What is the One Project and its true purpose.

[phkrause]

I couldn't agree more JoeMo, and that last paragraph gave me a really big chuckle. And I don't mean a good or bad chuckle, just one of those "I now exactly what you mean" chuckles.

[Unity]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Since when does being a believer deem you free from temptation and sin?

That is a strawman argument because I never said we would be free from temptation. Temptation will always be with the believer until Jesus leaves the Holy of Holies in the heavenly sanctuary. But as for sin:

⁹ If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Therefore we know that if we confess our sins we are cleansed by the blood of the lamb. We are deemed free from sin because we are redeemed by the blood of the lamb. Belief in Jesus requires belief in that.

As for temptation, I'll address that anyways even though it is off topic from what I am talking about. 

^{Matthew 18:6} “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. ⁷ Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

^{Matthew 5:19} Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

Temptation comes from those who break the commandments (practice open sin) and teach others that it is OK to do the same. Such behavior can tempt the children of God and cause them to sin.

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

SInce when is the church a refuge for the saints?  I thought is was a place for sinners to come and meet Jesus and be saved.

You seem to have misunderstood me by taking a statement out of context. I am referring to church members, not those who don't yet recognize that they are sinners. Church members has been the context of all my comments. Read 1 Corinthians 5 as to the difference between how we treat members and non-members in regards to open sin. There is clearly a dividing line between speaking about church members and non-members. As for those who claim to believe and be saved while openly sinning and using the excuse that we are all sinners:

^{Matthew 18:8} “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. ⁹ And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Who of us is qualified to say one sin is worse than the next?  Any sin earns you death.

That is another strawman argument. In any case, all sin leads to death but the more we sin and teach others to do the same the harsher our punishment will be. One who is actively teaching others to sin cannot qualify for God's forgiveness because they aren't repentant. In the same way, those who save many will shine as the stars in heaven and the more we sacrifice for the kingdom on earth the more we save up in heaven. Therefore there are various degrees of reward just as there are various degrees of punishment.

[Unity]

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Reddogs, I wish I had your spiritual insight.  I just don't see it that way.  Just because it is your opinion does not make it true.  If you get a blessing out of the same liturgy that our church has held for the past 150 years, by all means continue in that path!  I don't particularly feel blessed with the same liturgy, music and sermon material with which I have been fed for over 50 years.  I believe there is more to my spiritual experience than being a tea-totalling, Sabbath-keeping vegetarian looking for people who are bigger sinners than I am so I can feel good about myself.  Suffice it to say that your revelation is not my revelation.  I have pretty strict spiritual standards; they're just not the same as yours.  God has me on a different "narrow path" than you, because we are two different people with different issues.  In the end, I pray that both paths lead to the Kingdom.

On 12/22/2015 at 9:34 PM, Unity said:

Yet another Strawman argument. If you did it then YOU might be doing it to feel better about yourself, but that doesn't mean Reddogs will have the same motivation. Your conclusion is based purely on speculation, which is a poorly thought out conclusion. Lucifer also speculated on God's motivation to the Angels and to Eve at the Tree in order to deceive others.

As for the pluralism in the rest of that paragraph, there is only one truth, one way, and one light. That is the narrow path.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Please describe examples of church members who are "actively teaching" others to sin.  "Active teaching" requires a person to state to others, "Do 'this'" or "Do 'that'" in order to come to a specific end.  

[debbym]

23 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

 

 

³⁹ You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.^{...... John 5}

^{God is Love!~Jesus saves!} 

³⁹ You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰ yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.  john 5:39 and 40.

[Unity]

6 hours ago, rudywoofs said:

Please describe examples of church members who are "actively teaching" others to sin.  "Active teaching" requires a person to state to others, "Do 'this'" or "Do 'that'" in order to come to a specific end.  

In the previous sentence I had written teach and practice. In any case the definition of teach doesn't just mean that. It can also mean:

cause (someone) to learn or understand something by example or experience.

"she'd been taught that it paid to be passive"

Examples of teaching are all throughout this thread. The teaching is to excuse open sin by attributing motive, intent, and sentiment. My point is that we can only go to the Bible as our guide, and the Bible isn't confusing.  It only becomes confusing when we also attribute motive, intent, and sentiment to God's commands that define sin.

