Leaderboard

I don't want to sound maudlin, but I treat the lesbian and gay community in general as though they are family — because they *are* family. I have a number of cousins who are homosexual. I can't imagine treating them differently than any other cousin. I've never had bisexual or transgender relatives, that I know of. I imagine I'd look askance at the transgenders because it would be weird to know a cousin as "John" and then have him become a "Joanna." As for those who are bisexual, I'm of the personal opinion that, if they are inclined to have sexual intercourse, they probably ought to be choosing one person from the opposite sex and be monogamous. But that's only my opinion, and naturally is not binding on anyone. Basically, I feel that when a behavior doesn't hurt the person, and when it hurts nobody else, then it's not my business to condemn, point fingers, or otherwise judge the motive, spirituality, or sinfulness of a person. That doesn't mean I want to hang out with just anybody. There're mean and ornery LGBTs, just like there are mean and ornery straight people. I don't much care for mean and ornery people, and will avoid them. That said, I *do* get annoyed with "Gay Pride" parades. The gay people I know are not militant, but the ones in the parades and demonstrations tend to be militant and "in your face." I don't appreciate that, and I think they're a bad reflection on the gay population.

My 2¢... I’m a fairly progressive and young person, someone who isn’t at all afraid of investigating controversial biblical issues. I’ve often changed my mind when I’m presented with new biblical evidence… If someone were able to clearly demonstrate that engaging in homosexual acts is allowed in the Bible, then I personally wouldn’t be afraid to state this publicly. And I have nothing against gay people. However, reading this thread reminds me of a discussion I had with a Christian scientist who believed in evolution. He argued that since he believed in science, and because he also believed in the Bible, then Genesis 1 must be interpreted symbolically, not literally. To be honest this is really, really, bad way of interpreting the Bible. Now, I would respect someone who says, “I believe science has proven evolution, so the person who wrote Genesis must clearly be wrong.” If people say that, then that’s totally okay with me. But I have problems with people who are unable to see that from a literary point of view, the narrative in Genesis describes a literal act of creation... Likewise I respect people who say, “well, the Bible might condemn homosexual acts, but this was a cultural thing that doesn’t apply to our age”. If you think that, then we’re cool. (Though I respectfully disagree.) But I do admit that I have problems when people flat out deny the references to homosexual acts that you find in Leviticus and in Paul’s writings. Paul uses the the word arsenokoitēs to refer to homosexuals, and this is “evidently a rendering into Greek of the standard rabbinic term for "one who lies with a male"”, derived from the LXX translation of Leviticus. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul also uses a word which “standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand [..] as a reference to the passive partner in a male homosexual act.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#Arsenokoit.C4.93s In other words, if Paul took issue with Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality, then why would he echo its terminology? That some people have challenged the traditional interpretation of these texts, doesn’t mean that it is sensible to do so based on the literary evidence available. I think we have to admit that the Bible condemn homosexual acts, though we’re naturally free to disagree with its teachings.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/april/was-easter-borrowed-from-pagan-holiday.html Excellent article!

I just awoke from a strange dream Thinking judgement comes tomorrow--remember the vision of the dried bones--how strange? and In my ear rang the text: Ezekiel 20:2 accompanied with the thought shall a man turn? "Then came the word of the LORD unto me, saying, Son of man, speak unto the elders of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Are ye come to enquire of me? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be enquired of by you. Wilt thou judge them, son of man, wilt thou judge them? cause them to know the abominations of their fathers: And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up mine hand unto them, saying, I am the LORD your God; In the day that I lifted up mine hand unto them, to bring them forth of the land of Egypt into a land that I had espied for them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands: Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves ... I am the LORD your God. But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto Me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake...then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish My anger against them in the midst of the land... (Ezekiel 20:2-8) I saw myself searching Ezekiel for a text that came before chapter 20. And I wondered if it should have been 2:20 but no such text. But I read on "Eze 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." But the thought "shall a man turn" kept on my mind so I googled it in my Bible Isa_13:14 "And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land. " Eze_3:20 "Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand." And while thinking about my dream and wondering if it was just a dream, I checked out this thread. Abominations identified, warnings given, and then comes the judgment. committing iniquity is to knowingly sin and a stumblingblock is putting that known sin in front of an unsuspecting person so as to trip them up. I wonder what tomorrow will bring? Will it be literally tomorrow or the tomorrow that gets here someday? And how many people will heed the warning or brush it off as a threat of fire and brimstone being uttered against poor folks that have a different take on the love of God and how to express it and who they can express it to God is not mocked. He is longsuffering, but when the time comes that He can stand it no longer... Christian regards

