Leaderboard

There are limitations on my time. I have to pick and choose what the posts to which I will respond. I seldom will respond to garbage. It, I believe will be self-evident and does not therefore need a response. I am not likely to make an extended response to issues that are trite. So what? They simply do not matter. Rachel is dealing with issues that are of some importance and of interest to some of our members. Her posts on her issues are well written and worthy of consideration. It is from this standpoint that I am responding to her and her recent post. The following are some of the concerns (issues) that I have with what Rachel has posted: Issue # 1: The role of Ellen White as a prophet: I acknowledge that the SDA Church considers EGW to be a prophet, whatever that may mean. The official Fundamental Belief states that her writings are an authoritative source of truth and are good for guidance instruction and correction. They it goes on to say that the ultimate standard is the Bible by which all must be tested. Rachel comes across to me as thinking that prophet is a source of doctrinal truth about God and must be 100% correct in everything that the prophet says about God. Rachel comes across to me as believing that God would correct any error in any statement that a true prophet made about God. So, therefore, if you find a real error in any statement that a prophet made about God, ipso facto that alleged prophet is not a true prophet. I reject all of the above, as it relates to Ellen White. Ellen White always implored people to go to the Bible. She never held herself up to be the authority on Biblical issues/doctrines. I believe that Rachel is well enough acquainted with what EGW said to know that this is true. The primary role of Ellen White in the development of the SDA denomination was not that of telling us what true Biblical doctrine was. It was the role of guiding us as a developing denomination. We are indebted to the ministry of EGW in the development of: a) Our health work. 'b) Our education emphasis. c) Our publishing work and to a lesser degree to our mission emphasis (others played major roles in this.). We would not be what we are today, as a denomination, especially in these areas, if it were not for the ministry of Ellen White. One additional factor: Ellen White played major roles in correcting and reproving leaders in our developing denomination. These are the areas of Ellen White’s major influence in the development of our denomination. While I do not say that she never spoke on Biblical/doctrinal issues. This was not her area of major influence. Issue # 2: The Biblical role of a prophet: In the popular thought today, a prophet is often thought to: a) Tell us what is going to happen in the future. 'b) Tell what I am going to call here doctrinal truths, although this may not be the best term to use. There are examples in the Bible of prophets who did the above. But, there were also other Biblical prophet who fit into another role/category. Moses is one such example. (See Deuteronomy 34:10) He did have some role in teaching about God. He delivered the 10 Commandments, written by the hand of God on stone. He did not originate them himself. But, his major role was that of leading Israel to Palestine and in guiding them as a developing nation. It was not that of predicting the future. He guided in Israel’s development as a civil nation with laws and rules to govern the people. He guided them in their journey to Palestine. In a real sense, this is how EGW guided us as a developing denomination. Issue # 3: Rachel suggests that EGW was strongly influenced in her view of the Trinity by Prescott, Lacey and Froom. She then goes on to tell us that EGW did not have anything original—Sabbath, State of the Dead, Trinity, etc. I say thank God for that. Rachel is simply endorsing the view that I hold that EGW is not the source of SDA doctrine. In the view of EGW, the Bible is the source of doctrine. Rachel is probably more correct that she thought. EGW often was convinced by others, not a supernatural revelation, of a Biblical doctrine and when she was convinced, she accepted it. If not convinced, she rejected it. So, also, EGW should not be considered today to be the source of our doctrine. That source should be the Bible. However, is may be of interest for us to know today what the leaders in our developing church believed, to include EGW and how beliefs changed as time passed and we developed as a denomination. By the way, it should not be a surprise to either Rachel or anyone else reading this post to see me say that EGW as influenced by others. That fact is well known and documented. Issue # 4: No human, Biblical prophet or not, has ever had a full understanding of the totality of God and what God wants for us. For all humans, the spiritual life is a life of growth and development. A study of God’s people in all ages will show that development and growth. That can be seen in the life of Ellen White. In her understanding of the Trinity, she clearly grew, as she did in many other areas of spiritual life and understanding about God.

I think Lyndon makes a valid point. Most domestic violence reports and articles are slanted towards the woman as the victim. But there are many occurrences of men being victimized by the woman. I think perhaps one reason for less reports of men being abused is because they feel ashamed to speak up, as if it would demean their character in some way....perhaps fearing to appear "weak"..... While I know it happened 130 years ago, my great grandfather divorced his wife on grounds of physical and mental cruelty. I read the original divorce papers and was appalled at what his first wife had done to him. Women can have the same tyrannical nature that exists in some men. Men have no business abusing women. But women have no business doing it to men, either...

