Leaderboard

Okay, so it seems like this has turned into a contemplation on what will happen to us as the state of our beings on the new earth? If everything will be made new, but everything will go back as to what God originally created it as.. what are we left with? Hmmm. It seems odd to be that God would focus on the idea of family and marriage (the church being the bride, Jesus' first miracle at a wedding, etc.) yet not have any of that on the new earth..?

Did you or we pass Stan?

​Does it matter? If you have a strong Faith in what you believe, evolution will not sway you. It never bother me to listen at all, I knew what I believed, period!!

My concern is that "unity" does not equal "unison." Our church as a whole can have unity without mandating similar administrative practices in each geographical area. There must be some deference to the cultural mores of each country.

​Not understanding where you're coming from on this one. Abraham went to rescue his own relatives - Lot and has wife, sons, daughters, servants, livestock and goods. Four "kings" made war with the five "kings" in the Jordan Valley, BECAUSE they had rebelled and refused to pay tribute any longer to Chedorlaomer (Gen 14:4 NKJ). Abraham had many servants and they together made up a goodly force. He rescued his own nephew (and family and goods). In the process he helped defeat the four kings. Abraham wasn't fighting on the side of Sodom. He wasn't doing it to HELP the King of Sodom, throw off his overlord. He was just trying to rescue Lot. I'm sure that even then, Abraham probably tried to get Lot to leave that place. It was sinking into wickedness. Lot was finally able to escape with only his two daughters. His sons were lost. His wife was lost. Now days, with TV and internet, it's almost impossible to pull our kids OUT of the big city influence. It's everywhere. Its long fingers reach right into our homes.

That is so sweet, she was at the right place at the right time to help him when he needed someone.

​brotherlylove, It sounds (to me) from your post, like you feel you have some special insight into the WHY for God's prohibition of homosexual acts. That's fine. Share it. You may or may not understand the Word of God more fully than I do, but your question, "Would I like to discuss God's reasons from the pages of the Bible?" - THAT was condescending. Most of us are HERE, at this forum, because we want to understand more deeply the Word of God. We WANT to grow stronger, as defenders of the Word. I may THINK that I have a deeper insight into something, and may want to share that insight with those who come here, but I have learned - very quickly - that my insight will be TESTED here, and will either be strengthened or shown to be without basis. We come here to learn, and we come here to be tested. If you come here only to teach, I fear you will be greatly frustrated.

I will post here, what I posted in another thread. Human beings were created to be INDWELT. Without that symbiosis (so-to-speak) we are carnal (self seeking). Yes - Satan COULD disappear, and we would still be carnal, IF we did not have the indwelling of the divine nature. Since he first deceived Eve, Satan's GOAL has been to separate us from the indwelling. To separate us individually, and corporately. Without the indwelling, we will consume one another, and self-destruct. Because we humans have that capacity to be "indwelt" - Satan sometimes uses that for his own indwelling. We call that "demon possession". When the Son of God agreed to become a human, and to be TESTED as a human, He won [done deal] for humanity: 1. continued existence for a period of time (A. not executed and B. limited protection from Satan) [I THINK Robert calls this "standing justified before God.] 2. the indwelling (thru His spirit) Continued existence - as a race of human beings, did NOT have to be earned, or requested by the humans. It was a gift. It was "grace". It WAS unmerited. Adam and Eve SHOULD have been left to die, or been consumed in the "fire of God". But "the indwelling" MUST BE consented to. When Jesus DIED, He won the right to the dominion of earth. Which meant that Satan would be removed (along with anyone who has totally resisted the indwelling), and Christ would govern the humans. So - WHY - did Jesus not immediately TAKE CONTROL of the earth (and the people), and oust Satan ? I was BECAUSE of that TIME thing. It takes time - to win over a human being (much less millions of them.) It was all BECAUSE God does not, and will not, take over control of a human mind. He pleads. He "knocks". He demonstrates His love. He allows us to experience the pain of carnality. He wants a relationship - not robots!!!! THAT fact - the need for TIME, lead me to the concept of "The 8th Day". So long as more children - more human beings, are coming into existence, thru conception and birth, the fight for humanity cannot END. These new human beings also NEED TIME. God wants to woo them also. He WILL NOT just simply transport them into His kingdom. He would HAVE TO take over their minds (the indwelling WITHOUT their consent), to render them forever in accord with His Law. These children HAVE NOT consented to the indwelling. They are carnal. If you have ever lived with a 2 year old - you KNOW what that means. I believe the descriptions of children with tame carnivores in Isaiah Cpt 11 are giving us a view of the 1000 year reign of Messiah on the earth AFTER the 7th millennium. "The 8th Day" kingdom of Messiah on the earth. Robert and Samie keep trying to convince anyone who will read their posts, that children and anyone who has sinned in ignorance, will be given eternal life, without their having to CONSENT to the indwelling, or to CHOOSE whom they will serve. I don't mind, because it just gives me yet more opportunity to counter with my understanding of "The 8th Day".

