Leaderboard

Don't care about the morality, from a religious point that is, hacking is hacking, against the law. If people want to condone it because it was about 'adultery', then it follow that hacking anyone or any business or government is okay if someone thinks it is morally right. Anarchy!! Plain and simple!!!

Absolutely not. The hackers did this because they could. They are cyber terrorists. The personal "affairs" of others are none of their (or our) business. It's between them, their families, and their God.

Editorial: "I Opposed Him to His Face" 1 September 2015 | Ken Peterson I was born into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. My parents and each of theirs were Adventists. I have been a member for over 50 years now, and a product of 13 years of Adventist education. After going to law school and becoming a lawyer and then an entrepreneur I have been a local Adventist school board chairman, Sabbath School superintendent, Sabbath School teacher and charitable contributor to Adventist institutions. I love that my church rejects the teaching of the vast majority of the Christian consensus concerning Hell. I continue to find it amazingly astonishing that our indefatigable co-founder, Ellen White, called her church to embrace the deep truth that “God is love.” Those are the both the very first and last words of her signature book, The Great Controversy. I mention these few details in partial explanation for why I am not at all ready to concede easily that I don't know what authentic Adventism is. As a member of the Adventist Forum board (and signatory of the unanimously-approved Statement in Support of Yes) my position concerning Women's Ordination has been clear. The vote at San Antonio is also clear: There were more No votes than Yes. I believe this is a tragic mistake and our church would have been much better positioned to energetically focus on and carry out our Mission if our president would have made the speech I suggested in my last editorial. But after the great disappointment settles in, we must turn to the fact that life continues and consider what we can learn. My reflection has led me to contemplate something quite startling and much more horrific than simply losing a political vote: I fear that large swaths of Adventist leaders and members are apparently comfortable with an understanding of God's character that is at odds with what the New Testament says to me. If my fear is accurate, this has profound implications about our Mission. But it is not new and there is a directly pertinent experience in the New Testament that speaks powerfully to me. More than 10 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Bible includes a story about Peter that seems applicable to our times now: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back… When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’” Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV) Here we have dear Peter who lived with Jesus for three years, was deeply converted after the Resurrection, was anointed with the Holy Spirit and led out initially in taking the Gospel to the Gentiles yet he was “not acting in line with the truth of the gospel.” The thing that continued to have such a hold on him was connected to what he had been taught as a child to be God’s requirements and how his Jewish subculture overwhelmingly lived. But those norms were now in conflict with the Gospel of Jesus. In this story we learn how powerful our own culture or subculture can be in our lives. We also learn that the Gospel can call us to something completely different than our subculture embraces because Jesus shows a new way forward. What was the “truth of the gospel” that eluded Peter on this occasion? I submit it was the radical inclusiveness that Jesus announced. In God’s sight there was no longer a wall of separation between Jews and non-Jews in salvation terms. There were no longer Jews and non-Jews in terms of mission or ministry. Today we find it nearly incomprehensible I suppose that the Jewish world found this so radical and hard to believe. But here we have Peter, dear Peter, who at times could backslide into his old comfort zone on just this point! What was so bad about this that Paul felt compelled to oppose him to his face in what must have been a very tense situation? My answer is that Peter’s behavior publicly misrepresented God’s character, and that is very serious indeed. How does this relate to our situation today? Ellen White has told us that “The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love. The children of God are to manifest His glory. In their own life and character they are to reveal what the grace of God has done for them” (Christ’s Object Lessons, 415). If that is the final work then in order to do such work we must be very clear about the nature of God’s character in order to communicate it to others. Most of the time after Pentecost Peter was clear, but not always. The question of how the church should relate to women seems similar to me as the question 2,000 years ago of how the church should relate to Gentiles. In each case, powerful elements of society both within and without the church had a traditional view that was less than equality. Peter folded under pressure and separated himself from eating with the Antioch Gentiles. Just eating! Paul thunders that this is not in line with the gospel. In our day the pressure is to exclude women from aspects of full equality of gospel ministry. This pressure is from the largest Christian organization, the Roman Catholic Church, some protestant denominations, the Later Day Saints, as well as from broad elements within our own denomination. This is true even though our own seminary experts in church history like Dr. George Knight and Dr. Darius Jankiewicz agree that ordination (which is the status around which the dispute revolves) is not even a biblical concept but was a pagan Roman concept dealing with authority that was extended to the church when the empire became “Christian” about 300 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. I have heard the most superficial and silly arguments used to justify refusing to “ordain” women. Perhaps the most shameful is that Jesus did not appoint any woman to be one of the 12 disciples so our church should not ordain women today. Jesus did not appoint any Gentile to be among the 12 either. Nor any black man or Chinese, Spanish or Anglo-Saxon man. But where are the outraged proponents of using such an example to prohibit ordaining such men today? A similar argument is that only men were priests in the Old Testament. You know the reply! In the 1st century Peter’s great post-resurrection failing was in not eating with some people. Perhaps in the 21st century our church’s failing is in refusing to be fed by some people. In both cases, there is an overt failure to accurately and adequately reflect God’s character to the watching world. President Wilson clearly desires a powerful mission of evangelism in these next five years, but if that evangelism is not a clear and accurate revelation of God’s character it will not be the last message of mercy that must eventually be given. The great encouragement is that Peter, after Paul’s strong rebuke, saw the error of his ways and returned with renewed vigor to his mission. This was given as an example for us. The mistake can be fixed. Whether this time it will take a Pauline approach or something else remains to be seen. In the end God’s true character will be revealed. Ken Peterson is a board member of Adventist Forum, the organization that publishes Spectrum Magazine. If you respond to this article, please: Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed. Current Issue

