spozzie wrote:I do have a couple of question if you would be kind enough to respond:
1) I notice that Dedication's alternative interpretation of your dream was posted on 26 November 2004 and there has been no response to it that I can see. I'm just wondering what you thought of it.
spozzie wrote:2) I'm wondering why a God-given dream is not easier to interpret than it seems to be. Surely if your dream is so important to understand, God would explain its meaning to you as well? Why is it necessary to "guess" the interpretation of the dream by calling for ideas from others? Is this the normal way that God would reveal something to a person?
Steve Starman wrote:Spozzie, I hope I've satisfied your questions a bit. If you still have questions or comments, please let me know. Thanks!
Eugene Shubert wrote:Steve Starman wrote:As it began, I was driving on a beautiful, winding country road. There were magnificent green trees all along the way, and shafts of sunlight were permeating the greenery at intervals. It was exceedingly peaceful. I came to a street or long driveway intersecting upon my right, and pulled the car off the road to take a look. The road led quite a way to a rather large building that had an ominous feel to it. ... There was just something about it that wasn’t quite right;... It seemed that there was an inordinate amount of security and secrecy there . I could never tell from my stops whether it was a government building or a research facility, but it certainly had that feel. My curiosity was natural; in the dream I was a newspaper reporter, perhaps an investigative journalist of some type. I pulled away, and continued to my home.
After I arrived home, I received an unexpected phone call from a ‘whistle-blower’ from the institution that I had paused to look at. The person told me that he would come to my house later that evening with “undeniable proof” of a concealed, dangerous corporate or governmental cover-up: my suspicions were confirmed. He appeared at the house with a protective body suit, not unlike a suit for radiation or biohazard workers, and left it with me. The understanding that I had from the stranger’s visit was that if experts examined the suit, all mysteries regarding the strange activities at the plant would be blown wide open.
I am confident that this refers to the governing body of the corporate SDA church. I know first hand that the Seventh-day Adventist church really is a manufacturing facility that manufactures dangerous doctrines, for which one needs a protective suit. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.
What should an Adventist whistleblower do? The strange activities that I seek to expose and wish were blown wide open, is the hierarchy's inordinate security and use of force to sustain their unchristian policy of complicity with A. Graham Maxwell, that he be permitted to seduce, in the church, innocent souls by the doctrines of demons, whereas any watchman/whistleblower who seeks to awaken a slumbering church to a straightforward, inspired interpretation of the prophesied omega of deadly heresies is to be slandered, fiercely persecuted and summarily cast out of the church, followed by lawsuits and cunning criminal prosecution, no questions asked. 
BobRyan wrote:The dreams recorded above do tell us that same information - that God "knows the day and hour". But I am not clear at what point they show us something new or remind us of something key to our focus.
BobRyan wrote:One of the things you mentioned was spiritualism taught or brought into the SDA church - do you have a link for that?
BobRyan wrote:As for Maxwell - while I agree that he is in error - so also is Fritz Guy (architect of the 27 FB) in his more recent endorsement of evolutionism and actively gay church membership. So also is Steve Daily in error (author of Adventism for a New Generation) when he invited Rodney Howard-Browne's "Great Awakening" group to his church to teach them how to speak in tongues and laugh in the spirit and do the pentecostal brand of prophecy and healing etc. But those specific ministries don't agree "with each other" or with Maxwell on all of their heresies so I don't know how the SDA denomination could be intentionally going all of those conflicted directions at once - due to their negligence in getting rid of them all. It is certainly a case of terrible neglect of their responsibility at some level, and who knows how the administration lines up into camps behind one or the other of those abberant movements.
a rather large building that had an ominous feel to it. ...There was just something about it that wasn’t quite right; ... It seemed that there was an inordinate amount of security and secrecy there.
The person told me that he would come to my house later that evening with “undeniable proof” of a concealed, dangerous corporate or governmental cover-up: my suspicions were confirmed. He appeared at the house with a protective body suit, not unlike a suit for radiation or biohazard workers, and left it with me. The understanding that I had from the stranger’s visit was that if experts examined the suit, all mysteries regarding the strange activities at the plant would be blown wide open.
