Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cindy]

1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I am shocked that you would believe such arrogance.

How do you know it's arrogance rather than the truth?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good...

Let me ask you this then Cindy, what about all those late nights that they were together?

What late nights that were they together? and how do you know that they were?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

Sorry, but that leaves me to believe that they were up to hanky panky.

Without proof?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. However, I would like you to also explain Cindy or 3D, can you honestly say this is obeying 1 Thessalonians 5:22?  I look forward to your responce.

 Let me explain something to you ST, as you are young and apparently still learning. When you pronounce someone guilty, as you are doing above, and as you are doing below. The burden of proof lies on you. NOT ON ME. When Sister tells her stories the burden of proof lies on her as well. When Danny and Brenda are accused the burden of proof lies on those accusing them and on those pronouncing them guilty. It is not up to Brenda and Danny to prove they didn't do something, without any evidence to even address suggesting they did. All they have are empty words against them, and thus all they can do is say, "no that isn't true."

Now you go back above and look at what I just posted again.  I supplied evidence in support of the that, and if I made any definite statements above such as about Sister lying, about saying she came and went at Shelton family gatherings etc I will supply the proof for whatever it was which  I stated was a fact, if you ask for it, OR I will apologize if I can't. But don't you ever come to me and ask me to prove something didn't occur again, or to ask me to prove something I didn't say again, and think you are going to shame me, for the shame is yours in doing so as far as I am concerned and you will get no answers for I will not waste my time further. You should be intelligent enough to know, that the burden of proof is needed before claiming something is a fact or something did happen or someone is guilty. That hasn't happened here, and it is hypocritical in the extreme for you to not demand that of Sister, or others, or even yourself and then demand I prove you wrong, when all you offer is ugly words and accusations and no proof at all.

True Danny didn't pretend. He did commit adultery. Just as I said yesterday those two were definitely doing something in each others company  :oand you will not convince me otherwise.

btw, Know it alls prevent themselves from learning or knowing all...

[Adam]

First, of all I am far from young as you insinuate. Nice try though. Second, I knew you would spin your way out of answering those questions.

1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I am shocked that you would believe such arrogance.

How do you know it's arrogance rather than the truth?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good...

Let me ask you this then Cindy, what about all those late nights that they were together?

What late nights that were they together? and how do you know that they were?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

Sorry, but that leaves me to believe that they were up to hanky panky.

Without proof?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. However, I would like you to also explain Cindy or 3D, can you honestly say this is obeying 1 Thessalonians 5:22?  I look forward to your responce.

 Let me explain something to you ST, as you are young and apparently still learning. When you pronounce someone guilty, as you are doing above, and as you are doing below. The burden of proof lies on you. NOT ON ME. When Sister tells her stories the burden of proof lies on her as well. When Danny and Brenda are accused the burden of proof lies on those accusing them and on those pronouncing them guilty. It is not up to Brenda and Danny to prove they didn't do something, without any evidence to even address suggesting they did. All they have are empty words against them, and thus all they can do is say, "no that isn't true."

Now you go back above and look at what I just posted again.  I supplied evidence in support of the that, and if I made any definite statements above such as about Sister lying, about saying she came and went at Shelton family gatherings etc I will supply the proof for whatever it was which  I stated was a fact, if you ask for it, OR I will apologize if I can't. But don't you ever come to me and ask me to prove something didn't occur again, or to ask me to prove something I didn't say again, and think you are going to shame me, for the shame is yours in doing so as far as I am concerned and you will get no answers for I will not waste my time further. You should be intelligent enough to know, that the burden of proof is needed before claiming something is a fact or something did happen or someone is guilty. That hasn't happened here, and it is hypocritical in the extreme for you to not demand that of Sister, or others, or even yourself and then demand I prove you wrong, when all you offer is ugly words and accusations and no proof at all.

True Danny didn't pretend. He did commit adultery. Just as I said yesterday those two were definitely doing something in each others company  :oand you will not convince me otherwise.

btw, Know it alls prevent themselves from learning or knowing all...

[Adam]

First, of all I am far from young as you insinuate. Nice try though. Second, I knew you would spin your way out of answering those questions.

1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I am shocked that you would believe such arrogance.

