|
About ONElist Partner with Us Jobs @ ONElist Advertising |
Spam Policy Privacy Policy Terms of Service |
My Profile Contact Us Feedback ONElist T-Shirts |
There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in today's digest:
1. Re: TC-TOC Merger
From: "Tankiso Letseli" <tletseli@xxxx.xx.xxx
2. L A Young
From: Masabatha Online <masabatha@xxxxx.xxxx
3. Witchcraft !!
From: Machaka Ravhengani <mravhengani@xxxxx.xxxx
4. FW: Prayer
From: "Bangisi, Nikelo" <NBangisi@xxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxx
5. RE: Baptism.
From: Sam Mthimkulu <Sammth@xxx.xx.xxx
6. Re: Witchcraft !!
From: "vusi kaunda" <vusi12@xxxxxxx.xxxx
7. Re: Re: TC-TOC Merger
From: "vusi kaunda" <vusi12@xxxxxxx.xxxx
8. Re: Admin
From: "vusi kaunda" <vusi12@xxxxxxx.xxxx
9. RE: Fw: Researchers deplore dearth of marriage stats
From: "Bangisi, Nikelo" <NBangisi@xxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxx
10. Camp Meeting 1999
From: Ramo Mekoa <ramom@xxx.xxxxxxxx.xx.xxx
11. RE: Re: TC-TOC Merger
From: "Bangisi, Nikelo" <NBangisi@xxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxx
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:54:41 +0200
From: "Tankiso Letseli" <tletseli@xxxx.xx.xxx
Subject: Re: TC-TOC Merger
To briefly respond to a conversation between Jerry & Nick pertaining to the TC-TOC merger. The TOC, in its recent session [31 October 1998], took an action to never initiate any further talks with the TC regarding merger, but keep the communication lines open in case the TC develops an interest in the subject. The minutes of the above-mentioned TOC Session were despatched to the entire TOC Constituency. In a nutshell, the communication lines are still open on the TOC side.
In the interim, the TOC Constituency has planned to double its current membership [17 359] by the year 2001. This simply means that we have rolled our sleeves in order to engage ourselves in rigorous activities that would help us realise our goals. We still have townships, villages, locations, suburbs where there is no Adventist presence. We are beginning to see the signs of the envisaged growth because we have already baptised 939 persons between 01/11/1998 and 31/03/1999. This numerical growth is also coupled with monetary growth. We are beginning to experience an unprecedented interest demonstrated by our members in various modes of evangelism.
Once more on the issue of "merger." I think we should employ Biblical terms in our quest to unify the church in this part of the country. I would prefer the word "unity" because it is more Biblical than the term - "merger." The word "merger" is a business term, and it presupposes two companies amalgamating their assets for several reasons [acquisition of one company by another, or creating a strong business partnership out of merging two companies], hence the inevitability of this question: "How much do you have before we can consider merging?" instead of facing a crucial, moral question: "Can we continue in this fashion without hurting the very mission of this church and frustrating God's purpose?" The word "merger" robs the whole process of Church Unity of its spiritual/moral tone. What do you think?
Tankiso Letseli
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Masabatha Online <masabatha@yahoo.com>
Subject: L A Young
L A Young
What happened to your responses? They were all blank. Are you having
problems with your email?
Peace!
MJ Ravhengani
SA-SDA
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Machaka Ravhengani <mravhengani@yahoo.com>
Subject: Witchcraft !!
Greetings
I have enjoyed the discussions that we had so far, quite interesting
and informative indeed. Thank you all for your contributions to the
list.
My question today is, Is there such a thing as witchcraft? And if there
is, can a Christian be bewitched?
Millicent
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:23:15 +0200
From: "Bangisi, Nikelo" <NBangisi@corp.anglogold.com>
Subject: FW: Prayer
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:36:28 +0200
From: Sam Mthimkulu <Sammth@tnt.ac.za>
Subject: RE: Baptism.
Jongimpi
I would like to thank you for your attempt,maybe if you can help me with
the books that i can read about the theories of baptism before the cross
or after the cross,for i was frustrated because no one attempted it,it
is clear as mud at present i hope they will take it futher so that it
can be clear as water.
He is coming.
Sam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jongimpi Papu [SMTP:j.d.papu@mweb.co.za]
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 9:26 AM
> To: sa-sda@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [sa-sda] Baptism.
>
> From: Jongimpi Papu <j.d.papu@mweb.co.za>
>
> Sam
> The issue you have raised about baptism is a difficult one, maybe that
> is
> the reason why I have been trying to avoid it. I had hoped that some
> would
> be brave enough to attempt an answer.
>
> Let me try. Your concern is why did John encourage people to confess
> their
> sins and be baptised when the ceremonial laws were still in place.
