Logos vs. "Aliens"
Who Made Who?
Today I awoke to a few headlines that require some brief connecting of dots. I’m not telling you what to believe and why, instead I’m explaining what I believe, and why.
With all the talk of “aliens” and disclosure currently emanating out of certain corridors in Washington, both from the “left” and “right” sides of the spectrum, it’s worth asking what represents the top end of this conversation, and what represents the something approximating the bottom.
So let’s go through it together—top, bottom, left, right, and hopefully we can find some answers that make more sense than the total confusion that seems to be coming from everywhere else these days.
Who are “They”
Point one, trending on X was the following headline and summary:
X Users Debate Who Should Speak for Humanity if Aliens Visit Earth
Posts on X discuss hypothetical alien contact, with users nominating figures like Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Michio Kaku, Celine Dion, and scientists to represent humanity. Suggestions range from serious recommendations of negotiators and experts to humorous picks like a Discord mod or Crazy Frog. Some users express concerns about deception or prefer personal meetings via telepathy.
This discussion was sparked by a post by a user called “Night Sky Today”, who asks:
If aliens visit us, who should be in charge of speaking on behalf of humanity?
(the screen shot below links to the post)
This is of course a wildly speculative premise which can have a wildly counter-speculative answer that effectively diffuses the inquiry, one that I’ll offer you after we discuss a few things related to this question so we’re not asking it blindly.
Where are “They”
Point two, this larger question is very much related and concurrent to the debate happening between a brand of Christians who call themselves, generally speaking, “dispensationalists”, and those who I recently came to believe most adequately—though not without missteps—represent the true descendants of the faith of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and who are therefore the keepers of the Logos.
The relationship between these worlds may not seem obvious at first, until you realize that nothing is more consequential than the answer to one premise is the major challenger to the possibility of the other—if there is a indeed a God who made Himself known here on Earth, what would it mean to meet another god like-archetype from out there, coming to the human race with its own stories about the origins of the universe, potentially standing in direct contradiction to the story told to us by Jesus?
I’m going to explain why understanding extremely different Christian sects and the theological spats between them can prepare us for a deception unlike anything we’ve ever witnessed before, and where we can look to help us make deeper sense of it, so when I suggest that Catholics are the keepers of the Logos, I’m not just using a word that may not be all that familiar to many proclaiming to be faithful Christians—I’m making a statement about the nature of the Christian faith itself, and what it means to be faithful to Christ alone as devout Catholics. This is a statement bearing further investigation whether or not you’re looking for the philosophical explanation for such a statement, or the metaphysical one, a point we can explore more deeply in a moment with the help of xAI’s Grok chatbot to explore some of the finer details, one that was inspired by the following X post by a handle going by “Rev. Vitus”:
“The Catholic Church is the only religion that can trace back its history to Christ.”
This invited the usual chatter from those who wish to dispute doctrine, which tends to be for reasons that should become more obvious in a moment by the aforementioned dispensationalists, who tend to be of the Protestant persuasion.
One such reply as seen in the screen shot above provided by “Gutsy Sheila” was:
“Does anyone remember that Rome persecuted the early Christians? Now it claims to be the church that Jesus founded. Wow! You guys have been duped.
For those who don't know the true history of the Roman Catholic Church, you might want to have a look at these:”
Sheila was then kind enough to provide a couple of Youtube videos as her “evidence”, both of which I’ll link below for total transparency.
As you can see above the first and second video is presented by a Mr. Walter Veith, who’s videos I’ve definitely watched in the past. Mr. Vieth is a “Seventh Day Adventist”, though he’s also a controversial figure within that Christian denomination.
We’ll come back to the Adventists because they do have a unique contribution to this thread, specifically through a Youtube channel called “Strange Normal”, and another controversial Adventist named Roger Mornea, specifically about some unusual predictions he made before his passing in 1998, and “aliens”.
The Good Reverend replied to Gutsy with: “We know Rome Persecuted early Christians. But the fundamental is that, we Catholics can trace our origin.”