50 minutes ago, debbym said:

³⁹ You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰ yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.  john 5:39 and 40.

You might be implying that I'm a pharisee. If you are, then certainly you must be a prophet like Jesus. Therefore what is the sin I am practicing? If that isn't the case, then that verse isn't applicable to the discussion as I also agree with what Jesus said to the Pharisees.

[Unity]

On 12/23/2015 at 6:28 PM, LifeHiscost said:

³⁹ You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.^{...... John 5}

You also might be implying that I'm a pharisee. So I also ask you what I asked DebbyM in the previous post.

If you are calling me a Pharisee, then certainly you must be a prophet like Jesus. Therefore what is the sin I am practicing? If that isn't the case, then that verse isn't applicable to the discussion as I also agree with what Jesus said to the Pharisees.

[CoAspen]

Has this topic gone to la-la land??

[JoeMo]

Unity,

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't call you a Pharisee.  Jesus' rant on the Pharisees wasn't because they were strict adherents to the Law, it was because of their hypocrisy.  You don't strike me as a hypocrite; it's more like an idealist.  I may be wrong, but my guess is that you are young.  If you are convicted by your theology, by all means stay with it.  But keep an open mind.  Not everyone believes like you and reddogs.  If you are offended by movements like TOP, by all means stay away.  I would never "judge" or "condemn" you for your religious fervor; I was os the same persuasion as you for decades.  It rarely made me feel closer to Jesus or "saved".  I was always worried that I wasn't doing enough to please God.  When I gave up on trying to be "perfect", and turned my life over to Jesus, trusting Him to save me (I wasn't doing a good job of "adding merit").  When I focused on what Jesus has done for me rather than what I should be doing for Jesus, my life indeed started to change for the better and continues to do so.  I still have issues; but Jesus and I are working on them together rather than me doing it myself.  I happen to believe that Jesus wants us as we are; not how we ought to be.

Indeed, there are churches and movements out there that are "pushing the envelope" as far as traditional theology.  They are questioning all the traditional answers.  They are truly exploring faith.  It can get messy; and people will make mistakes.  I know I have.  But I pray that Jesus keeps me on the narrow path to the Kingdom; which includes respect for other people's walks.

Merry Christmas!

[JoeMo]

Unity,

One more thing-

If your "name" denotes your character, let's try to focun on things that indeed unify us rather than divide us.  Unity is not the same thing as uniformity.  We can all be united in our love of Jesus, and our desire to spread His good news; But that doesn't mean we all have to do it the same way.  For example, the way most African SDA's worship (drums and clapping for musical accompaniment) might not be attractive to us North American white folks.  Similarly, the worship music that is a blessing to younger people may not fit the sense of propriety of some of us older folks.  Some people are more comfortable hanging on to the rules of a specific denomination, where others look for a unity of brotherhood among all Christians - regardless of denomination or worship style.  As long as we both believe the good news of Christ's redemption of those who believe that He did a good enough job on the cross to save us, many of the things that divide us are just a personal preference (i.e., non-salvational).  As an SDA, I am conviced that the Sabbath is deeply intertwined with my salvation; however, I cannot in good conscience imply to others that they are lost unless they keep "my" Sabbath.  If they are truly born again believers, the Holy Spirit can bring them to that conclusion if necessary.

My impression of TOP is that their priority is bringing people to Jesus.  If bringing them to Jesus includes bringing them into Adventism, so much the better.

[LifeHiscost]

Since true unity is based on that which is true, as long as the goal is not to do damage to the Truth, there is hope. In general our world is based on a premise that sees controlling others as the way, unity is a figment of the imagination.

:

31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”.....John 8

 

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am..... the truth.....John 14

 

God is love, yet in heaven there was war. Unity wasn't there again until......

 

9 .....the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him......Revelation 12

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Odd that we have blindly determined that unity is inherently and unquestionably a virtue.  The unity which so often is humanly strived for is false and even evil. We naively assume that somehow that being of one mind and purpose, especially under a sanctimonious theme (or a defined set of them), is a sign of the righteousness of our unity.  But when that very same "unity" is used even subtly as a cudgel or a cleaver to beat others into agreeable and compliant submission to that "unity"  or to separate anyone from it, it ceases to be the unity of which Jesus spoke on the eve of his supreme proof of the extreme lengths to which we are to follow him in restoring His unity.  It is very much the opposite.

