Leaderboard

Au contraire: I have answered it many times, as clearly as I know how. You are choosing not to hear.

Have I specifically said that I condone and support homosexual activity? Or have I said that I support homosexual people? There is a difference, and your continuous accusation that people here are doing the former when they are doing the latter does not do you credit.

My point had zero to do with condoning: it was about understanding. It is possible to understand something without supporting it. The fact that you want to double down on your lack of empathy, rather than challenge it through personal growth, is telling in itself... and calls the objectivity of your Bible study into question. If you are motivated by a visceral dislike of homosexuality, you are much more prone to motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.

When Todd married this woman, she could not have been the "horrible person" that he claims she is now. What caused the change? There is a natural law that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I would suggest to Todd to fiirst examine his relationship with his wife and how to mend it rather than finding ways to end it. Has she received the love and affection and attention that she craves for and deserve? I see nothing in the op that an attempt has been made to get to the root of this dislike for the 9 yo. Breaking/wrecking anything is always easier than restoring something which takes more time & effort. If the root cause is not dealt with, it's a guarantee that it will raise its ugly head again into the next relationship. Here is a tremendous opportunity for growth for all involved and to show the power of grace at work.

You can not prove or disprove a future event, be in religious, science or whatever, until after the time passes.

Protecting the vulnerable is the goal. You seem to be missing the distinction between challenging the belief and challenging the person. The former is legitimate, the latter is not.

Hi Joe. Daniel 11:33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: See how it says that the persecution lasts until the time of the end? Now the question then is, is this period of persecution that lasts many days the 1260 days? I don't see any way around the fact that it has to be, given Dan. 12:4-12, but let's consider a few more verses from Dan. 11. Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Would you not agree that Paul in 2 Th. 2 borrows language from this verse when talking about the man of sin? Daniel 11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. If we try to say that vs. 40 occurs at the start of the 1260 days, then we have to say that vs. 40 jumps back in time to the start of the man of sin's reign, since he was already reigning in vs. 36. But it is far simpler to just accept the idea that the time of the end begins at the end of the 1260-day reign of the man of sin. There are other issues too. Take for example 2 Th. 2, where Paul says that the idea that Christ's coming is imminent is a deception. Why does he say that? Because the man of sin must reign first. If the 1260 days were literal days, then there would really be no reason to denounce the idea of an imminent second coming, because anything that is 3 1/2 years away is essentially imminent. However, if the 1260 days are 1260 years, then Paul's statement makes sense, particularly in light of Daniel and Mat. 24. At the conclusion of the 1260 days, the time of the end begins, the events of Dan. 11:40-45 begin to unfold, and the heavenly signs take place that tell us that Christ's coming is at the door. I've never seen this connection before. Paul says Christ's coming can't be near until the man of sin reigns. Jesus says that after we have seen all the heavenly signs after the tribulation, His coming is near. But it makes sense.

DO NOT ALLOW YOUR WIFE TO ABUSE YOUR 9 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. REGARDLESS OF YOUR DECISION TO REMAIN MARRIED OR SEEK DIVORCE. IT IS YOUR PRIVILEGE TO BE A PARENT AND YOUR DUTY TO BE YOUR DAUGHTER'S PROTECTOR AT ALL TIMES.