I really appreciate this community, and, the vigilance of the administrators to keep spammers out.

somebody put this on my wall on fb made me life maybe the humor thread can't take it

As a physician, I have removed tubes and disconnected ventilators on terminal cases upon family request. I had also stopped IV fluids and withheld further treatments, again on terminal cases. I had no problem with that. It was much harder to do to my wife of 47 years. When the RN saw her condition, she asked me if I had ever thought of withholding the water (by this time she's had only one can of Ensure in two weeks because she has lost her appetite). I had thought of withholding fluids many times, overdosing her many times. Just putting a pillow over her face even crossed my mind. I did not have the heart to do them. I had been praying and expecting God to be the one to turn off the switch of life. It did not happen. Maybe I was waiting for someone to give me permission/affirmation to do what I have thought of before. I had already been carrying out her Living Will wishes, i.e. no antibiotics, no iv's, no O2, no ventilators. l discussed it with my son to withhold water. In fact, my son said he would have done it weeks ago. I also explained to my wife what I was about to do, and she agreed. So I started withholding water 2 weeks ago except for just enough water for her to swallow her pain and anti-anxiety pills. She finally went to her rest yesterday. Yes, it is so much easier to give advice when it's about someone else. It becomes a different problem when it involves your own family. Is it possible that in His wish for us to participate in His divine nature, God is perhaps wanting us to gain an insight into the anguish that He must go through when He decides to finally turn off the switch permanently on those who refused His mercy? Thank you all for your input and for your prayers.

That man feeding and caring for the starving and homeless poor may be closer to God than all of us Bible-reading church-going Christians. Maybe that's the line of demarcation between self-sacrificing servants of mankind and those of us who use our money to buy more and more stuff for our comfort or entertainment. We can argue forever over the Scriptures, but the only thing that really counts is what we have done to help others, to brighten their little corner, even if they are outcasts who are shunned by people who have plenty of money for themselves.

Lately, I have been in the mood to purge things around the house (probably because I have been singing the song below to myself for months while I worked outside). It seems like life is so much simpler when I let go of things that hold some kind of superficial meaning, but somehow are always in need of being dusted. Notice I said "in of being dusted," not to be confused with the actual act of dusting. LOL As time progresses, I hope to find myself being less and less burdened by the things of this world. I kind of feel like the stuff I get rid of is stuff that I won't have to "pack" for heaven. I know, I know, I'm just kidding about taking anything to heaven but our loved ones and our character, but maybe leaving some things behind may lighten the yoke. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBmkR8WARdM

elsewhere on the forum, the question of whether C/A has a women's group was brought up... So as not to detract from that topic, I just wanted to note that, although I'm a woman, I have a decided distaste for "women's groups," private or not. I find them to be saccharin-laced, and boringly fraught with whining and descriptions of potty-training children, as well as off-color jokes about men and sex (not obscene, just "off-color"), and I'm not interested in such classless humor. In the one and only SDA Women's Retreat that I attended, the primary topic under discussion was belly dancing lessons, and how the men loved it and what it *did* to them. **bleahhh** I left early, as I had better things to do with my time. I much prefer a group having both male and females. It gives a lot better overview of topics. And I generally favor the company of men, to the company of women. (yes, I understand I'll never be invited to C/A Women's group! )

O.K. but, I am in your neighborhood and you have not served me with a coup of tea. You said that your neighborhood is "This side of Calvary." That is also mine. By the way, my wife likes herbal teas very well.

Good question, Gail. I have seen where the police of certain communities publicly post (sometimes on TV!) the names and pictures of people busted for soliciting. I consider soliciting a form of adultery. Does this make the AM hackers morally correct; or does it make communities that do it morally equivalent to cyber terrorists? It seems like in a better world, authorities practicing Matt. 18 (i.e., privately confronting the perp with his "crime" or "sin") would be preferable to instant reputational and marital destruction.

On earth, after it is made new, there will still be a "healing of the Gentiles" according to the Revelator. Eventually that too will pass, until at last only one People and one God remain. On earth as in heaven.

Romans 9:32 Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, (NRS) HERE - "faith" is contrasted with "works". Earning it - vs - believing it. Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law;" NOT works - but faith - justifies. Justified "by faith" is the same as saying justified by "believing". Galatians 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Philippians 2:13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (NRS) The point is that a man CAN RESIST. If He does NOT resist, then He will be "drawn to God". If he resists, he will be lost. Resisting takes WORK - not "believing".

I don't think much of a moral high road has been taken regarding Ashley Madison by anyone down to even internet discussions such as here at C/A. The whole thing has been used against others by others.

Forgotten in this is that this clerk was in the job before gay marriage and they changed the rules of the job on her. She did not hire in with the idea that she was opposed to gay marriage. So, it is up to the government, as it was a government job, to accommodate her somewhere else. I am sure that if they transferred her to the Dept of Motor Vehicles that she would issue drivers licenses to gay people. I believe that in other matters of religious conscience people have had to be accommodated. Can we get some common sense here somewhere?!

Samie posted: Pnatt; I admire your jumping in to my discussion with Rachel that stemmed from Col 2:13 that says all our sins were forgiven on the cross. I believe all sins of all people for all times including those yet to be born were all forgiven through the death of the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world. Rachel believes otherwise, reasoning that Col 2:13 is not to be generally applied since it was written for the Colossians, not to everyone. Since forgiveness stems from the gospel, I countered that Paul was not merely referring to the Colossians as far as the Gospel is concerned citing Col 1:5,6. Then you jumped in with your CONTEXT, and all else is history. I have explained my position that when the Gospel is the issue, anything in the Bible, even if written to a specific person or to a group of persons, MUST be generally applied. That's my position because Christ and Him Crucified died for us all. In this regard, what I need is not a course and diploma on CONTEXT, but a simple, Bible-based explanation why this specific position of mine is wrong. Can you do that, please? Rachel responds: I've done that Samie. You just do not accept my explanations, so you continue to say that I have not given one. So you will continue to state your beliefs, and deny mine - and I will do the same concerning yours - over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. Which is why most folks have tuned out of this discussion, and those in other threads with the same theme. It is the reason why I will not discuss your positions in the threads of other people, (other than yours and mine) and I really wish you would take THIS discussion over into your own thread on the Book of Life. That's where it belongs. NOT in this one. The REASON why I continue to discuss, is because I believe we should be prepared to "give an answer" for our beliefs and positions. Our preparation doesn't mean that our arguments will universally be accepted, BUT they may be accepted by a few. And those are important.

I am NOT a universalist. I do NOT believe that God saved (past tense) everyone, or that He will save (future tense) everyone. God "predestined" every human being to salvation. He desires that everyone be saved. BUT - He also has allowed "free will" - which includes the power to refuse.

