This is getting out of hand

[cardw]

Quote:

---

You might understand where I am coming from, but there is little agreement between us on religious, doctrinal, and lifestyle issues. That should prompt us toward reconciliation, but not through compromising of conviction. Why is it we are at each other's throats then? Something is drastically wrong with this picture.

---

Dennis,

I'm not out to kill you. I just disagree. That's all it is.

My assumptions about God and life are far different than yours. I don't care that you disagree. Go for it.

I am not asking you for an apology. I don't need your agreement. I am not angry with you. You have my support for those things I agree with and for your well being.

My point is that I don't need to have you agree with me to be reconciled. If you need an apology from me, then you have it. If I hurt your feelings and pushed you too hard, then I am sorry.

If somebody gets upset I don't see them as a bad person. Generally if someone gets mad at me in dialog, it means I have hit the nail on the head. I know that from my own times of anger. I usually ask myself, what am I getting so angry about? If its something I need to set a boundry with then I use anger constructively to do that. If its because someone has bruised my ego, then I look at what I need to let go of.

Its not a drastic situation. At least I don't experience it that way. At least I don't experience it that way anymore. I got tired of every little thing being of eternal importance, like I actually had any control over it. Its just so dramatic and exhausting. To me, that's not a life of peace, love, and joy. Its a life of constant vigilance and fear. That's not what I want for my life.

Richard

[cardw]

Quote:

---

Oh, and should I elevate myself into a seat of prime importance and proclaim myself a great reformer? When did Martin Luther do this? Wycliffe? Huss? others? And where is your Protest my friend? Do you have a message of hope for lost souls? An interpretation of the great whore sitting on the scarlet beast in Rev. 17:3? C'mon now, lets hear it Richard...The SDA denomination was formed for things such as this. Take it or leave it. As for me and my house...

---

Well Dennis, I don't know if I need all the sabre rattling.

I can't see myself going to someone on the street saying, "I have a message of hope for you, let me tell you about this whore." LOL You have got to be kidding!

I have many messages of hope and I see them bear fruit every day. These are a sampling of comments I hear every week.

"I feel like I'm 50 pounds lighter." "I feel so relieved." "My sadness is gone." "I feel so joyful." "I never knew I could feel this good." "I have been carrying that around for 20 years."

And that is just from this week alone. Is it easy work to do? No, but I love doing it. Because, you know what people do when they feel the love of God. They go out and reconcile with, forgive, serve, and love others without somebody telling them they have to.

What you are teaching doesn't work, period. I know that from experience because that was what I was taught to give to the world. This may be hard to hear and you may not be able to see it, but you will find out as you begin to work with people.

It sounds like you have a good heart, and I'm sure it will tell you what you need to know, when you need to know it.

Richard

[wicklunds]

I suppose our callings in life are different Richard, and we may have to settle with this. But I am constantly reminded of the text that says, Can two walk together except they be agreed? While many within our ranks would reference the hope messages in Paul as a point of leverage for a solely sentimental religious experience, I generally see that we have used his work as a means for a relativistic ideology. Whatever you think, that is o.k. for you, I'll just be over here teaching whatever I believe and you keep your social distance. How can a body of believers ever share unity if they cannot agree on the details of faith? How can two people arrive at the same destination when the road map they are using is taken from opposing entities?

I only talk about whores in the right context. If it is in scripture, it is fair game. If it is in Daniel or Revelation, it is even more timely to speak of. Obviously I wouldnt begin a conversation referencing the whore arrayed in purple and scarlet.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Tom Wetmore said:

Well stated Richard! The fictional Spectrum illustration echoes Tony Campolo's real life effort to drive home the point of seriously skewed priorities and majoring in minors so prevalent on religious school campuses. (Sadly we Adventists are not so much alone in this increasingly full boat of zealous religious fundametalism... But I digress...) He would get up and begin his talk by reciting the horrifying (properly in perspective and use, I think...) statistics on world hunger and the millions of children starving to death every year. He would then exclaim, "And most of you here just don't give a SH_ _!" After a pregnant and uncomfortable pause, he would continue by saying, "And I am here to tell you that many, if not most, of you are far more upset that I just used a bad word than you are about the truly obscene realities of world hunger of which I just spoke! Now let's get serious about priorities..." The irony is that Campolo ultimately stopped this approach as more often than not he would get a frosty letter of reprimand from college administration for his use of vulgarities, with not so much as a faint acknowledgment of his point or the horrific realities of thousands of children starving to death every single day.

Very much in keeping with Jesus' speck in the eye illustration...

Tom

---

We attach subtly denigrating labels to those groups we cannot identify with. The problem with Mr. Campolo's characterization of fundamentalism is that it shifts the focus off of where bible prophecy has placed man in the scope of historic time. He has placed all of his eggs in one basket as they say. There is nothing wrong with having a compassionate and service-oriented mind. But, a

a man doesnt use a tea cup filled with water to put out a raging inferno, rather he gets the fire hose and turns up the water to full pressure. Mr. Campolo forgets that without a thorough understanding of Revelation and Daniel prophecy, the best of intentions only end up getting us on good terms with the antichrist. The pope even looks pious for the camera, but what about when the doors are closed, and the party is over? The WHOLE world wondered after the beast. Is that statement not alarming? It should be!!! Therefore, sound the alarm. Spare not!!!....majoring in minors...lets think a little deeper on this.

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

A general statement, and not specific to anyone:

We live, I think, in a post-christian world--almost. Much of our society, to include people who take the name of Christ, don't have any idea as to what it means to be a Christian. In that context, the primary, first, objective must be to bring people to Christ. After that, and only after that, should come the prophicies of Daniel and Revelation, and much more before those prophecies.

[Gregory Matthews]

I work in the context as I have stated it above. In the past 11 years of my present job, I have not once been asked about the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. But, I am regularly asked about God, and His involvement in one's life.

The message that Christ brought to the people of Isreal, when he walked on earth, was the God loved them. That was his primary message. When you compare what is recorded of his message of love with the amount that is recorded of his message of condemnation, you find the He said much more on love.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Turmeric said:

I have my sharp garlic side as well, mind you. But I'm willing to scout around the ones with the acid-indigestion outbursts and look for more pleasant meadows to lie in and pick the buttercups.

Turmeric

---

Lets help "Tumeric" pick a few of those "buttercups."

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

cardw said:

Generally if someone gets mad at me in dialog, it means I have hit the nail on the head. I know that from my own times of anger. I usually ask myself, what am I getting so angry about? If its something I need to set a boundry with then I use anger constructively to do that. If its because someone has bruised my ego, then I look at what I need to let go of.

Its not a drastic situation. At least I don't experience it that way. At least I don't experience it that way anymore. I got tired of every little thing being of eternal importance, like I actually had any control over it. Its just so dramatic and exhausting. To me, that's not a life of peace, love, and joy. Its a life of constant vigilance and fear. That's not what I want for my life.

---

Wow. That kind of wisdom is one heck of a convincing argument in favor of what Richard called his "assumptions about God and life."

Just had to say that.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

I work in the context as I have stated it above. In the past 11 years of my present job, I have not once been asked about the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. But, I am regularly asked about God, and His involvement in one's life.

The message that Christ brought to the people of Isreal, when he walked on earth, was the God loved them. That was his primary message. When you compare what is recorded of his message of love with the amount that is recorded of his message of condemnation, you find the He said much more on love.

---

I have no gripes against the preaching of a message of love and acceptance, but is that all that Jesus has for us? If His Spirit leads us into ALL truth, why is it that you insist on leaving the explaining of most pertinent truths for souls who exist in the pre-2nd advent time to those who you through implication claim are "unloving" or "condemning". On the contrary, I believe that after things start a whipping up into a tempest the ones who have listened to the smooth preachers will go back to their ease-loving concierges and ask of them, Why didn't you warn us of this? And the ones who were faithfully warned will go back to their sacrificial cupbearers and throw their arms around them.

God's word consists of more than Matthew to John or from Acts to Hebrews. The message of warning (Daniel and Revelation) that we refuse to give at the most crucial moment should be looked upon by SDA believers with sheer terror, as if a panther were about to pounce on your most precious child, but you failed to cry out because you loved the quiet too much. These types of sheppards are spiritual mutineers. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. (don't know who to quote on this one)

----------------------------------------------------

There are some now claiming to be followers of Christ who in the judgment will be confronted by their friends and neighbors to whom they might have pointed out the way of salvation, but whom they allowed to remain unwarned. Then will they hear the terrible words: "Why did you not tell us the things you claimed to believe? Why did you not seek to help us understand the truths of God's Word? Why did you not do all in your power to warn us, before it was everlastingly too late? You never told us these things that would have helped us to prepare to meet our God in peace. You allowed us to come up to the judgment, unwarned, unsaved." {NPU Gleaner, March 16, 1910 par. 4}

Dennis

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

...The problem with Mr. Campolo's characterization of fundamentalism....

---

Dennis, What on earth are you on about!?!? Please read more carefully before you post. A minor point, but that characterization in the parenthetical aside was mine and not Campolo's... But more to the point, before you launch into a rant against the teaching of another you would do well to at least minimally familiarize yourself with the subject of your affliction. Quite frankly, your comments are only reflective of your own perspective and not even closely apropos to Campolo's immediate point or to his life's work, ministry or the burden's of his heart as reflected in his teaching and writing, not to mention not particularly on topic to this discussion.

