Leaderboard

If the purpose of the forum were to change, so that those who were loyal supporters of the SDA organization were more affirmed while those who were not loyal were less affirmed, then "Team Adventist" might be a good choice of name. However, if one of the purposes of the forum continues to be to reach out to those who may have been inadvertently hurt by the organizational machinery, and to those who feel rejection by the church at large because they are early adopters of teachings that are not yet accepted in the church, and to those who may have left the church years ago and are tentatively considering a return to church, then "Team Adventist" may not be the best choice. That name brings to mind a unified group with loyalty to the Team leadership (presumably the leaders of the corporation) with maybe even cheerleaders and Amway-like motivational seminars, where those with doubts or anger or bruises or unwanted suggestions would be an unwelcome distraction. Teams often have opponents. People on the edges of the church probably wouldn't imagine they could be a valued part of "Team Adventist". (The name "Club Adventist" has some of these same drawbacks for those who don't stick around long enough to find out that Club Adventist can be a rather tolerant and welcoming place.)

Well, would it be worthwhile to consider: "Adventist Soliloquy?" Or, perhaps, some form of that name?

I have often thought of having a forum on here for new thoughts, or something like that. Were people can express for discussion some are thinking and get feedback on it. I have told the story of the young girl who had thoughts about setting the Sabbath hours world wide to that of Jerusalem.. on how she got slammed dunked on that one. It is my opinion those who are weak on their position will slam dunk or bully those who differ.. I have never read that we have to answer 28 question correct on judgement day, but have read words by Jesus himself, will be more on how we treated other people. I detest slamming the Adventist Church, the Catholic Church, Muslim faith etc etc. I would rather encourage discussion of specific items. Just my 2 or 3 cents. and @Ron Amnsn as you know that has been upgrade to a Nickel in Canada.

I believe that if the Church fails to make certain changes that need to be made, in a time when they could be made, God will intervene in a manner to bring them about that will not be easy and fun. Having said the above, I believe: That the change most needed is to make the local congregation the primary focus of mission and ministry and that all other "higher" organizations should have as their mission and ministry that of helping the local congregation to identify their needs and to equip them for meeting those needs. That present focus of the Church, as I see it in practice today, is for each "higher" level of organization to bring all "lower" levels of organization into line so that all march in "lock step." As I come from a military background, let me illustrate from that background. Believe it or not. There is a science to the study of military operations and combat. Dependent upon their rank and position, all U.S. military officers are trained in the science of such. As part of their training, U.S. military officers are trained as to how a presumed enemy force is going to operate. The result is that during the so-called "cold-war" in any given situation the U.S. forces would be able to accurately predict how the Soviet forces would operate. This was because Soviet forces operated in strict accord with their doctrine. They did not deviate. The U.S. military also has clearly stated doctrine. That doctrine is under constant evaluation and changes as circumstances change. U.S. military forces are trained in that doctrine. But, on all levels, U.S. Commanders are expected to do what is needed to accomplish the mission. When it comes to a 4-star, that officer has total ability to disregard doctrine and to accomplish the mission in any manner that the 4-star choses. If a 4l-star issues an order that violates doctrine and policy, that order is put into effect. The classic case of this is our invasion of Iraq. The 4-star in charge was so successful, in part, due to the fact that the 4-star deployed U.S. forces in manner that was not in accord with the doctrine. I could give you other examples of such. W hen such happens, the President can remove the 4-star and such has been done. But, while the 4-star is in the position the 4-star can do what ever the 4-star thinks should be done. We need to put the local congregation into the 1st place. It should be the highest level of organization, not the General Conference.

I do not have a problem with club adventist. I do not see a reason to change. So far, I have not come up with what I consider to be a good alternative name.

uh...as to the reboot of this forum's name : www.adventistan is a no-go for me. To much pointing to a latent 'kingly' power of this forum' CEO. an other suggestion could be 'Talking Christians' or Talking Believers. I would mention as a hash tag Talking Adventists but it looks too exclusively as that which is owned and manipulated by SDA elites in control. There are many who come here with an aversion to SDAism but a sincere love of the members involved. I for one am among them.

I think the church is too top heavy. The church needs to be given back to the people.

#1) Stop supporting and participating in the killing of unborn human beings.

There is much that we do that can be traced to similar activities being done by Pagans and other non-Christians: * Each of the days in the 365 day year celebrates the birthday of multiple Hindu gods and goddesses. * Baptism clearly had a pre-Christian background. * Elements of the worship system given to Israel as they left Egypt can be associated with pagan Egyptian worship. * Each of the named days of our week celebrates a pagan god. * While it may be true that some can associate elements of Christmas with pagan worship, it is also true that some such associations have been challenged it has been alleged that some such developed separately from that of pagan practices. Let us look as the logic: 1) Paganism during time X did Y. 2) Christianity during time Z did P. 3) Time X predates time Z. 4) Therefore, P grew out of an association with Y. Nonsense! Even if the first three (3) are true, that does not mean that # 4 is true. Common, basic logic. Number 4 still needs to be proved.

Thanks Samie, After Daniel narrates for a while, he stops and explains some facets of the narration that he had glossed over initially. Daniel 11 begins as chronological and becomes a concurrent narration. And in light of Revelation 10's command "thou must prophesy again" much of the history in Daniel 11 repeats The rest of your question would open the discussion in ways that I do no have time to address right now. If you would like to read my current book that has the answers to you questions, send me a pm and I will give your info on how to get a copy.

That's very nice Stan. I always just liked the original one with the bistro chairs. It looked comfortable and had a welcoming feel to it.

I like the suggestion to include friends - Adventists n friends makes it inclusive yet focused. But club adventist works for me.

In the human world in which we live, problems will always arise between people. That is just life and the way that it is. It is unrealistic to expect that one will be able to have positive relations with everyone else. The Bible may ask us to love our enemies, but it does not tell us to like everyone, believe it or not. We are not required to like everyone. That is simply unrealistic. If we want to develop positive relationships, we must, at times be up front in bringing appropriately to their attention issues that are problematic to a positive relationship. When we fail to do that, we are simply saying that we do not value developing a positive relationship. NOTE: That does not mean that we build every minor issue into a major one. Some issues are so minor that we do not need to make a major issue of them. I will give an example that may be of interest as it is current. Recently I received a message from someone in this forum. I will simply describe it as crude and let it go at that. I was dumbfounded. But, I dismissed it as coming from a person who was having a bad day. I even contacted someone else who knew the person who sent me the message and asked them if that individual was at a very stressful time in his life. So, I let it go. But, deep down I felt that my relationship with that person had been strained. Yesterday, while sitting in church, my phone goes off and I receive a text message from that individual and it was exactly the same text that I have described as crude. So, I calmly brought it to the attention of the individual who had sent it to me. We talked about it in a discussion that involved all of the other Administrators of this forum. It was determined, yesterday, that in probably a unique set of circumstances, a computer glitch sent me a message, twice, that it identified as coming from a person who did not send such a message to me. The glitch has been identified and it is believed to have been fixed. In retrospect, I find it funny that a computer sent me a message on its own. It almost represents thinking by a computer. I can laugh at it now. I feel much better now about the person whom the computer named as sending me the message. But, my point is: Things are good now because the person and I got together and we discussed it in a manner that was designed to foster a positive relationship. If I had not brought it up, the issue would probably have fostered and grown larger. People who want to build positive relationships talk about them.

Green, let me respond to your comment to the effect that you have not felt welcomed here: * I cannot simply dismiss your feeling unwelcomed. It is how you feel, and it would be a disservice to you to simply dismiss it. * I must also say that there may very well be people here who do not welcome you. Such, if it is accurate, may simply be an aspect of their personality. As CA has a diverse membership, there is probably no person, to include, myself and all three of the Administrators who are welcomed by everyone. IOW, there are probably some who wish that the four that I have just mentioned were not here. * I can not speak for everyone. But, I want you to know that I welcome you here. Why? For a number of reasons. At an earlier time you and I have had some private conversations in which you have shared some of your experiences and your desire to work for the Lord. Out of those conversations I have developed a respect for you. In my perspective of you, I see you as dedicated to truth. While I may disagree with you, I respect you for that. I respect you for the depth that I typically see in your study of the issues, even when I may disagree with your conclusions. All of us, to include me, at times, are sloppy in our study and/or presentation of the issues. On a few occasions I have seen this in you. I have called you on this simply because I have felt that it was below what you were capable of doing and what you normally do. As an exception to what I typically see in you, I have strongly called you on a position that you took that I believe to attack a basic foundation of both the SDA Church and of Christianity. While you have never agreed with me on that point, you have properly responded and I respect you for that. * The bottom line is Green, that I not only welcome you here, but I think that you make a contribution to this forum. As I do disagree with you on some points, and probably we will never agree on those, I will continue to challenge you at times. But, so be it. That is what discussions are about. * It is clearly your choice as to whether or not you continue to participate in this forum. Your time, effort and emotional energy are all of value. If you decide that your participation here does not result in a return that justifies what it costs you to participate, I can only respect you for the decision that you make. I understand. I once made such a decision in another forum. But, I want you to know that if you chose to leave CA, I will be sorry as I do believe that you contribute something of value to this forum. * However, if you chose to stay, I do believe that you and I will differ at times and I expect to challenge you at times when I decide to do so.

When you say downsize, what do you mean?

There is a different between presenting something new and giving a though on that, and correcting every post an individual makes. We have lost so many members as they always felt hammered upon, almost like they were back in the Church they fled from. I know some Churches like that, and I am sure you do as well.

I'd say Downsize..

@ANTcreations has been a member of this forum for a long time. Now Charles is the Country Director for ADRA-Uganda. Those who have spent time in Africa, especial rural Africa know the girls miss up to a week of school every month, because of lack of Feminine Hygiene products. Charles is helping to fix that. HiS MESSAGE We have prepared 5,000 Dignity Kits (4 reusable sanitary pads, 3 bars of soap, 2 underwear, 1 pail) for the adolescent girls and women in Bidibidi South Sudanese Refugee Settlement (Zone 2). World Vision helped distribute the 5,000 Dignity Kits today and the Uganda National Police helped with security, law and order at the distribution place! Happy New Year to you all! — at Bidibidi Refugee Settlement, Northern Uganda.

Am just watching a program on Hope Channel about Uganda!! I don't know ANTcreations personally, but am praying that he and his family will be blessed for all they do for the Lord!!

@Dave Watchman you will be pleased to know, and am sure you have seen it, we have a new theme.

Don't get your shorts in a wad. I just noticed an ongoing ridicule of Henry's ideas, and made an observation in case some might not realize how they were coming across. Wanderer, if it pleasures you to mock Henry, then I suppose you'll keep doing so. **back to topic**

I think the specific rules were applications of the general principles.

Thanks for the hat tip, Stan. I think things like the sacrificial system have a clear reason for not being carried on once the Sacrifice they were designed to point to had happened. Perhaps similarly, things like not making clothes from blended fibres were symbols of Israel's 'chosen people' status and the necessity to avoid mixing with other nations, but once the Gospel was extended to all of humanity these requirements are no longer needed. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a rational basis for sticking with some of the OT rules and not others. I think both fundamentalists and atheists often over-simplify this. Other things, such as the dietary laws, have a scientific basis. My view is that eating a prawn is no longer a salvation matter, but may be advisable to avoid as it avoids filter feeders that can concentrate impurities. Not a requirement, but a rational choice. Some of the laws around menstruation may have been essential in a desert with little water for reasons of health and sanitation, but aren't required today in terms of women not attending church (unless they need to stay home with a hot water bottle and some Midol). Many of the laws were created in a theocracy for the protection and continuation of the nation, not so much for specifically religious/divine reasons... but in a culture in which those two things were much less differentiated than they are now anyway. The underlying principles - of life and health and social cohesion and mutual protection - are eternal, but their application in specific rules may change as society and the physical environment changes.