Leaderboard

There is a big difference between "special" and "specific" in the context that Gay was using. You don't know if Gay is sinning with homosexual behavior or not. The fact that he says he is gay, does not mean he is participating in sinful behavior. The same could be said for another forum member who is an alcoholic. He no longer drinks....but that doesn't change the fact that he is an alcoholic. But being an alcoholic is not sinful. Whether or not Gay is repentant is between him and God. Not between him and me, him and Stan, or him and you. I realize that many are uncomfortable with the fact that Gay writes about LGBT issues in connection with Christianity. But the fact is, is that it's a very real, very troubling issue in Christendom. To shun or malign someone because of what our perception may be of him is no less a sin than sodomy. I don't feel that forum members are trying to disregard the sanctity of a husband-wife / man-woman relationship. I think we are trying to be supportive of those who find themselves in homosexual or other gender-related issues. And being supportive does not necessarily mean we advocate or promote the sinful behavior. All of us have issues we try to deal with. Some of us have a clearer understanding of our shortcomings in the sight of God. Others of us need help in clarifying....seeking...

many people do not know that Hitler sought to cleanse his society and he targeted gays, mentally ill, and handicapped, besides Gypsies, also named Roma... along with the more acknowledged groups. This was a wrong spirit and remains deeply wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust "..27 January 2005, the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Nazi Germany's death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where a combined total of up to 1.5 million Jews, Roma, Poles, Russians and prisoners of various other nationalities, and homosexuals, were murdered, is not only a major occasion for European citizens to remember and condemn the enormous horror and tragedy of the Holocaust, but also for addressing the disturbing rise in anti-Semitism, and especially anti-Semitic incidents, in Europe, and for learning anew the wider lessons about the dangers of victimising people on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, social classification, politics or sexual orientation... " This is the work of the flesh, not the Spirit. There are people today, SDA's included who justify stigmatising gays. God is inclusive.

I would suggest He is very exclusive when finalizing who will and who won't be able to enjoy the bliss of the Kingdom of God. 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, ......thirsty, .... a stranger, ..... 36 Naked,.......sick, and...... in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred,..... thirsty, ....... 43 ........a stranger,...........naked, ...........sick, ....in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.....Matthew 25 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life...Revelation 21 God is Love!~Jesus saves!

Being Gay is not a sin. Period. The Bible list homosexual activity, ie sex, as being 'abominable'. It does not condemn the person. It would seem that some people have a difficult time accepting that people are born different, such as being gay. That is their choice, but to insist that their belief is the correct one and try to hide behind a text, w/o context, would follow under misrepresenting the Bible for their own 'bent'. No one is trying to call any sin as being okay, just in the mind of some readers. If you are white, your white, if you are black, your black. If your German, your German, if you are NA, then you are NA. Being a christian does not change color, nationality, sex, etc.

Phone rang and I hit the post button. Here's the rest of my post. Thanks Kevin. I saw the CHANGE in her writing - from TWO beings (Father and Son) to "three beings of the heavenly trio". I have wondered whether she actually BECAME a Trinitarian. I wondered whether underwriters brought in the change. I did notice - in my research of her writings, that she WENT BACK to only Father and Son in the last 10 years of her writing. This CHANGE in her writings, concerning the very nature of God, caused me to DOUBT her "gift". You would think that God would communicate clearly to His "prophet", concerning WHO we are to worship. She taught only Father and Son for 50 years, only changing in 1896 after Marion Davis heard Herbert C Lacey at a camp meeting in Australia. It's no wonder leaders like Andresen, questioned the CHANGE. The first Commandment says "Have no other Gods before me." If the Father is "the only true God" and is "head" even of Christ, and is God OF Christ, then the Father is HEAD of all. Teaching that God is actually a "trio" of three beings, who are co-equal, inserts ANOTHER "God" - who is worshiped. I see that as breaking the first commandment. This is very serious. We worship Jesus BECAUSE the Father commanded it. There is no command to worship the Spirit. There is no example - in Scripture, of anyone worshiping the Spirit. I believe Jesus was DIVINE, before His incarnation BECAUSE He was begotten from God His Father. He "came forth from the Father". But that meant His Father was HEAD. We need to put God the Father where He belongs in our worship.

i believe it is important for those who are open for a prospective mate to know where others are at on their attractions. i have had sisters deeply wounded by marrying a gay guy who was designing to be straight but later broke the heart of their female mate. and it goes both ways for gentlemen who marry a female who was never really completely happy with them. this is a very simple and straightforward and obvious issue that may develop when people are keeping their preferences to themselves and not making them known. then there are people who are completely comfortable either way... it is not a relational issue for them. honesty in relationships is very significant and powerful, and Godly.

i would like to see many more stories of people's lives and how they met Christ and how their lives have changed. Testimonials, is the old fashioned word for it. this inspires faith and hope. Like the story of the demoniac that prepared their people to receive Christ when he came to work among them later.

To continue with the variety of programming, but less repeating of shows

your welcome

I don't care for SPORTS. and guess what! I don't go to those threads or sites or that newspaper section! # freedom!

Oh, and if you don't like that we have a thread for gay issues....don't read it! By all means avoid it!!!

My sex is male, it defines who I am...in part, a very large part!!! I do so love pronouncements of the 'more informed'..... Did someone just set their self up as the source of "truth"? I not afraid of who I am! I'm male, NW European descent and proud of it! If a person wants to hide their sex, go for it! Just don't expect the rest of us to be like that person.

There’s a lot of good stuff being said here, particularly from 8thDayPriest and JoeMo. I think its always important when trying to look at something as deep and mystifying as Revelation, particularly the 7-headed beast, that it is important to start with a clear indisputable anchor point in the text that serves as a firm foundation in which to build everything else that is discovered from the text on. JoeMo hit the nail on the head when noting how it was the Roman Empire that existed at the time when John received the Revelation. The angel says as much when interpreting it for John: “Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come” (Rev. 17.10). The key phrase is the “one is,” indicating the present existence of the 6th empire, which as everyone knows is the Roman Empire. There is the anchor point. The 7th head, the “one to come,” therefore is the one that follows the Roman Empire. Since the 7th head is unnamed, a look at historical reality is absolutely crucial in my mind, to find out exactly who that successor to the Roman Empire is. And the key to doing that is to find out exactly when the Roman Empire ended and who ended/conquered it. The New Division of the Empire: East and West (395 AD) I think its important to begin with some key shifting dynamics occurring within the Roman Empire before any collapse. In 395 AD a vital turning point had been reached in the empire which was that it had been divided into two partitions: the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire: “After the death of the emperor Theodosius in 395 CE, the Empire was split into two, a western empire ruled from Rome, and an eastern empire ruled from Constantinople.” - Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), p. 33. “395 Roman Empire Permanently Divided: …After Eugenius was killed in battle in September, Theodosius became, briefly, the last emperor to rule both the eastern and western halves of the Roman empire. In January 395 Theodosius died of heart disease at Mediolanum and the empire was divided between his two young sons Honorius (r. 395-423), who became emperor of the west, and Arcadius (r. 395-408). This time, the division proved to be permanent but this did not mean that the empire ceased to be a single state because laws passed by one emperor were automatically valid in the other half of the empire. However, in the long run, this arrangement disadvantaged the western half of the empire because it could now no longer automatically draw upon the resources of the wealthier and more populated east.” - John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 312. The New Rome: Constantinople (330 AD) Prior to that, the Roman Emperor Constantine in 330 made the new capital of the Roman Empire Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), and so the centre of gravity of the Empire shifted from West to East: “Refounded as the “new Rome” by the emperor Constantine in 330, it was endowed by him with the name Constantinople, the city of Constantine.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire. “Constantine the Great transferred the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium (330), renamed Constantinople and New Rome.” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople,’ ‘Istanbul,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178827/Ecumenical-Patriarchate-of-Constantinople, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296962/Istanbul. “Byzantium considered itself the centre of the world, and Constantinople as the replacement of Rome. Though Greek-speaking, it saw itself as the Roman Empire and its citizens as Romans.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. xvii. “The New Rome: Constantine’s ambition was to be sole ruler of the Roman empire, and Licinius’ revocation of the edict of toleration for Christians provided Constantine with the ideal pretext to march east and overthrow him. Christians were far more numerous in the Greek-dominated east than in the still overwhelmingly pagan west and Constantine found plenty of support. Following Licinius’ defeat and execution in 324, Constantine decided to mark his break with Rome’s pagan past by founding a new eastern capital for the empire, named Constantinople after himself, on the site of the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium on the Bosphorus straits. Constantine’s choice of site was an inspired one. Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey) was a natural stronghold. Situated on the peninsula it was surrounded by sea on three sides and the landward approaches were strongly fortified. The city was also at a crossroads of major sea and land routes, making it a natural commercial and communications centre. While Rome’s population was now in decline, settlers flooded into Constantinople, attracted by its commercial and administrative opportunities, official financial incentives and offers of free bread for the poor.” – John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 307. The Roman Empire Lived On in the East After 476 AD Therefore, when the Western half of the Roman Empire fell in 476 it did not mean the end of the Roman Empire, contrary to what is popularly thought (among many Adventist leaders/evangelists at least). The Roman Empire in fact continued on in the East for another one thousand years, having already firmly established its new capital in Constantinople and rich resources from the Eastern provinces: “Within a comparatively short time, the western empire was submerged in a series of barbarian invasions, and in effect ceased to exist. The eastern empire survived these difficulties, and was able to maintain itself for another thousand years.” - Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), pp. 33-34. “When the Roman empire in the West fell in AD 476, the empire in the East, based at Constantinople, carried on business much as usual. And did so for another thousand years.” - Jon E. Lewis ed., Rome The Autobiography: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Those Who Saw It, “Epilogue: The Roman Empire in the East, AD 477-565,” (London: Constable & Robinson Ltd, 2010), p. 397. “The Roman empire of the West came to an end in the fifth century; but the Roman empire – as a continuous legal, cultural and political institution – persisted in the East for another millennium, and its capital, the ‘New Rome’ of Constantinople, was the seat of Roman emperors into the age of gunpowder and cannon; the last of them died only four decades before the discovery of the Americas.” - David Bentley Hart, The Story of Christianity: A History of 2,000 Years of the Christian Faith, (London: Quercus, 2009), p. 233. Romans Not Byzantines Although in modern times the Eastern Roman Empire is termed ‘Byantium’ this was not how they viewed themselves. They indeed saw themselves as Romans of the Roman Empire: “It is worth noting that the ‘Byzantines’ never used the term in this way themselves; right to the end they called themselves and their empire Roman.” – Colin McEvedy, The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1992), p. 30, fn. 1. “The name Byzantine, which is nowadays generally applied to the eastern empire, is a term of modern scholarship, and is derived from the name of the settlement which previously existed on the site of the city of Constantinople. The Byzantines never called themselves Byzantines. They called themselves Romans, and were ruled by a Roman emperor, purporting to enforce the Roman law.” – Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), p. 34. “This eastern half of the Roman Empire is Byzantium. That name was not given to it until the sixteenth century, when humanist scholars tried to find a way of identifying what remained after the collapse of Old Rome in the West. Although they coined a term which has been used ever since, it is important to remember that the inhabitants of the empire called themselves Romans (in Greek, Romaioi), and saw themselves as such. Their claim on Roman qualities was not a vanity or snobbishness. From 330 to 619 Byzantium enjoyed imperial realities as well as ideology.