Leaderboard

Nice try, but if you are claiming that the Mosaic Law is still valid, then I guess it is fine to stone an adulteress? That is ALSO in black & white....along with a lot of other OT Laws that you, more than likely, would never even THINK of claiming that was still valid because they are in "black & white". The arguments are old, and even tho you made a good faith effort, you either have to take the ENTIRE OT Law as LAW, or NOT....you CAN NOT pick & choose to make a point in a weak argument...sorry....this also goes for the NT, we do not have the power to pick parts we like, ignore others we don't, and then claim to be a Follower of Christ. The world might do it, but Christians do not have that luxury.

1) Are you personally sceptical towards the religious right, in other words, the tendency to use the political process to advance a moral/religious agenda? Do you personally support the separation of church and state, or would you like to see more religion in government? GM: I support the separation of church and State. As such, I believe that there are some issues that rightfully belong to the Church and it is the Church, not government, that should convince people. An example of this is the issue of same-sex marriage. From the Biblical standpoint, I believe that marriage should be between a male and a female. But, in our society, marriage has a number of rights. This places marriage in the area of a civil right. From that standpoint, I believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. I am personally skeptical of the religious right and a potential for them to attempt to force their religious views on others. 2) How do you perceive the opinion of your fellow adventists concerning the religious right? Are they supportive of their goals, or are they mostly suspicious? What is the “vibe” in your local church and among your friends? Are those who oppose the religious right still a majority? GM: Many SDAs are supportive of the religious right. Many are not.

I want to challenge Creationists to take Genesis 1 literally. In particular, I am asking Creationists to take Gen 1:1 literally. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The Hebrew for "heaven" is actually plural or "shamayim". The Bible lists 3 heavens. 1) earth's atmosphere 2) the cosmos 3) God's throne. Can Creationists believe that by Gen 1:2 we have 1) an earth 2) with its atmosphere 3) and the cosmos? So what is God doing for the further 7 days? Tweaking and adding to what is already there. Day 1 - God clears the thick atmosphere THAT WAS ALREADY THERE, so that the sun THAT WAS ALREADY THERE can shine through. Day 2 - God lifts the cloud THAT WAS ALREADY THERE, raising it high above the sea THAT WAS ALREADY THERE creating clear sky (firmament) between. Day 3 - God raises land THAT WAS ALREADY THERE causing it to poke out of the sea THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. God then populates the land with plants. Day 4 - God appoints the sun, moon and stars THAT WERE ALREADY THERE to mark out days, months, years and Feast Days. Day 5 - God populates the sky THAT WAS ALREADY THERE with birds, and God populates the seas THAT WERE ALREADY THERE, with fish. Day 6 - God populates the land THAT WAS ALREADY THERE with land animals and man. Day 7 - God rests, creating the Sabbath.

Earlier this afternoon while listening to comments regarding Trump & Dr. Ben, I learned that many folks were killed when a large number of people stood to show intentions to harm people about them in various places around the city. Is this the result of Jihad John's death? I don't know. Even though we know these last day events will come in rapid succession, it's sad to know so many will no longer lay eyes on loved ones. I believe it is important to reach out to those who mourn, regardless. Amen?

