Leaderboard

I am not trying to defend Alex - I don't know him any better than I know you. I am simply opining that we have no right to judge another's motives or their heart. That's God's job. That's a sad commentary (if it's true). At least they still worship regularly. How do you know whether or not a significant number of his congregation did or didn't leave that church for another SDA Church when there were no more Sabbath services? How do you know Alex didn't have a change of heart about starting a Sunday service once the unintended consequences of doing so were made manifest? With the cited article (and website) appearing to be anonymous, why should I give it any credibility? For a few years, I was actively involved in an SDA Church that got in trouble for using non-SDA material in Sabbath School. The Conference threatened to disband our church. Rather than be disbanded, our pastor simply resigned her SDA ministerial credentials, requested that our church be taken off of denominational roles. We became a Sabbath-keeping non denominational-church. We were meeting on Saturdays in a Sunday keeping church. The pastor of the church we were using was so impressed with us, that he encouraged his Sunday congregation to worship with us on occasion. Several of those who did became Sabbath keepers. We started playing around with the idea of adding a Sunday service to grow our congregation. It never happened, because the church decided that it would be confusing to proclaim a 7th-Day Sabbath and suddenly add a service on Sunday. But that was us; I can't judge how other congregations would vote. For me, Sabbath is intimately intertwined with my relationship with Jesus; but it's not my place to put that burden of committed Sunday keepers. After all, our salvation is dependent on our relationship with Jesus Christ and observing all the commandments without emphasizing just one. Sabbath keeping won't get you into heaven; a relationship with Jesus will.

I more or less agree with you here, Jackson. But what comes first - the relationship or the obedience? I propose that without the relationship, the proper motivation for obedience doesn't exist. When you are in a healthy relationship, you are more motivated to obey because you enjoy the other person's companionship and support - you "naturally" want to please then to enhance the relationship. Obedience without (or before) relationship amounts to nothing more than compliance with the terms of a contract; and one becomes susceptible to feeling "entitled" to salvation because of their excellent compliance with the Law rather than desiring closer companionship with Jesus. In the long term, both relationship and obedience are desired; but for the times that our obedience is less than perfect, Jesus' blood covers us. When we reach the point that we think we obey so well that we don't need grace and forgiveness any more, we cut ourselves off from grace and are entirely under the Law. My relationship empowers and motivates me to obey rather than the other way around. The more I get to know Jesus, the more I want to be like Him, please Him, and get to know Him even better. To quote a popular Christian song (referring to Jesus): It's not because of who I am, it's because of what You've done! It's not because of what I've done, its because of Who You are!

See: http://www.youtube.com/embed/upEBdKFGlPg?rel=0

RUDYWOOFS(PAM) this is a very beautiful rock----thank you for posting it dgrimm60

This is so beautiful! I am so awed and amazed at the beauty and wonder of God's Creation! Thank you for sharing this. :-)

A geode was described as a cavity, usually lined with crystals, within a rock mass or nodule. I figure that geodes are the general category of them all and Thunderrocks are a subcategory like agates and other chalcedony. This page helped me learn more about the background story of the rocks.... http://richardsonrockranch.com/story.html

COME & SEE Agape Mission Library PRESENTS OPPUGN(counter)-OXFORD MOVEMENT AND MUCH MORE INCLUDING REVELATION STUDY http://Christrevealedinyou.com please share with all web addresses and facebook No virus found in this message. I know not all are in concert but I really do want and beg for your help to share this with everyone everywhere -- Good article on Passion Week-- and latest on my objections to the Oxford Movement of the 19th century--

