You are not logged in.
Site History:
The history of Adventists of Tomorrow starts with the old Compu Serv Forum that was launched on July 5th, 1994. This official church Forum was a joint project of the White Estate and the North American Division of the General Conference. It was heralded as "the most exciting development in the history of Adventist Communication." It soon became the most popular Forum in the church with more than 3,500 registered members and 13,000 regular visitors.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/M … 994-07.pdf
According to Dennis Hokama, "Many viewed the forum as a gigantic unending Sabbath School class in which members could discuss and debate any subject, from theology, to church politics to their hearts content. Although other Adventist oriented online forums exist, this was unique in that participants could expect that decision makers in the General Conference were listening in on their discussions."
Unfortunately, the church leaders were not pleased with the content of these online discussions. While Pastor Ralph Bloodgett, the Forum administrator, had envisioned the site as a resource where the members could "contact a professor at the seminary … and receive an answer a few hours later," it would never become an open or honest site about history or theology. Although he envisioned the Forum as a place where people could "download an out of print manuscript from the Ellen White Estate" and discuss issues with top church leaders, none of this would take place. Within a few years this online experiment would fail for all to see.
Although Bloodgett wanted the Forum to be a teaching and learning resource, it was not meant to address new ideas, much less express any doubts about the old traditions that had become so confusing to so many. But this was what most people wanted to discuss. They wanted to know what really happened in 1844 as well as in 1888 and 1980. Many were not shy in wanting to explore these controversial areas or to condemn the leaders for their poor management and lack of candor.
The church leadership became increasingly unhappy with the tone and direction of the online discussions. As far as they were concerned, there were too many complaints directed towards management. Besides, it was never the intention of the church to encourage theological debate or historical investigation. Rather, they wanted people to support the hierarchy and submit to their teachings; not question or doubt them.
The Silver Spring leaders were so out of touch with the Adventist Community that they completely misunderstood what was on their minds. They had underestimated the anger over Glacier View, as well as the prevailing confusion about Ellen White. They incorrectly viewed the Forum as a Public Relations tool that was meant to create good will for the church, but the opposite took place. It became a site where people could vent years of pent up frustration at the Denomination. And this is what many did.
As the 21st century drew near, the Adventist Community was in no mood to be controlled and censored into cultic submission. This was not the church of the 1950's, where people were gullible, naïve, and loyal. In fact, since Glacier View in 1980, millions had left the church; angry about what they had been taught and the way they had been treated. Now that they had the opportunity to freely express themselves online, they wanted to speak their minds and ask their own questions that were never answered when they were church members.
But this was not allowed, and thus the Forum administrator spent much of his energy trying to control, censor, and sanitize the discussions. Webmaster Bloodgett soon became obsessed with censorship as he tried in vein to keep the discussion within official church guidelines. As a consequence, many were thrown off the site for simply refusing to agree with the doctrine of the IJ or for refusing to accept Ellen White as an inspired authority. Those that wanted to delve into controversial areas, or challenge any doctrines, were also quickly exiled from the site.
It was a strange place where discussion was discouraged, controlled, and censored, -not encouraged, or promoted. It was not a workable situation. And it was only a matter of time before things would go from bad to worse.
After President Folkenberg was forced to resign for corruption in 1999, more people started to complain about the obvious mismanagement and corruption of the church. Some even spoke out forcefully about the need for Denominational repentance and reform. The more people expressed their dissatisfaction with the church leaders and their confused doctrines, the more people were silenced and locked out by Bloodgett. It became so bad that the church censors could not keep up with the negative posts. The end was near.
It was clear that the SDA leaders were not ready for honest or open communication. They had no intention of addressing the problems or answering the hard questions that daily assaulted the official church Forum. Their great experiment in Adventist Communications was failing because the leaders refused to allow free and open discussion about the issues. They would rather shut down the Forum and destroy the online Community that they had worked so hard to build rather then face the issues. (What were they hiding?)
Consequently, the church leaders shut down this very successful Forum on June 15, 2000. The Denomination's official Forum had ended in disaster, and the disappointed Mr. Blodgett took an early retirement.
The Atoday Forum
By 2000, many had discovered another online Forum that had been set up for the Adventist Community. It was part of the Atoday Magazine, a new West Coast paper that claimed to be open and honest, independent from church censorship. Consequently, many of the old Compu Serv posters migrated to Atoday, and this site quickly became the leading Adventist Forum.
Before long, there were discussions breaking out all over the Atoday site about issues that were never fully discussed on the Compu Serv Forum or in Sabbath School. The lack of church censorship allowed for deep doctrinal discussion, as well as the serious study of Adventist history. It was a pretty wild time, because the SDA's had never been allowed to think or speak without censorship or manipulation.
In addition, everyone was surprised to see that there was so much new information available about the Pioneers. Many were even more surprised to see that this historical evidence clearly debunked generations of myth and legend. It was a paradigm shifting time that made for some interesting discussions, as the words of the Pioneers were posted on the site in their proper context. Here, another version of Ellen White emerged that few knew existed; one that challenged the claims of the White Estate and overturned generations of their propaganda and fraud.
Not surprisingly, the leaders were not pleased with what was taking place at AToday. They did not want the church to discuss anything without their express permission or control. That is why they shut down their own official Forum. But now, much to their chagrin, they watched as the discussion about Adventist Reform continued at Atoday. They became alarmed as the controversial and prohibited issues were laid out in front of the entire Community. They became even more alarmed when Tom Norris started to conduct a series of interviews that focused on the difficult issues and their proposed solutions.
Suddenly, the leaders realized that the Internet would be their undoing. What if their many secrets became public, and the Community discovers that the White Estate and the Review have been foisting a fraud on the church all these years? What then?
The first series of interviews were to include; Dr. Desmond Ford, R & H Editor William Johnsson, and apologist Morris Venden. Dr. Ford went first. He was very gracious and accommodating. He answered every question put to him, including some follow up questions that came directly from the Atoday Forum. It was a landmark interview that has never been addressed, much less answered, by the church to this very day.
