Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

a reply to: colbe

. . . when their fellow pastor across the street was professing something else!

This is what you are doing here at ATS, daily.

You should feel lucky that you don't get banned from this web site, telling people they are going to hell for having an opinion.

Do you see why "private judgment" of the written Word is heresy?

The discussion disclaimer being, "For entertainment purposes only".
There are plenty of straight Catholic Theology web sites for opinion-free commentary, that people could go to if they were interested in that sort of thing.
My disclaimer being:
I do not claim to have the power of Heaven or Hell over anyone who reads my comments.
Your agreeing with me is not a guarantee of going to heaven.
Disagreeing with my comments will not in itself condemn anyone to Hell.
The problem with the Catholic Church is they have no disclaimer, believing that it actually is the sole holder of the power to have people either go to heaven or hell at its discretion.

a reply to: orangetom1999

No...not at all..Christ is the fruit..first fruits.of them that slept.,

I think you may need to focus a bit because your reply does not even seem to be on the topic.
What you were doing was parroting one of your cult tenets that the Septuagint was barren of spiritual value because it existed for three hundred years before Christ with no results.
My argument is that it did have spiritual value by laying the groundwork to allow Christianity to take off once Jesus did come.
The existence of Christianity itself is the proof that the Septuagint bore fruit.

...faith verses Faith. For even the heathen have faith..and try to establish righteousness...and free themselves from sin.

The "heathen" did not have a good grasp on proper morality, for example they thought it was perfectly fine to attack a neighboring city under some pretext, to overrun it if they could, and loot it for gain. Or it was just good society to throw drunken parties that ended up in orgies.
So being "right" to them was nothing other than striving to lift their own social status and to look good and have lots of friends.
To be truly righteous as God measures righteousness, one must have a spirit from God that teaches them, and this can come to us only through Christ, who is the intermediary between God and man, being at different times, a person of a god-like nature, a man, and finally, a person performing a godlike role of Lord over all who believe in him.
Paul, in the New Testament, describes this situation with a term he makes by appropriating the word, Faith, to serve in this application, where we have a rule of law that is the law of Faith that we live by, being something we follow out of belief.

Faith is because of His blood..and this awareness in our hearts of for whom He Shed His Saving Blood. Our righteousness is His Righteousness...not ours.

We will always be sinners..we cannot get away from sin in our body of flesh.

The faith as Paul describes this way of life with Christ, is based on the fact of his very existence as a living person despite being put to death by wicked hands, because he was righteous in the eyes of God and was raised from the dead to witness to that heavenly vindication.
The sinfulness of the entire world is lifted up to a higher level.
If there was a measurement of the 'sin per person ratio', then it just jumped way up (higher being better) through this one person's high level of righteousness, and then as others believe in him, their righteousness adds even more to the "Sinfulness Score" of the world.

Jesus was born of a woman..but not just any woman..a woman who knew not a man. For it is known that sin passes down the line of the man..not the woman. This is why he had to be born of a woman who knew not a man. That he could be born blameless...without sin. How we are born into this world as compared to Jesus means nothing.

All this is just theory about things like the hypothetical "original sin".
There is not a male-only "sin" gene.
Jesus was the Son of David through his father's line, someone who the gospels call his father, that is Joseph.
The fact that they did not have sex first is irrelevant since it would have been done using Joseph's seed, by a divine form of artificial insemination.
My theory on the miraculous birth is that God sped up the process so that Jesus would end up being born in the right place to make a legitimate claim to David's throne.

a reply to: orangetom1999

I have been referring to and contrasting what is known as the "Traditions of Men" verses what the instructions from God were through Moses also known as The Law. Not just Traditions.

How do you know that all that is not also just so much "tradition"?
I think that there were other traditions outside the canonical Old Testament that was utilized by Jesus.
I don't think that Jesus was discriminating between what existed then in writing, and what was the officially sanctioned writings, where I think Jesus was perfectly OK with traditions if they were morally correct or if it was prophetic about what Jesus was up to, and what God had in mind as a plan.

The only way this will happen is if when we stand before God He sees the Blood of Jesus covering us. For if He sees any other blood..on us...we are doomed. Not of works lest any man boast. We do not try to commit sin...or go after the ways of this world...but nonetheless...when we stand before God...none of our works are sufficient...But His Blood is more than Sufficient. For He is our Earnest Hope.