> These
> laws among other things stipulated that if anyone sins, he had to
> bring an
> animal which would be sacrificed for the forgiveness of his sins. But
> here
> John is talking about baptism as a rite connected with confession of
> sin,
> did this therefore substitute the sacrificial rites?
>
> Scholars are not exactly certain as to the background of John's
> baptism.
> Two theories have been suggested, the first being that of the Jewish
> Proselyte baptism. Here it is believed that the rite of baptism was
> performed only once upon the Gentile convert, this served to cleanse
> the
> convert from moral and cultic impurity. But it should be noted that
> John's
> baptism was received by the Jews and as such was a significant
> transformation from the Jewish proselyte practise.
>
> The second theory is that of the Qumran washings. This community
> operated
> outside the Temple and viewed the priests as evil and impure. Thus
> its
> only available rituals were baths and lustrations. True repentance
> for
> this community would be followed by cleansing in water. The
> difference
> between this rite and John's was that for the Qumran this was self
> administered and done daily, but for John it was a once for all
> initiatory
> rite.
>
> It would appear therefore that the concept of baptism was not a new
> one
> altogether, even though John transformed it significantly.
> It should also be noted that evidence is lacking to suggest that
> baptism
> substituted the ceremonial laws. The animal sacrifices were performed
> well
> up until 70 A.D. Remember it was the death of Christ that put an end
> to
> this laws and not baptism. The Jews who were baptised by John would
> go on
> and perform their sacrificial rites according to the law.
>
> Another thing worth considering is that, if John had sought in any
> way to
> do away with these laws, and in their place put baptism, he would have
> suffered an immature death in the hands of the Jews. The absence of
> any
> confrontation with the Jews could be taken to imply that John's
> baptism was
> not viewed as substituting the ceremonial laws.
>
> I am sure my response is as clear as mud.
>
> Worthy is the Lamb
>
> Jongimpi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Mthimkulu <Sammth@tnt.ac.za>
> To: sa-sda@onelist.com <sa-sda@onelist.com>
> Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 8:05 AM
> Subject: [sa-sda] Baptism.
>
>
> >From: Sam Mthimkulu <Sammth@tnt.ac.za>
> >
> >Dear Brethren
> >
> >This morning I was looking in the book of Mark 1 and my attention was
> >drawn to verse 5"people from Jerusalem and from all over judea
> traveled
> >out into the wilderness to see and hear John.And when they confessed
> >their sins,he baptized them in the Jordan river" and in my mind came
> >this questions.I want to know how did they confess their sins,for I
> >still believe that the ceremonial law was still applicable,and John
> the
> >Baptist baptized them after the confession not of their faults but of
> >their sins?i want to know was there baptism before John the Baptist
> and
> >before Christ?
> >
> >
> >soon and very soon we are going to see the King of kings.
> >
> >Sam
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mashudu Ravhengani [SMTP:Ravhenmj@umdnj.edu]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 12:03 AM
> >> To: sa-sda@onelist.com
> >> Subject: Re: [sa-sda] Re: Plague of Divorce
> >>
> >> From: "Mashudu Ravhengani" <Ravhenmj@umdnj.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi has written a book called: The Marriage
> >> Covenant: A Biblical Study on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. I
> >> think it is the best book on this subject. I highly recommend it;
> in
> >> fact I was so impressed with the book I went and bought a 2nd copy.
> It
> >> can be found at the ABC.
> >> You can also get some chapters of this book on the WEB; here is a
> link
> >> to chapter that deals with the issue of divorce:
> >> http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/marriage/5.html (Those
> without
> >> web access send me a mail at masabatha@yahoo.com)
> >>
> >> The view that Bacchiocchi seem to be expressing is that God hates
> >> divorce under any circumstances, including adultery (see his
> arguments
> >> in the above link). To address the issues raised by Jongimpi he
> >> suggests a conditional separation (a cooling off period). In my
> >> experience many couples who chose this option eventually found
> >> solution to their problems.
> >>
> >> My problem is not necessarily whether people should divorce or not,
> >> but how can we prevent a situation where people even think of
> >> divorcing?
> >> What are the things that cause one to think that divorce is the
> best
> >> solution? As Jongimpi has correctly pointed out, there are some
> >> couples who are divorced while they still living together.
> >> How do we prevent divorce in marriage and divorce out of marriage?
> >>
> >> Sorrow and mourning shall flee away!
> >>
> >> Jeremiah
> >>
> >> >>> Jongimpi Papu <j.d.papu@mweb.co.za> 08/30 1:32 PM >>>
> >> From: Jongimpi Papu <j.d.papu@mweb.co.za>
> >>
> >> Ramo
> >> I think that is a difficult question. I could easily say, God
> does
> >> not
> >> allow for divorce, except when one partner has proved to be
> >> unfaithful. I
> >> believe this is true and Biblical, but where do we go from there?