See Reflections On Adventism:
www.goodnewsunlimited.org/library/atoda … /intro.cfm
Shortly after Dr. Ford's interview was posted on the Atoday Forum, William Johnsson called Tom Norris to cancel his planned interview. He determined that he should not comment on these controversial areas that Dr. ford had addressed, even though this was the point of all the interviews. Although he tried to blame his withdrawal on JR Layman, an outspoken Atoday moderator, (by saying that the Forum lacked editorial discipline), he confessed that such an Interview would be too controversial for the church at this time.
It was becoming clear that the leadership wanted to operate without any scrutiny or oversight whatsoever. The Hierarchy didn't want to be held accountable for anything, nor did they want anyone to question or criticize them. They specifically did not like any discussion about 1844, 1888, or Glacier View. And the notion that the church needed comprehensive Reform was so repugnant, that no leader wanted to hear such a foreign and strange concept.
So once again, the leaders set about to silence criticism and censor any discussion about the need for Adventist Reform. Once again they were going to assault those that dared question the hierarchy and silence them. They would let everyone know who was in charge and who was not.
More Censorship
Although Atoday had advertised itself as an independent Journal, this was very misleading and untrue, as everyone was about to find out. In a desperate attempt to stop the emerging discussion about Adventist Reform, the leaders would shut down another Forum. They would rather see no discussions taking place within the Adventist community if they could not be properly censored and controlled.
Consequently, William Johnsson, put pressure on certain Atoday board members, (who worked for the church), to either censor the discussions or shut down this growing, but controversial site. This policy of censorship would be fatal for the site.
When the discussions at Atoday started to be censored, like on the previous Compu Serv Form, it made many posters angry because it was obvious that the self-serving leaders were trying to run from the facts and cover up their incompetence. They were clearly not being honest about church history or doctrine.
Rather than admit their errors and make the necessary corrections, they claimed they had everything correct, even as they took dramatic action to silence the critics. In fact, Clifford Goldstein would come online to declare that SDA's did not need any reform because all their doctrines were correct and true. But all could see that the leaders were more interested in covering up their own mistakes instead of trying to resolve the many problems that was destroying the Advent Movement.
It was sad to see how corrupt the church had become, and many were surprised that the leaders refused to enter a public discussion about church history and doctrine. They were even more stunned to see them wage an all out war against any Adventist that wanted to think and speak freely about the issues. But regardless of what anyone thought, the leaders were serious in their quest to suppress any and all discussion about Adventist Reform within the church. This is still their position today. They think and act like Papists or Communists, not like anyone that follows the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
Although Atoday eagerly welcomed the many online refugees from the Compu Serv Forum, they too would soon become a victim of cultic suppression and Machiavellian censorship. Even though they proudly announced the success of their Forum in their new Journal, they had no way to know that this site would also meet the same fate of the old Compu Serv Forum, and for the very same reason.
While AToday claimed to be fully open about the issues, this turned out to be deliberate propaganda. They were not independent from the church. As a result, some of the Forum posters were put on notice that the site would be shut down if they persisted in posting controversial topics about tithe, Glacier View, and church Reform.
But few paid any attention to these sudden threats. If anything, the discussions intensified. After so many years of censorship and propaganda, people were tired of not being allowed to discuss the facts in the open. They were feed up with all this cultic secrecy and mind control from the religious elites that controlled the Denomination.
People wanted to know more about Ellen White then the White Estate was willing to reveal. As well as the details about Glacier View and what Dr. Ford was really trying to say to the Adventist Community. In other words, they wanted to honestly discuss and understand the issues. And they thought that Atoday was such a place where the issues could be openly discussed and evaluated for all to see.
Then one day, with little warning to most of the posters, the Atoday site went dark! William Johnsson had not only refused to be interviewed for the Atoday Forum, as he promised, but he also determined that there should be no more interviews or discussion about the issues. Consequently, he forced the site to close down.
This is what the leaders thought about the open and honest search for truth. This is what they thought about the need for Adventist Reform. They hated it. So they shut down a second Adventist Forum in order stop the growing criticism and silence the repeated call for ADVENTIST REFORM.
Adventists of Tomorrow
At this point, in February 2002, the outspoken moderator from the Atoday Forum, JR Layman saved the day. JR, like so many others, was livid that the church would shut down such a popular site that had claimed to be free and independent of church censorship. What was the crime? Asking questions and demanding answers?
With the help of others, he defied the wishes of the Hierarchy and set up a new Adventist Forum that would be totally free from church censorship and interference. It was called Adventists of Tomorrow. Here the discussion about Adventist Reform could continue without censorship.
When the word circulated that the Atoday site was being shut down, a number of people rushed to copy the controversial threads before the plug was pulled. As a result, a few key discussions, such as "Historic Adventism," and "Clifford Goldstein & The Investigative Judgment," were preserved from AToday and then reposted on the new ATomorrow site. Other discussions, like the famous one about the myth of New Covenant Tithing, did not survive and was re-created at a later time on ATomorrow.
As a result of JR's actions, the discussion about Adventist Reform would go forward for all to see. The details about 1844, and 1888 were still open for discussion, as was Glacier View, and a clear call for the church to repent for exiling Dr. Ford. Atomorrow came to represent a place where the difficult questions were pushed forward, and so too the answers.
Moreover, it was a place where freedom of speech and thought is considered the God given right of every Adventist, regardless of what side of the debate a person was on.
Even though the leaders repeatedly tried to deny the Adventist Community their freedom to meet online and study the issues, they failed--thanks to JR Layman. Grown adults no longer need to be treated as children, and this site represented the maturation of the Adventist Community, even as it condemned the leadership for their incompetent and dishonest behavior.
ATomorrow quickly became a place where the leaders, and all others, had to talk straight or not at all. Bluntness replaced the typical church doubletalk, even as facts were more valued than myth and legend. Clifford Goldstein learned the hard way that Traditional Adventism cannot be defended, and many were amused, as he would come online only to retreat when asked a difficult question.
Although Goldstein was known for his vocal apologetics in defense of Traditional Adventism and the IJ, he was unable to make his case in a free venue where the facts, not censorship, controlled the debate. In fact, Mr. Goldstein was supposed to be the 4th Interview. But he also ran away from that opportunity to answer Dr. Ford and enter into a serious dialogue about how to save the self-destructing Advent Movement.