I further replied with a response of my own:
“And more than that trace the Logos.”
…which in turn led to me asking Grok to make sense of the thread. I then asked for a further clarification that I hope you will find helpful.
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
As per Grok:
@djenr8’s post replies to a Catholic defense of apostolic origins by adding that the Church traces the Logos, elevating the claim from historical continuity with Christ to custodianship of the divine Word.
The thread originated from a post claiming the Catholic Church alone traces back to Christ, met with criticism citing Roman persecution of early Christians as evidence of discontinuity.
Logos references John 1:1’s identification of Christ as the eternal divine reason, framing the Church’s role as preserving the metaphysical foundation of Christianity beyond mere institutional history.
User: and what is meant by “Logos”, and why did I use that word in relationship to Catholicism, which I would argue, as does the OP, that it is the Holy Mother Church that has “kept the faith” in a way unlike any other denomination?
Is there a strong philosophical and historical trail of evidence, constituting both materialistic, and a metaphysical lineage as is claimed?
Grok: “Logos” is the Greek term (λόγος) that the Gospel of John uses right at the start of the New Testament to describe Jesus Christ himself: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (John 1:1).
In Christian theology—especially Catholic theology—it doesn’t just mean “word” in the everyday sense. It means the eternal, divine Reason, the creative Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity who became flesh in Jesus. The Logos is the rational principle through which God creates and sustains the universe, reveals himself to humanity, and communicates truth. Early Church Fathers and Catholic tradition (drawing from both Jewish Wisdom literature and Greek philosophy) saw it as God’s self-expression: not an abstract idea, but a living Person—Christ—who is fully God and fully the bridge between God and creation.
You used the word “Logos” in your reply (“And more than that trace the Logos”) to elevate the original claim in the thread. The OP (@Vitus_osst) argued that the Catholic Church is the only religion that can historically trace its origins directly back to Christ. Critics were pushing back on Rome’s early persecution of Christians as evidence of discontinuity. Your addition wasn’t just agreeing—it sharpened the point: the Catholic Church doesn’t merely have a historical/apostolic link to Jesus as a historical figure. It traces and guards the very Logos—the eternal divine Word/Truth itself. In other words, Catholicism isn’t one denomination among many; it’s the living institution that has preserved, transmitted, and interpreted the full deposit of divine revelation (Scripture + Tradition) without breaking from the apostolic source. This makes the claim metaphysical, not just institutional. You’re saying the Church is the custodian of the Logos (Christ as the eternal Truth), which is why it alone has “kept the faith” intact in a way no other Christian body has.
That’s a classic Catholic understanding: the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), the mystical Body of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit to safeguard the Logos against heresy, fragmentation, or dilution. Protestant denominations (in this view) broke away at various points and rely on sola scriptura without the full living Tradition; Eastern Orthodoxy shares some succession but diverged on key points like papal primacy. You and the OP are arguing the Catholic Church (the “Holy Mother Church”) uniquely maintained doctrinal, sacramental, and structural continuity with the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).
Is there a strong trail of evidence—both historical (”materialistic”) and philosophical/metaphysical—for this lineage?
Yes, there is a substantial trail, though how conclusive it is depends on one’s starting assumptions (faith vs. purely secular history). Here’s the evidence laid out clearly:
Historical (“materialistic”) evidence—apostolic succession and institutional continuity:
The Catholic Church traces bishops back through an unbroken line of ordination (“laying on of hands”) to the apostles, especially Peter in Rome. Early witnesses like St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) listed the bishops of Rome from Peter onward and said this succession guarantees the true faith against heresies: “We must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles.”
1 Clement (c. 96 AD) already shows apostles appointing successors with provisions for ongoing replacement. By the late 2nd century, succession lists for major sees (Rome, Antioch, etc.) were standard.
Archaeological and documentary records confirm Peter and Paul died in Rome; later popes and councils consistently appealed to this lineage. Modern Catholic records (and even some non-Catholic historians) affirm the lines are “morally certain” back to the apostles, even if not every single name is documented in the earliest centuries.
