Leaderboard

Back on August 5th I was contacted by Nicholas Cole who works on the production team for the Hacksaw Ridge movie: >>I'm part of the production team for a new feature film called Hacksaw Ridge, which is being made in Sydney, Australia. I write to you today with regard to certain artworks by Harry Anderson which we are hoping might be available for use in our film...<< I gave him the contact information he requested, and I really hope to see some of Harry Anderson's art in the Desmond Doss movie! www.HarryAndersonArt.com

The unknown is scary. It reminds me of the Indiana Jones movie, where he has to cross the invisible bridge. In his notes he has to "step out on faith". Which he does and then it shows the bridge. Had that been me, I would have been down on hands and knees and patting around with my hands trying to find the bridge. Anyways, the metaphor is that invisible bridge is our life, some of us stay safe on the ground that we can see, while others take the step of faith and embark on the unknown.

Fear of the unknown. We are creatures of habit, the prospect of change can be very unnerving especially if we don't know or understand the new environment. I have a cousin who was a physician but has been retired for a number of years. His friend, and personal physical is now retiring and he is completely stressed over having to have a new young Doctor. It's an emotional reaction, not logical. A person in an abusive domestic situation is often scared to leave, they are not sure how they will survive alone and various other concerns. The mushroom principal ... if you live under a pile of manure long enough you will be blinded by the light. .

And aside from not assuming everyone with the SDA moniker means "safe": 1) never EVER post online when you will be away from your home 2) do not post your date of birth, where you were born, or where you live 3) if you post obituaries, always edit out the names of children and where they live 4) do not post photos of your children with their names 5) do not post the name(s) of your parents or siblings

Grace is not violating someone's personal belief. Jesus never compromised with what He considered wrong. The gay community is saying that someone's religious belief should be compromised. While there are many that would not have a problem with this issue,what right to you have to force someone that feels strongly. It is law but the people being sued by "gays/lesbians" seem to be very willing to live their beliefs,even losing their businesses There will come a day soon when state law demands we go along or stand firm for our beliefs. How many will be as firm as the numerous people being sued.

Good common sense, LauraLea! And she raises a good point about crediting articles when posting them.

I see that the OP is from a website entitled "Leaving the Seventh-day Adventist Church." Seems like it would have been more open to plainly label the source. Finding a long list of ways to criticize others does not seem to be the most effective way to arrive at truth. Personally, 2 of the 8 things about becoming insular apply to me, and one only in part. But then I am a convert- and there are a lot of us. Of course Adventist believers will have some of the same shared experiences and do some of the same things, but I do not have friends that tell uniquely Adventist jokes. This guy has an agenda. He gives advice on how to "deconvert" and how to deal with Adventists who keep bothering you after you do so. So I wonder what the point is of sharing his "stuff." To prove Adventists are different? Some of the differences he listed are values based, like the Sabbath, and some are cultural. We are supposed to have the values based differences. If something is true and we understand it to be true, God expects us to follow it, and other believers also believe this, not merely the SDA church. Try telling a Baptist that baptism is unnecessary once you know about it and believe it to be true. "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." "If ye know these things, happy are ye if you do them." The cultural differences are not so absolute. I have taught students from over 40 countries, and they do not use the fake meats, tell Adventist jokes, etc. etc. Nor are most SDAs from the US or Canada anymore. So he lumps together cultural Adventist traditions with following Biblical things like the Sabbath. Maybe this article is 25% true, that there is a subset of Adventists that follow unnecessary cultural traditions, but I think the author has rejected essential issues like the Sabbath along with being irritated at jargon at potlucks he used to attend. These are hardly at the same level of importance, but it has been many years since potlucks feature primarily meat analogs, and these have become far more accepted with many non Adventists eating them and are now available in practically every supermarket in the U.S.

#1 #2 Weird software response!

Because we don't want to step out of our comfort zone: It's scary out there!

This includes those mobile phone photos people like to post "on the fly" when on vacation. http://pleaserobme.com

Just for clarification, and I told a member I would respond publicly. I know some have had struggles in the past and crossed lines, truth is, we all have, some got caught and others did not. Our concern is what happens in here now and in the future. If someone approaches you for fund raising, or private things that they should not be asking for, Please contact Gregory. I know in the past we have raised money for members in need, and some of them were. Some of them according to reports were NOT. AND we paid for their week long parties. Still others sought after widows for funds to "Fill desperate needs". None of the above fill the mission of this forum. Thanks to Gregory for his comments and wanting to protect people here.

