Leaderboard

I really don't care that the LGBT population has a flag. It can be flown, when appropriate, and in the appropriate venue. But replacing the US flag with the "rainbow" flag bothers me in two respects: 1) the rainbow flag doesn't represent the American people as a whole. It represents only a portion since it flies against the felt beliefs of many Americans. 2) the move to remove the *Confederate* flag was due to the fact that it offended a portion of the population, but not the majority, and the only time it was ever hoisted instead of the US flag was during the Civil War. Why should the rainbow flag be honored when it doesn't represent America, yet the Confederate flag be damned in the same breath? In a way, it seems that it's okay to offend Southerners, who love Dixie's flag, by prohibiting the flag to be publicly flown; yet, the rainbow flag is flown, publicly, and, moreover, replaces the US flag in places. Anyone else see the problem here? (just a note: after public outcry, the rainbow flag was removed from atop of Reno, Nevada's City Hall)

I didn't know Ellen White had a computer...

Why do we have to know why it's unclean? Why can't it be simply be because God said not to eat it? He told our parents not to eat a certain fruit, He didn't tell them why and they lost Eden because of it. It was a fruit after all, not a piece of meat. Yet, He said "Don't do it". God gave a list of clean and unclean, and some rules to go by if encountering an animal not on the list. Six thousand years and we haven't learned a thing.

Many will try to say it is about health, or that it is about pagan practices like pigs being honored and sacrificed to the underworld God's in Egypt. If this was the case then the bull would be unclean as it was the hated worshipped image of Baal. God did not tell us specifically why some animals were unclean but we know what other instances of unclean and being unclean was attributed to. It was unintentional sin based on death. This is why it was unclean to touch any dead animal that was'nt killed for food or sacrifice. The ultimate in being unclean was to touch a dead human body. This is why it is forbidden to have sex with a persons wife on her time of the month, life is leaving her body (death) and it was not holy to mix life with death. This also is the same message with cooking a baby goat in its mothers milk-this would be mixing what gives life with a death....so on and so forth. While we dont have to cannonize or practice these things, we need to understand them. This only made a person unholy in order to be in God's Holy presence at the Temple. There would be a time restraint, then sometimes water to ceremonially cleanse the person, then these things only made them acceptable to enter the Temple in order to offer sacrifice-then they were Holy. God is the author of life and order, death is unholy and disorder-the two can't mix. If we take this message to the unclean animals, we can assume that it would have something to do with death. the animals shown as unclean are usually high association with being scavengers and predators. Ya, it would be pretty gruesome to be given a plate of spiders

In his work, the apostle Paul constantly adapted himself to the spiritual state of the people he was working with. Paul openly told the Corinthian church that he could not speak to them as spiritual people -- he had to use discretion for their sake -- and it was necessary to treat them as babies. (1Cor 3:1) In the same way, we should understand that the Gospel needs to go to the whole world [including the spiritual dogs and swine], but those people are not to be presented with open, precious, truths regarding God -- those people need to be drawn indirectly -- by actions, and by words that are not explicitly "religious". I think the principle is described well by Mrs. White : "I have beheld angels grieved as the most precious jewels of truth have been brought before men utterly incapable of appreciating the evidences in favor of the truth. Their entire being was at war with the principles of truth; their natures were at enmity with it. Their object in discussing was not that they might get hold of the evidences of the truth themselves, or that the people might have a fair understanding of our true position, but that they might confuse the understanding by placing the truth in a perverted light before the people... . "Angels weep to see the precious truth of heavenly origin cast before swine, to be seized by them and trampled with the mire and dirt. Cast not “your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” These are the words of the world's Redeemer. . "God's ministers should NOT count the opportunity of engaging in discussion a great privilege. All points of our faith are not to be borne to the front and presented before the prejudiced crowds. Jesus spoke before the Pharisees and Sadducees in parables, hiding the clearness of truth under symbols and figures, because they would make a wrong use of the truths he presented before them; but to His disciples He spoke plainly. We should learn from Christ's method of teaching, and be careful not to close the ears of the people by presenting truths which, not being fully explained, they are in no way prepared to receive." (Gospel Workers p.191-192) ______ It is possible, I would suggest, that people can be transient, and slip into "dog mode" or "swine mode" temporarily. While they are in that mode, all explicit "religion" should be carefully avoided. But this does not mean that they should not be "shown" Christ.

I am not disputing that. It is sort of like mothers telling their children to not cross their eyes because they will get stuck that way. Not true of course. So once the kid figures that out, what else is untrue in what mother said? Using false information to convince someone that pork products are not good to eat is counter productive and undermines other more important messages we might have. It destroys our credibility.

Pork products tend to be salty, so it may be wise to take all this with a fine grain of salt... Do a bit of home work on this and you will find that there is a fair bit of misinformation in this bit that is circulating far and wide on the internets. For example, many poisons are harmful to pigs pretty much the same as humans, including snake venom. You can kill a pig with poison. As for their flesh having more toxins because they do not sweat/perspire, Cows do not sweat, chickens do not sweat, goats do not sweat. And I am fairly certain fish don't either. Their meat is kosher. But horses do sweat. Their meat is not kosher. What is the fallacy in this idea? Sweating isn't the primary means of getting rid of toxins from the body and the junk consumed through diet. The liver and kidneys do that job, very much the same for pigs as other animals including humans. As for what they eat, are you aware at all the disgusting things goats and chickens also eat if given a chance? I grew up on a farm. I know. Pretty much everything the poor little pigs are accused of. If you are picking out naturally raised farm animals on the cleanliness factor and what they wallow in, cows are filthy too. Sheep and goats are disgustingly smelly and dirty. Makes you sort not so enthused about wherein wool after you see what is matted and knotted up in sheep's wool! As for the passage of meats through the digestive system and the toxin absorbing as a result that is just backwards. The longer it takes the more is absorbed, not the other way around. That is how the intestines work. But the speed with which things move through is driven by the amount of fiber pushing it through. So eat lots of veggies and any meat will get moved right along. Be skeptical and think twice before swallowing hook line and sinker everything that you find on the internet, see on Facebook, or get in an e-mail from your favorite uncle...

Daniel 2:42 "As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle" From Wikipedia, "The Romans used concrete extensively from 300 BC to 476 AD, a span of more than seven hundred years.[5] During the Roman Empire, Roman concrete (or opus caementicium) was made from quicklime,pozzolana and an aggregate of pumice. Its widespread use in many Roman structures, a key event in the history of architecture termed the Roman Architectural Revolution, freed Roman construction from the restrictions of stone and brick material and allowed for revolutionary new designs in terms of both structural complexity and dimension.[11] After the Roman Empire, the use of burned lime and pozzolana was greatly reduced until the technique was all but forgotten between 500 AD and the 1300s. Between the 1300s until the mid-1700s, the use of cement gradually returned. The Canal du Midi was built using concrete in 1670,[16] and there are concrete structures in Finland that date from the 16th century.[citation needed]" The question that I would like to raise to the group here is if the material described as "Clay" in Daniel 2:42 could be considered to be consistent with a description of Concrete? It seems to me that most modern buildings I see going up are concrete slab, tilt concrete panel and iron. I can see perhaps a parallel that the concrete is the base and the iron could be the structure built on the concrete. It seems to me that a description that did say, Iron and Concrete would be very accurate of our modern age, yet is that what the Bible is saying, or does it mean specifically fired clay? As an aside, white clay can often be used in concrete renders and texture coatings & paints as a filling / extender agent. Thoughts?

David Rosenberg, a collector of rare Jewish books ran into an old acquaintance named Chaim Yankel who told him he had just thrown away an old Hebrew Bible that he found in a dusty, old box. "You threw it out?! You can’t do that!” scolded the collector. “Just how old?" "Really old!" answered Chaim Yankel. “Like, really old. I mean, it could be a thousand years old, who knows?” “First of all, you can’t throw away a Chumash, it’s sacred!” said the furious collector. “Second, an old Chumash could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the right collector. What have you done?!" "Oh, don’t worry I don't think this book would have been worth anything close to that much," replied Chaim Yankel. "There’s Hebrew notes scribbled all over in the margins.” Alarmed the collector asked, “’Scribbles’? Any idea who the author was?” “My Hebrew’s not that great but it looks like somebody named ‘RASHI.’”

I see the main thing the devil is responsible for is causing us to have views of God's character which are unChristlike, which leads to many bad things. It's OK to blame him for this, because he is responsible, but it's not OK to stop there, as there is a remedy -- Jesus Christ -- in whom the glory of God's character is fully displayed, in human form, so we can understand it.

Me too.

I cannot personally get around Daniel 7:11-12. AFTER the 4th terrible Beast with it's "little horn" is "slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame" THE REST OF THE BEASTS, are still there. Their "dominion" was taken away, but "their lives were prolonged" (for a season and a time) NOT "given to the burning flame". The kingdoms of the LION, BEAR, and LEOPARD LIKE beasts are still around AFTER the 4th one is burned up. Those beasts represent kingdoms contemporary with the 4th beast, not former kingdoms.

