A reblog from one of our posts

This is a reblog from a graphic we did, YKYSDA #271, which says “You know you’re SDA when you had to memorize verses and say them in front of church every 13th Sabbath”. I also added “The only thing that was worse was the singing the teacher made you do beforehand”. Takineko seemed to pose a question in their reblog and I wanted to answer it. 

takineko:

I don’t understand why you would complain about such a thing.

Did you know Jewish children have pretty much the whole Torah memorized by the time they’re 13? After school they go to a school that teaches them about their God and when you ask them if they find it burdensome they look at you like you’re crazy and say, “Is it a burden to carry diamonds?”

You can chose to find it annoying. Or you can realize you have a great opportunity to learn the Holy Words of God.

At our church, we only make the kids memorize one verse for 13th sabbath. Yes, I can see it’s awkward when you’re a kid to go up front and recite stuff/sing/whatever, but that’s the point. You have to learn to get out of your comfort zone. It’s just like school.

Hi Takineko! Sorry I was so slow to respond. 

You are right; having the opportunity to read and memorize the Scriptures of God is a privilege and an honor. And I did not make this post to criticize or complain about this practice at all. The thing about this site is posting relate-able experiences that we’ve had in the church and poking some good-natured fun at it. They’re not to down anything written here. So, when it comes to the graphics, don’t take me too seriously. :P

When I was a kid, I did all that 13th Sabbath stuff unabashedly (actually, I think I was a bit of a show-off, but let’s not go there :P). But around the age of 8 I became really shy and was super-nervous around people. And then I moved to a new church where I didn’t know anyone. When it’s like that, it’s not just awkward, it’s super-frightening. Especially when they have you sing because you start thinking about whether your singing voice is okay or if it’ll break the sound system. So, yeah, it’s awkward, especially for nervous shy kids, so I thought it was relate-able enough to put on here.

But it’s definitely a good practice. Being able to share your knowledge of the Bible so young in front of a church family that supports you, it’s supposed to be a reaffirming thing. And of course memorizing verses is good. For a while, at the church my membership currently resides, we didn’t have that for the youth (as in 0-18), and it was sucky. We realized there was a hole in the church when we weren’t nourishing the children. So it was remedied, and it was good. And when those kids grow up and start taking their knowledge to the streets, they’ll be able to remember that it started with the church.

I don’t know how I started ranting…. But no matter. I don’t find it annoying. I do find it awkward. But I do know it’s good. I hope you see what I was going for, takineko.

~Yvonne

Anonymous asked: My family going broke because of me going to Southern or Andrews was not going to happen. As much as I like those school, I cant do that to my family or to myself. I save tons of money going to a public university & as much as I would have loved going to those school I have a slight feeling I am learning more in a public university. I refuse to spend my whole life trying to pay off tons of loans.

I understand exactly where you’re coming from… I’m incredibly hesitant to take out loans now, myself. There IS financial aid out there, and plenty of grants you can get a hold of if you can pull off the grades and whatnot… but in my opinion… where Adventist universities are awesome for the community and the quality of things in general, they’re also too expensive for most non-rich people to pull off without going insanely in debt. I, too, am like you, anon… I refuse to spend my whole life trying to pay off tons of loans… and I’ve already put my parents through enough in the way of education.

 - Howie

(as a side note, Yvonne and I will respond to each direct response to our respective posts)

Anonymous asked: Howie, using your sarcasm to mock and insult others who don't address questions precisely how you think they should be addressed or asked is a quick way to turn people off to God and the church. I'm referring to how you have been responding to previous questions and comments by others. I don't want to sound judgmental but, you are coming off as argumentative and rude. I hope this changes soon as I really do enjoy this blog that Yvonne has created.

Anon… I think you misunderstand me… at least somewhat. A good part of the time, I’m only attempting to inject some humor. I enjoy joking around a good bit, using recurring jokes, turn of phrase, and lack of clarity to make someone laugh. I’ve never actually had that turn around into someone feeling offended, though… and I certainly don’t wish anyone to be. My jokes are not intended to come off as mocking or sarcastic… think of it as me tip-toeing up to someone, poking them, and then jumping back giggling. That’s what I’m after.

