Leaderboard

Years ago we had a colleague who was teased mercilessly by another. They both laughed and outwardly all seemed to be good-natured. The thought that went through my head, though, was, "What if he (the object of the teasing) cries into his pillow at night? There is much we don't see. Although I understand the idea of satire, I don't like it. I "get" the concept of roasts and SNL. But I refuse to take part in such because they just seem to take away from a person's dignity. Even if a person was self-depreciative I would not do it to him. I watched once a video of a church member receiving bacon at a restaurant or something, and another church member running into him just at that moment. I can't remember the exact details... Anyway, my thought is that if our eyes zoom in on what we perceive as the sinfulness of others rather than the person himself then we might deserve to be laughed at, more than the person who is just living. I once had a colleague who would mock drunk people. I am sure she never took a sip of alcohol in her life. She also feigned drunkenness if she suspected that a dessert had liquor in it. As someone who comes from an environment where alcoholism affected others I could not relate. I suppose it is healthy to be able to laugh at oneself. I know from experience that it might not always be funny to everyone.

I was reading one writer who had a whole different take on the modesty issue. While some relate modesty to how many square inches of skin that may or may not be covered, it could also be how extravagant the clothing worn is. The writer was of the opinion that ideally the clothing should be no more expensive than thrift store clothing or at the most expensive from Kmart! I tend to agree with this writer. Showing up in an expensive three piece suit is rather immodest under those definitions. Historically, it seems, modesty was largely used against women for how much skin was visible. Often those making the remarks were dressed in expensive suits, expensive watches, and drove expensive cars as they looked down their nose. Always sad to see the pretentiousness some people display when they put others down. True, you should consider dressing "well" when going to church, but high value clothing is not necessarily dressing well but is more an act to attract attention to oneself. Our church just lost a member who NEVER wore anything but blue jeans to church. I suspect he was actually buried in his jeans as it would have been unlike him to be at rest anyway otherwise. At his funeral, he was well spoken of for the love he had for others. One of the things I learned when coming to the mountains is, people don't dress the way they do in much of the rest of the country. Blue jeans are very acceptable attire even at a funeral.

The evil angels are called princes (as in "prince of Persia") and the angels loyal to God are called "princes". The word translated as "prince" can mean captain or ruler. Satan is call "the prince of this world" - meaning the RULER of this world. He is also called "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2). So the title "prince" does not necessarily designate someone in line to inherit the throne, by virtue of descent. But Michael is "FIRST OF the chief princes". This is a very acceptable translation, rather than "ONE OF" - implying that Michael was just one of several equals. He was/is not. He is COMMANDER of the Lord's hosts. His presence renders the ground "holy". He accepts worship. Other angels do not. Interesting that the Michael did NOT USE full divine power, but rather angel power to restrain "the prince of Persia". That fits with His using only power that was available to humans, during His incarnation as a man. He told his followers, "the Father who lives in me, does the works" (Jn 14:10). This agrees with my belief that before He incarnated to represent God the Father to humankind, He had the form of an angel to represent the Father to angels. The Son of God acted as the agent of His Father, to created all things (including angels) and became the agent of His Father to represent His Father - in mediation, in communication, in protection (of the faithful), and in redemption. I am not a Trinitarian. I believe in God our Father, and "the LORD Jesus Christ". 1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (NRS) I am not SDA and I do not look to Ellen White for infallible interpretation of Scripture. I read her as I would any other commentary.

Thank you, Gail, for pointing out the inherent cruelty in satire. Barely Adventist is not even skillful satire. It is just rude, crude, and obvious hatred. A skillful satirist can cut your heart out, leave it lying on the ground beside you and you with a puzzled look on your face wondering just exactly what he meant, and walk away laughing at your stupidity for not understanding what he just did to you. I know. That used to be me. I thank God for showing me just how evil it really is, and how much the devil rejoices to see people hurt by it. Those of you who rejoice in satire do not know what it is you are rejoicing in. It is being judgmental in the worst way possible.

It is certainly proper AND necessary to reexamine our believes now and then. However, if we keep reexamining the 4th commandment, will there ever come a time when Sunday becomes a/the sanctified day? If we reexamine and reexamine the 2nd commandment, will idols eventually become acceptable? Shall we reexamine and parse, reexamine and parse Lev 18:22 & 22:13 until such unions become biblically acceptable?

