Argument XIV



      There are times when certain arguments come across as so contrived they are actually offensive. What follows is an example of that very thing.  Like other points offered in his defense of dining out on the Sabbath, Mr. David C. Pack manufactures an outrageous position and then attributes it to his doctrinal opponent. His intent is to discredit others by associating them with something that is TOTALLY false.


     In this particular phase of his case, Mr. Pack implies that the authors of A Sabbath Test actually want God's people to go hungry on His Sabbath. He does this by asserting that this debate is about food—not restaurants. We aren't making this up. These are his words. Although this point was included a part of a prior argument, it bears repeating.


David C. Pack:


Do you grasp what these authors are saying? They are equating the physical necessity of eating—ingesting food in order to obtain necessary nutrients for life—as entertainment and recreation. Who is missing something here? Should such a rift in logic or judgment not serve as a warning flag to reasonable, spirit-led minds? Should it not also be painfully obvious that the authors simply do not know and understand the true God?


Our Response:


    Whether Mr. Pack wants to admit it or not, dining out in restaurants is universally regarded as a form of entertainment. It is an activity often associated with special occasions and events. It is undeniably pleasurable and can be the source of great comfort. For this COG leader or anyone else to suggest that such an activity is about nutrition and not indulgence is simply dishonest. This is not to suggest that the delicious appetizers, entrées and deserts have no food value but that is not why people dine out. Most engage in this activity as a source of enjoyment. A member of the council of elders of a major COG group actually referred to it as a “treat.” Furthermore, we are confident that numerous couples in the Church place it high on their list of things to do as a form of entertainment. Suggesting that people dine out to obtain the necessary nutrients for life is comparable to claiming people go to casinos to practice their math skills—or, go dancing for the exercise. At this point it is significant that on most expense reports in corporate America, dining out is reported on a line item identified as “Travel & Entertainment.”


Now for Some Honesty


     Although Mr. Pack may trivialize the point being made in A Sabbath Test, he does so because he wants you to believe dining out is an essential component to human survival and therefore an appropriate Sabbath practice—thus invalidating the point advanced by Messrs. Braidic and Fischer. However, the real truth with respect to A Sabbath Test’s position regarding eating on God’s Sabbath is actually quite simple. Art Braidic and Dennis Fischer are NOT against food. That is just silly. They are against Dave Pack acquiring it on the Sabbath. Come to think of it, so is God (Ex. 16: 4-5). They are also opposed to Dave Pack having his Sabbath meals prepared on the seventh day. Come to think of it, God is opposed to that as well (Ex. 16:23). What this COG leader is suggesting is tantamount to saying that the reason God prohibited His people from gathering manna on the Sabbath or, preparing it on that day was that He wanted to deny them the necessary nutrients for life. Does anyone honestly believe that?



                                                                Argument XV

"Raising the Bar"

Return to Directory