Comment on Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference by wesley kime.
It is my understanding, admittedly not the product of such extended thinking and research and quote-quoting as that of so many others, that at “the end” our “church” would undergo a great shaking. But on .. Wo’s Ord? Silly me, I’d always thought the Sabbath would be an issue, the issue. God, or Satan (in this case, at this point really hard to tell; some sort of adversarial chess interaction, aka Great Controversy; not parties in cahoots ) moves in mysterious ways, and/or has a great sense of humor after all. Anyway, part of my “understanding” (since I possess so little, less every day, I put it in quotes) is that at “the end” Adventism would have ceased being a legal entity but by default an aggregation of people unified, yes, unified in thought. If so, no hierarchy to hassle. We needed one in 1888 or whenever. But 2180 (or sooner, maybe much sooner)?
wesley kime Also Commented
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Floyd:
Concur and amen, and how on earth and under heaven does the man do it! So consumed by pathology, heading the group, business of the group, consulting hematopathologist for the area; building a house and laying down patios; begetting, romping with, and educating young boys and being an ideal father and husband and champion of women’s rights per ordination (suddenly eosinized hair notwithstanding); hospitable to friends and strangers (angels?); endless reading and hard study not only in pathology (take it from me, a vast field) but also cosmology (a boundless field); webmastering and responding; editing, delivering of sermons and lectures, clear- and level-headed no nonsense author of books (in the shadow of a column of turtles); serious and heart-rending participation in church office and church affairs, policy, organization, and doctrines; and more. And he’s still young! God bless! We are blessed.
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Bill Sorensen:
Sigh, guess I’m failing, alright. Failing even to get your drift.
Recent Comments by wesley kime
Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
@Ken: Ken, re. yours of May 31, 15 12:42 pm: … those standing up for FB28 have every right to do so…until they [presumably the FBs, not the communicants, although either could be changed in a twinkling of any eye] are democratically changed.”
FB28? What’s that? You probably know better than I. Genesis 1 I can quote; FB28 I can’t. And won’t bother to check. I couldn’t even tell you where to find those FBs. I read what you say more assiduously than the FBs. (What’s FB? FaceBook?)
In the first place I think you’ve got Adventism wrong, or at least Adventism as I know it. Well, maybe you haven’t, the postmodernist kind anyway. I’m pre-catechistic, ergo prehistoric, alas. I’m that old.
FB28 or whatever it is, if it WERE changed, democratically or otherwise, dramatically or creepingly, by evolution or edict, even if expunged and expurgated in the interest of big-tent accord, which seemed on the verge of happening pre-T. Wilson, and may yet, I wouldn’t even know it until I saw it here. You’d know before I would.
With or without and despite FB28 or whatever, or EduTruth, I’d still honor Genesis 1. I’d honor it, A, by faith, because the Bible, i.e. God, says so. A validated faith validated by B, The evidence, good scientific falsifiable evidence. And C, the consummate cosmic multi-vectored syllogism. Everything fits.
Seriously, though, discussion has to start somewhere and be referenced by something, for convenience if not citizenship. But I’d prefer to start, if granted “every right,” with Genesis 1, at the beginning.
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
@Ken: “something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap (forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality, such double standard is not acceptable. …[therefore] I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey.”
I can, of course, dear friend, understand why, and respect that, you would see the two directions of leaping, forward and backward, by Harvard and LSU, as a double standard.
But might it also be seen as simple Einsteinian Relativity? It all depends on from whence you’re starting or observing. Two venues, Harvard vs. LSU, two vectors, not two standards. At any rate, a parting of our ways. The Chair did it. A very unlucky ill-omened Chair, from the start.
Parting — that indeed is sad, especially this parting. I grieve too. In sadness we are agreed. That’s not double speak; only you could I say that to.
For these several years you, and your courteous ways, even your questions, have been most fascinating, even endearing, inspiring to both poetic and, I now regret, rasping response. I’ve so much enjoyed your postings, always looked for them first, and appreciated your uncommon patience and politeness, and our camaraderie in the bomb shelter and on the grandstand. Too bad the Chair, our double bed, didn’t work out.
As benediction, maybe we can all get together again, somewhere. Meanwhile, the Mizpah, which I think I should be the one to deliver, seeing it was, you say, my one-liner that was the last straw, for which I’ll get heck all around, and rightly so: “The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another.” Genesis 31:49.
What the heck, have some popcorn for the road. And don’t forget your cyber plaque. You will be remembered, appreciated, thought about, prayed for. Do come back soon.
Until then, your jousting friend, W
Strumming the Attached Strings
@Phillip Brantley: Excellent! I shall quote you: “learn something from Sean Pitman.” Indeed, indeed — there’s so much to learn from that man.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen: “I don’t know if anyone has really been able to follow your thinking…”
A tad, a smidgeon, just slightly overstated maybe? Just a tad, just a smidgeon, at the cost of not a few dislikes? Well, I for one do follow it. And with great admiration. Great.
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Ervin Taylor: Out of purely poetic symmetry of rhetoric, Ervin, your trademark whimsical “…I guess someone who rejects…” is asking for — I was waiting for it! — a Pitman’s “I guess someone who accepts…” Lovely diptych, ping and pong.