Today, the Adventist Community is not looking for any more double-talk, propaganda, or censorship from their 21st century leaders. They want to know why the White Estate has been so dishonest and so wrong all these years? And why Dr. Ford had to be exiled at Glacier View? They want to know why the Advent Movement is so fractured, confused, and self-destructing, even as it has wasted billions of dollars in the process? These questions cannot be censored. Rather, they must be answered, and the problems addressed and resolved.
The SDA leaders are not above Moral or Civil law. They do not have the right to suppress the writings of the Pioneers or hide their true teachings. They do not have any right to deceive the Adventist Community, much less to mismanage and destroy the SDA church by promoting a massive fraud in the White Estate. The leadership must be held accountable for what they have done and for what they continue to do.
The Hierarchy is out of control. They have no right to stop the Adventist Community from using their minds to think and speak for themselves. How dare the Adventist leaders hide the writings of the Pioneers so they can misrepresent them, and then try to cover up what they have done by taking away the right to free speech within the Adventist Community? This is madness!
How dare the SDA leaders think they can run a Protestant church based on religious propaganda and historical fraud? This is what cults, charlatans, and Papists do, not those that claim to follow the Protestant Gospel and have embraced a mission to prepare the church for the Second Coming.
As of Dec 31, 2008, the Atomorrow site had over 70,000 posts. Many were about the difficult and prohibited issues of church history and doctrine.
There was also much debate about the IJ and Ellen White, as well as the need for the White Estate to be held accountable for their dishonest suppression of Ellen White and their misrepresentation of the Three Angels Messages. Some of these discussions were paradigm shifting in nature, even as they marked out a clear path of reforms that will save the Advent Movement.
Here is the only Forum in the Adventist Community that is dedicated to Freedom of Speech and Adventist Reform. There is no other site like it in the world.
Atomorrow Moves Forward
After seven years of battle, the outspoken JR Layman, wanted a rest. He had been refereeing innumerable debates between all sides of the issues for years. In fact, he pioneered the first open Forum in the history of the Adventist Community, and thus the church owes him a debt of gratitude. He is a modern day Pioneer who articulated a brilliant policy that allowed for meaningful discussion to continue without censorship.
JR enabled the Adventist Community the opportunity to think for themselves and say whatever they wanted to say, so long as the discussion was meant to find truth within Adventism. Thus JR would not support those that wanted to repudiate the Sabbath or the Advent Movement. Reforming Adventism was very different from destroying it, as if it had no truth or theological value. He was one of the first to understand this difference.
Note numbers 7 & 8 of JR's Forum Guidelines:
1. Please try to stay on the topic of the thread to which you post
(Otherwise it may be plucked, pruned or pasted to a more appropriate subject area.)
2. Treat others in the discussion, as you would like to be treated.
3. Treat others in the discussion, as they would like to be treated.
4. In the absence of observing guidelines 2 & 3, be prepared to receive likewise. We allow your personality to shine through, unlike other forums, which are "safe" ("PC").
5. Profanity, lewd language, or gender aggression/harassment, spamming …. WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
6. Please do not repost extensive material. Limit "quotes" to 20 lines. Post links to it in its original location instead.
7. We recognize that there are problems in every church, including the Adventist church. Dispassionate presentations of these problems, provided that they are also documented, are acceptable. However, we discourage ranting, ravings, and "hate mail" against any church. We reserve the right to remove such posts, and permanently remove posting privileges for those who engage in this activity.
8. This discussion forum is NOT. repeat….”NOT” a hate forum toward the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination, nor is it a forum for the promotion of any other religious faith/philosophy/belief system. If that is your goal in visiting here….go somewhere else, or start your own website! Once it is apparent that controversy AGAINST the Seventh-day Denomination is your goal, vs. thoughtful discussion on possible problems within the denomination. Your post will probably be deleted!
9. For our Canadian brothers, include an "eh," every so often.
Posted on Tuesday, February 5, 2002 - 3:41 am: Forum guidelines:
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1038654776
Atomorrow reflected the fractured nature of the church, and thus the site became home to many that held opposing views. But it was this interaction and debate between the various factions that made the site interesting. The dramatic clashes between those that defended the status quo of Traditional Adventism versus those that repudiated the IJ kept the site lively and entertaining as well as informative. And so too did the addition of the non-believers and critics. They too could, and did, speak their minds. No one that had any thoughts or questions was turned away; it was a place where most every idea could have a chance.
www.theirsecrets.info/formeradventistjesuits.htm
Atomorrow was so against censorship, that they even allowed those that had become agnostic or atheist to post their views. Thus there was research, study, and debate taking place on most every topic possible. The site soon became a resource of information, especially if one knew how to use the search feature.
JR enjoyed the give and take of debate; this is what made the site interesting. He even tried to facilitate an online debate between Clifford Goldstein and Tom Norris. But Goldstein would never agree. He came to understand what most everyone soon discovered; that the IJ is not a doctrinal pillar from the 1st Angels Message as all SDA have been incorrectly taught. His only option was to repent, but the leaders had yet to admit they had made any errors.
So he would run from the questions that he could not answer, embarrassing himself and proving to all that Traditional, IJ based, Adventism cannot be defended. This simple historical truth about the definition of the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message overturns everything that SDA's have been taught for generations. Proving to all that Glacier View was a serious mistake that must be corrected.
It also explains why the leaders want to censor the discussion and control the agenda. They have been caught teaching great historical error as well as false doctrine. Traditional Adventism does not have any support from Ellen White, as the leaders have claimed all these years. Which means that Glacier View was based on false testimony from the White Estate; Traditional Adventism from Takoma Park was a historical fabrication that had no support from Ellen White. And this fact changes everything.
Today, the Advent Movement is mired in myth and corruption. They have very little correct, least of all the Three Angels Messages. This is why there must be reform and re-organization. This is the point that Atomorrow has made for all to see. The leaders cannot be trusted to tell the truth, much less enter into the necessary dialog about the issues. Pitiful.
On Dec 20, 2008, JR Layman announced that the site would be shut down at the end of the year. However, he offered to help others move these threads to another venue in order to keep the discussions about Adventist Reform moving forward.
The response was immediate as Ryan Van Dolson stepped forward to replace JR as site Administrator. He has set about to improve both the look and the content. The new site will be called Atomorrow.net.