This is the “material” chain: tangible ordinations, lists, and writings showing the Church in Rome (and the broader Catholic structure) as the direct institutional heir.
Philosophical and metaphysical lineage—the guarding of the Logos:
Patristic era (2nd–5th centuries): Fathers like Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Augustine defended the Logos (Christ’s divinity) against Gnostics, Arians, etc., through councils (Nicaea 325, Chalcedon 451). The Church defined core doctrines (Trinity, Incarnation) while preserving the “deposit of faith.” This isn’t just history—it’s the metaphysical claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth (John 16:13), making it the living interpreter of the Logos.
Scholastic synthesis (esp. Thomism): St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) fused Aristotelian reason with Christian revelation in works like the Summa Theologica. He treated the Logos (as the divine Word) as the intelligible ground of all reality—faith and reason harmonized. Thomism became the backbone of Catholic philosophy, influencing everything from natural law to sacraments. It shows a continuous intellectual lineage: the Church didn’t just survive; it intellectually developed and defended the Logos without contradiction.
Magisterium and development of doctrine: The Church claims the ability to clarify (but not invent) truth over time (e.g., Vatican I on papal infallibility, Vatican II on the Church as sacrament). This is the metaphysical piece: the Logos isn’t static text but a living Person present in the Church’s teaching office. Early heresies were pruned precisely because the Church saw itself as the guardian of divine Reason against human distortion.
Critics (Protestants, some historians) argue the evidence shows development, corruption, or shared succession with Orthodoxy—and that “keeping the faith” is better measured by fidelity to Scripture alone. But from the Catholic perspective you share with the OP, the trail is both historically verifiable (succession lists, patristic consensus) and philosophically robust (a coherent, reason-informed tradition centered on the incarnate Logos). It’s why Catholicism presents itself as the one Church that has preserved the fullness of the faith across 2,000 years—material continuity + metaphysical fidelity to the Word made flesh.
Your reply was a concise, punchy way to say exactly that. It reframes the debate from “who founded what” to “who still carries the eternal Logos.”
But what does that have to do with “aliens”?
Point three, the entire concept on an “alien” race coming to visit earth requires a massive philosophical leap; one that necessarily removes Jesus from the equation—removing the Creator from the creation attempts to claim ownership over that which Catholicism claims by tradition, and definition, is already owned—the Omega point.
But let’s just examine where we’re at in modernity to try and make a deeper sense of why so few people really understand the main difference between Catholicism and every other philosophical or religious concept, by examining a key concept behind this alien proposal, at its core.
It' is a more than fair statement to suggest most people, regardless of their belief disposition, are, at least in modernity, under the impression another form of “life” must be possible, coming from “out there” because the universe is just so darn big.
And since it’s so darn big who’s to say the exact same conditions we generally accept here on earth that led to the “evolution” of life hasn’t been duplicated—perhaps in a future tense on another planet in another galaxy or star system—somewhere else?
Skipping completely over arguments on abiogenesis—discussion of the first life form from which all other life forms on Earth sprang—if we simply accept evolution alone as being a pretty standard way to make sense of how most things “progress” in the world we’re all familiar with, Logos is the underlying logic that ought to explain how.
In other words, if the one constant in the universe is “evolutionism”, this logically leads to propose similar scenarios where “sentience” emerged elsewhere, and if this is the case, life evolved without destroying itself during the evolutionary process, these other “sentient” life forms ought to have achieved a higher state of technological and evolutionary prowess, perhaps even merging with their technology.
And if so, this may have allowed them to overcome the many scientific maximums we’ve come to believe exist in our universe, paradoxically making evolutionary superiority an improbable proposal because we as humans don’t yet know how to overcome certain restraints like surpassing the speed of light without perturbing the time paradox issues that come as a result of this moving faster than relativity, or learning to survive the trips between vast distances between stars that might support life.