In light of the overwhelming evidence that egalitarian scholars have brought to the gender discussion in recent years, have you ever wondered why so many complementarians don’t seem to be listening to the biblical data? I mean really listening with willing, humble hearts and not just with critical minds?? Having just written about “The Strangle Hold of Shame” in my previous post, I feel the need to develop this theme of shame a little further, especially as it relates to the patriarchal mindset. I find myself wondering: Would John Piper ever permit himself to listen to Brene Brown speak on vulnerability and shame? Would he allow a woman to teach him about the hidden nemesis of his own soul and how perhaps the indwelling presence of shame is manifesting in his own theology? Susanna Krizo recently posted an excellent response to John Piper’s “Sweet Blessings of Masculine Christianity” . In her comment feed on Facebook, I responded with these words: “The key here is that men fear becoming effeminate” (a quote from Susanna’s post). I wonder if men like Piper fear becoming “effeminate” because to them it is a sign of WEAKNESS. According to Brene Brown’s studies on shame, appearing weak is what brings men their greatest shame. This would lead me to conclude that most of the complementarian package is being designed for men to avoid what they perceive is a “weak position” of letting a woman “lead” them. It was immediately after I wrote these words that I began to see an unmistakable connection between patriarchalism/complementarianism and men’s fear and SHAME of appearing weak. For a quick review, here is what Dr. Brene Brown’s TED’s talk said about shame being “organized by gender”: For women: Shame demands that we “Do it, do it perfectly, and never let them see you sweat.” For men: Shame demands only one thing: “Do not be perceived as weak”. Now here are the 3 main connections I want you to notice: 1) Patriarchy began when shame began: As I noted in my previous post, the origin of shame can be traced to the defining moment of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. Previous to this action, the narrative tells us that ”Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” As the effects of the curse are being described to the woman, Genesis 3:16b adds this: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Interestingly, the point most important for us to notice here is that shame and “male rule” originated at exactly the same time!!! The shameless equality once enjoyed by men and women is now stained by the curse of sin, shame, male rule, and patriarchy. 2) Patriarchy’s greatest fear is revealed by Piper’s obsessive aversion to “weakness” (and the SHAME associated with weakness and vulnerability). Complementarians will give lip service to words like masculine humility, and masculine service, but ONLY when these words are couched within a context of masculine strength. In his article about “Masculine Christianity”, Piper’s use of “masculine” words are ALL words that avoid any appearance of “weakness” and NONE of these statements, as he applies them to men only, are affirmed in scripture: i) “..male leadership with an ethos of tender-hearted strength..” ii) “..making men lovingly strong and the women intelligently secure” (inferring that a woman’s security is derived from the man’s strength) iii)…”the proper place of humble, strong, spiritual men in leadership…” iv) “The men are so clearly strong and secure in their leadership…” v) “The presence of masculine men and strong theology give the corporate worship a feel of strength that helps men discover and express…” vi) The God of the Bible is overwhelmingly powerful and authoritative and often violent. vii) [God’s] tenderness, gentleness and patience shine in their beauty “because of appearing in this dominant [masculine] light.” viii) Preaching is “a forceful acclamation”…. ix) “The fear of strong preaching is part of the effeminizing of the church…” x) “A wartime mindset and a wartime lifestyle will feel more natural.” Note: In Piper’s article, “strong” is used once to describe women but ONLY if they submit to the patriarchal model and vision of “masculine Christianity” as defined by Piper himself. 3) Patriarchy’s self perpetuating structure of strength, power, and control is fueled by the men AND the women within the movement. In her brilliant TED talk about shame, Brene Brown acknowledges that for the first 4 years of her research, she didn’t study men, only women. This omission was noticed by a man who had a few important words to add to this conversation and his insights were the catalyst for Brene’s research into the effects of shame on men. His comment went like this: “Brene, the women in my life are harder on me than anyone else. You say ‘reach out, be vulnerable, tell your story’….but do you see those books you just signed for my wife and 3 daughters? They would rather I die on top of my white horse than watch me fall down [in weakness].” You see, within the patriarchal and complementarian ideology, there are some very destructive myths being perpetuated by Piper’s “Masculine Christianity”: –> Men are to be the strong, courageous, decisive, protecting, providing, spiritual leaders of the home and church. Men are the strong and courageous “knights on white horses”. Men will lead the Christian battle with Piper’s “wartime mindset” and with Piper’s “wartime lifestyle”. –> Women are “strong” IF they accept this model. Piper instructs women to “relax and be more of their nurturing selves without fearing that they must work to create the ethos of God’s [masculine] grandeur lest it be lost because the men are not speaking it or modeling it.” In other words, Piper is perpetuating the cultural myth that men are to stay on their white horses and do ALL the grunt work while the women in their lives defer the battle to their knight-in-shining-armor-upon-his-white-horse, fighting the fight so that she can “relax” and “feel secure” in his manly strength. –> Having established this model as the only way for men to be Masculine Christians, there is absolutely no room for a weary man to step off his horse or, God forbid, fall off of it. That would be the ultimate shame. Falling off his horse, or even choosing to walk beside it, is an “effeminate” thing for a man to do (according to Piper) and such a weakling would bring disappointment and shame to the women who look up to him upon his great white horse. This is the voice of shame for such men: “You can’t let your women down!!! The pressure is on!!! Ride on, you masculine soldiers, and never, ever fall off. If you’re not comfortable on top, bearing the full weight of authority and responsibility, then you’re not worthy to be called a Masculine Christian.” It is my fear, and I believe the evidence I have presented substantiates this, that men who think like Piper will continue to have a very hard time facing their own shame and fears. The vulnerability it takes to explore the realms of shame will require an attitude of weakness, submission, and honesty. Quite frankly, I’m not sure their “Masculine Christianity” will survive such internal scrutiny. Their constant aversion to weakness and “effeminate” qualities tells me that they know their masquerade of strength is vital to their survival. Sadly, the eyes of many in the world who know better are all wondering the same thing: Who will tell the emperor of Patriarchy that he isn’t wearing any clothing? In stark contrast to the patriarchal emphasis, the Bible actually sends us a completely different message about strength. The well-known children’s song “Jesus loves me” reminds women AND men, girls and boys, that “we are weak but HE is strong”. Masculine Christian men don’t hold the monopoly on “strength”….only God does!!! Psalm 20: 7: “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God”. Psalm 28:7 : “The Lord is my strength and my shield”… 2 Corinthians 12: 9 “But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong”. __________________________________ What do you think? Do you see the connection between shame and patriarchy? Would complementarianism, as we know it today, begin to change if more of these men were listening to, and learning from, Brene Brown?? https://theologyconnect.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/the-patriarchal-shame-connection/#comment-48

