Leaderboard

Did you knw that there are more than 1,500 days that are celebrated each year? No, I do not think that you did know such. I would be willing to bet that you can not guess one reason why May 9 is celebrated. See the link below to learn that factoid. https://nationaldaycalendar.com/days-2/national-lost-sock-memorial-day-may-9/ The above website will provide a link that you can use to learn other weird reasons to celebrate a day.

On May 9, 2019, Dr. Ervin Taylor died. In my opinion, he was probably one of the best known of SDA Scientists. As such he was considered by some to have departed from Adventism. When an attempt was made to remove him from SDA membership, he fought long and hard to remain a member and he won that fight. With his death, the time to debate his relationship with the SDA Church has passed. I request that such not be posted. For more information on his life as a scientist this see: https://atoday.org/ervin-taylor-at-co-founder-and-univ-of-calif-scientist-passes-to-his-rest/

Abandonment was added to the church manual as grounds for divorce by the 2000 GC. That is also known as the Pauline Privilege although I do not believe that is the terminology used in the church manual. Constructive abandonment is a principle from old British law. That is a concept that includes abuse and neglect. If a spouse is abusive or neglectful it can be considered constructive abandonment. That terminology is not used in the church manual. What constitutes abandonment is up to the local congregation. Before no-fault divorce became the law of the land in the US, the church used to just use the legal divorce decree to decide if a member was eligible to get remarried. If they were the innocent party and their ex was guilty of adultery than they could get remarried. Now, more congregations are willing to accept the member's repentance and let the member get remarried regardless of the circumstances of their divorce. The only time it will become an issue is if the person is employed by the Conference as a pastor or school teacher.

There are all kinds of autonomies you may want, but you don't get to exercise them around other people. You may have to go somewhere where vaccinations are not required. Plenty of countries around the world do not require vaccinations. You may also consider just moving way away from everyone, order everything online, and have it dropped off at the end of your very own long, long driveway! That medical autonomy thing is problematic. Many smokers do not want to quit smoking. It is their right! But when they come down with life threatening illnesses, who pays. Most people do not pay out of their pocket for serious illnesses. Either insurance or the public picks up the tab. Many would like to see healthcare withheld from people who engage in self-injuring activities, but where will that end? All kinds of things have been outlawed because of the strain on social resources to cover the lack of people to cooperating with their own safety. One of the reasons you now must wear seatbelts. YOur autonomy with that will get you traffic tickets. (But it's my right!) The list gets longer of all the things that have become required of people who have to live in close proximetry to everyone around them. Riddle: What do you call a temper tantrum in a three year old child?

Narcah, the following is a quote from your cited website. Essentially it is saying that the original DNA is so broken up that it is no longer DNA. Properly understood, you are not putting human DNA from a fetus into your body when you are vaccinated.

Very sad. Wonder how she can possible repay it all since I would assume she spent it? Quarter of a million dollars is a lot of money to repay!

Again, I am not sure the view you refer to. Of course, like any Biblical doctrine, we cannot build it completely on one specific word used by the author (especially Paul). On the subject of divorce, we need to look at Abraham's divorce of Hagar, what Moses wrote about divorce, the mass divorce that took place during the time of Ezra and what Jesus taught in addition to what Paul wrote.

I am actually expressing two views and may be confusing. I am trying to express both the traditional Protestant view (which is the official position of the Adventist church) and also the view I am inclined to believe but have not completely embraced yet. The traditional Protestant view does hold that if someone divorces their wife and marries another, they are committing adultery (unless their wife committed adultery first before the divorce). And if their ex-wife remarries, they are causing her to commit adultery. That is the traditional Protestant view. I tend to agree with that to a point except I don't believe Jesus was teaching it was physical adultery but rather "spiritual" - just like lusting after a woman.

The entire passage really is about breaking the spirit of the law. The Pharisees felt they were good with God because they kept the letter of the law. Jesus pointed out to them they were breaking the spirit of the law. In lusting after women they were committing adultery in a spiritual sense. The same was true in divorcing their wives. They were committing adultery in the spiritual sense. We all miss the mark. He was pointing that out to them.

The "Pauline" privilege is Protestant terminology. It is taken from the verse 1 Corinthians 7:15 which reads "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." The first assumption in this belief is that Jesus only allowed divorce for the reason of adultery. I, myself, disagree with that assumption. I understand Jesus as teaching that divorce is allowed due to a hard heart. The act of divorce causes the one filing for divorce to be guilty of adultery unless the one being divorced has already committed adultery. Understand? If I divorce my wife first and foremost it is because I have a hard heart. Secondly, by divorcing her and marrying another, I am committing adultery (unless she has already committed adultery) and if she marries another I am causing her to commit adultery. However, no where in that teaching do I see Jesus saying adultery justifies divorce. He simply teaches that if she commits adultery first, that I am not guilty of committing adultery for divorcing her (but I may still be guilty of a hard heart). Jesus teaching was that divorce is allowed only due to the hard heart. Even when adultery occurs, God's plan is reconciliation - not divorce. However, if you accept the assumption that Jesus taught adultery is the only justification for divorce, then you have to do something with 1 Corinthians 7:15 where Paul allows divorce in the event of an unbelieving spouse abandoning the believer. So that is what many Protestant theologians call the Pauline privilege. The believing spouse is to be granted the "privilege" of divorcing the unbelieving spouse who abandoned her. Studying the passage more, we find this in 1 Corinthians 7:13 "And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him." The word willing is the Hebrew word מַשְׂכֹּרֶת and means reward or wages. So it is not just that he lets her stay in the same house. It implies that the unbelieving spouse treats her right like an employer that pays his workers the correct wages or gives them their just reward. The King James translates it "if he is pleased to dwell with her". Understood as thus, the "Pauline privilege" would allow divorce from an abusive or neglectful unbelieving spouse. What about an abusive or neglectful believing spouse? Well, I think the assumption there is that a believing spouse will repent and change their ways.

Humble in spirit ?