> >>
> >> Sometimes when we say God does not approve of divorce we sound as
> if
> >> we are
> >> saying he approves of one being abused and dehumanised. Some have
> >> stayed
> >> in such relationships preferring to die than to divorce, for God
> hates
> >> divorce, what does HE love?
> >>
> >> I think the solution here is that, according to our church manual,
> >> which I
> >> think is in harmony with the Bible in this instance. That if one
> >> divorces
> >> for reasons that are unbiblical, God does not recognise that as
> >> divorce. In
> >> the eyes of God the person is still married, not that he/she must
> stay
> >> in
> >> the relationship, but is still regarded as married by God. He
> >> therefore
> >> cannot enter into any other marital relationship, as long as
> his/her
> >> partner
> >> is still alive.
> >>
> >> God hates that which leads to divorce. And to my mind absence of
> >> divorce
> >> does not mean presence of happiness in a relationship.
> >>
> >> Two hearts that love God cannot be far apart!
> >>
> >> Jongimpi
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ramo Mekoa <ramom@smm.setpoint.co.za>
> >> To: 'sa-sda@onelist.com' <sa-sda@onelist.com>
> >> Date: Monday, August 30, 1999 3:58 PM
> >> Subject: RE: [sa-sda] Re: Plague of Divorce
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Ramo Mekoa <ramom@smm.setpoint.co.za>
> >>
> >> Jongimpi,
> >>
> >> Apart from those that are explicitly mentioned in the bible, does
> God
> >> allow
> >> for divorce on other grounds (such as the ones you alluded to)?
> >>
> >> A lot of us have personal experience of living in families that
> fell
> >> apart
> >> due to divorce and can bear witness to the fact that had the
> marriage
> >> not
> >> ended, those involved would be worse off in many ways. While not
> >> advocating
> >> divorce, I think that grounds do exist for it in some cases.
> >>
> >> Having said all the above, I fully agree with you that if we follow
> >> God's
> >> lead prior to committing to anyone, we are setting ourselves up to
> >> enjoy
> >> marriage as God meant for us to enjoy it.
> >>
> >> Time doth softly, swiftly glide when there's love at home.
> >>
> >> Ramodise
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> >> ----------------------------
> >>
> >> You can WIN $100 to Amazon.com!
> >> If you join ONElist's FRIENDS & FAMILY program. For details, go to
> >> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Teaser115 ">Click Here</a>
> >>
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --
> >> The King is even at the door!
> >> ====
> >> To contribute to the discussions: send your mails to
> >> sa-sda@onelist.com
> >> To subscribe: send a blank email sa-sda-subscribe@onelist.com
> >> To unsubscribe: send a blank email to
> sa-sda-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> >
> >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
> >
> >GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA: DOUBLE Rewards
> points,
> >NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9 percent FIXED APR. Apply online
> today!
> > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/nextcard5 ">Click
> Here</a>
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >The King is even at the door!
> >====
> >To contribute to the discussions: send your mails to
> sa-sda@onelist.com
> >To subscribe: send a blank email sa-sda-subscribe@onelist.com
> >To unsubscribe: send a blank email to sa-sda-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> The King is even at the door!
> ====
> To contribute to the discussions: send your mails to
> sa-sda@onelist.com
> To subscribe: send a blank email sa-sda-subscribe@onelist.com
> To unsubscribe: send a blank email to sa-sda-unsubscribe@onelist.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 23:38:33 PDT
From: "vusi kaunda" <vusi12@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Witchcraft !!
Machaka,
I believe witchcraft is one of the principalities of darkeness the Bible
mentions in the book of Ephesians.
>From: Machaka Ravhengani <mravhengani@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: sa-sda@onelist.com
>To: sa-sda@onelist.com
>Subject: [sa-sda] Witchcraft !!
>Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>From errors-265906-198-vusi12 Sun Sep 05 20:07:18 1999
>Received: from [209.207.164.209] by hotmail.com (2.1) with ESMTP id
>MHotMailB99C7AE50087D82197EBD1CFA4D159050; Sun Sep 05 20:07:18 1999
>Received: (qmail 23462 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 1999 03:06:01 -0000
>Received: (qmail 23455 invoked from network); 6 Sep 1999 03:06:00 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO web802.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.23.62) by
>pop.onelist.com with SMTP; 6 Sep 1999 03:05:59 -0000
>Message-ID: <19990906030642.20418.rocketmail@web802.mail.yahoo.com>
>Received: from [207.172.199.253] by web802.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 05 Sep 1999
>20:06:41 PDT
>Mailing-List: list sa-sda@onelist.com; contact sa-sda-owner@onelist.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list sa-sda@onelist.com
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sa-sda-unsubscribe@ONElist.com>
>
>From: Machaka Ravhengani <mravhengani@yahoo.com>
>
>
>Greetings
>
>I have enjoyed the discussions that we had so far, quite interesting
>and informative indeed. Thank you all for your contributions to the
>list.
