Leaderboard

Rather than the subject of the linked article I initially thought the author of the link himself was the intended object of the phrase "good example of just how far someone can lead you off he track of truth." At that I would whole heartedly agree that Vance Farrell is a truly excellent example.

I'm grateful to my SDA pastor who told me I had to pledge to give up alcohol completely if I wanted to be baptised. I tried to talk him around, saying I was a very light drinker and had only one or two glasses a month at a party, but he said take it or leave it. Good on you Brett, I found it actually made a noticeable difference to my mental performance when I stopped drinking altogether and I began to enjoy an increased clarity in my study that surpassed anything I'd had before. I'm a retired nutrition therapist and I don't go along with the medical claims that a little alcohol causes no harm in the body. Empirical studies are not the best evidence when the biochemistry is clearly and unequivocally known - acetaldehyde, a major breakdown product of alcohol in the body, causes oxidation and degradation of body tissues in 100% of cases, regardless what any population study may have seemed to indicate. Alcohol metabolites also act as exo-neurotransmitters in the brain and interfere with normal brain function to impair judgement. It also has a rebound depressing effect due to disruption of your neurotransmitter equilibrium. This effect can last for several days and, over time, repeated occurrences can tend to make such disruptions permanent. Good health depends in large part on supporting the liver detox function. In modern life there are enough challenges to the detox system without deliberately putting another toxin into your bloodstream. Overloaded detoxification is a factor in obesity and fatty liver, and less directly but no less problematically on conditions like atherosclerosis, diabetes, cancer, kidney failure, as well as many others where underperforming immune function is involved. And finally, when you are unable to live without something like alcohol you know you have formed another attachment to the things of the world. Caffeine is another drug that many people would struggle to eliminate from their lives. Not to mention sugar. As much as we all would like to be relying totally on Jesus for our needs and source of lasting peace and joy, I always suspected that attachments to such things would have to detract from my relationship with him. I could be wrong but I believe life goes better on quite a few fronts without alcohol. Or caffeine, or sugar. I know I sound like a wowser but to me it just seems like good logic. And when you try living without alcohol, after a while you don't miss it (I confess I'm not at that stage with coffee yet). I really like that I can still hold up my end of an intelligent conversation late into the night at a party. My friends have gotten used to my not drinking now and it doesn't bother anyone. And I definitely like waking up the next morning feeling fresh and wonderful, quite different from what it would be like back when I used to drink.

Monogamy is unnatural Matt Walsh/ 2,360 Comments If his credentials are true,supported by your tax dollar Monogamous marriages are unnatural. On this, I agree with the emailer below. Now, behold these enlightening thoughts that I found in my inbox this morning: Greetings Mr. Walsh, I am a college professor, author, and researcher. It was obvious to me before you ever stated it that you are a man of little education and limited intelligence. Still, I commend your newfound fame and congratulate you on the enormous amounts of money you must be making. [Five more sentences of insults and pretentious self-aggrandizement] …You have become a hot topic in some of my classes and this very much worries me. It wasn’t until your name came up for a fifth time that I decided to investigate you. Your prose are rife with fallacies and Neanderthalic musings, so I could easily disembowel and discredit any part of it. But I’d like to concentrate on what seems to be your most common themes: heterocentricism and monogamism. Whether you’re writing about marriage, “stay at home moms,” abstinence, or any other “issue of the family,” you seem to think that there is only *one* way and only *one* sort of family. The truth that either escapes you or frightens you too much to acknowledge is that the “monogamous heterosexual relationship” is a largely unattainable (and undesirable) myth. Sexual unions between humans are not meant to be permanent. As we evolve, so does our understanding of these truths. Monogamy is not simply unrealistic; it is unnatural. You do not find it often in the animal kingdom, and where you do it is generally born of an evolutionary necessity. The necessity of monogamy among humankind has evaporated. This is particularly true of men, who are simply not biologically fitted for the “one woman” life. You could use your platform for good but instead you use it to make those in open and poly relationships feel subhuman. Beyond the latent racism and sexism in your writings, it is your constant reinforcement of archaic relationship models that really does the profoundest of damage. Before you jump to any conclusions allow me to tell you this: I am married. I’ve been married for 15 years and my wife and I both sleep with other people. We are honest about this, which makes our open relationship more healthy than “monogamous” relationships built on lies. Judge my choices if you like, but when you inevitably cheat on your wife, and then continue to sermonize about the sacredness of monogamous unions, I will return the favor. I don’t expect you to use this email as you seem to only respond to imbeciles and easy targets. And here is what I wrote back to him: Good Day Professor, It will be a challenge to type this response to you, sir, while I tremble in the blinding light of your godlike intellect. Do you begin all of your lectures by reciting your resume and viciously cutting down your audience? If so, I can only hope that you don’t teach a communications class. But if you do, then I can tell you that I receive at least 20 emails a day from people who must be your students. They’ve taken your strategy to heart. You should be proud. In any case, I will attempt to make a rebuttal, but I will first offer the disclaimer that I am not nearly smart enough to use phrases like “archaic relationship models” and “your prose are rife with Neanderthalic musings.” I also lack the power to magically create liberal buzzwords like ‘monogamism’ out of thin air. No, my dear Professor, I am a humble man and I can only write in plain language, using words that, you know, exist. Now, with my idiocy and your cerebral supremacy well established, let us commence with the discussion. Monogamy. Monogamy is ‘unnatural,’ says the Professor. And he says this as a married man — or “married” man, I suppose. A married person who doesn’t believe in monogamy seems an awful lot like a Satanist in a church choir, or an existential nihilist performing lifesaving heart surgery. There’s a bit of a philosophical conflict of interest at work, wouldn’t you agree? In fact, I wouldn’t even bother to address such absurdity if it wasn’t becoming so widespread. What you people — you socially progressive academics — have realized is that you can not launch a salient attack against the ideals behind marriage, or abstinence for that matter, so instead you’ve decided to make the bizarre case that these things are somehow mythological. The more you say it, the more people believe it, and the more they believe it the more true it becomes. It’s a clever trick. You’ve succeeded, at least partially, in shouting at a reality until it disappears. But there is SOME truth in what you say. Monogamy is not natural. You’re right about that. It’s supernatural. It’s above our nature. It might not be realistic. Space flight isn’t realistic, either. If I wanted to be natural, I could live in a hole like a rodent, eat insects, and scamper from one mate to the next, until, after a life of nothingness, I die alone in the cold darkness, decomposing into the dirt without anyone ever noticing. That would be natural. It’s probably pretty realistic, too. So it is fortunate that I am a human being and I am given the chance to transcend the existence of a rat or a lizard. I have the opportunity to experience supernatural things like love, and sacrifice, and commitment. You say that men are especially ill-suited for monogamy. We are not “biologically fitted” for it. What does that mean, Professor? Do you go about your day and, before deciding on any particular course of action, ask yourself if it is something you are biologically fitted to do? I would say we are biologically fitted to be rational beings. And, as rational beings, we are capable of attaining higher things. Monogamy and loyalty are higher things. But are they more difficult for men? I can’t fathom why that should be the case. I have found a woman who will be with me until I die, even while my hair falls out and my skin shrivels and wrinkles, even when I stumble, even when I fail, even through the doldrums of daily existence, through bills and dirty diapers, through all things — joyous or miserable, pleasing or painful — through every day until death comes. Why should it be hard for me to simply refrain from tossing such a gift into the garbage? It’s hard for men to be monogamous? What a cowardly, pitiful statement. Also, how incredibly obtuse. It ought to be easy for us. Especially for us. If you won 600 million dollars in the lottery, would you go out the next day and break into cars to steal the change from the cup holders? That’s what sleeping around is like when you’ve already found a woman who will pledge her life and her entire being to you for the remainder of her existence. You tell me that you are in an “open marriage.” I will probably be lambasted for “judging” you for it, but, sorry Professor, an “open marriage” makes about as much sense as a plane without wings or a boat that doesn’t float. Marriages, by definition, are supposed to be closed. Actually, I’m getting rather tired of people like you trying to hijack the institution, strip it of its beauty and purpose, and convert it into some shallow little thing that suits your vices. If you aren’t strong enough to stay committed to one person, that’s your business. Walk down that path of loneliness and confusion, but you can’t drag the entire institution of marriage along with you. Personally, I like circles but I hate squares. Can I subvert the laws of geometry and suddenly decide that all squares shall henceforth be circles? No, because geometry is geometry, despite my strange square-hating quirks. Similarly, marriage is marriage, no matter how many college professors insist otherwise. All that said, I must agree with one of your assertions: I only respond to imbeciles. Thanks for writing. -Matt ****** Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/07/monogamy-is-unnatural/#uUVCDpX0PIuT2Fv2.99

In Ethiopia, when I was a young 'un there, raisins were reconstituted into grape juice for the Lord's Supper.

I've been praying that the Lord stops ISIS. I'm so thankful that He intervened (through humans, but still intervened) in Australia. I have friends in Australia, too. I didn't even know those kinds of things happened in that country, which seems so civilized. It's barbaric. It's crazy. I realize these things will be happening more and more the nearer Christ's return comes, but it doesn't stop me from praying.