How the earth was created is not a pass/fail exam on judgement day. AND yes, I am a firm believer that God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Pretty sad actually if the only, or even primary, distinction of concern between public vs. Christian run schools is evolution vs. creation. It would seem that the point of the article in question was missed.

Yes I do, and I went through Public School and still believe in Creation. Again is your Faith so weak?? Besides it was our Schools, AUC and Andrews that my brother started believing in evolution, so how do you explain that?????????? They didn't teach that subject, but yet that's what happen!!!!! So please don't presume to know if I have children or grandchildren!! Besides if you've been reading my posts for the past number of years you would've known that!

I do believe that Jesus took the human nature of man, but not the "fallen nature". The REASON behind the "fallen nature" was the absence of the Spirit within. Christ emptied himself of His own divine power, at the time He incarnated. He took the nature of Abraham - human nature. But UNLIKE US, He was indwelt by the Spirit of His Father, from the moment of His birth. He said it Himself, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." In THAT SENSE, He was the "last Adam". Yes - this gave Him a great advantage. We are NOT indwelt from birth, BECAUSE human beings must ASK for that indwelling. Because Jesus pre-existed, He could ASK for that indwelling BEFORE He incarnated. God does not just enter a person's mind/heart without permission. He only "knocks at the door". Because Jesus possessed the indwelling from birth, He was put to a much greater TEST then any other human being will be called upon to endure. I believe that the Father withdrew from His own Son, in the hour of greatest physical suffering. (Or He may have simply allowed the demons to render His Son unable to sense His presence.) That is WHY Jesus cried out, "My God - why have you forsaken me?" He could not longer sense His Father's presence. THAT is what killed Him. The Father TREATED His own son - as He will finally treat those who have resisted His Spirit until He can do no more. He will withdraw His Spirit from them. He will give them over to the power of Satan, and to the power of their own lusts and hatreds.

​I totally disagree Robert.

​Thank you yes I was deleted too- even when I did not quote. Sorry I was not ignoring you either. We are all sinners at the foot of the cross. And we can also be saints but still in need of Christ every moment. What a paradox.

​ 10'But if his offering is from the flock, of the sheep or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without defect.....Leviticus 1 I'm assuming then both of you feel Jesus was either a blemished offering or the bent (propensity) toward evil is not evil in itself and Jesus had worldly lusts. Just to set the record straight, I see that as a false doctrine, not Biblically sound. God is Love! Jesus saves!

I agree with Sequeira.

I agree with Robert.

not necessarily... God isn't required to give reasons or justification for anything... If He *has* given reasons in the past, it was because He thought it necessary for His people to know. But I don't think it's particularly useful to engage in speculation as to God's reasoning when He hasn't given a specific reason... that's where people can fall into the "it doesn't follow the nature of creation" trap. There are a lot of things done today that are "unnatural." Flying in airplanes comes to mind... There's nothing wrong with people asking questions. And there's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." There IS an issue, however, when some pose "unanswerable" questions with the intent of entrapment or arguing for argument's sake.... i.e., "can God create a stone He can't lift?"

WHY did God forbid sodomy? 1. Causes injury to anatomy, and can introduce disease. 2. God provided a female, as helpmate for the male. The male NEEDS the female - as his helpmate (not another male) in the process of producing and rearing children. To engage in sodomy is to BREAK the bond between husband and wife. Obviously - a homosexual "union" is sterile. It produces no offspring. Just looking at that aspect, should tell us there is something wrong with it. 3. The female was created as the perfect helper. Her brain chemistry, and her temperament compliment his. A bishop was to be "the husband of one wife". No wife - no pastoral ministry. Because - in a way, the pastor is acting like a father to his flock, so he NEEDED a woman's input and support. 4. Children NEED the rearing of a mother AND a father - ideally. Without BOTH mother and father, God is not represented to the child. Because BOTH male and female represent God, in God's different aspects. BOTH Adam and Eve were "made in the image of God". I sincerely HOPE that women, giving their newborns up for adoption, will be allowed to say whether their child can be adopted by a homosexual "couple". I hope the government doesn't ban their choice in such a matter. We have only had "birth control" for a little over a hundred years. For 5800+ years heterosexual sex usually resulted in offspring. The care and rearing of those offspring is paramount! The one man/ one woman model is God's ideal for the care rearing of children. 5. Because most of the men engaging in homosexual acts were also "married" to women, for the last 5800 years, their sins brought disease into their wives, with all the attendant suffering. Same can be said for heterosexual adultery, especially with loose women. Solomon warned, "Her throat is an open sepulcher". Antibiotics haven't been around that long, in the scheme of things. So - is someone saying that because antibiotics and antivirals exist, we can dally all we want now? Or that homosexual dallying is better BECAUSE it produces no children?