BobRyan wrote:I don't know how the SDA denomination could be intentionally going all of those conflicted directions at once - due to their negligence in getting rid of them all.
Eugene Shubert wrote:It's hard for me to believe all that is going on because I haven't heard anyone talk about it. I assume though that it must be related to some sort of conspiracy of silence that must be going on at the General Conference. Note this particular detail in Steve Starman's dream:
1. May 17th, 2009 at 2:49 am Steve Daily
Thanks for posting my response to your email on the web site, as I requested, to update people about what happened back in Tampa. Now that I’ve made it through our weekend services, I want to provide a little more detail about the trip.
I was totally impressed with Rodney Howard-Browne and his church . He moves at a level of anointing that is truly mind-boggling. I had the privilege of sitting next to him at the minister’s luncheon, during the week, and was the recipient of a powerful prophetic word that he pronounced over me, Celebration Center, and the Adventist Church. I will try to recall it word for word as best I can.
“God is pleased with the heart and the interdenominational spirit of this servant. He has seen what you have suffered for His kingdom and is ready to pour out His blessings and favor on your ministry. The Lord is going to use this man to raise up an army in his church and in the Adventist denomination that will trumpet the true Gospel, release His Holy Spirit with fire, and that will produce a harvest of souls that will result from this revival for years to come. So be strong and courageous and persevere unto the end.”
That same evening Rodney had me give a testimony before his full house and TV cameras, of what God had done in our church and community through the great awakening tour. And he used the inclusion of Adventists in the revival, as a recurring theme of God’s inclusiveness, in his remarks that evening. Finally, when Rodney imparted and prayed over me in the meeting I felt a powerful move of God that allowed me to experience holy laughter to the greatest degree I have experienced to this point. Being of Northern European descent, I am not one who manifests easily (I tend to suffer from emotional constipation), but this move of God was powerful and i believe it will release me into a greater boldness in my street ministry. God bless, sd
In Steve Daily’s “No More Plastic Jesus” sermon – he makes this statement –
http://celebrationcenter.net/index.php? ... howMedia=a
1. I’ve gone to the conference about the
• Given them our Kingdom Adventism stuff
• Talked to them about the Great Awakening
• They have put me on the conf evangelism committee
( see the video at min:seconds 28:50 )
Uncovering the Origins of the
Statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs
by Fritz Guy, Ph.D.
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines ... origin.htm
Perhaps as important as the revisions that were made were the revisions that were not made. These included a number of suggestions for greater specificity regarding the days of creation week, the beginning of the Sabbath, the place(s) of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, ways of supporting the church financially, and proscribed behaviors such as card-playing, theatergoing, and dancing.34
One extraordinarily good thing occurred at the Dallas session, even as the committee of two thousand was designing its theological camel: the addition of the preamble, the most important sentences in the whole document. Unofficially known as "the Graybill preamble" because it was initially drafted and proposed by Ronald Graybill, it reads:35
From the “BEING ADVENTIST IN 21st CENTURY AUSTRALIA “
Envisioning an Effective Adventist Future:
What the Church Can Be in the Twenty-first Century
by Fritz Guy, Ph.D.
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines ... future.htm
• A subject that just won’t go away is the time and manner of creation—that is, the relation of the creative activity of God to natural history. At the International Faith and Science Conference at Ogden in August 2002, the fundamental issue was the extent to which modern science influences our interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. It is important to note that the issue was "the extent to which," not "whether," science influences our interpretation. …
But there was considerable disagreement was about the age of life on planet Earth. Some argued that the evidence for a very long history of life is persuasive, and that Genesis 1 should be understood as a theological affirmation of God as the source of everything that is. Others insisted that the available evidence is not sufficient to invalidate the traditional understanding of Genesis 1 as a factual description of the actual process of creation. The general discussions were courteous and respectful, but the differences were deep and sometimes passionately expressed. A possible outcome of our continuing conversations might be a recognition and acceptance of a diversity of views on this subject.
