Leaderboard

I'm really interested in this upcoming Presidental election and I found the following the following about someone some of you might be interested in voting for. I'm not because I don't like his policies, but you might be. I won't tell you what his name is right now, but I am giving a list of things he supports. He is a decorated army war veteran, an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: (1) not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; (2) not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; (3) not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, (4) limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein. He supports the government setting wage and price controls, government programs for taking care of the elderly, increasing taxation of the wealthy, having the government set limits on business profits, and government policies that decrease the role of religion and the family in societal decision-making, and he thinks political correctness is a good thing as it helps change human nature, so he wants the government to get involved in this. Do you like his policies and would you vote for him?

This is the portion I disagree with Ted: How could the stars, if created on the 4th day, sing together on the 1st day? NKJ Job 38:6-7 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The final chapter of the story of the spiritual journey of this one-time member of Club Adventist has been posted on the Adventist Today website. You can read it at: http://atoday.org/nothing-in-my-hands-chapter-27-finale.html

we must be heard to be healed That is something a healthy 12 step support group can offer That is something a healthy Church can offer. A Healthy Church doesn't hold Judgement or Lord over people no matter what lifestyle or genders or politics or theology or addictions. Understanding God's Heart sees all humans as equal and worthy of His Healing! sooooo .. Blessings! #waiting for Church to be a Church! ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The gift we give each other here is that of listening. Listening is not approval, not “Yes” or “No,” or “Right” or “Wrong.” Listening is not advice, not giving solutions or making corrections. Listening is not taking action, fixing problems or choosing for another. Even when we are wrong or distraught, the best gift we give each other is to listen. To listen is to accept, to say, “Thanks for being real and sharing it”; this frees us to really be. To listen is to affirm the existence of another; true solutions come only to those who accept existence without solutions. To listen is to be there while another grows; growing happens best in the presence of a friend. The gift we give each other here is that of listening.

I think the opposite of Jesus' words are the prevailing attitudes of the day. I posted this on Facebook.... But I say unto you, bomb your enemies, hate them that curse you, hunt down and assasinate them that hate you, and drone strike them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45.That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:44-45. New International Community Version.

As Wingnut had challenged Creationists to take it literally Genesis 1:1, I respond as a Creationist to say I do. Even in the defining of heaven as he notes the Hebrew to mean. It bothers me not. The Word allows for this present space-time universe we call home to be created at that point. What people have a hard time fathoming, is how can there be a Created universe as astronomically immense as we have observed it to be, yet be so unpopulated by anything - and the earth being so formless and unpopulated in the manner God speaks of. Creation is just too big, too immense, for everything to be called into existence as God described it. And following that, man is simply convinced by his own observations and (still) limited understanding of the laws of science, that the universe must be far, far older than God says it is. It must be a phased Creation, some will say - creating over in this nook of the universe one time, then over there another time, and had populated Creation substantially, over a huge period of time, before God got around to Creating in this neck of the astronomical woods. Yet, God said He created light apart from any visible source, and populated the cosmos on day 4. Impossible, one might say? Well, God places His integrity on the line with this thought as well, for He says again in His Word that where man deems things to be impossible, all things are possible with God. Luke 18:27; supported by similar statements in Matthew 19:26 and Mark 10:27. Everything in Genesis 1 was created from nothing by God. In a way, even the secular scientists admit this, as their Big Band has everything starting from from an infinitesimally small singularity that, compared to the immense size of the universe, was nothing. From nothing, the singularity exploded, and from that, we have everything...so really, the idea is not that far-fetched as some would tell us. And that is precisely what the Bible tells anyway in Hebrews 11:3 - " By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." Furthermore, whatever God creates, He also maintains. Hebrew 1:3f says, " And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. As by the Word He Creates, so by that same Word He maintains what has been created. So...on Day 1, God says, "Let there be light!"...and there was light. No visible sources we are familiar with. Just like Hebrews 11:3 testifies. Yet God both created that light across His creation...this universe filled with light in transit to earth...and God maintained that light by the power of the Word He created it with. (the same goes for the people and new hearts He creates - but that is a subject for another thread). And yes, that means the only shadow being cast is...is upon the dark side of planet earth...where night has been created. All things are upheld. Nothing is not upheld. All light in our known universe being upheld by the Living God means...our Living God is immensely more bigger, greater, than this immense expanse we call "the universe". He looks at populating that expanse as nothing more than if we were to jot down some things on a Post-It note. That said, the Bible says this really immense God took a very deliberate approach to populating this planet, more so than when He populated the heavens on the 4th day (where billions of galaxies, and untold trillions x trillions of stars, were spoken into existence - and even now maintained - by a single command). Hence, when the galaxies and stars are created by God on the 4th day, there is already enough light in the universe being maintained by God's Word, these created sources of light in the night time sky can be said to have light in transit already. No need to wait for 13.5 billion years or so for the light (as well as the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum) to reach us - when God spoke, it was already in transit to earth. Yet, having a God who does this is anathema to today's science pursuits. Science deems faith and reason mutually exclusive. However, that has not been my experience. From my experience, faith and reasoning go hand in hand. Genesis 1 is far more than just a chapter on origins. It teaches us of God's magnitude and power (as I intimated earlier), what faith really is, and how redemption really works. Should we try to wedge this chapter in to a box to conform to what man's misunderstandings of science are, we short circuit these lessons.

If I had to ask a Sabbath School group of kiddies what God created on the first day, almost all of them would get the right answer. "On the first day god created light". A few adults and "brighter" kids would think, "Hang on, surely God must have created the heaven and the earth too?" I want to explain why the kiddie group is correct. 1) It would only be an ASSUMPTION by the adults that God SURELY must have created the heaven and earth earlier the first day? 2) This assumption is proven incorrect by Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: God does not admire the heaven, the earth and the light, calling them good. God just calls "the light" good. 3) If we assume that God created the heaven and the earth early the first day, then some questions come to my mind. Why did God not do a better job of creating the heaven and earth the first time? Why does this "rush job" leave the earth "without form and void", in darkness, covered with water and thick cloud? Was it necessary to create the earth in such a decrepit state in the first place? 4) If we adopt the natural reading of Genesis that God created the heaven and earth IN THE BEGINNING, without assuming that beginning was on the first day, then we don't have to answer the questions in "3" above. 5) If there was a gap between the creation of heaven and earth and Day 1, that gap can be ANY length of time. Science suggests the original creation (Big Bang) of the heavens occurred 13.75 billion years ago, and that earth only came into existence 5 billion years ago. 6) Consider the possibility that Gen 1 is not addressing the original creation of the world, but rather a week in which God restores/renovates/remakes earth from "without form and void", dark and covered with water, into the earth we live in today. 7) 6000 years ago, in 6 literal days, God replenished the earth, stocking it with modern plants, animals, and man. 8) Maybe a mass extinction occurred which left earth "without form and void". 9) God invokes 4 witnesses to testify on His behalf, as to His greatness. Ps 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. I believe Cosmology (the heavens) testifies to the greatness of God. Hubble telescope looks back 13.2 billion years and can photograph the early cosmos. Every part of the cosmos is fantastic. The other witness is Palaeontology (the firmament) which shows His handiwork through all ages of earth's history. And this testifies to multiple different biomes in earths past. 10) If I had to guess, I would say Gen 1 is describing God recreating the earth after the catastrophe which ended the Pleistocene, at the beginning of what palaeontologists call the Holocene. 11) Both witnesses, Cosmology and Palaeontology, show a far greater God than most religious folks imagine. These two witnesses give us an almost perfectly clear look at what God has been busy with for the last 13.75 billion years, both in connection with the heavens and the earth. 12) Other witnesses to the greatness of God are Science and the Bible. The sciences like biology, microbiology, marine biology etc. tell us how great every every little creature is down to its smallest detail. 13) Ps 104:26-30 perhaps describes a mass extinction and recreation event.... ...there is that leviathan [dinosaurs like plesiosaurus??], whom thou hast made to play therein. 27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. 28 That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. 29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. [mass extinction??] 30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. [regeneration such as Gen 1]. 14) Most arguments with Cosmology, Palaeontology and Science in general are solved when Christians accept that Gen 1:1 did not occur on Day 1. God is renewing earth in one literal week, 6000 years ago, after some mass extinction event left it "without form and void". And He places Adam and Eve on earth, so this is a very important new beginning.

Hmm...Posts like these used to appear often over at the Origins forum. First, Most people who want to take the earth into long ages, do so to bow to the dictates of man's science. It is man who has appointed an order of origins contrary to God's Word. With the first verse, God lays His integrity on the line. He says He created the earth and the heavens. One can either take His Word for it, or not. If His Word is trustworthy, then one must accept it as it is given, not how one wants to fit it into man's format. Man's science has historically declared the order of origins to be: 1. Big Bang - explosion from a singularity (though this is also being debated again) 2. Formation of galaxies by accretion of massive nebulae 3. Formation of stars and star clusters within those galaxies by accretion of mass within nebulae (Insert sun here) 4. Formation of planets by accretion of mass via dust/material disc orbiting stars (insert the earth and other planets in our own solar system here) 5. Formation of the moon 6. On earth - formation of planetary land (by material accretion) 7. On earth - formations of atmosphere (by accretion and volcanic processes) 8. On earth - formation of seas on top of land mass (by condensation above and geologic process below) 9. On earth - Cambrian explosion - plants and creeping things (invertebrate sea life) appear simultaneously in the marine geologic record. 10. On earth - appearance of fish 11. On earth - appearance of land plants - simpler forms first 12. On earth - appearance of amphibians and creeping things (insects); plant life moves to ferns, cycads, and fern trees 11. On earth - appearance of reptiles, birds and mammals, then man - in that order. Plants evolve to include flowering plants, conifers, then deciduous trees, in that order. Placing this list side by side with the Creation account, one immediately notices there are several discrepancies between orders. Hence, either man's listing, or the Word of God, must be true. Both cannot be true at the same time, for God placed creation in a specific order in His Word: 1. The earth was formless, with nothing on it (vs. 2) 2. It was composed of water (vs 2); owing to the language, it could be interpreted as water completely covering the rocky planet. 3. Light was created by the Word of God, with no visible source (vss. 3-5); this marked the events of the first day. There was no atmosphere created at this point in time, so a "thick atmosphere" could not have been parted to reveal a light source. Indeed, that light source was not even created yet. This is already at variance with numbers 1-8 on man's listing 4. Waters were separated by God's Word, between the water composing the earth, and the waters composing the heavens, By that same word, an atmosphere was created between the waters. Here, we have waters above (where the sun, moon, and stars are destined to be), waters below (the earth, composed of water). Light is still present, with no visible source. This completes the activity of God's Word on the second day. 5. Day 3 of Creation begins with God sending forth His Word to command the waters to be gathered together into one place, and for the dry land to appear (Hebrew = "cause to be seen"). God further commands the plants into existence - everything from simple single cell plants and phytoplankton, to fungi and lichens and moss, all the way to fruit trees and the majestic conifers. No animal life exists at this point, and neither does any visible source of light. Day 3 ends at this point. These are the foundational days of creation - setting the arenas to be populated in the next 3 days. 6. On the fourth day, God commands by His Word the heavens to be populated. It is at this point the sun, the moon, and the stars are created. The sun and stars are now visible sources of light. This differs significantly from man's listings, as man puts the stars in first, then our sun, then our earth and moon. It also differs significantly from Wingnut's #1, in that there the sun did not yet exist to shine once a "thick atmosphere was parted". Only AFTER the heavens were populated with these things, did he appoint them for signs and times. Here, God created the yearly and monthly cycles which everything living would follow. This is, perhaps, the major difference Wingnut has with the creation account as God says it, for I can grant the caveat that waters covered a rocky planet in the beginning. Here, one must either take God's Word to be true in having 3 days of light strong enough to distinguish day from night, without the sun being the source...or reject it as fancy. 7. On the fifth day, God populates the seas, fresh waters, and the air simultaneously. The seas are populated with sea life from the simple single-celled amoebas, paramecium and euglenae, to molluscs and invertebrate sea life, to vertebrate fish and mammal water life. It may well have included the marine dinosaur life seen in the fossil record. The air is populated with birds and fowl of every kind. There are no returning to the sea animal life forms, as the land is not yet populated. There is no transitioning from land life to avian life, as proposed by man. This completes the 5th day. 8. Finally, on Day 6, God creates all of the land life to populate dry land. There is no transitioning from sea to land alongside the plants (as man proposes). God creates the insects, the amphibians, the reptiles, and the mammals, in a separate, sequential time two periods past the creation of the plants, and separate from the birds. Then, God crowns Creation by creating man - by forming him out of the dust, not taking him from a monkey's DNA. Again, one is faced with having to take God at His Word that He did indeed create in this specific order, or reject God's testimony of His work. He is either telling the truth at every point, or He is a Supreme Deceiver who cannot be trusted in the light of man's interpretation of science data. The order between the Creation account and man's interpretation of the geologic, paleontological, and paleobotanical data is just too different, too disparate, to ever be looked at reasonably as a mere difference in timescales. As if that was not enough, God then creates the Sabbath on Day 7, and permanently embeds the weekly cycle into the plant, aquatic, avian, and land life He has created. The weekly cycle is something well documented in science, but there is absolutely no reason for its being. There are no prominent planetary or astronomic cycles lasting precisely 7 days. The only prominent thing with a weekly periodic cycle is...the 7th day Sabbath itself. I do take it literally. Every bit. I do not say I understand how He did it, but I do know every process He used obeyed the various Laws of Science He had authored in eternity past. More on why in another post. Blessings,

That well known lefty policy: "believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein". I think you'll find the rest of the world started opposing Hitler when he annexed Poland, not when it came out what was happening in the concentration camps. Hitler was to the left on some issues and to the right on others. American-supported Pinochet was on the right on almost everything and was a horrendous dictator. Does that invalidate any rightwing issues? Guilt by association is no argument at all against specific policies.

When AT first began to post her story, it was in a "free" section of the AT website. Later in some reorganization that was going on, it was moved to a section where people were required to pay an annual fee of $10 in order to access. AT has moved her story back to the free section. While AT is needing to recover from the expenses of covering the July General Conference, and people are encourage to contribute, all can now read her story without paying the $10 fee.

Yes, many people know who she is. I think that there is a story to be told. I would like to see it published as a book. But, the Lord will have to open up a way for that to be done. To me her story illustrates: 1) The extent to which God will work to bring to salvation a person. 2) No one is beyond salvation.

Chapter 5 is now posted on the website.

The 3rd chapter of her life was posted today. This begins with some the the issues that she faced as a 17/18 year-old woman.

Nothing In MY Hands, Part 2 is now up on the AT Website.

The beginning episode has been posted on the Adventist Today website. You may access it at: https://atoday.org/nothing-in-my-hands.html NOTE: The editor of AT has put a lot of work in on this. If you appreciate it, let her know. It is being published under the title of: Nothing In My Hands.

Some people have been confused by a reference to a previously posted, 2-part, summation of her life. l To clear that up, you can access that at: http://atoday.org/welcome-home-maybe-part-one.html https://atoday.org/welcome-home-maybe-part-two.html October 8, 2020 Some of the AT links are no longer working. I have posted AT links today that are working. To view those links, please read my post dated today on page 2 of this thread. GM

Stick with it. I also mention very good behavior.

Life, let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean when I say that we have not published every detail: 1) She was married to five different men. She divorced one of them when he came out of the closet, so to speak and practiced an active homosexual life style. That person has died. We see no reason to identify that person. There is nothing to be gained from such. 2) She was not married to every man who fathered a child by her. One of these men is assumed to have repented and become an active lay member of a SDA congregation. I see no reason to identify either his name or the name of the congregation to which he became an active lay member. 3) I state that some of the failures and mistakes were made by her and others were made by congregational members who thought that they were doing right. I may identify those congregational failures because I believe that there are lessons to be learned as to how our congregations treat people who are on a spiritual journey. But, I do not identify the specific congregations as I believe that there is nothing to be gained from doing so. The congregational mistakes were made years ago and not by present members.

​The original reason why I made the comment on the revealing of individuals is because I felt to hide their sins as individuals would seem to be in keeping with hiding the institutions to which they belong. While the Word specifically reveals His peoples failures congregationally, He also reveals the names of those who brought much disrepute upon the body of believers. I noticed on one of your followups, you pursued that principle, to me important that it be made clear when an organization is seen as weak somewhere, that does not mean all members of the organization have succumbed to that particular weakness. Of course that would seem to be important, working in both directions, evidenced in this Biblical principle. 24Here is another story Jesus told: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. 25But that night as the workers slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat, then slipped away. 26When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. 27“The farmer’s workers went to him and said, ‘Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds! Where did they come from?’ 28“‘An enemy has done this!’ the farmer exclaimed.“‘Should we pull out the weeds?’ they asked. 29“‘No,’ he replied, ‘you’ll uproot the wheat if you do. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds, tie them into bundles, and burn them, and to put the wheat in the barn.’”......Matthew 13 God is Love! Jesus saves! .

As Adventist Today began posting, today, this story. I suggest that you continue to read, and post, in the new thread.

Some people have wanted to know if Club Adventist is a part of this story. In the manuscript, as Susan wrote it, Club Adventist is not named. However it is mentioned. The AT editor is clearly aware the it is CA. I will assume that CA will not be specifically named. You will note, that once AT places it on its website, people will be allowed to post comments. So it is possible that someone will post naming CA.

Inga: The two (2) parts that were published were a sermon that I preach in churches. Susan (My penname.) also wrote a 26 chapter autobiography which she charged me to get published. In the beginning, I thought that that the story that she wrote would immediately follow the publication of my 2-part sermon. That did not happen. Hospitalization of the AT editor working on it was one aspect. In addition there were other factors that needed to be accomplished--digitalization of Susan's manuscript, was one of them. Then the digitalized manuscript had to be edited. I was than asked to write a preface which I have done. The AT Editor has written an introduction. I have been dealing with minor issues today that I have been asked to clarify. In any case, the AT Editor working on it has informed me that my preface and her introduction will be posted this week, as long as nothing else comes up. That will be followed by weekly publications of Susan's material. There have been some other issues that we have faced. Nothing bad. They have simply arisen and we have dwelt with them.

Gregory, I see that Part 2 of the story was published mid-February, but I can't find anything published since then. I thought you said there were to be monthly instalments?

Let me add a couple of things to add: 1) Imagine you are an 18 year-old female. You have a new husband. You learn that he has a mistress! What would you do? How would you handle it? Would all of your decisions be the most appropriate? 2) Susan (A penname I have used.) has been convicted that she is a great sinner. She knows that she has rebelled against prior knowledge. She is convinced that she has gone so far that she lies outside of the salvation of God. So, she might as well enjoy whatever life this world has to offer as that is the only pleasure that she will ever experience. This is the story of how she came to understand that God's grace was available to her. She was not outside of it. 3) Susan is on her journey back to God. Now she has been challenged.. She is on the floor of her bathroom. With tears falling she is crying out to God to provide her with an answer. That answer comes! This is the story of a spiritual journey of a very human person. It is a testimony of the power of God to restore and to heal. But, it is not a story of perfection and everything working out all right.

By the way, the AT editor and I have seriously considered what should be published and what should not. Generally we have agreed to publish as the woman wrote it. But, we have also agreed that we did not need to publish every detail known to us.

Life, I acknowledge that you imply that you may have been hasty in a comment that you made. But, you have raised a valid issue, to which I will respond. In my thinking, the focus is on the efforts that God makes to redeem individuals deep in the world of sin. It is not on the mistakes of humans who interacted with her. It also presents good things about people. Yes, it also presents people, other than her, who sinned. But, some of those responded to the grace of God and repented. Do you need to know the names(s) of: 1) The woman who was a mistress of the husband of the woman in the story? 2) Her husband who left her to participate in an active homosexual life? 3) The men who fathered children by her and to whom she was not married? 4) The husband who had an inappropriate relationship with another woman while married to her? 5) The name of the person who publicly informed her that she was eternally lost? 6) The husband who fathered two children by other women while married to her? Life, I could list more. But, I think that I have made my point. My list above includes people who repented of their sins. The grace of God reached people who were involved in sin as much as the woman who was the center of the story. Years after they sinned, I do not believe that their sins need to be brought back into public view. I assume that you agree with me. As a member of Club Adventist, she posted here under a penname. Many of our members will recognize her. Some of those interacted with her while she was a member here and they probably know her real name, as do I. That was her choice to share with them. But, I want to protect people and respect her wishes which was to focus on the grace of God and not on individual sin. If you chose to read. Enjoy the humor that occasionally comes--stranded in Germany with no way to get home and hungry, she puts the little bit of money in a slot machine and she has enough to eat a meal. There is a second issue that I want considered as people read the material: How do we treat people who are on a journey back to God and the SDA Church? 1) At the time of her death, her doctrinal belief as to what happens to a person when they die was not fully in accord with standard SDA belief. 2) At the time of her death, her practice of keeping the Sabbath was not fully in accord with what some people thought it should be. How should we treat people who once knew the faith, so to speak, left it, are on a spiritual journey back, but have not returned all of the way? If people reading her story can deal with that issue, I will have accomplished one of my objectives. Life, again I acknowledge that you have said that you may have been hasty. But, thank you for allowing me to respond to what was a valid question that you asked.

​ God is Love! Jesus saves!

​ God is Love! Jesus saves!

​ about part 2 was a wonderful testimony and shows how GOD LEADS Gail Mom to lots of chickies Brings back memories... I attended her funeral and met the daughter God is Love! Jesus saves!