Leaderboard

There is no reason to tailgate someone in the slow late, especially when I'm going 35 over the speed limit. And those flashing lights on top of your car look ridiculous. (credit to whoispaz via pinterest) .

I have believed for a long time that God would have to do something big to help His people who are in lands of Islam. Could the exodus of refugees be the start of a help that will save those people for Him? They are fleeing to lands where freedom to convert will be given them.

Thought I'd share that from the site. It bears repeating.

it's sad that this was not a topic for the news today... Suicide prevention only seems to matter when a celebrity commits suicide.

(credit to dumpaday on piniterest) .

Get this thing up and running already! Phillipians 3:14

What Paul is saying is that before we were converted, we were alientated and enemies in our mind, which means separated from God, estanged from God, at odds with God, not at peace with God; in short, not reconciled. Then we were converted, after which point we were no longer enemies of God, but friends with God, which is to say, reconciled. It cannot be the case that we were enemies in our mind before we existed becase we had no mind in which to be an emeny. To be an enemy in our mind means we must exist and think, so these things that happened, involving formerly being an enemy in our mind, but now no longer, entail our existing and thinking. I see the issue here, which is that you are reading the phrase "by His death" as if there were something about the death of Christ which could reconcile us by itself, without our participation. But this is not the only way to read this phrase. Let's see if I can come up with an example. Let's say my grandfather passed away and left an inheritance for my mother, and he passed away before I was born. I need money for something, say college, and I say something like, "I went to college by the death of my grandfather". What does this mean? It means that as a result of the death of my grandfather, it became possible for me to go to college, because the money which he left for my Mom, she gave to me tu use for school. So even though I write, "I went to college by the death of my grandfather", this does not mean this happened at the time of my grandfather's death, before I existed. Indeed, it would be bizare to read this sentence in this way, since I cannot go to school without existing. Similarly, it is perfectly legitimate, gramatically, to read the sentence that we were reconciled by the death of His Son in the same way as my sentence that I can go to school by the death of my grandfather. As by the death of my grandfather something happened by which it became possible for me to go to school, by the death of Christ, something happened which made it possible for me to be reconciled. But the sentence structure no more requires I be reconciled at the time Christ died than that I went to school at the time by grandfather died. And just as reading the sentence, "I went to college by the death of my grandfather," as meaning that this happened before I existed, so too, reading that were reconciled by the death of Christ as happening before we existed is a bizarre reading, since we can no more be reconciled without existing than we can go to school without existing.

One person CANNOT reconcile another. He can plead with the other person. He can let the other person know that he will not harm him, or exact any vengeance. He can let the other person know that he has been forgiven. (THAT was the message of the cross.) But he CANNOT reconcile the other person. BECAUSE reconciliation is a response. Reconciliation happens in the mind of the other person, who is at enmity (an enemy). God COULD NOT reconcile minds that did not yet even EXIST, to change them into friends. God could - if He chose - overpower "free will" to change specific humans into friends. But he could not do that before those humans even existed. And if he did that - after they existed - that would be manipulation, which God has chosen NOT TO DO. If God were to overpower human minds, to make them friends - then His kingdom would be full of robots. There would be no love, only the appearance of it, because love must be freely given. And therefore reconciliation (changing from hate to love) must also be freely given. If God would EVER choose to overpower human minds, then HE should have done that - in the first place, with Adam and Eve - and skipped this whole painful mess!!! The long and painful mess - the result of men exercising their free will to act in selfish or rebellious ways, is the loudest message that our God will NOT overpower human free will, to force some kind of "harmony" with Himself.