With all the news that has come out on this, Has anyone changed their minds yet on who is the Beast? This is all the more evidence that radical jihadist Islam's strategy is to control the world through fear, intimidation, and terror. Hard to see the papacy's role in this. The fight has been taken to Western Europe - the "Grecia" of Daniel. This fight is not about land or thuggery - it is about RELIGION - "worship Allah and comply with his ways or die". Islam is a cult of death where the highest supernatural honor is given to those who die in the fight against infidels. We know that the God of Israel and and the followers of Jesus will ultimately win this battle; but we believers are God's instruments. How do we as believers respond is a forceful but righteous way? Is just praying enough? I'm not sure taking up arms against them (as Christians; not as Americans) is God's way. That may be a moot point if the violence comes to America. I believe we have a Godly right to defend our families and freedom, if possible. In the mean time, I am praying for God's peace, comfort and healing fall upon the citizens of Paris (and the rest of Western Europe); and that the veil may be lifted from our eyes that we may discern the prophetic implications of recent events.

Before one accepts what the author says without thinking about it ( ironically), one should also read the response to the article that appears directly after it. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/rolf-dobelli-ideas-news-dangerous News is not the problem. Information and knowledge are not the problem. How we consume it is more on target. My assistant is a real example of strict adherence to what Rolf Dobelli is advocating. And the response article hilights the fallacy and misdirection it involves. I must preface this by saying she is a lifelong friend and an excellent assitant that I value greatly. She absolutely avoids the news in any form to the extent Dobelli seems to advocate. But unlike his actual practice of getting the news indirectly or in other formats (hypocritical it seems to me), my assistant lives in a small reclusive world to her comfort level and avoids all news or information about current events. I would not be surprised if I called her right now that she would be unaware of anything that happened in Paris. If I talk to her about it tomorrow, I very likely would have to fill in a lot of essential background details, like even the existence of Isis or the European refuge problem. I am not even sure she is aware of the Russian Airliner that crashed. There needs to be a middle ground. Moderation. Mindfulness. Thinking. Focus. Selectivity. Balance of headlines with more in depth follow up investigation of the stories that are relevant, important and essential for being a responsible citizen of society, and the world we live in. The alternative really sounds dangerously like willful ignorance which ends up a serious liability to functionality in the real world.