>
>My question today is, Is there such a thing as witchcraft? And if there
>is, can a Christian be bewitched?
>
>Millicent
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ONElist users: YOU can win a $100 gift certificate to Amazon.com.
>Check out the FRIENDS & FAMILY program to find out how.
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Teaser112 ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The King is even at the door!
>====
>To contribute to the discussions: send your mails to sa-sda@onelist.com
>To subscribe: send a blank email sa-sda-subscribe@onelist.com
>To unsubscribe: send a blank email to sa-sda-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Vusi Kaunda
Information Resource Center
US Information Service
Ph 27 11 982 5580
Fx 27 11 982 5844
vusi12@hotmail.com
PO Box 1762
Houghton
2041
http://www.usia.gov/posts/pretoria
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 23:43:50 PDT
From: "vusi kaunda" <vusi12@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: TC-TOC Merger
Dear President
The whole problem with this issue, whether you call it merger or unity is
the lack of proper communication by the TOC and local church delegation to
the constituency.
>From: "Tankiso Letseli" <tletseli@mweb.co.za>
>Reply-To: sa-sda@onelist.com
>To: <sa-sda@onelist.com>
>Subject: [sa-sda] Re: TC-TOC Merger
>Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:54:41 +0200
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>From errors-265906-196-vusi12 Sun Sep 05 12:57:41 1999
>Received: from [209.207.164.235] by hotmail.com (2.1) with ESMTP id
>MHotMailB99C163400B4D820F3ADD1CFA4EB0CC10; Sun Sep 05 12:57:41 1999
>Received: (qmail 23451 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 1999 19:57:39 -0000
>Received: (qmail 23178 invoked from network); 5 Sep 1999 19:57:18 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.mweb.co.za) (196.2.16.241) by
>pop1.onelist.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 1999 19:57:18 -0000
>Received: from rdg-dial-196-2-32-009.mweb.co.za ([196.2.32.9]
>helo=tletseli) by smtp.mweb.co.za with smtp (Exim 3.02 #2) id
>11NiMi-0007Lo-00 for sa-sda@onelist.com; Sun, 05 Sep 1999 21:54:16 +0200
>Message-ID: <00a201bef7d9$08dfc840$ce2202c4@mweb.co.za>
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
>Mailing-List: list sa-sda@onelist.com; contact sa-sda-owner@onelist.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list sa-sda@onelist.com
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sa-sda-unsubscribe@ONElist.com>
>
>To briefly respond to a conversation between Jerry & Nick pertaining to the
>TC-TOC merger. The TOC, in its recent session [31 October 1998], took an
>action to never initiate any further talks with the TC regarding merger,
>but keep the communication lines open in case the TC develops an interest
>in the subject. The minutes of the above-mentioned TOC Session were
>despatched to the entire TOC Constituency. In a nutshell, the
>communication lines are still open on the TOC side.
>
>In the interim, the TOC Constituency has planned to double its current
>membership [17 359] by the year 2001. This simply means that we have rolled
>our sleeves in order to engage ourselves in rigorous activities that would
>help us realise our goals. We still have townships, villages, locations,
>suburbs where there is no Adventist presence. We are beginning to see the
>signs of the envisaged growth because we have already baptised 939 persons
>between 01/11/1998 and 31/03/1999. This numerical growth is also coupled
>with monetary growth. We are beginning to experience an unprecedented
>interest demonstrated by our members in various modes of evangelism.
>
>Once more on the issue of "merger." I think we should employ Biblical
>terms in our quest to unify the church in this part of the country. I
>would prefer the word "unity" because it is more Biblical than the term -
>"merger." The word "merger" is a business term, and it presupposes two
>companies amalgamating their assets for several reasons [acquisition of one
>company by another, or creating a strong business partnership out of
>merging two companies], hence the inevitability of this question: "How much
>do you have before we can consider merging?" instead of facing a crucial,
>moral question: "Can we continue in this fashion without hurting the very
>mission of this church and frustrating God's purpose?" The word "merger"
>robs the whole process of Church Unity of its spiritual/moral tone. What
>do you think?