Rachel, you made an interesting comment that I will comment upon. NOTE: My comment does not attribute anything specific to you: 1) Ellen White was a human with all of the same issues that we face. As a human, her spiritual growth and development took place as does ours. As such, she was subject to being wrong and/or incomplete in her Theological understanding of God and the Bible, just as are we. Her understanding of God and the Bible was develomental and occured over her lifetime. 2) The above does not negate that God used her in the development of the SDA Chruch. But, throughout the history of Christianity, we see God using imperfect humans to accomplish his work. 3) Ellen White's doctrinal understanding may, or it may not, represent the understanding of the SDA denomination of today. 4) In the thinking of EGW, there was more for the SDA chruch to learn about God and in Biblicall (doctrinal) understanding. She did not see the SDA Chruch as being locked into what its leaders in her time understood. 5) She never wanted to be considered the normative standard for doctrine.

Paul Petersen & Robert McIver, BIBLICAL & THEOLOGICAL STUDIES ON THE TRINITY. Avondale Academic Press, 2014, 234 pages. YOu may purchase this book from: http://atfpress.com/biblical-and-theological-studies-on-the-trinity.html for $34.95. Amazon also carries the book, but at a higher price.

I have prepared a study on this topic for my website. Here's a link for those interested: http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/Book%20Chapters/1-BOOK%20OF%20LIFE%20-Challenge.pdf Rachel Cory Prophecy Viewpoint

And trust in the Creator God. God is Love! Jesus saves!

Tall glass of good down home ice tea....southern style that is! Meaning, its brewed with the sugar in it, the only rel ice tea!!!

When Jesus asked "Who do people say that I am" and "Who do you say that I am" Jesus told Simon Peter that he was blessed because it was not flesh and blood that told him, but the spirit. One major truth about God that is often overlooked is his unassuming nature. Jesus does not grab us by our shirt collar and say "Look, this is what you are to believe" and give the reasons to believe. He let his disciples discuss and argue (would try to get them off from arguing who was going to hold which offices in the kingdom of God). Jesus did not say to his disciples "Look, I'm the messiah and let me tell you why!" but like how he did not answer John the Baptist's question directly but just apparently ignored them then said "Tell John all you have seen." When Lucifer began raising questions about God and questioned if God was creator God could have just created the earth suddenly and powerfully in a way that raised no doubt. Instead he created earth but left it without form and void and let the angels and created beings experiment things for themselves, the results ending up chaotic, and they discuss and finally make decisions as to whether to join the rebellion or not. Once this was done and people made a choice based on faith then God's spirit moved over the void, formless chaos and said "Let there be light!." Ancient Yahwehism had two denominations. One lead by the priesthood of Aaron and was focused on the tabernacle in the middle of the camp and temple, where God could be in the mists of his people. Their worship was very solemn "be still and know that I am God" ritualistic, strong general conference. They put more emphases on the fall holidays, Yom Kippur a day of fasting and prayer. The other lead by the priesthood of Moses and was focused on the tent of the meeting outside of the camp because God was so holy that he would consume the people if he lived among them. Their worship was very lively praising the Lord with harp and tambourine and dance. Less ritual, more focused on the spring feasts and spending the feasts with your family rather than in a house of worship and more congregational with a weak General Conference. Yom Kippur was a day to celebrate that our sins were as far away from us as the east is from the west. This was why King David had two high priests. One was from each denomination. So even here you don't see God with just one set of uniformity, but there were two denominations (and even they were further broken down into northern and southern forms) so God's people still had a flexibility and room to grow. Study the differences and contradictions between Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the Deuteronomic books and the priestly books. Both had problems and both had strong points and both became our Bible. Also, in the Bible God would explain things to people in terms that they understood, even if we would not consider their views incorrect. God lead the people. Early in the Bible was not the belief in monotheism, but in the belief that Yahweh was the most high God. Later that developed into Yahweh being self existent and the creator of the other gods. This grew into Isaiah realizing that if God was himself the only self existent and the creator of the other gods, then the other gods were not gods at all but parts of creation and Yahweh the only God and thus we got Monotheism. But that grew. Even the doctrine of no human sacrifice grew and you see development of this doctrine in the scriptures. But it did not change by God giving a demand by the prophets, but by the people growing and realizing that it was something that God never intended. The New Testament had the church of Peter, of Paul and of John. Were it not for John holding them together and seeing both as valid, the church would have split between Peter and Paul long ago. Study the differences and contradictions between Mark and Luke. Early Adventists had the trinity as an optional doctrine, and it was a minority doctrine. The majority were not Trinitarian. First of all it was not a point of the early church to be officially anti Trinitarian. Both camps were welcomed, but one was more outspoken. God did not send Mrs. White a vision correcting the mistake. She and James were willing to listen to both sides of the issue. At the end of his life James said that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than the arguments opposed to the trinity. But God lead us and one of the ways God lead us was through allowing us the see the results of our choice. When you don't hold the trinity, you tend to make one aspect of the trinity as God in God's wholeness. In most cases it is God the Father, God as power and authority. When this happens then we tend to become like the one we worship and admire, and when we worship the Father only, we tend to focus on the power and authority. It leaves room for very powerful authoritarian figures in our leadership telling us what to do and what to believe. And the result was that we started preaching the law the law the law until we were as dry as the hills of Gilboah. Unlike other churches which continue in this error and are continuing to have a very strong leadership with the members being told what to do and they have to obey, we realized that this was a problem and that this problem needed a solution. The solution was to change from the God the Father being God in total, to realizing that we needed the trinity. And that was when Mrs. White began guiding us into Trinitarian views.