The above should NOT be dismissed out of hand.

Awesome, thanks for sharing!

Please document the idea that the SDA Church established the office of Prophet and that they EGW held that position as an officer in the SDA Church. The official records show that EGW was paid the salary of an ordained minister.

In my SDA lifetime all i ever known was Right wing Conservative SDA's. Face to Face. To this very day. The internet has opened up a world to me of SDA's who all don't prescribe to this oppressive false pic exclusive God. Strangers yet Family. I wonder if God has kept me alive just to see this.It has worked miracles on my heart. To See God differently and people as well. It has freed me and decompressed my anxiety since i horrifically discovered i was gay at 12. but sadly this current video is very represented of the SDA's i grew up with. And pretty much hang around with at church currently. There are people at my church who feel differently (of course)..but not completely..gays are still second class citizens according to their voting record and over all politics. baby steps baby steps Maybe if i went to larger churches in larger cities ..I would have been exposed to what God really thinks of the likes of me ..face to face with others!. God calls me to love on and serve both sides of the aisle like my very own. Ignore Rachel Maddow and just listen to this guy introducing THREE GOP Candidates November 2015. Very Right Wing of the Day from where I stand. A content blessed loved Gay Christian with God in my heart and in my face. And I don't deserve any of it. HE is that Good! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBDbGyv6SIQ

Sojourner: Yes we need to fight pornography and not let it flood our streets like an open sewer However Seventh-day Adventists support birth-control. In a very hard to find book (because too many Adventists did not like it) titled something like "An Appeal to Mothers" by Mrs. White she encouraged birth-control. We can hate abortion but hate the underground abortion clinics and home made attempts that leave young girls dead even more. We can fight abortion on a grass roots level. Reaching out to people and helping them so that they know they have better choices than abortion. Keep abortion legal but obsolete.

Biblical support for taking life in self defense? It comes right out of the Law: Exodus 22:2 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." NKJV Not only does this relate to defense of one's person and family from the thief - it also relates to the defense of property from the thief. God does not regard the defense against criminal activity resulting in the death of the criminal, to be murder. It does NOT say the homeowner must leave the premises and to escape confrontation or the necessity of self defense. Active defense of life and property is presumed to be an expected, natural reaction to the criminal activity of the thief, in the tenor of this verse. This same tone is taken in Exodus 21:12-14. The words "God delivered into his hand" in verse 13 is the language of a defender prevailing. It is the same phraseology as used by David just before he slew Goliath: the death is a justified self-defense against an aggressor. Numbers 35:16-18; 20-21 lays out what God regards as murder: having enmity in the heart for the person and premeditating their death in that hatred. Accidental death and death resulting from the pushing away of someone without enmity (aka, a self -defense action - verses 20, 21) are NOT regarded as breaches of the 6th Commandment against murder. I read earlier in this thread about Peter carrying a sword (Luke 22:36-38). Just a bit earlier that evening, Jesus instructed His disciples the time was soon to come when they would need to go and sell their cloaks to buy a sword if they had no sword (verse 36). When Peter pointed out there were two swords already present (verse 38)...THAT precise time was the time to tell Peter NOT to take up his sword if Christ was merely speaking allegorically. But Christ wasn't speaking so...and He knew what Peter was going to be doing to Malchus in a few hours. YET - Christ didn't tell Peter NOT to carry in defense of life. He said instead that "those would be enough". Christ did not command that self-defense was sin...else why would Christ declare that legions unfallen angels could be instantly made available to defend Him? Christ dispensed with the expected right of self-defense, because the immediate context of God's plan of salvation required it. That He could - and would - if necessary is evidenced when His Divinity flashed through, momentarily stunning His would-be captors. Being noble, peaceable, and blameless does not preclude righteous indignation and justified defense against evil and criminality. Smurf, you wanted the Biblical basis and support for taking a life in self-defense...there it is. Black and white. Yes, this goes against the pacifist grain of the usual Adventist culture; yet, Christ Himself told Moses these things 1500 years before He walked this earth as one of us. His testimony is not going to contradict the principles already laid down in the Old Testament. Blessings,

I just read a report of 120 dead... Such a shocking tragedy.

The far right does concern me. Although I have always considered myself conservative, the new right includes too much religious convictions into government politics. As a friend suggested, cant we be anti-abortion but pro- choice legally? Can I desire less government control and yet understand the value othes have for society care for the less fortunate? (Matthew 25 even speaks to this!). And how does right to have a gun and pro-Israel become the only Christian viewpoint? And is anti-Muslim a Christian virtue?. 2). I think many Adventists are caught up in the fundamentalist/rightwing movement politically. It seems right!.

YES

Don't really hear much talk about this, so really have no answer or opinion

Yes, Yes and No

The piece you cited was the personal opinion of the Editor of the REVIEW. [NOTE: I have shortened the name.] It cannot be said to be the opinion of the SDA Church. The definition of the word "plagiarism" is different today from what it was in 1864 when that your cited piece was written. Today "plagiarism" has a legal definition that did not exist in law in 1864. However, notwithstanding the above, you have raised an interesting point which I acknowledge,

My personal belief follows the traditional teaching that has Christ's death on the day we now call Friday and his resurrection on the day that we call Sunday. In addition, I disagree with Rachel (8thd Day Priest) on a number of issues. However, without getting into that, Rachel is illustrating a number of issues related to the actual date for the death of Christ: 1) In the time of Christ, Passover was celebrated under two (2) different calendars. 2) The Biblical word "Sabbath" can refer to the 7-day weekly Sabbath and it can refer to a special feast day such as Passover. These and other issues make it impossible to determine with certainty the exact year of Christ's death. This affects other calculations. Again, I believe in the traditional Friday/Sunday belief. I think that this has the best support.

Inspired: One should note the purpose of the inspiration. The Biblical writers were inspired to produce a record that would record the life of Christ (NT), record the activity of God in human life (OT) and to teach doctrine. Ellen White clearly stated that she was not inspired to do what the Biblical writers were inspired to do. She was not to replace the Bible. She was not to add to the Bible. The purpose of the Bible was unique and functions in a role that no other written document functions. The role of Ellen White was to guide a developing denomination during its formative years. That role was unique and quite different from the Biblical writers.

Why were the COI armed? Why did the nation of Israel have a standing army? Why did God use the ancient judges to deliver the Israelites from their persecuters by the force of arms? I see no Biblical condemnation of Israel for having an army. And, David, their most famous warrior, was called "a man after God's own heart". If God really sees the defending of home and loved ones by force as sinful why did He call David a man after His own heart? Why does not the Bible condemn David as being outside the will of God in defending the nation of Israel? Do you really believe the God of the NT and the OT are that different? Did God Himself say He "changes not"? Why did God use force to kick the devil out of heaven if the use of force is sinful? To conflate the issue of self-defense and the idea of spiritual warfare is a logical fallacy.

Considering this text: 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.....Matthew 18 it would seem the male gender, by and large, are on shaky ground when it comes to entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. God is Love! Jesus saves!