I appreciated DW's take on the issue. Yes - there are people in the SDA denomination (as well as most others) that take a Taliban/Pharisee attitude towards others and feel it is their duty to dictate their brand of morality on everyone else. There are entire congregations that practice this. But my experience is that there are far more congregations who are accepting and loving; at least there are groups within a congregation that are accepting and loving. We see subgroups here on CA that fall into both camps. There are those who seem to be offended by some of the members here who don't quite fit the traditional church mold. There are other who welcome those different ones and encourage their participation here. I'm OK with that. It is differences of opinion that spark debate and conversation. I have experienced the rejection that Gay's article discusses; and I have experienced the community that DW discusses. I prefer to remember the good experiences and not the bad ones. Focusing on the bad ones just nourishes a bitter root and feelings of condemnation towards both myself and those who have offended me. Holding on to offenses (both real and imagined) is one of the biggest barriers to the kind of Christian community that God desires for His people.

It does look like I my assumptions about what you believed were not accurate. Searching with Bible software is a very useful and important way to search out a matter in Scripture. That's what I do, and what I referred to when I said, "In addition to my other studies...". But doing word studies can miss other passages that deal with the same topic but use other words or phrases. As well, a word search often misses the stories of how God dealt with people whose lives are touched by the concept being studied. Also when picking verses out using search software, a person tends to miss the larger context and how the verse fits into the whole chronological timeline of God's Word. So, as useful as word studies are, I don't consider that I have adequately studied a question until I have finished re-reading the whole Bible with that particular issue in mind.

While patches are listed as causing problems, much of my reading indicates it would be inappropriate to prescribe the patch out of a Dr.s office, and I agree with this. It should only be done inpatient where someone can be monitored and after determining the total amount of painkillers used over the course of a day. Then a fraction of that amount would be covered by the Fentanyl patch with meds for breakthrough pain. Do keep in mind that a significant number of patients being given Fentanyl patches are those being cared for under hospice rules and for whom the usual concerns of side effects are irrelevant. Are you really going to be concerned whether someone is going to become addicted when they are going to die? I would suspect that many who get into trouble with these patches are those who steal from someone who really needs them and being "opioid naive" are overdosed with tragic results. And there are those careless with the care of someone, both in and out of the hospital, on the patch who stick on more patches without removing the old ones. http://americanhospice.org/caregiving/use-of-opiates-to-manage-pain-in-the-seriously-and-terminally-ill-patient/ I would add that pain control in the hospital has been woefully poorly managed and people suffer needlessly under the staff fears of turning people into addicts. Unless they are a drug seeker, that is unlikely to happen with good management of medications. Pain levels are now considered the 5th vital sign and hospitals are monitored by accrediting agencies such as JCAHO for the proper assessment and management of pain.

Hacksaw Ridge, begins filming in Australia next month Take a look at the SPECIAL THANKS http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2119532/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers just sayin'

Maybe I'm thinking in the wrong direction, but what does religion or politics have to do with 'sexual offenders'? Religion keeps one from being such or can lead to being such? I would have to have to see some scientific data before jumping to any conclusions. For me, at this point, a little to much finger pointing. Lets have some supporting evidence, would be interesting reading. Having attended both church and public schools and knowing people from the schools Stan is talking about, I suspect there are enough 'offenders' for all groups!