Umm... you *have* read every other thread in this forum, right? Or is it only 'hate speech' (it was nothing of the sort) that you *disagree* with that has no place anywhere? Be the change you want to see. If you perceive a lack of civility, post more and more civilly.

You've shifted your ground. It would not be necessary to insist on an identity if others spent less time negating it. I'm certain our LGBTIQ brothers and sisters would love nothing more than simply to be people among people and believers among believers, if others would simply allow them to do so.

I was going to say 'I don't see sexuality', but I think that's a bit like 'I don't see skin colour', in that it can lead to blindness to our own privilege. I have quite a few gay friends, and they're friends first. They're whole people with complex sets of qualities, of which their sexuality is only one, and often not the most important. I'm an ally to people who face challenges due to attitudes on the part of others, whether that be due to age, social class, gender, race, height, sexuality or anything else. I realise that I have it easy and others have it harder, and that's not their fault.

Let's say that instead of struggling with my sexual desires outside of marriage I justify and condom these. What am I doing? I am turning away my ear from hearing what the law states concerning sin and especially adultery. The law calls adultery sin. If I say adultery is not sin then I am calling the law, and God by implication, a liar. If my sexual desires are not sin then I do not need a Savior. If I do not have Christ I must stand before God's law without an intercessor. At some point I then harden my heart and then even my prayer will be an abomination. We need to admit our condition folks. We need to admit to Christ we are sinners in need of both His imputed and imparted righteousness. His imputed righteousness allows Him to present us in Himself holy and blameless before the law. This is our ticket to heaven. Christ only gives His imparted righteousness to those who are resting in His imputed righteousness. This is the prerequisite to experience God's agape love.

Look what Ellen White says of God's remnant, commandment keeping people: Notice that while they are sinners, falling short of God's agape love, they are not practicing sinners. They have not given themselves up to be totally controlled by the desires of their natures. They aren't condoning sin, even though they are sinning. They repent and Christ presents them in Himself holy and blameless.

I'm with CoA and Pam on this. Throughout life, I have had gay and straight friends. I have had disabled and able-bodied friends. I have had white friends and friends of color. In 65 years, I have learned that there are pleasant people and unpleasant people in every group. I try to treat everyone the same (obviously in the concentric circles of trust there are some I am closer to than others. For instance, I try to treat my wife with more love, honor and respect than I do my female associates at work). I'm not always successful. One thing I must say about my gay friends is that they have always treated my heterosexuality with respect. I have never had any of them overtly "hit" on me. By the same token, I never treat their homosexuality as evil or deviant. I know what they are and they know what I am. It never seems to get in the way of the friendship; so why bring it up?

I have one aunt, that I know of, out of a family of 13! I have worked with GLBT on a daily basis for a long, long, long time. They are people just like me, so I treat them as any other person I may associate with.

MCBGM, I think the difference is in the nuance of understanding. Adventists do believe in spirits, just not that they are of the dead. This does not reflect a dishonouring of parents, as they don't believe that the spirits are their dead parents. The spirits can impersonate those who live or have lived, but no further. Just a clarification.