Smurf said... Well, here it is: Exodus 22:2 - "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account." It is implicit in the text that not only is the homeowner here is to be not held guilty for slaying the thief in defense of family/house, but explicitly for today's commonly belittled thought of protecting property. Going on to verse three states that the event must be reported quickly - aka, within hours of the event - the phrase, "but if the sun has risen on him" indicates too much time has passed - the intruder's family could make counterclaims against the homeowner as to what really happened. Taken together, an alternate meaning would be that a thief breaking in at night could be slain in defense of family and property, but if in the day, the thief must merely be apprehended and brought immediately before the judges. Such an interpretation lends itself to the fact that at night one cannot know who it is who is committing the crime, and none can be expected to come to assist. During the day, recognition is possible, and people are awake and aware enough to assist in the event of a crime. Either way, taking a life in defense of self and property is not declared a sin, and is certainly allowed. Backing up a bit into the previous chapter, we find Exodus 21:13, which says, "“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." - which on the surface is a rebuttal in your favor, Smurf. But let's look at what the next two verses say: “But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee. If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die." It may seen easily from this passage that if someone was minding their own business, became involved in a fight, and in the course of defending themselves they killed their attacker, God appoints a place for the defender to flee until court is set to determine justice. "Did not lie in wait for him" expressedly means the defender not select out another person for attacking - they did not initiate the aggression. That person was minding their own business. "Acts presumptuously toward his neighbor" expressedly means one initiates the aggression with forethought - they planned on attacking. Note here that a successful defense of self if attacked by another is not held as sin - even if the life of the attacker is taken (see also the passages concerning the cities of refuge). However, the reverse is not true - if the attacker succeeds in killing his prey and claims self defense, yet is proven to have attacked with malice, he is to be taken even if he pleads directly from the altar of God. Again, taking a life in self-defense is Biblically not a sin. Two verses, in Biblical support of personal defense, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. To take the case further - slaying in defense of the disadvantaged/weak is likewise not considered a sin. This is the case when in 2 Kings 19 Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came against a very weak Hezekiah. Sennacherib's army was destroyed in one night - all 180,000 of them, leaving only the king alive. He returned humiliated to his city, whereupon he was promptly assassinated while in worship by his own sons. At first blush, this might again seem to agree with your posts to date; however, why would God declare it is just for an angel to slay in defense of of person/property, but not for man? Hence, the principle of defense of self/property is not contrary to the 6th commandment, which reads in truth, "Thou shalt not commit murder", rather than "Thou shalt not kill". Any good concordance testifies to this point. The commandment is against the hatred against others in heart which builds, until it is manifest as the actual premeditated taking of another's life with malice. That is the precise definition Christ Himself gives it in the Sermon of the Mount. It is not an absolute command about ending another's life, as is taken by many well-intentioned Christians today. There are multiple words in Hebrew used to describe the action of taking a person's life, but only the word for premeditated murder is used in the commandment. As was noted earlier, Christ's own followers were not admonished about carrying swords for defense the night of His betrayal. Luke 22:36 sees Jesus clearly telling that the time was approaching when His followers were actually go and buy swords - for defense. In verse 38, His followers point out there were 2 swords at hand - would they need bringing? In saying "It is enough.", if Jesus clearly intended this to mean the swords were unneeded, He would have said so. However, the weapons weren't for His defense (as so very well put, Christ was defended by angels more than willing to come to His defense), but most likely He intentioned them to be brought for His followers on a night where much injustice was going to prevail. Peter was not told he had sinned in defending his Lord's person - Christ merely stated it was not the time for such an action. Larger things were in motion. Indeed, in allowing Divinity to flash through humanity that night, stunning the soldiers and sending them to the ground, Jesus conveyed both a message and a warning - He was the very person they sought, and that He could defend Himself if it was necessary. A stronger flash of Divinity would have slain them all on the spot. The Bible does support the ending of life in defense against crime and war, and in punishment for crime, as just principles in harmony with His kingdom. Blessings,

Chill my friend. You may GET blown away and you may also be saved by someone like me that will be in church armed and ready. It's interesting that all the gunophobes are tickled pink when the armed police/authorities show up, often too late to repair the damage that has been done, but seem to resist having a brother in the seats amongst them that could possibly neutralize the situation. I choose to live until God lets me die. Carrying gives me options. If God sees fit for me to go down then so be it. I'm not going to lay down in the presence of a deranged gunman. I'll return fire if it's safe to do so. I propose a church where carrying a handgun by well trained members is mandatory. Shotguns for the deacons.

Since I retired I have been involved in an exercise program. I am telling people that I am training to take my shirt off and be a calendar model--just my dry sense of humor that can poke fun at myself and people who do not know me may not get. The main issue that I face is with my vision. The potential is there for me to go blind. I have problems now. For the moment, it is what it is and I can function. As to the future, I have the best care that clinical specialists can provide. We live in a world where with age comes a decrease in function. That is simply life.

Being the age we are is all relative -- my whole life I've had weak lungs and problems breathing/exercising -- so for me 64 feels more like 84 -- I've often told God that I really don't want to be here in this world when the End Times arrive, it will be a truly horrible and difficult experience, so I'm hoping He puts me in the grave before it happens! Hey, I'm amazed I've even lasted this long... And whatever witnessing is to be done by me will be done via my books and websites and all that. I really don't need to be here to do it -- nor do I want to be here...

Hmmm, I wasn't trying to hide who I was when I picked my screen name, and frankly I don't even remember being here on this forum "years ago" -- on my profile I listed my webpage which has everything about me on it -- but I guess I should say "Congratulations, you figured out who I am!" <grin> I grew up in a secular Presbyterian household, I collected comic books in the 1960's and traced them to become a cartoonist -- when I joined the church in 1984 at the age of 34 I brought my talents along with me... when I moved to the D.C. area I met Roland Hegstad who took me on a tour of the R&H in 1985... Ken McFarland suggested that I try doing a book on the prophecies, so for a year I prepared/wrote/drew my 56-page "comic book" The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation... I submitted it to the R&H, but they rejected it (mainly because it looked too much like a dreaded "comic book")... Dennis Crews (a son of Joe Crews who founded Amazing Facts)(Larry Crews currently works at the Ellen White Estate) came by one day to borrow some camera equipment from a friend whose house I was staying at, and as he was heading out the door my friend said, "Why don't you give him your book to take back to AFacts?" We knew that AFacts was even more conservative that the R&H, so we figured they probably wouldn't go for it, but a few hours later Joe Crews contacted me and wanted to talk about publishing it! And everything that AFacts has published/printed has been printed at the R&H in Hagerstown, so even after the R&H "rejected" my 1st book, the R&H has since printed all 8 of my AFacts' books since 1986 and they have totaled around half a million copies (and made AFacts half a million dollars in the process)! PRAISE THE LORD! Joe Crews knew that our message HAD to be printed in formats that the worldly people will read, and the "comic book" format is the #1 Easy-to-Read format on the planet! Thus I've done 8 books, and they have sold very well. The final side-note here is that every one of the 7 Bible Study books were done by me with no pay until they went on sale, and I got royalties -- each book took around a year to do -- without pay -- until they sold. When it comes to doing work for the Lord, I've never placed "money" before the work -- so I've lived humbly -- and the Lord has blessed. Yes, I met Ron Wyatt in 1989 and spent 10 years working for him to help him publish his biblical archaeological discoveries -- and since Ron died in 1999, I've continued working with his materials. As seen on my website, in 1994-1996 I managed Ron's 1st Museum in Gatlinburg, TN -- I drew 2 comics/magazines for him, illustrated his Newsletters, and drew art for his videos... Yes, Ron's material is "controversial," but my personal testimony is that in these past 25 years I have never heard a viable criticism that has stopped me from believing in any of his discoveries. Currently Tim Mahoney is showing his $2 million documentary film about the Exodus and Ron's discoveries at film festivals around the country, and they are winning awards for it; and a scientist in Sweden (where they do the Nobel Prizes) Dr. Lennart Moller has written 3 editions of THE EXODUS CASE that totally supports Ron's discoveries! So while there are people who doubt Ron's discoveries, there are also people who have seriously studied them and BELIEVE in them! When I was growing up and wanting to draw comics, I never knew what it would lead to -- but my whole life I was searching for God and for Truth -- and in 1981 God gave me my Banking Solution, in 1984 He lead me to the Adventist Church via a 5-week seminar that used lots of Harry Anderson's art (whom I met in 1986), and in 1989 He let me met Ron Wyatt -- so my life's work has been with these 3 personal ministries... and here I am at 64 and believing that this world has very little Time left, and I'm watching to see how everything regarding my 3 ministries plays out!

Graeme, my post was in response to the statement involving "unwillingness to let God lead us wherever He wants us to be [including death]" ... that's why my answer included examples not involving the death of someone else by my hand. If I was in a sinking ship that only had enough lifeboats for a portion of passengers, I wouldn't push someone else out to save myself. otoh, if an unwelcome intruder broke into my home and attempted to harm me or anyone in my family, I most certainly would do anything and everything I could to protect myself and anyone else in danger. Owning and using a gun for protection doesn't necessarily mean putting someone else's life at jeopardy, though it certainly could do that. Disabling an attacker would be my aim...so to speak. I vividly remember one graveyard shift I was working in the ER. We got a call from another medical center, letting us know that a deranged person was on his way to our facility to shoot the ER staff. Our Chief of Emergency Med was on duty that night. He always carried a loaded pistol in an ankle holster. Guess who we clustered around all that night....

Quote: I believe it shows a lack of faith in God's ability and willingness to protect us. I believe it shows an unwillingness to let God lead us wherever He wants us to be, especially if it's to our death. I respectfully disagree with the above. God expects us to do our part in life if He gives us the tools to do so, and I believe that includes protecting ourselves, our family, friends, and others from danger. If that isn't true, then why bother, for example, to wear seatbelts when traveling? What about fire alarms? Tsunami warnings? Why go to a bomb shelter when there's a blitzkrieg? Should we just blandly consider the Holocaust to be "God's Will" because the people were not able to defend themselves against death in concentration camps? Perhaps I'm not sufficiently informed, but to my knowledge, God does not wantonly lead His people to death.

Luke 22:51 says But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. 52 (ESV), which I paraphrased to "Jesus said to Peter 'Dude, chill' then healed the man's ear saying 'that was my friends bad, let me fix that'" My point is, concealed or not, having a weapon at the ready to come to the defense of another is simply not a bad thing. It's not fear, or any such thing. It's being prepared in a world that hates us, to live another day.

And what did Jesus say to Peter, after that? And just to let you know, I have no problem with anyone hiding the weapons where ever they want on there person. I'm pretty sure Peter wasn't hiding his weapon, it was right out there on the outside of his clothes, so all can see it. Just my opinion.

Hmm. Interesting indeed. Let's not forget that Peter was most likely regularly armed around Jesus, and it's unlikely that Jesus objected to it. We know that Peter used his weapon at least once, in defense of another person, specifically Jesus. Had that been today, it would have been a 9mm bullet in Malchus' chest. And I'm sure Jesus would have reacted the same. "Dude, chill" to Peter, and "My friends bad. Let me get that" as he healed Malchus' wound. That was a Christian protecting a fellow human against imminent danger. The same as we who have the heart to carry today will do if called on to act. Back then, it was a sword. Today, it would most likely be a pistol. No different in a historical context and considering the personal defense weapons most commonly used.

You , probably, wouldn't get "blown away" if someone was 'carrying' in your church. I have never 'carried' my concealed weapon in church. That doesn't mean that I 'never' will... Nuff Sed

I ain't never took no gun to church. No sense in it I guess.

I do also agree with that sentiment, 'Nuff Sed. I was only relaying what man's Law tells us we "must" do, so that others do get so frightened by those who take the defense of self and others quite seriously. My church does not know when I carry or not - and have told the pastor and church board they will not know either, unless they decide to frisk me down when I walk through the doors. At the frisking comment, one said they might just try that...to which I replied I would select who it was, that she may do the job. Debate settled, right there... Blessings,

I know of a few SDA's who carry at all times. Am I one of them? Nope.

If I decide to 'carry' my concealed weapon into the church I shall not be seeking 'permission' of the pastor nor the church board to do so. Nuff Sed

Required? No - no one is ever required to carry in the SDA Church. Have there been elders/deacons who do have concealed weapons licences? Yes Have some of these petitioned their local pastor for permission to carry during services? Yes. While I have heard (and seen) volunteer efforts to carry, most states do require permission to be obtained first from the pastor. If an SDA pastor says no - that's the end of it. Those who carry leave it in the vehicle. If a pastor agrees - it will likely be a private agreement, as there are a few SDA's scattered around who go absolutely bonkers about the issue. Hope this helps, Blessings,