Leaderboard

If I posted a couple of my pictures of the full eclipse from 2010 would anyone notice...

It's not surprising that some Muslims think a Muslim ought not to be President of the USA. A few SdAs are a little uncomfortable with the idea of a fellow SdA as President. I knew a few Mormons who weren't excited about Mitt Romney's run for President.

i have been enjoying the beauty of the lunar eclipse tonight. .

Since the commissioning service/ceremony is in substance virtually identical to an ordination service, other than one word and the resulting credential issued, the obvious answer is no. (If you watch a video of each without the sound, you would likely not be able to tell the difference.) The credential is periodically reissued. The initiation ceremony is not repeated. So the clear and umabiguous intent is that all pastors in the conference will all receive the same credential without regard to gender. To avoid offending those who oppose the recognition of the call of women using the word "ordained", the credential will avoid the use of that offensive word for everyone. The synonym that seems to not upset anyone is "commissioned", so that will be used instead. At least until somebody figures out a reason to find that to be offensive too.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." (Jn 3:16) God the Father loved the world. Did the Son share this love? Did He ALSO love the world? We need not entertain a single doubt upon this point. The Son may be honored equally when it comes to the motivation behind the great venture. (Jn 5:23). But in real terms, who initiated it? What were some of the mechanics behind the Father actually giving and sending forth His Son? For those that accept the words of Ellen White there is some striking clarity on this matter. The following scene is described. It takes place in heaven, after Adam's fall. "Soon I saw Him [Jesus] approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father... Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a lovliness which words cannot describe. He then made know to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; THAT HE HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER, and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life as a ransom for the race..." (Early Writings p.126) It was only after Jesus asked -- it was only after Jesus had pleaded with His Father -- that He might be allowed to give His life, that the Father "GAVE" His Son. It is clear I think, that the Father would never have sent His Son, had Jesus not first asked to go. And Jesus would never have taken such a step without seeking the permission and approval of the Father. "Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them." (ibid. p.127) HE GAVE. The Father did not "loan" Jesus to the human family as a temporary measure (i.e. it was not simply a matter of 33 years). It behooved Him [it was imperative to Jesus] to be made like His prospective brethren. And when He took humanity upon Himself, the Divine Son took it upon Himself for ever. He retains humanity [albeit glorified humanity,] to this day, and its limitations are upon Him for eternity. Did the Son give up His omnipresence? If He did, the limitations of humanity go far beyond the loss of omnipresence! The sacrifice undertaken by the Father, Son, and Spirit was enormous. Yet we have such a dim, flickering, view of what it cost each one of them, but our salvation cost them an everlasting cost, and it was the Son that carried the greatest burden.

This pretty much sums it up.

We went to the airport and let the dogs sniff out bunnies and had a GREAT view of it! Here it was visible around 8 pm.

"...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Jackson, I would suggest that the man's 'headship' came about as a result of the curse that came upon the earth as a result of sin. And the Father's 'headship' over Christ came about as a result of the plan of salvation. I don't think that the Father's 'headship' implies superior 'rank', or greater honor.

Above Tom Wetmore's post is Kevin H post. It started off as if it was quoting Nuff Sed. But how much of the statements came from N.sed? If the whole of the posting is the innermost thought life of Kevin's than please let me applaud him for such sound reasoning. Kevin you are in the know about this issue. And this what you wrote helped me to finally understand the confusion of 'women be silent in church' but Ellen may blow her horn as loud as she wants to. "So they created an Adventist tap dance and interpret their proof texts as a woman can do everything that it looks like Paul says that they can't do just as long as they are not ordained."

Thank you for posting this, Teresa! I think it is very well stated. The idea of projecting our human ideas onto the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit represents a constant danger for us. Like you, I do not believe that the Father has ever had any superiority over the Son. Friends of mine think I am quite mistaken by holding this view. But I have responded with the idea that when creation was being anticipated, the Godhead chose "ROLES" for themselves. When the angels were created, Michael [possessing a lesser physical glory that the Father,] went out among them. God literally dwelt among them. He was approachable to them. And later, of course, it was a similar thing with Jesus. God literally dwelt among the human family... and His physical glory was then completely cast off. So Father and Son, to me, represent "roles" enabling the created intelligences to comprehend things that would otherwise have been beyond their reach. No superiority, no inferiority... Nevertheless the Son completely depended upon His Father as His Savior from the power of temptation, didn't He? And yet, this was only to show us what a life of faith was truly like. Ultimately there is no inequality in their relationship... never has been, never will be. _________ Teresa, with regards to your comments re Adam and Eve, have you seen this? To me it is quite a wonderful thing ! "When God created Eve, He designed that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to the man, but that in all things she should be his EQUAL. The holy pair were to have no interest independent of each other; and yet each had an individuality in thinking and acting. But after Eve’s sin, as she was first in the transgression, the Lord told her that Adam should rule over her. She was to be in subjection to her husband, and THIS WAS A PART OF THE CURSE". (3T 484)

I don't see someone saying "Adventist" as being a label! I see being called a conservative, liberal as a label. If you smoke and your called a smoker, is that a label?? Not to me! If you kill people and someone calls you a killer, is that a label? Not to me! So I believe there are times when one can be called something like that, and its definitely not a label, its what you are. If you see a mother with a her child, can you call that person a mother? Absolutely. Its when a person votes for a republican and is then called a conservative, then in my book, that's a label. There's no reason to believe that, lets say I vote for Carson, that that makes me by any means a republican!!

This week, many in the Jewish community observed Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. Although it consists of solemn fasting and prayers of repentance, the day ends in celebration with the blowing of the shofar and the opportunity to begin anew. http://religiousliberty.tv/yom-kippur-the-scapegoat-ritual-and-the-politics-of-blame.html

Nuff Sed: The idea of ordination was that the person had enough experience to be considered proficient and an "Elder" who could guide others. There are the verses of mostly Paul that are taken out of their historical and literary context and read with and interpreted by a person's imagination. This have been understood as women not speaking etc. Some women speakers in other churches find that the men turn their chairs around when they speak. The same thought pattern appeals to a number of Adventists. Except that if they followed their "proof texts" to a tee they would have to reject Mrs. White. So they created an Adventist tap dance and interpret their proof texts as a woman can do everything that it looks like Paul says that they can't do just as long as they are not ordained. Paul was not talking about unordained women when he wrote those verses but only if we want to ordain them do those verses come into play. The Adventist church has indeed been ordaining women they just set up loopholes and theological summersaults so that they don't have the "O" word applied to them. To ordain women would actually make it easier for the church as we can be open and honest about what we are doing and have been doing right along for a number of years. However it would upset members who are trying to compromise between being a good conservative Christian (for some reason Adventist have a neurotic need to prove to the world that we are good Baptists) and their approach to the key texts they use from Paul. All we have are inexperienced pastors and experienced pastors. The word "Ordination" was used to mean an experienced pastor, but in Norway they will no longer use the term due to the controversy and the Adventist tap dance to want to accept tradition from some conservative groups but not throw out Mrs. White in the process.