Leaderboard

I like the article's focus on taking responsiblity for our own emotional states, and agree with it. The context-setting saying 'people take offense too much', though, bugs me. It's almost a truism, but I don't think it's either true or useful. I think people took offense every bit as much in the past as they do now. And some things are genuinely offensive. Often telling people off for being offended is inherently telling them to shut up and continue enduring injustice. How about we just take the message of taking responsibility for our own emotions: and then calmly, rationally, fight injustice?

yep. The stars would "fall" in New England, and the folks in the Pacific NW, Europe, and elsewhere would sign in on Facebook's C/A group and write, "we didn't see that here"...

Some states and provinces have enacted "apology" legislation, essentially providing that an apology made by a professional (or tradesman) to a client does not constitute an admission of liability, is not admissible in court and does not void insurance coverage. I was once in the unfortunate situation of having committed an error and could only disclose fully to the client at the risk of voiding my insurance. Luckily the damage was within my means so I decided to disclose to the client and pay the damage out of pocket. In healthcare, where most people recognize that it's not an exact science and not every mistake is negligent, and where damage is not quantifiable monetarily, often what patients would really like is for the physician to meet with them and say "sorry".

Can you imagine if we'd had Internet connection in 1844?!

But that's just not true. People who are not Christians are not evil. Only by defining evil specifically as being not-Christian can we then say that it is necessary to be Christian to be not-evil.

You can research if you want. I get emails with trivia questions with the answers! So just figured I start this here and see how it goes. They don't give any info as to how they've come up with the answers!!

WOW does this mean that I don't have to pay insurance and utilities?

No... Aussies are all tanned and surfers I would say the U.S.

Dental services for children will soon become a reality at the Seventh-day Adventist operated Good Samaritan Inn (GSI) in Kingston, as construction of the promised health facility was recently completed. View the full article

Great question! Perhaps after John 3:16 the next salvational step should be, "Take my yoke upon you and learn of me." I wonder how many arguments might be saved if that was taken as seriously. As we know that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33), so if someone if confused by complexity it might do well to back up to basic until the fog lifts. I find that helps me. I have discovered that often a spiritual topic grows the more I learn of it. If that is the case for others, too, it might behoove (YES, I get to use that word!) us to be patient with others. What a blessing it would be to teach those who don't know as much and learn from those who are beyond us. Often there are many acceptable angles to a subject. I would expect there to be so; after all, the Holy Spirit is unifying AND teaching individually at the same time. It is we humans who are the obstinate ones, who refuse to grow according to the Spirit. We are the ones that hold Him up with our arguing about points to the place where no one expands. By arguing we stagnate a topic, IMHO. I suspect we also stagnate ourselves when the idea is to prove rightness. Everyone pulls back and nobody benefits.

I see it as the opposite. We have traditions that make it a complex riddle. We want to prove theory of church history. We want to fit the Bible into the presuppositions of the fundamentalists. When people learn that there are two possible translations for the battle where the sun stood still, we want the exciting possibility. (either the sun did not move, or the sun was "still" for a day by not shining due to being covered with a thick hail cloud). As we get away from these traditions and get a better understanding of the language, poetry forms, geography and culture we learn a much simpler message. Our problem is digging through the piles of traditions and granted our lack of knowledge of the original context.

Does everyone agree on what is a salvational issue and what is not? (just asking — not sure if all agree, or not) Because if the issue is salvational, then it's not likely to be debatable. It's the side stuff that could be debated/discussed, but that's also the stuff that makes people most hot under the collar if others don't agree with someone's set opinions. And it's the side stuff that makes people leave the church.

And how do OUR actions/words play into that mindset for struggling Christians? (e.g., "You have to BE perfect in every way before Jesus comes;" "You can't do ANYTHING WRONG, or make any MISTAKES, or you won't be saved." I believe God loves us just as we are. I believe He will take us home to heaven with Him unless we ACTIVELY RESIST, as long as we have accepted His sacrifice for us on the cross and given our hearts to Him.

Humans can't generate agape. We are totally bankrupt of it because of the fall. We can produce what looks like agape, but it's in reality a u-turn agape, which is self-love camouflaged as genius love. If I gave all I possess to the poor I would be considered a great moral man, but without Christ my "good works" would actually be "filthy rags" because all I can do without Christ is polluted with iniquity (i.e., my bent-to-self). In other words without Christ working in me all I do outwardly will be for a self-serving motivation. Maybe my name in the paper? Maybe to impress someone? There's a whole host of selfish motives...

The euthyphro dilemma is relevant to this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma I suspect that Robert will fall on the side of 'what is morally good is morally good because it is in accordance with the will of God', rather than 'the will of God is the will of God because it is morally good'.

Does 'righteousness' equal 'moral good' in this question? To me 'righteousness' connotes 'right with God', which to me is related to, but not the same thing as, 'morally good'. If the question were asked 'Can human beings be morally good outside of faith in Christ?', then to me the answer is unequivocally 'yes'. Any other response assumes that 80% of all humans are not morally good, and that is not what my observations of the world show.

"Had" assumes it was His by native right. Jesus as God united Himself to our fallen life in the womb of Mary and that product was Jesus as the Son of Man. The Immaculate Conception and its hybrids are an attack upon the gospel itself and therefore these heresies belong to the kingdom of Satan. As the Son of man Christ was identical to us, but without sin. "Without sin" simply means without transgression. Jesus never sinned even though He assumed our nature for approximately 33 years. (See 2 Cor 5:12-17, especially the last part of verse 16). At the resurrection Christ as God left our life from Adam, indwelt by our bent, in the grave. Sunday morning Christ's Deity (which never died) was united to a glorified humanity, free from our sin nature and free from mortality. Therefore "in Christ" we have a "new creation" that stands before God and His law perfect and holy in every detail. Those who accept the gospel are therefore righteous by faith.