed jesus would arrive here on EARTH in OCT 1844.

100. "She is the one who taught that God's blood contaminated heaven."

Number 96 is not a "whopper," it is the truth.  SDA's believe, teach, and openly tell others that you have to "keep" the Sabbath to be saved, yet you will not tell them how you keep the Sabbath, or how we are supposed to keep it.  Evidently, there is a large group of people on this earth that you would really rather not see saved.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: 96th to 100th whoppers
« Reply #4 on: Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 20:56:44 »



Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-102 whoppers
« Reply #5 on: Mon Nov 01, 2010 - 21:07:34 »
Whopper #102:

Another ploy is to rip a quote out of its context: "“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-102 whoppers
« Reply #6 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 08:56:56 »
Quote
there is a large group of people on this earth that you would really rather not see saved.
Christ died to save all men.  Whether they choose to be saved or not is their choice.

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-102 whoppers
« Reply #7 on: Tue Nov 02, 2010 - 16:22:29 »
Quote
there is a large group of people on this earth that you would really rather not see saved.
Christ died to save all men.  Whether they choose to be saved or not is their choice.

Not according to you, because you won't explain how they are supposed to be saved.  If you are going to declare that they are not saved, you'd better be able to also declare how they can be saved.

2 Timothy 4:1-2  In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:  2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction.

1 Peter 3:15  But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

You make charges, but you don't answer and you do not instruct.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-102 whoppers
« Reply #8 on: Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 08:45:09 »
Quote
Not according to you, because you won't explain how they are supposed to be saved.
"because you won't explain how they are supposed to be saved." Anyone who is a Christian knows John 3:16.  BTW, a "have not" does NOT equal a "won't."  Have a good day.

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-102 whoppers
« Reply #9 on: Wed Nov 03, 2010 - 09:39:18 »
Quote
Not according to you, because you won't explain how they are supposed to be saved.
"because you won't explain how they are supposed to be saved." Anyone who is a Christian knows John 3:16.  BTW, a "have not" does NOT equal a "won't."  Have a good day.

Is John 3:16 the way to be saved?

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #10 on: Fri Nov 05, 2010 - 19:57:14 »
Two weeks ago I was told:

"The problem is that Ellen White copied ERRORS while she said" an angel showed me"!!
Now research THAT!!"

He has yet to post even one.

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #11 on: Fri Nov 05, 2010 - 21:28:52 »
Two weeks ago I was told:

"The problem is that Ellen White copied ERRORS while she said" an angel showed me"!!
Now research THAT!!"

He has yet to post even one.


And John and I have yet to see you actually answer any of our questions.  Seems you hold others to a standard which you do not feel compelled to hold yourself to.

Ellen White is a rabbit trail.  Show us scripture that backs up what you claim.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #12 on: Fri Nov 05, 2010 - 21:34:30 »
1) When a cold, hard fact is considered to be "patently lame" (with no proof offered to show that that was the case) then nothing can be shown.

2) If the claims of the critics were so true, then why do they have to lie so much about EGW?

3) If the claims of the critics are so true, then how come they don't explicitly disown any of the lies that are told about EGW?

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #13 on: Sat Nov 06, 2010 - 07:38:42 »
1) When a cold, hard fact is considered to be "patently lame" (with no proof offered to show that that was the case) then nothing can be shown.

2) If the claims of the critics were so true, then why do they have to lie so much about EGW?

3) If the claims of the critics are so true, then how come they don't explicitly disown any of the lies that are told about EGW?

I haven't talked about Ellen White, beyond saying that no one needs her as an authoritative source.  The Bible, and the Bible alone is the only authoritative source for doctrine and theology.

I have asked you how you keep the Sabbath.  You won't answer.

I have asked you how we are supposed to get saved, if we are not already.  You won't answer.

I have asked how we are supposed to keep the Sabbath.  You won't answer.

I've asked you to show me scripture that shows God instituted the Sabbath for mankind at creation, as you claim and you constantly repeat Genesis 2:2-3.  That isn't a proof text.

I've asked you how you can keep the Sabbath when you do not have a sacrifice as Numbers 28 commands you to have.  You won't answer.

I've asked you why you continue to claim that God insituted the Sabbath for mankind at creation when Deuteronomy 5 says He did not.  You won't answer.

Any one of these questions should be simple for you to answer, if you had ample biblcal proof for your assertions and were confident of your position.  Are you interested in defending Ellen White, or are you interested in sound doctrine?

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #14 on: Sat Nov 06, 2010 - 10:24:47 »
>I haven't talked about Ellen White

The lies that have been told about her are the subject of the thread.

>The Bible, and the Bible alone is the only authoritative source for doctrine and theology.

Now you sound like her!

At the close of the first Ellen White book, Experience and Views, page 64, is this note of urging: “I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged.

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #15 on: Sat Nov 06, 2010 - 10:47:54 »
>I haven't talked about Ellen White

The lies that have been told about her are the subject of the thread.
>The Bible, and the Bible alone is the only authoritative source for doctrine and theology.

Now you sound like her!

At the close of the first Ellen White book, Experience and Views, page 64, is this note of urging: “I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #16 on: Sat Nov 06, 2010 - 10:57:15 »
Quote
Are they lies I told?  I don't think so.