And I really want you to meditate on that point because it’s critical to the story—without the heat from a star like our Sun, interactions required to “excite” the process of creating life, at least in the way most people understand the back story of evolutionism conceive of it, don’t currently exist in any conceivable way to human kind, so the separation between star systems which as we are told as part of this narrative remain very far apart even if “life” emerged in a separate solar system—too far for life to conceivably survive the trip between these de facto nursery zones, let alone could they conceivably achieve the speed needed(breaking physics as we currently understand it) to move from one zone to another.
Overcoming these challenges suggests getting past a certain point of development past which a civilization such as ours, despite all of our advancements, is not currently even close to figuring out, and it’s major issues like these that have led those among us who consider themselves to be science based and rational, to reject the underlying premise of “aliens”, right up until the current moment.
The term for getting past these challenges is, generally speaking, called the “Kardashev scale”, and as per Wikipedia: Starting from a functional definition of civilization, based on the immutability of physical laws and using human civilization as a model for extrapolation, Kardashev’s initial model was developed. He proposed a classification of civilizations into three types, based on the axiom of exponential growth:
A Type I civilization (planetary) is able to access all the energy available on its planet and store it for consumption.
A Type II civilization (stellar) can directly consume a star‘s energy, most likely through the use of a Dyson sphere.
A Type III civilization (galactic) is able to capture all the energy emitted by its galaxy, and every object within it, such as every star, black hole, etc.
Under this scale, the sum of human civilization does not reach Type I status, though it continues to approach it. Extensions of the scale have since been proposed, including a wider range of power levels (Types 0, IV, and V) and the use of metrics other than pure power, e.g., computational growth or food consumption.[2][3]
We haven’t even hit Type 1 yet, but, as a the story goes, just because we haven’t figured it out that doesn’t mean someone “out there” hasn’t already done so.
We know this because instead of looking around our local solar system, most of science has moved beyond searching within our immediate solar eco-system and expanded into peering out into the cosmos to find life, leading to huge projects like the U.S. Planetary Society, more commonly understood as SETI (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence).
Conversely, this belief system has also led to numerous fantasy writers and philosophical speculators to come up with incredibly creative ways to explain why, if the story we tell ourselves about human evolution makes perfect sense, it ought to lead to some advanced future state of “life” where the things that confound our current understanding of science makes perfect sense, even though they may not make sense to us. As in, the only reason “they” would be able to do things we don’t understand is because they already understand things we haven’t yet figured out.
One such thinker was Arthur C. Clarke who really nailed it with the following premise that further muddied the waters:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Okay, maybe so, but it leaves the question unanswered: well then, where are “they?”
This is the realm of fantasy that exists beyond the technical improbabilities that make it unlikely we’ll ever meet an alien and the question of: if “they” are “out there”, why have we never seen them?
This is typically referred to as the “Fermi paradox”.
Per Google Gemini: The Fermi Paradox is the contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial life and the total lack of evidence for it. Given the billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun and the universe’s great age, intelligent life should be common, yet we have zero contact or evidence, leading to physicist Enrico Fermi’s famous question: “Where is everybody?”.
Key Aspects of the Paradox
High Probability: With over 100 billion stars in our galaxy and many being billions of years older than the Sun, it is statistically probable that intelligent life should have developed elsewhere, potentially leading to interstellar travel.
Lack of Evidence: Despite over 60 years of listening for radio signals, searching for intelligent life, and looking for evidence of astroengineering (like Dyson spheres), humanity has found no signs of alien civilizations.
The Question: Why have we not seen evidence of colonizing civilizations if they are so likely to exist?
Proposed Solutions to the Paradox
They Do Not Exist: Life or intelligence is far more rare than we imagine, making Earth unique.
They Exist, But Not Extensively: Intelligent civilizations may be limited by technology, resources, or the immense difficulty of interstellar travel.
They Are Hidden or Silent: Advanced civilizations might choose not to make contact, are operating on a different level of technology we cannot detect, or operate at a frequency we do not monitor.
The Great Filter: A hypothesis that something, likely a catastrophic event or natural hurdle, prevents civilizations from advancing enough to become interstellar.
The paradox serves as a foundation for the Drake Equation, which calculates the potential number of active civilizations.
Earlier I suggested that alien life was based on wild speculation, and also boldly suggested I have a wildly counter-speculative question that effectively diffuses the premise. One that I’ve heard very few people use suggest, yet I myself have asked why could this not also be true, because it seems so obvious.
NASA is currently tracking the voyage of the Artemis II astronauts around the Moon.
This morning they uploaded to X a photo taken, we’re told, by those astronauts, of a:
“…breathtaking photo of our galaxy, the Milky Way, on April 7, 2026.”
One response to this photo by an X user named “Kelvin O Jonson” went as follows:
“Christianity is a really funny religion, man…
Imagine thinking that whatever it is that created this majestic and possibly infinite universe, in all its complexity, scale, and structure, impregnated a Jewish girl somewhere in Palestine 2,000 years ago, can get jealous of other gods, can regret its actions, can command one tribe to commit genocide against another, endorses slavery, gets angry, thinks blood sacrifice is a rational route to forgiveness and creates eternal suffering for people who do not believe very unconvincing stories in a book.
Think about how completely ridiculous that leap is.
Christianity (and its little sister, Islam, which believes the language of this concept of a creator is Arabic… in light of the thousands of beautiful and rich languages on the planet) really is an insult to whatever majestic being created the universe, if there is indeed one. And images like these below actually solidify the position of atheists or the non-religious… in fact, it is exactly why they are atheists.
The sheer majesty and complexity of the universe don’t push atheists or any rational, non-indoctrinated mind, for that matter toward religion… It often does the opposite. It highlights just how implausible and, at times, absurd many religious doctrines appear by comparison.
Because they hold such a concept… that which would create this universe… to such a high standard, that organized religions and their books, when you read them, end up looking really, really silly.”
The Truman Show
Putting aside the fact that our friend Kelvin here seemed keen on specifically targeting Christianity while making a straw man argument against it, and further insulted Islam, while not mentioning any other ideas, philosophies or religions was insulting enough to deep thinkers around the world, but I would like to thank Kelvin as he prompted me to ask him the reverse of his question, which implies he understands things he clearly does not, so let’s take his absurdist question and flip it on its head—replying:
“I could generate this image on a computer and then on a screen, and if we mess with the scales a little bit this could be a goldfish bowl. Your awe is irrelevant”
It was a little bit flippant but follow the logic, if there might be something far more advanced than humanity out there in the universe, who’s to say they didn’t invent a shrink ray and put our solar system into a technological fish bowl with an animated background? To rephrase what I’m proposing, think back to the Kardashev scale—Type II civilizations (stellar) can directly consume a star’s energy, most likely through the use of a Dyson sphere. But when you change the scale and place us at the centre of a giant sphere as opposed to floating in an endless universe we can never actually reach—at least not with our current understanding of physics or our current technology—but is capable of messing with our instruments, what’s to stop an “alien” from coming into our fish bowl of a universe before anyone reaches the wall?
The Truman Show vs. David Hume
We’re not under any threat of bumping into that kind of a Truman show existence any time soon, but Kelvin assumes it’s specifically Christianity and Islam that have no idea how to make sense of these kinds of questions. Why? I’m a Christian, and I have no problem thinking about these kinds of questions, and in fact have done for years now which led me to the Catholic church, and also to ask what I argue is the right question that people like Kelvin need to answer if his ideas are so superior:
The main philosophical conundrum we as a species find ourselves currently moored in is actually a quite simple and old quandary, first proposed by David Hume:
Where does humanity, and by extension human meaning, get its “ought” from what we can reliably identify and universally agree upon as what “is?”
This is the primary question with which the Catholic Church, since it’s inception, has concerned itself with, based upon a revelation from a man who walked the earth around two thousand years ago, and told the human race, much to our confoundment and amazement, that He, was the One who Created the world we all live in, and only He knew what He, who Created the world, knew what He wanted for His children, and told us how to achieve His vision.
That requires a metaphysical leap many people simply aren’t willing to take, and that’s just fine, they don’t have to—in fact the entire point of the church inspired by Jesus Christ was that everyone gets to choose whether or not they wish to believe in Him and His revelation, one that is constantly debated in the Catholic church, who has a rich history and historical record of continuity that is sometimes undermined from within just as the historical church was—Paul tells us in the Gospels(2 Corinthians,) right from it’s very beginnings.
…We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away….
…I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough….
…And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
The job of the Holy Mother Church of Roman Catholicism to maintain the faith like a bride maintains loyalty to her betrothed, and while she may invite others in to learn from her and partake in her meals and ceremonies, her main purpose it to preserve Logos as the Apostles once did—not to compel others, but to preach Jesus’ truth.
But it’s a choice to remain faithful, and many have fallen astray.
Sometimes even praying to the fish bowl when the Logos gets us to the same place with less war between factions along the way. Even today the bride of the Prince of Peace proposes peace talks while those who claim to be Christians threaten World War 3, I argue blasphemously in the good name of Christianity.
For many are called, but few are chosen. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
The point is no one is compelled to agree with the church, and people can indeed choose to believe in whoever or whatever they want, up to and including another who was identified by Jesus in His limited time in our material universe as a principality, and a spirit, who exists beyond our human comprehension, and by definition beyond our “physics”, most notably named, by Jesus, as Satan.
Per Gemini: Jesus refers to Satan using several distinct titles and names that emphasize his nature as an adversary, tempter, and enemy of God. Key names and phrases used by Jesus in the Gospels include Satan, the Devil, the Evil One, the Ruler of this World, the Father of Lies, and the Tempter.
Key Names Used by Jesus:
Satan (Adversary/Opposer): Used in Matthew 4:10, where Jesus says “Go away, Satan!”.
The Devil (Slanderer): Used in Matthew 13:39 and Luke 10:18.
The Evil One/Wicked One: Used to describe his nature as morally bad (Matthew 13:19).
The Ruler of this World: Highlights his influence on the current world system (John 12:31).
Father of Lies/Murderer: Described by Jesus in John 8:44.
Beelzebul: Jesus addresses Satan as the “ruler of demons” (Matthew 12:24).
“Get behind me, Satan”: Used to rebuke Peter in Matthew 16:22.
Jesus characterizes Satan as the enemy in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13:39). He also mentions observing “Satan fall like lightning from heaven” in Luke 10:18.
I have no idea what’s “out there” and I have no explanation for why so many people in the American government are right now having what appears to be at least two main ideological battles, and they’re at least both tangentially related to how people think about who Jesus Christ is, or was.
I do however want to thank the Strange Normal Youtube channel for focusing on what the SDA calls “The Great Controversy”, but I must concede that I’ve looked into the teachings and personhood of one of their great prophets, Ellen White, and there’s something seriously off about the way she made her predictions, especially her criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, claiming the Vatican is just another one of the institutions who claim to be Christian, yet have already engaged in the great apostasy; It was their channel who’s really been doing a lot of great work looking into the rise of Spiritualism in modernity, and how it relates to current events.
It was also the Strange Normal channel that brought me to look a little bit deeper into Roger Morneau, who can be found below explaining at length what he claims he was told about an event that would be coming in the form of a great deception, something he claims he was told would happen, possibly as far back as the mid 1900’s.
The Catholic Church for it’s part that does not claim to know the truth so much as it preaches Logos, and asks others to partake in their spiritual food through ritual and sacraments to remember what it was the Jesus came to teach humanity for times such as these, a notion heavily embraced by St. Thomas Aquinas, and while the SDA has taken some of the teachings of Christ as literal and some as their own interpretations, it’s worth noting that SDA does not recognize Jesus as part of the Triune God, and that to me is a true deal breaker while they focus on which day for worship as their literal namesake, the “Seventh Day Adventists”, and as Jesus Himself said in Mark 2:27: And He said unto them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
To me this means they lost sight of Logos, best prepared by the Bride of Jesus on Earth.
1 Corinthians 8 - Concerning Food Sacrificed to Idols
Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God.
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.