>
>Tankiso Letseli
>
Vusi Kaunda
Information Resource Center
US Information Service
Ph 27 11 982 5580
Fx 27 11 982 5844
vusi12@hotmail.com
PO Box 1762
Houghton
2041
http://www.usia.gov/posts/pretoria
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 23:52:54 PDT
From: "vusi kaunda" <vusi12@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Admin
Mashudu,
Let us leave addressing of persons to individual discretion.
>From: "Mashudu Ravhengani" <Ravhenmj@umdnj.edu>
>Reply-To: sa-sda@onelist.com
>To: sa-sda@onelist.com
>Subject: [sa-sda] Admin
>Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 12:37:40 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>From errors-265906-185-vusi12 Fri Sep 03 09:37:12 1999
>Received: from [209.207.135.229] by hotmail.com (2.1) with ESMTP id
>MHotMailB9994437006DD820F3A8D1CF87E55DB20; Fri Sep 03 09:37:12 1999
>Received: (qmail 3305 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 1999 16:36:45 -0000
>Received: (qmail 3129 invoked from network); 3 Sep 1999 16:36:41 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO umdnj.edu) (130.219.196.104) by
>pop.onelist.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 1999 16:36:41 -0000
>Received: from UMDLP-Message_Server by umdnj.edu with Novell_GroupWise;
>Fri, 03 Sep 1999 12:38:11 -0400
>Message-Id: <s7cfc133.063@umdnj.edu>
>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
>Mailing-List: list sa-sda@onelist.com; contact sa-sda-owner@onelist.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list sa-sda@onelist.com
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sa-sda-unsubscribe@ONElist.com>
>
>From: "Mashudu Ravhengani" <Ravhenmj@umdnj.edu>
>
>
>Greetings!
>
>Adventist University on the Web
>Last week I had an opportunity of speaking to an old friend, Ramodise, and
>he told how he has been blest by the discussions on this list. And I would
>like to believe that this has been the experience of many of you. As for
>me, I am just excited to be able to listening to the ideas and views of
>some of the best minds in Adventism. What a privilege! Even some of us who
>are untrained and unseasoned in how to handle the scriptures have an
>opportunity to exchange our humble opinions with those who are highly
>trained in scriptures without the fear of been disrespectful.
>I can clearly see the hand of God leading and guiding us.
>This is indeed an Adventist University on the Web!
>To God be the glory!
>
>What's your name?
>How are we to address each other? I know that among us there are those whom
>we usually refer to as Pastor, Dr, etc. How should we refer to each other
>in the discussions? So far, I have been using a person's first name. What
>do you think? Should we use Brother or Sistah? Or should we just ask people
>to sign whatever they would like to be called?
>
>Masabatha Online (www.masabatha.org)
>I have recently downloaded all the discussions from this list to our Web
>Site. If you are a new member you can go there and read all the previous
>discussions. I will try to update it as frequently as I can.
>If your email account is filling up, you can now delete your mails knowing
>that you will still be able to access the discussions online.
>I am still requesting your sermons, testimonies, humor stories etc.
>
>A thought from SOP
>With His eye upon the church, the Lord has again and again allowed matters
>to come to a crisis, that in their extremity His people should look alone
>for His help. Their prayers, their faith, together with their steadfast
>purpose to be true, have called for the interference of God, and then He
>has fulfilled His promise, "Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall
>answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am" (Isa. 58:9). His
>mighty arm has been stretched out for the deliverance of His people. God
>reserves His gracious interposition in their behalf till the time of their
>extremity; thus He makes their deliverance more marked, and their victories
>more glorious. When all human wisdom fails, the Lord's interference will be
>more clearly recognized, and He will receive the glory that is His due.
>Even the enemies of our faith, persecutors, will perceive that God is
>working for His people in turning their captivity.
>Selected Messages Book 2, page 372
>
>The King is even at the door!
>
>MJ Ravhengani
>SA-SDA/Masabatha Online
>Email : masabatha@yahoo.com
>Web Site: www.masabatha.org
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes!
>For details on ONElist's NEW FRIENDS & FAMILY program, go to
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Teaser111 ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The King is even at the door!
>====
>To contribute to the discussions: send your mails to sa-sda@onelist.com
>To subscribe: send a blank email sa-sda-subscribe@onelist.com
>To unsubscribe: send a blank email to sa-sda-unsubscribe@onelist.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:18:32 +0200
From: "Bangisi, Nikelo" <NBangisi@corp.anglogold.com>
Subject: RE: Fw: Researchers deplore dearth of marriage stats
Hi Shirley,
The report you posted on the discussion of divorce and the lack of
statistics thereof shows very clearly to me that this appears to be a
subject that is gradually resting in its own grave of neglect. I am
grateful, nonetheless, that Jongimpi correctly puts it that there is need
for the church to develop a standing ministry on this matter. In fact we
should not wait for the administration to do the work. We should be setting
the pace indicating the serious need on our part. In my local church I
discovered that sometimes the lack of fellowship is caused by failure to
have upright and happy families, especially husbands and wives. So we have
started the family life program.
