Leaderboard

Important distinctions... Happiness is a choice, really.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamara-star/7-habit-of-chronically-unhappy-people_b_6174000.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063 The above link shows 7 habits of Chronically Unhappy people..Perhaps we should ask if we harbor these habits and then maybe we can submit these things to Jesus....perhaps.... . . . . or not....

I really like this sentence. The phrase you underlined really defines what sanctification is. The phrase defines for me what is my duty in my sanctification. No thread of human devising tells me that I am not to choose what sins to "work" on. It tells me that my duty is study Christ and when the Holy Spirit convicts me on some behavior I am to follow His leading. "Thus, my behavior, my "works", have no thread of human devising for I am not acting on my own impulses but am following the leading of God. So is there "nothing" for me to do? No. I must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. That is my part in sanctification. It has no thread of human devising for none of it originates with me.

Wow great story, but it makes you wonder, "that was to easy!!"

God works with people where they are and their understanding of the Bible. God sees what they need and works with faith, and who may need something special. Many of the prayers are not answered so that God can lead us. In Jesus' day illness was understood to be God's direct punishment for sin. Some Rabbis even had a list of what sins cause certain illnesses and thus if you came down with that illness they knew what sin you committed. For Jesus to have instant healings then gave the message that God forgave them of their sins. Today we understand illness differently. And while there may be those in the above list who had a living relationship with God, He wants us to understand that natural and supernatural are to work together. That God has his laws that he wants us to respect. Thus as we go into the last days we will find two competing health messages: One based on cooperating with God's laws of health and shows a moral God who respects and cooperates with his laws. The other has a wishy-washy god who heals people willie-nillie if they just call not caring about what they eat or if they smoke or do other harmful things to their body.

fc suggests: " I think we need to define what we mean by these terms prior to discussing." I would propose that CoA gave as good of a definition as there is in Post #6 - whether one is more conservative or liberal than I am equates to "they don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible" (or of EGW, I might add). Putting an objective definition on "liberal" and "conservative" would be a challenge. A person I would consider "libera"l is one more liberal than me; a "conservative" would be one who is more conservative than me. Furthermore, it depends on which aspect of my faith. I am very Liberal in some aspects and very conservative in other aspects. It's kind of a relative thing. People whom I view as conservative, others may view as flaming liberals.

There are times in my life that I find I need more liberality and there are times that I need to be reined in and calmed down. If Christ is preached in the way He preached, in living words (that are life-giving), I appreciate both. But dryness in either camp is tough like kale (as well as dry like the hills of Gilboa)

When the pastor calls for the offering, he never asks "Please give a CONSERVATIVE offering." He always asks for a LIBERAL offering! So being liberal is good, in some circumstances. In fact, in this day and age, being liberal is best, IMHO. We must be inclusive of all races, all genders, all interpretations of Scripture, if we are to live as Jesus lived when He was here on earth.