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. 25. ‘The very name Byzantine illustrates the misconceptions to which the empire’s history has often been subject, for its inhabitants would hardly have considered the term appropriate to themselves or to their state. Theirs was, in their view, none other than the Roman Empire… they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans.” – Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire. The Actual End of the Roman Empire: 1453 Why is any of this important? It’s important because whoever ends the Eastern Roman Empire – which as we have discovered is now resident in the East, with its capital in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul in Turkey) – is the clear winner for who the 7th Head/Empire is. So when in fact did the Roman Empire end? 1453: “Refounded as the ‘new Rome’ by the emperor Constantine in 330, it was endowed by him with the name Constantinople, the city of Constantine. The derivation from Byzantium is suggestive in that it emphasizes a central aspect of Byzantine civilization: the degree to which the empire’s administrative and intellectual life found a focus at Constantinople from 330 to 1453, the year of the city’s last and unsuccessful defense under the 11th (or 12th) Constantine. The circumstances of the last defense are suggestive, too, for in 1453 the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds seemed briefly to meet. The last Constantine fell in defense of the new Rome built by the first Constantine.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire. And who actually caused its end? The Islamic Empire of the Ottoman Dynasty: “The eastern half of the Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, formerly Byzantium. The Eastern Roman Empire survived the collapse of the Western Empire by nearly a thousand years, only falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, when Constantinople was taken.” - Bruce P. Lenman, Trevor Anderson, eds., Chambers Dictionary of World History, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ (Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd., 2000), p. * “The Empire (31 BC-AD 476 in the West, AD 1453 in the East)… In the 5th century, hordes of trans-riverine tribesmen (eg Huns, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths) poured into the Western provinces carrying all before them. In 476 with their deposition of the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, they marked symbolically their destruction of the Western half of the Empire. The Eastern provinces, however, proved more resilient; here the barbarian challenge was contained for another thousand years, until the Eastern capital Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.” – David Crystal, ed., Penguin Encyclopedia 2nd Edition, ‘Roman history,’ (London: Penguin Books, 2004), pp. 1315-1316. ‘Ottoman forces entered Europe in 1345, conquered Constantinople in 1453, and by 1520 controlled most of south-eastern Europe, including part of Hungary, the Middle East and North Africa.’ – Bruce P. Lenman, Trevor Anderson, eds., Chambers Dictionary of World History, ‘Ottoman Empire,’ (Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd., 2000), p. * “After the fall of the west, the eastern Roman empire continued to flourish and under the emperor Justinian (r. 527-65) even won back control of Italy and North Africa… During the seventh century the newly Islamized Arabs conquered Egypt, Palestine and Syria, but their attempts to capture Constantinople failed. Confined to Anatolia and the Balkans, the empire survived, as much by diplomacy as military force, as a bulwark of Christendom in the east. However, a crushing defeat by the Seljuk Turks at the battle of Manzikert in 1071 sent the empire into decline, and the sack of Constantinople by crusaders in 1204 ended the empire’s days as a great power. The final blow came when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. To the very end, Byzantine emperors continued to regard themselves as true Roman emperors.” – John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 324. “On 29 May 1453, two years after the sultan’s accession and seven weeks after the siege began, the janissaries made the final assault on the crumbling walls of Constantinople. The last Constantine was killed fighting among his troops; the crescent was raised above the dome of Hagia Sophia, and the sultan took up residence in the imperial city. With the conquest of Constantinople, for so many centuries the coveted goal Muslim arms, the last piece had fallen into place. Sultan Mehmed II, henceforth known as Fatih, the Conqueror, had sealed the union of the two continents, Asia and