How do you know it's arrogance rather than the truth?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good...

Let me ask you this then Cindy, what about all those late nights that they were together?

What late nights that were they together? and how do you know that they were?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

Sorry, but that leaves me to believe that they were up to hanky panky.

Without proof?



1 Thessalonians 5 states:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. However, I would like you to also explain Cindy or 3D, can you honestly say this is obeying 1 Thessalonians 5:22?  I look forward to your responce.

 Let me explain something to you ST, as you are young and apparently still learning. When you pronounce someone guilty, as you are doing above, and as you are doing below. The burden of proof lies on you. NOT ON ME. When Sister tells her stories the burden of proof lies on her as well. When Danny and Brenda are accused the burden of proof lies on those accusing them and on those pronouncing them guilty. It is not up to Brenda and Danny to prove they didn't do something, without any evidence to even address suggesting they did. All they have are empty words against them, and thus all they can do is say, "no that isn't true."

Now you go back above and look at what I just posted again.  I supplied evidence in support of the that, and if I made any definite statements above such as about Sister lying, about saying she came and went at Shelton family gatherings etc I will supply the proof for whatever it was which  I stated was a fact, if you ask for it, OR I will apologize if I can't. But don't you ever come to me and ask me to prove something didn't occur again, or to ask me to prove something I didn't say again, and think you are going to shame me, for the shame is yours in doing so as far as I am concerned and you will get no answers for I will not waste my time further. You should be intelligent enough to know, that the burden of proof is needed before claiming something is a fact or something did happen or someone is guilty. That hasn't happened here, and it is hypocritical in the extreme for you to not demand that of Sister, or others, or even yourself and then demand I prove you wrong, when all you offer is ugly words and accusations and no proof at all.

True Danny didn't pretend. He did commit adultery. Just as I said yesterday those two were definitely doing something in each others company  :oand you will not convince me otherwise.

btw, Know it alls prevent themselves from learning or knowing all...

Sorry, Cindy, but no one could take that title from you.

[Sister]

Ian, where is your evidence that I lied? I am asking for proof. You supplied no evidence. I answered your accusations and you conveniently ignored it.

Secondly, you state the following:

I will supply the proof for whatever it was which  I stated was a fact, if you ask for it, OR I will apologize if I can't. But don't you ever come to me and ask me to prove something didn't occur again, or to ask me to prove something I didn't say again, and think you are going to shame me, for the shame is yours in doing so as far as I am concerned and you will get no answers for I will not waste my time further. You should be intelligent enough to know, that the burden of proof is needed before claiming something is a fact or something did happen or someone is guilty. That hasn't happened here, and it is hypocritical in the extreme for you to not demand that of Sister, or others, or even yourself and then demand I prove you wrong, when all you offer is ugly words and accusations and no proof at all.

Ian, based upon your reasoning above none of us should believe any of the ugly words or accusations that Danny Shelton made about Linda Shelton and her son's doctor in Norway. When Linda demanded that he produce publically the evidence he claimed he had, her request was ignored. By your reasoning above after the evidence was demanded  and no proof was given, the only logical conclusion is that Danny Shelton is a liar. The only hypocrite I see here is you. Where is your evidence? Have you every lived in Thompsonville? Have you ever had free access or lived on the 3ABN compound? Do you personally know or have spoken with Danny or Linda Shelton or any of the other individuals involved in this situation? Where is your credibility?

[Gregory]

Samuelthomas asked:

So let me ask this, since Danny is now divorced, yet again, is he free to remarry? This is not a question against or for Danny Shelton. However, I am simply curious. Would remarriage be supported now?

There are two aspects to this question:

1) The first relates to the divorce from Linda and whether or not Danny had a Biblical right to remarry.  At this point in time it is to late to ask if Danny had a Biblically valid reason to divorce Linda.  I have taken the positin that he did not have what a conservative SDA would consider to be Biblically valid.  But, the discussion should move beyond that.  In SDA polity the local congregation is the group that decides whether or not an individual has the right to remmarry.  Danny's marriage to Brandy was performed by the pastor of his local congregation.  It is thus clear that the decision of the local congregation (whether right or wrong) was that Danny had the right to remarry.  In the thinking of American society, a person charged with a crime and found "not guilty" is considered to have been given a final judgement and that person cannot be tried for that crime again.  At this point in time, there is no system in place in the SDA Church to go back and find that Danny Shelton did not have the right to remarry.  Whether or not one agrees with the decision of the local congragation, that is how it should be.