Tom

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . .why is it that you insist on leaving the explaining of most pertinent truths for souls who exist in the pre-2nd advent time to those who you through implication claim are "unloving" or "condemning"."

Dennis:

I have never done such. You really don't have the slightest idea as to where I am.

I have come to the conclusion that I am incapable of sharing where I am in any manner that you will be able to understand. From that perspective, it really doesn't matter as to whether the fault is mine or yours. I consider it to be a lost cause, so I do not attempt it.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

While many within our ranks would reference the hope messages in Paul as a point of leverage for a solely sentimental religious experience, I generally see that we have used his work as a means for a relativistic ideology. Whatever you think, that is o.k. for you, I'll just be over here teaching whatever I believe and you keep your social distance.

---

Well Dennis, if everyone who disagrees with you has to keep their social distance, you are going to end up by yourself. I don't know any two people who have the exact same beliefs.

I don't have a relativistic ideology. I don't want to have any ideology at all. All ideologies fall short of the real thing. What I seek is the tangible connection with God, and whatever it takes to get there. I know I am there when I am at peace.

Richard

[cardw]

Quote:

---

There are some now claiming to be followers of Christ who in the judgment will be confronted by their friends and neighbors to whom they might have pointed out the way of salvation, but whom they allowed to remain unwarned. Then will they hear the terrible words: "Why did you not tell us the things you claimed to believe? Why did you not seek to help us understand the truths of God's Word? Why did you not do all in your power to warn us, before it was everlastingly too late? You never told us these things that would have helped us to prepare to meet our God in peace. You allowed us to come up to the judgment, unwarned, unsaved." {NPU Gleaner, March 16, 1910 par. 4}

---

Dennis,

This is what I am talking about. Imagine God placing another's salvation in human hands. I read that the rocks and trees will cry out if needed. So Ellen White isn't even Biblical here.

This is very manipulative. It places impossible responsibility on the human person that only God can fulfill. This is an example of "burdens placed on the weak" that Jesus talked about. And Jesus' response was to throw those who placed these unnecessary burdens on the weak, into the ocean with a millstone around their neck.

This is one reason I call Ellen White - Our Lady of Eternal Responsibility.

If you believe this stuff, it may explain why you hold so strongly to some stuff that doesn't really make a lot of sense. Well, you can at least rest assured that you warned me sufficiently.

Richard

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

A general statement, and not specific to anyone:

We live, I think, in a post-christian world--almost. Much of our society, to include people who take the name of Christ, don't have any idea as to what it means to be a Christian. In that context, the primary, first, objective must be to bring people to Christ. After that, and only after that, should come the prophicies of Daniel and Revelation, and much more before those prophecies.

---

Hear!! Hear!!

[wicklunds]

You cannot preach and teach Revelation and Daniel without realizing they are a revealing of the person of Jesus. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

We speak as if we consider the books of Daniel and Revelation as coming from a different book than the bible. The Revelation of JESUS CHRIST!!!

hear!! hear!! but listen too!!!

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

I have no gripes against the preaching of a message of love and acceptance, but is that all that Jesus has for us? If His Spirit leads us into ALL truth, why is it that you insist on leaving the explaining of most pertinent truths for souls who exist in the pre-2nd advent time to those who you through implication claim are "unloving" or "condemning". On the contrary, I believe that after things start a whipping up into a tempest the ones who have listened to the smooth preachers will go back to their ease-loving concierges and ask of them, Why didn't you warn us of this? And the ones who were faithfully warned will go back to their sacrificial cupbearers and throw their arms around them.

---

If I might make an observation here: I believe the point is that only by Love is Love awakened. Scripture tells us "it is the goodness (kindness, mercy) of God that leadeth to repentance." If Love cannot awaken a response of Love and gratitude in the heart of the recipient, all the browbeating and "warnings" in the world will likewise fail. God does not accept the service of fear, nor does He desire it. "God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

When you think about it, where is the condemnation the greater? Is it when someone feeling browbeaten and threatened refuses to serve? Or is it where someone completely assured of God's love and acceptance blows that off? Nevertheless, "God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." The principle behind preaching love and acceptance is that it is the ONLY reality by which corresponding love, gratitude, and free-willed heart submission to God may be awakened. All the thundering, threats, warnings, etc. in the world CANNOT do that, period. Such was already thus shown at Sinai.

Treating God's love and acceptance as merely some sort of "bait" to "lure us in" to where we will be thundered and threatened at, in my opinion, makes God out to be an abuser and a trickster. And He is neither! Love, therefore, MUST be the alpha and the omega; the beginning, the ending, and the center of the gospel. "God is Love." For further definition of what Love is, please read carefully 1 Corinthians 13.

Nico

[wicklunds]

So Nico,

Am I officially off your ignore list??

[wicklunds]

Remember, God chastens who He loves...A tree that isn't pruned from time to time is as good as fruitless.

[Nicodema]

Yup.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

Remember, God chastens who He loves...A tree that isn't pruned from time to time is as good as fruitless.

---

But He chastens us as sons -- not as strangers. The only chastening that works is that which is saturated in love. God chastens those He loves IN love, because He IS love.

Look at the example of parents and children. Children who feel completely loved and accepted will accept discipline. Children who don't will either become insecure or rebel. We often make the mistake of thinking it is the child's fault or temperament -- and sometimes temperament can be a contributing factor -- but a young child cannot reason as an adult, does not have axes to grind like an adult, does not do things for adult reasons, and therefore if our discipline fails, nine times out of ten it is because we, the parents, have not made the child feel 100% secure in our love.

Edit: sorry, I wasn't clear -- by "failing" I mean resulting in insecurity or rebellion. I was NOT referring to instances where a young child must repeatedly learn a lesson for it to "stick" ("no, don't touch that"), or must develop a skill or capacity he is being taught, e.g. potty skills, cleaning up his toys, etc.

[Nicodema]

Isn't it funny how this thread has morphed?

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

Remember, God chastens who He loves...A tree that isn't pruned from time to time is as good as fruitless.

---

But He chastens us as sons -- not as strangers. The only chastening that works is that which is saturated in love. God chastens those He loves IN love, because He IS love.

Look at the example of parents and children. Children who feel completely loved and accepted will accept discipline. Children who don't will either become insecure or rebel. We often make the mistake of thinking it is the child's fault or temperament -- and sometimes temperament can be a contributing factor -- but a young child cannot reason as an adult, does not have axes to grind like an adult, does not do things for adult reasons, and therefore if our discipline fails, nine times out of ten it is because we, the parents, have not made the child feel 100% secure in our love.

Edit: sorry, I wasn't clear -- by "failing" I mean resulting in insecurity or rebellion. I was NOT referring to instances where a young child must repeatedly learn a lesson for it to "stick" ("no, don't touch that"), or must develop a skill or capacity he is being taught, e.g. potty skills, cleaning up his toys, etc.

---

Is it always so cut and dry Nico? Is it always the case that a child who is not shown attention and affection the one who rebels? Is it always the case where the child is showered with all sorts of affection and love the one who is happy and healthy? I cannot swallow this hook, line, and sinker... It is a nice theory though...but maybe not as biblical as I would like to believe. It is sin that corrupts. Sin is not something that can be measured by some Freudian, or psychoanalytical formulae. We have to understand that when our children rebel, it is not always due to the parents rebellion. God throws curveballs all the time, just to keep us honest. Consider Job (though not the best parallel).

I am still learning in this regard. Time is a big factor in child rearing. It is one big reason I felt I didn't want to rush into having them. I knew that I may have professional commitments that don't allow me the luxury of being there enough for my child. But here is where prayer makes a huge difference too. My wife and I were just talking about this at breakfast. Brendan is constantly throwing his food off his tray when he gets full. I told my wife not to give him so much food that he has any leftover, but rather let him ask for more if he is hungry. Then he may not find occasion to test daddy's patience at the end of his meals. We havent implemented this plan yet apparently.

Dennis

[jasd]

Good show, good posts, good tone -- très bon.

You’ve made better strides on your path than I on mine. Ah well, time will yet benefit me.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

Is it always so cut and dry Nico? Is it always the case that a child who is not shown attention and affection the one who rebels? Is it always the case where the child is showered with all sorts of affection and love the one who is happy and healthy?

---

There are always exceptions to every rule, but on the whole, yes, I think the majority of cases follow this pattern. I think discipline works best in an atmosphere where the child is secure in the parents' love and acceptance of him or her as a person. I think anything less than that security wreaks havoc with even the best-intentioned attempts at discipline, unless perhaps the child is a natural born "people-pleaser" (which itself can lead to other problems later in life).

Quote:

---

It is sin that corrupts.

---

Correct. It is sin that corrupts the ability of parents to provide completely the level of security their children need. That does not mean they should not try, nor does it mean all is a "[censored] shoot" with no science or logic or rationale behind it.

Quote:

---

Sin is not something that can be measured by some Freudian, or psychoanalytical formulae.

---

I wasn't using one.

Quote:

---

I am still learning in this regard. Time is a big factor in child rearing. It is one big reason I felt I didn't want to rush into having them. I knew that I may have professional commitments that don't allow me the luxury of being there enough for my child. But here is where prayer makes a huge difference too.

---

I didn't mean any of that as a personal barb. I, too, have raised children and I know the difficulties involved. By no means did I mean to imply parenting was a simplistic cakewalk!