Jesus was talking about love.  It is his perfect love that is the key to and essence of unity.  

[debbym]

Unity gained by human effort and design is often  what is achieved in a cult, and is evil.  And unity the spoken of in John 17 is union with Christ, "may they be one as we are one".    One in knowing God, and in the purpose to glorify God, and in the effort lift up fallen humanity.  This is the exercise of Love.

[Myron]

Quote

Then the command of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17 is ignored.

Quote

I would refer them to Ellen White's counsel on appropriate Sabbath behavior.  I don't have enough details to judge with.

Unity

Then you should have kept your mouth shut.  You did make a judgment and when GM answered it you made the first quote above, then in another post farther down the thread you made the second statement, showing you had no standing to have even made the initial complaint at all, much less publicly (before the church according to Matthew 18:17.)  The open hypocrisy of Adventists constantly amazes me but few examples are quite this obvious.  

It is true that Jesus was discussing private grievances between two individuals and that public behavior in groups does have other rules which apply to them, but this does not change the fact that you made a very definite judgment -- They broke the 4th Commandment --  which under GM's further questioning it is not absolutely clear that they did, and which you then openly state you don't have enough details to judge the matter.  

This is the very point GM made in his first two posts -- the critics of these new things are very quick to jump to judgment and very slow to seek evidence, even when that evidence is very clearly offered.  It was Jesus who dictated to Moses the things he wrote on the top of the Mountain.  This is rather easy to prove from the scripture (although many SDAs refuse to believe this) and SDAs claim to know scripture better than most Christians, so I will leave it to you to study this proof.

Jesus word to Moses in Deuteronomy 17 says:

Quote

⁶ On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. ⁷ The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

The principle applies to all judgment, not just capital cases, although as we study baptism and how the law is to be interpreted under the New Covenant we find that repentance is the second death, or at least a major part of what constitutes the second death.  The actual second death is full submission to God.  Therefore any sin become a capital case because all require repentance in order to fully submit to God. This law is so important that it is repeated just a very short time later in Deuteronomy 19:

Quote

¹⁵ One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

These laws given by Jesus from the top of the mountain is the basis for his counsel in Matthew 18 which you condemned them for failing to keep but seem fully justified in refusing to follow yourself.  The congregation (church) simply replaces the elders at the city gate in the old system.  

You failed to follow this counsel as well when you simply said check the writings of Ellen White.  When you have a writer that prolific, and where you are advocating a specific bit of counsel to support your accusation you need to supply that bit of counsel you believe to be violated.  You admit that you are not competent to judge this matter. Yet anyone who brings an accusation of wrong doing has already made a judgment.  If the are the specific victim of the supposed violation they have standing in the court, whether man's court or God's Court.  If they are not the victim or the victim's avenger of blood they have no standing in the court, even in God's court, and the judge will tell them the same thing Jesus told the man in Luke 12

Quote

¹³ Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

¹⁴ Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?

Yet earlier in his ministry (in John 5) Jesus said, 

Quote

²² Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, ²³ that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

All judgment is given to Jesus, yet he had no standing as a judge in this matter.  He did not state specifically why, but there are only two reasons that would apply.  Either the estate had been properly divided according to the law already or this man had not yet followed all the proper procedures to settle this dispute privately or through lower courts.  This man had no standing in Jesus court (granted that Jesus had minimal standing as a judge at this time because the temple refused to recognize the Messiah (anointed one) of the God they claimed to serve), but even as judge of all the world he had no jurisdiction in this matter for one of these two reasons.

There is another factor that matters in this case with you.  The law in Deuteronomy 19 continues on to say,

Quote

¹⁶ If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, ¹⁷ the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. ¹⁸ The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, ¹⁹ then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. 

This law is the basis for Jesus counsel in Matthew 7:1-5.  Most of the time Christians only quote verse 1 and claim this passage means we are not to judge each other.  Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 6 where he reminds us that in the future we will judge angels and as a result need to learn proper judgment in this life makes it clear that this was not Jesus meaning in this passage.  However, Jesus point is that if we are not righteous judges, ruling impartially according to the standard of God's law, we are malicious witnesses and we will be judged by God and his righteous judges according to the standard of law we use when judging others.  Therefore we are first to judge ourselves according to the law of God (remove the plank from our own eyes) before we judge anyone else in any matter.  If we do not do this we are malicious witnesses and according to the law Jesus dictated to Moses come under the judgment of the standard we use against others because we have proven to be malicious witnesses.  