I don't think that people will be putting blood on themselves as if this is supposed to somehow make them righteous.
I think the "covering of blood" is what would fit your term of "traditions of men".
What I mean is that it is just a slogan based only on theory.
The "works lest any man boast" that was being discussed in Ephesians was creating the church, which is not our invention, but was made through Jesus' righteousness.
It is "saved" as a way of describing the church, which is the congregation of the saved, just as in the Old Testament, it was those gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai, Israel who was saved by crossing the Red Sea under the protection of God.
So, it is not using the word "saved" in the sense that it is popularly used in our current language, but in the language of the time and context of the writing of the New Testament.
When you do stand in judgment, you had better hope that your works are sufficient, because God's grace is sufficient to produce the fruit of good works.
You do not want to be the person in the parable who failed to wear wedding attire to the wedding party.
When Paul talked about the "works of the Law", he meant the worthless things in the old Law that do not provide the person following them with true righteousness, for example, circumcision.

a reply to: Rex282

You know, I had a rather elaborate post prepared to answer and refute your claims point by point. I spent the last couple of days moving clean across the country, and in that time, while driving and whatnot, I had a lot of time to think, and decided your post simply doesn't merit that in-depth a response, which would have run to a minimum of two posts, and more likely three.

Clearly you haven't a clue what you are talking about, and in support of that contention, I offer this: you claim, repeatedly, that for some odd reason I have yet to fathom, you believe that I think someone is going to be , as you put it repeatedly "tortured in an eternal punishment of hell". I believe no such thing. Find a place in my posts - ANY place - where I make any such claim.

If you're that wrong about that, speaking as if from a non-existent "knowledge" about things you only assume and know nothing about, how much stock can I really place in any of your other claims? If you "read into" my comments such spurious silliness, how much more likely is it that you have "read into" the Bible what YOU want to believe, rather than what is plainly written there?

The question was not "where do I believe Adolph falls into the scheme?" it was "where do YOU believe Adolph falls into the scheme?" I've never answered the first question, you only assumed... wrongly.

Like the man said, "I award you no points".

============================================================

jmdewey60:

I sent you a U2U a few days ago. I have a question not related to ATS, and only peripherally related to this thread, hence the U2U rather than on the open boards.

============================================================

originally posted by: colbe


God wants you to become Catholic.

Now it seems you're denying the Blessed Trinity. ???

God is going to ask you personally, could be 2017, maybe sooner.

Colbe! Girl, I have been missing the steadfast determination borne of innocence that you bring to a thread, against all fact! I knew that once you showed up here, it would only be a matter of time until you came out with the line "God wants you to become Catholic"!

God still doesn't want ME to become Catholic. In support of my statement, I offer the following facts:

1) I am merely a human, and am utterly incapable of thwarting the will of God.

2) I am not a Catholic, nor ever will I be.

3) I utterly, and without reservation, deny the concept of "the trinity" as presented by Catholicism and all of it's protestant offshoots.

4) Therefore, by all evidence presented, God does NOT want me to become Catholic.

Now, if as you say at some point God asks me personally, then I'll consider it. Not until then. As of right now, God absolutely does not want me to become Catholic.

============================================================

orangetom1999:

Read whatever version you like, whatever version you are comfortable with, and be happy. The KJV is not for everyone, and I've seen it turn more people off to Christianity than I've seen it lead to Christianity in the modern day. In other words, I've seen it hinder more than help, because of it's awkward, archaic, foreign to modern ears language. If you're happy and comfortable with it, that's great - for you.

Others will find God in the best way they can, if God wants to be found by them. God's voice is not limited to Elizabethan English... I seriously doubt if God has ANY language barriers - he's the one who confused them, remember?

a reply to: orangetom1999

..they would like to replace this Light with light and His Blood with their blood and sacrifice.

This happened a long time ago with the Catholic Church adopting the old pagan rituals of the Romans to where they pretend that they can offer Jesus' blood as if they somehow owned it and were giving it to God, bit by bit.

The Blood War..or Ever War is the war which has been going on since the Garden of Eden...unto today.
The Gospel is not for everyone..it is for His people whom he separate out from the rest of the world. The Gospel is for them. Most of the world would like to get rid of the Gospel...this is clear in secular circles in particular. And in process of time the secular world will want to get rid of His people as well. The Gospel is certainly not for the fallen nor for those following the religion of the Fallen.