I apologize if I have come across as being holier than thou. Since my wife left, I have been put into a position to make some hard choices. God hates divorce so that has not been an option. For seven years, my wife has refused to reconcile, so I have chosen a life of celibacy until such time as God would put things in a different focus. That said, there are things that I have settled in my mind because I serve a holy God and HIs people are to be holy. As I have said before: the church is not a convalescent center for the incurably ill. It is a hospital for sick saints that need the balm of Gilead for Jesus is even at the door. This is my last post on this thread. Thank you for allowing me to participate.

Psalm 27:1 is one of my favorites (actually the whole chapter) The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

Yes. I can say that because that is how it happened with me. I had no idea of right and wrong and had to learn through God's word. His people were patient with me as I learned and am still learning. The sins that are seen are the ones that people notice first. But God is concerned with the heart. But it is the revelation of His love that gives me the courage to seek Him and ask for power. If I relied only on condemnation I would shrink away and probably not even try.

The English term 'sodomite' is a relatively recent coinage, and is evidence only of English confusion about the sins of Sodom, not about what those sins actually were. It is possible, of course, that Sodom had many sins, but its treatment of the vulnerable is mentioned more times than sexual sin. I have tried to establish that attempted gang rape is much more related to that theme of how the vulnerable were treated than it is to a particular sexuality. If you assume a priori that sexuality explains everything about the Sodom story and then fit all the evidence to that, you are not doing good and careful Bible study.

It would be very interesting to see a treatise on the word "spirits" from 1 John 4:1 (“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world”) I've seen some commentaries translate it as "message" or "doctrine", so the idea of the text would be to "test the message" to see if it's from God. But if the word "spirits" actually means something akin to the souls of the departed, or some other entity in the spirit world, that would be quite compelling...

The difference is repentance. For example, the difference between a practicing homosexual and a struggling one is that latter repents while the former indulges and justifies. The same is true of any sin....

Is homosexuality sinful? Answer: Yes Why? Its a component of our fallen humanity. Is my heterosexuality sinful? Answer: Yes, it was perverted at the fall. So no matter how you look at our situation we are sinners not only by thought; not only by action, but by our very nature. That's why "flesh and blood" cannot enter the kingdom of God. Hence "we must be changed".

Great question! This would make a great topic all on its own

The question we need to ask is what's the difference between practicing sin and struggling with sin?

The "ten horns" which rise from the Beast kingdom, "are ten kings" (Dan 7:24, Rev 17:12) and they have "crowns" (Rev 13:1). The 10 kings hate "the harlot" and finally burn her with fire. The "ten kings" seem to be actual earthly physical kings, ruling over divisions of this earth. The (4th) terrible Beast tramples the whole/entire earth and breaks it in pieces (Dan 7:23). Ten pieces?? Maybe earth will be divided into 10 regions. This has already been mapped out and planned. I'm starting to think that the whole picture - Beast with 7 heads and 10 horns - we are seeing the LAST DAYS structure of Satan's kingdom/dominion. One "head" receives a "deadly wound". The text does not say which head receives the wound. It just says "one of the heads". Wounding THAT HEAD wounds the Beast itself (Rev. 13:12). To replace THAT HEAD - and resurrect the Beast - "the image to the Beast" is powered up by the lamb-like beast from "the land". The 8th HEAD = the image of the Beast = the little horn. Why would I equate them?? Look at who persecutes the saints. The Beast makes war with the saints. It rules over the entire earth. (Rev. 13 1-7, esp vs 7, and Dan 7:23). HOW does the Beast persecute the saints? Through it's little horn. There were 10 horns. Take away 3. That's 7 left. Then add the "little horn" = that's 8 horns. The "little horn" IS the 8th horn. It's also the 8th "head". In Daniel, the saints are "given into his hand" [the hand of the "little horn"] for 3.5 years (Dan 7:25). The little horn - with "eyes" and a mouth speaking "pompous words against the Most High" (Dan 7:20-22, 25). In Daniel 8, the "little horn" exalts himself as high as the Prince of the host. The little horn takes away the "daily" (8:11). He is THE SAME "prince who is to come" in Daniel 9:26, who will "destroy the city and the Sanctuary" and will "bring an end to sacrifice and offering" [take away the daily]. He is THE SAME "king" who arises, with "fierce features" (not lamb-like), who "understands sinister schemes" . . (in Dan. 8:23-24) who "will destroy the . . holy people". In Revelation, it's the image of the Beast that "causes all to take the mark" and decrees death to anyone who will not serve/worship it (the image). Rev 13:15-17. In Revelation IT"S THE IMAGE that is persecuting, and demanding "worship". In Daniel it's the "little horn" that is persecuting, and exalting himself "as high as the Prince of the host", who sit's in the Temple of God, "showing himself that he IS God."