Read More Daily Jesus Scripture: Deuteronomy 11:26-28 Starting Question: Have you ever had something bad happen that turned out for good? All the Time An ancient Chinese tale is told of a farmer who had only one son and one horse to help him with the farm chores. One day the horse ran away. The neighbours, seeing the poor farmers tough luck said, “What a curse you have received!” The farmer replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.” A few days later, the horse returned with a herd of wild horses. He led them all into the farmers paddock. The neighbours flooded from all the houses around to congratulate him, “What amazing luck you’ve had!” The farmer calmly replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.” While the farmer’s son was training the horses, one tough horse bucked him off and the young man's leg was broken. He was unable to help with the chores around the farm. The neighbours again visited with sad faces, “ It will be months before your son will be able to help you. What a horrible blow this is for you.” The farmer shrugged his shoulders and said, “Maybe yes, maybe no.” The next day a summons came from the emperor. All fit and able-bodied young men must join his army and fight a distant enemy. The village sadly said goodbye to all their sons. All except one. The neighbours came over to visit the farmer, “What a blessing that your son could not go to war!” To which the farmer replied, of course, “Maybe yes, maybe no.” While this story is a good example of keeping things in perspective in life, imagine if your relationship with God was like this father and son. How frustrating and debilitating it would be to receive replies to our prayers, “Maybe yes, maybe no.” Or when searching scripture for God's will we felt no assurance but instead found the words, "Maybe yes, maybe no." God is a God of certainty. Today’s verse reveals the polar opposites of God’s commitment to us. Obey His Commandments and you will live a blessed life. Disobey them and devastation will follow. These are the natural results of living for or against the image in which you are created. In Old Testament times the way they phrased this was different to the way I’ve written in above. They put it all on God’s shoulders - and the words in His mouth. “If you obey me then I’ll be nice to you. If you disobey me then I’ll thrash the living daylights out of you.” Today, we understand more about the great war raging on this Earth. There are two sides in the battle - God and Satan. God is Good. Satan is Evil. The fruit reveals which tree it is from. We have amazing resources to help us understand the world around us and our God. We have the Holy Spirit and we have the complete written Word of God, including the life-story of the Living Word, Jesus. When Jesus talked about His Father, there was no “maybe yes, maybe no” but there also was no vengeful demanding God. Jesus said, “If you have known me, you’ve known the Father.” Look at the life, teachings, healings, death and resurrection of Jesus. His mission on Earth revealed the full nature of His Father in Heaven and when He described His Father, Jesus said, “God is Love.” As our friends in New Zealand say, “God is good!” —> “All the time!” “All the time!” —> “God is good!” Reflection Question: How does following God help you through each day? Prayer time: Before you pray together, ask: What would you like to say to Jesus today? Further Reading: The Review and Herald, June 12, 1894. -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

What Today's Republicans Don't Get About Reagan by Jacob Weisberg, Feb. 24, 2016 He supported the biggest amnesty bill in history for illegal immigrants, advocated gun control, used Keynesian stimulus to jump-start the economy, favored personal diplomacy even with the country's sworn enemies and instituted tax increases in six of the eight years of his presidency. He was Ronald Reagan. The core beliefs that got Reagan elected and re-elected were conservative: lower taxes, smaller government, and a stronger, more assertive military. By Reagan was also a pragmatist, willing to compromise, able to improvised in pursuit of his goals and, most of all eager to expand his party's appeal. The current field of Republican presidential candidates invokes Reagan as a patron saint, but the characteristics that made him a successful politician seem lost on them. Instead, they've turned his party into a swamp of nativism, ideological extremism and pessimism about the country's future, in direct opposition to Reagan's example. And they've transformed primary season into a reality show of insults, betrayals and open feuds, defying the so-called 11th Commandment that Reagan espoused: Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republican. Once in office, Reagan said that anytime he could get 70 percent of what he wanted from a legislature, he'd take it. Today's congressional Republicans won't settle even for 99 percent: Their mentality has shifted away from having policies and governing, toward a kind of bitter-end obstructionism. In the early days of the presidency of Bill Clinton, congressional Republicans essentially went on strike, treating any legislative accomplishment as a Republican defeat, but they came to the table for a budget deal in 1997. With President Obama, they have largely refused to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic president. The tactical obstinacy of the 1990s has curdled into the belief that any compromise constitutes betrayal, a dynamic now playing out in the primaries. The issue that shows the divide most sharply between Reagan and the current crop of presidential hopefuls is immigration. In the past, Republican candidates have been justly criticized for deploying racially coded messages around crime and welfare. But in the main, the party has for decades embraced Reagan's notion of American identity based on immigration, assimilation, and economic opportunity. Every Republican presidential nominee since Reagan has been a moderate on immigration, and has wanted to bring Latinos into the Republican fold. How did the inclusive, forward-looking Republican Party of Ronald Reagan become the crass, xenophobic party of Donald J. Trump and Ted Cruz? The rise of super PACs and the right-wing media has disempowered the party's gatekeepers, while wage stagnation has widened the opening for populist demagogy. This year's primary candidates have learned the lesson not only the exploiting prejudice around immigration and terrorism works politically, but so, too, does defying the party's elders and its official apparatus. Thus, Mr. Trump thrives and the establishment favorite, Jeb Bush, is already out. A more surprising reason for the shift? Money. In economic terms, Republican politicians see increasing returns to extremism. The Citizens United decision has raised the potential financial stakes of presidential elections for media companies, political professionals and candidates alike. The presidential campaign of 2016 will most likely cost upward of $5 billion, more than 10 times the one that elected Reagan in 1980. A lot of people get rich in a $5 billion industry, and some are politicians. Mr. Trump is not the only contender to make the calculation that running for president is win-win, burnishing "brand" value even for the losers. Ben Carson — yes, still in the race — seems more interested in selling books than in attaining higher office. Marco Rubio has already enjoyed years of patronage from a billionaire auto dealer in Florida. The examples of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee underscore the point that a no-hope presidential run has more upside than downside. A career as a right-wing celebrity — a stint on Fox News, speaking fees, book advances — is more profitable than one in the Senate. These incentives have helped to shift the Republican Party from a party of opportunity to a party of opportunists. The loser could be the party itself. Unless it repudiates the inflammatory rhetoric of the primary, it will lose Reagan's claim to the center and become more like one of Europe's chavinistic right-wing parties. In the 1980s, it was said that the Democrats looked for heretics while the Republicans looked for converts. To watch the spectacle in the 2016 primaries is to see those tendencies reversed. Jacob Weisberg is chairman of the Slate Group and the author of the Ronald Reagan volume in the American Presidents series. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/opinion/what-todays-republicans-dont-get-about-reagan.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Jackson, isn't John referring to looking at one's own relationship with God, rather than using it as a measure for anyone else's relationship with God? We aren't privy to the particulars of anyone else's relationship with God.

A case in point is the fallacious dispute over Ecclesiastes 1:9. It takes very little to see that there is indeed many new things, ideas, etc. that have come about since those words were written. So one should consider that taking a dogmatic literal interpretation of that text may be wrong. It may just mean something quite different or be talking about something quite different than one assumes. Context. What is Solomon's opening line? It is something he repeats a number of times. "Everything is meaningless." Meaningless, futile, in vain. The metaphor of choice repeated often in the book - It is all just "chasing after the wind". What does all that effort accomplish for you? Nothing. And so it has been since the beginning of time. And so shall it be until the end of time. Time passes. People live. People die. All their efforts in that short time between get them nowhere different than has the effort of all of humanity before them. They work hard, live right and still they die, vanish, even disappear from memory. In that endless cycle of the march of time, history just keeps repeating that same exercise in futility. Nothing new under the sun...

Jackson, The article is a perfect example of the need for change. The author had preconceived notions and ideas. They viewed everything through their preconceived conditions for 'rightness'. It was very critical of everything even to the point of putting a negative spin on proceedings. But of course, that is the goal of Advindicate when it comes to the church. They(advin) are firmly in the camp of 'rooting out evil' rather than 'growing the good' such as the group they were complaining about. The children of Israel choose to spend another 40 years of wandering in the dessert rather than make a change and enter the promised land. Their minds were very afraid, no real trust in God. Are we to remain that way today, afraid of all shadows or really trusting God to guide us?

Jesus made that point quite emphatically when confronting the Jewish leaders - "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." A huge part of the problem that He saw and confronted was their interpretation of Scripture. And not much as changed today. Don't confuse disagreement with an interpretation of Scripture as being a rejection of the Scripture itself, or more importantly a rejection of the One of whom it testifies.

John Chapter 17 is Jesus' prayer at the last supper. I'm going to copy it here, because I think this prayer is a revelation of the relationship between God and His only Son. Jesus does not address ANOTHER being - ONLY His Father. He calls His Father - "the only true God". He says He taught the Father's words, and that His Father was "in" Him. He says His Father gave Him a work to do. His Father "sent" Him. He says He kept the disciples "in Your name" - in His Father's name. There is NO MENTION of another being either dwelling in Christ, or communicating anything to Christ. There is NO MENTION that Christ represented another divine being. John 17:1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. [That's only TWO beings.] 4 "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. [So in John 1, where the "Word was with God" - that "God" would be the Father. The Father is the "only true God".] 6 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 "Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 "For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. 9 "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 "And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 "While I was with them in the world1, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 "But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. 20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. [So we are "one" with the Father and His Son. Which agrees with "we abide in the Son and in the Father", and "we have fellowship with the Father and the Son". The omnipresent Father is "IN" Christ - enabling Christ to be "IN" us. That's how it works.] 24 "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 "O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 "And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them." (Joh 17:1 NKJ)

STAN this was a very good article about how these 4 chaplains from Protestant---Catholic---Jewish --faiths honored GOD and gave their own life jackets to the men on this ship that was sinking thank you for posting this dgrimm60

Your post was very sincere and very well thought out. I also appreciate the heartfelt appeal to believe like you. My response for now is that I believe that Christ is the Mediator and Intercessor between God and man. It follows (using the context of the entire Bible rather than a proof text) that the Holy Spirit referred to in Romans 8 is the Spirit of Christ. In the same chapter, we find " But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."(Romans 8:9); and "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. I also notice that (at least in the ASV and NIV), the term used is always "Spirit"; never "Holy Spirit". By inference, I can only assume this means the "Spirit of God" or the "Spirit of Christ"; not a third autonomous and distinct Person. I will ask you the same - can you accept this GC? Can you at least understand where I'm coming from?

Seems strange to be too critical of Alex's failed attempt to evangelize this group that eventually continued worshipping as Christians on Sunday. Is that really all that different than the far more typical evangelism failure of baptizing thousands that eventually drift away from the church? The "success" rate of actually retaining and keeping people fully active in the Church for the long term is shockingly low. Should we fire the pastors and evangelists that go into an area and work hard for years without any baptisms even?

Green asked: No. My question was fair. Yes, you are correct. The Matthews 7:1 principle tells us that we could not judge people. But, it clearly allows us to judge their theology. But, you have done much more than judge their theology. Green also said: In the above quote, you made a generalized statement telling us that people had a deliberate agenda to lead people astray from God's saving truth. That statement does not address theology. Rather, it is a non-specific statement that addresses intent and/or motive. While it does not name individuals, it appears to me to be a violation of the Matthews 7:1 principle. In any case, since you raised the issue, in a thread that has discussed The One Project, I immediately asked the following: My question was fair. It was appropriate due to the post you made that addressed intent. Why? For one reason, in asking you to name people it allows us to determine for ourselves the facts, and if we believe you are wrong to challenge you on your position. I may disagree with your analysis of the theology of TOP leaders. But, you have a right to advocate for your position. Your doing so is not a violation of the Matthews 7:1 principle. But, when you pass beyond the boundary of theological belief and begin to discuss intent, motive and other such, you have opened the door to being questioned on such. It is not fair for you to make generalized allegations of people who have a deliberate attempt to lead people astray and then not allow us to challenge you by not naming names. When you bring a subject into the discussion, expect people to take the bait and respond with further question and discussion.

GREGORY that was cute and funny dgrimm60

Soggy Bottom Boys were an absolute delight to hear in the movie 'O brother, where art thou' Bluegrass sounds all around. The actor's voices were dubbed by proper singers. No-way can a bunch of city-slickers wearing suits give credulence to singing southern music of soul songs in any genre.

_____________________sees the reality. 20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!.....Isaiah 5 God is Love!~Jesus saves!

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

"This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (Matt. 15:8-10; Is. 29:13) I believe that the concept of a Triune God (3 distinct persons in one God); and the concept of the Holy Spirit is a distinct 3rd Person of the Trinity rather than the Spirit of the Father or the Spirit of Christ is a time-honored "precept of men" dating back over a thousand years to some pronouncement by the Catholic Church. I also believe that Mrs. White was heavily influenced (coerced?) into "approving" of the Trinity; and only then later in life. I couldn't say for certainty whether or not Mrs. White died as a Trinitarian. The preponderance of evidence in the Bible (not Mrs. White's writings or those of some pope from the distant past) if that the Father and the Son ALONE comprise the Godhead. Sure, you can find some verses referring to the Holy Ghost that make it sound like a person; but the overwhelming majority of scripture (when translated correctly) discussing the Godhead gives no indication of the Spirit being a separate and distinct entity.

Who says we need the One Project? Furthermore, who says we need to listen to non-Adventist speakers to find more truth? Do we not have the Bible and Ellen White? Does God need for His people to learn in Babylon today? If so, why are they called to leave it? "Come out of her, my people, and be separate" we are told. Does this apply to us? (See 2 Cor. 6:17; Rev. 18:4.)

I agree that others can certainly stimulate me to dig deeper. But knowing that God himself is speaking to me when I open the Book is the best motivator of all.

I have found it more productive spending more time with the Book than with a book written by someone about the Book.

joeb, This will be my last words on the subject, you are still caught up in your world of assumptions. I am a creationist. That means I believe God started life as we know it. I do not limit God, what ever type of power HE/SHE may be. I only need to look at the universe to understand my knowledge is severely limited at best. I have long given up trying to tell others what to believe. I leave it up to God and the person. The Bible is a guide book to God, not the God. I do not worship the Bible. adios,

Thank you for sharing this information! I found it very interesting!

aka, someone else found it, and sent me a photo of it... The thunder eggs in Oregon can be found at the Priday Ranch (known now as the "Richardson Rock Ranch) in central Oregon. http://richardsonrockranch.com/about.html

Yep, it's a beaute!