Leaderboard

It seems you are asking HOW MUCH knowledge a person needs in order to be "saved". I think it depends upon the person, and his/her background. I'm reading "Undeniable" by Douglas Axe (engineer turned molecular-biologist). He became convinced of "intelligent design" through his experiments with protein sequencing. He's been swimming upstream against the current of academic "science" (so called), for many years. His starting point was the lab, but he went on from there to belief in the God of the Bible. Individuals come to "know" Jesus and the Father by many and various paths. Their journey to "truth" begins at different places. Archeology convinces some that the Bible is historically accurate. The amazing complexity of biological systems convinces others. The accuracy of the OT prophecies concerning Jesus, convinces others. Miracles or visions convince others. Watching the change in the personality and character of someone who comes to know Jesus, convinces others. (My husband became convinced by watching the change in me. Said he would never have thought it possible that a person could change so profoundly.) Whatever the starting place, each one comes to trust the LORD. We must trust because we still "see through a glass darkly". We do not yet understand fully - just like children, therefore we must trust that our Heavenly Father will work all things together for our good.

There are so many admirable qualities of children that get "matured" out of them that would be good for us to recapture for us adults. Even on the knowledge/learning issue, children are natural learners, curious, not afraid to ask questions, excited to learn something new and very teachable.

But maybe that is the point. We seem to act as if knowledge and being correct are our ticket to the kingdom. We strive to be right, thinking that is righteousness. But that isn't it at all. It is not what we know. It is who we know. Maybe just like His statement that the first shall be last and the last shall be first, to be as little children is that so many things we strive and struggle for really are not nearly as important as we might think. Maybe it is the emotional and spiritual attributes that do matter the most, regardless of the childlike knowledge of things. God is love, not a library.

I loved him in the comedy movie, "Please Don't Eat the Daisies," with Doris Day. Funny, funny movie!

Who is David Niven?? He was one of the classiest English actors ever. In my mind an American contemporary and counterpart would be Gregory Peck.

If you have small children or grandchildren......... .....questioning is how they learn and to deny that is not understanding the child like mind. They learn from questions answered. It is the answers that help them along in that path of trusting and faith. The questions are not because of doubt, but rather to understand and learn. They are simple questions and they trust the answers. "Well, thats what Daddy told me!!"

Simple child-like faith and questioning everything are not mutually exclusive. And to split a hair with you, our faith is not in the words of Scripture, but rather in the One that Scripture speaks of.

The LORD did not explain "the germ theory" of disease. He just told them to bury their excrement outside the camp in a designated place. He did not explain DNA mutations. He just told them not to have sex with near relatives. It's really not difficult to figure out the health or safety reasons for the LORD's commands concerning things like: sodomy forbidden, don't eat fat or blood, stone people or expel them from the camp for serious offenses, etc etc. The circumstance at hand involved thousands of former slaves, living in hostile desert country - without means of cooking with consistent high temps, without sterilization (except by fire), without means to incarcerate for extended periods, etc. The LORD stated His commands using terms the people could understand - "clean" vs "unclean". I don't see the problem. We don't explain germ theory to three year olds. We just tell them that eating off the floor is "dirty". The ONLY thing that was "changed" was "the priesthood". The command was that EVERY sacrifice must be brought to the Temple, to "the priest" - a descendant of Aaron. If you "change" the priesthood, there is nowhere to take a sacrifice. Thus the prophetic system of animal sacrifices would be gone - by replacing the exclusive Aaronic priesthood with the Melchizedek priesthood under the High Priest - Jesus Christ.

but that's ignoring the problem about which the Black Lives Matter group is trying to sound the alarm... and that wouldn't be helpful at all. From my perspective, "All Lives Matter" is a sweetly saccharin recent colloquialism that *sounds* great, but actually minimalizes / ignores the intent of "Black Lives Matter" — because the "All Lives Matter" phrase is just an end unto itself; nothing more needs to be said or done. It's like saying "Amen" at the end of a prayer. "Black Lives Matter," on the other hand, is trying to address the issues of inequality that, as much as many would prefer not to acknowledge, *do* exist, *do* require immediate attention, and *do* need to be brought to the national consciousness. "All lives matter" is a passive statement. "Black Lives Matter" is an active statement on a big problem. (Please don't be sidetracked by the fringe individuals who want to use BLM as an excuse to kill law enforcement officers. Didn't anyone see the concerned outpouring by the Black Community in Dallas and elsewhere in response to the police who were assassinated?)