A good reasons to vote no, or absolutely no to woman's ordination, is because you recognize the authority the Catholic Church put in place for Church Governance and Church administration. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Just my opinion, and I can say that I have really not had many good experience with female pastors, except those who are really active in ministering to people. I know three right now that are outstanding.

I drank alcoholically from my first drink, at 16, in 1958. I love alcohol! I simply don't drink now. Alcohol caused the breakup of two marriages, plus every job I had. After I stopped drinking, my job lasted 11 years. My third and last marriage, almost 25 years. It was terminated by death. My sobriety date is February 3, 1986, the day I was commissioned a police officer. Hangovers and police work don't mix. One night I "interviewed" a woman lying on the street, drunk. Thought: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." I lived in Oregon --- with its good water --- and brewed home-brew beer from this marvelous water. ;-) To get a good view (some might say grip) on the alcoholic personality, subscribe to the Facebook "‎Alcoholics Anonymous quote each day to your inbox" group (Oh, drat! Forget it. It's a closed group. You have to be alcoholic to join, recovering or not.) AA has good one-liners: "Easy does it." "One day at a time." "Let go, let God." "Just for this {day|hour|minute|second}." Choose one. "Sobriety delivers what alcohol promises." I tend to trust other alcoholics more than church members because of honesty. On all fronts. They've been there.

Idiotville, Oregon. It's the nature of politicians...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Keep your mouth shut and keep your integrity. So simple.

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but I think your premise that we are somehow held together by the thought that we are "right" is, imo, not accurate. The SDAC is held together by a body of doctrinal propositions which we believe to be most consistent with what the Book teaches. Part of the genius of the Advent Movement is its recognition that the knowledge of truth is progressive. While change may be slow and difficult, it has avoided the pit that all the Reformation and post-reformation churches have fallen into when they advanced no farther than their founders did.

I would just join up with other SDAs who would still hold to the doctrine. Those who don't believe in it must have the book of Hebrews and Rev 11 missing in their Bibles.

Dieting is usually equated with a diet to lose weight. That should not be. Everyone ought to get on a good, healthy diet - now, if not already on it.

Had a computer teacher tell me- The rule for programing is this- gigo....IOWs, garbage in, only garbage comes out.....but if you really want to foul things up, use a computer....... If we don't use our senses correctly, we will arrive at a foul concluision....That's why I rely on God's 10 goals for relationship....You know them as the 10 Commandments....If what I say comes out hurtful, I am quite honestly "killing" some one...And it's a way for me to realize that I am making assumptions that are harmful to relationships....It kinda teaches me to curb my tongue.....I know, too many people just are not willing to do this....and some claim to be the Savior's followers.....

I like the caffeine-laden, disease-attributed aspartame-riddled Diet Mountain Dew..

The lab worker that I spoke to several days ago told me that the immunity of African people generally is much lower than ours in the West. That could be the reason the American patients that were flown back to the States have all survived, not racism. We may be exposed to flu bugs, etc but African people are frequently exposed to malaria, parasites, HIV and other deadlier diseases. If you add to that the fact that many of them don't have access to clean water and good health care and education regarding good hygienic practises you begin to see the recipe for the disaster we are viewing today. And yet, Nigeria was able to clamp down on its outbreak and contain it. I see that as a hopeful sign. It just takes effort.

