Leaderboard

I think I indicated pretty clearly the method I use to weight parts of the Bible. If Jesus himself said it, it weighs more. His whole purpose in coming to Earth was to reveal the Father to us. He says quite clearly, 'because of the hardness of your hearts... but I tell you....'. In other words, because of fallen human weakness, not every prescription given in the Bible is God's ideal for humanity. It was a step forward when it was given, but Jesus has more. An eye for an eye is a nice example. Without proportionate justice, an eye is revenged with a life, a life with a village, a village with a nation. Proportionate justice (lex talionis) limits the damage, but it is not God's ideal: Jesus shows us God's ideal: turn the other cheek, go the second mile, do good to those who harm you. To claim that every word in the Bible is exactly equally weighted is to disregard this progressive nature of revelation, and God's knowledge of the hardness of our hearts.

Administrative Cautionary Note: Let's stick to the topic and refrain from making each other the object of our comments. State your own opinion/view on the topic at hand without accusations, innuendos, judgments about others theology, integrity, character, etc. In discussing issues of this sort, points of Scripture, differences of interpretation and understanding of the meaning and importance are inevitable. But it is important to keep in mind that such differences are most likely far more troubling to us than they are to God. Let's leave the final judgment to Him, and try to assume the best of one another in our interactions.

My point was not 'the rest of the Bible is not the words of Jesus', it was 'when I say "the words of Jesus", what I mean is the words recorded in the Gospels as having been spoken by Him in his incarnation on Earth'. It was not a statement on doctrine and inspiration, it was a clarification of what *I* mean, since I was being misunderstood. I took responsibility for trying to make my words easier to understand. A personal thing of mine, which not all may share, is that I rank those words more highly than the rest of the Bible. The OT says 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', and Jesus says 'but I say, turn the other cheek'. Clearly He had some additional revelation for us, and I take Him at His word on that.

If this is true, then why bother excusing or minimizing our sins? Why not just get it over with, go for the forgiveness and carry on with life?

you mean, you can't "like" what is contrary to *your* interpretation of scripture... that's fine (though you actually have no idea what my interpretations of scripture might be, nor do you have any right to label mine as "cheap grace"...)

I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring, I will not mow my lawn 'til Spring!

not necessarily... sometimes Scriptures allow for different interpretations of an issue... I'm reminded of the passage in Romans 14 of "be convinced in your own mind..." — if someone has prayerfully considered a subject, and has come to a prayerful conclusion on a presenting issue, that conclusion is *right* for that person. It may not be *right* for someone else, but that doesn't negate the rightfulness to the one who came to that conclusion.

HEY ALL only 2 more days to go dgrimm60

You don't think that questioning someone's faith is bullying?

Definitely neither of those particular heresies. Rather the reverse, if anything.

the feeling of this thread makes me want to break out in song in the grassy hills like Julie Andrews # twirl!

I just mowed my lawn again today... 2nd time this year! Gorgeous day in the Pacific NW today!

LOL .... my posts are not written for you to "like"...

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." (2Thess. 2:1-4) Yahshua is God, yes? Admittedly, the verses don't explicitly say the man of lawlessness = AntiChrist = satan; but it is easy to infer such Marri was talking about a BIBLICAL basis for satan impersonating Yahshua; not an EGW basis. EGW's writings are NOT the Bible; and should never be equated as such.

Kevin If I might add a comment. Lots of SDA's doubt EGW. And lots of non SDA's never had the opportunity to know the blessing of her writings. But most folks miss the background of that quote, the part that says: "As the second appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ draws near, satanic agencies are moved from beneath. Satan will not only appear as a human being, but he will personate Jesus Christ; and the world who has rejected the truth will receive him as the Lord of lords and King of kings. He will exercise his power, and work upon the human imagination. He will corrupt both the minds and the bodies of men, and will work through the children of disobedience, fascinating and charming, as does a serpent. What a spectacle will the world be for heavenly intelligences! What a spectacle for God, the Creator of the world, to behold! The form Satan assumed in Eden when leading our first parents to transgress, was of a character to bewilder and confuse the mind. He will work in as subtle a manner as we near the end of earth's history." {RH, April 14, 1896 par. 6} Knowing who that human being is and how he relates to the deception of the last two great errors (Sunday sacredness & spiritualism) will make the difference between eternal life and death to some folks. Christian regards

Why do they need to be saved? They made their bed.....let them sleep in it!!!

Saying something does not establish it any better than hearsay if no evidence supports it. Where is the evidence of circular reasoning you claim? Saying it is clear and making it clear are two different things. I tend to see Jackson's point in that if God calls something sinful, an abomination even, then for Bravus to claim that someone else has made an "assumption" that such was a sin, it implies that Bravus may not believe God has meant what He said.

Jackson, without commenting on the merit of your position, your have clearly engaged in circular reasoning, as Bravus stated. That statement of his is clearly of merit. It is worthy of discussion. Further, your statement that he assumes that God did not mean exactly what God said is simply a personal attack on Bravus that is inappropriate. It is quite possible that Bravus does believe that God means what God said and then disagrees with you as to what God said. NOTE: This is the only aspect of this issue that I am addressing. Please do not twist what I have said here into some issue that I have not commented on in this post...

Loving consensual relationships have no direct relationship to the question of lawfulness in marriage. Naturally, one hopes to have a loving relationship. However, the fact of having one does not make it a legal relationship. Biblical examples of this would include Herod and Herodias, Solomon and his harem, Amnon and Tamar (at least for a one-night stand), Samson and Delilah, etc. Would it have made everything ok if Joseph had loved Potiphar's wife and consented to be with her? There is no Biblical definition of legal marriage in which "loving consensual" makes anything ok. In fact, there were some marriages in the Bible that God required even, perhaps, in the absence of love. Consider the following: Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. In the above case, as in the case of Amnon, the man may not have loved her afterward. She would be unlikely to gravitate toward her rapist. But the law forbad the man from putting her away--he had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life. Basically, marriage was here a form of punishment, a consequence for a rash act, to help people respect the institution of marriage.

Obama is actually bending over backward to compromise: among other things, Judge Garland is 63, while there are numerous potential candidates in their 50s. He is likely to have a shorter tenure (it's slightly macabre to discuss), giving the opportunity to appoint another justice sooner. He is also quite centrist and has a lot of Republican supporters. If the Republicans are opposing him, it seems to be solely on the grounds that Obama is proposing him.

It's still better - and no harder - to say 'that belief is not Scriptural' than it is to say 'you are not Christian', or to ask 'are you even Christian?' The latter is on a par with 'do you even lift, bro?' It's an attempt at intimidation, not dialogue.

With respect, I am not participating in these discussions in order to be cross-examined on my theological orthodoxy. Rather than focusing on me, how about I start that new thread about what the texts actually say?

Again, this is circular reasoning, based in the *assumption* that homosexuality is sin. I think we need a new thread in which we explore each of the relevant texts and try to better understand what they are *actually* about.