One can persist towards a goal or just hang with the crowd and have a life of 'what ifs'. What is it the ostrich does when danger is imminent, put its head in the sand. What did God say to Jeremiah after his long lament in Chapter 12: v1-4. Verse 5, if you get tired running with those around you, how can you run with horses. Things were bad, he sees no way for anything to change. God told him to persist. No change with out persistence towards the goal. Sit around waiting for the world to collapse and then smile when God arrives when He asks 'what have you been doing'....I don't think so. fatalism noun=passive acceptance, resignation, stoicism, acceptance of the inevitable;

Robert, you missed the point! Trusting in Dad is an example of innocence and love. Don't try to make it complicated!

Yet, In Deuteronomy 12:15-20, Moses tells the people that God says " Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the Lord your God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat it. 16 But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. 17 You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and olive oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. 18 Instead, you are to eatthem in the presence of the Lord your God at the place the Lord your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the Lord your God in everything you put your hand to. 19 Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land. 20 When the Lord your God has enlarged your territory as he promised you, and you crave meat and say, “I would like some meat,” then you may eat as much of it as you want." This is not saying to eat unclean things; but it seems to say eat all the clean meat you want. "MEAT" not veggies. I'm not putting down vegetarianism (905 of my diet is vegetarian); I'm just saying EGW doesn't seem to have much of a spiritual basis for pushing it so hard to the point of saying somewhere that those who are still eating meat at the end will not be translated.

For me, the commands given to Israel demonstrate the presence of a supernatural intelligence - Who did understand "germ theory" and DNA mutations, and justice in government - Who also "saw" the future, and gave prophecies in the form of the sacrificial commands and the Feasts, which prophecies WERE FULFILLED by Jesus Christ.

Mountains / hills, repeatedly in prophetic language, are used as symbols of empires, kingdoms, nations. Never, ever are they even once symbolic of individuals. The seven kings, John says, are seven mountains.

Those of us who have read the texts cited in my example don't agree: "another kingdom inferior to you" "these kings ... these kingdoms" Daniel 2:39, 44

Now sit down and read through the whole book of Hebrews, while keeping in mind Jesus' own words of the new symbols of the new covenant pronounced in the upper room, symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of The One true and holy sacrifice. (Pay special attention to chapters 8-10.) Notice how utterly and jarringly radical those symbols sounded in the ears of those Jewish men on that final Passover. "Eat my flesh and drink my blood." Even from the days of Noah, eating human flesh and drinking any blood was unthinkable. But the old order of things pertaining to holiness for continual sacrifices was set aside by the final sacrifice of the one and only pure sacrifice.

There is in this case, as in several others, possibly "another reason" that may be "senseless" that is totally related to racism--but would only indirectly be that of the police officers. People have allegedly called the police saying someone had a gun when there was either no gun at all, or the gun was no threat at all. Because the police are not smart enough to figure out prank callers and allow themselves to shoot black people like this (it's not happening to whites with any degree of regularity as it is happening to blacks), they are complicit. And all we have is the police officers' say so that they received such a call in the first place. In this case, it was obviously a total lie. No one but the police had any guns. No one was trying to commit suicide with a gun. With the man's clear statements made to the police officers who arrived at the scene, and with his actions--all caught on video, there can be no doubt that he was NOT attempting a "suicide by cop." He was just doing his job. Look at the links provided, see the video for yourself, and then decide. The fact that you seem not to know about this is evidence enough that the mainstream news has said little about it. Yes, they have documented it. They have not made a big deal of it, like they would have had it been a white victim. And that's where the black community has a legitimate case. If whites don't address it in a more open-minded fashion, it will become, as it likely is for many already, a grudge--and a cause for civil disobedience. After all, if you come to the point where, emotionally, you cannot feel that police are there to protect and serve you personally, nor your family or friends, what would you do?