A thought hit me this morning, that all of the "heads" on the Terrible Beast have "diadems" (Rev 12:3) - meaning they are royalty of some sort. Remember the "Prince of Persia" and the "Prince of Greece' in Daniel cpt 10? These two "princes" were actually fallen angels controlling the human rulers of Persia and Greece. I'm just thinking that maybe the "heads" are the 7 highest fallen angels who serve directly under Satan, over areas of earth (like Persia or Greece). These together are the actual rulers over Satan's "kingdom" or "dominion". Before God's thrown are "seven spirits" who are the eyes and horns of the risen Lamb (Rev. 5:6). They are "sent out into all the earth". I believe these are the highest angels of Christ's army of angels. Why would not Satan's kingdom mirror God's kingdom structure? When one of the 7 heads receives a "deadly wound" then Satan's dominion is not complete. Satan wants a complete rule - so that he can claim rightful possession of earth. The 8th "head" (the image of the Beast) restores the complete structure of Satan's dominion once again.

Romans 1:2 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things....17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God... Paul is primarily speaking to the legalistic Jews in Roman 2:1-29. They boasted in their righteousness before God's law, but legalism only dresses up the outward appearance. For example, the Pharisees would literally strain the gnats out of their drinking water because they were considered them "unclean", but behind closed doors they would chow down on camel flesh. See Matt 23:24 So the very things they judged others for they practiced themselves. We are not to judge because ultimately we are all sinners before God's law. That does not mean that we should "hearty approval [of] those who practice" the sins listed in Romans 1:21-31

P.S. about the dry bones: Ezekiel 37:14 "And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live..."

great article! It always amazes me how some people get so paranoid about holidays or other celebratory days, merely because of the name.

Gay wrote nothing "hateful." It was his opinion, and reflects that of many people who feel that the church is not a welcoming place. To think otherwise is a bit of wishful thinking. This is not to say that many churches have very congenial and loving congregations. But good relationships, in church or not, requires friendliness on both sides.

However I admit I have been tempted in much worse ways. …12Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.....1 Corinthians It is not the temptations that are sinful, but the choice to imbibe. God is Love!~Jesus saves!

EGW rightly understood will prove herself reliable. It is those who misunderstand her and place a meaning on her writings that she never intended that will have a problem. And it is happening now. Christian regards

MCBGM, I myself am not a Trinitarian. I believe that the Father Jesus are members of the Godhead; but I believe the Holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of the Father and/or Son - not a separate entity. I was actually a JW for about a year on my journey from Catholicism to SDA. I will always be beholden to JW's cuz they actually taught me how to study scripture rather than just read it.