Winter currents at the picturesque Saar Falls in the Golan Heights, Israel.

​ ​Ellen White wrote: “I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne.” "Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her lifework God has been giving her. They contain the precious comforting light that God has graciously given His servant to be given to the world." (this is kind of cool; she refers to herself in the third person) “In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of the prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit. There was never a time when God instructed his people more earnestly than he instructs them now concerning his will, and the course he would have them pursue.” Regarding inspiration, she wrote, “‘The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. “‘It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions, but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God.’” This is as applicable to her writings as it is Scripture. I feel strange writing this, as I'm usually on the other side of this question. That is, I'll quote Jones or Waggoner, and the people with whom I'm having a discussion will only want to quote Ellen White, and I'll point out that she herself said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could, and that God had not given the same gift to every person. I see no problem with your quoting Sequeira, just with how you're treating Ellen White. Regarding Sequeria, I have trouble believing he would countenance your idea regarding children before the age of accountability, that every one of them will be saved. Can you quote some statement of his to this effect?

Yehoshua Halevi’s fabulous photograph of the Shofar being sounded in the Land of Israel.

I might be wrong about it, but very young children can overcome the desire to touch hot stoves. Learning starts at a very young age.

Luke 17:21-Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

​Being part of God's kingdom is not about being perfect. Being part of God's kingdom is about knowing and accepting the standard of what perfection is and saying, "That's what I want" and then letting God do His good work in you to bring it about. Even if we fall during the process of growth it's not a problem because we get back up again because that's what kingdom people do. The key is to understand and accept the Father's standard knowing that someday we will all be like Him. The Father is the standard for what kingdom people should be like.

The following is instructive as to the purpose of the message from WHM:

I don't know what this text means, but it seems to me that your question complicates the matter by using the word "headship." No form of the word head or headship is found here. Our brothers and sisters who advocate an eternal principle of male headship have created the idea that men are to have the last word on all important family and church decisions and that women are to submit. Relations between men and women are about authority and submission. If fact, in their system the pastor has authority over the local church, whose members submit to him. Jesus said "it shall not be so among you" and taught and demonstrated a different kind of leadership -- servanthood. It seems clear that this text is promising a future where the role of women is upgraded, but if we drop headship out of the equation the role of women may be upgraded to something more like mutual respect and mutual servanthood, not authority or dominance. Still, your point that a prophet of God would not use "sinful" female equality as a symbol of His future blessings, is worth thinking about.

Thanks for thinking of me, Stan. Six months ago I was very late stage-4 lung cancer, with cancer in my lymph system, spine, jaw, ribs, liver, spleen, and many other places. Fortunately, Tarceva has removed all of that -- temporarily. Unfortunately, Tareceva is affective only for a certain type of lung cancer (and somewhat effective in combination with other drugs for some cases of pancreatic cancer) and only for about 25 percent of the people with that type of lung cancer. It works an average of 11 months before the cancer develops an immunity to it. Now there is at least one backup medicine that I may be able to switch to when Tarceva quites working. The new pill, if the next DNA profile suggests it will work for me, will cost $150,000 per year instead of the mere $72,000 the Tarceva costs. This is not chemo. It is just one small white pill each day. My co-pay is $13.35 per month. It is true that when a person is diagnosed with cancer there are a host of people urging you to try everything imaginable. Some come very close to being stalkers. I am fortunate to have one of the best lung cancer research doctors in the world (at Cedars-Sinai). One of the things I appreciate about him is that he tells me the truth. When there is no longer a treatment that will work, he will tell me, and he will tell me how long I probably have to live. I like that. Check with me when the medicine stops working to see if I still like it then. And he patiently explains the physiology involved in each non-traditional treatment I have asked him about and what evidence there is or isn't for its effectiveness. I might later try non-traditional treatments, but not if the expense is great and the evidence of success is minimal. Praise God, hate cancer and keep praying.

Somehow they are holding to some hope that this alternative treatment to mainstream medicine which has shown no efficacy from what I have seen in peer-reviewed literature so far. Hope is a previous thing. I would hate to snuff out that hope if I told them the truth about the treatment they are thinking about.