You crack me up Gayafoc!! GBU to you too, ((((HUGS))))

Miriam Epstein was driving her old beat up car on the highway with her 7 year old son, precocious little Moishie. She tried to keep up with traffic but they were flying by her. Surprised at the speed of traffic, she looked at her speedometer and noticed that she was doing 10 miles over the speed limit. She moved to the slow lane and then looked up and saw the flashing lights of a police car. Pulling over she waited for the officer to come up to her car. As he did he said, "Ma'am do you know why I pulled you over?" Little Moishie piped up from the back seat, "I do! Because you couldn't catch the other cars!"

so do some Gays! hmmmm.. and hello Liz! GBU!

My dear son is not SDA and completely politically and actively Vegan. He does not eat meat or its products for one reason only, All animals are precious! Pigs are very special creatures. I hope everyone watches the video I posted way above.

A Jewish Man for All Seasons The Tony award winning actor famous for playing Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof dies at 91. http://www.aish.com/j/as/Theodore-Bikel-A-Jewish-Man-for-All-Seasons.html?

Actually the KKK flies the American Flag.

Given that God's covenant with Abraham had everything anybody would ever need, why would God not simply refer to that covenant? That's what Waggoner argued God did. The covenant was based on grace, and the response of the people on unbelief. They initiated a different covenant than what God had had in mind, and God went along with them, so that they could return to His Covenant, the covenant of grace, based on faith in Christ.

When a man attacks or kills his wife/gf, we blame the patriarchal system of oppression, i.e. the whole gender. When a woman attacks or kills her husband/bf, we think What a bastard he must have been to get that.

Well, the feminists and boys in school issue is just another way of exploring the nature of prejudice, not a way to say that Islam is a cause of mass shootings. We tangented off onto that. But I think that idea, that school has become out of touch with boys and that maybe ritalin has unwanted long-range effects, and that maybe our society is too beholden to the feminist analysis of things and should think about how boys are benefiting or suffering from the way we do school, is a very valuable topic. Why have we had so much action to sort out why girls were not doing as well as they could, but we leave boys in the lurch? I have even seen an Aussie woman in a TV panel discussion say that there is no problem. Maybe we are trained not to see certain things by our world-view, ideology: like a connection between Islam and violence, or a negative aspect to feminism. The left seems to want to see Islam as a morally neutral culture, in keeping with its generally laudable aims for multicultural societies. And the left seems to think feminism is almost synonymous with progress, and cannot be criticised. I think the truth is very important and requires questioning ideologies or world views, or darling causes, or whatever. Mass shootings are a very strange behaviour, and very serious. I wouldn't expect one's natural intution to give much insight, so lots of avenues would have to be explored.

OK, so it does mention women, but if it is true that there is a connection between committing mass shootings and having been on behaviour modifying drugs, and that feminists have supported the use of those drugs, which are given to boys far more than to girls, then the connection could be valid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4

Of course. When men mass murder - and it's overwhelmingly men who do - it's women's fault. I should have known. MRA eats your brain, and explains everything. It's a pernicious mind virus.

This is an important topic and I'm interested in the discussion here. However B/Wphotodude, women's ordination is NOT a liberal/conservative issue as there are many conservatives who support women's ordination.

IMHO, Conservative SDA's have just as much of the colonial spirit but we in an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario right now as far as conservatives are concerned.

On the contrary, I would suggest it was integral and provided a level of cohesiveness and even justification for genocide of Native Americans. The notion of Manifest Destiny is an example of this. The Old Testament stories of the wholesale destruction nation was used as justification and encouragement. This same spirit bleeds into today's discussion about Islamic terror. Religion and the Bible has always been part of the justification from slavery, to Jim crow to mixed marriages.

The pig is highlighted by some Jewish people because it became their identity for non assimilation. The prohibition in the Torah against eating pigs had to be explained because a pig has a the right hoof but did not chew its cud. An animal like a lion was easy to declare unclean. This singling out of the pig as the chief unclean animal started with the Greeks. Pig meat was popular with the Greeks, just like camel meat was popular in the east. Antiochus IV sacrificed a pig on the alter and made Jews eat pork meat to denounce God. The Romans would make similar spectacles and mockery with pigs. Christians would also test Jewish converts with eating pork in order to see if they genuinely converted. It was not because pork was more unclean than other animals-it was just more available in the west. These conflicts made Jewish people identify with pigs as the ultimate unclean animal. This ultimate distinction is Talmud based, not based on the Law of Moses. The next misrepresentation is that unclean means unhealthy. Nowhere in the Law of Moses does it state that the unclean animals were unhealthy animals. God does not state the reason why they are unholy, He just states that they are. Water is declared holy, but water is the cause of most sickness and disease in the world. In the west we have to treat it in order to minimize sickness and disease epidemics. A health based paradigm leads to dead ends and is not credible. The torah explicitly explains the unclean animals in order to set them apart from the nations. This would have been very effective when it came to dining with the foreigner in the land, and from other countries. Do not defile yourself by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I the LORD am holy and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own

Of course there is black prejudice. Your point is that black prejudice exceeds white prejudice which you have not yet established.