Perhaps God should have destroyed Adam and Eve and started over, but unless the telepathic demons were silenced, evil would once again arise to reign on this world. Most, or all of us, too, would be quickly evicted from the Garden of Eden were we to gain entrance even for a moment. The destruction of evil and all of those embracing it is only an act of mercy for the rest of the universe. Unmolested by selfish and murderous thoughts those inhabitants can live in a place where no one could even dream of harming others or disrespecting the Creator. If we understand our role as obedient servants of YHVH, we will be much closer to his Kingdom. Without love and respect for YHVH and others, our obedience is worthless.

Rachel, I see you believe Jesus is/was the Holy Spirit. How then can the Holy Spirit not speak about Himself as the Bible tells us? Would that not then preclude the Holy Spirit from telling us anything about Jesus? It would also preclude, to me, the Biblical authors from having anything to say about Jesus for the Bible was written with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To me that text destroys the foundation of your beliefs on this subject.

Rachel asked: As you probably will recognize the following came from the Internet posting of the SDA 28 Fundamental Beleifs. The statement that I have quoted in the one officially voted statement as to what SDAs generally beleive. Anything in addition to the statement below is a non-official expansion as to what SDAs beleive and probably will represent a part of SDA members but not the whole. If you read the book, you will find such an expansion in the 2nd chapter of the book.

I never said or inferred that joeb had any malicious intent - in fact, I addressed intent in my OP. The issue has nothing to do with the "intent" of the one doing the writing about someone else. It has to do with respecting the rights of someone who is not present to defend themselves in the face of detrimental accusations. The problem can include veiled "concerned" prayers for someone who has an addiction or other private/confidential issue - and steam ahead with "sharing" on a forum or other public venue verbal or written statements concerning an individual who is unaware of the proceedings.. Why should "intent" and opinion trump "privacy" and respect for members of one's family? ......... I give up...I was trying to make a helpful point...a reminder - that's all. But apparently, since it's more fun and self-cathartic for some to write about others in public, it appears that my little mission is a failure. Oh well...

I hate to say this, but the above is a classic example of what my OP was trying to address.. No matter what one's personal opinion is of someone else, is it really necessary to write a public exposé on that person's character? Really?

Are you also trying to be a comedian?

Yeah, I'm not going to say that those teachers aren't out there, but I haven't met them. I had a number of professors in college that I disagreed with on a variety of issues. I had a philosophy professor that was the quintessential liberal hippie, and he gave me a 195/200 (by FAR the highest grade in the class) on my final essay, one in which I defended a fairly conservative Christian viewpoint. I also saw a variety of students thoughtlessly regurgitate garbage in a manner illustrating that they hadn't engaged with the class at all, and then complain about the bias of the professor when they were graded poorly. So that's why I'd like to see Joeb's papers, because given my interactions with him in the past I'm pretty sure he falls into the latter category. But I could be wrong, only one way to find out.

As NT believers, I don't think we are required to keep these feastivals under pain of hell-fire any more; but we should honor them as our heritage to recognize and meditate upon what these festivals represent; and to keep in mind that - just as the spring festivals were fulfilled in real-time in Christ's first coming- the fall festivals could be fulfilled in real time at His Second Coming. God gave us these days for a reason ...

The point I'm *trying* to make is that it's not a good thing to publicly post comments regarding the problems or issues of anyone else, including family members, unless the person involved has given consent. Not only are such statements a violation of privacy, but also a violation of boundaries.... and to publicly post such comments may get a person in a whole peck of trouble, relationally as well as legally.

Good Comment Lauralea. But too often we try to usurp the role of Jesus.

There is no Aaronic priesthood ministering at the Temple in Jerusalem, to tell us exactly WHEN the barley harvest was approaching ripeness - to begin the calendar for the year on the New Moon. Different sects of Judaism, or Messianic Judaism/Hebrew Roots are teaching the correctness of different days. THAT should tell us that we need Messiah to return and reset our calendar. I do NOT say that I keep any of the appointed times. I say that I commemorate them - I remember them - and I look forward to keeping them in His kingdom. Even the 7th day Sabbath - is questioned - concerning which day is actually the 7th. Is it the 7th from the New Moon? Is it the 7th in a continuing cycle which began at creation, and was re-established during 40 years of wilderness wandering?? The appointed times were prophecy. They told a story of God's plan for our rescue from Satan's dominion. I think it entirely appropriate that we "remember" and repeat the prophecy taught by each Feast. I will NOT get into arguments about which day is the correct one in today's calendar. It is enough for me to know that my LORD has a plan, and I will be rescued at the time appointed. Blessings, Rachel Cory Prophecy Viewpoint

Who is man, finite man, that thinks he can describe something we can not fathom... yet...