Because Linda is still charged with conduct that resulted in the break-up of her marriage to Danny and conduct that gave Danny the right to remmary, it is appropriate for Linda and her supporters to defend against the charges.  However, in doing so, the remarriage of Danny to Brandy should be off the table.  It took place.  The SDA Church made a decision about that.  This subject should be finished.  Some things just have to be left to God and this is one of them.

Frankly, I believe that the number of SDA ministers who would say that this should be off the table at this point in time is the vast majority.

2) The second related to the divorce from Brandy and whther or not Danny has a Biblical right to remarry.  For those who know the facts, the answer to this one is clear:  Yes, Danny Shelton has a Biblical right to remarry.  I will commend Danny Shelton and 3-ABN for the responsisble way in which they have related to this sad turn of events.    They have kept quiet about the circumstances of the divorce.  They have not attempted to blacken the reputation of Danny's former wife, Brandy.  There have been valid questions raised related to 3-ABN and Danny Shelton.  But, Brandy should never be a central focus in this saga.  She became a new convert to Adventism (and possibly to Christianity in general) close to the time of her marriage to Danny.  As such she needed time and space to grow in Christian faith.  I doubt that she ever understood, prior to her marriage to Danny, the intensity of the fire that would envelop her as Danny's new wife.  The time came when this became to much for her and she exited the marriage.  Frankly, I believe that there are few women who in her situation would have been able to sustain a marriage under those circumstances.  She should not be criticized, rather God should be asked to sustain her, surround her with His love and help her to find the peace that He would want her to have.

[Emma]

Thank you for that considered and Christian opinion, Gregory.

[Sister]

Samuelthomas asked:

So let me ask this, since Danny is now divorced, yet again, is he free to remarry? This is not a question against or for Danny Shelton. However, I am simply curious. Would remarriage be supported now?

There are two aspects to this question:

1) The first relates to the divorce from Linda and whether or not Danny had a Biblical right to remarry.  At this point in time it is to late to ask if Danny had a Biblically valid reason to divorce Linda.  I have taken the positin that he did not have what a conservative SDA would consider to be Biblically valid.  But, the discussion should move beyond that.  In SDA polity the local congregation is the group that decides whether or not an individual has the right to remmarry. Danny's marriage to Brandy was performed by the pastor of his local congregation.  It is thus clear that the decision of the local congregation (whether right or wrong) was that Danny had the right to remarry.  In the thinking of American society, a person charged with a crime and found "not guilty" is considered to have been given a final judgement and that person cannot be tried for that crime again.  At this point in time, there is no system in place in the SDA Church to go back and find that Danny Shelton did not have the right to remarry.  Whether or not one agrees with the decision of the local congragation, that is how it should be.

Because Linda is still charged with conduct that resulted in the break-up of her marriage to Danny and conduct that gave Danny the right to remmary, it is appropriate for Linda and her supporters to defend against the charges.  However, in doing so, the remarriage of Danny to Brandy should be off the table.  It took place.  The SDA Church made a decision about that.  This subject should be finished.  Some things just have to be left to God and this is one of them.

Frankly, I believe that the number of SDA ministers who would say that this should be off the table at this point in time is the vast majority.

2) The second related to the divorce from Brandy and whther or not Danny has a Biblical right to remarry.  For those who know the facts, the answer to this one is clear:  Yes, Danny Shelton has a Biblical right to remarry.  I will commend Danny Shelton and 3-ABN for the responsisble way in which they have related to this sad turn of events.    They have kept quiet about the circumstances of the divorce.  They have not attempted to blacken the reputation of Danny's former wife, Brandy.  There have been valid questions raised related to 3-ABN and Danny Shelton.  But, Brandy should never be a central focus in this saga.  She became a new convert to Adventism (and possibly to Christianity in general) close to the time of her marriage to Danny.  As such she needed time and space to grow in Christian faith.  I doubt that she ever understood, prior to her marriage to Danny, the intensity of the fire that would envelop her as Danny's new wife.  The time came when this became to much for her and she exited the marriage.  Frankly, I believe that there are few women who in her situation would have been able to sustain a marriage under those circumstances.  She should not be criticized, rather God should be asked to sustain her, surround her with His love and help her to find the peace that He would want her to have.