Africa, that formed his inheritance, and of the two traditions, Islam and the frontier, that had moulded them. The principality of the frontier fighters had become an empire; its chief, an emperor. This victory established the Ottoman sultanate as the spearhead of Islam pointing to the West, and brought it immense prestige within the Islamic world.” – Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), pp. 110-111. “Sultan Mehmet had promised his men the three traditional days of looting… By then there was little left to plunder, and his soldiers were fully occupied sharing out the loot and enjoying their captives. In the late afternoon, accompanied by his chief ministers, his imams and his bodyguard of Janissaries, he rode slowly to St Sophia. Dismounting outside the central doors… he entered the Great Church… At his command the senior imam mounted the pulpit and proclaimed the name of Allah, the All-Merciful and Compassionate: there was no God but God and Mohammed was his Prophet. The Sultan touched his turbaned head to the ground in prayer and thanksgiving. St Sophia was now a mosque. Leaving it, he crossed the square to the old, ruined Palace of the Emperors, founded by Constantine the Great eleven and a half centuries before; and as he wandered through its ancient halls, his slippers brushing the dust from the pebbled floor-mosaics… he is said to have murmured the lines of a Persian poet: ‘The spider weaves the curtains in the palace of the Caesars; The owl calls the watches in the towers of Afrasiab.’ He had achieved his ambition. Constantinople was his. He was just twenty-one years old. The news of the conquest was received with horror throughout Christendom. The refugees carried the epic story with them; and their story lost nothing in the telling… The Roman Empire of the east was founded by Constantine the Great on Monday, 11 May 330; it came to an end on Tuesday, 29 May 1453.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Penguin Books, 1997), pp. 381-382. Islam’s Attempted Conquest of the West from the Beginning This fall did not simply occur out of the blue. The attempt at conquering Constantinople and the rest of the Western world had begun upon the inception of Islam in the 7th century (and continues on until this day): “Geography alone made its ultimate survival as a Christian capital impossible. It was surrounded by too many enemies – Arabs, Slavs, Turks, Bulgars, Mongols, among others – and from the seventh century onwards was engaged in an almost continuous struggle with the immense power of Islam. With the rise of the Ottoman empire, the Byzantines were confronted with an enemy that could not be defeated, and that could not be resisted indefinitely. – David Bentley Hart, The Story of Christianity: A History of 2,000 Years of the Christian Faith, (London: Quercus, 2009), p. 233. In fact, one of the primary existential features of the Eastern Roman Empire is that it had been protecting the Western world from the designs of conquest by Islam: “Perhaps for us today, the most significant feature of Byzantium lies in its historic role in protecting the Christian West in the early Middle Ages. Until the seventh century, Byzantium was indeed the Roman Empire. It ruled North Africa and Egypt, the granaries that fed both Rome and Constantinople, southern Italy, the Holy Land, Asia Minor as far east as Mount Ararat, all of today’s Greece and much of the Balkans. Then the tribes of Arabia inspired by the new religion of Islam conquered most of the eastern Mediterranean. They fought in the name of a revelation that presented itself as the successor to the Jewish and Christian faiths. Byzantium checked their expansion into Asia Minor and prevented them from crossing the Dardanelles and gaining access to the Balkans. Constantinople held out against numerous sieges… Had Byzantium not halted their expansion in 678, Muslim forces charged by the additional resources of the capital city would have spread Islam throughout the Balkans, into Italy and the West during the seventh century, at a time when political fragmentation reduced the possibility of organized defence. By preventing this potential conquest, Byzantium made Europe possible. It allowed western Christian forces, which were divided into small units, time to develop their own strengths.