I didn't only say 'Christian'. And the filter of 'only cultural, not committed' that is used to claim some of those killers were not Christian would also remove many of those 'Muslims' from the list: they were Muslim by faith but killed for political rather than religious reasons. You've nicely illustrated my point about bias and prejudice. Of the mass shootings in the US this year, at least two have been by rightwingers. People who are extremists of many of the views you hold, in the same way Muslim shooters are extremists of the views of mainstream Islam.

You dont have to go outside of the book of Daniel other than for a few references to the Law of Moses. The feet of Iron and clay that do not mix is explained in the book of Daniel itself. first of all, the four kingdoms are those that would rule over covenant Israel in succession in their exile and occupation. The last one would be Greek Hellenist rulers. Alexander was interested in spreading Greek Hellenism. They established Greek colonies around the empire to accomplish this. For example, the New Testament mentions the Decapolis-these were 10 Greek colonies set up to spread Greek culture and religion. Greece split into 4 Greek Empires, and only two of these Empires ruled Covenant Israel. Greek Egypt (Ptolemy)and Greek Syria (Seleucus) In Daniel 2 the vision shows they will not mix. 43 As you saw the iron mixed with clay, so will they mix with one another in marriage,[c] but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. A more mechanical translation Because thou hast seen iron mixed with miry clay, they are mixing themselves with the seed of men: and they are not adhering one with another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. In Daniel 11 we see this succession highlighted “Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. 3 Then a mighty king will arise, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has arisen, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others Daniel 11 shows the last two kingdoms that would rule Covenant Israel. 3.Persia 4.Greece In this split up Greek Empire-they are still Greek rulers imposing Greek culture and religion. There were many attempts to unite the king of the North and south by marriage-but it failed Daniel 11 6 After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power[a] will not last. In those days she will be betrayed, together with her royal escort and her father[b] and the one who supported her. 7 “One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. and later... 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans[c] will not succeed or help him. To make this about a Holy roman Empire has some real world problems with communicating the powerful prophesy of Jesus in the book of daniel ...let me explain. The messianic figure would only come after the fourth beast is destroyed. Note that the Messianic figure we now recognize as Jesus is ascending to Heaven after the fourth beast is destroyed in chapter 7. He is not ascending. The so-called blurry events of Daniel 11:45 plus predict these events of the end of the fourth beast, and the coming of the roman empire. If Rome is the fourth beast, then Jesus has not come yet as the Messianic figure of Daniel 7 comes after the fourth beast. Most claim the 70 weeks is the prophesy of Jesus, but the New Testament makes no such claim, or quotes it as fulfilled in any part of Jesus's earthly sojourn, but it does quote Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus came right on time as predicted.

You're an Aussie, so there's a better chance this reference will mean something to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I83nc2IlSKg

She is gone to her rest and the best way we can honor her memory is to seek to live our lives to honor God, using her testimony as a lesser light which along with the Bible points us to the Lord and His will for our lives.

All really cute, but ... I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. Winston Churchill Think about that next time you are tempted to sing to a baby!

Having a good reason to post something bogus doesn't make it any less bogus. And OK. bogus MRIs then. Can you substantiate with certainty the authenticate of those MRIs? Or did you just dredge those off the internet too? Snopes is pretty reliable.

there's always got to be one in the politcal campaigns for comic relief...

Administrative Note: You are conveniently leaving out the moderator response that followed directly after that exchange. Had Gregory not responded before I read it I would have responded similarly. As you can se we do not tolerate personal attacks. We don't always see them, but when we do we take action to correct that unacceptable behavior. But the context of your repeated accusation has been more about getting strong push back for your ideas that are not attacking you personally, but rather your ideas and opinions, and methods of interaction. There is a difference. Learn that difference. Enough of this derailment. Back to the topic.

