Leaderboard

we used to hunt for thunder eggs at the Priday Ranch in central Oregon... never found anything like this, though!

I am glad that the people who post here DO have gay friends and relate to them as they would their other friends.

The topic was posted where you would expect to find it and in a place that is easily avoided by those who would rather not see it. If it was me being accused, I think that if someone wanted to talk seriously with me over a sin, and they actually cared, that they would do so privately, then in front of witnesses, before taking it to the church. Gay issues are not going to go away, either in the church or in the world. Like it or not, it is a real issue. I am not gay, have never been, am not tempted or threatened to be, even with the articles and threads posted in that particular forum. If this thread was in Townhall or somewhere other than where it is, I would have locked it. But since it is where it should be I'll leave it be. Until war breaks out.

Robert has been teaching his version of the Gospel for 15 years on this forum - that somehow all humanity (past/present/future) was metaphysically merged into the body of Christ when He died, and therefore every person DIED for their own sins in this way. According to Robert, I am cursed, and I am lost BECAUSE I do not believe or teach his version of the Gospel. I admire his dogged stick-to-it-tiveness, but honestly Robert - if we were all "saved" and we can only become unsaved by rejecting the Gospel that you present, then WHY present it? Aren't you causing us to be lost - to reject your "true Gospel". I was ignorant of it, until I read your posts and Samie's. I posted a study on my website titled "DOMINION". It explains my understanding of the atonement - what Christ did and why He did it. http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/11-DOMINION.pdf Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com

I agree. I think of "time" beginning with the first act of creation in Genesis 1:1. The entire concept of time prior to the existence of the universe makes no sense. In that way, the Being who became Jesus existed before time began. But the fact remains that He proceedeth forth from the Father which strongly implies that the Father pre-existed Him. Nonetheless, the Being that became Jesus was composed of the same "God stuff" that the Father was made of - He was NOT a created being. The being who became Jesus was the Creator.

Sin is sin Bonnie, and unfortunately everyone here and there and everywhere is an incurable sinner. We are born in it and endure it every moment of our lives, and Jesus is the relief, His kindness his mercy, his love for sinful sinners is our only hope. Heaven is only for the unworthy. we are not commissioned by the Lord to spend our time pointing the finger at people's sin... we have higher ground to live on. from Taylor Bunch "The exodus and the advent movement" "Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person, His merits and His changeless love for the human family. All power is given into His hands, that He may dispense rich gifts unto men, imparting the priceless gift of His own righteousness, to the helpless human agent. This is the message God commanded to be given to the world."Testimonies to ministers pages 91 and 92. we don't need to be mucking around in this man's sin and that man's sin.... the Spirit takes care of it....

Actually that isn't quite true. The numbers that approve of a gay lifestyle or wink at it are increasing here and everywhere.

"Rather than to override the will of the electorate, superdelegates were created in some sense to enforce it [the will of the people] in elections whose results were skewed by odd delegate allocations or weak multi-way fields that would allow a fringe candidate to win a plurality. Both of these conditions prevailed in 1972.." If super delegates decide to ratify the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, then super delegates are upholding both the rules of the DNC and the principle of democracy. On the other hand, voting of super delegates to thwart the popular will uphold the rules of the party, but not the values. Voting to ratify the popular will upholds both the rules and the values. [paraphrased] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/457181/-

Here we go again. Talk about bullying. Imagine every time a QUEER walks into Church or this Forum and Scriptures are thrown about about abominations and Sodom. Do you think it may be different if you were not the one constantly bringing up being "queer". It would not be the topic it is if it were not for you. You wave gay around like a red flag,when the truth is most people don't care. They do care that unless they agree with you or shut up they are less christian than you are There are obnoxious straight people,just as there are obnoxious gay people.

What may be as bad is consistently bring up a topic, and condemn those as unchristian that don't agree with you .This particular topic is brought up by one person. Very mixed message,claiming to be repentant of the gay lifestyle,yet making statements that are totally inconsistent with that. Why would you give up a lifestyle and then defend it at every turn? More than once he has brought up that "gay marriage might even be considered holy" Along with all the articles of various denominations that have suddenly seen the light and changed their view on gay marriage. I cannot speak for "Mike",but for me and I think a lot of people,I don't care if gay lives a homosexual lifestyle,I don't care if he regularly changes partners,or if the relationship with the man he lives with is purely platonic. It is the constant condemning of those that don't accept this lifestyle as biblical.,making them less of a christian than he is or those that don't have a problem with a gay lifestyle. I am not obligated to condone either by silence or verbally a homosexual lifestyle when someone tries to enforce the idea it really is a godly lifestyle. I had several gay co-workers and with the exception of those that were constantly harping on the merits of a gay lifestyle,they were accepted and well liked. Those that harped on those awful people that thought it wrong were not very welcome.You simply could not have a normal conversation with them. I have several friends that are overweight,some more so than others. Only one am aware of the weight and that is because it is a constant topic and complaint as to how others view her. She is her own biggest problem. But she will tell you in all sincerity,she can't help it,calories are in the air she breathes. She does alienate those that would be her friend regardless of her weight.

It's strange that right after you talked about my so called "Speculation" you turn right to the same principle in the next paragraph. Since the discovery of archaeology we have learned that the Bible gave everything with a possible local fulfillment and if not or only partially fulfilled gets reapplied through analogy to later times. In college every semester we were required to read "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the SDA Bible Commentary and a writing from Mrs. White (I forgot the title) that says much the same as the Bible Commentary article. Then our Bible classes were looking at this principle. How they could have been fulfilled, whether it was or not and then the reapplications through out scripture and history and Mrs. White. Critics of Mrs. White point out how many of her prophecies have local applications but did not work out. We saw these same things in the scriptures. Even the 2300 days were first of all given in the year that 2300 literal days later (since the text does not tell us which day of the year the vision was, although we could have a good speculation) we have Persia breathing down Babylon's neck, the night of Belshazzar's feast and the early days of Babylon. In Daniel 9 the 2300 days are reapplied to the 70 weeks of years. Ezekiel has a 2310 day prophecy and if you remember the 10 days from the New Year to Yom Kippur you have another application as to how the 2300 days could have been fulfilled as the last 2300 days of the 70 years. We do not study Ezekiel enough because we don't see how it fit with the long term fulfillments as the reapplications of Daniel and Revelation has. But if we would start to study that powerful article in the SDA BC and really take it seriously to the Bible we will be able to open up much more of the Bible and Mrs. White. Now sadly another way Satan hinders our study is that those who study the Bible from the Preterits school look for local applications, and since many of them are unbelievers we don't want to look like we are liberal. (of course they are wrong in first of all thinking that the text is only for that time, and 2 they have the wrong time period where they place and study Daniel.) What you called my "speculation" has simply been what I was taught in college by studying the Bible in this frame work. We don't need to speculate. We can study the local application and from it see long term applications. We don't need to speculate. We do need to speculate if we just want to see the long term without first studying the short term.

Hello Kevin, I think you’re right to rule out the practice of speculating. This is something that I also believe is not good practice, and I call it ‘The Principle of Sensibility’ – to not entertain speculations (1 Tim. 1.4), cleverly invented but baseless theories/myths (2 Pet. 1.16), or superstitions (1 Tim. 4.7) as facts, which lead to turning away from truth (2 Tim. 4.4). The problem that I found is immediately after you said that, I hope you don’t mind me nudging you so, but you did a whole lot of speculating also – the basic format was that (a) if the Hebrews were faithful, then (b) the Messiah would have come. A simple question I would have is ‘how could one possibly know the mind of God and be so certain he would have come?’ That could only be revealed by some special direct revelation since I haven’t seen such bold assertions that you’ve alleged mentioned in the Bible. If I’ve missed it I’d be happy to be corrected if you’d kindly point them out. I also want to clear up something that you might have misunderstood about the nature of Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 13’s empires are revealing the entire scope of history relative to the Jewish people. Naturally this has to refer to the Jewish people since there are so many other empires in the world that aren’t referred to (the Mongols for instance who in actual were the biggest empire the world had ever seen, bigger than Rome, and bigger than even Islam which was even bigger than Rome, and yet are not alluded to in the Bible at all). The visions recorded in Daniel 2,7,8,9,11 on the other hand all begin from when each vision was given. For example, although Daniel 2 and 7 start from Babylon since it was that empire in existence at the time of its revealing to Daniel, Daniel 8, 9 and 11 start from Persia and not Babylon since Persia is the empire in existence at the time of those later revelations. I think this is already well recognised even within Adventism. Furthermore, we have the angel’s own anchor-point in Rev. 17.10, saying that the 6th empire “is” in existence and that “five have fallen” out of existence. If Babylon were the 1st as you suggest in this sequence in Rev. 13, then your 6th candidate of American and French Revolutions should have been in existence in John’s time. Obviously it doesn’t fit, so I hope now you can see why we can’t start at Babylon. We have to work from the current empire to John’s time – the Roman Empire – and work backwards to find the “five fallen” and work forwards from the Roman Empire to find the 7th empire. And I hope that you can see from the abundance of evidence and arguments from historical factual sources that I’ve presented that clearly the Islamic Empire under the Ottoman Dynasty represents the 7th empire. And there are several good reasons why the Holy Roman Empire fails to fulfil the 7th. The Holy Roman Empire begins with the crowning of Charlemagne or Charles the Great in 800AD, but at this point the Roman Empire is still in existence, and hence couldn’t succeed it at this time. More importantly, the pattern of the past 6 empires was that (1) they were based in the Near/Middle East, (2) that they were ruled by Kings not priests, and (3) for the most part they were truly monumental in territory. If you actually look at any map in Google Images of the Holy Roman Empire it does not match factors (1) and (3). For factor (2) the Holy Roman Empire was ruled by an Emperor and not by a Pope, but the only reason many have wanted the candidacy of the Holy Roman Empire is because of the Papacy and not the Emperor. This and other reasons question in the very least its candidacy for the 7th empire. If we compare the Islamic Ottoman Empire in its ‘Golden Age’ however, we find that Sultan Suleyman was, according to historian Eugene Rogan “the most powerful man in the world at that time” (Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, (Salford: BBC, 6 Oct 2013)). The glory, splendour, military prowess and artistic achievements were the wonder of Europe and unmatched by any other. It also boasted a vast swathe of territory, “larger than the Roman Empire” (Andrew Marr, Andrew Marr’s History of the World, (BBC, 2012)), including the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, even Spain, and finally banging on the doors of Vienna in the 17th century, closing in on Central Europe. It was truly the fear of Europe, and if it were not stopped “there is no reason why they wouldn’t have reached the North Sea” (Andrew Marr, Andrew Marr’s History of the World, (BBC, 2012)) – in other words, Europe most likely would’ve been Muslim if it hadn’t been stopped. This, on top of all the other reasons I mentioned already (as well as more that I’ve included in my attachment to JoeMo, “The Seventh Head of the Beast of Revelation,” which I hope you can read too), proves that the Ottoman Empire is simply too strong a candidate to be dismissed. I admire your zeal against fundamentalism. I agree as I used to be a fundamentalist and no longer am. I would encourage you to continue that zeal and just add onto that some principles that have helped me in my pursuit of truth. They are there to help you not rebuke you. And they are not just for you but for anyone else wanting to find out the truth. I also needed this help before, but none was available, so I found out myself, learnt from the scholars and the masters who had been before me from many disciplines and learnt some basic but fundamental principles. Here they are: Verification (1 Th. 5.21) – to verify and prove things rather than just accept immediately as true; Impartiality (1 Tim. 5.21) – to be open to new conclusions other than the ones we have bias towards; Evidence (2 Pet. 1.16) – to base conclusions on evidence, not have pre-determined conclusions that try to misrepresent evidence. Argument (1 Pet. 3.15; Act 17.2-4; Act 18.24-28) – to make a case based on strong arguments. Reason (Act 17.2-4) – to have good reasoning/logic behind the arguments. Sensibility – to not entertain speculations (1 Tim. 1.4), cleverly invented but baseless theories/myths (2 Pet. 1.16), or superstitions (1 Tim. 4.7) as facts, which lead to turning away from truth (2 Tim. 4.4). Source Credibility (Lk. 1.1-3) – ensure that your information comes from accurate, reliable, authoritative, credibly established sources. I hope you find them helpful as I do all the time. God be with you in your quest

It's not a wise thing to lie to me. I didn't give out any information that isn't available online. Everything I wrote is public info, and was actually written by the individual himself. Publicly. There was a lot more I could have added, but didn't, including home address, home phone, date of birth, parents information, etc.

The way it comes across to me, any effort on our part to make our self comfortable with the norm of the world we live in, is counter productive to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the sooner than later coming of the Lord Jesus. …24"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25"He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. 26"If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.…John 12 God is Love!~Jesus saves!

Really? Who was the "son" to whom the psalmist referred in Psalms 2:7-12? Who is the son referred to throughout Hebrews 1? Who is the son referred to in Proverbs 30:4-5? In Isaiah 9:6 it says "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this." The "child" part was born of a woman. The "son" part was what God contributed. The Son pre-existed the human Jesus; but he came forth from the Father prior to creation.

He acknowledged Jesus on the cross, when he asked Jesus to remember him. This might be to simplistic for you, but to me he's saying to Jesus, I know who you are and what you can do for me a sinner. Personally I don't think he needed to ask for forgiveness, it was pretty much understood by Jesus what he was saying/asking for!

Point 1: Superdelegates are an internal Democratic Party matter and the reason Bernie has so few is that he only recently joined that party. It might not seem reasonable, but they are effectively the reward of faithfully serving a particular party for a long time. Nothing crony about it: just earned. (side note: I make this point out of fairness, not out of favour for Hillary - I have all sorts of issues with her as the nominee) Point 2: a coin toss *did not* decide the result in Iowa. Six coin tosses decided the results in small sections of ridings/electorates/seats where the vote was otherwise tied, but the results of those coin tosses *did not* determine the overall result. The truth matters.

debbym, Thank you for saying that! When I worked for the Conference I met so many ex SDA's who shared such stories ..some from my own personal church I was attending at the time and it weighed on me. in some cases I knew the people involved on the offending end.And they were great Godly people. All us christians have made profound mistakes in dealing with both newbies in our church as well as with the Pillars. We offend and don't even know it sometimes. We must carry in our hearts what Jesus carried everywhere He went The Spirit of Forgiveness.