Leaderboard

I agree. That's why the true Christian is a disciple of Christ. Robert's view completely ignores discipleship. I like what Easton's Bible Dictionary says is the definition of a disciple of Christ. Robert does not understand what a disciple is. He makes being a disciple a negative instead of a positive. He agrees with the first two definitions but ignores the last two. He calls those two aspects of discipleship legalism.

The question of morality is about the context in which you would teach it, with appropriate justifications of what you would teach that wouldn't pass as mere indoctrination. Education implies understanding, and you seem to misunderstand the below: I think you didn't read my response above. The semantics of the word "opinion" doesn't merely reside with "lacking factual relevance and justification". Opinion denotes a view or judgment formed about something. It can be based on facts, or it can be based on personal preferences. There are VALID opinions, and there are INVALID or ARBITRARY opinions. Valid opinions form the framework behind morality and propositional and provisional truths. But it doesn't change the fact that the morality is an opinion. Saying that God proclaims something doesn't change that fact. Morality merely becomes God's opinion and judgement then. The writer in the article creates a false distinction between morality and opinion. Morality is a form of opinion, but it's not just an opinion. Just like an opinion of a jury, morality is a collective opinion of any given culture which can be supported by facts, tradition, and beliefs. Morality and facts are not synonymous. Morality is a judgement about facts in terms of how these two words are related. My point is this... How can the author of this article teach proper perspective on morality, when he is confused on basic semantic meaning of words surrounding it... and he thinks that morality can be linked with facts by means of "to be" verb? My point about founding fathers is somewhat secondary, and it's largely about idealism vs reality. Moral Idealism often clouds moral realism. Idealism is seldom the best way of evaluating moral landscape, precisely because it lacks reality. There's essentially little difference in a way that Stalin and Lenin was portrayed in Soviet educational system, and the way founding fathers are portrayed in US textbooks. How can we learn anything as a society, if we continually sweep the reality under the rug for the sake of idealism? For me, this is probably the biggest problem with religious take on morality. It's portrayed as flawless, when it's far from it in reality of its application.

I think we can all agree that the cycles of evening/morning, of weeks, appointed times, planting cycles, and jubilee WAS A PROPHECY. Jackson quotes EGW, and seems to be saying that this prophecy - all of it, just came to a screeching halt on October 22nd, 1844. I don't believe so. October 22nd, was NOT jubilee.

Kevin, I was interested to look at the idea of the morning and evening sacrifices... and yes, sure enough they seem to be described consistently as morning and evening... in that order. (Ex 29:38-42, Num 28:4, 1Chron 16:40, Ezra 3:3, etc.) Thank you for this very interesting detail... even the "jots and tittles" have their place and significance. The 2300 evenings-mornings do not appear to relate to the sacrifices. In fact I cannot find one place were the daily (or "perpetual") offerings are described in that way... again, as I say, it seems to always be the other way around (i.e. morning -- evening).

Not trying to butt in here; but my current viewpoint is that the 2300 evening/mornings refer to the evening and morning daily sacrifices; which would work out to 1150 days the 1150 days fits in with "a time, times and part of a time" (frequently translated as half a time) referred to in Daniel. After 2300 evening/morning sacrifices, the temple will be "restored" (i.e., returned to its originally intended function). I infer from other prophecies that the "temple" referred to is possibly a 3rd temple. Daniel 8:17-18 make it abundantly clear that this vision is for the end of time; not Daniel's time.

I just have one more thing to add to this. It's impossible for a society to survive if personal opinion is the arbitrator of that society's morals for that does nothing but ensure anarchy. That society's foundation is nothing but shifting sand.

Yes, Joe, if you search the Internet you will find many examples of the story being told. However, the facts remain that what I have stated is false is false. A lie repeated 1,000 times remains a lie and is not truth. I find it interesting that you have not responded to the specific reasons that Snopes has given for stating that it is false. You response is simply that there are over a million posts of the material. In Post # 9 your referenced a medical person. Here is one such statement in your citation: Yes, that citation has people who disagree with Dr. Tabu.

It appears that we have become like the first day churches. No ones is under any law unless he/she breaks it. If you are driving and run a red light, then you become under the law. The ticket is you judgment for breaking the law. You ether pay it or go before the judge to plead your case. Now let me give to you what happen to me. I was riding in the city of Newnan Georgia, going home. I had just past the light and going at the right speed. Instantly without any sirens a police car was on me with lights on. The first thing I did was look at the odometer to see if I was going above the correct speed. I was driving correctly and I then was trying to get over, when he pull over and continue on. I kept driving when another one came behind me again with no sound but only the flashing lights. He pull me over and said I did not get over fast enough for the first car. I told him, that he did not give a warning but was swiftly behind me! I was giving a ticket and I came to court. I pleaded my case and the persecutor these days said she would look at the tape. She rescheduled for a month and took my email! I receive grace because after seeing the tape I was correct. I was not under the law! Now for the life of me, where is this coming about not been under the Universal Law. If you sin you are under the law and it is like a mirror. When you look in the mirror, the Law points out that your face is dirty, but it cannot clean you. It only show you that have sin or come under the Law. But, when YAHSHUA died, because the Law requires that only the shedding of blood through death can erase sin. YAHSHUA came and died so I didn't have too, that is the soap and water that cleanses. But, you need something to use the soap and water to wash your face clean. That's when grace comes in, the wash cloth. That merit comes from THE FATHER freely who allowed HIS SON to die for all who wants grace. However, you cannot keep disobeying by breaking ELOHIM'S Law because it is HIS CHARACTER of Love. HE, HIS SON, and THE HOLY SPIRIT follows the same Law because it is what and who THEY are- LOVE! Grace is a free gift, but do not presume that you can keep getting a free card, when you end back in jail! Do we not as parent have laws in our home. Yes, we do we because we love and respect our children and want to them to love and respect us back!!!! Blessings!

Sorry Scuba, I don't agree with you here. If no man has seen God, who did Adam walk with? Who did Abraham meet with prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and prior to the birth of Isaac? Who was the One that looked like "A Son of Man" in the fiery furnace? Who was the writer of Proverbs discussing when he said "Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know!" (Proverbs 30:4)? Who was John talking about in John 1 when he says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1: 1-5)? Who was theothe Person in the "we" (Elohim) spoken of in Genesis 1? There are scores of other references to God's Son and His pre-existence before His human birth.