Sorry, Gregory, you know not of what you speak. Danny and Brandi were not married by their local pastor or in their local church. The were married by Pastor Rick Odel in the 3ABN studios. It seemed a bit strange at the time.


And as far as Danny having the Biblicial right to be remarried now, I would say that is still in question.

I forgot to ask, where did you get the information that Danny and Brandi were married by their local pastor? Or was it just an assumption? Basing an argument on a false premise negates the conclusion.

[Adam]

Thank you for answering my question, Gregory. quote author=Gregory link=topic=1909.msg25847#msg25847 date=1278011597]
Samuelthomas asked:

So let me ask this, since Danny is now divorced, yet again, is he free to remarry? This is not a question against or for Danny Shelton. However, I am simply curious. Would remarriage be supported now?

There are two aspects to this question:

1) The first relates to the divorce from Linda and whether or not Danny had a Biblical right to remarry.  At this point in time it is to late to ask if Danny had a Biblically valid reason to divorce Linda.  I have taken the positin that he did not have what a conservative SDA would consider to be Biblically valid.  But, the discussion should move beyond that.  In SDA polity the local congregation is the group that decides whether or not an individual has the right to remmarry.  Danny's marriage to Brandy was performed by the pastor of his local congregation.  It is thus clear that the decision of the local congregation (whether right or wrong) was that Danny had the right to remarry.  In the thinking of American society, a person charged with a crime and found "not guilty" is considered to have been given a final judgement and that person cannot be tried for that crime again.  At this point in time, there is no system in place in the SDA Church to go back and find that Danny Shelton did not have the right to remarry.  Whether or not one agrees with the decision of the local congragation, that is how it should be.

Because Linda is still charged with conduct that resulted in the break-up of her marriage to Danny and conduct that gave Danny the right to remmary, it is appropriate for Linda and her supporters to defend against the charges.  However, in doing so, the remarriage of Danny to Brandy should be off the table.  It took place.  The SDA Church made a decision about that.  This subject should be finished.  Some things just have to be left to God and this is one of them.

Frankly, I believe that the number of SDA ministers who would say that this should be off the table at this point in time is the vast majority.

2) The second related to the divorce from Brandy and whther or not Danny has a Biblical right to remarry.  For those who know the facts, the answer to this one is clear:  Yes, Danny Shelton has a Biblical right to remarry.  I will commend Danny Shelton and 3-ABN for the responsisble way in which they have related to this sad turn of events.    They have kept quiet about the circumstances of the divorce.  They have not attempted to blacken the reputation of Danny's former wife, Brandy.  There have been valid questions raised related to 3-ABN and Danny Shelton.  But, Brandy should never be a central focus in this saga.  She became a new convert to Adventism (and possibly to Christianity in general) close to the time of her marriage to Danny.  As such she needed time and space to grow in Christian faith.  I doubt that she ever understood, prior to her marriage to Danny, the intensity of the fire that would envelop her as Danny's new wife.  The time came when this became to much for her and she exited the marriage.  Frankly, I believe that there are few women who in her situation would have been able to sustain a marriage under those circumstances.  She should not be criticized, rather God should be asked to sustain her, surround her with His love and help her to find the peace that He would want her to have.

Edited formatting only

[Gregory]

Sister:

Thank you for correcting an error that I made.

My statement was made on the basis of a faulty memory.

I appreciate the correction.

Regardless of the fact that I was in error on that point, I believe that my major point still stands:  The decision as to whether or not Danny had the Biblical reight to remarry rested with the local congregation.  Whether or not they made the correct decision, I will suggest that it should be clear that the local congregation did not have a problem with Danny's remarriage.  At this point, I believe that we should leave it alone.

Yes, I understand that there will be those who disagree with me.   

[Adam]

I agree with your logic, Gregory.  As many are aware I do not support the Sheltons, but your points make sense to me. If in case the church did give Danny permission to be remarried to Brandy, and they both (Danny and Brandy) remained faithful through out the duration of their marriage; I would not have a problem with Danny remarrying. Again, thank you.

