Leaderboard

Have you noticed that sometimes that people will get upset about others' responses to their posts here on C/A (or on Facebook, or other social media)? Maybe it's happened to you. I know it's happened to me. So, what's the reason behind the feeling of "ruffled feathers"? What inside "button" is getting pushed that's eliciting your irritation, or starts the wheel of self-recrimination, or makes you lash out? Sometimes, it can be fear that the comment might be right. Sometimes, the person writing the response is just a jackass. Ignore the jackasses, and learn from those whose comments have merit...

Appreciate his courage inclosing with the Lord's Prayer.

I've made the decision to transition from my nickname - which I've had here for a very, very long time - to using my real name. In the transition I've kind of kept both. I've also uploaded an actual photo of myself rather than the cartoon version I've been using. Others who are more vulnerable for a wide variety of family or work related or other reasons may prefer to still use nicknames and other representations, and I completely honour that. When the issue has come up in the past, I've been quick to recognise that I'm in a privileged position in being able to say pretty much whatever I want to online without serious repurcusions. Others are not in that situation. For me, I think it will be a bit of a sobering influence: at least once I have been contacted by a real person about whom I had said something on this forum - and that was when I had a nickname. Now that it's all searchable with my own name, it'll lead to additional think-before-speaking, which isn't a bad thing.

First of all, I think what Pam is talking about is the defensiveness that we too often see in reaction to posts. That is either a self-defense or a misperception of personalizing something not really intended to be personal or something not even directed at the one reacting. Defensiveness is very often motivated by fear - the old fight or flight response... But more to what you posted, to some extent the "competitive impulse to win" in this context is more often motivated by fear - a self-defensive fear of being shown up, losing, having diminished reputation or standing, being inadequate, or being seen as less than whatever one is competing against. And that is not always a competition against the other person, but can be a competition against ones own self worth, dignity, sense of pride or vanity, values, or whatever. That is very often an element of fear of looking bad, being misunderstood, misrepresented, etc. Saving face by definition is avoiding losing face which also seems to me to be fear driven. I think there is a fine line of distinction between the person that refuses to enter the fray for fear of losing or being made to look bad or being embarrassed or feeling of inadequacy and the person that stands their ground and decides to fight back to preserve whatever or to win. It again is the fight or flight response. Run away from or hide from the threat or fight to defend against it.

I'm right out there...picture and name. But, I sure do understand why one would want to be careful on a computer.

I feel very much the same way. We can (and do!) reveal ourselves through our words and actions. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet! To me, it's important to be kind, fair, and just everyday, no matter what name I go by: Daughter, wife, mother, daughter, grand-daughter, sister, aunt, daughter-in-law, friend, parishoner, acquaintance, employer, employee, customer, client... I chose to remain semi-anonymous here because it allows me to write "aloud" thoughts that I am uncomfortable sharing with every person I know. If confronted, I wouldn't deny what I've shared here, but it's not something I want in the open all of the time.

My name stands for something so profound it goes over most heads ..going by the postings and background chat. And listening to what too many Christians say in my presence (when they don't know i'm QUEER) for too many decades about the LGBTIQQAAP..ugh..uhhh it is best on the Stranger laden Internet for me not to use my real pic and name. Only in transparency, trust, and connection with JESUS as the Foundation would that change. (a Few know my real name) It is lost on so many why exactly why putting myself out there. It is OK. (one of the main reasons is I get to hear all kinds of great thoughts(and not so great) and advice to me..showing too much of themselves..so I can deal with them accordingly) we don't need real names and pics to show Who we are Every Post people Post says the world about themselves!. May the JOY of the Lord be your Strength! # i have found as a whole..the church rather for LGTBIQQAAP to stay in the closet! you cant have healing without safe connection thru recckless transparency.. and that scares the buki out of most cause most do not have that and are rightfully scared of it

Confession Time: The photo is me and the name is mine.

read more here: http://atoday.org/adventists-in-scandinavia-discontinue-ordination-for-men.html Spectrum also reported about this: Adventist Church in Norway Will No Longer Ordain Any Pastors http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/09/22/adventist-church-norway-will-no-longer-ordain-any-pastors Adventist Church in Denmark Joins Norway in Suspending All Ordinations http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/09/23/adventist-church-denmark-joins-norway-suspending-all-ordinations

This is way, way wrong. I've presented a lot of evidence, from many different angles, and the fact that you would write something like this is disappointing, as it appears to indicate you're not reading the posts. You haven't responded to these posts either. Out of context?! It is the context! It's in the middle of Paul's thought, from which you took out a part. If you want to understand Paul's idea here, consider his whole thought, the whole sentence. What you're doing is classic eisegesis. You have an idea, and, regardless of the evidence, you're going to stick with it. Paul actually said our message to unbelievers is "be reconciled to God." This fact doesn't go away just because you choose to ignore it. to the numerous texts that I have quoted. So, my methodology is fine. It is yours that is highly questionable. Here's what I'm doing: 1.Considering the entire thought Paul is presenting. 2.Considering the milleu in which Paul wrote, as well as his hearers. 3.Considering Christian history. 4.Considering Adventist history. 5.Considering what is the problem which God needs to solve, and how it is solved. You're not doing any of these. You jump from one text to another, without rhyme or reason, to pluck from here or there phrases you think support your idea. At no point do you consider any passage in a methodical way. You have not done this. You've just repeated ideas you have. And you ignore questions you can't answer, which isn't cool. For example, why did Jesus tell Nicodemus to enter the kingdom of heaven one must be born again? Why did Jesus say His words are "spirit and life"? This is another example; you're not even quoting an entire sentence here. Just little fragments, devoid of any context whatsoever. What do the phrases you are citing mean? You don't discuss this. For example, what made us enemies? What does it mean to be reconciled? Who is reconciled to whom? Why is the reconciliation necessary? How is it accomplished? In a recent post you wrote that God couldn't just take everyone to heaven because it would ruin paradice (this isn't word for word, but the general idea). Now why would paradise be ruined? You suggest it is because of having fallen natures, but this is off base, because paradice was ruined by beings with perfect natures. The ruin would come from the *minds* of those who would be taken there, not their natures. The problem of the mind, or mind-set, is what needs to be fixed, and this is what the ministry of reconciliaiton is all about, bringing man and God into harmony. This happens by means of the cross. We can agree on this point. But how? how does the cross reconcile? In order to understand this, we need to understand what caused the problem in the first place. Consider the fall. What happened there? What caused man to rebel against God? Or angels to rebel against God? It is in understanding the answer to these questions that we can get a handle on how the ministry of reconciliation works.

Jesus does NOT YET have dominion over the whole earth. He will receive that dominion at the conclusion of the judgment described in Daniel Cpt 7:9-10. Daniel 7:14 "Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (NKJ) Daniel 7:26-27 "But the court shall be seated, And they shall take away his [Satan's] dominion, To consume and destroy it forever. Then the kingdom and dominion, And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His [Christ's] kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And all dominions shall serve and obey Him." Currently - Satan is "Prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). He now stands condemned, because the universe of unfallen beings has witnessed his murder of the Son of God. His true character has been revealed - to them at least. So why did God not end Satan's dominion, when Jesus rose from the dead? Answer: Because He "is not willing that any should perish" (2Pe 3:9). There were too many savable people still left to win for the kingdom. Answer: Because He did not yet have priests, to teach those who never HEARD, or never would HEAR the gospel during their lifetimes. Christ has been made "head of all things to the church", but He does not yet rule the whole world.

Once AGAIN, the "us" (transferred us) refers to BELIEVERS who now serve Christ, NOT to people who never heard of Him, or to people who have refused to believe in Him as Lord.

I also saw him live. That was another life ago. His music was an art form, for sure.

@aka - Thanks for drawing my attention back to this topic that was among the early attempts to think outside the box of other people's thinking. It still goes in the direction of the spirit of this unique forum and reminds me how I enjoy this sort of free wheeling adventure in using our imaginations and creative thinking to just brain storm. Back to the topic... If thoughts take wing and soar to new heights of imagination and transport us to places beyond even the geniuses of human understanding and words fail us, how can we tell it to fish? I am reminded of Isaiah 55:8...

Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. he lived in sydney for 2 years. a talent to be greatly missed.

I've noticed a big change in the tone of rudywoofs' posts from the distant past, a change that I really appreciate. Maybe we're seeing the real rudywoofs without stressors, or else, maybe the wounds have healed over. Comments do get taken personally, or are personal attacks, and then there's a poo fight which can bring out the worst in people.

What the Dillio, Dillio? I'm going to hug my little armadillos right now and cover their ears so they won't be hurt by any unsympathetic Dillophobic comments. Armadillios focus on the spiritual, rather than the temporal, because they are so primitive, like millions and millions of years old, and came from Deep Time. They were watching when the Flying Spaghetti Monster first arose from a pile of garbage. They were there, too, when bean burritos and tostadas and enchiladas came falling down from the sky, changing the course of life on Earth. This would be a dark world indeed if Mexican food had never been given, although the Aztecs and Mayans probably all died from heartburn from eating too much spicy Mexican food. Rice is nice about any price, and if everyone ate beans, the world would never run out of gas. If anyone would like to make a contribution to the Save the Armadillos Fund, please send all of your personal information and we will send a photo of the baby Armadillo that you saved. We have had donors who have won the lottery, traveled to the moon, and have become legendary leaders of foreign countries.

AS, As you stated, Pastafarians obviously have been deceived. We Chilitarians understand the true existentialism of the universe. Rice and chile in all it's various forms are the true masters of the world. Pasta is a poor, man-made imitation of rice, which naturally evolved with the rest of the lesser plants. Ravioli's are tiny counterfeit stuffed sopapillas.The false belief that pasta spontaneously appeared is heretical garbage; and those who are are found guilty of this heresy are punished by having their fingernails trimmed and painted while blindfolded. Pasta sauce is a manmade concoction designed for those who cannot handle the true refining fire contained in chile. As much as I hate to say it, Dillios are an unauthorized off-shoot of the Chilitarians; probably because of their close proximity to the main fields of chile crops in South Texas and Mexico. The whole idea of nurturing armadillos rather than eating them is absurd.

Samantha just after being born. She was delivered C-section, so she didn't have a pointy little head upon birth. The most recent photo is Samantha5 linked above.

If you call belief a work, then yes. You believe the "New Testament" is like a will where God leaves everything to us, including eternal life, as a Father would bequeath it to his heirs. I believe the "New Testament" is a New Covenant where BOTH parties have to meet certain expectations. But you even contradict your own paradigm by saying we can underperform and lose salvation.

And if that is not effective there is the ignore button.....not that I have had to use it

Thanks Bravus.

My real name is Mark Orman.

This was 100% *not* meant to pressure you or anyone: I hope you'll stay.

I've always used my real name. I thought I'd already posted a photo, but evidently not. That's fixed. I absolutely agree with you. If this is going to be an Adventist Christian forum, we shouldn't show up wearing a hood with eye-holes cut into it. Studies have shown that wearing a mask or some other cloak of invisibility encourages people to do things they would not ordinarily do. Some of these things are called sins. It's much easier to sin if nobody knows it's you. In the time of the end, we're going to have to have a lot of courage to stand for the right though the heavens fall. We won't get to hide behind an avatar and a nom de' plume then. Might as well get used to it now.

JoeMo is close enough to my real name that I don't intend to change it; nor do I intend to post my photo.

Dear Bravus, I have long appreciated your wisdom in your comments here. I admire this latest decision of yours, although I can't think of anything you've said in the past which would be offensive to anyone had it been signed by your true name. You are one of the best reasons to read Club Adventist. May your tribe increase!

The name is mine, and the photo is my inner-self.

confession time: my avatar covers well how I am in my spiritual being; the 'aka' represents the multiple affectionate nicknames given to me by mother, and also my work collegues naming me what they saw in my personality, as well as various pseudo-names used in this and other online forums.

Me, too

Jackson: JoMo gave gossiping as an example of sin in his post. Gossiping is generally a sin that is known by all in the church as that is where the person does it. IOW, it is open sin. It is also deliberate. You said: Your statement was false. Should we here in CA rebuke you for your false statement? Should we call upon you to repent or to be expelled from what ever congregation you have joined? In any case, I prefer to believe that you did not intend to make a false statement. I prefer to believe that you were not deliberate in your false statement. Rather, I will suggest that you did not carefully read JoMoe's statement. So, rather than making a charge of falsehood against you, I will simply ask you to be more careful in the statements that you make about others.

A little history of Corinth where Paul wrote for women to be silent. Corinth was a sea port town where most of the population was transit. People would come from all over the world. Husbands would do business for a few months or years then go home, frequently bringing their families with them. Paul found this situation good to teach people then they bring the message home. Outside of Israel,(Israel was literate, at least the equivalent of a 6th grade reading level because of the Bible). most of the world was illiterate. Women even more so. In Corinth the men would speak Greek, maybe Latin as well as their local languages. Their wives tended to only know their home language. They would friend those from their countries. Church in Corinth would be difficult for the women. You could either translate every few lines into each language or just have the service in Greek where the husbands could understand then they could teach their wives. This is the issue that Paul was facing and that we need to remember as we study the text. The two theories from people who do not know the historical situation are the one that Paul did not want women to speak in church Or the liberal view that also says that Paul did not want women to speak for what ever reason but he was a victim of his times and it does not apply today. However, knowing the history we have a lot more options.... And I cannot take credit for being too original. It is based on things I learned over the years, especially at AUC, the Seminary, Loma Linda, and the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies, and things that have been pointed out in this discussion forum. One excellent book if : Jim Fleming's "Attitudes towards Women in the Bible." Dr. Fleming has a 5 lecture series that I heard a number of years ago on the topic. http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58

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.

I believe the issue is this, they can remain being a licensed Church operating which provides them with being able to get tax receipts and other tax benefits.

kinda makes it difficult to locate anyone, then, doesn't it? And don't the Yearbook editors have anything else to do than to research down whether or not a listed pastor is ordained or not?? I'm to the point where I'd be just as happy having NOBODY "ordained" - I think it's given way too much importance in the grand scheme of life..

The Editors of the YEARBOOK reserve the right to edit the information given to them to comply with "official" SDA standards. Thus, the potential is there for the YEARBOOK editors to list certain of the "pastors" as "ordained" and to list other pastors in other catagories. The involved Conferences did not want this to happen. In an attempt to prevent it from happening they intend to not supply such information as they would prefer to have no listing than to have a listing the does not comply with their wishes.

I'm told that this shouldn't really be interpreted as a protest. They wouldn't mind sending in a list of their pastors to the yearbook. They're merely being realistic. They realize that their own distinction (pastors/interns) most likely won't be accepted, and in turn they are unwilling to have their employees listed according to the old categories.

Adventist pastors in the United States are paid the same regardless of their gender, if employed by the same Conference and in the same area and with the same length of service.

'Temper tantrum'....? Really? Just because they decided to stop a man made function?

“We do this to eliminate the possibility that our category of ‘pastor’ is simply converted to ‘commissioned’ or ‘ordained’, said Kvinge. “We want the world church to know that we no longer use these distinctions, because they carry connotations of a spiritual hierarchy.” We sinners being naturally arrogant and ignorant don't create good Fruit with a church pecking order (that it becomes) .. so I understand that statement. It is by nature Top Heavy that can topple. On the basis of this request and the statement on equality, which is based on a biblical understanding that both man and woman is created in the image of God and that the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts equally to women and men, it was 20th September 2015 voted in the Union Executive Committee to move away from the terms ordination and commission but from now on simply “set apart pastors.” “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." Joel 2:28,29 amen

In Norway they haven't been ordaining ministers since 2012. This can hardly be “a temper tantrum” then. In fact, one of those who was quoted in the article said that he thought the GC decision was providential. Quote: “We see God’s guidance in the San Antonio vote. A ‘yes’ would easily have overshadowed the underlying theological concerns our five year study process has unveiled.”

ROFL...just having a bit of fun. (Hopefully my guardian angel has a sense of humor and is able to laugh about his "detachable" wings which could to up in smoke if lightening torches them...or disentegrated if they get too soggy with rain.)

Wetmore. How are you? I understand your question about wings, and refer you to Isaiah's vision. The Bible informs us that angels neither marry or are given in marriage. There is no gender in angels so female angels and baby angels are only figments of man's imagination. They prefer to be called He in all records of them in Holy Writ.