A laughably familiar accusation that has been recklessly tossed around before by a few others opposed to women in ministry with nothing of real substantive value to add to the discussion. When I say familiar, It is an understatement. We have heard this almost verbatim, as if you are simply repeating the accusation of some else who was once active here that left in a major huff over the matter. Hmmmm.... He was even given the opportunity to have his very own subforum to moderate where he could post all things opposed to WO and women in ministry without interference to correct what he also claimed as an imbalanced perspective on the issue around here. But before he left in a huff, he completely wiped out, deleted, everything on his subform. When I say laughable, I am simply noting the absurdity of suggesting there is a lack of anything of substance allowed in opposition, that this is a biased and one sided discussion. Yes, of course there are more here that are participating that are in favor of women in ministry. But to say no other point of view is allowed is the absurdity, especially from someone being given ample opportunity to openly express and defend his position of opposition to WO. There is in fact plenty of material in opposition posted. If you would spend the time actually going back through and reading the considerable volume of topics collected in this subforum of discussions over a considerable number of years, you will see that there have have been many vigorous discussions actually in quite some depth covering all sides and facets of the subject. Your accusations, including no attempt to open the Bible, clearly reflect a lack of awareness of the literally decades of discussion most of us have been engaged in on the topic, both here and elsewhere. We do get tired of repeating ourselves to those unwilling to dig into the substantial volume of resources posted, just in the pinned topics at the top of the menu for this subforum. Those same accusations and pleas for more time and a need for more study are the continued disingenuous refrain from many adamantly opposed to women in ministry and WO to which I referred. This has been exhaustively studied and well documented for 4 decades at least. (Actually by most reasonable accounts this issue has been a part of the entire history of the Adventist Church.) That some choose not to avail themselves of the resources that are available or that claim ignorance really have a very thin excuse. And finally, regarding personal attacks, you seem to confuse any opposition to your point of view or challenge to your ideas and arguments as a personal attack. That is not personal. It is not defaming anyone. You cannot defame an idea. Just because your ideas and arguments are attacked does not mean you are attacked.

Wrong once again. Completely missing the point. And reading into what I said what is simply not there. Not a proof text, nor was it presented as such. It was applied well within the context. That you cannot see the rather obvious application of the the wisdom of Gamaliel is not within my reach to fix. As in the Acts 5 context, this is not about any doctrinal dispute. What I posted is hardly original with me. And by wonderful coincidence my men's small group had Acts 5 as the focus of its reading and study. We specifically talked about this application of Gamaliel's wisdom to the current dispute over women in ministry. The consensus was affirming what I have posted. The pastor in the group mentioned a specific Church that was opposed to having the women as a pastor that was appointed to them by the conference. Within a few months of her ministry to them they changed there collective minds and now are very supportive of her and women in ministry in general. One of the members most opposed actually mentioned the story of Gamaliel in Acts 5 as instructive to him and instrumental in his change of heart and mind on the matter. I know the this woman pastor. She is indeed capable and deserves the confidence in her ministry that they now have in her. Hard to find a better pastor.

I believe that we live under a NEW Covenant - not simply a "renewed" covenant. Under the New Covenant with Yahweh, thru the blood of Yeshua, the exclusive Levite/Aaronic priesthood is rendered "obsolete" because the priesthood returns to the original/older Melchizedek order. The blood/flesh of animals is also rendered obsolete, because we offer the one true offering - the blood of Yeshua. I will just post links to a few studies on my website. http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40-TWO COVENANTS.pdf http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/39-The End of Sacrifices.pdf http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/20-Kingdom of Priests.pdf Rachel Cory, ProphecyViewpoint.com

If people are against WO, they should simply go to a church with a male pastor. Personally, I like female pastors. I've been avoiding the WO debate lately because IMO it is not a salvational issue; and no one is going to convice anyone else to "switch sides". If the Bible were crystal clear on this issue maybe we wouldn't be having these debates.

Of course not Won, I totally agree. No matter what kind of government is in charge, period.

No matter how ideal the socialism is, it won't work in our world no matter where you live. Only God's government can do it. Basically, the people are corrupt, even uncorrupt people get in to government they eventually become corrupt.

In many ways I agree with you aisaac070, however this decision for a deferral has been the church's stand for well over 100 years. In the first decade of the 1900s there were conferences and unions that decided to ordain women. General Conference President A. G. Daniels agreed with them that they should ordain women but asked them to wait just a little bit while members who thought that the Bible was against women's ordination could be educated. Then every time the issue came up again it's been deferred saying that it should be done but this is not the time. The Anti- ordination people want the ignorance that Elder Daniels asked for some time to fight against to become the standard. How long should it be deferred until we start doing it?