Neither of these things matter. The only two things that matter is what did the original writer mean, which pnatt is working to determine, and what does God say, which is determined by the rest of scripture, not my interpretation of what the man who wrote this passage is saying. Pnatt is being faithful to the first of these thing and Samie is being faithful to the second, but neither of you can be deemed correct because neither of you is making an effort to meet the full burden of proof in the matter. In almost any doctrinal matter, and most particularly this one, a person who is only seeking validation of his own beliefs is going to be able to fall on either side of the argument and with full "scriptural support" meaning only that he can find plenty of witnesses in scripture to support his personal take on the issue. This is not actually full scriptural support because it ignores half of what scripture says on the matter because that is completely contradictory to his belief. Scripture is full of these "contradictions" and anyone who tells you it is not is either lying or does not know scripture. These "contradictions" are extremely obvious and cannot be honestly denied, and this is a major point on which church people drive many more honest people into atheism or agnosticism. The problem is not the contradictions themselves; the problem is our understanding. Almost universally we are overly simplistic and work very hard to remain so instead of growing up. I am often asked by students, "which is right, a or b?" They get offended when my answer is yes, but this is all too often the proper answer for many of these questions, regardless of the subject matter. It's like saying, "Which is a fruit, the apple or the orange?" The answer is yes. Most of you can easily see this, but now let's get into an area of actual distinction in which the most common definition is false, and ask, "Which is a fruit, the tomato or the green bean?" (I almost invalidated my argument by saying bean, not green bean. The difference is important.) Again the answer is yes because both are fruits. Most people have some understanding that a tomato is actually a fruit and not a vegetable, but not why it is properly classified as such. Because they do not know why they cannot understand why the green bean is also a fruit. Knowing the proper definition of these terms makes proper understanding possible. A vegetable is a root, stem or leaf of a plant. A fruit biologically is the seed pod. Biblically fruit includes and is especially the seed. I cannot tell you, either biblically or biologically the precise definition of nuts and grains since both are seeds. Yet the Bible makes this distinction which means at some point it will be important and something we simply cannot ignore, but in most cases our understanding that all are fruits will be adequate. So the problem is not which is true and which is false, the problem is we saddle ourselves with incomplete, inadequate, and just plain false definitions for related things that are the building blocks for what we are now discussing then ask the wrong and completely invalid questions based on those incorrect assumptions. The question which is true is invalid on the face of it because the word "which" carries the connotation that only one can be true. It does not necessarily demand that both cannot be true but the blank and unbelieving stare on the face of the questioner clearly indicates that he was placing that restriction on his understanding and trying to force that restriction on you. The answers, "Yes," or, "Both," completely stun him and leaves him no place to go with follow ups because he is simply too simplistic in his views and cannot go where the truth actually lies. This person will never find truth unless and until he finds himself willing to reexamine and correct much more basic assumptions. The Bible is full of examples for both points of view and those who choose one side or the other regularly prove this with very valid texts which legitimately say what either side claims they, when taken out of the context of the entire Bible. Paul, the darling of the righteousness by faith alone crowd, regularly falls squarely on the middle of the fence on this issue, which is why it surprises me that the righteousness by works crowd do not use him more to refute the arguments of the righteousness by faith crowd. It seems they buy into the falsehood that Paul taught righteousness by faith alone and never actually read what Paul said for themselves. Then again, part of this problem is that Paul did teach justification by faith alone and most people simply assume these two terms are equal. They are not and justification is only the first of three in the plan of salvation. The confusion of these two terms is at the basis for nearly, if not every argument I have herd from both sides, and both side regularly abuse the scriptures they cherry pick because they do not know these two proper definitions. It does not matter which side of the issue you fall on; until you correct these basic definitions everything you believe on the matter is false. Contains truth does not make truth. Paul, the darling of the righteousness by works crowd most clearly refutes every other argument of that crowd when he says, The answer once again is both, and not so simplistic as either side wishes to make it. Whether I am doing these good works by the power of the flesh in accordance with the Old Covenant it is because I recognize that law, which I agreed to obey, is the word of God, and if out of a sincere desire I am attempting to follow it (and not simply use it for carnal means -- there is still the matter of the heart in this -- then it is still God who works in me to will (act of the mind) and act (and act of works) in order to fulfill his purpose and not my own. If I am under the New Covenant in a particular matter, that law is already written in my heart and I do not have to try to keep his law in that matter; I simply do keep his law in that matter, and that is him working through me, but Paul's words make it clear that I am still supposed to be conscious of this and not simply act as a mindless automaton. Let's set aside the simplistic points of view and come into God's understanding.

It can also mean life and relief.