In the wilderness, the people of Israel did not keep the Passover. They did not circumcise their boys either, which is why Joshua (Jesus) had to circumcise them AFTER they crossed over Jordan. The crossed over Jordan on the 10th of Nissan, which was the day that the Passover lamb was "chosen". Once they were encamped, the text says that Joshua circumcised the people. Then they ate the Passover. The unleavened bread would have been made from manna, because they had no time to harvest or grind grain harvested "in the land". They were healing from the circumcision. At the Feast of Firstfruits, the high priest presented grain harvested "in the land". THEN the people ate of the fruit of the land. If this is prophecy, then we would "cross over" the sky on the 10th of Nissan. Jesus (Joshua) will circumcise the people. Our bodies of flesh will be "changed in a moment" to spiritual bodies. (No down time to heal.) THEN we will "partake of the Passover" (Jesus) for 7 days. Paul says, "Christ our Passover was slain for us". Now - I believe that Jesus will return in glory - for judgment - on the Day of Atonement. So how can I ALSO believe that Jesus will translate His redeemed on Nissan 10. The 10th of Nissan (10th day - first month) lies directly opposite the calendar (on a circle) from Day of Atonement (10th day - 7th month). If the earth were to "reel to and fro" as Isaiah describes, it could literally be Spring and Fall on the SAME DAY. Only 23 degrees of tilt separate Spring and Fall. Spring and Fall would "overlap" at least for that DAY. Yes Joe, I'm the one who pointed this out to CW. Once the people of God are safe with Christ (off this earth) THEN - the 7 last plagues will be poured out "in one day". On the night of the Passover meal (start of the 15th), the death angel passed over Egypt, killing all the "first born" not protected behind blood stained doors. I believe the "saints" will be off this earth, and with Christ celebrating the Feast of UNLEAVENED BREAD (15th to 21st) while the 7 last vial plagues are destroying the kingdom of the "firstborn" (Satan). Interesting that Ishmael and Esau (father's of Muslims) were both "firstborn" of their fathers. Their descendants are children of the "firstborn".

Yes!! Canned soup often has yeast as an ingredient. So do many frozen dinners. We have a storage room outside of "the house" - off the garage. We move everything out there with "yeast" as an ingredient. Reminds me of putting "sin" in a back room somewhere, where we know we can "find it" again. hahaha.

Elijah the prophet spoke uncomfortable truths to King Ahab. Essentially, the king banished Elijah from interacting with him or anyone else in Israel for three years and six months (James 5:17). In the end, the truth still came out. Kevin has posted much truth. I may not always agree with his style, but who am I to say God is not behind it? Elijah forced his entrance, uninvited, before the king to speak God's message to him--angering the king. I would have to echo Gamaliel's wisdom on cases like this one: "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:38-39)

From my perspective, it appears that we are dealing with a matter of semantics here. I agree that recognizing the start of the 1260 days in important. IMHO, the "time of the end" starts with the 1260 days; which will be kicked off by the abomination of desolation. There will be persecution prior to that (we see it now already in the Middle East); but starting with the 1260 days, persecution, tyranny, and evil will reign Supreme. It is during this time that the martyrs cry out (figuratively) "How long, Lord?" from under the altar. Cosmic disturbances announce the "end of time" (more immediate than the "time of the end"). It is at this time - during the 6th and 7th seals that the church is taken off of the planet; and the wrath of God (7 bowls of God's wrath - way scarier than the wrath of man) falls on the unrepentant remaining on the planet. So in my personal mental construct: start of 1260 days = start of the time of end (the reign of the Beast) end of 1260 days (day 1261 through 1335) - the end of time (7 last plagues and 2nd Coming) day 1336 through the next 1000 years = millennium Just a thought - Following the order of the Jewish feast days, I find it plausible that the 1260 days will start in the Passover season (spring feasts); ending with the 2nd coming 3.5 years later on the Day of Atonement.

I have not claimed to be unbiased. I am an ally, and have been very clear about that. Those who are claiming to be 'simply following the plain Word' are those who are claiming to be unbiased. There is no hypocrisy in my pointing out their bias, having owned my own. It is also possible for me to conduct an inquiry that is objective, despite my biases, by being open about them but then discounting them and seeking 'disconfirming evidence'. That is, if I have a bias in one direction but earnestly seek out the best available evidence in the other direction, that is quite different to the behaviour I am challenging: having a bias in one direction and considering only the evidence that supports that bias, discarding all else.

Really!! Animal sacrifices were already implemented by God after sin enter!! Did not Cain kill Abel because he was [censored] off that God accepted Abel's animal sacrifice. Seems to me they were around long before there was a nation of Israel or the Hebrew people!!

