Leaderboard

Here is the choice change your name to your real name or leave cowards bully under fake names.

That's not a pejorative, it's a description of a behaviour. If you read carefully, you would see that my comment about the title you chose for another thread was not that it wasn't 'nice' but that it was biased, and as such made it difficult for a discussion to be fruitful. I'm not that concerned about 'nice'. I'm trying to follow Jesus, and he called people 'a generation of vipers' and 'whited sepulchres'. What you'll notice, though, was that he comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable. Those words were directed to the powerful and corrupt. With the woman at the well, the lepers, the woman caught in adultery, everyone vulnerable, he was gentle. You're just piling on to the most vulnerable people, and as such I have no hesitation in describing that behaviour as bullying.

Hmmmm...no..not a 'Badventist' or another type of Adventist, just an Adventist still searching and growing...its called dynamic christianity!

ALSO taken from my Mac user group LAMG HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHO TO MARRY? ( 1 ) You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like sports, she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep the chips and dip coming. -- Alan, age 10 ( 2 ) No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you're stuck with. -- Kirsten, age 10 WHAT IS THE RIGHT AGE TO GET MARRIED? ( 1 ) Twenty-three is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by then. -- Camille, age 10 ( 2 ) No age is good to get married at. You got to be a fool to get married. -- Freddie, age 6 (very wise for his age) HOW CAN A STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE MARRIED? ( 1 ) You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids. -- Derrick, age 8 WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR MUM AND DAD HAVE IN COMMON? ( 1 ) Both don't want any more kids. -- Lori, age 8 WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE? ( 1 ) Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough. -- Lynnette, age 8 (isn't she a treasure) ( 2 ) On the first date, they just tell each other lies and that usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date. -- Martin, age 10 WHAT WOULD YOU DO ON A FIRST DATE THAT WAS TURNING SOUR? ( 1 ) I'd run home and play dead. The next day I would call all the newspapers and make sure they wrote about me in all the dead columns. -- Craig, age 9 WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE? ( 1 ) When they're rich. (she will go far) -- Pam, age 7 ( 2 ) The law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to mess with that. -- Curt, age 7 ( 3 ) The rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you should marry them and have kids with them. It's the right thing to do. -- Howard, age 8 (I'm a bit worried about this kid!!!) IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED? ( 1 ) I don't know which is better, but I'll tell you one thing. I'm never going to have sex with my wife. I don't want to be all grossed out. -- Theodore, age 8 ( 2 ) It's better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to clean up after them. -- Anita, age 9 (bless you child) HOW WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE DIDN'T GET MARRIED? ( 1 ) There sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there? -- Kelvin, age 8 And the #1 Favourite is........ HOW WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE WORK? ( 1 ) Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a truck. -- Ricky, age 10 cheers, Simon Woodward

Green, I am uncertain as to exactly what you are saying. Are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be a homosexual, even if one is celibate? Or are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be a practicing homosexual? OR, are you telling us that the Bible teaches that it is a sin to be both of the above? I ask because I do not understand what you are saying.

wrx and dd.....have you ever watched the 3 stooges.....they were really funny!!

I agree with CoAspen, we are all still growing. Now I do wholeheartedly accept Mrs. White as a Prophet. Of course my understanding and use of her is based on not being a Fundamentalist and trying to follow how she and James and Willie said that we are to use her, unlike most Adventists who follow how Stephen Haskell says to use her, or the very conservative who follow how Washburn and Wilkinson say to use her. I believe in applying the year-day principle on verses where it fit the context and am sad that at times where it is given as a common term (for example "day" and "hour" in Revelation is just a term meaning a short time.) and some times when it gives specific days of a year-day prophecy so we end up doubling the year-day application. I'm a believer in 1844, and while I believe in the role that the papacy played in the middle ages is a type of what we will find in the end and that the Papacy will be in partnership with the end events, I don't see the Papacy as everything antichrist or that everything that comes from the Vatican as purely evil.

Please do not misunderstand me here, but I am going to illustrate what it appears to me that you are implying by saying this here--no offense intended, and these questions are not serious ones, simply rhetorical to illustrate the point. Do you rape your wife? Do you have intercourse with her in an "unloving" way? If so, would this not be sinful? Now, back to the discussion: you have said that "the OT and NT texts do not refer to loving adult same-sex relationships." Well, let's look at one of those texts. It would appear to me that the Bible does indeed address a "loving" relationship, for it compares it to the kind that would normally occur between a husband and a wife, a man and a woman.

If you have read, The Matchless Charms of Christ, would you like to join me with this one- God's Love Affair with the Guilty? Would be great to get some discussion on the topic from inspiration from the book.

This link below isn't from an SDA source/author/artist, but I still recommend it. http://adam4d.com/dont-hate/ Update: Here's a new comic on the subject, by the same artist.

This is the last in a short series of guest blogs from my friend, Gaby Phillips. I find her perspective extremely helpful in wrestling through the issues of how Adventists can and should relate to Islam. It is tempting to buy into morbidly negative views of Islam, on the one hand, and overly positive ones, […] The post Can Muslims follow Christ as Muslims? appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

And you thought it was another nomination?

Read More Daily Jesus Scripture: Revelation 12:7-9 Starting Question: XXXXXXX War in Heaven An ear-piercing scream erupted from the surface of the moon and tearing through time and space, demanded the attention of the universe. Flapping huge sinewy wings, the unearthly demon propelled itself toward the moon—and the source of the scream. It was huge—a red dragon with seven angry heads-—a hideous beast. On the surface of the moon, a woman clothed in the light of the sun and wearing a crown of twelve stars, screamed again in childbirth. The dragon flapped its wings and opened its seven mouths, the sun glistening off razor-sharp teeth. A mighty bellow burst from the dragon in a dissonant chord of seven demonic voices. Landing on the moon, the dragon ran toward the woman. Its seven mouths gaped, each intent on being the first to devour the new baby. The woman, standing in a crouched position, released a final scream of desperation and the baby fell onto the hard surface of the moon. The dragon, running at top speed, lowered its heads to catch the baby. It began to rumble in a cross between a laugh and a growl. Fourteen rows of razor-sharp teeth snarled. Talons clawed at the ground—propelling the red demon faster and faster. The woman, still in pain, reached toward her baby. The dragon’s heads each swiveled in to catch the child before the woman. Then a huge hand came out of nowhere and snatched the baby. The seven dragonheads flung skyward as the hand—and the baby—shot into the stars. The woman’s gaze went to the same point in the sky. The surface of the moon began to shake as the dragon worked up enough speed to launch itself into the sky. With two great flaps of its leathery crimson wings the dragon left the surface of the moon in hot pursuit of the hand—and the baby. Heaven, in all its glory, grew in size as the hand and the dragon approached. As the hand arrived in Heaven, Michael stood in the palm—a grown man—holding a sword. Raising the sword above his head, he shouted, “Come to arms, children of the light!” The Dragon flapped its wings with new resolve. It too could see the kingdom of gold. There was a reflection in the dragon’s eye—himself, sitting on a golden throne. Michael was now standing in front of the glorious city—his huge sword radiating hot-white light. Lined up on both sides of Him, thousands of angels—covered in light—held swords of their own. The dragon was about to land when a wooshing noise shot past—then another and another. Woosh. Woosh. Woosh. They were hard to see—woosh—only visible against the shining light of the city—woosh, woosh—dark beings, angels in black. The dragon and its evil minions landed together as a mighty army of darkness—at once beginning to fight against Michael and His angels. And there was war in Heaven. ** Continued in War on Earth tomorrow ** Reflection Question: What do you think it would be like if we could physically see all the spiritual warfare that is going on around us between good and evil? Prayer time: Before you pray together, ask: What would you like to say to Jesus today? -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

Some comments I've seen show concern that, if Garland is confirmed, there will be no Protestant members of the Supreme Court... There would be five Catholic and four Jewish justices. (I'm not seeing that as a problem at this point, especially since Scalia was Catholic and there were no Protestants on the Court since 2010.) Judge Garland has a good reputation, but I'll wait until the confirmation hearings to see what his positions are on issues before I form a final opinion... (I keep seeing "Judy Garland" whenever I see "Judge Garland" written in print...)

Joe, Physical cravings, aka withdrawal symptoms, are not a sin, as I see it, but simply an effect of sin. One does not have such withdrawal symptoms without an equally-strong desire to be free of the addiction--and it is this desire that the Lord looks at and sees as "repentance." Conversely, to desire to have the addicting "drug" (or sex, food, etc.) from a mental standpoint, not simply a physical craving, is sin. Consider the words of James on this question: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (James 1:14-15) Temptation itself is not a sin. Dwelling on the temptation, and lusting for it, is. This is why the Bible tells us to "flee temptation" to "resist the devil" and so on. If we have a heart filled with desire to follow God, and have truly repented, He will have given us new desires such that the temptation itself will make us cringe, and we will be repulsed by the thought of continuing in that direction. Blessings, Green Cochoa.

He will "deceive - if possible - the very elect". That's some deception. Only those indwelt by the spirit of Jesus will "recognize" the final deception. Everyone else - and I mean every person on earth - will "worship" (which means serve) the Beast. Therefore it seems to me, the most important "task" at hand, is to know Jesus - to have a true relationship with Him.

Since I have never seen your biblical backup for this (or if I have seen it, it didn't make enough sense to gel in my mind), I have no basis but your word on which to accept this premise. I think that most of us are "awake" enough to discern the signs of the times, if we keep our minds open to the possibilities. Your analogy about waiting until it's too late to check out the facts doesn't happen until the church is taken into the sky and the 3 "Woes" and/or the 7 bowls start to fall. As far as "checking out the facts" goes, believe me, I have done MUCH fact checking. I have just reached different conclusions than you by looking at those facts. None of us knows the details about the future. We form our constructs based on our own logic and experience. Prophecy will unfold the way it unfolds; and all of us will likely be surprised by how it does happen. Jesus was the only one in His day that knew how the prophecies of His First Coming would unfold; it caught everyone else by surprise. Who actually believed that a body that battered and injured could come back from the dead? Certainly none of His disciples believed until they saw the empty tomb. By the grace of God, we should know who is the beast, antichrist, harlot, etc. WAY before the seven bowl fall - if we keep our eyes open. I don't totally dismiss your scenario; I just hold the one Thomas and I currently profess as more feasible and realistic, given what we see in the world today. Future events could alter my opinion. Blessings to you; over and out.

Let us leave the more polarizing "homosexual" concept aside for just a moment, and focus more on the "sin" and "heredity" aspects. Allow me to ask you three questions to help you understand where I might be coming from on this question. 1) Is it a sin to be an alcoholic? 2) If "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" is true, is it a sin to be a "recovering" alcoholic who never drinks? 3) Is it a sin to want to drink (lustful craving) without acting upon the desire? I would look at the 8th and 10th commandments as the ones that most nearly pertain to this question. I believe it is both wrong to steal AND to desire to steal (covet). If it is wrong to practice homosexuality, it is also wrong to desire to practice it. As regards the DNA--our genetics, as I understand them, are beyond our control, and we are not held to account for the DNA which we have inherited. However, our DNA cannot force our thoughts or actions. If homosexuality is somehow proven to be linked to the DNA, it still would not mean the individual has a free pass to practice sin. In fact, we ALL have sinful flesh and are born with sinful desires that must be overcome. The Bible clearly teaches that the practice of homosexuality is sin. The Bible clearly teaches that to lust for/desire to sin is sin, even if the desire is not acted upon. Therefore, I believe that the Bible teaches homosexuality is sinful. If someone truly desires to follow Christ, he or she will follow the Word which says: "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Galatians 5:24) Blessings, Green Cochoa.

Hmm... This spirit of combativeness has just earned you a 3-month vacation.

I am either saved or lost. There is no such thing as being saved until Jesus' blood washes my sins away and casts them into the depths of the sea. That doesn't happen until I confess my sins and receive the repentance Jesus is willing to give to the soul (person) accepting it. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.....1 John 1 God is Love!~Jesus saves!

Gail, as I am in China, using a cell phone, can you please follow the request I made

(I find 'What did Jesus do?' to be a *much* more reliable guide than 'What would Jesus do?' Much less at risk from our own projections)

Maybe it's because they are one of the most-bullied groups in our society? Bit rich the bullies pondering why anti-bullying programs are needed.

J Sonnentag? Paul Giem?

Jesus told us nothing of the sort, by the way. Don't put words in His mouth that were never there.

The Bible's clarity on the homosexuality question leaves little room for discussion. It pronounces it an "abomination" (see Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), on a par with sacrificing one's children as a burnt offering (see Deuteronomy 12:31). For a follower of Christ to teach others that one of the things God holds as detestable is simply a matter of personal choice, or even that he or she was "born with it" so it is "OK" is itself astonishing. Jesus told us what He thought should happen to such a one. We are all born sinners. We all have the duty, obligation, and privilege of finding freedom from our sins, both inherited and cultivated, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Deleted post.

I have started the book. Already the book has MORE than delivered in the very first chapter! I feel like I should bump this thread every day until everyone has a copy of this in their possession. This book presents a very good lesson on the theology of guilt and salvation, on the character of Jesus and the Holy Spirit of God, as well as that of Satan. There is a condemnation that comes from our own minds that prevents us from holding on to the hope that is in Christ. If you want to see the love of Jesus while the world and even those in the church are kicking you down, read these reminders that Lehman has gathered from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy in this book. You will want to reflect with wonder at what an awesome God we serve.

Of course. Nothing that effects a small proportion of the population is the norm, by definition. But by the same token, red hair, which has a similar incidence, is a difference, not a defect. Sexual identity is complex and fluid, typically more so for women than men. I have actually published (well, am one author on a multiauthored paper) on exactly this question. The full version of the paper is available here: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:316910 The 'Kinsey scale' places everyone on a continuum from same-sex attracted to opposite-sex attracted. Many people are out near the ends of the scale, in either direction, but some are closer to the middle and more flexible. They will tend to fall in love with a person, rather than a sex, and may have different relationships across their lives. I am not arguing that sexuality is genetically determined, I am saying that it is genetically influenced. That seems to accord with the facts. There are many other influences, including culture and biography. Many people who are gay by inclination have been forced into unhappy 'straight' lives by social pressure. It seems much less prevalent, but it's possible someone could be forced into a gay life by social pressure I suppose. Interestingly, the rate of homosexuality among the adult children of same-sex couples is about the same as in the rest of the population. If it was all nurture it would seem probable that rate would be higher.

OK, so you're having a bet each way, but either way you win? Nice work if you can get it. There's no gene, but even if there is a gene it means what you think it means. Your statements about a gay gene and heredity just display deep ignorance of heredity and genetics. About 4-10% of the population are gay, and gay people are born to straight parents and vice versa. There's no 'true breeding gay line', but there needn't be. I've actually stipulated further up the thread that there is not a single 'gay gene' that is present in gay people and absent in straight. But there is also no single 'eye color gene': eye color is determined by a complex interaction of up to 15 genes. Sexuality may be similarly complex, and that would be unsurprising. What the twin studies do show is that there is some genetic component. Simply dismissing that based on prejudice is an ignorant response.

History repeats, His Story continues!

True! Unity and uniformity are very different things. The first is the best the second the beast!

that is true... there is not identifiable gay gene that has been discovered,,,,, yet. The amount of gays in twins, have been very high and very measurable.

Excellent