Leaderboard

Many are seeing the above as a positive *endorsement* to vote for Dr. Carson...

The crusades of defensive conflicts - NOT offensive. IF the "church" had not inspired the Crusades, Western Europe would have been conquered by ISLAM, and I might be wearing a burka today... The Muslims had already conquered Spain, and were knocking at the door of France. ISLAM does teach expansion and forced conversion - by the sword. True Christianity DOES NOT. If I may suggest a book: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to ISLAM and The Crusades" by Robert Spencer.

That is much more an issue of wealth and development and history than of religion: Christianity got all that out of its system during the Crusades, at least at that low-tech level. Bombings from billion dollar jets and drone strikes are done by those who are Christian though, even if not ostensibly in the name of their religion. I say this, not to disparage Christianity at all, but to suggest that the violence of radical Islam is human and political much more than it is religious.

Couldn't edit the above... Sure; Muslim devotion runs the spectrum just like Christian devotion. However, devout Muslims are way scarier than devout Christians. I have yet to read about large groups of "jihadist" Christians beheading and immolating Muslims who won't convert, or forcing them into sexual slavery. One cannot say that persecution of Christians by Muslims is only occuring in isolated rare occasions. Try telling that to any Christians in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and any other Middle Eastern or Indonesian country. Who's to say it won't come to Western Europe next; or the U.S?

On this we agree, totally. However, I do wonder what BC is really thinking. He is new to the political world and I would bet he is still learning to think things through well in advance before responding. What can be used against you, in or out of context, will take place. The media, during the silly season,especially, is not about accuracy, but sounds bites and controversy. I will have to wait and see, because his remarks are troubling , on other fronts as well.

Ben said that HE could not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of the nation. He did not say that Muslims should be barred from running for president. I'm OK with what he said - at least he was being honest. I could not advocate putting any of the current Democrat candidates in charge of this nation, either. It doesn't mean I abhor all Democrats. Islam is not just a religion in the sense that most westerners treat their Christianity. It is an entire way of life that encompasses religion, politics, civil and criminal laws, diet, economics, etc. Plus, if practiced as taught in some parts of the Koran, includes killing or enslavement of those who do not adhere to sharia law. Ben Carson also says that he would not support a Christian president who wanted to establish a theocracy. I agree with that statement as well. He seems pretty balanced to me.

The test with religious liberty questions is that it must apply to every religion. Christianity cannot demand special rights over any other religion. SDAs cannot demand special rights over any other denomination. No religion can demand special rights over any other religion. If any religion is excepted, either positively or negatively, it is no longer religious liberty. "With liberty and justice for all".

The Media is reading into this things that were not said, just as when he said Obamacares was the worst thing since slavery, the media said he said it was worse than slavery..

There is to be no religious test to be president, but there will always be an unofficial one to be voted in. Such as, if a persons religion taught that there are to be classes of people, and that white is to be the upper class, and blacks should not be in the same home or building, or that cats need to be sacrificed at every meal, or if their faith taught that aboriginals should not be educated and they should be able to be bought and sold, then they are just not going to be voted in. What Carson said was "is inconsistent with our constitution.."

They came for the Muslims.......

There are few things as absolute in damning a candidate as a refusal to acknowledge simple reality -- especially a candidate who says he'll be tough with our enemies but refuses to even stand up to his own supporters. Refusing to acknowledge that Obama was born in this country is the equivalent of refusing to say that the earth is round. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-trump_b_8177692.html

Nice twist. It's deceptive, but a nice try. Installing sharia law, which a vast majority of muslims thinks needs to be done in this country, including cair, is not consistent with the constitution. It is in direct violation of the constitution and that is what Carson was addressing. Sharia law would not allow for freedom of religion, women to drive, hold down jobs, etc... and allow things like "honor killings" in which fathers and brothers allowed to freely kill the women in their family. And you're criticising Carson for standing up against such tyrranny..... Shows where your heart is.

In the hearts of individual true believers like you and me (unless you don't agree with me, then it's just in my heart )

You do know that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has been labeled a "terrorist group" because it gathered and sent donations to Hamas. Right?

The problem is not the Catholic people, but the leadership, i.e., the Papacy.

His views on eschatology is deeply flawed from an adventist point of view. The final “world order” and the final attack on freedom of speech and religion that the Bible talks about, doesn't come from an atheist Antichrist. Instead it's the result of mixing religion (first and foremost Christianity) with politics.

I know a lot of SDA's who are no longer fans of Carson. They still appreciate his story but think he has "lost" it!

Ben Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House Republican Presidential hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson tells The Hill that presidents shouldn’t be sworn in on a Koran. Carson doubles down on no Muslims in the White House TheHill.com In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief. “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.” Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”

 “Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said. However, on several occasions Carson mentioned “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution. “Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.

In 70 years I can count the times on both hands that EW has been quoted more than the bible in church. I am sure there have been times you have heard EW quotes but I have yet to hear anything positive from you about the churches you attend or the members. Maybe your negative experience is not due to the fact you are gay but other factors

But making anyone's faith a test for office... is inconsistent with the constitution! In any sane logic, Carson just disqualified himself.

>>>>>If the Muslim faith is inconsistent with our constitution he should not be president of a country where the constitution and his faith are at opposite ends Most would be ok with If ANYONES FAITH is inconsistent with the constitution.. He did not say No Muslims Allowed..

Hey Jess, Welcome! We really NEED some younger folks here. I'm 65; and getting tired of re-hashing the same old stuff here. We need some new and fresh ideas. Some of us are old in years but young at heart! Fell free to introduce new topics! But wear your thick skin - some of us can sound pretty cranky sometimes. Look for a person named "Dream-Weaver". She is a college student; and is open minded and outspoken. She hasn't been on much since school started; but when she posts, she has good things to say. Feel free to PM me or look for the "Technical Assistance" thread to learn how thing work. Being old, I'm not that computer-savvy, either...

It's terrible....Rome hasn't changed, who are you kidding? Instead of a possibly sending this proposed letter to Pope Francis, Pastor Wilson should have flew over to Roman and kissed the Pope's ring. Also, addressing him has "His Holiness" is blasphemous. Have 7th-Day Adventists lost their minds? "His word [the Bible] has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men. She is piling up her lofty and massive structures in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated. Stealthily and unsuspectedly she is strengthening her forces to further her own ends when the time shall come for her to strike. All that she desires is vantage ground, and this is already being given her. We shall soon see and shall feel what the purpose of the Roman element is." [EGW]

One of the REASONS why I do not believe that October 22nd, 1844 was the fulfillment of the Yom Kippur prophecy, is BECAUSE there was no Feast of Tabernacles, 5 days after that date. The TRUE fulfillment of the Yom Kippur prophecy, will see Satan chained in "the bottomless pit" (otherwise translated as "without form and void"), and will see the Feast of Tabernacles prophecy fulfilled 5 days following. Redeemed Israel will "go up" to worship the LORD at The New Jerusalem (the place He has prepared).

Doesn't have anything to do with theology. The rare genetic disorder occurs because of a missing enzyme, which prevents the production of a specific form of the male sex hormone – dihydro-testosterone – in the womb. This occurs without medical intervention and sounds like it is caused by incest. Not months and months of hormone therapy and surgical intervention It is not until puberty, when another large surge of testosterone is produced, that the male reproductive organs emerge and their voices deepen.

That is one skewed site. The pants-on-fire that it gave to Ben Carson is a total distortion of the position Carson took. What Carson said is that he believed many pediatricians are beginning to not give complete dosages of all vacinations at once, and he said there was no evidence to support the idea that autism is caused by vacinations. According to politifacts Carson basically opposes vacinations. It's a flat out lie. That's the only one of issues that I checked out, but you can bet this is all based upon what a person takes as his basic assumptions in his world view. Thus, because Carson took conservative/libertarian stances on issues his "position" is going to be false according to the basic assumptions politifacts takes. It's like all the hate being thrown at Carson because he doesn't think a Muslim ought to be president. Why? Because the basic beliefs of Islam are in conflict with the Constititution of the US. He's absolutely correct about that. The vast majority of Muslims think Sharia law ought to be instituted in the US. You want to live under Sharia law? Would that not be a violation of the 1st Amendment? Muslims believe their religion ought to be the state religion in all nations of the world, and if you get a devout Muslim in office he is going to work to enforce that idea. Why? Because he believes in it with all his heart. It's who he is. Islam is not a religion that believes in freedom of conscience. Take a look at all Islamic countries in the world. All of them have basically outlawed any type of work that spreads the Christian gospel. They would do the same here if they could. It's just who they are and what they believe.

The more I think about exactly WHAT was to be accomplished by the END of the "seventy weeks" the more - it seems to point to Yom Kippur. I mean, the FINAL DAY of Atonement. Daniel 9:24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city 1. to finish transgression, 2. to put an end to sin, 3. to atone for wickedness, 4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, 5. to seal up [fulfill] vision and prophecy and 6. to anoint the Most Holy Place. (NIV) When - in the Hebrew Tabernacle scenario, was the sin of Israel, done away with? Answer: Yom Kippur - on the head of the scapegoat. When was "the Most Holy Place" anointed? Answer: Yom Kippur. When will prophecy concerning the "END of days" and "the time of the END" - be fulfilled? Answer: At the Second Coming. What happens at the SC? The scapegoat is banished, and the redeemed are at one, with the LORD. Looks like Yom Kippur - to me. When will the everlasting kingdom of righteousness come in? Answer: At the "7th trumpet" when the "kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ" - at Second Coming.

To reconcile means "to restore friendly relations between." There are two parties involved. This cannot be accomplished unilaterally. God has done something; He gave His Son for the human race. If we believe the good news, and repent (change our mind, so we are no longer estranged from God, but choose to be friends with Him), then we have been reconciled.

Better to spend money on that, then spend money on prisons..