Leaderboard

To bring the discussion back around to the OP, I do think sometimes we get *overly* scared of 'judgement'. 'Good judgement' is a good thing, and as G@FC noted in the OP, is linked with the spiritual gift of discernment. It may have also been missed that the context was not condemnation but service and ministry. If our discernment tells us someone's faith is not authentic, seeking humbly to walk along with them and enhance their faith (and ours) is not the same thing as condemning them. Indeed, it's likely to be the opposite. It's possible to fool ourselves that we are experiencing the gift of discernment and instead by deceived by our own projections, and this ministry requires considerable humility. But I think we weaken the Body when we claim that no-one can ever have a sense of what is going on with another.

Why do you think God gave us the Bible? Has He kept control over its messaging down through time? Has God allowed the devil to corrupt the way the Bible portrays Him? If He has done so why would He do something like that? If the devil has been allowed to corrupt the Bible's message how can the Bible possibly be trusted?

Read More Daily Jesus More Sabbath School Resources Preparation Day Bonus - Thoughts for Sabbath School Scripture: Matthew 8:27 (read Matthew 8:18-27 to get the whole picture) Starting Question: We are all afraid of something. What are you afraid of? Everything If today’s verse were written in a modern novel, it would be the last sentence in a chapter. “What kind of man is this?—even the winds and the sea obey Him!” You can’t hear a statement like this on it’s own without wanting to know what is behind it - Where did this come from? What has just happened? And, you can’t help wondering what will happen next. Matthew tells this story, speaking into in a greater narrative - a developing story of hardship, excitement and new beliefs - that of the early Christian church. We know this because of the language used. When Matthew writes, “The men were amazed and asked” he doesn’t mean just the disciples asked this question, or he would have written “the disciples were amazed and asked.” The Greek work he uses “anthropos” means humankind or people. Matthew is saying, when this story is told, it is meant to amaze people and leave them with one question - Is Jesus really in charge of everything? Matthew is retelling this story to “the people” wondering what will happen to them now that they are in this small raft calling itself “the Way” which mockers are starting to call “little Christs” and they are feeling tossed about by the sea of humanity from which they come and to which they are called. Matthew says, in effect, “this story is for you ‘little church.’ Yes we are being bashed about by the world on all sides, but remember the story!” Imagine Matthew preaching it, time after time, as he visits the small communities of baby believers. “When Jesus first found us,” Matthew says, “He called us to go to the other side of the sea with Him. His call impacted each of us differently. Some, like the scribe, said, ‘I will follow you anywhere!’ Others, asked to be excused to care for dying family members. Jesus answers each of us, “Like me, you’ll have nowhere to lay your head. Like me, you’ll let the dead bury the dead!” Then, introduction finished, Matthew tells the story of the storm: The little boat, the giant waves, the desperate disciples, the sleeping Jesus. Matthew’s tempo builds. He stands and paces the room - making eye contact with one person after the next. “That’s us, fellow believers! Jesus is with us. He is being tossed by the storms that toss us. But He isn’t desperate! He isn’t terrified. He’s resting in our midst. Because,” Matthews fists clench, his voice raises to almost a shout, “He knows! He knows about the waves. He knows about the storm. And, He knows who’s in charge! He is! When we are at our wits end, when life is bashing us about, when the storms are too overwhelming to deal with - we forget we’ve got Jesus in our boat!” Matthew returns to his chair and slumps into it. Quietly, he continues, “When we woke Him, Jesus stood up - He stood! - in that tiny wind swept, wave bashed boat. Jesus stood. And he talked to the wind. He talked to the storm! He looked at those waves and that wind and in a voice of eerie calm he said, “Peace. Be still.” Matthew pauses. . . silence . . . “And. It. Was. Still.” Matthew leans back in his chair and temples his hands against his chest, “You know, brothers and sisters, Jesus said something to us - the terrified in the boat - before he spoke to the wind and waves. He asked us a question. And He asks you the same question today, “Why are you fearful, you of little faith?” Reflection Question: In what part of your life do you need to wake up Jesus? Prayer time: Before you pray together, ask: What would you like to say to Jesus today? Further Reading: To Be Like Jesus - Page 60 -x-x-x-x-X-x-x-x-x GET ONE OF DAVE'S BOOKS, FREE! Support this project by clicking here and pledging a small monthly amount. View the full article

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

When will you ever understand that condemning a sin is not condemning the sinner? Huge difference.... Being a sinner is not sinning. Doing sin is sinning. I've made this distinction time and time again and yet you ignore that and claim that by condemning the sin I am condemning the sinner. You're far more judgmental than those you accuse of being judgmental.

You're still missing the point. The world looks at someone who says they are gay as a practicing homosexual, and you know that. Thus, to identify yourself as a gay Christian is to cast doubt upon your own claims of not practicing your specific major sin. It has the very real world effect of telling the world that God sees practicing homosexuals as moral and good. That plus you play the game of "everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot", rather than acknowledging that many Christians can condemn the sin and not the sinner. You practice wholesale condemnation of the church on that basis. You've done it repeatedly here. Hey, I used drugs for decades. I ran around with murderers, theives, con artists, etc.... I lived a life than was in no way moral or right. I dealt drugs. I have no problem with someone just because they are a sinner. No problem at all. I'm one, and most of the time I really identify with Paul when he said he was the chief of sinners, however, I no longer practice nor condone all those things I used to do. I do not glorify them by condemning anyone who condemns those sins. However, that does not lead me into the error excusing sin and sinful practices. Sin, of any kind, will keep us out of heaven, if we don't separate ourselves from it.

I think you miss my point. Do you call yourself a Witch Christian? If so I've never seen it. You call yourself an EX-witch Christian. You distance yourself from your past. You point out your separation from your past sin. For a person to say they are a Gay Christian is to identify themselves with the sin itself with no distance between them and the sin. There is a huge difference between pointing out one's past, and one's turning point, by identifying one's self as an EX-something and to identify one's self as a current something. The first glorifies God. The second glorifies the sin itself.

Adar I 10 Do I Really Need To Give? I work very hard for my money and I resent the fact that Jewish charities and organizations are constantly hounding me for donations. If I were wealthy, I could understand. But why are they bothering me? The Aish Rabbi Replies: The Midrash tells the following story: There was once a man who owned a large farm. Every year he would harvest a successful crop from the fields, and he'd give the appropriate 10 percent of the harvest to charity. When this man became older and was on his deathbed, he called his son, and said that he was bequeathing the farm in his son. He warned, "Be very careful to give 10 percent each year to charity." And with that, he died. The next year, the field produced a large crop, and the son gave 10 percent to charity according to the Torah law and his father's warning. The following year there was also a large crop, and again the son gave away 10 percent. But he thought to himself, "Why am I giving so much of my produce to charity? What a waste!" So he made a resolution not to give charity the following year. To the son's dismay, the following year's crop was 10 percent of its usual size -- a 90 percent loss! When his relatives heard, they came to visit him. "We're sorry you lost most of your crop. But it's your own fault. In the beginning, as the owner of the field, you kept 90 percent for yourself and gave 10 percent away. But now that you have refused to give your tenth, God is the owner of the field -- taking 90 percent of the crop for Himself -- and you are the recipient of the 10 percent charity!" Part of the lesson from this story is that our salary, even though we work very hard for it, is in reality a gift from God. Therefore it is fitting to follow God's instruction to give 10 percent of our earnings to people in need, based on Leviticus 25:35 and Deut. 15:7-8. This is called Ma'aser, literally "one tenth" (hence the English word "tithe"), and is one of the 613 mitzvahs. Besides this, there is a wonderful feeling in helping to heal the world, and to partner with God and others in the jewish national goal of tikkun olam. To learn more, read "Ma'aser Kesafim - Giving a Tenth to Charity" edited by Cyril Domb (Feldheim), and "Permission to Receive," by Lawrence Kellemen (Targum Press). See also: Code of Jewish Law - Y.D. 249:2; Igrot Moshe Y.D. 2:112; "Orchat Rabbeinu (Rabbi Y.Y. Kanievsky) 1:302.

Hi Kevin, I’ll try to explain myself better because I’m suspecting you might not have understand what I said, since I can’t make out the crux of your case. I can’t really see any evidence that you’ve posited, but it seems you’ve cobbled together many different strands of thoughts on different topics, which is not coherent enough to make a firm conclusion for your position on the 7th empire. So let me just try and address things that I could gather from what you said (forgive me if this is a little pedantic but its only because there were many claims you brought forward that needed addressing). Speculation “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.” So the “speculation” that I was referring to was your statements claiming that Jesus would have returned if the Hebrews did this or that. And I said no one could possibly know when Jesus would’ve come except God Himself and if he wanted, to those he chose to reveal it, which is so far nobody (although many do claim this but cannot prove this). This is just straightforward logic. Take for example someone who was visiting your house. Could you know when exactly they decided they would arrive at your house unless they told you? Of course not. So how could we possibly read the mind of God of when he would return? Jesus himself said it when he said “no one knows the day nor the hour”. And if, as you pointed out, it is a common practice within Adventist colleges to confidently infer that Jesus would’ve come earlier if people would’ve just preached the gospel, it is unfortunate, because it would show that those Adventist institutions and leaders have not learnt from the lessons of predicting Jesus’ coming from the time of the Great Disappointment, or when Ellen White predicted his return in 1850s, or when she said that in 1888 he would’ve returned if the GC would’ve adhered to the teachings of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones. To prove that, as 1 Th. 5.21 tells us to do, you would have to provide evidence for this (2 Pet. 1.16). If you cannot, then that is why I call it speculation – it is simply unprovable, simply from a common sense perspective, to say that you knew that Jesus would’ve come on such and such a date. And to say that archaeology proves this is a little non-sensical. Archaeology cannot tell you when God would’ve come. It’s like the equivalent of studying the architecture of a house to tell you when the owner would come – the two simply don’t correlate. And that is why I suggested the 7 principles to you to avoid such mistakes. Ellen 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.” This is digressing quite a bit from the question of this discussion and going onto the topic of Ellen White’s qualification as a prophet which is another topic altogether. And whilst I am tempted to write on it, I won’t since it belongs in a new discussion. If you would like we could do that if you open it up. Ezekiel “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.” Ezekiel, particularly chapter 38, is very relevant and fascinating, and its interesting that you cite it since it actually supports the case for a Middle Eastern Last Days power. It speaks of an army at the “End Years” (v.8) or Acharit HaYamim, “End of Days,” (v.16) that comprise a coalition of Middle Eastern forces that will come against the nation of Israel (vv.8,14,16,18,19): Persia – Iran (v.5); Cush – North Sudan (v.5); Phut – Libya (v.5); Meshech, Tubal (vv.2-3), Gomer and Beth-Togarmah (v.6) – all four are regions located in Turkey and the Northern regions (v.15); and many others (vv.6,22). Note that there are no Western nations or Papacy alluded to. Naturally, this would instead support an Islamic Antichrist 7th/8th empire. My Point of the Difference of the Sequence of Empires in Revelation and Daniel “Here you are in agreement with me and my post.” Your original point was that the sequence of empires in Revelation 13 begins with Babylon like in Daniel. But my reply to that was that Revelation’s sequence is the entire scope of history and begins with Assyria, whilst Daniel’s wasn’t but begins from his time, in Babylon and in Persia. Since you now agree with my explanation, then am I right in believing that you’ve now gone against your original point, and now agree that Revelation 13’s seven heads begin with Assyria? Your Last Post This post had many things that were not necessarily related but strung together in a hope to make a case. But there lacked any coherent flow, clear reasoning, any evidence to support your case or lead to a natural final conclusion to the one you originally made. I want to highlight some of the statements you made, in the hope that you might be able to see that it would be better to rethink the issue from the beginning and start afresh with an open mind (Jam. 3.17), building on evidence (2 Pet. 1.16) piece by piece, ending with a natural conclusion that leads from that evidence. God Would Have Returned in the Time of Emperor Domitian “Had the church started to "Preach again" the Domitian persecution could have brought about the end.” Again, I hate to point this out but this is purely speculative – it should be obvious now that you could not possibly know when God decided the end would’ve come in the past, unless of course he actually told you, which I’m sure you would agree he didn’t. Ten Emperors in 68-69 AD “There were 10 emperors” According to a book I have by Nigel Rodgers and Dr Hazel Dodge, Roman Empire (London: Hermes House, 2006), p. 64, there are only a list of 4 emperors at this time (68-69 AD) – Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian – which is why at this time period it was called “Year of the Four Emperors” (Rodgers, Roman Empire, p. 16). It can’t include previous emperors from the beginning of the empire because the angel tells us in Rev. 17.12 that they “receive authority as kings for one hour, with the beast,” in other words, they exist at the same time. But even if we did we’d still only have 9, starting with Augustus who is credited with being “the First Roman Emperor” (Rodgers, Roman Empire, p. 66), and not Julius Caesar (although he paved the way). Emperor Vespasian Uprooted Three Emperors “Three uprooted by the Flavians” This is just simply historically false. Galba was murdered by the Imperial Guard who favoured Otho: “Otho won over the praetorians with the promise of a donative, and they murdered Galba and Piso in the Roman Forum on January 15.” – E. Badian, “Galba: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Galba. Otho committed suicide after losing the battle against the German legions loyal to Vitellius: “Galba had been murdered, and Vitellius’s armies fought the forces of his successor, Otho, at Bedriacum (now Calvatone, between Verona and Cremona). Otho’s forces were defeated, and he committed suicide on April 16.” – E. Badian, “Aulus Vitellius: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Aulus-Vitellius; see also “Otho: Roman Emperor,” http://www.britannica.com/biography/Otho. It is only Vitellius that could be attributed to being “uprooted” by Vespasian: “When Vespasian was hailed as emperor on July 1, the troops in the Balkan provinces recognized him and invaded Italy under Marcus Antonius Primus. After Vitellius’s troops were defeated in a second battle of Bedriacum (October 69), Vespasian’s brother, the city prefect Flavius Sabinus, persuaded Vitellius to abdicate. The Roman mob joined with Vitellius’s troops to chase Sabinus to the Capitoline Hill. (The temple of Jupiter was burned to the ground during the rioting.) Vespasian’s army, under Primus’s leadership, attacked and entered Rome on December 20. Vitellius was murdered with great barbarity.” – E. Badian, “Aulus Vitellius: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Aulus-Vitellius. So it is factually untrue that Vespasian uprooted 3 kings. At most he uprooted 1. The Mark of the Beast: Adjusting Shoes When Bowing Down “The people were to bow in worship. Jews wondered if they could adjust their shoe at the time of worship. This was historically the mark of the beast. In the forehead to those who actually bowed in worship and adjusting their shoes with their right hands.” This is the most oddest thing you’ve written so far. You’re saying the mark of the beast is whether one could adjust one’s shoe at the time when one had to bow down? You’re kidding right? Can you actually cite where you got this from? But in any case, if this were the Mark of the Beast as you say, then Emperor Domitian would be the Antichrist. But if that were so, the 8th empire and last empire of all time (in which reign the Mark of the Beast is actually given) would have occurred in the first century. Don’t you don’t find this interpretation a little odd? Paul Believed Only in Preaching Gospel to Jews (4) “Paul said that he took the gospel to the whole world, but he also said that he's like to take the gospel to Spain. This showed that he had too narrow a world. He thought it needed to be spread to the Jewish world.” I’m not sure if I got you right. Are you saying Paul thought the gospel only needed to be spread to the Jewish world? It has to be said, not only do you give the impression that you aren’t reading any historical sources, it doesn’t seem that you’re reading the New Testament either, if this is what you’re saying. Have you never heard Paul say he was “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11.13)? Or that he believed the Gospel was “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1.16)? It really is a strain for anyone to take the case you are making seriously if you simply make stuff up on the spot and present it as fact. Jesus Would Have Returned in the First Century “Jesus' Olivet discourse sounded like the temple would fall and Jesus return. Could have happened had the disciples had a larger view of the world.” Again, this is what I mean, you continually seem to be saying that you know when Jesus would’ve returned, as if you had supreme divine authority to know so. Do you have direct revelation from God to know when he would’ve returned, even though His Son didn’t know when he was on earth? Obviously not, so that statement is simply speculative and is unprovable. Contradictions “But the book of Hebrews explained that Jesus could not yet come back because he is doing a heavenly ministry, comparing Jesus' ministry to the sanctuary with the earthly ministry being the holy place and heavenly ministry the most holy place.” This statement demonstrates emphatically that there is a deep confusion on your part because you’ve just contradicted all the “Jesus would have come back” statements you’ve made by now saying “Jesus could not yet come back because he is doing a heavenly ministry.” You’ve simply dismantled your own case. And then, in the following sentences you say: “Again, the prophecies could have been fulfilled under the Flavians, if the church would preach again despite the Domitian persecution and martyrdom. But it was again conditional to the spreading of the gospel.” Do you not see the self-contradiction? Not to mention that this is one presumptuous and judgmental statement you just made there against those being persecuted. I say presumptuous because you are presuming they didn’t preach the Gospel. But by crikey, they are being persecuted and martyred for the sake of Christ – is that not enough? And who’s to say they didn’t? I mean, they are dying for their Lord. If they’re willing to die then naturally they would be willing to preach. It would simply odd to die for something that they chose not to speak about. Not to mention that you cite no source that proves this. I say it is also judgmental because you speak from a vantage point of comfort – obviously you aren’t being persecuted and threatened with death by the state, so how could you judge their actions of not doing enough, when you are in relative comfort compared to them. For instance, are you preaching the Gospel to everyone around you? I’m not judging you. I’m asking how you could judge them having not suffered like them. Interestingly I find another contradiction: “While I do not believe in replacement theology, the remnant theology did move on to the church and they lived in the west under the Holy Roman Empire then the deadly wound time of independent nations.” Replacement theology is the belief that the role of Israel passed onto the church and replaced Israel. So whilst you said you “do not believe in replacement theology,” which is the belief that the church replaced Israel as the chosen people, you then immediately restate your belief in the core Replacement Theology axiom – that “the remnant theology did move on to the church.” You must be able to see that this is a complete self-contradiction. Political Leaders Are Not Economic Powers “And that it is different than the others because the others were political leaders such as Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Julius, but here it is a great economic, corporate and banking power who has power over everyone's ability to buy and sell. Does that sound more like the ottomans and Muslims or does it sound more like the United States Federal Reserve and the banks in other parts of the world, the trilateral commission the international business corporation cartels.” Permit me to explain something that may not have occurred to you. When a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, etc., become “political leaders” like you say, in reality they became sovereigns of a vast swathe of territory, and is why we call them empires. Because they come into possession of such territory, this makes them automatically monumental economic powers not to mention military powers by default, since they possess all the resources that that territory has to offer. In fact, at the time, they were the biggest powers of the civilised world. So it is just simply non-factual that you say political leaders are not economic powers. Buying and Selling But the “buying or selling” that you mentioned (Rev. 13.16-18) is referring to the last 8th empire, which is effectively beginning potentially in our period, not in the past. So it cannot rule out Islam since it hasn’t happened yet. However, it is interesting to find that in Islam lie all the potentials. It possess a vast amount of oil wealth run by one of the most powerful economic cartels in the world – OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Export Countries), led by Saudi Arabia – which once brought the western world to a complete and utter standstill in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War against Israel by imposing an oil embargo on the West. It literally brought these industrialised nations a hundreds back bringing the horse and cart back literally (this is powerfully documented in a BBC documentary, Planet Oil: The Treasure that Conquered the World, (BBC, Oct 2015)). It still has phenomenal influence today, determining the price of oil globally, and thus determining the prices of all the commodities that are created by or are affected by oil. This commodity has also protected Saudi Arabia in particular from all sorts of human rights criticisms, particularly the persecution of Christians and the funding of terrorism. A second aspect about Islam that is also relevant to “buying and selling” is a practice in Sharia Law whereby non-Muslims have to effectively pay protection money called the “Jizya” so that no harm come to them with many restrictions (Justin Wintle, The Rough Guide History of Islam, (London: Rough Guides Ltd, 2003), p.24). ISIS for example is imposing this in its territory (“in Mosul and other towns in the region, ISIS gave Christians an ultimatum—convert to Islam, pay a tax known as jizya or be killed.” – Janine di Giovanni and Conor Gaffey, “The New Exodus: Christians Flee ISIS in the Middle East,” Newsweek, Issue 3 April 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html), and it has been practiced in the past by other Islamic dynasties, like the Ottomans (Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, (Salford: BBC, Oct 2013)). Combine these two aspects together, along with the real threat of a Nuclear Iran (William R. Graham, Henry F. Cooper, Fritz Ermarth, and Peter Vincent Pry, “Experts: Iran Now a Nuclear-Ready State, Missiles Capable of Hitting US,” Newsmax, (01 Feb 2015), http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/iran-nuclear-ready-missiles/2015/02/01/id/621982/), and the biggest global persecution of Christians in modern times (George Thomas, “Islam’s War on Christians: Worst Yet to Come?,” CBN News, (9 January 2015), http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/January/Sound-the-Alarm-Islam-Intensifies-War-on-Christians/) and a potential future situation of Rev. 13.16-18 is not unthinkable. But does the Vatican have such power over the world economy? Has it in the recent past exercised anything like the 1973 Yom Kippur War Oil Embargo Crisis as proof of this? Does it have access to nuclear weaponry? Does it even have the power and will to persecute Christians on a global scale (despite actually calling on the end to the global Christian persecution by Muslims)? I can’t say that it does. Final Words Despite all of this, and the notable sheer lack of evidence, the case I laid out originally in response to the actual topic remains untouched. I hope therefore you can see the sense of the facts I laid out and at least begin to reconsider them and start to come to a new understanding, not just of prophecy, but of a new way of looking at the world and assessing truth. I encourage you to use those 7 principles I introduced to you to prevent you falling on this detrimental path. God be with you.

joeb, You are having great difficulty in reading the posts and instead start making assumption. You have not answered my questions but rather start accusations. You want people to believe you have any truth to impart...really? 1. I never said the HS contradicts the Bible, it, the HS, is the source of our guidance and understanding. 2. How did people learn about God before there was a Bible? 3. Context, context, context. Text splatter means little other than how people choose to interpret them. 4. I trust God, Christ and the HS for guidance. The Bible gives me a written knowledge about them, the Trinity, written my humans. 5. Don't go down the path that the Bible only contains the truth that we are to live by. Much took place in Bible history that we know is not what God wants for us. If all the truth is there, then it is static and no different than ancient Gods.

1Behold, the LORD'S hand is not so short That it cannot save; Nor is His ear so dull That it cannot hear. 2But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear....Isaiah 59 God is Love!~Jesus saves!

Wait a minute. People don't necessarily agree with articles that they post here. Sometimes things are posted to get people's reactions and thoughts... to rephrase your scenario: You come to the forum and tell us you were an adulteress. But you have now repented. You now use the forum as a podium to condemn people who say adultery is a sin. And you find people who have changed their minds and no longer consider adultery a sin, and proffer them as examples of how everyone should believe. Yes, that's a weird scenario. And that's how you see Gay using his time here at the Forum?

Bonnie, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that your primary issues with Gay's posts are that you feel: 1) that he is looking for people to tell him that it is okay to be in a full homosexual relationship, 2) that he is promoting the full homosexual lifestyle as being acceptable in the SDA church, 3) that faithful SDA Christians are obligated to condemn an SDA Christian who is in a full homosexual relationship, and 4) that anyone on the forum who does condemn such a relationship within the SDA church is considered a bully and is put down and made to look like the bad guy. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth... but am I close to your main points?

JOEB GODS BIBLE MESSAGE is to show people on this earth how much GOD cares about us(people) and how much GOD loves us(people) GOD wants every one to made a decision to trust HIM---love HIM---follow HIM GOD will not force any one to do these things dgrimm60

I thoroughly enjoy Sid Roth and Walid Shoebat! If you like them and Joel Richardson, you would probably also enjoy Joel Rosenberg and Jonathan Cahn. They all bring a slightly different viewpoint, but they are all basically on the same page as we are (or we are on the same page as them). Congrats on the new baby! Some people think marriage changes everything. I disagree - a BABY changes everything! God bless you and your family as you look for a new home! Thanks for the offer to help me in my research. You are much better at it and much more eloquent in how you say things than I am. If I can be of any help, let me know. If nothing else, you know you have a friend across the pond that thinks like you do. Great minds think alike!

In about 1903 Elder Andresen went to Mrs. White to ask her if her writings were changed to make it appear that she believed in the trinity and if she did indeed believe in the trinity or not. She greeted him and let him read the disputed quotes in her own handwriting. She claimed that she did write them. Denied that others changed them and convinced Elder Andresen to become a Trinitarian too. He came to visit her believing like you did and left the visit a committed Trinitarian. Did Mrs. White lie to him? Are you correcting her mistake with Elder Andresen?

The article suggests that there are only two (2) sexes--male and female I suppose. From the genetic stand point that is simply false and ignorant. There are more than two. NOTE: I am neither commenting on homosexuality nor saying that homosexuality is caused by ones genes.

this is similar to the one I learnt as a child: Come Lord Jesus, Be our Guest, and may this food By Thee be blessed. Amen. (and interestingly, that was the translation of the the meal blessing said in German at Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, where I went to school for a year: "Komm Herr Jesu, sei unser Gast, und segne was Du uns bescheret hast." )

I thought they explained their reasons for that very well. Not to disrupt their family life and to give them time to make a careful decision based on what the church believed.