Did I say that you did?

Quote
And it is simply your word against someone elses that they are lies.
Some are quite obvious: can you plagiarize by paraphrasing?

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #17 on: Sat Nov 06, 2010 - 11:01:39 »
Quote
Are they lies I told?  I don't think so.

Did I say that you did?

Quote
And it is simply your word against someone elses that they are lies.
Some are quite obvious: can you plagiarize by paraphrasing?


Without giving proper credit to the original author or source?  Absolutely.  It is an absolute standard in the literary world that you do not even paraphrase something without giving proper credit.  To do so amounts to plagarism.  And that standard is supposed to be up-held even more stringently in the Christian world.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #18 on: Sat Nov 06, 2010 - 12:19:15 »
Quote
>>Some are quite obvious: can you plagiarize by paraphrasing?

>Without giving proper credit to the original author or source?  Absolutely.
You were taght to paraphrase in school.  So, strictly speaking paraphrasing isn't plagiarism.  Nowadays (since about the mid 1950's) you should also source who you are paraphrasing.  Before that it wasn't required.

Quote
And that standard is supposed to be up-held even more stringently in the Christian world.
Says who and since when?

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #19 on: Sat Nov 06, 2010 - 19:26:17 »
Quote
>>Some are quite obvious: can you plagiarize by paraphrasing?

>Without giving proper credit to the original author or source?  Absolutely.
You were taght to paraphrase in school.  So, strictly speaking paraphrasing isn't plagiarism.  Nowadays (since about the mid 1950's) you should also source who you are paraphrasing.  Before that it wasn't required.

Quote
And that standard is supposed to be up-held even more stringently in the Christian world.
Says who and since when?

Are you for real?  What kind of value system do you function under?

Offline John T

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 4
  • Reformed, CMA member
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #20 on: Sat Nov 06, 2010 - 21:09:56 »
Quote
>>Some are quite obvious: can you plagiarize by paraphrasing?

>Without giving proper credit to the original author or source?  Absolutely.
You were taght to paraphrase in school.  So, strictly speaking paraphrasing isn't plagiarism.  Nowadays (since about the mid 1950's) you should also source who you are paraphrasing.  Before that it wasn't required.

Quote
And that standard is supposed to be up-held even more stringently in the Christian world.
Says who and since when?

FYI this is the sort of thinking that gets people in trouble because it comes off as a shoot-from-the-hip sort of a response and it seems to have no serious thinking behind it because it simply is an argumentative pair of retorts.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #21 on: Sun Nov 07, 2010 - 02:03:55 »
I've been studying the subject for 10 years now and I have learned what kinds of questions to ask.

An example of what was done back then:

Wheeler (1883, p. 349)

. . . Trench says, 'Those whom Christ loves are no more exempt than others from their share of earthly trouble and anguish; rather are they bound over to it more surely.'

Now,  what did Trench actually say?

Trench (1850, p. 314)

But now there has fallen a cloud upon this happy household of love; for not they even whom Christ loves are exempt from their share of earthly trouble and anguish; rather are they bound over to it the more surely. . . .

Offline Cobalt1959

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #22 on: Sun Nov 07, 2010 - 20:47:52 »
I've been studying the subject for 10 years now and I have learned what kinds of questions to ask.

An example of what was done back then:

Wheeler (1883, p. 349)

. . . Trench says, 'Those whom Christ loves are no more exempt than others from their share of earthly trouble and anguish; rather are they bound over to it more surely.'

Now,  what did Trench actually say?

Trench (1850, p. 314)

But now there has fallen a cloud upon this happy household of love; for not they even whom Christ loves are exempt from their share of earthly trouble and anguish; rather are they bound over to it the more surely. . . .

Have you also learned how to answer them?  Because you do not deal with the majority of them, we get silence, or some curt answer that does not apply to the topic appended with "We're done."

Such as the above.  Your post has no bearing on what we were discussing.  You seem to think if you block out what you don't want to hear long enough, it will just go away.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #23 on: Sun Nov 07, 2010 - 21:59:34 »
>Have you also learned how to answer them?

Yes.  You don't get published if you don't.  See my sig.

>Your post has no bearing on what we were discussing.

I clearly stated: "An example of what was done back then".
« Last Edit: Sun Nov 07, 2010 - 22:27:16 by djconklin »

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-103 whoppers
« Reply #24 on: Sat Nov 20, 2010 - 09:43:43 »
A little over a month ago a guy said: "The problem is that Ellen White copied ERRORS while she said" an angel showed me"!!""  He has yet to show one example.  Another whopper for the file.
« Last Edit: Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 11:26:30 by djconklin »

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-105 whoppers
« Reply #25 on: Mon Nov 29, 2010 - 11:27:42 »
Yesterday on another forum: "SDA's read the Bible through Ellen White"

I have never done that and since a lot of SDA's don't read EGW the claim is flat out false.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
    • View Profile
Re: #95-106 whoppers
« Reply #26 on: Sat Dec 18, 2010 - 18:25:43 »
Today's whopper, #106:

"Negroes should not urge that blacks be placed on an equal basis with white folks."

Completely bogus quote.

 

     
anything