Stay tuned for further developments.
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
(Message edited by tom norris on January 12, 2009)
(Message edited by tom norris on January 12, 2009)
Offline
Tom, a very good history. Although, your pet topics seem to be the ones discussed in the narrative. New Covenant Theology is noticeable abscent. It is a template that would solve a lot of SDAisms and orthodox Christianity's problems with Sabbath/Sunday issues and fulfillment of the Old Covenant (obsolete) and the New Covenant. It answers the role of the Jews and the relationship of the Old and New Covenant as far as the Gospel Message. <BR> <BR>The history wove in and out of narrative to edictorial comment at times, Tom Norris's, specifically. Sometime helpful, sometimes biasing the direction of the history. <BR> <BR>Given those exceptions, the history was excellent. BTW, how is the archive transfer coming along, Ryan?? <BR> <BR>P.S. The Mission Statement attempted earlier, should remain non-controversial but factual. It should give a sense of a universal church, not universalism but The Church that is bigger than SDAism, IMO.
Offline
best post ever, Tom.....I even read the whole thing!!!
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
As a charter member on the old Compuserve forum, I was "expelled" more than once. An honor that many others also were awarded. <BR> <BR>The internet has changed the Adventist church. No longer can they administer from "on high" without question. This forum is proof that it meets a great demand from SDAs and former SDAs who have experienced censorship and rejection for simply asking questions.
Offline
Bob Sands said: Tom, a very good history. Although, your pet topics seem to be the ones discussed in the narrative.
Adventist Reform encompasses every doctrine of the SDA church. Some may seem like they are special, like the IJ for example, because we spend so much time on it. After all, it is the #1 topic in the comprehensive list of 12 Reforms.
But it is only there because so many SDA's are confused and wrong about this critical point. So it must be addressed first. Unless this myth is officially and zealously repudiated, the SDA church is doomed. There will be no Gospel Reform for them because they refuse to embrace the original theology of the Three Angels Messages. Which includes the Gospel and the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message.
So I wish we could all move on to new areas, like the Reformed Sabbath and 21st century eschatology. But only when the past is correctly understood, can the present and future become clearer.
Bob said: New Covenant Theology is noticeably absent.
New Covenant theology is the Gospel. Which is the first Pillar in the 1st Angels Message. So everything must conform to Gospel teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Even the Sabbath.
The reason the IJ must be targeted for repudiation, is because it is against the Gospel, as well against as the Judgment of the Second Coming and the fundamentals of the Advent Movement.
Adventist Reform is very much pro Reformation and pro New Covenant. But a lot of this Covenant analysis is not useful. Jesus did not command the church to go out and teach New Covenant Theology.
The preaching of the Gospel is New Covenant doctrine.
Jer. 31:31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
Heb. 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Heb. 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
The NC is the Gospel. The very foundation of the Christian Faith.
Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Bob Said: It is a template that would solve a lot of SDAisms and orthodox Christianity's problems with Sabbath/Sunday issues and fulfillment of the Old Covenant "obsolete" and the New Covenant. It answers the role of the Jews and the relationship of the Old and New Covenant as far as the Gospel Message.
The Template for the Advent Movement is the Three Angels Messages. The Gospel, being the first pillar in the 1st Angels Message. Everything rests on the Gospel in the Adventist Apocalyptic. Too bad that they have them both wrong. <
Bob said: The history wove in and out of narrative to editorial comment at times, Tom Norris's, specifically. Sometime helpful, sometimes biasing the direction of the history.
There was so much to cover that it was impossible to write such a short history and not leave out many things.
For example, the discussions about the IJ and Glacier View made such an impact on Atoday, that the leaders had to respond. And they did. Listen to President Paulsen dig in his hierarchical heels and declare that Glacier View is not negotiable. Listen to him respond to the discussion without having the courage to enter into debate to defend his position:
"Some would have us believe that there have been significant shifts in recent times in regard to doctrines that historically have been at the heart of Seventh-day Adventism."
"Take specifically our understanding of judgment and Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the prophetic messages in which these teachings are contained. Some are suggesting that since the 1980 (Glacier View) meetings, the very teachings that the church affirmed that year at those meetings have been abandoned, and that the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then."
"Such a claim is a distortion of reality, and nothing could be further from the truth. The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this."
(President Paulsen's 2002 address about "Theological Unity in a Growing World Church.)
Such anti Protestant bravado and theological dishonesty would make Caiphas and all the Popes smile with delight. But regardless, President Paulsen DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the Three Angels messages, nor does he understand the Protestant faith. He is the one guilty of "distorting reality" and he is the one who is moving far, far away from the truth and dragging the Adventist church with him into perdition.
Tom Norris; Posted on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 8:53 pm:
-------------------------------------
So I should have included this reaction by President Paulsen to our discussions about Adventist Reform. It would be wrong to leave the impression that only William Johnsson wanted to stop our discussions. No. There are many wolves in charge of the Adventist Empire, and the ones at the top are the worst. None of the leaders can be trusted to tell the truth or enter into an honest discussion about the issues. Pitiful.
What a pity that the church leaders decided to shut down the Atoday Forum instead of just coming online to make their case? One would think that with all the Denominations resources, they could find someone to defend Traditional Adventism and show that Glacier View was proper and necessary.
With all their billions of dollars and Colleges, Seminaries, and apologists, etc, it is telling that they can't find anyone to make their case. Which only proves that Traditional Adventism cannot be defended. It is not credible or honest, much less Protestant or Adventist.
Not being able to prove their case, the SDA leaders were reduced plotting how to shut down the discussion that proves them wrong. What wolves the SDA's leaders are. Let all take a good look at the kind of men that are in charge. They are evil, cowardly, and incompetent. They do not deserve the support of the Adventist Community.
But guess what, anyone is free to write up their own history. This is what is so great about this place. It's open, honest, and free.
Bob said: P.S. The Mission Statement attempted earlier, should remain non-controversial but factual. It should give a sense of a universal church, not universalism but The Church that is bigger than SDAism, IMO.
Since when is Protestant Reform ever "non-controversial"? There is no such thing. Gospel Reform is always controversial. History is clear on this point. When this is all over, there is going to be some winners and some losers.