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines ... future.htm
Realities for Adventist Theology in the 21st Century1
“While it is true that scientific knowledge is “always revisable” and “will almost certainly need to be revised in the light of further research,” the fact remains that scientific knowledge is “the best information we have” about the physical world. As a consequence, “religious beliefs cannot remain what they were before the rise of modern science.” - Realities for Adventist Theology in the 21st Century. page 6
At the present time there seems to be no good reason to doubt the gradual development and increasing complexity of life over an extended period of time. The fact that this recognition complicates our theology hardly justifies discounting the overwhelming empirical evidence. In 1844 our Adventist forbears recognized the empirical evidence that their theology was mistaken, and they revised it accordingly. So our intellectual efforts in the 21st century ought to be directed not to attacking various details of the prevailing developmental model, much less to denying it outright, but either (a) to developing a comprehensive alternative model, which no one has done
or is likely to do, or (b) to incorporating into Adventist thinking the idea of a gradually increasing complexity of living organisms over a long period of time36 as an alternative to the traditional paradigm of a six-day creation less than ten thousand years ago.37
We need to move beyond a jig-saw-puzzle model of theology, which involves the idea of
an interlocking set of convictions such that significantly changing one part destroys the whole. If that were the case, the whole would be completely dependent on each of its parts; and the credibility of Adventism as a whole would be hostage to a short history of life on planet Earth.
A much more adequate model is that of an organism, which recognizes that while a
change in one part does affect others, they are able to adjust to the change in various ways. And, as noted above, Adventism’s own history demonstrates that it has experienced—and survived— many theological changes, in spite of dire predictions that the existence of Adventism was at stake.38 (ibid. page 8-9)
Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives
Edited by Brian Bull, Fritz Guy & Ervin Taylor
Published by Adventist Today, Adventist Today Foundation, © 2006
Sean D. Pitman
January 1, 2007
http://www.detectingdesign.com/PDF%20Fi ... Review.doc
“In forty years in the Christian ministry I have never preached a sermon on Creation/evolution. I believe there are more important subjects for sermons. Often in discussion groups or personal encounters I have not sidestepped the issue. And when I have taken a stand, it has been on the side of Creation. But I have a "quarrel" with the creationist. He bases his argument on the first chapter of Genesis. All that is—or ever will be—was created in six days. Period! Neither you nor I were present during those six days. Nor was anyone else. Why, then, can we not give God the glory that He created all things—visible and invisible—without asking how He did it or how long it took? If He is the Creator, what difference does it make whether He took six days or a thousand years? With Him, "one day is ... as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Does it really matter?—Retired pastor, Walla Walla,Washington.” Ministry, September 1984, Letters, p.2
Source: http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive ... 984-09.pdf
Eugene Shubert wrote:
What did you mean by this sentence:BobRyan wrote:I don't know how the SDA denomination could be intentionally going all of those conflicted directions at once - just due to their negligence in getting rid of them all.
Please explain. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
So our intellectual efforts in the 21st century ought to be directed not to attacking various details of the prevailing developmental model, much less to denying it outright, but either (a) to developing a comprehensive alternative model, which no one has done or is likely to do, or (b) to incorporating into Adventist thinking the idea of a gradually increasing complexity of living organisms over a long period of time36 as an alternative to the traditional paradigm of a six-day creation less than ten thousand years ago.37
BobRyan wrote:There is so much error getting pumped into the SDA system from all sectors that I don't think the administration is necessarily orchestrating it all.
Eugene Shubert wrote:BobRyan wrote:There is so much error getting pumped into the SDA system from all sectors that I don't think the administration is necessarily orchestrating it all.
I never meant to imply that the Adventist hierarchy is in charge to the point that they truly know what they're doing. Please see my thread Extreme Shepherding in the Seventh-day Adventist Church and kindly consider the meaning I've given to the youtube video displayed there.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests