Leaderboard

Just FYI: I had no ulterior motives in starting this thread. Nobody specific even came to mind when I read the article in the first place. I just thought it was an interesting perspective, and one that I hadn't thought of previously, and I *thought* maybe others here on the forum might find it interesting, as well.

Jesus was consumed with the desire for His father to be honored and glorified. our acts of moral outrage unless so motivated and directed will draw attentiuon to ourselves.

Gary, Is it just me, or do you have an axe to grind here? You have an uncanny ability to find the dark cloud in every potential silver lining that people propose here. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong from my POV. Is it just me, or do you intend to express as much moral outrage on the website as I perceive that you do? I understand that you are passionately defending the "truth" as you perceive it, and that's fine. But so often it sounds like anger or frustration. Maybe it's just my style, but I prefer to disagree with others in a more agreeable way. From my experience here, it has worked out much better. There are people on this very thread that I have had theological and philosophical disagreements with over the years; but I feel very close to them because they engage me (and hopefully I engage them) in a way that encourages discussion rather than a personal shut-down. Try it for a while. You might be pleasantly surprised at the results.

I will suggest the divorced individuals are often disciplined indirectly by the local congregation. They are typically not asked to serve by the nominating committee - even when there are empty position that no one is willing to volunteer for. The Adventist church is very much dedicated to the position that adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse are the only "Biblical" reasons for divorce. I suspect this is because Ellen White made reference to Jesus' comment about this. However as I read it, that is not what Jesus was saying. Let's look at Matthew 5:32. "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" I realize the commas were not in the original text but now let's eliminate the exceptions phrase and see how it looks. "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." That changes the whole focus of the verse. The message Jesus was teaching is that if I divorce my wife and thus cause her to go find another man, I am guilty of adultery." In verse 28 Jesus said anyone that looked at a woman with lust was guilty of adultery. Now when many read this, they are assuming that when Jesus said "except for sexual immorality" that Jesus was giving the only acceptable grounds for divorce. However the other way to read it is that Jesus is saying if a man divorces his wife, that man causes her to commit adultery unless (of course) she is already committing adultery before he divorces her. In Mark 10:9 we find "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." I believe the Bible clearly teaches that divorce is never God's will. In the story of Hosea we see God commanding a prophet to marry a prostitute. Yet if adultery is divine grounds for divorce, Hosea would have divorced the woman the first time she went out on him. But that is not the story. He goes after her and when she is sold, he purchases her back. Hosea indeed loved Gomer as Christ loves the church. The point Jesus makes is that if someone like Hosea did divorce his wife, Hosea wouldn't be guilty of adultery. In Matthew 19:8 Jesus tells us that Moses permitted divorce due to the hardness of our hearts. That is still the reality we live in today. What is a hard heart? It is a heart that cannot forgive. Or it is a heart consumed with sinful desire (which normally doesn't forgive either). Most definitely Hosea did not have a hard heart. He was able to forgive 70x7. If we were all able to do that, there would be no divorce. However for marriage to work, both spouses have to have a heart like Hosea. It only takes one hard heart to end a marriage. For transparency sake, let me admit to being divorced myself. I do not even like the term 'Biblical divorce" because I don't believe there is such a thing. I also don't like the idea of trying to judge people who have been divorced and trying to figure out if they had Biblical grounds or not. To what point? To figure out if they can teach Sabbath School, be a Pathfinder leader, a deacon or an elder? The trauma of a divorce draws some people closer to God than they ever had been before. Some people are more fit to serve after their divorce than they were while married. I will suggest that every divorce is the result of at least one hard heart. That is why divorces happen and why Moses permitted them. I agree with Brother Matthews, "There is a reality that in our human condition, there are some marriages that simply can not reasonably be expected to be fixed. Reality tells us that they are damaged beyond repair. As to remarriage after a divorce, that must be between the individual and God" The church has done a lot in the past couple of decade to minister to marriages and help them stay together. That is a needed and powerful ministry. However we also need to minister to the divorced. I saw one article that stated that 50% of Adventists that get divorced will quit attending church within three years. That isn't hard to believe. Especially when you consider that most nominating committees will not ask them to actively be part of the organized church.

Who would have thought that a simple post would have started such a fire storm? It was nothing new or condemning. It mearly supported what people have often expressed through out these forums quite often. Questioning what 'moral outrage' is and what can bring it about makes for interesting piece of research. Why would people get upset when the expressed idea was that 'sometimes' the reasoning is not so altruistic. A chance to learn more about ourselves and motives.

Can someone explain without the sarcasm why causing personal shut-down is a concern. Not once have I seen on this forum that concern expressed regarding those that disagree with some of the regular posters. If an opinion or biblical belief is expressed,take your pick, there are those that seem to take every opportunity to shut down those that disagree with the stated opinion or belief. On certain topics it takes only a very few responses for absurd comparisons and the not so subtle accusations of hate and self righteousness hypocrites gets repeated over and over. Is that honestly supposed to be believed to be good natured humor ,satire or??? Show any kind of respectful disagreement? You think what was posted by Gary is attempt to close down discussion and this not so subtle accusations of hate and self righteousness hypocrites isn't?

Interesting observation, Joe, about noticing a dark cloud to every situation. I agree that there is a better way to disagree.

Here is another Biblical example that is afterward explained to us: it is the outrage that Judas showed when the woman brought the expensive perfume in the alabaster box to Jesus. It is true, that the box cost about a year's wages (and who knows what sin that woman performed all year to afford it!). Yes, of course it could have been sold to provide for the poor. But it is explained afterward that Judas really did not love the poor at all. He was helping himself to the bag where the money was kept. So, yes, in this case it was telling to at least one disciple that the motive for moral outrage was not always noble. I would not apply that to Jesus, of course, because we know that His heart was for the poor. His willingness to bare Himself to abuse on account of His stand for the disadvantaged says a lot. That and the fact that He was materially poor Himself... It makes me wonder about Judas' character if there was some doubt to his motives even before he betrayed our Lord..

it still haunts me

You missed the point. Your sarcasm is evident. Or, shall I call it satire?

The word "archangel" (meaning - chief of angels) is found in only two verses. Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (NKJ) 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first." (NRS) [Some translations say "an" archangel's call, but the word "an" or "the" is an added word.] Upon hearing "archangel's call" the dead rise. John 5:25 says "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God". Put these two verses together. John 5:25 "Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (NRS) The Son of God IS the chief of angels. He will call forth the dead. The name of God's son IS Michael, which means "like unto God". The name seems appropriate, considering that He was begotten in the express image of God His Father. Revelation 12:7 "And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, (Rev 12:7 NRS) Michael leads the angels forces of Heaven. He is "commander of the LORD's hosts. Which means that Michael appeared to Joshua just after Israel crossed over Jordan. In that encounter, Joshua is told to remove his shoes, for He is standing on holy ground (Joshua 5:14-16). No mere created angel could render the ground holy. Only the presence of deity could do that. But what about Daniel 10:13? Daniel 10:13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia" (NRS) In most translations Michael is called "one of the chief princes". The word translated as "one" is the word 'echad (Strong's #0259), which can also mean "first". So Michael is the "first" and is the "arch" (chief) of the angels (messengers). Who is God's chief messenger? His own Son - of course. He is called "the word of God". All through the OT He was known as "the Angel of the LORD". When "the Angel of the LORD speaks" as the LORD. Genesis 22:1-18 “But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ And He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son your only son, from Me.’” The Angel of the LORD speaks as Yehovah, saying, “You have not withheld your son . . . from Me.” There is only ONE Archangel. He is the Father's "chief messenger". He is Michael the Son of God.

interesting research!

He had escaped the Third Reich and established himself in the United States. He was now an honored cleric with distinction when he felt the call of the Lord to return to Germany and what he knew could be death. So, in response to what he believed to be the call of God, Dietrich Bonhoeffer returned to German and eventually the death that he knew could happen. This story is told by the new docudrama film entitled: Come Before Winter, taken from 1st Timothy 4:21. For more on this film and ministry, see: http://comebeforewintermovie.com/ NOTE: The people who brought this docudrama into being were generally SDAs.

a shut-down of communication has happened a lot on the forum.... sometimes with spammers, sometimes with legitimate members. I'm guilty of it. Bonnie is guilty of it. Others on the forum are guilty of it. Shutting down communication defeats the purpose of the forum.... but communication is *not* a discourse on issues, ending up with "I'm right, you're wrong." Nor is it telling an admin how to run the ship. Nor is it continually pointing out the sins of others. Nor is it the pervasive copy and paste type of posts that spammers are prone to give. There are some who come on the forum with their tomahawks and warbonnets, ready to battle with any who don't see things their way. That's not communication, and not putting up with that type of thing isn't shutting down communication, in my book. Others, I'm sure, see it differently.

I can't answer that. I asked a simple question.Nothing more. Question remains unanswered

I don't answer my phone unless I know the number or the caller ID says who it is!! I figure if there legit callers, they will leave a message!

I am sure many did. I was simply curious what the answer was to a question I had. My question didn't go to motivation but because of a statement made by another poster

“Your faith has saved you; go in peace. ” - Luke 7:50 (Revised Standard Version)

To me, this is likely the biggest temptation that faced Christ - to use His Godly power without "checking in" with the Father first. We as humans don't face that particular temptation because we do not have Godlike (i.e., infinite supernatural) powers - yet.

Luke 9:52-55 Tells the story of Jesus disciples being outraged at the people of Samaria and Jesus said "You don't know what spirit you are!"

i think sorrow over moral failures may be less than self serving, but loudly lambasting evil doers, and proclaiming their moral failures with outrage is more likely is be something done to serve ones need to feel better. when your morality and your power to perform morally is from outside of yourself, you realize you have nothing to boast about. and then you have the opening to understand all the moral failings of others is an absence of the power of God in their lives, and nothing to attack them for. You may well know your attacks on others' failures will not bring them to Christ. The power of God in our life may give you distress over moral failures your own or of others.... Grief and repentance falls into line here.

Especially a second, third, fourth, or even a fifth time!

Like it has been said regarding the black and white of online communication and the ease with which people misinterpret another's comments, I also tend to think we miss the non-verbal communication of Jesus when he did the things and said the things he did. When he called the Pharisees hypocrites we may believe that he was angry with them. But if you look at the totality of how he spoke of people, I suspect he was full of sorrow and yearning for the souls of these people. In fact, it even broke through when he wept over Jerusalem. His disciples, they would get morally outraged and Jesus would call them on it. So, I try and keep in mind when reading him calling the Pharisees "hypocrites" that inwardly he felt sorrow because he loved them also and would even die for them too. And don't you think he would even welcome Annias and Caiphas into Heaven if they had repented and become converted after Jesus had returned to heaven. All Heaven, undoubtedly, would have rejoiced. (It could happen!)

No. It is what you percieved me as doing. Not what I was doing. Big difference.

God our Father - the "only true God - the "one God" - risked His only begotten Son in an attempt to save some of His creation. If the attempt failed, God would once again be ALONE. That is how much our God loves us. If the attempt failed, Christ would die without hope of resurrection. That is how much Jesus loves us. It is beyond comprehension!!! Because God "saw" the future victory of His Son, does NOT mean His Son could not fail during His earthly testing. I'm sure the Father told Jesus, "You will get through this." "You will succeed." The assurance of God, helped Jesus to go forward to the cross. Does that mean Jesus relaxed, knowing it was a "sure thing"? Not likely. He believed His Father, but the PAIN would still be VERY REAL. Abraham believed the promise of God concerning Isaac. Does that mean He did not hesitate and agonize over killing Isaac? Of course he did! And he could have refused.

wowsers... isn't *that* the truth?!

Outrage???? Try again. I thought it quite ironic that you were doing what you were condemning.

Houston....we have a problem........

rudywoofs, We are not to care about something that happens to others? When I see someone beating another person up I am to walk the other way because it does not affect me personally? When I see a con man stealing from another person I am to just look the other way because he is not stealing from me? When I see a parent abusing a child I am to simply look the other way because it is not affecting me personally? Are we, or are we not, according to the Bible, to be our brothers keepers? "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke My usage of "I guess" was meant in the same way as saying "apparently". It was not meant sarcastically. Even if it had been said sarcastically, I thought you loved satire/sarcasm, so why the outrage? I do not get your anger at what you percieve as nothing different than what you and others have been dishing out enthusiastically.

In order to be TEMPTED, one must have the desire for something which is not right or is not the will of God. IF one has NO DESIRE for the action, then it's not really a TEMPTATION. And I have NEVER felt the desire for sex with another woman. That is not my inclination. For me that would not be a TEMPTATION. I dislike the taste of pork. And the one time I ate it, years ago, I got really sick. (Ham sandwich was the only kind available on a flight from Canada to San Francisco.) So tempting me to eat bacon, would not really BE a temptation, because I have no DESIRE to eat it. I have no desire for Fentanyl (EVER!!) It makes me vomit for several hours. I can think of several more. Jesus Christ was TEMPTED with those things that were specific to Him. He was TEMPTED to prove who He was - to Satan. He was TEMPTED to bypass all the suffering, to get rulership of the world. Satan offered Him "all the kingdoms of the world". He was TEMPTED to use His own authority (as God's Son and commander of Angels) to help himself, instead of living as a man must live, dependent upon God. Christ's temptations were MORE than are "common to man".

It's interesting what "piques" a person... (Pique= poke, like with a needle)

I wasn't too surprised to read that, as the Bible says: I would think that is possible, but I can't tell for another what their motives are. I can only examine myself, whether I am part of the problem or the solution.

Let me see if I can put this a different way. God cannot be tempted. James 1:13 God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. (NRS) QUESTION: If Jesus was tempted to sin (to do that which was against the will of God), does that mean that He was not God? QUESTION: What does it mean to be tempted? James 1:14 But one is tempted by one's own desire, being lured and enticed by it; (NRS) QUESTION: Did Jesus have human desires? Answer: Yes! His desire was to escape the torture of crucifixion. But this death was the will of God His Father. To refuse would have been sin. Therefore Christ submitted His own will to that of His Father. Matthew 26:39 "And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.'" (NRS) NOTE: Shows two separate wills. Hebrews 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. (NRS) Hebrews 2:18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. (NKJ) JESUS TESTED Jesus WAS "tempted". NOTE: The Greek word translated TEST, is also translated TEMPT. To be TEMPTED is to be TESTED. Did Jesus WANT bread after fasting 40 days in the desert? Of course! And the Devil tempted Him to command that the stones be turned into bread for himself. This in order to prove that He was indeed the Son of God. Luke 4:2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing at all during those days, and when they were over, he was famished. (NRS) Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. (NRS) Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. (NRS) Mark 1:13 He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan. (NRS) Gustave, you often quote verses pointing to Jesus "divinity", but you seem to ignore those verses which point to His humanity. In the Book of Matthew alone, Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of Man". I would argue that His humanity was tempted, just as we are all tempted by our human desires. The question would be, Did His own divinity overpower His humanity - thus making it IMPOSSIBLE for Him to sin? I would argue, NO. God has never overpowered human will. If Jesus were to use a power that is not available to us - as humans - then He would fail the TEST. This is what Satan was TEMPTING Him to do. Jesus had to overcome AS A MAN, to win back the dominion of earth - for mankind. Jesus gave all the credit to His Father, who He said, "dwells in Me". Is this same power available to us? Yes! 1 John 3:9 Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed [Christ] abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. (NRS) This verse is speaking of human beings. 1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. (NKJ)

Gary, I GUESS you didn't read the article very well, or else you really missed the point. The article explicitly stated "perceived injustices that don't affect them personally" .... I GUESS you never read Matthew 12:48,49 where Jesus states that His family consisted of those who did the will of the Father. When something affects your family, it affects you personally. .... Well, maybe it doesn't affect *you* personally, but it does for most of us. I GUESS you didn't consider that. And by the way, "I GUESS" is a phrase "expressing disdain for something or someone, expressing uncertainty or confusion, expressing the irony and absurdity of a situation, expressing sarcasm, or expressing apathy towards something or someone." I GUESS you didn't consider that, either.

Missing the point.....is it intentional or mearly because of a predisposition? The research said that 'sometimes'........ Sheesh!!!

Nope. It wasn't sarcasm or satire. It was showing the direct implications of what would be true about Jesus if what rudywoofs posted was actually true. When Jesus ran the moneychangers out the temple, not once but twice, He was showing moral outrage. When He knelt in the dust of the street and began writing out the sins of those who "caught" the woman in adultery He was showing moral outrage. When He pointed out again and again the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders He was showing moral outrage. When He said it would be better that someone had been drowned rather than having done evil to a child He was showing moral outrage. He did showed moral outrage time and time again. I guess rudywoofs didn't consider that when she posted the quote. When a person is born again and lives within an abiding relationship with God all sense of guilt and shame over their past is gone. And what is more Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to give those people His attributes which includes His hatred of evil, pain and suffering. I guess rudywoofs didn't consider that either.

A quote from the abstract that the article is referring to. Would have to pay to read the original online. Since I am a numbers person, would like to see the raw data. Based on the abstract, one should not be surprised at the conclusions. I think most people have some modicum of doubt about various persons or groups 'moral outrage'. But notice that article abstract is saying 'sometimes', a very important word as a quick view might lead some to the wrong conclusions.

This prophecy of Jesus and how He would hate iniquity must mean then that Jesus was almost completely overcome with guilt for all the wrong He had done while here on earth. ***shakes head in disbelief***

See: http://atoday.org/carson-becomes-first-adventist-to-serve-in-the-cabinet-of-the-united-states-government/

I am aware that some of you may think that Japhet has horns growing out of his head. Here is a link to photos of the four (4) members of the Boulder SDA church pastoral staff: https://boulder.church/about/team?tag=Pastors I can state without equivocation, that I have never seen any sign of horns on the heads of any of them. NOTE: Japhet has informed me that he really likes the above post. Posted by me 3/4/2017 at 8:15 hrs PST.

# very embarrassed to say

yes! It seems I get more upset at others what I have also done to others in the past. My list is long. I used to hate QUEERS and said and done as much. Even in Gods Name!

Wow! That must have been a bad experience! However......that speaks only for yourself, others may and do have a different experience. Ain't it great, we are not all alike!!

Jesus spoke to the people in the words they would get the message in. This movie does that, the point that is dealt with is the big questions, why is there pain and suffering A key point one of the children was going to hell one to heaven the father could choose. He said take me instead. God said, that is what I did for my children... really powerful moment..

I was purposely overstating to prove a point. Sorry shoukd have have made that clearer.

I sometimes view other people's satire directed at me as a good-humored way of reproof; and I usually take no offense. When their satire is a true representation on how ridiculous I am being, I usually accept it graciously (but not always). When I am satirical or sarcastic to others (i.e., "teasing" them), I usually try to do so in a good-humored way with a smile on my face so they know I'm just teasing them rather than ridiculing them. Hopefully, everyone knows this comment was purely satirical and know one was offended. If you were offended, please advise me and I'll call you a WAAAmbulance - maybe send you some cheese to go with your whine.

I read the book several years ago. I found it to be spiritually benefiting and of value. As Stan indicated, the book does present some aspects of spiritual life and doctrine that are NOT consistent with SDA doctrine. So, if you want to criticize, you will find grounds to do so. But, I believe that on some levels, with some people, it can be helpful.

“When I worship, I would rather my heart be without words than my words be without heart. ” - Lamar Boschman

“Prayer is an effort of will. ” - Oswald Chambers

“Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.” - Erma Bombeck