No it is not. It is not illegal to be racist or a bigot

So you are saying that it was the Native American's fault for being massacred?

Immigrants religiously enslaved? What do you mean?

I understand the issues that you bring up. The other side of the coin is that in the past, the large metropolitan areas were generally neglected. Now the focus has shifted. There is also another issue: Conferences are beginning to put resources where growth is taking place. Smaller congregations are often located in small population areas. In those areas, congregational growth is often NOT taking place. It is often in the larger population areas where growth it taking place. So, Conferences are beginning to place resources and spend money for missions in the larger population areas where growth is taking place. As to why growth is not taking place in the smaller population areas, that is a subject for discussion. One might argue that part of the reason is that the Church is not placing resources in those areas. But, another aspect is probably demographics. Population demographics are changing int eh United States. As those demographics change, the Church must change with them. In any case, the questions valid and the answers are not easy.

kinda sounds like prune juice...

There were a couple ways to preserve grape juice that I read about, one is that the Romans incorporated sulfur as a preservative. The grapes were also dried into raisins and rehydrated with water to make "wine" that was acceptable to be used in temple services. They had honey, too, which doesn't spoil. If ancient peoples added that to juice I imagine that could have a preserving action. They also dehydrated the juice down to a syrup and saved that to be used later. Fermenting was only one way to preserving their grape juice.

Which just goes to show people often see in the Scripture that which they choose to see, especially if it verifies what has already been concluded. I'm satisfied when meeting the Redeemer of my soul, steadiness of mind will have a telling affect on what He says to me. Not to mention if I'm wrong about alcohol, it will present no impediment to entrance to the city of lights. God is Love! Jesus saves!

Sojourner, I would also add to what you said in response to Windsor that at the last supper, there was wine. There seems to be a fairly common Adventist misconception that to consume alcohol is a sin and that Sinless Jesus would therefore not have consumed any. Presumable knowingly drinking one drop of alcohol would have made him a sinner. The time of year in which the Passover occurs suggest it quite unlikely that there would have been ripe grapes to have had freshly squeezed grape juice. Even if it had been recently squeezed even earlier that day, with no refrigeration, the juice would have already begun to ferment, and thus have at least a small amount of alcohol. But the reality was that the Passover supper included real wine. Jesus shared the cup and said, "I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until..." That most clearly indicates he was drinking it then and there. And, Windsor, it appears for a reading of all the gospel accounts that Jesus was offered the sour wine twice while on the cross. The first time he refused. But read the eyewitness account of the apostle John, the only gospel writer to have stayed at the cross. The second time John says that Jesus said he was thirsty, they soaked a sponge in the cheap sour wine gave it to him and he took it. It is a bit hard to avoid the clear reading that he had alcohol twice within the 24 hours prior to his death on the cross. And as I pointed out earlier, he seemed to see no need to deny the accusation against him in comparison to John the Baptist, that He was a glutton and drunkard because He ate and drank with sinners. Again, a clear reading of that account and Jesus' own words, he said John did not drink and that because He (Jesus) did drink, His critics accused him of being a drunk. He acknowledges the drinking and eating, but simply highlights the foolish conclusion that that implied he was a drunkard and a glutton in comparison to John's asceticism.

I would love for you to show me an official document from the SDA that states that they teach that Jesus Christ did not drink alcohol, I researched the SDA at length for several years before becoming a member and never once saw anything along these lines. Three points, The fermentation process is how grape juice is preserved to last for 12 months. There are modern methods to do it now, but this was not so in the first century. Jesus said "You can not put new wine in an old wineskin". This is because of the Fermentation process which expands the skin. A sheep's gut will stretch once, but not twice. Finally Jesus first miracle was to create wine. A comment is made about the quality of the wine and the best stuff being brought out second rather than first, this is because fermented wine improves in taste as it ages.

From my primitive understanding .... the bylaws allow Unions to ordain whom they please. So - it is not the Unions who are rebelling. There are also anti-discrimination statements in the church that state the church does not discriminate against gender. So - there are many sides to this issue. But as Tom mentioned .... the solution is to allow each culture to decide this cultural issue.

How do we really know that more doctors didn't smoke Camels than others?

Very interesting discussion!

good thing the apostles didn't see that study...