Matthew 7:1 tells us that unless we know the law of God for ourselves and are competent to judge according to that standard we are to keep our mouths shut or bring judgment upon ourselves.  By your own admission in the quoted posts you are not competent to judge in this matter. You are not the "victim" of this supposed violation of the Sabbath law.  By your own admission you do not know enough details of this case to pass judgment and by your own demonstration you do not know enough about God's law to determine whether a violation has occurred or not and you tell us to check the writings of Ellen White for ourselves.  You have no standing in this matter at all -- not as a victim, not as a prosecutor (Satan -- which is a legal term, not a name and is the prosecuting attorney in God's court), nor as a judge

 Why are you speaking of it at all?

[Unity]

21 minutes ago, Myron said:

It is true that Jesus was discussing private grievances between two individuals and that public behavior in groups does have other rules which apply to them, but this does not change the fact that you made a very definite judgment -- They broke the 4th Commandment --  which under GM's further questioning it is not absolutely clear that they did, and which you then openly state you don't have enough details to judge the matter.

I'll just stop reading there, because I was referring to incomplete examples that Greg Matthews brought up. Not the original example that I gave.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson:  JoMo gave gossiping as an example of sin in his post.  Gossiping is generally a sin that is known by all in the church as that is where the person does it.  IOW, it is open sin.  It is also deliberate.

 

You said:

 

Quote

The sins you are referring to are not deliberate and open.

 

Your statement was false.

Should we here in CA rebuke you for your false statement?  Should we call upon you to repent or to be expelled from what ever congregation you have  joined?

In any case, I prefer to believe that you did not intend to make a false statement.  I prefer to believe that you were not deliberate in your false statement.  Rather, I will suggest that you did not carefully  read JoMoe's statement.  So, rather than making a charge of falsehood against you,  I will simply ask you to be more careful in the statements that you make about others.

 

[Unity]

On 12/26/2015 at 10:11 PM, jackson said:

Joemo, to be fair you quoted Unity as speaking of open sin. The sins you are referring to are not deliberate and open.

Joemo did reference my original accusation of Sabbath breaking by a TOP attending pastor, and a top T.O.P. representative who made it clear that that behavior was accepted and the reproving of open sin unacceptable. Although I can see how one could easily miss that.

The open sinner's motive, intent, and sentiment are used to defend open sin. The problem is God's Word does not give us that ability, and it expressly prohibits that excuse over and over and over again.  Eve questioned God's motive concerning the tree, and Adam used sentiment to try to place blame both on God and Eve. Satan has used those illusions from the very beginning. Questioning the motive, intent, and sentiment of God is how he first deceived himself, then deceived the angels, then deceived humanity, and then got them all to kill the son of God on the cross.

On 12/26/2015 at 10:11 PM, jackson said:

Christ has plainly taught that those who persist in open sin must be separated from the church, but He has not committed to us the work of judging character and motive.

I love that quote from Christ's Obect Lessons Page 71.  That is a good summary of everything I have written and my entire reason for posting about what I have seen with The One Project. It is interesting to me that people defending TOP ignore exactly what Ellen White say and judge character and motive to defend the open sin of Sabbath breaking.

On 12/27/2015 at 0:06 PM, jackson said:

I would argue that not all gossiping and Sabbath breaking are open sins, unless persisted in. However, If you, Joemo and others agree that both gossiping and Sabbath breaking are open sins, then why is anyone arguing with Unity's position on open sin in the church? Does not the Bible and SOP give clear counsel that open sins are to be rebuked, and, if the rebuke is unheeded , a cause for removal from the congregation?

Do you agree with both the Bible's' and the SOP's position on  the treatment of open sins in the church?

I too would like to know the answers to those questions! And to be clear, I am talking about open sin that is persisted in.

[bonnie]

On 12/4/2015 at 4:54 AM, Reddogs said:

Our retired pastor and many of our leaders in our church have told us about these group of pastors and others who are pushing this 'One Project' which seems aimed at the young people. And they are not saying good things about it and those who have come across it don't find much in it that is positive as it appears to be part of the 'Emerging Church' movement and connected to Spiritual Formation somehow. Has anyone come across it or have something on what its purpose is, as I can barely find anything on it.