It's refreshing to hear you admit you don't know. Are you willing to take a look at it? Apparently, even the police who shot him didn't know. Why? People have to come to grips with their own personal biases before they can hope to answer this question. For some information on that case, you can look here: http://www.ksat.com/inside-edition/cops-shoot-unarmed-black-mental-health-worker-who-had-his-hands-up-as-he-cared-for-autistic-man http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/black_man_shot_by_police_while_lying_on_the_ground_with_his_hands_up.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/ I don't think this is as isolated as you might feel. I think these matters are underreported and/or overly biased in the slant given them to make it appear the police actions were justified. In this case, it's just too obvious that they weren't.

Read the whole book of Leviticus, carefully in one sitting. Understand the whole context and the theme throughout. Note that what to eat and what not to eat was only a small part of the whole book. Notice all the other rules and all the other things that have nothing to do with diet or food. And notice how many of them we do not teach or adhere to now. Why is that? What is the Biblical support for only continuing to follow the rules of a small part of the whole book?

Its the........ Answer: Laika was a Soviet space dog who became the first animal to orbit the Earth. Laika, a stray dog from the streets of Moscow, was selected to be the occupant of the Soviet spacecraft Sputnik 2 that was launched into outer space on November 3, 1957. The experiment aimed to prove that a living passenger could survive being launched into orbit, paving the way for human spaceflight. She died within hours of takeoff from panic and overheating, according to the BBC. The true cause and time of her death were not made public until 2002. Sputnik 2 continued to orbit the Earth for five months, then burned up when it reentered the atmosphere in April 1958. In 2008, Russian officials unveiled a monument to Laika built near the military research facility in Moscow that prepared Laika's flight to space. ps:I was positive it was the chimp!!!!!

So not agreeing with you or some others makes me racist .

Personally I don't think most of the black community supports the militant and violent ,However they are not the ones that do the killing of police officers or kill so many black people in places like Chicago. I do wonder why those families don't rise up against so much slaughter by black assailants. Those killed by police needlessly or because of racism are important and needs to stop,but their numbers are minimal compared to all the rest. It is a given if a white PO kills a black suspect in the line of duty it is racism. No one worries about the details and they are off and running. I am sure that there are those PO that are racists or just plain power trippers and are guilty. But we are asked to believe every event that hits the news concerning a death of a black suspect is racist as a cause. This simply is not true. If any of the "victims" that have been in the news so much lately had been killed by a black assailant it would have been a story on the local news if that. A black child mistakenly killed by a PO is racism pure and simple. That same child killed by a black assailant is forgotten very quickly,no Sharpton,Obama or Jessie Jackson wringing their hands. The young boy killed in Ohio,must have been heartbreaking for the parents and in a perfect world he would still b e alive. Screams of racism were immediate and yet that was not the cause. But no one screaming racism retracted their statement. The PO should never have been hired,he was classified as unstable by his previous place of employment,yet he slipped thru the cracks. Unstable doesn't mean racist. This 12 year old acting like a 12 year old compounded the issue by pointing a toy gun at people in a park.The gun was realistic looking. He disregarded what the PO required him to do. A 12 year old with a loaded gun can kill you as quickly as a 22 year old.In this day and age none of mine would be in a park with any kind of a gun. The mother claimed not to know that her son had it. We had a woman here that was attacked by her ex. He had a history of beating her severely,requiring hospitalization more than once. She obtained a restraining order against him and he of course ignored it. He came after her with a knife. Somehow she managed a call to 911 and with his violent history the SWAT team was sent along with other PO. He had the knife at her throat,had already cut her and said he would kill her. He was eventually shot and killed by the SWAT team. Of course after the fact,the SWAT team killed him because he was black and the woman whose life had been saved sued the police dept. Racism has been used so frequently for all situations it really begins to fall on deaf ears. It is used as a weapon to shut up those that disagree with you as the student in the beginning of this topic. I have no more right to demand punishment of those saying BLM as anyone has the right to demand punishment for me because I say All Lives Matter.

I can just see it now. Instead of "SDA", we would have, "COTIJ".... and everyone would call it "the Cottage cheese" church.

LOL. Robert, you're also accusing Jesus, Paul, David, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, John, Luke, and other Biblical authors of the same thing because all I'm doing is showing what they say about sanctification. You're even making that assertion about the thief on the cross. He was no sooner converted than he showed a very real change in behavior and thinking. He committed himself to defending Jesus minutes after conversion, when Jesus was, humanly speaking, at the lowest part of His ministry. When everyone else was deserting HIm the thief spoke up and shamed Christ's enemies. He showed a complete reversal of life in those few minutes, which is what sanctification is when you boil it down to a nutshell. The reversal of life that the Bible speaks of as the new birth.... Ironic isn't how you have tried to "prove" that the new birth and new life in Christ isn't necessary for salvation? That's the Roman and Islamic position.

All lives matter: acceptable Blue lives matter: acceptable Black lives matter: unacceptable Seems like the word Black makes the difference.

While there may be truth on both sides of this discussion, the discussion itself is not helpful given its present context. Black people have been murdered for no reason at a seemingly much higher ratio than white people by the police in America of late. The case deserves attention, and the BLM movement has a legitimate cause to draw attention to it by the "black lives matter" slogan. As has been pointed out, black people are not saying that others' lives don't matter. If such were true, I would certainly not be defending the movement. For it to succeed, though, it must absolutely remain a peaceful protest. The actions of a single extremist will counteract the influence of countless peaceful protestors. For whites to start a contrasting "all lives matter" appears to many as a clear indication of disagreement with the BLM movement and its concept that "black lives matter." Ironically, the emotional implication becomes, then, that black lives don't matter, even though the semantics indicate they do. Thus, such a movement as "all lives matter" in its present context becomes a myopic endeavor from the outset, and it will not have the positive effect its founders may have anticipated--and that gives them the benefit of the doubt, for it could easily be seen as a thinly veiled protest against the black movement. Much of what bonnie says here is true, but her attitude and bias in presenting it show she has no clear understanding of the black people's plight. If she truly understood the situation, she might have more of a heart, and a greater leniency toward blacks who tend to indulge and defend some who may have committed punishable wrongs. Criminals are not the only ones to receive the police officers' bullets, and black people can see that more clearly than the average white person who ignorantly believes racial prejudices have been largely stamped out.

Not indicated or said...no need to go for the absurd. Regarding the above statement.

Apparently, "All Lives Matter" is hate speech, and any who say it on campus must be severely punished by the narrow-minded Nazis of political correctness.

Freedom of speech?

The truth is out there but for many it is hard to believe. People often respond by saying "they (the government) would never do that". Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary for the British government writes: Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development I believe ISIS came about in similar fashion.

Just because Fox Noise doesn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The media in general only reports a small fraction of the military action that is in fact taken for two obvious reasons, a cost benefit priority to what sort of things get reported, and the government isn't in the habit of publicizing most of what it does militarily, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. Consider this, those training camps were not likely the most high value ISIS targets. When you shoot a million dollar missle into a target, you try to get maximum return on that cost. And the US does target a lot of high value ISIS targets, including key training camps. And finally, the most likely reason France was able to "find" the specific training camps they attacked was using US intel help. As was the case in most of the ongoing battles in the last couple decades against terrorism, the US takes the lead and commits by far the most resources. Many of our allies commit token support by comparison.