September 10 is World Suicide Prevention Day. This is such an important topic, I am sharing the official press release. Please share! Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/depressionhelp/2015/09/today-is-world-suicide-prevention-day.html

The article that this thread is about has 2 major problems: The first described already is how the author does not show knowledge of what higher and lower criticism actually are. He just assumes that one does not believe in the inspiration of the Bible and that the other does. Then he goes on to say that those who support women's ordination are all higher critics. He is breaking the commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Unless the author repents he is going to have to face this article in the judgment. There are many Bible believing people who use only lower criticism who support women's ordination. He is unfairly placing us all into the same boat and labeling us. He is offering his readers a choice "Now there are good people who believe the Bible and bad people who don't believe the Bible. Now the good people who believe the Bible oppose women's ordination. The bad people who don't believe the Bible support women's ordination. Oh no, many bad people who do not believe the Bible and thus support women's ordination have come into the church. Do you want to be one of these bad people? Or do you want to be a good person? If you are a good person then oppose women's ordination and let's get these bad people out of the church." I worry about an argument that is based on villainizing those you are arguing against.

She could have 'spoken' for the God she Believed in, people do that all the time. The issue here, as I have said before, is not religious freedom but about Gay issues. RF is being used in a dishonest manner. It is bordering on trying to remove separation of church and state for ones own personal belief/interpretation of the Bible. Yes, people are gathering on her side, but with out understanding what the precedent would be if Government sided with her. It would be de facto siding with a religious belief. People would not want the government siding with any Muslim belief to the detriment of another group. Don't fall back on the idea this is an Christian nation, we are a secular one and it should be, as that is the only way to ensure RF for everyone. The God of the Bible does not force belief on anyone. Mankind through its(Bible) written history have tried that but it is not Gods way. Following the God of the Bible can only be voluntary, or Satan wins. That is his accusation since Eden. We have a choice, follow the law of the land/job/position or not. If a person feels it is a violation of their belief, than they can honor their God by leaving what ever requires a violation of their conscious. To refuse and want the government to allow them to refuse to perform a part of their function does not honor God, but rather continues the misunderstanding of Him.

I like to include a free magnifier to those who might need one :)

Certainly it is true that in Col 2 - Paul is not calling a halt to "eating and drinking"

And then there are some doctrines that are biblically sound, but our "proof texts" are based on peculiarities of English grammar. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was established as far back as the Nicean council of the 4th century, long before there was an English language. But I remember being taught the proof text of John 16:13, 14 showing that the Holy Spirit is a "he" not an "it". But in almost all European languages other than English, pronouns have gender such that inanimate objects and impersonal concepts are rendered as "he" or "she" depending on the grammatical structures. In French, for example, the noun "personne" is always feminine even when referring to a man; similarly "sa majesté" (His Majesty or Her Majesty) is always feminine even when referring to a king. Another trinitarian "proof text" is the use of the plural pronoun in Genesis 1:26. However, in French for example, one often uses the plural pronoun in formal, legal or academic writing to refer to the author, even if the paper is written by a single person and not a team. Of course modern French grammar and usage are irrelevant to ancient Hebrew grammar and usage but it is an example where one must be careful not to make too much out of grammatical peculiarities. I believe trinitarinism is sound, but I don't believe that the use of the masculine pronoun in John 16 or the plural pronoun in Genesis 1 is evidence for the doctrine.

Lyndon, note that in your citation EGW says that it is the substitution of the false for the true. The true in the 7th day as the Sabbath. The false is the 1st day as the Sabbath. Also, not the phrase "force men to keep the first day." Keeping the Sabbath is not attending church for two hours. Keeping involves a 24-hour day period of time. I find it interesting that while you quoted from 7SDABC, page 980, you have not cited anything from 7SDABC 910. Here she says: " . . . the first day of the week instead of the seventh is now the Sabbath." That is the issue. Ad to your video clip. Have you actually listened to it. in that video clip the preacher cites as a sign that the end of time is near that the U.S. Congress has voted that climate change is factual. He tells us that this vote was the result of the influence of the Pope. Frankly such talk disrespects the Bible. It is absolute nonsense. The Bible never tells us that a belief in climate change is a sign of end time.