What I mean when I say I worry about our colleges is when false doctrine seeps in and instructors (and others) are warping what truth is and teaching according to their own worldly agenda. It is important to avoid limiting what topics can be discussed, but that they be discussed with an eye firmly on the Lord. They need to be educated from the past, present, and for the future so that they have a wide education and preparedness for life in the real world and the world to come. Sadly, I wonder if some kids wouldn't be safer going to a secular college with their guards firmly up expecting to set an example to others than a college where it is expected that they will be led safely only to their lose their salvation.

Just guessing, but maybe heaven will be filled with people of all kinds and types of 'ex's' that we shun now. In my mind, we are not the ones, so much, determining who will be in heaven but rather those that won't be there. Our challenge is to let God make the choice, and for us to give a true representation of our God. I seem to remember in the NT somewhere Christ saying He didn't come to condemn but to seek and save...could be wrong but that is how I understand His mission!!

sounds like heaven is going to be a ghost town...

I agree and it could have been a lot clearer. Actually far right, is not defined clear as well, we kinda know what it means, but there is not a good definition. Far right tends to mean conservative in the US as conservative site on the right in Congress, however that is not the case in all countries. and right and left politically mean the opposite, I think Australia might be one of those countries as as well. I was more talking about those who come in here swinging, letting people know how faulty the church members are, how corrupt the Church is,,, it is not surprising to see them on a sexual offenders list. Some self supporting schools, esp ones that have compound like campuses, or the ones I have connection with in my union, seem to breed sexual offenders. AND yes i know the self supporting schools have strengthened a lot of folks.

You may need to be more specific about what you mean, Stan. If we're not talking about underage victims, are we talking about rape? Of either sex by either sex? Otherwise I'm struggling a bit: I would not consider those participating in consensual sexual relationships to be 'sexual offenders'. If they're betraying their partners or their vows there's definitely a moral dimension to their actions, but I'm not sure that label fits. Certainly Jesus said strong things about adultery and divorce and nothing about, for example, homosexuality, and there are plenty of prominent finger-pointing pastors who have been divorced and remarried. Just not sure what the topic is, specifically, and it'd be easier to make clear comments if we all knew.

lol, what is this? An Encyclopedia Dramatica page? (Man... After reading this, you'd think the SDA church was Scientology 2.0!) This is probably the second most anti-Adventist, closed-minded, generalizing article I've seen here in my short time on this site. I don't see any problem with any of the things this person is complaining about. To me it just sounds like the person who wrote this had a crappy extreme experience, left (or is leaving) the church and is now running around trying to sensationalize the fact that the SDA church is [harmlessly] peculiar when people are only trying to find a way to keep their culture alive in a world that would otherwise be harder to live in if they had no one to relate to. I haven't even been brought up in an SDA family and this is insulting to me because I find the SDA church to be a group of very likable, gentle, open-minded people who have taught me a lot about the bible. To urge that they practically should not have a community is to want the church to shrivel and eventually cease to be. Sure, living a life like this could possibly produce some big-headed people who think only they will make it to heaven. And sure, there are some legit points here being made...but only in very specific cases! This person has no idea how the whole SDA church carries out their lives and mingles with the world in order to make friends, be decent citizens, have fun..etc. Seems like this person just wants to eradicate the church based on a highly subjective perspective and make it much like many of the other dying, hardly recognizable denominations of the 21st century: void of identity, void of doctrinal uniqueness and lacking in the ability to be noticed in this world.

It always sounds so righteous to claim anyone touching the Holy Grail of welfare wants people to starve. Poverty is not a new incurable disease that has reached crisis proportions suddenly.A few common sense requirements would go a long way

Instead of welfare to generations of freeloaders, train them to start their own businesses in order to provide for themselves. Welfare dependency destroys initiative and responsibility and creates generations of moochers living on the backs of people who actually have to work to put food on the table, gas in the car, and heat in the furnace.

Melvin Slippowitz used to say that he was the unluckiest person he knew. He had never won anything or had anything good happen to him in his entire life. Until now. Melvin was clearing out his attic when he came upon an old painting and a violin. Thinking they might be valuable, he took them to the auction house to be valued. After studying them, the appraiser said, "Mr. Slippowitz, I have good news and I have bad news." "What's the good news?" Melvin asked. "The good news is that you have a Stradivarius and a Picasso," replied the appraiser. “I can’t believe my luck!” cried Melvin. “Nothing like this ever happens to me!” “Well I wouldn’t get ahead of yourself Mr. Slippowitz,” continued the appraiser, “Because the bad news is that Stradivarius was a very bad painter and Picasso was no good with violins."