Suggestions that the idea of the Trinity came from 2nd Temple Judaism: http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter10e.htm http://www.newrepublic.com/article/103373/books-and-arts/magazine/jewish-gospels-christ-boyarin Objections to the idea that the idea of the Trinity came form 2nd Temple Judiasm: http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/176972/how-the-trinity-impacted-judaism-via-kabbalah/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism's_view_of_Jesus Comment: There is a wealth of material available on this subject, including material that supports Pam's idea that there may be a pagan influence in the doctrine of the Trinity. If one googles: " the concept of the trinity comes from Second Temple Judaism" One will find a large number of listings. I have only posted a couple of URLs. I do not claim that any of what Ihave posted is authorative. I simply find it interesting. As a matter of fact, I believe that much of what I find posted on the Internet is interesting, but not authorative. So, I am posting this comment, with URLs simply to stimulate your thought and perhaps further study. Again, I am not posting it because I think it is authorative. Have fun. Enjoy yourself and any further study that you may give to this subject.

Yes, the Synodal letter: I find the following part of that letter most interesting: You correctly quoted it. Did you get the importance of it. The Council of Nicea condemed him without proving what he actually taught! He was not allowed to defend himself. Your Synodal letter simply alleges what he taught but did not grant him the privilege of defending himself by correcting any err as to what he actually taught. That is the issue. We, today, have most of our information about him from his enemies. Why? Becasue his enemies destroyed any of his wriltings that they could locate. Of course, I beleive that Arius was wrong. Did Arius rell say that the Saon of God was capable of virtue as a creature? If he did, I would have a problem with that. As a creature, you and I are only capable of virture by the grace ofGod, and that is limited. Again, we are discussing words. But, to me, as I understand the anti-Trinitarian teachings of Arius, the "bedrock: is centered elsewhere than the issue of a nature capable of vice and virture.

Gustave: All will have to agree that James white had Arian beliefs that probably came from his Christian Connection. As to how one would describe the strength of those beliefs, that is largely a matter of words and people who substantially agree can disagree as to a choice of words. I chose my wording in the context of the anti-Trinitarian beliefs of other early denominational leaders. In my opinion, there were others who were more firmly fixed and more verbal as to their beliefs than was James White. Again, that can be debated. I will suggest that the dates of his various statements are of value. I note that you have quoted a statement of his that was made about seven (7) Months prior to his death. I will remind you that in the last decade of his life (actually a bit longer) James White was under great stress and poor health. Accordingly, during that period of time one could find many statements made by James White that were blunt, pointed and probably stated with more force than he would have used at an earlier time in his life. Your post raises another issue: You seemingly have not mentioned the leaders in our developing SDA denomination who were somewhere between the Arian position and the Trinitarian position. They were probably "binitarian." With your knowledge of our denominational history, I assume that you know this. In any case, due to the binitarian influence in our development, it just may be that some of our early denominational leaders were not as fully Arian as they are often thought to be. As an example of a binitarian denomination that exists today see the Church of God (Seventh-day). [Yes, I know that there is more than one denomination with a form of this name.] One of these denomilnations is binitarian. NOTE: The majority of information that we have today related to Arianism comes from its enemies. We have very little actual knowledge as to what the actual original teachings were. On that basis, there are those who would disagree with you as to what you say is "Bedrock Arian doctrine" Again, that is simply playing with words. .

An additional point is that as Mrs. White's Great Controversy theme developed, it became more focused on the trinity. She has Lucifer forming 3 deceptions; and they correspond to the 3 aspects of the trinity. She sees importance in many of the 3s in the Bible and they tend to point to the 3 aspects of the trinity, including the 3 angel's messages. Studies of Revelation show that the dragon of Revelation 12 and the beast and false prophet of Revelation 13 are the aspects of the trinity that are not in a oneness of self sacrificing love, but are either separate or cooperate for their own purposes. The Exodus 20 version of the 10 commandments can be broken into 3 thirds: The first third consists of 3 commandments that tell how to love God supremely. The last third consists of 6 commandments on how to love our neighbor as our selves (the work of the Holy Spirit in making us loving and loveable people) and the middle third consists of one commandment that ties the two ideas together and says that the only way we can love God supremely and or neighbor as our selves is through resting in a relationship with God. Thus the trinity has grown more and more central to Adventism. An interesting foot note and I hope that I can learn more information on this. But Methodist Archaeologist Dr. Jim Fleming use to be a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. One of his colleagues was a Rabbi who was the world's leading scholar on second temple Judaism. Dr. Fleming said that this Rabbi discovered that the Christian doctrine of the trinity was actually Jewish in origin. That it was developed by second temple Rabbis in dealing with the Greek and Roman world and explaining Old Testament concepts that made sense to an Eastern mindset but not to a western mindset.