Here is some links...
http://atoday.org/one-project-christ-centered-unity-unexplained-questions-criticism.html

http://thegreatcontroversy.info/the-one-project.html

http://archives.adventistreview.org/article/3383/archives/issue-2010-1516/the-emerging-church

[CoAspen]

Read the Review article....just one of the many thoughts/ideas/opinions presented in criticizing of the 'emergent theology' was ".........emergents prefer storytelling to preaching as the “authoritative transferring of biblical information.”^4"

^{My mind was immediately drawn to Christs teaching methods, teaching, often referred to as 'Teacher".  So am not sure why that would be seen as a fault of 'Emergent Theology'. His method was story telling, not theological preaching. Even in dialogue with the religious leaders of His day, He often explained by 'story telling'.}

Another one......"Such rituals might include certain mystical practices, contemplative prayer, and writing down personal prayers and thoughts. " This has been around a long time, well before people started using the word 'emergent'.

Another thought......."No wonder, then, that emergent evangelicals see no objection to following Roman Catholic spirituality, not only in private spiritual disciplines, but also to enhance the appeal of their public worship services to a wider postmodern audience craving to experience God directly and not through Scripture." Relationships are person to person, not just through a written down note. I would like to have seen more of a comparison to what the writer thinks is more appropriate than just criticizing. 

I did not find the article convincing with its negatives about the emergent church. It did present some issues/concerns but seemed to have a fear of becoming like RC's as it central theme. I  did not find it convincing that Biblical theology was lacking or had been replaced. What the author felt was the correct type of theology seemed to be lacking or assumed. A more in depth look at the subject would be helpful and  perhaps not the in tent of the article. It certainly opens the door for further dialogue, hopefully w/o personal bias using such words as 'conservative' or 'liberal' which are used to stop real dialogue. Since this was written in 2010 a more current discussion of the issue would be helpful.

 

[debbym]

they overcame by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony... testimonies are stories, without the story ...the history, the present and the future  of the blood of the lamb it would mean very little.

E white recommends an experiential relationship with God.  really experiencing God, answering prayers, forgiving, empowering, and giving wisdom, and hope... even love, inspiration, and deeper revelations of His love ...

scarey stuff if you depend on your good behavior for acceptance before God.

[Unity]

17 hours ago, CoAspen said:

His method was story telling, not theological preaching. Even in dialogue with the religious leaders of His day, He often explained by 'story telling'.

Yes but you're talking about Jesus. He is The Word. He gave us all the stories and parables we need in His Word (aka The Holy Bible).

3 hours ago, jackson said:

You need to go deeper and still deeper in the study of the Word. You have all classes of minds to meet, and as you teach the truths of the Sacred Word, you are to manifest earnestness, respect, and reverence. Weed out story-telling from your discourses, and preach the word.

That Ellen White quote shows the difference. Stick with preaching what is directly in The Word. Simply open The Bible and start explaining everything line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. It will teach people how to see study more deeply on their own, and also how to share The Word with others without having to learn how to memorize stories . Story telling can be detrimental, and it isn't necessary as The Word gave us all the parables (stories) we need.

The people need pure provender, thoroughly winnowed from the chaff. "Preach the word," was the charge that Paul gave to Timothy, and this is our commission also. The minister who mixes story-telling with his discourses is using strange fire. God is offended, and the cause of truth is dishonored, when His representatives descend to the use of cheap, trifling words.--Review and Herald,  Dec. 22, 1904 .  {TM 318.1} 

Testimonies are good, but those shouldn't be sermons. People should have a testimony to tell others members every Sabbath outside of the sanctuary. If they don't have a new one they can just repeat the last one. That would be much better than the idle talk I usually overhear spoken on the Sabbath.

[Gregory Matthews]

 

Quote

That would be much better than the idle talk I usually overhear spoken on the Sabbath.

So, why do you spend your time listening to such idle talk.  If you were not listening and/or partaking in it you would not know that it is idle talk.

You say that you simply  "overhear" the idle talk.  Sorry.  You do much more than overhear it.  You remember it.  You remember it long enough to report it to us in this forum.  The fact that you remember the idle talk demonstrates that on one level you participate in it.