Part 5 Verse 12: "And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as king with the beast. They are one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast." What is the popular interpretation of what these 10 horns or ten kings are? The common market countries of ancient Europe: Norway, Sweeden, Germany, Denmark, England, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. But this conclusion we cannot accept for one important reason. What is it in the text itself which would make it an impossibility for those ancient European kings to be the ten horns or the ten kings of Revelation 17:12? The text says that THESE KINGS HAVE RECEIVED NO POWER AS KINGS YET and they will not receive power as kings until one hour with the beast. So, at what point of time alone in human history will the ten horns receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast? At the very end. Not before the Papacy comes back to universal dominion, and that time has not yet come. Does England have power as a kingdom today? Certainly. Does France have power as a kingdom today? It does. Does Germany have power as a kingdom today? Yes, it does. So do all the European countries. Therefore, not one of those countries are the powers mentioned here in Revelation 17:12. One more thing, we cannot limit the ten horns (kings) on this beast to anything less than the territory occupied by this beast which is the entire world. The ten countries of Europe are only a small part of that territory today. Whatever territory is occupied by the beast is occupied by the horns on the beast. Therefore, the ten kings occupy how much of the world? All of it. Verse 13: "These have one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast." "In the warfare to be waged in the last days, there will be united, in opposition to God's people, all the corrupt powers that have apostatized from allegiance to the law of God. There will be a universal bond of union, one great harmony, a confederacy of Satan's forces. 'And shall give their power and strength to the beast.'" "What is it that gives its kingdom to this power? Protestantism, a power which, while professing to have the temper and spirit of a lamb and to be allied to Heaven, speaks with the voice of a dragon. It is moved by a power from beneath." E.G. White, Bible Commentary, Vol.7, p.983. Does Apostate Protestantism have a power as a kingdom today? No, but when it receives the power of the State, it will be a kingdom then for one hour (short time) with the beast. The ten kings (horns) are the peoples of this earth distributed in the ten major world religions: 1. Protestantism 2. Catholicism 3. Greek Orthodox 4. Judaism 5. Islam 6. Buddhism 7. Shintuism 8. Confucianism 9. Hinduism 10. Communism These will receive power from the state to make an image to the beast and they will give their power and authority to the papacy and reign with her for a short time.

Part 4 During the time when the true church of God was "in the wilderness," was Papal Rome also in the same place? No. She was on top. She was sitting as a queen! Now, what about John's own day? Was Pagan Rome persecuted and driven away from her own natural habitat or was she likewise on top of the world? On top! So, when did the papal power go "into the wilderness?" In 1798! In 1798 the papacy was driven "into the wilderness" in a position of oppression and obscurity. But that did not stop the papacy from doing her work to regain the supremacy of the world. Since then she has been working in obscurity, working behind the scenes, pulling the strings, politically and religiously. Therefore, what was John's point of reference? After 1798. Verses 9 and 10: "Here is the mind which has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time." In prophecy, what does a "mountain" symbolize? A kingdom. In Jeremiah 51:25, Babylon is described as being a "destroying mountain." Daniel 2 mentions two mountains. The one from which the stone was cut and the one under which the stone grew. What do these "mountains" symbolize? God's Kingdom. "The seven heads are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come and when he comes, he must continue a short time." To identify those kings, what must we have? Again, a point of reference before which five have fallen, one still remained, and the other had not yet come. If we take John's own day as the point of reference this is what we get: five have fallen 1. Egypt 2. Assyria 3. Babylon 4. Medo-Persia 5. Greece __________ 6. Pagan Rome (POINT OF REFERENCE) ___the one that is in John's day_____ 7. Papal Rome---yet to come But then, we have a problem because we have one that is, and in John's day, that one was Pagan Rome and the other one which had not yet come was Papal Rome. But what about the beast of Revelation 11, Atheistic France, and the lamb-like beast of Rev.13, Apostate Protestantism? So if we take John's day as the point of reference, we have to say, 5 have fallen, one is, and THREE are yet to come! But does the Bible say that? It doesn't. But if we take the point of reference given us directly from verse 3 of chapter 17, which is the time after 1798, we now ask the question: which are the five which have fallen? It is, very obviously: 1. Babylon 2. Medo-Persia 3. Greece 4. Pagan Rome 5. Papal Rome 6. Atheism in France (King of the south) after 1798... (POINT OF REFERENCE) the one that is since 1798 pushing at the king of the north. 7. Apostate Protestantism (the one which is yet to come) What was the satanic form which took over from Papal Rome after 1798? Atheism. Revelation 11:7; The Great Controversy, p.269,270. And what is the other one which has not yet come? The lamb-like beast of Revelation 13, Apostate Protestantism. Papal Rome is the eighth being of the seven which was before 1798, is not after 1798 (going into obscurity), and yet is again when her deadly wound is finally healed with the help of Apostate Protestantism.

Part 3 In verse 3 we are told that in order to see the judgment of the great whore, John had to be carried in the Spirit into the wilderness. When he got there, what did he see? He saw the whore sitting upon the scarlet beast. Now if he had to go to the wilderness to see the whore, where must she have been? In the wilderness. What does it mean for the woman to be in the wilderness? Is she always there or is it a temporary sojourn and not a permanent one? If we go back to Revelation 12, we find that when the woman (pure church) brought forth the man child (Jesus) where did she flee after the man child was taken up to Heaven? To the wilderness. Between 538 and 1798, the true church of God was in the wilderness. She went there in obscurity as a result of the persecuting powers that sought to destroy her. Therefore, the true church was not "in the wilderness" when Jesus Christ was living upon the earth nor during the Apostolic period but when the persecution began, that is when she found herself driven into the wilderness. So, obviously, what does it mean to be in the wilderness? It means to be oppressed, persecuted; it means to be the tail and not the head, to be under, and not above.

Part 2 Just as the ancient River was dried up to make way for the kings of the east, (Medo-Persian kings) so the waters upon which the whore sits in these last days will be "dried up" to bring about the downfall of Babylon The Great and thus make way for the Kings of the East, Christ and the saints who are with Him, to return! See Ezekiel 43:2. If we think type and antitype, we will have no problem identifying symbolic names in the book of Revelation. In verse 6 we read: "And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marvelled with great amazement." Back in verse 3 the angel promised to give John the interpretation of the vision which previously had been given. The angel said, "I will tell you the mystery of the woman." When you start to read the angel's explanation, your first reaction is that he has made the mystery more mysterious! Let us read it in verse 8: "The beast (whore) that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, is not, and yet is." Do you feel you were given a good explanation? Verse 9: "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, and the other is yet to come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. And the beast that was, and is not, is himself the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition." A little bit of careful study will soon begin to unravel this mystery and you will be surprised how simple the prophecy really is. First of all in verse 8: "The beast that you saw and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition." When we have an expression like, "was", "is not", and "is again", it indicates that we need to have a reference point in time. The reference point chosen determines what was, what is not and what will be as the case may be. In order for us to understand what beast is spoken of as being in the past, and also being not present, and shall be again, we have to make up our minds on the basis of the evidence given. What was the reference point from which John was observing these facts? That is very very important to know! Some have taken the position that John is speaking from his own point of time, but when we study the works of a prophet, do we find that they all spoke from their own point of time? Or were they sometimes moved far away into the future and spoke from that point of time? A prophet is very often picked up from his own time and projected far into the future and from that future point of time, he then begins to describe things that were and are and will be. And if we are to understand what the prophet is saying, what must we determine? That reference point. It is not very difficult.

MCBGM, No matter the origin, the Bible is PERFECTLY clear that Jesus is God, no matter what early SDAs, Mormons, JWs, or any other denomination might say. I may not be EGW's biggest fan; but I would have to see some quotes by her that say Jesus is NOT God. To my knowledge (which is limited) she never said any such thing. Some offshoot SDAs might claim that, but it isn't part of the official SDA doctrine. Jesus IS God; and saying otherwise is grieving HIs Spirit. Jesus - as our creator - is the only Entity in the universe qualified to pay the penalty for man's sin. Any other being is not qualified to represent and redeem all of humanity.

My first reaction was, "His mother was a woman. Does that make Obama a woman? She got divorced. Does that mean Obama is doomed to have a failed marriage?" Reality check to the credibility of the fallacious logic - Both of my parents were life long conservative Republicans. I am not. A complete survey of my positions on the current issues in this political season shows that I am 94% in agreement with Bernie Sanders, 91% with the Green Party candidate, and 87% with Clinton. And barely measurably in agreement with most all of the Republican candidates on any issue. We grow up. We mature. We get educated and have our own thoughts and experiences. Many of us do not follow the same path as our parents. This is not the Middle Ages where everyone's birth and family ties determine their only choices and future. And if the guilt by association logic has any credibility, the scribes and Pharisees were right about Jesus since he hung out with the worst of sinners of his day.

And they were frequently some of the worst-behaved kids at academy. I have heard stories of old people who claim that they never knew Jesus until they were old. Knowing the 2300-day prophecy is one thing; having grace residing in the heart doesn't automatically follow.

that's how I feel now, but I sure didn't when I was growing up... the PK's generally got the good jobs at summer camps and academy... it was all in "who you were" and "who you knew".... hopefully, that's changed...

I remember him hosting Monday Night Baseball. I enjoyed his joke about growing up as a neighbor to Yogi Berra "Not only was I not the best catcher in the major leagues, I was not even the best catcher on my street"

That Obama has continued a number of Bush policies and perhaps has not gone as far as many on the far left had hoped he would go demonstrates that he is more open minded and moderate than practically all of his critics on the right. They demonstrate their lack of credibility and their utter partisan zeal to undermine him and make him fail when they continue to characterize him as an extremist, a socialist, etc.

He has protesters removed and claims they are denying his free speech, just one of his ways.

Religions propagate delusions and misunderstandings, but ultimately, our Creator will show us all that the Kingdom really is. Religion distracts us from faith in, and surrender to, our Creator only. The Temple is the key to understanding the Kingdom of God.

I can only speak for myself. Personally I am more interested in people and the joy they have in Jesus. I have a hunch that women may be more connected with emotions, theirs and those of others.

not too wise to use the race, religion, gender, or political party as one's basis on voting for the next POTUS, in my opinion. For me, it's going to be based on their work history (including voting record), issue statements history, how they treat other people (past and present), and statements on policies. It's not going to be based on promises they make, or what famous people might endorse them... Even with the above considerations, it's going to be difficult to choose which is the best of what I see are some of the worst candidates we've ever had...

The first motorcycle with internal combustion ~ In 1885, the Daimler Reitwagen ("riding wagon") or Einspur ("single track") was a motor vehicle made by Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach, and is widely recognized as the first motorcycle. Daimler is often called "the father of the motorcycle" for this invention. Even when the three steam powered two wheelers that preceded the Reitwagen, the Michaux-Perreaux and Roper of 1867–1869, and the 1884 Copeland, are considered motorcycles, it remains nonetheless the first gasoline internal combustion motorcycle, and the forerunner of all vehicles, land, sea and air, that use its overwhelmingly popular engine type. Drawings from 1884 showed a twist grip belt tensioner, complex steering linkage and used a belt drive. The working model had a simple handlebar and used a pinion gear drive.

Last I checked it was Trump having free speech thrown out.....get the facts straight!!

And it never hurts to remember that it was my sins that placed Jesus on the cross, not any more nor less than the stupidity of the "holier than thou" hypocrites. Until I feel the pain of Jesus' suffering each time I remember my personal responsibility for it, I will also forget the righteousness He is willing to work out in my life as well as the mistake of seeing myself as so much better than "those sinners over there", the description of the last church as being primarily me first, I will have failed to discontinue the crucifixion of Christ. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see....Revelation 3 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame....Hebrews 6 God is Love! Jesus saves!

…22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'.....Matthew 7 14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee....Ezekial 28 OTOH these below are those most likely to be there. Considering that Lucifer was among the heavenly host and was created perfect from the beginning, indicates clearly not all that are invited will find eternal life there. …24"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25"O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; 26and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."....John 17 As one pastor has said, "We are saved from our sins, not in our sins." 7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with mena 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God....1 Corinthians 6 God is Love! Jesus saves!