This is pretty pessimistic, and in my opinion, unfounded.
The "god of this world", as far as I am concerned, is just the idea that people had about what God was, from before Jesus came, that was now fading away as the knowledge of the gospel was being spread.
Joseph Atwill, in his book, Caesar's Messiah, presents a pretty good theory, I think, that the demons that Jesus was casting out was the spirit of rebellion that people had at the time, to fight a war against the Romans.

I am talking about one blood line here..

What is that?

be ye separate sayeth the Lord

That sort of thinking does not apply in the New Testament.

...and their god..the counterfeiter

There is not somehow another god out there pretending to be a different god than who he really is.

Wow!! Negative. This Blood is what was given for us..and cannot be duplicated by any tradition of men. This is not metaphor...particularly when contrasted by the traditions of men and how they would whore us out to cheap substitutes...man made traditions.

This became clear to me when reading John Foxx and his Book of Martyrs.

Jesus did not literally give his blood to some sort of deity who demanded payment in blood to satisfy a supposed "sin debt".
That just didn't happen, and it didn't even happen in the Old Testament.
What we have is a way to make a sort of analogy between Jesus and a High Priest, where a priest would carry blood with him into the Most Holy place on the Day of Atonement, where Jesus entered Heaven through his own offering which was his life of righteousness and obedience.
Foxx was probably burdened with some bad theology that was prevalent in his day.

This is what is meant by he was perfect in his generations.

It seemed like you were connecting that to "bloodlines", whatever that is.
I think that if you have an actual point, you should make it, rather than all these obscure allusions to something you don't explain.

Jesus and The Word..never used the Talmud and in fact spoke against it if you know how to read His Word. Nor do you find other esoteric traditions of men in His Word.

The Masoretic version of the Old Testament was created after the New Testament was created, that was in the era that the Talmud was written, so would have been adjusted to fit that philosophy, while the Septuagint existed before that, so you have about a 600 year gap where changes to the Masoretic could be made.

a reply to: nenothtu

I sent you a U2U a few days ago.

Sorry, didn't notice that, so thanks for the head's up. I posted the address to my blog on my profile wall page.
It is mostly technical,explaining the meanings of morphological codes but I am expanding it with things like playing audio for verses, of them being read in the Greek.
When it is useful, I will put a link in a post to a blog page that has a long list of verses that use a particular word as a means of getting the general idea of how it is used to mean something in particular. The point being that it is really a lot of work searching through the entire bible looking for words in a special form, to match other words in the same type of form, even if it is a completely different word, so I want to save that work in an easily searchable format, and that other people can use (which does happen).

a reply to: jmdewey60

. . . analogy between Jesus and a High Priest, where a priest would carry blood with him into the Most Holy place on the Day of Atonement, where Jesus entered Heaven through his own offering . . .

Here is me commenting on my own post as a sort of explanation as to how I know this sort of thing.
It comes from my background as a Seventh Day Adventist, and the fact that the Day of Atonement, as used by Hebrews to explain Jesus' heavenly ministry, is the central doctrine to the religion of the denomination.
What the belief is, that is tied to that description, is a literal judgment of the people of God, preparatory to Jesus' coming to claim his own from the earth, to take them to heaven.
That way, they don't have to pause as they are being raptured, to stand for a judgment, since they were already judged with Jesus standing in as our High Priest, in that temple not made with human hands.
My point is not that I necessarily believe in all of that right now, but that to understand the religion, then this is mandatory and members of our church should be able to, on a moment's notice, give an hour long detailed lecture on it and really know what they are talking about.
I know I have been absolutely astonished by people who I thought knew about zero about theology, rapt eloquent in a very moving way while giving their rendition of this subject matter.

a reply to: colbe


. . . when their fellow pastor across the street was professing something else!

"This is what you are doing here at ATS, daily.

You should feel lucky that you don't get banned from this web site, telling people they are going to hell for having an opinion."

Oh jim, I love you, how is a non-Catholic Pastor converting, finding Catholicism saying ANYONE is going to hell? God is the judge not you or me.

a reply to: nenothtu


nenothtu,
You know I would "show up here." I love you, I love, I love you! To read your words:


"Now, if as you say at some point God asks me personally, then I'll consider it. Not until then. As of right now,God absolutely does not want me to become Catholic."