Gerry, My heart goes out to you for your loss. Take at least a little comfort in the fact that your beloved is no longer in pain; and sleeps with Jesus - unconsiously awaiting her reunion with you in the Kingdom. May God flood you with His compassion, comfort and peace. He will bring you through this.

Well stated!

I've thought a lot about divorce as an example of God's giving in due to the hardness of man's heart, as an example of other things (specifically chariots of war). People can get a wrong idea of God's character because of these concessions, but we see the truth about God revealed in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "I do the things I see see my Father do" and "I say the things I hear my Father say." Where did Jesus see and hear these things? From the Scriptures. Somehow Jesus was able to read the Scriptures differently than the rest of us, and see a God who is incredibly beautiful, and thankfully presented His image of God so that we could all see it, and wonder, as He did. I think the OP, God of concessions, is one of the keys to "getting" God's character; not all the Scripture reveals God doing is God's will (i.e. "perfect" or "ultimate" will). Only in Jesus Christ do we see that!

I used to like to think all things were either right or wrong. I have now adjusted my thoughts to consider that both things can be very wrong.

I am so, so sorry for your loss. When my parents died, the only thing that kept me going was the thought that they were no longer in any pain. Being in health care can be a blessing, but it also makes a death so much more painful when it is a loved one. But, "We have this hope..... " May God surround you with peace and comfort.

I ran with a tough crowd. (still do) I looked up to them to teach me how to look upon everyone. A Non Christian was either a Missionary Project or someone who you kick up the dust at. When Mother Teresa died people thought (and me) .. a catholic -too bad she did all that for nothing and she may not be in Heaven many many months later.... God tapped me on the shoulder with a strange thought ... How could she do all that without GOD? # my questioning of everything I was ever taught was about to explode!!!

Jessie: She could have resigned and not be in the situation that she is in today. She is in trouble due to the fact that she has refused to carry out the directive of a Judge who issued an order in her case. She has chosen to refuse to issue marriage licenses for any couple. That refusal to carryout her governmental duties mans that she should be fired and her failure to resign with consequent violation of the Judges order mans that she may suffer some very real consequences.

((( Gerry ))) she is suffering no longer. She was blessed to have you You did well. That is the hardest thing I can think of that life can dish out. And your friends here in sympathy are all sharing your sadness.

Gerry , remember you have a lot of friends here. LOTS.

Gerry will be praying for you and your family. By the way, a great post Gerry. I can't even imagine what you've had to go through these passed few years.

oh (((Gerry))) ... what a hard time you've been going through.. Be at rest. Be at rest...

This is Sept 1, not April 1.

Lol!! I use the Flylady system on a daily basis. It's helped tremendously! Peter Walsh has a 30 day declutter challenge every year. I use that one too. I think you can find this year's challenge on YouTube still.

I used to read some of her articles and subscribed to her e-mails. The problem became that she cluttered my inbox!

Go for it.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemöller

They're not. If it is the case that I have misunderstood, then please forgive me for misunderstanding you.

We'll be a lot happier and healthier as a society when we learn to avoiding hearing "It's not for me" as implying "and therefore it should not be for you either". Pam said that women's groups are not for her. Totally fine. If they're for you, also totally fine. She mentioned some things she had experienced in some women't groups. Totally fine. If you've never experienced those things, also totally fine. Opera is, as a general thing, not for me. Same with country music. Pretty sure black metal is not for you. All totally fine: we can say what is and isn't for us and be saying nothing about what is and isn't for others.

Refuting your opinion in an exercese in futility. In all the time Iv'e seen you here, I can't remember a single occasion of you changing your mind on anything you have posted. IMHO this is one of those discussions that has become "unprofitable and useless". You are correct in your assessment that I consider Rachel to be one of my teachers. Even though we don't see eye to eye on everything, I respect her as one of the most studied, balanced, Spirit-filled, open minded, and respectful posters on this site.

I agree. I have quite a few of his books. In one of the books, I think the one we have been discussing, he says something like, "All that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ," which Ellen White wrote a long time ago, almost word for word. So the ideas have been there (theres a great article ST Jan. 1990 as I recall, "God manifest in the Flesh" I think is the name which discusses this idea in detail), but we have chosen to emphasize other issues as opposed to God's love and character revealed in Christ. Ty Gibson does a nice job emphasizing this theme.

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