Rachel Epstein was working in the kitchen listening to her young son Little Moishe playing with his new electric train in the living room that his Bubbie and Zadie just bought him. Rachel heard the train stop and Little Moishe said, "All of you sons of guns who want off, get the heck off now, cause this is the last stop! And all of you sons of guns who are getting on, get your behinds in the train, 'cause we're going down the tracks." Rachel was shocked. "Moishe! We don't use that kind of language in this house. Now I want you to go to your room, and you are to stay there for TWO HOURS. When you come out, you may play with your train, but I want you to use nice language." Two hours later, Little Moishe came out of the bedroom and resumed playing with his train. Soon the train stopped and Rachel heard Little Moishe say, "All passengers who are disembarking from the train, please remember to take all of your belongings with you. We thank you for riding with us today and hope your trip was a pleasant one. We hope you will ride with us again soon." Rachel hears Little Moishe continue, "For those of you just boarding, we ask you to stow all of your hand luggage under your seat. Remember, there is no smoking on the train. We hope you will have a pleasant and relaxing journey with us today." As Rachel began to smile, Little Moishe added, "For those of you who are annoyed about the TWO-HOUR delay, please see the bossy lady in the kitchen."

___________________from someone who believes the old testament is where the story of Jesus started. http://tinyurl.com/qenpxcd

I would suggest that you review Bro. love's post from Monday at 2:05 PM. What I infer from your "list" is that you must be a card-carrying traditional historical SDA or you are following the beast. If you truly believe everything on that list is salvational for you, go for it! You must follow your own conscience. Where you become legalistic is where you pass judgement on others who don't believe as you do; and sound (at least to me) like those who don't agree with you somehow have an inferior theology. God deals with each of us differently. Sabbath observance for me is deeply intertwined with my relationship with Jesus; so for me to abandon the Sabbath for Sunday would be equivalent to following the beast. However, I can't put that burden or threat on anyone else. I know lots of Sunday keepers who IMO have a much deeper relationship with Jesus than I do.

I am marked with my identity with the Lamb of God, not a beast. Our brothers and sisters in Christ do not identify with a beast, they identify with the Lamb.

Einstein dies and goes to heaven, only to be informed that his room is not yet ready. "I hope you will not mind waiting in a dormitory. We are very sorry, but it's the best we can do and you will have to share the room with others," he is told by the doorman. Einstein says that this is no problem at all and that there is no need to make such a great fuss. So the doorman leads him to the dorm. They enter and Albert is introduced to all of the present inhabitants. "See, here is your first roommate. He has an IQ of 180!" "That's wonderful!" says Albert. "We can discuss mathematics!" "And here is your second roommate. His IQ is 150!" "That's wonderful!" says Albert. "We can discuss physics!" "And here is your third roommate. His IQ is 100!" "That's wonderful! We can discuss the latest plays at the theater!" Just then another man moves out to capture Albert's hand and shake it. "I'm your last roommate. I'm sorry, but my IQ is only 80." Albert smiles back at him and says, "So, you want to talk politics?"

Yes. And there are so many "examples" in the Bible where God has acted violently. "And of course", they say, God often kills His enemies, and we should model our lives after His example.

David Rosenberg, a collector of rare Jewish books ran into an old acquaintance named Chaim Yankel who told him he had just thrown away an old Hebrew Bible that he found in a dusty, old box. "You threw it out?! You can’t do that!” scolded the collector. “Just how old?" "Really old!" answered Chaim Yankel. “Like, really old. I mean, it could be a thousand years old, who knows?” “First of all, you can’t throw away a Chumash, it’s sacred!” said the furious collector. “Second, an old Chumash could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the right collector. What have you done?!" "Oh, don’t worry I don't think this book would have been worth anything close to that much," replied Chaim Yankel. "There’s Hebrew notes scribbled all over in the margins.” Alarmed the collector asked, “’Scribbles’? Any idea who the author was?” “My Hebrew’s not that great but it looks like somebody named ‘RASHI.’”

That would be a tragic loss!