I believe good family life begets good church life and consequently good
community life.
God bless you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shirley Allen [mailto:chmin@hbc.ac.za]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 11:33 AM
To: SA-SDA
Subject: [sa-sda] Fw: Researchers deplore dearth of marriage stats
From: "Shirley Allen" <chmin@hbc.ac.za>
Hi there
Seeing the latest discussion is on divorce I thought this may be of
interest.
Best wishes
Shirley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-smartmarriages@mclean1.his.com
<owner-smartmarriages@mclean1.his.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:; <undisclosed-recipients:;>
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 08:05
Subject: Researchers deplore dearth of marriage stats
>from: Smart Marriages
>
>
>Researchers deplore dearth of statistics about marriage
>
>By Cheryl Wetzstein THE WASHINGTON TIMES August 31, 1999
>
>Data on the vital statistics of marriage is drying up and no relief is in
>sight, says a growing group of researchers and social scientists. For
>instance:
>
>-Oklahoma policy-makers would like to lower their state's high divorce
>rate, but they can't tell if marrying young -- as many Oklahoma couples
>seem to do -- leads to divorce. There's no national data to guide the
>policy-makers.
>
>-Researchers would like to verify which state has the longest marriages,
>how old people are when they divorce, and how many children are affected
>by divorce each year. But there's no data.
>
>-Futurists like Sandy Burchsted of Houston are in an even bigger bind.
>Ms. Burchsted, who is preparing a book on marriage 100 years from now,
>believes that "serial monogamy" is slowly displacing traditional
>marriage, but proving even a megatrend like this will be difficult
>without data.
>
> Not only is current marriage data meager, but "there's very little
>written or even discussed about marriage in the future," she says.
>
>These researchers say the dearth of data on marriage and divorce is about
>to get worse. Next year, for the first time in more than 100 years, the
>U.S. Census will not ask every household about marital status.
>
>Instead, only 17 percent of households will be asked this vital question.
>
>This omission dismays researchers like Bonnie Braun, a family life
>specialist at the University of Maryland at College Park.
>
>"The census data has been the one consistent piece of data we could all
>use over time. Especially with trends, we had the same thing to compare
>to," says Mrs. Braun.
>
>"When I think about them leaving [data collection] up to states,
>individuals or universities, you are going to have so much variation that
>you're not going to be able to make the same kind of comparisons," she
>adds. "It really is of concern to us."
>
>Some observers in Congress are also concerned.
>
>"There's a growing understanding that nothing is more critical than
>marital status" when it comes to social pathologies, says Michael
>Schwartz, administrative director for Rep. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma
>Republican. "Now is not the time to eliminate that data."
>
>But Congress has played a pivotal role in creating the data dearth after
>signing off on the changes in the 2000 Census. Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas
>Republican, is trying to remedy the situation by asking the Senate to
>create a committee to examine the American culture and its effects on
>family and society. A top priority of the proposed committee would be to
>"explore holes in data collection" on family structure and function,
>according to his office.
>
> Beyond this, however, there aren't any immediate efforts to change
>federal data-gathering techniques. "It's still in the discussion stage,"
>said one House aide.
>
>Observers outside Capitol Hill say Congress has ample authority to lead
>on this issue. It can commission studies, pass laws requiring collection
>of marital status and related data and set uniform data collection
>standards for states.
>
> It could also tell the National Center for Health Statistics to resume
>collecting detailed marriage and divorce statistics, which it stopped
>doing in 1996. Congress should give the NCHS the funds to do so, the
>observers hasten to add, noting that the center abandoned its marriage
>and divorce efforts because of budget constraints.
>
>Marriage researchers need to lobby for their needs, says Theodora Ooms, a
>marriage expert who has been struggling to find data to help state
>policy-makers answer their marriage and divorce questions.
>
>Traditionally, Mrs. Ooms says, although many public and private groups
>use marriage data, "there are no strong constituents who have a clear
>stake in these issues.
>
>"Thus, there has been virtually no inside or outside pressure to improve"
>the collection of marriage and divorce data, she says.
>
>In addition, state and national public health departments have not viewed
>marriage as a public health concern and made it a low priority in data
>collection, she says.
>
>"It is essential that the federal government reverse current policy and
>reinvest in helping states collect uniform, consistent and useful data on
>marriage and divorce," says Mrs. Ooms, who is urging Congress to
>commission a study of marriage and divorce statistics, how they relate to
>census data, and how they can be improved.
>
>Patrick Fagan, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, suspects a "radical
>liberal agenda" is playing a role in the downgrading of marriage and
>divorce data collection.
