Leaderboard

Interesting, remindme not to cry when I do my space travel I do believe that parents loose more sleep when their babies become teenagers ....

As I grow older, now pushing 60 years of age, I remember other members when they were my age and now gone....all of us wishing to be changed in an twinkling of an eye...and I feared death then but not so much now....I now remember someone saying that they welcomed death because they were old and frail and the body was aging and giving of problems...Getting older is a reminder of younger days "when I could....." grip harder, walk faster.poop faster/without pain, hug harder, see old friends more often, attend to family....but now they may attend to me....or not....Old age is an inconvenience not to be missed....

A child asked his father, "How were people born?" So his father said, "Adam and Eve made babies, then their babies became adults and made babies, and so on." The child then went to his mother, asked her the same question and she told him, "We were monkeys then we evolved to become like we are now." The child ran back to his father and said, "You lied to me!" His father replied, "No, your mom was talking about her side of the family."

No way, can that be true? We found some crazy factoids that will intrigue you. Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Galleries/10-Crazy-Facts.aspx#61jQQVgX8udaR787.99

Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained 10. A man’s place is in the army. 9. For men who have children, their ministerial duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent. 8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work. 7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation. 6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments. 5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers. 4. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination. 3. Testosterone makes men more prone to violence; no really “manly” man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. It also makes them more prone to lust; consider King David. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership. 2. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was betrayed by a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment remind us of the subordinated position that all men should take. 1. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep sidewalks, repair the church roof, and perhaps even lead the song service on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church. (Originally from the late Dr. David M. Scholer of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1997.) Found on https://ordinationFacts.wordpress.com/reasons/

I agree with Naomi! I lost a lot of sleep with my newborns, but when my kids were (and still are for one more month!) teenagers, I lost a lot more sleep. While at the allergist's office today, I read another study that indicated sleep is important for retaining memory and with too much sleep deprivation, our capacity to remember can be permanently diminished. Maybe that's the reason my friends who do not have children seem to remember so much more of my past than I do!

If Paul considered Phoebe to merely be a servant or helper and not one sent to lead the believers, explain why he would instruct the people to help her with whatever she has need of? If she was merely a servant wouldn't the instruction of Paul have been to her to go help those people with whatever they had need of? Isn't his instruction to them much more consistent with someone sent to be in charge of the group? Why restrict her then to mere helper/servant status? You are twisting the Scripture and adding things too it that are simply not there. (The translation you have quoted is not a literal translation. May be if you would use or look at the original or the most literal translation you might better understand what I am saying.) I am not inclined to continue discussing this with you since you really consistently seem to miss the point and just bring up extraneous things not under discussion. It seems to me that perhaps you have come here just to be argumentative, to pick a fight and not to really learn.

OK Atheists use satire. They also use logic. They also use metaphor, simile and poetry. They also use air and water. Shall we stop using those because the wrong people use them too? Your effort to use guilt by association is foolish. The satire piece is not ridiculing God or Scripture. It lampoons the arguments people use to justify things that in fact are really not in Scripture, things like tradition. You need to perhaps lighten up a bit, loosen your tie and go smell the roses. You are missing the whole point of satire. Not us.

Character is more important to God than power. This is clearly the case, becuase if power were the issue, the Great Controversy would have been over before it started. No one has questioned God's power, just His character. In regards to your post, it would surely be a great error to wait for anything, either power or character, before attempting to fulfill the great commission.

This makes me sad. All people should be included in God's house; and all people deserve an equal right to life, love and happiness.

Bob, your spin is far more conjecture and speculation that you seem to be accusing me of. I am not making this up. You do seem to be just making things up to avoid accepting the truth of what is being conveyed in these two verses. I am relying on the serious research and study of real Greek scholars. The word "prostatis" is used only once in the NT. however it is a common term in its verb form and masculine form in the NT and throughout the Septuagint. And its meaning in other Greek literature of that period is undisputed as referring to someone in a leadership position - rulers governors, civic and governmental officials. The verb form consistently is used to describe the action of governance, leadership, ruling over others. The role you describe is really not inconsistent with that. The role of an advocate, a lawyer or judge acting to render justice for ordinary people or those with no standing. You also seem to be avoiding the full context of those two verses. Read carefully. The high praise and affirmation Paul gives regarding Phoebe is like no other person mentioned in the whole chapter. He introduces her to the believers with accolades and commendations of her standing and qualifications for the role. And he specifications instructs them to heed her direction as one would do in introducing a new leader. One does not have read anything into those two verses to get that. The build up and instruction to the believers is inconsistent with the notion that she was merely just a nice helpful rich lady servant. The most consistent reading of the whole context confirms the intended meaning of both prostatis and diakonos as used together. In fact it contains the clearest example of the concept of a servant leader. Understand that a servant of the church, and as it is often stated by Paul as a servant of Christ are complimentary ideas. The Church is the body of Christ. To be a servant of the Church is to be a servant of Christ. A servant of the King is no ordinary household slave. In those days, such a servant although having no personal authority carried the authority of the master. It was well understood if the servant of the King asked for or commanded someone on behalf of the King the person was duty bound to obey as if the words came direct from the King. Yes a servant still said it. But it carried the weight of a higher authority. Here we see Paul confer that same idea in his written introdcution of Phoebe. This is not a new understanding of these two verses. The founders of the Adventist Church were familiar with it. An article explaining this understanding about these two verses was published in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Uriah Smith introduced the article with the editorial note that it was a strong defense of the woman in the early Advent movement that they could preach.

