Leaderboard

John Hagee wrote a book "Four blood moons - Something is about to change" I did not want to buy the book but I Googled that he believes something significant will happen to the land of Israel within a year of these eclipses. I had to laugh at how unspecific these predictions were - but I am sure he had the last laugh - all the way to the bank.

See the Adventist Review article: http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story3267-2-female-pastors-make-a-difference-in-cuba

I agree with every scripture you throw at me. But I think you are suggesting some kind of extremist view of these scriptures such as only work to increase others wealth while neglecting your own. Again I ask for examples out of your own life how you are doing this and surviving, as well as why you have not sold all - as you suggested I do earlier.

In order for GOD to be LOVE It has to be outwardly directing It is not GOD is in Love with His own self GOD is Love with the Other Two and Each of the Two loving each other ..All into Each of the Three. It is passing around from Three to Three Forever in Eternity past. The Family of Triune GOD HEAD has always been looking into each others eyes and Rejoicing before Each Other It has and always will be all Three Before time began a Separation of sorts had to happen to extend that love even more outward. Before one creature was even made it was decided that That the Three would manifest itself differently as... 1.GOD on a Throne above (Father) Creation. 2.God along the side of Creation ( with others) (Michael/JESUS). 3.God inside the Creation (Holy Spirit). It would even be more Pronounced when sin came. I think that's where the confusion is. How can any of us explain GOD the Infinite with finite brains. Love is not a quality in GOD. Love is GOD.. always going out to Others. Unconditionally Self Sacrificing ....... not Conditional and Self Preserving. Love is beautifully explained in 1 Cor 13 and shown on THE CROSS If you use that as a jumping off point to explain GOD we are closer to the TRUTH of Who and What He is! God bless you all! .Ty Gibson touches on this Ancient Relational GOD i put the link up and this video happened and i can't get rid of it Maybe Tom Wetmore will just make it a link.. I can't

Then you and those close to you will have to suffer the consequences this thinking leads to. Mrs. White told Eder Andresen that she had become a Trinitarian when he came to visit her expressly to find out if she became one and she convinced him to become one. Many of his friends were not happy that she changed him into believing trinitarianism. Also, James White wrote a letter towards the end of his life saying that he was finding the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against it. So please be more honest in how you portray James and Ellen. Also a study of people who had known James found that all but one of them did not ever remember him talking about the trinity. That they assumed that he was anti-Trinitarian, but that he was very quiet if that topic came up. There was one man who as a little boy once had the White's over when he was something like 8 years old and he said that at that lunch James was talking against the trinity. But none who were closer to him every remembers him discussing the topic, and as I said he did write a letter saying that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against it. Also, the trinity has turned central to the structure of Mrs. White's theology. If you remove the trinity then you only have a bunch of words that you can mold however you want and form all kinds of weird ideas and use her words to push these strange ideas.

Everything is a sign of something... To the point that nothing means anything.

That's kind of the plan right now, Lord willing.

A little history of Corinth where Paul wrote for women to be silent. Corinth was a sea port town where most of the population was transit. People would come from all over the world. Husbands would do business for a few months or years then go home, frequently bringing their families with them. Paul found this situation good to teach people then they bring the message home. Outside of Israel,(Israel was literate, at least the equivalent of a 6th grade reading level because of the Bible). most of the world was illiterate. Women even more so. In Corinth the men would speak Greek, maybe Latin as well as their local languages. Their wives tended to only know their home language. They would friend those from their countries. Church in Corinth would be difficult for the women. You could either translate every few lines into each language or just have the service in Greek where the husbands could understand then they could teach their wives. This is the issue that Paul was facing and that we need to remember as we study the text. The two theories from people who do not know the historical situation are the one that Paul did not want women to speak in church Or the liberal view that also says that Paul did not want women to speak for what ever reason but he was a victim of his times and it does not apply today. However, knowing the history we have a lot more options.... And I cannot take credit for being too original. It is based on things I learned over the years, especially at AUC, the Seminary, Loma Linda, and the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies, and things that have been pointed out in this discussion forum. One excellent book if : Jim Fleming's "Attitudes towards Women in the Bible." Dr. Fleming has a 5 lecture series that I heard a number of years ago on the topic. http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58