As for my argumentativeness… I’m not. Really, I’m not. My response to the anon’s cynical suggestion was borne of the fact that I was offended that someone would put down another person because they followed what they saw to be the truth, even in the light of the effort it took for those parents to put the individual through the Adventist education system. Look at it this way: if the situation was one where the individual was put through a good amount of say, Catholic education. Would you put that person down if they left the Catholic church to become an Adventist? It feels INCREDIBLY wrong to use the argument “well, Adventists are right, so it’s okay”…. even hypocritical.

I defended that one bit a tad bit much, I think… but still. I make an effort to show that I may be wrong on a subject… my last couple posts have been a bit lacking in that regard, so I apologize to that end. 

If you are referring to my stronger standpoint on certain ‘grey’ issues… I’ll speak strongly if I feel that what’s right is being called wrong, or what’s evil is being called good. 

I’m not sure exactly what part of my posts you’re referring to… my jesting shouldn’t be coming across as argumentative OR rude, so I decided to address other possibilities. I apologize if I’m off. One way or another… thank you for voicing your concern. I do not wish to turn anyone off to the church… much less to God. I, myself, enjoy this particular blog that Yvonne’s kept running… and I’m quite surprised to see how far it’d spread before I started helping out. 

That being said… Yvonne reads through everything I put out there on this blog. Occasionally, she’ll make a comment here or there… point out that I left something unclear or misphrased… but in general, everything that I say, she agrees with.

 - Howie

Anonymous asked: Heyy! Glad to see you guys up and running again(: I just want to know.. What your thoughts are on pork. In Leviticus, it listed all the unclean animals that we arent allowed to eat. Pork was one of them. But last week in my Sabbath School worship, we learned that God said to not call what he has made unclean. (Found in Acts).

You know… that’s actually a very valid question. But I must warn you: either you read and interpreted this incorrectly (as far as I can tell), or you may want to be wary of the things the person who told you this might tell you. 

The passage you’re talking about is Acts 10. Now, I’m guessing you haven’t read the whole chapter… if only a little, then it was just the portion relating to the vision. But there’s a bit of a story here.

There was this Roman general named Cornelius. God sent him a vision, telling him to send for Peter, and he did. 

Now keep in mind: Peter was a bit of a stubborn one. Didn’t really like the idea that he wasn’t right on something, as is evidenced by various events and whatnot. Thing is, Peter grew up with the commonly-held Jewish belief that the Jews alone were God’s people. THEY were the ones He interacted with. THEY were the ones that needed Christ’s message. The gentiles (who, as per definition, were non-Jews) were generally considered “unclean” by the Jewish culture and law. 

As such, you can probably guess that Peter would likely decline an invitation by a Roman officer to come tell the message of Christ. So, God decided to give him a quick attitude readjustment. A nice one, at that.

The vision God sent Peter, telling him to eat the normally-unclean animals, was directly referencing the gentiles. God wanted His message to go to the gentiles, too.

Now, as far as I can tell… the gentiles weren’t actually pronounced “unclean.” It seems to be more for generational habit’s sake that the Jews actually shunned and avoided them. Because of the simple discrepancy, we can be sure to not take a one-for-one exact match-up translation. Where God wanted His word to go to ALL the gentiles, He wasn’t saying that ALL animals were suddenly clean; just the ones he had told Peter to eat: the ones He’d handed him on a silver plat… uh… on a sheet.

The message God was trying to get to peter was this: If I say something’s clean, don’t hesitate to take part in it. Peter was a stubborn one… heh, it took God THREE TIMES showing him the vision to get the idea through his head. But eventually Peter did get the picture. 

Now, if you wanted to, you could stop there… but it’s not the end of the story. After that event, that vision, that go-ahead from God, the gentiles were actually available to the apostles for teaching.

