Holy cow, that's amazing!!
What's holy about a cow?
@Gerry, “This great ark will arouse you to the eco-magnetic metaphysical environmental meta-narrative, and cause you to adopt it's neo-pagan and pantheistic Darwinian worldview, in hopes of becoming one with your divine subconscious and connecting your inner energy with the ethereal symphonies of the collective cosmos." Did you actually write that man?... very well done!
@ Victor. I came up with this run-on sentence last May at 3ABN. The kids thought it was funny.
it's amazing how many things are unfolding all around us, almost on a daily basis, that confirm we're really nearing the end of time as we know it...
"The Adventist pioneers were not social reform activists, they were wholly absorbed with the proclamation of the Everlasting Gospel, and the message of the soon Coming Christ." If by "social reform activists" you mean "political activists," then you are correct; the Adventist pioneers were not political activists. But they certainly were active in reforming society, through the temperance movement, dress reform, health reform, and most importantly through the proclamation of the gospel. Any gospel that does not reform individuals, and by extension the society which they make up, is a false gospel. Jesus came to save us from our sins, not in our sins. He came to offer us a more abundant life. He came to bring transformation to our lives that begins now and lasts for all eternity. False ideas of social reform do not negate the true social reform that every Christian should promote.
"If by “social reform activists” you mean “political activists,” then you are correct; the Adventist pioneers were not political activists." Except for Ellen White who tirelessly lobbied for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting alcohol. And perhaps a slew of others who were actively participants in the Underground Railroad. When it came to things made in the image of God they had no qualms about political activism. I don't think their version of "social reform activism" included a new global ethic which commanded "thou shalt love the earth with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thine animals."
Fair enough, Doug. It's just that "political activism" smacks of partisanship, which Ellen White definitely did not embrace; in fact, she spoke against party spirit. But if we are going to acknowledge that the Adventist pioneers were politically active, we certainly have to acknowledge that they were social reformers. Their motivation to get involved in politics was not to play political games, but rather to reform society. Would you not agree?
I agree with the author of the article in that the SDA pioneers cannot correctly be labeled as social reform activists. Neither do I think it is correct to think of them as political activists as if this were a defining characteristic of who they were. They were Gospel proclaimers and moral reformers. Moral reform can and should be prosecuted through many different avenues, including the political process. Pursuing goals in this avenue may be rightly called political activism. But what EGW and the pioneers were involved in and advocating would hardly even be called political activism by today's standards. They advocated personal accountability, speaking out against and writing against various evils, and, in the case of prohibition, voting against moral evils. This is not what we generally think of as political activism. But it is having an opinion and taking action, including political action, on it. I doubt EGW or any of the pioneers would be happy being thought of as political activists as if this were a defining feature of who they were. And I don't think that their i
Well said, Ken,and Matthew.
It is true that the Adventist beliefs and doctrines have the power to change lives. It changed mine. It is not true that our pioneers were political activists of the occupy Wall Street type, in spite of efforts by the aforementioned political-left leaning group to caricature them way. While I applaud their (APF) commitment to not bear arms in the military, I decry their wholesale support for CAGW, and other leftist environmentalist causes. I further decry their recommendation that Adventists join the Green Church Association and take the Oceana Pledge to stop using plastic. Quite simply, this is geopolitical leftism -- the bedfellow of socialism. If we go down this road, it will result in the dilution and subjugation of the original Adventist message -- a potentially fatal distraction.
Some great men such as Elijah and the Dutchman Erasmus used mocking to enhance their point but I don't think the Lord endorses it. In the two cases above, both men were intimidated in the aftermath and one of the reasons likely was they used a weapon from the devil's arsenal that boomeranged on their own moral resolve.
Mark, I suggest you do some more checking to see if the Lord endorses it. I can think of several texts off the top of my head that have God mocking or say that He will mock. Check it out. While I agree, it should be used with extreme caution, I think your conclusions are wrong here. God does endorse it, He actually does it Himself at times, so it cannot be seen to be a weapon that is inherently evil, or belongs to the devil, and there is no evidence to suggest that it had anything to do with Elijah's intimidation.
> @kennethneal > I can think of several texts off the top of my head that have God mocking or say that He will mock. Would you mind giving some examples. I'm not saying they don't exist. I can't recall them and it would be good to look at their context. The best test though in my view is the example of Christ. God, speaking to Job asks several questions because he is speaking as the infinite God. Christ on the other hand spoke as a man and restricted every word to the only those the Father gave him. And Christ is our example. Who of us has licence to use the same methods as God speaking to his finite creatures. The Angel Michael, Christ, did not mock even the devil. Instead he said, "The Lord rebuke thee". I'm listening though. Where in the message of Christ or the prophets is there mockery that God endorses. (Because some good men did it and it's recorded in scripture isn't of course a divine endorsement.)
Mark, I will be glad to share some texts, there are quite a few one could point to. But before I do that, I want to ask you a few questions about your line of reasoning here, as I am unclear on several things. You said, > @mshipowick > God, speaking to Job asks several questions because he is speaking as the infinite God...Who of us has licence to use the same methods as God speaking to his finite creatures. Does God ever speak in any other way? You seem to be suggesting here, that God can do certain things and be righteous in doing them, but if man does the same it is sin. Does God's divinity give Him license to do things contrary to His own character and law? Is He free to do things when interacting with man that He would not otherwise do? I find this hard to believe. What biblical and/or logical basis would you use for such an argument? > @mshipowick > Christ on the other hand spoke as a man and restricted every word to the only those the Father gave him. And Christ is our example. Who of us has licence to use the same methods as God speaking to his finite creatures . It seems you are trying to make a distinction here that I don't believe is helpful. Christ and the Father are One. Christ came to reveal the Father. To the extent we are like Jesus, we are like the Father. The goal of becoming like Jesus is not a special, separate, goal because it's good to be like Christ, but it's not good if we use God The Father as an example for ourselves. I think we are safe in imitating the behaviors of both the Father and the Son. > @mshipowick > (Because some good men did it and it's recorded in scripture isn't of course a divine endorsement.) I have several problems with your assumptions about Elijah's behavior. You are saying that when Elijah mocked the priests of Baal, he sinned. I am not going to argue that Elijah never sinned in his lifetime. But I will suggest that if you are going to claim that Elijah sinned while carrying out what is one of the most poignant demonstrations of a prophet's cooperation with God that we have recorded in God's Word, then it is an understatement, in my opinion, to say that the burden of proof is on you to sustain such a claim. I wonder if you would even voice such a claim if Elijah were standing before you today. Perhaps I am badly misunderstanding you. But before we go any further in this conversation, let's be clear on these things. I don't think it will be helpful at all to start considering texts with significantly problematic underlying assumptions.