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. xviii. The Ottoman Islamic Empire: The Legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire Finally, what I found absolutely striking was that according to a recent BBC documentary titled The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, the Ottomans, in particular their leader Mehmed II who had just led the enormously successful and unprecedented conquest of Constantinople in 1453, viewed their nascent empire as the natural successor to the Roman Empire! – Mehmet II paralleling himself with Augustus Caesar who changed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire: “[Presenter BBC News Correspondent Rageh Ommar:] Mehmet saw himself as heir to the Romans, ready to model his new Ottoman Empire as their natural successor. [Professor Karen Barkey:] For the Ottoman Empire Mehmet II is Augustus. He plays the same role, because Augustus changes the Republic into an Empire, and Mehmet II changes the small Ottoman state through the conquest of Constantinople.” – Karen Barkey, Professor of Columbia University, in Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode One,’ (Salford: BBC, 6 Oct 2013). I find this later confirmed by other historical sources: “Nothing could stop Turkish expansionism… On May 29, 1453, Mehmed II rode his white horse into Constantinople, making this proud city his new imperial capital and winning the honorific title of “The Conqueror.” For the West this was a dark moment. For Islam it was a cause for celebration. For nearly a millennium Constantinople had been the foremost barrier – both physically and ideologically – to Islam’s sustained drive for world conquest and the object of desire of numerous Muslim rulers… He was no longer a ghazi “blazing forth the way of Islam,” or even the foremost sultan in the House of Islam. He was the head of a great empire stretching from the Black Sea to the very heart of Europe and the legitimate heir to the universal Byzantine Empire. Manifested by Mehmed’s adoption of the title Sultan-I Rum – “Ruler of Rome” (or rather Byzantium) – and his determination to turn his new capital of Constantinople, or Istanbul as it would henceforth be called, into the leading world metropolis, this alleged continuity was to become a central component of the Ottoman claim to universal empire.” – Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History, (North Yorkshire: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 89. “Among the titles Sultan Mehmed claimed for himself was that of ‘Roman Caesar’, signifying his aspiration to succeed to the mantle of the Byzantine Empire at the height of its greatness under Constantine and Justinian… He saw himself as the legitimate heir to Byzantium and as having realized Islamic traditions that the peerless city of Constantinople would one day be Muslim; and also as the epigone of the heroes of the Classical world. He knew some Greek, and his interest in the ancients must have been widely known in contemporary political circles. It was alluded to in his own time by the Venetian Niccolo Sagundino, a native of Euboea, in his account of the Ottomans. Mehmed, wrote Sagundino, was fascinated by the Spartans, the Athenians, the Romans and the Carthaginians but identified above all with Alexander of Macedonia and Julius Caesar. The Byzantine Critoboulos of Imbros (Gokceada) wrote in the preface to his eulogistic biography that Mehmed’s exploits equalled Alexander’s… Mehmed fostered this identification of himself with great warriors of the past… He had the Iliad and the standard life of Alexander, Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander the Great, copied for his library. The historical tradition Sultan Mehmed tried to keep alive and of which he felt himself to be part reached far back into the past, but his eyes were set on a brilliant future for his empire.” – Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1923, (London: John Murray Publishers, 2006), pp. 70, 80. “The capture of Constantinople bestowed on Mehmed incomparable glory and prestige and immense authority in his own country, so that he began to look upon himself as the heir of the Roman Caesars and the champion of Islam in holy war. It is not true that he had preconceived plans for his conquests, but it is certain that he was intent upon resurrecting the Eastern Roman Empire and upon extending it to its widest historic limits… Mehmed had assumed the title of Kayser-i Rum (Roman Caesar) and, at the same time, described himself as “the lord of the two lands and the two seas” (i.e., Anatolia and the Balkans, the Aegean and the Black seas), a designation that reflected his idea of the empire. During the quarter-century after the fall of Constantinople, he undertook a series of campaigns or expeditions in the Balkans, Hungary, Walachia, Moldavia, Anatolia, the island of Rhodes, and even as far as the Crimean Peninsula and Otranto in southern Italy. This last enterprise (1480) indicated that he intended to invade Italy in a new attempt at founding a world empire.” – Halil Inalcik, ‘Mehmed II: Ottoman sultan,’ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 14 Feb 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Mehmed-II-Ottoman-sultan. Conclusion It should clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roman Empire did not end in 476 as many Adventist evangelists, speakers, leaders and pastors have continuously promulgated to this day, unabated and unopposed. To say so is to actually ignore the historical reality of (1) the transfer of the centre of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, (2) the subsequent splitting of the empire into two halves, East and West, in 395, and (3) a thousand years of existence of the eastern half of the Roman Empire up until 1453 with the Conquest of Constantinople by the Muslim Sultan Mehmed II of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. All three are powerful and irrefutable arguments against the notion that the Roman Empire ended in 476, and in favour of the successor to the Roman Empire being the Islamic Empire (of the Ottoman Dynasty). It is also fascinating that that Islamic empire only ended less than one hundred years ago in 1924! (as part of World War I). In fact, it was because of its collapse that terrorist groups and states sprang up soon after, like the Muslim Brotherhood, in an attempt to restore the Islamic Empire, and which ISIS has successfully begun to do in our time! Unreal! This speaks to the identity of the 8th Empire/the Beast, which is an extension of this topic but one which I won’t comment on now since I’ve said enough already. Also, to focus on the eastern half of the Roman Empire is very natural from a Biblical standpoint since virtually all the empires are centred around, or focussed from that vantage point: Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and even Greece are all empires that are based in the Middle/Near East – even Alexander the Great ironically did not base his empire in Greece but in Babylon, and his empire stretched eastward all the way up to the borders of India. Even when Jesus arrives on the scene under the rule of Romans he focuses his ministry on Jerusalem and Israel, the Middle East. And even in Revelation 13 when we view the Beast, who is effectively the “eighth” empire succeeding the sequence of “seven” (Rev. 17.11), he is represented in the form of a Lion, Bear and Leopard – this harks back to the Lion, Leopard, Bear empires in Daniel 7, namely Babylon, Persia and Greece respectively, which are all historically Middle Eastern empires. Therefore an Eastern Roman Empire focus is fitting to the entire viewpoint of the Bible. To view the 7th or 8th empires as the Holy Roman Empire or the Papacy is completely incongruous to the sequence, and ignores the actual historical reality of what happened to the Roman Empire as I’ve described above. Lastly a personal note. I read and hear many believers when approaching something as serious as the Book of Revelation and Endtime prophecy in general (or any other Bible topic for that matter), where any taking away or adding to Revelation (and that includes removing or adding interpretations of things that are and are not there respectively) has serious eternal consequences, just say things on a whim, or make stuff up in their head, as if just thinking something up makes it true. But truth deserves more serious efforts than mere whim. It deserves hard evidence and tough investigation of actual historical realities. Personally, I find it offensive that many pastors/leaders/evangelists who have a huge influence on the ordinary person, have not even bothered to pick up something as simple and straight-forward as an encyclopedia to verify their so-called historical facts, and are ever-so willing to say things with absolute certainty but which they haven’t even bothered to check out or support with a quote from any historical source. With such a sacred responsibility, I would make sure I checked first. So that’s what I did. And it contradicted everything I was taught as an Adventist. Don’t be fooled. Check out the facts for yourself. You owe to yourself, others and to God Himself who died for you. “Prove all things.” 1 Thessalonians 5.21 “Wisdom from above is… open to reason…and impartial.” James 3.17

“Happiness is a way station between too little and too much.” - Channing Pollock

It's not a college, it's one course. Using the creativity to replace swear words with other words is something we'd applaud. You don't think that, just perhaps, using the creativity to find different words for some of our commonplaces might challenge our thinking? Which, by the way, is the main goal of higher education. If the details on the assessment were accurate it seems a heavy-handed way to do the experiment, but I'm not sure I trust the source. Easy outrage is easy... and typically misses the point.

Causes of distorted thinking: genetics, upbringing, drugs, alcohol, depression, hormonal, malnutrition, adverse circumstances ....

I think it's a fair policy and am glad to see that our youth and young adults are learning to put the "person" first and the "difference" second.