Pastor_Chick Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 I am not familiar with this parable. Which Gospel is it in? Hello Shane, Jesus said, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." (John 9:39) YAHWEH said to me,"Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;" (Eze. 17:2) Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Cool. Hey is the Creation SDA denomination a recognnized and authorized church in Uganda? How large is your group? Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think it is correct to call the church a movement. In fact, we are a world-wide movement that has organized itself. Our movement continues to grow and expand. I think we need to understand the power of precedent too. Suing a small church with a handful of members may seem silly but if victorious, such cases can set precedent for future cases which will protect our name and help further God's end time message. You only argue for the pragmatism of the action. If the effectiveness of any course is the ultimate goal then the idea of accomplishing God's will in God's way is moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 that lawsuit only happened after years of communication. What? I did not read that one. Where did you arrive at that notion? Are you speaking of the SDA v. CSDA? Or, which lawsuit are you referring to? Please offer your references. Thanks in advance. Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It should be pointed out here that so far we have been focusing exclusively on the Seventh-day Adventist church's response to the situation. Wouldn't it be fair to also apply the same standard to the other organization that insists on using their chosen name? As an (alleged) Christian group is this name designated a critical part of their heavenly calling? Just because the big church beat up on the little church doesn't necessarily indicate that the little church wasn't asking for trouble, a poor innocent victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 that is the one. Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Cool. Hey is the Creation SDA denomination a recognnized and authorized church in Uganda? How large is your group? Hello Woody, Whether a "demonination" is "recognized and authorized" by any earthly tribunal or state makes no difference to Heaven. I have never perceived spiritual importance in questions like, "How large is your group?" (No personal offense intended.) The next question is usually, "How do you support your work?" It is all world-centered, and I choose to be "Christ-centered." Allow me to share just a few inspired passages: From Acts of the Apostles, p. 68: God's word must be recognized as above all human legislation. A "Thus saith the Lord" is not to be set aside for a "Thus saith the church" or a "Thus saith the state." The crown of Christ is to be lifted above the diadems of earthly potentates. From Deut. 7:6, 7: "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:" "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:20) Gen. 18:32, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And He said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake." God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment, neither is it the various denominations; it is the people who love God and keep His commandments. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20). Where Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ's church, for the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church. (The Upward Look, p. 315) And finally, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, "Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. (Matt. 21:33-45) Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Hello Shane, Jesus said, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." (John 9:39) YAHWEH said to me,"Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;" (Eze. 17:2) So I guess that means you just made the parable up. I think I will go with the Word of God instead of the Word of man. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 God gave some more imagination than others. :) Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Pastor Chick aka Walter McGill A couple of questions... where did the name Pastor Chick come from? And it seems like you refer to yourself in the third person... in your earlier posts.. it is ok just wonder why? Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Pastor Chick aka Walter McGill A couple of questions... where did the name Pastor Chick come from? And it seems like you refer to yourself in the third person... in your earlier posts.. it is ok just wonder why? Stan Thanks for your interest. I have been called "Pastor Chick" by my friends and colleagues for more than 20 years of my ministry. My father's name was "Chick," (you will find him online by searching), and I was always called "Chick." For "legal" purposes, I am referred to as Walter McGill. Third person... Give me some examples please. If you would rather send that via email, you may: csda_relief (at) yahoo.com. I am also awaiting your references regarding the years of communication prior to the SDA v. CSDA lawsuit. If anyone has questions on the lawsuit or doctrinal issues pertaining to the rift, I think I am an "authority" that can answer candidly. I never tell lies, since that would be sin. If I am mistaken, I am willing to be corrected. No, not willing, more accurately, eager. Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 My father's name was "Chick," (you will find him online by searching), Did your dad ever moonlight as a radio announcer for a prominent NBA basketball team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 So I guess that means you just made the parable up. I think I will go with the Word of God instead of the Word of man. Hello Shane, And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (1 Peter 1:20, 21; 2:1; NASB) He who would confess Christ must have Christ abiding in him. He cannot communicate that which he has not received. The disciples might speak fluently on doctrines, they might repeat the words of Christ Himself; but unless they possessed Christlike meekness and love, they were not confessing Him. A spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ would deny Him, whatever the profession. Men may deny Christ by evil-speaking, by foolish talking, by words that are untruthful or unkind. They may deny Him by shunning life's burdens, by the pursuit of sinful pleasure. They may deny Him by conforming to the world, by uncourteous behavior, by the love of their own opinions, by justifying self, by cherishing doubt, borrowing trouble, and dwelling in darkness. In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them. And "whosoever shall deny Me before men," He says, "him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." (The Desire of Ages, p. 357) The class who professed a knowledge of God were the ones who had the greatest influence and took the lead in making of none effect His word spoken to them by Noah. [...] Noah to them was regarded as a fanatic, and they did not humble their hearts before God, but continued their disobedience and wickedness the same as if God had not spoken to them through Noah. (The Signs of the Times, December 20, 1877) The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Prov. 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony. (Letter 12, 1890) Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick My father's name was "Chick," (you will find him online by searching), Did your dad ever moonlight as a radio announcer for a prominent NBA basketball team? No, that is the wrong one. "Walter 'Chick' McGill" was a war hero, along with "Troy McGill" (my great uncle). Now, I am not an advocate of war. It turns out that some of my relatives were patriotic and warriors. Before my conversion to Christ, I did serve in the Vietnam War as a communication/navigation systems technician. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor. 5:17) Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Welcome Pastor Chick, Is this case current and where would the RFRA apply if not in private party disputes? Can you provide any links or further info on the McGill case? I realized that I posted links for further info, but failed to respond to the first two questions. 1) The case is current, awaiting contempt orders from the District Court Judge. We are expecting further monetary sanctions (the first one was $35,000 plus) and jail time for me and my assistant. 2) The Supreme Court only accepts 1% of all petitions for writ of certiorari. We are awaiting the objection brief from the GC. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that my defense of the RFRA did not benefit me because "private party suits" do not apply in RFRA claims. They concluded that one of the parties must be government in order to have a rightful claim under RFRA. The federal courts are split on this matter. Our attorneys are fairly confident that the Supreme Court will want to put this split to rest. The real significant issue here turns on the involvement of the GC. They would normally argue that "private party suits" qualify under RFRA. However, in this conflict, they cannot do so, or they "shoot themselves in the foot." They are planning to tell the Supreme Court that this is "not the case to hear" in order to remedy the federal court split. Why is this "not the case?" The answer is simple. Whether they prevail against McGill or not, they stand to lose something. Explanation: 1) If the GC prevails, those involved in "private party suits" will never have a legal claim under RFRA in the courts. This effectively eliminates the primary feature of the RFRA that the GC was supporting in 1993. Future "private party" cases with the GC (or its constituency) as a defendant, would not find benefit in a RFRA claim. 2) If the GC suffers a loss at the Supreme Court, they will also lose power to enforce their trademark on the name "Seventh-day Adventist." This is because any defendant will have justifiable RFRA claims for a defense. Further questions welcome. Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 "Seventh Day Adventist" is a generic description of a belief system. Just like "Catholic" is a generic description of a belief system. Ironically, there are plenty of Churches outside of Catholicism that do call themselves Catholic, and don't ascribe to centralization by Vatican. Yet, SDA GC for some odd reason sees it their duty to enforce compliance and conformity while preaching against Vatican who in part seeks the same thing? Well said. It is interesting that Alan J. Reinach, Esq., in a letter dated May 7, 1997, and speaking of the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist," wrote the following: “No one else has a right to use the name Seventh-day Adventist unless they are a Seventh-day Adventist (having said that, I do not mean to infer any conclusion about your own church’s use of the name since it is a variation).” If you read enough of the legal docs, you will find