From Acts 10:

³⁴ Then Peter replied, “I see very clearly that God shows no favoritism. ³⁵ In every nation he accepts those who fear him and do what is right. ³⁶ This is the message of Good News for the people of Israel—that there is peace with God through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 

The point that Peter makes here is that God is Lord of ALL, not JUST the Jews. That’s the whole point of this entire text. The whole thing. That’s the message God was trying to tell Peter with the vision: not that the animals were clean… but that the gentiles were meant to have the Gospel too. 

It goes further, though. Once Peter’s finished talking, there, the Holy Spirit is poured out on the gentiles that have taken to Christ’s work. That was the undeniable proof that the gentiles were God’s JUST as much as the Jews were. Again, the message is driven home.

My answer to you is this: the vision in which the unclean meat is pronounced “clean” was an analogy for the gentiles… while the message is there - “do not call something unclean if God has made it clean [v. 15]” - God was talking about the animals He’d provided on the sheet, in the literal sense. Peter could have, straight up, killed those animals and eaten the meat, and it would’ve been fine. Those individual creatures in the sheet had been made clean. He wasn’t talking about the animal KINDS… He was talking about those specific animals. In the analogous sense, the message He was trying to convey, He was talking about the gentiles. 

But this all boils down to this: your question is about pork. The passage here doesn’t specifically mention pork. But that hardly matters. The reason those animals were deemed unclean to begin with is because they’re not exactly the healthiest things to eat to begin with… more so than ANY of the actually “clean” animals. Even so… if you were to look at the preparation notes on how to properly prepare clean meats, modern american society doesn’t exactly follow ‘em. Example: you’re supposed to drain out all the blood before cooking meat… but bloodless meat is actually very bland, so it’s generally cooked WITH the bl… you know what? I’m not answering your question… just making it more complicated. Bah.

Answer: No, you cannot use this particular passage as a ‘all meat is healthy and clean’ card without taking the whole thing way outta context. There you go.

I hope this answers your question, and I pray I conveyed myself well… sometimes I don’t.

 - Howie

Anonymous asked: You know you're a jerk when your family goes broke putting you through Adventist education only for you to leave the church.

First off, dude(ette), this is a “You Know You’re an SDA When…” tumblr. I don’t see the word “jerk” in there. We’re not out to bash on anyone at all. Honestly, that’s not Christ-like.

I’m answering this one because it just appalls me. Seriously? You’d go so far to hate someone, be it a category of people or an individual, to suggest we spread the disdain for it? 

A person, an individual, has every right to leave the church and search for God elsewhere. Who knows why they left? Likely, it’s a personal feeling that something’s just not quite right. If you feel like the SDA Church is off… look into it. If you find that the truth conflicts with the SDA Church’s stance on something… feel free to leave.

It’s my personal belief that under NO circumstances should you decide to stay with the church on the SOLE basis of the fact that your parents put you through private school, and you feel obligated to them. They paid out their nose, yes. Feel obligated. But DON’T go basing your spiritual beliefs off of that. If anything, give your religion a decent chance. Do more research… look at things from the perspective of “they might be right about this…”. Ask a pastor or someone who’d know about stuff.

My point is this: Following the path you find most truth in doesn’t make you a jerk. Asserting that some such person IS a jerk is insanely ignorant.

Don’t get me wrong: There’s only one truth… and I believe that Seventh-Day Adventist Church has more than anyone else out there. But I believe that our understanding of the truth is incomplete. If I were to find something that still contradicted the Adventist Church’s beliefs, stances, or doctrines, and did enough research to be convinced I wasn’t mistaken, and had consulted people who knew more than I, and prayed on it a good bit… I’d leave. Straight up. My parents put me through the Adventist education system for 12 years… and helped me attend Andrews University for a year before I had to leave. They’re STILL helping me out with paying a portion of the loans I took out. 

Call me a jerk. Seriously, do it. If you’d ignore the truth merely because your parents taught you different and paid good money for you to learn different, you’re merely being ignorant. I beg of you to reconsider your standpoint on this one. Ignorance is not becoming of someone who actually wants to know the truth. 

- Howie