>
>"Marriage is critical to the well-being of children, but elitists in
>academia and government hate to hear that," he says. They have therefore,
>he says, focused on other, less important factors affecting children,
>such as environment or family income.
>
>A prime example of this misunderstanding is a new report on children's
>well-being issued by 18 federal agencies, says Mr. Fagan.
>
>The report barely mentions family structure even though "divorce is the
>leading single thing that pushes kids into poverty," he says.
>
>Authors of the interagency study, "America's Children: Key National
>Indicators of Well-being," agree that "current data collection systems do
>not provide enough background information on children's lives, their
>families and their caregivers."
>
> More data on family structure is needed, as well as information on how
>and where children spend their time, the report's authors say.
>
>Researchers may be unhappy that the 2000 census will no longer ask every
>adult American about their marital status, but census experts note that
>this change couldn't have happened without Congress' approval.
>
> The Census Bureau showed Congress its lists of 2000 Census questions in
>April 1998, and Congress approved them, says TerriAnn Lowenthal, a
>consultant on the census.
>
>The marital-status question, which asks adults if they are "now married,
>widowed, separated, divorced or never married," was dropped from the 2000
>Census short form, which will go an estimated 120 million households. The
>official reason is there was no law mandating it. Questions on race and
>ethnicity were retained.
>
>This is the first time since 1880 the marriage question won't be asked of
>every household, said one congressional aide.
>
>The question, however, is maintained on the long form, which goes to 17
>percent of households, or around 20 million households.
>
>Earlier this year, several members of Congress considered introducing
>legislation to return the martial-status question to the short form,
>aides said.
>
>But making changes now in the 2000 census is "almost inconceivable,
>operationally," says Ms. Lowenthal. Some 200 million census forms,
>including those in foreign languages, are now being addressed. Reprinting
>the forms would likely cost more than $100 million and even delay the
>census, which is required by law to occur April 1, experts say.
>
>
>
>
>
>"Around the Coalition" is a FREE online newsletter which shares
>information on marriage and divorce and on skills-based educational
>approaches. Opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by members of
>the Coalition.
>
>To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to the list, send mail to majordomo@his.com
>Leave the subject line empty, and simply type in the body of the
>message (on the very FIRST line - don't skip a space near the
>top)----subscribe smartmarriages or unsubscribe smartmarriages
>
>-To UNSUBSCRIBE to this list, send a message to: majordomo@his.com
>
>- to CHANGE YOUR ADDRESS, follow the directions above to unsubscribe your
>old address and subscribe your new address.
>
>- this is a moderated list. When you send a reply message it is read by
>Diane Sollee only.
>
>ALL past newsletter postings are archived at:
>http://archives.his.com/smartmarriages/index.html#start
>
>Visit the website Articles and Informatin page at
>http://www.smartmarriages.com/articles.html
>
>The 3rd Annual Smart Marriages/Happy Families conference was held
>July 1-4, 1999 in Washington, DC.
>
>To order tapes of all presentations at the 1999 conference, as well as
>the 1997 & 1998 Smart Marriages conferences: call 800-241-7785,
>email tapes@the-resource-link.com or on the web at:
>http://www.the-resource-link.com/rl2.1/cmfce
>Audio tapes are $10, video tapes are $24.95.
>
>To list your program in the Directory of Providers visit the
>Website: http://www.smartmarriages.com/directory_browse.html
>
>Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
>Diane Sollee, Director
>5310 Belt Rd. NW, Washington, DC 20015-1961
>www.smartmarriages.com
>202-362-3332 (FAX 202-362-0973) Email: cmfce@smartmarriages.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
ONElist: your connection to online communities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The King is even at the door!
====
To contribute to the discussions: send your mails to sa-sda@onelist.com
To subscribe: send a blank email sa-sda-subscribe@onelist.com
To unsubscribe: send a blank email to sa-sda-unsubscribe@onelist.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:48:00 +0200
From: Ramo Mekoa <ramom@smm.setpoint.co.za>
Subject: Camp Meeting 1999
Good morning everyone,
The camp meeting has come and gone. I was at the East Rand camp meeting and
I was quite amused to have a discussion that we had on the list made
particularly relevant to me.
The issue of casual wear to church was not discussed in detail, and I
believe that was proper as it is one of those issues that should not divide
our attention on more important things. However, it was interesting to note
that in spite of the fact that we all knew that Advent City (a smallholding
in the Far East Rand owned by the East Rand District) is dusty and rather
exposed to windy conditions, a lot of those who came were dressed in their
finest. While this looked beautiful at the beginning of the day on Sabbath,
it proved to be rather impractical even before the divine service came
around. I am all for looking dignified and respectable (whatever that means)
when one comes to worship, but please let us be sensible as well.