that the Court has ruled that the name "Seventh-day Adventist" does not refer to a "religion." Man's tribunal designates the name "Seventh-day Adventist" as a "source identifier." Here is what God said about it: We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, "No, no! We are not. It is the name the Lord has given us. It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches." (Letter 110, 1902) Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 If GC has impudence to throw someone in jail over this issue... it will be a sad day for all Christian belief. Tully a sad day. I can only imagine what the life be if GC type of noose-type Adventism management was the dominant religion in US? http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/07/02/closed_adventists_shut_down_starbucks_gc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 If GC has impudence to throw someone in jail over this issue... it will be a sad day for all Christian belief. Tully a sad day. I can only imagine what the life be if GC type of noose-type Adventism management was the dominant religion in US? Cool, thank you for your comments on this thread. For a brief history, Pastor John Marik (Kona, Hawaii) was jailed about 7 days in the year 1989 (if I recall the year accurately) for refusing to give up the name "Seventh-day Adventist." Fortunately for him, he had a Seventh-day Adventist lawyer, and many Adventist constituents protested his incarceration. He was released after bond was paid by the sympathetic SDA members. Unfortunately, something happened to Pastor Marik during his stay in jail that caused him to tell his attorney, Max Corbett (a personal friend of mine), he would "rather die than return to jail." In 1991, Marik signed a settlement agreement with the GC stating that he would not use the name. Lucan Chartier, my assistant, is sure to serve some time in jail, and maybe a long time, since he has no money to pay the monetary sanctions. The difference now is that he has no attorney, and almost no one is aware of the case. Couple with that, a fact that the few Adventists that do know about the conflict really seem to be ambivalent regarding the issue, taking such attitudes as "they asked for it," "why don't they just change their name?" etc. "No man might buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name [...] of the beast." If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God. (3T 281) Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 [Further questions welcome. How is the apparent inconsistency explained whereby the Creation SDA can be ruled against but the SDA name can be safely adapted by other entities (Kinship,Historic,ect...)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 It seems to me it would be too expensive to tackle ALL of them would it not. Lawyers are not cheap. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Few things are scarier to me than those that speak out against the organized Seventh-day Adventist church and use the Spirit of Prophecy to support their op-position. No thanks. I'll take my peace of mind and serenity and you can have your opposition. I would say good luck but my heart just wouldn't be in it. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 It seems to me it would be too expensive to tackle ALL of them would it not. Lawyers are not cheap.I suppose that could be true but it would seem more productive to at least go after the biggest and most deviant doctrinally rather than a 3 hour tour. A 3 hour tour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Few things are scarier to me than those that speak out against the organized Seventh-day Adventist church and use the Spirit of Prophecy to support their op-position. No thanks. I'll take my peace of mind and serenity and you can have your opposition. I would say good luck but my heart just wouldn't be in it. HM. Can't you see what you are saying here? You are basically just said that organized Adventist Church can do no wrong and is beyond reproof... and to use it's own standards to test it and to speak out against the possible fallacies is disturbing. I find your statement much more disturbing, because your arguments does not rest with reason... but rather with loyalty. I.e. "Pope is infallible" type of loyalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Woody It seems to me it would be too expensive to tackle ALL of them would it not. Lawyers are not cheap. I suppose that could be true but it would seem more productive to at least go after the biggest and most deviant doctrinally rather than a 3 hour tour. A 3 hour tour. Money speaks. And it only makes sense to go after the one with the least money. That way it sets an example for the big fish. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see them go after the histrionic Historics. But there are more of them with more money. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I suppose that could be true but it would seem more productive to at least go after the biggest and most deviant doctrinally rather than a 3 hour tour. A 3 hour tour. Money speaks. And it only makes sense to go after the one with it least money. That way the sets an example for the big fish. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see them go after the histrionic Historics. But there are more of them with more money. I wonder how Tom would explain it? Just seems like if you are gonna pick your battles it would be better to fight important ones.No pain,no gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.