Moreover, the topic of Adventist Reform is focused on the Adventist Community. They must address their own issues and clean up there own house. The must get their own theology in order before they dare instruct anyone else about anything.
Matt. 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Matt. 7:4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?
Matt. 7:5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
John Alfke said: best post ever, Tom.....I even read the whole thing!!!
There were so many good discussions and so many interesting people on the Atomorrow site, that much more could have been written and should have been written.
I hope JR leaves that old site up, so that people can go back and search the database as needed. There is so much material on that site that is should be preserved.
Elaine Nelson said: As a charter member on the old CompuServe forum, I was "expelled" more than once. An honor that many others also were awarded.
Me too! I remember Ralph Bloodgett became so alarmed with what I was saying, that he made copies of all my posts, 62 in all, and gave them to Ray Dabrowski for a ruling on their orthodoxy. Of course, it was determined that the church does not teach what I was saying, (Duh) and therefore I was banished from the Forum. <BR> <BR>
Elaine said: The Internet has changed the Adventist church. No longer can they administer from "on high" without question.
No longer can they hide behind double-talk and propaganda. Those that have the facts are sharing them with the Adventist Community and it is only a matter of time before the leadership is correctly seen as hopelessly dishonest and totally incompetent. Their days are numbered.
The Internet has changed the world, and it will change the Advent Movement as well. This site, and those pioneering sites that went before it, are proof that the Gospel Story cannot be controlled by religious elites. And neither can the Advent Movement.
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Last edited by tom_norris (03-29-10 11:39 pm)
Offline
Elaine and Maggie recently have been talking about abuse. Some of the language used in your discourse Tom, I would consider abusive per the definition: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Abuse: <BR> <BR>language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>You may feel the language is not unjust, but it certainly is intemperate and angry. We should be able to state our case without the "hatred", no matter how badly the tSDAs have treated any of us. How about my signature quote: <BR> <BR>"We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Obama to the world. <BR> <BR>Who has the clenched fist, the heirarchy of the SDA church or the Reformers??? <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Bob_2 on January 26, 2009)
Offline
This is what is wrong with Dale Ratzlaff and Colleen Tinker and Proclamation. They are out to destroy, rather than build up the church of God, IMO.
Offline
Tom Norris, <BR>I read with interest your first long historical post. I don't fully agree with everything, but I do agree that you had a lot to say. I appreciate also the temperate approach you showed in your article. <BR> <BR>A Tomorrow has been a learning experience for me. I have learned to be more careful in how I say things -- though some will disagree with that! I have learned what the real questions are in the church and in the Christian world. <BR> <BR>There are some things I would like to see different: Some of the posts are irresponsible, and put up only to bait others. Some of the opposition to the church and to certain of the leaders is not fair. Frequently discussions simply go in circles. <BR> <BR>I agree that censorship is not the answer. Maybe these "problems" have to be allowed to support free speech. <BR> <BR>After reading your history, I began to see that my attempt to offer a "moderated forum" to attract the scholars and thinkers in the church was doomed at birth! With the history that you present, these people would not touch a forum of any kind with a ten foot pole. Ah, so it is. <i>I might add, though, that disappointing as my forum has been, my stats show that 45 people access the forum every day!</i> <BR> <BR>So, where do we go? A lot of people look at forums. I still think that it is a good place to place before the public the teachings of the Bible. Of Course, they will see disagreement and maybe even falsehood. But even EGW has said that apathy and complacence is a sin worse that turmoil and dissension! <BR> <BR>So, Tom, even though we disagree on some things, I found your historical presentation very interesting. <BR>---------------------- <BR>Hubert F. Sturges <BR><font color="ffffff">.</font>
Offline
This is just for your information: Don Sands will be working with me on Covenant Forum. He has a lot of good ideas, which are already apparent. Take a look if you wish. <a href="http://www.covenantforum.com" target=_top>www.covenantforum.com</a> I have taken over the task of putting up the website for our local church and managing it. This will take up a lot of my time, and Don's help is much appreciated. <BR>---------------------- <BR>Hubert F. Sturges <BR><font color="ffffff">.</font> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by lijhakim on February 01, 2009)
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">Don Sands will be working with me on Covenant Forum.</font></b> <BR> <BR>Covenant Forum and Atomorrow both make use of the Discus program. In my opinion, this program is the best format available. <BR> <BR>I view the roles of Covenant Forum and the Atomorrow forum differently. Atomorrow provides ongoing fellowship for people who have Adventist backgrounds. The dialogue available at atomorrow challenges one's thinking in a rare and beneficial manner. When one works within the church the level of disagreement is quite low. The level of disagreement available here at atomorrow is moderate to high. Atomorrow seems much like a debating club to me. <BR> <BR>On the other hand, the Covenant Forum seeks to be devotional and theological. It intends to be supportive of the Adventist message and heritage. Courteous free speech is encouraged, even dissent. But the ones managing the forum have declared themselves as Seventh-day Adventist Christians seeking to promote Christianity through Adventist eyes. <BR> <BR>Some of you may recall J.R.'s suggestion that I administer atomorrow and my response that I didn't feel I have the "street smarts" to do so. I still feel that way. Covenant Forum is not a very busy forum re: posters. This allows me to learn slowly and methodically. I am grateful to Dr. Sturges for this opportunity to learn forum management. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
Welcome to the new forum, Don. <BR> <BR>I have read a little on Hubbs site but because, IMO, it only repeated the official SDA church's position, there was little room for dialogue, only an amen corner. I could be very wrong (I have been once before <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR><font color="0000ff">It intends to be supportive of the Adventist message and heritage.</font> <BR> <BR>This refutes the prevalent opinion among Advetists that there is not ONE single message, but there are several: any privately run SDA site affirms that position. <BR> <BR>Even the official organ: The Review, has recently been regressing in some of its answers: Angel Rodriquez' answers on jewelry and Sabbath observance are a return to the very rigid 1930s and will effectively shut the door in the face of thinking members, especially the church's younger ones. <BR> <BR>This should be remembered: the average age of SDAs in the NAD is 61 ! Far older than the average citizen. What does that say about the future of the SDA church when it is losing the majority of its youth who are far more liberal and allowing for pluralistic views than the older members. Are the younger members paying much attention to theological nuances? Truthfully, they are seeing how tolerant and compassionate the church is to those who differe with it.
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">This refutes the prevalent opinion among Advetists that there is not ONE single message, but there are several: any privately run SDA site affirms that position.</font></b> <BR> <BR>How have you determined what the prevalent opinion is? There are gathering points around which most Adventists share common views. Salvation in Jesus Christ, The continued validity of the Ten Commandments in the Christian's life, The Sabbath, the Second Coming of Christ, the non-immortality of the soul, the importance of healthful living and a positive regard for medical science, the idea of a great controversy between Christ and Satan, baptism by immersion, the importance of the family, a positive regard for Ellen White's ministry, the importance of a world mission program, perhaps others. I suggest that Adventists enjoy quite a common bond still. There are differences among us. There exist a major division of thought when it comes to what some call Last Generation Theology. I see far more points which unite us than what divides. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">What does that say about the future of the SDA church when it is losing the majority of its youth who are far more liberal and allowing for pluralistic views than the older members.</font></b> <BR> <BR>Most Adventists still have a sense of destiny. They believe that God has led them in their past history; that God has his hand on the helm. The church appears feeble and defective, yet it is the object of God's regard. Rumours of the church's demise are greatly exaggerated. The church must pay attention to the issues you raise. But, it must move forward in faith and confidence in God. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
Don, as a an educator of youth, surely you are aware of the attrition rate of SDA young people. <BR> <BR>What are the church's plans on reversing that trend? At the rate it has been regressing, and the average age of SDAs, surely that should be uppermost in an educator's mind, rather than repeating old mantras. <BR> <BR>To say that Adventists strong belief in <font color="0000ff">The continued validity of the Ten Commandments in the Christian's life, The Sabbath, the Second Coming of Christ, the non-immortality of the soul, the importance of healthful living and a positive regard for medical science, the idea of a great controversy between Christ and Satan, baptism by immersion, the importance of the family, a positive regard for Ellen White's ministry, the importance of a world mission program, perhaps others. The continued validity of the Ten Commandments in the Christian's life, The Sabbath, the Second Coming of Christ, the non-immortality of the soul, the importance of healthful living and a positive regard for medical science, the idea of a great controversy between Christ and Satan, baptism by immersion, the importance of the family, a positive regard for Ellen White's ministry, the importance of a world mission program, perhaps others. </font> <BR> <BR>Even reading on this forum there is a not at all a belief in EGW's ministry, the controversy (as described by SDAs), nor even the contiued validity of the Sabbath commandment. Perhaps one's viewpoint depends on what he is reading and listening to. Shouldn't all points be considered if one is to approach problems?
Offline
Elaine, <BR>I am going to offer another view point. Your statement:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>"What are the church's plans on reversing that trend? At the rate it has been regressing, and the average age of SDAs, surely that should be uppermost in an educator's mind, rather than repeating old mantras."<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Doctrines and lifestyle are important, but I do not think that efforts in this direction are going to save the youth, or even save the church. <BR> <BR>During the Millerite movement, there was a large body of people who had experienced a palpable relationship with Christ. This, and this alone motivated people to eventually develop the Seventh-day Adventist church. This relationship with Jesus Christ withstood poverty dissention and even mistakes in doctrine. It attracted young people and led them to make incredible sacrifices. <BR> <BR>I think we will see this again. People who are leaving the church are leaving because of disappointment with human error, alleged doctrinal error, envy of worldly values, and lifestyle issues. This is all trivia. We will never heal the church by working on those issues. <BR> <BR>Only the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and a deep relationship with Jesus Christ will attract the youth and energize the elderly to make this church "clear as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners." <BR> <BR>When that happens, many will leave the church, and many from outside will quickly join because they want that experience too. <BR>---------------------- <BR>Hubert F. Sturges <BR><font color="ffffff">.</font>
Offline
<font color="0000ff">People who are leaving the church are leaving because of disappointment with human error, alleged doctrinal error, envy of worldly values, and lifestyle issues. This is all trivia</font> <BR> <BR>sorry, Hubb...we all love ya... <BR> <BR>but... <BR> <BR>lets see.... young gals want to leave the church so they can wear lipstick? and the guys want to leave so they can watch college football on saturdays? and our kids are leaving so they can start smoking at a very early age... <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/368.gif" alt=""> <BR> <BR>aren't most people actually leaving because they no longer have confidence in many of the underlying beliefs wrapped in the 28 fundies?...and they question the organization which claims the 28 and the hired-arky are Gods final word on things, so send in your money. <BR> <BR>there ARE some real issues: <BR> <BR>the earth is far older than 6ky <BR>how long do you propose it took to lay down all those sedimentary layers up in glacier national park? originally under an ocean, including limestone, the result of the compression of mega-gazillions of tiny, marine animals massacred to make limestone... <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/369.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR> <BR>There is no dome over the earth separating the waters above from the waters below <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/370.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR>creation probably did not occur in 144 literal hours <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/371.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR>there is no good, scientific evidence of a worldwide flood, which buried all the dinos below the iridium layer <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/372.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR>the number "7" probably came from the 5 planets visible by the nekkid eye plus the sun and moon...as in the days of the week...not the days of Hebrew creation stories which so resemble those of Babylon where they were held captive and able to read the cuneiform libraries and "borrow" the stories. <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/373.png" alt=""> <BR>lundi = moon day <BR>mardi = mars day <BR>mecredi = mercury's day <BR>jeudi = jupiters day <BR>vendredi = venus day <BR>samdi = saturday = saturn's day <BR>and the 7th day of the week? <BR>dimanche = domingo = the Lords day = SUNday <BR> <BR> <BR>how do you keep sabbath on a round earth..after all, some guys in Greenwich , England, picked their observatory as ground zero, so the international date line is 180 degrees around the world...making it a human choice as to which day of the week one worships. <BR> <BR>why do you even keep sabbath which was given to the jews (according to Deut) to remind them of their exodus from Egypt and their million man 40 year walkabout lost in the sinai carefully covering up all evidence of such <BR> <BR>people no longer believe snakes and donkeys can hold a conversation in Hebrew. and no matter how alluring , why do we keep blaming and supressing the daughters of Eve <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/374.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR>people no longer believe the sun goes around the earth and it can be stopped just so the Hebrews could kill more of their neighbors <BR> <BR>people have seen pics from national geographic from Mt Everest, and now everybody knows that you cannot see "all the kingdoms of the earth" even from up there!!! <BR> <BR>people no longer believe that gods command in numb 31 applies, to kill our neighbors, take their land, massacre all the little boys and men, but save the virgins to use. <BR> <BR>none of this is trivia....couldn't any one of the above issues could be a dealbreaker? <BR> <BR><font color="0000ff">The church needs a revival of true godliness</font> <BR> <BR>depends on how that is defined: <BR> <BR>does that mean that when you're sorry you made kids,because of the way they act, you can just drown them? <BR> <BR>will you help me schlep my back-talking son over to the city gates and there stone him to death? <BR> <BR>does that mean that when your friends are kidnapped, you should kill the firstborn kids of the kidnappers, and not the kidnappers themselves? <BR> <BR>does that mean that for the fun of it, you can gamble with your friends lives, and stand by chuckling while the devil kills your friends kids and servants? just to prove he'll standby you? <BR> <BR>maybe much of the problem is that we once took it all literally... instead of trying to find the valuable message FOR OUR TIME, and concentrating on the principle message of Christianity... <BR> <BR>love. forgiveness. service. joy. peace. <BR> <BR>instead of the 2nd killing. after folks are finally and definitively shown what they should have been doing or believed despite the evidence all along.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
How 'bout de people who been lied to an' abused??? <BR> <BR>They spozed to stay and let their kids be lied to an' scared and scarred for life? <BR> <BR>How 'bout not scaring da kids outta der wits and der emotional development bein' a start on "TRUE GODLINESS?" <BR> <BR><font size="+1">DON'T DA <font color="ff0000">TRUE GOD</font> <i>CARE</i> WHEN LIL CHILDRENS GETS SO SCARED O' HIM DAT DEY CANT SLEEP OR THINK STRAIGHT???</font> <BR> <BR><font size="-2">Whada I know...I is jus' ignernt....</font>
Offline
John, <BR>You make a good case. You have room to doubt. <BR>On the other hand, I choose to believe. I believe that God laughs at our doubts. In His power and through His will He has answers to all our questions. <BR>------------------------------ <BR>Don, <BR>How will we inspire the new generation? How will we finish the work of God and prepare for His coming? Change the "we" to God and you have the answer. I don't think it will come from programs thought up by someone behind a desk. <BR> <BR>Some where, some how, some day a person, truly converted and lead by the Holy Spirit, is going to go out and tell people about Jesus Christ. He will preach and live the Gospel "more fully." His church will start to grow. <BR> <BR>The brethren will be alerted! Something is happening! They will urgently invite this person to come into the Conference office and take charge of Personal Ministries. But this person will refused to be "buried." They will ask him to come to Camp Meeting, bring some of his converts and show what he has done. But He refuses to be side tracked. They will ask him to write a book, but he hasn't time. Besides he doesn't know English that well! <BR> <BR>He will have just one answer to all these inquiries: I need help with the work here. Send someone to help me. He/she will learn what God is doing here, and will be able to come to your church and start the same thing. <BR>---------------------- <BR>Hubert F. Sturges <BR><font color="ffffff">.</font>
Offline
<font color="0000ff">I believe that God laughs at our doubts.</font> <BR> <BR>is that why His book of words differs so from His Book of Nature? so He can have a good laugh? <BR> <BR>isn't it difficult to understand why even sincere but thinking people would want to continue to worship a God who laughs at the lack of evidence for belief? <BR> <BR>If what you claim is true, it makes me sad that <BR>what I used to believe was a "loving God", and my "heavenly father", would so uncaringly "laugh" at our efforts to understand. <BR> <BR>and then when we get it wrong, according to the fundy beliefs, He is going to raise us from the dead, show us where we went wrong, then just as we exclaim: <BR> <BR><font color="ff0000"><font size="+2">OH!!! NOW I GET IT</font>...why didn't you show that to me before???</font>} <BR> <BR>that's when He lovingly gets out the lake'o'fire <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/382.gif" alt=""> to burn us alive as reward for our doubts based on our inability to decipher thewhole truth from all the too often disagreeing evidence. <BR> <BR>and He's gonna laugh as we burn? <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/18/383.gif" alt=""> <BR> <BR>maybe you meant something different. <BR> <BR>I hope. <BR> <BR><font color="0000ff">He has answers to all our questions</font> <BR> <BR>...when will He tell us...before our first death? <BR>or just as He kills us the 2nd time? <BR> <BR>(Message edited by john8verse32 on February 02, 2009)
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
<font color="0000ff"><b>I believe that God laughs at our doubts. In His power and through His will He has answers to all our questions.</b></font> <BR> <BR>Hubb, you have given me your very personal hopes. Is this sufficient for a young person? How? Why? It might appeal to the same people who would choose a convent or monastery. <BR> <BR>Sorry, I can't imagine loving a parent who would laugh at a child's doubt; nor would a loving God react that way. He would lovingly demonstrate, as he did when Jesus was here and not in the harsh ways described in the OT. <BR> <BR>Hubb, you have given nothing that humans can do to tell the world that has not been done for hundreds of years. Have you noticed that it is not working, at least with the educated of this earth--only in 3rd world countries where they are not taught to read and understand the Bible but merely to follow what they have been told; whether from a Muslim, Roman Catholic Priest, or other religious leader. <BR> <BR>To continue in the same old same old and expect different results is a definition of insanity. What do you offer that is different or new since it is obvious that the graying of the church is faster than the entrance of the fair-haired young? <BR> <BR>If it's God they are seeking, he is found in many other churches and religions and Adventism is not presenting him very well. They are proclaiming the Last Plagues (another form of Hell), the fear of the Mark of the Beast, the terrible prophecies of D&R. How is that giving hope and comfort to anyone in today's trying times? Do they need to be more afraid than they already are with the loss of jobs, health insurance, college graduates haunting employment offices, unemployment compensation rolls increasing daily? Fear can only be sufficient in the very short term. Like the boy crying "wolf" it soon becomes like the clock striking the hours--ignored.
Offline
John and Elaine, <BR> <BR>Here are some of the verses:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p> . . . "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, <BR> . . . "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. <BR> . . . "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision" (Psalm 2:2-4 (KJV)) <BR> . . . "The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. <BR> . . . "The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming" (Psalm 37:12-13 (KJV)). <BR> . . . "But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision" (Psalm 59:8 (KJV))> <BR> . . . "But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: <BR> . . . "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh" (Proverbs 1:25-26 (KJV)).<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> I didn't write it. There it is in the Bible. But what does this mean? For those who choose to doubt, who persist in unbelief God will laugh at their foolishness. For those who choose to believe that He is a vengeful destroying God, He will be a consuming fire. <BR> <BR>For those who choose to have faith, who choose to believe what He says about Himself He is a God of unfathomable love, Who desires and provides only good for His people. <BR> <BR>In these two statements, the critical word is "choose." God has given us freedom of choice. He will not override our freedom of choice in any way, even to prove his existence and love beyond a doubt! Thus a person can find in the Bible room to doubt, or evidence to believe. His choice will color his entire world-view. <BR>-------------------------- <BR>Hubert F. Sturges <BR><font color="ffffff">.</font>
Offline
<font color="0000ff">. . . "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh" (Proverbs 1:25-26 (KJV)).</font> <BR> <BR>lets look that up in context, and in modern English: <BR> <BR>(CEV) Proverbs 1:1 <BR><font color="ff6000">These are the proverbs of King Solomon of Israel, the son of David. 2 Proverbs will teach you wisdom and self-control and how to understand sayings with deep meanings. 3 You will learn what is right and honest and fair. 4 From these, an ordinary person can learn to be smart, and young people can gain knowledge and good sense. 5 If you are already wise, you will become even wiser. And if you are smart, you will learn to understand 6 proverbs and sayings, as well as words of wisdom and all kinds of riddles. 7 Respect and obey the Lord! This is the beginning of knowledge. Only a fool rejects wisdom and good advice. <BR> <BR>8 <b><font size="+2"><i>My child, obey the teachings of your parents,</i></font></b> <BR> <BR>9 and wear their teachings as you would a lovely hat or a pretty necklace. <BR> <BR> 10 Don't be tempted by sinners or listen 11 when they say,... <BR>... "Come on! Let's gang up and kill somebody, just for the fun of it! 12 They're well and healthy now, but we'll finish them off once and for all. <BR> <BR>...13 We'll take their valuables and fill our homes with stolen goods. <BR> <BR>14 <b>If you join our gang, you'll get your share." <BR> <BR>15 Don't follow anyone like that or do what they do. <BR> <BR>16 They are in a big hurry to commit some crime, perhaps even murder. 17 They are like a bird that sees the bait, but ignores the trap. 18 They gang up to murder someone, but they are the victims. 19 The wealth you get from crime robs you of your life. 20 Wisdom shouts in the streets wherever crowds gather. 21 She shouts in the marketplaces and near the city gates as she says to the people, <BR> <BR>22 "How much longer will you enjoy being stupid fools? Won't you ever stop sneering and laughing at knowledge? <BR> <BR>23 Listen as I correct you and tell you what I think. <BR> <BR>24 You completely ignored me and refused to listen; <BR> <BR>25 you rejected my advice and paid no attention when I warned you. <BR> <BR>26 "So when you are struck by some terrible disaster, 27 or when trouble and distress surround you like a whirlwind, .. <BR> <BR>...<font size="+2">I will laugh and make fun.</font> <BR> <BR>28 <font size="+2">You will ask for my help, but I won't listen;</font> <BR> <BR><font size="+2"> you will search, but you won't find me. </font> <BR> <BR> 29 No, you would not learn, and you refused to respect the Lord. 30 You rejected my advice and paid no attention when I warned you. <BR> <BR>31 "Now you will eat the fruit of what you have done, until you are stuffed full with your own schemes. 32 Sin and self-satisfaction bring destruction and death to stupid fools. 33 But if you listen to me, you will be safe and secure without fear of disaster." </b></font> <BR> <BR> <BR>sounds like good advice from a wise older eneration to its youth...perhaps chanted around the campfire... <BR> <BR>but it doesn't sound like thekind,forgiving, loving God I was told lived in the NewTest who would forgive you if you didn't understand, and help you to understand.. <BR> <BR>instead of this hateful ogre portrayed by the Hebrews to their kids: <BR> <BR>8 <font size="+2"><font color="ff6000">You will ask for my help, but I won't listen;</font></font> <BR> <BR>would you (or any of us here) say that to your own kids? <BR> <BR>(Message edited by john8verse32 on February 03, 2009)
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
The Bible can, and has been used to prove almost anything, and in so many instances it contradicts other texts. So it becomes a game of whose text bests another's. <BR> <BR>Hubb, surely you could never refuse to listen to your child, and if calamity struck, even as a parent you could have predicted it, you still pick them up and carry them through it, don't you? <BR> <BR>As a parent, I have always been there for my kids and continue to do so, as I'm sure that you do, also. <BR> <BR>So many have compared God as a loving Father, but unless he is not even as good as we human parents, how can we possibly worship him? Surely, you could not laugh at their misfortune, nor refuse to listen, could you?
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">Surely, you could not laugh at their misfortune, nor refuse to listen, could you?</font></b> <BR> <BR>Isn't the person speaking in Proverbs 1, Wisdom? How can Wisdom laugh at us? Isn't this a figure of speech. The Bible writers speak of God, and Wisdom, as though they were vengeful humans. The end result may appear the result of a vengeful human, but I conclude that God is described in figurative language. That being the case, it becomes necessary to interpret the meaning from the literal rendering of the text. <BR> <BR><b><font color="0000ff">I can't imagine loving a parent who would laugh at a child's doubt</font></b> <BR> <BR>I am not sure if Hubb is viewing things this way, but maybe it would be more accurate to describe God chuckling at a child's doubt. I don't see God laughing in derision. Rather, He laughs because He has the answer and to doubt in the face of His love and power is amusing. I see Him laughing with the child, not at him or her. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
explained away like a trubeliever, Don.... <BR> <BR>so how do you explain.... <BR> <BR><font color="ff6000">You will ask for my help, but I won't listen;</font>
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline