Leaderboard

Memories of the past will be "deleted"? I totally disagree with that idea. If it was to be true, then why would Jesus bother to have the nail piercings in his hands still be evident throughout eternity?

Memories of the past all deleted?!! Really? I missed something somewhere along the way.

Quran in English: Modern English Translation. Clear and Easy to Understand. By: Talal Ltqani A book of hate and violence ByTruth Revolton December 1, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition By all means, read the Koran. I encourage you to. It is the only way you will learn the truth about the Muslim holy book and the oppressive ideology within it. I read the Koran and it woke me up to the true message of hate, violence, death, and oppression that is the central theme of the text. Over 100 passages alone promote Jihad. The Qur’an endorses violence against non-believers. The Koran endorses slavery. The Quran treats women as property. The Koran endorses death (apostasy) for any Muslim who leaves the faith. Unbelievers can be beheaded: “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Qur’ran 47:4) War on unbelievers is OK: “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who grid you about and let them find firmness in you, and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Qur’ran 9:123) Those who aren’t Muslims must be killed: “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Quran 9:5) Jews and Christians are the enemy: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors of each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them.” (Qua’ran 5:51) Women are inferior to men: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other.” (Qua’ran 4:34) Women must cover themselves “Lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except the their husband and their father (Quran 24:31) Women can be beaten by their husbands: “Good women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.” (Qua’ran 4:34) Since Mohammed married a 6 year old, pedophilia is approved of in Islamic societies and child marriage occurs regularly. The Islamic Hadiths (Additional Holy books discussing Mohammed’s life and words) are just as bad if not worse than the Koran. Female genital mutilation, the subjugation of women and children, oppressive Sharia Law, and many more horrors are endorsed in Hadiths and other sacred Muslim texts. These things cannot be changed because Muslims believe Mohammed was the prophet of God. As the prophet, he was perfect, and the Koran is perfect, and to follow the Quran is a duty of every Muslim. Luckily, many Muslims are ignorant of what the Koran says. They are tolerant not because they are Muslims, but because they do not follow Islam as the ‘prophet’ demands. They are tolerant in spite of Islamic law and teachings, not because of them. All relatively tolerant passages have been canceled out by the Muslim doctrine of abrogation. Abrogation was written down by Muhammed in the Koran to assist Muslims when two verses contradict each other. Abrogation requires one to disregard earlier versus (the tolerant ones) in favor of the later versus (violent and hateful). Thus, theologically, all violent and hateful Muslims are correct. They are following the Koran and ‘word of God’ according to Mohammed’s I truly feel sorry for human beings who were raised with this religion and ‘holy book.’ They had no choice but to be born and raised into the culture. I hope they can look beyond the ‘holy’ label of this book and see it for what it really is: the narcissist hate-filled ramblings of a very delusional man who thinks he talks to God. The truth is, many people ARE afraid to speak out against Islamic teachings because the radical Muslims do intimidate them. The other half is ignorant of the Islamic faith because they assume the Koran teaches love and peace and thou shalt not kill as other faiths do, while in reality, it teaches the complete opposite. If you’re one of these ignorant naïve folks, please please read the Koran and see for yourself. If you’re one of those living in fear of speaking out against deadly Islamic teachings, know that you’re not alone. Join groups like ACT For America where like minded people work together to educate the world about the dangers of Islam. Before it became politically incorrect to criticize Islam, some very famous and respected men of history understood its dangers. Alexis de Tocqueville on the Quran: “I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.” Winston Churchill: “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property-either as a child, a wife, or a concubine-must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities…but the influences of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism (Islam) is a militant and proselytizing faith.” Voltaire: “But that a camel-merchant [Muhammad] should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.” Mark Twain “That is a simple rule, and easy to remember. When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters.” President John Quincy Adams: “In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adam's capital letters]….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” George Bernard Shaw “Islam is very different, being ferociously intolerant…You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell” Carl Jung “We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god.” Antony Flew “I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam... it is, I think, best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism. Between the New Testament and the Qur'an there is (as it is customary to say when making such comparisons) no comparison. Islam is more than a religion; it is a political organization that takes over every country it can, by stealth or by force. Thus far 57 countries in the world are under Islamic rule and they have some of the worst human rights and women’s rights records in the history of mankind. I love Muslims and wish them well, but the ideas propagated by their faith are abominable and deserve every peace loving, human rights loving, freedom loving person’s contempt. 9 comments Well that about says it all for me. Have any of you looked in to Islamic Eschatology thought????

I agree, don't believe that memories will be deleted. As time passes I believe that memories will fade away And if its true that we will have much more use of our brain's, it seems more likely that our memories will be around a very long time!!

Most of what I have posted here is more in support of what Wimgnut originally posted and more a reaction to the blind insistence that creation of everything or anything happened 6000 years. Maybe 10,000 years ago life and time as we know it on the earth... Archeological evidence suggests human life at least that long ago. More directly to the notion of hopping into a time machine - My fascination with time theory has me pretty well convinced that time travel is impossible. The past exists in memory only. The future exists only in imagination. The present moment is the only piece of time we can exist in and experience in real time. In our dreams only can we time travel. Our God who is infinite has an infinite and perfect memory and imagination to know the past and "see" the future. We are not so equipped. But time travel is still great to contemplate and if it were possible we would need to go back further than 6000 years to "prove" anything of what we are speaking. Go back to the 11,000 year point and see if anything exists. I think we would see the universe existed. I think even our own solar system, at least in some elemental aspect existed. Life on earth? Not at all, or not as we now know it.

Yes, quite significantly so, it seems.

Wingnut said the following about Tom. If I correctly understand what Wingnut said and correctly understand where Tom is, Wingnut has failed to understand where Tom is.

1. Yes, I am personally skeptical towards the religious right. I do not advocate for one political party over another though. To me the right and the left are two sides of the same devil. The left pushes for shameless sin and unbiblical laws in the name of humanism and based on atheistic ideals. The right is like the devil's false identity of "light" so he can get away with supplying a supposed remedy after ruining the world with his foolish laws from the left. Through the left he [the devil] is causing disorder while through the right he will seek to create a new order out of the chaos caused by himself. I do support to the separation of the church and state. Though, due to the fact that the world is so corrupted by sin, such a separation will inevitably come to an end because humans are power hungry and selfish in the fallen state that we're in right now. 2. I cannot answer this one because I don't have that kind of insight on the current stats. I do however know that a lot of Adventists will be misled (according to prophesy) to accept the mark of the beast and assist the beast power at the end of time to persecute the saints. So according to that knowledge, I subscribe to the idea that many people in the SDA church do not know their own hearts. I think its our duty as individuals to pray and ask God to keep us in check when we sound or act like we're joining the beast in combining church and state. 3. Yes. Yes. So much, YES! We are getting closer and closer to that hour even as I'm typing this. The world is ripe, especially this year! Next year will probably make people's hearts beat out of their chests.

Great perspective, Laz. I believe you are correct in saying that the U.S, has inadvertently supported and funded many terrorist organizations, including the Taliban, ISIS, and Al Qaeda. Then they come back and bite us. For example, the U.S did not "end the war" in Iraq. We simply took our troops out and left billions of dollars worth of advanced military weaponry for ISIS to confiscate and use in their jihadi mission to establish a worldwide caliphate and destroy Israel and America.

The Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant is mostly funded through criminal activity, such as the theft of a potential $425 million from a central bank in Mosul. But the group is also receiving private donations from wealthy Sunnis in American-allied Gulf nations such as Kuwait, Qatar, and, possibly, Saudi Arabia. http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-funding-us-allies-2014-6 What is the subject matter of the 28 classified pages of the 911 report?

IMHO, there is much about the rise of ISIS that does not add up. They are not some rag tag band of terrorists. At least one US army general has admitted that ISIS is funded by some of our allies in the Middle East. There is strong evidence to suggest that the US government supported ISIS initially. There are many who stand to make a lot of money from confronting ISIS, just like there was a lot of people who made money from confronting Saddam and the Taliban. I seriously doubt that they can overwhelm much of the world. I suspect that tackling the ISIS problem will lead to people in the west giving up their most cherished freedoms.

1) The above translation is not accepted as a valid translation by any large Islamic group. Therefore, it should be used with caution. To really understand the Quran, one should begin by reading a translation that is accepted by a large Islamic group, such as the Saudi government. 2) In addition, the above citations are generally taken out of context and so are made to say that which they do not say.

I never realized before how far Mary and Joseph had to walk, between Nazareth and Bethlehem. Thank you for that wonderful editorial.

Nice magazine. Saved a couple of articles for posting on bulletin boards for student (and staff) attention.

I don't listen to local news. Yes, I listen to political new. Because the Bible says to watch as well a pray. No one makes up my mind but YAHSHUA! I watch as prophecies are being fulfilled! So my news makes me rejoice because I don't have to live in sinful world to much longer. I am getting ready while I watch and pray! Happy Sabbath and be bless!

Jo, your question is written in a conventional war context. For conventional war, our planners know the answer to your question to include what the opposing force would need to be. But, ISIS and others are not fighting a conventional war. All of our equations and conventional war knowledge goes out the window. By the way they do not need 297,000 supporting them.

Is it still true? For those in the U.S., that depends largely on where one resides. In the classic Adventist communities and academic sites, in the areas where there are administration offices, and in the political "blue state" areas, that is largely a true statement to say those supporting the religious right are still a minority. That said, in many Adventist churches away from these areas, that statement is now largely false. Whether Adventists are honest enough to admit it or not, it is that fear of the National Sunday Law which drives them to believe what they believe. I noticed this very pronounced point when I first was baptized into the Remnant faith back in 1986, and from my observations both local and global, that has not changed in the least. I have worked side-by-side with both ends of the religious spectrum. Currently, from my contacts and associations with even some very deeply religious Right people, the overwhelming majority of those on the Right do NOT advocate using the political process to advance a religious/moral agenda. When asked what it would take to get them to advocate for such, it consistently came down to their perceiving God dispensing His wrath upon this nation do to the activity of the cultural Left. What makes me skeptical of them, though, is the recurring point of ignorance and denial of history up to even a few decades ago, that this was indeed an advocacy they were in favor of. History not learned, and history denied, means history repeated. My counterparts on the Left, however, have have both voiced and demonstrated they are far more in favor of using the courts and legislation to promote their perspectives of the Gospel, and advance their moral/religious agenda, than are the religious Right. Much of this is grounded in a firm misunderstanding of what the Founding Fathers saw was the proper relationship and place of religious faith in the government, coupled with a very human union of pop culture and the Gospel, in my opinion. Hence, while I remain skeptical of what is on the Right, I am far more skeptical of the Left in religion, as they are actually doing what they fear the Right to do. That places me at odds with a significant plurality of Adventists in Europe and the U.S., and not so much with Adventists from other parts of the globe. Personally support the separation of church and state? That depends in large part on how one wants to define what the combining of church and state is. As typically presented in modern Western culture, this is actually a false choice logical fallacy, coupled to a straw man argument. Today's culture defines "separation of church and state" to mean the presence of any Biblical principle or law within the confines of the state. This argument is not supported by the writings of what the Founders of the U.S. meant with the establishment clause. Very few actually know what the establishment clause means today, and and today's pop culture mistakenly thinks that any presence of Biblical teaching even present within the state domain meets that criteria, and must by necessity be removed. Using Biblical principles as a foundation for good legislation is what is defined as "establishment" today. This is a gross misunderstanding of what was penned to be the religious establishment the Founding Fathers meant to prevent. Such thinking is also by necessity contrary to the second half of the establishment clause, in that this clause includes the prohibition against the elimination of free exercise of faith in the public square. Do I support keeping religious faith from being adopted as the state official religion of the land? Yes, I do. Does that necessarily mean I support the current understanding that Biblical principles be removed from being the basis by which this country is best run? On this question, a significant number of Adventists choose to support this point. I do not. Religion in government? Hmmm....the catch question meant to be the default answer to answering "No" to the previous choice. This, again, is really a false choice logical fallacy, based re-defining what "separation of church and state" away from what it originally was meant to be. So again, I am far more skeptical of those on the religious Left than those on the Right...in large part, because I see the Left side willingly (and sometimes wantonly) using re-definition as a means of setting the language in place to pursue their legislation and judicial agendas in the moral/religious arena. From my perspective, most Adventist academics and administrative staffs fall into this category. In my local church, roughly 2/3 of the congregation are cautiously supportive of the Right, owing in large part to what I discussed in question 1 above. Here is where the stuff hits the fan, so to speak. Most Adventists are convinced the threat comes from the vaunted religious Right, so they vote the opposite - the political Left - to prevent this from happening. this, I think is ironic, because that is precisely where the Papal position is. In reality, it is the Protestant churches that are moving toward the Papal position by which this prophetically foretold clasping will transact. Rome never, ever changes, so if the Protestants are going to meet Rome, it will be where Rome is, and not Rome moving over to the Protestants by virtue of common cause. And that is precisely what we see happening with this current Pope - who is solidly Left both politically and religiously - he is making the greatest ecumenical inroads ever in the Counter-Reformation, such that he has convinced most every major Protestant institution to agree with him that the Reformation can be considered finished, having completed its work. Adventists are in large part knee-jerk about the Religious Right, simply because they believe such a clasping can only be framed in a "common cause" setting. Very few Adventists I have discussed this with, even consider the thought that such a clasping of hands, as EGW foretells, can come from the sympathizing of common beliefs coalescing around Rome's focus...which is what I am observing to be what is really happening today. We point to 1888 as the framework by which the Sunday Law must necessarily come. That did indeed come from the Right, and was indeed a "common cause" adventure, as Rome cast her support in favor of it. But that was Rome reaching over to clasp the Protestant hand in support - Rome really had no power here in the U.S. at that time. The effort failed spectacularly, and in such a way that it will not be repeated again. Since then, this has been the standard Adventist position - to be prepared for another 1888. Yet, the enemy of our souls knows this. With today having so much information at our fingertips, our enemy will not grant God the courtesy of repeating 1888. No, I believe he will funnel that Sunday Law in from a direction Adventists do not expect, and cannot defend against: the political and religious Left. So, Protestantism must necessarily reach out to Rome where Rome is (as EGW did indeed foretell) and THEN clasp hands with her. Protestantism will, by and large, move toward Rome's stance religiously and politically. Because the SDA institution has already adopted that position...she cannot fight it. Evidence? The Canadian Sunday Rest Law is a clear example - and indeed was the devil's test balloon as to proceeding in these last days. This law was framed on the setting of providing an official day of labor and family rest. Rome and the Protestants immediately jumped on board in favor of it...because what other major activity is going to be favored if one must legally take that day off? Church attendance, in their view. Yet, when the Adventist came forward with the arguments prepared for another 1888...they were easily rebuffed, in that the Rome and Protestant advocates simply said Adventists were making the issue a religious issue, when it was instead presented as a labor and family issue. Now, it is but an easy step to declare that since the day is already the legal day of rest in the week, church attendance can be voted as mandatory - for the sake of labor and family interests. In short, the SDA church never really saw this coming...and remains in denial that it can happen the same way here in the U.S. The SDA church remains solidly prepared for a fight which, in my opinion, will not ever happen again. This means the real National Sunday Law will indeed be voted in as quickly as foretold...because of this very point. Adventists really do not fathom it could come from any direction other than what happened in 1888, and are already in large sympathy with the very issues used by Rome, and Protestants reaching across to Rome, to bring this Sunday Law into being. To suggest this borders on blasphemy to some Adventist circles I know. I see this every January, when I read the literature associated with the Religious Liberty drive. Will the U.S. one day be a persecuting power? It already is. Will it ramp up that persecuting power with the foretold National Sunday Law? Yes, it will. And I am convinced that the direction it comes from will cause as much enormous fallout within the SDA church, as will Adventists having to choose later to disobey the foretold corollary to that Law - that Sunday is to be the ONLY day of worship. Most Adventists don't even know the Sabbath/Sunday choice remains for a short while after the Sunday Law is passed. Blessings,

A figurine of Buddha or an icon of a Saint wouldn't be an idol for me. I would never be tempted to worship pagan gods, so such a piece of religious art would only have an aesthetically meaning to me. However, I still think there are compelling reasons to avoid religious art in our homes. The main reason for this is because it can be a stumbling stone to unbelievers. For instance, I once gave my parents a menorah I had bought in Israel. They had it on display in their window, and after seeing how conspicuous it was I to those passing by, I finally had to advise them to find another place for it. People with limited knowledge could be led to believe that adventists were some kind of Jews, (an allegation that I've personally encountered) and that's obviously not true. Likewise, someone who briefly visits your home might think your religious art is an indicator of your faith. Furthermore, for some people veneration of religious images is a quite serious thing. Some people could even be offended if we use art that have a religious purpose for decorative purposes. We should also remember that warning against idolatry is an important part of our Christian duty, and our testimony could be weakened if people saw our homes filled with figurines of various gods. It's going to be hard to convince a Catholic or an Orthodox to stop venerating religious images if I own such images myself. This is why I personally won't own religious art that have the potential of being misunderstood.

Stephen Haskell was sent to the Muncie, Indiana, camp meeting of 1900 to file a report on the music. He wrote: “We have a big drum, two tambourines, a big bass fiddle, two small fiddles, a flute and two cornets, and an organ and a few voices. They have Garden of Spices as the song book and play dance tunes to sacred words.” (Ella Robinson, S. N. Haskell Man of Action, p. 168.) If you look at the Garden of Spices songbook, it has such dastardly hymns as "He Leadeth Me," "Jesus Lover of My Soul," "Holy, Holy, Holy," and "Onward, Christian Soldiers." https://archive.org/stream/gardenofspicesch00nels#page/32/mode/2up I personally enjoy loud booming pipe organ music in church... just can't beat "For All the Saints" or Handel's "Messiah" on the WWU College Church organ with Dr. Melvin West doing his magic!!!