Alcohol also increases the risk of other cancer including head and neck cancer. Those who have this cancer may need painful disfiguring surgery and their quality of life is affected. It becomes difficult to eat and they may live with the side effects for a lifetime. Since statistics look at mortality (death rates) but not usually morbidity (disease rates) when looking at alcohol use, they do not take into account those who get cancer as a result of alcohol and live, but this is not a pleasant diagnosis. We had a patient come in when I was in graduate school at Loma Linda, before I transferred to Andrews due to allergies, with this condition, and even though he would have been counted as alive in the statistics, there are much better ways to live;

When I was in third gradein Ohio, our teacher told us all about the WCTU (Women's Christian Temperance Union). She offered us the opportunity to sign an abstinence promise, which I gladly did, I being a very consciencious sort of child. Probably that promise is what has kept me from drinking alcohol, though I have more recently tasted champagne (didn't like it) and very expensive chardonnay (so-so). Now my main reason for not getting into it is the unnecessary calories. I don't drink much in the way of fruit juice either, since I feel better if I don't; water is my favorite drink, and we have really good water around here.

Yes,my world view is that Carson is a much better role model. Someone that didn't use skin color,single parent,economic hardship for an excuse for failure and to make promoting that a lifetime career. Dr. Carson should be a inspiration to all,not just his own race

Woody is on the right track. Sanctification is the work of a lifetime. Spiritual growth is the work of a lifetime. We are all human. In our human condition, we are unable to understand the sum total of what God has in mind for us. Therefore the Holy Spirit, who is in charge of our spiritual development, has to lead us spiritually in a progressive manner, one step at a time. In doing this, spiritual error is dwelt with in a progressive manner, one step at a time and on an individual basis. God has more to teach us in the future than what we are being taught today. So, until that time comes, we remain in error on that point.

5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Gen 3:5-6 God is Love! Jesus saves!

Are you suggesting that all those who believe in the Sunday error .... are not under the power of the Holy Spirit. That kind of teaching is nonsense. The Holy Spirit allows us to believe error. The Holy Spirit leads us step by step . Truth does not come in a one size fit all package. None of us have all truth including Veith.

His message is not appropriate for liberals? As a parent I would much rather have Dr. Carson as a mentor or example to my sons than the likes of Jessie Jackson. What is it that disturbs people? Raised by a single mother in a circumstances most claim is a sure road to failure,rising to the heights he has is not something all parents should aspire to? Knowing regardless of the color of your skin you do not have to settle for the ghetto life.

Yes. I retired on February 28 after 50 years of service for God & Country. You can read about that, if you wish, in "Members Milestones" and then "Gregory Matthews' REtirement. I thank you for your good wishes.

Spending much time recently in studying the old testament, especially cognizant of how miserably God's own people failed to live up to His wishes, I find it not difficult to believe the effort to keep any group of individuals that are more interested in their personal aggrandizement and having freewill(given by God BTW) to pursue those personal ends, a real challenge. Noticing your stated present status as retired, I can only sympathize with your new found responsibilities and fondly look forward to my own retirement from the present human race, looking forward to my promised citizenship in the future, which being of the age to speak with authority, seems to be the best thing for which to look forward. Seems not an incongruous thing to anticipate if one is willing to accept the promises offered. "...in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the last trumpet will sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1 Cor 15:52 KJV God is Love! Jesus saves!

Joe, I would invite you to spend some quality time with a wealth of current information to be found in the topic pinned at the top of the topic menu of this section. While this is compiled by the Pacific Union here in North America, it include the perspectives of the other divisions that came together in the TOSC process. There are links to many resources to get a full perspective. I recognize that in those Divisons where it is culturally not likely that WO is likely or possible or where leadership (all male) is greatly opposed that it is very unlikely that the members will get any info and can easily perceive that this is all about or only a NAD driven issue. It is unfortunate and indeed frustrating that such opposition effectively keeps the membership in the dark on the issue. It is true that NAD has taken the lead in this issue, but it is not the only division strongly supportive. There are now at least 4 other Divisons that are strongly supportive of WO. But more to the point of your observation about cultural sensitivity, it is equally relevant that the cultural realities of the Phillipines, Indonesia, some parts of Africa and South America should not be imposed on NAD, Europe, Australia, or Northern Asia where support for WO is strong and where it is not only accepted, but increasingly deemed essential to furthering and strengthening the work of the Church. Why hold those area back? We readily accept cultural differences and diviations in practice other than women in ministry. But it is a fallacy and a serious misunderstanding that NAD is or ever has sought to impose its view regarding WO on the rest of the world. It is consistently sought to allow WO where it would be OK. But it is most important to understand that the prevailing view by a majority of the divisions is to permit WO where it is accepted without imposing it on other areas of the world where it is culturally unacceptable. That is reflected in the reports from the TOSC reports from all of the divisions and also a majority of the GC appointed TOSC.

woody needs a lily urinal?