Can we have some snippets of what other camp meetings were like? The East
Rand had a certain Pastor Sedibeng who, I think, did a great job in
emphasizing the sufficiency of Christ for our salvation. His illustrations,
which were all biblical, demonstrated to me how the bible is really about
God's plan for our salvation. I was immensely blessed.
Lift up your heads, for our redemption draweth nigh.
Ramodise
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:44:06 +0200
From: "Bangisi, Nikelo" <NBangisi@corp.anglogold.com>
Subject: RE: Re: TC-TOC Merger
Vusi,
Your church must have been represented in the session referred to by
Tankiso. My view is that the communication problem lies squarely in the
hands of your local leaders. I know that the resolution that He is talking
about was also communicated very well to the whole TOC constituency. Now
let's discuss the crux of the matter.
When I read the reply of Tankiso I gather some facts that I want to put
differently. Firstly, we can easily see that the TC is definitely not
interested in church unity. I understand that some pastors in TC are not
afraid to demonstrate their political stance and hatred of uniting and being
led by Africans. I always wonder how they will work together with Africans
should they be elected to the Union. Will they pretend to be happy working
with Africans or instead refuse to work with them and decline the election?
Come session 2000 and we will be anxiously waiting to see how they will
react.
Secondly, the change of tone from "merger" to "unity" implies that we have
had a spiritual problem. I agree with Tankiso that from a company law point
of view to merge implies either a "buy-out" or an equal contribution of
assets in a common pool for business purposes. Does the TC want to "buy-out"
the TOC or do they fear to be "bought-out". Although the term "merger" was
used without much question in the past I am prepared to adopt the biblical
one of "unity". One only hopes that it will make some difference in terms of
spiritual growth.
Thirdly, I do not agree with the notion of waiting and seeing whether the TC
is interested or not. It appears from this response that the issue hinges on
financial wealth. Much as the TC used to be wealthy the TOC is now working
on its financial growth through people growth. Is money the issue here? If
money is the issue then the word "merger" is still appropriate. If it was
possible the TOC needed to have standing program of action to always show
interest. The suspension of talks easily implies a "no interest" stance
towards TC. If the TOC is not interested anymore it should be made clear,
but if there is interested then there should be some innovation on ways and
means of getting TC closer to a realisation for the need for church unity.
Lastly, I am interested in the methods used by the old Southern and Good
Hope Conferences in achieving their unity down in the Cape. There it is
apparent that the Cape Conference did not want to unite. Africans and
Coloureds did it. Why can't our Coloured brothers break from TC and unite
with the TOC? Does it mean they also do not want to merge with Africans?
As Jongimpi put it in another discussion "the problem of the heart is the
heart of the problem". This fits our problem of church unity in this part of
the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tankiso Letseli [mailto:tletseli@mweb.co.za]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 9:55 PM
To: sa-sda@onelist.com
Subject: [sa-sda] Re: TC-TOC Merger
To briefly respond to a conversation between Jerry & Nick pertaining to the
TC-TOC merger. The TOC, in its recent session [31 October 1998], took an
action to never initiate any further talks with the TC regarding merger,
but keep the communication lines open in case the TC develops an interest in
the subject. The minutes of the above-mentioned TOC Session were despatched
to the entire TOC Constituency. In a nutshell, the communication lines are
still open on the TOC side.
In the interim, the TOC Constituency has planned to double its current
membership [17 359] by the year 2001. This simply means that we have rolled
our sleeves in order to engage ourselves in rigorous activities that would
help us realise our goals. We still have townships, villages, locations,
suburbs where there is no Adventist presence. We are beginning to see the
signs of the envisaged growth because we have already baptised 939 persons
between 01/11/1998 and 31/03/1999. This numerical growth is also coupled
with monetary growth. We are beginning to experience an unprecedented
interest demonstrated by our members in various modes of evangelism.
Once more on the issue of "merger." I think we should employ Biblical terms
in our quest to unify the church in this part of the country. I would
prefer the word "unity" because it is more Biblical than the term -
"merger." The word "merger" is a business term, and it presupposes two
companies amalgamating their assets for several reasons [acquisition of one
company by another, or creating a strong business partnership out of merging
two companies], hence the inevitability of this question: "How much do you
have before we can consider merging?" instead of facing a crucial, moral
question: "Can we continue in this fashion without hurting the very mission
of this church and frustrating God's purpose?" The word "merger" robs the
whole process of Church Unity of its spiritual/moral tone. What do you
think?
Tankiso Letseli
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Resources | |||||
|
|||||
| Copyright © 1998-99 ONElist, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Important Disclaimers and Legal Information |