This one has confused me as well. We studied this in a sermon several weeks ago; and neither the pastor nor anyone in the congregation had a rock-solid answer that could be explicitly backed up with scripture. We could only come up with 2 potential (potentially wrong?) answers: They did it as a physical memorial of the haste with which they had to leave Egypt after the Passover. The Passover meal was also supposed to be eaten with unleavened bread. Could the Feast of Unleavened Bread just be a memorial of how little time they had to leave - so little time that they couldn't even make dough that could be allowed to rise before baking? Arguably, every time leaven is mentioned in a spiritual sense in scripture, it represents something sinful. Every time we have tried to get rid of all leaven in our house, we always have found something with leaven in the week (e.g., an old loaf of bread or leftover cake) - kinda like discovering an unintentional sin. Could the effort of trying to "eliminate" all the leaven in your house be equivalent to the effort of trying to eliminate all the sin in your life? If you dig deep enough, you can always find more.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth through unrighteousness. 19 For what may be known about God is clear to them since God has shown it to them. 20 The invisible things about Him—His eternal power and deity—have been clearly seen since the creation of the world and are understood by the things that are made, so that they are without excuse. 21 Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him or give thanks to Him as God, but became futile in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools.23 They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. 25 They turned the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged the natural function for what is against nature.27 Likewise the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men with men doing that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not proper. 29 They were filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, proud, boastful, inventors of evil things, and disobedient toward parents, 31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, calloused, and unmerciful, 32 who know the righteous requirement of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death. They not only do them, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Yes, that is all true. That is not what I am talking about and thank you, CoAspen, for asking for clarification. As I thought I said in the OP, I had been meditating on Christ's suffering and His words. I believe there IS persecution that is brought upon one's self for reasons that are NOT biblical. There is no reason to invite persecution, say, for creating a time of trouble before the time of the real one. Or for needling nor nagging. If a person behaves without discretion then s/he will reap what is sown. But as I was thinking about Jesus' case, He was tortured and killed without just cause. I had the idea that His example would be for those who have undergone and still are undergoing torture and sacrifice and who have no say in the matter nor power to withstand. At first I carried the thought over to those of the early church. Then those in the Dark Ages. And it still goes on today, note the Christians who cried out the name of Jesus before the ISIS guys beheaded them. I saw Jesus fortitude and patience and attitude as being an example to those who would be called to suffer for His name. And we might get a turn yet! In our land with the freedoms we have there is much we can safely protest. But Jesus made it clear that not only those who suffered for Him WOULD suffer in this life, but that they also would be at peace, even happy, for doing so. Paul got that; it was his experience, too. Jesus was mocked for not defending Himself. And since He was innocent He could have appealed to Pilate. Pilate was convinced of His innocence. What the Jews were doing was not only inhumane but illegal. We could argue that it was Jesus' purpose, his raison d'etre, to die that horrible death. But I see something more, and perhaps my mind is working overtime. I see Him again entering into the worst situation any of us could enter and fellowshipping with us at the very highest level of suffering for sin. He takes on the role of the supreme Servant. He was only One of thousands who died innocently because no one showed up to fight for their rights. He had all the power of heaven at His disposal, and He refused it. He will have His justice, but it will only come to realisation way after the fact. And He calls the suffering ones blessed. It was just a big, incredible thought.

I agree with Rachel. People shouldn't have to provide a myriad of "proof texts" or answer others' inquiries into trivialities to totally validate their opinions and personal beliefs. This is a discussion board; not a theological PhD dissertation board review. It's one thing when someone asks questions out of curiosity, and another when they just seem to be trying to pick a fight. "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.Statements like "did you concede that you were mistaken" and getting all hung up on minutiae and trivialities is NOT productive. (Titus 3:10-11)" For example - Is this really important in the cosmic order of things? Does knowing the truth about this bring me any closer to my heavenly reward? If it does, I'm doomed. If you want to have a discussion with someone rather than an argument, soften your tone. Say something like "I don't believe that way" instead of implying (or making it easy to infer) that they are wrong and you are right. Cuz guess what? When it comes to the absolute truth, we're all probably wrong in one area or another.

I previously said: We should never say that the fact that we are persecuted for our religious beliefs indicates that we have correct religious beliefs. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that their persecution because of their religious beliefs is a sign that they are correct in their belief. I disagree with that position.

Gail, I'm not quite sure what your original intention was for the topic. Several different words/ideas are being use, abuse, suffering, etc, as if they all have the same meaning. A person in pain suffers from such, but they are not being abused in the physical sense of someone perpetrating that on them, such as a severe sickness. Christ on the cross experienced both pain, suffering and abuse at the hands of others. Many religions have taken the 'sufferings' of Christ and other words of His to mean followers of Christ must suffer in order to find salvation or persevere through. It has long been a part of SDA teachings/belief as well. At times it has been suggested that without 'suffering' our spiritual experience may be lacking or not up to par. I find that to be contrary to Gods desires for His children. Do we make our children or others suffer so that they will appreciate life better? If not, then why would we expect God to desire that for us? I have this feeling that it, suffering, has become a part of our effort in finding salvation, ie, works. My belief is that Christ simply pointed out the obvious about life, there will be pain and suffering, but that the believer can find peace of mind in knowing that one day it will all end. The individual can work through the pain and suffering by putting it in Gods hands. I have many a Cancer patient say that very thing. Their faith it what gives them comfort.

"men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts..." 1] Men desiring (lusting) men is unnatural. It's not how God created the human race. Hence these unnatural desires are a result of the fall of mankind. 2] These lusts led to shameful acts (sodomy). Both the desire and the act are because of the fall. Why can't we all just agree with Paul on this one? The struggling sinner, resting in Christ, gets eternal life. The condoning, justifying sinner isn't resting in Christ and the result is eternal damnation. The sinner is therefore committing suicide. You see if we are resting in Christ our conscience will burn within us when we sin. This leads us to repentance. Therefore a true believer cannot condone sin as a lifestyle. That why John says, "the one who practices sin is of the devil" (1 John 1:8). It's rather simple. No use to complicate it. Again, sin is sin. The struggling homosexual will make it to heaven where the practicing adulterous will not.

When considering the dearth of bedrock reliance on Jesus in our land today, I would find it easy to say we're already there. And may I suggest watching on Theological Townhall, "The Time of the End" put out by 3ABN with Steve Wohlberg. It gives a more fully discussed and plainly ordered scenario, couple with this counsel from our Father, especially as you get to the last half hour. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God." 10And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. ....Revelation 22 God is Love!~Jesus saves!

As I understand the Bible, the only legitimate cause for a divorce is fornication/adultery (see Mt. 5:32). However, separation is always allowed. Unless your spouse has committed adultery, you are not free to divorce her and to marry someone else. But you may certainly separate from her for awhile. In Mrs. White's writings, we find an additional circumstance or two where she accepted someone's remarriage without fornication being the cause of separation. For example, in one case the wife had become insane on account of the measles having gone to her brain and was committed to an insane asylum, leaving the five children with no mother to care for them. When the husband remarried, some church members complained, and Mrs. White said "Let them alone." Obviously, that was a special case. I can think of a few other special cases that might be cause for a divorce/remarriage, but only a very few. Your question implies, however, that you are not following the Biblical command which says "husbands love your wives" (Eph. 5:25). If you loved her, you would never call her a "horrible person." Women need affection and love. Your wife may simply be lashing out at your daughter on account of her own emotional starvation from affection. As a loving husband, you have the privilege and duty of commanding your household to be obedient to God's will, leading your family by your own righteous example. Separation/divorce should always be a last resort--the furthest thing from our minds in trying to solve a problem. No one is perfect, and perhaps no two people are perfectly matched. I have often wondered about the honesty of couples who claim to have never argued. As the minister said in a wedding I recently attended, arguments are natural, and will sometimes occur, but how they are handled is the important thing. He urged the couple to follow the Bible in resolving their disagreement and forgiving each other before going to bed that night (see Eph. 4:26). Very good advice.

If this thread was to be specifically geared at homosexuality, I would have placed it under that subforum. It's *not* specifically about homosexuality, though it appears some would like to make it so. What's interesting to me is that the basis of the OP was from observations of a very conservative Baptist minister friend who I asked to review the tenor of the forum in general and to give me feedback. I wanted to get the opinion of a non-SDA who would be sympathetic to the conservative members, and to make sure that I wasn't being off in my own observations as to how many current threads might appear to "outsiders."

This particular allegory is used frequently. And as it refers to the threads on homosexuality is false. The only acceptable response to most here to the repeated posts and topics on homosexuality is silence or agreement that A,it may not be wrong biblically and B if it is please don't say so as that is being judgemental. The point may be true if it were OP,s knowing we have gay member/members are the ones guilty of keeping this front and center. Always condemning gay/lesbians and rubbing their nose in their sin. Instead it is the flip side of that. The poster always bringing this up is the one rubbing the nose of those that believe it unbiblical in their self righteous judgemental sin. Perhaps if the often repeated phrase "Let him who is without sin" were taken to heart by those repeating it constantly............... There isn't anything about saying it is wrong biblically that is judgemental,nor does it reflect the behavior of most church members. Those doing most of the accusing are freely making judgements

None of the discussions on this particular topic have even come close to implying or saying what you have claimed. REgardless of which of those "sins" (all of them)were the topic the response would be the same. Topic after topic has been posted in recent months to promote those that are now saying "wait a minute,the bible doesn't really say this sin is wrong" or if there is an admission it is wrong it is really the fault of "those other so called christians". Is it biblically condoned,just another way of perceiving what is biblical? Period. Not should anyone be prevented from being a welcome part of the church. What do you think the response would be if the topic of adultery were treated in the same manner as the topic of homosexuality. There is a difference in a discussion between saying you believe something is wrong biblically and saying you don't want "those people" in the church. I have belonged to the same church since 1947. Over the years we have had those "guilty" of every sin you listed. Human beings being fallible as we all are, There have been those that would rather they not be there,there were more that didn't feel that way. What would cause a problem is if the person in question made every attempt to publically make their lifestyle biblical and or all those that disagreed were self righteous unloving christians. We have had many that have walked into our church that certainly didn't fit the "biblical mold" Some time ago we had a group of three that came with more gold chains than a Egyptian mummy, more metal on their faces than in a fishing tackle box. It would have been hard to find a 4 inch square of skin that wasn't covered with some pretty gross tattoo's.To compound their sins they even had a pack of cigarettes rolled in their t-shirt sleeve. Some of the very young children were a little startled as this was the first they had encountered this ,but they were greeted as the most respected member would have been and shown to their seat. Those in the pew with them greeted them and attempted to share their songbook. No one moved to another pew or to the other end as far from them as they could get. They were invited to stay for potluck which they did. It would be interesting to visit the church you present. You smoke? Sorry. You can’t be in my church. You’re an alcoholic? Sorry. You can’t be in my church. You’re a drug addict? Sorry. You can’t be in my church. You’re a “fornicator”? Sorry. You can’t be in my church. You’re gay? Sorry. You can’t be in my church. Can you or anyone else find where it has even been suggested that the above "sinners' should not be "in my church"? My is meant to be general

I can't believe you of all people are trying to compare red hair with homosexuality!!

@Kevin(wrx) I was, I believe in China when this was posted and only had an iPhone to use, am only now responding as I dwell in my Canadian Abode. Trust me here, if all the posters had to agree with me, there would be only 1-2 other posters, I found the whole homosexual event repugnant, including gay marriage. Therefor I will never be involved in that act, nor would I ever marry a male. When I get myself 100% pure then I will begin working on others. I know this, we all have struggles, I wouldn't trade mine for that of a gay person. I believe in christian fellowship, as well as a powerful God who can convict and transform by his mighty power. I do not believe that I am to replace the Holy Spirit, and God has not asked me to so far, and I do not see a change in the immediate future. I do believe we need to open our circle of friends, and support and pray for one another. Bringing up the gay issue to me, is just as annoying as "that" person bringing up the fact that I am over weight, and he has had totally victory over that. It is very ok to differ, it is not very ok to condemn or slam people, over victories we have had and they have not. Just my opinion, others will differ, and I am ok with that,

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.

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.