Lion Joke Q: Why did the lion eat a light bulb? A: He wanted a light lunch.

TW=Don Quixote

Did you even read what I posted and actually spend any time studying carefully what both verses in total says about Phoebe!?!?! You missed the point entirely. It is really quite simple if you read carefully, understanding the meaning of the original Greek. The language of introduction and commendation of Phoebe to the believers, the instruction to them to do whatever she asked of them and the two key terms Paul, chose to identify her roles speak volumes of what is happening. Tradition also holds that Paul,entrusted the letter to Phoebe to deliver to them. That was not a simple letter carrier delivery like a mail carrier. The person delivering a letter of this sort in those days was to read it to them (many likely illiterate and there was only one copy) and to teach and explain it to them. As for the husband of one woman idiom ( literally "one woman man") the point is that Paul calls Phoebe a diakonos of a church. In another letter Paul includes that phrase to describe qualification for being a diakonos of the church. If it is a man only qualification, how can Paul say here that Phoebe, a woman is a diakonos of the church? It is because it is not a phrase that is gender specific only to men but is a Greek idiom that simply means monogamy which covers both the man and woman. The number "one" applies to both the man and the woman, just one of each. Read this - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader

Since many fine conservatives refuse to call him (her) a him (not her) {ok.. i'm confused} They still consider Caitlyn a man..so She (hIM) can be ordained! BOOM! #still has twig and berries

Bob said: I have lived in countries where Elders did run the operations of the congregations as the ordained clergy supervised a dozen congregations. In those places, the clergy did devote time to evangelism. However, they also had to spend a lot of time serving the spiritual needs of their assigned congregations that could not be provided by local Elders. It was also of interest to me that in that country it was common for the individual congregations to be caught up in beliefs and practices that were outside of SDA belief and practice due to the fact that the local elders were simply not prepared to understand and deal with them. IN a discussion of the early history of the SDA Church and Ellen white it is important to understand the change that has taken place in SDA Congregations from those early days to that of today. Our early members were often committed Christians who accepted the Bible and the claims of Christ. They needed education on some elements of their Christianity that became a part of SDA belief. But, they were substantially Christian. In this context, Elders could supervise the congregations while the clergy worked to evangelize those where not Christian and/or needed to transition in their spiritual development as outlined in the so-called 3-angels messages of Revelation 14. Today we are in a different era that has been called by some the post-Christian era. The congregation that I attend typically has people attending who are not SDA and/or may not be a member of any Christian group. It has people who may be SDA members, but are at an early stage of their Christian development. IOW it has people who need evangelism as much as people who do not attend. What I am saying is that in the context of today our clergy who pastor congregations may be deeply involved in evangelism within the congregation as much as our clergy who in the past worked outside of the congregations. Folks, the context of the time in which we live has changed from the context in the time of Ellen White.

But the issue is not about "authority" and "control". Consider carefully the meaning of the words "minister" and "pastor". It seems that many of those opposed to WO make this error. Perhaps it is because they themselves wish or seek to make the role of a pastor or minister all about power, control and authority.

​oh. come. on. Dredging up isolated instances of inappropriate sermon comments and antics without the context is not good form. Of course, there might be cases where the preacher was totally out-of-line. But to present isolated examples without context is equally irresponsible.

Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, not considered a part of the cannon. Does that make Jude not inspired? I don't see why this should be reason for struggle.

I think there is a lot of evidence that EGW was inspired. Before I was an Adventist, before knowing anything about her or Adventism, I came across "The Desire of Ages", and sensed this.

I would also say that it is the worst type of slander that can be voiced when persons 'report' inappropriate sermons with out context and when they are used to disparage someone.....seems NT has some thoughts about that type of talk.

Men are on very shaky ground when one of the arguments they use against WO is inappropriate or "wrong" sermons by women. Men are very good at delivering those kind of sermons.

On behalf of women everywhere, you're welcome.

very difficult to comment on what someone else deems "inappropriate" in a sermon... context is important, but isn't included very often in discussions by the sermon gestapo...

​I've repeatedly said that I trust them, and I mean it. I could say that I don't trust them to deliver on their policies, but I do. I believe they're telling the truth. The thing is, I consider their policies to be terrible things for the country. Further pulling up the ladder that allowed them to get to their exalted and comfortable positions behind them, trapping people in poverty and blaming the victims for their own poverty, more wars, more military spending, more attacks on the vulnerable of all kinds. It's possible that, given you vote for them and advocate for them, you consider all of these policies to be Good Things. You would probably describe the same policies using different words, of course. I'm saying I do trust them to do what they say they will: but that what they say they will do is terrible.

my grandma and her sisters always used to use the word, "physic" to mean an "enema"...

I don't even think it is possible to do anything that would cause God to stop loving us. If He knows everything that ever has happened, is happening, or will happen, He knew everything that we would ever do in advance; so how could we do anything that would either disappoint or impress Him? How could we do anything to make Him love us any more or less than He already does?

There was a preacher who fell in the ocean and he couldn't swim. When a boat came by, the captain yelled, "Do you need help, sir?" The preacher calmly said "No, God will save me." A little later, another boat came by and a fisherman asked, "Hey, do you need help?" The preacher replied again, "No God will save me." Eventually the preacher drowned & went to heaven. The preacher asked God, "Why didn't you save me?" God replied, "Fool, I sent you two boats!"

A mother rabbit was overheard saying to her little one "Look, a magician pulled you out of a hat, now quit asking questions!"

If con is the opposite of pro, then is Congress the opposite of progress?