It's a good article. Many Americans, other than legal historians, are unaware that the Bill of Rights never applied to the states, and that even after the 14th Amendment it took the courts 50-70 years to "discover" that the 14th Amendment was supposed to apply to the states. The Bill of Rights also was never intended to apply to the executive, only Congress (however, the founders did not intend the President to have wide executive powers, Congress was supposed to be the dominant branch of the federal government. So applying the Bill of Rights to the President was not thought to be necessary). Some time ago I had an argument with someone on clubadventist who claimed that freedom of religion and freedom of speech for all was enshrined in the Bill of Rights back in the 1790s. When I mentioned that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, which remained empowered to regulate religion and speech, I wasn't believed. Many so-called "originalists" have no idea how toothless the original Bill of Rights was and have no idea that the purposes of the Bill of Rights was less to promote individual freedom and more to ensure that the federal Congress would not encroach upon matters reserved to the states. Many if not all states have state constitutions enshrining freedoms similar to those set forth in the federal constitution. Virginia even had a Bill of Rights which predated the federal constitution. But as the author of the article mentioned, federal appellate courts (including the supreme court) don't have jurisdiction to hear purely state matters. (In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution actually appointing the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation - the "supremacy" of the Supreme Court came much later and developed slowly over time.) So if the highest state court from state "X" ruled that a law did not violate the state constitution of state "X", that was the end of the matter. In order to get the case into the federal court system, there needs to be a federal matter - which for the last 75 years or so has been the 14th amendment and the "incorporation" doctrine.

"...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Jackson, I would suggest that the man's 'headship' came about as a result of the curse that came upon the earth as a result of sin. And the Father's 'headship' over Christ came about as a result of the plan of salvation. I don't think that the Father's 'headship' implies superior 'rank', or greater honor.

The following is a list of things the Bible considers an abomination: Unclean things (Lev. 7:21) Customs of pagans (Lev. 18:30) Idols (2 Chr. 15:8; 1 Pet. 4:3) Sins of men (Ps. 14:1; 53:1) Cheating (Mic. 6:10) Lost souls (Rev. 21:8) A froward man (perverse; one who turns aside (Pro. 3:32; 11:20) A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17) A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22) Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17) A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18) Feet that are quick to sin (Pro. 6:18) A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19) A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19) Wickedness (Pro. 8:7) A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1) Sacrifices of the wicked (Pro. 15:8; 21:27) The way of the wicked (Pro. 15:9) The thoughts of the wicked (Pro. 15:26) The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5) Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15) Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15) Divers, dishonest weights (Pro. 20:10, 23) Divers, dishonest measures (Pro. 20:10) Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9) Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9) Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18) Some same sex acts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18) See GayPrejudice.com Taking ornaments from idols when being destroyed (Dt. 7:25-26) Any Idolatrous practices (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; 29:17) Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1) Any traffic with demons (Dt. 18:7-12) Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5) See GayPrejudice.com Bringing the hire of a harlot or sodomite into God's house (Dt. 23:18) Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4) Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16) Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15) Idols of Ammon (1 Ki. 11:5) Idols of Moab (1 Ki. 11:7; 2 Ki. 11:13) Idols of Zidon (2 Ki. 23:13) Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13) Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17) Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35) Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Worship of anti-Christ (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev. 13) Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30) Things highly esteemed by man (Lk. 16:15) Many other sins of the nations (Lev. 18: 26-29; Dt. 18: 9-12; 20:18; 29:17; 1 Ki. 14:24; 21:2, 11; 23:24; 2 Chr. 28:3; 33:2; 34:33; 36:14; Ezek. 7: 3-20; 8: 6-17; 16: 2-58; 20: 4-30; Rev. 17: 4-5) It is abundantly clear from scripture that ALL SIN is considered an abomination by God. While one can debate degrees of seriousness and punishment for sin, it is clear that, according to the Bible, ALL sin is an abomination! .................................................................... yes all sin But too many Christians cherry pick as the Abomination they do or don't do ... and to hold against others as a pseudo way of holiness Jimmy Carter has figured out what yields the worst fruit in the Christian culture. And took a stand against it. my fave ex! #follow the Fruit!

I blame my poor communication skills. Typing and writing are very hard for me. That along with my melodramatic sense of humor. Thank you for asking me flesh it out more.

Thanks for the info. I find it interesting. Who are the corporate sponsors?