This is what I wish and pray for, God sends the grace. Oh this marvelous day coming, Revelation 6:17 calls it a "great day." God is going to try (free will) and convince everyone on the earth.

originally posted by: colbe
a reply to: nenothtu


nenothtu,
You know I would "show up here." I love you, I love, I love you! To read your words:


"Now, if as you say at some point God asks me personally, then I'll consider it. Not until then. As of right now,God absolutely does not want me to become Catholic."


This is what I wish and pray for, God sends the grace. Oh this marvelous day coming, Revelation 6:17 calls it a "great day." God is going to try (free will) and convince everyone on the earth.

Colbe, you already know that I'm a bit of a strange bird when it comes to nearly everything I believe, and the concept of "free will" is no exception. What I believe concerning "free will" is really pretty involved, but the basics are that I believe free will as applied to mortals and their relations with God to be limited. In other words, I believe one can "kick against the goad" for as long as one likes, that one can run from God as hard as one wants to, but in the end will only find that one has run in a complete circle, right back to where God wanted you to be in the first place.

As they used to say in sniper circles, "you can run, but you'll only die tired". Some things are inevitable, impossible to escape.

I believe this because I think it illogical to think that I, as a mere mortal, can ever thwart the will of a God. What God wills will prevail. Although we can try to escape "heaven" for as long and as hard as we like, in the end God wins, and we will be wherever God wants us to be.

Told you I believe strange things - but then you already knew that, eh?

originally posted by: colbe
Only God would say this, the reason the Jews wanted to kill Our Lord, they did not believe He is God.

How does Jesus deal with the Sabbath?

Jesus observes the Sabbath, but at the same time he deals with it very liberally, as one who has complete command over it: "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" (Mk 2:27).

The fact that Jesus claims the right to heal on the Sabbath and to interpret the Sabbath laws mercifully poses a dilemma for his Jewish contemporaries: Either Jesus is the Messiah sent by God, which makes him "Lord even of the sabbath" (Mk 2:28), or else he is merely a man, in which case his actions on the Sabbath are a sin against the Law.

Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins...is the Sabbath..we rest in Him.

Rest, Peace, Prince of Salem..Prince of Peace...all names for Him. Shalom...Peace/Rest/Jesus THe Christ for Remission of Sins.

Peace be with you = Jesus be with you.

We Rest in Him..not in the traditions of men.

He is the Sabbath ....every day..all day...24/7..we rest in Him. Not just on Sunday or Wednesday..but 24/7.

For He can do all those things on the Sabbath because He is the Sabbath. The traditions of men do not apply to Him.

Orangetom

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: colbe
a reply to: nenothtu


nenothtu,
You know I would "show up here." I love you, I love, I love you! To read your words:


"Now, if as you say at some point God asks me personally, then I'll consider it. Not until then. As of right now,God absolutely does not want me to become Catholic."


This is what I wish and pray for, God sends the grace. Oh this marvelous day coming, Revelation 6:17 calls it a "great day." God is going to try (free will) and convince everyone on the earth.

Colbe, you already know that I'm a bit of a strange bird when it comes to nearly everything I believe, and the concept of "free will" is no exception. What I believe concerning "free will" is really pretty involved, but the basics are that I believe free will as applied to mortals and their relations with God to be limited. In other words, I believe one can "kick against the goad" for as long as one likes, that one can run from God as hard as one wants to, but in the end will only find that one has run in a complete circle, right back to where God wanted you to be in the first place.

As they used to say in sniper circles, "you can run, but you'll only die tired". Some things are inevitable, impossible to escape.

I believe this because I think it illogical to think that I, as a mere mortal, can ever thwart the will of a God. What God wills will prevail. Although we can try to escape "heaven" for as long and as hard as we like, in the end God wins, and we will be wherever God wants us to be.

Told you I believe strange things - but then you already knew that, eh?

Not strange to me nenothtu. For that is exactly what happened to me. I kept trying to run away..to find any corner I could to avoid the Truth. I ran out of corners in which to hide.

I have come to understand that we have free will in obeying or disobeying the Gospel. In the matter of salvation..it is totally up to God..not up to us.

For even King David was disobedient and a murderer. God did not break faith with King David. God punished King David severely ..but did not break faith with him. God did not break faith with Moses..but punished Moses severely for disobedience. Moses did not enter the land promised to the Children of Israel.

Thanks,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins...is the Sabbath..we rest in Him.

I think you have that backwards.
Hebrews says that there remains a rest.
The Israelites in the wilderness had a goal, which was the promised land, which would have been their rest, but almost all of them died in the wilderness, never making it to that rest.
We as Christians, have before us a rest if we make it to our goal.
It isn't saying we can rest now, but just the opposite.

a reply to: nenothtu

I believe this because I think it illogical to think that I, as a mere mortal, can ever thwart the will of a God. What God wills will prevail. Although we can try to escape "heaven" for as long and as hard as we like, in the end God wins, and we will be wherever God wants us to be.

Can you explain how this is different from what Rex was saying?
I think that we are based on some sort of entity that we can't understand exactly from our viewpoint of the physical existence that we are living in.
Whatever that thing is that we are, the thing that we hope to live on in some manner after this physicality is over with for whatever duration, it has a will, the same will that caused us to be these physical beings in the first place.
I don't think that we were forced to be these persons whether we liked it or not.
I might seem like the most cynical person in the world but I think God is here to help us, and not that we are here to provide amusement for God.
Do I think that makes us God? No, but it places on us a responsibility for ourselves and what we do.
We can put ourselves in hell, if we want, and God will let it be, if it is by our own choosing.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Why believe that people should have to be able to give a lecture on specific details of your beliefs in order to get to heaven? That sounds very weird.

I think it should be more important to understand to the best of your ability what is really true concerning God and His People and how that affects you in the afterlife... but I think what is most important is LIVING your faith. Not just believing it, and certainly not necessary to recite pre-proggrammed ideas, but LIVING what ever it is that you believe.

Just my personal opinion.

If most people really believed what they professed, they would live a much different life.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: jmdewey60

Why believe that people should have to be able to give a lecture on specific details of your beliefs in order to get to heaven? That sounds very weird.

I think it should be more important to understand to the best of your ability what is really true concerning God and His People and how that affects you in the afterlife... but I think what is most important is LIVING your faith. Not just believing it, and certainly not necessary to recite pre-proggrammed ideas, but LIVING what ever it is that you believe.

Just my personal opinion.

If most people really believed what they professed, they would live a much different life.

Wow!! Much better said than could I have done. And with an economy of words for which I lack. Well said...well said.


Thanks,

Orangetom

a reply to: jmdewey60

predestination and freewill... some believe in one, others believe in the other, I believe in a mixture of the two. Some things we do not and cannot choose - such as our place of birth, our parents, etc - and other things we can and do choose - such as our actions and our reactions to the circumstances in which we are surrounded.

It is those actions and reactions that are our own free will. Now, God knows exactly what we will do, and can use anything to his benefit, even bad things - NOT that HE causes them. I think when God wants us to be HIS, he leads us and guides us and makes certain we do not stray far, the circular path where all things lead to HIM. Some people are not God's and never will be, and they ignore everything on that circular path... but we always have our freewill.

But this is a topic where every side has its proofs, therefore the proof is on the middle path, the path that takes both into consideration. But this is my opinion, and the way I see it the best understanding....

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: orangetom1999

Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins...is the Sabbath..we rest in Him.

I think you have that backwards.
Hebrews says that there remains a rest.
The Israelites in the wilderness had a goal, which was the promised land, which would have been their rest, but almost all of them died in the wilderness, never making it to that rest.
We as Christians, have before us a rest if we make it to our goal.
It isn't saying we can rest now, but just the opposite.

All of the Olde Testament is a pattern or model to follow..in looking foreword to events today..the New Testament.

The Olde Testament is a shadow if I recall how it is worded. Not the real thing..in like manner to the priesthood of Levi..which is not the real thing..but Melchazidek is the everlasting priesthood. The Priesthood of Christ.

God was through out the Olde Testament as He is in the New. Under Different names...Redeemer...Faith...Peace...et al etc etc etc. And when He took on flesh...the names still applied. Always ..it was looking foreword...unto today...For there was Faith and Peace in the Olde Testament as well as in the New.

Under the traditions of men Peace is an absence of strife. But the Beleiver knows Peace is the name of an individual.,,our Redeemer. Not an absence of strife as is so popular today.

This is why so many have problems with the words or the Sabbath..for the Sabbath...Rest..Peace is also a person..not a day. We are not to keep days...times ..months..years. Sabbath..the day or time of Rest....for we Rest in Him..always...every day.

So many cannot see past these traditions..whether Hebrew or Gentile...for with the Sabbath ..none of this mattered.
This is another reason for the demise of the temple by 70 ad..No more sacrifice...no more priesthood needed...no more earthly kings needed. Our King is in heaven at the right hand of the Father....not on a throne on this earth..no earthly kingdom per se.

We as Christians, have before us a rest if we make it to our goal.

We don't make it to our goal...He gets us to His goal..by his Sovereign Will...by covering us with His redeeming Blood.
We Rest/Sabbath/Peace in that knowledge...An Ernest Hope. For we have Faith that He died for His sheep..He didn't die for goats.


As Christians ..we rest in Him...daily...24/7.

Orangetom

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: nenothtu

I believe this because I think it illogical to think that I, as a mere mortal, can ever thwart the will of a God. What God wills will prevail. Although we can try to escape "heaven" for as long and as hard as we like, in the end God wins, and we will be wherever God wants us to be.

Can you explain how this is different from what Rex was saying?

The answer to that was in the long-form answer I had ready for Rex, the one that I never posted due to moving and whatnot. The text for that is on another computer, but I'll try to recreate the sense of it here.

The difference is in WHO makes it through the ordeal of "life", in a mortal sense. Rex seems to believe that all will eventually make it through, and live on forever, and further, with his insistence on "resurrection to LIFE", the implication is that we will all live on in mortal-like, physical bodies - although I can't be sure that's what he means, it's only my take on his words.

I, on the other hand, don't believe that "all" will make it through, and live on forever in ANY manner of existence. I don't believe there will be any "torture", for eternity or otherwise. I see no value in "torture" after the fact, when it won't change or improve anything at all. I believe instead that "punishment" will be in the form of simple having one's existence snuffed out - one ceases to exist, in any form, and that cannot be torture, since without an existence in any form, one cannot be aware of his non-existence... he simply cease to "be". It is therefore not "torture" or "punishment", it's just the culling out of those who don't fit in, for whatever reason, into this "Kingdom of God". It is "the second death", a permanent solution without punishment. As it is written in Ecclesiastes 9:5 -

For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.

I believe it is those who have undergone "the second death", the cessation of existence, who are being spoken of there.

I think that we are based on some sort of entity that we can't understand exactly from our viewpoint of the physical existence that we are living in.

That, I would think, is a pretty safe bet. we each understand it as best we can, within the framework provided us as an individual.

Whatever that thing is that we are, the thing that we hope to live on in some manner after this physicality is over with for whatever duration, it has a will, the same will that caused us to be these physical beings in the first place.
I don't think that we were forced to be these persons whether we liked it or not.
I might seem like the most cynical person in the world but I think God is here to help us, and not that we are here to provide amusement for God.
Do I think that makes us God? No, but it places on us a responsibility for ourselves and what we do.
We can put ourselves in hell, if we want, and God will let it be, if it is by our own choosing.

The natural outgrowth of that would be as Rex says, everyone goes to heaven, because in actuality I've never met a person who wanted not to.

There are those who believe they cannot go to hell, because there is not one, and who also believe they cannot go to heaven, because there is not one... those who believe that there is no God, and nothing after life. It's not a matter of "want", they simply believe there is nothing afterwards to go to. Where do THEY "put themselves"?

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Why believe that people should have to be able to give a lecture on specific details of your beliefs in order to get to heaven? That sounds very weird.

It doesn't have anything to do with being saved but is the distinguishing doctrine of the church.
It probably isn't as important in the church as it was in the past, so what I was saying applies more to the older members, who were around when SDA's were known for door-to-door evangelism, where now it is more about having their own TV network.

I think it should be more important to understand to the best of your ability what is really true concerning God and His People and how that affects you in the afterlife...

Your judgment would fit that description, and that was the SDA interpretation of the Heavenly Temple scenes in Hebrews.
It would determine if you go to heaven or the lake of fire.

but I think what is most important is LIVING your faith. Not just believing it, and certainly not necessary to recite pre-proggrammed ideas, but LIVING what ever it is that you believe.

Maybe you don't know any Seventh Day Adventists.
They are all about "LIVING their faith" to the the point of being annoying to other people who are not all that concerned about a literal judgment.

If most people really believed what they professed, they would live a much different life.

Believe me, Adventists do.
I was around one of my sisters two weeks ago who has a daughter that is a globe-trotting missionary, and I was about to quit the denomination after a few days of being with her.
I would be considered pretty liberal in this group, where luckily for me my congregation is the most liberal SDA church in my area (within a 100 mile radius). It's pretty serious to where I wouldn't even set foot in some churches because of the energy being put off.