One thing that I'd like to add to Gregory's post: Elder Wheeler who did James White's biography spoke a few years ago at the New York Campmeeting. He pointed out that while most of those who came from the Christian Connection were anti Trinitarian, that James White was remarkably quiet on the topic. Later interviews with people who knew him said that while they talked about him with many topics, they did not really know his views on the topic of the trinity. That was one subject he tended not to talk about. There was a man who as a little boy, his family once had the Whites over for lunch and he said that at the meal James talked against the trinity. But that was the only person who they interviewed who knew him that had more to say than that he did not talk about the topic. Elder Wheeler also found a letter James wrote shortly before his death where he wrote that the arguments for the trinity was starting to make more sense to him than the arguments against the trinity.

TrevorL: The doctrine of the Trinity is an exceedingly complex doctrine that is not well understood by, probably, most people. In the early days of our developing Church, there ws a subset of leaders, to include James White who did not believe in the Trinity. These people largely came from a group known as the Christian Connection. With the passage of time, many ot these people, to include Ellen White, became Trinitarian. Yes, the SDA CHurch is officially Trinitarian. However, the SDA denominaiton of today is a diverse group of people who are not in total agreement in many areas of belief and practice. As such there is a subset of people who are not Trinitarian. and do remain members in good standing, as is true for other areas of belief. With the rise of "Fundamentalism" in our culture today, there is a desire of some of our members to return to what they believe to be the historic beleifs of early SDA leaders. In actual fact, they do not always udnerstand what those historic beleifs are. The result is that a subset of this gorup advocated a return to a non-Trinitarian view. This is being strongly advocated by some today. The subject of the Tinity is discussed in volumne 12, of THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST BIBLE COMMENTARY: HANDBOOK OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY, and primarily on pages 120 - 129. The book that I cited in the begining post is a much larger work which consists of 234 pages. I intend to purchase it, but I will need to wait a bit to do so. In any case, I encourage those who are interested in this subject to read widely on the subject and to suggest that the two books that I have mentioned will be helpful for understanding the SDA background. NOTE: As to the book mentioned in the opening post, It is available from Amazon, and can be shipped from a United States location, or it can be ordered direct from the publisher, and shipped form Europe.

part of the issue is that we try to place God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit into "human" constructs, when we really have no idea what constitutes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I have yet to see a misleading post here on this subject. As to "moderate" drinking, it's impossible to for someone who has never used alcohol to know if they are going to become an alky before they take their first drink. Thus, it is a huge risk, not because the odds of becoming an alky are so extreme, but because the downside is so extreme. This makes telling anyone it's OK to drink a highly problematic position on the moral scale. As an example of someone who became an alky the first time they drank, I'm exhibit #1. The first time I drank, I drank to the point of getting sick, and yet I loved it. I was hooked that first time, and the downside was very extreme for me. Of course it isn't that way for everyone, but if we love our fellow man how can we justify telling someone who has never used alcohol it's OK if they do for they may very well have their life destroyed by our "innocent" recommendation. To me that is anything but caring for, i.e. loving, my fellow man. I owe my neighbor far more than that kind of carelessness. And who is my neighbor? Even those who hate me.....

Out of people who were exposed to Ebola through Patrick Sawyer, the American who died in Nigeria, one is confirmed with the disease and 8 more are suspected as having come down with it. A man traveling from Sierra Leone to Saudi Arabia is being tested for Ebola as well. The Washington Post is reporting that Liberians have been spooked by information to disinfect their homes and are now dumping their dead INTO THE STREETS, if you can imagine! Heavenly Father, we know from Jesus' words that evil things will come on the earth before He returns, that the things we hear about are but the beginning of sorrows. I ask for mercy for the people in West Africa. Many of those people are destitute of your Word and Your love. It is still a dark continent, but I would like to pray for them as this scourge ravages its people. When/if the people look up I pray that angels will attend them. May the information get out to all who need it, as well as medical aid. In Jesus' precious name- amen