You tell us that you  "usually overhear."  O.K. You are telling us that it is a common experience for you to overhear.  It is not inadvertent.  Again, this tells us that you participate. 

Your participation seems to be voluntary.  You probably enjoy it.  What I  wonder about is the source of your enjoyment.  Do you enjoy learning new idle information which others might call gossip?  Or, do you enjoy that fact that you can   come to this forum and tell us about it?   Well, I will leave these questions to  you to discover in therapy, if you see a  need to consider what you have posted here in this forum.

I guess the bottom line is that you have come here and told us that your common Sabbath experience is to overhear idle talk!   Outstanding participating in the Sabbath blessing that is available to us!

[CoAspen]

Quote

Yes but you're talking about Jesus. He is The Word. He gave us all the stories and parables we need in His Word (aka The Holy Bible).

Interesting idea, we are not to emulate Jesus, that is, use His methods for teaching. We can only use the stories He told. Any parable(story) told today will be unholy/error/bad/etc?

Wonder where you got the idea that truth is stagnant or the methods of explaining it are set in stone.....rather limiting of the Holy Spirit.

[debbym]

The prophet Nathan told a story to king David, and David's response exposed his sin to himself... sin he was covering and hoped to remain hidden.  Yes there is power in stories.  Allegory creates a picture that tells more than what words may actually say.  Action speaks louder than words, so the action in a story can say what words cannot say.  I trust the story of the cross says more than what has been said, and it will be being examined and reviewed for eternity for it is an inexhaustible picture of the Love of God. 

The mind captivating power of a story is a power either God can reach us through or the enemy.  Josephine Cunnington Edwards was a famous, world famous Adventist storyteller.  I had the privilege of hearing her tell stories in our pulpit.  They were full powerful entertaining and heart gripping stories.  And she was clear and skillful in wording each scene with great skill.  Her stories gave glory to God.

That is the crux, does God receive the glory?  it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that anyone can give glory to God, because by nature we rather glorify sin, and sinners, and lift up our meager selves for attention or credit, or acknowledgment for what we know.  We are like the disciples who wrestled between themselves for special recognition and attention seeking the higher place while walking in the very companionship of Jesus.

[Unity]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

So, why do you spend your time listening to such idle talk.  If you were not listening and/or partaking in it you would not know that it is idle talk.

You say that you simply  "overhear" the idle talk.  Sorry.  You do much more than overhear it.  You remember it.  You remember it long enough to report it to us in this forum.  The fact that you remember the idle talk demonstrates that on one level you participate in it.

You tell us that you  "usually overhear."  O.K. You are telling us that it is a common experience for you to overhear.  It is not inadvertent.  Again, this tells us that you participate. 

Your participation seems to be voluntary.  You probably enjoy it.  What I  wonder about is the source of your enjoyment.  Do you enjoy learning new idle information which others might call gossip?  Or, do you enjoy that fact that you can   come to this forum and tell us about it?   Well, I will leave these questions to  you to discover in therapy, if you see a  need to consider what you have posted here in this forum.

I guess the bottom line is that you have come here and told us that your common Sabbath experience is to overhear idle talk!   Outstanding participating in the Sabbath blessing that is available to us!

Have you never heard the expression "I couldn't help overhearing your conversation"? I don't spend time listening to it. I simply can't help it. My brain isn't good at blocking out background noise. To compensate it has become good at multitasking through that distraction. So I can overhear while I'm thinking about or doing something else. It's not purposeful like you presume.

So I have no motive behind overhearing idle talk. You are by far not the only Adventist pastor or member to do what I am about to describe. You have presumed to know my motive and then you judge me based on that presumption. But motive is an internal thought processes of the mind and as such only God or a prophet can know it. It is interesting to me that you started out in this thread defending open sin by judging internal thought processes that you can't know, but for me you would judge me guilty. And where are those people that say I can't judge? Is it different when you do it?

You are by far not the only Adventist pastor or member to do the following either. Too many judge something that isn't a sin. It isn't a sin to overhear what other people are talking about in a public area where absolute privacy can't be expected. Even if I were overhearing them on purpose it's not a sin. However to judge religious matters based upon a man made law is sin.