Sister:

Thank you for correcting an error that I made.

My statement was made on the basis of a faulty memory.

I appreciate the correction.

Regardless of the fact that I was in error on that point, I believe that my major point still stands:  The decision as to whether or not Danny had the Biblical reight to remarry rested with the local congregation.  Whether or not they made the correct decision, I will suggest that it should be clear that the local congregation did not have a problem with Danny's remarriage.  At this point, I believe that we should leave it alone.

Yes, I understand that there will be those who disagree with me.  

--edited to add another thought.

[Johann]

I find it very amusing reading many of these posts. These defenders are using a unique method many lawyers use, and seem quite skilled at it. They are searching for small loopholes in areas where certain details seem unclear. And then they major on attacks in these areas causing the vision of some people to be blurred. They keep shooting at these targets to obscure the general picture of the events, and thereby hoping to gain a victory by a multitude of weak arguments.

This is not a new method. Scripture testifies to the fact that Adam and Eve attempted to use the same method hoping God would look in a different direction. So the great majority of people in this world hope to gain the attention of even the  Lord Himself to look at something else so they can sneak in through the door.

How many are claiming, "See how righteous I am? Look at all the many good things I have done. They obscure the minor faults I might have made, if I actually made any."

This method will be used until the bells toll for the final judgment - and is the greatest danger to keep us out of heaven.

[princessdi]

Hey tinka!  You know I've been around.  Reading, but not posting because somebody already expresseed my thoughts so very well. 

Where you been, I've missed you. About time you weighed in here.

[Sister]

I find it very amusing reading many of these posts. These defenders are using a unique method many lawyers use, and seem quite skilled at it. They are searching for small loopholes in areas where certain details seem unclear. And then they major on attacks in these areas causing the vision of some people to be blurred. They keep shooting at these targets to obscure the general picture of the events, and thereby hoping to gain a victory by a multitude of weak arguments.

This is not a new method. Scripture testifies to the fact that Adam and Eve attempted to use the same method hoping God would look in a different direction. So the great majority of people in this world hope to gain the attention of even the  Lord Himself to look at something else so they can sneak in through the door.

How many are claiming, "See how righteous I am? Look at all the many good things I have done. They obscure the minor faults I might have made, if I actually made any."

This method will be used until the bells toll for the final judgment - and is the greatest danger to keep us out of heaven.

Well said, Johann!

[childoftheking]

Did God make the rules or does the Seventh-day Adventist Church have the right to change the rules or the interpretation? Do church or community customs or tradition have more weight than the Bible? Does God change his standards because the church is influenced by the world and changes hers? Do we follow the Catholic Church in its interpretaion of the "statement that whatever the church binds on earth is bound in heaven."?

One who knowingly willingly practices sin can  fool others into thinking he is justified in his actions and they might look the other way. They might feel that because there isn't immediate thunder and lightening and the sinner seems to prosper that God isn't angered. But do not mistake longsuffering patience for infinite forbearing. Humans have short memory, forget, move on to a new interest or pressing crisis and feel that because things are in the past they are no longer relevant or actionable. Are unrepented of transgressions made holy because of the passage of time or because of the public opinion of the "saints"? Is God pragmatic with a post modern mindset? I know that God is mercifull but is He stupid? Or is He a wimp? Is he less exacting than He declares Himself to be?  I think not.


Not always but sometimes even today "cold case crimes" are revived and solved and the perpetrators made to face judgement -  even in our imperfect legal system. Sometimes in this world people are put on probation and they violate their probation or their time runs out. God's legal system is infinitely superior. Should we respect it less?

[Murcielago]

I once asked that question of a pastor and he told me that I should consider the church as a club in which one joins in order to be a part of a group where the members think alike, and if I don't wish to conform, I should leave and find another club that conforms to what I want.

Did God make the rules or does the Seventh-day Adventist Church have the right to change the rules or the interpretation? Do church or community customs or tradition have more weight than the Bible? Does God change his standards because the church is influenced by the world and changes hers? Do we follow the Catholic Church in its interpretaion of the "statement that whatever the church binds on earth is bound in heaven."?