How sad that those who affirm what Scripture teaches are labeled with what has become pejorative terms like "right wing" & "ultra-conservative"

This thread will not open up the subject of abortion, it will be locked. But, I am working on some exact figures and expect to have then shortly, at which time I will post the exact figure here. The figures that I post relate to only the largest SDA system of hospitals in the U.S. IOW, they are for only a part of the U.S. and not the entire U.S. That system is what used to be called Sunbelt. In the most current year, that entire system delivered a bit under 50,000 births (to be revised once I have the exact figure). During that same time period there were 42 abortions performed. My point, there are currently far less abortions being performed than some people think.

We have had some long-winded "rabbis" in our "schul" too.

Alternative facts!!! Cool twist on Pam's meaning but still wrong!! This thread needs a good dose of humor!!!!

Gustave, You'll have to show me the statements. I don't recall ever seeing such from Mrs. White as you claim. Keep in mind that "prince" and "archangel" are not necessarily the same thing, so having more than one prince does nothing to establish that there must also be more than one archangel. The Bible uses "the archangel," not "one of the archangels" to speak of Michael.

BINGO!

Green, well said.

The problem comes in with defining what is "better clothes." When I came to this country, I brought my Sabbath suit: coat, matching pants, tie, special black belt to go with it, black socks, black polished shoes, etc.--Far more expensive clothing than anyone around here wears, and far less fit for the climate and culture. If I'm going to church to meet God in my "best," I suppose that is what I should wear. But around here, no one dresses this way, it is not fit for the climate, and it is not best for my health. In the heat and humidity, my feet would begin to rot in those shoes, even for the few hours spent traveling to and from church or during the afternoon activities in the neighborhood (at church, shoes are removed here). I quickly "dressed down" to the simpler attire in which I teach: no tie, different set of shoes (unpolished), pants of a kind of material more suitable to sitting on the floor (often the case here, even in church), and a simple button-down shirt. Forget the black socks--most here don't wear socks at all, and when I wear them, I must do so without shoes inside the building. I think, following the Bible and Mrs. White, there are some principles to keep in mind with regard to our attire: 1) Health is the most important, and may trump everything else. 2) Modesty is next most important. 3) Cleanliness and neatness follows. 4) Lack of unnecessary adornments, such as frills and lace, etc. 5) The quality of the material should be durable and modest, not expensive. Following the above guidelines, careful readers might soon conclude that clothing should be loosely fit, the weight of it should be hung from the shoulders, the pattern from which it is designed should include no unnecessary designs for the sake of fashion merely, and it should cover the body as needed for both modesty and warmth. The limbs should not be left to become cold while the torso is kept warm, no restrictions should be placed around the delicate organs of the abdomen (the use of suspenders, instead of belts, is indicated), etc. As for having a "special" outfit for Sabbath, I see no reason to "dress down" on other days in order to look, by comparison, "better" on Sabbath, if every day one dresses well. If one works outdoors or in a mechanics shop, his or her clothes need not be of the same variety for church. Wearing jeans is a matter of culture--but in my opinion, Mrs. White would have supported them in terms of their durability and cost (no need to have silk). God is no respecter of persons. Our dress is not really for appearance. It is more for decency and health. The question to be asked should not really be "will God like how I look?" It should be "will how I dress be of benefit to me and not a distraction for others?" God likes people to be able to worship in church. If we preserve our own health and decency, we can concentrate better on the message. If our appearance distracts others (is not modest, is odd-looking, is not clean, etc.), unless this still happens to be the best we have and can offer, it is wrong. None should be barred from church attendance for lack of having a certain quality of attire, of course.

You are not alone...I have the same problem...can't resist.....

this is one of the silliest threads ever, imho... to debate the merits of humor... I can't believe I'm posting here.

The pastor? He was laughing at himself and what had happened to him so it is fine to laugh with him. He saw the hujmor in it. Does God really see humor in mocking His people? I see nowhere in the Bible that He does. Was Elijah mocking God's servants? No. He was mocking the outright enemies of God. Look at what Balaam said about the children of Israel when Balaak asked him to curse them. Balaam said that God saw nothing wrong with His people, and he said that under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The only time God says anything negative is when His people are in outright rebellion against Him and ignoring His laws and His righteousness. That people disagree with a political agenda does not make them rebellious against God. It says they disagree with a political agenda. To tell the truth I see no evidence from the Bible at all that we are to look to current politics for our agendas and what the church is to be all about. To me that is bringing the world into the church and we are supposed to be in the world but not of the world. Meaning that while we are here the world is to have its own agenda and we are to have a different agenda that comes from God and God alone. C.D. Brooks said it well. He said he once got all upset about some racism he saw in church members and his professor called him into his office and read him a statement from the SOP on how the devil will always have some way of distracting us from what should be our real agenda. C.D. said he never forgot that and as such he always presented the gospel and left racial politics alone as it has nothing to do with presenting the gospel. I'm paraphrasing C.D. greatly but that is the gist of what he said in a couple of his sermons. As C.D. grew up in the deep south during the time of blatant racism his words carry a lot of weight on the subject.

If being "in Christ" does NOT mean that one is "saved", or has everlasting life, or will "receive eternal life" then what good is it?

Believe FIRST - or - "in Christ" FIRST ? I think we must define what it means to BE "in Christ". Does it mean to be LOVED by God the Father and Christ His son? No. God IS love. God loves all men everywhere, whether or NOT they believe in His Son. John 3:16 says "God so loved the world". The words "in Christ" or "those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1) is another way of saying "those who believe" or "believers", or "those of the faith", or "the faithful". Why would I say "believe to be a believer" ? That would be grammar school English, as if teaching the difference between verbs and nouns. Of course - one must believe to BE a believer. And I'm NOT a believer UNTIL I believe. Put another way, believers ARE "in Christ", and those "in Christ" believe in Him. To believe is a gift, granted to us by God our Father, because of what Jesus did (Phil. 1:29). But we can resist the GIFT. We have all seen individuals resist that GIFT, no matter how much evidence is shown to them. Also believing does not happen in a vacuum. The human mind must have INFORMATION upon which to base belief. Without INFORMATION, the person would not know WHAT he believes IN. Romans 10:14 “But how are they to call on One in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in One of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim Him?” (NRS) Romans 10:17 “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” (NRS) I think this must be at least the 10th thread by Samie on this subject. I am happy to debate this subject as I have the time. It helps to strengthen reasoning and increases familiarity with Scripture. But the argument always comes down to the same place. I do not agree with Samie's interpretation of certain passages.

Romans 16:7 "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." There was a time when Andronicus, and Junia, and Paul were NOT "in Christ". What action or thoughts - on their part - brought them "in" to Christ? Concerning the Ephesian believers, Paul wrote: Ephesians 2:12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world." There was a TIME when they were NOT "in Christ". Concerning the Jews who did not yet believe, Paul wrote: 2 Corinthians 3:14 "But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside." (NRS) They believe in Yahweh, but the veil is "still there" because they are NOT "in Christ". Philippians 1:29 "For he has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ, but of suffering for him as well" Believing in Christ is a privilege GRANTED or GIVEN to human beings. But the humans must ACCEPT the gift. Or REJECT the gift. BEFORE one accepts the gift, he is NOT "in Christ". The humans must "open the door" when Christ knocks. The Father "draws" us to Christ. If we do not resist, we will be drawn to the foot of the cross. We will see God's love for us, and we will "open the door" of our hearts. The Spirit of God through Christ will then "come in" to fill our hearts, and we will be "in Christ", and He will be "in" us. Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God". Faith then is a GIFT from God. We return to God, only what He has first given to us. While I would agree that our salvation is "the gift of God", I would also contend that God will NOT bypass our FREE WILL. We can reject the GIFT. UNTIL we accept the gift of faith in Christ Jesus, we are NOT "in Christ". And so long as we reject that gift, we remain separated from God, in the sense of belonging to Him. I would contend that we are not "in Christ" UNTIL the Spirit of God is "in" us. Philippians 2:5 "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus" . What MIND was in Christ? Answer: the Father. Philippians 3:9 "and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith."